SAMPLES OF DOMESTIC BRIEFS, 2001 (International Briefs follow below)

 

Jan 5, 2001

 

THE BUSH TEAM--HOW CONSERVATIVE?

After hearing the following exchange on the news, I’m not enthusiastic about president-elect Bush’s ability to halt or reverse the present erosion of constitutional liberty.  When asked what he would do as president if faced with congressional legislation that was clearly unconstitutional, his response was, “How would I know if it was unconstitutional?”  Well, it just so happens that the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution.  He should at least have a sense of what is constitutional and what is not.  Otherwise the Justice Department, which works for the Executive department, won’t tackle constitutional issues in defense of original intent.

 

During the campaign the Bush advisory team was composed almost exclusively of old-guard, CFR and NWO globalists.  The New American even published a dramatic series of photographs taken at a little-publicized press conference in 1999 in which George W. was surrounded and endorsed by the entire Kissinger team including Kissinger himself, George Schultz, and Brent Scowcroft.  These three global controllers are still actively engaged in jet-setting around the world intervening in other nations’ affairs.  Major heads of states or their foreign ministers almost always pay a visit to one or more of the Kissinger team when they come to Washington on official business.

 

If that weren’t bad enough, Bush still has on his team insiders like Richard Armitage and C. Boyden Gray who have formerly served as “black side” operatives with the CIA under George Bush Sr.   Interestingly enough, it seems that the Bush transition team has become sensitized to all the discontent brewing within the hard-core conservative wing of the Republican Party and has dumped plans to give these obvious insiders the high appointments they were promised.   Armitage, who wanted the position of Sec. of Defense has been denied any public position so far.  I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if he shows up as a Deputy Undersecretary in the Defense Department.  Let’s take a hard look at the background of the other Bush nominees for cabinet and advisor positions.  It’s a mixed bag of a few conservatives tasked with overseeing totally socialist programs and globalist insiders masquerading as conservatives.

 

 

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Condolezza Rice

Rice (CFR) served on the National Security Council during the former Bush administration.  Her mentor was none other than Brent Scowcroft.  She has been carefully groomed for eventual leadership in the traditional way--by being named to a series of prestige building jobs that have kept her in the limelight for a return to service (Hoover Institution, World Federalist Society, Provost of Stanford University).  By the way, if you track where up-and-coming people are placed within the “private” sector you can also track which companies and organizations are controlled by the CFR-globalist leadership.  In fact, the National Security Council itself is staffed exclusively by advisors trained by and taking orders from the CFR and Kissinger Associates.  These are the people who direct and influence the president in critical foreign policy issues. 

 

SECRETARY OF STATE: Colin Powell 

Colin Powell has a long history of being a military yes-man to the Powers That Be (PTB).  As Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations in the Americal Division in Vietnam he was responsible for the initial investigation that covered up the facts surrounding the My Lai massacre.  He was clearly responding to pressure from up the chain of command when he denied the claims of witness Tom Glen.  He was rewarded for his “loyalty” by being given leave from the Army to pursue an MBA at George Washington in 1971 and was selected in 1972 as a White House fellow--a post reserved for those who show “future promise” to the PTB.  He then joined the Pentagon as a military aide to Sec. of Defense  Casper Weinburger.  In that capacity he was directly involved in the transfer of weapons to Iran, via Israel, as part of the Iran-Contra scandal.  Being part of this secret CIA operation, he was a natural choice to join the National Security Council in 1987.  In 1989 he leap-frogged over numerous other senior officers in the military, who had greater military prowess, to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  He presided over the outrageous invasion of Panama which was a cover for the CIA take-down of Panama’s Manuel Noriega, the CIA’s drug and money-laundering bagman who, according to CIA defectors, was taking a much bigger cut of the drug profits than he was allowed.  Many innocent civilians and soldiers (US included) were killed in this trumped-up war.  Powell could not have been oblivious to the phony rationale for this invasion. 

                Then to cap his career in the Joint Chiefs, Powell presided over the NWO operations of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.  While Powell is credited for being a brilliant strategist, military friends have told me it was really his top-notch staff of Marine generals at Central Command headquarters that did the actually planning and execution.  Besides, no one can be considered a brilliant leader who failed to blow the whistle on Russia’s double dealing during the war (although our “ally” Russia made almost daily resupply flights into Iraq to assist Hussein), and who allowed bad, experimental vaccines to be administered to our troops, without their consent, which resulted in the immune system devastation termed, the Gulf War Syndrome.  Powell also acquiesced to higher authority and failed to prosecute the war to a final conclusion, allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power.  Due to his failure to permanently end the conflict, the Gulf region festers today, as intended.   Forget all the hype about what a great Sec. of State Powell is going to be--Colin Powell is a CFR yes-man who will continue the same pattern of global intervention that has characterized every administration since FDR. 

 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Donald Rumsfield

Rumsfield (age 68) is an old team player with vast experience in the political trenches.  Rumsfield was Sec. of Defense 25 years ago in the Ford administration.  He failed to challenge the Soviet’s extensive cheating on treaties during his watch, so he clearly is a controlled entity.  He has a reputation for being one of the insiders’ top head hunters, so he knows who is a reliable globalist and who is not. Rumor has it that he is demanding to pick his own people at Defense.  We will be watching who he picks.  Rumsfield has been positioning himself as more conservative in recent years--as insiders usually do when getting ready to take a public position in a Republican administration.  He signed the letter along with other former secretaries of defense criticizing Gore’s secret deal with the Russians over weapons transfers to Iran.  He also came down hard on the Clinton administration for security lapses in the Department of Energy.  But talk is cheap.  I’m predicting he will continue the current military exchanges with both Russia and China.  He was also head of Nixon’s wage and price control program, so he’s no fiscal conservative.  Rumsfield was ambassador to NATO and served as the Middle East envoy under Reagan and put adverse pressure on Israeli PM Begin to make territorial concessions to the Arab powers after the invasion of Israel in 1973.  By the way, VP Dick Cheney was Rumsfield’s deputy Chief of Staff under President Ford and later succeeded Rumsfield as Chief of Staff.  In short, Rumsfield is a nominal Republican, but his greatest allegiance is to the insiders who secretly run the US.

 

SECRETARY OF TREASURY: Paul O’Neill

The Treasury spot is always reserved for reliable insiders due to the heavy amount of manipulation that takes place in world and national financial affairs.  For the first time in many years, the president-elect has selected someone who doesn’t come directly out of the major government-connected Wall Street brokerage houses (like Goldman Sachs), which collude with government on a regular basis to keep the markets propped up.  I suspect O’Neill is going to be the fall guy to be sacrificed when the economy goes down.  Mr. O'Neill comes out of one of the big multi-national corporations, Alcoa, noted for its ability to do major buy-outs of other aluminum interests around the world without running into government interference. In the past two years alone, it has absorbed Alumix of Italy, Inespal of Spain and Alumax of the US into its empire. O’Neill is a reliable number-cruncher and manager type.  He did government service in the VA and later served as director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Nixon administration.  His ties to globalist insiders are telling.  He has been a director of Lucent Technologies (a true insider-run corporation with close government ties), the Rand Corporation (a far leftist, pro-Soviet think tank), and the National Academy of Social Insurance (a liberal, pro-Social Security organization with a mission to derail the privatization of SS)

 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: Norman Mineta

Mineta (another of the old liberals, aged 69, who should have been let out to pasture long ago) is a former Democratic California congressman who is the current Secretary of Commerce under Bill Clinton.  He has consistently thwarted any attempt to uncover the mysterious facts surrounding the death of his predecessor, Commerce chief Ron Brown.  It’s no wonder.  According to Judicial Watch, “Mineta participated in the 1994 Clinton Commerce trade mission to Indonesia, which involved John Huang and many others implicated in the Chinagate scandal, such as Charlie Trie, James Riady, and Mark Grobmyer.”  Mineta was also reported to have been a Clinton emissary to the family of Wen Ho Lee during an “active” federal espionage investigation of Lee at Los Alamos, as part of an effort to allow China to secretly acquire sensitive US technology.


SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Donald L. Evans

Evans was Bush’s campaign chairman and is supported by arch-liberal democrats such as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii.  This bi-partisan enthusiasm is due to Evans’ committment to continue trading with nations hostile to US interests like China and Russia.  Evans is a longtime banking and oil industry executive and is a reliable globalist cheerleader for unlimited international trade.  Mr. Evans pledged there will be "no more important role for the Commerce Department" than to promote US exports and enforce existing trade agreements. “No sector of the US economy operates in isolation from the global economy."  These are the identical sentiments of president-elect Bush who stated that America’s biggest threat was its “isolationist tendency.”  No, Mr. Bush, the biggest threat is from loss of constitutional sovereignty.

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL: John Ashcroft

Ashcroft is clearly the most conservative of Bush’s appointees.  His nomination as Attorney General is particularly puzzling since the Justice Department under Janet Reno has become the direct controller of the dark- side operations of all federal agencies with police power.  To put a strong conservative into a position to discover these dark-side operations and block the normal round of cover-ups doesn’t make sense--unless, perhaps, the PTB plan on derailing Ashcroft’s nomination.  The left is already gearing up for a major protest of Ashcroft’s nomination.  In other words, Ashcroft’s nomination may be a bone thrown to conservatives.  If he is sustained by the Senate, then I predict that government “black operations” will go deeper underground.  There is some evidence to support this view.  It may be the reason Bush has decided to retain FBI director Louis Freeh.  Due to the many cover-ups that occurred under Freeh’s watch at FBI, he is clearly an operator for the dark-side of government and would be in a good position to ensure those operations continue without alerting Ashcroft to the specifics.  Look for Bush to nominate a new CIA director who will also shield Ashcroft from “black-ops.”

 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD): Mel Martinez

Mel Martinez is a mildly conservative Cuban refugee and Republican team player (who won’t buck the PTB).   His appointment was one of several “pay-offs” to keep the support of the Hispanic community.  A lawyer by training, he is stepping down as the Orange County (Orlando, Florida area) executive and Chairman of Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s “Growth Management Study Commission.”  He has proven to be a competent and honest administrator, so we should see a curtailment of the massive corruption presently going on in HUD.  However, I don’t expect him to try and to undo any of the bad socialist housing policy underlying the legislative mandate for HUD.

 

SECRETARY OF LABOR: Linda Chavez

Chavez is another legitimate Hispanic conservative who has earned the hatred of the left for opposing affirmative action and bilingual education.  The left is gearing up to derail her appointment as well.  They are focusing on her inter-cultural marriage to a Jew, Christopher Gersten, and the rearing of her three sons as Jews, decrying all of this as if she were a “traitor to her people.”  Funny how the left lauds multi-cultural relationships of almost any kind--but somehow conservatives don’t qualify for praise.   This is supreme, but predictable hypocrisy.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Spencer Abraham

This former Republican Senator of Michigan was head of the Senate Immigration Reform committee.  He favors open US borders and was honored recently by the radical Marxist Hispanic organization National Council of La Raza for his proposals.  He takes pride in compromises that put him in favor with the liberals and media--making him a prime candidate for future leadership in the CFR community.  

 

EPA DIRECTOR: Christine Todd Whitman

Whitman is Bush’s political pay-off to the feminist lobby.  She is pro-abortion and a staunch supporter of the leftist “anti-urban sprawl” movement.  Look to her to use her EPA authority to make it more difficult to develop land outside of major cities.  There is a nationwide movement going on to attempt to implant an “Oregon solution” (Urban Growth Boundaries) on the whole US.  I lived in Oregon as they implemented this “local control” fiasco.  It wasn’t local control at all--but a systematic top-down planning system based upon “goals” that opened up every small town in Oregon to environmentalist lawsuits if they chose any solution that deviated from official state goals.  Don’t let this happen in your state.

 

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: Roderick R. Paige

Paige is former Houston school district superintendent and is touted as a conservative.  This is false.  No one is allowed to gain high position in the public school monopoly if they are a true threat to that monopoly.  As one of my subscribers wrote, “Paige supports everything we've been fighting against in education for decades, including School-To-Work, charter schools and vouchers (which will bring private and home schools under government control), standards-based OBE, performance-based assessments, and behavioral direct instruction (which uses Skinnerian operant conditioning). In choosing Paige as his new Secretary of Education, Bush has assured the globalists who put him into office that the international education agenda will continue unopposed.” 

                Another bad apple in Bush’s education transition team is ex-governor Lamar Alexander who served as Bush Sr.'s Secretary of Education. He became infamous for his suggestion that we go to the hospitals and "count each baby" to make sure none of them slip away from our cradle-to-grave control system.  Scary.

 

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR: Gale Norton

Norton is the former Colorado Attorney General who was a member of the Colorado Review Commission which issued somewhat of a “Warren Commission”-style whitewash of the Columbine High School massacre.  To me it isn’t clear what role she played in this.  It is very possible that she, along with the others, were denied crucial information.  If you want to read my analysis of the Columbine cover-up, go to the 1999 archives on the World Affairs Brief page of my website--no password required.  There are two briefs dedicated to this topic. 

                In other issues, Norton has a very conservative background, especially on property rights.  Former Interior Secretary James Watts was one of her mentors, and she has made a valiant stand on the correct proposition that environmental “takings” of property by government regulations and restrictions ought to be compensated--which would put a strong dampening effect upon the government’s ability to control property without bearing the cost.  There is a mounting opposition to her nomination by environmentalists because of this stand. 

 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Tommy Thompson

Ex-governor Thompson spearheaded the nation's welfare-reform movement and will try to implement many of his work-fare proposals nationally.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the success of these work-related welfare reforms, the left is trying to derail his nomination as well.

 

Jan 12, 2001  Copyright Joel Skousen.  Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief.  Website: http://www.joelskousen.com

 

HOW IMPEACHMENT WAS DERAILED BY REPUBLICANS

David Schippers, a Democrat, was the chief prosecutor for the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial.  He has explained in detail how the establishment derailed the conviction--not by direct intervention via the Democratic side of the House, but through our supposed “conservative” Republican leaders in the Senate.  For a full exposition of this betrayal, see Schipper’s book, Sell Out.  Here I will quote from a telling interview he gave to Human Events:

SCHIPPERS: I think the most important factor that the public should know that they don't know is that, before we ever appeared on the floor of the United States Senate, the House impeachment managers and I were told that there was no way we could win.

HUMAN EVENTS: Who told you that?

SCHIPPERS: Six Republican senators. Members of the leadership.

HUMAN EVENTS: Members of the Republican leadership came over to you?

SCHIPPERS: No, we were over there. We were discussing the kind of method by which we would try the case, and we, the managers and myself, were told, "Look we're just trying to keep you from embarrassing yourselves." I mean, this is after a vote of the House of Representatives impeaching the President.

In that same meeting one of the senators -- and because I do not know which one it was, I will not name any of the senators -- turned to Henry Hyde and he said, "Henry, I don't care. No way are you going to get 67 votes." This was before anything had occurred on the floor of the Senate.

And Henry Hyde said, "Well, you know Senator, we have other materials over there in that room that were furnished by Mr. Starr and I think that some of them may have to do with assaults or things like that. " And the senator said, "Henry -- this is a direct quote -- "I don't care if you have proof that he raped a woman, stood up and shot her dead, you're still not going to get 67 votes."

At that point I raised my hand and I said, "Senator, are you telling me I just watched a hundred senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice and that they will ignore that oath too?" And the senator said, "You're darn right they are."

From that moment on I knew that we were in a rigged ball game. In Chicago we'd refer to it as a First Ward election.

HUMAN EVENTS (summary comment): David Schippers further complained about an obstruction of the impeachment effort by the Justice Department itself

SCHIPPERS: The FBI at every stage of the investigation -- at every stage of oversight, impeachment, or anything else -- gave us nothing but 100% full cooperation from the bureau. The problems always came between the bureau and us because interposed between us was the Justice Department, and they were not about to give up anything that might embarrass the President or the Administration.

QUESTION: Your feeling is they were covering up for the President?

SCHIPPERS: I feel they were covering up for the President.

Summary: What you have just witnessed in this interview is an example of how the execution of this promise of immunity works.  It is very real, very damaging to our Republic, and will manifest itself fully in the days ahead.

 

MORE BUSH TEAM COMPROMISES

The conservative facade of the new Bush administration continues to disintegrate in their head-long determination to placate a liberal media and Senate in the name of “bi-partisanship” and “unity”   Unity is a code word meaning:  “everybody moves to the left till we reach unity.”  No right-ward direction is allowed nor even a meeting in the middle ground.  Once conservatives buy into this unspoken definition of unity, the press holds them hostage to it, exacting ever greater compromises.  In reality, the Bush administration knows exactly what is going on.  Bush’s top CFR strategists are purposefully allowing themselves to be bound by this political sophistry because it gives them the excuse they need NOT to deliver on the conservative agenda Americans expect.  How else can they excuse their failure to overturn Clinton’s rash of executive orders and bad laws, when they control both the presidency and Congress?   Here’s a list of the betrayals already made public (I’m sure there are dozens more yet to be discovered):

 

·         Bush decided to retain both George Tenet in CIA and Louis Freeh as FBI director.  I believe they are both insiders with full knowledge of government cover-up operations, illegal surveillance, and illegal black ops.   Tenet’s experience as a staffer for Senator Patrick Leahy’s Intelligence Oversight Committee includes writing the report assuring the Senate that the US has the capability to ensure Russia’s compliance on arms control treaties.  This is absolutely untrue, and what evidence the US has obtained on Russian cheating has been systematically withheld from the American public.  Tenet knows this too since he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) which coordinates intelligence activities of all US agencies.  He became acting DCI after John Deutsch--the trusted insider who first took charge of DCI when it was a new position.  He would not have chosen Tenet to follow him unless he was one of the “good old boys.”  FBI Director Freeh, in turn, oversaw the massive FBI cover-up of the TWA 800 shootdown by missiles.   Of late, Freeh has been acting as if he is in favor of pursuing investigations of White House corruption, seemingly in opposition to his boss Janet Reno.  The hope is to convince the public that Freeh is no longer a lackey for the Clinton administration.   In reality, he is merely positioning himself so that Bush can get away with keeping him on. 

·         Bush failed to put up any fight at all for conservative Linda Chavez as Labor Secretary nominee, and quickly selected Elaine Chao to replace her.  Elain L. Chao is the daughter of the too-good-to-be-true, rags-to-riches, China-connected shipping magnate James S. C. Chao, who is a personal friend of Communist Chinese premier Jiang Zemin.  You don’t get to be head of a giant shipping company with open access to Chinese markets without lots of "Guanxi" (Chinese term for political connections).   Elaine Chao is the wife of liberal Senator Mitch McConnell, so her nomination is secure.  I believe she is a pro-China plant in the Bush team, along with VP Dick Cheney.  As Heritage Foundation’s top Asian Studies advisor, she showed her pro-China hand by insisting on the ousting of 16-year veteran China analyst Richard Fisher.  Fisher was known for his unmasking of China’s hostile intentions vis-a-vis the West. As part of Bush’s cabinet she will have top secret access to all high level plans and decisions concerning China.

·         In the John Ashcroft confirmation hearings, the emphasis continued to be on whether or not he would “enforce the law.”  With eager enthusiasm, both Ashcroft and his cheerleading section of Republican Senators assured the audience that existing laws would be fully and vigorously enforced.  Once again, the Bush administration and future Attorney General Ashcroft have voluntarily allowed themselves to become hostage to the flawed concept that all “existing law is sacred.”  It gets worse.  When leftist Senator Diane Feinstein asked Ashcroft if he would maintain the Justice Department’s current position supporting the ban on assault weapons, without hesitation,  Ashcroft said, “yes.”  When she pushed him even further as to whether he would support reinstating the ban when sunset laws force its demise in 2004, he said both he and President Bush would support reinstatement.   Incredible.  This clearly indicates that Ashcroft had been briefed on this issue and was representing the official stance of the future Bush administration--not only to NOT undo this bad law, but to ensure its preservation.

·         Bush asked Janet Reno for suggestions of an interim Attorney General to serve while Ashcroft is battling for confirmation. That’s like asking the fox to recommend her own replacement as guardian of the hen house.  I now suspect that Ashcroft has been fully compromised and will, therefore, be confirmed.

·         Bush has just added to his White House staff of lawyers, the infamous Independent Council staff attorney, Brett Kavanaugh.  Kavanaugh was one of the dark-side agents within Ken Starr’s office who sabotaged the Vince Foster murder investigation.  One of the prime witnesses to the evidence that Foster’s death could not have been suicide was Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton was present in the parking lot when Foster supposedly committed suicide and insists that Foster’s car was not there at the time.  Instead there were other dark-side agents present in their cars, watching Knowlton and giving him hostile looks.  Miraculously, Foster’s car later appeared in the Fort Marcy parking lot after the time of death.  Quite a trick for a dead man!  Knowlton testified that two of Kavanaugh’s FBI assistants were part of the group of a dozen or more federal agents that tried to threaten and intimidate him prior to his testimony before the Foster grand jury.  Even Kavanaugh himself grilled Knowlton with such hostility that it was obvious to all observers that Kavanaugh was desperate to force Knowlton to change his story. So, now we have at least 3 suspected dark-side operators within the Bush team--Richard Armitage, C Boyden Gray and Brett Kavanaugh.

 

JANUARY 26, 2001

 

CLINTON’S PARDONS:  DELIVERING ON PROMISES OF IMMUNITY

To understand the full scope of the system underlying Clinton’s pardons, we have to go back and revisit the pardons Clinton made throughout his two terms in office as well as while he was governor of Arkansas.  As I explained last week, the powers that run government from behind the scenes and who control both major political parties use various inducements, rewards, and sometimes threats to control and promote the predictable and ambitious people that advance through their screening processes.  One of the biggest benefits the insiders have to offer is immunity from prosecution for two groups of people: 1) those who operate on the dark side of government as enforcers, and 2) those who operate above ground as government officials to promote globalist causes and cover up for black operations that get botched up or which become public knowledge.   Let’s take a look at the major figures pardoned by Clinton from this perspective.

 

Dan Lasater, the Arkansas bond trader who helped bankroll Clinton’s previous gubernatorial campaigns, was pardoned in 1990 while Clinton was still governor.  Lasater was convicted of cocaine distribution along with Clinton’s brother, Roger, was pardoned in this latest round.

 

Dan Rostenkowski, the Illinois Democratic representative and onetime chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was pardoned two years ago.  He served a 17-month prison term after pleading guilty in 1996 to two counts of mail fraud.  He was guilty of much more serious offenses, but like Al Capone, it was convenient to convict him on a technical charge.

 

Archibald Schaffer III, a Tyson Foods executive, was convicted in 1998 of providing an illegal payoff to former agriculture secretary Mike Espy in exchange for government purchases of Tyson Chicken to be sent to Russia, courtesy of the US taxpayers.   Schaffer was acting on behalf of Don Tyson, Clinton’s buddy, who was not indicted.

 

Susan McDougal, was convicted of bank fraud.  She served approximately 18 months in prison for contempt of court when she refused to testify against Clinton’s false testimony given at her trial.  All of this grew out of the Fiske investigation of the Clintons' Whitewater financial dealings in Arkansas.  Susan’s divorced husband Jim was cooperating with the government probe and was, therefore, allowed to die of a heart attack in prison to keep him quiet.  It was apparent that he was denied medical assistance until too late in order to make it appear as a natural death.

 

In reality, these facts are only the tip of the iceberg. According to former Clinton employee Larry Nichols, author of The Clinton Chronicles, Lasater was Clinton’s bag man and money launderer for the huge cocaine and arms smuggling operation Clinton oversaw (on behalf of the CIA) that was run out of the huge rural airport at Mena, Arkansas.  Here are some excerpts from a Nichols’ interview with Tom Donahue which helps us understand how all these pardons were related to providing immunity to participants in dark-side government operations.  Nichols mentions the relationships of Susan McDougal, Jim McDougal and Vince Foster in his other writings.  My comments are in [brackets]. 

 

“And he (Barry Seal for the CIA) was running 100 million a month in cocaine through the little Mena airport. Well the problem at Mena was, you got that much cocaine and you've got that much money -- but you have to launder that money [Gov. Clinton was reportedly getting a cut of the profits for providing state “protection” for this “black” operation].  Dan Lasater, Bill Clinton's best friend, who went to jail with Roger Clinton for cocaine -- not selling it, but giving it away -- had a bonding house.  And guess what? He did the bond underwriting for ADFA (Arkansas Development Finance Authority)... Some of that laundered money went into the ADFA.  ...What they were doing, they would issue a bond and let's say give, like I told your audience before, Webster Hubbell, who created ADFA -- I mean drafted it, legislated it, got it passed -- he and his father-in-law, Seth Ward, got the first loan at ADFA for $2.85 million. You can't find that he ever paid anybody back. Other recipients of ‘loans’ were Don Tyson, Tyson Industries, International Paper.  Well the problem at ADFA was you couldn't find one person that ever bought the bonds. What Lasater was doing was taking the drug money, running it through ADFA as if people were buying the bonds. That money would lead ADFA to one of the banks that they used out of state, 2 of which I think were in BCCI's [Bank of Credit and Commerce International--a CIA front] network. And the other underwriter of bonds at ADFA at the time was none other than Stephens' investment firm [and Madison Guarantee]. And the man that brought BCCI to America was Jackson Stephens [another Clinton crony]. One of the banks they used in Chicago, Guaranty [actually Nichols misspoke. It was Garfield Ridge Trust and Savings Bank], guess who owns part of it? Dan Rostenkowski. ...Now you understand the rest of the story, why when Bill Clinton first got elected he fired the federal prosecutor that was on Rostenkowski's case [and later pardoned Rostenkowski himself].”   

 

Webster Hubbell, interestingly was not pardoned.  This indicates he is still a threat to the PTB.  He knows as much as Vince Foster ever did, including all about the secret Swiss bank accounts where Clinton and company stash their payoff funds. Hubbell is a former Rose law firm partner who was involved in Whitewater, the ADFA, and the Waco tragedy.  He was given a high ranking position in the Justice Department to make sure the Clinton team was protected from prosecution.  He ended up being the highest ranking official of the Justice Department in the situation room at FBI headquarters when the final assault on Waco took place.  He resigned from Justice when his own corrupt activities surfaced and spent 15 months in prison for tax evasion and mail fraud.  Notice how insiders never get prosecuted for the more extensive activities they are guilty of--activities that, under investigation, would link other powerful insiders to the crime.  Only technical violations are prosecuted to satisfy those who demand justice, while preserving the immunity of bigger players, like Reno and Clinton. 

 

Other corrupt insiders that were pardoned were expatriate billionaire and tax-evader Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green, financiers of the Democratic party; former CIA and DCI chief John Deutsch, top controller of secret dark-side intelligence operations; and Henry Cisneros, former mayor of San Antonio, found guilty of perjury; and former Arizona Governor Fife Symington, guilty of various corruption charges. 

 

THE TWO FACES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Conservatives are cheering each new move the Bush administration makes that appears to champion their pet causes, but they aren’t very astute about noting the contradictions.  Bush’s inaugural speech was hailed by true believers, but was full of flattery and socialist code words.  I dislike these kinds of “something for everyone” speeches--a barrage of mindless, undefined verbiage about principles, compassion and unity that defies everyone’s ability to determine a politician’s true intentions.   He thanked Clinton, our most corrupt president ever for “his service to our nation.”  What service?  Clinton only did damage, and far more of that than we will ever be allowed to know when you consider his military betrayals to Russia and China.  Bush spoke falsely of our “democratic faith...taking root in many nations.”   Our faith is in our constitutional republic--not democracy.  In fact, that’s the problem--he and all the CFR insiders are promoting global raw democracy (manipulated by global leaders) which is the greatest threat to our constitutional republican form of government.  Americans have long forgotten that none of our constitutional protections exist under global democracy.  Bush also spoke of “civility, compassion, character ....and forgiveness”--all code words leaving open Bush’s option to further pardon Clinton if Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch is successful in indicting Clinton for all his treachery and misdeeds.

 

Despite my criticism and distrust of Bush, it should be recognized that there is a whole new atmosphere of professionalism and courtesy in Washington.  Even the liberal pundits have to admit that there is fresh air in Washington.  How could it be otherwise?  While most of the press only covered the minor cases of vandalism by the Clinton staff (removing the “W” keys from computer keyboards, the internet press has told the whole sordid tale: graffiti and pornographic messages left behind, overturned desks, and unflattering cartoons.  His staff even stripped Air Force One of its presidential china.  The Clinton administration was truly both a juvenile and criminal administration. 

 

In other positive areas, Bush halted the publication of thousands of pages of Clintonian regulations and a few executive orders.  Don’t rest easy yet.  He only promised to review them, not stop them.  I’ll be watching to see what is halted and what is allowed to pass.  Earlier I had predicted that Bush would not stop any of Clinton’s executive orders.  Now I believe he will stop several--but only those that concern traditional Republican big-business issues, like oil drilling restrictions or egregious environmental regulations.  Those are needed, to be sure, but I want to caution that this is not being done under a true ideology of liberty.  Bush works for the same dark forces that control Clinton, and the insiders who control the world are deeply involved in big business and controlling wealth.  So do not interpret Bush’s favors to business as a pro-free market view.  It’s an establishment insider view. 

 

I still feel strongly that Bush will not undo any of the Clinton NWO agenda--especially the secret Presidential Decision Directives (PDD) and Executive Orders (EO) that undermine US sovereignty.  I know my attacks on Bush will be unpopular.  Exposing “wolves in sheeps’ clothing” is difficult since it takes time to disprove certain lies.  In fact, this is the most dangerous of all deceptions--precisely because good people can’t bring themselves to believe that a person promoting good values might be lying--especially if he cloaks his words in religion.  Wake up conservatives.  Every politician in history has engaged in it, even Clinton.

 

For instance, Bush correctly halted, with great fanfare, funding for international social service organizations that promote abortion.  Yet on the other hand, through his nominee for Attorney General, John Ashcroft, he committed firmly and vigorously to prosecute anti-abortion protesters outside abortion clinics--even if non-violent.  He promised to sustain the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade abortion-rights ruling and assured radical Senator Feinstein that he would never approach the Court through the solicitor general with arguments the court doesn’t want to revisit (speaking of abortion).  He said he had too much respect for the reputation of the Solicitor General to risk putting him in a bad light with the court.  Ashcroft should instead have more respect for the lives of the unborn.  Avoiding the ire of the Supreme Court should be nothing by comparison.  Ashcroft, in other testimony, bent over backwards to repudiate his former position against hiring homosexuals and promised not to discriminate against them in hiring at the Justice Department.  Bush, so far has shown no sign of undoing Clinton’s EO mandating no discrimination in hiring.  Homosexuals are still a high security risk since they are susceptible to entrapment and blackmail.   Despite Bush’s promise to defend gun rights, Ashcroft promised to prosecute vigorously all existing anti-gun laws and to reinstate the ban on assault weapons when it “sunsets” in 2004.

 

Were these extreme concessions necessary?  Despite yielding to every demand Senator Feinstein made, she still vowed to vote against Ashcroft.  You can never satisfy these people.  Sadly, it is obvious that conservatives like Ashcroft have bought into the flawed philosophy that you have to compromise principles to stay in power.  But, if our leaders bind themselves in leftist chains, would good does it do to be in power?  Why is it that only “conservatives” are expected to make these iron-clad promises to refrain from pushing their own conservative agenda?  No liberal nominee in the Clinton administration was ever asked these kinds of questions or expected to yield to conservative demands.   The process of governance in America is clearly a one-way street to destruction, and the Bush administration is serving notice that they won’t stop that leftward movement, despite the conservative rhetoric.   Let me conclude with a disturbing quote demonstrating President Bush’s true feelings towards the constitutional conservatives, courtesy of The New American quoting the Financial Times:  “I am going to have more problems with members of my own party than I will with Democrats....if anybody comes to me demanding this or telling me to do that, they’ll be finished...They tried to do that in Texas with English-only, but I said, ‘No.  You are not going to destroy this party by being extremist.’ ...I had to change the idea that my party was against things.  Against immigrants.  Against public schools.” In truth America is rife with bad law. There is much that we must be against. Bush is pandering to the left and to the middle at every opportunity. His new education proposals demonstrate this. Now that to attack the evils of public education is considered extremist, constitutional conservatives who demand that our leaders adhere to constitution limits are considered the enemy, even by a Republican President. For our leaders to give only lip service to the constitution as they take the oath of office is, for me, as blasphemous as invoking the name of God when done only to impress the voters.

 

FEBRUARY 2, 2001

 

SMITH AND WESSON IN TROUBLE

It appears as if the free market is making Smith and Wesson pay dearly for the infamous agreement it made with anti-gun Clinton administration.   S&W made a “pact with the devil” when it agreed to place mandatory restrictions on its own dealers (and henceforth on their customers) in order to gain immunity against gun liability suits aimed at bankrupting the gun industry.   The reaction of gun owners was immediate.  They boycotted S&W arms.  Many S&W dealers, rather than comply with the heavy-handed company restrictions and tracking of gun sales, announced that they would no longer carry the S&W brand.  In response, S&W sales are now down almost half.  From being the leading gun seller in America, they have fallen to third and are headed for the basement.  Only sales to the federal government and federal pressure on states to give preference to S&W is keeping them solvent.  S&W recently tried to sell a softened version of the agreement to their dealers, but dealers still aren’t buying into it.  There is no guarantee the government would allow such changes especially with the Clintons out of power.  

 

 

BUSH WAS RIGHT:  HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL!

In a previous issue, I mentioned a quote from an interview with then President-elect Bush asking him how he would respond to a blatantly unconstitutional bill from Congress.  He responded, “How would I know what was unconstitutional?”  True to form, in the language of his recent Executive Order (EO) establishing the mechanism for federal funding of  “faith-based” charities,  President Bush claimed that he was doing this “by the authority vested in the President by the Constitution...”       Show me, Mr. President, where the Constitution authorizes you to give any public funds for charity, welfare, disaster relief, or any other benefit program.   Show me where your other socialist and populist proposals are authorized--prescription drugs for the poor, mandatory testing standards for schools, or your  “New Freedom” initiative to further enhance the draconian policies of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).  Where is the conservative constitutional wing of the Republican Party who should be criticizing the president?  Are Rep Ron Paul and his 15 colleagues of The Liberty Committee (www.thelibertycommittee.org)  the only principled congressmen left?  Perhaps so.  Sadly, we are fast approaching the day when we will never hear any Republican officials complain about the unconstitutionality of a bill.  Almost all have bought into their own “compassionate” version of socialism--Tony Blair’s Third Way.   This is how the Washington Post’s Dana Millbank haply described the new president (emphasis added by your editor):

 

“It's been difficult to pin an ideological tail on the nascent Bush White House. One day the president is called a staunch conservative for nominating John D. Ashcroft to run the Justice Department and acting to restrict US funding to overseas groups that support abortions. The next he's labeled a bleeding heart for helping prisoners' children and promoting literacy programs. The problem, some Bush advisers and friends say, is that conventional political definitions do not adequately explain what the president is trying to do. His actions have less to do with the left vs. right, they say, than with his embrace of many of the ideas contained in the movement known as ‘communitarianism,’ which places the importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the individual.

“‘This is the ultimate Third Way,’ said Don Eberly, an adviser in the Bush White House, using a favorite phrase of President Bill Clinton. ‘The debate in this town the last eight years was how to forge a compromise on the role of the state and the market. This is a new way to rethink social policy: a major reigniting of interest in the social sector.’

“‘Communitarianism,’ or ‘civil society’ thinking (the two have similar meanings) has many interpretations, but at its center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole...’We need to connect with one another. We've got to move a little more in the direction of community in the balance between community and the individual,’ said Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University, a leading communitarian thinker [and Bush advisor].”

 

There are some very dangerous euphemisms in this quote, like balancing individual rights with the  “interests of the society”  or the notion of  “connect (ing) with one another.”   When Putnam talks about “balancing” the rights of individuals and society, he’s really talking about restricting.  When he speaks of  connectivity and social responsibility, he’s talking compulsion and use of our tax moneys--not voluntary efforts. 

 

I’ll end with a few cogent words from one of my subscribers who brought this article to my attention:  “To those who laughed at us when we pointed out that there was no substantive difference between Bush's and Clinton's policies, who refused to listen to the Republican party's adoption of the Third Way politics of the Progressive Policy Institute, and who continue to operate in denial of Bush's true agenda, this is for you.  Bush isn't going to buy us any time - he is forging ahead with the very same agenda that Clinton began.  Bush's ’job’ is to lull conservatives into acceptance of restructured government at the local levels via ‘communitarianism.’ The globalists are obviously writing Bush's speeches in the legalese of the new paradigm.” 

 

MARCH 2, 2001

 

THE HANSSEN FBI SPY SCANDAL

There is not a lot of independent information on this case as virtually 100% of the current information comes from leaks within a self-serving FBI.  One thing is for certain.  Hanssen was a traitor, but the FBI’s public statements about this investigation being only a “few months” old is a lie.  They are covering for something else.  Why else does every other agency except the FBI do regular lie detector tests of their agents?  The story about Hanssen acting the role of the super-patriot has never fooled anyone in FBI.  One of the basic tenets of counter-espionage is that you never trust appearances nor a man’s word.  That is why all agencies spy on their own people.  It’s expected.

                The FBI is producing evidence that shows that the 27-year veteran of the FBI’s counter-espionage division (how ironic) has been spying for the Russians since 1985.  You can’t know that from capturing Hanssen’s recent drops to the Soviets.  The FBI has known about Hanssen for years. Other agents who have been keeping track of Hanssen’s liaison with the Soviets are naturally disturbed that the FBI refuses year after year to arrest him.  They are mollified by their higher ups with the excuse that the Bureau can’t shut down Hanssen while he is so valuable in leading us to other Russian agents.  That’s baloney.  The FBI  knows that all Russian diplomats and consulate workers, here and at the UN, are spies.  They don’t need Hanssen to lead them to them. Most of the Russian “businessmen” living in the US are also spies.  The FBI gives them a lot of leeway.  There is a double standard.  When the Bureau finally acts to arrest a US spy, as they did this past week, they always claim they “just found out,” knowing the public wouldn’t be too understanding of a 16 year delay at the expense of dead double agents and compromised operations.

                So what’s going on?  Ever since the Roosevelt administration, which was full of Soviet agents like Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White, the PTB have facilitated Russian espionage (and lately Chinese espionage) in order to further the strategy of “building an enemy” for future war.  How else do we explain US government officials’ knowingly allowing US nuclear plans for an atomic bomb to be given to Russia at the end of WWII, and later to China (through Israel).  So, while the Russians and Chinese brag to themselves year after year, about how stupid the Americans are and how easy it is to penetrate their secret agencies, they do so unaware that there is method in America’s seeming madness.  The method is meant to eventually destroy America’s military.  It won’t be good for America, but it will eventually help induce a Russian strike on America that will create the required turmoil to forge a permanent New World Order, as I outlined in my “Strategic Threat Analysis for the Current Decade.”  Read it online at http://www.jrnyquist.com/feb12/The_Threat.htm if you haven’t already done so. So don’t believe our government’s feigned “outrage” about this case, nor their sincerity in appointing another blue-ribbon panel searching for a new “fix” to our security establishment.  They’ve always known about these holes in security.  They maintain them on purpose.

 

A DEEPER LOOK AT CLINTON’S PARDON LIST

Initially when I wrote about the pardon list, I covered the 5 or 6 high profile pardons throughout Clinton’s presidency that demonstrated how Bill Clinton was providing promised immunity to co-conspirators in dark-side operations of government.  As more time passes, I am beginning to discover that each of the 140 pardons and 36 commutations of sentence have some relationship to dark-side government operations, including political payoffs, drug dealing, money laundering, tax evasion, frauds and scams, or perjury to protect insiders.  It is no wonder that former Democratic National Committee Finance Chairwoman Beth Dozoretz and Clinton Library Foundation attorney David Kendall invoked the Fifth Amendment or otherwise refused to respond to subpoenas from Rep. Dan Burton’s House Government Reform Committee.  There is plenty of payoff money sifting its way toward Bill and Hillary Clinton in the wake of these pardons.  Here’s a look at the current list of insider connections: 

 

Peg Bargon: Possessing eagle feather that her son found in a zoo. This is an “offense” truly worthy of a pardon.  There have been many other innocent people convicted of this extreme law supposedly originally passed to stop the illicit traffic in eagle feathers, but only Bargon was pardoned--because she gave the feather to Hillary Clinton.  It is illegal for any American to possess an eagle feather, but Hillary is apparently immune from prosecution.
Tom Bhakta: convicted of tax evasion. His family gave $5,000 to Hillary's senate campaign
Ronald H. Blackley: Former chief-of-staff of corrupt Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy--convicted of making false statements related to the Espy probe. Espy asked for clemency for Blackley’s 27-month sentence commuted along with those of four others convicted of lesser charges in Espy probe.  Naturally, Clinton complied.
John Bustamante: fraudulently obtaining a loan and stealing from a woman's estate. Former adviser to Clinton friend Jesse Jackson.  Readers will note several other connections to Jesse Jackson.

Almon Glenn Braswell: convicted of perjury and mail fraud for improprieties and misrepresentations in his company’s sale of herbal remedies.  Hillary’s brother Hugh Rodham received a $400,000 payment for “legal services” in securing the pardon. Congressional investigators found that the money was wired from Braswell's foreign bank account to the account of Rodham's Florida law firm on January 22, the first business day after the pardon.  The money was obviously a payoff since Braswell was, reportedly, an anti-Clinton Republican and would not have chosen Hugh Rodham for legal services except for his promise of “access” to the President.  What is even more telling is that Hugh Rodham immediately returned the funds when his obvious ties to Hillary made the deal look suspicious.  If the payment was a legitimate fee for legal services, why would Rodham feel compelled to return the fee?  Obviously Rodham could not justify the size of the fee and still maintain that he had spent no time with the Clintons on the matter.  And if it was not for hourly services, then it must have been a payoff for “results.”  If the feds were to keep track of Hugh Rodham’s finances (which they won’t do), I’m sure they would discover that those funds will soon reappear in his account via some other route.  What is even more probable is that Hugh’s cut was merely a commission on a much larger direct payoff to the Clintons. 

Henry Cisneros:  Former member of Clinton’s Cabinet, found guilty of lying to the Independent Counsel about payments to his lover.  Cisneros is a charismatic Latino leader and former mayor of San Antonio that the PTB want resurrected for future leadership.
Roger Clinton:  Roger was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He is Clinton's half-brother, but the real tie to immunity has to do with Roger’s role in dark-side government operations with Clinton crony and money launderer Dan Lassiter during the Arkansas years. 

John Deutch: guilty of numerous security violations as Director of Central Intelligence (DCA).

Edward R. Downe Jr.: securities fraud. Downe was a donor to Hillary’s campaign.
Robert Clinton Fain and James Lowell Manning: tax evasion. William Cunningham, Hillary's Senate campaign treasurer, acted as their lawyer. 
Alvarez Ferrouillet: found guilty of laundering money to cover a loan for the congressional campaign of Mike Espy's brother. This pardon was pushed by Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe

Susan McDougal: guilty of fraud and contempt of court in the Whitewater scandal; she refusal to testify against Clinton and served a year in jail. She is a longtime friend and Whitewater partner of the Clintons.
Linda Medlar Jones: Henry Cisnero’s lover, convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice in trying to cover for Cisneros. 

Dorothy Rivers Offense: Embezzled federal aid intended for homeless children.   Offense was a Jesse Jackson associate.
Arnold Paul Prosperi: Convicted in 1997 of filing false tax returns and using fake bank records to hide embezzlement. Prosperi went to college with Bill Clinton.
Charles D. Ravenel: bank-fraud conspiracy.  Ravenel has been a Clinton friend since 1980.
Richard Riley Jr.: federal drug charges. Son of Clinton's education secretary Richard Riley

Melvin Reynolds: bank fraud and having sex with an underage White House staffer. Jesse Jackson asked Clinton for commutation (change) of the sentence.
Marc Rich: wanted on 50 felony counts, including tax evasion of $48 million.  Many of the globalist “gliteratti” lobbied for this pardon including former Clinton lawyer Jack Quinn, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (Rich bankrolled the Labor Party’s last two elections), and King Juan Carlos of Spain (Marc Rich facilitates the flow of millions of dollars into Spain on behalf of his Russian Communist Mafia friends who maintain huge villas in southern Spain).  Last, but not least, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, paid over 100 visits to President Clinton at the White House (providing certain unknowable favors) and donated a over $2 million to various a Clinton slush funds including the DNC, Hillary’s Senate Campaign Committee, and the Clinton Library fund. One of the reasons the Marc Rich pardon was so crucial to dark-side operations is that Rich is the main financial facilitator of secret bank accounts in Europe and Israel for US “insiders” connected to the NWO.  I can’t prove this, but I also strongly suspect that Rich may well have been the one who Vince Foster met with to set up the Clintons’ secret Swiss bank accounts.  Foster made several overnight trips to Switzerland before his death, transferring cash to these secret accounts on behalf of the Clintons.  Many globalist insiders also maintain accounts in Spain, provided by Rich.  Although Spain does not openly have any bank secrecy laws similar to Switzerland, Rich has, according to Spanish intelligence,  made special arrangements with the Spanish government to provide a sort of “private banking service” for internationalists who need to facilitate “off-the-record” transactions.  The insiders made these deals several years ago after Swiss bank secrecy began to erode due to US pressure.   Even though US power brokers were some of the main benefactors of Swiss bank secrecy, they put pressure on Switzerland to selectively modify its historic wall of bank secrecy in order to allow the IRS to go after hidden bank accounts of wealthy people not connected to privileged elite in America.

Stephen A. Smith and Robert Palmer: convicted of Whitewater fraud. Smith worked as an aide to Clinton and Palmer did the phony appraisals to inflate the value of Whitewater properties.

John Fife Symington III: false statements to obtain loans. Longtime Clinton friend and integral part of the group of liberal Republicans who control Arizona politics.

Carlos Vignali: cocaine trafficking. Hugh Rodham lobbied for his pardon.

Christopher V. Wade: convicted of bankruptcy fraud as one of the original developers of Whitewater.
Harvey Weinig: helped launder at least $19 million for a drug cartel connected to the CIA’s drug pipeline. White House aide David Dreyer, a relative of Weinig, made the pardon request to Clinton advisors.

As more information is known about the pardon list,  Americans will undoubtedly discover that each person on the list had some relationship of favor or privilege to the Powers That Be (PTB).  This is corruption at its worst.  The Democrats are now scrambling to distance themselves from the Clintons.  That, perhaps, is the only silver lining to this whole sordid affair--that Bill Clinton may well be fatally tainted and unable to be rise to public office again.  Even establishment-connected corporations like Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter and Oracle Corporation, which dared pay Bill’s $100,000 speaking fee, are encountering strong stockholder protests.  Other corporations seeking to maintain favored positions with global government insiders are finding they can’t get away with this conduct and still maintain any semblance of respect.  So now, it appears that Clinton will rely upon his international buddies to keep the money flowing.  The Chinese are already complying.  Chinese fashion and garment firm Fapai is offering $2 million to Bill to be one of their “fashion representatives.” 

 

Just watching the flow of money to Bill Clinton we get a shocking view of how far reaching the tentacles of US insider corruption extend throughout the corporate and international world.  Every government on earth knows there are powerful forces that they must obey, and Clinton is so accustomed to being on the take that he seemingly has no shame or discretion about pulling in favors, even after leaving office.  Normally these secret dark-side relationships between the PTB, corporations and governments are kept carefully out of sight (as in the current Bush administration), but  Clinton’s insatiable thirst for money and power, habitualized after 20 years at the public trough doesn’t seem to permit him to fade back into the woodwork.  Unknowingly, he is giving the American public an all too uncomfortable, but visible view of “how the world works.”  Even the liberal media is forced to cover, in ever-increasing detail, what they would normally prefer to omit.  I think Bill is in hot water with a lot of the power brokers who are getting tired of covering for his indiscretions.  Bill’s in big trouble with Hillary now that her chances for a run at the presidency are being tainted by this avalanche of never-ending revelations.  If Bill Clinton isn’t careful (it may already be too late), the PTB might have to do something rash in order to shut down this wild-card “Corrupter-in-Chief” and elevate him to martyr status.    Like many of the other grossly immoral leaders of the past, such as JFK and MLK, he may end up serving the PTB better dead than alive.  I’m not predicting anything, only commenting on past patterns of conspiracy.  

 

MARCH 16, 2001

BEWARE NEW DISINFORMATION SOURCES

There are an increasing number of new Internet sites cropping up that have all the marks of disinformation sources.  I’m issuing a warning about them--not because they don’t contain significant amounts of truth--but because the conclusions they draw are almost always erroneous, meant to divert you from coming to a correct understanding of how the world works.  My suspicions are based upon my understanding of the wide difference in what is possible between private sector intelligence and government intelligence.   Only governments have the manpower and financial resources to carry on extensive intelligence activities.  Only government agencies can tap into people’s private lives with impunity--even when illegal, because they control the judicial process by which they could potentially be prosecuted.  Those private investigators that do carry out extensive snooping activities are almost always ex-government agents who still have insider contacts, or who otherwise know how to use the same illegal means to accomplish their ends.  

                Good, honest people on the conservative side simply don’t have the legal power, the money or the access to corrupt insiders to track our own enemies.   At best, we get occasional leaks from patriotic whistleblowers in the dark side of government--but we never get any defectors from the higher echelons of global control.  If we could tap phones and eavesdrop by satellite, and decode scrambled high level conversations like the NSA, we could crack the conspiracy of power in less than a year.  But we can’t.  Only the dark side of government has access to the full range of these activities.  I used to have a top-secret clearance in the military.  It always amazed me that I was allowed access to almost nothing of importance.  All the good stuff was obviously kept hidden from good officers in the military.  It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of “need-to-know.”  That is valid, except when used to hide illegal government actions. 

                The bottom line is this:  I know when a person or organization is claiming to know too much.  I know what you can and cannot know without being on the inside, and all these sites claim too much to be in the private sector.   Let’s look at a few.  There are others, but this will suffice to show you what I mean.  

 

STRATFOR.COM:  From their own website, this is how they introduce themselves: “On March 23, 1999, an intelligence consulting firm in Austin, Texas, launched an experimental web site to answer the question: Would people be interested in intelligence instead of news about a major global event?”   Intelligence consulting firm?  What was their name?  They don’t say. Who were their clients?  They don’t say and I don’t believe their basic story.  Yes, they were an intelligence firm, all right--but certainly not private.  If they did exist in the private sector before, they were acting as government “cut outs” and their clients were probably government connected defense contractors--an incestuous relationship between government and corporate interests that doesn’t qualify as truly private.  They don’t tell who the principals are, how they are funded, who their sources are or who they were before they became “Stratfor.com.”   They didn’t charge for the information until recently, and their current prices are so low as to make it unbelievable that they are funding this huge intelligence network by subscriptions alone.  Stratfor obviously has access to intelligence sources in every country of the world--which doesn’t come legal or cheap.   Nor can private companies get access to those sources on a regular basis, no matter how much money they possess--unless they are secretly part of government themselves.

                The specific information Stratfor provides is voluminous and mostly accurate--that’s what makes them instantly attractive.  Their short-term projections are often accurate as well, but their comprehensive analysis of why things are happening and how the world works is completely flawed--totally worthless.  Everything is analyzed with a perspective of leaders working “in their national interest.”   There is no leader of any country today that works strictly in his country’s “national interest” anymore.   Every national leader today is part of the international control process--you can’t get elected or stay alive if you are actively resisting the Powers That Be.  This doesn’t mean they are all knowledgeable about the broad conspiracy, or its specific plans, but at least they know they are beholden to powerful international interests and have tacitly, at least, agreed to go along.  Although national leaders always attempt to excuse what they do as “in the national interest,”  that is never the whole or real reason.  My hunch is that Stratfor.com is a CIA proprietary organization helping to control the information flow to the private sector.  I can’t prove that specifically, but it fits the evidence.  I believe Stratfor is part of the government’s attempt to influence the public’s increasing reliance on Internet news and analysis--feeding disinformation and wrong conclusions to the new intellectuals of the free market.   Why is this so important?  Without ready-made excuses for the apparent collusion between national leaders, working against the best interests of their people, smart people might come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy.   By feeding Americans a steady diet of phony explanations the dreaded “C” word is avoided.  

 

DEBKA.COM:   Debka.com appeared out of nowhere six months ago with a full slate of intelligence sources, a full blown website and everything is free.   This intelligence site is oriented strongly towards Israel.  They even have a Hebrew version of the site.   However, they don’t tell who they are, where they came from or what their ideological position is [anyone who claims to be neutral is not being honest].  There are no bylines or names of real people anywhere on the website.  Their analysis is better than the liberal media but it is also tainted with half truthful conclusions. 

                For example, in their analysis of the Rabin assassination they take only a middle ground, allowing for a conspiracy but carefully aiming only at supposed co-conspirators of Yigal Amir, the shooter: “No one doubted that Amir had pulled the trigger of the gun that shot the Israeli prime minister two years after he signed the 1993 Oslo peace accords. But many wondered out loud if he acted alone. And if not, who sent or programmed him for the slaying? And if there was a conspiracy, what was the motive behind it?”   No one doubted Amir pulled the trigger?  Hardly.  They divert their readers from Barry Chamish’s startling revelations proving that Amir as working for the Israeli secret service and was shooting blanks (a setup to place the blame on right-wing settlers) and that Rabin was actually assassinated by his own body guard (at the behest of the Shabak--Israel’s General Security Service--under orders from former Prime Minister Shimon Peres) once inside the limousine.  They had to finish him off inside the hospital when he was revived by doctors.  Debka’s evasion of the Chamish revelations is telling.  They could not possibly not know of Barry’s charges--almost 80% of Israel now knows as well as thousands in the US due to Barry’s lecture tours.  His evidence from original sources is irrefutable.  That is why the Israeli government called upon US customs to impound Barry’s books and video tapes when they arrived at New York Kennedy Airport.  His revelations threaten the legitimacy of the Israeli government.  Barry is considered an “enemy of the state.”  Israeli authorities can lie and cover up the crimes in their “official versions,” but they can’t defeat his evidence.  [For those of you who are not able to see Barry in person during this tour, I have video tapes of his remarkable lecture as well as extra copies of Barry’s books on the situation in Israel.  Prices are $15 for the video or any of his books.  Email or call me (801-224-4746) to order or if you have questions on which book to order].

                In Debka’s coverage of the Lockerbie trial (regarding the terrorist bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie Scotland) they covered all the conspiratorial angles involving Libyan, Syrian and Palestinian terrorists but failed to point any fingers at the CIA’s involvement through the process.  An entire CIA Middle Eastern team of agents was on PanAm 103 reportedly heading back to the US to blow the whistle on CIA terrorist and drug dealings in the Middle East.  They were fed up with attempts to keep them quiet.  Thus, the CIA had a very big motive to use their terrorist connections to plant a bomb on the plane.  How does the CIA facilitate the passage of drugs, bombs or secret papers on airlines?  It has a working relationship with every airport authority in Europe and with every major airline.  It can flash its credentials and put any suitcase it wants into the cargo hold--with full diplomatic immunity from inspections.  One source in Germany said the CIA specifically demanded that a suspicious suitcase be put on board, despite his protests.   But none of this was mentioned by Debka.  Once again, these disinformation sources carefully use portions of what is true, but conceal the real reasons and the top players.   Bottom line:  I suspect Debka is some type of Israeli government operation, perhaps linked to the Mossad (Israel’s CIA).

 

In contrast to Debka, Israel has a solid independent private news source in Arutz-7--low budget, persecuted by the government and has solid news and analysis.  It’s radio station operates on a ship in the Mediterranean Sea and the government has attempted to shut it down on several occasions.  Check it out at http://www.israelnationalnews.com.  Contrary to the website name, Arutz-7 has no connection with the government of Israel.

 

MARCH 23, 2001

 

CSI: THE CIA’S DISINFORMATION FACTORY

On March 10, 200l stories about how the CIA had overestimated Cold War Soviet strength began hitting the news wires and the Internet.  Despite all the evidence of Russian buildup of nuclear and conventional arms, it never ceases to amaze me how eager the press is to promote anything which reinforces the pervasive disinformation about Soviet/Russian weakness.  The goal is to mollify any public concern about growing Russian assertiveness by regularly bringing up myths downplaying Soviet military strength.   I immediately looked for the source of this propaganda. The stories all referenced a two day conference at Princeton University (March 9-10) discussing the latest release of declassified information on the CIA’s analysis of Soviet threats from 1947 to 1991.   The host was Lloyd Salvetti, director of the Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI), who distributed a CD-ROM containing some 19,000 pages of recently declassified information focusing on the Soviet Union prior to 1991. 

                Almost three-fourths of the attendees were former CIA analysts, mixed with a handful of current CIA historians.  CIA analysts are bound by strict rules of secrecy and non-disclosure even after they retire.  Who gave them permission to attend and openly discuss classified opinion?  Who had access to the list of former CIA boys?   They obviously selected only a group from a specific time frame.  It reminded me of a similar conference held in Berlin--an “unofficial” gathering of former KGB and CIA spooks exchanging war stories about US incompetence.  The press reported at the time that the KGB old men were having a grand time explaining to our “company” boys how easy it was to penetrate US security.  In Berlin, as well as at Princeton, nobody was asking the right questions.  Who authorizes these chatty public get-togethers?   Who told the agents they were free to speak about classified subjects?  Former agents who try to write books about CIA operations are threatened with dire consequences.  Is there a double standard here?   Indeed there is. 

                It turns out that this conference was sponsored by the CIA itself.  So was the Berlin conference.  Additional conferences have been held at Georgetown, Texas A&M, and Kent State.  Salvetti’s Center for the Study of Intelligence is a wholly funded and integral part of the CIA.  Salvetti himself is a career CIA man in both overt and covert operations.  He told his audience, “Let us be your guide. We want to be a resource to you.”  I’ll bet he does!

                I have read through several of the key documents and am convinced that the entire collection of “history” the CIA produces is a carefully redacted version of events designed to give only one message: that the CIA is almost always wrong when it warns about Soviet military strength and that it was wrong on Russian military intentions--simply because the Russians have never actually attacked.   This version is not hard to manufacture through selective editing.  The CIA regularly produces both good and bad analysis.  I believe these CIA “historians” selected the material that served the purpose of reinforcing disarmament and fed it to the universities as history.  

                One key to analyzing disinformation is to look at the predominance of summary information rather than original resources, as well as gaping holes in the presentation--and this selective history is full of rewritten summaries, all with gaping holes in solid evidence and logic.  For example, one of their showcase pieces of “intel” in this CD-ROM is entitled, “Intelligence Forecasts of Soviet Intercontinental Attack Forces.”   It is not an historical document, but rather, a modern CIA rewrite and interpretation of events.  Here is a typical sample of real disinformation from the article:

                “These uncertainties [in estimates of Strategic Arms Buildup by the Soviets] began to diminish after the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) began.  By 1971 the ceiling on total numbers of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) coupled with assumption about the Soviet’s willingness to remain within agreed constraints, became the “governor” for SNDV force projections.  Because SALT reduced uncertainty about the future, throughout the 1970s the Intelligence Community’s projections of SALT-limited forces accurately reflected the number of SNDVs in the Soviet force.” 

                Keep in mind that this was written very recently.  There should be no excuse for not knowing the difference between past projections and current history.  The CIA is telling us that the Russians actually used the SALT limitations as a basis for keeping their nuclear forces within treaty limits, and that CIA estimates, limited by those “assumptions” of Soviet compliance with SALT, were “accurate.”   Baloney!  There has been ample documentation revealed in the past 20 years of massive Soviet violations of SALT I and II.  The entire claim that the CIA is, even now, capable of assessing the accuracy of their projections is ludicrous.  US inspectors have never been allowed inside any of the Russians’ modern underground weapons storage depots--only a few of the old, 1950’s structures.  How could we possibly know how many modern missiles the Russians have?  They are all mobile and therefore do not need fixed launch locations that can be detected by satellite. 

                Next, the CIA report talks about estimates about Russian modernization of missile forces, improving on their accuracy and adding MIRV warheads (Multiple, Independent, Reentry Vehicles).   The report brags that “the Intelligence Community predicted well in advance when the Soviets would field MIRVed ICBMs.”   I’ll bet they did.  The reports fails to mention that Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon knowingly transferred American miniature ball bearing technology to Russia in the 1970s to facilitate this upgrade.  How hard is that to predict?   This report screams “disinformation” by virtue of its huge omissions--omissions that “Russian experts” attending these conferences should clearly be aware of.   Instead of being suspicion, we are met with a wall of praise, complimenting the CIA on its “openness.”   American academics touting Russian Studies credentials are an ugly fulfillment of Lenin’s comment about “useful idiots.”   

                In a recent speech to the Joint Military Intelligence Conference in June, 1999, the CIA’s  Salvetti of CSI said the following,  “In 1996, we organized the Venona Conference and published concomitantly the volume, Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957. As you know, Venona was the codeword for the program that sought to read and exploit Soviet intelligence messages collected in the 1940s. The book contains important declassified US Government documents outlining the US response to Soviet espionage, as well as 99 of the most significant and revealing Soviet messages translated by Western analysts.” 

                Despite a few juicy revelations exposing Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White as Soviet agents, the latter statement is not true.  The 99 revelations were NOT the most significant.  The most significant were the hundreds of messages still classified.  If they were not the most important, why are they still classified?  You can’t tell me it has to do with keeping secret our intelligence techniques; nothing that dated would be useful in today’s world.  An honest opening of the Venona files would also have revealed the Soviet reaction to the atom bomb secrets and bomb-making materials the US shipped to the Soviet Union, as detailed by Major Jordan who tried to stop these shipments, and was overruled by the White House.  The files would have also revealed much about secret US collaboration and betrayal at the Tehran and Yalta conferences, and the equally heinous operation “Keelhaul,” where General Eisenhower forcibly sent back to Russia all Russian and Eastern Bloc prisoners who wanted to remain in the West.  

                What is even more telling about the Venona secrets is that despite those secrets being available to the government all through the Second World War and during the 1950s, President Truman continued to defend publicly Hiss, Hopkins, and White against Congressional accusations that they were Communist agents.  The academic community and the CIA have both made numerous attempts to show that Truman must have been “denied access.”  Really?  We now know from a variety of FOIA investigations that Army intelligence, the FBI and Truman’s Naval attaché all had access to Venona intercepts fingering Hiss, Hopkins and White.   Are we to believe that they would allow the Commander-in-Chief to make repeated statements to the press that were wrong if they had the knowledge to correct him?   If Truman really was in the dark, how do we explain his continual protection of Communist Chinese forces in the Korean conflict and his hostility to Macarthur’s pleas for permission to bomb Chinese bases on the Yalu River?   Either there was a conspiracy to assist the Communists at the top or it existed at the level of Truman’s highest advisors--either way, the inescapable conclusion remains that various officials engaged in a willful refusal to act on evidence of treason at the very time Congress was taking a beating by the leftist press.  I wonder why none of our exceptional academics seem to be able to see the obvious as they pour over these few embarrassing secrets?

 

ASHCROFT CONTINUES THE CLINTON COVER-UPS

In one of his first major acts as US Attorney General, John Ashcroft worked out a plea bargain for Indonesian billionaire James Riady, who was guilty of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Clinton campaign on behalf of China.  Riady also paid Clinton cronies Webb Hubbell and Jim Tucker over $500,000 for yet undiscovered services on behalf of China.  Riady will serve no time in jail time and will have to perform 400 hours of “community service” in Indonesia [who’s going to enforce that?].   He is also supposed to pay an $8 million dollar fine.  Who do you think is going to pay that $8 million dollars?  I’ll bet it won’t be Riady.  What better way for Red China to make their first “payoff” to the Bush Administration (for continuing technology transfers to China) via a circuitous “legal” route?   Why was this plea bargain necessary?  The government had more than enough evidence to prosecute.  Plea bargains are supposed to trade leniency for insider information necessary to prosecute the higher-ups.  So where’s the quid-pro-quo and where are the revelations of corruption linking Riady to Clinton and others higher up the chain?   Don’t hold your breath--this case has been sabotaged and buried forever--by a Republican, no less--just like Ken Starr.

 

WORLD NET DAILY FALLS PREY TO DISINFORMATION

This week, WorldNetDaily.com broadcast what they considered a major breakthrough in the OKC bombing investigation.   A local Oklahoma City reporter for an NBC affiliate claimed to have found “massive evidence of a foreign conspiracy involving Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in the 1995 bombing of the federal building that killed 168 people.”   Jayna