January, 2003



As the debate heats up over President Bush’s new tax cut proposals, we must wade through torrents of flawed economic commentary and bash-the-rich rhetoric.  Decrying “tax breaks for the wealthy” is the standard demagoguery used by Democrats and other socialists to deflect more substantive arguments.  The Democrat’s case to the public rests upon portrayal of two false images, never born out by the facts: 1) that the majority of taxes are paid by the “little guy,” and 2) that tax breaks for the lower classes are of greater benefit to the poor and to economic recovery than tax breaks for rich. 

                Let’s consider the latest data on who pays what percentage of the income tax.  The Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org) has constructed tables of crucial data analyzing what each class of tax payer pays as a percentage of what they earn.  Here are some comments from their website concerning this data.

                “In 1993, at the end of the ‘Decade of Greed,’ the top 1% were paying 28.7% of all taxes. They earned only 13.8% of all earned income. Oops! sounds like they are paying a bit more than their fair share, doesn't it?  What about the top 10%? They were paying 58.5% of the income taxes but earning only 39% of the income. The top 50%? Paying 95.2% of the taxes, earning 85% of the income. The bottom 50%? Earning only 15% of the income but paying just 4.8% of the income taxes.”

                Now for the tax year 2000: “The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned more than two-thirds of the nation's income (67.3%) and paid more than five out of every six dollars collected by the federal income tax (84%) in 2000. There were 32 million tax returns in the top 25 percent, all with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $55,225. The top one percent of US taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year.  This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent - well over a third of the total - is up from 25.1 percent ten years earlier in tax year 1990. [Thus, the percentage of tax paid by the wealthy has been increasing rather than decreasing over time.]

                “At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers earned only 13.0 percent of all income in 2000, but they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes collected - 3.9 percent. The data come from Tax Foundation Special Report No. 118, titled, "Who Pays the Federal Individual Income Tax?" by economist David Hoffman.” [End of Tax Foundation quote.]


The Real Cause of our Current Declining Economy

Let’s review the real cause of the current economic malaise, which is threatening to become a full blown depression.  Without understanding the root cause, we cannot prescribe a solution.

                In simple terms, the US and world economies are suffering from years of excessive growth in money and credit, as central governments followed doggedly the Keynesian model of pumping liquidity into the markets in order to stimulate innovation and growth.  Has it worked?  Only superficially, and the consequences are finally hitting home.  To be sure, innovation has boomed, but this innovation has included a lot of unsound ideas as well, which would not have found funding in a slower, more discriminating economy.  Nearly anyone with any sort of new idea could find some funding in the 90’s.  Growth rates in stocks, especially high tech or internet companies, went astronomical and couldn’t be sustained when improper or premature investments began to show their colors.  Individual savings and conservative investments were stripped to jump on the stock bandwagon, leaving the economy with few reserves.  Individual and corporate debt skyrocketed, leaving no room for retrenchment in a downturn.

                Notice that in an honest economy, with a real commodity backed currency, growth is much slower, and therefore inherently more stable.  There is no money to loan unless someone makes a profit and puts that money into savings.  In an inflationary credit bubble, however, people’s judgment about risk gets skewed by the high volumes of money and credit available, and consequential illusions of permanent growth.  An inflationary credit system is inherently more unstable the larger it grows, and with growth comes increasing demands for more money and credit to keep the bubble inflated.  The irrational market days of the 90’s were particularly bad for people’s judgment, because the Fed made it appear as if growth would be permanent.  People became convinced that bear markets were forever abolished.  Remember, this was supposed to be a “new economy?”  Well, it wasn’t!  . 


Let’s analyze precisely why the bubble was not and could not be sustained.  A bubble is created by the artificial easing of credit and/or direct inflation of the currency via a variety of paperless mechanisms.  We had both, and still do, judging by the low interest rates and the Fed’s wide open window for bank lending.  With easy money, the marketplace no longer acts as an effective filter for bad investments.  Look at the credit card default rate, and yet even poor risk people are still offered multiple cards.  The Fed has made almost unlimited amounts of money available for loans, and has channeled that easy money to consumers via bank discount windows, federally subsidized mortgages, and credit card companies (not to mention billions in “off the books” journal entries for insider corporations and secret foreign assistance packages).  With such extensive credit availability, millions of marginal borrowers were lured into easy debt.  Now, here is the key:  that pool of potential borrowers has been satisfied.  Almost everyone capable of taking on more debt has done so.  The pool is very shallow now.  There are few potential corporate or individual vehicles for monetary expansion in the credit markets – even at almost giveaway interest rates!  This exhaustion of potential borrowers is what happened to Japan years ago, and they still haven’t recovered from the resulting downturn. 

                This is why traditional Keynesian economic stimuli don’t work anymore: they are all based on the expansion of money and credit, but there are a diminishing quantity of recipients of that credit who can make stable payments.  Lower interest rates?  There’s no draw there, with everyone already loaded up on debt.  More direct inflation?  This used to be a “free lunch” policy for the US as world trade absorbed our inflated dollars, sparing us from much price inflation at home, but no more.  The dollar has reached saturation levels internationally and is now falling against most major currencies (all of which are inflating too, which tells us something about relative rates of inflation).  Any inflation the Fed does now shows up as real inflation here at home.  The inflation may be effectively masked by the falling price levels characteristic of a deflationary economy – but even this works against recovery for a certain percentage of the market.  Those of us with declining incomes are unable to take advantage of the full effect of falling prices, since inflation counteracts and covers up this downward trend.  Even more dangerous, inflation threatens the bond market with collapse.   Lastly, inflation is a hidden tax, which distorts people’s view of the economy’s true underlying price levels. 


The Bush Tax Proposals

The President’s proposals emerged on January 7, 2003.  Here they are grouped according to type, followed by my analysis of each:


1) Personal Income Tax Changes:  Make all the income tax rate reductions from the 2001 tax law effective this year—and retroactive to January 1, 2003, instead of letting them phase in slowly over the next 4 years. Reduce the marriage penalty this year, instead of in 2009. Raise the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year, instead of in 2010.

                Analysis:  These are all good changes, but will not have any immediate effect on the economy.  Individuals will have slightly more disposable income in the near future, which is good.  However, research indicates that relatively small increases in family income do not effectively change people’s investment or savings patterns – they only increase consumption.  Sustaining consumption levels in a declining economy will slow the fall but won’t turn it around.  What is needed is more resources for capital investments, which are made available through savings, not consumption.


2) Business Tax Changes: End the double taxation of dividends.  Raise from $25,000 to $75,000 the amount of equipment purchases that small businesses can write off as expenses.

                Analysis:  These proposals will have long term beneficial effects for business growth.  The former removes a problematic tax policy that distorts investment and corporate decisions.  A lot of tax games are played to avoid paying dividends since they are taxed twice.  Here’s a good synopsis from the Tax Foundation: “The most immediate effect of eliminating the double tax on dividends would be a redirection of investment into firms that pay dividends.  Many economists believe that investors who receive dividends put less pressure on companies to achieve short-term increases in share prices, and that this change will be a positive development in the effort to improve corporate governance.” 

                Also, according to the Foundation, dividends are not just for the rich: “According to the most recent IRS data, 34.1 million tax returns contained some dividend income in 2000. This represents 26.4 percent of total tax returns. Dividend income in 2000 totaled $147.0 billion, or 2.3 percent of total income reported by all taxpayers in that year.  Despite widespread belief to the contrary, dividend income was earned by taxpayers across the income spectrum. In fact, of all taxpayers that claimed some dividend income in 2000, nearly half (45.8 percent) earned less than $50,000 in adjusted gross income (which includes dividends).  Moreover, 63.8 percent of those taxpayers claiming dividends earned less than $50,000 in just wages and salaries.”

                Increasing the ability of small businesses to deduct large ticket expenses would potentially give a healthy boost if we were in a rising economy.  In this deflating economy, it is doubtful that many small businesses have sufficient cash flow to make large capital purchases.  Most are loaded up to the maximum with heavy indebtedness already.

                Bush should have removed all taxes on capital gains for a quick realignment of malinvestments in the markets.  Taxing capital gains really distorts capital markets and slows down the realignment of investments to more productive projects.  The fear of subjecting previously earned gains to taxation keeps many investors frozen in now stagnant companies.  At the least, losses in capital gains ought to be able to directly offset other income immediately.  Currently, all gains are immediately taxable in full, but losses have to be spread over many years.

                On a related note, all inheritance taxes should be removed, permanently.  Heavy taxation of assets that have already been taxed as they were accumulated is a great injustice.  Most large estates have to be sold just to pay the taxes, which often destroys their economic viability – especially in the case of family farms.  


3)  Welfare giveaways: Extend unemployment benefits to 850,000 people whose benefits expired on December 28th and make them retroactive to the beginning of December.  Allow more than 2.5 million jobless Americans to receive 13 weeks of unemployment compensation not covered by employer contributions.  Extend unemployment benefits for 1.6 million people from March to June 1. 

                Analysis:  Shoving money into people’s pockets is direct stimulus to individuals, and one of the least effective ways of turning around an economy.  It prolongs consumer spending, but in today’s deflating bubble it will create no net new jobs, but will only slow down the rate of job loss.  This is redistribution of income at its worst, being done at taxpayers’ expense.  It is politically popular with the benefit-corrupted majority, but is a violation of the productive class’s right to own and control their hard-earned property.  If government creates the money rather than taking it from taxes, the effect is mildly inflationary (which benefits only the first recipients of new money--later users of money pay higher prices).


4)  Employment Gimmicks:  Create Personal Re-employment Accounts, providing unemployed workers with up to $3,000 to use for job training, child care, transportation, moving costs, or other expenses associated with finding a new job.  A person who gets a job within 13 weeks would keep the leftover funds as a re-employment bonus.

                Analysis:  This proposal superficially provides various incentives to go out and get a job quickly.  The trouble is, it adds a significant level of complexity to reemployment, as well as more layers of state and federal bureaucracy to manage the program.  Additionally, it distorts the marketplace by inducing people to go get any job, just to qualify to receive the bonus.  I see a lot of room for fraud and wasteful bureaucracy here.  


The Really Big Solution

The economy is in trouble because it is stagnant and hog tied with debt.  A giant negative multiplier is in effect, destroying more jobs than the government can stimulate by direct handouts, so the downward cycle continues.   With each job loss there is less money spent in the economy, and other businesses on the margins of profitability fail due to declining activity.  There is still much innovation ready to be developed, but potential profit margins are so small in a deflationary scenario that few can qualify for more borrowing.  Few have excess capital on their own to finance new business endeavors.  Under these circumstances the single largest impediment to new business and new job formation becomes the HIGH COST OF HIRING EMPLOYEES.  It isn’t only the cost of the employee’s wages and benefits, but the whole new level of regulations and accounting requirements that must be dealt with in even hiring one employee.   When hiring a first employee presents a huge obstacle, proportional to the benefit, economic growth is stunted constantly.   There are millions of self-employed people who choose to work alone, without any employees, merely because this barrier to hiring is so high.

                It is my thesis that the flawed practice of government attempting to protect employees from market forces of competition, by increased mandates on employers, is the single most significant barrier to new job formation – and has been for many years.  In an inflating bubble economy, small businessmen simply bite the bullet and pay for huge employee costs, and pass those costs on to their consumers or clients.  This is no longer as easy to do as profit margins fall.  Even large corporations grew fat and inefficient during the bubble years.  It will be years before they can pare down costs sufficient to afford new employees. 

                In a deflationary scenario, we need to stimulate massive small time hiring at the micro level of the economy.   The plethora of small jobs thereby created can potentially absorb millions of the unemployed from large corporations (albeit at lower salaries) and begin the process of filling in the legitimate holes in the economy  (business opportunities left unfulfilled) due to the excesses of the past--which tend to favor big corporations. 


Here’s what I propose:   Immediately, do away with all government mandated tax and regulatory restrictions on the hiring and firing of employees.  This means, first, no more requirements for the withholding of income taxes and social security taxes by the employer (each employee would do their own just like the self-employed).  Yes, it would be better to do away with the income tax and social security all together, but at least making each person experience paying the full price for those taxes is a first step in making them still more unpopular.  Second, eliminate the requirement for the employer to pay workman’s compensation; workers can pay for it themselves if they want it.  Third, do away with the minimum wage, which only serves to marginalize those workers whose value falls below the arbitrary wage-rate threshold.  Forget about the much heralded necessity that every person have a  living wage.”  Almost a third of the labor market share some living facilities with others and don’t need a full living wage.  Fourth, eliminate all paperwork and reporting to the government, currently huge barriers to the creation of new jobs.  Employment contracts between private parties should be just that – private.  Lastly, strike down all anti-discrimination laws and forced collective bargaining laws.  Allow private employers to hire or fire at will, bounded only by their own contractual agreements.   

                Think how many self-employed people would suddenly feel free to hire one or two assistants.  Think how easy it would be to create a start-up company and join forces with others if entrepreneurs didn’t have to deal with complex accounting structures.  Think how many millions would be hired as domestic workers – a market almost non-existent in the US today because of the high costs of reporting and withholding.  Lifting all these weighty and cumbersome regulations would have the effect of a surge of oxygen on our stagnant economy, opening up new venues for productivity and new opportunities for growth. 

                I admit this proposal is politically improbable now, but as the recession deepens people will begin to see that a truly free labor market offering more jobs at lower wages is better and has more potential upside than a protected labor market with few new jobs at all.  Meanwhile, an interim political solution may be to get Congress to pass an exemption from all withholding and regulations for companies with less than 50 employees, or even 10 employees – whatever can be had.  That would provide a foothold in the market to show just how vibrant this new sector would be.



The State Department has filed a 32-page document with a federal administrative judge charging Hughes Electronics and Boeing Satellite Systems with illegally transferring sensitive military technology to the Chinese.  The notorious Loral Corporation was also part of the investigation but was not charged after it agreed to cooperate with the State Department and pay millions of dollars in fines.  The two companies are being punished for having the audacity to challenge the government’s 123 count indictment. 


It is treasonous, but there’s more to the story than what the Washington Post revealed this week.  What the Post didn’t say was that Hughes Aircraft was encouraged to open its plant to the Red Chinese clear back in the late 80’s on orders from former President George Bush.  Chinese generals and scientists were given free access to the most sensitive areas at Hughes – areas that required top secret clearances for US employees and engineers.  Hughes employees were so upset at this obvious betrayal of national security that they threatened a walkout.  Rather than confront its employees, Hughes decided to cancel all work on Saturdays and give the Chinese full access on that day, so that irate employees would not witness the continuing sellout. 


Both Hughes and Boeing know that they have been granted special “look the other way” exemptions by the current Bush administration Commerce Department that oversees all technology transfers.   Savvy observers in Washington also know that the State Department is the most pro-Chinese element of the Federal government, regardless of which party is in charge.  Why would State suddenly jump on Hughes and Boeing when these companies are part and parcel of the US government’s plan to facilitate Chinese and Russian improvements in military technology?  


Frankly, I’m not sure this indictment is for real.  It may well be a ruse to allow the State Department to build up a few anti-Communist points to offset evidence of decades of pro-Communist support.  The Justice Department may well be preparing to undermine the indictment in some plea bargain.  If the case goes to trial, Hughes may be able to produce Commerce documents giving it an exemption.  If nothing else, Hughes and Boeing may settle as Loral did.  All these companies know they will get additional US export-import loans and federal contracts to more than make up for any fines they agree to pay as part of a settlement. 


One thing I am sure of: the aid and trade to China won’t stop.   Nothing is as it seems in government circles these days, especially when it comes to the illusion of defending US interests. 



The Bush administration continues to petition Judge Michael Mukasey  (Federal District Court in Manhattan), to overturn his decision to allow citizen Jose Padilla access to an attorney--even though he has been held in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., without being charged, for months. .Padilla, designated an “enemy combatant” has been undergoing months of daily interrogations by military and justice department officials without the minimal constitutional recognition of his civil rights. 

                Judge Mukasey is no friend of the constitution even though he ruled that Mr. Padilla could consult with lawyers.  Government appointed attorneys can screw up anyone’s case.  More importantly, the judge affirmed the President’s power to detain enemy combatants and said the government needed to make only a “minimal showing to justify such actions” --without stipulating what those actions might be.  The government goes to judges they own to ensure a favorable ruling.  In turn, these controlled judges give token or partial rulings in favor of the Constitution to preserve the facade of judicial integrity and independence.  Then they often allow their token opposition rulings to be overturned later while the public isn’t watching.  Sometimes, as in this case, they simply don’t sanction the government for failing to abide by the ruling.  That’s how judge Royce Lamberth keeps stringing Judicial Watch along, appearing to be sympathetic to their attacks on Bush administration cover-ups.  Neat trick.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co officers were brought before a grand jury in New York City to testify about their dealings with the bankrupt Enron Corporation.   However, according to sources talking to the NY Times, it is “unlikely the No. 2 US banking company will face criminal charges.”  Why doesn’t that surprise me? 

First, observe who the District Attorney handling the jury is: establishment insider attorney Robert Morgenthau, who has been investigating the Morgan role in Enron's collapse since last year.  Second, Morgan Chase is no bit player in the scheme to protect insider connected corporations from violations of tax and accounting rules ordinary companies and individuals are required to obey.  J.P. Morgan and its larger clone Citibank were up to their necks in providing the financial arrangements and safe havens that allowed Enron to transfer millions in profits to illegal offshore tax accounts of its partners.   Both banking houses are as guilty as Enron of violating reporting requirements and money laundering.  Bringing them before the Grand Jury was necessary to give the appearance of a vigorous investigation.  But all the big players will get a pass in the end.  



Apartment dweller evictions nationwide are increasing at an exponential rate.  From 1998 to 1999 evictions rose only 5%.  They rose 15% in 2000 and 16% in 2001.  The figures for 2002 are projected to increase by a whopping 20% and the rate of increase is still increasing each year.  Foreclosures are following a similar rate of increase, as are personal bankruptcies.  Renters delinquent for more than three months’ rent almost always declare bankruptcy rather than make good on their debts.   Clearly, bankruptcy laws are still too lenient.   Increasing rates of default in these crucial areas of the economy are solid evidence that we haven’t seen the bottom yet.  Talk of a recovery is very premature.   



A lot of conservatives have been intrigued by the promises of fiscal reform touted by NESARA, the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act.  See www.nesara.com for an overview of this proposed legislation.  In essence, the website promotes the notion that our fiscal problems can be solved by taking control of the money supply away from the private Federal Reserve and giving it back to Congress where it belongs.   Constitutional conservatives are especially vulnerable to this trap, thinking that the power given to Congress to “regulate the value of money” is equivalent to regulating the supply of money and credit. In fact, the Constitution grants no such powers.  By “regulate the value of thereof (money),” the founders were only referring to the prerogative of Congress to fix the value relationship between gold and silver coinage.  They wanted no fiat money powers in the US Constitution, being all too aware of the financial disaster caused by the issuance of worthless revolutionary script (Continentals).  


NESARA thinkers understand that Congress can be tempted to print too much money, so they propose the creation of a special index that is linked to a law mandating that the money supply be kept within a certain growth range.  Good theory, but impractical without an understanding of the current state of addiction of all facets of our economy to false injections of money and credit.  Congress simply would never have the guts to face the uproar that would follow a serious restriction of the money supply.   

It is a step in the right direction to eliminate the Federal Reserve, but the promoters of NESARA are woefully naïve about what effects the new law would have.  They also have a seriously misplaced trust in the political will of elected representatives to take the heat in a sudden shift to a policy of fiscal restraint.  Real restraint would be very painful to our bubble economy.  It is my estimate that over a third of the current economy is driven by money and credit creation that would not exist in a true free market.  NESARA claims to eliminate inflation, but it does no such thing.  True, inflation would be restrained by law, but as long as a government has the power to create any money at all that is not backed 100% by an exchangeable commodity, the resulting creation of fiat currency is always inflationary and robs existing holders of currency of some of their money’s value—especially those who receive some of the new money long after prices have adjusted upward.   Even in a deflationary depression, fiat money takes away a portion of those downward prices, so that people are robbed of a portion of the benefits of deflation (a process totally invisible but real). 

There is an ongoing internet hoax circulating around the Internet concerning NESARA—and I’m not referring to the excessively optimistic claims of NESARA (that it would create immediate world peace, world freedom, and world prosperity).  The real hoax is an attempt to claim that NESARA has secretly been passed by Congress and that there is a conspiracy to keep the public from knowing about it.  There are plenty of real conspiracies about without muddying the waters with disinformation.  The following two statements have been widely propagated by email:


“1) NESARA was passed secretly by U.S. Congress on March 9, 2000 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 10, 2000. 

2) NESARA was ordered by 1993 U.S. Supreme Court and World Court rulings.”


Both of these statements are patently false and without any substance whatever.  They are certainly not supported by the material on the official NESARA website, which states that as of January 20, 2003, “The bill has not been enacted into law, has not been introduced into Congress, and has not yet been assigned a tracking number.”  In other words, it hasn’t even got a sponsor, and is going nowhere until it does.   Of course, even if this proposal finds its way onto the Congressional floor, the moderate changes proposed by NESARA have no chance of succeeding because Congress has promised way too much with way too little income to even deal with this change.  Only fiat money and credit creation will keep this bloated ship afloat, and even that won’t last much longer.  One thing is for sure.  Once corrupted by benefits, the voting majority will never voluntarily relinquish the democratic power to steal other’s hard-earned money.  There is no democratic solution to the fiscal problems of our overindulgent and soft society.    



The American people were denied any meaningful rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union address to Congress.  Predictably, the Republicans responded with nothing but enthusiasm and blind support for Bush’s statements.  The Democratic response was a pathetic combination of maudlin appeals to minorities, me-too yesmanship on Iraq, and “we can offer you more” assertions regarding Bush’s rather irresponsible and undisciplined spending proposals.  In this week’s World Affairs Brief, I will lay out for my readers a comprehensive point by point rebuttal of Bush’s address from a constitutional conservative point of view.


I am particularly disturbed by the increasing lack of honor and dignity of Congress in allowing itself, through mindless pomp and circumstance, to be turned into a manipulating propaganda machine on behalf of a sitting president.  State of the Union speeches are fraudulent from start to finish.  They are never the original work of modern script-reading Presidents (who are chosen more for their slavish loyalty to the control system than for their abilities).  Hack ghost writing committees mix the dry substance of political proposals with melodramatic and grandiloquent phrases (borrowed from far superior writers like Winston Churchill, who, despite being a deceptive, manipulating globalist, did have real talent) to induce applause and standing ovations at regular intervals.


When a person makes verbal appeals to high minded and lofty principles, invoking the name of God for support, conscience demands that hypocrisy and ulterior motives be absent.  When grand eloquence is used to cover for grand lies, the judgments of God are not far behind.  We have had three artful dodger presidents in a row fronting for globalist aims, while pretending to be God-fearing protectors of the Constitution.  It is time for conservatives to stop viewing their Republican leaders with rose colored glasses and start critically analyzing the half truths and multi-faceted deceptions that are being foisted upon them to undermine all we hold dear.  The State of the Union address is the epitome of manipulation and deception, being specifically contrived for those purposes alone, and must be virtually picked apart line by line to expose all its dangerous fallacies.  Here I will examine Bush’s latest address point by point, including my analysis and rebuttals in [brackets].  Readers will soon get a clear perception of the extent and depth of deception and double-speak inherent in this speech, and indeed, in every public address by our establishment-controlled President.


“You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence….we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. [This is pure bravado, meant only to elicit applause and garner the emotional, unthinking support of the people.  No leader can guarantee an answer to every danger to a nation, but the real deception here lies in the true intent of Bush to take his nation into a war that will eventually result in a huge retaliatory attack on America.]


“In all these days of promise and days of reckoning [strange mix of conflicting adjectives], we can be confident.  In a whirlwind of change, and hope, and peril, our faith is sure [it is particularly offensive to God when politicians invoke allusions to faith or God to elicit support for evil causes], our resolve is firm, and our union is strong. [Bush’s reference to a strong union is anachronistic.  The feds have long since removed any potential for state rebellion or official disunity.]


“This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations. [This statement is patently untrue and knowingly deceptive.  Every president who commits this country to billions in deficits, as Bush will do in this speech, knowingly passes on the costs to future generations.  In fact, all of his “solutions,” whether about Social Security, Medicare, education, foreign aid, or welfare, are doomed to failure, no matter what their version. The problem keeps getting worse with each administration, whether Republican or Democrat.]  We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage. [Time will prove him deadly wrong.]


“During the last two years, we have seen what can be accomplished when we work together. To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform which must now be carried out in every school, and every classroom, so that every child in America can read, and learn, and succeed in life. [I beg to differ.  Bush has merely achieved historic and unconstitutional federal intervention in schools--not reform.  Reform occurs when real change for the better takes place, and no change is ever going to occur as long as there exists a federal and state government monopoly of power over control and funding in schools.  Only the complete separation of school and state will solve this downward spiral.  For example, the key element of all successful education is discipline—but no reform is even contemplated in this area because students don’t want it, parents complain, and all official centers of power (teacher’s union, administrators, school districts, and academics) subscribe to a flawed ideology of permissiveness in human relations.  It is little wonder that a whole plethora of unfortunate legal precedents has been created to make sure than no teacher or administrator can take exception to the horrible status quo. While public schools always produce a minority of success stories (mostly, in spite of the system) the overall result for the majority of students continues to decline precipitously.]


“To protect our country [which wasn’t the real purpose], we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era.  [In fact, it is preparing to mobilize against the inevitable domestic backlash from constitutional conservatives and civil libertarians to this new form of federal tyranny.]  To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation. [This obviously didn’t achieve Bush’s stated purpose, though I believe it is helpful.]  To insist on integrity in American business, we passed tough reforms, and we are holding corporate criminals to account. [This is an outright falsehood.  No one of any significance has been prosecuted.  All the big fish, such as Enron chief Ken Lay and other executives at Global Crossing and WorldCom, have been protected from meaningful prosecution — because they are among the insiders to a secret government-corporation partnership for global governance.]


“Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start [a pack of lies and half truths would be more accurate]. … We must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job. [Actually, labor is always in short supply even during a depression, though this fact is masked by the artificial surplus of labor created by the forced maintenance of abnormally high wages.  Thus the problem is more accurately a matter of not enough high paying jobs, because the economy is contracting from an ongoing cycle of government-induced excess.  If wages were allowed to contract along with the economy, the labor surplus would quickly disappear, and recovery would be much faster.]


“After recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, and stock market declines, our economy is recovering [not true according to most government data] – yet it is not growing fast enough, or strongly enough. With unemployment rising [a contradiction of his statement on recovery], our Nation needs more small businesses to open, more companies to invest and expand, more employers to put up the sign that says, Help Wanted.  [As I pointed out in a recent brief, the single biggest inhibition to hiring new people is the government-imposed costs of employment — taxes, Social Security, withholding, insurance, unemployment compensation.  These costs are particularly restrictive to individual entrepreneurs looking to expand their operations and hire employees.  There are millions who could hire, but won’t do so due to the high cost of regulation.  The Bush plan does nothing here.]


Jobs are created when the economy grows [circular reasoning]; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest [this is a Keynesian idea.  In truth, the economy grows when people make more than they consume, in real terms.  Inflation of the money supply by government provides the illusion that people have more money to spend and invest, but that illusion is always temporary and is detrimental to long-term economic growth]; and the best, fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place [true—but Bush wants it both ways: cut taxes and raise spending on a massive scale.  So, it’s a lie that he doesn’t intend to pass our problems down to the next generation].


“This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes and it will help our economy immediately. [It will not in itself lead to economic recovery, but will merely slow the continued contraction. However, this is good, because the longer a severe collapse is avoided, the more time the economy has to adjust to reality.] If this tax relief is good for Americans three, or five, or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today [true enough].


“We also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax laws.  [It’s not just investors that should be treated fairly, but all taxpayers.  It is grossly unjust that the top 50% of taxpayer pay over 90% of all taxes.] It is fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits [absolutely true].


“Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand [true]. More jobs means more taxpayers and higher revenues to our government.  [This is a socialist view and should never be a legitimate goal of government.  The proper goal of government taxation should be to extract from the private economy the least amount possible to satisfy its mandate to defend fundamental rights.]  The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C. [Spending discipline? Is this guy even listening to what he says?  Watch him propose billions in wasteful and unconstitutional spending in the next sentences.]  We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by four percent next year – about as much as the average family’s income is expected to grow. [This proposal is ludicrous on three counts:  1) Talk of increasing spending is reckless on its face when huge deficits are projected, even without accounting for the continued raiding of the SS trust fund and the war in Iraq.  2) His spending increase will be at least 10 percent higher than projected 3) Families are struggling now just to stay even; a 4 percent increase in income across the board seems overly optimistic.] And that is a good benchmark for us: Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families. [There is no principled relationship with government authorization to spend and personal income.  People becoming more wealthy is no justification for government to start taxing and spending more money. The two are not related in law or moral principle.] 


“A growing economy, and a focus on essential priorities, will also be crucial to the future of Social Security.  [Yes, Bush wants economic growth to help postpone the inevitable death of the SS Ponzi scheme.  The SS system pays out too much to current beneficiaries and will at some point go bankrupt to the detriment of future beneficiaries.  Even so, no US president has had the courage to stop robbing the trust fund each year of $300+ billion to help cover the deficit, contributing even more to its insolvency..] As we continue to work together to keep Social Security sound and reliable [Whoooaaa there, Cowboy.  How about ‘fessing up to your recent proposal to offer SS benefits to Mexicans living in Mexico, who were once illegal aliens in America?], we must offer younger workers a chance to invest in retirement accounts that they will control and they will own.


“Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans. [Affordable health care in America is a contradiction of terms.  The only affordable health care today is outside the establishment system, in alternative medicine—the only real free (though highly suppressed) market in medicine.   Prices have risen out of sight in establishment medicine primarily because of several factors: 1) the government monopoly over licensure of medical schools, hospitals and practitioners; 2) government and drug company control over prescription drugs; 3) excessive use of insurance rather than direct payment by recipients (due to tax policy inducements for companies to provide health insurance); and 4) direct government funding of medical welfare through our own version of socialized medicine, Medicare.  These last two are significant because when people don’t have to pay directly for medical care, there is little resistance to price increases and little incentive to watch lifestyle and nutrition factors that lead to bad health.]


The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. [This is only partly true.  A good portion of the longevity achieved by Americans is being enjoyed by the full third of Americans who are turning to better nutrition, vitamins, minerals, herbs and alternative therapies to achieve better health.  Those who stay within the established system become ever more dependent upon drug therapies which all have deleterious side effects.]  Yet for many people, medical care costs too much [it costs too much for everybody!] and many have no coverage at all [there should be – but is not – a clear distinction made between those who want medical coverage but can’t afford it, and those who choose not to purchase establishment medical coverage but to rely on nutrition and alternative therapies to address the majority of their health issues]. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care [true, but what Bush is proposing will result in the same type of control, while avoiding the term “nationalized care]. Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy [this is very deceptive.  Insurance companies are where the control occurs.  They almost always refuse to pay for anything outside the establishment system — even when its cheaper], choose their own doctors [he isn’t including alternative practitioners here], and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need [more welfare socialism, and more spending — in the billions].


“Health care reform must begin with Medicare, because Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. [Yes, Medicare is binding, but it is morally wrong!  It is the bondage commitment for a society becoming ever more socialist.  In contrast, the hallmark of a caring, free society is voluntary charity hospitals.] We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America. [Again, when he says “renew that commitment,” he’s talking about that binding commitment to transfer wealth from one person to another, without choice and under the penalty of loss of life and property if you refuse.  How charitable does that sound?  Like all welfare schemes, it is unconstitutional as well.]


“Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is. [This is simply a political sop to quell any potential discontent from Seniors too fearful of changing proposals.  Seniors have become the single biggest welfare corrupted voting block.  The Bush speech writers wanted to make sure there wouldn’t be any backlash here.] And just like you, the members of Congress, members of your staffs, and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs. [Interesting comment.  If the public knew what kind of perks Congressmen have in terms of cradle to grave pensions and healthcare — without having to pay for SS — they would be outraged in comparison.]  My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare.  [This amount is grossly understated, as are all socialist foot-in-the-door programs.  Eventually everyone will demand subsidized drug prices and the cost to taxpayers will go up to astronomical proportions.]


“No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit and I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform. [The problem isn’t frivolous lawsuits, which are very few.  Most medical lawsuits are based on real damage to people done by doctors making mistakes or by the damaging side effects of drugs.  Just as Bush has been pushing for immunity for vaccine manufacturers, he wants limited immunity for the establishment medical community as well.  I do not favor giving any sector blanket immunity from liability, though there ought to be limitations on obscenely high damage awards.  The way juries are selected now, only the most manipulable persons are chosen to pass judgment on a case.  The judicial system has written its own (unconstitutional) rules about jury selection, and has given judges too much power to control what juries may decide.]


“Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment.  I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. [I’m skeptical.  Power plants are already very clean and represent a very small fraction of air pollution.  I think he’s driving at pacifying the global warning crowd by including carbon dioxide in this list of “pollutants”.]


I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest. [If he is talking about emphasizing good logging practices, I’m all for it.  Forests are meant to be harvested and renewed over time.  But I think he is hiding something.  His forest service bureaucrats were responsible for much of the damage caused by fires last year, because of their refusals to allow private contractors to help put out fires free of charge.  Now, bureaucrats in the Department of the Interior are still refusing to allow logging companies to log burned out forest areas—a practice that has added insult to injury in the devastation wrought upon the land.  The standing, limbless trees are simply left to rot.  The radical environmental movement still controls most of these bureaucratic positions in government, and Bush has used none of his executive authority to cause these departments to change their policies.]


“Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. [Bush has no business throwing another billion of taxpayer funding at any kind of research.  Tax money should never be used to give an advantage to one avenue of research over others competing in the same area of the free market.   Besides the unfair monopoly over funding that is given, such federal grants also stifle private investment (why take the risk when government will fund it?).  Meanwhile, in waiting for government, innovators and private investors lose control over the process].


“For so many in our country – the homeless, the fatherless, the addicted – the need is great. Yet there is power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people. [I tire of Bush continually confusing “the power of goodness, idealism and faith” with government coercive taxation to fund more welfare schemes.  This is not charity.  This is confiscation at the point of a gun.]


“Americans are doing the work of compassion every day visiting prisoners, providing shelter to battered women, bringing companionship to lonely seniors. These good works deserve our praise; they deserve our personal support; and, when appropriate, they deserve the assistance of our government. [I’ve never seen an instant when Bush didn’t think it appropriate to insert government into the ever more controlling equation.] I propose a $450 million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. [I can’t think of a more inappropriate and unconstitutional venue for government (which has a self-declared mandate to push non-discrimination in hiring) than to provide bureaucratically selected and trained “mentors” for disadvantaged children.  You all know where this will lead.] 


“Another cause of hopelessness is addiction to drugs.… Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new $600 million program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years. [So we spend billions on a fruitless effort to stop drug trafficking, even though the government is deeply involved in the trade, and now the taxpayer is required to fund treatment?  Again, this program both fails to solve the problem, and transfers billions of taxpayer dollars to the purveyors of false solutions.]


“The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad.  [Totally false and highly selective.  The Bush foreign policy has nothing to do with courage or compassion.  Where is the Bush compassion for the white owners of Zimbabwe farms whose farms have been confiscated? and for the millions who are starving in Africa because of the globalists’ selective refusal to eliminate protected tyrants like Mugabe?  There’s no Bush movement to invade Zimbabwe, or to even respond to the injustices being carried out in that part of the world.]


“The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests.  [The flag doesn’t stand for our power and interests, but rather for the cause of liberty of the original 13 colonies.]  Our Founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life. [This is a devious interpretation heading his listeners toward embracing a policy of globalist intervention — which the founders soundly rejected.]  This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men. [Yes, as individuals, but certainly not on a national scale as global cop, harnessing others’ wealth to overthrow governments not a direct threat to American liberty.]   In Afghanistan, we helped to liberate an oppressed people [Bush fails to mention he gave that same oppressive Taliban regime millions in aid the year before], and we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their children – boys and girls. [By what stretch of the Constitution is the American citizen obligated to educate all the poor in the world?]


“In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine. [Palestine is not democratic and yet the Bush administration keeps protecting terror chief Yasser Arafat.  In reality, Bush cares nothing about whether Palestine is democratic; the Bush agenda is concerned only with international control of Israel and Jerusalem.] Across the earth, America is feeding the hungry; more than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States. [No, not from the US people, but from the US government — and that aid often serves not to feed the needy but to preserve tyranny. Such is the case in North Korea, where the food aid is used as lever to exact compliance from the populace.]


“There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the [AIDS] infection. More than four million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 are receiving the medicine they need… Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years.  And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. [There is very little evidence to support this optimism.  There is no drug cure for AIDS.  Neither can AIDS be reliably attributed to a single virus or cause.  It is actually a group of chronic immunally destructive diseases related to extreme drug use, permanently debilitating reactions to overuse of antibiotics and experimental AIDS drugs, plus unsanitary and promiscuous sexual encounters.]


“Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many. [This is a borrowing from Churchill’s famous words concerning the British pilots who defended London against Hitler’s bombers (which Churchill worked long and hard to provoke into bombing London).] I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. [This is another potentially bottomless pit into which the taxpayer will be expected to throw money.  Once such a program is started, no politician will have the courage to stop it.  The proposal looks to me like a public bailout of the drug companies which profit from the various experimental AIDS drugs, which often cause the very symptoms labeled as AIDS, and of the international clique that controls the AIDS campaign.  This clique, heading by corrupt Dr. Robert Gallo, has done its utmost to suppress major dissenters who have dramatic evidence challenging the prime thesis of the cause of AIDS and the role of these new experimental drugs.  See the following website for the dissenters’ view on the war on AIDS:  http://www.aliveandwell.org/.]


“And this Nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. [Untrue.  The US has selectively aided and traded with terrorist for decades (PLO, IRA, Islamic Jihad, etc.) and has aided and abetted virtually every nation that sponsors terrorism — particularly Russia and China.]  The war goes on, and we are winning. [Again, untrue.  We are not winning, because there is no intention to win — only to keep terrorism ever before us in order to justify increasing restrictions on liberty.   Terrorism is almost always controlled by larger predator states, behind the scenes.  The US knows of these relationships between terror groups and predator states such as Russia and China, and looks the other way.  The US also has its own continuing links with terror groups.  It funded and created Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.  Why?  Because terrorism is useful in fomenting conflict that can, in turn, be used to undermine our liberties.]


“To date we have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al Qaeda. [These are pronouncements without any independent verification.  We know nothing about al Qaeda except what the US government tells us.] All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate.  [All have disappeared into the black hole of military detention without charge, without rights and with virtually no recourse to justice.  Even prisoners of WWII had rights under the Geneva Convention.] They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies. [Perhaps not, but the destruction of justice that their indefinite detention without rights represents challenges our very concept of rights and justice.]


“We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, and ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Gibraltar. We have broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, and Milan, and Madrid, and London, and Paris as well as Buffalo, New York. [There is no independent verification of any of this.  The US simply says it is so, and won’t release any intelligence giving proof.]


“We have the terrorists on the run, and we are keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. [Sadly, terrorists are not on the run, but are still free to grow and continue operations.  Terrorism in the US is a controlled entity used for political purposes — otherwise, why haven’t we seen the multiple small car bombings or infrastructure attacks typical of true terrorism in the US since 9/11?  In nations with much more effective security threatened by real terrorist entities, such non-high-profile attacks are nearly daily occurrences.]


“This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people and defend our homeland. [Unprecedented, yes — but not to protect!  The core elements of the USA PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security were meant only to increase government surveillance powers and control of the US domestic opposition.] We have intensified security at the borders [A ludicrous claim on its face!  The Mexican border continues to be an open sieve for people, terrorists, and drugs.  Anyone can walk across in rural sections of the border.  Bush refuses to build even a simple fence, and refuses to modify the deliberate assignment of patrols to areas of low infiltration.] and ports of entry, posted more than 50,000 newly trained federal screeners in airports [who do little but harass honest travelers about nail files on toenail clippers],  begun inoculating troops [without their consent, and with severe threats of court martial should they object] and first responders against smallpox [many nurses are refusing the shots], and are deploying the Nation’s first early warning network of sensors to detect biological attack.  And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this Nation against ballistic missiles.  [It does no such thing.  It is a fraudulently complex and weakened system without a warhead, giving it a low probability of a kill.  It is purposely designed to be unable to deter a Russian nuclear missile strike — as has been stated openly to Russia by Clinton and Bush.]


“I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism, called Project Bioshield. [This must be another pro-vaccine funding boondoggle that will generate billions for insider vaccine companies (already granted blanket immunity for their questionable work).  Different strains of bio-toxins are manufactured constantly.  There is no way any of the vaccines on the market today are going to be effective against the full range of changing toxins.]


“I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. [He forgot to mention one of the main components of this new organ: DARPA’s  Information Awareness Office (IAO), the new and dangerous domestic surveillance arm of government.]


“In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this Nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men – free people will set the course of history. [This is simply more bravado coupled with an applause generator.  They are hollow words of doubtful integrity in light of what we know about US government foreknowledge of and failure to respond during 9/11.]


“Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. [This is the “rogue” threat ploy Bush is using, denying the reality of the larger systematic mortal threats posed by Russia and China.] These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.  [Technicians from both Russia and China are working in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and in every Arab state surrounding Israel.]  This threat is new [Untrue.  The US has always known about the duplicity of these Communist countries but has failed to act or to warn its people]; America’s duty is familiar [follow the leaders who tell them Russia is no threat, while little Iraq is the boogie man].


“Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations [through the deliberate assistance of major US financiers connected to the CFR or its predecessors], built armies and arsenals [using moneys from Wall Street], and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world [but only with globalist leaders acting in a permissive role].  In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. [In the case of Hitler, civilian targets such as London were strictly forbidden as bombing targets until Germany was provoked by Churchill’s repeated fire-bombing of German civilians in August of 1940.] In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. [In reality WWII was prolonged two years longer than necessary at a cost of millions of deaths because Churchill and Roosevelt made secret deals with Stalin to turn over half of Europe to Communism.  Churchill refused numerous proposals by portions of the German High Command to surrender or kill Hitler.]


“Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again [furthering the lie that Communism has been defeated, and that our only threat is rogue dictators], and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror.  Once again, this Nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm [No, the major threat to peace in the world today is the competition for global control between the “continuing Soviets” (Russia/China axis) and the Western NWO globalists – including leaders of the US and her allies.  Both are aiming to give the world a war that will finally determine a winner in this competition — and the first casualty no matter which side triumphs will be liberty and national sovereignty.]. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind [always the excuse]. And we accept this responsibility [gleefully, having created these crises].


“We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction. [This program is a ruse.  Small amounts of nuclear arms in Russia are being dismantled but, as a consequence, the Bush administration is allowed to put the world to sleep about the huge new arsenals Russia is building in underground cities not open for inspection.]


“Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others. [This is exactly the opposite of what his administration said the day after this speech relative to North Korea. “‘This is not a U.S-D.P.R.K. problem,’” a high-ranking American official said in Seoul.   ‘It is very important that the multilateral process start…Before too long, the United States will get the issue on the way to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Security Council.’  Notice how the US adeptly plays opposite sides of the same coin depending on who it wants to attack and who it wants to protect.] Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. [Plain and simply, a big lie.  If Bush were serious about defending the American people, he would not have fought the proposal allowing the arming of airline pilots, he would build fences on our borders, and he would stop giving hundreds of thousands of visas to visitors and immigrants from hostile nations.  He would stop allowing Russian and Chinese military officials and scientists access to our nation’s weapons labs, and he would restrict rather than encourage Boeing and other weapons contractors doing continuous joint projects with our enemies.]


“Different threats require different strategies [an excuse justifying inconsistencies in foreign policy]. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty, human rights, and democracy. [But no war threats to Iran!] Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.


“On the Korean peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation [with the help of continued US support in food, energy and refusal to impose sanctions]. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons [which every honest analyst  knew would fail, since Communists have never abided by any treaty that wasn’t to their advantage]. We now know that the regime was deceiving the world [what a surprise!], and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed.  [Then why does Bush refuse to cut off North Korean shipments of missiles to other nations? They are in open violation, even more so than Iraq.  Why continue funding their “peaceful” nuclear program?  Why continue food aid, when Bush knows it is used to feed the military and pro-communist supporters?]  America is working with the countries of the region – South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia – to find a peaceful solution [doubletalk for continued permissiveness], and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship [but will also lead to military might in the upcoming war]. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world, and revival for its people, only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. [North Korea doesn’t care about respect, only power and force of arms.]


“Our Nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula, and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq [Wait a minute!  You just explained that you’re going to let Korea slide, and now you say we must learn from Korea and apply it to Iraq?] A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression with ties to terrorism with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. [He’s got it backwards.  Iraq isn’t a threat to the US, Russia and China are.  Which nation has publicly threatened to nuke an American city?  That’s right—China!  But China isn’t on Bush’s radar screen, has no sanctions, and receives all the benefits of full aid and trade with the West.]


“Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.  [No—it was the US that unilaterally agreed to stop aggressions and save Saddam Hussein.]  For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. [Not wholly true.  In reality, what Saddam did was engineer the removal of his remaining arsenal to Syria.  The US already knows this and has numerous satellite photos showing dozens of armed convoys traveling at night into Syria.  Yet they say nothing.  Syria is a member of the Security Council, approved and promoted in this position by the US.] Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons – not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.  [Untrue.  Saddam is, in fact, effectively contained.  His weapons are mostly gone.  There is no longer any excuse to invade.] Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. [I don’t call almost complete cooperation with the current team of inspectors “showing utter contempt.]  The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. [Yes, that is their job — to hunt.  You never assume the host country is telling the truth.]


“The United Nations concluded [guessed] in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax … [and] 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin… Our intelligence officials estimate [worst case scenario guesses] that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. [Some of these estimates are based on the knowledge that the US provided Iraq with this equipment and many of its first seed samples of toxins] … U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence.  Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. [This litany fails to disclose that UN inspectors already discovered and disposed of a good portion of these toxins and munitions during the previous inspection regime.  Bush acts as if they are all outstanding.] He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. [This is the redundant statement Bush continues to pound home for theatrical effect.  In fact, the US already knows most of this stuff went to Syria.  So who’s guilty of obstruction?  Why didn’t the US intervene in the transfer in the first place?  The convoys when right through areas the US controls via its no fly zone!]


“From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. [We only have the government’s word on this; no one has been able to independently assess these claims.  If Iraq had mobile bio labs, they had to have been of Russian origin.] These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors.  [They can’t be moved without coming within view of constant US satellite surveillance.]  The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program [this is the most circumstantial of all Bush’s evidence], had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. … Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. [They also have many other industrial purposes.]


“The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. [Bush fails to recognize the large amount of disarmament that occurred during the initial inspection regime.  He also fails to acknowledge the convoys leaving regularly for Syria.  Israeli intelligence states that the Syrian shipments did contain WMD arsenal components.]


“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. [This is highly speculative given that Hussein is an anti-Moslem fundamentalist.   Hussein most likely knows better than most that al Qaeda is US funded and controlled (at the Osama bin Laden level) and would have every motive not to get deeply involved with this snake trap.]


[After a long litany of scar mongering and recitations of Saddam’s brutality (which occurred while the US was allied with Iraq) Bust pontificates:] “If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. [I could borrow that line in describing this entire fraudulent address: “If this is truth, then truth has no meaning!”]


“And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country – your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.  [Any Arab or Muslim country that still believes the West’s promises about becoming a free nation under democracy is looking to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  The principle of democracy is antithetical to Islam and always will be.  Saddam Hussein will be gone fairly soon, but there are thousands to take his place.]


“The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. … If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. [Bush is giving warning that he is going to war, regardless.]


[To the armed forces he flatters:] Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. [Sadly the armed forces are full of unknowing yes-men--all too willing to following orders without protest.  There is no honor in this--especially when one is ordered to kill innocent civilians.  Does this happen?  It does.  As recently as Kosovo we know that American commanders pressured a US Air Force pilot to fire upon a convoy of civilians even after he radioed in protest that there were no military persons or vehicles in the group.  That’s not honor.  As a former fighter attack pilot I would have returned to base in defiance of the order and told the story to the world.  Sure, I would have been court-martialed, and would have been proud of it.]


We seek peace. We strive for peace. [Talk is cheap.  Your actions belie what you say.]  And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us [it takes real gall to put it that way—especially when Bush steadfastly refuses to abide by the constitutional restriction against going to war without a specific declaration by Congress.], we will fight in a just cause and by just means – sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. [We shall see.  Or perhaps we won’t.  The US has engaged in covering up both military and civilian casualties ever since the Balkan interventions.] And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies and freedom. [US taxpayers pay for both the destruction and the rebuilding in the process of intervention.]


America is a strong Nation [militarily, it is technologically superior but has little depth.  Its forces are stretched very thin], and honorable in the use of our strength [creating crises to provoke war is hardly honorable]. We exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. [Certainly this is the desire of American people, but it doesn’t match what our government does behind the scenes.]


“Americans are a free people [only partially, and our freedoms are diminishing each year], who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation.  The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity [and may God hold you accountable, George Bush, for what you are about to do to destroy that liberty worldwide].


“We Americans have faith in ourselves but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence [we know enough to know the peril in lying before God], yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history [whose love will not save those who are unrepentant deceivers]. May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.” [Sadly, if Christians don’t wake up to the unprincipled pretenders that lead them, feigning false allegiance to God, all blessings of protection from America will inevitably be withdrawn.  God will have no part of what Bush is about to do except perhaps to pay out a little more rope in preparation for that judgment that inevitably awaits.  Even though we may not have the power to stop this globalist steamroller, we can at least abstain from support.  Don’t get caught up in cheering—out of a misplaced sense of patriotism-- for that which ultimately has an evil purpose.]




There is an ominous taint of grand deception in the air as the federal government ratchets up its warning on terrorism from yellow to orange.  The only increasingly alert that should register in America is increased suspicion of its government’s motives.  I suspect that this sudden upsurge in alerts are the beginning of a huge propaganda stunt to further justify the coming war with Iraq (as if the US were fighting terrorism) and a new round of dismantling of constitutional protections.  Here’s a brief summary of what’s happening:

After subjecting Americans to more than a year of weekly yellow alert terror warnings, that never came to pass, the new Department of Homeland Security has sudden raised the specter of scaremongering to new heights.  This week America had to absorb in relation to the orange “high risk” alert,  1) claims of a new biological/chemical/dirty bomb terrorist attack—with no credible or verifiable evidence to back up US intelligence claims; 2) a heavily promoted call for token chemical/biological preparedness on the part of ordinary citizens, leading to near panic buying of gas masks, duct tape and plastic sheeting; 3) closing of selective bridges, freeways and tunnels in “high risk” US cities like NY and Washington; 4) increased anti-aircraft missile deployments in the DC area, increased hassle searches at airports; higher military presence and swat teams guarding NY synagogues 5) another suspicious tape recorded message by Osama bin Laden conveniently interpreted as proving the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and 6) the sudden leaking of the proposed language for a more “enhanced” version of the draconian PATRIOT act. 

First, I strongly question the reality of any independent terrorist threat in the US.  No one in government has responded convincingly to my “tough question” of why have there been no small or normal terrorist attacks since 9/11?   If there are hundreds of terror cells in the US, what is keeping them from doing the simplest form of attack—the car bomb or an attack on rural power infrastructure?  There is almost no defense against this type of attack, no matter how many police you have.  It happens all the time in Israel, Ireland, Britain and France.  Why not here, if we are so hated and so vulnerable?  We are completely vulnerable and we have wide-open borders.  The answer can only be that our terrorists here are controlled for political purposes—and those purposes all point to enhancing government powers to curtail American civil rights through the trumped up threat of terror. 

Second, with all that said, the government has raised the stakes in scaremonger to the point that they are going to have to deliver a terrorist attack somewhere in America or risk being fully discredited.  If we have another high profile terror attack, rather than multiple smaller, random attacks, it will only confirm what I am saying—that something very strange is going on here in America that is unlike all other terrorism in the world.  Watch for it, especially if you live in New York, Washington DC, LA, San Francisco or Seattle.  Each of these cities have police chiefs that have special relationships with the federal authorities and that have been given special experimental crowd control weapons that can be used to control large groups of protestors or mobs.  If there is going to be a provocative terrorist attack and subsequent cover-up these are prime cities to do it in.  

The federal government has a very nasty habit of shutting down core transportation elements all over the nation whenever a localized, but high profile, terror incident occurs.  After 9/11, there was no excuse for shutting down the entire air traffic control system for two weeks.  All the aircraft diverted to Canada could have simply reinspected all passengers and send them on their way by late afternoon.  But now a draconian precedent has been set and shutting down core transportation corridors all over the country is the standard government plan for handling any Red Alert, indicating “imminent threat” of terror attack.  There is no justification for these kinds of broad restrictions.  They are not done in Israel nor any other country experiencing real terrorism.  If the government has specific threat intelligence (which they never seem to have) they have no need to tie up the entire nation.  This does nothing to deter specific terror incidents and only penalizes normal citizens, keeping them from getting back to normalcy.  I can only suspect that the major purpose of these overreactions is to accustom Americans to regular use of martial law tactics.



The only threat on the list that was real and verifiable was threat from our own government against our remaining civil liberties.  A concerned federal employee in the Justice Department leaked the entire draft copy of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 to a liberal think tank, The Center for Public Integrity. [see http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0&Task=Print]

The Bush Administration is preparing a devious and comprehensive enhancement of the original Patriot Act, rubber stamped without scrutiny by Congress  passed in the wake of the events of 9/11.  The new enhanced act will give the Department of Justice broad, powers to increase domestic surveillance and law enforcement powers of detention and extradition, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to crucial information.  The draft text was clearly marked confidential and was never intended to reach the public.  The first part detailed the government’s problems with weaknesses in the hastily drafted PATRIOT act, and what the Domestic Security Enhancement act proposed to do to remedy each weakness.

Alex Jones of www.infowars.com was one of the first to do a summary of the dangers of the new act.  Unfortunately, his analysis was sometimes inaccurate and/or exaggerated, which tends to weaken the credibility of critics.  Here is my version of the bill’s dangerous proposals: comments in quotations are from the original Justice Department’s analysis.

SECTION 101  This provision would expand FISA's [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] definition of ‘foreign power’ to include all persons [meaning even an individual], regardless of whether they are affiliated with an international terrorist group, who engage in international terrorism.” [Official definition: “An act of domestic terrorism are activities that ... (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, (B) appear to be intended [how’s that for loose wording?]... (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnaping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. §2331].]

SECTION 102 “Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power would qualify as an ‘agent of a foreign power,’ regardless of whether those activities are federal crimes.”  Any private intelligence or analysis service such as mine could be viewed as “intimidating to government” and thus guilty of terrorism or “support of terrorism  Scary.

                SECTION 103  Current law only allows wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally in conjunction with a Congressional declaration of war.  This provision would expand FISA's wartime surveillance provisions and martial law provisions to be valid during non-declared wars.

SECTION 106  “This provision would clarify that the ‘good faith reliance’ defense is available [to agents guilty of invasions of privacy without a warrant], not just when agents are acting pursuant to a FISA Court order, but also when they are acting pursuant to a lawful [currently unlimited in power and scope] authorization from the President or the Attorney General.”  This section gives de facto immunity to warrant less searches and finishes off the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 107: “Loosens use of FISA pen registers [Pen registers are devices which record numbers dialed on a telephone. Trap and trace devices record the incoming number, similar to Caller ID]  would be available in investigations of both US persons and non-US persons whenever they could be used ‘to obtain foreign intelligence information.’”  In other words, unlimited access.

SECTION 109 “This section remedies this omission by providing that the FISA Court has the same authority as a United States district court to enforce its orders, including the authority to impose contempt sanctions in case of disobedience.”  Of course FISA operations are secret, so there is no appeal to another court if its sanctions are illegal.  What this section does is destroy the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that might be viewed as incriminating.

SECTION 121:  Adds to “criminal activities” the phrase, “together with related preparatory, material support,  Now, anything construed as preparatory for a criminal activity or providing material support is a crime.  This change was prompted by court troubles government prosecutors ran into trying to link the Portland Five (arrested last year)  with Al Qaeda.  Nothing they did was a crime—they were simply guilty of being supportive of the Taliban.

SECTION 123 “permits delaying notification concerning the accessing of a person's stored electronic communications [emails] where specified ‘adverse results’ would result from the notification [that means always!]. As amended, the provision would include endangerment of the national security as a specified adverse result that permits delaying notification. [forever]  This section also extends authorized surveillance from 30 to 90 days and up to 120 days for wire taps and pen registers.

SECTION 126  This provision would enable the government to obtain credit reports [and all other financial transactions] on virtually the same terms that private entities may.”  In essence, this will authorize unlimited tracking of private records by government. 

SECTION 127 “This provision would create federal authority, in the Attorney General, to conduct autopsies when necessary or appropriate in the conduct of federal criminal investigations.”  One of the biggest problems for dark side government operations is covering up for murders and getting them ruled as a suicide or accident.  Hundreds of coroners and medical examiners have been coerced to falsify autopsies to meet government demands (JFK, and dozens of Clinton era suicides and mysterious deaths).  This provision allows corrupt government coroners to take over the autopsy when needed.

SECTION 128 “This section would prohibit a subpoena recipient from disclosing to any other person (except to a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice) the fact that he has received a subpoena.”  This keeps innocent people from marshalling public support for their innocence or using standard legal procedures to quash a federal subpoena before they go before a government secret court.]

SECTION 206: “This section amends Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to make witnesses and persons to whom subpoenas are directed subject to grand jury secrecy rules in cases where serious adverse consequences may otherwise result, including danger to the national security…The provision would permit witnesses and recipients of grand jury subpoenas to consult with counsel regarding the subpoena and any testimony, but would impose the same secrecy obligations on counsel.”  National Security can and is invoked falsely specifically to silence any public knowledge about illegal proceedings.

SECTION 129  Subsection (a) of this section provides appropriate penalties for violations of the nondisclosure provisions of the national security letter provisions.”  The national security letter provisions make compliance with the request for information mandatory.  This also means that an administrative subpoena for records issued by the DOJ for records of the financial institution or insurance company cannot be relayed to the target person.”   This section also disallows any would-be federal whistleblower from sharing anything with another person in another agency—they only way a whistleblower has to report illegal activities within your own agency. “Subsection (c) of this section amends the national security letter provisions relating to electronic communication transactional records, consumer credit information, and financial institution records, so that they apply in investigations of all types of terrorist activities.”  Everything is now subject to government surveillance.

SECTION 201 “This provision thus establishes a specific authority under Exemption 3 of the FOIA to clarify that the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until disclosure occurs routinely upon the initiation of criminal charges.”  Catch 22.  The government can detain an ‘enemy combatant’ indefinitely without ever charging them with a crime.  Law enforcement does not have to tell the press who they have arrested and never have to release the names at all.

SECTION 301, 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists [potentially anyone]. “This provision would allow the Attorney General to establish databases of DNA records pertaining to the terrorists or suspected terrorists from whom DNA samples or other identification information have been collected. All federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and probation offices, would be required to give the Attorney General, for inclusion in the databases, any DNA records, fingerprints, or other identification information that can be collected under this Subtitle.

SECTION 304: Definitions of DNA sample and analysis. It also would define ‘suspected terrorist,’ which describes the class of individuals from whom the Attorney General may acquire DNA samples and other identification information, and whose information may be included in DNA databases. “3) The term "suspected terrorist" means any person as to whom the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate, has determined that there is reason to believe (A) has engaged in terrorism as defined in title 18 U.S.C, or has committed an offense described in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of such title, or who has conspired or attempted to do so; [very broad language] (B) is an enemy combatant, a prisoner of war, or other battlefield detainee;(C) is a member of a terrorist organization designated as such pursuant to section 219of the Immigration and Nationality Act;”

SECTION 306:  Requires all terrorist suspects or parolees to participate in DNA sampling as a condition of release. whether or not he has been charged with a crime. “This section would require such individuals to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervision or conditional release.”

SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing. “This section of the bill would provide further authority for sharing of consumer credit information, visa-related information, and educational records information with state and local law enforcement”

SECTION 312 Dismantles consent decrees against illegal spying activities by local police forces  and gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations. “This proposal would discontinue most consent decrees that could impede terrorism investigations conducted by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies. It would immediately terminate most decrees that were enacted before September 11, 2001” [including New York City's, whereby police were found guilty of violating innocent people’s rights].

SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. “This provision provides protection against civil liability for businesses and their personnel who voluntarily provide information to federal law enforcement agencies to assist in the investigation and prevention of terrorist activities. The purpose of the provision is to encourage voluntary cooperation and assistance in counterterrorism efforts by private entities and individuals.”

SECTION 321 This provision would modify federal law to clarify that the United States may seek search warrants, [even without a treaty—a current requirement]  pen/trap orders, in response to the requests of foreign governments. Doing so will enhance our ability to assist foreign law enforcement investigations, as well as promote better cooperation from foreign allies when we seek evidence from within their borders.”

SECTION 322  This section allows the Sec. of State and Attorney General or their deputies to extradite with or without existing treaties and NOT subject to judicial review.

SECTION 402 expands terrorist activities to include “material support to terrorism.” to include “instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill.”  

SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or  other criminals  “to use encryption in the commission of a crime.”  When making remarks critical of government becomes a crime, encrypting such criticism will be an evidence of terrorism.

SECTION 405 makes it easier to engage in pre-trial detention of terror suspects.  ” In addition to adding terrorism offenses to those creating a presumption in favor of detention, this section makes conforming changes in a provision describing offenses for which pretrial detention may be considered”

SECTION 408 creates  lifetime parole for non violent crimes like computer cyber attacks.  A mistaken transmittal of a virus could be construed as a cyber crime.

SECTION 410 removes any statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists.

SECTIONS 427  adds “a parallel provision pertaining to the assets of any person planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against a foreign state or international organization while acting within the jurisdiction of the United States.”  This added to the asset forfeiture provisions of the first PATRIOT act.

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s  enemy combatant definition to all American citizens who “may have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act.” (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.  The Justice Department claims, incredibly, that Section 802 of the First Patriot Act in not broad enough. “Specifically, this proposal would make service in a hostile army or terrorist group [domestic or international] prima facie evidence of an intent to renounce citizenship.”  Gotcha both ways.  If they can’t designate you an enemy combatant, they can simply rule your activities (critical of government) as supporting terrorism and therefore you are no longer a citizen—presto, no rights!


MARCH, 2003



It appears that the Bush administration has decided to stop reacting to the UN and finally set the war on Iraq in motion.  British forces have been told, according to the Daily London Express, that the war will be initiated by a massive 4-day bombing attack on March 13 and a ground invasion on the 17th.  Another telling sign that an offensive will soon be underway is that the Marine Corps body bag units are being deployed to Iraq on March 9.  Their deployment has been on hold since February 22.  Body bag units, which gather the dead and prepare them for shipment back home, are usually the last to be deployed to a war zone before the beginning of hostilities.  The US and its coalition partners now have over 300,000 troops in the war zone.  Reports from soldiers in the field indicate that morale is sagging due to the continual delays, rising temperatures, and the daily drag of training exercises, coupled with the additional strain of being on constant alert.  April begins the really hot season, so the US wants this war wrapped up by the end of April. 

Still, the delays while dealing with the UN have in many ways served well the global purposes of the Bush administration insiders who call the shots.  First, the more time the US takes in negotiating with the UN and delaying the start of the war, the better they are able to deflect criticism that Bush is “hell bent on war,” even though he is.  At least one national pundit has made the case that the Bush administration has been very slow and careful about going to war.  Baloney.  An honest president without a hidden agenda wouldn’t be spending billions transferring half his armed forces to Iraq before establishing a strong case that the nation is a clear and present danger to the United States proper. 

Second, using bribery, coercion, and other means, the US has been able to twist enough arms to put together the appearance of a coalition to deflect the charges of unilateral action.  No honest observer believes that the US is not acting unilaterally, since it is common knowledge that without US pressure none of the other nations would be threatening hostilities against Iraq.  Just this past week, the news surfaced that the US has been using ongoing wire taps on Security Council member phones to gather information on the position of certain nations relative to Iraq.  Again, the break came via foreign news sources; the American media is completely controlled.  The London Observer reported receiving a leaked “memorandum written by an official at the National Security Agency (NSA), the US body which intercepts communications around the world, and circulated to senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency [probably British intelligence].”  The leak described phone taps “particularly directed at ... UN Security Council members,” presumably to provide the US intelligence on the voting intentions of Security Council members on the current resolution on Iraq.  The memorandum specifically mentioned targeting Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at their UN headquarter offices in New York.  Naturally, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to comment, saying, The administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence…The administration does not answer questions of that nature.”  Of course.  The administration never comments on anything embarrassing for which it has no suitable answer. 

Third, the constant appeals by Bush to the UN requesting it take action to enforce its resolutions serves to enhance the view, in American minds, that the UN is the sole arbiter of force in world conflict, and undermines the US constitutional duty to retain war powers within its own sphere of sovereignty. 

Fourth, the Bush team has been successfully antagonizing the rest of the world and enhancing its bullying image by insisting on a course of offensive action against Iraq.  This image will become firmly cemented in the minds of most of the world when the US defies the will of the Security Council and finally attacks Iraq unilaterally (with its token entourage of yes-men leaders like PM Tony Blair).  This is all the more true now that Iraq has played the masterful stroke of actually destroying nine al Samoud-2 ballistic missiles within the past week, totally under UN supervision. 

The fact that actual disarmament has started up again has greatly weakened the US case that Saddam was only stalling and refusing to disarm.  While few believe these recent actions represent a full disarmament for Iraq, they are a good start, and such developments bolster the belief that allowing more time for inspections and compliance would be useful.  The US has at this point been forced to consider withdrawing its second resolution before the Security Council, rather than face an embarrassing defeat.  Bush said last night that he would try for a few more days to persuade the Security Council and then the US would act on its own.  The US and Britain are toying with one last face saving tactic—calling for a (ludicrously short) 72-hour final compliance grace period for Saddam to come into full compliance, to be followed by an immediate authorization of the use of force if compliance conditions are not met.  Since this suggestion has only hardened the opposition camp, eliciting warnings of use of the veto power from Russia, China, and France, the US may simply abandon any more attempts to gain a majority vote of approval on the council.  I still think, given the level of US coercion, bribery, and pressure, that a 9-vote majority is achievable.  But a veto in reaction to the resolution would probably damage US prestige even more than backing down from the second resolution.



There has been a stark increase in anti-US feelings around the world in the wake of this week’s events.  Reuter German service reported, “A majority of Germans believe the United States is a nation of warmongers

and only six percent think President Bush is interested in keeping the peace, according to a survey published Monday.  The poll by the respected Forsa institute, published in the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper, also found 97 percent of those questioned believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was ready to go to war. The survey found 57 percent agreed with the statement: ‘The United States is a nation of warmongers.’” 

The negative image of the US as a bully nation used to be applied only to US government policy and President Bush.  Now, however, Europeans are beginning to view Americans themselves of arrogant, cocky, and insensitive to the rest of the world.  This is due to the failure of soldiers and mainstream Americans to see through their president’s ulterior motives.  Most Americans support the war with a reactionary fervor, without a careful analysis of the contradictions inherent to current US foreign policy. 

Even Canadians, our close allies to the north, are faltering in their support for the US.  The Ottawa Citizen reported on December 28, 2002 that, “Canadians have their backs up over American foreign policy, according to a new survey that shows the vast majority believe the United States is acting like a bully with the rest of the world. The survey suggests a chill has developed in Canada-US relations compared to the empathy and support that flowed following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.”  Leftist Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (firmly part of the NWO conspiracy and no friend of liberty) expressed deep concern during a state visit to Mexico over the Bush administration’s assertion that, regardless of the results of the United Nations’ inspection process, the US will proceed with a regime change in Iraq.  Chrétien warned that “if the US claims a right to use its military might to overturn governments that it disapproves of, world geopolitics will be thrown into chaos.”  I think Chrétien is privy to the overall plan and knows that a state of world chaos is the desired outcome.  His remarks are meant to prep the American public for the inevitable outcome.  In addition Chrétien declared, “Myself, I think that the consequences can be very grave when we go for a change in regime. When are we going to go elsewhere? Who’s going to be next? Give me the list.” 

Here’s one item on that list: a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Once Saddam is gone, this will be Bush’s top priority.  Speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bush insisted, “Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle-Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state.”  That is very naïve, or disingenuous.  Nobody honestly believes the Palestinians will be free from the manipulation of their terrorist leaders.  What Bush is really doing is dismantling one “terror sponsoring state” and then lobbying for recognition and aid for another terrorist entity, the Palestinian Authority(PA).  The PA has a virtually unbroken track record of violating every international accord while using American and EU funds to support terrorism. 

Meanwhile, there has been a tremendous amount of European counter-bashing in our own media, and on the internet—particularly poking fun of the French.  While I don’t think any of these attacks and counter attacks are accurate or fair, they contribute to the perception of arrogance and bullying on the part of the Bush administration that is crucial to the growing vulnerability of US foreign power.  The growing negative reputation alone is capable of destroying relationships cultivated by centuries of American goodwill, paving the way for other aggressor nations (Russia and China), waiting in the wings, to justify their long awaited strike on the US.



California has been notorious for paving the way for illegal immigration and offering them free welfare and education services.  Last month I covered the collusion between Mexico and New Mexico’s governor Bill Richardson.  This week I will relay what is happen here in Utah.  It is a sad example of what can happen in one of America’s most conservative states when local and congressional officials are induced to blindly follow the leader (President Bush) in promoting relations with illegal immigrants from Mexico.  I’m indebted to California watchdog Joe Guzzardi for this timely report.

“Your leaders, Governor Mike Leavitt, Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Chris Cannon are selling you down the river Styx. …According to Ken Thomson, a former Utah Republican Delegate and current Executive Director of Utahns for Immigration Reform, ‘The people in Utah consider immigration a California problem.’ In 1988, when I moved back to California from Seattle, I saw that immigration had completely changed the Golden State. The California that I grew up in and loved was gone. And through my job at the Lodi Adult School, I could see that greater erosion for California was certain.  I called friends in North Carolina, Georgia and New Jersey to tell them about what immigration had done to California. ‘That's your problem,’ they replied. ‘We're okay here.’  I told them it was only a matter of time. Now, fifteen years later, they wish they had listened.  If Utah doesn't wise up, it will be in the tank right next to California.


“Earlier this month [January 2003], Governor Leavitt visited Mexican President Vicente Fox at Fox's Los Pinos compound. And here's what Leavitt told Fox about issues of crucial importance to Mexico:

·          Matricula Consular Card – strongly supportive!

·          Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens – by all means!

·          Synchronize the Utah school calendar with Mexico's – why not?

·          Share a common curriculum – it only makes sense!

·          Use text books in Spanish and teachers from Mexico – but of course!

·          Televise classes via satellite directly to Utah – I was about to suggest it!


“Naturally, Leavitt supports the in-state tuition fees for illegal aliens attending state universities as outlined in Orrin Hatch's Dream Act and Chris Cannon's Student Adjustment Act.  After meeting with Leavitt, Fox told the Salt Lake Tribune, ‘This kind of visit, like the one done by the governor, is the best way to work together, building a future for both [the United States and Mexico].

Let's look more closely at Chris Cannon. Of all of the two-faced oddballs that are constantly pumping for more, more and still more freebees for illegal immigrants, he must be on the top of the list.  Even by the abysmally low standards set by politicians, Cannon has astonishing cheek.  He can look you in the eye and lie to you. And Cannon's lies are even bolder since he knows that you know that he is lying.  At David Horowitz's 2002 Restoration Weekend, Cannon told Michelle Malkin that he is completely opposed to illegal immigration. But only a few months earlier at the MALDEF Excellence in Leadership award ceremony, of all places, Cannon said: ‘We love immigrants in Utah. And we don't often times make the distinction between legal and illegal. In fact, I think Utah was the first state in the country to legislate the ability to get a driver's license based on the matricula consular card and of that I am proud.’ You heard him – ‘Proud!’

Utahns, you have your hands full with Leavitt/Hatch/Cannon.  And the news gets worse. Fox has sized you up as a patsy. He'll soon be sending a contingent of ‘migratory specialists’ to Utah. Sew up your pockets. And don't say I didn't warn you.” [End of Guzzardi quote.]  Keep in mind that these state politicians all started out as conservatives.  But each has succumbed to the siren call of promises of higher political office at the national level.  The Powers That Be in Washington know how to read up and coming Republicans and promise them national support — if only they will be “moderate” and “compromise” here and there—and play along with the national Republican agenda.  Once in the system, the compromises never stop, and eventually these former conservatives lose sight of the original principles that they claimed to espouse.  Each of these former Utah “conservatives” now views constitutional conservatives as the enemy.  In this they are probably correct—due to their actions, not ours!



As I am interviewed on various talk radio stations around the nation, I frequently encounter opposition from unthinking conservatives who take umbrage at any criticism of the president in a time of war.  I don't know where people get the notion that even if a president is wrong in going to war, or has ulterior motives in doing so, as I have charged, we all have to get in line and support war efforts once our troops go into action.  How does the initiation of hostilities make right what was wrong before?  Shielding our troops from critical thinking about the governments stated objectives merely promotes the type of unquestioning loyalty in our military that leads to abject yesmanship.  Uncritical obedience to orders is what led to the holocausts of prior wars. 

True, the military must be trained to follow orders, but those orders must be just, and not a violation of human rights.  And beyond the validity of specific orders themselves, military personnel have just as much right to challenge and question the government’s justifications for going to war, just as any other citizen.  Today’s officers and generals are all too willing to leave this judgment entirely to the politicians.  Where are the MacArthurs of today who are willing to resign their commissions rather than submit to another UN dominated war, hostile to national sovereignty?  I believe military leaders ought to have the courage to resign rather than attack nations that don’t pose the proper direct threat to our own liberty.  Politicians would never be able to carry out their evil designs if our military leaders had more courage to resist and resign in protest.  Our leaders ought to be willing to scrutinize more carefully the carefully crafted rationalizations presented by government.  I know it is difficult.  Patriotic military intelligence people who know that information is being withheld from the public and/or falsified are prohibited from speaking out by National Security standards improperly applied to cover for political treason.  A few military personnel have had the courage to resign rather than violate their conscience in participating in an unjust war.  Sadly, they are vilified and threatened with court-martials rather than given the respect they deserve.   In contrast, unthinking supporters of the president are uniformly applauded by the media as heroes. 

Somehow we are being led to believe that criticism of the evils in our government is unpatriotic.  In reality, it is not public warnings about the globalist agenda, but the president’s actions in advancing that agenda, that are damaging to our country.  His actions, guided and directed by his CFR advisors, will lead to more conflict, more war and more terror—real terrorism, not these rare, high profile, agent provocateur events we have witnessed thus far.   What really is putting our troops in harm’s way is the US taking the path of aggression around the world, helping to create the conflicts and crises that supposedly justify this war, but which will inevitably lead to WWIII.  What we critics on the constitutional right are saying is this:


·          The Iraqi war is unconstitutional without a declaration of war by Congress.

·          The War on Terror is being used to justify the evisceration of our Constitutional civil rights.

·          The Bush policies of pre-emption are contradictory to past permissiveness with Communism (the real threat) and hypocritical when he prohibits others from using the same doctrine in their war against terror.

·          Bush is concealing his real motives for going to war.

·          Supporting the war is not supporting freedom for either Iraq or the US—but furthering a globalist agenda.

·          The US has no intention of allowing real liberty to prevail in Iraq, but will turn it over to UN control.


These criticisms are essential for both our soldiers and their families to know about.  Don’t respond by repeating the old adage, “You can’t criticize our soldiers because they are protecting your right of free speech.”   They are doing no such thing in Iraq; they are blindly following a president’s hidden agenda.  The troops need to hear the criticisms so they can be prepared to resist enlistment for unjust causes and be willing to resign rather than be ordered to contribute to a potentially unjust use of power.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all in favor of a vigorous defense of our nation.  I am not an isolationist either.  I’m not against the use of military power when the cause is fully justified, and I have served faithfully in the military myself.   I also believe there are times when you must act pre-emptively to protect the nation from an imminent attack against our liberties.  But this isn’t one of those times.  The US has never acted pre-emptively when they should have against real enemies, like Cuba, Soviet Russia with its secret and growing arsenal of WMDs, or China with its growing military threat.  On the contrary, all modern administrations, including the current one, have secretly funded these nations’ rise in power and have further assisted our enemies with technology transfers and aid.

Now suddenly a weak and contained enemy like Saddam Hussein is deemed so “imminent” a threat that full scale war (without a proper Congressional declaration of war) is justified.  I’m not buying it, and my reasons are legion, as you know if you have read my prior briefs.  Contrary to what President Bush had said in his speeches of rationalization to the public, I firmly believe the US does meddle improperly in other governments affairs and does create the hatred of America that Bush incorrectly ascribes to others’ “hatred of our liberties.”   The world does not hate our liberties—it hates our government and its arrogant interventions and underhanded secret dealings via the CIA that the American public never sees.   



Governments never admit mistakes when they can cover them up instead.  Here’s an example of the difference between what the British media and government sources reported during the Gulf War and what really happened.  The following is an brief excerpt from the commentary of Felicity Arbuthnot, a freelance British journalist who has visited Iraq 26 times since the 1991 Gulf War.

“While we are on the subject of lying, when Baghdad was bombed in that four day blitz in 1998, Tony Blair stood up in the House of Commons and he talked about legitimate targets. He said that the Ministry of Defense had been bombed. I got in there two days later and found the Ministry of Defense had not been bombed. What they had bombed was a most beautiful Ottoman building on the banks of the Tigris, which had been the Ministry of Defense at the time of the Ottomans and hadn’t been used for that purpose for 60 years. In the same statement Blair said they had bombed Saddam’s sister’s palace.  But no, they had bombed the Abbasid Palace, which was nearly 1,200 years old and has been used as a museum for about 70 years.  It doesn’t even have electricity or heating.”



According to sources in New Jersey (the only state with the courage to openly tell its citizens of the restrictions Homeland Security is demanding), a Red Alert terror warning status will mean an almost total restriction of your freedom to move or carrying on normal business activities, except for health services.  Everyone will be required to stay home.  Highways will be blocked.  We are talking martial law here.  Read the article in the South Jersey News at http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm.

Obviously, someone hasn’t thought this out very well.  If the government tried to pull this off nationwide for the kinds of non-specific and phony terrorist warnings the nation has had to endure so far, citizens will rebel.  If you think the unnecessary two week shut down of the national airways was costly and unnecessary, think what a total shutdown of the whole economy would do, even for a few days.  Israel never does this even while experiencing daily terror incidents. 

No country can long survive with a stupid government that shuts everything down at the mere hint of a terrorist warning.  Israel has learned to live with terror, and life there actually goes on quite normally.  Either our government is full of a bunch of bureaucratic idiots, or there is an alternate dark agenda going on, to get people used to taking orders—take your pick.  With all that said, governments have long since learned the prime rule of staying in power—don’t inconvenience or rile the whole population at once, for very long (unless you want to stampede them into war).  Rather, pick on small unpopular groups that can’t protect themselves.  So, if the government decides to launch a Red Alert without just cause, I don’t think it will last for long.  Be prepared, however, to be self-sufficient in your own home without the need to go to the store for at least a week, just in case. 



Chances are the next time you talk to a telephone service order taker, you’ll be talking to a foreigner from India or Pakistan.  As the US economy deteriorates, corporations are subcontracting every possible human service to foreign labor vendors in order to cut fixed costs.  Anytime there is a pronounced difference in wage rates across borders, employment will contract in the high priced labor market, and jobs will flow across the border to the cheaper market—when quality of workmanship is fairly comparable.  Why hasn’t this happened before?  It has to some extent, but tariffs and regulations imposed over centuries have impeded the flow of labor and imported goods.  Tyrannical and socialistic governments also fix wages and prices, a practice which creates poverty and low growth in their own nations.  Some of the blame for high wages must also fall on the evil anti-competitive effects of pro-union laws in the US and other developed countries.  High union wages and laws restricting the hiring of replacement workers during a strike continues to depress economic growth everywhere these laws survive—notably in Europe. 

Over time, great disparities in labor rates cry out for a transformation, like high water seeking to flow downhill.  Once labor and trade barriers are torn down, labor intensive jobs flow out of high wage rate nations like the US to Mexico, China, and other nations.  But the outflow doesn’t continue forever.  With time and increased competition, the labor rates overseas come up while US labor prices come down or stagnate.  Eventually, the only differences in wage rates are with respect to quality and skill, as it should be.  Look what has happened in Japan over the last 50 years.  Japan is no longer the place for cheap labor.  Labor costs in Taiwan, which took over when Japanese labor got too expensive, are about half way between those of Japan and the new leader, China.   As you can see, it takes a several decades to equalize labor rates across borders.  Free trade eventually sorts these things out, if given enough time, in a peaceful world.

In the meantime, during the transition phase, countries like ours are at grave risk of losing so much of their productive capacity that they are no longer self-sufficient as a nation in critical areas.  This is unacceptable during a world war when international trade all but ceases.  Whole labor-based industries have been destroyed in the US which make us vulnerable in a future world crisis.  Today, there are hardly any shoes or low priced clothes made here.  Textiles are almost all gone.  These industries are not necessarily critical in a war, but industries such as machine tooling and steel are.  How do we believers in free markets deal with such threats as the loss of critical industries? 

One thing free markets don’t do well is plan for unforeseen events, especially when destructive events haven’t happened for a long period.  Peaceful people get soft and forget the hard lessons of history.  Free markets are only as good as the judgment of its participants—and Americans’ judgment is becoming abysmal with regard to their anticipation of long-range threats.  Much of this bad judgment is due to purposeful omission of key facts by the media and public education institutions.   People tend to forget how bad wars can be, especially when they haven’t themselves experienced being attacked or losing a war.  Well, it’s coming someday, America, so we had better be concerned about how to return to self-sufficient national production.  The answers are not easy.   For purposes of national defense, a nation must not allow its entire production platform to disappear.  How can that be guarded against without infringing on people’s right of free commerce?

Let’s address the problem from a principled approach.  First, the jobs in these or any industry don’t belong to the workers.  They belong to the industry owners and stockholders.  These owners should be free to give those jobs to the cheapest workers they can find.  Government doesn’t have the right to force American manufactures to deal with high priced American labor.  Second, it is the absolute right of consumers to buy cheap products from overseas and bypass high-priced American goods.   The only restriction to this latter right is when the exercise of free choice and freedom of capital movement directly benefits an enemy of our liberties (a concept which must be carefully defined).  Clearly, we could apply that restriction to trade with Russia and China, both of which still hold deadly predatory intentions against us.  But Americans have become so dependent upon Chinese goods that they would vote to continue to trade even if they knew how much China was leveraging off that trade to build weapons of mass destruction aimed at the US.  That’s how soft-headed we have become.

What about protecting high-priced American products with tariffs?   Tariffs are a violation of consumer’s right to buy from a willing seller without artificial penalty.  They also violate the principle of equal protection and justice since not all products are targeted equally by the imposed tariffs.  A case in point was the ill-conceived tariff on high end motorcycles to save Harley Davidson.  The government did save all of Harley’s 300 jobs, but the tariff cost consumers millions every year in increased prices for Japanese and German motorcycles.  Why should the consumer suffer disproportionate losses to save a few private jobs?  Clearly the tariff solution exacts a much higher overall price from the economy compared to the cost of the specific job losses that might occur without the tariffs.  By the way, the deflation of prices due to cheap imports is vastly more stimulating to the economy than high protective tariffs.

Perhaps the only solution to the critical industry problem is for the government to keep certain industrial processes alive as part of the defense budget.  There may be others.  Certainly, for starters, American defense industries should “Buy American” for the production of critical infrastructure, and should use honest bidding and dual source procedures to make sure things stay competitive and flexible.  Outright subsidies or mothballing of factories should be avoided to guard against inefficiencies and the stifling of innovation.  In reality it is far more economical, on balance, to protect critical American industries in this manner, than to restrict free trade and force the consumers to pay billions in higher tariffs on a full range of consumer goods.  If you have other suggestions post them on the Law and Government forum at my website, www.joelskousen.com.   



This week the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge by civil libertarians to the government's expanded authority to conduct wiretapping and searches as enacted in the USA PATRIOT act.  As is typical in cases where the Court cannot justify its position by the Constitution, it simply refused to hear the case, without comment, letting the lower court ruling stand. 

According to the ACLU which joined in the case, the decision “seriously compromises the privacy and free-speech rights of people living in the United States.   Surveillance whose primary purpose is law enforcement must be conducted under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches.”

Attorney General John Ashcroft responded, “We are pleased the Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge of the government’s lawful actions to detect and prevent international terrorism and espionage within our borders.  It is vitally important for law enforcement and intelligence officials to work together to protect against foreign threats.”   Not addressed was the fact that the government already had the powers to surveil terrorists and coordinate their findings with other agencies.  The only thing that changed was the power to surveil American citizens where there is NOT sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant—a fact that Ashcroft carefully neglected to mention. 

All of this mirrors what Justice Anthonin Scalia said in a speech at John Carroll University in Ohio two weeks ago.  He opined, “The government has room to scale back [nice euphemism] individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution… The Constitution just sets minimums… Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.” 

It is true the Constitution doesn’t declare all fundamental rights.  Yet the USA PATRIOT act clearly violates some of those minimums set down in the Bill of Rights—e.g., the Fourth Amendment restrictions against unreasonable search and seizure, and the clear specifications for a valid warrant.  The only reason for temporarily suspending those rights in wartime is when the courts are either unable to meet or overloaded with cases—which certainly isn’t the case now.  Even if those circumstances were true, the remedy is simply to give the courts more time—not suspend the restrictions indefinitely as the Department of Justice continues to demand.


APRIL 2003



It is primarily the foreign media which has made a point of reporting on the few US military personnel who consider themselves conscientious objectors.  The Guardian highlighted one such case in an article this week titled, “First US Conscientious Objector.”  It was the story of US Marine reservist Stephen Eagle Funk, 20, who is refusing to serve in the second Gulf War.  He comes from a liberal background and probably is influenced by the anti-war protestors who are focusing on the interconnectedness between the Bush administration and big corporations benefiting from the war and its potential oil revenues.  

However, Funk is not the first.  Just this February, a Utah Army reservist also refused to participate in the war with Iraq because he objected. Staff Sgt. Michael Sudbury of the 786th quarter-master brigade could have faced a military court-martial and received up to seven years in prison for refusing to go, but the Army Reserves instead granted him a discharge.  The US military uses heavy threats of military punishment to suppress dissent, but in this case ultimately chose to grant a discharge to avoid publicity which may have increased the number of objectors coming forward. 

Many soldiers don’t know that they can declare conscientious objector status and avoid the threatened punishments for “refusal to obey orders.”  The military is refusing to brief soldiers on the applicable law.  Here are the official numbers.  The Army granted 5 conscientious objector discharges in January 2003 alone and began consideration of 5 more new applications, compared with 17 discharges granted in 2002 and 9 2001.  Clearly there is an upward trend.  The Air Force reported having received 6 applications in the past six months, and have approved four.  The Marine Corps has discharged two so far this year, not including Stephen Funk.  This compares with only 2 in all of 2002.  The Navy granted approximately 10 conscientious objector discharges in the past two years, but has processed 3 so far in 2003.  Three more are pending.

While the US military seems to want enlisted conscientious objectors to go away as quietly as possible, they take a totally different approach in dealing with officers who publicly express their objections to US motives or policy.  A case in point is Lt. Col. Steve Butler who wrote a letter to the editor of the Monterey County Herald newspaper.  Butler wrote that President Bush “knew about the impending [9/11] attacks” and alleged that Bush had ulterior motives in promoting this war on terror.  Butler was in a position to know.  He had noticed that one of the alleged hijackers on Flight 93, which crashed in western Pennsylvania, was  Saeed Alghamdi.  This man had taken courses at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, where Butler was acting as a dean of students.  Here was evidence that not only did the US allow these security risks into the country, but that they were being given access to military training.

Butler’s letter and the included charges provoked immediate retaliation from the Air Force.  Butler was transferred from the Monterey Language Institute and was threatened with a court-martial under Article 88 of the UCMJ military code of justice, which prohibits officers from publicly using “contemptuous words” against the president and other officials.  This phrase has been liberally interpreted by the politically correct military as prohibiting any officer from expressing any public criticism of the president — resulting in a complete gag order on military dissent.  

There is a proper role for civilian control of the military, but this should never prohibit military officers from publicly criticizing civilian leaders or alerting the American people of bad policy being forced upon the military.  That was what the entire MacArthur controversy was about during the Korean War.  The US military was being refused permission by the Truman administration to pursue Chinese aircraft retreating over the border.  China also maintained huge supply depots across the border which MacArthur was prohibited from attacking.  This disastrous military policy was influenced by two factors.  For one thing, the federal government was infested with pro-Communist sympathizers and agents.  Even worse, the Korean war was a UN run “police action” which required that all US military operations be approved by the UN.  Truman was subverting US sovereignty to UN mandates in restricting military actions in this manner.  Incidentally, a Russian general has always served (and still serves) as the Chief UN Liaison in any UN police action.  How convenient for the enemy when the US is fighting against Russian backed insurgencies.

The ongoing war against conscientious dissent is not only affecting US soldiers.  Two British soldiers have been sent home due to objections about the legality of the US led war.  Here’s the Reuters dispatch: “Two British soldiers who questioned the legality of the U.S.-led war in Iraq have been sent home from the Gulf and may now face disciplinary action, their lawyer said on Tuesday. The soldiers were returned to Britain on the eve of the war when they expressed concerns the offensive was in breach of the United Nations charter and it might be illegal for them to follow certain orders.”



President Bush wanted discretionary control of $60 billion of the $63 billion allocated to the military, but that slush fund was cut to $15 billion. Congress requires Bush to tell them how he plans to spend the money five days prior to disbursement, but Congress has no power to enforce this provision should the president thumb his nose at them—which often happens.  Strangely, the White House kept demanding that the Pentagon be given control of some of the nearly $2.5 billion earmarked for rebuilding Iraq and providing humanitarian aid.  Perhaps there are some black projects that desperately need funding.  The State Department wanted to control these funds.  In the end, both were allowed to get their hands in the pot.  

Almost $20 billion in funding went to other non war related pork barrel items:  $98 million to complete an agricultural research center in Ames, Iowa; $50 million in shipbuilding subsidies; $3 million to repair a Vermont dam; and a provision to designate Alaska wild salmon as organic. There were more millions set aside for homeland security, and another $3 billion bailout designated for the airlines.  The bill also provided a bailout of $8 billion in aid for Turkey, even though Turkey supposedly rejected US bribery attempts earlier.  Obviously, there was another secret deal that took place.



In a move that has shocked naïve conservatives, who still view Bush as “one of us,” Bush spokesman Scott McClellan announced to various news sources that the president is going to support a renewal of the Clinton era ban on assault weapons (stretched by definition to include any weapon capable of carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition).  McClellan said, “The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.” 

This ban is the crowning achievement of gun-control advocates, but it was due to expire just before this next election.  Bush was evasive about the ban during his campaign, and now has clearly shown that that evasion was based on his plans to betray gun owners later on—but wanting to maintain their support at the time.  If Bush responds to the expected outrage this announcement will bring, by reversing his position, I believe it will not be sincere.  The president will signal to others to push the extension through even while he appears to protest—so that he will not get the blame.  Bush’s current position tells everyone what he really wants, and that position will stand unless conservatives really cause an uproar.

In like manner, AG John Ashcroft, who claims to be a staunch gun-rights supporter, waffled about the ban extension when he appeared recently before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He refused to say whether the administration supports an extension, obviously waiting for the White House to expose the devastating news.   Gun supporters had been buoyed up recently when the Republicans pushed through legal immunity for gun manufacturers from the plethora of liability lawsuits.  But the actual prohibition against ownership of high capacity weapons is far more damaging to gun rights, which are sorely needed to protect ourselves against government tyranny—a threat which is clearly rising.


MAY 2003



The High Energy Access Tools (H.E.A.T) company has been indicted on charges of unlicensed exportation of defense services and use of explosive materials—a felony.  The company had contracts with government anti- terrorism teams, many foreign, to train them in the use of explosives.  Bob Gorence, the attorney for H.E.A.T's president David Hudak, told reporters this week that it was Halliburton Corporation which solicited Hudak to purchase the 2,400 warheads—an illegal transaction for both Halliburton and H.E.A.T.  Hudak says Halliburton offered the warheads as demolition charges and not as government-owned military items which are illegal to possess.  Frankly, I find this hard to believe given that these finned warheads are not easily dismantled or detonated outside of their normal use.  This looks like an illegal weapons transfer to me.   So guess who is taking the rap?  It’s not Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney’s company, and a prime contractor in the Iraq reconstruction. 



The Bush administration, the CIA, and the FBI are all refusing to cooperate with Congress as the latter tries to release for publication its 900-page report on the 9/11 terror attack on the WTC.  The report contains numerous critical comments about administration and intelligence agency mishandling of forewarnings received by agents in the field—including a warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaeda supporters might be training in US flight schools.   This story, and many others that are even more damaging, has already been leaked to the public either by establishment sources or by internet news sources—and yet the administration is adamant that these same stories must remain classified and not be released as part of the report.  Obviously, the administration doesn’t want these reports to benefit from the increased credibility that a mention in a Congressional report would endow.  

This particular Congressional report is unrelated to the independent 9/11 Commission [http://www.9-11commission.gov/] that was so slow in getting underway, and will be even slower at answering the questions presented by representatives of the victims’ families [http://www.911commission.org/].  Given the less than comprehensive scope of the questions posed to the commission, as well as the establishment make-up of the commission’s panel members, I don’t expect anything revealing regarding government foreknowledge, failure to respond, and cover-up of suspicious activities to come out of its investigation.  Even this commission is being stonewalled by the Bush administration.  Newsweek magazine has reported that, “President Bush’s chief lawyer has privately signaled that the White House may seek to invoke executive privilege over key documents relating to the attacks in order to keep them out of the hands of investigators for the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States—the independent panel created by Congress to probe all aspects of 9-11.”

The members of the commission have all had to get security clearances to be on the panel.  After the government delayed issuing the clearances for months, members are still not being given full access.  As Newsweek reported, “Just two weeks ago, one commission member, Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, had sought to read transcripts of three days of closed hearings that had been held last fall by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees—hearings that Roemer, as a member of the House panel, had actually participated in. But when Roemer went down to a carefully guarded room on Capitol Hill to read the classified transcripts—he says to refresh his memory—he was stunned to learn that he couldn’t have access to them. The reason, relayed by a congressional staffer, was that…administration lawyers [must] first review them to determine if the transcripts contained testimony about ‘privileged’ material.”  Obviously, the White House is trying to suppress something.

A couple of the victims’ representatives did ask some crucial questions, such as why official Defense protocols were not followed, and why the NY Port Authority delayed evacuation of the second tower, but they failed to ask any of the really tough questions that point to government collusion and provocation:

·          Why has the government refused to make public the recorded pilots’ conversations with Air Traffic Control, notifying them of a hijacking in progress?  We know these conversations took place because the FAA has confirmed having reported the hijackings to NORAD within minutes of their commencement. 

·          Why has the government denied having intercepted Flight 93 over Pennsylvania with 2 F-16s, despite the voluminous evidence that the airliner was shot down and shadowed to its crash by an unmarked jet leased to the government?

·          Why were most military tower operators in the area told to ground all flights from taking off, including fighter interceptors?

·          How and why were the reported cell phone calls from passengers on the hijacked airliners faked?  Recent tests have shown that cell phones at high altitudes do not communicate with antenna towers on the ground.  Almost all cellular and PCS systems utilize antennas which are only oriented for horizontal reception—not vertical. 

·          How did the US so quickly develop complete profiles and dossiers on all the supposed hijackers, including their night club activities, if these individuals were not previously being tracked by government agents?  There is also the question of the long trail of incriminating letters, passports and flight manuals supposedly left behind by the hijackers at the airport or, in the case of the intact passport, miraculously recovered in the WTC debris.

·          Why has the government never amended the list of alleged hijackers given that eight of these names belong to people still living?  The government has never given a rational explanation for why hijackers would use their real names in any case.

·          Why were the alleged hijackers whose names were on terror watch lists given visas, without the proper documentation normally required?

·          What is the relationship between Huffman Aviation (the Venice, FL company that trained two of the hijackers) and the CIA, which leases space in Huffman’s hangar through a front company?

·          Why did the hijackers who could barely speak English attempt (unsuccessfully) to take flying lessons for small planes when there was an Arab-speaking flight school for major aircraft in Fort Worth, Texas?  [They were covering for training on major aircraft received elsewhere.]

·          Why did certain investors know to short the stocks of American airline companies prior to 9/11?  Along the same lines, why has the government never attempted to subpoena Wall Street computer records to find out who these “lucky” investors were?

·          Why have the testimonies of New York firefighters who heard bomb-like explosions in the towers during the evacuation process been suppressed? 


The evidence of internal explosives being associated with the bringing down of the two buildings has been compelling, yet frustrating given its often amateurish assumptions.  (One of these is that burning jet fuel would have had to melt the steel structures in order to precipitate the collapse—which is false.  The heat need only have been sufficient to soften the metal beams and trusses, causing them to sag and fail).  Claims concerning evidence of planted charges on all floors, leading to a controlled collapse of the WTC buildings, have never been credible to me (such a scheme is too complex, involving hundreds of small charges).  However, there is new evidence that charges at the bases of the towers’ 47 central steel columns could have precipitated the controlled vertical collapse of the buildings, and still have been consistent with the legitimate failure of the upper floor trusses reacting to the sudden collapse of central support.  One crew of first responders into the first tower were shocked to see that the lobby on the main floor appeared to have been the object of an explosive blast—yet no signs of fire.  On 9/11, two ABC reporters were filmed running away from the towers after seeing and hearing a ground floor explosion just prior to the collapse of the towers.  There have also been reports of pools of molten metal at the base of these columns observed during debris removal.  It is suspicious that the government threatened fire fighters who had heard other explosions to keep silent, and also that they ordered the tower debris removed so quickly, precluding complete forensic testing of the failed structure.  The same thing happened after the Oklahoma bombing, where there was also irrefutable evidence of multiple charges and explosions. 



CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin reports, “CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. … That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began.” [See www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml].  Rumsfeld was overruled, however, by others in the administration who (in collusion with Russia) had been planning  to attack Afghanistan for over a year.  Obviously, the 9/11 attack provided the excuse to move ahead on the Afghanistan offensive, and Iraq had to wait till the Taliban were replaced by Hamed Karzai, a US lackey.

Despite the US victory in Iraq, the rest of the world is still suspicious that US motives for the intervention are very much different than those stated publicly. As Peter Preston of The Guardian (UK) proclaims, “Victory in the desert hasn't made a blind bit of difference,” Preston writes.  “The rest of the world is neither forgiving nor forgetting.  Its rulers may, or may not. …Mr. Putin, [may] be trying to change the record, but the people they rule have elephants' memories and a view which mere outcomes do not affect.”   Preston cites, in particular, the sudden loss of US interest in finding any large stocks of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the supposed evidence needed to prove why Iraq was such a threat to US interests.   Yes, a few remnants of WMD’s have been found, but nothing of any significant magnitude—especially since none of these chemical weapons were launched at US or British troops during the war. 

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former military intelligence types, has issued the following warning to the Bush administration concerning the importance of not looking devious in the eyes of the world:

“Prominent pundits (and, quite probably, some of your own advisers) are now saying it does not matter whether so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ are ever found in Iraq.  Don’t let them fool you.  It matters a great deal. The Wall Street Journal had it right in its page-one lead article on April 8: ‘Officials Debate Involving the UN in Verification. American forces in Iraq are rapidly confronting two other tasks (besides hunting down Saddam Hussein) of enormous importance: finding any weapons of mass destruction and convincing the world the finds are real. The weapons search is a critical one for the Bush administration, which went to war charging that the Iraqi leader had hidden huge amounts of chemical and biological weapons and could pass them on to terrorists. If the US doesn’t make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war’ … And the controversy has now become acute, since you have been backed into the untenable position of assuming the former role of Saddam Hussein in refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors.” [End of VIPS quote.]  Perhaps this explains why Bush came out this week, more adamant than ever, vowing that “we will find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.”   Not a few expect this kind of decree to lead to the planting of weapons, or the making of small finds into large issues. 



Though the American public was wowed by the President riding along for a carrier landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, I was less than impressed.  Having been a carrier pilot with a knowledge of the training it takes to make such landings, I cringe at seeing it turned into a publicity stunt to augment the President’s image.  This little photo-op caused the Lincoln to halt its progress home for two days, and wasted close to a million dollars of taxpayer funds covering for military time lost, airborne security, the shuttling of hundreds of White House and media staff people from ship to shore, and the creation of the stage for the president’s address.  There are far more economical ways to make a political statement of the obvious (that the war is ended) than to add another million to the billions already burned through in this political war. 

The Real Bush Military Record: Particularly galling to honorable veterans is the fact that the media praise for this “fighter pilot” president is mislaid.    Here is a short summary of Bush’s real military career by Eric Zorn: “In May 1968 the silver-spoon son of a US congressman jumped to the top of a long waiting list despite mediocre scores on his pilot-aptitude test and was allowed to enlist in the Guard, a common way to avoid being drafted into combat in Vietnam.  In May 1972 he sought a transfer from Houston, where he flew F-102s on weekends, to a unit in Montgomery, Ala. There, he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of a friend of his father's and, records indicate, blew off his military obligations. Bush failed to take his annual flight physical in 1972 so Guard officials grounded him….He never flew again and received an early discharge to go to graduate school. His final officer-efficiency report from May 1973 noted only that supervisors hadn't seen him or heard from him.”  Bush was never prosecuted for his absence without leave from Guard monthly drills.  His military career, like his Ivy League college career, was studded with one pampered celebrity cover-up after another.  See the actual documentation of his suspension from flight status here: http://www.talion.com/suspension.html.



The US has kept nearly 650 detainees from Afghanistan at camp X-ray (a telling name), in perpetual limbo—refusing to classify them as prisoners of war and therefore denying them proper status under the Geneva Convention.  Why Guantanamo Bay on the eastern side of Cuba?  As long as the prisoners never touch US soil, they can be denied rights guaranteed even to criminals under the US Constitution.  The Bush administration is claiming the right to try them by military tribunal, and even sentence them to death.  However this is considered unlikely now given the growing outrage among the international community.  As a token gesture to appease the growing criticism, the Bush administration has announced the release of a dozen prisoners, including some of the teenagers captured. 

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced on May 6th that it was creating a new military code of justice to prosecute these prisoners.  The Pentagon guidelines give the appearance of some fairness (prisoners can have access to a private attorney—if the attorney can get a security clearance and if the prisoner can pay—otherwise the court will provide a military attorney).  More importantly, the military tribunals will operate in secret and there will be no recourse to or oversight by the US judicial system.  So, combined with the utter lack of any law to base these proceedings on, the US military all power and there are no checks and balances.  This is outrageous.

What I think the US is trying to accomplish by the constant interrogations and harassment plus threats of summary military judgment, is to break down their will and get them to agree to become double agents for the US government when they return to Afghanistan and reinfiltrate the Taliban which are reforming. 



When George W. Bush came on board as president, not only did he fail to block implementation of the flood of Executive Orders signed in the waning minutes of Clinton’s administration, but he directed Attorney General John Ashcroft to drop prosecution of all the pending investigations of Clinton’s misconduct during his two terms of office.  Bush claimed he simply wanted to “put all this behind us,” and many conservatives took the new president at his word.   However, at mid-term, it appears as if Bush has actually been taking guidance from the same CFR insiders that controlled, pampered and protected his predecessor, the nation’s most notorious “Criminal in Chief.” In fact, with the delivery of his second State of the Union address, it is now abundantly clear that George W. Bush not only intends to outspend Bill Clinton, enact more socialist legislation, and make international intervention his hallmark, but he also intends to maintain and defend all the failed policies enacted by Clinton that conservatives hoped would go away.   


Phyllis Shlafly sent out an excellent partial analysis of this presumed anomaly in a recent report to the Eagle Forum.  Here are some excerpted examples of problematic Clinton policies being stubbornly upheld by Bush: [My comments in brackets.]


  1. “The Clinton Administration's abolition of the Army's ‘Risk Rule, which had exempted women in support units from areas that involve ‘inherent risk of capture.’ That policy change, ordered by the Clinton feminists, is the reason  why a single mother of two very young children was killed in the Iraq war and another single mother of a two-year-old was taken as a POW… [These] are victims of a Clinton policy that Bush could change with a stroke of his pen. But, according to Fleischer, this hasn't risen ‘to a higher policy level.’ What's a higher policy level than defending mothers of infants against being killed or captured by the axis of evil?
  2. “Why doesn't Bush terminate other Clinton rules that impose the feminist agenda on the military, such as coed basic training? The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender- normed to reduce female injuries, is ‘not efficient’ and of no military value….[But] without presidential leadership, the generals are certainly not going to act on their own. 
  3. “Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted ‘don't ask, don't tell’ enforcement regulations, which a federal Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.
  4. “The feminists in the Clinton Department of Education engaged in aggressive enforcement of Title IX, using bureaucratically invented words and rules that were not authorized by the statute. They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football. President Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists, and they used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy.  Secretary of Education Rod Paige then announced he would not implement any changes that were not unanimously recommended, [in essence giving those feminist members a veto power over all the others—a slick move that allows a politician to maintain a conservative front while stacking the deck so that liberal policies continue to emerge].
  5. “The Clinton Administration persuaded Congress to pass a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles in 1994, and the ban will sunset next year.  Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to continue the ban and, to the shock of the National Rifle Association, Bush announced that he supports the Democrats' bill. President Bush seems to have forgotten that his steadfast  support of Second Amendment rights was the main reason he carried the Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia in November 2000.
  6. “Then there is the matter of Clinton sending US troops to Bosnia, and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty which Clinton's emissaries enthusiastically helped to write and Clinton signed as one of his last official acts. Bush had a wonderful opportunity to withdraw our troops from Bosnia when the ICC impudently asserted jurisdiction over Americans even though Bush had ‘unsigned’ the ICC Treaty.  For a brief few days, Bush stood tall for the protection of American service personnel by threatening to pull our troops out of Bosnia unless the United Nations promised us immunity from the ICC. [Actually, Bush only demanded immunity for US political and military leaders.]  But then he wobbled, accepting a lame compromise that left the US with the almost impossible task of trying to negotiate separate immunity agreements with the 139 ICC countries, while at the same time keeping our troops on duty in Bosnia as a fig leaf to cover the ethnic hostility that is still as bitter and dangerous as ever.
  7. “Another Clinton policy, Executive Order 13166, requires all government agencies, and all entities receiving federal funds (such as doctors and hospitals), to provide their services in any foreign language demanded by a client. The perfect opportunity to rescind this costly unfunded mandate was served up when the US Supreme Court ruled two years ago that no one has a right to demand government services in languages other than English. But President Bush chose to continue Clinton's pandering to non-English speaking minorities. Regrettably, Bush breathed new life into Clinton's EO 13166 with all its follies and costs. We're still hoping for a repudiation of these Clinton policies.”  [End of Schlafly quote.] 


I would add to the list a few more egregious Clinton policies that Bush insists on perpetuating:


  1. President Bush refuses to rescind PDD-60, the suicidal Clinton decision directive (to the military) to absorb a nuclear first strike and not rely on Launch on Warning, a powerful deterrent to nuclear attack.  This telegraphs to Russia, China or any other major power with ICBMs the message, “You get one free attack on the US, so give us all you’ve got in the first shot.”
  2. The Bush Administration continues the Clinton policy of giving US companies that are transferring dual use technology to China special exemptions from Commerce Department regulations banning export of military technology.  Bush also decided, just like Clinton, not to demand that the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission investigate China’s widespread human rights abuses of torture, forced confessions, killings, religious suppression and arbitrary arrest.  The Chinese prison camp system (Laogai) is larger than the Russian Gulag.  
  3. Clinton brought open homosexuals into his administration and recommended them for Senate approval as government administrators or ambassadors.  Bush, albeit without all the publicity, has done more of the same.  His hand picked chairman of the Republican National Committee, Marc Racicot, met with leaders of the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual lobby group, at a luncheon in Washington.  Not surprisingly, the meeting was kept secret and was first reported in the Washington Blade (an openly gay newspaper).  In response to conservative criticism over the meeting, a spokesperson for the RNC said that Racicot was “honored to meet with gays.”  Bush has even gone further than Clinton in pandering to the homosexual groups lobbying for billions in AIDS funding.  Bush’s proposal announced in his State of the Union speech targets $15 billion for AIDS, and includes funding for a host of pet research projects on the homosexual agenda.  The bill also emphasizes condom use rather than changes in high risk homosexual behavior. 
  4. The Bush administration, like Clinton’s, continues to pander to the environmental lobby.  For instance, the Pentagon sponsored an Earth Day celebration on April 21, assigning acting Navy Secretary H. T. Johnson to host this taxpayer-funded party for the same environmentalists that continue to try to shut down all military training grounds, claiming damage to supposedly endangered species.  Worse, the administration has refused to give relief to the Oregon farmers whose legal water rights were terminated by the Clinton administration to provide more water for fish stocks. 
  5. Bush has used his clout as president to support liberal Republicans Senate candidates who support bigger government, increased taxes, abortion and sometimes even gun control.   When some of these failed to gain the nominations, he has worked against their more conservative challengers.  Clinton would have done the same thing. 
  6. President Bush continues promote the United Nations, recently putting the US back on board UNESCO, with all its anti-American education propaganda.
  7. President Bush is just as secretive as Bill Clinton in terms of covering up for government wrongdoing.  To cite just a few examples:  Cheney’s stonewalling of the Congressional subpoena for information on the secret energy meetings with Enron and others;  President Bush’s invoking Executive Privilege to keep Congress from investigating FBI dealings with the Mafia; and the administration’s denial to the 9/11 Independent Commission of access to government records detailing government’s failure, during the attacks on the WTC, to activate defense protocols in a timely manner.
  8. Like Clinton, the Bush administration has engaged in systematic lying to the public.  The examples of this are legion.  I’ve detailed many instances in prior briefs, such as the falsification of intelligence information to justify the Iraq war, and the denials of insider dealings between members of the Bush administration and its various oversight agencies with corrupt corporations like Enron, Worldcom, and Global Crossing.  The administration has also lied about a host of things relative to 9/11 attacks, and about their real motives for going to war in Iraq.   In fact, I will even be so bold as to assert that almost every statement from this administration is a lie, if we take into consideration the purposeful omission of crucial information that would change people’s perception about what is being announced.
  9. Just like Clinton, the Bush administration continues to silence whistleblowers.  Clinton signed, in the name of “national security,” a special Executive Order (EO 13039) excluding the Naval Special Warfare Development Group from the Whistleblower Protection Act.  Why?  This organization includes the Navy divers who went down to extract the black boxes from the submerged wreckage of TWA 800 two days before these same black boxes were officially found, back in the water.  In falsifying the evidence of the “accidental fuel tank explosion” of TWA 800, Clinton obviously didn’t want the Navy divers talking about their role in the bringing up the black boxes early so the recordings could be altered.  In like manner, during the Bush administration, FBI whistleblowers with information about government involvement in the OKC bombing or about FBI mishandling of crucial information about the 9/11 attacks have been silenced.   Even impeachment attorney David Schippers, who now represents several of these FBI agents, cannot get anyone in the Ashcroft Justice Department to answer his calls.  Strangely, the courts continue to protect the Bush administration as it hides behind the mask of “national security” and the “war on terror.”



Doing a weekly analysis of the news has provided me with an interesting perspective on the way in which key stories work their way instantly to the top of the pile.  Every week, it is something different.  With the exception of the non-stop coverage of the Iraq war (which was all micro-managed by direct government control of the media), the public has gotten used to seeing some big new crisis loom each week, becoming the focus of pundits, evening news talking-heads and the public—whose focus is easily changed to anything new that comes along, without so much as a fret over the fact that last week’s crisis still has not been solved.  When I look back and analyze where the story came from, a pattern emerges. 


Each week’s main story almost always comes from a government leak to selective reporters.  Every story contains some classified information so that the sources almost always remain anonymous and speak “off the record” –but obviously knowing that what they say will make into the news.  Thus, government insiders, authorized to leak, are essentially playing a key role in the manipulation of public opinion.  The fact that major establishment news personalities rely heavily upon their government contacts for producing a lead story demonstrates how interlinked the media is with government.  Naturally, the ability of government to hide behind the shield of “national security” allows it to evade scrutiny of this not-so-subtle control mechanism.


In the weeks leading up to the Iraq war, there were daily leaks by government officials, feeding the standard line to the public that Iraq was swimming in weapons of mass destruction, and had contacts with Al Qaeda—with little verifiable supporting evidence.  No focus was placed on Syria at the time, though the US already had numerous satellite photos documenting the shipment of Iraq’s WMDs to Syria.  Then, in the week of Baghdad’s all-too-convenient collapse, sudden leaks began to appear about Syria harboring WMDs and terrorists.  Public officials, including the President, began to focus on Syria openly and threaten military intervention if Syria didn’t turn over fleeing officials from Iraq.  At first Syria was defiant, and then it became extremely compliant—but only in verbiage and token actions. 


Next, there were the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco and suddenly the focus shifted from boogie man Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda—the threat that conveniently reappears whenever the Bush ‘war on terror’ needs more public impetus.  This week, the government leakers are telling all their reporter contacts about how big a threat Iran is, and how they are harboring terrorists and building advanced missile systems (as if this were something new)—and Syria disappears from the radar screen, even though nothing fundamentally has changed to make Syria any less a harborer of terrorism.


All of this is a disturbing sign that Americans are merely manipulated spectators seated before what they think is an accurate stage depicting world events—which it is not.  Because the vast majority of Americans are still not seriously affected by terrorism and war, they watch the events from the comforts of their homes, cheer on their troops and do nothing to analyze why they are being lied to and what are the underlying ulterior motives of their leaders.  For most this is somewhat excusable since they do not even realize they are being lied to, and thus will never fully comprehend why the current US foreign policy will always result in more war and more terror—not less. 


As commentator Ted Rall put it, “We've killed thousands of Muslims and taken over two of their countries. We're spending billions of dollars to make it easier for our government to spy on us.  But we haven't caught Osama, [or Saddam Hussein] Al Qaeda is doing better than ever and airport security is still a sick joke.  So when are Americans going to demand a real war on terrorism? Recent suicide bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca proved with bloody eloquence that Al Qaeda and similar extremist groups are anything but ‘on the run,’ as George W. Bush puts it.  Bush's tactics are a 100 percent failure, yet his band of clueless Christian soldiers [Rall is showing his leftist, secular bias—I hope Christians realize what a bad name Bush is giving them around the world] continues to go after mosquitoes with shotguns. ‘So far,’ Bush furiously spun after the latest round of attacks, ‘nearly one-half of Al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed,’ promising to ‘remain on the hunt until they are all brought to justice.’” 


How can the Bush war be a failure, as Ralls claims, with a “successful” war in Iraq and capturing so many Al Qaeda leaders?  Simple.  The verdict on Iraq is far from over, given its highly unstable transition to controlled democracy —which never leads to peace when faced with multiple competing ethnic factions.  In fact, the US-led Iraqi juggernaut has spawned so much hatred against America and its lackey Britain, among the Muslim world that neighboring Middle Eastern nations will actually accelerate their acquisition of WMDs rather than submit to US dominance—though they will do it with more finesse than Iraq.  As for Al Qaeda, we only have the government’s word for it that those they captured are Al Qaeda leaders.  As in Bush’s totally false claims about bringing corrupt corporate leaders (Enron et al) to justice, I’m not buying it.  The real leaders rarely get caught, because they are in collusion with big government.  That may even be true of terrorism. Even if some of these Al Qaeda suspects were leaders, there are hundreds more willing to take their place—and their motivation and hatred is growing, not diminishing. 


To further illustrate the effectiveness of manipulating America’s focus, to obscure the larger issues, look at Lebanon.  Lebanon has been crying out for liberation from Syrian occupation for nearly two decades.  The US government has never made a serious issue of Lebanon’s plight, even as Syria was under harsh attack by the US State Department for supporting Iraq in the recent war.  This week’s revelations from Washington about negotiations with Lebanon have the taint of disinformation.  Washington says it is encouraging Lebanon to throw out the Hezbollah fighters who are occupying the southern border region with Israel.  How can this be?  Lebanon is an occupied nation with no powers to do anything on its own.  Suddenly, with this strange government suggestion, American public attention is falsely led to believe that Lebanon must be somehow free to act on its own.  In addition, Lebanon would have to deal with Syria if it were to act against Hezbollah (a Syrian client terrorist group). 


Furthermore, statements by administration officials continue to portray Hezbollah as clients of Iranians.  However, this is only a recent phenomenon done, in my opinion, to shield Syria so they could claim their seat on the Security Council of the UN—even as the US maintained Syria on its terrorist watch list.  Lebanon won’t be doing anything against Hezbollah unless the Syrians agree, so all this talk about Lebanon exercising its sovereignty is a sham and a cover.  For some reason, the US appears to be avoiding the issue of Lebanon’s occupation—which could easily change if the US wants to look for an excuse to attack.   But for now, this could only happen if some deal has been cut with Syria—which would also explain why the US stopped focusing on Syria and is switching to Iran


Regardless of what happens in the real world (which few Americans understand), Americans refuse to see or believe that their leaders can be guilty of deception and ulterior motives.  Yes, every major nation has always succumbed to corruption, conspiracy and deception.  Greece, Rome, Israel, Germany, England, France, and every two-bit country in the Third World.  But, never America!  --even as evidence surfaces of collusion and conspiracy in the Roosevelt administration to induce Japan to strike Pearl Harbor, Americans will explain it away or otherwise attempt to justify it.  They will not learn.  Being riveted to their televisions, most Americans will never realize that their leaders will always have an excuse for why the next war was “thrust upon them” and that it was through “no fault of their own.”  Americans are too content to let their leaders tell them what to do and focus their untutored attention on the new issue of the day, excusing away the pattern of continual failure.


This manipulation of public opinion has been all too effective in getting Americans used to regular warrantless searches. Each new terrorist crisis, no matter how distant, couple with the ever-present intelligence reports of “nonspecific terrorist chatter” easily allows Homeland Security to move the nation into another unjustified “Orange alert,” followed predictably by another swarm of highway checkpoints and warrantless searches.  As long as Americans continue to be supportive of these unnecessary suspensions of constitutional protections, they will only become more restrictive.  



The Bush administration is working on two fronts to curb free speech and protest.  The first is aimed at the large relatively free market of talk radio and the internet—clearly dominated by conservatives and libertarian free thinkers—at least in its early years.   This became the bastion of liberty not only in response to years of pent up frustration by conservatives and libertarians at the near total leftist dominance in establishment news sources, but because it was a much cheaper alternative compared to huge expense of buying time on TV or in newspapers.


However, over the past five years, the number of radio talk hosts with a critical view of government has dropped precipitously.  Most were bought out, removed, or sometimes turned into mushy liberal Republicans. We have witnessed a concerted effort by 3 major radio syndicates to buy up radio stations and force arch-conservative talk show hosts off the air.  Interestingly, these large media corporations claim to be Republican and conservative in orientation (meaning liberal Bush Republicans).  Even Christian radio has been affected by the “moderation” movement, putting pressure on stations with an “end times” view of prophecy to soften their approach and not criticize the Bush administration—supposedly “one of ours.”  During the mid-90’s even hard core Clinton attack dog Rush Limbaugh made a strange and pronounced change about the time his program was bought out and he was offered millions in new compensation.  He suddenly began to attack any call-in participants who dared to raise the issue of conspiracy—even though Rush himself had previously spoken openly in favor of the concept.  


Now the FCC has a plan to alter media rules that used to limit the number of stations and media outlets of various different sorts any one corporation could buy.    On June 2, the five-member FCC, led by political appointee Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) is scheduled to vote on changes that would lift the 28-year-old ban on media monopolies and which prevented newspapers from buying television stations in the same city.  The two dissenting commissions claim that more consolidation will result in fewer voices.  The two Democratic commissioners, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein are, of course, interested in protecting voices on the left critical of the Bush administration.  However, I believe the real targets of this restriction on diversity are the voices on the far right that keep hammering away at unthinking Christian conservatives who provide Bush is largest (and underserved) base of support.   There is ample evidence of a former period of collusion where most independent newspapers were bought up and turned into liberal daily’s.  There does not exist a single major metropolitan newspaper today that is not liberal in its bias.  I don’t believe that happened by accident.  


Chairman Powell clearly has his marching orders and has only schedule one token hearing on this crucial issue.  Even the opponents know the deck is stacked against them and a only asking Powell to delay making a decision—hoping they can gain more strength in time.  But Power and the two other Republican commissioners form a majority on the commission.


On the second front, the Bush administration is targeting traditional leftist, anti big business/globalist protestors by using new tactics to isolate and separate protestors from the scene of any action.  In every major city, Mayors and police chiefs are being briefed by Homeland Security agents on how to set up so-called “free speech zones” sometimes miles away from the protestor’s targets so such protests become irrelevant.   These tactics where first developed to protect globalist forums in Europe and Seattle, but are now being used whenever the President makes a controversial public speech. When protestors violate these absurd restrictions they are arrested.  One such case is now becoming rather high profile. Bursey prosecution.  Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said 11 House members - 10 Democrats and Texas Republican Ron Paul have petition AG John Ashcroft to drop prosecution of Brett Bursey, a South Carolina man arrested for “trespassing” outside the “free speech zone” while protesting an appearance by President Bush in October.  


Prospects of the courts turning back the new strong-arm tactics of the Bush administration are slim, given a ruling this week by the Supreme Court.  While not addressing the issue of peaceful protest, the Supreme Court sanctioned a wide range of police action, including coercive questioning of captive suspects, without being read their rights, or having access to legal counsel—as long as the government doesn’t charge them with a crime or use any confession in court.  The case involved a Latino farm worker in a drug bust who was shot up by police and then questions repeatedly against his will while wounded in a hospital.    Writing for the majority on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that when there was no formal legal consequence of the interrogation, there was no foul.  He reasoned, “Martinez was never made to be a witness against himself in violation of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination clause because his statements were never admitted as testimony against him in a criminal case. The  mere use of compulsive questioning, does not violate the Constitution.”   This reasoning can and will be applied to any number of suspects taking into custody but never charged—as is typical of arrests under the Patriot Act as well as the oft-used “material witness” law.  Under this color of law, they would have little grounds to sue police for violation of constitutional rights. 


Let’s look at the actual record of the Bush Justice Department in prosecuting terror.  Mark Fazlollah

of the Philadelphia Inquirer made the following analysis: “In the first two months of this year, the Justice Department filed charges against 56 people, labeling all the cases as ‘terrorism.’  But an Inquirer investigation has found that at least 41 of them had nothing to do with terrorism - a point that prosecutors of the cases themselves acknowledge. Among the cases:

  • 28 Latinos charged with working illegally at the airport in Austin, Texas, most of them using phony Social Security numbers.  Daryl Fields, spokesman for the US Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas, said there was no evidence that any were linked to terrorism.  Since then, about 1,000 airport workers have been arrested, most of them Latinos.  None is known to have links to terrorism
  • Eight Puerto Ricans charged with trespassing on Navy property on the island of Vieques, long a site of civil protests of ordnance testing. Prosecutor Sonia Torres-Pabon, who handled the eight cases, said she was unclear why they were classified as terrorism. More than 200 people have been arrested in Vieques protests since 1999, but earlier cases were not listed as terrorism.
  • A Middle Eastern man indicted in Detroit for allegedly passing bad checks who has the same name as a Hezbollah leader [Hassan Nasrallah].  Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric M. Straus, who is prosecuting the case, said last week: ‘He is not the leader of Hezbollah... . This is not a terrorist case.’
  • A Middle Eastern college student charged in Trenton with paying a stand-in to take his college English-proficiency tests. He received a one-month jail sentence after pleading guilty. 
  • The audit did not take into account another batch of ‘terrorism’ cases filed last fall in New Jersey against 60 Middle Eastern men. -- allegations that they had cheated on the English test for admission to a U.S. university.” [end of Inquirer excerpt]

It is noteworthy that the Justice Department has never modified these erroneous classifications.  It reminds me of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s characterization of the Soviet Communist Party: “We Never Make Mistakes.”



FBI Director, Robert Mueller gave a telling speech on April 19 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.  It was intended to be a justification of the government position.  However, it was not carefully written, and unintentionally revealed some dramatic contradictions that to a trained eye give proof that the government concocted the entire list of 19 hijackers out of thin air.  Here are two core excerpts from his talk.  I’m going to give you the conclusion first, and then the background claims Mueller used that supposedly justify the conclusions.  See if you can observe the huge gap in logic: [my comments in brackets]


 “What emerged from our massive investigation was a sobering portrait of 19 hijackers who carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works. The plans were hatched and financed overseas, beginning as long as five years ago [This is an amazing claim of knowledge given what he will admit below about how much they didn’t know]. Each of the hijackers came from abroad: 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt. All 19 entered our country legally, and only three had overstayed the legal limits of their visas on the day of the attacks. While here, the hijackers did all they could to stay below our radar screens [an admission that the FBI wasn’t observing anything about them]. They contacted no known terrorist sympathizers [how could you know this—the absence of a fact-- if you weren’t tracking them?]. They committed no egregious crimes. They dressed and acted like Americans, shopping and eating at places like Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut [Again, can’t know this if they weren’t being tracked and left no paper trail]. When four got speeding tickets in the months leading up to September 11, they remained calm and aroused no suspicion [assuming the names on the manifest actually were the terrorist’s real names—which is highly unlikely and doesn’t match the fact that seven are still alive today]. Since none of them were known terrorists, law enforcement had no reason to question or detain them [several including Mohammed Atta were already on the FBI’s terror watch list]. The hijackers also left no paper trail [I construe this as an admit ion that the stories about the flight manuals left behind in rental cars and the surviving “Islam Martyr letters” were planted]. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistanthat mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot [so how does he come to the conclusion below that ‘it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes?] . The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, and no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace [actually, impossible to trace when not purchased with a credit card—unless the government is lying about not tracking them]. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection. In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems [an excuse to explain why they didn’t track them], to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle [the government can’t claim to know all they know about them, after the fact, if all this lack of info is true]. The investigation allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes.” [How does Mueller arrive at this leap in logic? How can you claim you have “definitive proof” with no paper or electronic trail.  This defies explanation—except that he is lying]  [End of Mueller excerpt]  Once again, the government has never attempted to correct or modify the list of 19 alleged hijackers.  What they have done is seal the airline manifest records so that no names of Arab passengers are published.  The airlines have refused to explain why.  Since the government itself has published the names of the 19 to the world, what would be the purpose for having the airlines withhold the names?  Maybe, the names don’t match.


JUNE 2003



The US Department of Commerce has long played games with the Consumer Price Index.  In order to depress the real rate of inflation, the selective “basket of goods” upon which the CPI is based is continually modified to eliminate anything whose price keeps rising—like gasoline, the cost of a new house, and professional fees.  In like manner the US annual deficit is grossly understated.  Not only does each administration continue to rob the Social Security trust fund and dump it into the current spending account (at least $300 billion), but the government consistently hides the ever-growing list of unbudgeted obligations to pensioners, loan guarantees and dozens of federal aid programs.  It is clear that no administration ever intends to own up to or pay off these massive debts and obligations.  When an administration engages in near trillion dollar deficits while promoting a $350 billion tax cut, you know they have no intention of making the citizens feel the heat for what government is spending—until it’s too late.  By the way, the real rate of unemployment is 9.8%, not 5.9% as reported. The 5.9% figure only includes people currently seeking work or currently receiving unemployment benefits.  Millions are past that point and reported separately by the government (but never publicized).  


Partial Birth Abortion Ban a Fraud:  Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, comments, “It's just a shame that the partial-birth abortion bill claims to ban a procedure that by the definitions and exceptions in the bill will not ban anything and probably will not stop one abortion.”  Brown rightly points out that the bill bans a specific procedure, but allows abortionists to use other procedures, not included in the definition, to continue the killings.  Thus, it doesn’t actually ban the abortion of a viable fetus at all. 

In forming the bill, Republicans easily acquiesced to the demand by liberals to include a standard abortion loophole—that the procedure is banned “except when the life of the mother is at risk.”  Besides the fact that abortion doctors have no compulsion against falsifying such a declaration, it does not follow, logically, that the two are related.  For instance, if the near term pregnancy is “at risk to the mother,” and you solve that risk by performing a cesarean section and deliver a live fetus, why does the baby have to be killed outside the womb after the delivery?  Why not put it in an ICU and let it live?  Obviously, the killing of the baby AFTER it has been delivered means the purpose of the final killing procedure is not connected at all with the supposed saving of the mother’s life.   This is an outrage.  


The Seattle Protests Against the LEIU:  The political left rallied in Seattle last week to support civil liberties and to speak against uncontrolled police surveillance, as aided by the LEIU (Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit).  This was an important cause. 

For the record, the LEIU is a private organization that archives surveillance information on government dissidents and other individuals before they have committed a crime.  In reality, the private label is a cover for quasi-government group was originally created by retired government insiders, with the full approval and knowledge of those in power. Being a supposed private organization, they are conveniently free from scrutiny under the FOIA--so the public can’t find out who is on the list, or get off it if they have been labeled an “enemy of the state” unjustly.  Anyone the LEIU suspects to be supporting terrorism or engaging in organized opposition to government in any peripheral, unconfirmed way gets watched, annotated and listed.  The New Mexico State Police was reported a couple of years ago for tracking callers to talk radio shows who had views critical of government.  When the courts force police to stop such illegal surveillance of anti-government activities, police simply donate their files to the LEIU database. 

Back to the Seattle demonstration, as during others of its kind, police ended up antagonizing the crowd and provoking resistance sufficient to justify hosing down the protestors with pepper spray and rubber bullets.  Too bad American conservatives aren’t joining in with the protests to this cousin to PATRIOT Act monitoring of citizens.  Perhaps mild mannered conservatives think it beneath themselves to publicly challenge authority.  If they did get involved, they would become eye witnesses to the growth of the police state.  I no longer respond to telephone solicitations in support of police organizations—primarily because I no longer see anyone in the police force willing to stand up to their superiors who order these kinds of unprincipled actions against peaceful demonstrators.  I know there are some good officers who don’t like what they see—they need to speak out and be willing to resign, and be willing to hold a press conference to say why.   



In a landmark decision exemplifying the worst of judicial activism, the liberal-left wing of the Supreme Court mustered a 5 to 4 victory for government sanctioned racial preferences—euphemistically called, “affirmative action.”  Liberal pundits were having a hay-day this week praising the majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and commenting on its long-term implications—which may well be as far-reaching as Miranda and Roe vs. Wade.  The liberal establishment pulled out all the stops to shove this one down America’s throat.  The allies of University of Michigan filed hundreds of amicus briefs (briefs from Fortune 500 companies, senior military officers, and universities) to help O’Connor justify some sort of national consensus. 


Judicial Activism means that Justices create their own version of law rather than simply force all low to come into strict compliance with the founder’s intent of the US Constitution.  Justice O’Connor is clearly in this camp as exemplified in In new book “The Majesty of the Law.”  O'Connor wrote that “courts, in particular, are mainly reactive institutions….change comes principally from attitudinal shifts in the population at large.”  She added that, “rare indeed is the legal victory — in court or legislature — that is not a careful byproduct of an emerging social consensus.”   I would add, “socially manipulated consensus.”


Typical of these cheerleaders and commentators was the NY Time’s Linda Greenhouse, who waxed jubilant as she praised O’Connor and slighted Clarence Thomas, the only black justice on the Court and a decided opponent of racial preferences:  “As they approached the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to be responding to completely different cues.   For Justice O'Connor, the broad societal consensus in favor of affirmative action in higher education, as reflected in an outpouring of briefs on Michigan's behalf from many of the country's most prominent institutions, was clearly critical to her conclusion that the law school's "holistic" and "individualized" consideration of race was not only acceptable but also, at least for the next 25 years, necessary to achieve a more equal society.”  


What “broad social consensus?”   Just because the government and the nation’s wealthiest and most political correct corporations and influence makers are pushing affirmative action doesn’t mean it has broad social acceptance.  The majority of American’s are overwhelmingly against showing any racial preferences at all—especially when it gets in the way of selection based on competency in critical fields.  Of course, American public opinion is easily manipulated by the way in which the pollster phrases the question.  Virtually all polls that show American support for affirmative action phrase the question in a non-confrontational and over-generalized manner like this, “Do you favor affirmative action as means of creating a more equal society?” or to, “compensate for past discrimination of minorities?”   However, if you phrase the question in terms of what specifically happens—“Do you favor granting preferences in hiring or entrance examinations to minorities even if higher qualified white applicants are rejected?”—a very different response is forthcoming.


In point of fact, racial quotas and preferences have been around for 25 years, slowly eroding equal justice for all.  We now have ample historical evidence of the damage these minority quotas have done to our military, in regards to women—at least one women military pilot is dead because of incompetent after military commanders whitewashed her failing flight school records.  Anyone dealing with federal agencies in Washington DC is confronted with huge numbers of minority employees with serious deficiencies—and yet they are nearly immune from dismissal. 


In the private business world, the racial preference game is less overt but still ever-present.  With the threat of “equal opportunity” laws hanging over everyone’s head, every corporate personnel chief has to bend over backwards to prove the company is innocent of discrimination.  Coupled with shakedown threats from activist racist lawyers working for con artists like Jesse Jackson, the only sure defense for US corporations and professional firms is to make sure they hire a better than average number of women and blacks.  Interestingly, even though Hispanics are now the no. 1 minority in the US now, you rarely hear of anyone pushing Hispanic quotas.  The reason may not be obvious to all, but Hispanic labor rates are low and their work ethic and aggressiveness in bettering themselves is high.  Neither are there any quotas for Asian entrants to colleges.  In fact, they have an even higher percentage of acceptance than whites.


What the Supreme Court has done in the University of Michigan Law School case [Grutter v. Bollinger] is to draw some artificial line in the sand, allowing them to sanction racial preferences as long as they are “individualized” and “holistic,”  whatever that means.  The only think universities can’t do now is say exactly what percentage of minorities is enough—a strict quota.  However, they all have such quotas in their secret guidelines, even if they aren’t published.  


Like Miranda and Roe, the Supreme Court legislated new law and created their own criteria for judging what was acceptable and what was not, without any foundation in the Constitution.  Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, dipped into her most common bag of tricks and pulled out the old “compelling State Interest” doctrine—a doctrine that can and is used to justify almost unlimited intrusion in fundamental rights of families and individuals.  In essence, it posits a harmless appearing legal position—that the “state as an interest” in the welfare of a child, the education of a child, the safety of a child, or in this case, the notion of establishing diversity


Justice Thomas, whose impassioned 31-page dissenting opinion in the law school case was almost precisely the length of Justice O'Connor's majority opinion, took as his text not the briefs but his own life story.


"I must contest the notion that the law school's discrimination benefits those admitted as a result of it," he said at the start of a remarkable series of paragraphs, most without footnotes, statistics or outside references, about the pain and stigma suffered by recipients of affirmative action.


Justice O'Connor observed in her opinion that "context matters when reviewing race-based governmental action under the Equal Protection Clause." The context provided by the briefs from Fortune 500 companies, senior military officers, and colleges and universities big and small, public and private, quite clearly won the day for Michigan.


Context always matters at the court, though it is not always acknowledged by justices who, unlike Justice O'Connor, prefer to deal in absolutes. What the rulings demonstrated was not simply the power of context but the importance of the different contexts from which the justices view the cases that bring them face to face with society's most profound disputes.


For Justices O'Connor and Thomas, their opposite starting points as well as their opposite conclusions make the law school case, Grutter v. Bollinger, a useful window into the styles of two of the court's most distinctive members.


Another part of the context for Justice O'Connor was the 25-year-old opinion in the Bakke case by an admired mentor, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Justice Powell's solitary opinion establishing diversity as a "compelling state interest" justifying affirmative action in admissions had been on shaky ground before five justices embraced it on Monday.


At the heart of Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion was a highly personal critique of affirmative action, which he called the "cruel farce of racial discrimination."


"The law school tantalizes unprepared students with the promise of a University of Michigan degree and all of the opportunities that it offers," he said, adding, "These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition."


Justice Thomas, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action at Yale Law School,”


JULY 2003



On this day Americans celebrate the historical events surrounding our Declaration of Independence in 1776 from the tyranny of England.  We will hear prayers uttered this weekend in churches across the land, thanking God that we live in this “free country.”  But are we still free?  Perhaps in a sense, if we compare our laws to other more socialist nations (the differences are now few).  But even a cursory analysis of the listing of grievances our founders claimed against King George III should reveal that we have even more grievances today against our own federal government than they did in 1776—and yet Americans still think themselves free.


Part of this is planned deception.  Government policy makers have long since learned the art of gradualism in instituting oppression.  They start with a 1% income tax or a tiny Social Security tax and then allow future financial crises, along with inflation, to engender gradual increases.  Regulations start out targeting a few unpopular minorities and then grow to encompass all.  Over generalized legislation targeting equal protection or non-discrimination for race or disabilities are later misconstrued by activist courts, who impose by edict controls never envisioned by the legislators who passed the laws.  Thus has the creep of tyranny been slowly engulfing our nation. 


Now, however, the pace is picking up—and dangerously so.  The war on terror is being used to justify wholesale incursions into some of the most fundamental civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution: habeas corpus, due process, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.  Persons in this country, even citizens, can be incarcerated indefinitely without being charged for a crime, either on suspicion of support for terrorism or merely as a “material witness” to such a suspected crime—all without recourse to a lawyer, the courts, or any public scrutiny.  In other words, there are two tiers of justice today.  One is above ground and public, and only serves to convince us that “all is well.”  The other is a second, dark hole of no-justice, into which if you descend, there may well be no return for you or documentation of your fate. 


Worse, the normally zealous conservatives, supposed watchdogs over our liberties, are asleep at the switch, content to allow their presumed conservative president, always spouting rhetoric about “securing their liberties,” to continue to take rights away in the name of security.  It appears that as long as American conservatives are not inconvenienced in their daily affairs, and can worship in their well heeled, mainstream churches, they will always think themselves free.  At some point we must draw a line in the sand and allow no further encroachments by our government on our liberties.  For me that line has already been crossed by the current administration since 9/11, if not before.  Our job is to get other good Americans to realize the peril of our situation before its too late. 


For those of you who have opportunities to give prayers or speeches before groups or congregations relative to this week’s festivities, may you resolve to select your words to reflect our true situation rather than uttering the same old positive clichés.  Yes, we still have much to thank God for.  It is not the unqualified “free nation” everyone erroneously assumes we have, but rather the “remaining freedoms we still possess.”   Let us help others recognize where we are on the sliding scale between freedom and tyranny.  We may not be able to wake the sleeping giant, but we can awaken the remnant of good souls who partially sense something is wrong.



The current court is split between a minority of justices that give some allegiance to the original intent of the Constitution (Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) and the majority (Sandra O'Connor, Steven Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens) who espouse the “living Constitution” doctrine.  This latter view of the Constitution allows justices to change the effect of the Constitution, disregarding the amendment process, to suite the whims of society or liberal activists.  This is judicial activism at its worst and is responsible for the fact that the specific restrictions on majoritarian and government power which made the Constitution utterly unique in history are all but non-existent today.


In a telling ABC interview this week, Justice Breyer waxed enthusiastic with his globalist views. “We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together … Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”


Obviously, Breyer and the other activists judges intend to mold the Constitutional to fit the new globalist paradigm.  This includes the citing of foreign case law, as if it has legal relevance in American courts. In the Texas sodomy case, one of a recent round of controversial cases, the leftwing of the court drew upon foreign law and case precedents to further justify stripping away the states’ right to ban homosexual conduct.  Legal commentator and former Solicitor General Drew Days enthused,  The justices are gaining the benefit of very sophisticated thinking by other foreign courts about privacy and equality….these terms are not unique to our Constitution and our society.”   Justice Stevens cited foreign law in a footnote when, in another case, the majority banned executions of mentally retarded convicts. 


Objecting to this dangerous new precedent, Justice Scalia maintained,  The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.”


In a recent ABC interview, in response to the question of whether or not the Constitution would continue to be relevant in the future, Justice O’Connor said, “Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation.”   With that kind of thinking, and with the uncritical enthusiasm in which the president and Congress are embracing foreign treaties, we will have a constitution in name only. 


As if to further demonstrate their belief of the growing irrelevance of US sovereignty and the Constitution, five of the nine justices (O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer) are attending a forum of foreign judges in Florence, Italy, to discuss and give encouragement to the proposed new European constitution—a document which directly opposes and undermines most of the US Constitutional provisions on limited government.   While there is nothing incriminating in accepting an invitation to this forum, I believe that these justices will primarily contribute favorable comments and praise to the new EU constitution. This dangerous document, as I pointed out in the June 6 brief, is fraught with the allure of false rights, legal doubletalk, feigned allegiance to state sovereignty, and subtly conflicting language meant to create opportunities for the EU courts to rule in favor of EU dominance. 



The Watergate appellation is now openly being applied to this, the largest crisis of the Bush administration thus far.  Ironically, the scandal over falsified intelligence data to justify the war in Iraq would probably go away were it not for the Bush administration’s transparently contradictory efforts at damage control.  As Matt Drudge reports, “Vice President Cheney is telling House GOP leaders: Bush admin is getting ready to go on a public relations offensive, attempting to recast the debate on Niger, and WMDs, including bringing back Mary Matalin for spin control.”  With Cheney heading the list of those responsible for the intelligence error, this is not surprising.


All the administration heavy-weights are getting into the mea culpa act, trying to shield the president and VP from charges ranging from stupidity to direct cover-up.  Open warfare between the Bush White House and the CIA erupted on Friday over the Niger-Iraq uranium controversy, with both President Bush and National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice contradicting CIA sources who blamed the White House for using intelligence that it knew to be bad. 


The stories are changing daily.  First, it was that the information had been based on faulty British intelligence, but the British were too proud to do anything but go only mindlessly defending the erroneous document.  Then someone leaked the story that the British reference was only put in the speech after the CIA objected to its use so that the president would have a ready out if the error was discovered.  Next, CIA director George Tenet offered to fall on his sword and take the blame.  His apology was less than convincing. Meanwhile, as happened in all the other recent intel disasters, signs of incompetence on the part of our highest intelligence officials has garnered only additional praise and support from the president—nary a dismissal in sight.


NSA advisor Condoleezza Rice kept putting her foot into her mouth, claiming too much in her overzealous attempt to protect the president. Sec. of State Powell, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, and presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer also jumped into the fray with other contradictions about when the forgery was known to whom and who insisted it stay in the State of the Union address.  Powell has been under the gun himself for suspicions about his WMD evidence speech before the UN Security Council.  How much of the evidence he presented as fact was actually true?


Not a few are calling for the resignation of VP Dick Cheney, who was fingered as the administration point man to ensure the CIA produced the necessary justification for war.  Cheney himself made numerous personal visits to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA as events were unfolding.  To influence the CIA by phone is a foregone conclusion, but to show up regularly at CIA headquarters signals a much stronger intent to influence the results of normal intel, and a much higher degree of complicity behind the scenes.  


The only thing clear about the scandal is that the highly touted Niger uranium purchase document was a bad forgery.   A group of former CIA and defense intelligence veterans (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity—VIPS) felt so strongly about the political manhandling of their profession that they published an open letter to the President.  It lays out the problem better than any other summary I have seen.  Here are major excerpts:


“The Forgery Flap: By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff is alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet's extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic – I confess; she [Ms. Rice] did it. It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech.


“But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson's findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson's mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed.


“Secretary of State Colin Powell's credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as ‘not totally outrageous’ was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful.


“Whatever Rice's or Powell's credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been – well, incredible. The British have a word for it: ‘dodgy.’ You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community.


“The Vice President's Role:  Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher's remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly – as if drawing on well memorized talking points – that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility.


“There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well.

Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons – a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a ‘mushroom cloud’ being the first ‘smoking gun’ we might observe.

That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections – a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.


“The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq.

It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that ‘we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,’ the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that ‘most analysts’ agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented ‘multiple visits’ to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. 


“Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts – those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons – judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right. Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.”  [End of VIPS quote.]


Sadly, the VIPS organization is wedded to the establishment intel community, especially those of the 80’s under Bush Sr.  Some of their recommendations for reform, including letting UN inspectors back into Iraq (good idea) and the resignation of VP Cheney, are acceptable, but they certainly won’t solve the problem.  The problem lies in the very establishment system that controls all presidents and their advisors.  Thus, VIPS’s main recommendation (the setting up of another investigative commission, to be headed by Kissinger top associate Brent Scowcroft) is deeply flawed.  The intelligence veterans take confidence in the appearance Scowcroft projected as an independent thinker during his term as Bush Sr’s NSA advisor, and trust that he isn’t part of the problem or controlled by the same system that now feeds signals to George W.  That confidence is misplaced.  Scowcroft would be as fine a cover-up artist for this commission as his former partner Henry Kissinger would have been for the 9/11 commission.



If anything gives strong confirmation to the notion of a conspiracy within multiple sectors of government intent on undermining the Constitution, it is this.  This week, in a blatant show of disregard for the separations of power and the supposed supremacy of the law over the executive branch, Attorney General John Ashcroft openly defied a court order to allow accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui to question a captured al-Qaeda operative.  Incredibly, the DOJ claimed that allowing an attorney for Moussaoui to take a deposition from another would “permit two terrorists to exchange classified information.”  This is ludicrous.  The government would be present at the deposition.  No secrets are going to be passed in an open meeting with “all the king’s men.”  The court is considering what to do in this matter.  What is there to consider?  If the court were truly representing an independent judiciary it would bang the gavel and hold the government in contempt, and issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the appropriate officials.  That’s what would happen to you and me in a similar show of defiance. 



One thing high profile scandals such as Nixon’s Watergate demonstrate is that a scandal itself rarely brings down a president.  Rather, it is the concerted effort by government officials to cover up the scandal that does.  Why?  Because a cover-up always involves a conspiracy of various persons in government violating, in one way or another, their sworn duty to uphold the law and prosecute illegal activity. 


In like manner, government officials who engage in dark side operations are constantly having to cover up for their crimes. Successful cover-ups of these operations always point to a broad conspiracy at work because higher officials must join in to cover for what lower echelon henchmen did – a fact that must be kept even more secret than the crime itself.  The extension of such collusion across government agency boundaries is proof of systematic corruption in government, which is a whole different ballgame in terms of criminal evil than the actions of mere rogue agents.   To cover up a crime that is part of systematic government corruption, the perpetrators must consistently stop or sabotage investigations in a wide range of jurisdictions around the country.  This means many years of cultivating, subverting and corrupting other key law enforcement personnel, judges and prosecutors, all from different agencies..  All of this constitutes high crimes and treason as the very nature of constitutional government is subverted in the process. 


The murder of White House counsel Vince Foster was a classic dark-side operation.  Vince Foster was the man who knew too much.  As a former partner with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm, he was the one person in the Clinton entourage who had comprehensive knowledge of all the personal affairs of Bill and Hillary and their secret financial dealings.  He knew about all of the illegal activities in Whitewater; the lucrative no-risk stock trades made with the help of highly placed insiders; the collusion with the CIA to run drugs from Central America through Mena, Arkansas; the subversion of the Arkansas State bond markets with secret partner Jackson Stevens; and the corruption of the State Police to cover for Bill’s philandering. 


Foster’s danger to the Clintons as a potential defector was even greater since Foster reportedly set up the Clinton’s secret bank accounts in Switzerland with the help of criminal minds like Marc Rich (the same one who was given a last minute presidential pardon for income tax evasion).  There were indications that Foster was getting cold feet and wanted out just as Congressional investigators were moving in to interrogate him.  Someone above the Clintons decided he had to be eliminated to protect the first couple and the NWO system they were fronting for.  


In brief, Vince Foster was shot by hit men and the body was subsequently taken to Marcy Park in Washington, DC and dumped in the bushes.  An auto-loading pistol was placed in his hand to make it look like a suicide.  Later, someone drove Foster’s car over to the parking lot at Marcy Park to make it look like he had driven there on his own.  It was a sloppy hit job.  The perpetrators made lots of mistakes, which had to be covered up later on by falsified and altered government reports. 


  • The gun in Foster’s hand was switched by some government agent to one actually owned by Foster—a 1913 Colt revolver— only after the body was discovered, after paramedics had noted the original weapon and after Marcy Park police had taken charge of the crime scene.    
  • The body showed no blood pooling around the body in its original position. Only when the body was moved up the hill (against standard procedures), head down, did blood begin to flow out the wound.  New photographs were taken there as if it were the original crime scene.
  • Paramedics saw (and photographs of the crime scene show) a neck wound.  The official report suppresses these photos and makes the claim that Foster shot himself through the mouth.
  • There was a witness (Patrick Knowlton) to the fact that it was NOT Foster’s gray Honda that was in the parking lot at the time of the alleged suicide, but rather another different colored, older Honda. 


Beyond these obvious mistakes made by the hit men themselves, there is ample evidence of official collusion to falsify the evidence and obtain a different conclusion than the original facts would allow.  Among other things:


  • Both paramedics were subjected to intense interrogation by the FBI, in the attempt to get them to change their story about the wound, the gun and the position of the body. One paramedic stuck with his original conclusions despite FBI attempts to “shake him.”  The FBI succeeded in confusing the other paramedic by continually writing down his testimony in a way that distorted his original meaning.
  • The FBI altered Patrick Knowlton’s witness statement so that the Knowlton’s description of the vehicle in the parking lot matched Foster’s Honda.  When Knowlton discovered the error, he demanded the record be corrected.  The government refused and Knowlton sued in court.  Plain clothes government agents began a harassment and threat campaign against Knowlton wherever he went in public.  Later, Knowlton identified one of these harassing agents as an FBI agent on Ken Starr’s staff at the Independent Counsel’s office.
  • Independent Counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr falsely claimed that a quantity of blood was observed where the body was first discovered.  In fact, as mentioned above, the blood only appeared after the body was moved—a fact these counsels wanted suppressed.
  • Fiske and Starr also allowed false testimony that a rescue worker, early on the scene, had moved Foster's head to check for a pulse.   This false story was planted to help explain away certain contradictions between the statements of paramedics and Park Police (who were partially involved in the cover-up).
  • Crime scene photos of the body in its original position when discovered were allowed to disappear.  As in the JFK assassination cover-up, the photos later presented as evidence were of the body after it had been moved and its position altered to mask the neck wound. 
  • The White House and others knew of the Foster death even before the body was discovered at Marcy Park and 911 was called.
  • The Foster suicide note was forged and was planted in his office after White House officials invaded the office, searched it and removed all incriminating documents.


Starr hired liberal prosecutor Michael Rodriguez in October 1994 to lead the grand jury investigation into Foster's death, assuming he would be a good team player.  Rodriguez testified, “I was told what the result was going to be [namely, that it would be termed a suicide] from the get-go.”  When Rodriquez insisted on bringing up the facts that contradicted the suicide conclusion, his supervisor, Mark Touhey, refused to allow him to follow up on leads and to issue subpoenas and call witnesses before the committee.  Rodriguez was also subjected to numerous threats from the FBI.  He said, “The FBI told me back off, back down.”  Later he was “communicated with again and … told to be careful where I tread.”

In disgust,
Mr. Rodriguez resigned from Starr's office of Independent Counsel in the spring of 1995.  He attempted to tell various journalists and Congressmen how the investigation was rigged, but his efforts were met with a wall of inaction.  His story was boycotted by the press.  The threats by FBI agents accelerated to such an extent that he backed off and quit trying to alert the public.  However,  he did allow Patrick Knowlton to edit and distribute a tape recording of one of his conversations about the cover-up. 


I was able to obtain a copy of the transcript of that tape from AIM.org, where you can listen to the whole recording.  The context of the original recording is not given, but what is clear to me is that Rodriguez was under a great deal of stress at the time.  His sentences are halting and interrupted with many ums, ahs, and pauses with sometimes erratic changes of thought patterns.  I think this interview took place at a time when he was under intense pressure to keep silent. 


What is most significant about the Rodriguez revelations is the following: 1) He is not a conservative, nor was he anti-Clinton, so when he addresses the issue of the evidence pointing to a government conspiracy to cover up the murder, his credibility is high.  2) He correctly counters the prevailing popular notion that for a conspiracy to exist, or to be successful, virtually all of the players, however minor, have to be involved.  Here are some relevant excerpts: [my comments in brackets]


“[T]he whole notion of (Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Starr) doing an honest investigation is laughable… The FBI conducted the first investigation along with the Park Police.  The FBI reinvestigated Foster's death under Independent Counsel Fiske, then, Kenneth Starr used the very same FBI agents in his investigation… The American press misled the American public by reporting that there have been several independent investigations, when, in fact, all of the investigations were done by the FBI.


“Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some results…All people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.     …. And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and there – and their rationale was that they were following orders, being told what to do. 


“Nobody, ah, and this goes for all the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture [about the purpose of the cover-up]– they don't know what other people are writing in their reports.  When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with …other colleagues [higher up] who have made a conclusion already.  All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.…you control the central figures in the investigation.  We don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall crime.”  [End of Rodriguez quote.]



Reuters reported, “Populist outrage is threatening to undo a controversial effort by the FCC to loosen restraints on media megaliths. In the Senate last week, seven Republicans joined 28 Democrats to schedule a rare ‘resolution of disapproval’ to overturn new FCC rules that would let companies like News Corp. and Viacom expand their media holdings in local markets. Then in the House, defecting Republicans fueled a 40-to-25 committee vote to reverse part of the FCC's action. Yesterday, the House voted 400-21 (a veto proof majority) for a spending bill that would return the national television cap on networks owning stations that reach more than 35% of the population.  The current law is 45%.  The decision brings the Republican majority in Congress closer to a confrontation with the White House, which has threatened to veto the legislation.


Now it appears that the chief architect of those rules, FCC chairman Michael Powell, may not stick around for the fight. According to industry sources, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell has told confidants he'd like to leave by fall, and three of his four top staff members are putting out job feelers.  A spokesman for Powell at the FCC has denied Powell has any intent to leave.”


But the Bush administration isn’t going to let this die.  Apparently there are huge financial dealings under the table that hinge on Bush delivering this monopoly package to these insider corporations.  As Reuters reported later this week, “The Bush administration said on Tuesday it would veto a large government-spending bill if Congress reimposed media-ownership caps that were recently relaxed by the Federal Communications Commission.”   Of course, if it passes in the Senate with similarly high majorities, the issue will survive a Bush veto.


It is also telling that according to Washington insiders, Powell’s most likely replacement is either Rebecca Klein, who is head of the Texas public-utility commission and was on the staff of Governor George W. Bush, or FCC commissioner Kevin Martin, who helped the Bush team count votes in Florida in 2000.   How can conservatives counter the leftist argument that the free market is corrupted by insider dealings when confronted with this kind of evidence?  The left is having a heyday!  And this isn’t a truly free market—it’s beginning to look more like British mercantilism (with government favoring big corporations).



Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is proposing a Constitutional amendment that would allow foreign-born citizens to run for president of the United States.  Hatch claims that the Constitution’s proviso that a president be a “natural-born citizen” has “long outlived its original purpose.”  Has it?  The founders wanted to ensure that foreign influences or allegiances did not control the presidency.  Incorporating the restriction is one way they thought to prevent that.  Hatch claims he is speaking for beleaguered foreign born US soldiers who can’t ever run for the presidency.  But he, of all people, should know that the little guy never gets to run for president anymore—foreign or native-born. The larger question, though, is why is Hatch even bringing this up?  This is a non-issue.  No minority groups have been clamoring for this change.  I think Hatch is carrying water for the powers that be, who have someone in the wings they want to be president someday, who is foreign born. 


In another strange move, Hatch suddenly proposed legislation this week to do away with the District of Columbia’s ban on guns.  Bravo, I say—but why has Hatch suddenly become a crusader for repeal when he has resisted the call by conservatives for years to sponsor legislation that would role back anti-gun measures?  Initially, I thought perhaps Hatch was trying to curry favor with his right-wing, pro-Constitution constituency, who in the past decade have begun to view Hatch as a traitor to the cause.  But then I read the following story by two Cato Institute fellows: Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies, and Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute. They are involved in a crucial lawsuit over gun rights in DC and think that the NRA and Hatch are teaming up to derail a major ideological court battle over Second Amendment rights.


“Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.  In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.

“Maybe so.  More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will… How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same
Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.

“Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.

“Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing ‘to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case,’ denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.

“Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he's so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying,  ‘If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation.’”


I think the authors are correct.  I have long thought that the NRA has been compromised, like the Republican party, and is only appearing to defend gun rights while undermining them in more important hidden ways.  As for Sen. Hatch, he has totally sold out to the establishment Republican powers—mostly in exchange for their promise to nominate him to the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs.  Hatch may well get a nomination submitted when the time comes, but I’ll wager that secretly the Bush administration will allow the Democrats to torpedo it.  In this manner, the PTB will appear to have fulfilled their part of the agreement, while Hatch gets nothing.  Puppy dogs who worship at the feet of the Powers That Be never learn when they are being used. 





In a rather off-hand flippant kind of way, President Bush accepted personal responsibility for including his State of the Union address flawed intelligence about Iraqi attempts to buy enriched Uranium from Niger.   “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course," Bush continued, “I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace…I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence, good, solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”


Let me explain why it’s so easy for the president to accept personal responsibility for these acts:  It’s because there is no personal responsibility involved—in the sense of any real consequences!   His exagerations, combined with many others, directly led to the war in Iraq in which thousands of Iraqis lost their lives and hundreds of Americans.  If he were really personally responsible, he would be liable for damages—but he is not.  He, along with all other high government officials have immunity from prosecution for their acts.  In other words, other than losing an election (he still collects a huge pension) there are no personal consequences for any of his life of death consequences in Iraq—at least on earth.  He won’t be so lucky before the judgment bar of God. 


To continue, notice how Bush subtly changes the focus and argument of the weapons of mass destruction façade: “Look, in my line of work, it’s always best to produce results, and I understand that…In order to, you know, placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe: that Saddam had a weapons program.”  But this isn’t what the administration was trumpeting to the American public.  There never was any secret about Iraq at one time having a WMD program, including the attempt to build nuclear weapons.  What Bush and other administration yesmen were saying, however, was much more—that these weapons programs, especially biological and chemical, were active, ongoing, and being deployed in huge numbers.  This has not turned out to be the case.  Now, like all other spokesmen for the government, they keep downplaying the issue by trying to prove the case that there is evidence that Saddam HAD an active weapons program.  Trouble is, even Iraq never denied that!!!



President Bush's man in charge of the Corporate Fraud Task Force, Larry Thompson, a Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, went to the White House on July 22 to announce with much fanfare that the president was cracking down on corporate crime—specifically mentioning that he was going to ensure that whoever was guilty would be prosecuted.  Nobody savvy in the ways of Washington believed him.  The Bush administration gives constant protection to major corporations that have signed on to the globalist agenda.


Thompson read off a few statistics to make it appear he was serious.   According to the Washington Post, he announced that since its creation, the task force had obtained over 250 corporate fraud convictions, including guilty pleas from some 25 “former CEOs,” and that, “it had charged 354 defendants with some type of corporate fraud in connection with 169 cases….We have over 320 investigations pending, involving in excess of 500 individuals and companies as subjects of these investigations.”   Sounds impressive.  It was meant to.  But pleading guilty doesn’t mean they serve time.  In reality, according to the Post, “only one high-level corporate executive has gone to jail in that year.”  That one person was Sam Waksal, the former ImClone CEO, who was sentenced last month to seven years and three months in prison and ordered to pay about $4.3 million after pleading guilty to insider trading.


Apparently what Larry Thompson failed to say, was that he was the one who helped design the system of bargaining tools that would allow prosecuters to offer deals to big corporate CEO’s that were previous reserved for smaller criminals.  According to the Post, “a memo issued under his name in January 2003, Thompson opened a loophole for corporations to get away with criminal behavior without effective criminal sanction. The memo, titled "Federal Prosecution of Business Organization," gives prosecutors discretion to grant corporations immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation. These immunity agreements, known as deferred prosecution agreements, or pre-trial diversion, were previously reserved for minor street crimes. They were never intended for major corporate crimes. In fact, the U.S. Attorneys' Manual explicitly states that a major objective of pretrial diversion is to ‘save prosecutive and judicial resources for concentration on major cases.’  Since Thompson's memo, there have been a rash of deferred prosecution agreements in cases involving large corporations.”   The bottom line is that top CEO’s like Enron’s Kenneth Lay almost never get prosecuted.


In breaking news this week, retired Admiral John Poindexter let he be known he was resigning as head of the government’s ultra secret DARPA projects.  This is rare to see anyone in the Bush administration—at least those responsible for major intelligence faults and failure, to resign.  Most survive and prosper.  The nations’ disgust over Poindexter’s proposal to create a system for persons to make futures trades on the likelihood of future crises was no more apparent than this excellent editorial from the liberal Seattle Times:


“The Pentagon wisely has backed off a plan to set up a futures trading market where traders speculated on disaster as a means of predicting terrorism attacks. Still, some damage was done with newspapers from Paris to Sydney trotting out the details of the disgusting plan in which traders could profit from betting on such things as military coups and assassinations.


“What better way to affirm the most cynical world citizens' view of the United States as arrogant and indifferent to the plight of Middle Eastern people than to consider setting up a gambling ring that profits from their despair.

Adm. John M. Poindexter, the Pentagon's CEO of Creepy Ideas to Prevent Terrorism, is in charge of the Policy Analysis Market. The rationale is that such markets have a way of eliciting hidden information and have been successful at predicting such things as elections and commodity prices.


“Poindexter was President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser and was convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-contra scandal. He now is in charge of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] at the Pentagon…The Democrats are also foes of Poindexter's previous bombshell, the Total Information Awareness Program to tap into databases to capture financial and medical information about people — civil liberties and privacy rights be damned.


“Last year, Congress limited that plan so it could not be used against Americans, changing the name to Terrorist Information Awareness Program. The Senate recently blocked all funding for the program, although the Republican House has not. On Tuesday, responding to criticism of the planned terrorism futures market, Bush administration officials said it would be canceled.


“That's a relief; it shouldn't have gone this far. This is a concept for a sinister Hollywood movie, not responsible U.S. public policy. Lawmakers should think twice about funding for an agency that spawns such wrong-headed ideas, and the Bush administration should carefully consider the agency's future role.” [End of Seattle Times Editorial]   Amen to that!



Much has been made of the fact that the majority of the presumed 19 hijackers were of Saudi origin.  I don’t know how the media and Congress can continue to play on these numbers.  In reality, we know nothing about the real hijackers.  The US claims the names are on the passenger manifests, but is keeping the passenger lists secret—at least in terms of the names of the Arabs on board.  The fact that six of the named hijackers are still alive has not dissuaded the FBI from its certainty about the lists.  Insight Magazine did an extensive article on the identities of these six.  Here’s an excerpt:


“The six claimed they were victims of identify theft. They were ‘outraged’ to be identified as terrorists, they told the Telegraph of London. In fact, one of the men claimed he never had been to the United States, while another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who said he was in a flight-training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.


“The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is ‘no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.’ After that admission a strange thing happened – nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.


“Until now. Now the FBI is sticking with its original story – regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.


“How can the FBI be sure that the 19 men it ‘identified’ are indeed the hijackers? ‘Through extensive investigation,’ Carter insists. ‘We checked the flight manifests, their whereabouts in this country, and we interviewed witnesses who identified the hijackers.’”  But this is obviously untrue, at least in the case of the six living “hijackers.” Insight continues with one of the more egregious examples of misidentification on the list—the case of  Wail al-Shehri.


“Wail al-Shehri was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 11. He reportedly was in control of the plane when it crashed. Another Saudi man who is a pilot has the same name, and his father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. His picture was displayed by the FBI as the ‘terrorist’ al-Shehri who crashed the plane. The al-Shehri who is alive had resided in Daytona Beach, Fla., where he enrolled in flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He currently works for a Moroccan airline. Last year the Associated Press reported that al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. Embassy in Morocco. His photograph having been released and repeatedly shown around the world is evidence the man in the FBI photograph still is alive, the Saudi Embassy explains.”  [End of Insight quote.]  Since the US has published this person’s photograph, and refuses to retract it, clearly this isn’t a case of merely relying on a stolen name.  The fact that the person in the photograph is still alive proves his name shouldn’t be on the list, but the FBI continues to assert total infallibility.  This indicates that the US is intent upon maintaining a “we make no errors” front. 


Back to the Congressional report, it has been damaging enough to US-Saudi relations that the Saudis were mentioned at all, let alone by innuendo and without specific charges.  The Saudis have sent a special ambassador to Washington to demand the 28 pages be released so they can respond to the charges.  Still Bush refuses.  What is there to hide?   Bush appears to be protecting the Saudis from scrutiny.  I think it’s a ploy.


The crucial dichotomy here is that the Saudis are not pleading for the US to cover for them.  In fact, it’s just the opposite.  They are demanding openness in order to defend themselves.  Yes, I think the Saudis are funding fundamentalist movements throughout the Middle East, but they did not fund the US-controlled terrorists who were responsible for 9/11.  The US’s insistence on painting the hijackers as Saudis is telling and may explain why the US insists on maintaining the existing list of hijackers despite evidence it is a fraud.  If the US were really interested in covering for the Saudis, they wouldn’t have provided Congress with the intelligence on the Saudi connection in the first place.  By making a big flap about the classification of the 28 pages, the administration actually accentuates the Saudis’ guilt by innuendo—all the while claiming to be protecting an “ally.”  With friends like this, who needs enemies? 


It appears to me that the Bush administration is using the bogus list of Saudi hijackers to blacken the Saudi image—another form of the ongoing blackmail the US uses to keep the Saudis in line for some other purpose, perhaps oil.  It is no secret that Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, is hostile to the US, and yet the Saudis continue to keep OPEC in line and oil flowing to the US. 



Accusing the Saudis of complicity in the 9/11 attacks is like the pot calling the kettle black.  Collusion by our government with terror is a matter that needs open and careful scrutiny, despite Americans’ almost outright refusal to consider the possibility.  Given the Bush administration’s blatant attempt to permanently weaken the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches and due process, coupled with its ongoing mania for armed intervention around the world in conducting the presumed “war on terror,” I think there is more than sufficient reason to suspect that this government may have resorted to agent provocateur tactics to set the stage for such changes.  A high profile terrorist attack such as what happened on 9/11 is a perfect opportunity for a hegemonic government to assert greater control over its citizens.  The advent of the suspicious anthrax attacks (using spores traceable to US stocks) just prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act gives additional credence to the charge of government provocation. 


In order for provocations-through-terror such as the 9/11 attacks to work, the US has to make use of numerous third parties to give support to terror so that none of the terrorists’ actions can be traced directly back to the US government.  We already know that the CIA used Pakistani ISI  intelligence operatives to funnel arms and other explosives technology to Al Qaeda.  Pakistan continues to provide safe havens for the Taliban despite being partners in the war on terror.  In fact, I do not believe there is any significant evidence, outside the government’s own word for it, that either Osama bin Laden or the hierarchy of al Qaeda has broken away from CIA direction and support.  This is not to say that the majority of mid- or low-level operatives in al Qaeda have any knowledge of continued CIA control.  The connection needs only to be maintained at the highest levels.  This would account for the French intelligence leak about Osama bin Laden’s meeting with the CIA station chief in Dubai, Saudi Arabia 7 weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks.  It would also account for the fact that Osama bin Laden and his hundreds of Arab guards were allowed to escape the fighting in Afghanistan.  The US had knowledge through satellite surveillance of their embarkation aboard ships, but failed to intercept them.


The US is also covering for the aircraft flight training the would-be hijackers received prior to 9/11.  For instance, FBI headquarters suppressed local agent requests for search authority of one potential hijacker (Zacarias Moussaoui) who was taking flight simulator lessons in Minnesota, but was not interested in learning how to take off or land an airplane.   There is also ongoing evidence of CIA involvement with Huffman Aviation in Florida, which provided superficial light aircraft flight training to two Arabs as cover for their having received training on major airliners elsewhere—perhaps in Libya or even Iraq.  Flying Cessnas does not train anyone for handling the complex systems on Boeing aircraft—but it does provide a nice cover for training that may have taken place in other nations.   Why cover for these other nation’s training of the hijackers?  Because it was done with US foreknowledge and there are those involved that could blow the whistle on US involvement.  The US obviously has some nations to cover for, and others to expose.  In all these reports and investigations, the real culprits funding terrorism (Russian and China) are not exposed while peripheral players like Saudi Arabia are.   This is not mere stupidity, but purposeful confusion of events and target players in order to divert the American public from the truth.


Now, despite the utter lack of any significant low profile terrorism since 9/11, the Bush administration continues to push for more power to restrict civil liberties.  Just this week, Attorney General Ashcroft announced another round of Patriot Act provisions, euphemistically entitled the VICTORY Act [Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act], which would further expand government powers.  All last month the Department of Justice was assuring the public that it had no plans for a Patriot II version of legislation. Now, Ashcroft has announced he will make a 10-day, 20-state “Victory tour” that includes a stop in New York to push the new Act.  There must be a nasty agenda behind all of this for the administration to keep pushing the limits of truth and honesty to this extent.    



A rash of pneumonia cases has cropped up among Army personnel, despite the lack of cold weather and other traditional factors normally associated with the virus.  Two have died and 15 cases are so serious that the victims have been put on ventilators and transported to hospitals in Europe.  The Army vehemently claims there is no relationship between the 100 cases of pneumonia that have shown up since March, and vaccines forced on the troops prior to their deployment in Iraq.  


However, not all of the evidence to this effect is being acknowledged by Army officials.  According to WorldNetDaily, “the pneumonia probe began at the time of the first death in June. As UPI first reported, with its focus on pneumonia cases among deployed troops in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the Army is excluding the April 4 death of 22-year-old Army specialist Rachael Lacy of Lynwood.  Lacy died at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., from what one doctor diagnosed as pneumonia. Lacy received anthrax and smallpox vaccinations but wasn't deployed.  Lacy's father told the Army Times his daughter had called in March and said she had chest pains and breathing problems and had been diagnosed with pneumonia. Minnesota coroner Eric Pfeifer told the paper the smallpox and anthrax vaccines ‘may have’ contributed to her death. ‘It's just very suspicious in my mind,’ Pfeifer said. ‘She's healthy, gets the vaccinations and then dies a couple weeks later.’  According to the paper, Pfeifer listed ‘post-vaccine’ problems on the death certificate.”


This is beginning to look like a rerun of the Gulf War syndrome—also related to an experimental vaccine..  Once again, military personnel are showing a disturbing susceptibility to serious illnesses following major vaccinations.  The effects are showing up as a multitude of normal diseases that the government can claim have no relation to the vaccines administered.  However, the vaccines and the immune suppressants employed as part of the inoculation package prior to military deployment, cause a slowing down of the immune response, which could allow normal illnesses like pneumonia to take off relatively unchecked.  This is yet another classic demonstration of the dangers of vaccines, and once again, government officials are refusing to acknowledge that such dangers exist.



Computerized voting machines are all the rage among election bureaucrats still reeling from criticism about the 2000 election debacle in Florida.  However, a growing number of computer experts have pointed out flaws in virtually every system of computerized voting, which could allow election officials to change results with a few clicks of the keyboard.  There now appears to be a concerted effort underway to silence critics so that local government officials can be more easily induced to accept the new machines.


Lynn Landes, a freelance journalist, submitted the following stark report to www.EcoTalk.org on August 1st.  “Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a leading expert in voting machine security, had her conference credentials revoked by the president of the International Association of Clerks, Records, Election Officials, and Treasurers (IACREOT), Marianne Rickenbach.  The annual IACREOT Conference and Trade Show, which showcases election systems to elections officials, is being held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Denver all this week.


Mercuri believes that her credentials were revoked because of her position in favor of voter-verified paper ballots for computerized election systems. ‘I guess in a very troubling way it makes sense that an organization like IACREOT, that supports paperless computerized voting systems, which are secret by their very design, would not want computer experts who disagree with that position at their meetings.’ Dr. Mercuri said that her credentials were approved for the first three days of the conference. She attended meetings of other groups and visited the exhibitors hall. But it was only on Thursday as she sat down to attend her first meeting at the IACREOT that President Marianne Rickenbach took Mercuri out of the room and told her that her credentials were being revoked. Rickenbach said that Mercuri had not filled out the forms correctly. Mercuri protested, but was refused reinstatement.”


Obviously, Rickenbach could have allowed Mercuri to correct any problems on the form, but Mercuri was even denied access to her form and officials refused to say what the error was.  Also, David Chaum, the inventor of eCash and a member of Mercuri's ‘voter-verified paper ballot’ group, had his credentials revoked on the first day of the conference. On the second day his credentials were partially restored. Chaum was allowed to visit the exhibitors hall, but not to attend the IACREOT meetings, according to Landes.  This is disturbing in that it appears there is a concerted effort to push through computerized voting despite its lack of security.



WorldNetDaily.com discovered another egregious use of government bonuses to reward unethical, but loyal conduct from a Bush appointee:  Thomas Rider, as acting director of Energy's intelligence office, overruled senior intelligence officers on his staff in voting for the position [that Iraq had reconstituted its defunct nuclear-arms program] at a National Foreign Intelligence Board meeting at CIA headquarters last September. His officers argued at a pre-briefing at Energy headquarters that there was no hard evidence to support the alarming Iraq nuclear charge, and asked to join State Department's dissenting opinion, Energy officials say.


“Rider ordered them to ‘shut up and sit down,’ according to sources familiar with the meeting. As a result, State was the intelligence community's lone dissenter in the key National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, something the Bush administration is quick to remind critics of its prewar intelligence. So far no banned weapons have been found in Iraq to confirm its charges.


“Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham gave Rider a $13,000 performance bonus after the NIE report was released and just before the war, department sources say. He had received an additional $7,500 before the report. ‘That's a hell of a lot of money for an intelligence director who had no experience or background in intelligence, and who'd only been running the office for nine months,’ said one source who requested anonymity. ‘Something's fishy.’”   [End of WND quote]. 


I’ll explain what is fishy here.  This is the way the insider system operates to gain assent from unprincipled yes-men who are not necessarily knowing conspirators in the larger picture.  Bonuses such as what Rider received are used regularly to reward loyalty, even though they are supposed to reward actual competency.  Acceding bureaucrats are often advanced to higher positions because of their willingness to keep a secret and use their position to advance otherwise illegal agendas.  More principled people who object or refused to compromise are not advanced and never given bonuses. 



Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt thinks he’s on a roll.  Over the past decade he has parlayed a winning smile and artful people-pleasing compromises into a long list of political successes.  Now, the 3-term Utah governor has been nominated to fill a high profile vacancy in the Bush cabinet: the embattled job of EPA chief, replacing former New Jersey governor Christine Whitman.  Leavitt doesn’t really relish the job itself—after all, few survive a stint at the EPA and go on to higher office.  Normally, it’s a career killer. The powerful environmental lobby and their lock-step media allies can and will crucify anyone but one of their own, no matter how much a nominee tries to please.  And try to please Leavitt will because, above all, he is determined to move up the ladder of national recognition.


As far as Leavitt is concerned, the EPA job is merely a stepping stone in his quest for higher political office.  He’s convinced he has the slick media skills necessary to survive and make himself look good.  Besides, when the Powers That Be call, Leavitt jumps, knowing that if he turns down one call, he might not get another one.   His delay in accepting the White House offer in June was not, I believe, for the reasons proffered by the press.  The Leavitt team leaked the story that he turned down the job offer in June because he was still considering a run for a fourth term as governor.  That may be technically true, but it’s not because another term as governor was Leavitt’s real preference.  His initial hesitancy to accept was because he knew the EPA job is almost always a political dead end—a very high risk option.  He held off accepting the White House offer while he and his Republican contacts surveyed all the other potentials for advancement.  Would Senator Hatch’s job open up soon due to retirement or a nomination to the Supreme Court?  Was there some other more favorable cabinet position opening up soon?  It seems there were no other options on the horizon, so he opted to please the Republican hierarchy, to which he ultimately owes his future. 


The delay also gave Leavitt time to work out a plan for determining his successor.  Leavitt is head of the liberal Republican political machine in Utah, and above all he wants to make sure that if he steps down, his arch “enemies,” Utah’s considerable and vocal band of constitutional conservatives, are in no position to take the reins.  Constitutional conservatives have been steadily neutralized through the years as the liberals have been working behind closed doors, whispering in the ears of conservative State legislators and promising them advancement and political support if they “moderate” and compromise their formerly “extreme” positions.  The compromising political machine run by Leavitt and company does produce results in Utah, only some of which are obviously evil, so it’s hard for conservatives who are being offered power to resist advancement in this good old boy network.  Many of these conservatives have slowly morphed into liberals, always protesting that they really haven’t changed their stripes.  That is why Utah constitutional conservatives get only the verbiage and the “moderate” (actually liberal) Republican wing gets all actions. 


I think Leavitt views the Republican political machine he controls as both benevolent and righteous—one which will “save” the state and the predominant church from extremists who would “ruin a good thing.”  His mentors uniformly eschew contention and divisiveness, a position which makes for a convenient excuse for Leavitt to evade direct debate with his opposition on the right.  Leavitt is almost impossible to pin down on a subject during public meetings.  He has become a master of pat answers and generalizations, not giving anyone a chance to pursue the matter in detail. While these are the same tactics evil men and conspirators use to advance their hidden agendas, I don’t believe Leavitt is in that category.  Some men are prime operators and high government insiders (the PTB) and others (Leavitt included) are predictable yes-men, hungry for advancement, who are used to give those hidden agendas a kindly face.   


All of the foregoing deserves some analysis, because conservatives need to more fully understand why so many Christian politicians end up compromising basic principles even as they think they are serving God, their heritage and their country.  My comments here will pertain specifically to Mormon politicians, but they have applications to politicians of other Christian denominations as well.


The pattern of rationalization and compromise I’ve described is particularly tempting for Mormon politicians, because of the Mormon people’s historical roots as a persecuted minority.  For years Mormons have longed to attain fair representation and mainstream recognition.  Part of this is understandable.  When a church has been subject to decades of mostly unfair attacks and misrepresentations, it is only natural for its members to want the world to see it in a just and true light.  But what Mormons fail to realize is that the establishment world purposely withheld giving Mormons fair treatment until their leaders, both political and religious, began to pay homage to the Powers That Be, just like the rest of the mainstream Christian world.


That homage includes: 1) muted or no criticism of government conspiracy and corruption; 2) agreeing to treat the laws of man as the ultimate authority—rather than the laws of God; and 3) becoming a team player, participating in government programs even if it means rationalizing away certain strict principles.   


The Mormon tradition includes more than enough strict principles to place Mormons on the enemy side of big government’s ledger: 

  • The Christian doctrine held to by the Mormon church is strict and ideological, and does not lend itself to compromise.  It includes the tenet that a church member’s allegiance is first to God, second to God’s chosen leaders on earth, and lastly to earthly political leaders.  Patriotism can hold sway only in cases where God has given conditional support to a government as its laws support the principles of liberty.
  • Distrust of government has a long precedent in Mormon history due to persecution, war, and expulsion from three US states and the from the nation altogether during the 19th century.
  • Warnings about the eventual workings of conspiracy in the American government are sprinkled throughout the Book of Mormon, which Mormons hold as scripture like the Bible. 
  • Mormon doctrine and tradition urges strict morality, conformance to a health code, personal preparedness, and avoidance of state welfare schemes.  Socialism is viewed as an evil and a violation of fundamental property rights.


Naturally, Mormons who have studied their historical roots, and feel a connection to them, have traditionally tended to be conservative, self-reliant, constitutionalist, patriotic, and distrustful of big government—especially at the federal and global level.  But over the past half century, due primarily to public school influence (mandated by the federal government as a condition of Utah joining the union), most younger Mormons have become increasingly accepting of socialist government programs, as long as they aren’t labeled as such, and have begun to view government as benevolent and trustworthy.  Conditional acceptance of government has given way to broadly worded statements of unconditional support for obedience to the law of the land—a position which can be highly problematic.


What has made public school influence so critical in this transition to Church compliance with government is that public education specializes in denying students, through purposeful omissions, the teaching of the specific principles, historical details and analytical skills that would allow them to distinguish between false ideas, euphemistic labels, propaganda, and disinformation, and the reality of what is happening around us in the world.  Furthermore, the Church has repeatedly declined to fill in these crucial gaps of knowledge, either in worship or educational settings, leaving matters up to the worldly educators—whose own system of advancement dictates conformance to political correctness and leftist philosophies. 


When a Mormon politician decides to put his hat in the ring—a ring controlled by liberal Republicans and “moderate” Democrats—his conservative Mormon background is viewed privately as a problem, even an embarrassment.  The conservative verbiage is still OK, even desirable.  However, attempting to follow through with effective restrictions on government power in any state today is one of the quickest ways out of office. Too many of the voters, even in Republican Utah, are corrupted by public benefits (especially education benefits), and the politicians know that it is easier to lure voters to their campaigns with taxpayer benefits than restrictive political ideologies like the Constitution.


Strangely even though most Mormons have become middle-of-the-road Republicans who accept many socialist programs, few of them realize that they have gradually compromised their political ideals.  They still think of themselves as conservative, small government Republicans.  The core reason for this ignorance is that hardly any of them have any precise notion about what socialism really is (except in its most obvious and extreme iterations like Communism), so they buy into any number of socialist  “solutions” offered by politicians—as long as it is never labeled for what it is.  Thus it is that most liberal Republicans have become Democratic socialists in philosophy and action, although they choose to profess (and believe) that they are still Republicans in order to survive politically. 


By the way, just so you and yours won’t be among the uniformed, socialism encompasses any government program whereby tax moneys are used to bestow direct benefits on individuals or groups less than the whole.  The proper role of a government of liberty is only to protect fundamental rights, not to deliver direct benefits.  Ironically, Democrats, the original socialists, are now finding themselves without a unique cause.  Lacking serious differences with the changing Republicans, they are having trouble convincing the public that their version of government is best.  


Because of the ideological integrity of Mormon doctrine and tradition, few Mormon politicians can afford to be seen directly contradicting basic conservative principles, so a complex set of rationalizations is employed to justify and mask a politician’s desire to compromise his political principles.  The most obvious tactic is to continue to claim that all his actions are “conservative” and in furtherance of smaller government—at least compared to what the Democrats might do.  In other words, “I’m still conservative as long as I’m to the right of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”  


But the most dangerous of all the rationalizations for Mormon politicians is the one rooted in Mormon persecution.  This is the assertion that by achieving high public office, the politician is helping to bring his Church the just recognition it deserves, and by inference, he is serving God.  Perhaps the “personal mission for God” concept is only a subtle influence on some, but for others like Leavitt it is a very soothing cover for high ambition.  There no better rationalization for ambition and compromise of principles than the notion that “it’s God’s will that I stay in office.”  Once a politician feels he must stay in office no matter what, he will do whatever it takes to appease the powers that can help him attain reelection.  That is why we have seen so much compromise from Orrin Hatch over the years to the establishment global agenda.  That is why Mike Leavitt panders to the education crowd even when the state should be cutting back its bloated education budget. 


All of this helps explain why Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch, despite their conservative roots, intensely dislike their constitutional conservative critics further to the right.  Those critics illuminate the specific violations of principle in which these politicians engage, that are otherwise well obscured by the overuse of patriotic generalities.  Uncomfortable with answering such criticisms directly, Leavitt and Hatch spend much of their energy labeling their critics “extremists,” and clinging to the “moderate” label themselves.  As Leavitt asserted following his nomination, “There is no progress to be made at the extremes; progress can only be made in the productive center.”


The problem with this pejorative labeling is that it evades the question of right or wrong associated with every specific issue.   Sometimes the extreme position is the right position.  Sometimes it is not.  Regardless, the emphasis should remain with the correctness of a principle, rather than its relative political position.  Clinging to the center also makes a politician vulnerable to being railroaded into changing his stand as soon as the opposition media declares his position extreme.  By making evasion of extremism his prime policy, he guarantees that the opposition will use the label against him constantly.  


There is always a price to be borne by politicians like Leavitt and Hatch for becoming subservient to the establishment powers.  Behind all the backroom promises that have been made is a globalist agenda in which Mormon politicians will someday regret having played a role.  Far from championing the principles of liberty under God for which the doctrine of their Church stands, these ambitious, compromising men are being used by the establishment to draw conservative Mormons into the globalist trap.  In the end, the insiders will dump both Hatch and Leavitt because they really aren’t really part of the global team, and can never be trusted with a full view of globalist plans.  Where will they go then?   Certainly, they can never be trusted back on the right.  



Key stock indices have been ballooning recently without any corresponding justification from economic fundamentals.  Corporate layoffs are still occurring, though at a decreased rate.  The unemployed are not moving back into comparable jobs at the same rates of compensation.  Finding new jobs is still very difficult, and those who have found work are having to accept lower paying jobs usually outside their major specialty.  High tech areas like Silicon Valley have been particularly hard hit.  One of my sources in the Bay told me recently, “Unemployment here is probably closer to 20% than the government figure of 15%.  I work surrounded by a sea of H1B [foreign-worker permit] engineers from Taiwan and India. Of my technical writer colleagues, half are unemployed, some for as long as two years. Many of them - in their 40s or 50s - are scrambling to retrain as medical technicians or gardeners or something. It's not pretty.”


While many major corporations that have gone through 3 and 4 layoff cycles in the past year and a half are now stabilizing at a level where they can survive, hardly any are planning for new growth anytime soon.  So what is the basis for the growing optimism and the upturn in the market indices trumpeted by the media? 


I think the financial powers that be have partially succeeded in creating the appearance of a “soft landing,” but that it is only a temporary respite from the overall downturn caused by the previous decade of unsustainable growth rates, fueled by government’s easy credit policy.  A true soft landing could have been engineered by slowly reducing the rate at which the fed injects fiat money and credit into the economy (which favors those who are the first recipients).  This tightening of credit, if gradual, could have given people and businesses time to adjust and retrench, paying down mortgages, laying off excess employees, and cutting expenses—all conservative business practices.  For the medium term cautious businessmen would accumulate no additional debt (thanks in large part to the higher cost of credit), and would start building reserves so they are in a more flexible financial position.


In contrast, the “soft landing” we’ve recently experienced does not represent a full restitution of the bloated and hyped up former market.  To be sure, about two-thirds of the economy (the honest sector) has been contracting in response to the downturn.  But government spending and credit are still flowing at an unsustainably high level, so the sectors that are on the receiving end of these factors (particularly defense industries and housing construction) are receiving no incentives to scale back their bloated levels of production.  These huge government subsidized sectors account for almost a third of the economy and are still pouring money into index stocks, providing for the rebound in the stock market and keeping the economy from further fall.  However, most individual company stocks are not rising along with the key indices—a typical indicator that the stock market buoyancy is due more to market manipulation than real economic recovery.


My brother Mark Skousen, who writes a financial monthly letter entitled Forecasts and Strategies, had these comments in the Aug 2003 issue:  “The bears are correct in saying that evaluations now are sky high, with the S&P 500 Index selling at 39 times trailing earnings…The Fed’s desperate easy-money policy [money supply figures:  M1 is up 13.3%, M2 is up 14.08% and M3 is up 8.01%] has created another unsustainable boom, not in the economy, which is still sluggish, but in stocks and real estate.  It’s a repeat of the 1990s, only on a smaller scale.”   Mark then quotes actor/lawyer/financial writer Ben Stein who cogently notes, “To have a second bubble so soon after the first is rare if not unprecedented.  We may have entered a ‘new era’ but such phrases usually come before a crash.  I am worried indeed that valuations beg either a second crash or a long, grinding second correction.” 


By engineering a phony soft landing via a second stock market and real estate bubble, the fed has simply postponed the inevitable correction till later.  I don’t know how long it will take before this second bubble bursts.  I think the key will be in the real estate market and the downward pressure on the dollar.   If they both contract more than 20-25%, the huge derivatives market will likely start collapsing. 


Real estate has flattened out, but is still overpriced in most areas.  It is only the artificially low interest rates that are keeping the market afloat.  Used homes are suffering because it is so attractive to build new.  There is an excess of builders on the market, just trying to stay alive, and they are discounting heavily.  Even though prices of new and used homes are staying relatively high in publicized offerings, most sellers are taking substantial discounts in order to consummate a sale—especially in high end homes.   A major portion of the sellers in this market are simply holding on, hoping for a buyer to come along, and burning reserves in the process .  There is a huge potential for deflation in home prices when these sellers of convenience run low on reserves and are forced to lower their prices to sell.  Once a flood of desperation sellers hits the market, prices will come down fast. 


Foreclosures and bankruptcies are also increasing dramatically.  The American Bankruptcy Institute reported that personal bankruptcy filings totaled a record-breaking 1,613,097 this past year, which is up some 10 percent from the previous reporting period. Banks are requiring longer times for deposited checks  to clear, reflecting the higher risk of people passing bad checks.  Even checks from big corporations are being viewed with some suspicion—in particular insurance and mortgage companies, which are heavily invested in derivatives.   A couple of mortgage wholesalers went out of business this week, after failing to anticipate the rise in mortgage lending rates.  Mortgage wholesalers buy home loans from originators and sell them as a package to investors.  Due to the reversal of low interest rates, some wholesalers haven't been able to find investors for the most recent loan packages, bought before rates rose.  The fact that this slight setback took them under is an indication that they were already on the ropes.  How many other mortgage companies are in similar straits?


My recommendation: Take advantage of this brief respite in the recession to get out of debt.  If you are going to downsize out of a highly mortgaged home into a smaller debt free residence, or move to a less dense suburban or rural area, do so now while prices are still holding.  Getting out of debt should be your number one strategy for surviving the collapse of the second bubble economy.



The great electrical blackout of August 2003 brought down the interconnected northeastern power grid from parts of Ohio to New York City and as far north as Eastern Canada.  Like the West Coast blackout several years ago and the ongoing California power debacle, most of the finger pointing for this crisis was aimed at privatization and deregulation.  Naturally, the “ought to be a (federal) law” crowd came out in force calling for more federal money (at least $60 billion for starters) and re-regulation in a knee-jerk effort to prevent such crises from reoccurring. 


In response, the power industry has countered convincingly that the plethora of federal environmental and litigious regulations are the cause, not the solution.  Federal interference with the distribution and production of power has made it either impossible or extremely costly to build new transmission lines and new power plants.  Everybody wants cheap, abundant power, but “not in my backyard.”  Regarding the privatization claim, industry experts maintain that it was precisely the skewed way in which partial deregulation was forced upon the industry (allowing wholesale prices to be unregulated, but capping retail consumer prices) that forced the shortages and lack of investment in new infrastructure which led to the blackouts.  Apparently, however, none of these effective counters carry any weight with Washington bureaucrats, who are so anxious to assert even more control over the power grid.  So, the free market gets the blame for not doing what perverse incentives kept them from doing all along—and the feds get an excuse to jump into the vacuum and mandate a unified solution.  Such sovietized solutions always have predictable consequences:  inefficiency, high cost and zero competition. 


As to the immediate cause of the blackout itself, there have been several proposals circulating the Internet, ranging from the credible to the bizarre.  The most plausible explanation is that an overloaded transmission line heated up and sagged into some trees, causing automatic switches to drop a major power plant off-line and transfer the entire load to another portion of the grid, which in turn overloaded when automatic warning signals failed to call for human intervention to send the power to a less loaded section of the grid. 


More bizarre was a statement quoted in the media that the direction of transmission power suddenly reversed itself for no apparent reason.  This statement spawned numerous conspiracy-related explanations involving Tesla machines or government EMP generators causing this reversal.  Tesla machines, as far as is known, only exist in theory, but EMP generators are real.  These technologies can create huge power surges via electromagnetic waves, but they are incapable of doing pin-point damage.  On the scale of use required to cause this blackout, they would have generated huge side effects on cars, houses and electrical equipment nearby—even miles away.  We have no evidence of any such side effects occurring—only direct damage to the transmission system, which tends to rule out these unsubstantiated claims of electromagnetic interference.


Most suspicious was a statement by a purported subgroup of Al Qaeda claiming responsibility.  As reported by the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, the blackout was caused when “the [Al Qaeda] brigade of Abu Fahes Al Masri had hit two main power plants supplying the East of the US, as well as major industrial cities in the U.S. and Canada.”  In the same communiqué, this brigade took credit for two other international terror attacks. There terrorists refused to describe how the attack was carried out, not wanting to disclose their “secret methods.” 


Let’s analyze the problems with these claims.  First, no actual power plants sustained any damage; only transmission lines.  Second, if it had been a computer hack attack, the hackers would have disabled safety measures in order to cause physical damage to the power system.  However, the power system monitors and controls, which are capable of recreating the sequence of events for analysis, do not show any sign of external tampering with safety mechanisms, either physically or by computer hacking.  In fact, the system shut down just like it was supposed to.  The thing that went wrong was insufficient human intervention to divert power to places where automatic shutdown triggers and overloads could have been avoided.  Third, why did the terrorists not use the easiest way of taking down the system—blowing up transmission towers in rural areas?    Power stays down for a lot longer that way.  When terrorists claim secret and untraceable powers of intervention, I’m skeptical.  


The claim of responsibility is particularly questionable considering the Bush administration’s assertion, within hours of the onset of the blackout, that there was “no terrorism involved.”  Given the propensity of the Bush/Ashcroft team to jump at every opportunity to raise the specter of terrorism in order to justify more PATRIOT Act intrusions on civil liberties, the administration would probably have seized the chance to blame Al Qaeda if there were any substance to this claim.  It appears to have been mere bravado by would-be terrorists hoping to make their claim to fame. 


As Attorney General John Ashcroft  tours the country drumming up support for the USA PATRIOT Act and other follow on legislation, the PR men behind Ashcroft are playing up to American patriotism for all they are worth.  Typically, the speech is given before a predictable and compliant audience--policemen and other law enforcement officers, whose local uniforms are meant to lend prestige to the occasion.  The podium is always backed with not just one American flag, but sometimes as many as a dozen.  The news media predictably interviews law enforcement officers who back the Ashcroft vendetta to gut the Bill of Rights, and who uniformly downplay its threat to essential liberties and due process.  In Utah and Idaho, word has leaked out that some law enforcement officers were not-so-subtly intimidated into attending Ashcroft's rally 
After a ten-month stint at the Pentagon working in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP), Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski saw enough to know she wanted out of the military.  She retired and has had the courage to tell what she saw.  Her words are the first from an insider to document the systematic way in which Rumsfeld and his hand-picked political appointees bypassed career military and intelligence professionals to ensure that US military planning conformed to a predetermined Bush administration outcome.  Here are some excerpts from her report, entitled The Pentagon Has Some Explaining To Do.  [My comments in brackets.] 
                    “What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of ‘intelligence’ found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I can identify three prevailing themes.
                    “Functional isolation of the professional corps. Civil service and active-duty military professionals assigned to the USDP/NESA and SP were noticeably uninvolved in key areas of interest to Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. These included Israel, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia. [Example:] When The New York Times broke the story last summer of Richard Perle's invitation to Laurent Muraviec to brief the Defense Policy Board on Saudi Arabia as the next enemy of the United States, this briefing was news to the Saudi desk officer. [In other words, he was left completely out of the loop.]  He even had some difficulty getting a copy of it, while receiving assignments related to it.
                    “In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by political appointees, in the case of Israel a desk officer appointee from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and in the case of Iraq, Abe Shulsky and several other appointees. These personnel may be exceptionally qualified... But the human resource depth made possible through broad-based teamwork with the professional policy and intelligence corps was never established, and apparently never wanted by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld organization.
                    “Cross-agency cliques: Much has been written about the role of the founding members of the Project for a New American Century, the Center for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute and their new positions in the Bush administration [all neocons—old line social democrats turned “conservative, pro-defense Republicans”—except on the social issues]. Certainly, appointees sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and that an overwhelming number of these appointees have such organizational ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual [perhaps]. What is unusual is the way this network operates solely with its membership across the various agencies -- in particular the State Department, the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President [definitely conspiratorial].
                    “Within the Central Intelligence Agency, it was less clear to me who the appointees were, if any. [Except for the top appointed heads, there aren’t any official political appointees in the CIA. However, there is a dark side and a white side among the professional staff.  Only dark side operators reach high positions of control within the agency.] This might explain the level of interest in the CIA taken by the Office of the Vice President.  [Indeed, it does.  As the case against Iraq was building, the VP made dozens of personal trips to the CIA to make sure the intelligence matched with what he wanted.  This level of interference by a VP was unprecedented in US history and good evidence of conspiratorial intent to manipulate the results.]  In any case, I personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council because that particular decision would be processed through a different channel.  In the development and implementation of war planning it is neither amusing nor beneficial for American security [that] opposing points of view and information that doesn't ‘fit’ aren't considered. [Normally, the different points of view that key agencies of government gather would be beneficial, serving as a check and balance for determining what is in the best interest of the nation, according to law.  What Kwiatkowski is describing is evidence of a predetermined agenda among an elite group that controls these agencies, to keep personnel within the agencies from communicating and discovering these differing points of view.  This is conspiracy—the collusion between separate government officials having a fiduciary responsibility to maintain their separate legal functions.]
                    “Groupthink.  The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted ‘fact,’ and
uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view.  Groupthink, in this most recent case leading to invasion and occupation of Iraq, will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress.
                    “I am now retired. Shortly before my retirement I was allowed to return to my primary office of assignment, having served in NESA as a desk officer backfill for 10 months. The transfer was something I had sought, but my wish was granted only after I made a particular comment to my superior, in response to my reading of a February Secretary of State cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern country regarding US planning for the aftermath in Iraq.  The answers had been heavily crafted by the Pentagon, and to me, they were remarkably inadequate, given the late stage of the game. I suggested to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Saddam Hussein in the war crimes tribunals. [Now, that’s a gutsy remark!]”   [End of Kwiatkowski excerpt.]  
                    Kwiatkowski’s experience demonstrates why the US military is being left with only abject yes-men at the highest levels.  All the courageous and principled people are being forced out as they confront the reality of the degree of compromise required to rise within the ranks.  Had she stayed in the military after this experience, Kwiatkowski surely would have been passed over for promotion. 
Dan Wallach, professor of computer science at Rice University, co-authored the Johns Hopkins University report, Analysis of an electronic voting system with Beth Harris, author of Black box voting, ballot tampering in the 21st century.  The pair analyzed the source code of Diebold corporation, the prime contractor of electronic voting machines.  The machines use a smart card with magnetic swipe strip to register the electronic signature of each voter.  The smart cards are issued to each voter after registering.  According to the report, there is no significant coding scheme in the communication protocol between card and machine, so it is a simple matter for a political machine to buy blank cards and encode them for voting.
                    Amy Goodman conducted an interview with Wallach and Harris as they discussed the vulnerabilities to voter fraud in electronic voting.  Here are a couple of excerpts:  
DAN WALLACH: “…the smart card that you program yourself, these things, by the way, only cost a couple of dollars to purchase. Then you can program your smart card when the voting machine sends it a message that says, okay, you should be cancelled now, it just ignores that message. Thus as long as you can stand there in the privacy of the voting place, you can cast as many ballots as you have time to punch in before you start arousing suspicion.  [Obviously the common person wouldn’t have access to the machines that program smart cards.  But they are available on the market and would be easily accessible to political groups bent on distorting an election.]
                    One of the curious things we found when you have what's called a ballot image--that's the thing that says, Alice is running for this office, Bob is running for that office, et cetera. When you vote for – say you have an election as Alice, Bob and Charlie all running for an office; when you vote for Alice, it doesn't say Alice got one vote, Bob got one vote. It says candidate number one got one vote, candidate number two got two votes, et cetera. So if you can change the order in which the candidates appear on the screen, you might press the button for Alice but really gets counted for Bob. We found that could you actually do that. You could get what’s so-called administrator access to one of these terminals, and you could reorder the candidates. And so if one person goes in the morning does that, another person comes later in the day undoes it, then everybody voting that day for Alice might actually have their votes counted for Bob which is not really what they wanted.  [Once again, the ordinary voter is not going to have administrative access to the computer terminal.  However, corrupt voting officials can certainly do this.  A similar form of election fraud was accomplished in a major state-wide race in Utah during the last election—even with paper ballots.  The change was made in the computer tallying the results.]
                    “[Continuing, Wallach makes the key point about the need to have a verifiable paper trail so that spot checks can be made to ensure the electronic voter process has not been tampered with.] The bad thing is when there's no, what's called a voter verifiable audit trail. What I and many other computer scientists are advocating is that you have the computer in front and a printer in back. After you're done voting, it prints out a piece of paper that says on it everybody who you voted for. And if you agree with it, you press a button it drops into a box. If you don't agree with it, you press another button it gets shredded into confetti in front of your eyes. If you can see that, at that point if you the voter can see this card, read it, it says what you want it to say, then you no longer care what the software is doing. Because you know that that paper ballot will always have your intent on it. And in the event of a tight election it can be recounted either by machine or by hand if it really matters. And we saw it in Florida of 2000 that when it really matters you can have people counting these things by hand, and that's important.” 

Beth Harris: “Absolutely….you cannot have a system where the machine is simply checking itself, that's not an audit.”  [End of Wallace-Harris interview.]





With the burgeoning costs of Iraq and Afghanistan looming ever larger, no one in Congress has a clue as to what future US outlays are going to be.  But Congressional Republicans are making an effort at presenting some sort of budget – which will surely be busted.  The only thing that is certain is that it will be written in red ink.  It is somewhat ironic that as spending gets more out of line with revenues, Congress gets freer with money rather than more frugal.  It’s almost as if no one feels obligated anymore to the notion of fiscal responsibility – only to pleasing the special interests who get them elected. 


While the official budget deficit is projected to be in excess of $450 billion, realistic estimates predict something closer to $600-700 billion.  This doesn’t include raiding the Social Security trust fund for over $300 billion.  On top of all this, Congress is about to pass some form of legislation expanding Medicare to cover payments for prescription drugs for the elderly.  Congress naively hopes to keep costs of the Medicare expansion under $400 billion over the next decade.  Haven’t they learned anything from the history of entitlements?  In ten years the cost will probably exceed 10 times that amount.  This is a bailout for the big drug companies, who will now have little or no incentive to market drugs at competitive prices.  It will also make the elderly more dependent on drugs, as opposed to herbal and nutritional cures, because Medicaid will pay for drugs – and not natural alternatives.  I predict that the drug payment portion of Medicaid will quickly rise to become the number one expense in the Medicare budget, forcing an increase in payroll taxes.  No resistance to such future tax increases will be viable, since cutting funding for the elderly is something no politician can survive. 


All of this spending mania at a time when fiscal austerity is called for should help us to see the great danger of giving government the powers to use debt and deficit spending to defer, delay, obscure and hide the direct financial impact of legislation they pass.  If the voters were to receive an annual tax bill for all new spending passed by Congress, such spending would be short lived.  However, because of the near unlimited federal power to use borrowing and fiat money creation, instead of taxation, to cover for increases in spending, the American taxpayer is denied the normal and appropriate resistance that should be present in the political process.  The resulting growing debts and obligations will never be repaid. 



A heretofore unreleased amateur video of the Boeing 767 crashing into WTC #2 shows a disturbing modification on the bottom side of the United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft.  The aircraft almost missed its target and the person directing the aircraft made a dramatic last minute steep turn to intercept the corner of the building.  In the process of the turn the bottom of the aircraft suddenly becomes visible in the low morning sun and reveals a very large and bulging modification on the right side of the fuselage behind  the landing gear doors.  The bulge is as wide as the wing root, so it is easy to detect. 


You can view key images of this anomaly from the new Pavel Hlava video on the NY Times website: 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/nyregion/07TAPE.html.  The last image in the sequence on the slide show clearly shows the bulge.   A computer enhanced version of the image shows more detail on the size and shape of the bulge; see URL: http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/wtc.htm.  This site contains some very speculative conspiracy theories that should be viewed with extreme caution for now.   Also, the computer enhanced photos do not come from the new Hlava video but from the original CNN video of the crash.  You can see a video clip of the orginal CNN footage by using opening a video player like windows Media Player and on “open URL” under File and putting in the URL: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/ghostplane2.wmv.  The bulge is visible on this earlier video as well, proving that the bulge is not simply a doctored image by one source. 


Compare these photos with pictures of a normal Boeing 767 here: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/b767.pl (go to bottom of the web page to view how smooth and uniform the underside is).  There is no bulge.


 I called the Boeing Company for their reaction and had an interesting chat with Liz Verdier, the media contact person, informally tasked to answer 9/11 issues.  I asked her for Boeing’s reaction to the potential modification of one of its aircraft involved in the crash into WTC 2 and described the large bulge showing up on the two videos.   She quickly skirted the issue by saying that Boeing was not a part of the 9/11 investigation and insisted that all queries by directed to the FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security.  I replied that this wasn’t about the investigation, but rather a technical question for Boeing on what this large bulge could possibly represent.


She said that Boeing would not admit there was a modification nor comment on it, and that Boeing does not make these kinds of modifications (if there were any) but that it would have been something United Airlines might have done.  I told her that based upon my experience as a military pilot and maintenance officer in a squadron, no major modification like this that would affect high speed air worthiness could or would be approved by the FAA without intensive consultations with the engineering staff at Boeing.  She continued to deny that Boeing would have been involved, which I found completely incredible.  I then told her that I thought it was strange that she expressed no interest in seeing evidence of this bulge that we had been discussing in some detail.  She admitted then that Boeing knew all about the internet charges surrounding the modified aircraft, had seen the pictorial evidence and that Boeing was determined not to comment about it.  I picked up on the feeling that this was a very touchy subject at Boeing and tried to get her to at least admit to that much.  She cordially declined to confirm even that.  Obviously, she had her marching orders, which tells me Boeing knows more than they are saying.


Why is this such an important issue?  First, this is a modification that has never been seen on any other commercial 767 aircraft in the United fleet, according to various United pilots I have talked to.  It is totally unique.  For it to show up on one of the aircraft used to take down one of the WTC towers indicates it may be specifically related to the purpose of carrying out the attacks: enabling the aircraft to be remote controlled, or enhancing its explosive effect,  or any number of other possibilities.  Leonard Spencer at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm  charges that it has something to do with firing forward missiles prior to crashing into the WTC, which I find absolutely no evidence for.  The CNN video clip detail, previously mentioned, shows a burst of flame from the nose of the aircraft only after it actually penetrates the facade of WTC 2, belying his own conclusion about a missile being fired.  I observed no evidence of a missile here.  


Second, such a modification would have to have involved United Airlines, the Boeing Company, and the FAA—each with close government connections.  No foreign terrorist group could have pulled this off, no matter how much time or money they had, unless they were simply fronting for US black operations.  Furthermore, the United Airlines pilots and ground crew would never have signed off on such an aircraft unless assured by airline management that it had some legitimate purpose, albeit of some secret “national security” issue. 


Third, if the modification had a benign explanation, Boeing, the FAA and United Airlines would all be quick to answer.  So far they have not.  If the modification was related to the 9/11 tragedy, and this airplane was specifically inserted in the fleet for this task, it would be hard evidence of US involvement in provoking this tragedy.  It would also provide evidence that there was some larger directing force behind the Arab terrorists charged with the event.  No airline or other large US corporation would have been involved in facilitating such an act without acting on behalf of dark side operations within the mantle of government secrecy. 


There is no proof of any of these charges at this point, but these are the plausible conclusions that can be derived from what appears to be a cover-up over this strange modification.  I find it difficult to believe that no one in the establishment media has noticed this glaring protrusion, especially since the NY Times published blowups of the 767 in its moment of maximum turn.  The establishment media won’t touch this story.   Like Boeing, someone higher up must not want this issue to surface on a larger scale.



According to the Washington Post, “more than 6,000 service members” have been sent back to either Germany or the US “due to medical reasons.”  This is very much at variance with US stated casualties of only 1,124 for the same period.   About a 100 of the mysterious 4,500 soldiers with medical problems have died or become incapacitated due to toxic shock, deceptively labeled as pneumonia by US military spokesmen.  A large portion of these toxic shock cases were reported to have been related to the soldiers recently taking up smoking during their stint in Iraq.  Doctors in Germany have been ordered to not make comments about the toxic shock, but they know this is something much more dangerous than mere pneumonia.  Is it another reaction to the vaccines given troops prior to departure, or a response to the many health threats that abound in a chemical and biological war ground?  There is enough depleted uranium expended in Iraq to cause many health problems, which could be one explanation.  Some of the medical casualties are mental cases as well.  The conditions in Iraq are very stressing to front line troops, many of which do not have access to regular food or cool water in 120 degree weather for months at a time.  They often have to buy ice from Iraqi civilians just to get a cool drink.  No wonder US field grade officers are getting a bad reputation among the troops for “not taking care of their own.”



According to the NY Times, “Ben F. Glisan Jr., the former treasurer of the Enron Corporation, pleaded guilty this morning to a federal charge that he committed securities and wire fraud. He becomes the highest-ranking former Enron executive to admit wrongdoing in the accounting scandal that drove the energy company into bankruptcy.”  The administration was quick to assert that justice was being done in bringing corrupt corporate America to account.  However, we’ll never see Ken Lay, Glisan’s boss, take the rap he deserves.  Prosecutions like Glisan’s merely act as red herrings, satisfying the public’s sense of indignation while diverting attention away from the major players.  All the while, the major players are never seriously called to account, being insider friends of the Republican and Democratic hierarchies.  This is not simply a Republican phenomenon.  Don’t forget about the scandal of the Clinton pardons. 



Yellowstone Park is building for a major eruption according to many earthquake experts.  The US Park Service is trying to keep a lid on the problem to avoid public panic, but the threat appears real.  If Yellowstone erupts, another mountain would be born in Wyoming, and the ash spewed out would be much greater than that of Mt. St. Helens in Washington.  The plume of ash would cover a large portion of the Midwest.  How dangerous is the threat?  Hard to say, but strange things are already happening in the region.  There are reports of areas being closed off, ground swelling upward, and many animals and fish dying from to the increase in sulfur and other vapors.  



The Bush administration wants it both ways.  First, it is bragging about winning the war on terror and is taking credit for dozens of unsubstantiated “successes” in foiling terrorist attempts.  At the same time, Bush and Ashcroft are continually demanding additional surveillance powers, claiming they cannot effectively fight terrorism without them.  Which is it?   They can’t have it both ways.  Or can they?  Obviously, if the public and the media can’t or won’t think through the contradictions, the federal government can keep claiming whatever they want. 


Here are the contradictions:

A.  There have been no normal, small scale acts of terrorism in the US, even after 9/11; even after attacking the presumed host countries of Al Qaeda; even after attacking Iraq, a nation supposedly harboring terrorists.  It is easy for the administration to claim they are winning the war on terror – terrorism might not even exist in the US in the way the public thinks.  If there are “hundreds of Al Qaeda cells” in the US, why have they never carried out an attack?  If you think they are cowed by the “effectiveness” of our Homeland Security system (Cheney’s claim), look at Israel.  With a tiny country to surveil and a 10-fold higher density of police and military checkpoints, including security guards at every business, Israeli forces still can’t stop all car bombings, suicide bombings and infrastructure attacks – though they do stop many.  Our country, in comparison, is wide open.  Yet we have experienced none of these typical terrorist attacks.  Why?  As I have said before, either there are no significant terrorist cells here (hard to believe), or terrorism in the US is a controlled entity that our government can restrain or allow to operate according to its own political purposes.


B.  There is no rational linkage between suspending civil liberties and the current “state of emergency.”  The only justification for denying habeas corpus, due process, right to a speedy trial, access to counsel, and proving probable cause in the issuance of search warrants is when the courts are flooded with defendants and the system is overwhelmed.  At no time during or since 9/11 has that ever been the case.  There is no reason why citizens or others cannot have access to normal judicial procedures and safeguards.  Designating persons as “enemy combatants” with no civil rights is simply a cover for not having a good case against them.  When judges buy into this scheme, they are acting in collusion with government rather than as a proper check and balance. 


C.  The DOJ claims it cannot allow terrorist suspects to take testimony from other terror suspects or prisoners for fear they might coordinate or pass along terrorist information.  Baloney.  None of these depositions take place in secret.  The government is present and an official recording is always taken.  What good would it do to pass information when the government is listening?  Ashcroft continues to defy a court order to allow these depositions to precede.


D.  In his latest tack, President Bush claims the DOJ needs broad new authority for all federal agents enabling them to demand access to private records and to compel testimony without the approval of a judge.  This is in addition to continued requests for more warrantless surveillance power.  While no one can deny it would ease any government’s surveillance job to be able to surveil anyone and anything at all times, there are reasons why we do not allow this in a society that safeguards (or pretends to safeguard) fundamental rights, like privacy on private property.  The key safeguard to this effect written into the Constitution is that no warrant shall be authorized against private property except when the government presents credible evidence of probable cause to a judge.  Is that so much to ask, that there be some evidence or demonstrable reason why someone should be surveilled or his papers scrutinized?  

Of course, if the government could demonstrate that there was a backlog of 100,000 suspected terrorists warranting secret surveillance, they might convince the court of the need to wave or expedite the process of issuing warrants.  And in fact, that is the government’s current claim: their “new” consolidated Terror Watch List contains approximately 100,000 names.  But given the grave implications of such a breech of Constitutional rights, the substance behind the government’s numbers must be carefully scrutinized.  What I find absurd about their claim is that it accentuates the dichotomy I mentioned above:  the utter lack of normal terrorism in this country.  You can’t have it both ways.  There cannot be 100,000 terrorists and their supporters needing surveillance and have no acts of terrorism.  The list is simply too big and too inaccurate. 

There’s another problem with secret government watch lists.  There is no way available for anyone to purge his name from the list once on it.  All those on the list are barred from travel on any airline forever—with no means of correcting potential injustice.  That is not how the “rule of law” should work.  Where is equal protection and due process here? 



Something is wrong with this picture.  The Dow Industrials continue to rise and market pundits continue to talk up economic recovery and yet unemployment continues to rise, with more jobs flowing overseas.  The persistently weak US jobs market is one of the factors which influenced Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board to hold key interest rates at 1.0 percent – hoping that the economy will soon come to life.  If it does, it is only by virtue of another bubble being created, not because the fundamentals of reform have taken hold.  Interestingly, while the lower rates have kept the demand for new mortgages high, the amount of existing mortgages being refinanced has dropped 15% and is still falling.  This indicates that the supply of potential refinances is drying up, along with the number of potential borrowers with good credit.  If this keeps up the housing market will continue to turn bearish. 



The news of NY Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso’s abrupt retirement came as no surprise.  In the wake of his compensation scandal, where it was revealed he had been granted a monstrous compensation package totaling $140 million, his quick retirement was the only way to give some appearance of an official response.  But nothing has changed.  He might even get a severance package worth up to an additional $59 million.   Everyone inside the system knows that these kinds of giant compensations are going to continue until the bubble bursts.  Like Ken Lay and other government connected CEOs, Grasso is walking away with a fortune, and the media isn’t even asking where that kind of money comes from.  The NYSE is only the administrator of the system.  Grasso’s desk job doesn’t produce millions for other investors.  Neither does he take any personal risk to his own capital.  Thus, there is no justification for this kind of mega-compensation.  No one in the NYSE is supposed to be making multi-million dollar salaries.  Why Grasso? 


Grasso is the one credited with guiding the difficult transition to automated, computerized trading – the same system that allows government to more easily manipulate selected futures markets in order to avoid a crash.  The heads of the various stock and commodity exchanges are the only ones with access to the computers who can document and track these kinds of manipulations, which they have diligently kept a secret—hence, In my opinion, the abundant compensation.  Partners in crime are well paid for their silence.  Others may see the results of manipulation and predict that something must be going on, but it’s impossible to prove without tracking the trades and who makes them and when.  My guess is that Grasso’s huge compensation package is his payoff for helping to engineer the crooked system of stock manipulation – or at least to cover up for what the “plunge protection team” and selected insider brokers are doing.  He also may be compensated for keeping the lid on the other stock market secret – that certain clients are allowed to trade “after hours.”  Normal people are stuck waiting for the bell, naively trusting that when the “market is closed” it really is.  But that isn’t necessarily the case, for those who have the right contacts. 



The strange thing about the judgment on former Enron Treasurer Ben Glisan, Jr. is that he is refusing to cooperate with prosecutors, is going to prison for five years, and has not been offered a plea bargain.  Why?  Obviously, if prosecutors could get Glisan’s testimony that his bosses, Ken Lay, Andy Fastow, and Jeff Skilling knew about the fraudulent financial strategies at Enron, they could lock up the big boys too.  But that’s not actually the objective here. The same system that gave the silent word to the SEC and IRS to avoid looking too carefully at Enron’s finances and taxes also has moved to maintain the former executives’ immunity from prosecution.   The fact that Glisan is going to prison closed mouth and silent tells me that either he has been duly threatened to remain silent or he is protecting his former employers on his own volition in exchange for some type of future compensation when he gets out.  Either way, the prosecutors are in on this as well, having made sure Glisan doesn’t get a plea bargain.  Glisan is the proverbial scape-goat. 



Associated Press writer John Solomon published excerpts from government “reports” which he was invited to review by “sources” that he declined to identify - even as to the federal agency involved.  These reports purportedly contain confessions of the supposed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was captured by CIA and Pakistani operators in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1 of this year.  Naturally, he is being held “by the CIA at an undisclosed location.”  Also, naturally, we can assume that Solomon’s reluctant source is an extension of the CIA, the only agency with exclusive custody of the prisoner.  Thus, none of what Solomon reveals can be checked or verified independently, outside of government.  I will quote the relevant excerpts and tell you why I think there are multiple contradictions and huge gaps in the story as Solomon portrays it.  [My comments in brackets.]


Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks [a total presumption by Solomon and other reporters based solely upon what the CIA has told them, improperly stated as a fact], has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press. [Notice Solomon doesn’t say why he was invited to review these secret reports.  If I were to request to see these same documents, either directly or via a legal FOIA request, I would be told they are “classified” and unavailable for “national security” reasons.  And yet, here we see them freely offered to a select member of the press.  This is typical of how the CIA disseminates disinformation: “leaks” are often purposefully channeled through favored reporters who will not ask any tough questions or reveal contradictions.]


“Mohammed told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia. After Yousef and Murad were captured, foiling the plot in its final stages, Mohammed began to devise a new plot that focused on hijackings on U.S. soil. [The US had captured laptop computers with all the details about the Bojinka hijackings – and yet claim not to have any idea the US was at risk of such hijackings.]


“…in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia [very ambitious plans]… Mohammed's interrogations have revealed the planning and training of operatives was extraordinarily meticulous, including how to blend into American society, read telephone yellow pages, and research airline schedules. [Yet the admissions that follow reveal huge contradictions to these claims – that there were no support cells inside the US  for such an ambitious plan, and that communications between operatives were amateurish, lacking attention to planning.  Notice the CIA reports fail to provide any of the details of how the hijackings were pull off, and how they supposedly got access to inside airline information.]


“In fact, Mohammed claims he did not arrange for anyone on U.S. soil to assist hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they arrived in California. Mohammed said there ‘were no al-Qaida operatives or facilitators in the United States to help al-Mihdhar or al-Hazmi settle in the United States.’  Mohammed portrays those two hijackers as central to the plot, and even more important than Mohammed Atta, initially identified by Americans as the likely hijacking ringleader. [Central to the plot and yet given no means of support?  Unthinkable, especially considering the level of sophistication necessary to pull off the 9/11 hijackings.  According to other claims, al-Qaida had huge amounts of money supposedly made available to them by the Saudis, leaving them well positioned to finance such support.]


Mohammed said he communicated with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar while they were in the United States via Internet chat software.  [No trained terrorist is this dumb.  Even random use of pay phones is more secure than the Internet, and the CIA has long claimed that al-Qaida has sophisticated scrambling-enabled satellite cell phones.  The vaunted NSA, which eavesdrops on all the world, claims al-Qaida is not leaving them any trace to follow.  Such sophistication in eavesdropping avoidance could not have been achieved by a group as incompetent as Mohammed’s testimony describes.]  Mohammed said al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were among the four original operatives bin Laden assigned to him for the plot, a significant revelation because those were the only two hijackers whom U.S. authorities were frantically seeking for terrorist ties in the final days before Sept. 11. [Frantically seeking?  Says who?  This is surely disinformation.  The majority of US agencies claim they didn’t have a clue about the imminent terrorist threat, let alone frantically seeking anyone!]


By 1999, the four original operatives picked for the plot traveled to Afghanistan to train at one of bin Laden's camps. [Another all-too-convenient statement lending justification to the US decision to invade Afghanistan, even though the camps, by the time of the invasion, were guaranteed to be empty of terrorists.] The focus, Mohammed said, was on specialized commando training, not piloting jets. [This brings up another huge gap in the story.  Why are there no details anywhere in this interrogation about where the presumed hijackers got real training in flying big jets?  The story about learning to fly Boeing 767s in Cessna trainers is too bogus to even contemplate.  It is merely a cover the US government has conspicuously failed to debunk, because to bring up the real source of large jet training would necessarily focus attention toward possible US collusion with a major Middle Eastern country, other than Iraq.]


“Mohammed told his interrogators the hijacking teams were originally made up of members from different countries where al-Qaida had recruited, but that in the final stages bin Laden chose instead to use a large group of young Saudi men to populate the hijacking teams. [Contradiction:  No plot this sophisticated can substitute a large percentage of its attack team at the last minute.]  


U.S. intelligence has suggested that Saudis were chosen, instead, because there were large numbers willing to follow bin Laden and they could more easily get into the United States because of the countries' friendly relations.  Mohammed's interrogation report states he told Americans some of the original operatives assigned to the plot did not make it because they had trouble getting into the United States.  Mohammed said the first major change to the plans occurred in 1999 when the two Yemeni operatives could not get U.S. visas.  [Very true, which presents another contradiction. None of the Saudis qualified to get into the US under existing visa guidelines. The US may have an open door policy for Saudi royalty but not for peasants.  Visa holders have to show a visible means of support (regular job), have lots of money in a bank account, and meet a profile that indicates they have many obligations to family members left behind which would induce them to not stay in the US.  The indigent hijackers had none of these, and yet they all got visas without question.  The INS has no explanation for its supposed incompetence.  The INS even sent Mohammed Atta and a fellow terrorist their visas at Venice Aviation in Florida (a CIA front) after the 9/11 hijacking, just as a demonstration of how “incompetent” they were.]


“Addressing one of the questions raised by congressional investigators in their Sept. 11 review, Mohammed said he never heard of a Saudi man named Omar al-Bayoumi who provided some rent money and assistance to two hijackers when they arrived in California. [Contradiction: How can Mohammed claim to have developed a huge master plan and yet not know about a key support person?  Are we to believe two of his key terrorists are the lucky recipients of anonymous largess? and that they were dependent on charity for the support of the mission?] Congressional investigators have suggested Bayoumi could have aided the hijackers [could? - providing rent money is significant and direct support] or been a Saudi intelligence agent, charges the Saudi government vehemently deny. The FBI has also cast doubt on the congressional theory [a convenient peace of coordination between two agencies tasked with covering up the real events of 9/11] after extensive investigation and several interviews with al-Bayoumi.


“But they have been able to corroborate with other captives and evidence much of his account of the Sept. 11 planning. [Easy to say when the CIA provides no details of such supposed corroboration, and holds all the captives themselves, and controls all dissemination of their supposed admissions]. 


“The interrogation reports make dramatically clear that Mohammed and al-Qaida were still actively looking to strike U.S., Western and Israeli targets across the world as of this year. [Why would he admit any of this? No terrorist of the dedicated Middle Eastern variety is going to spill anything unnecessary that would jeopardize future operations – especially when not under any kind of torture. The US certainly isn’t going to allow him to go free for cooperating.  Muslims aren’t afraid to die for the cause, so where’s the inducement to tell all?]


“Mohammed said through the various iterations of the plot, he considered using a scaled-down version of the Bojinka plan that would have bombed commercial airliners, and that he even ‘contemplated attempting to down the planes using shoes bombs,’ one report said. [Another all-too-convenient statement giving credence to theory of the shoe bomber having a “link to al-Qaida.”  In fact, the shoe bomber caught by the US government had no effective means of setting off the explosive (he was using a match), indicating he wasn’t a trained terrorist.]” [End of Solomon quote.]


All the details provided in this story give the appearance that this captive is “telling all,” but when the story is scrutinized more carefully, the gaps I mentioned become even more conspicuous by their absence.  Either the CIA is too dumb to ask obvious questions in this investigation, or they are purposely withholding critical information, or they are making it all up.  The question of where they learned to fly jumbo jets is a huge issue in the investigation, and yet these suspicious and juicy leaks from the CIA give no indication they even asked Mohammed about this issue.     



The NY Post had the courage to call into question continued US government claims of low inflation.  The US systematically manipulates the results of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to understate inflation.  Here’s the latest data from the Post, by John Crudele: “In the consumer inflation report released by the feds last week, the government picked up only about half of the recent 15 percent increase in gasoline prices.”


The government used the concept of “geometric weighting” to justify not including the whole rise in prices in the index.  “Without the use of geometric weighting - the theory that consumers will switch to burgers when steak gets too expensive - the annual inflation rate during August probably would have been 4.7 percent, more than twice the reported number.”  They rationalize away a good portion of price rises by saying “people won’t buy this item anymore at that price, so we can take it out of the typical food basket.”  This is very devious, and downright dishonest.  What can consumers substitute for gasoline?  Nothing.  Despite this week’s announcement of OPEC cutting back on production to force prices even higher, you can bet the increase won’t show up in September’s CPI numbers. 


Crudele also pointed out, “Real earnings in August declined 0.3 percent, meaning that even though the government says inflation is low people still aren't keeping up. That's the second drop in five months.”  The most telling remark by Crudele about the government report is a footnote that says, “The unadjusted data are of primary interest to consumers concerned about the prices they actually pay.”   The statisticians use all kinds of adjustments (seasonality, weighting of importance, etc.) to explain away obvious increases, which, depending on the accuracy of their assumptions, could significantly understate the effects of inflation.  



The campaign of Gen. Wesley Clark got a strange boost by Newsweek magazine two days after his announcement that he was joining the race for President.  The establishment news magazine presented a new poll showing Clark suddenly out in front of all the other Democratic challengers by 2 percentage points.  This is quite impossible.  Clark isn’t well known to rank and file Democrats, especially compared to Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean.  The quick manipulation of polling data (easy to do simply by calling some predictable Democrats on a special list) so soon after his announced candidacy is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s sudden rise to the “top contender” slot – accomplished simply by the media saying he was. 


Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had some critical comments to make about Clark, who served under him in the Balkans fiasco. “I’ve known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote.”  You won’t see this quote get much press.  There is a concerted campaign by the media to promote Clark.


Another strange anomaly is showing up in the Clark campaign.  His campaign staff looks like a who’s who of the former Bill Clinton team.  It is probably no coincidence that Clark is from Little Rock, Arkansas too – a hotbed of the Clinton corruption that still controls the state.  Either Clark has gotten the secret nod from the PTB on the Democratic side of the isle or his is simply holding a place for a run by Hillary that is still in the works.  Hillary has huge presidential ambitions, but won’t run unless the numbers tell her she can beat Bush.  A year ago, I would have said Bush is on an unstoppable roll.  He is accomplishing what no Democrat could in terms of undermining this country.  Yet Bush is now faltering.  Educated people are tired of his juvenile comments and Texas accent.  And he is quickly losing credibility as a world leader.  If the PTB pulls the plug on the economy (no sign of that yet), it would signal that they have decided to pull the plug on Bush as well. 





Every year about this time I publish an update of my assessment of the imminence of the threats we face from world war and the associated destruction of our constitutional republic by those promoting a New World Order.  If you haven’t read my original analysis of this topic, Strategic Threats in the Coming Decade, you should do so before proceeding.  A link to the document is found on the front page of my website www.joelskousen.com in the blue Strategic Threats banner.

All of the threats discussed in the basic document still exist and are growing in power. Russia is continuing its preparations to launch a nuclear preemptive strike on the US with China acting as the major ally.  Russian defectors continue to confirm that Russia begins every major military exercise with a simulated nuclear strike on America.  The huge underground military bunker and factory complex at Yamantau Mountain is still being pushed toward completion, though how close the facilities are to completion we have no way of knowing, for still no Western intelligence agent has ever stepped foot inside.  China continues to amass a huge cache of foreign exchange (mostly dollars), even as it funnels billions into its massive armament plans. Nevertheless, China is still probably 8 or 10 years away from being fully prepared to take on all comers. 

The European globalists are still marching toward their own version of globalism, the European Union.  Most European leaders are underground Communists who are controlled through the Socialist International, a Moscow-directed front.  In fact, the European Union was designed by its Marxist leaders to serve as a forerunner to a Soviet-style collective system, though it isn’t yet beyond recovery by the Anglo-American establishment to be molded to suit their own purposes, if they can pull off WWIII and finally reveal Russia’s true colors.

Along those lines, the American globalists are busy antagonizing the world with continual intervention, thus providing Russia with the political justifications it will need for its eventual strike on America.  US disarmament is accelerating with the ongoing dismantling of the MX-missiles, even as Russia has openly declared its intentions NOT to abide by the disarmament timetable signed just this year.  PDD-60, the presidential directive mandating that our missile forces absorb a nuclear first strike, is still in force, and there have been no indications of any intentions by the current president to repeal or modify this suicidal doctrine. 

In apparent contrast to the crazy one-sided disarmament policy the US has adapted, US officials have been making strange public pronouncements concerning an accelerated program to deploy a ballistic missile defense at two sites:   Vandenberg AFB, California, and Fort Greeley, Alaska.  Actually, these missile defense systems, along with US upgrade plans for other new weapons systems which are projected to come on line by 2007-2010, play a major role in putting downward pressure on the timeframe for a Russian attack.  Although none of these systems is designed to be effective against a large-scale Russian preemptive strike, they do serve the purpose of encouraging Russia to attack while the US is still largely vulnerable, before it is “too late.” 

All the while, the US persistently covers for the predatory intentions of the continuing Soviets.  Worse, the US is actively facilitating both Russian and Chinese armament programs by either transferring dual-use technology to those nations or encouraging US military companies to do joint projects with Russia and China.  With the US antagonizing the world while simultaneously diverting the public’s attention from Russian and Chinese rearmament, it appears that the US is attempting to accelerate the timeframe of Russia’s attack.   


Despite all these signs that war might be closer than we think, I’m going to explain why I think the timing will be extended, not shortened. 

First, the globalist and corrupt International Olympic Committee went out of its way to make sure that Beijing got the bid for the 2008 Summer Games.  The Chinese intend, I believe, to do everything possible to make sure they gain the full propaganda value out of hosting the games, much as Hitler did in 1936 in Munich.  For the time being, then, China’s imperialistic urges must be tamed in deference to promoting a positive global image.  Even the threat of taking down Taiwan is lessening each year as the Taiwanese increasingly invest in China and build manufacturing plants on the mainland – taking advantage of the cheaper labor, just like the rest of the world.  There is a very real possibility that Taiwan may be absorbed naturally thanks to the policies promoted by Taiwanese soft thinking and accommodating politicians and businessmen.  Eventually, when China does strike out and takes the entire Far East in the opening weeks of WWIII, the Taiwanese, Japanese, and Phillipinos will wake up and realize they have no options but to surrender. At this point, however, they hang on to the illusion that the dragon will never bear its teeth. 

Second, I think the Russians see through the high tech, but ineffective missile shield the US is building.  They realize that the proposed defense system, with its dependence on a few ABM missiles with no warheads, could never be effective against a large-scale preemptive strike.  At the same time they are concerned about all the rumors of US black budget weapons projects, and are constantly wary of walking into a trap in carrying out their planned attack on the US.  Thus, rather than forcing the Russians to accelerate their attack plan, the announced deployment of the US “shield” could have the opposite effect, encouraging Russia to buy more time in order to deploy a higher level of technology in their armaments in preparation for the strike. 

Third,  I think that the consequences of nuclear war and the resultant fallout are going to be sufficiently devastating in this country, that God will hold it off until this nation is sufficiently “stiff-necked” and “ripened in iniquity,” as biblical prophets used to say, to fully merit the consequences of such a war.   Now, you may think the world is wicked enough already.  It is.  But it is going to get a lot worse.  As an example of the downward trend, yesterday I heard a recorded opinion piece on National Public Radio by a self-proclaimed “liberal Jew,” bragging about his plans to send his eleven-year old daughter to visit a couple of lesbian friends in San Francisco to broaden her horizons.  He actually said he wouldn’t mind if she picked up on their lifestyle and became a lesbian, but that he didn’t think she would.  The piece was written with so much bravado and arrogance that it was very offensive.  That NPR choose to broadcast a piece promoting a pro-homosexual bias did not surprise me.  What did shock me was the cocky attitude of this parent who obviously enjoyed flaunting his children’s exposure to evil—which he didn’t consider evil at all. 

Such a lack of restraint in a major public media portends a drop to the next level of corruption in the US.  The homosexual movement is moving from merely seeking toleration (having pretended that this was there sole agenda) to advocating open celebration of their activities and open defiance of traditional lifestyles.  With the degree of ease with which youth and adults have picked up so many other disturbing fads, like multiple body piercings; I think we are about to see a major increase in deviant sexual activity and growth—done openly so as to create a mass movement fast.  When that occurs, this nation will have fully ripened itself for destruction.  Historically, the combination of the rise of secret conspiracies in a society along with brazen homosexual behavior becoming common has always brought down the wrath of God.  As Gary North is fond of saying, “If God doesn’t destroy San Francisco, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.”   Now, the whole country is becoming like Frisco.

Fourth, things always seem to take longer than we think – especially when God has a hand in manipulating earthly timetables.  He is very patient, providing people with plenty of time to repent before the storm.  We can expect more violent storms, more earthquakes, more volcanic activity and more personal trials – all to help give people the subliminal message that the “good times” are coming to an end, and that they need to get ready to be survivors, or better yet become one of the righteous “remnant of the Lord that will be preserved.”   Additionally, consequences for evil are often delayed due to the Lord’s testing purposes for this earth.  He holds off consequences to see how many will convince themselves that perhaps there aren’t any consequences to their evil deeds.  He also delays to test the staying power of the good people who are being persecuted by those with power in the world.  There are many believers who, after years of hearing warnings but seeing them unfulfilled, will finally go and “eat, drink and be merry” with the world, giving up on the Lord’s Second Coming.  It is my belief that those faithful to the Lord will have to wait even beyond the next war for the final end of the world’s testing period – so the testing in earnest is just getting started.  The testing aspect of earth also helps explain why the Lord isn’t helping the good people win back their lost liberties—despite Christian conservatives’ mental gymnastics to convince themselves that George Bush is their political Savior.  Only in Israel do we see evidence of the continual intervention of God to preserve a nation (by no means righteous) from the clutches of globalist false peace plans.  Why it is Israel and not America being divinely preserved, is another story.

In summary, my new projected threat timetable is that World War III will not begin until the end of this decade or into the first part of the next (2009 to 2012).  This new projection still corresponds with the (barely) overlapping windows of US vulnerability and Russian/Chinese opportunity.  The US window of maximum vulnerability opens next year, but it will be extended past my earlier projection due to a severe recession still to come and massive budget shortfalls as a result of the current spate of military intervention.  This will delay the next generation of US military equipment development and deployment, and hence our window of vulnerability.  The Russian/Chinese window of opportunity only gets stronger the longer they wait—up to a point.  Essentially, Russia must act before either or both of the following occur:  1)  The US gains increased depth in their current high-tech (but paper thin) military advantage; or 2) China becomes numerically and technologically stronger (effectively putting Russia in vise between East and West). 

Personally, I have no qualms about delaying my projection for World War III.  I do not intend to be one of those who gives up and says, “Well, I guess it isn’t ever going to happen.”  As long as Russia and China are still building huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the US is covering for them, I will warn of future war. 

As for the battle to save America, I think we have lost.  After seeing how utterly effective the mass media propaganda has been in swaying even conservative Americans into believing that the Republican globalists are defending the best interests of the country, I don’t think we are going to turn this country around by the ballot box or any other peaceful means.  Liberty will only be regained by bloodshed, if at all.  My gut feeling is that we will never see real liberty again after WWIII until God intervenes in the direct way in which prophets have foretold for centuries – a day of fiery burnings for the wicked and instant relief for those good people who have been crying day and night for deliverance throughout the years.

That doesn’t mean we stop fighting and wait.  There is still work to do.  We must never stop trying to train up good children and educate people to the reality of evil and secret combinations for power.  We must help people to recognize the still small voice of nervous feelings in conscience that keep warning people against universal trust in government.  I know it’s hard.  We all feel pretty isolated with our increasing minority status around the world.  People everywhere are lazy about fighting evil.  They would rather rely on leaders. “Let George do it,” goes the old refrain.  But in this battle, no one is going to survive by relying on others or by being mere sheep.  The horrendous times ahead will try our souls.  No one will make it through what’s coming without developing a high degree of allegiance to truth and an increased sensitivity to conscience.  Prepare yourselves against the inevitable discouragement of the naysayers who will continually taunt you with the prospects of never-ending good times (an illusion), and by all means, don’t procrastinate your family preparations for war, shortages and famine that eventually will come. 


To review my recommendations:  


1.  Get out of debt, especially for the cars and consumer products that account for most credit card bills.   If you have the self control save enough money each month to pay off credit cards, use them –especially those cards that offer cash back on a percentage of your purchases.  Otherwise, pay with cash or check. 


2.  If you are planning to relocate, these may be the last few peaceful years to do so.  “Strategic Relocation—North American Guide to Safe Places” is chock full of suggestions on how to make these difficult decisions, or to make contingency plans if you can’t move.   If you need to sell real property, do it now while the market is still half-alive.  The real estate market is weakening, but it is still viable due to abnormally low interest rates.  The buoyancy won’t last.  If Japan and China ever ease off their current levels of buying US debt, the dollar will start a strong decline and inflation will rise as people dump dollars for other currencies.  Interest rates will have to rise and the real estate market for new homes will slow immediately.  The economy is going through a second bubble as the Fed pumps billions of dollars in fiat money into the economy, trying to generate a recovery.  I don’t think it is working.  The auto industry has been flooding the market with cars sold or leased almost without a profit.  Now the piper must be paid and Ford and Chrysler announced big layouts coming in October.  GM is sure to follow suit.  The auto manufactures can’t continue to pump out vehicles at this low profit margin.  Worse, the used market for cars is glutted.  Fewer and fewer dealers will take trade-ins, and only then to make a desperately needed sale. 


3.  As long as inflation is low, keep a few thousand dollars of cash safely stored in a fireproof container, hidden in the home.  For longer-term barter, buy a few thousand in circulated US Morgan silver dollars.  They are still legal tender and represent the best potential for getting your money’s worth out of a trade.  They are big, fat, and heavy – impressive to the know-nothing man on the street.   Gold coins are OK only for large purchases, but don’t expect people to give you full value for gold in a barter economy.  No one knows how to recognize the authenticity of gold anymore.  


4.  Prepare for very high gas prices.  Get at least one super economical vehicle in your stable of cars.  The VW TDI line of diesels is the most economical and reliable of all the high mileage cars—even beating the hybrid vehicles.  Diesel fuel stores much better than gasoline for the long haul.


5.  Beef up your stockpiles of food, and don’t forget essential household goods that aren’t easily home-manufactured (trying building a light bulb, for example).  These goods make great barter items too.  For $5 postpaid, you can get a copy of my storage booklet of lists for essential storage.  It’s called “10 Paks for Survival.”  Send check or cash to Joel Skousen at 290 West 580 South, Orem UT 84058.  No credit cards on this item please—unless you call Swift Publishing to order the booklet along with one of my other books (1-800-644-1057).


6.  Prepare your business for shortages or hard times.  Don’t use “just in time” inventory schemes, even if your accountant complains about the tax consequences.  Stockpile for business, and diversify so you can have more than one source of income in hard times. 


7.  Learn alternative skills, especially how to repair things – a skill that is always in great demand.


8.  If you have hundreds of thousands invested in the paper markets, considering cashing out and buying debt free income producing commercial real estate that will provide a source of income even during war.  Medical oriented real estate is the best for long term rent ability.


9.  Build some type of concealed, high security shelter in or near your home that will protect you from fallout.  If you’re going to develop one in your basement (cheapest alternative) you may want to purchase my architectural plan book, “How To Implement a High Security Shelter in the Home.”   For all other new construction or remodeling, you will want to get my comprehensive book “The Secure Home.”  All of my books are available at Swift Publishing (1 800-644-1057)


10.  Build a network of like-minded friends and relatives.  I know this is sometimes difficult, but it is essential that you have several fallback positions and alternative places to stay should your present location become untenable. 


There are many other things I could mention, but this is a good start.  If you believe anything I’ve written over the years, please do something to prepare.  I know many of you have. Above all don’t allow my delayed prognosis lull you into relaxing.  It’s better to be ready a few years early than one day too late.  Don’t push the limits of safety by being on “the last train out of town.”  I believe we do have some good years left to enjoy life and prepare, so use the time wisely. 



California Governor Gray Davis was thrown out of office on October 7 in a state that is known to be solidly in the Democratic camp.  What this election did, to a large extent, was give political analysts some extraordinary insight on the true leanings of many California voters – at least those at the political margins.  For the first time in history, people got to choose between more than two major party candidates, enabling them to vote according to a much wider range of preferences than would typically be available.  The normal two party system forces voters to make compromises that distort and aggregate voter choices, rather than reflecting their real desires.   While there was some aggregation of votes in this election, due to the “gotta pool our votes to defeat the opposition” syndrome, a surprising number of people refused to do so.    

Here are the official results of the dramatic California recall of the governor and the election of his successor.  On the recall question itself, Gov. Davis was ousted by a solid 11 point margin, 55% to 44%, with only the most liberal counties (LA, SF, and the leftist and counter-culture coastal counties from Monterey up through Humboldt in the north) voting to retain Davis.  This tells us where the hard-core socialist core constituency of California resides.  Arnold Schwarzenegger defied the “too close to call” polls by soundly beating Democratic front runner Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante 48.7% to 31.7%.   Either the margin of error in the polls was an unprecedented 20%, or the polls were simply manipulated in favor of Bustamante.  Support for Schwarzenegger exceeded 60% in nearly a third of California counties, making it a landslide, considering the number of candidates on the ballot.  Even in the most liberal counties, ballot results indicated that the socialist constituency is not as numerous as previously thought.  Several of the same counties which voted to retain Davis ended up also voting in large numbers for Schwarzenegger.  Much of this is because the conservative 40-45% in these counties rarely have their voices heard in normal winner-take-all elections. 

Throughout the election, the LA Times played the muckraking role.  They must have spent tens of thousands of dollars on private investigators, staffers, and Hollywood insiders to ferret out 25-year-old dirt on Schwarzenegger.  No doubt, Arnold is a serial groper, a fact he downplayed but did not deny.  However, while the media was expressing outrage at Schwarzenegger’s conduct, no notice was paid to the fact that the Davis team had hired Bill Clinton, America’s most notorious “Pervert-in-Chief” to campaign for Davis.  To highlight their hypocrisy, the pro-Davis LA Times refused on numerous occasions to publish stories of Gray Davis’ huge temper tantrums and verbal and physical assaults on state employees in the course of his career in government.   Stories abound of his violence to others, including the charge that he “violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway,” as journalist Jill Stewart reports.  According to Stewart, “Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an ‘office batterer.’”  Clearly, the LA Times is interested less in the character of candidates than in stirring up dirt on the politically unfavorable. 


Voter support for the losers also tell us much about California politics:

Tom McClintock, a truly conservative, pro-Constitution candidate, did surprisingly well, placing 3rd with 13.4% of the vote.  I would estimate that without the loss of conservative votes to Schwarzenegger, McClintock would have garnered about 30% of the overall vote – the true size of the real conservative constituency in California.  The only other candidate to garner any significant percentage of the vote was the radical green candidate Peter Camejo (2.8%).  His true base constituency in California is probably as high as 5%. 

Arianna Huffington, a high profile and wealthy commentator who got lots of media coverage, only received 0.6% of the vote; probably because she recently changed many of her formerly Republican views and became a gadfly for the center-left.  Peter Ueberroth, the former baseball commissioner, was 5th with 0.3%.  Former gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon, defeated by Davis in the last election, came in at 12th place, garnering 8,000 votes despite withdrawing his candidacy and calling on others to rally around the Republican front runner.

Eccentric and anti-establishment voters finally got their chance to vote for a variety of quirky candidates.  Porn king Larry Flint came in 7th overall with 0.3%.  Cherubic child actor Gary Coleman was in 8th place (0.2%) and porn film actress Mary Carey was 10th with nearly 10,000 votes.  In total, the porn candidates garnered about 25,000 votes.  One would hate to speculate on how high their true constituency is. 


Analysis: In general, here are some conclusions we can draw about the true political makeup of California voters: 

1.        A slight majority of voters have well defined, well thought out beliefs, based upon a consistent ideology or simply hardened unthinking tradition, and cannot be manipulated to any significant degree by the press.  My estimates are as follows:  Hard core conservatives 25%, hard core Democrats 30%, hard core environmentalists (who always vote for the Democrats) 5%, and libertarians (who sometimes vote for conservative Republicans) 4%.

2.        About 30-40% of the voters have only ill-defined feelings about issues and candidates.  They are swayed by innate proclivities, gut feelings, and emotional responses to advertising.  This large group is highly susceptible to manipulation.  These provide the body of swing votes which the establishment press concentrates on influencing. 


The Desert Dispatch proffered the following conclusions about the election results: “Voters want more choices.  Whether you agree with the result of the recall election or not, you should note the one interesting trend that emerged. Despite fiery rhetoric from both sides about the weakness of Schwarzenegger's moderate position, the actor won…Most California voters are not dyed-in-the-wool Republicans or tree-hugging liberals.  Nearly everyone of us will say that we are somewhere in between, and if given the choice, we'll select someone like us.  Too often in this state, however, we have been forced to choose between, as one radio talk show host put it last night, ‘an ultra-liberal wacko and a right-wing conservative kook.’ This recall underscores the fact that extreme positions have dominated the state's politics for far too long.”  In this case, of course, only the so-called right wing conservative position offered any hope of bringing fiscal sanity to California, a factor which played significantly into the election results.  Yet it is unlikely that we will ever see a conservative majority in California again.  This is because what the Desert Dispatch writers views as the wonderful centrist majority, I view as the ignorant majority, and the reason this election was so easily manipulated by the media.

Herein lies the key point to understand about the democratic process.  This large group of non-ideological know-nothings – present to a greater or lesser degree in all political elections – is more influenced by easy-to-digest liberal generalities than specific contradictions and arguments brought forth by conservatives and libertarians (which takes a lot of thought and effort to assimilate and understand).  That is why the sheep in the center often vote for liberals—especially when the contest is dominated by media advertising which of necessity focuses on short sound bites and broad generalities (putting detailed conservative arguments at a marked disadvantage).  Phony conservatives like George W. Bush are generally the only exceptions because, being conservative in name only, they can put out a constant stream of liberal generalities like everyone else.  Trouble is, people ignorantly think they are conservative generalities.

The other disadvantage for constitutional conservatives in political advertising is that the effects of government-limiting conservative policies are immediately obvious to the benefit-corrupted TV viewers (who are conditioned to fight against loss of benefits).  In contrast, the victims of liberal and socialist policy are not aroused in great numbers because they are all future victims - nameless people who have not yet lost their jobs or taxpayers who haven’t yet got an increased tax bill because the government is using debt, squirrelly accounting, or fiat money to finance spending programs.  So insidious is this hidden victim advantage for the Democrats that even after many lose their jobs, or experience a recession, they blame the free market rather than the increased debt, foreign aid, labor regulations or social spending inherent to liberal Democratic policy that caused the downturn.

Speaking of economic policy, let’s look at the task Governor Schwarzenegger has before him, to see why there are no easy solutions. California’s revenue system relies heavily on income taxes.  During the boom years, California’s Democratic-controlled legislature increased spending levels on permanent entitlement programs which cannot be easily cut back (being embedded in law) when the state’s tax revenue contracts.  Even worse, the spending occurs each year before revenues are actually received, setting the stage for huge potential deficits if a recession hits in mid year, as it did in 2002 when the dot-com boom collapsed and high income taxpayers suddenly became poor. With revenues pinched, California racked up an $11-billion deficit in that one year alone. 

Schwarzenegger has made a firm commitment to not raise taxes, but he is faced with a hard-core socialist legislature determined to defend the myriad state welfare programs, which they rely upon to buy votes from the benefit-corrupted electorate.  The legislature has made all the “easy cuts” in the budget and California is still going deeper into debt each year.  The 2002 deficit was partially covered by an $8 billion bond issue, which was just rolled over till next year.  Another recent bond issue of some $2 billion was ruled unconstitutional by the courts.  (California requires the voters’ permission for any debt exceeding $300,000.)  It is no wonder that bond ratings for California are plummeting as incomes continue to fall and companies are leaving California’s hostile labor and regulatory market in droves.  Falling bond ratings mean that borrowing to cover deficits is becoming increasingly more expensive, since low ratings demand higher interest rates be paid to lenders.  Schwarzenegger may be facing a true deficit of nearly $20 billion, if the audit he is requesting discovers that the Davis administration has been cooking the books to downplay the seriousness of California’s unfunded obligations. 

I suspect that Schwarzenegger will find about $4-8 billion in cuts, which the legislature will refuse to go along with in large measure.  The Governor-elect will then propose a one-time bonding election in the $12 billion range, with a proviso that no additional deficit spending be allowed.  Frankly, I am pessimistic that California’s fiscal problems can be solved – certainly not without more debt. Passing any proposal will be difficult.  The legislature has to have a 2/3 majority to pass a budget so a lot of pork-barrel politics and horse-trading goes on, adding to the corruption of the political process  In a best-case scenario about 6% of the state's $100 billion budget will have to be cut, affecting funding for education, health, welfare, prisons, and other services – all popular programs.  But, with the crisis as large as it is, now is the best time to make cuts in politically sensitive programs.  People tend to accept cuts when hard times hit.  In any case, the Republicans controlling the new administration do intend to succeed now that they’ve been given the reins, so despite Schwarzenegger’s lack of experience, his team of experts will make up the difference.



Joseph Farah, head of WorldNetDaily.com, made a cogent comment relative to the California election:  “The smashing victory at the polls Tuesday by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the California recall election tells us the Politics of Personal Celebrity are upon us. That's not a victory for ideas. That's not a victory for principles. That's not a victory for values. That's not a victory for smaller government. That's not a victory for virtue. It's a victory for merchandising – for promotion and marketing. It's a victory for fame. It's a victory for name recognition.  It's a victory for positioning and timing.”

All true, but even more ominously, it is a victory for the government/media secret combination of power that has developed this highly refined process of manipulation of public opinion.  Schwarzenegger has virtually no understanding of politics, law, or the economy.  But he has huge, favorable name recognition, which made him a good choice to be a front man for the establishment.  Everything he does will be fed to him by his well paid advisors, courtesy of the Republican political machine – where there are virtually no true constitutional/conservative voices.  This is a governor who, like George W. Bush, is a script reader (although he is a much better one than Bush). 

Don’t get me wrong.  The Republicans haven’t invested all this time and money into Schwarzenegger to fail.  They do intend to undo some of the stranglehold on California and fix some problems.  It won’t work in the long term, but it is primarily designed to marginalize the radical leftist Democrats and environmentalists who are strangling California business.  The Republicans will strangle business less—enough to harness it for more California growth.

My main point: A pattern of candidate selection and control by political machines has been going on throughout much of US history since the emergence of political parties.  The telltale sign of control is that they choose charismatic popular people who don’t have any particular political agenda of their own, except to get ahead.  When is the last time you saw a President who was a strong ideological thinker and proponent of anything great or specific before he became president? (You can’t tell anything once they get elected because everything they do or write is done by others.)  Eisenhower was a mediocre general and yes-man to the global establishment with no political theories or writings to his credit before being encouraged to run for office.  During office, his main controller was his brother Milton.  Kennedy was a playboy who had everything thought out and written for him by advisors, including his book, “Profiles in Courage.”  Johnson was an exception to the rule.  LBJ was a ruthless political predator and criminal who only made the Presidency through the death of JFK.  He never would have been elected on his own.  The PTB regretted allowing him on the Kennedy ticket (necessary to buy votes in the South.) 

Richard Nixon was an opportunist lawyer who initially had some anti-Communist ideology and was never allowed to become president until he made a pact with the establishment powers.  The PTB betrayed him out of spite for his role in prosecuting one of their own, Alger Hiss.   Ford was an unoriginal lackey (Warren Commission) and a placemat filling a slot temporarily.  Jimmy Carter, being a university professor appears to be an exception to the rule of not selecting thinkers for president, but he is not.  Carter was such a soft, pushover of a thinker, that he rates as one of the most manipulated Presidents ever.  A true simpleton, Carter continues to front for every dumb, leftist “peace” cause in the world, mostly covering for tin horn dictators like Fidel Castro.

Reagan, who held legitimate ideological beliefs, was an exception, but he had a flaw that made him manipulable by the establishment.  First, he was too shallow of a thinker to see through the sometimes sophisticated arguments presented to him by his advisors.  He rarely could see contradictions of principle amid the flood of details.  Two, he lacked sufficient character to resist compromises forced upon him by both his wife (an inveterate astrologer, and ladder-climber) and advisors.  He set his pattern of conduct by compromising his conservative ideals many times as California governor.   Even so, the establishment tried to derail his nomination as the Republican candidate for president, preferring “one of their own.”   When they failed they maneuvered him into a compromise that would guarantee that their own people would control key positions in his administration.  Top media executives asked Reagan for a private meeting at the Republican National Convention where they gave him a subtle ultimatum.  They essentially told Reagan after he won the nomination,  We can make or break your campaign for President.  We would, however, look favorably upon your candidacy if you were to accept George Bush as your Vice President.”  Reagan accepted, reluctantly, and Bush controlled the entire personnel selection process, filling the ranks with CFR professionals.  Conservative voices sometimes got to the President, but Reagan could usually be talked out of anything “extreme” by his regular team of liberal advisors. 

The George Bush presidency was not marked by any strong ideological convictions, with the exception of his continual references to the NWO – a reflection of the conspiracy to whom he owed his allegiance.  What few principles he claimed to possess (“No new taxes”) he broke at the slightest provocation.  George Bush was simply “one of their own” people.  His entire career, from his “Skull and Bones” initiation at Yale to being ambassador to China, CIA Director, and President was a study in the seamless augmentation of power that comes to those with allegiance to the NWO.

Bill Clinton was smart enough to have had his own agenda but instead he simply defaulted to his hedonistic ambitions.  (His wife, Hillary, in contrast, had enough real political ambition to be a threat to both him and the establishment which controlled them both—a conflict which the nation has yet to see resolved.)  Bill Clinton was put into the governorship of Arkansas by the PTB specifically to pave the way for his future role as president.  His early presidential campaign was marked by the tell tale phony polls that sudden vaulted him into “top contender” status.  The George W. Bush political rise was almost identical to Clinton’s—despite being on the supposed opposite side of the political spectrum.  George Jr. was a non-descript wealthy son of the President in the Texas business world – often the butt of jokes because of his lazy ways and sloppy business practices.  He too was vaulted into a governorship with the aid of powerful friends and advisors from Washington, and then stepped into the Presidential role after a sudden media blitz citing polls showing him a “top contender.”   Get the pattern?  Pick compliant yes-men to be political leaders while skilled controllers manage and brief them on their every move.  What is most disturbing as a long term trend is the utter lack of real knowledge and leadership inherent in any of those allowed to rise to the highest offices of the land.  We have become a nation led by puppets.



Two of my sources have forwarded documentation from the Federal Election Commission documenting that Hillary Rodam Clinton, or someone on her behalf, has filed for the Presidency in 2004.  There is a disclaimer by the FEC associated with such filings saying, “NOTE: Candidate listings may appear here as a result of Draft committees or independent expenditure committees registering with the FEC. If no documents appear below, the individual identified here has taken no action to become a candidate.”   There are no accompanying documents, so as yet there is no actual indication that Hillary is a candidate. 

I think that the filing was done by agents of Senator Clinton in anticipation of a future announcement.  There are several signs that the establishment may be getting ready to allow for a Bush defeat:

1)  60 Minutes reran a show about Bush’s Skull and Bones connection.  This is aimed at his Christian constituency.

2)  The CIA leak scandal strangely came back to life almost a month after it was initially reported.  It was a story the media suppressed at the time, and now suddenly, it is front page news every day.  Bush keeps claiming he is detached from the scandal, but future revelations could be leaked implicating him.  The legal ramifications of this scandal could be as dangerous as Watergate was to Nixon. 

3)  The Iraq situation, with its slow recovery, high costs adding to the deficit, cronyism in government contracts, false use of intelligence to justify the war, and ongoing deaths of US soldiers, continues to damage the Bush image.

4)  Bush has lost all credibility internationally.  His verbal mistakes, Texas drawl, and repetitive one-liners make him the laughing stock of a sophisticated world gallery.  Only the flaunting of US power gives him entrance into world affairs. 

On the other hand, it is no secret in political circles that the Democrats may be throwing the election by running a dozen low-profile candidates.  No party is credible that does that.  There is also the interesting dichotomy of the sudden media push behind the Wesley Clark candidacy.  As in the past two elections, Clark seems to be the recipient of the same instant “front runner” status based upon manipulated media polls that catapulted Clinton and Bush to the presidency.  This is always a harbinger that someone has the backing of the PTB.  However, Clark could merely be holding a spot for Hillary by keeping her future campaign staff employed (many work for Clark presently) and ready.  If she announces her candidacy it will only be because she has some assurance that Bush is vulnerable.  It has not been lost on Hillary how the establishment betrayed Al Gore.  She doesn’t want to be made a laughing stock by running when she hasn’t got a chance. 

I have long held that the establishment really doesn’t want Hillary as President.  She has too strong of a personal agenda and is not sufficiently controllable.  They like the George Bush Jr's and the Arnold Schwarzenegger’s – good and obedient lap dogs.  I suspect they may well want to let Hillary run and lose so that she is viewed as a loser, and sidelined for the future.  I’m convinced the PTB intend to run Rudolph Giuliani in 2008, and no Democrat will have a chance against him.  Giuliani is destined to be the next FDR in America—claiming to be conservative, but talking Americans into joining the NWO and giving up essential sovereignty in the aftermath of the mother of all terrorism: the Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike that ushers in World War III, during Giuliani’s watch.  It will be no mere coincidence that “America’s Mayor” who presided over the 9/11 attack will be “America’s President” during the next nuclear holocaust. 



Economists worldwide have watched in dismay as the US, rather than tightening its belt, has turned into a profligate spender amid rising deficits.  Now, Russia claims to be considering a change to the euro for payment of its oil shipments worldwide.  Venezuela and other OPEC nations are said to be considering similar plans.  The growing flight of global currency investors away from the dollar has serious implications for US dollar dominance in the world. 

Economists at Lehman Brothers Bank have created a mathematical index called “Damocles,” an early-warning system for predicting national financial crises.  The index is based on ten economic indicators covering key elements such as external debt as a percentage of GDP and foreign reserves as a percentage of short-term debt.   According to Lehman’s, “A reading above 75 indicates that a country has a one-in-three chance of a crisis in the next 12 months; a figure above 100 implies a 50-50 chance.”  America’s numbers were troubling—a 74, due to its climbing current account deficit and rising foreign debt.  The only reason America has been relatively free from to the troubles of internal inflation is because it enjoys the luxury of being the world's reserve currency.  But this advantage is being undermined by the gradual switch to the euro.

As Hussain Khan of Asia Times wrote this week, “The US must take in $55 billion per day in investment in government paper and securities to fund the enormous deficits in its fiscal budget and its current account, the total balance of goods and services it trades with other countries. The current account deficit is expected to hit more than $540 billion in 2003, with the fiscal deficit trending towards $600 billion when off-budget liabilities are factored in…By diverting their investments outside the United States, fund managers are corroborating a bleak long-term view of declining US economic strength, gradually running away from dollar assets to buy other assets or currencies like the euro, the yen and the Yuan.

“Given the American deficits, other economists are also looking at the dollar as overvalued. As the American economy's weakness comes into focus, the dollar has to fall to reflect its real fundamentals. Therefore US Treasury Secretary John Snow welcomed a Group of Seven statement that currencies should be allowed to find their own level, calling it ‘a milestone change.’ His remark was against the backdrop of Japan's dramatic intervention in the forex market last year, equivalent to Ireland's entire GDP in an effort to keep the yen below 115 to the US dollar.

Continuing on Japan’s intervention to support the dollar, “The new cabinet upped its interventions after the G-7 meeting. Nonetheless, the currency has broken through the key 110 level. It is starting to appear that the yen's rise cannot be curbed, mainly because there is a widespread view in the market that the government and the Bank of Japan will not be able to intervene on a large scale in the face of US and Eurozone disapproval.”

Simplistically, it appears as if America’s enemies are ganging up on the dollar to accelerate the US demise as the dominant economy in the world.  But it isn’t that simple.  Not only do all of these countries (who are threatening to dump the dollar for the euro) have substantial holdings in dollars (which would suffer), if the US dollar plummets, American’s ability to buy goods from these countries is lessened.  That is the reason why China and Japan are manipulating the value of their currency to maintain the dollar’s strength.  To let the dollar fall would reduce American’s buying power for Chinese and Japanese goods – the mainstays of US consumer buying.

It is little wonder that Asia Times relayed European Central Bank president Wim Duisenberg’s concerns over a weakening US dollar, whose devaluation would mean large cutbacks in European exports. “The dollar is the currency of a country with a huge deficit on its balance of payments, close to 5 percent of its GDP [Gross Domestic Product],” Duisenberg told reporters. “You can afford this one year, two years, maybe five years, but sometime there has to be an adjustment of its currency. We hope and pray that this adjustment, which is unavoidable, will be slow and gradual. We will do everything in our power to make it slow and gradual.”  His financial audience knew he was talking intervention, and the euro immediately dropped a percentage point against the dollar.  But, the dollar will continue its fall.

The Economist of Britain tried to make the case that the Bush team is trying weaken the dollar in order to support America’s dwindling export market [my counter comments in brackets]: “Mr. Bush will join leaders from 20 other countries around the Pacific Rim in Bangkok, Thailand, for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit. It will be a chance for him to meet those Asian policymakers who, by pegging their currencies to the dollar (China and Malaysia) or by intervening in the currency markets (Japan, plus many others), have kept the dollar too high, hurting the widgetmakers of West Virginia and Mr. Bush’s chances of re-election [The Economist fails to acknowledge that the consumer’s market in America, which needs a strong dollar is much bigger than the export side of the economy.  If, indeed, the Bush administration is trying to weaken the dollar, they aren’t doing this with a balanced economic point of view.  Besides, it doesn’t take active intervention to weaken the dollar.  It’s happening on its own due to excessive monetary inflation by the Fed.].

“The Federal Reserve has already cut interest rates to the bone [weakening the dollar], and Mr. Bush has already slashed taxes with abandon [not with abandon, but certainly unwisely without commensurate cuts in spending]. Now, in a last bid to get American exporters hiring again, he wants to weaken the dollar. So far, he has had little help from the East Asians. The Bank of Japan has intervened on an unprecedented scale this year to keep the dollar up against the yen, and China has stuck tight to its peg, established in 1994, even as its trade surplus with America mounts.  This is not the first time Mr. Bush has raised this issue, of course. Last month, at the G7 meeting in Dubai, John Snow, his treasury secretary, persuaded the other six members to sign a communiqué insisting that markets should set exchange rates. That prompted a slide in the dollar to three- year lows against the yen.  But it has not deterred the Bank of Japan from stepping back into the markets, and it left China unmoved.

“Will Mr. Bush get more joy out of the APEC summit?  In some ways, the forum is perfectly set up for his purpose. Tracking the dollar is a habit indulged in by the entire East Asian region. It makes little sense to single one or two countries out.  The Chinese Yuan, indeed, accounts for only 10% of the trade-weighted value of the dollar, according to Goldman Sachs.  So even if the Yuan were to rise by a half, the dollar would only fall by 5%. Moreover, all of the East Asian countries that track the dollar (thereby stealing a march on America’s exporters) also trade with each other and compete with each other in third markets [and American markets—the prime reason why China keeps its currency weak, to maintain its competitive labor advantage over other potential Asian rivals]. None of them wants to be the first to let its currency rise, thereby losing ground to its regional rivals [very true].”  [End of Economist quote]

This, then, is the prime reason for president Bush’s nine-day visit to the Far East this coming week.  Ostensibly, he is visiting all the Pacific Basin nations to thank them for their support in Iraq, but the real agenda is all about money.  Bush’s financial advisors (who will be doing the real negotiating with their Asian counterparts) will have a tough time getting Japan to stop intervening in the dollar’s behalf.  Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki told the press in anticipation of the Bush visit, “We will take the bullish yen by its horns when necessary,  implying intervention in behalf of the dollar.  The outflow of dollar denominated assets into yen assets has buoyed up the Japanese stock market and temporarily given Japanese banks a larger reserve of cash.  But intervention is a two-edged sword, and Japan has to play both sides of a delicate balance to keep a stock market recovery going while not destroying their export market with a too-strong yen.  With car sales in America lagging, in spite of zero-interest incentives, a dramatic rise in prices of Japanese cars would spell zero sales.  Japanese companies would be forced to absorb the price rises, or the difference in currency values, but current profit margins don’t allow much room to do that. 

As the NY Times points out, the US tradition position of wanting a strong dollar is at variance with it’s recent cries to let market forces reign: “Mr. Bush clearly wants to accommodate them [the US manufacturers who contribute heavily to Republican candidates], but he is fearful of steering too far away from the mantra of the 1990's that ‘a strong dollar is in the interest of the United States.’  So Mr. Bush has split the difference, saying that the United States still favors a strong dollar but wants ‘the market to determine exchange rates.’  That last phrase is a signal to American companies, administration officials say, that Mr. Bush believes that China and Japan should stop intervening in the markets to keep the dollar artificially high.

“In short, the new American policy appears internally contradictory. Mr. Bush is declaring that the dollar should be strong, while calling for the freeing of markets that would, most experts guess, send its value down in relation to the Japanese and Chinese currencies.  ‘It's a combination of statements that make no sense, when you think about it,’ a senior American official deeply involved in the issue said just before Mr. Bush left Washington on Wednesday. ‘Either you want a strong dollar or you want the markets to determine the rate, but you can’t pray at both altars.’” [End of NY Times quote]

Underlying the issue of currency valuations, however, is something more dangerous:  If investors sense that the US dollar is on a verge of crisis, panic dumping may ensue which will quickly overcome other central banks’ efforts to intervene in the dollar’s behalf.  Asia Times continues, “a rapidly falling dollar means foreign buyers are more likely to bail out on US paper, putting the US in an economic trap. It will have to raise interest rates to entice foreign and domestic investors, which in turn would drive a stake through the nascent recovery from the three-year-old economic slowdown.”   Frankly, in light of American spending, I doubt if the Asian giants will be successful in continued intervention.  They don’t have unlimited funds to throw against the tide of dollar selling.



Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to cut a whopping 100 military bases from the US inventory in the next round of base closings.  According to the LA Times, that’s almost one-fourth of all US bases and more closures than in the previous four rounds combined.  Rumsfeld claims that this measure will save some $66 billion during the next decade – a paltry sum compared to what could be saved by discontinuing some of the unnecessary intervention in which the US is involved around the world.   Besides the political firestorm these base closings would cause in the home districts of affected Congressmen, the entire proposal brings up a massive contradiction inherent to current US defense and foreign policy.

The Bush administration is attempting to get Congress to approve (for starters) $87 billion for Iraqi operations and reconstruction – money the US government does NOT expect to get reimbursed for, even after Iraq, with all its oil reserves, gets back on its feet.  I think this is more telling about US fiscal irresponsibility than almost anything.  Historically, the US has put heavy pressure on other countries to pay back Marshall Plan loans, and yet it is intending to let oil-rich Iraq completely off the hook.  Taking a position in opposition to Bush, the Senate has voted to convert some of the aid to a loan.   Worse, the money Bush is throwing at Iraq is funded by deficit spending so as to spare the administration any political backlash from having to pass on the costs to the American public.  With this kind of profligacy apparent in foreign policy, I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld’s current proposals to nickel and dime the military with cuts in essential services and basing facilities is being done for the sake of frugality.  It appears to be more in line with the suicidal downsizing of the US military that will continue to encourage Russian and Chinese aggressiveness in the future.

On a related note, the US complains about its military being short on manpower and overstretched to the limit, and yet government cuts back on medical, hospital and death benefits for service men, guaranteeing a future mass exodus of trained personnel from active and reserve duty.  This is no way to keep up US manpower in view of the administration’s growing demands due to worldwide intervention.  I think the plan is to create a manpower crisis that will justify a draft. 



A source who works in a military related field attended the Multi-Links Users Conference in San Diego, CA, where various military users of high tech weapons get a chance to interact with industry representatives.  Here are some of his candid informal remarks, replete with military jargon, relating the low opinions most military people expressed about the failures of high tech equipment. These are opinions you won’t hear in the mainstream media:

“I think the most profound words that I heard, and this was a Naval aviator speaking, was that we should be VERY thankful that we weren't fighting ‘a more capable foe.’  I don't think this man was a fighter or bomber pilot

who was saying this but an E-2 pilot.  Part of the C2 (Command and Control) components.  Kind of the Navy's equivalent to an Air Force AWACS… I had [informal conversations] with military personnel while I was out in the land of fruits and nuts [San Diego].  I did not sense a lot of ‘hoo-ah’ and ‘hoozah’ amongst the war fighters.  As I've mentioned to a few, the conference, I felt, was refreshingly open and frank.  All services were there but it was, by far, a Navy/SPAWAR gig.  Some of you know that, in the acronyms of the services, just about anything that

starts with the letter ‘J’ means ‘Joint’.  In a nutshell, that means that all of our services can chat with each other, everybody knows who, where, when, what and why about the other (friendly and bad) guy.  And, of course, that now includes our ‘coalition partners’ --what few we have left. 

“We've built ourselves a ungodly expensive, high-tech military ... that is fundamentally broken, in my opinion.  It all looks real good and promising on paper and in theory.  But, in reality, we've shot ourselves in the foot, relying on our ‘high techness.’  I mean that in the most literal sense too. If you heard all that I heard about fratricide (or ‘blue on blue’ as it is called) and the many, many near-calamities, you would know what I mean – straight from the mouths of those who were ‘over there’.  Quite sobering.  By the way, if you happen to be flying over Iraq these days, please be sure to avoid the Patriot missile batteries.  My goodness, the Army took it on the chin at this conference!  When I hear a Navy officer get up and say to all the acquisition-types, both military and contractors, that we need to put our resources in our PEOPLE instead of all the gee-whiz-bang-doo-dads (that the admirals and the generals want) ... well, that tells me that there’s some rumblings in the ranks.” [End of quote.]



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, and Sec. of Defense Don Rumsfeld both felt obliged to offer public comments in response to a report by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes indicating that “one-third of the US troops questioned in Iraq said their morale is low and half said they are unlikely to re-enlist.”  The newspaper said its questionnaire, answered by some 2,000 soldiers, was not scientific, but the report was disturbing nevertheless.  The numbers are undoubtedly much higher. 



It’s no secret that Bush was a know-nothing playboy businessman living off papa’s reputation and power prior to being allowed to move up the stepping stones of public office.  After being interviewed by kingmaker George Shultz in San Francisco, and having been declared “ready” to serve the establishment, he still had to be briefed for weeks on foreign and domestic policy by the likes of Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot before he could face the cameras – something he has rarely done without a written script.  Even now, savvy analysts still consider Bush only a step above a script reader.  Whenever he tries to wing it on his own, his answers are grammatically incorrect, poorly worded, confused, or simply a rehash of overworn “tough guy” phrases he memorized previously.  So, who’s the real power behind the throne?

A rash of articles have been emerging in the alternative media lately on the topic, all pointing to VP Dick Cheney as the real power in the Bush administration.  The details are generally correct, but the conclusions about Cheney’s overall role and power are wrong.  He is directing the president, but he’s only a middleman.  Here’s a sampling:

Ritt Goldstein of the Sydney Morning Herald writes, “A former Pentagon officer turned whistleblower says a group of hawks in the Bush Administration, including the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is running a shadow foreign policy, contravening Washington's official line.”  Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel in the Pentagon claims, “George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked.”  She describes how key areas of neoconservative concern were strategically placed throughout the White House and in government agencies.  She ought to know.  She worked under one of Cheney’s boys, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.  However, Kwiatkowski is wrong about the presidency being “hijacked.”  Bush is a knowing, but lower level participant.

Another significant article describing how Cheney’s boys control the other key posts in the administration was written by Jim Lobe, a journalist for Alternet.org and other liberal publications.  In today’s world we often have to rely on the Left to do the initial critical analysis of Bush administration policies.  Most conservatives writers either have gone to sleep or have become inveterate yes-men to Bush.

In general, keep in mind that Lobe and other leftists believe there is a natural tension between liberal-leaning Sec. of State Colin Powell (including the traditionally leftist State Department), and the “right wing” neo-cons of the White House and Pentagon.  They believe the “right wingers” in power run a capitalist conspiracy for greed and power, which Powell and other token liberals in government try to resist.  This is not true, in reality.  They do resist a little, but few of the liberals at mid-levels of government are quitting in protest.  All those in high position, without exception, are participants, to one degree or another, in a conspiracy of governmental control, for globalist purposes.  The degree of difference between various players is in how much of the game plan they are actually aware of.  Occasionally a naïve and subservient conservative is given a top level agency to run, in order to help preserve the façade of conservatism in the Bush administration.  They too know there is a powerful control system, but they think it is benevolent, with good intentions.  I don’t consider Attorny General Ashcroft as one of these naïve conservatives.  He’s told too many lies to qualify as an honest man any more.

Colin  Powell certainly knows he is part of a powerful control system.  The system brought him up the chain of military command as Powell fulfilled his “uncle Tom” role.  He was a useful minority officer who could be relied upon to cover-up for military mistakes.  Bush has been the recipient of a lot of favors from the establishment as well.      The control system is what has covered for his errors and missteps throughout life, and provided him the wealth making opportunities that otherwise would have eluded someone of average abilities.  Neither Powell nor Bush, I believe, are aware of the big picture.  They only know they are part of the system and protected by it as long as they don’t cross anyone higher up.  As far as Cheney is concerned, I think he is the point man within the Bush administration for the real Powers That Be (PTB), who rarely hold public office.  Taking his orders from others higher in the power structure, Cheney then directs the president, sometimes openly, but usually by suggestions.  Besides directly influencing the president, Cheney was also in charge of selecting the staff of the White House, the Pentagon, and some positions within State Department. 

Most of Lobe’s conclusions are wrong because he doesn’t understand the over-arching conspiracy of power that is above the office of the President.  He thinks narrowly only about people trying to “hijack the presidency.”  But his analysis is still useful.    I’ll insert my comments in [brackets] to give insight into what’s really going on.

                “While the mainstream media mostly continue to cast Bush as the captain of his ship, hints that Cheney is the dominant figure shaping Washington's diplomatic policy have become too numerous to ignore. A recent Washington Post article assessing Condoleezza Rice’s performance as national security adviser revealed a most stunning example of this lopsided state of affairs. According to the Post, Bush had ordered Cabinet officials not to give any preferential treatment to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) when US forces moved into Iraq last spring. But soon after, in flagrant violation of his directive, the Pentagon flew Chalabi and 600 of his armed followers into southern Iraq in early April, ‘with the approval of the vice president.’ [The facts are right, but Lobe doesn’t have the whole story.  The original Bush directive was only make a pretense of fairness for all of those staff members in the White House and Pentagon who still think our government tries to do what’s right.  The Cheney directive was Bush’s intent all along.   Cheney did and does assume the power to issue orders directly—which no other VP has ever exercised, to my knowledge.]

“It would not be the first or last time that Cheney simply ignored his commander-in-chief. The extent of Cheney's power is not surprising given the degree to which Bush relied on him during his presidential campaign and in the administration's early days. [‘Relied on’ is not correct.  Whenever the PTB bring in a relatively naïve and unqualified person such as Bush to serve as president, they assign him several advisors and one main “handler,” whom the president knows he is never to disregard—despite his position as ‘president.’  Cheney, I believe, is Bush’s handler.]  And the fact that Cheney, who was asked by Bush to recommend his running mate in 2000, picked himself for the job [a foregone conclusion anyway; the entire “selection process” was only for show] reveals that he expected to wield extraordinary power if Bush won the election.

“Cheney has played a much more important role than Rice since the early days of the administration, despite her closer personal relationship with the president. [True, and this will always be the case.  Rice is a second rate academic still in training for higher things. She rarely thinks for herself.  No previous National Security advisor has had this level of inexperience.  Most, like Kissinger, Scowcroft and Talbot, were high level conspirators placed at NSA to control presidents like Nixon and Ford.  Rice is a shamefully apologist for everything Bush says or does.  She has little credibility when she does this, among the old guard of Kissinger’s group, and thus is not trusted with any crucial decisions.  Llike Powell, she must be corrected often by Cheney and his plants within the State Department.]  It was Cheney's choices that prevailed in the appointment of both cabinet and sub-cabinet national-security officials, beginning with that of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Not only did Cheney personally intervene to ensure that Powell's best friend, Richard Armitage [a CIA drug smuggling spook, despised by the neo-cons], was denied the deputy defense secretary position, but he also secured the post for his own protégé, Paul Wolfowitz. Moreover, it was Cheney who insisted that the ultra-unilateralist John Bolton be placed in a top State Department arms job – a position from which Bolton has consistently pursued policies that run counter to Powell's own views. [True.  That’s because, while Powell is a “player” and yesman, he is not trusted to know the overall game plan.  Only those who are high enough to know the big picture are capable of understanding why the US plays both sides in the wars on drugs, terror, and tyranny.  Powell, being a naïve liberal, is a natural pick to head the State Department, which is full of hard core leftists.  Cheney had to put someone in State that the leftists there would tolerate and trust to some degree.]  

“Moreover, Cheney's own national-security staff is the largest ever employed by a vice president. Its members have largely been chosen for both their ideological affinity with their boss and proven Washington experience. [Good point.  The size of Cheney’s staff is a huge indication of his hidden role as handler.] ‘They play to win,’ said one State Department official.  Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, a Washington lawyer and Wolfowitz protégé, is considered a far more skilled and experienced bureaucratic and political operator than Rice. [This is a gross understatement.  Libby is one of the real ‘evil’ players to watch.  He’s a ruthless operator—the kind the PTB bring up in the ranks to control others, but from behind the scenes.  Libby has a Lenin type face and would never be trusted by the public.  Cheney, on the other hand, has a cherubic expression capable of deceiving conservatives—so he’s who they put out front nowadays.] With several of his political allies on Rice's own staff – including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Middle East director Elliott Abrams – Libby ‘is able to run circles around Condi [true, indeed],’ noted a former NSC official.”  [End of Lobe quote.]



When dark side operators start taking too big a cut of the illicit profits they bring to the CIA, they usually get taken down – sometimes physically, but more often by simply being railroaded into prison.  Such was the case of Edwin Wilson, long-time criminal operator for the CIA.  Everything Wilson did for the CIA was illegal.  He smuggled weapons to terrorists, and shipped American explosives to terror sponsoring states like Libya.  When the CIA wants someone like that eliminated, it’s an easy matter to telephone the cops anonymously and finger their own man.  That’s what happened to Wilson.

When Wilson showed up in court in 1982, he came armed with dozens of documents showing he was working for the CIA.  The original judge, obviously in collusion with the government, refused to allow any such evidence into the record, even though it was the heart of Wilson’s defense. But the judge conveniently accepted a falsified statement by the CIA denying Wilson was working for the agency.

Now, a federal judge in the Houston district has thrown out the 1982 conviction, based on the finding that federal prosecutors knowingly used that false testimony from the CIA to undermine Wilson’s case.  According to reporter Douglas Jehl, “The ruling was scathing in its condemnation of the government’s conduct in a case that was one of the most prominent of its time. It said Mr. Wilson's efforts to defend himself had been ‘contradicted by a dishonest agency memorandum issued from a bunker’ at the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Va.  Too bad no one is prosecuting the original judge for having squelched all of Wilson’s documentations of employment, clearly obstructing justice in his own court room—but that, of course, would lead someone to suspect the dreaded C world (“Conspiracy”).

The larger question is, Why did the government not lean on this appeals judge to silence Wilson one more time?  There are dozens of other CIA whistleblowers and former operatives in prison, and many more who were also sentenced unjustly and then “mysteriously” died while serving their prison terms.  Often the CIA will simply order prison officials to allow some prisoner under their control to eliminate another prisoner, and make it look like an accident or the result of a fight.  This can even be done in prisons that have been “privatized.”  The CIA controls the largest private contractor of prisons, Wackenhut Corporation, which various whistleblowers have identified as a CIA front company.  

Why let Wilson out?  There are probably several reasons.  First, Wilson was pretty high profile.  If he were to have suddenly died in prison, it would have made a few waves.  Second, Wilson had lots of other friends on the dark side, who might be tempted to leak more CIA secrets if Wilson had been knocked off.  Third, Wilson himself may have been threatening to leaks some very big secrets about CIA dirty dealings—leaks that Wilson most likely had succeeded in handing off to a third party (to be published only upon his death).  Whatever the reason, I’m convinced Wilson has something over on the agency.  When Wilson finally gets parole, he’d better watch his back.



The Selective Service System is starting to enlist increasing numbers of private citizens to serve as volunteers on local community draft boards.  This raises the speculation that the Dept. of Defense is thinking about reinstating the draft.  Attacks on US troops reached an all-time high this month—233 in the last week.  The Pentagon is trying to play the card that current command and control structures are no suited to guerrilla warfare.  Rumsfeld is leaking memos about restructuring the US military to deal with the growing guerrilla threat.  This is bogus.  The US has lots of experience dealing with guerrilla warfare.  Restructuring is simply an excuse for making the public think the system is at fault.  In fact, it’s the US neo-cons ulterior globalist agenda that is breeding continued attacks.  This kind of low intensity warfare is never going to end as long as the US continues to antagonize and occupy other nations.  

With enlistments and reenlistments dropping like a rock, it wouldn’t take much to justify the return of the draft.  Young men and parents of young men who object to this phony war on terror need to be prepared to declare some form of conscientious objector status for those who may be at risk of being drafted. 

At a minimum, you should write on the draft registration card, “I am a conscientious objector as to any service in support of the United Nations, its resolutions, or any operation not directly related to defending US territory at home.  I am also a conscientious objector to receiving any vaccines.”   Make a copy of this declaration before sending it to the draft board.  If you or yours have already registered with the draft, send a registered letter, return receipt requested, to the draft board stating your new status and objections.  You don’t have to object to all war or military duty to be a “selective” conscientious objector.  When it comes time for being drafted, negotiate with the DOD by letter demanding that they send you an acknowledgment that the US government will abide by your specified conscientious objector status, BEFORE allowing your sons to report for duty.   If you try to get their written acknowledgment after the young man is in their custody, you will be out of luck.  Naturally, don’t expect the government to comply.  Document all your one-way correspondence to show good faith in trying to get the government to respond to your position.  Their refusal to respond will become part of the court record when they try to prosecute your sons for evading the draft.  Your position is strong in that you are not refusing to serve your country—just refusing to serve the New World Order, or to subject to those dangerous vaccines (an objection which also makes your sons ineligible for deployment).





The government’s announcement this week that third quarter GDP surged ahead by a whopping 7.2% deserves some detailed scrutiny.  Are government officials fudging the numbers or merely taking credit for a one time splurge in consumer and business spending?  The Bush administration was quick to take full credit for the upswing, saying it was a direct result of the tax cut.  Yes and no.  For the short term, the tax cuts did leave consumers with more disposable income, leading to a surge in consumer spending, the largest factor in determining GDP.  If the figures are correct (no small assumption, given the government’s consistent manipulation of the CPI), they can only be accounted for by massive injections of government spending and credit and the expansionary effects of one time tax rebates.  Certainly the underlying economic fundamentals (increased savings, fewer debts,  higher earnings, increased investment in plant and equipment) cannot be responsible for this kind of rapid change.  It takes years for imbalances in those areas to work their way out of the system.

Normally, the government adjusts growth estimates downward to account for “seasonal” or other unusual growth.  This time, the report made no such adjustments.  This fact, combined with the readiness of the Bush administration to take credit for the growth, indicates some political manipulation of the economic report.

Here are the figures, in a nutshell: Consumer spending, which grew this last quarter at a 6.6% annual rate (up from 3.8% in the previous quarter), was the big driving force behind the jump.   Consumers bought a lot of big-ticket items such as cars and trucks (with sales rising 27%).  They also bought a lot of new appliances and furnishings for homes recently bought at bargain interest rates.  Rates bottomed at 4% in September and are now rising slowly.  Even sales of non-durables (food, clothes and sundries) grew at 7.9%, the strongest increase in three decades.  Despite all this hype, the Commerce Department (which collects these numbers) is only predicting a 4% growth in the final quarter of this year.

The Labor department was fired up about October’s employment figures as well.  Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months and job growth in the last two months of the last quarter was significantly stronger than the government had thought. However, a net employment gain of 126,000 is not large.  I think the euphoria is not only overblown, but directly related to a blip in consumer spending during the last quarter.  Notice that almost all the growth in jobs came in the low paying service sector (restaurants, retail cashiers, doctor's offices and other service industries.  As journalist David Leonhardt commented, “The recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force, suggesting that last month's decline in the jobless rate might have been a statistical blip.”

Federal spending on national defense was flat for the quarter, although still huge in nominal terms due to the relatively huge jump (45.8%) in defense spending for the Iraq war during the second quarter.  All that second quarter spending trickled down into the hands of employees by the third quarter, where it was spent, artificially boosting the growth rate.

The report indicated a 15.4% growth rate in spending by businesses on equipment and software in the third quarter.  Yet this figure too is not what it seems.  Most of the incentive for these spending levels came from tax incentives recently legislated offering huge write-offs to businesses for new equipment purchases.  Most of the “equipment” was not computer equipment either, although software did make a substantial jump.  The reason is that during the recent boom years, businesses loaded up on computing capacity—capacity that is still not fully utilized.  In fact, it is partly because of the increased productivity and efficiency of information processing achieved during the boom years of the late 90’s that companies have been able to lay off so many employees.  Businesses continued to draw down inventories during the quarter, reducing third-quarter GDP by 0.67 percentage points.  If businesses continue to keep inventories low, the so-called economic recovery will be postponed even further.

It is important to keep in mind that the business sector (except for the auto industry, which is just starting to lay off large numbers of workers) is relatively stable, having downsized already and cut fat for the past two years.  But, according to sources in Silicon Valley, businesses will not be rehiring a lot of workers, even as the economy grows.  The reason is that most of the former growth in hiring was to ratchet a company up in capacity and performance in order to compete in the faster paced economy—which was not only overheated but was changing and upgrading equipment at a furious pace.  That kind of change is unlikely in the present decade, so there is a much smaller need for companies to upgrade equipment at the former pace.  The extra employees did their jobs, have now been let go, and companies anticipate they can handle moderate growth for several more years without hiring people back – specifically because of this surplus in modern IT equipment capacity and its processing ability.  Thus, economists’ anticipation of growth in GDP leading to an immediate hiring spree will not materialize.  Companies are indicating they will be very judicious in taking on new people.  Hiring will be slower as the economy improves.  

Martin Weiss, in his recent “Safe Money Report” (www.safemoneyreport.com), made the following critical comments about the sudden rise in growth [my comments in brackets]:

“1. It took 13 successive interest rate cuts, two massive tax cuts, and the largest deficit spending in history
to get the economy to finally respond with a one-quarter spurt. [The interest rate cuts did fuel the rise in home buying – financed mostly with debt, not savings.  The deficit spending accounted for large infusions of cash via the employees of the military-industrial complex.] What kind of Herculean effort would it take to KEEP the economy growing?  Certainly nothing that is within the realm of possibilities [true, as demonstrated by October’s figures].

 “2. Despite the nice growth spurt, jobs are STILL not being created quickly enough to make a dent in the millions of jobs lost since 2001 [2.75 million jobs, to be exact, not including the self-employed. The number of job cuts in October of this year rose 125% : 175,000 jobs, compared to 76,500 lost in September]. If this is a problem with the economy jumping by 7.2%, what's going to happen if the growth rate slides back to 4%, 3% or 2%?
 “3.  A big chunk of the growth in the third quarter came from the checks sent to millions of consumers [via the president’s child tax credit payments]. But most of that is money they will NOT be getting next year…We saw the same thing happen more than a year ago, in the first quarter of 2002. The economy spurted ahead at an annual
rate of 5% when rebate checks were mailed out. Then, for three out of the next four quarters, the growth in the economy slumped to an anemic pace of 1.4% or less!
 “4.  How much of the recent spurt was driven by the mortgage refinancing boom? What will happen now that the
refinancing boom is dying?
Indeed, the number of people applying for mortgages is starting to recede rapidly, evidenced by the 5.7% drop last week in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Index. Worse, refinancing applications have fallen 75% since May, as interest rates rose again. Their forecast for next year: Mortgage applications will tumble by 48% to $1.6 trillion from $3.3 trillion. [This is not only because of interest rates rising, but also because the available pool of potential borrowers is shrinking—having already loaded up on as much debt as they can handle.] Think about that: The amount of money going into homes is expected to plunge nearly in HALF.
“5. Now that the Big Three auto makers have used up every trick in the book to boost sales (rebates, zero-percent
financing, and more), what are they going to do for an encore?  Sure, they helped boost big-ticket consumer purchases by 26% in the third quarter. But at what price? Apparently a very steep one! Ford is not making one dime on its average sales price; GM is making only a meager $15 per car.   Can you believe that? Just 15 bucks for every car sold!  That can't continue. With auto profit margins virtually wiped out, automakers will have to scale back their incentives next year.
 “6. The official estimate for next year's federal deficit is $500 billion. Add on all the "off-budget" extras, and it comes to over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS -- all money Uncle Sam is going to have to borrow next year to make ends meet.  Tack on the borrowing by consumers, businesses, cities and states ... and you could see them bid interest rates up through the roof.  What is that going to do to the economy?” [End of Weiss quote.]

Admittedly, Martin Weiss is a perennial pessimist about the economy.  Like most predictors of economic collapse, Weiss underestimates the power of the Treasury and Fed to manipulate markets and monetary indicators.  While the government’s bag of tricks is slowly being used up, they give every indication they will continue to inflate this second stock market and credit bubble.  I think this indicates the PTB intend to re-elect George Bush.  How long they can hold up the economy is beyond anyone’s ability to predict with precision.  But collapse it will, eventually.  The longer they persist in intervening in the economy, the harder the fall. 

On the other side of the coin, this second market bubble is not widely spread throughout the economy.  About half the market participants are tightening their belts and the other half are flush with new money being provided courtesy of government spending and ease of credit.  In the last quarter people spend with relative abandon.  However, a very large percentage of last quarter's consumer spending was done in the form of borrowing.  Despite an average credit card balance in excess of $8,000, Americans continued to buy with plastic.  All of this equates to slower growth ahead since high monthly credit card payments restrict future use eventually (although the continued ease with which people can declare bankruptcy prolongs bad spending habits).



DeNeen L. Brown and Dana Priest of the Washington Post made public a startling investigation which concludes that to evade US laws against torturing prisoners, the government sends terrorist suspects to other Middle Eastern terror states to extract information from them, via torture.  Apparently this process is common enough within the dark side of the US government that it even has a name: rendition, as in to “rend” an animal carcass (boil it down to extract usable meat by-products). The key suspect that broke the story was 33-year-old Canadian immigrant (and citizen of Canada) Maher Arar.  His story is like something out of the Soviet gulag.  [My comments in brackets.]

Arar was flying home to Montreal via New York on Sept. 26, 2002, from a family visit to Tunisia.  “‘This is when my nightmare began,’ he said. ‘I was pulled aside by immigration and taken. The police came and searched my bags. I asked to make a phone call and they would not let me.’ He said an FBI agent and a New York City police officer questioned him. ‘I was so scared,’ he said. ‘They told me I had no right to a lawyer because I was not an American citizen.’ [As a citizen of Canada, he should have been deported to Canada according to INS procedures.] ‘They were consulting a report while they were questioning me, and the information they had was so private -- I thought this must be from Canada. I told them everything I knew. They asked me about Abdullah Almalki, and I told them I worked with his brother at high-tech firms in Ottawa, and that the Almalki family had come from Syria about the same time as mine.  I told them I had a casual relationship with him.’

‘They were so rude with me, yelling at me that I had a selective memory. Then they pulled out a copy of my rental lease from 1997. I could not believe they had this. [This is an indication that Canadian intelligence had provided the US with Arar’s name simply because he was remotely associated with someone else they thought had terrorist ties.  And they send a man to Syria to be tortured for this kind of flimsy ‘evidence?’]

“‘I was completely shocked. They pointed out that Abdullah had signed the lease as a witness. I had completely forgotten that he had signed it for me -- when we moved to Ottawa in 1997, we needed someone to witness our lease, and I phoned Abdullah's brother, and he could not come, so he sent Abdullah. But they thought I was hiding this. I told them the truth. I had nothing to hide. I had never had problems in the United States before, and I could not believe what was happening to me. This interrogation continued until midnight. I was very, very worried, and asked for a lawyer again and again.  They just ignored me. Then they put me in chains, on my wrists and ankles, and took me in a van to a place where many people were being held -- another building by the airport.

“‘Then a man from the INS came in and told me they wanted me to volunteer to go to Syria. I said no way.

I said I wanted to go home to Canada or sent back to Switzerland. He said to me 'you are a special interest.' They asked me to sign a form. They would not let me read it, but I just signed it. I was exhausted and confused and disoriented.’ [The yelling and screaming and trying to get a person to sign documents (in this case probably the permission to deport to Syria) without reading them are Gestapo style tactics.  Remember this next time some mainstream law enforcement person scoffs at charges that anyone uses Gestapo tactics in America.]

Arar said he was shackled, placed on a small jet and flown to Washington, where ‘a new team of people got on the plane’ and took him to Amman, the capital of Jordan.  Arar said US officials handed him over to Jordanian authorities, who ‘blindfolded and chained me and put me in a van. . . . They made me bend my head down in the back seat. Then these men started beating me. Every time I tried to talk, they beat me.

“Hours later, he said, he was taken to Syria and there he was forced to write that he had been to a training camp in Afghanistan. ‘They kept beating me, and I had to falsely confess,’ he said. ‘I was willing to confess to anything to stop the torture.’”  Notice that his captors knew specifically what type of confession they wanted to extract from him.  There was no ordinary probing or asking why the US had dropped him off in Syria.  All of this had to have been communicated before, indicating a relationship between the US and Syria that is improper, given that Syria is a terrorist sponsoring state.  Why should the Syrians be torturing someone about serving Al Qaeda?  The Syrians themselves support all forms of terrorism in the Middle East.  They could only have been interested in extracting a confession beneficial to the US government in proving its case on terrorism.

Is the US government so desperate to capture a confessed terror suspects that they have to stoop to this kind of treatment to gather a confession?  Canadian authorities appear to be under pressure to provide the US with lists of suspicious Arab immigrants that the US can exploit for propaganda purposes.  Canada allows thousands of Middle Easterners to immigrate annually (actually, so does the US).   Arar’s case, however, has become a cause celebre in Canada making the Canadian government look like lackeys to the US war on terror.  Thus, Canada has begun to make a token diplomatic fuss over the issue and asking what information its own RCMP (Mounties) provided the US Dept. of Justice.  At least the Canadian Embassy finally extricated Arar from Syria – but only after his cause was publicized throughout Canada due to the efforts of his family.  The Post article is the first time the US press has taken notice.  I doubt if the story will be allowed to circulate much wider.  

The Post story concludes with various incriminating statements by people in and around government who have known about this illegal procedure for a long time. “Steven Watt, a human rights fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights in Washington, said Arar's case raised questions about U.S. counterterrorism measures. ‘Here we have the United States involved in the removal of somebody to a country where it knows persons in custody of security agents are tortured,’ Watt said. ‘The US was possibly benefiting from the fruits of that torture. I ask the question: Why wasn't he removed to Canada?’ [Good question, but people like Watt never ask the really tough questions, implied by the overall pattern of official illegal conduct and US collusion with a terror state.]

“A senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the case in terms of the secret rendition policy. There have been ‘a lot of rendition activities’ since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the official said. ‘We are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive.’ [I’ll bet.  Torture always appears to be ‘productive,’ if your purpose is to extract confessions for their own sake.  Torture almost always achieves confessions, but not necessarily the real truth, as in this case.]

“Renditions are a legitimate option for dealing with suspected terrorists, intelligence officials argue. The US government officially rejects the assertion that it knowingly sends suspects abroad to be tortured, but officials admit they sometimes do that. ‘The temptation is to have these folks in other hands because they have different standards,’ one official said. ‘Someone might be able to get information we can't from detainees,’ said another.” [End of Post quote.] 

This is an incredible admission, even from an anonymous government source.  The only reason the government thinks they can get away with this is because they have called it “rendition” – as if by naming it something other than TORTURE, it becomes legal and acceptable policy.  If you want to read Mr. Arar’s complete story of the affair, go to http://www.counterpunch.org/arar11062003.html.



Jim Rarey, who writes the internet column Medium Rare, has come up with some more blockbuster revelations. 

He cites several criminal cases in which John Muhammad was involved where the government intervened mysteriously to make sure Muhammad was never prosecuted for any crimes prior to the sniper affair.

“The [first] case is the murder of young Keenya Cook in Tacoma, Washington on Feb. 16, 2002. Keenya was baby sitting at the home of her aunt, Isa Nichols and was shot dead when she opened the front door in response to someone at the door. Police had no clues and it was a mystery until the alleged snipers, John Alan Muhammad and Lee Malvo, were arrested in suburban Washington, D.C.  Isa Nichols had worked for Muhammad and was a witness against him in Muhammad’s divorce from his second wife. Police theorized that Muhammad might have been the shooter in Keenya’s murder, a case of mistaken identity with Isa Nichols as the intended target. A solid circumstantial case was built against Muhammad and/or Malvo when a witness came forward with the .45 semi-automatic handgun that had fired the fatal shot. The witness, still unidentified to this day, said Muhammad and Malvo had been staying with him between Feb. and April of that year…and had borrowed the weapon.

“Federal and local law enforcement officials have steadfastly refused to identify the witness, as have the three major newspapers in the area, the Tacoma News Tribune, The Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Seattle Times. Pierce County prosecutors have said they will not file charges in the Cook murder providing a rationale for preserving the anonymity of the key witness.

“However, all that has changed with the trial of John Muhammad in Virginia charged with one shooting death. In order to justify the death penalty, prosecutors need to show that Muhammad was involved in a series of murders and/or intended to terrorize the populace.  As a part of meeting that burden of proof, Virginia prosecutors have provided a list of 13 witnesses they intend to call from the Tacoma area. The list includes a number of police officers, medical and forensic experts involved in the investigation of the Cook murder and the aunt, Isa Nichols. Missing from that list is the name of the mystery witness who is the only one that can tie Muhammad and Malvo to the murder weapon…

“But why the secrecy? Certainly the mystery witness need not fear retribution from Muhammad or Malvo who will never see another day free. Perhaps the real reasons have nothing to do with the sniper murders. But before exploring those possibilities, there is an odd situation with Muhammad’s defense attorneys.”

Rarey goes on to describe several instances where Muhammad’s arrest records were expunged.  “The investigation linked Muhammad to various criminal activities in Antigua. His main source of income appeared to be from providing forged documents, e.g. driver’s licenses and birth certificates, which were used to obtain fraudulent passports. Muhammad was charging $3,000 per set of documents.  Muhammad would then arrange transportation to the United States for the persons using the return trip portion of airlines tickets procured under false names. The investigation also tied Muhammad into narcotics trafficking and U.S. currency counterfeiting in Antigua.

“Another facet of the DC cover-up is the ease with which Muhammad has escaped prosecution and managed to avoid a rap sheet on the FBI’s national database. In this writer’s previous article we mentioned several instances where prosecution seemed warranted. In one case Muhammad simply walked away from an Antigua police station after being held for two days and disappeared into his welter of aliases.

“In another he was apprehended in Florida bringing in two aliens with false I.D. but was released without charges. His shoplifting charge in Tacoma on which he skipped bail and an arrest warrant that was issued is not in the database. Neither was the restraining order his ex-wife obtained against him.

“New documents and reports disclose several other arrests that did not appear on his record. Again in Florida Muhammad was arrested when caught with false I.D. Immigration authorities say they referred it to the US Attorney who refused to prosecute. The U.S. Attorney’s office ‘denies it has any record’ of the incident. (That’s not the same thing as saying it didn’t happen. Records can be shredded.)

“Muhammad was also arrested twice in Tacoma for driving on a suspended license. There was no prosecution and the arrests were not to be found on the database. The conclusion is inescapable that the government for some reason was protecting Muhammad.”   [End of Rarey quote]  

This evidence, coupled with the anonymous demands by a phone caller (claiming to be the sniper) to the police that a strange, mind-control type public statement be read on national TV, tends to lend credence to my suspicion that the sniper pair were working as agent provocateurs.  



Alabama’s nine-member Court of the Judiciary ordered Chief Justice Roy Moore removed from the bench for "ethical breaches in a dispute over church, state and the Ten Commandments." William Thompson, the presiding judge, claimed the court had no choice because "the chief justice placed himself above the law" by defying a federal court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court building.

Judge Roy Moore denied that this was the core issue. The conservative judge, a champion of states’ rights and Judeo-Christian moral values, has long held that the federal courts exceeded their constitutional authority in demanding the monument’s removal. Since the monument was not purchased with public funds, Judge Moore claimed it was not an establishment of religion, but rather a rightful recognition of the primary moral "source of our law and our liberty."

Judge Thompson claimed, "the chief justice showed no signs of contrition for his actions." Nor should he. Judge Moore was exercising his legal right as a judge to declare a law improper or unconstitutional. When he was overruled by a federal court, he challenged their authority to so act. In typical weasel fashion, the Supreme Court, rather than show their true colors, simply refused to rule on the appeal, or even to offer a legal opinion - letting the federal rule stand.

William Pryor Jr., the lead prosecutor and a Bush conservative, excoriated Moore saying, "the chief justice had put himself above the law." But in reality it was the Supreme and federal Courts that had put themselves above the law and its moral underpinnings. As James Madison said, "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." The appeals to the sanctity of law of Judge Moore’s attackers were hypocritical in the extreme. What they were really attacking was a judge courageous enough to say the federal judge’s interpretation of the law was evil and unconstitutional - something the establishment legal profession and their State bar association lackies will not ever tolerate from one of their members. What this entire shameful debacle demonstrates, in my opinion, is the lockstep fealty that members of the legal establishment show towards court precedents and the legal hierarchy, rather than principles and the Constitution.

The Powers that Be in Alabama and in Washington DC won’t be satisfied with Moore’s removal from the bench. They want him disbarred so he can’t ever practice law again. But Moore’s stature in Alabama is so great, he may just trump them all by running for governor.



WorldNetDaily.com reported, "Not long after he endorsed ‘Marriage Protection Week,’ President Bush sent a letter of congratulations to a denomination founded by homosexual activists that performs more than 6,000 same-sex ‘weddings’ each year. The president wrote to the founding congregation in Los Angeles of the Metropolitan Community Churches, led by leading homosexual activist Rev. Troy D. Perry, on the occasion of its 35th anniversary, saying ‘By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives... This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation.’

In an interesting counterpoint, just prior to sending that letter, Bush issued a proclamation endorsing an effort to defend the traditional family in response to an increasingly powerful homosexual lobby intent on establishing a right to same-sex "marriage." As usual, the conservatives get the symbolism and the homosexual community gets the substance. This betrayal cannot be explained away as mere politeness or playing politics. There was no popular mandate for a president (pretending to be a Christian) to lavish praise on an openly homosexual Church. Even if homosexuals commanded a large voting block, Bush’s actions still would amount to unprincipled pandering. The two declarations Bush made are completely incompatible, not the least considering the unbiblical nature of the Bush assertion of "God’s faithfulness to your congregation." God’s scriptural word clearly condemns homosexual behavior in all its deviant forms.



The Bush administration has used the material witness law to hold persons for indefinite periods of time simply because they might be someday useful to bring before a grand jury. The law was finally challenged by a Jordanian student held for years without charge. Before his arrest, he had been living in San Diego and was attending Grossmont College. He was picked up by the FBI after his first name and an out-of-date telephone number were found in a car left behind at Dulles Airport by one of the alleged hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon - another instance of the too-good-to-be-true evidence that has been suspected of being planted by government investigators to cover up for intelligence failures.

According the UK Globe Correspondent, "A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the government detaining individuals without criminal charges, as long as they are witnesses who possibly have information about terrorism - a power the Justice Department has used repeatedly over the past two years. ‘We see no serious constitutional problem’ in detaining people to make sure they show up to testify in a grand jury investigation, the three-judge panel said."

There might be a proper use for this kind of law if it had a strict limitation of perhaps three days. Within that time frame, if no grand jury investigation precipitates, a witness’s testimony could be recorded (as in a deposition) for future use. As written, however, the material witness law has no limitation on duration of detainment, and therefore represents a gross violation of civil rights.



The final Republican plan for a massive expansion of Medicare spending on prescription drugs is pure socialism, and bad news for taxpayers.  Conservative estimates by Congress set the initial cost at $400 billion over the next ten years, but, as the National Taxpayer’s Union puts it, “the reality is that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with a massive and growing tax burden if this proposal is passed into law.”  Worse, rather than subject the drug companies to increasing downward pressure on prices through increased competition from foreign imports, this new bill simply removes buyer resistance by passing the cost on to the taxpayer.  But, sadly, with both parties clamoring for this latest form of benefit corruption, it will pass in some form. 


Because of the dangers of medical drugs, we need to encourage less use of them rather than more—especially when there are safer and cheaper alternative remedies.  Of course, alternative remedies require intelligence, self-control and proper nutrition on the part of the patient – responsibilities that, sadly, few Americans want to accept.  They want their medical “fix” without pain.  Trouble is, it’s mostly an illusion.  Medical drugs generally do their job of masking or eliminating symptoms of disease, but they do so at the expense of the body’s own immune system defenses, while exposing the body to the risk of dangerous side effects that can compromise a person’s health even more over the long term.   



I have long warned about the dangers of vaccines, especially for babies and young children whose immune systems are not capable of coping with the many contaminants and toxic preservatives in vaccines.  There are other reasons why even adults should avoid them.  Now, for the first time, an insider from within the vaccine industry has agreed to talk about the dangers of vaccines, according to Jon Rappoport of www.nomorefakenews.com.  Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.  He is now retired and has reluctantly agreed to speak out.  I cannot personally vouch for the existence of this source, because of the shield of anonymity.  However, in my opinion, it has the ring of truth and matches all the other claims that I have studied in past years.  This interview that follows is important not only because of Randall’s intimate knowledge of vaccine dangers but for his testimony about the inside workings and cover-ups between government and the vaccine industry, the two sources that keep trying to assure Americans that they can be trusted.

This major excerpt is perhaps the best single written summary of the backup evidence for the case against immunizations: 


“Q: (Rappoport) You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine. 

A: (Randall) Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones. 

Q: Why not? 

A: I want to preserve my privacy. 

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open? 

A: I believe I could lose my pension. 

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was ‘part of the inner circle.’ If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. 

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called ‘brain-eating’ amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep[atitus] A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small ‘fragment’ of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called ‘foreign protein,’ which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines [as preservatives].

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to ‘create’ antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related ‘killer cells.’

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important. A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before. the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, ‘This vaccine is safe.’ But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened? A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with ‘guilt by association.’ All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no ‘if.’ They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on… 

Q: The furor over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from ‘unknown causes,’ and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,000 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning… 

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.  In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is ‘appear.’ What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.”  [End of Rappoport interview.]



There is currently a warning being issues about Chagas contamination in US blood supplies.  It is also called American trypanosomiasis (tri-PAN-o-so-MY-a-sis).   Chagas disease is an infection caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi.   The parasite attacks heart muscles, key organs like the liver, and the intestines.  It is primarily a disease of Latin America, and is most often contracted by poor people living in substandard housing.  It is estimated that millions are infected with Chagas disease in Latin America, and some 50,000 die each year.  However, the demographics of this disease could change now that Latin Americans are coming north in increasing numbers and their diseases are entering into the US blood supply.  No test has yet been developed to screen blood for this disease.

                Hundreds of blood recipients may already be infected.  Experts estimate the risk of contamination in the US is 1 out of 25,000.  The rate is even higher in urban areas like Miami and LA with higher concentrations of Latin American blood donors.  After a decade or more, 10 to 30 percent of them will die when their heart, liver or intestines give out from the disease, which has no effective treatment. 

Here is my main concern. Blood supplies carry all the bacterial contamination of the donors.  Worse, blood supplies have contained really bad bugs like hepatitis, West Nile virus and AIDS.  Governments and even the Red Cross have a habit of covering up for these infections in order to avoid public panic over bad blood supplies.  The people who place blind trust in the medical establishment’s assurances are just out of luck. 

The only safe solution to this growing problem is don’t receive blood from regular blood bank supplies, especially in big cities.  Know your blood type and prepare a network of friends and family who are mutually prepared to give blood specifically for each other in a time of emergency.   Have the list of several trusted donors on you at all times so they can be contacted by hospital personnel if you are in an accident.  





“The U.S. budget is out of control,” warned Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs & Co.  They ought to know; they are the consummate government insiders.  Government spending by the Republican controlled Congress is exceeding all records and shows no sign of stopping.  So much for GOP claims to support a smaller government.  The Bush administration has boosted welfare entitlements in the US in almost all categories.  As for the war costs, not only did the Bush team falsify the cost data in order to claim a first year cost of $87 billion (way too low), but they are engaging in rebuilding Iraq up to luxury standards unknown in many parts of the US.  The war didn’t have to happen, and Iraq doesn’t have to be rebuilt into a modern nation solely at US expense. 

If this weren’t enough,  President Bush is planning to announce dramatic expansion of space exploration costing more billions. According to National Review, “When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there.”   No greater boondoggle is possible in this time of spending constraints than more pie-in-the-sky space exploration. 

All of this tends to reinforce my conclusion that I suspect the government never intends to pay off the debt nor increase taxes.  They will continue spending with abandon in order to please voters and even international constituencies until war finally comes, destroying the American credit system in one fell swoop.  Politically, this is a short-term masterstroke. By not taxing US citizens for all these pork-barrel welfare entitlement increases and dangerous foreign interventions, public opposition within mainstream America is avoided until it is too late to reverse course.   If the US were to balance the budget this year with tax increases comparable to the level of government spending, this year’s tab would be a whooping increase of $16,000 per household.  Next year’s projected deficits of half a trillion will cost another $22,000 per household—and that isn’t counting the usual robbing of the Social Security trust fund each year: some $380 billion, off budget.   Politically, it is obvious why they choose, instead, to deficit spend.  But who cares?  Nobody is getting a bill, and Congress is caught up in the euphoria making “everyone happy” by shelling out money for every cause. 



Insider Robert Novak has once again blown the whistle on the disturbing extent of GOP lobbying, targeting conservative Republicans who were reluctant to vote for the Bush Medicare expansion package.

“During 14 years in the Michigan Legislature and 11 years in Congress, Rep. Nick Smith had never experienced anything like it.  House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, in the wee hours last Saturday morning, pressed him to vote for the Medicare bill. But Smith refused. Then things got personal.  Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.”

Other conservative Congressmen held firm too, against very heavy pressure and personal phone calls from the President.  According to Novak, “Republicans voting against the bill were told they were endangering their political futures. Major contributors warned Rep. Jim DeMint they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina. A Missouri state legislator called Rep. Todd Akin to threaten a primary challenge against him.”

The $100,000 contribution offer for Brad Smith’s campaign constitutes a clear bride under the law.  The follow-up threats of defeat for Smith’s son and Rep. Akin were also illegal.  But such underhanded dealings are not new to the Washington scene.  These kinds of bribes and threats happen all the time with both Democrats and Republicans.  Even worse is the fact that none of the players will testify against the others.  It’s part of the silent pact made in any “good ‘ol boy” network.   As the Novak revelations have gained wider circulation, Smith has assured everyone that none of the Republican leadership (Speaker Denny Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, or Majority Whip Roy Blunt) made any such inducements or threats to him.  That may be technically true, but I doubt it.  In any case, other willing messengers certainly were willing to act in these leaders’ stead.

Other Congressmen were bought with special perks and benefits for constituents written into the legislation.  According to the NY Times, “Tucked inside the Medicare bill is an assortment of provisions that have nothing to do with providing prescription drug benefits to the elderly.  The energy bill and the annual spending bills for federal agencies are also stuffed with pet projects, intended to win votes for the legislation.”



Undercover agents dressed as protestors, carrying anti-Free Trade signs were observed passing through police lines in Miami and inciting the crowds.  According to one journalist sympathetic with the protestors, “Protestors seemed to skirmish with heavily armored Miami police outside the Riande Hotel Thursday morning, but nothing is as it seems this week.  These ‘anarchists’ were undercover police officers whose mission was to provoke a confrontation.  The crowd predictably panicked, television cameras moved in, the police lines parted, and I watched through a nearby hotel window as two undercover officers disguised as ‘anarchists,’ thinking they were invisible, hugged each other. They excitedly pulled tasers and other weapons out of their camouflage cargo pants, and slipped away in an unmarked police van.” 

This pattern has occurred in virtually every city where globalist “free trade” talks are scheduled.  As agent provocateurs provoke violence (increasingly a difficult task with demonstrators who have been carefully trained to avoid these provocations), the breaking of a window or other act of vandalism signals police to move in and practice new and more novel ways of “crowd control,” including special chemical sprays, rubber bullets, water cannons and even new high tech electronic weapons that disorient the crowd.



Technical Specialist Richard Lampe, a representative of the Amateur Radio Relay League (ham radio operators) was present at the HAARP Radio Frequency Interference meeting at the HAARP site in Gakona, Alaska.  He filed this report: “Joint funding through DARPA [the nasty Pentagon black projects group that brought us ‘Total Information Awareness’ eavesdropping] will allow HAARP to quadruple in size from its current 960 kW output to 3.6 MW.  When completed in 2006, HAARP will then be the premier ionospheric research facility with beam-steering capabilities that other similar arrays worldwide don't have.”   Lampe parrots the standard line that HAARP’s purpose is merely to do ionospheric research.   He goes on to state, “Under terms of its experimental license, HAARP must transmit on a non-interference basis” –hence the purpose of liaison officers like Lampe.  According to Lampe, “the staff at the control center immediately shut down the transmitters when harmonics were detected on 75/80 meters during experiments last year.”  I find this laughable.  As a ham operator, I’ve heard numerous samples of interference and the government just keeps on transmitting.

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is most likely using its directional antenna array to experiment with weather modification, or to create, in combination with special chemical clouds laid down by US airborne tankers (chemtrails), areas which radar and radio communications cannot penetrate – in preparation for the next war.   No one knows for sure what HAARP’s real purpose is, but this is my current speculation.  The project wouldn’t be so carefully shrouded in secrecy if it were merely a scientific research project as they claim. 



The Left is beginning their attacks on Gov-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger in earnest.  Hispanic leaders are organizing protests in California and calling for work slowdowns.  On NPR radio, leftist commentators have been crowing with joy over the defeat of   Schwarzenegger’s fiscal reform package.  The new governor’s package included additional cuts in spending, a $15 billion bond issue, and a crucial future spending cap to make sure that the state didn’t fall back into profligate spending again – Socialists hate spending caps.  The Democratic controlled legislature soundly defeated the proposal.  Now, Schwarzenegger will take his case to the people in a referendum.  The Left will pull out their big media guns to scare the hell of out people about “cuts in essential services.”  A long campaign spells much more hatred and conflict in California this summer. 

Here’s a counter proposal from the truly conservative Republican candidate who should have been governor:  Cal. Representative Tom McClintock.  It’s a solution that could be applied to all other states who spend themselves into oblivion during the “good years” and later refuse to contract spending when the taxpayers are suffering.  This is McClintock’s 13-Percent Solution:

                “Have you ever had to make serious cuts – 15 percent or more – in your family budget because of an unexpected job-loss or unforeseen expense? It’s not pleasant, but it’s not impossible. And it’s also not permanent. As long as you’re willing to face your financial problems squarely, you can be sure that the hard times won’t last forever and things will improve.  State government is no different. And as the new administration decides which road it will take, it is important to understand the simple math of the state’s finances. California’s current budget deficit is caused by two actions Davis took last year to paper over his mismanagement: he illegally tripled the car tax and he attempted to borrow $12.6 billion unconstitutionally.

“Governor Schwarzenegger rescinded the illegal tax increase on his first day in office. It’s important to note the word “illegal.” Not one of the conditions required to raise the car tax had been met, and it was only a matter of time before the courts ordered the money to be returned to taxpayers with interest. By acting now, he saved California from having a multi-billion dollar hole blown in a future budget by court order. But repairing this problem requires that local governments be reimbursed for their losses. In addition, the courts have already invalidated $1.9 billion of Davis’ borrowing plan, further deepening the deficit.

“According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, these developments mean that the state will end up spending $76.9 billion this year, with only $74.2 billion in revenue. It gets worse. The courts are also poised to strike down the additional $10.7 billion of borrowing in Davis’ last budget. It is not a pleasant financial situation. But it is also not impossible.

“If the current rate of state spending were reduced 13.4 percent on January 1st and frozen through Gov. Schwarzenegger’s first budget, the state would be back in the black, free and clear of external debt, and able to start the Governor’s second year in 2005 with a clean slate.  A 13.4 percent reduction would mean cutting $5.2 billion from this year’s budget before January 1 and setting next year’s budget at $66.6 billion. That’s a big cut – and it means giving up billions of dollars of programmed spending increases next year. But it’s still 15.2 percent more than California was spending when Gray Davis took office. And after 18 months of austerity, the Governor would be able to plan his second budget with $12 billion of breathing room in 2005 when revenues are projected to reach $78.6 billion.

“The alternative (Schwarzenegger’s plan) is to borrow the difference at heavy rates of interest over the next generation. Like a family that can’t bear to change its ways, it would end up dragging its financial difficulties into future years as it struggles to meet its current expenses and pay down a crushing credit card debt as well.” [End of McClintock quote.]



I’m convinced the flu shot shortage was contrived specifically to shore up sagging demand.  Fewer and fewer normal people were requesting the shot each year as information about the relative ineffectiveness of the shot, as well as side effects, spread among the potential users.  The establishment media is so wedded to supporting the establishment medical propaganda about flue shots that they even took advantage of a breaking story about the death of a man (who had the flue shot) to quote a doctor as saying, “it would have been worse if he hadn’t had the shot.”    Worse???  How could there be anything worse than death?  This doctor made this statement even after public acknowledgments that the flue shots don’t specifically protect against the virus that killed the man. 

Here are a couple of the best in natural preventions you can take if you start to come down with the flu:

Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic remedy that is effective against the flu if taken within the first day of symptoms.   6 doses only cost about $15.  Local health stores here in the West say they run out of it by noon each day, the demand is so great.  You can order direct from Key Pharmacy in Kent, Wa via phone: 800-878-1322.  See website www.keynutrionrx.com

You should also have a supply of the herbal  "First Responder" capsules.  They are a dynamite herbal formulation, from Herbal Healer Academy that knocks a cold down better than anything else our family has tried.  Also effective for flu if you take it early on.   URL is http://www.herbalhealer.com/



A total of six Air France flights to Los Angeles were cancelled on Christmas Eve, stranding hundreds of US citizens desperate to get home for Christmas.  Ever since the US announced that European air carriers would begin sharing passenger lists with Homeland Security, I have suspected this kind of intervention would occur.   According to the US, they told Air France to halt the flights because six names of passengers showed up on US computer “watch lists.”  This is a dangerous precedent.  Thousands of innocent people’s names are on those watch lists.  You can get on them for just being a next door neighbor to an Arab immigrant who may have given to an Arab charity. 

Canceling the flights was totally unnecessary, just as shutting down the entire US air travel system for two weeks was unnecessary after 9/11.  All the authorities had to do in 9/11 was land each plane and re-screen carefully each passenger more carefully and send them on their way.  In Paris, they could have simply removed those passengers till another flight and sent the others on their way.  But no.  In traditional American fashion of inconveniencing many people unnecessarily, they insisted that the flights be cancelled.  French authorities found the US had no specific evidence on any of the “suspects.”   All were interviewed and searched extensively and no links to terrorism were found.  All were released.  In reaction, the US tried to save face, claiming that the real dangerous people were “no-shows” who somehow got wind of the intensified searched and stayed home. 

I’m not buying it.  The US public has now endured two years of false alarms and false “orange” alerts with road blocks at airports and excessive security procedures.