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


Jan 5, 2001



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


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


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




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



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

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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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



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


EPA DIRECTOR: Christine Todd Whitman

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



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

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



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

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



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


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



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

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

HUMAN EVENTS: Who told you that?

SCHIPPERS: Six Republican senators. Members of the leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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


JANUARY 26, 2001



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


FEBRUARY 2, 2001



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




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


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

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

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


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


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


MARCH 2, 2001



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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


MARCH 16, 2001


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


MARCH 23, 2001



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



This week, broadcast what they considered a major breakthrough in the OKC bombing investigation.   A local Oklahoma City reporter for an NBC affiliate claimed to have found “massive evidence of a foreign conspiracy involving Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in the 1995 bombing of the federal building that killed 168 people.”   Jayna Davis, formerly of KFOR-TV in OKC, claims the FBI wasn’t interested in her information. Davis’ research is accurate and backed up by numerous court documents. I had the opportunity to talk personally with Jayna this week and she filled me in on many startling discoveries she has made over the past few years. Much of our conversation was "off the record" because of the continuing legal attacks against her by those who don’t want this information to be made public (including the New York Times, which bought out KFOR-TV--the Oklahoma station Jayna worked for when her initial information was made public). The legal suits against her attempted to gain control over her video taped conversations with confidential sources. Someone high up really wants this information kept silent. This is a very courageous woman fighting a one-person battle against the establishment and deserves support.

                Apparently the identity of at least one of the John Doe accomplices to McVeigh is known to the government, along with his ties to Iraq’s Republican Guards (Hussein Hashema Husseini). The federal government had him in custody and the Clinton administration ordered him released.  The DOJ still refuses to follow the lead. Even though her information points to a Middle Eastern connection (at least to people who used to have connections with Iraq and Osama Bin Laden) we must not jump to the all-too-obvious conclusion that WorldNetDaily implied in their headline, "Oklahoma City blast linked to bin Laden" Long before Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein became supposed "enemies of the state" they were recipients of aid, funding and intel from dark-side operations of the US government.

                However, As good as Davis’ facts are, none of her revelations make sense without addressing the bigger question of why the US government is covering up a host of information pointing to McVeigh’s accomplices. The Middle Eastern ties Davis has uncovered should not be used to divert our attention from this larger question. As I pointed out in my brief, if Iraq or  Osama Bin Laden is the enemy, why is the FBI not vigorously pursuing this lead? What motivation would they have for shielding a connection to Iraq or Bin Laden? The shielding is good evidence to me that there exists a link somewhere between the government and these accomplices--whether or not they go back to bin Laden or Iraq is secondary. For us the American government connection is crucial. Jayna Davis does not speculate, but I suspect that the other John Does are not only collaborators but agent provocateurs, facilitating McVeigh’s and Nichols’ access to the explosives technology necessary to perform the outside portion of the blast. They also set up McVeigh and Nichols to take the blame. Because of General Parton’s dramatic evidence indicating the use of point charges on the pillars within the building, there must have been other professionals involved beyond the Middle Eastern accomplices on the outside.


APRIL 6, 2001



I warned World Affairs Brief subscribers on two previous occasions about the presence of Richard Armitage on the Bush team of advisors.  He’s the dark-side CIA operative that handled many clandestine operations for the illicit side of the CIA, including the importation of drugs from the “Iron Triangle” in Indochina during the Vietnam war--working for George Bush Sr.  Armitage, as Asst. Sec. of Defense in the former Bush administration, helped sabotage efforts by POW/MIA organizations trying to find American GI’s held captive long after the supposed return of all prisoners of war.   Last month he was confirmed--incredibly--without opposition, as Assistant Secretary of State, and was immediately put in charge of handling the negotiations with the Chinese for the return of the EP-3 crew.    Armitage reportedly wanted the Sec. of Defense slot, but was passed over in favor of Rumsfield.  I don’t think the Bush administration wanted to risk putting the controversial Armitage in such a high-profile cabinet position--too many skeletons in his closet.  His shift to State was no doubt facilitated by his close relationship with Secretary of State Collin Powell, who has stated on a few occasions that he considers Armitage his “white son.”    This doesn’t speak well for Powell’s judgment or ultimate allegiance.


APRIL 13, 2001


With much media fanfare a new book has hit the market, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. The book was written by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, two staff reporters for The Buffalo News. When I saw the announcement, alarm bells went off in my head. McVeigh has been carefully kept incommunicado with the rest of the world for years. It was very clear that the establishment wanted no one to have access to McVeigh. As in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s apparent “lone assassin,” the PTB wanted to make sure that no word of additional accomplices or conspiracies emerged. So why allow two staff reporters from a nondescript local newspaper have unfettered access to McVeigh—and not just a little access, but reportedly a whopping 75 hours of time? Was this merely a symbolic gesture since Buffalo, NY was McVeigh’s hometown? I don’t think so.
                Contrary to media hype, the book offers no new information of interest to the case, and completely evades every issue of controversy. This is simply a propaganda piece to reinforce the government’s strained contention that McVeigh was the “lone bomber.” Surely, you would think, in 75 hours of conversation with McVeigh—the last chance anyone is going to have to ask him some crucial questions—these two reporters would have done their homework and queried McVeigh on any number of important questions. Who set off the other explosive charges within the building? Who placed the two other charges around the outside of the building that failed to explode, as reported by the news media just after the blast? Who were his Middle Eastern accomplices that he had been seen with? Did they contact him or did he contact them first? Sadly, we get none of the good stuff—just predictable questions about his background and only a little about his friend Terry Nichols. In short, we get the standard government story: McVeigh acted alone, with some minor assistance from Nichols. The rest of the book is a recitation of his personal, hateful vendetta against the government, because of the FBI’s role in the tragic  killing of innocent women and children at Waco.
                The most damaging quote of the book is where McVeigh supposedly refers to the killing of the day care children as “collateral damage”—an acceptable risk in any war. Naturally, the authors Michel and Herbeck fail to put this comment into its proper context. Collateral damage is not a concept born of McVeigh’s troubled mind, but taught to all military personnel as a matter of course. It is the government’s first line of defense in shedding blame for the mistakes of war. The government itself invoked this tired phrase in its assessment of the death of the children in the FBI/covert military operation at Waco.
                The more I looked at this book, the more I was convinced that Michel and Herbeck did not initiate this interview, but were sought out by the government specifically to help perpetuate the disinformation that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone. As I made some inquiries, I learned from a friend that Dan Herbeck had called General Ben Parton (Ret. US Air Force) well after the book was finished to asked about Parton’s conclusions that the ANFO truck bomb could not have caused the extensive damaged suffered by the Murrah building. This was very strange. Why was Herbeck asking about this now, and why not to McVeigh directly? Perhaps Herbeck was having second thoughts about his part in this propaganda piece about McVeigh’s final “confession” and wanted to find out more of the truth.
                I called General Parton and asked him specifically what Herbeck had asked and what his motives were in calling. Gen. Parton had been equally surprised about the timing of Herbeck’s call. After giving Herbeck a full recitation of the evidence that pointed to multiple explosive charges inside the building, Parton had encouraged Herbeck to call Pat Briley (a former staff member of Admiral Hyman G.Rickover’s nuclear submarine development team and indefatigable researcher on the OKC bombing) for more specific information on the government’s role in the cover-up. Having then responded to Herbeck’s questions, Gen. Parton decided to ask Herbeck some questions about the McVeigh interview to satisfy his own curiosity. It soon became very apparent to Gen. Parton that Herbeck couldn’t answer hardly anything Parton asked. Finally in frustration, Herbeck blurted out, “I never interviewed McVeigh at all—the other guy did.”
                Now that was a revelation! Here we have the co-author admitting that he was never present at any interview at all. What else about this book is a lie? And who is “the other guy?” Was it Lou Michel, or someone else who simply provided them with the tape recording? We probably will never know because Herbeck isn’t talking anymore. General Parton called Pat Briley to inform him that Herbeck was going to call him on the OKC bombing issue. In later conversations with Briley, the general found out that Herbeck didn’t follow through, but that Briley did. After Briley called Herbeck a couple of times to point out the suspicious acts of the government in covering up the identities of McVeigh’s Middle Eastern accomplices, Herbeck reportedly got very angry and told Briley not to call him again. I suspect Herbeck got more information from Parton and Briley than he could live with.
                General Parton is a gold mine of information on a variety of subjects. Among other fascinating details, he told me about his personal interaction with the McVeigh defense team under Steven Jones. I had always suspected that Jones was chosen by the government to represent McVeigh because Jones was in collusion with the government to sabotage the defense. Remember that Jones’ team was a constant source of leaks to the press about every damaging confession McVeigh would supposedly make? That’s not all. According to Parton, Jones’ team contacted the general about his explosives analysis of the damage to the building. They specifically asked Parton what they should subpoena to improve the salability of his argument in the case. Gen. Parton gave them two specific recommendations: high resolution photographs from government and media archives of two specific junctures in the structure of the building (that would demonstrate the presence of point charges on structural elements within the Murrah Building), and video tapes from nearby surveillance cameras (that would have recorded the visual and sound evidence of the two separate explosions). They did neither. Furthermore, when General Parton asked Jones’ primary assistant attorney whether he could be expected to be called as an expert witness (Parton has excellent technical credentials), the assistant told him that it would depend upon what the prosecution brings up. Incredible! Since when does the defense team hold back a blockbuster piece of evidence that would prove McVeigh was only an ancillary player, simply because the prosecution doesn’t broach the subject? Parton knew then that he would never be called—and he wasn’t.

MAY 4, 2001



After a long, drawn out description of the tension and distrust between the US and Russia during the Cold War, President Bush, in a major policy speech this week to the National Defense University, then launched into a Pollyanna view of the current strategic situation vis-à-vis Russia:  [my comments in brackets].

                “Today the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union. [Except for three countries in Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union is still very much intact and ruled by Russia.  It is euphemistically called the Confederation of Independent States.]  Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union [only in superficial appearances--all the controls and powers of oppression are still in place]. Its government is no longer Communist [absolutely false]. Its president is elected [but the system is completely rigged to produce a predictable outcome]. Today's Russia is not our enemy [Then why are they building new missiles aimed at the US and why does the Russian military begin each military exercise with a simulated nuclear “first strike” on America?], but a country in transition, with an opportunity to emerge as a great [predatory] nation, democratic, at peace with itself and its neighbors [tell that to Chechnya].  The Iron Curtain no longer exists. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are free nations [but controlled by governments with secret ties to Moscow], and they are now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany.”

                When we have a president this naive or this disingenuous, one cannot have any confidence in his stated intentions to defend this nation, let alone to build a viable National Missile Defense (NMD) system.  Of course, Bush’s proposal, if sincere, is a huge improvement over the token 100 interceptor system proposed by Bill Clinton (begrudgingly to a Republican Congress).  Bush is correctly focusing on a system that will be mobile and deployable outside the US where ABMs can intercept ICBMs in their upward trajectory, or boost phase, prior to warhead separation.  Sadly, he is still going to throw a few billion at the unworkable fixed-base interceptors that will attempt to hit incoming warheads with too few interceptors equipped with no explosive warheads.   The Pentagon is proposing modifying the potent Aegis ship-board missile system to act as a worldwide ABM platform.  This latter proposal scares the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese because it directly impinges upon their ability and intention to begin the next war with a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against the American military.  The Bush administration continues to assure these two evil empires that the NMD is not intended to threaten Russia or China--but neither nation can believe that the US is this stupid or this naive.  They assume the US must be cheating, just like they are. But it is the second part of Bush’s proposal that is most ominous: a continuation of the suicidal disarmament begun under Bill Clinton.  While Bush refused to give any numbers in his speech, knowledgeable sources in the Pentagon say the administration is telling the Russians the US is willing to unilaterally reduce its nuclear warhead stockpile to 2,500.  That’s a deeper cut than Clinton could ever have pushed through Congress--and now a Republican president will push it through with scant opposition.

                Let me put all of this in the context of timing and things look even worse.  All of Bush’s disarmament proposals take place unilaterally (without any corresponding compliance by Russia or China) before 2004.  None of the proposed NMD or deployment of significant new weapons systems comes into play until after 2005.  This leaves a huge window of opportunity for the Russia/Chinese axis to strike during the one or two year time period when our offensive capabilities are lowest and our limited defenses are not yet ready.     As if to justify this unilateral gesture of radical disarmament, Bush claimed that “to maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us.”   Now, let’s see if I understand this increased security Bush is talking about.  First, we propose building a limited ABM system that can’t possibly be deployed before 2005.  Meanwhile, before this system of limited protection is in place, we dismantle our remaining heavy ICBMs (the MX “Peacekeeper”) in 2003 so that we have no nuclear missile capable of deep penetration of hardened targets.  In addition, we strip all our existing cruise missiles of their nuclear warheads, and we downsize our stockpile of nuclear warheads to 2,500.  Second, we continue to rely upon the forces of a small quantity of high tech bombers and naval vessels rather than rebuild a true 2-ocean navy with corresponding army and air forces.   Lastly, Bush keeps in place the suicidal Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60), implemented by Bill Clinton, that instructs our military to absorb a nuclear first strike and NOT launch on warning (a true deterrent).  I’m a former Marine officer and trained in military strategy.  I don’t see any increased deterrence with this scheme.  In fact, I don’t even see comparable deterrence.  This is a recipe for national suicide.

                 For those of you who have read my “Strategic Analysis of the Coming Decade” (front page blue banner on my website: you will remember that I have predicted that the Russians will strike prior to the deployment of a viable ABM system.  They cannot take the chance that their prime nuclear first strike strategy will be nullified or degraded by a missile defense.  Given my assumption that the globalists are intending to use war to accelerate and finalize the implementation of the New World Order,  I am suspicious that this ABM system proposal (if it ever is intended for deployment) is meant primarily to force Russia into a more predictable timetable for the initiation of hostilities.   There is some doubt about whether our government is serious about defending America.  Anonymous sources within the defense industry, working on the current ABM system, complain that they don’t see much of the billions of dollars that are supposedly being spent on this system.  Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by the common practice of siphoning off excess profits into other secret “black budget” weaponry which the PTB, working in collusion with defense contractors, don’t want Congress to know about.  

                Across the board, there seems to be a sense of urgency and movement among the globalists.  The EU is pushing harder for integration and is running into increased opposition, judging by the negative reaction to Germany’s recent EU restructuring proposals, eliminating each nation’s veto power.  The globalist leaders in America are pushing hard for a fast track agenda for the implementation of our own version of the EU in this hemisphere--the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) as detailed in last week’s brief.  Despite the appearance of unity, there has been and will be much resistance to a full merger into global or even regional government. Sovereignty issues are dear to most Americans who understand the Constitution.  It is my belief that those driving this global merger don’t have an unlimited time to accomplish their goals.  War is becoming the option of choice.  Despite the rhetoric about peace and security, I have a feeling that these NMD proposals are not intended to be in place in time to deter the next war.   


MAY 11, 2001



Today, only days before the scheduled execution of Timothy McVeigh, the FBI has suddenly "found" thousands of documents relevant to the McVeigh case and released them to McVeigh's attorneys. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a suspension of the date of execution to give the McVeigh team time to go through this massive omission from the trial record. The FBI claims these tapes, papers, and transcripts of interviews were only discovered as the FBI was preparing to archive the McVeigh files. 

                Here is what is wrong with this picture. First of all, this is not a sudden happening. I don't believe for a minute that the FBI had misplaced this much material, or that they only recently "found it." They have conveniently provided the press with a complete breakdown of the contents of the material so that the media would not be in the dark for weeks waiting to hear what the contents are. This kind of cataloging takes time--lots of time, which provides some evidence that this was not a recent discovery.  Predictably, the FBI and the media, as if acting in concert, were quick to announce that the material contains no new evidence of McVeigh's innocence.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion--McVeigh has already confessed, so there should be no expectation of a different outcome regarding McVeigh himself. But that isn't the issue. The issue has always  been who else was involved, and why the government is covering up any attempt to find the other accomplices, as well as the evidence of other explosive devices in and around the Murrah Building. 

                Here we have another example of an egregious omission of evidence on the part of the FBI. In a trial of this nature, the defense team has a right to see all the government's evidence against their client in order to prepare a suitable defense. It is a federal offense to withhold information. The FBI withheld lots of it. But there's more--more evidence, I mean, that the FBI is withholding. One of the interesting things about this most recent set of documents is that the FBI claims to be releasing interviews concerning others who may have been involved. Suspiciously, none of these interviews brings to light the actual identities of the other "John Does" whom  witnesses saw with McVeigh. Jayna Davis, who has done some of the most  complete research into the identities of the other "Middle Eastern" looking accomplices, has proof that the FBI knows who they are and refuses to act on  that information. Not surprisingly, no evidence of this nature is in the  recent and supposedly "complete and final" release of documents by the FBI.  What this means is that the FBI made this release to satisfy the public  about the "other accomplices," falsely giving the impression that the  Bureau is coming clean and putting all the evidence on the table. This is  nothing more than a sophisticated disinformation operation meant to defuse conspiracy claims. It may work with the public, but it won't faze any who know about the massive evidence pointing to government cover-up and involvement in this, the worst case so far of agent provocateurs being passed off as "domestic terrorists." 

                So why isn't McVeigh talking? Now that he is going to die, he has nothing to lose. I believe he still thinks his accomplices are "comrades in arms" in the cause of doing damage to the enemy (evil government) that McVeigh despises. Thus, he feels it a matter of duty to go to his death still protecting their identity. McVeigh's confidence in his accomplices could  probably be broken by any of the conservative investigators who could show McVeigh the evidence of government involvement and cover-up for the accomplices. McVeigh, like us, would have to wonder why, if his accomplices were really anti-US government, the FBI and CIA would be actively trying to protect the accomplices' identities. Once McVeigh suspected he was being set up by agent provocateurs, he would probably talk. That is why no one savvy about the conspiracy is allowed to talk to McVeigh. That is why they  want McVeigh dead, just like Oswald. This present delay is only  temporary--just long enough to help defuse the growing evidence of cover-up and further suppress the truth. 



Last week's Washington Times lauded President George W. Bush's first 100 days as a resounding success. This is to be expected from the nation's most unabashedly pro-Bush-at-any-cost newspaper. The real record of Bush's first 100 days shows the inevitable signs of saying all the right things to please  the conservatives, but making sure the liberal and globalist agenda moves forward.

1. Conservatives hailed Bush when he had the courage to dump the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. However, the Bush administration immediately yielded to the demands of the radical environmentalists who reintroduced  their own version to replace the Kyoto Treaty. The bad science of global warning is not being challenged--only the administrative implementation,  giving fewer exceptions to third world countries like China, one of the world's worst polluters, and mandating equal compliance by all. Global warming is a complete fraud based upon computer modeling techniques designed  to support the phony eco-tragedy claims.  If you want a detailed scientific examination of the global warming claims, visit the website of the Oregon  Institute of Science and Medicine. Dr.Arthur Robinson's slide lecture is a powerful rebuttal of this latest example of fraudulent scientific claims.

2. Bush has refused to overturn the Clinton edict to close many roads in Forest Service areas, effectively turning them into no-access wilderness areas without Congressional approval. Instead he claimed he would allow each closure to be considered on a case by case basis. This puts the onus on each aggrieved party to make their case before the forest service--an organization that has gone through a radical environmental shift during the  Clinton era. Not only is this a costly and time-consuming process for the user (who has to find other users in order to show a substantial "public interest" in the road) but it also has little hope of success given the Forest Service's Clinton-era hostility to roads on public lands. 

3. The Faith Based Initiative program was cheered for having allowed  religious-based charities to become party to the federal distribution of millions in welfare spending. While this may be an improvement in  efficiency, it is still an unconstitutional social welfare program that  conservatives should have no part in. When we look at the specifics of  which religious groups are being showcased and promoted, we find the usual groups of minority-based organizations that pander to the race issue, and the exclusion of religions viewed as too "intolerant" because of their  strong stand against homosexuals and integration of women into the priesthood. Worse yet, in the first major public spectacular showcasing these mainline religious leaders, a 3 minute propaganda message about the benefits and inevitability of global government was aired. This portion of  the presentation was later eliminated when objections started to be raised on internet chat groups. Its inclusion tells me that those who are running  this Bush administration program are globalist promoters, just like the  Clinton administration. 

4. The Bush administration has accelerated its outreach to the homosexual  lobby and has formally met with the Log Cabin Republicans and other groups promoting homosexual "rights." The legal approach these groups promote denies people the fundamental right to make exclusionary judgments about  those whom they do not wish to associate with or do business with on their private property. 

5. The administration is continuing the improper lawsuits against tobacco companies. In fact, Attorney General John Ashcroft is vowing to increase funding for these lawsuits. I'm not pro-tobacco by any means, but the legal  basis for these suits constitutes a dangerous trend in lawmaking that will end up making all companies liable for the health consequences of their  products--even when the addicted public knows of the major dangers. This amounts to extorting money from companies targeted and found to be at fault.  The fact that the tobacco companies withheld from the public some of the health effects is not sufficient reason to make them liable for all health consequences of smoking. Nobody smokes today who doesn't know about the health risks of tobacco. The prime dangers of tobacco have long been recognized and smokers' illnesses are the result of that knowing use of  tobacco, even if the full extent of the risks was obscured. This same case could be make against every addictive product--caffeinated colas, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, and so forth. There is little danger,  however, that these other damaging products will be targeted--they have a  much broader constituency than tobacco does. What the new breed of "killer lawyers" are taking on are politically incorrect gun manufacturers, proving that these cases are part of a political agenda--not a crusade to protect  people's health. 

6. Bush has decided not to overturn or reverse Clinton's misuse of the "Antiquities Act" in locking up millions of acres of federal land as environmental monuments. This includes the creation of the infamous Escalante Grand Staircase Monument in Utah, which effectively tied up the nation's largest deposit of sulfur-free coal. In our nation's growing energy crisis, this coal could have fueled existing and new coal plants with non-polluting coal for years to come. 

7. Rather than work to abolish the Federal Department of Education, as Republicans have long promised to do, Bush has made proposals to increase federal spending and control over education. His budget proposal totaled  $18.6 billion more than his predecessor--a 72% increase.

8. Rather than cut off federal subsidy of the left-leaning Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Bush is asking for increased spending of $10 million for this propaganda outfit. 

9. Bush has refused to heed the call by conservatives to scrap President Clinton's suicidal PDD-60 mandating that our military forces absorb a  nuclear first strike. Instead, Bush is proposing more unilateral disarmament, taking our nuclear warhead stockpile down to 2,500--not enough to win a nuclear war, and therefore not a credible deterrent to such a war.  Lest any readers believe the propaganda that "no one wins a nuclear war," both Russia and China are building enough new and modern nuclear weapons to do just that. Bush has demonstrated that, even after the hostile EP-3 incident, he is unwilling to stop this government's headlong "constructive  engagement" with China--a euphemism for continued aid, trade and appeasement of a future mortal enemy. 

10. President Bush has decided to maintain the "Gore Tax", one of those additions to your local telephone bill each month that funnels billions into the federal program to provide internet access to every public school. Take a close look at your phone bill and you'll see that this has become the favorite place to increase taxes. The amount of extra taxes and federal charges on my phone bill exceeds my regular telephone bill each month, literally doubling my cost for basic service. Adding special taxes to  people's cell phone bills is also a new legislative fad. It's time to start  protesting this system of selective taxation. I'm all for true user fees to fund government, but this is not a user fee. 

11. Instead of abolishing the Clinton boondoggle Americorps, Bush is promoting increased funding of $282 million. This amounts to a domestic peace corps. Regardless of the services performed, many of which are beneficial, this is not an appropriate role for government and is clearly unconstitutional. These types of federal programs use tax moneys to do what church programs have done for years with voluntary efforts.  Historically, after the federal government moves into areas of private charity, private giving declines. 

12. Bush has asked for an increase of $400 million in the IRS budget to increase enforcement, rather than mandating true reform of IRS abuses. 

13. The Bush administration has decided to not overturn President Clinton's wetlands enforcement policies. The wetlands regulations are stretched so broadly that virtually all private property with any significant standing water bigger than a puddle is vulnerable to its draconian controls and restrictions on development. Bush is missing a great opportunity here to overturn years of administrative edict and abuse of private property rights.  

There are many other examples to document that this administration is a powerful continuation of the leftist and globalist agenda running this country, albeit a slightly milder version. Even Bill Clinton in a recent interview expressed surprise and admiration at the sophistication George Bush was exhibiting in his dealing with issues. Sadly, the pawns in this sophisticated manipulation of the issues are the Republican conservative base, who, as in Ronald Reagan's presidency, are too enamored with having "their man" in the White House to see the ongoing sellout on core issues. 


MAY 18, 2001




A recent press release by the Independent Media Center (IMC) in Seattle revealed (emphasis added): “On the evening of Saturday, April 21, a day which saw tens of thousands demonstrate against the FTAA in the streets of Quebec City, the IMC in Seattle was served with a sealed court order by two FBI agents and an agent of the US Secret Service. The terms of the sealed order prevented IMC volunteers from publicizing its contents; volunteers immediately began discussions with legal counsel to amend the order. This morning, April 27, Magistrate Judge Monica Benton issued an amended order, freeing us to discuss the situation without the threat of being held in contempt.”

The original order, issued by this same Judge Benton, directed the IMC to supply the FBI with “all user connection logs” for April 20th and 21st from the IMC web server. The order stated that this was part of an “ongoing criminal investigation” into acts that could constitute violations of Canadian law. IMC legal counsel David Sobel, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, commented, “As the US Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment protects the right to communicate anonymously with the press and for political purposes. An order compelling the disclosure of information identifying an indiscriminately large number of users of a website devoted to political discourse raises very serious constitutional issues.”

Not only was the order a violation of existing law and court precedents defending the right of the press to protect its communication with sources and contacts, but it was issued without a search warrant and with a gag order preventing the IMC from protesting or publicizing this unconstitutional intrusion. Sadly, this type of judicial misconduct is not uncommon. The gag order is particularly chilling as it indicates a tendency to use government secrecy to cover up the judiciary’s own illegal acts. I wanted to air this particular example publicly to show my readers that federal judges like Benton have becoming willing accomplices to the illegal maneuvers of the dark side of government. In fact, the order was a sham as well as being overly broad. The Secret Service claimed they were involved because some protester had stolen federal documents outlining President Bush’s secret itinerary. In fact, the offending posts the government specifically mentioned were located and did not contain any such itinerary. The US government apparently was on a fishing expedition trying to collect contact information on a wider array of FTAA protestors.



Here is a snip from an interview between journalist Bill O’Reilly and CBS news anchor Dan Rather, aired on Fox TV. The entire transcript can be found at,2933,24898,00.html. It is a fascinating read as O’Reilly time and again corners Rather into making excuses for his left-wing bias at CBS--all the time denying that there is bias. Finally, O’Reilly throws out this last question to demonstrate Rather’s total subservience to a defense of the Clinton era (emphasis added):



O'REILLY:. And I want to ask you flat out. Do you think President Clinton's an honest man?

RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man.

O'REILLY: Do you really?

RATHER: I think -- I do. I think he's an honest man.

O'REILLY: Even when he lied to Jim Lehrer's face about the (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

RATHER: Listen, who among us have not lied about something?

O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you?

RATHER: I don't think I ever have. I hope I never have. But look, it's one thing..

O'REILLY: How can you say he's an honest guy, then?

RATHER: Well, because I think he is. I think at core, he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.

O'REILLY: Really?

RATHER: Yes, I do


O’Reilly should have followed up with, “As lying obviously doesn’t conflict with your definition of honesty, how would you define an honest man?” Of course, the whole interview was a study in Rather’s obscuration of the truth, so his answer would, undoubtedly, be less than honest too.


MAY 25, 2001

The Powers That Be (PTB) apparently have more than one way of getting their way, even when an election doesn’t turn out the way they want. Last year I reported that US powerbrokers had ordained George W. Bush to be the new president, forcing sore-loser Al Gore to take a fall. But the establishment’s standard modus operandi is to hand the Congress back to the Democrats during a phony Republican administration so that the Republicans can have an excuse for not making good on their conservative campaign promises. It didn’t work out that way, even though the Democrats came within one senator of controlling the Senate.

Now they have their way. After weeks of planning and consulting with major Democratic power brokers, Vermont Senator James Jeffords declared this week that his defection from the Republican Party is official. In all the media hype about Jeffords holding to his “principles” Jeffords is referred to as a moderate, which in reality means he’s a liberal. The was nothing principled about his decision. Jeffords has always been a big-government man amongst liberal Republicans—any number of whom could have defected if they were not so busy trying to play the “moderate Republican” role. Jeffords didn’t have the honesty to switch completely over to the Democratic Party, with which he has formed a secret alliance. Instead he claims he is an independent.

Even though the Democrats don’t pick up a seat with this strategy, the Republicans lose one and therefore cannot control the Senate leadership. Jeffords intends to help install Democrat Tom Daschle as majority leader, which will be very bad for the conservative agenda, especially with regards to preserving the Second Amendment. All committee chairmanships will now switch to the Democratic Party. Another very big effect will be that the Democrats will guarantee that none of Bush’s conservative judgeships (what few there are) will receive favorable treatment in confirmation hearings.

There was a lot of back room wheeling and dealing in the past two weeks with the Republicans trying desperately to retain control. You may ask, if there is a conspiracy to give at least partial control of Congress to the Democrats, why is the Republican hierarchy (which is part of the conspiracy) trying to resist? Keep in mind, that just as Al Gore was a certified member of the establishment, he was never told that he was being set up to lose. In other words, persons quite high in the organizational matrix of power may never be privy to the long-term plan. They are often simply predictable people who only know there is a power structure they work for and dare not challenge. Thus, it is my analysis that both Republican and Democratic leaders have their secret (but separate) ties to the power structure and both think they are the “real anointed ones.” For their own part, Republican leaders dutifully tried to cut a deal with conservative Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia to switch to the Republicans but he declined. A couple of other feelers were put out to others as well, but there were no takers. The PTB could have convinced any one of several people to switch to the Republican Party, had they wished to keep the status quo in Congress, but they didn’t. Now that President Bush will have to deal with a Democrat-controlled Senate, watch for him to say all the right words about working with the Democratic Senate leadership in a bipartisan manner. More than ever, it means Bush now has the excuse to explain away every failure of his conservative agenda and every endorsement of dangerous compromises, as the following example will demonstrate. His “bipartisan mandate” suddenly has gone from a voluntary sellout to mandatory collusion.



Just as establishment power brokers (who have control of the Bush administration) count on the courts to overturn any pro-life legislation that gets through Congress, they rely on a coalition of Democrats and a liberal Republicans in Congress to gut the most conservative reforms, such as those that were originally present in Bush’s education package. Naturally, the Democrats will take the blame and the Republicans will tell their supporters they tried, thus preserving their conservative bona fides.

What we have left in the current education package is an old fashioned Democratic bill increasing both spending (22%) and federal control over public schools, violating the original intent of the Constitution reserving non-delegated federal powers to the states. Vouchers and school choice were both stripped from the bill while in committee and were soundly rejected when presented as amendments on the floor. The worst parts of the bill are still intact: federal funding of education that is tied to a national testing program (based upon a politically correct de facto national curriculum, forced upon students as schools pressure their own teachers to “teach to the test” in order to salvage their federal funds); and the endowment of new control powers to the education tzar giving him virtual veto powers over any school’s funding when that school doesn’t meet national standards.

Conservatives bought into this Bush boondoggle because of the promise of preserving “local control.” However, anyone who has worked with a local school board knows that local control is a dangerous illusion. Sitting at every school board meeting is legal counsel telling the board what the law says they can and cannot do. Almost all the substantive issues are controlled either by a liberal state school bureaucracy policy or a federal rule. But no matter—conservatives are so enamored with thinking they can “take back” their schools, they fail to realize public schools never belonged to them in the first place. Public schools are government schools and will always be controlled by the PTB as long as conservatives tolerate the monopoly on tax funding public schools have. Take away that funding and replace it with 100% user fee funding and educational freedom will instantly return.



The official legal policy of the Clinton administration was that there existed no individual right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment—only a “collective right” related to government sponsored militia service. In a dramatic announcement timed to play well at the NRA convention this week in Kansas City, Attorney General John Ashcroft has reversed the distorted Janet Reno policy and has reaffirmed the traditional opinion that all law-abiding citizens have the individual right to keep and bear firearms.

I’m cautiously optimistic about this change. Keep in mind that this may still be only verbal support that may not equate to a change in the hostility of government prosecutors towards private possession and use of arms. Ashcroft, playing up his commitments to “enforce existing gun laws” with vigor, is beefing up funding of the ATF to demonstrate his commitment to fight “gun violence.” But somehow firearms dealers and law-abiding individuals still feel most of the heat from the ATF.

In other news, the FBI—also under Ashcroft’s control—spent $8 million dollars this fiscal year buying dossiers on all citizens from Choicepoint (a former division of the giant credit report firm Equifax). The FBI has no legal mandate to track normal citizens who are not guilty of criminal activities. But that doesn’t seem to matter anymore, even in the Ashcroft Justice Department.

Why the dichotomy on the part of Ashcroft? Simple: Ashcroft has become a team player. All true conservatives who are appointed within a Republican administration (for image purposes) come on board with an iron clad commitment to the dangerous principle that Republicans must “do whatever it takes” to stay in power—even if that means sacrificing one’s own personal principles to “support the president.” This kind of yes-manship is what leads otherwise good people to violate their conscience in the name of loyalty to laws and leaders. Without the restraints of principles, unconditional loyalties within political parties, police agencies and the military will take us down the same road to tyranny that allowed Hitler to subvert the German nation in the 30’s and 40’s. It wasn’t Hitler alone that subverted Germany’s will to resist evil, but the excessive loyalty to the “rule of law” above all else in German society that undermined most individuals’ sense of right and wrong—especially within the enforcement sector.


JUNE 1, 2001


Media accounts relayed numerous FBI excuses (incompetence, overwork, poor record keeping, etc.) to explain away the egregious lapse in fulfilling its duties to provide thousands of pages of investigative interviews and reports to Timothy McVeigh’s defense team prior to trial. However, the FBI, especially at the headquarters level, has always been subject to political pressures to falsify, withhold, bury or otherwise keep secret, evidence that would support truths that the Powers That Be (PTB) in Washington do not want revealed. As I explained two weeks ago, the McVeigh omissions were not only purposeful, but they were also incomplete—purposely omitting the critical identities of McVeigh’s government-hired accomplices.

Such misrepresentation of evidence is nothing new. Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI withheld crucial evidence from the public in order to conceal conspiratorial plots within government. The Bureau kept secret from the public and from Congress the written testimony of two of its agents who were present in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, DC where JFK’s body was examined after his assassination in Dallas. The two agents recorded the autopsy physician’s shocking realization that the body had been altered prior to its arrival in Washington, apparently to conceal evidence of frontal wounds that would counter the lone assassin conclusion the government wanted to promulgate. Kennedy’s head had been cut open, the brain removed, and a frontal throat entrance wound created, all to destroy evidence of frontal shots by other shooters. Additionally a hole was made in his back (with no corresponding trace of a bullet in the body, and no exit wound) to simulate a shot from the rear. You can read these and other dramatic evidences of conspiracy and cover-up around the JFK assassination in David Lifton’s best selling book Best Evidence.

In virtually every high profile, politically sensitive investigation where government corruption or error is involved, the FBI has systematically withheld or doctored evidence for political purposes. One of the most recent and easiest to document is the withholding of crucial evidence from the NTSB in the missile shoot-down of TWA Flight 800. As a recent commentary from the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) observed, “The FBI withheld the accounts of 278 witnesses from the NTSB for more than one year after the crash. All witness accounts with descriptions of a ‘streak’ colliding with an aircraft were concealed from the NTSB in this withheld data. Also, the results of a study to determine the origin of an alleged surface-launched object seen before the crash were ostensibly lost by the FBI. Today, those results are officially listed as ‘unable to locate’ by the FBI.” For more info see: As in the McVeigh case, the cover-up is ongoing.


JUNE 15, 2001



My greatest fear for American constitutional government has always been that local police and judges will view themselves as totally subservient to more powerful state and federal police agencies, such that the common citizen would not have recourse to local police protection during improper state or federal police actions within their own jurisdiction.   Here is a real live example from a recent occurrence, illustrating the futility of a citizen’s plea to local judicial and law enforcement authorities to defend against a violation of 4th amendment rights barring improper search and seizure.  I am publishing many of the details so that you can see the level of corruption that goes on in cases where government decides to “take down” a citizen--even extending to manufacturing evidence and falsifying affidavits.  You will also note in the following narrative the complete confidence and arrogance of the offending officials: the impunity with which they know they can operate--and people wonder why pro-Second Amendment groups insist the right to bear arms is necessary to counter government tyranny!

                This is the story of a California Franchise Tax Board (F.T.B.) raid against the business and personal property of Nick Jesson, owner of No Time Delay Electronics, Inc. in Orange County, California.   Mr. Jesson is obviously upset and refers to the agents as “terrorists.”  That’s a little strong, but see if you agree after reading this account.   I am quoting from Mr. Jesson’s own words with my emphasis added in bold or [brackets], intended to alert my readers to the presence of multiple illegal actions:

                “On May 2, 2001, 25 F.T.B. Agents came into my office. They did not knock, or announce who they were. They stormed though our office doors with guns pointed at each of the 18 workers there, yelling, ‘Move away from your desk, and you will not get hurt!’  Three Agents broke though my wife's office, and all three held guns to her head. My wife is 4'10' and 95 pounds, yet the F.T.B. felt that it took three of them with guns drawn, to make sure she didn't hurt any of those poor weak F.T.B. Agents.  Even with guns pointed at her head, and having her life in danger, she still had the courage to ask who they were. Their answer was they didn't need to tell her!

                “Also, she asked if they had a search warrant, [and] once again she was told they didn't need to give her a search warrant.  This started at 8:45 am and lasted until 10:55 pm.   At 9:00 am I drove up to my office in shock to see the people from my office being lead out of the building with guns at their heads!.
                “Around 9:30 am the F.T.B. went to my home and raided that also. I had asked them to at least let me call our Nanny because she was there alone, with her 3 year old son. I was informed that that was not possible! So I told them not to pull their same terrorist attack at my home, as they had done at my office.  When the F.T.B. arrived at my home they did knock; however, the Nanny didn't understand who they were, and would not open the door, so they broke the door in.  While all of this was going on, the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley police just stood there, and watched as the Agents performed their terrorist acts!
                “After I arrived, I asked Ed Wilson for a copy of the search warrant, his statement was that he didn't need to give it to me!   However, after more than one hour, and asking at least 10 times, Agent Wilson handed me the search warrant.  By this time the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley police had left.  As I read the warrant I noticed that the date for the search warrant was for May 1,  2000, yet they were raiding us on May 2, 2001.  Right away I demanded that they leave until they could return with a valid search warrant. Agent Wilson just laughed, and walked back into my office. So I called the Huntington Beach  police, and asked them to return, and stop the crime that was going on at my office.  Huntington Beach sent over one officer. I asked him if Huntington Beach had seen this search warrant before helping the F.T.B. with the raid.  His answer was he didn't know. At that time I pointed out that the search warrant was over one year old.  Search warrants are only good for 10 days.  The officer informed me there was nothing he could do because it wasn't his search warrant!
                “For the next 14 hours a few us just sat in the parking lot and watched as these terrorists stole 289 items from my office. I had even called the Orange County Sheriff to come and help us. I was told they would send someone, yet not one person came to our aid. [A Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in a local jurisdiction and superior to state and federal officers--so the sheriff’s office was negligent in exercising their overriding jurisdiction.]  I was so upset that it wasn't until the next day that we noticed that the search warrant didn't even have my office address on it! Nor was there even a description of my building!  The only address and description on the search warrant was for my home!
                “By May 9, 2001, I had filed my ex parte motion [a petition to the court made by only one party to the suit] to quash the search warrant in violation of my 4th amendment rights. As judge James P. Marion took the bench he stated that this was not a hearing because he didn't know if he had the right to quash the search warrant. What a lie!  He is the one that signed it!  So once again we came back on May 14, 2001 to be heard again. Once again the judge stated that this was not a hearing, and that just the day before Agent Wilson came in with his own ex parte motion to get a 30 day extension.  We were not informed of that motion at all.  Judge Marion granted the 30 day extension, without my attorney being there to argue the issue.  (Note, section 1534 [Calif. Code] states, that after serving the search warrant it shall be filed within 10 days).  As of June 9, 2001 no charges have yet to be filed, nor has the search warrant been filed.

                “Each time we have been in Court we were told that because I was not a defendant, my 4th Amendment rights had no bearing. Well if the judge would read the 4th Amendment, he would see that nowhere does it
state that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply unless you are charged first! If this were the case, then that would mean that the government could come into every Citizen’s home, at any time, without a search warrant, steal your belongings and keep them forever, or until they file some sort of charges!
                “What was the F.T.B. after?  Well, after 30 days of my own research, here's what I have found out.  My ex-CFO [Chief Financial Officer] was on a 10 year probation, which I didn't know until a few weeks ago. This CFO had stolen over $400,000.00 from people in their 70's to 80's. She had been sentenced to 10 years in jail, yet did only 402 days at the county jail, and then was put on a 10 year probation.  On March 15, 2001, the probation officer Bruce Moore raided her place, and her boyfriend’s place, because she had stopped paying back the money she promised to pay back. After going to court she was told she must come up with $376,000.00 by June 28 or go to prison for the next 8 years. So she made a deal with the DA. She told them that she could show the IRS that we had under reported what our company made in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

                “However, I was on to their game a few weeks before the raid. The IRS had sent a letter to my ex-CFO by mistake to my office.  So I called the IRS Agent David Van Dyke and asked why he was sending information on my company to this CFO. His response was that I had given her Power of Attorney. I told him that was not the case and to please fax me a copy of the power of attorney.  Not until three days latter did I receive the fax. Right away I knew that they were fake. Agent Van Dyke asked me how I knew they were fake.  I told him that the Power of Attorney was for the period from 1995 though 2000.   Agent Van Dyke said, ‘so what.’   I told him that this CFO
didn't start working here until late 1999, so there was no way that she had power of attorney for those years. Plus I told Agent Van Dyke that I had a civil law suit, and criminal charges, filed against her for grand theft!  At this point the IRS knew that they could not come in here, so they apparently handed it down to the F.T.B. to come in and raid us.”

                The government took on the wrong person in this action--a person who had his bases covered and knew how to fight back.  But, think how other less savvy people would have fared in this type of government take-down.  This story represents a trend that will continue until citizens pre-empt these kinds of raids by demanding that their government officials instruct local police to prepare and intervene against improper warrants.   It would also help for conservatives to sponsor state legislation specifically protecting local authority in determining the validity of federal or state warrants. 


JUNE 29, 2001



The US secret agenda in the Balkans deserves Congressional scrutiny.  But it doesn’t look like the presumed conservative administration of George W. Bush is going to cooperate.  Representative Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, made a request last year of the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to secure for the subcommittee heretofore secret documents surrounding our government’s involvement in UN peacekeeping operations around the world.  It is the GAO’s legal responsibility to respond to Congressional investigative instructions. The Clinton administration continuously ignored Congressional oversight of the “War Powers Act” by refusing all requests as detailed below, and the Bush administration is continuing the cover-up.  Here’s a summary of the Comptroller General’s letter to Rep. Gilman detailing his futile efforts to get the cooperation of the Clinton and Bush administrations.  My emphasis has been added and comments included in [brackets].


SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS by David Walker, Comptroller General:

Since the Departments of State and Defense and the National Security Council had failed to provide us access to all the records we requested and needed, the Comptroller General issued demand letters to the head of each agency on November 9, 2000.  However, as of February 27, 2001, we had obtained access to only about one quarter of the Defense records we had requested, and many of these were heavily redacted.

                “Despite two calls to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and a meeting with Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense De Leon on February 28 and March 1, respectively, the access issue remains unresolved.  On March 2, Defense informed us that the National Security Council, coordinating with the White House Counsel's office, directed Defense not to provide us access to the records until the National Security Council had completed its review. [Typical stonewalling tactic.]

                “...the National Security Council responded to our demand letter by formally denying us full and complete access to the records we had requested.  After filing a report [to the president, Congress and the OMB] GAO can bring an action in court to require an agency to produce a record. However, section 716(d) indicates that we can not bring such an action if the President or the Director of OMB certifies that the requested records contain certain privileged material whose disclosure to GAO ‘reasonably could be expected to impair substantially the operations of the Government.’ The Director of OMB [Jacob Lew--one of the many Clinton holdovers retained by Bush] certified that these conditions had been met and that the records could be withheld from GAO . At the same time, the Director of OMB did not provide adequate substantive support that the statutory standard for his certification had been met.

                “Specifically, the National Security Council has denied us full and complete access to 26 documents related to the decision-making process on UN peacekeeping. These documents cover discussions about Presidential Decision Directive 25 [Top Secret directive suspected of cedingUS sovereignty over peacekeeping missions] factors relevant to peacekeeping decisions. As of March 5, 2001 Defense has not provided us full and complete access to 111 specific documents. 

                It should be obvious after reading this detailed report that the Bush administration is controlled by the same globalists operators that ran the Clinton administration.  The figureheads change but not the trend to use US power to implement a New World Order agenda.



On Fox News Sunday morning,  June 17, Tony Snow was interviewing US Secretary of State Colin Powell on the State Department’s agenda for President Bush’s upcoming meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Powell said that the US was requesting Russian help in tracking down lost nuclear materials in Russia, as well in locating certain Russian scientists who had gone underground.  How would the US know nuclear material in Russia was “lost” unless the Russians told them?  What motive would Russia have to inform the US and why should we believe them when the Russians are uncooperative in pursuing the investigation?  Powell intimated that this missing nuclear material could now be in the hands of these rogue scientists, who may be working for adversaries of the US. In reality, there is no such loss of control over nuclear material in Russia.  This is Russia’s way of violating the Nonproliferation Agreement and blaming it on rogue scientists.  This is why the Russians have never been forthcoming with any help in tracking down these “rumored losses.” 

                But the most dramatic faux pas (false step) in this interview came next.  Powell commented that, “Finding the Russian scientists may be a problem being that Russia does not have a Social Security System--as here in America--that allows us to monitor, track down and capture an American citizen.”  Powell immediately recognized that he made a huge mistake in this admission of the government’s misuse of Social Security numbers.  He abruptly stopped speaking and look very embarrassed before continuing.


JULY 6, 2001



I did a background check on Robert S. Mueller, President Bush’s pick for FBI director to replace Louis Freeh.  I found a lot that conservatives should be concerned about.  It tells you something big when arch leftists Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy endorse Mueller with rave comments.   Mueller worked as US Attorney in Boston, a center of dark side government operations in the North East.  He was appointed by Janet Reno as US Attorney in San Francisco, the corruption capital of the West Coast.  The Northern California judicial districts at both the California state and federal levels are noted for extreme collusion between police, prosecutors and judges.  There has existed for years a huge kickback system within the bankruptcy courts, systematically looting millions of dollars and paying off lawyers and judges.   Notable cases have taken place in northern California where people’s full civil rights have been stripped away by courts and upheld without comment clear up the chain of appeals in Federal Court.  The bottom line is that  Janet Reno never appointed a single US Attorney that wasn’t on her team of approved insiders. 

                Mueller served as head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division under George Bush Sr.  His conduct there was notable for the fact that he presided over some of the major cover-ups of government dark side operations. 

                1.  He was responsible for the prosecution of Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was the CIA’s main money launderer for CIA operations in Panama.  Even Congress knew of Noriega’s CIA connections.  Senator Kerry said that Noriega “had been on the payroll and an employee of the CIA for many, many, many years.” [quoted in Defrauding America, by Rodney Stich, pg. 401]. During the trial, the presiding judge (on orders from the government) ruled that Noriega could not enter into evidence any documents proving his relationship to the CIA over the years. Noriega was taken down by the CIA and prosecuted because he was found to be taking a much larger cut out of CIA drug profits than was agreed upon.  Mueller helped cover up this major issue by silencing Noriega.

                2.  In 1988, he supervised the investigation of PanAm Flight 800 which was destroyed by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie Scotland.  He successfully kept the CIA’s connection to the bombing from becoming public.  The CIA and FBI took control of the crash scene for the first day (keeping Scottish police at bay), searching through and removing numerous pieces of evidence and luggage from the wreckage to obscure the connections of the bombing to the CIA special team that was on board the aircraft.   One CIA defector has said that the team was returning to the states against orders to blow the whistle on CIA drug and terrorist connections in the Middle East.

                3. Mueller was in charge of the infamous BCCI bank scandal and prosecution.  According to various CIA defectors, The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was a totally owned and operated CIA proprietary bank set up with secret CIA funds in order to launder drug money, and buy off politicians.   When the banks connection to the government threatened to become public, the CIA pulled out its funding and left the private depositors with a $10 billion dollar shortfall that the US taxpayer had to cover for.  Mueller took personal charge of the investigation and indicted six lower echelon scapegoats specifically to shield the higher operators from prosecution.  Mueller never investigated the shady way in which BCCI got initial approval to operate, or the stonewalling that occurred in the federal bank regulatory mechanism that would have blown the whistle on this operation much earlier.

                4. Mueller presided over the prosecution of John Gotti, the alleged Mafia head of the Gambino family group.  There was also a tie-in here with government dark-side operations.  As CIA agent Richard Beneke testified to Congress, in response to a question of whether or not the Gotti family had ties to the CIA he responded, “yes.  As far back as 1968 and early 1969, we [CIA] had begun to launder money from organized crime families in New York.  At that time, Mr. Gotti was an up and coming member of one of the families.  We used to wash their money out overseas and put it in Switzerland in nice, safe places for them.”  [Defrauding America, pg. 404].  We do not know why the government turned on Gotti as a partner in crime.  Perhaps he was also found guilty of skimming too much off the top. 

                5.  He presided over the Ruby Ridge take down of the Weaver family.   

                Conclusion:  Just as President Bush has selected other CIA operators from his father’s tenure as CIA chief and later as President (Richard Armitage, C. Boyden Gray), Robert Mueller is obviously cut from the same mold.  It’s time for conservatives to stop fooling themselves about George W.’s true allegiance.   He works for the same power structure his Father worked for.


JULY 21, 2001



The amount of dangerous global policy initiatives and statements coming out of the Bush White House each week is getting so numerous that I can only comment on a portion of them.   Despite a few bones thrown at conservatives, giving the appearance of holding the line, this administration is actually accelerating the demise of US sovereignty and the breakdown of its strategic defense posture.  Here are the highlights:



George W. Bush said he looked into Putin’s eyes and said, “This is a guy I can trust.”   My shock at Bush’s bad judgment is almost beyond words.  Of all the recent Russian leaders Vladimir Putin is the one that savvy people would be least inclined to associate with the word “trust” --unless you meant you could trust him to never tell the truth. Take a look at any of the candid shots of Putin on the web and see if you agree.  This guy reeks of guile even when he’s smiling.  With this kind of flawed character assessment, it is little wonder that George W. Bush can continue to disarm the US unilaterally and claim, with a straight face, that Russia and China are allies. 

                Some conservatives have complained that I underestimate George W’s intelligence.  After all, how dumb can a man be who graduated from Harvard and Yale?   Don’t let appearances fool you.  Bush was the beneficiary of special treatment from entrance to graduation.  He was set up in business afterward with family money and help from his father’s insider knowledge and contacts.  When Harken Energy was failing despite all the insider advantages, George W. was bailed out by a $300 million investment from the Harvard investment fund.  Do you think that was coincidental or because he was an alumnus?  Unlike Ronald Reagan, who actually did a lot of his own research and writing, George W. is a pure product of his advisors, and always has been--and his advisors are CFR members or globalist up-and-comers like Bush himself.  Just watch Pres Bush when he responds to questions off the cuff.  He is inarticulate and ordinary.  For the record, George W. Bush is not stupid--he’s smart enough to read and believe all the scripted speeches put before him, but obviously not wise enough to recognize when a snake is getting ready to strike.



Despite continued and egregious human rights violations (forced abortions, massive forced labor camps, religious persecutions, political repression, and imprisonment of US citizens) the Bush administration continues its robust support of this regime.  Bush supports continued Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China despite ongoing violations of its “free trade” agreements with the WTO (which will eventually give China full membership despite ongoing cheating).  

                Bush fully supports the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the 2008 Olympic games to China, despite vehement protests about China’s record on human rights.  The IOC has long been a politicized and corrupt ally of the United Nations’ pro-left agenda--providing every opportunity for Communist countries to host the games, making sure that judging panels are stacked with judges willing to tweak the numbers, and looking the other way as Communist nations bend the rules regarding drug enhancements and the professionalism of athletic training.  None of these chronic violators of human rights have ever been expelled.  Only the civilized but apartheid South African government was deemed too evil to participate in the Olympic games.  The world press keeps spouting the old line about how public expectations for the Olympics will moderate China, and indeed, China didgive the world a sign of its token moderation.  After a short show trial of an American scientist accused of spying, China sentenced the accused to deportation rather than prison.  Now that the media has satisfied itself with China’s good intentions, the other American detainees won’t be so lucky.  Meanwhile, the world willingly maintains a short memory about prior deceptions and illusions of peace.  Remember that when the Olympic games were awarded to Berlin in 1936, the world offered up the same excuse that Hitler’s hegemony would be moderated. 

                The Bush administration is continuing its dangerous military liaison with Chinese forces, begun during the former Bush and Clinton administrations.  The Pentagon recently invited Chinese naval officers to take part in US minesweeping operations.  China’s new-found knowledge will undoubtedly be useful during a future conflict over Taiwan, ensuring that any mining of Chinese harbors by the US can be readily undone.   Meanwhile, to show the “moderating” effects such good will exercises have on China, China successfully tested the launching of 3 submarine launched ballistic missiles with a range of over 5,000 miles.  This puts virtually any location in America at risk to China’s growing fleet of ballistic missile submarines.



President Bush’s choice for chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is none other than former Congressman and self-proclaimed anti-drug activist Asa Hutchinson.  Despite the benign facade, it appears that Hutchinson may have a common link to the other dark-side operators that have been selected to serve on the Bush team (Richard Armitage, C Boyden Gray, and Robert Mueller).  A background check on Hutchinson reveals that he is an old Arkansas crony from the Clinton era.  He ran legal interference for the Clinton team during the Iran-Contra years when Clinton’s boys were running an arms-for-drugs operation on behalf of the CIA out of the rural airport of Mena, Arkansas.  From 1982 to 1985, Hutchinson was the federal prosecuting attorney for western Arkansas.  He had a reputation as a tough-on-drugs prosecutor--but only with the small guys.  When it came to the big fish, like Barry Seal (who was working for the Feds and had been supplied with US surplus C-130 aircraft), Hutchinson was slow on the draw.   

                William Duncan, an honest IRS investigator, tells how Hutchinson sabotaged the case.  Hutchinson was presented evidence and testimony from 20 witnesses, including sworn statements by the witnesses so that Hutchinson could read the specific details.  According to Duncan, Hutchinson began to make excuses about why he couldn’t use the evidence.  When pressed to do something, he would use an old prosecutor trick that would allow him to claim he was pursuing the case while at the same time lessening the chances of obtaining an indictment   Of the 20 witnesses, he chose the 3 weakest to appear before the grand jury.  During the proceedings, he never asked the witnesses any questions that would have given them an opportunity to tell what they knew.  The witnesses complained to Duncan that they had only been asked their name, address, and position as well as a few minor details about their job.  For instance, a banker who had direct knowledge of the money laundering aspects of the Clinton-Lassiter, Seal operation was not allowed to tell any specifics to the grand jury.  He was angry and confused as to why.  Americans who are not asleep want to know too. 

                I do not ascribe this choice of Hutchinson for DEA chief to President Bush’s poor judgment because I’m convinced this appointment is not a mere oversight.  Too many people from dark side operations are showing up in a “conservative” Republican administration to be coincidental.  The vetting process is extremely rigorous in the White House.  Bush knows who these people are, what they have done and why they must continue to serve.



I simply cannot believe that Bush is ignorant of the consequences of this latest proposal to grant legal status to millions of Mexican illegal immigrants.  While a single amnesty may be justifiable under unique circumstances, a pattern of granting amnesty every few years only increases the motivation for illegals to break the law and hide out till the next amnesty arrives.  Naturally, this policy is being sold to the public as an outreach to the Hispanic community.  Realistically, though, this benevolent show of outreach will yield nothing but token support for the Republican Party--unless, of course, the Republicans continue their continual shift to the left so that they become indistinguishable, except by degree, from the Democrats.  Most illegals come looking for US benefits and eventual citizenship, and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  They have no constitutional education or tradition that points them in any direction other than socialism.   Most never return to their native lands after experiencing the welfare benefits and opportunities of America. 

Even the AFL-CIO is joining in the call for amnesty, despite the direct competition cheap illegal labor presents to union goals.  However, the union’s rationale for supporting amnesty is far more realistic.  They have been encouraged--by the Bush administration--to view these new potential voters as future union converts (all too true). Which side of the ideological battle for economic liberty are the Republicans on?  In principle, I am for the right of American employers and individuals to hire guest workers, but only when the employer assumes total responsibility for the worker, and no public benefits are permitted.  Such workers really do provide much needed labor for jobs that Americans normally reject.  All of this lowers the cost of living for everyone.

                Historically, the courts have played a major role in fomenting illegal immigration. They created out of thin air the doctrine that any illegal born in this country is an automatic citizen.  This provides an increased motivation for illegals to give birth here.  The leftist California courts, backed up by the US Supreme Court, has determined that illegals can not be barred welfare and education benefits.  The Supreme Court has also ruled recently that the INS cannot keep deportees, most of whom have criminal backgrounds, in prison indefinitely when the originating country refuses to repatriate them.  While indefinite incarceration is properly enjoined by the courts, the solution is not to mandate their release but to require the federal government to deport them by military force if necessary.  The Bush administration refuses to even put serious trade or financial pressure on those countries who refuse to accept deportees.  He ought to fly them into the country by military escort and dump them on the tarmac.

                Ultimately, there is another long-term agenda to this continual illegal immigration fiasco.  It involves purposely diluting the voting power of the conservative productive class who are the main body of citizens holding the line against the slow erosion of socialism.  There are two culprits in the process of voter corruption that are interrelated:  mass public education (which includes indoctrination by a controlled media) and citizenship without qualification. Citizenship by birth combined with a populace incapable of understanding the difference between good and bad law is destined to produce a benefit corrupted majority of voters.  Ultimately, a dumbed down public, weakened by dependency on government programs, also becomes hostile to conscience and the values that made this country great.  The Bush proposals in education and immigration are exacerbating the problem.  Stopping all immigration is not what I’m suggesting, but changing from a system of citizenship by default to one of citizenship by qualification would go a long way towards making sure that the power to vote is restricted to those who know how to judge the laws and proposals they vote for, and who have made a pledge to support the principles of liberty.   



Argentina and Turkey are facing outright default on international loans.  Both nations are way too far into debt to pay the interest--let alone the principle.  Additional loans won’t help when a nation can’t pay the interest on current loans.  Default is inevitable without debt forgiveness--another globalist agenda term meant to mask the fact that socialism inevitably leads to national bankruptcy.  After specifically declaring “no bailout” for Argentina or Turkey, George W. Bush announced to the World Bank in the next breath, “I ... propose the World Bank and other development banks dramatically increase the share of their funding provided as grants rather than loans to the poorest countries...Specifically I propose that up to 50 percent of the funds provided by the development banks to the poorest countries be provided as grants for education, health, nutrition, water supply, sanitation and other human needs.”  Who is Bush kidding?  That’s a bailout without calling it such.  These globalist bailouts are not for the sake of the countries who face default, but for the international bankers whose loans are threatened.   Ultimately, the globalist intend for the US taxpayers to keep things afloat.  But with a world recession on the way, and declining tax revenues, who has the money to give billions away to cover for loans that should never have been made in the first place?  There is no sound economics behind this proposal, just more globalist economic manipulation.    But, sound economics or not, the sad reality is that the entire world economy is increasingly vulnerable to excessive debt.  Even innocent parties will suffer if or when this massive debt pyramid collapses. 


JULY 27, 2001



In the waning hours of the disastrous and violent G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy, President Bush announced that he was linking the US proposal for a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) to a joint reduction of US and Russian nuclear arsenals.  I continue to be shocked at the headlong rush to disarm demonstrated by George W. Bush.   Even accounting for his globalist roots, I continue to be amazed at how much Bush is allowed to push the envelope of tolerance from his conservative supporters.  Bill Clinton could never have gotten away with this.  The Republican Congress would have felt obligated to resist such a sellout of American nuclear deterrence by a Democratic president.  But when George Bush undertakes this massive disarmament, even without a public mandate, the conservative opposition crumbles.   The military’s commander of strategic missile forces, Adm. Richard Mies, could only utter a mild caution about the Pentagon’s proposed reductions.  In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on strategic forces he said, “As we reduce our strategic forces to lower levels, numerical parity or numbers alone become less and less important - issues such as transparency, irreversibility, production capacity, aggregate warhead inventories and verifiability become more significant.”    Verifiability is the big issue that fails the credibility test and always has.  Russia has never complied with a single treaty, except for portions that were clearly in its favor. 

                Despite game playing by the Bush administration, including the start of construction of the Alaska ABM missile base last month (no decision has been made to deploy the system), there definitely seems to be a rush to disarm. Bush proclaimed that reduction of nuclear weapons and an NMD "go hand in hand."  Not true.  They are totally separate issues.  Meanwhile, the US keeps asserting that the NMD system is not intended to impair Russia’s ability to destroy us--that it is only intended to stop a limited attack from a rogue nation. Bush has also declared his intent to push for an agreement with Russia on amending the ABM treaty (which limits the US ability to field an NMD), even though, according to legal experts, Russia’s permission is not needed to amend or change the treaty .  It now appears that the amended treaty will put into concrete President Bush’s disarmament proposals.   Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, will travel to Moscow two days after the conference to begin discussing what the Bush administration has described as a “new security framework.”   “We expect to move quickly,” Rice enthused. “We clearly want an aggressive schedule to see how quickly we may be able to sketch out an agreement."   Why the rush?  Something’s up and it is not a “security framework” for the US.   Believe me.



Not only is Arafat’s PLO not considered a terrorist organization any longer, but his elite guard, Force 17, has received advanced sniper and explosives training from our own CIA on American soil, in Virginia.  How many months of “cease fire” violations have to pass before Congress puts the PLO back on the list?  Few Americans know that Congress continues to allocate nearly $200 million a year to Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, in direct and indirect grants--an outcome of the disastrous Clinton promises to Arafat in a show of “good will.”  

                Just as Arafat refused to comply with almost all the provisions of the Oslo Accords, he has refused to halt the terrorist acts of the numerous organized groups operating out of Gaza and the West Bank--Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Tanzim, the PLO, etc.--as required by the cease fire agreement.  This week the US responded with suggestions of an increased CIA role in Israel--as if that is going to help.  The CIA role in Israel has traditionally taken two primary forms--intense liaison with its counterpart in Israel, the Mossad (which includes mutually supporting dark-side operations around the world--including drug running and money laundering), and the training of the PA security forces (in techniques which clearly go beyond the realm of normal police work).  But this latest enhancement of the CIA’s role is different.  The CIA members are to serve as “unofficial” international observers, a role which can be hazardous to Israel’s long term security.    

                Israel has long demanded that Arafat re-arrest all of the terrorists previously unleashed on Israel at the beginning of the current intifada, which Arafat has consistently refused to do.  It would be a hollow thing even if he agreed.  When terrorist leaders were in “jail” in prior years, such jails became unofficial offices of the terrorist organizations.  Terrorist groups had frequent access to their leaders.   Arafat’s latest tactic is to present a list of 30 Jewish right wing leaders to the Israelis, demanding they also be arrested for “crimes against humanity.”    The list includes noted leaders of Jewish settlements, a few of the best rabbis and even the editor of Arutz-7, one of the few honest voices of  straight and authoritative news coming out of Israel.  Israel correctly spurned Arafat’s demand as a publicity stunt.  Arafat responded by taking his list to the Americans so they can provide “balance” to each side.  How is it balanced to equate the arrest of known and deadly terrorists to the arrest of Israeli activists who have never done any act of terror nor even advocated such?   The Israeli defense forces continue to target terrorist leaders for assassination.  They took out one of the top Hamas terrorist leaders this past week, as he drove his late model BMW between meetings.  An Israeli helicopter gun-ship was waiting in ambush with a well deserved volley of rockets.   I guess that’s Israel’s answer for Arafat’s refusal to re-arrest the terrorists.  It gives real weight to Israel’s claim that locking them up is for everyone’s protection.  Personally, I prefer the “final solution” to a leaky jail term.





The Dow is shaken after its 3rd straight day of triple digit losses, and has dropped below 10,000.  Technology stocks have especially taken a beating, devaluating even companies making a healthy profit.  This is one of the reasons I’ve never felt comfortable in the stock market.  Even when all the fundamentals of a company are sound, a wave of panic can cause stock values to plummet despite positive earnings.  Everyone wants to extract their money while there are still a few buyers in the market.  For this reason, there is a large element of gambling involved in investing in the stock markets--especially in buying stock in companies that have no residual value in capital assets should they fail.  The only way to get your money out once invested in a public company is to find another buyer--and in a falling market, buyers dry up very rapidly.  Is the market near bottom? or will it go over the edge into depression? Here is my analysis.

                On the positive side, so far, we are only in a mild recession.  We still see a lot of people with a lot of excess cash to spend.  There also still exists a very dynamic economy in the US--fueled by an upscale middle class that is accustomed to lots of conveniences and high tech cars and equipment.  Realistically, however, the consumer economy is weak because we Americans already possess almost everything we need to live quite comfortably.  What people are mostly buying are non-essential and “nice to have” things.  This country is so saturated with useful consumer products that most people could stop buying new cars and appliances today and not suffer much inconvenience for a couple of years.  That’s what would happen quickly if everyone really began to fear that a deep recession was on the way and that they needed to start saving.  Hardly anyone is saving now, so there is a tremendous potential for a retraction in consumer spending, simply with a cessation in current excess spending habits.  At present, people are mildly cautious, so consumer sales are weak--but it’s nothing like what would happen to sales if a solid fear of depression were to break out.  The media can successfully staunch this kind of panic as long as the government can halt a stock market plunge within 3 or 4 days.  As of today, Friday, the market is beginning to turn upward again--so, once again, a crash is postponed.

                Much of the market’s ability to stay overvalued (despite last year’s correction) is based upon the fact that those investors who have lost big in the tech stocks, haven’t yet sold their stocks--so the loss isn’t “permanent” in their mind.  They are still hoping for a rebound, hoping to recoup those paper losses and turn them into gains.   If the market really crashes, those investors will join in the panic and start to dump their stocks hoping to salvage at least a portion of the original value.  But for now, they are holding on--otherwise the markets would be much lower than they are today.  Stocks are still way overvalued and could fall much further.  Price to earning ratios are still way too high, even after coming down almost 50%.  

                As to the fundamentals, most trends are negative.  Worse yet, the positive growth side of this economy is fueled by debt--way too much debt--and multiple new forms of credit.  Our economy has created a huge credit bubble as a result of a dozen years of fiat monetary inflation and paper credit creation. Some fundamentals are more important than others, and a high debt structure that reaches a critical mass can sink an economy even when there is strong consumer demand--especially when that demand is also debt financed.   Money has been created not only by direct intervention by the Federal Reserve, but by private corporations, banks, and holding companies--all by indirect means:  increased margin buying, an explosive derivatives market, high risk hedging schemes, and increased central bank borrowing via lowered reserve requirements.  All these highly leveraged moves create massive instability in a market during a downturn.

                Inflation is rising rapidly in many sectors of the economy, although most of key elements of inflation (housing, cars, oil, restaurant meals, etc.) are purposefully excluded from the government’s CPI index for political reasons.  The government keeps using a “poor man’s” basket of goods for comparison and regularly throws out any item that begins a steep price rise.  Non-governmental sources estimate that actual inflation is running in the 10%-12% range, and has been rising at 8-10% for over a decade.   Inflation would be in the “Banana Republic” range if it were not for the unique position the dollar holds as an international currency of exchange.  The US has successfully masked its huge dollar creation monster by exporting those dollars around the world--thus making it appear as if inflation is low here. 

                Because of the huge governmental and private debt structure, I do not believe we are near bottom.   I do think that the current sell-off will stop and another rebound will begin next week, as has happened before. Such rebounds are accomplished by government’s insider-connected firms, like Solomon Brothers or Goldman-Sachs, shifting huge sums of money from low-profile sectors of the market to the Dow or the Nasdaq.  They only need to create the impression of a comeback and millions of other buyers will join them, hoping to recoup this week’s losses.   However, as the collapse of the bubble is postponed, intervention has less and less direct power to affect the market’s direction.  The Powers That Be (PTB) will not be able to hold the markets up forever.  I do believe they need to hold things together for another year in order to blame George W. Bush for the catastrophe that is coming.  It’s still too soon for the media to cast aspersions at the tax cut.  But if the crash comes in the fall of 2002, tax cuts will be fully discredited as a means of fighting a depression, and George Bush will become the next Herbert Hoover, paving the way for a huge Democratic victory in both the midterm election of 2002 and the main election of 2004. 


SEPT. 14, 2001




America is full of a strange mixture of shock, sadness, indignation and bravado in the wake of the aerial suicide attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers and the Pentagon.  We have heard countless leaders vowing that “terrorism will not stand,” and that Americans will bounce back and rebuild these symbols of American economic and military power--if nothing else, to deny the terrorists the joy of seeing America down and discouraged.   All this is typically American in its arrogance and is very naive.   Terrorism has only begun to strike America and we are terribly exposed--not only because of the free and open access which we rightfully cherish, but also because the political establishment has for years refused to interdict the training and arming of the known terrorist groups they now claim have committed an “act of war on America.”  

Government commentators echo the hollow words that “a sleeping giant has been awakened” and is filled with resolve.  Hogwash!  They said those same words in 1993 after the WTC bombing, and America quickly went back to sleep and all our anti-terrorist vows led to no significant diminution of the tens of terrorist networks and training camps around the world.  Indeed, terrorist groups multiplied and became far better armed during the Clinton era.  Worse, I don’t believe for a minute that the current administration’s retaliatory attacks being planned are truly meant to eradicate terrorism, let alone be effective at such an objective.  They are targeting Osama bin Laden, a convenient scapegoat, while leaving the Palestinians untouched, who are the main source of support for Islamic terrorist activity.  I will explain the motives behind government subterfuge, and help sort out the fact from the fiction in our government’s response to this incident.  But first, let’s review how this act was accomplished, technically. 



This terrorist act was a master stroke of planning and execution.  It was a complex attack which could not have been done without the participation of larger groups already tracked by US intelligence.  Yet there were at least three advantages to this strategy the perpetrators could count on.  For one thing, the tactic itself came as a complete surprise.  Attacking buildings via commandeered airliners is a tactic that had never been used before, and was nearly impossible to foresee.  Counter-terrorist experts were all caught flat-footed.  The perpetrators correctly realized that this kind of aerial attack is possible because of vulnerabilities in the airline security system.  Once would-be perpetrators get past the airport security checkpoints the crews have no means of defense against them.  Such an attack is also difficult to stop due to the presence of large numbers of hostages on board a hijacked airliner, coupled with the uncertainty about whether the hijackers intend on crashing it into a target or simply flying to an asylum destination (as in prior hijackings).  How and when do you decide to shoot down a loaded airliner before the hijackers’ intentions are known?  And how do you confirm their intentions to crash into a target as it is descending incommunicado?  Tough call!

                 Commandeering a huge aircraft full of fuel creates damage effects far exceeding the powers of a lone suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his body--or even a vehicular bomb as used in the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in the parking garage in February 1993.  In this case, at least four commercial airline flights were targeted for hijacking--all within a 20 minute time frame for departure, in order to ensure the maximum impact of a coordinated attack.  This all-at-one-time attack would preclude US forces from reacting and mounting an armed airborne patrol around targeted cities as a deterrent.  I suspect there was a 5th or 6th flight destined to attack the White House and the US Capitol as well, but these were fortuitously delayed at the gate for some reason and missed their time slot.  They were later canceled in the FAA grounding of all aircraft so that some of the potential hijacking never reached its grisly fulfillment.  One such flight that was canceled had several Arab passengers aboard who vigorously protested the cancellation.  An airline official said, according to the NY Times, “These guys got belligerent, and said something like, ‘We've got to be on this plane’...They expressed a desire to remain on the plane and resisted getting off.”   The men left the area quickly after leaving the plane before police or the FBI could interrogate them.  

                All flights had things in common.  First, they were all transcontinental flights.  The two aircraft that hit the WTC were the larger Boeing 767 and the other two were Boeing 757 aircraft.   Second, they were all taking off with a full load of fuel necessary to get to the West Coast.  A full fuel load on the 767s ensured the maximum fireball in the subsequent explosions within the WTC.  Let me explain why this was important.  The perimeter steel pillars and cross bracing in the twin towers provided almost all the structural strength. The initial crashes partially severed one side of the perimeter support structure in each case, but the crashes alone would have been insufficient to destroy the towers.  The subsequent fuel-fed fires heated the remaining pillars to the point of structural failure so that the entire buildings eventually came down.   Steel beams and columns sag when exposed to fire--especially when an explosive impact strips away the protective fireproof coverings surrounding the steel.   When the pillars on the damaged floors buckled from the heat, the falling weight of the imploding top portions of each building was enough to overstress all the steel in each succeeding floor beneath--that’s why we observed the vertical domino effect.  There was even sufficient collateral force from the falling debris as it spread outward at ground zero to heavily damage all surrounding buildings.  The dramatic collapsing forces of the two towers caused the additional collapse of a neighboring 26-story building in the World Trade Center complex.  

                The time delay between the initial collisions and the final collapse allowed hundreds to escape the two buildings.  Sadly, many were slowed or trapped on the upper floors and the roof of the WTC by either the existing damage or, as in one case, the well-meaning intentions of people enforcing an orderly exit.  A few waited too long for an orderly exit didn’t make it, including some valiant fire and rescue people who failed to anticipate the imminent collapse of the building.

                In terms of getting weapons past security, the hijackers primarily brought makeshift and non-metallic knives in order to successfully evade discovery by airport metal detectors.  Another potential tactic is to pose as a pilot or air crewman with false ID, but it does not appear at this time that any of the successful hijackings were done with weapons smuggled aboard by this method..  The Arab man arrested in NY two days later, as the airports reopened, was wearing a pilot’s uniform and in possession of some identification not his own.  He was also one of those who had a reservation on a transcontinental flight that didn’t make it into the air on Tuesday.  The FBI claimed on Friday that this man had no links to the terrorist act.   

                To achieve control over the aircraft, the hijackers, in at least one case, began stabbing stewardesses in order to lure one of the pilots out of the cockpit.   Others may have made a direct attack on the cockpit door (which is fairly lightweight in composition).  Pilots could then be overwhelmed, killed by stabbing, and the plane piloted by the hijackers to the targeted building.

                The hijack planners most likely specified that the attack would take place on a cloudless day so as to make sure they could visually navigate to their destinations.  While it is now known that the suicide-hijackers received some training in US simulators, run by private contractors, the variety of possible aircraft to train for and the complexity of the systems meant that such training would only lead to partial qualification at best.  But full qualification or certification was not necessary.   The hijackers did not have to deal with take-offs and landings, the most critical tasks.  Taking over a flying aircraft and handling only the yoke and throttles to control altitude and airspeed is a relatively simple process.  



While government and media sources continue to point the finger at US-trained terrorist Osama bin Laden, when pressed, all have to admit that there is only circumstantial evidence linking him to this act.  That isn’t stopping the Bush administration from acting as if bin Laden is guilty and leaning heavily on Pakistan to induce the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan to extradite him to the US.

                In response to US demands, Pakistan and the Taliban have told the US they will be only too happy to comply with US demands for bin Laden’s extradition if the US presents credible evidence of his involvement--which may be tough to come by.  One former US CIA official was even more candid.  He said, “no specific evidence is necessary since we’ve proven the case against bin Laden’s cohorts in court recently and no one will question us if we go after him again.”  Sad, but true--Americans are all too willing to give unquestioned support to government in these times.  I was also distressed to see a CNN internet poll showing that almost 80% of Americans condoned the bombing of the Afghanistan capitol of Kabul should the Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden.  Where is America’s compassion for innocent citizens?  Would they become terrorists themselves in bombing innocent civilians simply to assuage their ruffled national sensibilities?

                Focusing on Osama bin Laden may be a red herring meant to divert attention from the Palestinians,  support for whom provides the fire and drive behind almost all other Islamic terrorist groups.  I have no doubt that these terrorist acts were committed by Arab Islamic extremists with a mix of Palestinians who may or may not feel the need to hide behind religious motives.  This radical branch of Arabs is the only culture on the planet intentionally producing committed suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots to slaughter innocent civilians.  We also have specific evidence on the ethnicity of the attackers from cell phone callers on the doomed airlines who uniformly described the hijackers as Middle Eastern males, some wearing the tell-tale red bandannas identifying a unique terrorist group. 

                 The FBI also claims to now know the identifies of 19 hijackers--all with Middle Eastern origins.  Strangely they refuse to release the entire list publicly.  Some of the 19 are Palestinians with links to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and US officials appear to be steering the blame away from them. I believe there exists a hidden protective inclination towards the Palestinians in our government operations--despite public support for the state of Israel.  At least one Palestinian journalist filmed jubilant Palestinians rejoicing at the news of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (this is not the same film from 1993 erroneously broadcast as if it were taking place now).  Israeli correspondent Oded Granot reported that Yasser Arafat's Tanzim have kidnapped the Palestinian cameraman who filmed a report for a major news agency showing Palestinians in Ramallah celebrating the attacks against the United States as hundreds cheered.  He said that the news agency was warned that the cameraman would be killed if they dared to air the item.  Other films have been released and photos from these films can be viewed at     These threats are very real and are carried out ruthlessly from time to time.  To demonstrate how far the Palestinians will go to perpetuate the appearance of innocence in this affair, PLO leader Yasser Arafat arranged to have film crews roll the cameras while he gave blood for the victims of NY.  Even if his blood was destined for NY (which I doubt), I certainly wouldn’t want to be the recipient of this hypocrisy.

                So, who is responsible?   It’s going to be very difficult to find that out in a timely manner.  Even a US defense source admitted to the International Herald Tribune, “We're talking about an operation that was extremely well-planned and compartmentalized...Such a case could take years to complete and we simply don't have that amount of time.”  That is why the US has decided to go after Osama bin Laden.  Israeli intelligence, on the other hand, says (correctly) that all terrorist cells are supported and sponsored by one or more governments.  Terrorist organizations need a steady flow of money, arms and explosives to do their work.  Terrorist groups also need a broad base of intelligence operatives throughout the world to keep tabs on their targets.  Governments provide this kind of support, but never allow those links to surface so as to avoid blame.  Since the Bush administration keeps trying to build an Arab coalition against Iraq, it can’t afford to go after any of the legitimate governments harboring terrorists--Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Iran.  So that leaves Afghanistan to attack.  But, just remember, unless the US goes after all the terrorist camps (including most refugee camps) in Arab countries, it isn’t really serious about carrying on a war against terrorism. 

                It really isn’t all that important to know who, at the lower and middle levels, planned and carried out this attack.  Fact is, the US is hated by all the major Arab nations (except Kuwait) for its superficial support of Israel.  Even Saudi Arabia is only feigning friendship with the US.  The motive for Arab antagonism against the US does not really rest of the issue of Iraq, for Saddam Hussein has made his share of enemies in the Middle East.  The real unifying motive of all the Arab terrorist organs is the Arab hatred toward the state of Israel, camped right in their midst.  There are many factions of terrorists, and some are bitter enemies, but they can all unite on the desire to see the Israel and the US brought down.  That is why the pictures of US destruction were so heartily applauded by young and old alike in the Middle East.  In the final analysis, any war on terrorism is ultimately futile unless it punishes all terrorists uniformly, and the Palestinians specifically.



As the story of the tragedy unfolded, media talking heads were seemingly in the dark about what was happening and who was responsible for these crashes.  The first collision with the WTC was viewed as a possible accident.  By the time the second happened, some 16 minutes later, everyone began to suspect terrorism.  Yet from the very beginning, many moments before any building was hit, there was one very public government body that had crucial information that a hijacking had taken place, or at the very least that an aircraft was veering away from its destination and heading for NY--the FAA.  Airline crashes and hijackings ring big alarm bells at the FAA which monitors and controls all commercial traffic.   By law, all commercial aircraft flying in controlled airspace are in constant communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC).  Thus, the FAA is going to know when something goes wrong.

                A hijacking takes time to complete.  Pilots are behind a locked cockpit door, so hijackers cannot burst in without flight attendants having a least a few seconds to alert the flight deck.  There are intercom stations at both ends of each aircraft accessible to the flight attendants.  Even if the hijackers aimed their first actions at the flight deck, it takes time to break down the door.  In any case, with the onset of any hijacking emergency it is standard operating procedure for one of the flight crew to key the mike and make a call to ATC.  Pilots are also trained to switch the aircraft radar transponder to code 7500 or 7700 indicating (silently) a hijacking or an emergency in progress.   In addition, any time the aircraft deviates from its designated route of flight it must contact ATC or ATC will give them a call--all of which is tape recorded. 

                I find it impossible to believe that ATC did not have tape recordings of these emergency calls alerting them to a hijacking.   Even during something catastrophic such as an explosion in the air, most pilots still have time to make an emergency call.  A hijacking allows more time to react, especially when the only weapons in use are knives.  The FAA would have turned these recordings over to the NTSB or FBI, but no federal agency has made mention of their contents even days after the events, and the FBI spokesman in NY specifically told at least one reporter that he had no knowledge of FAA reports.  But even that same FBI official made statements at another session about pilot communication and routes changes that could only have been known through FAA provided tape recordings--so we can assume they exist.  Strangely, none of the news media asked the FAA if such recordings exist, even though it is common knowledge that ATC communicates with aircraft.  Why?  The media continues to talk about waiting till the onboard voice and data recorders are found to find out what happened--as if that is the only available source of information.  Even after the first voice recorder was located (at the Pentagon crash site), it was announced by one television station that it was blank.  This is also strange since these recorders have a 30 minute continuous loop tape that should have some older recorded information on it, even if it failed to record the current flight.  Even if the hijackers learned which circuit breakers to pull to disconnect power to the recorder, it would still contain old recorded data.

                The FBI has already demonstrated a propensity to alter and hide evidence in politically charged cases.  They did so in the OKC investigation, working overtime to make it appear as McVeigh and Nichols acted alone, even though there were numerous Middle Eastern accomplices seen by numerous witnesses.  In the TWA 800 crash, the cockpit data recorder was found the first day by special Navy divers, altered, and then put back into the sea for later retrieval.  Sounds bizarre, but the FBI and CIA took control of the investigation from the NTSB, corrupted the evidence pointing to a missile attack and concocted a fuel tank explosion scenario so bizarre that it took a $2 million computer generated phony reenactment to make this story half-way believable to a gullible public.  While I don’t believe the federal government was involved directly in any form of instigation of this particular attack, there are some indications they might want to skew the direction of blame away from the Palestinians.



The FBI claimed on the day of the terrorist attacks that they found a car at Boston’s Logan Airport containing written materials in Arabic as well as flight training manuals, which led them to a small pilot training facility in Florida.  Jared Israel tracked down the owner of manuals, Huffman Aviation, and quickly determined that his company provided only small aircraft flight training.  Rudi Dekker, the owner, did have information, however, about a company in Popana Beach, Florida that could have provided follow-on commercial pilot training with flight simulators.  The FBI also claimed that surveillance cameras of the parking structure in the previous weeks showed the same car making multiple trips to the airport, perhaps to scope out the terrain.  According to, they also found a van with pictures of Osama bin Laden and copies of the Koran--an all too convenient link to a sought-after conclusion.

                Within 2 days of the tragic events of Tuesday (that supposedly caught every intelligence agency completely by surprise), the FBI claimed they had identified 50 participants, including all 18 hijackers, and have accounted for the whereabouts of 40 out of the 50--leaving only ten unaccounted for.   In the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, it took years to find less than half a dozen leads.  Something doesn’t compute.  In order to judge how much of this recent magic is probable or possible one has to know something about the Bureau’s investigative capacity.   No agency starting from nothing finds this much evidence so fast.  It’s simply too good to be true.   Here is what was legitimate.  They did do a cross check of the passenger manifest lists with CIA, FBI, and INS “watch lists” of terrorists.  Bingo, lots of matches.  They also checked on how payment was made for the tickets of these passengers.  Apparently, they were able to trace the purchase of all 5 hijackers on the Boston plane to a single credit card--which yields an obvious accomplice.

                But, here’s the rub.  If federal agencies had most of the hijackers and accomplices already in their database of dangerous suspects, why is it that they were not under surveillance and wiretapping?   The FBI tapes thousands of innocent American phone conversations without a warrant according to telephone sources, searches through millions of emails via its Carnivore software, and echelon taps virtually everything going overseas. 

                Furthermore, if this large, complex and sophisticated operation was so sophisticated as to evade total scrutiny by the CIA, FBI, INS and NSA, why would the perpetrators be stupid enough to leave a car at Logan airport with telltale flight manuals inside?  Why not take a taxi?  This operation apparently took place over a 5 year period.  Considering the expense of training pilots they could certainly have afforded a taxi ride to the airport.  Tickets could have been purchased with cash at separate travel agencies.  Either someone is planting evidence to send the FBI off after low-level accomplices (to shield others), or the feds are bringing up predictable suspects that will point to Osama bin Laden--the scapegoat.  I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden, after dealing with the double-crossing CIA in his early years, is very anti-American, but I’m suspicious about the US rush to judgment on this issue. 



One of the main reasons why I do not believe the US government was in any way involved in this terrorist act directly--despite strong past evidence of agent provocateur activities in Waco and Oklahoma City--is that the government at all levels was obviously totally unprepared for what happened.  Every agency seemed to over-react and go into panic mode. The Secret Service went berserk in their reaction to the possibility of Pres. and Mrs. Bush being specifically targeted.  One agent guarding Mrs. Bush recounted to a relative that while moving Mrs. Bush from the halls of Congress to a secret underground bunker in the sub-basement of a Washington building, loaded guns were pointed a Congressional staff members, warning them to clear the way for the First Lady’s entourage--hardly a civil way to treat people on our own side who were trying to leave the Capitol quickly, as they had been instructed.  Amid heavy traffic, the caravan reached speeds of nearly 60 mph, and at a grid locked intersection, police cars leading the First Lady’s limo bashed other cars out of the way in order make way--all this without any specific evidence of an enemy lurking nearby to justify such rash actions on innocent citizens.  The President was flown from Miami to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana and then to the deep nuclear bunkers in Omaha, Nebraska before coming back to Washington.  Vice President Cheney was shipped off to bunkers in Camp David to keep him separate from the President (admittedly, a good precaution). 



The most draconian measure taken was when the FAA grounded all aircraft in the country and forced the closure of all airports, public and private.  I think there was good cause to halt all air commercial air traffic since it was obvious that the entire air security system had broken down, but they went way too far in keeping that lock-down on too long and applying it to small private aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) which don’t even require a flight plan.  It is patently unfair to penalize private commerce for the failure of the government to provide proper security in the commercial sector. 

                Look at the reality of US security.  The White House and Congress sit under restricted airspace that no one is supposed to fly over, but there exists virtually no military or police means to stop anyone who does.  There are usually only a few token National Guard aircraft on alert to patrol our borders--and only to play cat and mouse with Russian bombers who used to routinely violate US airspace.  The nation’s capitol used to be guarded by Nike missiles long ago, but they were removed in the 50’s, leaving the center of government virtually unprotected.  Until this week, there were no regular air patrols of armed aircraft ready to be called into action to protect critical infrastructure from attack.  Why all the talk about Americans having to give up their liberty to have security when our own military policies, which require no sacrifice of personal liberty, are not allowed to do their job? 



Suddenly America has a crisis.  It gets caught flat-footed and it over-reacts.  Jets are now roaming the skies on 24 hour patrols at great expense and with inadequate numbers of pilots and planes to continue this practice indefinitely.   The FAA continues to ban VFR flying by civilian aircraft.  Currently, everything that flies has to be under a flight plan, and the ATC system isn’t equipped to handle the added load of all the nation’s small planes.   I fear that this ban on free private flying may become permanent.

                Here’s the official list of new security restrictions mandated by the FAA:

·         Discontinued curbside check-in and off-airport checked baggage acceptance (a real inconvenience).

·         Access beyond security checkpoints limited to passengers with electronic or paper tickets, or with ticket confirmations (no more meeting passengers at the gate). 

·         Increased aircraft and airport security inspections (personal inspection of all bags).

·         Vehicles near airport terminals monitored closely.

·         No knives of any size on flights, or anything remotely resembling a sharp pointed object.


Security at the airports is being beefed up to the point that passengers must arrive 2 hours in advance of each flight just to make it through the detailed bag searches being mandated by the FAA.  One cannot carry scissors, small pocket knives, needle nose pliers, multi-tools, or perhaps even large fingernail clippers.  Billions of man hours are being lost simply because the federal government refuses to consider a simple, rational solution--that is politically incorrect.



In the 50’s and 60’s airline pilots would sometimes carry a revolver in their flight bag, albeit unknown to the company--kind of a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.  When the first hijackings occurred, all on flights going to Havana, pilots became more open about carrying weapons for protection.  The airlines, with government prodding, disarmed the pilots as a matter of formal policy.  Airlines wouldn’t even allow pilots to carry a non-lethal stun gun to subdue a hijacker.  The results were predictable when the word got out that airlines are a guaranteed “gun-free” zone.  Hijackings skyrocketed.  The FAA responded with metal detectors, which are OK, but they’re not foolproof, as we now know.  They never have been foolproof.   People can still hijack planes with even the threat of a bomb in their carry-on bag, because of airline policies directing flight crews to simply submit to hijackers.  Now, its a different ball game.  To submit to a hijacker is to die.  The only solution is to give crews the means to fight back.  

                I’m a pilot and I know the risks of firing a weapon in a pressurized airplane. While not as catastrophic as depicted in the movies, it does put a small hole in a pressurized skin.  Too many holes and the aircraft would have to descend.  There are special weapons and rounds that have been developed, however, that won’t penetrate an aircraft, but that will disable a human with blunt force.  Yes, there is some risk to passengers in any fight, but now the stakes are high.  With hijackers resorting to weak weapons like non-metallic knives, even a canister of pepper spray would be effective.   Most pilots would be very competent with pepper spray or a gun, especially with some additional training.  Many have former military experience.  I’m not suggesting arming flight attendants, however, since they mingle closely with passengers; there is too much danger of having their concealed weapon taken from them forcefully.  But with armed pilots and flight engineers behind a solid flight deck door, no plane could be commandeered as happened this week.

                Hiring armed Air Marshals is also a possibility but not as good an alternative as an armed flight crew.  There are thousands of flights per day that have to be protected and the cost to the airlines would be high.  Most likely the airlines would economize by using Air Marshalls only on occasional flights as a partial deterrence.  On the other hand, pilots could fill the role with no additional expense and are, I believe, capable of receiving training and acting as the ultimate guardians of the aircraft.  Indeed, after this week’s experience, they are probably anxious to do so for their own safety.  Above all, the deterrent affect of knowing that every aircraft has an armed crew would be dramatic.   Best of all, most of these new and costly air travel restrictions could be removed once again.   If you agree, let the FAA hear from you.     



There is something very dangerous and wrong about this new war fever being pushed upon the American people.  Taking advantage of a nation shocked and shaken after being "under attack," the Bush administration is showing every sign of marshaling a much larger military force than necessary to tackle the stated enemy--international terrorism.   Terrorism is a distributed and dispersed threat.  It is not concentrated in any single country.  There are perhaps two dozen significant terrorist training camps in the world, and any one of them can be neutralized by the judicious use of point air strikes and special forces.  There are hundreds of smaller terrorist cells in all western countries.  Some are too well hidden to be found, but many can be tackled by existing intelligence and police agencies.  The point I am making, as forcefully as possible, is that this problem does not have to be attacked with a Gulf War style mobilization--which is precisely what President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are building.   Something is very wrong with the growing beat of Republican war drums.  The 50,000 reservists being mobilized alone exceed by almost 10 times the number of known terrorists in the world.  There appears to be a hidden agenda behind these major war preparations--and fighting terrorism may well be only the excuse.

First, I want to establish that the official US response to this terrorist attack showing surprise, shock and indignation is, in part, a sham.  For years the US government has known and tracked every significant terrorist organization to raise its head, and yet has done little to impede their growth or target their weapons procurement lines (with the exception of one attack on a Libyan terrorist training camp in the 80's, and those camps were back in operation within months).   There is even evidence of US intelligence agencies turning a blind eye on terrorist preparations for just such an attack as happened this week. As Reed Irvine, writing for, reported,

  "In 1995, when one of his (Osama bin Laden’s) followers, Abdul Hakim Murad, was arrested in Manila, the Philippine authorities discovered a plot on his laptop computer that called for hijacking US airliners and bombing them or crashing them into targets, including the CIA. It was called Project Bojinka, and US officials were made aware of it at that time.  Murad admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission. He was extradited to the US and convicted, together with Ramzi Yousef, of participating in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That should have focused the attention of the CIA, FBI and NSA on any indications that bin Laden had not abandoned Project Bojinka. Reports that bin Laden was training pilots should have set alarm bells ringing. Only a few months ago an American Airlines crew had their uniforms and ID badges stolen from their hotel room in Rome. At the end of August, the airline alerted its employees to be on the lookout for impostors, but apparently no one saw this as a possible link to Project Bojinka. Airport security remained as lax as ever. Next came bin Laden's warning in mid-August that there would be 'an unprecedented attack on US interests.' With Bojinka in mind, the government should have taken the strongest possible measures to prevent hijackings."

So, why should this nation be surprised when it finally falls victim to an enemy the US has allowed to prosper?   It's partially because Americans always believe the half-truths about our government’s efforts to stamp out terrorism, or even drugs, for that matter.  Simply put, the people don't realize that the government both harbors terrorism and fights terrorism with two different sides of its police power.  It both facilitates drug importation (to fund black budget activities) and fights against drugs using competing portions of separate federal agencies.  Naturally, the public only sees the "good guy" operations.  But the dark side exists, and now predominates--under the surface.

Terrorists have had the motive, the hatred, the weapons and the will to attack the US for many years.  Indeed, we in this nation are very vulnerable.  So, why has America been spared for so many years? As I have pointed out before in these briefs, the only reason that Islamic terrorism has not struck before (with the exception of the failed bombing of the WTC in 1993) is that someone within the US who controls these terror networks has had a "hold" on any attacks on the US, accomplished by buying off terrorist groups with money, drugs and weapons.  Part of the reason for that hold was to reserve the US for "domestic terrorism" that could be fomented by the dark side of government to blacken the reputation of the American right wing.  That hold is now obviously gone as the government's ploy to make an enemy out of the right wing has run its course.  Accordingly, we can expect Tuesday's attack to be just the beginning.  Next, I expect to see terrorists use biological and chemical weapons, or even Stinger missiles left over from the Afghanistan war, to shoot down more airliners.   Again, we'll hear the same "wake-up call" that is being trumpeted by government this week.   Naturally, we will be unprepared for each new form of attack and as each new threat looms greater, some new and powerful legislative or military solutions will be promulgated--complete with more and more restrictions of liberty.

Sadly, the most ominous effect of this latest attack has been the negation of  all the distrust of government that had been properly building during 8 years of the Clinton corruption.  I am saddened by the abject submission of the American people to any edict the government attempted to justify in the wake of these attacks.  It amounted to a partial use of martial law and the government didn't even have to use the term to enforce its edicts.  Now President Bush has declared a National Emergency--without telling the people that former executive orders give the President unlimited powers in such situations.  He won't use them just yet--but people will get used to living under an "emergency" form of law, without realizing the full implications.   In future attacks people will already have become accustomed to seeing the government shut down any sector of the nation that is affected, just as we saw the virtual shutdown of the air traffic system--including private aircraft flying to private fields.  However, the price in billions of dollars lost to the economy will not go unnoticed as the recession deepens.

In the final analysis, I hold the US government in large part responsible for the events of September 11, because they have paid off, trained, swapped favors with, and even saved from destruction terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden and Yassir Arafat for decades.  If they didn't have intelligence specifically pointing to the use of hijacked airliners as weapons of destruction, they are at least guilty of having abetted this form of terror.

Conjecture abounds as to how, when and where the US intends to retaliate, but it's clear now that the US intends to make a BIG military statement to the world, and Osama bin Laden is to be the whipping boy.  Frankly, I'm not sure what the Bush CFR team is up to, but whatever it is, it is looking ominous.  My best guess is that they are going to take on Afghanistan with both air and ground troops.  This is a foolish quagmire that the Russians stepped into and you'd think the US would be smart enough not to go down that road.  But I suspect Bush may be promoting another agenda, which dovetails with the US/NATO intervention in the Balkans during the last decade--fomenting hatred of the US among the Eastern Bloc of Slavic peoples.  If NWO powers intend to use a world War to accelerate the transition to world government, they need to help the attackers (Russia and China) to justify the attack on the West.  US meddling and bullying around the world creates that hatred.  Obviously, the Islamic world is aligned with the Russians, and thus I suspect that in this upcoming "war" the Powers That Be may have decided to spread even more hatred of America among the Muslims by taking on Afghanistan, in what will appear to the Arab world as a giant unjustly terrorizing a helpless and poor land.

If the insiders at the National Security Council (who really call the shots for Bush) want an even larger war than Afghanistan would provide, they could go after the dozen or so terrorist camps in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, and Libya.  But this would surely usher in a major Middle East war, involving Israel.  It would also pit the US directly against Yassir Arafat and his Palestinians--which the US is continually trying to protect from ultimate annihilation.  I don't think the insiders want a full scale war in that region just yet.

Lastly, Bush could go after Iraq, like his father.  However, there doesn't seem to be any new evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in this terror attack.  Besides, attacking Iraq is old news and will hardly give a sense of "justice done" that Americans are so wistfully yearning for.

I originally suspected that all this "war preparation" was mere propaganda to justify the $40 billion Congress has agreed to fund this bottomless cause.  I have since concluded that these leaders are investing much more money and effort into this military buildup for simple sabre-rattling.  They really do intend to go to war with someone larger than Osama bin Laden.  A declaration of war, frankly, is meaningless unless you have an identifiable enemy to name as the object of the war.  A one-sided declaration of war in this case would probably serve to justify more US interventionist warmongering at home and abroad, rather than fight terrorism.  The secondary agenda is surely the consolidation of executive authority in the US.  The predictable reactionary legislation to beef up US war-making powers in the name of fighting terrorism is already at Congress' door.  The "Elimination of Terrorism Act" is being readied for a fast track treatment in both houses.  Lost in the rhetoric, of course, is the fact that no additional powers are necessary to fight terrorism.  Nevertheless, this bill gives the Executive Branch permanent powers to engage in warfare at any time without Congressional approval--an approach to which the founders of this nation would have vigorously rejected.

I am saddened to see how unscrutinizing people have become about the motives of government in a crisis.  The reason so many people in the US are vulnerable to manipulation by the media in this regard is that they don't compare what the government does in any battle with what they could be doing--what the alternatives are.  They only look at the government's story in isolation, as if its reasons stand alone and should be taken at face value.  To a certain extent the public can't judge what's real because most people don't have much experience working inside government.  Those of us who have been inside know how things work.  When things don't follow according to how they are supposed to, experienced people see red flags indicating something unusual is occurring.  There are red flags cropping up all over this excessive reaction to the events of September 11th.  Let's look at the inconsistencies in the government investigation and its various pronouncements.



There was absolutely no legal necessity for President Bush to declare a national emergency.  The government already has ample powers to prosecute a war on terrorism, if that were our government’s true intent.  On the contrary, the real motive of the President’s declaration on September 14th was to provide an umbrella justification for all future illegal acts by the US government during this crisis, by virtue of the tens of executive orders that go into effect upon any declaration of “national emergency.”  While I emphasize that the Bush administration is NOT openly taking advantage of this state of emergency to declare martial law (which would tend to wake up people to the alarming nature of government), the primary objective here is to slowly convince people that a declaration of national emergency is harmless and for the “good of society.”   Most Americans are unaware that we are in a state where the Constitution is suspended and the government has all power.  While the courts may act as if there is no suspension of the basic law of the land, should any person attempt to sue the government in court for a violation of his rights during this emergency, he would soon find the courts would declare all suits void because of government’s special powers under a declared national emergency. 


OCT 12, 2001



(I am indebted to the research of Dr. Stan Montieth for many of these findings.  Hear his radio broadcasts at or order his September Radio Liberty Report and other fine materials at 1-800-544-8927.)


1.  Israeli Mossad warned the US a week in advance

Numerous sources in Jerusalem and the UK published reports from Israel that the Mossad had sent a major warning to the CIA a week prior to the 9/11 terror attack that “large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.”  The CIA claims they get these all the time and didn’t take it seriously.  Now the CIA is issuing daily warnings and they expect us to take them seriously!


2. The FBI was tracking at least two of the terrorists

According to the LA Times, the FBI was tracking at least two of the hijackers prior to the event and failed to notify airlines.  If the names of Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi had been passed to the airlines, they would not have been able to buy tickets on that fateful day.


3.  Financial speculators shorted airline stocks before the crash

The New York Times reported the findings of Ernest Welteke (German Bundesbank) that “There have been fundamental movements in these markets (airline stocks) and the oil price rise just ahead of the attacks is otherwise inexplicable.”   The US government claims to be investigating who placed these massive short positions, but have not reported any findings.  Experts say it would take less than 1 hour to track these transactions down. Why the silence?


4. Certain VIPs were warned against travel

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Mayor Brown was called eight hours before the attack and warned that “Americans should be cautious in their travel.” (I consider this a general warning only since none of the planes involved were on the West Coast).  Author Salman Rushdie (who has written anti-Islamic works) was warned by the FAA on Sept. 3 not to fly to Canada and the US, according to the London Times. 


5.  Certain military bases and overseas embassies were put on high alert

The Defense Language Institute in Monterey was put on alert prior to the attacks, as well as some overseas embassies and military bases.  This is not definitive evidence, as there are other reasons for going on alert, but one has to question why the public was not warned. 


6.  CIA had advance warning of a plot to destroy buildings with hijacked airliners

I reported previously on Project Bojinka--the code name of a terrorist plot uncovered in the Philippines (where there are numerous Islamic terrorist activities).  The CIA failed to surveil any fight schools in anticipation of this threat.


7. Suppression of Flight School warnings by higher authority in the FBI

According to wire services, FBI agents in Minneapolis, MN arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, an Algerian with French citizenship, on immigration charges.  He was arrested after a tip from a local flight school that reported that the suspect wanted to be trained in flying a large jet aircraft, but said that he did not want to take the time to learn how to take off or land.  The FBI knew he was a terrorist on French watch lists, but refused to pursue the case or issue search warrants on orders from higher authority, according to Phil Brennan of (Oct 8, 2001) and David Schippers (see below).


8. David Schippers’ Evidence--Government suppression of intelligence:

David Schippers was the former Democratic Chicago lawyer brought in by the Republicans to impeach Clinton.  He wrote the book Sellout afterwards, which documented his experience and detailed how the Republican leadership sabotaged the impeachment to help get Clinton off.  He was particularly incensed that they refused to let him present the more damaging evidence about Clinton’s treasonous collusion with China.  The following are excerpts from his interview with Alex Jones of   Alex Jones (AJ) begins by asking Schippers (DS) how his involvement in these charges of government prior knowledge of terrorism began.  He explains that it surfaced as he received information about the various “john doe” accomplices to Timothy McVeigh who were of Middle Eastern origin and who appeared to have past links to Iraq and Osama bin Laden.


Even though I have found the evidence pointing to such accomplices absolutely compelling and accurate, I still think it is improper to proceed to the all-to-obvious conclusion that the OKC bombing was strictly an Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden act of terrorism.  With all of bin Laden’s prior dealings with the CIA, combined with the evidence of non-Middle Eastern/CIA agent provocateur involvement (Andreas Strassmeier of Elohim City) the trail of collusion and direction still points to our own government.  Either the dark side of government agencies were directly involved in the explosion, or at least, they knew it was going to happen and let it happen.  As to the latest acts of terrorism, the evidence is beginning to indicate that government knew more about the possibility of attack of 9/11 than they are admitting.  Here are some excerpts of the Schippers interview with my comments in [brackets]:


DS: ...The woman who is a former investigative reporter down in Oklahoma City [Jayna Davis, who I mentioned in prior WABs] ...told me that she had information indicating a middle eastern connection...So she and her husband flew up to Chicago and brought a mass of information - I mean affidavits, all kinds of things.

AJ: And we've had Col. Craig Roberts, [Army Lt Col. Craig Roberts (Ret), who wrote “The Medussa File,” a compilation of evidence on illegal government operations] who was a detective working the case on this show many times, a month before attack, predicting one was imminent. He has all that same information. They actually arrested some of these guys and the Justice Dept. in 1995 said to release them.

DS: That's right - and the word’s out today that they [FBI] are not even allowed to touch them, the Oklahoma City police are not allowed to touch these people. And from what I'm understanding, they are up to something again in
Oklahoma City. I don't know what it is or what their target is but these same people are at it again. The terrible thing here else (sic)--something that few people know--that there was a warning sent out.  Have you ever heard of
Yossef Bodansky? [Middle Eastern Terrorist expert and head of unofficial Congressional Task Force on Terrorism]

AJ: Yes.

DA: He is the guy that wrote the book about Bin Laden. He was hooked up with some Congressional leaders in the House - kind of an unofficial, for lack of a better word, a strike force, a task force on terrorism. They sent out a warning on February 19, 1995, saying there was going to be a massive attack by the terrorists in the heartland of the United States and it was going to be a federal facility. Everybody ignored it. By the way, I have seen that warning...there was in that warning that there was going to be a massive attack in Washington - it took them six years to do it. The targets were going to be Washington, the White House and the Capitol Building. - And that they were going to use airliners to attack them.

AJ: Now later you got it from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota [whistleblowers who are under threat by their own agency leaders] that there was going to an attack on lower Manhattan.

DS: Yea - and that's what started me calling. I started calling out there. First of all, I tried to see if I could get a Congressman to go to bat for me and at least bring these people out there and listen to them. I sent them information and nobody cared. It was always, "We'll get back to you," "we'll get back to you."  Then I reached out and tried to get to the Attorney General, when finally we got an attorney general in there that I would be willing to talk to [Ashcroft].  And, again, I used people who were personal friends of John Ashcroft to try to get him. One of them called me back and said, "All right, I have talked to him. He will call you tomorrow morning." This was like a month before the bombing. The next morning I got a call. It wasn't from Ashcroft. It was from somebody in the Justice Department.


AJ: One of his handlers.

DS: Yea, and I started telling him the situation and he said, "You know we don't start our investigations at the top" [inferring that he wasn’t going to let him talk to Ashcroft about it]. I said I would like to talk to the Attorney General because this is vital. He said, "We don't start our investigations at the top. Let me look into this and I will get back to you." As I sit here today, I have never heard from him.

AJ: Again, David Schippers, you are big in Washington, you were the top lawyer that got Clinton impeached, you are highly respected, you know the Senators, the Congressmen. You're calling up. You've got these FBI agents
and others feeding you this information. They're being pulled off the cases, they're angry. That's even been in the news now, from Minnesota and Florida and Illinois. They know what's going to happen. The Sudanese in '96 and '98 tried to arrest Bin Laden for Clinton, tried to give us the names of Al Qaeda, Clinton wouldn't take it.

DS: Didn't want any part of it.

AJ: Wouldn't touch it. So we've got all this developing. We've got police officers and FBI on the ground who know who bombed Oklahoma City. They've got them in custody with blue jogging suits and bomb-making
components. They are ordered to release them...Why is this happening?

DS: I'll tell you something. This is one of the things that, to me, it is almost inconceivable, inconceivable that with the knowledge they had that they would turn their back. Just assume that they had investigated and
gone in after the Oklahoma City bombing, as they are going now. There never would have been an attack on the Trade Towers. If they had done, 5 to 6 years ago what they are doing now, they probably would have had Bin
Laden and that gang all stopped by now. But, I don't know, as a human being, as a former prosecutor, as a lawyer and a guy who represents police and agents all over the United States, it is inconceivable to me that those
bureaucrats in Washington would turn their back on the obvious for their own purposes. [That’s the trouble with most Americans.  It is so hard to conceive of a conspiracy of power so strong and with such evil purposes that they would commit or allow these kinds of terror events to happen (in order to promote a secret globalist agenda), that they cannot bring themselves to believe it or act upon it]. 

AJ: Now you say, from your sources, I know you represent a bunch of FBI agents who are hopping mad, you probably can't talk about the specifics, you say you are representing them. Are they getting ready to sue or something?

DS: Well they are hoping to, but what do you sue for? What I'm trying to do is get the people in Washington - you see these agents can't come out. The only information that I have is information that is public knowledge. They can't tell me anything that is confidential or anything that is secret, or anything like that [whistleblower laws only allow these agents to take their grievances up the chain of command--to the very people who are always part of the problem.  Top echelon people in the CIA and the FBI are the ones working for the dark side of government; thus truth cannot emerge under existing law]. I'm talking about what is public knowledge [which is rarely sufficient to prosecute] and these guys can't say anything unless they are subpoenaed.

AJ: That's why you want to get into a court. [Technically, they would then be allowed to reveal things their bosses have classified as secret, as long as the court sealed the record--so the public can’t know.]

DS: I don't want to get into a court. [Schippers doesn’t know that all top judges are controlled.  Trial and appellate judges, in collusion with federal prosecutors, have demonstrated a consistent pattern of never allowing whistleblowers to give evidence of government collusion--at least when the evidence leads to the top.] I want to get them into the intelligence committee. I want to get them to talk to the Attorney General, to Gov. Ridge, to General Downing [Gen (ret) Wayne Downing, author of the DOD report on the terror bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia] or to somebody who has the ability or the authority to go to the FBI bureaucrats and say "Butt out!" --we are going to do this right. [This is very naive of Schippers.  He doesn’t realize that all of  those top leaders are co-opted by the Powers That Be (PTB)--even if a few may be nice people apart from their government service.  He obviously--perhaps incredibly--hasn’t been able to project the pattern of stonewalling he has already experienced in Congressional committees and the impeachment process to draw the inevitable conclusions about dark-side control of government--but he’s getting there].  


There is much more to this interview than I am able to cover.  It is a blockbuster.  There are some exaggerations and mistaken conclusions, but it is must reading.  For the full text go to   The exact URL is (


NOV 23, 2001



I never imagined that any US administration could surpass the egregious and treasonous acts of the Clinton administration. However, the Bush administration has not only failed to stop, overturn or dismantle any of the significant evil acts of the former administration, but it is continuing the cover-up of illegal government activities: e.g., surveillance without a warrant, withholding of crucial intelligence regarding national defense threats, corruption of evidence in ongoing investigations, money laundering, collusion with judges to imprison whistleblowers, and massive drug control and importation schemes to finance black budget operations. While most Bush administration advisors claim conservative leanings, in reality all belong to the same internationalist group (Council on Foreign Relations) to which advisors in previous administrations have belonged. This Council is dedicated to subtly eroding American sovereignty and even encouraging its demise, an objective hardly in line with its members’ professed dedication to American values.

                Why is the Bush administration more dangerous than the lawless corruption of the Clinton-Reno days? Simply because the current administration does it under the cover of an even bigger lie: that what they do is out of genuine love of country, duty to God, patriotism, and love of the Constitution. In short they claim to be God-fearing, constitutional conservatives, and nothing could be further from the truth. Each of these national leaders, including Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Ashcroft have agreed to follow a control agenda formulated by others who do not respect God, nor the Constitution, nor national sovereignty. This administration is dangerous because its lies are believable. Clinton’s lies were not.

                The Bush administration is rapidly undermining many American constitutional rights, in the oft-repeated name of fighting terrorism. Local police forces are being corrupted into serving as federalized police under a variety of circumstances. Indeed, the administration is now openly talking about instituting a federal police force, under the aegis of "increased coordination." Bush all too willingly signed legislation federalizing airport security workers, even though he claimed to oppose it. The US is now in a continuous state of emergency, which justifies tremendous expansions of federal powers. Though Bush ostensibly champions religious liberty, the Justice Department has failed to intervene in the ongoing oppression of certain fundamentalist Christian churches in their battles with the IRS over improper tax control of churches. Verbiage is cheap and goes a long way toward keeping Christians thinking that they have one of their own in the White House. It’s hard for most people to detect a lie when the person is telling them what they want to hear.

                Speaking of lies, this administration is engaging in cover-ups that will exceed the Clinton record. Not only has Attorney General Ashcroft refused to prosecute any of the Clinton-Reno crimes, he has refused to even meet with those who have the evidence, in particular Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch and former Clinton impeachment prosecutor David Schippers, who is representing FBI agents who have evidence of official Justice Department suppression of evidence in the OKC bombing. There are other would-be whistle blowers who are also having no luck with justice. No conservative with crucial evidence on government wrongdoing has been able to gain meaningful access to the White House or the Justice Department in this, the supposed paragon of all conservative administrations.

                The Bush administration is also rapidly undermining our defense against strategic threats (Russia and China) while claiming to be building up our military forces. In fact, we are wasting our military stores in an interventionist war in Afghanistan that only superficially has anything to do with terrorism, and that primarily serves US and Russian oil interests and increases the number of countries that hate America. While a billion dollars a month goes down the drain in this war, the money we need to counter the more dangerous long term threats continues to diminish. Despite the propaganda, it isn’t the tiny "rogue nations" with cobbled-together, second-rate weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that are the big threat--it’s the two predator nations in the world that provide those rogue states with weapons and material on an ongoing basis. Not only do Russia and China continue to finance, train and feed terrorism (albeit through client states), but both of these nations are also building for a much larger future world war with first-rate, high tech WMD--with the potential of mass delivery systems.

                Worse, this administration is continuing the pattern followed by all US governments since Roosevelt of assisting the transfers to Russia and China of dangerous military technology --including technology enhancing their delivery capability. The administration also continues to prohibit intelligence agencies from alerting the American public to the continuous pattern of Russian cheating on all NBC weapons treaties. It is especially telling that Russia never allows for meaningful verification of disarmament. While some disarmament is, indeed, going on (we know this because US corporations are being paid by US taxpayers to dismantle a variety of older Russian arms), US inspectors are never allowed to inspect the newest secret Russian military production facilities, nor enter the huge underground factory and defense complexes Russia is building in the Ural Mountains. Meanwhile, the US chastises Russia and China verbally for continual violations of anti-proliferation treaties--but never imposes meaningful sanctions.

                As George W. Bush ended a 3-day summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin, he waxed eloquent about engaging in more unilateral disarmament. Bush is proposing to cut America’s nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds--something Clinton wanted to do but couldn’t get away with. Russia kept making all the sounds about reciprocating, but carefully avoided committing to hard numbers. With great bravado, Bush displayed his magnanimity by committing the US to proceed anyway. What the American public doesn’t realize is that usually there are secret protocols and agreements signed during these summits which determine future foreign policy. Years later, word of these agreements (like Kennedy’s secret agreement during the Cuban missile crisis to not attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro) leaks out and threatens to undermine the public’s confidence in government. President Bush is now moving to make sure this danger of future exposure is minimized.

                George W. Bush signed another executive order that speaks volumes about his involvement in the systematic denial to the American public of any information that might point to an overarching global conspiracy. He modified the law on access to Presidential papers to exclude anything former presidents or their families may wish to keep hidden from public view--most importantly conversations between the President and his lawyers and advisors which would reveal much about how establishment controllers direct the presidency. Mind you, these are not purely private records the president is trying to protect , but matters of government actions the public has a right to know about. John Dean, the former White House Council who blew the whistle on Richard Nixon, wrote the following cogent analysis on this order, which merits an extensive quote:

                "On November 1, President George W. Bush signed his latest effort to govern by secrecy - Executive Order 13233. The Order ends 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make Presidential papers and records publicly available. In issuing the Order, the President has pushed his lawmaking powers beyond their limits. As President watchers know, we have a President who likes secrecy. He has hired only tested leak-proof and loyal staffers, effectively sealing the Bush White House. He has had his records as the Governor of Texas hidden, shipping them off to his father's Presidential library, where they are inaccessible. He has stiffed the Congressional requests for information about how he developed his energy policy--refusing to respond...not since Richard Nixon went to work in the Oval Office has there been as concentrated an effort to keep the real work of a President hidden, showing the public only a scripted President, as now.

                "While this effort was evident before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the events of that day have become the justification for even greater secrecy. The mystical veil of 'national security' has been cast over much of the Bush administration. There were the secret arrests of terror-related suspects (currently over 1000 publicly unknown people). There was the expansion of the wiretap granting powers of a secret federal court hidden within the Department of Justice. There was, and continues to be, an apparent policy of precluding news organizations and congressional leaders from access to anything other than managed and generic news about the war in Afghanistan.

                "The Executive Order suggests that President Bush not only does not want Americans to know what he is doing, but he also does not want to worry that historians and others will someday find out. Certainly that is the implicit message in his new effort to preclude public access to Presidential papers--his, and those of all Presidents since the Reagan-Bush administration. There is, however, no justification whatsoever for this latest effort to hide the work of past, present, and future Presidents. [Dean is very wrong here. There must be some powerful reasons why or Bush wouldn’t go to all the trouble to issue an executive order about it. Some people are very much afraid there are secrets that will leak out, even years later]

                "There has been some confusion about the meaning of the President's actions in addressing Presidential papers. He has not repealed the existing law, as some have asserted, because he does not have that power. But he has sought to significantly modify the law, and made its procedures far more complex, cumbersome and restrictive. In doing so, he has exceeded his executive powers under the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

                "White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has tried, unsuccessfully, to spin Executive Order 13233 as doing nothing more than implementing the existing law, but in fact, the Order does much more. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when pressed during his briefing, Mr. Fleischer dodged the tough questions, or said "that's a matter for the lawyers." Fleischer contention that the Order is innocuous would not hold up under close scrutiny, and so he avoided that scrutiny.

                "Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, virtually all of a former President's records are to be made publicly available by the Archivist twelve years after that President leaves office. There are narrow exceptions for papers that still must be withheld for national security reasons. [not narrow at all since the courts almost always back any government assertion of secrecy, however flimsy] But the 1978 statute specifically states that among the material to be released by the Archives twelve years after a President leaves office are his confidential and private communications with his advisers (White House staff and Cabinet Departments). The existing law does not provide an exception for withholding "attorney-client" or "attorney work product" materials.

                "Through Executive Order 13233, President Bush has sought to re-interpret the 1978 law. To put it briefly, the Order adds and enumerates privileges upon which a former or incumbent President can block release of a former President's materials....Bush's Executive Order makes clear that he reads the law as entitling a former or incumbent President to assert a laundry list of privileges: the state secrets or national security privilege; the communications with advisors privilege, the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and the deliberative process privilege.

                "...the most remarkable change the Executive Order effects is that it gives not just a President, but also a Vice President, the power to invoke executive privilege over his papers. [VP Cheney, who I believe is one of the real powers behind the control of George W. Bush, must not want his communications with the President made public.] The Presidential Records Act includes Vice Presidential records. But it does not give a former Vice President the right to invoke executive privilege - for Congress does not have the power to do so. Indeed, under the Constitution, the executive privilege is unique to the President. Bush's Order is nothing less than absurd in purporting to grant the power to invoke this privilege to the Vice President, (and may only feed suspicion that Dick Cheney's role is more Presidential than may be appropriate to his office).

                "What appears to have provoked President Bush's action is the fact that some 68,000 documents from the Reagan presidency were waiting at the White House when Bush arrived, ready for release by the National Archives. These documents passed the twelve-year deadline for public release on January 12, 2001, but their release has been stalled by the Bush White House until now. The documents are believed to contain records that Papa Bush, as Reagan's Vice President, is not happy to have made public. They also contain papers of others now working for Bush, who might be embarrassed by their release. [Reagan was very much under the control of his advisors and the Powers That Be do not want that information public].

                "More troubling than the Order's throwing a monkey wrench into the process of releasing Presidential papers, however, is the President's penchant for secrecy. Secrecy provokes the question of what is being hidden and why. If President Bush continues with his Nixon-style secrecy, I suspect voters will give him a Nixon-style vote of no confidence come 2004. While secrecy is necessary to fight a war, it is not necessary to run the country. I can assure you from firsthand experience that a President acting secretly usually does not have the best interest of Americans in mind. It is his own personal interest that is on his mind instead. [or in this case, the interests of a group controlling the American government that must remain secret.]

                "The Bush administration would do well to remember the admonition of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his report on government secrecy: ‘Behind closed doors, there is no guarantee that the most basic of individual freedoms will be preserved. And as we enter the 21st Century, the great fear we have for our democracy is the enveloping culture of government secrecy and the corresponding distrust of government that follows.’ " [End of Dean quote--and well said]


NOV 30, 2001



Reuters of Germany posted the following:  “The anthrax attacks in the United States were probably the work of a member of a US biological warfare program, the magazine of environment pressure group Greenpeace Germany reported Wednesday. The magazine said its article was based on information from a US delegation source at the UN biological weapons conference in Geneva that began last week.  ‘The US delegation believe it is an inside job. Their members also have more information than has been made public,’ Kirsten Brodde, a reporter for the magazine, told Reuters. The magazine said: ‘It seems the attacker ... wanted to force through an increase in the budget for US research on biological weapons.’”

                Some of the anthrax cases do show evidence of being planted by government:  1) Congress was targeted specifically at times when it was considering legislation on terrorism (giving government new and draconian powers to invade anyone’s privacy without a warrant).  Until the anthrax episodes, and there had been no legitimate terrorism as a follow-up to the 9/11 attacks to induce Congress to pass such an egregious attack on constitutional rights.  2) Government agents have the easiest access to this type of military-produced, inhalatory anthrax.  3) The contaminated letter received at the Brentwood facility in Washington DC was covered with powder on the outside of the envelop and yet there was no trail of anthrax illness or death along the supposed chain of transmission.  Surely the postal workers who collected the letter at the point of mailing as well as those who trucked it to Washington would have been exposed.  Absence of any contamination trail outside Brentwood is good evidence the letter was planted directly inside Brentwood by a government insider.  4) If the anthrax attack was carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists, why target liberal Congressmen and two liberal news anchors who are pro-Palestinian?   Real terrorists would have been much more likely to have dropped anthrax letters indiscriminately around the nation to initiate much more panic and overwhelm the medical infrastructure. 

                I do not buy the argument planted by the US bio-weapons delegation in Geneva and promulgated by Greenpeace Germany--that some government employee wanted to induce more research money for biological weapons research.  These secret government operations have nearly unlimited secret budgets anyway.  Open budget allocations wouldn’t affect any particular employee’s salary one way or the other.  A loyal employee isn’t going to risk killing hundreds of people over something that won’t even benefit him--unless he is ordered to do so by higher authority.  This is typical of the way of thinking in leftist organizations like Greenpeace--that all things evil in Capitalism or in American government center around money (which is only partly true).

                If the anthrax scare is a government induced panic, it would more likely be geared towards inducing support for more government power--which has certainly been the primary result.  Indeed, there may be more plantings of biological agents (smallpox, etc.) because whoever benefits isn’t through with increasing government power.  The upcoming bill on the National Health Act promises to be much worse--including power to quarantine, sanction or otherwise coerce people into a forced vaccination program against their will.  Vaccines are not only very dangerous to the immune system, but they are a huge money-maker for insider-connected drug companies who are granted complete immunity by government from repercussions over any adverse reactions experienced by the consumer.   Not only does government suppress knowledge of adverse reactions, but no one affected is allowed to sue the government or the manufacturer for death and injurious effects.

                Beware also of running out and loading up on Cipro as an antibiotic preventative against anthrax.  This broad based anti-biotic has a long history of serious and damaging side-effects, including chronic neural disorders.  Never take antibiotics as a preventative.  Load up instead on natural immune system boosters such as Vitamin C, garlic, and certain herbal formulas.  Of course, for these to be effective you must also eat moderately, and cut out all junk food and drink (which you should do anyway).


DEC 7, 2001



When I read the history of insider-connected corporations like Enron, or Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), or Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)--all of which collapse sooner or later, I’m amazed at the recklessness they demonstrate in their financial affairs.  These corporations are havens for the rich and powerful.  They generate millions in funds for black government operations, political payoffs, bribery, campaign contributions, and personal enrichment for insiders moving in and out of government service.  But perhaps we should not be surprised.  It is the fact that they have such confidence in the power of their connections in government that allows them to be so reckless.  Fortunately, for conspiracy watchers, the subsequent cover-ups and protection of the principles within these corporations helps build a map of interconnected relationships within the dark side of public-private partnerships. 

                Enron corporation was America’s largest single broker of oil, gas and electricity supplies.  It both created and controlled the lion’s share of the highly leveraged energy exchange markets in the last decade.  It reaped billions in windfall profits from price manipulations in electricity last year in the wake of the California power debacle.  Its mysterious sources of funding seemed so inexhaustible that market analysts consistently downplayed or disregarded the warning signs of its demise.  This is typical, by the way, within establishment investment circles.  The word gets out that certain corporations are untouchable, protected, favored, etc., and they get carte blanche treatment, with or without merit.  Enron’s fall (Enron stock dropped from $84 to $0.26 in less than a year) was big enough to send shock waves throughout the commodity and stock markets, just as LTCM’s collapse did to the financial markets. 

                Enron’s filing for bankruptcy was particularly galling to creditors when it was learned this week that the company paid out $55 million in bonuses to 500 key individuals just prior to filing.  That’s an average of $110,000 per person.  In reality, a handful got millions and a few hundred others were thrown in the pot, receiving smaller amounts, just to make it look more legitimate.  Top executives were also allowed to unload millions in Enron stock while employees were not.   Like BCCI, the insiders stripped the corporation of its last liquid cash assets and paid off the important people, then left the bones to the public and private investors.  As Rodney Stich has pointed out in his excellent chronicle on dark-side government operations, Defrauding America (, the federal bankruptcy system is corrupt in key areas of the country, and systematically loots assets in bankruptcy proceedings by a system of kickbacks between interconnected judges and law firms serving the bankruptcy courts.  It comes as little surprise that Enron’s attorneys have filed for change of venue for the bankruptcy proceedings to the Houston area, one such haven of corruption.

                While a book could be written on insider connections to Enron, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been up to their eyebrows in Enron dealings.  In the 1980’s the junior Bush played a roll in twisting Argentina’s arm to allow Enron to undercut all other bidders in a pipeline deal to deliver Argentine gas supplies to Chile.  Enron bid a mere 20% of the going rate and mysteriously got the bid.--with no prior experience in Latin America.  When gas prices fell, Enron sold out to a subsidiary company partly controlled by former NSA director Brent Scowcroft--crony of Henry Kissinger and President George Bush Sr.  Former Sec. of the Treasury James Baker has been a big player in Enron.  Sen. Phil Gramm’s wife was a director of Enron....and the list goes on and on.  For a more detailed overview check out this article by John Hoefle:


DEC 28, 2001


Time’s editorial staff claimed they agonized for hours about whether to name Osama bin Laden as Man of the Year, owing to the dubious tradition of always naming the man, good or evil, who had the greatest impact on the news. All the world’s worst dictators have been honored in this way thanks to this problematic criteria, and Osama bin Laden was a virtual shoe-in for this year’s honor. Personally, I disagree with the practice of ever calling a person "man of the year" unless he has redeeming value. But that aside, Time justified their break from tradition by narrowing the criteria to exclude bin Laden. Apparently, bin Laden didn’t meet their revised criteria as a man "larger than life" with a broad following. Hogwash. Despite the ambiguity of the term "larger than life", bin Laden has a following much bigger than Adolph Hitler ever had.

                But Time Magazine has another, more secretive agenda that underlies each year’s selection--the promotion of someone whose person or cause has some relationship to NWO intended goals or conflicts. In this case, I suspect they chose NY Mayor Rudolph Giuliani because the insiders have big plans for him in the future of American politics. Giuliani was far less influential and prominent than President Bush, so they must be wanting to promote him in a big way to name him "Man of the Year." I think they are setting Giuliani up for a run at the governorship of NY and then the presidency. Watch for it.



In all major conspiratorial events, evidence related to the event continues to surface over time, and if the government is involved, it demonstrates its collusion by the degree to which it attempts to suppress and cover up the emerging evidence. As in the JFK assassination and the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, we are beginning to see the same pattern of obfuscation, denial, and cover-up by federal agencies in the September 11th tragedy--especially by the FBI, the military, and the FAA.

                Some of the biggest questions about the events of 9/11 center around the hijacking of the various airliners: how the pilots reacted, and what actions the government took via the military to impede the results. Pilots have instant access to Air Traffic Control (ATC) with a push of a button on the control yoke. In contrast, it takes time for a hijacker to take over the cabin and then deal with the pilots who are in a separate compartment behind a locked aluminum sliding door. We know, by FAA admission, that in each and every case the pilots had time to communicate their emergency to ATC. In at least two cases the pilots were able to change the transponder code to 7700 for "emergency in progress" before the hijackers took control and switched off the transponder. The FAA and US military have standing orders and written procedures on how to intercept and deal with aircraft hijackings.

                The FAA has said that it alerted military authorities in Colorado at the first signs of a hijacking. Yet we know that a few aircraft were scrambled and that all others were grounded and prohibited from reacting according to standing procedures. One of my subscribers is friends with an air traffic controller at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. His friend confided to him that "he was on duty at the time of the crashes into the towers. They got a phone call in between the first and second 'hit'. His superior told him that ‘NO take-off's were permitted ... NONE at all.’" This was too early to be a direct result of shutting down all flights nationwide--which only affected private and commercial flights--not military. Here we have evidence of the US military acting in direct opposition to national defense--acting on orders from above. These orders couldn’t have come from Bush, who was engaged at an elementary school, so higher military officials were either taking orders from someone else at the White House or acting on predetermined orders.

                I find it also very strange that flight data and voice recorders from all the 9/11 crashes except Flight 93 (which crashed or was shot down over Pennsylvania) have been declared not found, destroyed, or unreadable. These declarations are without precedent in aviation accident history, and especially preposterous when we consider that the FBI claims to have found letters, passports and other fragile documents belonging to the supposed Arab hijackers amidst the tons of rubble of the WTC--and yet they couldn’t find crash hardened data recorders. The data and voice recorders are designed to survive both the crash and resulting fire and almost always do. Why not this time?

                Now the FBI tells us they will not be releasing the lone cockpit voice recorder that survived Flight 93 because "it would be too traumatic for the surviving families." What could be more traumatic that what they already know? This is just another blatant excuse to withhold even more information about the tragedies. There has to be a good reason why the FBI refuses to release this voice recorder, and I think it has to do with the fact that it may not have been a hijacking at all that took down this aircraft.

                It is becoming evident that Flight 93 was shot down by an unmarked white jet that was seen intercepting Flight 93 and following it down as it crashed. The jet was witnessed in detail by several people on the ground. One military witness claims he heard a missile being fired. In addition, the main body of the engine of Flight 93 was found miles from the main wreckage site, with damage comparable to that which a heat seeking missile would do to an airliner. There were also personal papers, and articles of clothing from the plane found miles from the crash. The government is now saying these were carried up into the air by the crash fireball--but no such occurrence has happened in other crashes. The existing body of evidence is found at on a website at The author of the website doesn’t draw any conclusions except that Flight 93 didn’t go down as the public has been told and that the government knows why and isn’t telling.




Jan 19, 2001



The media has led us to believe that Jonathan Pollard stole rooms full of America’s sensitive military secrets and passed them to Israel and thereby compromised US security.  This is a gross exaggeration, if not an outright lie.  First. no secrets about US agent identities, codes, or operational plans were ever transferred to Israel.  Second, Pollard did not have access to military technology secrets, so that was not an issue.  Third, Pollard only transferred to Israel secret US documents about direct regional threats to Israel that Israel was already entitled to.

Pollard worked for US Naval Intelligence in 1983 and 1984.  During the normal course of his work on classified documents, he became aware of secret US intercepts and spy photographs showing that Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya were developing new and additional nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities and that the prime target for such weapons was Israel. In addition, the US had ample information about ongoing ballistic missile programs in these same countries as a means of delivery.  As a Jew, Pollard was also very much aware of the 1983 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Israel where both sides had mutually agreed  to share intelligence information with each other when it was relevant to the security of either nation.  This relationship didn’t start in 1983, however.  It was just formalizing what had been going on for years.  Pollard claims he brought to the attention of his superiors not only the intelligence data pointing to these threats to Israel but the legal obligation to share this with Israel.   Pollard says his superiors were aware of the information, but told him to “mind his own business” and that Israel “didn’t need to know.”  Even when he went higher up the chain of command, he found a systematic refusal to lift this secret embargo against the flow of intelligence to Israel.   Pollard claims he then took matters into his own hands and began feeding information directly to Israel--information that was not damaging to US security.

Now, I suspect there is more to this than Pollard claims.  He was probably recruited to work for Israel as a spy even before he started work for Naval Intelligence.   Israel has accepted responsibility for Pollard as an agent, without saying whether he came to them after observing the US violation of the MOU or whether he was recruited before.  In my opinion its not a significant point.  I think Israel has considerable justification for not trusting our government and wanting to have inside information on US intentions.  Few of our allies can afford to trust the US to protect their interests anymore, given the all too consistent history of betrayal that our government has relative to its anti-Communist allies.  It is common knowledge that the US government spies on all its allies and that, in return, allies have to spy on the US.  France does it, Britain does it, Taiwan does it and Israel does it.  Israel has a long experience with US double dealing.  During and after every war Israel has engaged in, the US has attempted to control the flow of arms, intelligence, and outcome to insure Israel doesn’t get strong enough to be independent of the global powers. 

Sadly, Pollard was too uninitiated in “realpolitik”  to understand that the US had globalist interests aimed at undermining Israeli security, beyond and sometimes at variance with US security interests.  He was running up against that agenda and got slapped with a life prison sentence far in excess of what was warranted here. Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.  There was no trial due to a plea bargain agreement.  But just before sentencing, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger walked in and gave a thick classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it he falsely accused Pollard of treason (treason can only be charged in aiding an enemy in time of declared war) and of compromising secret codes even though Pollard did not have access to such information. Weinberger demanded a life sentence in clear violation of the plea agreement.  This is typical of how dark-side operations take place.  A judge gets a call or visit from a known higher power whose authority he doesn’t dare question.  When a judges violate the rules and precedents of their own courts, they are almost always acting under control of the Powers That Be (PTB).

 No one, except Pollard, has ever been sentenced to life imprisonment for passing classified information to an ally. The average sentence for this type of violation is only two to four years. Pollard’s appeal was rejected on technical grounds (the typical “late filing” excuse that courts use to avoid showing their hand in a government “take down”).   They never ruled on the substance because they couldn’t justify what they wanted to sustain.  The one dissenting appellate judge, Stephen Williams, called the case “a complete and gross miscarriage of justice.”  But the US didn’t care.  It was giving a strong message to other US agents who may have sympathies either to Israel or their own constitutional republic not to contemplate blowing the whistle on US duplicity and betrayal.

There is still more.  Pollard couldn’t even trust Israel to not sell him out.  When Pollard initially fled to the Israeli Embassy for asylum, the Israeli government accepted him.   Unfortunately Pollard didn’t know that within minutes, the US government (our “loyal” Reagan administration) was on the phone to Israel twisting arms.  They promised to go easy on Pollard if Israel would turn him over for prosecution.  The next day Pollard was forced out into the waiting arms of US marshals.    It’s my analysis that Pollard’s plea agreement was violated and he was given the life sentence in order for the US to have a permanent hostage or negotiating lever against the Israeli government.   Since 1987, when Pollard was arrested, Israeli sources tell me that the US government has continued to use Pollard’s release as an inducement to gain further concessions from Israel.   No less than 3 agreements have been made to release Pollard if Israel would agree to more concessions.  Even though Israel has agreed each time, the US has reneged on its promise.

This still isn’t what it seems.  The deception goes deeper.  Keep in mind that both the dominant Labor Party and its token opposition, the Likud Party, have worked in lock-step with their globalist controllers to induce their own people to accept increasing concessions for “peace.”   PM Yitzhak Rabin began his regime by going along with the PTB, and later tried to back out when he fully perceived the lies, duplicity and the hidden agenda being foisted upon him.  Barry Chamish (author of Who Killed Yitzhak Rabin? ) thinks that is why Israel’s secret service killed him.  They also set up a patsy as the apparent killer in order to blame the act on a “right-wing extremist.”  Barry and I both belief that Rabin’s death provided a powerful psychological boost (the martyr syndrome) in molding public opinion in Israel against the right-wing settlers and in making sacred  the leftist driven “peace process.”  

The remaining question is why is the US government still having to use Pollard as a lever on Israel if almost all the Israeli leaders are partners with the US and Europe in the betrayal of Israeli sovereignty?   I think the reason has much to do with the fact that any governing party in Israel has to appear as if they are patriotic to the cause of Israel.  Many Israeli mid-level officers and officials are not yet compromised and still expect their political leaders to act in the defense of the nation.  What the current round of negotiations over Pollard does is allow the Barak government to play as if it is trying to secure his release, while not being responsible for the US’s continued refusal to release him.   Notice the parallel between what I have described above and the current Bush administration: playing the role of conservative, and yet backing down from almost every key opportunity to actually restore liberty.   


FEBRUARY 2, 2001



The Scottish court did the bidding of the US and found one of the two Libyan agents guilty in the bombing attack that brought down PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.   Like all other cover-ups involving dark-side CIA crimes, guilt was diverted away from the real culprits and transferred to a token patsy.   The court refused to hear any of the evidence of CIA involvement with drug shipments and terrorists in the Middle East, or how commercial airliners, in knowing collusion with the CIA were used for transshipment of dangerous materials and  illegal drugs.  Nor did the court allow attorneys to question US government officials about why CIA agents took complete control of the crash site on the first day and removed numerous articles of baggage and whisked them out of the country before Scottish police were allowed to investigate.   The US was, in my opinion, trying to cover up their purposeful sabotage of this civilian flight, which happened to be carrying an entire CIA team coming home from the Middle East, in direct rebellion against CIA orders, with the intent to testify to Congress about secret US government involvement in drug and arms trafficking with terrorist organizations.   Review my Sept. 8, 2000 brief for more details on this issue. 


FEBRUARY 9, 2001   



Israel has reached the edge of a huge precipice.  It must make a dramatic turnaround or it will face irreparable consequences.   The problem is deeper than the threat of Arab warfare.  With the exception of a small percentage of devout Jews, Israel’s people have become soft, worldly, and devoid of understanding about the real threats that surround them.  It never ceases to amaze me how willfully blind and dumb so many innately intelligent people can be.  While savvy Middle East watchers were never convinced that Arafat was anything but a terrorist, it took the raging hatred of the current Intifada to strip away the veil of propaganda about Arafat’s peaceful intentions that so many Israelis were wont to believe in.  But, even now, most non-religious Israelis (the vast majority) are itching to find another brand of phony “peace” to believe in.  The new team of global insiders taking over the Bush White House are eagerly waiting to provide yet another version of the same old sellout formula--this time dressed in Ariel Sharon’s right-wing colors.  But it’s too late now even for illusions--except, perhaps, for the last remaining illusion--that Sharon has Israel’s best interest at heart.

War is on the way and both innocent Jews and Arabs will suffer.  The war that is brewing is not the big war that Russia was planning in concert with Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Syria for the 2003-2005 time frame--when the full slate of Russia’s nuclear, biological and chemical warfare technology transfers to the Middle East will be complete.  Palestinian recalcitrance and bullheadedness has forced a temporary derailment in the “peace process” that was intended to weakened Israel and make her vulnerable to the coming large scale war.   For now, the current peace process has been so discredited that it can only be put back on track after shedding a lot of blood in an interim war.   It appears as if the main protagonists will be Iraq and Syria in a two pronged attack through Lebanon and Jordan.  If war does come within the next few months and Sharon prosecutes it vigorously, as he is expected to do, watch for the inevitable sellout that will come on the heels of international demands for a cease-fire to save the Arab attackers from annihilation.  Here are the reasons why a mini-war is almost inevitable.



Arafat has backed himself into a corner by refusing to accept the one sided, suicidal concessions of the former Barak government that the globalists were pushing.   Arafat kept holding out for 100% even as Barak inched closer to giving Arafat up to 98% of what the Palestinians were demanding.   This was stupid on the part of Arafat.  A peace deal based upon Clinton’s model would have set up Israel for defeat in the next war.  But Arafat rebelled against NWO globalists like “Mad-Madeleine” Albright.   Either Arafat was battling for his very existence among his gangster clan of terrorist leaders, or he and others had finally figured out that the globalists were and are simply using the Arabs and never do intend to allow them real independence.  Probably both are true. 

Now that Ariel Sharon is Prime Minister of Israel, elected by a landslide on the basis of his promises to repudiate Barak’s “peace” concessions, the Sharon government will only offer Arafat three-fourths of a loaf.  Since Arafat rejected the much deeper Israel concessions of the Barak regime, he can’t possible accept Sharon’s more limited offer, lest he lose face or even his head.  Sharon, in turn, can’t respond by moving toward Barak’s level of concessions and survive politically, so there is no solution except an escalation of violence.  Sadly, war has never been an unfavorable alternative to bad leaders.  They know war always softens up people who are resistant to compromise when nothing else will.  The Jews always lose more in the peace talks than they do in battle. 

Now that Arafat has used up so much of his collateral as a negotiator, I suspect that his days are numbered.   Many of the Palestinians know of Arafat’s corruption and his secret personal bank accounts in Switzerland, built by funds diverted from the millions in western aid to the PLO and Palestinian Authority.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Arafat is displaced or eliminated when war breaks out.      

More importantly for Israel, I am convinced that Ariel Sharon works for the other side.  No sooner did he take power, than he began to push forward with his determination to form a “unity government” with the opposition Labor party that was so soundly beaten in the election.  There is no mandate for a unity government.  Israelis want security now--not compromise.  But Sharon can’t seem to keep his mind on the business at hand.  His comments about being distracted by US  National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice’s “nice legs” are a telling sign of personal corruption already.  Even worse are his “unity” proposals hinting that he might name leftist buddy Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister and Ehud Barak as Defense Minister.  This is incredible.  Shimon Perez was part and parcel of the prior round of sellout negotiations with Arafat.  He would have the same role as Sharon’s foreign minister.  Ehud Barak was thrown out of office for refusing to effectively defend Israeli security interests.  To reinstall him as Defense Minister is ludicrous.  These early signs are not a good omen. 

As Barry Chamish (who has the best sources of intelligence in Israel) recently reported,  Sharon’s background has been deeply intermingled with key leftist leaders like former Prime Minister Shimon Peres (who is still one of Sharon’s best friends and frequent companions) as well as globalist elements in the US and Europe.  Ariel Sharon was born and raised on a radical-Left Mapai moshav (a farming community where all members own and live on their own farms, as opposed to the collective-style kibutz).  His early military service was sometimes brilliant, but always servile to higher authority and sometimes even unprincipled, which predictably led to a fast track military career. 

According to Chamish, “In early 1973 he quit the IDF and formed a political party, Shlomzion, whose followers were anticipated to be from the Left.  Sharon even invited extremist Yossi Sarid to join him in the party leadership.  In October of the same year, war broke out and Sharon [recalled to the Army] emerged the national hero. Now his political career would rise [as it always happens in Israel with military heroes--even those like Ehud Barak, whose military reputation had to be falsely enhanced and his errors covered up] and the CFR decided that he had to be on their side. He met with Kissinger and his protégés in early 1974 and received  their power and blessings for a rise to the top, but with conditions. The first was that he become a mole in the Israeli Right and that he destroy the Herut movement [revisionist Zionist movement started by Menachem Begin]. He returned to Israel, built up his new political party and proposed a united right-wing party to run in the 1977 elections. He amalgamated the Liberal (Gahal) Party with his own and Herut to create the Likud [the current opposition party to the dominant leftist Labor Party].”

When the fiercely pro-Israel and independently-minded Likud leader Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister in 1977, the CFR put into action a plan to neutralize and discredit Begin.  As a leader who couldn’t be corrupted or bought by CFR bribes, Begin had to go.  According to Chamish, Sharon played a major role in helping the media crucify Begin through a series of blunders Sharon himself perpetrated in an upcoming war in Lebanon. In 1982 Kissinger gave the go ahead to Syria to turn loose their Lebanese guerrilla forces and begin a series of terrorist attacks on Israeli settlers.  This induced a predictable Israeli retaliation with a major armed incursion into Lebanon.   In 1983 PLO snipers were operating, as usual, out of UN sponsored refugee camps, and Sharon decided to go in and clean them out.  But instead of doing this with carefully trained Israeli troops, capable of restraint, he sent in the Lebanese Phalangist militia forces.  He knew that the Phalangists had been victimized by savage PLO massacres before.  So it was fairly predictable that some type of retaliation would occur when they entered the camps.  Over 2,000 men, women and children were killed in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla and, despite his knowledge of the massacre, the Phalangists were not ordered out for two days.  Sharon was relieved of command for the incident but was allowed to engineer a comeback into government service soon thereafter.  More importantly, the tragic massacres allowed the media to attack their real target--PM Menachem Begin.

A few years later when Sharon was Minister of Infrastructure, one of Chamish’s contacts phoned him from a trade conference in New York, telling him he just saw Sharon coming out of a conference room with Henry Kissinger.  Chamish called Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissen and asked him what was discussed at the meeting. Gissen replied, "They met to discuss overall Middle East security issues."  Chamish asked why Sharon, the Infrastructure Minister, should be discussing security matters at a trade conference. Gissen answered, "You're right, of course. They were discussing economic matters."  Barry persisted, "Why was Sharon meeting Kissinger in the first place?" The reply was “boggling” according to Chamish: "Minister Sharon has met Mr. Kissinger every time he has flown to America since the end of the Yom Kippur War."  This was too much for even the unflappable Chamish.  He retorted, "What do you know about Kissinger's leadership in the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]?"  Gissen paused and evaded the question, "Mr. Sharon has left instructions that this topic will only be discussed when he writes his diplomatic memoirs." 

Benyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, to many the preferred leader of the “right wing” Likud Party, is no better than Sharon.  According to Chamish, “On a Wednesday six weeks ago, Benyamin Netanyahu was in the middle of a lucrative American speaking tour. There, he met two members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.  In Netanyahu's own words, they told him the time was right to run for prime minister.”  Even though Netanyahu eventually decided not to run (I think he knows that Sharon is being set up for a fall)  Kissinger’s control over Netanyahu is no surprise.  The former Israeli Prime Minister is a long-time protégé of Kissinger, beginning sometime after he began attending Harvard to study political science.  CFR-connected insiders took care of Netanyahu’s education, his first job the Boston Consulting Group, and the start of his political career in Israel.  As a young graduate returning to Israel Netanyahu set up an international conference against terrorism in Israel under the direction of Kissinger and Associates, who then graced it with the presence of a whole host of global “heavy-weight” speakers, including US President Bush and former Sec. of  State George Schultz--giving a powerful boost to the young Jew’s reputation in global affairs. 



No matter what radical Arab leaders say about peace, their only intention is to destroy the state of Israel. Every negotiation, every maneuver, every lie is aimed at the goal of eventual “holy war.” Peace agreements like the Oslo accords are useful only for buying more time to arm and to establish semi-autonomous “safe areas” to prepare for the inevitable struggle, outside the reach of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). On the other side of the coin, the Israeli leaders in power are working exclusively for their NWO bosses, whose agenda is international control of the Middle East, not peace. 

Israeli leaders want only a selective form of peace--peaceful control over the Arabs living in Israel-- but not the kind of peace that comes through providing equality of liberty and defense of true fundamental rights.   If there is ever to be peace between Jews and Arabs, it will not come by forcing either side to give allegiance to the other, but by forging a broad-based allegiance to fundamental rights for all people committed to non-violence.  Arab workers and businessmen have legitimate grievances against Israeli restrictions and excessive bureaucratic requirements, although some of these restrictions are valid due to the unfortunate fact that Arabs harbor terrorists in their midst and do not have the political will or power to eliminate their own terrorist leaders. 

There is also a tradition of control in the Jewish culture.  Coming from a long history of collectivism, Jewish leaders and scholars from Europe and Russia have never showed any willingness to allow either the Arabs or their own people to be free from the Marxist fetters of the controlled and subsidized Israeli economy.  Even most of the orthodox Jewish religious groups clamor and demand government subsidies of religious schools, instead of the more principled approach of separating all education from government funding and control.  The unequal levels of taxation (low on Arabs, high for the Jews) and redistribution of benefits (high to Jews and low for the Arabs) promote continual abrasion and conflict. Unfortunately, neither the Jews nor Arabs have any historical precedent for protecting true fundamental rights; the allegiance of both factions has always been to powerful leaders, whether tribal, religious, or secular. Without a foundation of fairness, based upon solid principles, Arabs are susceptible to the constant barrage of ethnic and religious hatred by their leaders, not only in the established media outlets, but in school textbooks as well.  This is a recipe for eternal warfare--not peace, no matter how much the world overworks the word. 

What is desperately needed in Israel is a new political movement that concentrates on developing a universal protection of fundamental rights for both Jews and Arabs--rather than competing systems of control and oppression.   In Israel there is no party that dominates the 120 member Knesset anymore. Most parties control 20 seats or less, so there is room to build a new movement based upon a principled approach to law and government.  Here is a suggested Bill of Rights for Israel based upon a workable definition of fundamental rights--those rights that all persons can claim simultaneously without forcing others to serve their needs.  True rights such as life, liberty, property, family sovereignty and self-defense can easily be derived from this definition, while false rights that form the basis of Marxist dogma, such as demands (at taxpayer expense) for minimum living standards, health care, or education can be prohibited.  You will notice that a proper set of fundamental rights are inherently non-conflicting and yet permit a vigorous prosecution of crimes, terrorism and abuse.   Government is fully empowered to intervene against people’s freedom to act, but only when such actions constitute an actual threat to these rights.    



1.  Right to life, except as a punish for capital crimes that violate the rights of others.

2.  Right to ownership and control of property as long as such property is not used to harbor enemies of these rights, with the corollary right to retain the product of one’s labor and not have such earnings taxed for redistribution to others, but rather, only to sustain proper government institutions defending these rights.

3.  Right to liberty in both economic and personal affairs:

                Corollary economic rights are the rights contract, free association or disassociation from others on private property,  to start a business, employ others without restrictions, and to unrestricted purchase of goods at home and abroad as long as such goods do not present an imminent threat to these rights.

                Corollary rights of personal liberty include the rights of privacy, freedom of movement, freedom of association, speech, and the press when not engaged in any activity intent upon violating these rights.  Also included is the right to take responsibility for one’s actions and engage in actions of risk without prior government restraint.

4.  Right to possess private arms in self-defense of these rights.

5. Right to establish a government to enhance mutual defense, where majoritarian powers are restricted to the defense of these rights and where all citizens who swear to sustain these rights can vote in all national and local elections and join any political party that does not threaten these rights.

6. Right to religious practice and expression without regulation or subsidy by government as long as such religious practices are non-violent and do not present an imminent threat to these rights.

7. Right as a family to control the temporal and religious welfare, education and health of dependent children, whether natural or adopted.

8.  Right to equal protection under due process of just law and fair punishments, which includes the right to be free from unreasonable search, seizure and surveillance when not engaged in activities designed to overthrow these rights.


With such a bill of rights that guarantees fair and equal treatment to all, both Jews and Israeli-Arabs would possess a non-arbitrary standard upon which to judge the legitimacy of government programs and actions.  People would be free to pursue non-conflicting activities that would lead to rapid prosperity and cooperation.  All non-violent religious practices would be free to prosper without government restriction--a level playing field. 

But what people would no longer be able to do is harness the power of government to take money from others to support their own personal causes.  I know this impinges upon socialist ideologies and also upon the orthodox Jewish leaders who desire to enforce a Jewish religious state upon all others.  But that is a dangerous course to take in terms of lawmaking power.  If one establishes a general rule of law allowing a minority, or even a majority to establish a state religion, or mandate religious practice, it violates a host of the fundamental rights of others who are forced to subordinate their liberty to someone else’s religious beliefs.  No peace is possible in a diverse society without freedom of belief and practice of religion according to the dictates of conscience (which does not violate other’s rights).  A religion that must use government power to coerce compliance rather than the power of persuasion and truth is on weak ground. 



But the above stated rights do offer a unique solution (combining the right of contract, freedom of association or disassociation, and property rights) whereby any group, unified in belief, may form a covenant society--a sheltered society under the general protections of the national government that would allow any group of like-minded people to set higher standards of conduct and exclusivity of belief; and to govern themselves accordingly, as long as all participants agree to such restrictions by  initial unanimous consent.  This is, in fact, what the original law of Moses established for the ancient House of Israel--a covenant relationship with God with strict enforcement provisions upon both individuals and the people as a whole.  But the law was not imposed by majority rule, but rather by command of God to each individual.  Indeed, the fact that the laws of Moses where not imposed on non-covenanting neighbors in the vicinity is evidence that this was a covenant religious society and not a majoritarian secular state meant for all peoples.  We can mix strict religious societies and secular societies using the principles outlined above which establish both a broad secular state defending only fundamental rights which, in tern, facilitate the innate right to form separate covenant religious societies within that umbrella of protection.   Remember, this is a fundamental right of association, and does not require a government permit.  Government’s only roles is to ensure that no person is forced to join without his voluntary consent.  Using this doctrine of law orthodox Jews could still provide a safe haven for restrictive Jewish laws within certain areas of Jerusalem or elsewhere, without imposing that conduct on others outside those boundaries.   I realize this may not satisfy those, whether Jew or Muslim, that believe they have a mandate from God to impose religious practices within larger boundaries that include non-believers, but it is, in my opinion, the only way to have peace on earth among divergent faiths and belief.


FEBRUARY 16, 2001



China continues its strategic incursions into the Western hemisphere, just two years after establishing major shipping, warehousing, and banking operations in Panama.  With Marxist president Chavez holding power in Venezuela and Fidel Castro still firmly in charge in Cuba, China has now decided to establish two additional bases of military influence in these nations of the Caribbean--the soft underbelly of the US. 

According to Al Santoli’s China Reform Monitor, “The Chinese and Venezuelan armed forces signed an agreement by which China will donate military equipment...The Chinese delegation explained this was the first of a series of material transfers to meet the Venezuelan armed forces’ needs.”  While not specifying the kinds of military material, we can surmise Chinese intent by reviewing comments the Chinese have made relative to military assistance to Cuba.   Again, as Al Santoli reports, “During the Christmas-New Year week, Chinese General Fu Quanyou visited Cuba on an official 5-day visit....Fu signed an agreement of military cooperation with Cuba’s military leader, the first such agreement between China and Cuba on an open level....” China’s recent test-firing of its long-range DF-31 ballistic missile and its close ties with the Cuban military, shows that China seeks to gain leverage in its relationship with the United States and has become increasingly aggressive. Their implication is, since the US can sell weapons to Taiwan, why can’t we sell weapons to Cuba?  

Interestingly enough, the new weapons in the Chinese arsenal include short and medium range missiles.  Are we heading for another missile show-down in Cuba or Venezuela?  I think we will see missiles introduced secretly, and it is doubtful that our pro-China Bush administration will blow the whistle on them.   A final comment by Santoli may hold the key to what is going on: “Beijing has now become a formal partner of Fidel Castro for training military personnel and repairing and replenishing outdated weapons. The visit followed a visit to Cuba by Russia’s Defense Minister, Marshall Sergeyev, who signed new joint agreements on Russia-Cuba military cooperation. The visits to Cuba by Russian and Chinese top-level military leaders, who are also working on a bilateral strategic cooperation agreement to be signed mid-year during Jiang Zemin’s visit to Moscow, sends an ominous message to the United States.”

It may be that this latest Chinese move is part of a larger strategy by Russia to re-introduce missiles into the Caribbean through a surrogate ally while continuing to feign weakness.  Russia has supposedly cut back or eliminated all the former military payments to Cuba.  Only Russia’s huge Soviet-era listening post at Lourdes is still active.  It has been upgraded continually with the latest eavesdropping technology and the staff is currently in excess of 1,500 officers and specialists.  Keep in mind that the Cubans constructed and still maintain a very broad network of tunnels where military equipment is stockpiled.  No US inspectors have been allowed to determine their contents.  Satellite photos confirm that the tunnels are still in use and that a fair amount of transportation goes in and out regularly.  Looks like it’s time to reinstate the Monroe Doctrine, demanding that foreign powers keep their hands off the Western hemisphere.  It will be interesting to see what kind of stand the Bush administration takes vis-à-vis Cuba. 


APRIL 6, 2001



Here are the superficial facts as reported by the US media:  A four-engine turboprop Navy EP-3 Aries II  surveillance aircraft had a mid-air collision with one of two Chinese J-8 fighters that had intercepted and shadowed the US “spy plane” during surveillance exercises southeast of Hainan Island (south of Hong Kong in the South China Sea).   The EP-3 then made an emergency landing at Lingshui military airfield on Hainan Island.  Its crew of 24 is being held captive and the sensitive Navy EP-3 is being systematically dismantled for intelligence purposes.  The damaged Chinese fighter and its pilot (Wang Wei) are missing and presumed lost. 

                What is notable about this event is what the US government is NOT telling.  Officially, the US claims not to know what happened to cause the collision, thus leaving a gaping information hole for the Chinese to fill.  The following statement by CNN is typical: “The crewmembers’ version of the collision was not known because US diplomats have not been able to ask them about it.”   Indeed, the Chinese have refused to allow US diplomats to question the crew about their version of events or even to meet with the crew in private.  This is very good evidence that the Chinese don’t want the American version aired.  Chinese negotiators have made these unwarranted restrictions, which violate numerous international conventions, a condition of meeting with the crew.  The Chinese have taken further advantage of the vacuum to plant their own version of the story. 

                The Chinese aired an obviously staged interview with the pilot of the surviving Chinese fighter.  I’m a former military fighter pilot, and it was not difficult for me to detect the problems with his version.  First, he stated that he and Wang took off on a “routine tracking flight” to patrol their designated area, and they just happened to notice this large aircraft in their sector which they intercepted.   This is a bold faced lie.   Routine sector patrols haven’t been practiced since WWII, now that radar does the patrolling.  Lingshui military airfield is a highly sensitive base bristling with its own surveillance gear, and the EP-3s are regular visitors to the area. These fighters were scrambled (fast launch of aircraft) to intercept the EP-3 and were directed by Chinese radar throughout the intercept as they have on hundreds of previous flights.  The weather was reported clear, so this was not a blind intercept as some have presumed. 

                Second, he said the EP-3 was on a heading of 110 degrees (a southeasterly direction away from the island).  He stated that he and Wang Wei were between the EP-3 and Hainan Island and flying at a distance of over 1,000 feet away when the EP-3 swerved into them and clipped the tail of Wei’s fighter with the radome (the nose of the EP-3).   There is perhaps some truth here but also some critical disinformation.   The EP-3 is a slow turning aircraft.  Its rate of roll is about 1/10 that of a fighter.  There is no way the EP-3 could have made a right hand turn and hit the tail of Wei’s fighter unless 1) Wei was either directly abreast of the EP-3 or slightly ahead of it and NOT watching (highly improbable), or 2) that Wei was much closer than where is wingman was claiming he was.  Keep in mind that a fighter can get out of the way of an EP-3 with a flick of the control stick, and nobody flies in close formation with another aircraft without keeping their eyes on the target.    

                CNN News bypassed government spokesmen and searched out some recently retired officers who were familiar with this particular operation.  Apparently the US government knows a lot more about Chinese intercept operations around Hainan than they are stating publicly.   According to the CNN story, “The United States was familiar with the flying tactics of all Chinese fighter pilots who intercepted these flights, taking pictures of the most aggressive who flew exceedingly close, including Wang. In one picture, Wang is holding up a sign that appears to be an e-mail address.”   CNN also cited Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, who commanded the Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa where these kinds of surveillance flights originated.  He said, “the United States was aware of the tactics of every Chinese squadron. This particular squadron down in that part of Hainan, even years ago, was a fairly aggressive squadron...But what I suspect is either they were given guidance from above or you had some very aggressive fighter pilots who were not playing by the rules.”  

                One of the tactics Wang Wei was noted for was flying his jet in front of the surveillance aircraft, lighting his afterburner and subjecting the EP-3 to violent jet wash, or turbulence.  I suspect that Wang Wei was attempting to cross in front of the EP-3 from right to left to create jet wash destabilization when his tail clipped the radome of the Navy turboprop.  With Wang’s tail damaged, he rolled further left trying to extricate himself from the crash and clipped the farthest left hand propeller as he crashed into the outboard portion of the EP-3’s wing, breaking it off.  

                Some military pilots have speculated that Wang Wei was trying to ram the EP-3 to force it to land.  However, ramming tactics generally involve minor incidents like clipping the rear tail or wing surface so as not to cause too much damage to the ramming aircraft.  Nobody tries to ram by driving into one of the turboprops, which would be suicide.  If they were that serious about bringing the aircraft down, they would use cannon fire or missiles instead.  Others have hypothesized that the Wang aircraft was underneath the EP-3 photographing or inspecting the lower portion of its equipment when the EP-3 turned left bringing the left wing and engine down on Wang’s fighter.  But neither of these scenarios explains the missing radome.  If Wang’s plane made contact with the left wing and far left propeller first, how did Wang’s crippled plane get far enough forward to hit the radome--which is much further forward on the aircraft?  Clearly, the radome had to be hit first and the left wing damaged subsequent to the initial hit.


HOW MUCH DOES THE PENTAGON KNOW?  I don’t believe any of the stories about the Bush administration having to wait till it talks to the crew to find out what really happened.  The EP-3 Aries II is a flying electronic surveillance platform that has real-time data links and communication links by satellite to the NSA in Washington as well as to its Navy controllers in Japan.  The US Navy in Japan has direct contact with CINCPAC Fleet (the overall Pacific Navy Command) in Hawaii.  This means that various crew members surely would have been talking to headquarters during the 30 plus minutes between the collision and the landing.  They would have even had satellite communications with the Navy while on the ground at Lingshui Air base alerting someone in the Pentagon as to what was happening.  The Pentagon would have access to tape recordings of all the conversations not only with the pilots but with the crew as well.  Little hints about this level of knowledge have leaked out during the course of media events.  CNN reported that “Pentagon officials said from the assessment of the damage to the underside of the EP-3 that it appears the F-8 was flying under the surveillance craft, a tactic that strayed from normal practice in such intercepts.”  The Bush administration claims they haven’t been able to inspect the aircraft, so where did this assessment come from?  Satellites can photograph the damage to the top side of the EP-3, but they can’t see under the wing.  The Chinese even put tarps over the EP-3 once they started dismantling it, to shield it from the view of our K-11 low orbit surveillance satellites.  Only a crewman on the EP-3 could have relayed that information on the damage.  I’m going to presume that the Bush administration already has the correct version of events.

                Thus, the bigger question looms.  Why isn’t our government giving the crew’s version?  Why allow the Chinese to beat the drums of “injustice” and “US aggression” constantly without countering it?  As far as blame is concerned, international aviation regulations clearly state that any aircraft joining with or pursuing another has the total responsibility to stay far enough away to avoid a collision.  Sadly, the US won’t even bring up this argument.  While the US wrings its hands in seeming impotence, the Chinese people get increasingly upset with the “arrogant Americans.”  This incident, added to the supposed “accidental” bombing of the Chinese embassy only adds fuel to the anti-American fervor growing in China.  It looks suspiciously as if the US is helping the Communists to foment antagonism against the US, as they are with Russia by our ongoing intervention in the Balkans.  This is one of the essential steps to breeding an atmosphere for future war--helping the potential enemy build among their people a psychology of antagonism toward the West.

                Many of us on the conservative-right have suspected that our government’s conduct, allowing this sensitive technology to fall into China’s hands, was a continuation of the policies of the former Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations, facilitating Chinese military buildup.  If not, why didn’t the pilot follow rigid protocols to keep this “high level asset” aircraft from falling into enemy hands?  This plane has top secret NSA cryptography gear on board that is even restricted from normal US military channels.  It is standard procedure to ditch this aircraft in the ocean--not to land on a Chinese air base.

                One thing is certain: the pilot of the EP-3 did not elect to land on Hainan island on his own.  He or his immediate superior would have had to discuss this situation with CINCPAC (Commander In Chief, Pacific) Admiral Dennis Blair--an old “pro-China hand” left over from the Clinton days. While Blair would be more than willing to trust the Reds to be hospitable to our crew, had he wanted to help the Chinese get their hands on this secret equipment he would have had to give the crew direct orders NOT to follow destruction protocols--which would have raised a lot of questions with the crew.  He would also have had to get permission from higher ups.  I think events happened too fast to make this a viable scenario.   The presumption of a planned scenario would have necessarily required the EP-3 pilot to purposely collide with the J-8 fighter which would have been difficult to pull off due to the vast difference in aerial agility.  If we find out later that the crew did not destroy the equipment, then I will reconsider the possibility of active betrayal of US secrets.  For now, only the crew and the Pentagon know for sure if the crew was able to destroy the most sensitive  equipment. Reverse engineering is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances, and even more so from a pile of crushed  circuit boards. 

                Whoever made the decision to allow the plane to land on Hainan Island could well have done so out of consideration for the lives of the crew.   Even though Navy aircraft are built to withstand water landings, ditching a wounded, heavy-laden aircraft in the ocean, depending on the sea state, is still very risky. There are claims that have surfaced from a supposed Chinese air controller that the other Chinese fighter aircraft shot cannon fire in front of the EP-3 --a standard signal that an aircraft is being forced to land in enemy territory.  If so, the Pentagon is doubly negligent for keeping this quiet. Incredulously, the Chinese claim that the EP-3 made no attempt to notify them of their incoming emergency landing.  This is ludicrous on all counts.  The Chinese military base at Lingshui is a sophisticated intelligence gathering base which monitors all international radio frequencies and attempts to decode secret communications just like we do.   I consider it virtually impossible that they did not hear the Mayday call broadcast on all standard emergency frequencies.  Obviously, they have made this claim to defuse the US contention that the US aircraft is sovereign American property, immune from boarding and seizure.  If the Chinese forced the EP-3 to land, their claim that the US violated Chinese sovereign territory has even less credibility.   

                Of course, we can count on the wily Chinese to make the most of this incident.  I wouldn’t be surprised if China is trying to wrangle some secret concessions out of the Bush administration much as Russia did with Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Kennedy secretly promised to not attempt to overthrow Castro in exchange for the unverified missile removal (The larger, visible missiles were removed, but no inspection was never allowed of underground storage bunkers containing smaller short and medium range missiles).  China may well want Bush to agree to secret limitations on arms upgrades to Taiwan, or promises to limit future surveillance flights.   Secret agreements have become all too common in this century.   The Chinese never give in on a negotiation item without both saving face and gaining a real advantage.  So if this incident is “solved” it will be only because the US has conceded something contrary to US interests.   One thing we can be sure of--the US citizens will not be told if there is a deal.  We will be shown only the propaganda about how successful our diplomacy was in “bringing home our troops.”  


SUMMARY COMMENTS: This first week in April will prove to be a major turning point in US-China relations.  The Clinton era of treating China as a friend should be over.  The blinders are off, and everyone senses that old Communist China is back--the wily, conniving, lying, brutal predator that it is.  Actually, China’s government hasn’t change back at all--it always was this way, but media manipulation and wishful thinking on the part of the free world has only made it seem less so.   If the Bush administration were serious about US interests it would summarily refuse to continue granting China normal trade relation status, it would restrict Chinese access to US technology, and shut down other channels of sensitive trade. It would also agree to sell Taiwan the advanced military equipment that Taipei wants and Beijing opposes.  Of course, the Bush administration could still do that now and only be working to foment future war by antagonizing China.  While the hostage situation in this incident will probably be diffused soon, the Bush administration has every reason to allow anti-China trade sentiment to build in the next few years--if it wants to foment more antagonism.  War with the Russia/China axis is inevitable whatever Bush does, but antagonizing both predator nations will hurry things along.  If China enters a depression along with the rest of the world, after sanctions are applied, the US will be blamed and the stage will be set for future aggression. I’ll be watching events closely.


APRIL 13, 2001

While the media concentrates on the public’s sense of relief at having the crew of the EP-3 safely home, the most important issues still remain largely unanswered. We now know that the accident was entirely the fault of the Chinese pilot Wang Wei, and that his wingman’s version of events, as I reported last week, was a total fabrication. The EP-3 was flying straight and level on autopilot when the Chinese interceptors made two close passes each. Wang Wei made a 3rd and fatal pass, colliding with an outboard engine propeller. It has also been confirmed that the crew was able to destroy all the top secret code equipment and most of the other sensitive data on board the surveillance aircraft—which diminishes the possibility that this was an intended technology transfer to China. Events did happen very fast, and the aircraft was, according to the crew, very unstable after the collision—necessitating an immediate landing. But what we still don’t know is why US officials are still being so cryptic in their reluctance to give a full and complete accounting of the events. Even pilot Shane Osborn’s account of the Chinese pilot’s crash into the left propeller of the EP-3 comes to us third-hand from a Pentagon official, whose version doesn’t make complete sense to experienced military pilots. Why not let us hear from Osborn himself? Perhaps the government is afraid that in a public press conference Osborn might be asked questions that would reveal that the government knew much more about these events than they allowed the public to believe. 

                We also don’t know what kinds of secret concessions have been made to the Chinese. I don’t believe for a minute that the main issue was Bush’s letter of regret and sorrow. Saving face is important to the Chinese, but superficialities never satisfy them either. Given that the letter by Bush did not accept blame or responsibility, I’m convinced that the release of the crew was obtained by other secret promises. The Chinese would not have let the crew go without some very substantial gains ’s the Chinese style of doing business—their only style! Were there promises to withhold Aegis class destroyers from Taiwan or other top-of-the-line military hardware? Have we agreed to some limitation on our reconnaissance flights? We will never know since there exist any number of excuses the administration could come up with to justify these concessions under another name.

The final resolution of the affairs has supposedly been relegated to the secret talks of the future. The big issue, according to the media, will be China’s demand to end reconnaissance flights Frankly, that’s never going to happen, even if there is an agreement. Information is crucial, even to a government intent on selling out US interests. The Powers That Be (PTB) intend to survive the war they are preparing and need to know exactly when Russia and China will strike, and what their capabilities are. The US may agree to superficially curtail one form of intelligence gathering, but there are alternative methods that will take its place. There will probably be other issues brought up in these talks—perhaps promises of maintaining technology transfers that were started under the last two administrations.

In the final analysis, I was looking to see if Bush would antagonize the Chinese in earnest, as an indication that the globalists’ strategic war plans had moved into the instigation phase, as happened with Japan in 1940-1. But it is now very clear that Bush’s blustering and “tough talk” was just that—talk. No, war was not the only other alternative to talk. He could have closed American ports to Chinese shipping, frozen Chinese bank accounts, or expelled all Chinese student spies from American colleges and high tech firms—actions that would have been very painful to Chinese operations and financial income stream. He made absolutely no moves to cut back on China’s commercial access to the US, nor in any way penalized the Chinese for this egregious, but predictable conduct relative to the EP-3 crew. The good news is that this means that war is still not imminent, just yet. The bad news is that China will be emboldened by the weak US response and may be tempted to move against Taiwan before WWIII strikes, knowing that they may well get away with it.


APRIL 20, 2001



The PLO mortar attacks on Israeli settlements in and around the Gaza strip represent only a first stage in the Palestinian confrontation of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) with conventional military weapons.  For the last several years, the PLO have been stockpiling mortars, land mines, rockets, and anti-tank weapons brought in by small boats along the Mediterranean coast and through suspected underground tunnels from the Egyptian controlled border on the south. According to Arutz-7 the mortars were American-made 60 millimeter rounds.  Mortars are not an authorized weapon for security forces in the Palestinian autonomous areas under the Oslo accords.   Critics of the Oslo accords have long suspected that Arafat would use the cover of semi-autonomy in the Gaza strip to secretly import and stockpile offensive military weapons.  Even though the mortar attacks have been relatively ineffective, missing most of their targets, no government can stand by and allow this kind of mini-artillery barrage to continue.  Unless the IDF reoccupies the Gaza strip and cleans out these and other weapon stockpiles, the violence will continue to escalate. 

                This is precisely what the IDF appeared to attempt this past week as IDF tanks, troops and helicopter gunships attacked buildings from which PLO forces were operating, cleared buffer zones, and separated Gaza into three areas.  The latter measure was taken in order to inhibit troop and munitions movements from one area to another.  However, within hours of the operation’s initial success, the US intervened and demanded an immediate pullout Media channels have been eager to suggest the idea that Bush gave Sharon the go ahead to use greater force against the PLO to show Arafat that “violence doesn’t pay.”   However, when IDF Col. Yair Nave, commander of Israeli forces in Gaza, made a public statement that Israel’s search and destroy missions in the Gaza strip could “run to days, weeks, or months,” the US decided to renege.   Several sources claimed that the sudden US intervention was done in an attempt to curry favor with the surrounding Arab countries with whom it is seeking support to reinforce the sanctions against Iraq.   I’m not buying it.  Iraqi sanctions are a red herring meant to inflame Arab sentiment, not to build Arab unity.

                US Secretary of State Collin Powell made a pointed attempt to say, “there is no military solution” to the current conflict.  That’s an incredibly stupid observation for a former military general.   When someone is launching mortars at innocent civilians or your own troops there is ONLY one solution--and that is to go in and remove the mortars.  Whatever you do afterward to deter further escalation can only be effective if preceded by this proper and vigorous military response.  I suspect, however, that Sharon has no intention of really cleaning out the military threat in Gaza--at least not if he is taking orders from globalist insiders, as the evidence presented in previous briefs suggests.  

                One source even claimed that the US knew in advance that the Israeli incursion was to be partial and short-lived and timed its diplomatic response to make it appear as if the US had a major hand in restraining the IDF--again, to curry favor with the Arabs.  This may well be true, but I don’t believe the Arabs are buying it.  The Arabs know they have to play ball with the US while America is the top bully on the international scene--but, with the exception of Kuwait, they hate America just the same.  This ploy may also have been used to make it appear (to the Israeli right) that Sharon really wants to prosecute the war properly, but that the meddling US won’t allow it.  If so, the tactic backfired badly.  The Israeli right reacted strongly and negatively to the appearances of US intervention in Israeli security affairs and both left and right chastised Sharon for succumbing to US pressure.  Of course, US meddling should not surprise anyone who knows the history of US-Israeli military relations.  Every time Israel begins an operation destined to effectively defeat Arab aggression the US intervenes and demands a cease-fire short of outright victory.  How can you manipulate world affairs through the creation of conflict and war if you allow a decisive and final victory that ends all wars?   The primary reason why globalist George Bush left Saddam Hussein in place after the Gulf War was to create a perpetual excuse for NWO intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. 

                Let’s step back a few paces and look at the larger picture.  The predicted regional war between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq has not occurred and probably will not during this round of conflict., the Israeli-based disinformation source predicted it; Barry Chamish, a reliable Israeli source, predicted it, and even I felt there was a very high probability of a mini-regional war, at least with Syria.  What happened? 

                First, as I have previously stated, Arafat’s most recent Intifada was planned among his own cadres well in advance, but it was carried out in opposition to the wishes of the globalist manipulators--in fact it took Clinton and Albright by surprise.  Clinton and his European co-conspirators had wanted to use the ongoing and one-sided “peace process” to weaken Israel militarily in preparation for a major Israeli-Arab war 3-4 years in the future.  This larger planned war could not be accelerated in time because it is dependent upon the ongoing missile technology transfers from Russia and China to Iran, Syria, and Egypt--which are at least 2-3 years from being complete.  This longer Middle East timetable is ominously close to the timetable Russia and China have for launching WWIII upon the rest of the world.  They may be meant to coincide.  So, while the other Arab countries did not wish to openly oppose Arafat’s latest Intifada, neither did they want to be dragged into it.  Sadly, once begun, Arafat’s war has acquired a life of its own, now that all the most rabid Palestinian terrorists have been let out of prison.  The international community first tried to bring Arafat under control by cutting off his supply of money.  This brought the Palestinian Authority near to collapse.  But the recent Arab summit authorized additional millions, giving Arafat a new lease on life--a potentially short one, to be sure--but it suggests he may still have some usefulness to the Powers That Be (PTB).  Arafat still commands the attentions of the Israeli leadership.  Despite promising not to engage in negotiations with Arafat until the Arab violence is stopped, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has secretly allowed his son to maintain a secret liaison with the PLO chief.   That little piece of hypocrisy is now well known and is drawing a lot of criticism.  

                Second, the US has given numerous diplomatic and military signs to the Arabs that it is not going to permit a regional war.  The US mobilized Patriot Missile batteries and other special units from Europe.  Naval forces were reinforced in the area.  The US might not be able to stop a full scale Middle East war, but it certainly has the power to intimidate one or two countries like Syria and Iraq into thinking twice.  This was, in my opinion, the real reason for the recent US and British air strikes on Saddam’s command and control bunkers around Baghdad.  It effectively denied him the ability to manage an Israeli invasion via Syria and Jordan.  In like manner the recent Israeli air strikes against Syria’s prime radar and long-range observation site effectively set back any ability of Syria to launch a coordinated conventional attack against Israel.  For the short term, Syria’s military is partially blinded and vulnerable to Israeli retaliation by air.

                Therefore, it is my considered opinion that this current mini-war will continue to escalate only in a limited way.  It will be confined to the participation of the major terrorist organizations already on the ground--in the Gaza Strip (Fatah and Hamas), in the other occupied territories (Tanzim and Islamic Jihad), and within Lebanon (Hezbollah).  The purpose of the Israeli government in not vigorously prosecuting the war (despite appearances to the contrary) is to eventually wear down the Israeli people’s enthusiasm for a military solution so that Sharon and Arafat can reengage in negotiations and continue the sellout of Israeli security interests.  In short, the globalists desperately want the phony “peace process” back on track, and they are trying to turn Arafat’s mini-war into a vehicle to accomplish that.  Keep in mind, a sellout of Israel by the globalists does not mean that legitimate Arab interests will be the beneficiaries.  The Arabs will continue to be used as pawns by the PTB in this horrible process.  In the meantime, if Arafat doesn’t change his ways and come back into the globalist camp, he will be eliminated or replaced.  He knows this.  Already, he is being careful to stay mobile as much as possible to avoid being cornered.  He scooted out of Gaza just before this latest IDF incursion and is being shuttled around to various friendly Arab states with a heavy body guard.

                An even more ominous sign of future US intentions is the latest revelation that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has given preliminary notice to Israel that the Bush administration is planning on withdrawing the 1,900 American soldiers serving as peacekeepers in the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt.  Supposedly this is a part of the Bush administration’s professed drive to reduce foreign troop deployments..  However, I am suspicious that this Egyptian withdrawal is an indication of US foreknowledge about a coming war between Egypt and Israel. Unlike Bush’s reneged pledge to pull any troops out of the Balkans, I believe this withdrawal will go through.  It is not imminent, however, so it is probably not related to the current conflict.


BUSH CONTINUES CLINTON’S SECRET DEALINGS WITH CHINA’s Carl Limbacher came across a great scoop this week.  He reported that one of Germany’s regional newspapers Handelsblatt reported that the Bush administration has already signed a secret deal with China extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) pending China’s formal acceptance into the WTO--which the US also backs.  Thus it appears that the few Republicans in Congress trying to put pressure on the administration to sanction China and deny PNTR status will meet with defeat.  China’s entrance into the WTO has been hampered by China’s insistence on preserving agricultural subsidies, which are well in excess of 10%.  WTO regulations stipulate a maximum of 5%.  In reality, China owns almost all large scale agriculture in China so subsidies are a misnomer anyway--it’s outright state ownership, financed completely with state money.  It is obvious that no one in the New World Order is going to call China on the carpet for this issue anyway.  The key revelation in Handelsblatt was the fact that the US agreed to keep secret the US-China deal specifically because of the EP-3 spy plane incident.  The Bush administration claims that no concessions were made to China, secret or otherwise--an untruth.

                I’m suspicious about even more secret deals now that the Bush administration has decided to not sell Taiwan advanced destroyers equipped with the Aegis ship-borne radar system.  This was one of the items the Chinese were specifically demanding of the US during the negotiations on the release of the EP-3 crew. The Aegis system is a phased array stationary radar that electronically creates a panoramic view of the sky.   More importantly, it can track more than 200 airborne targets, including the dreaded anti-ship missiles.

                Instead the Bush team has decided to offer Taiwan the four decommissioned  Kidd-class destroyers.  The Pentagon insists that the Kidd-class destroyers are almost as good as the Aegis, but this is a gross exaggeration.  The four Kidd-class destroyers are old technology created for the Shah of Iran but never delivered after the Ayatollah took power and Iranian assets were seized.  The US used the four destroyers for a few years and then put them in mothballs--to give you some idea of how valuable they appeared to the US Navy.  Taiwan is not impressed either.  In the next war with China, Taiwan will face waves of missiles and aircraft and desperately needs the multiple tracking radar the Aegis provides.  Taiwan also needs more submarines.  Currently it has only four, two of which are World War II “Guppy-class” boats which are nearly worthless.  The US has announced it will provide up to 8 diesel submarines to Taiwan--even though the US does not currently manufacture any diesel subs.  I suspect they will give the contract to Germany who recently provided Israel with 3 diesel submarines.  These subs are capable of firing Tomahawk missiles, to which Israel presumably has retrofitted with small nuclear warheads.  Taiwan does not have that nuclear option, however.

                Perhaps even more telling about President Bush’s supposed hard line against the Red Chinese is his decision to continue Bill Clinton’s military exchanges with China--even after the hostile behavior of the Chinese military toward the detained EP-3 crew.  These military exchanges go far beyond social visits to Navy ships, as depicted by the media.  The Chinese are allowed access to areas that are barred to most American military personnel.   Al Santoli of the American Foreign Policy Council has also revealed that at least one American company (Northrop Grumman) is continuing to provide technical upgrades for weapons and avionics system in Chinese J-8 fighters--the same type of aircraft used to harass and interdict the EP-3 aircraft.   Not only have we not seen any sanctions placed on China for the EP-3 collision, but we have seen an increase in secret dealings and continued technology transfers.   This continues to add more evidence to my suspicion that there is a long-term secret agreement between the US and China whereby China will betray Russia in the next war, as Russia did Germany in WWII.

                There are currently two or three other conservatives warning of war with China within two years.   China is nowhere near ready to engage in a major world war in this time frame, however.  None of these prognosticators, including Admiral Thomas Moore (Ret), for whom I have great respect, fully appreciate the primary role that Russia will play in starting and prosecuting the war.  Most are mistakenly focusing only on China--in isolation from the strategic axis being built around Russian dominance in the Communist world.  The intel data they are using certainly does describe both a tactical and strategic buildup within China.  However, China has a long way to go before in can launch anything but a regional war.  It is my opinion that any move by China toward war within this short time frame will only be aimed at Taiwan--not at the rest of the world.  Bush’s continued accommodation of China may well embolden China to attack Taiwan prior to WWIII--especially if China feels it can get away with it without serious economic sanctions, which it desperately needs to avoid for continued modernization.  The EP-3 incident could have given a strong signal to China to back off.  Instead, US capitulation and secret double dealing have only encouraged Chinese aggression.  


APRIL 27, 2001

Last weekend’s Summit of the Americas in Canada took on an ominous tone of seriousness. It is the third in a series of talks that are destined to increase in frequency until long range NWO objectives for diminished national sovereignty are met. American and Canadian globalist leaders are pushing to forge an EU-style regional government in the Americas, and US President George W. Bush is right in the thick of it--following in his father’s NWO footsteps. The conference was hosted by leftist Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien--a personal friend of Bill Clinton and a committed globalist of the most servile kind.  All of the speeches intended for public consumption stressed the benefits of free trade and prosperity, but none of that counts for much, in real-life terms. It’s the control agenda being forged behind closed doors that really matters. The big players, the US and Canada, have brought with them special teams of globalist lawyers with pre-prepared drafts of the new Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Remember this acronym--you’ll be hearing much more about this in the future. Bush is already seeking “fast track” authority to put this control agenda in place, which proves he is a knowing participant in this portion of the NWO plan. Fast track authority gives the president and his bureaucrats the power to clinch separate agreements with each country during negotiations without coming back to Congress for debate--a very dangerous precedent. Congress’ only choice is to accept or reject the final package.

Each of the Third World nations present is also accompanied by advisors and lawyers, but of a different variety. In contrast to the US and Canada, they are in Quebec to lobby for special treatment and exceptions to the uniform control agenda being outlined by US trade representative Robert B. Zoellick and his CFR-trained team. Each of these developing nations is struggling with problems of economy- draining socialism, massive indebtedness to the IMF, and indigenous Marxist revolutionaries threatening their very political survival.

NAFTA (precursor to the new, broader FTAA) had many complex side agreements which provided for special exceptions for certain countries to the general controls enacted. These have been a constant source of discord, especially as many of these agreements or “codicils” were kept secret. In Canada, for example, the individual Provincial leaders originally insisted on special language to protect local industries within each province from competition. But their own national government deceived them during the NAFTA ratification process. During negotiations the Provincial leaders were led to believe that their reservations to NAFTA had been accepted, but unbeknownst to them, the specific wording in each Provincial leaders’ portfolio was changed on the copies they actually signed. One of the top level secretaries, Shelley Ann Clark (executive assistant to Germain Denis, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's personal appointee to the NAFTA negotiations), blew the whistle on this affair. Subsequently, the Canadian government had the original NAFTA agreement locked up for reasons of “national security” and it is not currently available for inspection even to the Provincial leaders who signed it.

President Bush is now insisting that the trade agreement should include no codicils that “destroy the spirit of free trade.” But his purpose is not so much to promote free trade; that’s merely the bait. Rather, his purpose is to move the process ahead in a manner such that all nations will be bound by the same regional tribunals--with no exceptions. That is going to be a hard sell unless Bush can tone down the image of control that current “Free Trade” agreements have. Small countries are objecting to having to meet the same draconian environmental regulations that are presently hobbling America’s energy industry, for example--regulations that environmental lobbyists in Quebec are demanding. The union movement in the US and Canada is also trying to impose on all small countries the same high union pay scale we have so as to make sure no business can shop for cheaper wage rates abroad. Bush, trying to play both sides said, “In other words, a free trade agreement focuses on commerce....While I understand that some unionists are interested in making sure there's labor protections, I don't want those labor protections to be used to destroy the free trade agreement.” What Bush is really saying is that he wants the leftist agenda watered down initially in order to get all nations on board, and then the FTAA’s tribunals will be able to ratchet up the controls without any specific nation’s consent.

The big loser in this current tug-of-war will be Mercosur, Brazil’s coalition of South American countries which have worked hard to forge a true cooperative free trade pact that does not involve the kinds of control mechanisms imbedded in NAFTA and especially the newly proposed FTAA. Things have not always gone smoothly for Mercosur as Brazil and its partners have had to overcome years of dependence upon high import tariffs that stifle industrial growth. Just when Mercosur was making real progress and getting ready to expand, along comes this newest “free trade” initiative from the US which threatens to overwhelm the less intrusive Mercosur.

Pushing Democracy—A Special Brand of “Fairness”

There are 34 potential joiner nations in this proposed FTAA form of regional government. Only Fidel Castro’s Cuba was excluded, for obvious reasons. There was considerable talk during the summit of extending democracy to all nations in the hemisphere. President Bush was directly referring to Cuba when he told the others that he looked forward to the day when all countries in the Americas would be included. PM Chretien joined in the chorus of praise for democracy, noting that “democracy may vary from place to place” (hoping to expand the definition sufficiently to include Cuba when it makes some token compromises). He then warned that the Organization of American States (OAS)--a very leftist organization funded by US taxpayers--will closely monitor each nation and decide which ones are “approved democracies.” Nations whose outcomes are not sufficiently Socialist will be censured because of election irregularities or “unfair campaign practices.” As I pointed out in a previous brief, this is precisely the type of intervention the OAS engaged in while monitoring the election in Peru during the previous election cycle. Now that former President Fugimori has been exiled and the OAS’s preferred globalist candidate Alejandro Toledo is leading in the current polls, they seem to be satisfied that “democracy has triumphed” in Peru.

The UK is suffering under its most severe onslaught since WWII--both by mother nature and by government run amuck. Spring rains have been torrential, even for this normally wet climate. It has been the wettest 12 months in two centuries. Flooding is affecting large portions of all the British Isles. Fields are soggy, rivers are overflowing, and even train schedules are hampered by a rash of weather-related accidents. Add this to the massive livestock epidemics of mad cow and foot and mouth disease and Britain seems spiraling out of control.

For a nation with a penchant for cradle to grave government regulation and control, British confidence is being severely shaken. The government’s heavy-handed manner of treating the current livestock epidemic is not only infuriating to the farmers but questionable at best. After ordering massive slaughter of suspected infected livestock, the government is caught in a deteriorating quandary of what do with the carcasses. Mass graves were dug and then undug after fears of groundwater contamination surfaced. Torching the piles of carcasses would be even more hazardous due to airborne pathogens. Mad cow disease is particularly virulent because the protein-like progenitors of the disease (called prions) are apparently immune to even high temperature incineration. There are persistent rumors about these livestock epidemics being man-made. One report claims that a vial of foot and mouth disease is missing from one of the government laboratories. Although I’m certainly not one to turn a deaf ear to conspiracy, sometimes the sheer volume of charges leaves one incapable of tracking down the truth. I am not able to confirm this one.

Tourism is plummeting as Americans and Europeans fear the worst. Tourist agencies field questions from Americans as wild as whether they should bring their own food or not. Some of the tourists’ fears are well founded. Upon return to their home countries, Americans and Europeans are scrutinized by immigration and health officials. The Red Cross is even proposing new regulations in the US banning Americans who have been to Britain in the past 6 months from giving blood.

With April’s subway strike in London, combined with normally high prices and clammy weather, London is no longer the preferred destination it was last year. Britain is also in serious moral decline. Illegitimate births and sexually transmitted diseases are at an all time high. Drug use is as bad in metropolitan English cities as it is in America. Greater England’s rate of violent crime is also increasing. Years of legal and illegal immigration into Britain have led to the growth of ghettos and increased ethnic tensions. Despite years of gun control laws, weapons related crimes are on the rise, and the British people are relatively undefended.

Worst of all, Britain’s core legal and financial roots are under attack from the European Union and the Labor Government of Tony Blair. NWO leaders want the British Pound Sterling replaced by the flimsy Euro and are using every trick of subterfuge to bypass the growing resistance of the British people. A variety of British civil rights are under threat as well, including the rights of free speech, free press, and freedom of religion. Antonia Feitz writes that one of Parliament’s most powerful safeguards is under threat from the EU. British legal tradition requires that no parliament can bind another one, but EU treaties are irrevocably binding. Under the EU principle of acquis communautaire, once a piece of legislation originating in the EU has been incorporated in an individual nation's law it can't be revoked, even by a new government. This is an example of piecemeal loss of sovereignty that is threatening all nations in the EU.

Criticizing the EU and its policies is now illegal under a new interpretation of Article 51 of the proposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The European Commission also, according to Feitz, wants to change Article 7 of the Amsterdam Treaty so as to be able to punish any country that installs a parliamentary coalition that two-thirds of the EU countries consider a potential threat to European values and principles. This is specifically aimed at Austria’s inclusion of Jorg Haider’s right-wing Freedom Party in the current governing coalition, but it could also be applied to the British Tories should they choose to elect an anti-EU slate of Members of Parliament (MP).

Antonia Feitz also wrote that one Tory member of the EU parliament told a fellow Tory, Roger Helper, that Westminster will be gone in 10 years. In both Europe and in the UK, national parliaments are destined to become clearing houses for EU-created policies, rules and regulations. “England will effectively be no more,” she said. “Instead, its 12 regions (England will be just 12 out of the over 100 proposed administrative regions of Europe) will be governed from Brussels. The current British autonomous assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be given ‘independence’ under EU policies, but will ultimately be even worse off. Instead of constituting 3 of the 5 political units in the UK, they will become just 3 of more than 100 political units in the EU--with far less effective power. Nine more regional assemblies have been proposed for the rest of England, Greater London being the next. The regional assemblies will play no part in the EU's legislative process. They will simply decide how their EU-allocated budgets will be spent in limited areas like health and education. Their only political voice is through the Council of the Regions, whose recommendations are not binding.” The US would do well to learn from what is going on in Britain vis-a-vis the EU. This is the same pattern of gradual change our own government intends to implant upon Americans through the FTAA.


MAY 4, 2001



Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week that the US has put out a call for bids to construct a new military base for Israel in the central part of the country.  One might well ask, why isn’t Israel building its own military base?   I suspect that we are witnessing the preliminary implementation of a coming peace deal between the PLO and Israel.  Continuing the tradition of expecting Israel to trade “land for peace,” the current peace proposal requires Israel not only to cede the majority of the West Bank occupied territories, including much of the critical water supply so essential to Israeli agriculture, but also to abandon several strategic military bases and some settlements as well.  The US has offered in the past to step in and build new bases to replace those that must be given up.  This current move to begin building one such base may well be related to US knowledge that an eventual deal is inevitable and the content predetermined.

                These globalist manipulators of Middle Eastern affairs are obviously intent on making up for lost time because of Arafat’s unexpected refusal to go through with the former “peace process,” which had been an almost total sellout of the Israeli position by Ehud Barak, the previous Israeli Prime Minister.  The only thing that keeps Barak’s successor, Ariel Sharon from consummating what his NWO handlers have already brokered is Sharon’s need to maintain the illusion that he is a “right-wing hardliner.”  He will continue his limited, but ineffective, use of military force against the Palestinian Authority until the international Powers That Be (PTB) can either bring Arafat around to an agreement or replace him.  The Israeli and Arab peoples’ resistance to the peace process also needs to be undermined through continued bloodshed and economic suffering.

                Both Arab and Israeli economies are suffering from disrupted labor supplies, diminished tourism and the high cost of military action.  The US Congress has voted to supplement Israel’s aid package to compensate for the current military drain on the budget, and one or two Arab nations are continuing to bail out Arafat, while keeping him on a short leash financially.  For a look at some well done maps that detail the situation on the ground in Israel, vis-à-vis water, settlements, and strategic position go to the following URL:  The commentary isn’t very good, but the maps are great.

                In other news, it is noteworthy that Egypt, which receives an annual $1.5 billion aid package equal to Israel’s (the US version of “even-handedness”), has begun to switch to Russia for a large part of its future military procurement.  After the Camp David accords, the US began to supply Egypt with equipment comparable to Israel, claiming to balance the military potential for both sides of the conflict.  This was also done to wean Egypt from the Soviet Bloc which had been Egypt’s primary source of supply.  The equipment sold to both countries was always less than top-of-the-line US technology.  Israel has compensated for this by making numerous technical upgrades--some with US permission and some without. Egypt, on the other hand, has not had the technological expertise to do the same level of upgrades.   Egypt’s sudden shift back to the Russian supply line is, in my opinion, another harbinger of a broad Middle East war scheduled for 3 or 4 years in the future.  Egypt knows that after the war begins, it will be cut off from parts and resupply by the US, so it is switching back to Russian armament in order to ensure a supply of spare parts during the coming war.  The planned future Arab attack on Israel will be precipitated by a large scale missile attack on Israel, followed by a conventional invasion.  One of the objectives for the ongoing “peace” negotiations is to get the Israeli military to abandon its strategic bases on the high ground and reposition to more vulnerable positions on the coastal plain.



The American Foreign Policy Council ( warned in its Russian Reform Monitor that “The 'Edinstvo' (Unity) faction of the Duma, the main pro-Putin force in the parliament, has announced its merger with the Fatherland-All Russia (OVR) coalition headed by former Primer Minister Evgenii Primakov and Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov.”  The new jumbo party will have 132 seats in the 450-member Duma.  What is noteworthy and dangerous about this union is that the Fatherland-All Russia coalition was reported to be Putin’s major “centrist” opposition.  Apparently, opposition parties are opposed to Putin in name only.

                All the major players in Putin’s party and most other parties in the Russian Duma are “former” Communists who still rotate in and out of high government position.  Many, like Putin, are still active in the shadowy world of Russia’s security services, where real power in Russia is enforced.  They feign being enemies of the “radical nationalists” on the “right” as well as the Communists on the left.  Of course, left and right means relatively little in Russia anymore. The so-called “right-wing” parties pushing for “reform” don’t even come close to approximating true free market reform.   While there exists a certain level of political competition in Russia, it is stage managed for Western consumption.  Anyone who gets too far out of line, or who becomes a threat to Putin, is removed.  It’s hardly a democracy.  The supposed legal prosecution of the powerful Russian Mafia leaders like Berezovsky and Guzinski is merely for show.  Putin was selected to replace Boris Yeltsin by these same Mafia leaders--who are the real power in Russia today.


MAY 18, 2001


Background: Italy has a reputation for chronic political instability and corruption. Ever since Mussolini introduced his version of Fascist socialism during the Second World War, Italy has been wracked with one corrupt socialist government after another--a total of 58 coalitions governments (all from the left) that inevitably collapsed within months after being installed, each faction fighting one another over how to redistribute the country’s diminishing productive wealth and thereby purchase the allegiance of the voters. Eventually, every socialist regime succumbs to this kind of widespread bribery and corruption as free markets are driven into black markets or gray markets and bureaucrats and politicians weasel in on the action.

Italy’s long series of left-dominated governments came to a crashing halt in 1994 with the “Mani Pulite“ (Clean Hands) revelations that stunned all of Europe. Milan’s state prosecutor Di Pietro had begun a vigorous investigation in 1992 into allegations that organized crime had penetrated the political process and was controlling the ruling Christian Democratic party. Di Pietro found more than that as subsequent investigations unfolded. As more and more informants came forth with damaging testimony against the biggest names in Italian politics, it became apparent to his inquiry that not only the Christian Democrats, but virtually every major political party which had any part in coalition government was being paid huge financial kick-backs--not only from the Mafia but from every big corporation that wanted to do business with the government. This was, of course, no secret to those who do business in Italy, but it was a carefully kept secret from the public--and now that secret was out and the public was calling for justice. Di Pietro survived numerous attempts by Italy’s powerful establishment to remove him and became a sort of national hero as he appeared to single-handedly take on Italy’s corrupt and powerful establishment.

The scandal was so widespread that in the elections of 1995 all the big names in Italian politics went down to defeat. In fact, the evidence was so convincing that every politician had to jump on the bandwagon and say his mea culpas (I’m guilty) in order to survive. For the first time in history, a completely corrupt “democratic” government, filled with conspiracy and collusion was overthrown and discredited. Too good to be true? Perhaps.

In its place emerged “il cavaliere” (the white knight) Silvio Berlusconi, a well-spoken, wealthy media magnate who had the money and the image to promise a completely new beginning. In the previous year, as he saw the establishment left crumbling into disgrace and defeat, Berlusconi quickly mobilized his massive media forces to launch a new political movement called Forze Italia. This catchy title (meaning “Go Italy”) linked the new movement to a popular cheer in Italian soccer that inspired masses of Italians to support the new movement. In the meantime, Berlusconi joined forces in a hastily-made coalition with Umberto Bosi, the flamboyant separatist leader of La Lega Norte (Northern League), and Gianfranco Fini of the National Alliance.

However, Berlusconi’s new coalition was only to last 7 months before it fell victim to the instant unpopularity of the inevitable austerity measures necessary to reign in the excessive government spending inherent to socialist regimes. Once a majority of voters becomes corrupted by socialist welfare benefits, they never relinquish those voluntarily. The former Powers That Be also hastened Berlusconi’s defeat by mounting a powerful investigation of its own into Berlusconi’s widespread business dealings in hopes of finding some form of corruption. The opposition forces were able to summon several tax inspectors who claimed that Berlusconi, his brother and various family corporations paid bribes to resolve tax disputes. While Berlusconi has denied the charges for the past 7 years (and gotten away with it, so far), I suspect that the charges may well be true, considering how endemic the use of bribes is in Italian governmental affairs. Italy, like almost all of Europe, has high confiscatory taxation rates, and evasion is rampant. Paying off investigators has always been cheaper than paying the taxes directly and is considered a price of doing business for big corporations in Italy. So far, Berlusconi has been able to stave off his legal enemies, and his popularity among the people remains high, even after his fall from power. The left was jubilant at Berlusconi’s quick political defeat and quickly regrouped in order to regain power.

There is an interesting and tragic lesson to be learned here for Americans who suspect that a similar conspiracy of power and corruption controls both major parties in the USA. Less than a year after being totally discredited and thrown out of power in Italy, the major corrupt parties on the left simply changed their names, funded new faces to run for office and were back in power within a year--joining in with the chorus of condemnation against the old regimes (themselves) and promising to continue cleaning up the corruption. This, in fact, is the same thing that happened in Russia and Romania after the deceptive “fall of Communism” and is an ongoing fixture of politics in all countries who have succumbed to years of the socialist nightmare. Sadly, the common man is relatively incapable of discerning the deception in this form of revolving-door leadership. With the help of a colluding Italian press, who were obviously knowing conspirators in the former spread of corruption, the majority of Italians were led to believe that real change was taking place when there was none.

The only leftist political party in Italy that was able (with the help of the leftist press) to partially escape the firestorm of kick-back charges was the Communist Party, who claimed (falsely) to be above materialistic temptation. Witnesses have testified that even the Communists were part of the corruption, but the main focus continued to be the ruling Christian Democrats. Consequently Communists and disavowing “former” Communists were able to take over Italy’s government during the seven years between Berlusconi’s first brief attempt to gain power and his dramatic comeback this week.

The Communists have been steadily weakened by their failure to satisfy both their own extremist supporters and mainstream of Italian voters. Marxist Romano Prodi had the ignoble task of bringing Italy’s economy into compliance with the EU’s single currency movement to the Euro. For this he was looked upon as a Judas by his far-left supporters. In 1998, he lost a single no-confidence vote and was ousted. Incidentally, Prodi was recently rewarded by fellow leftist leaders in the EU by being voted in as the EU Commissioner. After Prodi, Communist leader Massimo D’Alema came to power and presided over the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. He ended up pleasing no one except America’s global leaders (which earned D’Alema absolutely no points in Italy) and he was ousted from power in April of 2000. The remaining coalition of leftists was not able to maintain a stable replacement government after D’Alema’s resignation, so President Ciampi of Italy was forced to call for new elections, which finally brought Berlusconi back to power.

The far left all over Europe is treating Berlusconi’s election like the plaque. EU leaders are rattling their boycott sabers just as they did in response to Austria’s inclusion of the right-wing Freedom Party (FPO) in its government. The FPO’s former leader, the much maligned Jorg Haider, was the first to congratulate Berlusconi on his victory. In contrast, or perhaps in protest, Germany’s Marxist leader Gerhardt Shroeder refused to issue even a perfunctory congratulations. France’s leftist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was equally hostile, but kept it semi-private. So what is behind the old-left’s hatred of Berlusconi? I suspect it has a lot to do with the growing split between the European and US factions vying for control of the NWO. The EU is clearly leading the way toward ushering in the NWO in Europe, and they want the NWO harnessed to their far-left agenda. The leftist faction in the EU has close links to Moscow and is, by my analysis, secretly trying to harness the EU for an eventual European-Russian economic and military alliance. I think the EU leaders view Berlusconi as a future ally of the Americans, given his big-business leanings. Given that Berlusconi is not a free-market libertarian (he’s a pragmatic businessman who will not attempt to overturn much of the socialist agenda in Italy--just make it less intrusive), he’s exactly the kind of man the US globalists would like to see in power.


JUNE 1, 2001


The New York Times reported this week that the Bush administration has already made informal proposals to Russia offering military aid in exchange for Russia’s agreement to go along with the Bush ABM proposal. The authors of the article, David Sanger and Thom Shanker, offered the following incorrect statement to help justify this latest Clintonesque proposal: “Bush needs Putin’s agreement to dispense with the ABM treaty.” Hogwash! The treaty ceased to be valid as soon as the Soviets began violating its provisions (they were never in compliance). It also became legally unenforceable when one of the original signatory parties (the Soviet Union) nominally went out of existence.

The original ABM treaty was a total sellout of US security interests by the Nixon-Kissinger team—the same team that sold the Soviets miniature ball-bearing technology allowing it to increase missile accuracy to US standards and develop MIRVed warheads. In the ABM treaty, the US gained nothing as it unilaterally committed to keep America undefended while allowing the Soviet Union to deploy a 100 missile ABM system—which it has continually upgraded in defiance of treaty provisions. As most of my readers are aware, my belief is that this suicidal policy has a rational and evil purpose for globalist conspirators intent on using war to finally lock the world into their vaunted New World Order.

In this current proposal, Bush is offering to pay the Russians to field a new fleet of upgraded S-300 missiles to “protect Europe and Russia.” This is the same proposal Putin made to Europe and now Bush is offering to pay for it. Of course, Putin will undoubtedly maintain control over those missiles and use them to defend Russia after WWIII begins. Bush also wants to share early warning data with the Russians and upgrade all Russia’s radar, plus give Putin an unspecified amount of military aid. Remember this bit of treason when Russia strikes. These are the kinds of leaders who will still claim the right to lead what’s left of America when the next war starts.


JUNE 22, 2001



 I have long predicted that what happened in Kosovo was not accidental but the first application of a new formula of intervention by the West designed to irritate and antagonize Eastern bloc countries that have been historically allied with the old Soviet Union.  The long-term strategy is to build up the image of the West as  aggressors to help Russia justify the coming war against the US.  Macedonia, the southernmost territory of the former Yugoslavia, is the next victim. 

                The majority of Macedonians are Christian Slavs with close ties to Serbia.  The rest compose an Albanian Muslim minority whose relatively minor grievances are being amplified to serve as the spark igniting sufficient unrest to justify NATO intervention.  Incursions from NLA Albanian guerrillas (a branch of the US-trained and equipped KLA army) into northwestern Macedonia are ongoing and, as noted by local observers, ALWAYS originate from US-controlled regions of Kosovo.   US KFOR troops have tracked NLA movements across the border nightly, but do nothing to stop them.  In the latest moves, NATO has prepared a force of 3,000 European troops to be ready to “disarm” the NLA as soon as a suitable “negotiated settlement” can be foisted upon the Macedonian government.  Such negotiated settlements always involve giving some form of legitimacy to the “rebels” which they could never achieve by fighting.  Even the coming disarmament maneuver overseen by NATO will be a sham, as it was in Kosovo.  In Kosovo, the KLA was allowed to hide their personal weapons in houses and put their heavy weapons in KLA controlled weapons depots, and thus be certified as disarmed. 

                The US says they are not providing troops, only logistical support.  It seems that logistical support involves over 700 US military personnel.  Whenever the US downplays the involvement of its own troops, Americans would do well to remember that when US involvement in Bosnia started, President Clinton promised that the troops would be in place less than a year.  One delay led to another.  US troops are still in Bosnia, and the US has ceased to remember the continual lies and deception of its own government.  Congress no longer complains about this indefinite deployment.   Slowly we are being drawn into a planned future conflict that will have Americans someday wondering, “How did this all happen?”   It happens one small step at a time. 

                This strategy is complex and difficult to follow because those that conspire to implement the New World Order are adept at playing both sides of the fence in any conflict.  Below I will quote from a piece on Macedonia written by Jan Oberg, entitled A Prelude to Military Intervention.   Oberg is a Swedish pacifist and the director of TFF (, who is rightfully suspicious of his own government’s involvement in the NWO.  His analysis is particularly compelling in its depiction of how the US operates continuously from two opposite sides of the issue to create a destabilization, all in the name of stability.   Emphasis added is mine.

                “These days I am reminded of my conversation in the early 1990s with the first representative of the United States to independent Macedonia. Two things came out clearly: no matter the question I asked him he said that the policies of the United States aimed at stability; second, if he had any knowledge about the Balkans in general and Macedonia in particular he kept it to himself. Today, we should not be surprised if stability, the post-Cold War buzz-word, in reality means instability or de-stabilization.

                “On June 4, in Washington Post, retired Ambassador William G. Walker, condemned the Macedonian government for treating the Albanians as second-class citizens and, when it comes to its military response to fighting the Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA), compares it with Milosevic. He advocates a stronger high-level US involvement by hosting a Dayton-like conference (not a word about the EU) and insists that NLA shall participate as it is a legitimate actor with popular support.

                “Further, he believes that a recent agreement brokered by American Ambassador Robert Frowick, the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for the situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, between the two main Albanian parties and the NLA should be welcomed. (Incidentally it was signed outside Macedonia, close to Prizren in Kosovo, and behind the back of the Macedonian political leadership and, thus, Frowick was considered persona non grata). The EU's reaction indicates a deep rift with the US.

                “So, who is William Walker? A former persona non grata in Yugoslavia where he headed OSCE's Kosovo Verifiers' Mission, KVM, negotiated in October 1998 between US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and President Milosevic. It is public knowledge that his mission had a substantial CIA component and that his verdict on the spot in Racak that Milosevic was behind that massacre lacked every evidence at the time. Today he is an honorary board member of National Albanian American Council's ‘Hands of Hope Campaign.’ To give you the flavor of the group: one of its honorary co-chairs is Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel who, over the years, have delivered more factually incorrect and propagandistic statements on Kosovo than most.

                “But there are other American policy-makers. Listen to State Department's Mr. [Richard] Boucher on June 6. He calls NLA in Macedonia ‘extremists’ and ‘insurgents’ - - much like Lord Robertson of NATO always calls these NATO/KFOR- and US-supported insurgents ‘thugs’! Boucher talks in terms of ‘ethnic Albanian violence’ and states that ‘we have never seen a role for them [NLA/terrorists] in the political negotiations.’ He adds that NLA proves ‘every day that they are not interested in addressing real concerns and needs of the Albanian community.’

                “In contrast to Mr. Frowick's private diplomacy with NLA and to Walker's embrace of them as legitimate, Mr. Boucher sides with the Macedonian government. It has, he says, taken the right path, ‘the path of inter-ethnic dialogue, to address the concerns of all citizens of Macedonia together with a continuation of their measured response to extremist provocations.’ He sees no contradiction between dialogue and military response.

Then he is asked what he thinks about William Walker's article in Washington Post and answers: ‘Yes, that doesn't make sense at all. Anyway he is a former colleague.’

                “To complete the picture, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld visits the region and lauds the American presence and the NATO/KFOR forces in Kosovo, conveniently forgetting that they and his country's bombing are the main causes of the de-stabilization of Macedonia. He expresses his support for the Macedonian state and its National Unity Government and condemns the violence of the (US-armed and -trained) UCK/NLA!

                “As mentioned in earlier TFF Press Infos, it is common knowledge that CIA and the American firm Military Professional Resources Inc, MPRI, are among those who have made UCK/KLA possible. After officially having been disarmed and dissolved in September 1999, KLA/UCK must have been permitted to pass through the American NATO/KFOR sector in Kosovo to conduct military activities in Southern Serbia (under the name UCPMB) and now in Macedonia (NLA/UCK/ONA).

                “In other words, without the active help of at least one branch of the American foreign policy establishment, the present fighting in Macedonia would hardly have been possible. No matter how much people like Walker emphasize internal ethnic problems in Macedonia, it remains an indisputable fact that the militarization of local tension, which was made possible by NATO's disgraceful terror bombing of Yugoslavia and the subsequent occupation of Kosovo, is the work of foreign actors. The rhetoric about human rights is just a facade.  The US Bondsteel Base in Kosovo, the largest built by the United States since Vietnam, signals a considerable strategic interest in the triangle made up of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus, the oil fields of the latter becoming increasingly important. Huge oil pipelines will go through the Balkans, as do Transport Corridors 8 and 10, and all of it is, of course, part of a game way beyond human rights, humanitarian concerns, democratization, tolerance and civil society empowerment. [Well intentioned people from the left always see the conspiracy in terms of capitalist greed, and fail to see the overall global purpose of destroying national sovereignty.]

                “It is also quite easy to see Kosovo and Macedonia in the light of NATO expansionism, present and future. It relates to three world order goals: containment of Russia; US/NATO marginalization of the UN and OSCE as peacekeeping organizations, and a long-term development of a Second Cold War. The main building block of the latter is the systematic antagonization of the Chinese, the Russians and others who do not obey a US-centered world order.” [Oberg is partially wrong here.  He doesn’t understand the nature of the two western factions trying to control the NWO, nor does he understand that the controlling US/British faction  is actually covering for and assisting Russia and China’s military build-up, and the “long term development” he mentions is not of a “Second Cold War” related to the “military industrial complex” but, rather, a Third HOT World War.]

                In typical Hegelian fashion, it appears that someone is preparing a catalyst for direct NATO intervention.  Suddenly from out of nowhere a new paramilitary group is supposedly emerging and threatening Macedonia with “ethnic cleansing.”  This new group, called Macedonia paramilitary 2000 (a very suspicious sounding name) claims that in response to US pressure on Macedonian president Boris Trajkovsky, they will begin cleansing Albanian villages in Macedonia which refuse to distance themselves from the NLA extremist.   Frankly, I find this hard to believe.  Everyone knows what happens when “rogue militias” start to do ethnic cleansing:  NATO is forced to intervene militarily.   Who would be stupid enough to refer to their secret organization as a “paramilitary” group and announce in advance their intention to start cleansing the opposition?   This follows a pattern of “creating a phony” enemy that happens all the time in Latin America.  The leftist media begins to run stories about private “right-wing death squads” as an excuse for US intervention and a forced “cease fire” between leftist guerrillas and pro-western government forces.  The resulting coalition government always becomes dominated by the Left.   Later, it becomes known that the CIA funded these paramilitary organs and provided them with arms, creating an atmosphere that paints all opposition to the Left as evil killers.  I suspect the same is happening in Macedonia.


JUNE 29, 2001



In a move that set off anti-American demonstrations throughout western Macedonia, the US pressured Macedonia to call off its attack of NLA Albanian rebels holed up in the Macedonian town of Aracinovo.   Worse, the US sent in a column of US armored troop carriers to evacuate the guerrillas, with their weapons, to a nearby town.  The US said this was necessary because no private bus company would take on the task.  Why should any Macedonian bus company want to help extract an enemy of its own country?  This whole excuse is simply disinformation on the part of the US meant to cover up its real intentions.   It’s a phony cover on its face.  There is no way the NLA guerrillas would have accepted a ride in civilian buses out of a town--surrounded by Macedonian soldiers--without an armed escort.  

                There is also evidence from a German news report that among the retreating rebels were 17 former American military “instructors" working for one of the many “private” corporations that the US hires to do military consulting the US doesn’t want to take responsibility for.  According to the article, Macedonian security people claim that most of the weapons the NLA fields are provided by the US, including night vision goggles.  While I cannot independently confirm this damaging report, I feel it is predictable that the US would get involved since we already know that the CIA trained and armed the KLA rebels in Kosovo--so why not the NLA?  The NLA regularly penetrates Macedonia from the US-KFOR sector in Kosovo, giving further suspicion to US complicity in this whole affair. 

                These facts are well known among the local non-Albanians in Macedonia.  Hostility against the recent American intervention was so intense that the American military convoy, attempting to return to base in Kosovo, was confronted by angry and armed demonstrators at various border check points.  Rather than confront the armed crowds, the US headquarters launched an unmanned “hunter” reckon aircraft to find a safe route home for the convoy through the back roads.  All told, this little “rescue” mission on behalf of the enemy cost the US taxpayer a few hundred thousand dollars.  

                The town of Aracinovo was a key town that the Macedonian army could not simply cede to guerrilla control.  This town is not only within 4 miles of Macedonia’s capital, Skopje, but it is also within striking distance of Macedonia’s sole oil refinery.  The Macedonian military had the NLA surrounded and under artillery bombardment when US and NATO negotiators intervened to force Macedonia to honor a “cease fire.”   NATO claims they had to intervene because Macedonia could not have defeated the guerrillas--a charge hotly disputed by Macedonian Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski.  Macedonians have come to see this latest move by US troops as a NATO attempt to keep the Albanian militant wing alive so as to eventually justify a Kosovo style intervention in Macedonia. 

                Obviously, the intervention has already begun.  Macedonian President Trajkovsky gave in (unwisely) to Javier Solana’s demands that Trajkovsky form a coalition government with the Albanian minority parties.  Solana is the Spanish Marxist who was former head of the Atlantic Alliance, NATO, and is now NATO’s high representative for  foreign and security policy. Pushing governments into hostile coalitions with enemies has been a standard tactic used by the US to covertly assist in communist takeovers of friendly governments for years.  It happened in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and is ongoing in Korea and Ireland.  For Macedonia, as for these other countries, a coalition government with the enemy is a no-win proposition.  Just as Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland is a political shill for the militant IRA, so the Albanian political parties are fronting for the NLA who will settle for nothing less than a partition of Macedonia, splitting off the western section of the country so it can join with Kosovo and Albania proper to form a pan-Albanian Muslim state.  There is no intent on the part of the radical Albanian parties to have a peaceful negotiated settlement of the issues.


JULY 6, 2001



One of the tactics I look for in determining if the US is undermining or supporting a nation is how they use a brokered “Cease Fire” agreement to favor one side or the other.  Rarely is a cease fire arranged because of a stalemate or because a war is raging equally on both sides.   Almost always the US rushes in to broker a cease fire when the aggressors are close to being defeated.

                It has happened in virtually every war in Israel just as Israel is about to turn the beginnings of victory into a rout.   In the current cease-fire with Arafat’s Palestinian Authority words mean virtually nothing any more.  There has not been a single day in the past month without multiple aggressions by Arab snipers and terrorists, and yet the media and the US intervenors continue to talk about the “tenuous cease-fire.”   It’s not tenuous--its non-existent!  

                Day after day, Israeli citizens are shot or otherwise killed and their own government does little but attend funerals and reiterate disingenuous pledges to not negotiating under fire.  And yet leftist Foreign Minister Shimon Perez  meets openly with Yasser Arafat at the Socialist International meeting in Portugal--a fitting place since the Socialist International has always been a Moscow led Communist front.  As I said, words mean nothing anymore precisely because the media refuses to bring attention to the hypocrisy of establishment leaders.  Ironically, rather than put blame where it belongs, the violations of the cease fire by the Arabs are being used by the US to put additional pressure of Israel to make ever more unilateral concession in order to entice Arafat to make the cease fire work.  

                During the latest rounds of meetings in Europe Israeli intelligence brought in transcripts of intelligence intercepts  proving that Arafat was, indeed, still giving the orders to kill, thus depriving European leaders of the ability to play the game that Arafat is “trying, but can’t control” his people.   Naturally, since the Israeli intel won’t be made public, the European leaders can still play as if Arafat is innocent even if they can’t get away with it in direct negotiations with Israel.   

                In Ireland, the US has brokered numerous cease-fires, truces and power sharing agreement, but the bottom line is always the same.  The IRA gains political participation but never actually lives up to its side of the agreement--which requires giving up its huge stockpile of weapons and explosives.  The independent 3-man commission on IRA disarmament reported this week that the IRA--after two years of stalling--has failed to yield up any arms.  Actually, the words were “failed to put any arms beyond use.”   This is a word game used to replace actual disarmament with the facile requirement that arms only be put away, beyond their own use.   This equates to storage in warehouses totally under IRA control, in places where there can be some token verification by “neutral” inspectors--who are rarely neutral.  As easy as this arrangement is to violate and obscure the IRA still has refused to comply.  This is indicative of long-term intent to use those arms for a consolidation of total victory.   This is precisely the kind of “disarmament” the US engaged in with the KLA rebels in Kosovo, and which is planned for the KLA offshoot in Macedonia--the NLA. 

                Macedonia: Last week the US intervened to snatch the NLA guerrillas from certain defeat--rescuing not only their soldiers, but their arms, and at least 17 mercenary-advisors who were reported to be former US special forces people hired out to a US-based mercenary contractor, funding by the CIA.   Had Macedonia been allowed to defeat this large body of 400 NLA soldiers, a true political solution might have been forthcoming.  But when the US intervenes to keep the enemy from being defeated, they are actually setting up a negotiated settlement where the guerrillas maintain a basis of strength from which to extort concessions from Macedonia which the would otherwise be unable to extract.   Secretly, the US will be there to ensure that Macedonia gives in to these concessions.  Normally, the concessions require some type of autonomy being granted to the sectors of Macedonia which have large Albanian majorities or minorities.  Thus, the NLA achieve (with the help of US strong-arming) in negotiations what they couldn’t have achieved on the battlefield. 


JULY 27, 2001



Only weeks after US forces rescued a team of NLA guerillas from encirclement by Macedonia military forces, the 400-500 man battalion of NLA rebels are back on the attack--still accompanied by their secret cadre of former US military advisors.  In a dramatic report on the Emperor’s New Clothes website (,  Michel Chossudovsky quotes the reaction of a Macedonian military source in Skopje, the capital city:  “When the terrorists were defeated and showed a white flag, the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] and NATO were in panic and ordered us [the Macedonian authorities] to stop immediately the [military] action. Swedish Foreign Minister Ana Lindth and the European leaders were hysterical, threatening us with economic sanctions, etc. Furthermore, the OSCE and KFOR entered Aracinovo and ‘saved’ 500 terrorists together with their weaponry and took them to another village from where they are now attacking again, killing civilians and undertaking ethnic cleansing in several Macedonian villages...”  Actually, it was armed US troops with hired buses which extricated the terrorists and their US mercenary advisors.  The Macedonian source continues, “NATO forbids us to defend ourselves when we are attacked; our territory is brutally abused by the terrorists. We have tried to defend ourselves, and they have saved the terrorists in air-conditioned buses. That has provoked harsh reaction of the Macedonian people.” 

                This week, the NLA is advancing on Tetova, just to the north of Skopje.  Over 10,000 non-Albanians have fled the fighting, but the media is refusing to call this ethnic cleansing--I guess the wrong people are being targeted.  This time, the Macedonian military doesn’t intend to allow NATO or the Americans to halt the fighting. “Unless the rebels pull out to their previous positions... we will no longer listen to suggestions from any Western mediator, and an offensive is not excluded as an option,” said a minister of the current government.  The Macedonians themselves are rioting in the streets in reaction to continued US and NATO pressure to again halt the offensive against the rebels.  According to wire services, “mobs of Macedonians rampaged against foreign embassies in Skopje, accusing NATO of supporting the guerrillas. Protesters threw stones at the U.S. Embassy late Tuesday, smashed entrances of the British and German embassies and burned several UN and other cars.” 

                NATO’s reaction was predictable.  Rather than allow the Macedonians to rid their country of these terrorists,  NATO military chief Robertson (a Brit), speaking from the safety of his offices in Belgium, urged restraint (which they always do when the unfavored side is winning). “Any efforts to resolve the situation militarily can only result in the wreckage of the country and the inflicting of grave civilian casualties,” he said.  Why didn’t he say that when he and US General Wesley Clarke launched NATO’s military “solution” on Serbia? NATO, true to Robertson’s words, did kill many civilians and wrecked the country.  Yet proper military force really does resolve things--quite permanently in some cases.  Obviously, when others need to use military force to solve their terrorist problem, NATO refuses to acknowledge such a need--after all “military force is useless.”    

                The NLA, an offshoot of the CIA-trained KLA in Kosovo, is led by Gezim Ostremi--who up until recently has been on the payroll of the UN.   According to journalist Chris Stephen in Pristina, “Before launching war in Macedonia, Commander Gezim Ostremi was paid by the UN to help set up the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), being appointed its chief-of-staff.  [The establishment of the KPC allowed the US to justify letting the KLA retain its weapons.]  Now President Bush has banned Commander Ostremi from entry to the US, and accused five key members of the KPC of aiding the rebels.  Yet the United Nations says it will take no action against these five men, all still serving officers, because Washington has yet to pass on details of what the men are supposed to have done.”  I don’t expect any enforcement to be forthcoming.  The Bush pronouncement against the NLA came in an executive order, much heralded by conservatives as an indication that Bush was going to stop the CIA from funding the KLA offshoot rebel group.  But it appears to be all verbiage and no action. 

                Bush can get away with this because the US military is technically not directly aiding the NLA--but is doing so indirectly with US taxpayer money.  The former US military special forces types serving with the NLA are mercenaries hired by a private contractor, Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI).   In reality, MPRI, just like DynaCorp (working Latin America), is a CIA proprietary company run by cut-outs from the agency.   Often those they select for service as mercenaries are still secretly on active duty.  They are simple given a paper discharge in order to make it appear as if they are separate from the government.    Using the ruse of a contractor allows the president plausible deniability for his role in this betrayal of Macedonia.  Even better, MPRI can and does refuse to answer any questions about its role in Macedonia, claiming (correctly) that the US government stipulates in their contract that all operations shall be done in secret.   Plain and simple, this is a civilian operation in name only.  Incidentally, the US Neutrality Act forbids US civilians from engaging in armed conflict for another country.  The fact that the Justice Department never prosecutes these “civilian” mercenaries is additional evidence that they are working for and are part of the government.  

                Worse, the US military is indeed directly involved in supporting the NLA operations in the field.  According to Chossudovsky, cited previously, and other sources confirming this information, the US is using “Predator” unmanned spy planes to track battlefield conditions and relay military intelligence to the MPRI advisors working with the NLA.  Perhaps that is one reason the US and NATO continue to tell the Macedonian military that they can’t win this war and should negotiate (i.e., surrender) instead.  It seems that the US if trying awfully hard to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.


AUGUST 6, 2001



A nasty pattern is emerging which lends credence to the suspicions of many observers that almost all the violent acts perpetrated at the various international summits are the work of government sponsored agent provocateurs.  During the Seattle riots I quoted one on-the-scene source who observed several things that pointed to police collusion with the few black masked demonstrators who were causing all the vandalism of local businesses.  First, the police never attempted to stop them nor apprehend them even when it was clearly in their power to do so.  Second, several of the violent perpetrators were seen taking off their masks and blending back into police formations.  One was later seen arresting demonstrators, indicating he worked for the police.  A similar pattern has been documented at the latest international summit in Genoa, Italy.  Here is an account by an on-site witness to the Genoa “Black Bloc,” as these agents are now known.  He is Stefano Agnoletto, the brother of Vittorio Agnoletto, a high ranking representative of the Genoa Social Forum, a leftist group in Italy.  I don’t usually quote from leftist groups, but since they are the obvious targets of these agent provocateurs, we need to consider the reasons why.

“I arrive to Genoa on Thursday, after an immigrant's rights demonstration of about 50,000 people. There are arrival camps, many, thousands of peaceful people, a marvelous atmosphere...The various groups participating will converge in different points of the city to have a carnivalesque ‘siege’ against the ‘red area’ [the downtown zone surrounding the G8 convention, in which demonstrations were prohibited] with street theater, dancing and slogans.  At this point, from the beach-front, members of the now infamous ‘Black Bloc’ arrive.  Some are seen chatting with police, others just come out of police crowds.  Most of them speak German. They start to break everything.  Police and Carabinieri [Italian military police] just stand there. The Black Bloc tries to join in with a group of COBAS workers [COBAS is an Italian trade union]. They beat up one of their leaders, the group manages to stay clear of them with some difficulty. Then the Black Bloc makes head for the first issue area, belonging to the Italian Social Centers... The police goes after them, and demonstrators find themselves attacked first by the Black Bloc and then by the police, which starts to charge violently against all demonstrators... The Black Bloc leaves the square and starts to vandalize the city systematically.  300-400 of the Black Bloc roam Genoa, and whoever guides them seems to know the city very well . . . It's incredible. They move with military discipline, infiltrate everywhere, some leaders shout orders which are promptly followed by the whole group. And, shortly afterwards, police and Carabinieri make their appearance . . To sum it up, two nightmare days.  Both the Black Bloc and the police knew what they were doing when they committed this violence.  All along, from Friday, they insulted and verbally abused us as they did what they did, someone seems to have brainwashed them.   My brother Vittorio told me: It's crazy, it seems we are in Latin America during the ‘70s [referring to the way the Argentine military went after the Communists].  Maybe even he did not realize fully with whom are we dealing here.”

It is important to note the similarities between the Seattle and Genoa riots.  In both Genoa and Seattle, it is very clear that the vast majority of protesters came peacefully and had no intentions of destroying anything.  Yet as in Seattle, the military and police forces on hand in Genoa were ready and armed for major riots.  Very few of the police were local.  Most were federalized police forces brought in--just like in Seattle.   The orders came from the federal level--not local.

In both cases, it was a carefully trained cadre of specialists, linked with police, which provided the spark of violence to which the police forces responded with military-style intervention and brutality.  It is noteworthy that the police carefully avoided hurting or arresting the real culprits, and delivered severe beatings only to the innocent bystanders who were simply trying to flee the scene. The Seattle case was particularly suspicious because the level of federal involvement, evidence of prior training, and availability of special weapons indicated that the federal government had complete foreknowledge of the kinds of violence to expect--even though there had been no major violence at prior summits.

Here’s what we can conclude.  Somebody wanted violence in order to justify a massive police intervention.  Part of the reason was that somebody wanted an excuse to expose these new elite police units to real life training on real people.  Most countries, including the US, regularly train for urban warfare, one of the primary aspects of which involves controlling adverse public reaction --an indication that the ultimate aim of that training is local rather than foreign.   But there is more.  The police forces must have also had some type of off-the-record instructions to deal roughly with the demonstrators--even innocent ones.  There is no other way to explain the kinds of brutal beatings meted out to demonstrators who were not resisting in any way.  This may indicate some desire to foment anti-police hatred within the ranks of the leftists demonstrators, to incite further social unrest later on.  It also may be a way of selectively recruiting and testing special forces that do not object to or balk at this kind of cruelty.  In a corrupt military system, a general commitment to “following orders” only goes so far before good men begin to refuse evil orders.  All totalitarian forces, whether Hitler’s Brown Shirts or Italy’s Fascist Black Shirts, recruited thug-like people for their elite units who could be depended upon to crack heads without feeling guilty.

Incidentally, if the Powers That Be really wanted to avoid violence altogether they could easily have held this meeting privately, without fanfare at some out-of-the-way location.  I think the PTB want to these summit forums to be big public affairs as a propaganda tool to promote the globalist agenda and get the public used to submitting to the inevitability of it all (because all the world is going along).  Perhaps that is why they must foment violence--so as to put the opposition in an evil light. 

Agnoletto’s last statement is very telling--that his brother, a very experienced Marxist leftist on the international scene, did not realize who he was dealing with.  It appears that many on the hard left in Europe still don’t realize that the “Third Way” socialists of the NWO are not their allies, but competitors for control of the NWO.  Among the NWO globalists, there is a division between the European left faction and the American-British globalists who control the finances of the NWO.  But I don’t think this was a factional fight between them.  If it were, the entire travesty would likely have been orchestrated by the American/British faction, since Italy’s PM, Silvio Berlusconi, is on that side of the NWO.  However, the majority of Black Bloc rioters were from Germany, which means that Germany’s secret services were probably involved.  Germany is clearly on the European side of this factional battle for control of the NWO.  Apparently, the motives for organizing these violent upheavals at international globalist summits transcend the factional differences.


AUGUST 13, 2001



In another deceptive move, the political representatives of the IRA have claimed to have reached a new agreement whereby the IRA’s arsenal of weapons and explosives shall be put verifiably “beyond reach.”  PM Tony Blair (who sides with the IRA) touted the agreement as “historic.”  Yet, nothing has changed.  Such “diarmament” agreements have been reached before, whereby NATO knowingly allowed the KLA to put their weapons ostensibly “beyond reach” but in fact under the KLA’s own operational control.  Disturbingly, the British have refused to publish exactly how the “new” agreement differs from past IRA agreements to put weapons beyond reach.  How can one judge whether or not this ploy is verifiable or even credible without details?  Naturally, the details are kept secret for reasons of “national security.”  I suspect that the IRA is going to be able to designate a friendly third party group to take custody of some weapons.  Keep in mind that at no time has the IRA ever allowed anyone to inventory what they have, so who is to say the weapons put “beyond reach” are in any way complete?

Smart Protestant leaders want nothing short of complete destruction of the weapons, but they are being sidelined by the media and the power brokers.  PM Bertie Ahern of Ireland joined with Tony Blair to put together this travesty of compromise--a mere repeat of the failed IRA promises of before.  The Ulster Unionists, the province’s largest party, are rightfully threatening to withdraw from the entire “peace process.”   There are internationalists crawling all over this process, including decommissioning chairman Gen. John de Chastelain of Canada.  David Trimble, of the Ulster Unionists, is partially responsible for starting this compromise process. He was the assembly's first minister who talked his group into accepting the initial agreement promising to break the disarmament impasse.  But after years of IRA stalling and the Protestants’ growing distrust of Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political front, there is a sense within Protestant circles that the IRA has been the only recipient of political advantage in these negotiations.

Trimble came out of marathon meetings with his party saying that they would need more time to decide whether the new IRA stance on decommissioning would change their own stand.  Decommissioning has never really been equivalent to disarmament.  The negotiators never intended that the IRA be completely disarmed, so they chose a word which would give them plenty of slippery opportunities to evade the truth.  Trimble, hopefully, has learned from the past betrayals--but I’m not sure.   He ended by saying, “In the absence of actual decommissioning, then there is nothing at present for Ulster Unionists to respond to."   He correctly added that the IRA’s verbal proposition to put its weapons "completely and verifiably beyond use" did not go far enough.  He’s absolutely correct.  He knows that those words specifically are chosen to protect the IRA against absolute destruction of their weapons caches. 

With Trimble’s withdrawal, PM Tony Blair chose to temporarily dismiss  Northern Ireland's Catholic-Protestant government.  By putting this intermim coalition government on hold, Blair hopes to avoid a major breakdown and put hidden pressure upon the Protestants to break their impasse over IRA decommissioning.  Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid announced that Britain might hand power back to the 108 person assembly if certain conditions are met.  Watch for Trimble to lead the Protestants back to the table with “reluctant” compromises--which won’t hold up.   Trimble is the Newt Gingrich of Ireland--playing the role of opposition but always luring the Protestant forces back to the table on behalf of Britain.   Blair specifically evaded the option of calling for new elections, for fear the hard-line Democratic Unionist Party might win and put Trimble out for good.   These power brokers know all the angles.


AUGUST 17, 2001



Perhaps words don’t mean anything anymore, but frankly, I’m getting weary of hearing the word “partnership” used to link us with the world’s two most egregious tyrannies:  Russia and China.  All of the rest of the world’s crimes against humanity pale in comparison with what takes place in Russia and China every year.   Like it or not, virtually every modern American president since George Bush Sr. has been trying to foist this grand deception upon a naive American populace--that these formidable enemies can be pacified and reformed if we just give them enough help.  Of course, once we have given them sufficient aid and technology they do become a danger and then we must placate them because they are “too strong to challenge.”  With China we are still in the first stage of pretending China’s predatory intentions can be moderated with trade.  On the other hand, we have long passed the point where Russia is impotent--although the establishment media persists in the grand deception that “Communism is dead” and that Russian military power is dying.  Russia harbors the largest military forces in the world and is secretly building and upgrading those forces.  We used to treat Russia as the military monster that must be pacified, but now our own government covers for and actually aids Russian rearmament.  In that vacuum of reality, the politicians have moved in to fill the void with a newly hatched “Strategic Partnership” doctrine, which now permeates any discussion of US/Russian relations.

I’m going to use a commentary piece by (which I firmly believe to be a front for CIA placement of disinformation) as the basis of my criticism.  Why use if it is a disinformation source?  Because we can learn much of what the other side is trying to do by analyzing their own statements--just as you can learn from reading one of the many front-line establishment news sources like Time or Newsweek, if you’re careful not to take their reports at face value.  So let’s go through the article, and analyze this piece of disinformation line by line.  My comments will be in [brackets]. 

In this article, Stratfor is commenting on the ongoing high-level Bush administration initiatives going on in Moscow as a follow-on to the Bush summit with Putin in Genoa.  National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfield are the prime participants in these Moscow talks.  The analysis begins with a quote from Rice describing the talks as the “‘first of many such talks that would describe a totally different kind of relationship between the United States and Russia, one not based on outdated Cold War thinking [Rice denigrates the Cold War concept that Russia is a threat--a key concept used in softening up her audience for what she will propose], but one that reflects the very different relationship that we can and we hope we should have with Russia in the years ahead...We are talking about a bigger issue than what we do about missile defenses and strategic weapons.’” [Indeed, there is a bigger issue: to complete the process of disarmament of strategic US military forces in order to set the stage for the next war.], referring to the US, then states, “Unable to recognize political claims [i.e. Russia’s claimed right to control the affairs of all the former Soviet states.  Actually Stratfor is being less than honest here.  The US has engaged in de facto recognition of Russian control over all of the former Soviet states directly bordering Russia.  The US also acceded to Russia’s brutal invasion and occupation of Chechnya.] or deliver billions in economic aid [which Bush would like to do but can’t yet get away with], Washington is trying to position a reform of the existing arms control regime as a dramatic transformation of relations between the United States and Russia [This is not dramatic, but a continuation of the unilateral disarmament process undertaken by the Clinton administration.  It is now to be carried to conclusion by another globalist president, while feigning conservative principles]. The Russians are listening and open to this, so long as it is the preface to more substance.” [Indeed they are listening! --but still suspicious about what appears to be an unwarranted US interest in committing military suicide.  The Russians, as consummate cheaters and deceivers, have trouble believing the US is this stupid.  And they are right--there is an ulterior agenda.]

The article continues, “Both sides can gain. Washington gets rid of missiles it doesn't want anyway. [Doesn’t want?  True for our globalist leaders, but not for the reasons the reader is expected to infer from this statement--that they are “too costly to maintain” and that there is no need for deterrence against our new “friend” Russia.  This perception smacks of FDR’s effusive friendship with Russia and “Uncle Joe” Stalin during the 30’s and 40’s.  Don’t liberals ever learn from history?  Actually, they know very well what they are doing.  US globalists want these missiles removed in order to ensure a window of US vulnerability to future attack which, in turn, will drive the world’s reluctant sheep into the arms of a UN run global military response.]  The Russians accept the changes in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, paving the way for NMD. The Russians can spend less on their strategic weapons [in public] and more on the conventional forces needed to control the Russian near abroad.” [It is interesting how the US is not only helping the Soviets cover for their secret underground strategic weapons (NBC warheads on mobile missiles), but they are actually providing Russia with an excuse to build up its conventional forces.  Notice that doesn’t mention that the Russians already committed to deep reductions of conventional forces in the Conventional Forces-Europe (CFE) treaty--which they have never fully complied with.  Russia is busy feigning conventional weakness in order to lull Western forces into complacency, and here we are encouraging them to openly rebuild conventional forces.]

        “But the Putin government probably suspects the American initiative [but not for the reasons Stratfor gives here]. Embedded in the American offer is NMD, and around NMD are other elements such as increasing U.S. power in space, restructuring U.S. power projection capabilities and developing new generations of weapons. [The reason a National Missile Defense (NMD) is a threat to the Russians is that they suspect it will not be aimed at rogue nations but at the Russians’ secret plans to begin the next war with a nuclear pre-emptive strike.] The Russians are happy to play along [the only truthful statement in this analysis], but if this is all the Americans are offering, the deal won't fly. Unless this is the opening of an overture that includes billions in economic aid or recognition of a larger Russian sphere, the American offer is only the thing that Russians would have wanted in the 1970s and 1980s, not in 2001.” [Notice how Stratfor ends with a push to give the Russians what the Bush administration now views as politically impossible.  Every attempt to subtly mold public opinion embeds a hook such as this .  This is also why was willing to link up with Joe Farah’s conservative website,  Conservatives are the target audience of this false analysis.]

                      Another wave of propaganda came out on the wire services in the aftermath of Rumsfield’s visit with Putin this week in Moscow.  As if in unison, the reports all praised Rumsfield for gaining the upper hand in his dramatic showdown with Putin over NMD.  Rumsfield reportedly made Putin a “take it or leave it” offer with no room for compromise, implying what the US has been saying all along: “we’ll proceed with our NMD with or without your permission.”  The news reports, including one by Newsmax’s John Perry, gushed over how “Putin blinked” and lost the showdown.  All this is hogwash.  In the first place, no reporter knows what goes on in those secret meetings except what biased sources attached to the principals tell them.  Second, if the US has the legal grounds to proceed with NMD without Russia anyway [which is true], why are they going to all the trouble to engage in another round of one-sided and unverifiable disarmament?   Third, and most importantly, Putin can’t give in on the NMD because it is the only potential weapon that can threaten the keystone of Russia’s future attack plans.  Note that even though the NMD is ineffective in its concept and questionable in effectiveness, it is the perception of threat to Putin combined with his suspicions about US black budget weapons programs that makes it impossible for him to agree to Rumsfield’s poker play. 

                      Here is what I think will finally emerge from the talks--though we will never know all the truth because the US has a very bad habit of keeping secret its agreements with Russia:   Russia will play “hard-to-get” and the US will add financial aid to sweeten the deal.  Russia will still refuse to openly embrace NMD and the US will proceed with its side of the proposals (unilateral, unverifiable disarmament, coupled with economic and military technical aid to Russia) as a “confidence building” measure.  Indeed, the first element has already come true.  Russia’s defense minister announced that Russia will not go along with the NMD proposal. 

                      In other news, Anatoly Kornukov, Commander of all Russian air forces, announced this week that 80 percent of Russian military aircraft will be modernized and updated by 2005 [which correlates with my analysis of the US window of vulnerability as posted on the front page of my].  This comes from a government that claims not to have enough money to even maintain its aircraft or submarine fleet. 


SEPT. 7, 2001



Slobodan Milosevic, with a little help from his friends, wrote a brilliant defense against his indictment before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).  True to the Tribunal’s “star chamber” roots, the judges refused to allow Milosevic to present his case.  The West has apparently been taking lessons from Soviet tribunals.  Despite Milosevic’s Communist background (for which I have no sympathy) every person ought to be very concerned about how this case is being prosecuted.  Someday, they could be on the docket themselves.  The Milosevic brief was leaked to sympathizers and found its way onto The Emperor’s Clothes website (, one of the web’s best resources for facts and analysis on the systematic manipulation by the NWO of the ethnic conflict in the Balkans. The brief’s logic is impeccable.  It’s no wonder the judges didn’t want to listen, or allow the arguments to be entered into the public record.  Truth is dangerous, even from the mouth of a former Communist tyrant.

As background, keep in mind that the ICTY was an ad hoc creation of the UN Security Council--not the UN.  It is not to be confused with the International Criminal Court, the UN’s official tribunal that was so flawed and dangerous to American legal rights that it was specifically rejected by the usually pro-globalist Clinton administration.  As the Milosevic brief correctly stated, “When an International Criminal Court was finally agreed upon in July 1998 by 120 nations meeting in Rome, it was by treaty which had been studied, drafted and debated for years. The United States, the most powerful participant in that long process, consistently sought to weaken the treaty to exempt US leaders and military personnel from prosecution before it.  Having failed, the US was then the most prominent and powerful of the handful of nations that refused to sign.”  At present 37 nations have signed on to the ICC.  Even while continuing to lobby heavily against further implementation of the ICC, the US pushed the Security Council into creating the International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia, in order to demonize and destroy any potential independent legitimacy of Yugoslavia (so as to continue to justify further intervention in the Balkans).


Returning to the brief, here is a summary of the three key arguments.


Argument 1: The UN Security council has no authority under the Charter of the UN to create an international criminal court or tribunal.  “Nothing in the history of the planning, drafting, discussion, approval or ratification of the UN Charter implies, or is consistent with, an intention to empower any body created by, or under, the Charter to establish any criminal tribunal...There would never have been a United Nations if its Charter stated, or implied, that a criminal court could be created under its authority...An International Criminal Court Can Be Created Only By A Multinational Treaty, or Amendment to the Charter of the United Nations.”


Argument 2:  A one-time, one-episode court targeting a single country is an arbitrary use of power and can only lead to further division and conflict in the international arena.  What Milosevic fails to realize is that this is one of the prime goals of UN intervention--to provide the seeds of future conflict, especially to develop a hatred within the former Eastern Bloc against NATO and the West.  The Milosevic brief states, “An ad hoc court violates the most basic principles of all law. Equality is the mother of justice. An international court established to prosecute acts in a single nation and...pre-programmed to persecute, [is] incapable of equality.”


Argument 3.  The ICTY operating procedures do not protect fundamental rights nor provide due process of law.  It recognizes no legal precedents from other courts, no common legal traditions and no relevant case law from prior international courts, except as it chooses to do so.  This is the very essence of arbitrary power. The ICTY presently has no power to enforce orders against other governmental entities, which is a good thing in general, but it also means the tribunal has no power to compel testimony of others, or conduct depositions, both of which are necessary to obtain a fair trial and promote discovery of evidence on behalf of the defense.   Even the right to counsel has been denied by the ICTY.  Milosevic claims that the ICTY “denied to me the right to consult with lawyers of my choice on legal matters for several weeks after my arraignment.”  When Milosevic was allowed to finally speak with his attorneys, all conversations were monitored, which is a violation of attorney client privilege. 



The New York Times reported this week, “The Bush administration, seeking to overcome Chinese opposition to its missile defense program, intends to tell leaders in Beijing that it has no objections to the country's plans to build up its small fleet of nuclear missiles, according to senior administration officials...

One senior official said that in the future, the United States and China might also discuss resuming underground nuclear tests if they are needed to assure the safety and reliability of their arsenals. Such a move, however, might allow China to improve its nuclear warheads and lead to the end of a worldwide moratorium on nuclear testing.” 

Well of course China would improve its nuclear warheads; they’ve been doing so all along.  In fact the whole idea of a so-called moratorium on nuclear testing is an illusion, except as it applies to the US.  China and Russia have never been in compliance with the nuclear test ban treaty, and in fact have been testing regularly to improve the effectiveness of their nuclear warheads.  This statement by the Bush administration is actually aimed at promulgating the illusion that the nuclear arms treaties are at all effective.  By appearing to give China some leeway, the impression is given that China has been abiding by the treaty in the first place.

These statements are in direct contradiction with Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld’s announced plans to restructure US military defenses to counter a future Chinese threat, which I discussed last week.  Clearly, a duality exists in US policy regarding China.  On the one hand, China poses a strong enough threat as to require a focused US defense, while on the other hand, the Chinese threat is so insignificant that the US can encourage them to build up their forces.  Both can’t be true.  In reality, China is building a formidable arsenal and will present a real threat in the near future, a fact that US globalist leaders are counting on.  They have created this duality in policy in order to allow the Chinese buildup of nuclear forces without recognizing it as such. 

Meanwhile, US administrations continue to assure Russia and China that the new ABM system isn’t meant to threaten either of these prime future aggressors.  As the US told China this week, the planned US missile shield is “not aimed at undercutting China's arsenal, but rather at countering threats from so-called rogue states.”  Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said, “We have told the Chinese that the missile defense system is not aimed at them, and we intend to make that point more forcefully.  We do not believe that there is any reason for the Chinese to build up their nuclear forces, but their modernization has been under way for some time.” 

No reason for a Chinese buildup?  The Chinese have their reasons and they have to do with hegemonic intentions for world domination.  As reported more than once in the past decade by the South China News, Communist leaders have repeatedly spoken about the inevitability of conflict with the West, and the US in particular, at political and military conferences.  What part of “inevitable conflict” doesn’t Rice understand?  Most Chinese military strategic documents detail plans for a world war, in alliance with Russia, targeting the US.  China’s role focuses on controlling the Pacific Basin and South Asia (including India). 

Perhaps in reaction to explosive new evidence from The Washington Times that China is about to deploy its first mobile ICBMs capable of hitting the US, the Bush administration began actively denying the charges raised by the NY Times--that China was being given a green light on nuclear forces.  Believe me, the NY Times, as part of the US power structure, has the best insider sources in the US.  The article quoting anonymous Bush administration sources was not invented out of thin air.  Not only are the charges true, but the US establishment has been actively advancing Chinese military technology in many other sensitive areas for decades--by both Republican and Democratic administrations.  The stridency of the Bush administration denials indicates to me how sensitive they are to the possibility that the public may catch on to this very deceptive game the PTB are playing.  Indeed, the Chinese are not only a serious threat to the US but also to the Russians, as I will detail next.



The Russian anti-western publication Zavtra (No. 34) issued a report, prepared by a group of Russian intelligence veterans, that details the economic and geopolitical threat China poses to Russia.  Economically, the report claims that China sees Russia as an enormous market for its cheap products.  I don’t agree.  Russian consumers are too poor to be a good market for anyone right now.  However, the report did correctly point out that “the only niche that Moscow can successfully fill is in the area of weaponry,” and added this strong warning--the same that I wrote about previously: “Russia, however, should be very cautious in transferring military technologies to China, the report warns, lest it lose the military-technological edge that serves as a deterrent against Chinese power.”   Both Russia and China are predatory nations (speaking of the leaders, not the people, necessarily).  Each one needs the other to tackle the West, but both intend on betraying the other sometime during the coming conflict.  By the way, there was no real need to warn Putin.  The Russian hierarchy have always known they will have to tangle with China and have numerous contingency plans to do so.


SEPT 14, 2001



The following comes from an article in The Hindu by  Shamsul Islam, of the Department of Political Science, Satyawati College, University of Delhi, published on September 26, 2001.  [courtesy of a posting by]


“The unprecedented deaths and destruction in two cities of the US on September 11 has stirred the conscience of the world. It was the most lethal, ruthless and daring terrorist strike on the nerve center of the world's most powerful nation today. The US, which promises to guarantee security to the world, was found wanting in checking the terrorist strikes at home for more than 40 minutes when the terrorists had the free run of its major airports, highjacking not one or two but four domestic planes to be used as flying bombs. It did not take long for the US establishment to identify the culprits who masterminded these terrorist acts. These were the `evil' forces of `Islamic terrorism' led by Osama bin Laden. The mainstream US media went on to explain these terrorist attacks in the context of the `clash of civilizations' thesis of Samuel Huntington. There were urgent calls for "forming a global alliance that will use all tools - diplomatic, political, economic, educational, investigative, and where appropriate, force - to pursue and root out the terrorist criminals and their supporters...''


“But it is really surprising that the US, mecca of information technology with its super computers and all kinds of data bases, should be so greatly short of memory about Osama bin Laden. The media in the US these days is full of biographical sketches of Osama bin Laden in which he appears on the world scene in 1990 opposing the Gulf War and then is shown growing into an anti-West monster, finally, targeting the US on `Black Tuesday'. However, it may be news to many ears that Osama's journey as a terrorist did not start in 1990-1991. Any honest biographical description of Osama should not overlook his activities in the 1980s when he was deputed by the CIA to Afghanistan to finance and oversee the resistance to the Soviets. He was groomed as a theocratic-terrorist by the US openly.


“In fact, there is lot of weight in the thesis that the modern Jehadi-Islam is a byproduct of intrigues by the West to keep the Islamic world under its suzerainty, devoid of any kind of democratic processes. And also to use it as a whipping boy occasionally whenever attention needs to be diverted from issues raised by anti-globalization campaigners. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), which has a long tradition of opposing the Taliban regime and paying for it with blood, raised this issue in its September 14 press statement. While condemning the terrorist attack, the statement went on to underline the fact that "the people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with Osama and his accomplices.


“But unfortunately we must say that it was the Government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama has been the blue-eyed boy of the CIA''. How the US and the CIA created Osama and his network has been well-documented in the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia'' by Ahmed Rashid who is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Daily Telegraph of London. This book which has been published by the Yale University Press clearly shows who in reality created Osama. Ahmed Rashid in his superb expose is able to present the factual linkages between the US and the `monster' which it created.


Some of the excerpts are too revealing too be missed. In 1986, CIA chief William Casey had stepped up the war against the Soviet Union by taking three significant, but at that time highly secret, measures. He had persuaded the US Congress to provide the Mujaheddin with American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet planes and provide US advisers to train the guerrillas. The CIA, Britain's MI6 and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence) also agreed on a provocative plan to launch guerrilla attacks into the Soviet Socialist Republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the soft Muslim underbelly of the Soviet state from where Soviet troops in Afghanistan received their supplies. Casey was delighted with the news, and on his next secret trip to Pakistan he crossed the border into Afghanistan with President Zia to review the Mujaheddin groups. "Thirdly, Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Washington wanted to demonstrate that the entire Muslim world was fighting the Soviet Union alongside the Afghans and their American benefactors.''


“The book also goes on to show in graphic detail how harmless madrassas [Islamic religious schools associated with a Mosque.  For a more in-depth reading on the radicalization of these schools, see:] were turned into factories for breeding religious guerrillas. "... between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would pass their baptism under fire with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more foreign Muslim radicals came to study in the hundreds of new madrassas that Zia's military government began to fund in Pakistan and along the Afghan border. Eventually more than 100,000 Muslim radicals were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the jihad... "In camps near Peshawar and in Afghanistan, these radicals met each other for the first time and studied, trained and fought together. It was the first opportunity for most of them to learn about Islamic movements in other countries, and they forged tactical and ideological links that would serve them well in the future.


“The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism''.  Interesting details of Osama's recruitment by the CIA for jehad [jihad] in Afghanistan are also available in this book. "Among these thousands of foreign recruits was a young Saudi student, Osama Bin Laden, the son of a Yemeni construction magnate, Mohammed Bin Laden, who was a close friend of the late King Faisal and whose company had become fabulously wealthy on the contracts to renovate and expand the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina. The ISI had long wanted Prince Turki Bin Faisal, the head of Istakhbarat, the Saudi Intelligence Service, to provide a Royal Prince to lead the Saudi contingent in order to show Muslims the commitment of the Royal Family to the jehad. Only poorer Saudis, students, taxi drivers and Bedouin tribesmen had so far arrived to fight. But no pampered Saudi prince was ready to rough it out in the Afghan mountains. Bin Laden, although not a royal, was close enough to the royals and certainly wealthy enough to lead the Saudi contingent so when Bin Laden decided to join up, his family responded enthusiastically.


“He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border.'' The book also demolishes the CIA claim that after 1990 there were no contacts with Osama. Surprisingly, just a few weeks before the US Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells us, "the Saudi conundrum was even worse. In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates''. This all shows that any meaningful fight back against world terrorism today will have to begin from the backyard of the US” [end of Islam quote]


OCT 5, 2001



Despite years of evidence pointing to the waste of money spent under the guise of “dismantling Soviet weapons” (Nunn-Lugar authorization by Congress), the Bush administration has awarded contracts to five globalist-connected American firms to continue the “dismantlement and storage of nuclear weapons and hazardous materials from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union,” according to the BBC.   Every one of these corporations (Haliburton International, Raytheon, Bechtel, Parsons Delaware and Washington Group International) has agreed to keep all dealings secret from the American public--and for good reason.  The administration does not want us to know that not only are all the nuclear weapons outdated, but they are NOT being destroyed.  Instead, these companies are returning all usable parts and warheads to Russia for storage in a huge US-built facility that US inspectors are not allowed to enter.  Thus US arms controllers have no idea how many of the dismantled warheads are still in storage and how many have been reinstalled on other more modern equipment.  Haliburton International was chaired by Dick Cheney prior to his ascension to VP of the US.

                The Russians have been playing games with the US for years in order to garner more aid.  In the mid 90’s, former Russian General Alexander Lebed told US officials that the Russians had lost 100 suitcase nukes a few years before.  Result?  Russia got a cool billion dollars to “safeguard the Russian nuclear stockpile.”  I don’t believe for a minute that Russia was so lax as to let these weapons slip away.   Suitcase nukes are highly complex instruments and require regular maintenance. They would be unreliable by now anyway unless Russia “allowed” their disappearance (plausible deniability) and is still maintaining them on behalf of the terrorist groups who were allowed to receive them.  In a similar fashion the Russians have been claiming that they have a major toxic cleanup problem in the Aral Sea area of Uzbekistan.  They claim that on Vozrozhdeniye Island, a stockpile of anthrax and other agents are resurfacing after supposedly being destroyed and buried in compliance with NBC treaties signed in the Nixon era.  For starters, the Russians never complied with the treaty, according to at least 3 Russian defectors from the biochemical warfare department who left Russia in the 90’s.  Yes, the area is a toxic waste site, but only because of typical Communist sloppy environmental controls at the bioweapons plant on the island (now decommissioned).  Naturally, the Russians are asking for more aid from the US to clean up the site.   They make billions in yearly arms sales to the most dangerous nations on the planet and yet claim they don’t have enough money to do basic environmental cleanups other responsible nations do.  All of this continues to bolster evidence that Russia is channeling all available funds into its secret war machine, and letting the West pick up the tab for everything else. 



Despite Russia’s claim to be a partner in Pres. Bush’s War on Terrorism, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov signed another arms agreement with Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani worth at least $7 billion in this decade.  Russia continues to be the primary supplier of arms to countries harboring terrorists:  Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.  These countries, in turn, keep client terror groups supplied with explosives, arms and missiles.   The US has put up a token show of protest, but as usual, refuses to halt the ongoing aid and technology transfers to Russia.  This despite previous Russian secret agreements with the Clinton administration that Russia would stop supplying Iran if the Clintons would cover for prior Russian violations.  Are US leaders really so stupid that they never learn from chronic Russian lies and misbehavior? Or is there an alternate agenda to allow Russia to build a coalition that will eventually attack the US?


NOV. 2, 2001



Despite all the talk about peace, it is my considered opinion that war in the Middle East is inevitable within 2 or 3 years.  Israel is surrounded on three sides by an increasingly hostile and armed array of Arab/Islamic nations:  Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.  All are being supplied by Russia and China or, in some cases, their mutual surrogate North Korea.  Egypt currently is also being supplied by the US and is playing a role as one of Israel’s reluctant “peace partners” along with Jordan and Saudi Arabia--a role which, in my opinion, is only a tactical maneuver to cover for increased arms acquisitions from Western sources.  Despite the Western rhetoric about its peaceful intentions, Egypt is Israel’s most formidable and aggressive enemy, followed by Iraq and Syria. 

                Jordan (which has bi-lateral relations with Israel) and Saudi Arabia are far less hostile to Israel, but both nations have fragile ruling classes that are effectively powerless to counter a united Arab block that will someday demand the initiation of hostilities against Israel.  The paper agreements each of these two “moderate” Arab states currently have with the US and Israel will dissolve at the first missile salvos from the more hostile Arab nations.  Even now missiles are being deployed in large numbers within the tunnels and bunkers of Iran, Syria, and Egypt.  In establishing bunkers, each of these nations appears to be gearing up to survive the standard US tactic to “bomb the hell out of them” prior to ground warfare.   Bunkers and tunnels also deter attempts by Israel to pre-emptively strike their missile forces. 

                All this said, Israel is far from helpless. Pound for pound, and foot for foot, Israel is one of the most formidably armed camps in the world.  This tiny nation has a huge technological edge on its neighbors as well as qualitative superiority across the full range of conventional and nuclear weapons.   However, there are clear signs that Israel’s people and leaders are becoming soft and over-confident, as evidenced by the near-disaster in the Yom Kippur War.   Israel is facing increasing manpower problems as the Zionist collective zeal of earlier days gives way to a post-Zionist worldliness where many youth are more interested in Western fashions, mobile phones, and MTV programming than defending the country.   The left-oriented major media has denigrated the fervor of the Israeli right for so long that Israel’s youth find it more comfortable to disassociate themselves from traditional values.  Evasion of Israel’s mandatory military service is becoming commonplace.  According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),  almost a third of Israeli youth find a way to avoid conscription.  Wealthy youth sometimes leave the country for education in the US or Europe and often don’t return.  A large minority of conscripts are women with limited combat abilities.  Male citizen-soldiers no longer flock to elite combat units, preferring instead soft billets in rear areas closer to home.  Plus, Israel no longer has many combat hardened veterans from former wars. 

                Also contributing to Israel’s weakening readiness are budgetary issues where social programs increasingly compete against military spending in a declining economy.   In addition, Israel’s military has become bloated with high ranking officers.  According to CSIS, the numbers of Colonels are up by 18%, and the number of Generals has increased 41%.  Following the US pattern,  officers in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) can retire at a fairly young age with high pensions and bonuses, so retirement costs are staggering.  There has also been a steady shift of resources to fund the low-intensity warfare with Arafat’s Palestinian Intifada (uprising), depriving the IDF of much needed funds for upgrades and maintenance of existing equipment.  General Itzchak Mordicai told CSIS researchers clear back in 1998 that it would take almost $700 million to bring the IDF up to proper readiness.  That figure would surely top $1 billion today.  

                Modernization and readiness issues are further complicated by Israel’s increasing dependence upon the US for all its military equipment and munitions.  The US has long pursued a superficial “balance of forces” policy in the Middle East, giving equal amounts of foreign and military aid to both Egypt and Israel, totaling approximately $3 billion per year for each country.  However, the US has, over the years, altered the form of aid to Israel, diminishing direct military aid to less than $2 billion.  And of that $2 billion, the US demands that Israel spend ever larger portions of those funds or credits on US weapons and munitions rather than on its own supply channels.  Israel used to manufacture almost all of its own munitions, and at one time had a burgeoning defense industry, but now much of that capacity is unused due to US aid policies. 


The intended or unintended consequence of this policy has been to make Israel vulnerable to US cut-off of supplies anytime Israeli military forces attempt to prosecute a war or terrorist conflict more vigorously than Washington desires.   This vulnerability has reached dangerous proportions recently as Israel continues to receive pressure from the US not only to withdraw from any retaliatory or pre-emptive intrusions into Palestinian-controlled territories (Area A) but to refrain permanently from such invasions--guaranteeing the sanctity of these “safe havens” where the PA has illegally stockpiled heavy automatic weapons, mortars, rockets, explosives and other offensive armaments in violation of the Oslo accords.  This de facto policy of allowing safe havens for Arafat’s terrorists stands in stark contrast to President Bush’s declared “no place to hide” war on terrorism currently underway.

                Further exacerbating Israel’s budgetary problems is the fact that US weapons systems have become exorbitantly expensive to develop, deploy and maintain.  This issue also affects Israeli-developed improvements to US systems such as the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, which extended the range and effectiveness of the US Patriot 3 ABM system.  The inevitable result for both US and Israeli forces is that they have had to sacrifice quantity for quality.   This doesn’t present a problem as long as either the US or Israel goes up against small nations or groups that can’t defend themselves (e.g. Serbia, Afghanistan, or the Palestinian Authority), but it becomes a big problem when facing more powerful threats, such as huge coalitions of Arab/Islamic states backed up and armed by the emerging Russian/Chinese axis.  This new axis of power has huge quantitative advantages over Israel as well as technologies within one generation of the best the US has to offer (thanks to ongoing US technology transfers to both Russia and China).  

                The US itself lacks depth in its military readiness.  Most of the world doesn’t realize that US stockpiles of high-tech munitions is measured in weeks--not years or even months. The US has less than 10 divisions of combat-ready troops, less than 500 combat-ready aircraft, and less than 300 combat-ready ships.  America couldn’t fight a one-ocean war for more than a few weeks, let alone a two-ocean regional or world conflict.  Such a deplorable state of US military readiness is nothing new.  The US allowed itself to lapse into a deeply disarmed state prior to each world war, counting on its ability to ramp up its huge manufacturing potential just in time to stem the tide of defeat.  Today, however, there is one crucial difference.  Unlike prior wars where there existed no strategic threat capable of attacking the American mainland, at least one hostile nation (Russia) has the capability to pre-emptively strike America with sufficient nuclear forces to decimate 90% of the US military and incapacitate its manufacturing capability in a single day. 

                 Since Russia is allied with and arming the Arab/Islamic states arrayed against Israel, the potential of Russian intervention against the US in a Middle Eastern war should not be dismissed out of hand.  As further evidence of US strategic vulnerability to a pre-emptive missile attack, keep in mind that the US still has virtually no ABM system deployed and that the US still restricts its military, even under the Bush administration, to the Clinton era presidential order (PDD-60) requiring its missile forces to absorb a nuclear first strike and not launch any retaliatory strikes upon warning of a hostile attack.  This severely flawed doctrine puts the entire balance of nuclear power in the world at great risk.

                Why is this significant to Israel?  Simply because Israel is overly dependent upon US military forces to counter the overwhelming quantitative odds Israel faces in the Middle East.  If the US is preoccupied or diverted to any other regional or major conflict (such as Taiwan or Korea) Israel will have no backup.  I agree, that currently Israel has little choice.  But in the near term, it should lessen that dependence rather than allow it to increase.  

                To understand the magnitude of the problem take a look at the ratios of Israeli vs. Arab/Islamic conventional forces in an all-out Middle East conflict.  These figures come primarily from “The Arab-Israeli Conventional Balance” by Anthony Cordesman.   I have combined the total forces of the most hostile enemies of Israel in close proximity (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority) and have omitted potential Arab allies in Africa (Libya, Algeria, Sudan, etc.) as well as other smaller hostile Arab states like Yemen.  In any major war, these allies would certainly add reinforcements to the numbers below.


·         MAX.  MANPOWER MOBILIZATION:  Israel: 600,000   Arab States 3.4 million       Ratio: 5.6:1 against

·         MAIN BATTLE TANKS:  Israel: 4,000   Arab States  13,678    Ratio:  3.4:1 against Israel

·         TOTAL ARTILLERY:   Israel: 1,450    Arab States    8,721      Ratio:  6:1   against Israel

·         TOTAL COMBAT AIRCRAFT:    Israel:  500   Arab States:  2,400    Ratio: 4.7:1  against Israel

·         TOTAL COMBAT HELICOPTERS:  Israel: 140   Arab States:  470   Ratio:  3.3:1  against Israel


I would downgrade the Arab advantage by at least half due to superior Israeli training, equipment and maintenance.  Even so, the imbalance of conventional forces is dangerously high.  The Arab/Islamic nations forming against Israel are well aware of both their quantitative advantages and their qualitative weaknesses.   They are also well aware of the historical fact that Israel has defeated them before despite these quantitative advantages.  They do not intend to make the same mistake again of relying exclusively on conventional weapons. 

                Each of the major Arab/Islamic antagonists is preparing huge numbers of missile forces, deployed in tunnels and hardened bunkers, and equipped with both conventional warheads and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.  US intelligence estimates indicate that the Arab states surrounding Israel have deployed at least 1,500 short range Scud B or C missiles.  According to Angelo Codevilla, these estimates are surely understated since some of the manufacturing and storage facilities are deep inside mountain sanctuaries.  As with Russia, China and North Korea, the US really does not know how many missiles these nations possess, since estimates rely mostly on satellite surveillance which cannot penetrate hidden storage facilities.  Both the US and Israel also rely on eavesdropping on missile tests to assess current capabilities.  However, Russia and China have supplied Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt with extensive computer simulation software along with GPS driven guidance systems sufficient to add accuracy and predictability to the latest missile upgrades, such that extensive testing is avoided.  

                Israel has Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) weapons as well, though in much smaller numbers of delivery vehicles.  Again, instead of relying upon quantity of missiles for deterrence Israel is depending heavily upon its Arrow ABM system to both deter and counter the growing missile threat by virtue of its ability to destroy incoming warheads before impact.  I believe the confidence in the Arrow system is highly misplaced.  In the Gulf War Iraq launch 39 Scud missiles against Israel, one at a time.  Most were intercepted by the US Patriot missiles deployed in Israel at that time, upon which the Arrow system is based.  The US claimed high kill ratios, but the figures were clearly overstated.  Due to the Patriot’s limited range and slow speed (the Patriot was purposely “dumbed down” in deference to the 1972 ABM treaty), virtually all the Iraqi missiles that were hit, were intercepted directly overhead their targets.  Fewer than 40% of the warheads were disabled in those intercepts and all missile debris, including explosive warheads, rained down upon Tel Aviv and vicinity.   Had these missiles been armed with biological or chemical warheads, the Patriot intercepts would have completely failed to stop the effects of these weapons.

                The Israeli Arrow is an improved US Patriot design.  Israeli  engineers extended its range, speed and radar tracking capability, and beefed up its explosive warhead.  The US insists on using the insane criteria of hitting an incoming warhead with a non-explosive impact (like a bullet hitting a bullet), a method which is hopelessly flawed.   Any miss, no matter how close, is a complete miss.  With today’s technology of using decoy warheads, or maneuver warheads, the US limited design parameters are clearly outclassed.  No one else in the world uses this bullet hitting a bullet method.  The Russian ABMs have always used exploding warheads--mostly nuclear.  They can miss by hundreds of meters and still score a kill.  

                In the next war, Egyptian and Iraqi generals have openly stated that they not only plan to use warheads containing weapons of mass destruction, but they will launch them in missile salvos, perhaps 200-300 at a time--specifically timed to overwhelm any ABM system.  Even if the Arrow system could perform with a 100% kill ratio, the Israeli system could not track that many targets and keep multiple Arrow missiles from targeting the same incoming projectiles.  Further, while the extended range of the Arrow can reach out well past 50 km, the debris mixed with biological or chemical warfare agents would still rain down on Israeli territory. 

                What is needed is an ABM system that can target missiles in their boost phase where the hot missile exhaust makes for easy targeting and tracking.  When an intercept occurs during boost phase, the debris of the broken missile descends upon the host nation--not the targeted country.  However, such an intercept by a ground based ABM system like the Arrow can only be accomplished if the enemy launch is made in close proximity, such as from Jordan or Lebanon.  Anything over the horizon must be detected and tracked by US type Space Based Infra Red Systems (SBIRS) missile-tracking satellites, which Israel does not possess.  Even if the US were to relay data from SBIRS, both US and Israeli ABM missile systems have been unilaterally restricted from receiving satellite data directly to the missile.  Having to relay such data multiple times through ground stations delays the missile response.  The US has experimented with powerful airborne lasers to kill missiles in their boost phase, but the platform required to house the elaborate laser system is a 747 aircraft--not exactly an obscure target loitering around the battlefield.   Additionally, the effectiveness of the lasers has proven to be highly degraded in cloudy weather or other atmospheric obstructions.  


The Israelis are also trying to modify US “predator” unmanned air vehicles (UAV) to serve as anti-missile platforms capable of boost phase intercepts.  However, once they start adding the weight of fire control systems and missiles to these aircraft, the size and fuel capacity will have to be increased considerably.  Easy detection of the UAVs will again become a problem.  Even if these system liabilities are overcome, it is doubtful a surprise missile attack could be prevented unless Israel kept an entire squadron of these ABM platforms on station over enemy territory on a 24 hour basis--complete with fighter air cover.  This would be extremely costly, not to mention a clear violation of national sovereignty prior to a declaration of war.   The finest work on the Ballistic Missile Defense problem is a new book edited by Arieh Stav of the Ariel Center for Public Policy, entitled Ballistic Missiles:  the Threat and Response (contact them at URL:



While the picture I have painted is bleak, it is by no means insurmountable.  Aside from the technical innovations currently being worked on by the IDF, here are some doable solutions that can contribute to a greater probability of survivability and success.

                1.   Become less dependent upon the US, even if it means loss of some aid.  Israel should once again begin producing all necessary munitions in country.  As Israel confronts the US on policy differences, Israel should keep in mind that support for Israel among the US population and Congress is much stronger and more consistent than the verbal support proffered by President Bush or his State Department.  The Israeli government can resist US arm-twisting and greatly strengthen Israel’s relations with the US, if they concentrate on taking their case to Congress and the American people--who don’t have a conflicting globalist agenda as does the president and his State Department.  

                2.  Increase the stockpile of strategic minerals and raw materials needed for essential industries.  As a nation poor in raw materials but high in manufacturing and technology capabilities, Israel must insulate itself from the threat of international boycotts and interdiction of shipping, during both war and peace.  Israel’s electricity, for example, is generated by coal fired plants, with coal supplies coming from South Africa and other nations whose governments are not reliable allies.  Supplies on hand are very limited.  Oil supplies are imported from Mexico and other non-Arab states--a supply line that can quickly become tenuous in case of war or international pressure.  A generous stockpiling policy would provide some grace period to work out alternative sources when needed.

                3.  Yasser Arafat should be captured and prosecuted for terrorism using the ample evidence Israeli intelligence has accumulated over the years of his direct involvement in terrorism against both Israel and US.   The US already has this evidence but refuses to release it, preferring instead to shield Arafat from prosecution.  Israel should make the evidence public to make it more difficult for the US to protect Arafat from his well-deserved fate.   At the very least, Arafat should be expelled from Israel and never allowed to return.

                4.  Reoccupy Palestinian Area A and completely disarm and eradicate all terrorist groups once and for all.  Whether in the current round of low intensity warfare or in the next full scale war, Israel cannot afford to have a hostile force of 40,000-plus Palestinians threatening security from within the heart of the nation.   Many sensitive Israeli Air Force installations are only a few Kilometers from hostile Palestinian strongholds.  Even Palestinian police forces have now shown that they cannot be trusted to restrict the use of Israeli-supplied weapons to internal police purposes.  Israel must reassume all security functions within the nation.   While this is sure to engender a firestorm of international protest, it is Israel’s only chance to create an atmosphere conducive to a long-term peace within the country.  Currently the atmosphere is far too turbulent and unstable to foster such a peace and without any influence of moderate Arab leaders, hostility is rising.  No moderate Arab leaders are allowed to rise within the totalitarian control system of Arafat’s personal fiefdom.  If they utter a word of moderation or support for Israel they are eliminated as collaborators.   Furthermore, the Palestinian education and media system is guilty of continually propagandizing its citizens, especially the youth, and intentionally goading them into ever-increasing acts of suicide and violence.  The cycle of violence can never be halted without military intervention first to stop the engines of terror and incitement.  Only then can Israel offer to the Palestinians a form of residency that guarantees a full range of civil rights to those who desire to live in peace.  Additional political reform will then be necessary,  including more meaningful representation in the Knesset by districts, constitutional limits to the lawmaking power, and the restriction of electoral powers to citizens who have taken an oath of allegiance to a constitution that protects the fundamental rights of all.   I recommend the reform proposals and work of Prof. Paul Eidelberg, head of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in Jerusalem (email:

                5.  Using overt and covert means, pre-emptively interdict the missiles and weapons of mass destruction being developed in neighboring states.  While this move may carry with it a high risk of war, war is inevitable if Israel does nothing.   Even if war comes sooner, Israel’s chances of survival will be much greater by acting pre-emptively now than if it waits till these weapons of mass destruction are fully developed and deployed.  Israel must pick the time and place to best defeat the threat.  It must not continue in the path of accommodation and appeasement that is being forced upon it by the US and the international community.  The world will only respect Israel when it acts first with strength against violence, and then imposes a just peace thereafter.


6.  Above all, forget about trading “land for peace.”   That’s a pipe dream that has totally lost credibility in the real world.   If Israel is serious about survival, it must keep the strategic high ground in the Golan heights.  It must Consolidate the territories beyond the green line into a unified, undivided country, with laws providing just treatment for all who are sincere about living in peace.  When the option for violence is eliminated, and justice returns, peace will come over time.   It may take a couple of generations, but it will come.


NOV 9, 2001



Everything about this war has some elements of falsehood.  Let’s look at Russian and Chinese participation.  Disregarding for the moment the obvious contradiction of inviting the two biggest purveyors of death around the world to participate in this war on terrorism, there are obvious benefits to both Russia and China which have induced them to play along with this US agenda.  Long after the US has left Afghanistan, the Russians intend to still be there controlling the resulting government.  To facilitate this objective, and to preserve Russia’s role as the main military supplier of Islamic countries hostile to the US, the US is allowing Russia to stay in the background.  Numerous Russians are secretly piloting helicopters and transport aircraft for the Northern Alliance, but Russia is not involving ground troops, which would be more visible. 

                Meanwhile, the US is busy working on the Northern Alliance’s image by providing them new, camouflaged uniforms, in which they are paraded before foreign camera crews--as if the US public will have more confidence in them if they look like real soldiers.  From observing films of their sloppy attempts to march, one is easily convinced that this is all a propaganda stunt.  The Northern Alliance name itself is a misnomer.  The troops are mostly of Tajik and Uzbek lineage, and thus will be looked upon as foreign invaders, like their Russian advisors.  They prefer Russian arms and armored vehicles, and they have as many as they can absorb.  I suspect the US is paying the Russians for these contributions to the “coalition.”  The Russians never do anything without a benefit angle.

                In terms of China’s involvement, one internet source ( says that the Chinese are assisting the Taliban with troops and bodyguards for high officials.  There is at least one of the Taliban leaders that has confirmed Chinese involvement in an interview with a Pakistani newspaper.  He refused to detail the degree or type of support China is providing--and for good reason.  China must keep the lid on this covert support for several reasons.   First, China is playing as if it is an active member of the coalition against terrorism.  Should this information surface in the major media (which it won’t) the judgment of President Bush in allowing China to join this coalition would be severely discredited.   Second, China is allied with Russia, China’s main arms supplier.  It must not risk damaging that tenuous relationship by overtly supporting the Taliban, who stand in the way of Russian dominance in Afghanistan.  Third, the Russians are promising to build China an oil and gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to supply China with much needed energy.  China must be careful not to jeopardize that future supply by appearing to undermine the US/Russian war effort.   Fourth, China is conducting its own war against Muslim fundamentalists in the Xinjiang province (western China) and is using its participation in the coalition against terrorism to brand Chinese Muslims (and all other opposition forces in China) as terrorists.  Predictably, the US is allowing all this to happen, giving China a free hand to eradicate the last vestiges of independence and freedom in China. Americans ought to ask themselves why our own government is so intent on protecting Chinese hegemony.  Russia too is using its token participation in the coalition to justify further intervention in Chechnya--the only other hole it its southern “area of influence” besides Afghanistan. 



According to the World Tribune, “China appears to have used the US-led war in Afghanistan to sell missile components to Iran and Iraq. US officials said Beijing continues to violate its pledge given nearly a year ago to stop missile sales to the Middle East. The officials said US intelligence agencies have evidence of sales and deliveries to a range of clients, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.China is also selling nuclear technology to Iran, Middle East Newsline reported.  [notice the US protests but does nothing!]  The sale appears to have violated a 1997 pledge by Beijing to halt deliveries of nuclear material. ‘The Chinese government's continuing sale of arms and other assistance to many of the countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism is of particular concern,’ Sen. Jon Kyl, the ranking Republican on the Senate subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, said. ‘Beijing has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. It has sold Iran advanced cruise missiles and aided that country's chemical weapons program. And it has provided technological assistance to Iraq.’  Kyl, who is also a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said China continues to lie about its nuclear and missile technology proliferation. He said the aid is helping Iran deploy missiles with nuclear warheads.Officials have warned that China could accelerate missile and WMD aid over the next few months as the Bush administration seeks Beijing's support for the war against Afghanistan. The administration has proposed lifting sanctions from China [rather than enforce more sanctions] relating to its proliferation activities in the Middle East.”    Incredible!



The US/Russian agenda against Afghanistan had apparently been in the works long before the 9/11 terror attack.  Some time ago, published a major article about India’s plans to assist the US-Russian invasion of Afghanistan.  In part, the article stated: “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of ‘facilitator’ while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.”  That is exactly what is happening now, but the article is dated 26 June 2001, proving that the US was already planning a joint war against the Taliban prior to 9/11.   This explains why the Bush administration so quickly jumped on (or manufactured) evidence pointing to Osama bin Laden, when most other intelligence agencies in the world had evidence of an Iraqi connection (hijacking “leader” Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague prior to coming to the US, for example.  Notice Atta was issued a visa to enter the US even after the US knew of his involvement with Iraqi intelligence).  It also explains why the US so quickly elected to mobilize a Gulf War-size movement of troops and military equipment when a true war on terrorism would require only concerted, undercover police action. 

                It is also suspicious that the US has been so reluctant to capture Osama bin Laden, recently as well as in prior years.  The Clinton administration turned down a Sudanese overture to deliver up bin Laden in 1996.  Two weeks ago, the French daily Le Figaro had a blockbuster story reporting that a CIA official in Dubai, Saudi Arabia was seen visiting bin Laden last July in an American hospital while bin Laden was undergoing kidney treatment.  Obviously, the Americans knew where Osama bin Laden was as late as this past summer and refused to apprehend him.  This is during a George W. Bush administration!  The world wants to know what the CIA (which denies the story) was discussing with bin Laden.  It was also suspicious that the US gave the Taliban impossible conditions relative to turning over Osama bin Laden--and then refused to discuss terms when the Taliban offered to bring bin Laden to justice.  Frankly, I think the US wants bin Laden on the loose so as to continue the justification for this intervention in Afghanistan. 

                While I doubt that the Taliban can be defeated outright anytime soon by the Northern Alliance, it is certain that the Taliban can be decimated in open positions surrounding major cities--driving them to the mountains where they will have to fight a guerrilla style war.  If the US can at least pare down the Taliban forces in all areas but the mountains, the US will declare victory, allow the UN to establish some kind of protectorate government, and then move on to its next target.  Indeed, a continued threat from the Taliban in the mountains would help justify a continued US or UN intervention.  Meanwhile, this selective war on terrorism is certain to take on new targets after the US declares victory in Afghanistan . 


NOV 16, 2001



The apparent rout of the Taliban surprised even the United States, but it is not the end, yet.  In the face of withering fire from US C-130 gattling guns and the constant bombing of US fighter bombers based in Pakistan, the Taliban wisely decided they could not hope to maintain a conventional battlefront in the defense of territory.  The have chosen instead to retreat to the hills and caves to mount a guerrilla war.   It will prolong the war, but not for long, in my opinion.  All the Taliban’s caves are known and the US is making plans to take them down one by one as we speak.  A cave cannot withstand the modern fuel air weapons that have the capacity to turn them into earthen flaming coffins overnight.  There isn’t a lot of tree cover in Afghanistan to provide concealment for guerrilla warfare once the caves are breached, so I don’t see a long future for the Taliban. 

                As I predicted, the UN is making its move right now to take charge in Afghanistan.  Clearly, they have in mind a Kosovo-styled solution for this fragile nation.  As soon as the Northern Alliance started its run toward Kabul, the US tried to intervene and stop them, seeing that events were getting away from US control.  Suddenly, the UN is holding non-stop meetings with all the different factions, trying to choose the one most compliant with future UN directives (vis-a-vis the NWO).  The big looser in all this will be Pakistan, who had de facto control over Afghanistan through their Taliban allies prior to being forced to betray them by US threats.  The Afghani Pashtuns are the primary allies of Pakistan in Afghanistan, and represent Pakistan’s main bulwark of opposition to Russian dominance.  If the UN allows the Russian controlled Tajik and Usbeki elements of the Northern Alliance to rule, the Pashtuns will be marginalized.  On the other hand, civil war could potentially break out if the UN allows the Pashtuns to rule (via exiled Pashtun King Mohammed Zahir Shah), since the Northern Alliance has most of the miliatry power.  However the UN picks you can be assured they will have exacted iron-clad commitments of loyalty to global objectives, despite whatever appearances the new ruler will portray.  Pakistan is frantically trying to put together a colalition of its own friendly moslim factions to take control in Afghanistan, but the UN is showing no signs of allowing Pakistan a major role in the process.  If President Musharraf is cut out of the process, his ability to continueing ruling in Pakistan itself could be threatened.  He will be viewed by the fundamentalist forces in Pakistan as responsible for this disasterous defeat of fundamentalism in Afghanistan.


DEC 7, 2001



The only thing that keeps saving Israel from another sellout in the US-brokered “peace process” is Yasser Arafat’s unwillingness and partial inability to provide the necessary lull in violence to consummate the inevitable, as far as the Powers That Be are concerned--the establishment of a permanent safe haven for terrorism in the form of a Palestinian State.  PM Sharon was in Washington speaking to the various Jewish lobbies, preparing them for the inevitability of a Palestinian State, as per US demands, when Arafat unleashed a 12-hour period of terror Saturday night and early Sunday, leaving 26 Israelis dead and hundreds more wounded.  His timing was crazy.  The Americans were about to coax Israel into a major compromise of Israeli security and Arafat blew it (literally and figuratively).  Why?

                It can’t be because Arafat is completely ignorant of US secret sympathies for his cause.  The US has been covering for him and excusing him for years--even in the face of explicit Israeli telephone intercepts, provided to US intelligence, proving Arafat’s direct involvement in targeting Americans.  It’s obvious that Arafat has a sympathetic ear within the State Department.  He knows that anytime the Israelis invade the Palestinian “autonomous areas” he can pick up the phone and call State and demand they put pressure on Israel to pull out--and it happens, every time, except now.  This time Arafat made the call and State could not comply.  Not that they didn’t want to--but Arafat’s attacks were so egregious and so ill timed (the terrorists even set off a car bomb next to the scene of the original attack in order to kill rescue workers that responded to the explosion on the city bus) that even his secret allies would not dare appear to support him.

                I think the bottom line is that Arafat still works for the “continuing Soviets” (Chris Story’s term for the Russian “Mafia” leaders who faked the demise of the Soviet Union).  Remember that Arafat was recruited, trained, financed and protected by the Russians from the beginning.  The Russians still have a huge game plan in the Middle East,  aimed at eventually instigating a regional war that will trigger the next world war.  In any case, both the Russians and the Palestinians know that the US globalist leadership is only using the Arabs to justify future UN intervention.  The Arabs know the UN never intends to give them what they want, so Arafat is not playing along--except when he needs to save his skin--like now. 

                In the aftermath of Arafat’s attacks in Israel, neither Bush nor Sec. of State Powell are daring to mention the prospect of a Palestinian State.  The Bush-Sharon meeting on Monday was cut short and Sharon quickly returned to Israel to prepare for the inevitable retaliation and hard line rhetoric.  But, as I will shortly describe, all parties seem to be bending over backwards to preserve Arafat and give him one last chance.  The US thinks they have finally gotten through to Arafat with the threat that they will eliminate him if he doesn’t start to play ball. 

                As soon as Sharon returned, he convened the full cabinet for an emergency defense strategy session.  Arafat was officially declared an “entity that supports terrorism” (leveraging off of Bush’s disingenuous statement about prosecuting all national entities that harbor terrorism).  Sharon then unleashed a huge wave of retaliation sufficient to send Arafat running to his deepest bunker, which they also hit.  Palestinian areas were once again invaded, bunkers were targeted and the Israeli Air Force even destroyed Arafat’s two Soviet helicopters set aside for his personal use.  But these were token hits meant to scare Arafat into compliance, nothing else.  The IDF knows all too well that Arafat uses Jordanian helicopters to fly around Israel.  Arafat knows the Israelis wouldn’t shoot down Jordanian assets, and he is righ--at least for nowt. 

                Lots of talk circulated about finally getting rid of Arafat, but that was mostly from the growing number of hard liners in the Israeli cabinet.  The leftists in Sharon’s “unity government” who hold the key positions of power sing a different tune.  Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer said Monday that “it is forbidden to shatter the vessels with the Palestinian Authority. We must institute a mixture of harsh Israeli military operations, with massive American pressure on Arafat to reach a cease-fire.”   Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was also overheard crowing that this is a “great opportunity to bring Arafat to a cease-fire.”    Clearly these top level Sharon ministers have no intention of replacing Arafat.  They simply want to bring him to the “peace table” so that the American-brokered sellout of Israeli security can proceed.   Peres admitted further that his contacts [actually, controllers] in Europe were joining in the pressure on Arafat to join in a cease-fire. 

                Almost immediately in response, Yasser Arafat moved to arrest a few token lower level terrorists within the Hamas organization.  But Israel wasn’t buying this meager pretense of compliance.  Sharon raised the stakes by sending Arafat a list of 36 top level terrorists he wanted arrested.  Arafat telephoned Shimon Peres and complained that he couldn’t comply because of the Israeli attacks.  Within a few minutes, Sharon had authorized a 12-hour grace period to allow Arafat to comply.  Notice that the US has refused to give the Taliban a similar list with their demand for the latter to turn over “all” terrorists and their support personnel, knowing the Taliban could never comply without such a list.  Obviously the US didn’t want them to be able to comply because the Taliban were earmarked for extinction.

                In contrast, one clear indication that Arafat is not marked for extinction is that they gave him a list he could easily comply with.-  It is obvious they want Arafat to redeem himself so that the Israeli government and establishment media can continue the sellout.   Keep in mind that the “jail” awaiting these high level terrorist leaders is a penthouse apartment with telephones, TV and free and ready access to terrorist cell subordinate leaders so that the work of terrorism can go on unimpeded.  In other words, even the hard liners in Hamas or Islamic Jihad don’t have to fear being locked up and put out of commission.  They’ve been through this charade of jail before (although they may not ultimately trust Arafat to NOT betray them at some point, political whore that he is).

                Now, permit me to show you why Israel’s latest retaliatory and security measures will not prove to be effective.  They appear brutal and rigorous--but only in the absence of information about other more dangerous elements that are not being targeted. Israel can make lots of noise by shelling police stations and bulldozing terrorist houses, but nothing is really solved until the source of the violence is cleaned out.  Hidden within bunkers and safe houses in the Palestinian autonomous areas (Areas “A” and sometimes “B”) are caches of explosives, ammunitions, mortars and rockets.  The PA also manufactures weapons, in contradiction to the Oslo Accords.  There is even new intelligence indicating that the Palestinians are building indigenous short range missiles inside Israel.  The Middle East Newsline (Dec. 3) reported that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas are already deploying the Kassam-1 short-range missile, with a range of 4-5 kilometers.  The PA is reportedly developing longer-range versions as well, which will reach out to 10 kilometers.  Undoubtedly Israeli intelligence knows of this too.  To me, no amount of retaliation is meant to be effective unless it targets the terrorist’s ability to make war.  Even targeting terrorist leaders, as necessary as that is, is not effective in the short-term when there are hundreds ready to take their place with free and unrestricted access to these large weapons caches.  


DEC 14, 2001



Despite US enticements of aid and unilateral disarmament during this month’s summit with Russia president Putin, Russian has remained adamant that it would accept no modification of the 1972 ABM treaty which severely limits the US development and deployment of anti-ballistic missiles for defense.  So Bush is left with no option but to give Russia the six months required notice that the US intends to withdraw--an interesting provision that is in no other treaty.  Conservatives applaud but they should be cautious of what the real motives might be.

                The 1972 ABM treaty limits Russia and the US but at the same time gives Russia an advantage by making allowance for the 100 interceptors Russia has always had surrounding Moscow.  However, despite this special advantage, Russia has never abided by the core restrictions of the treaty and has continued development of ABM technology, phased array radars and guidance systems--much with US assistance.  So, not only did our government implant massive restrictions upon our own ABM development, but they did not even protest Russian violations.  Instead they assisted the Russians with technology transfers to enhance their capabilities.  This behavior has been going on ever since the US provided Russia with plans for their first atomic weapon and the plutonium to build it.  This behavior occurred under both Republican and Democratic administrations and continues today.

                The Russian’s vehement opposition to modifying the ABM treaty or allowing the US to build an ABM system is not feigned.  It is very real.   The Chinese are even more concerned and have threatened to increase their production of warheads and missiles to compensate (as if they weren’t doing this anyway).  The Russian leadership has always counted on US compliance with the ABM treaty restrictions and have built their entire strategic military attack doctrine upon US vulnerability to a first strike with nuclear missiles.  This vulnerability was even increased by President Clinton in 1997 with the issuing of the top secret PDD-60 instructing our military forces to absorb a nuclear first strike.  Worse, this dangerous and suicidal PDD has not been withdrawn or modified by President George W. Bush, despite his campaign promises to protect America.

                Now, it does appear at first glance that with President Bush’s announced withdrawal from the ABM treaty that he intends to go forward with an ABM system and protect the American people.  This is only a pretense.  The Bush administration has no intention of protecting the American people from the massive potential threat from Russian or even Chinese missiles.  President Bush has openly declared this both publicly and privately to Russia and China.  The system is specifically designed to engage only a few limited targets from “rogue nations” at a time--which isn’t the real problem.  Despite its high cost it has built in design limitations to ensure that it will only be marginally effective under the best of conditions.  It has no explosive warhead.  It cannot engage multiple warheads or counter Russian electronic or physical deceptions.  It cannot utilize Satellite data for guidance, nor is it correctly positioned to engage missiles in their boost phase.  In short, it is a purposeful diversion of funds into the defense establishment for ulterior purposes (other black projects--not intended to provide a true defense for America).  The Russians know most of this, but are still deathly afraid of an ABM system.  I think they suspect the US is cheating and will actually build more interceptors than they say, and/or equipment them with live warheads to make them more effective.

                Bush says he needs to abrogate the ABM to precede with further testing.   Really?  How were all the other prior tests justified then?  The Bush administration has even broken ground on its ABM basing facility in Alaska which gives the public the impression that the US government is in a rush to deploy and defend.   It think it is a carefully crafted ruse.  The real reason for  this show of strength is to impress upon the Russians that they only have a few years left in our well-known window of vulnerability (see my article by the same title on the front page of that they had better strike when we are weakest.  Why would our own leaders want the Russians to decapitate our military might?  --Because they are secretly align with a globalist agenda that requires the demise of US military power.  Those that collude to undermine national sovereignty and install a New World Order with police powers need a war to accelerate that transition, and the US must be removed as the “policeman of the world” in order to force the other Western nations to rally behind a massive UN military force willing to take on the Russians.  For a further exposition on this view, click on the “Strategic Threats” banner on my website.

                Does Bush realize that these moves, as well as the phony “war on terrorism” are taking the country closer to a world war?   Probably not, given his shallow background. There are plenty of superficial reasons his advisors can give him for these moves--in the lexicon of “world peace” and disarmament (a road only fools and fellow travelers believe in).   The ultimate game plan for world government is kept in a very close-knit circle--lest those to are mere predictable lackeys in the process develop pangs of conscience, or worse yet, spill the beans.  Still, Bush is not totally blameless.  He has made his pact of allegiance to those that govern the country behind the scenes and for this he is fully responsible.



Consistent with its history of rewarding only those of the extreme Left on social and political issues, the Nobel committee awarded this year’s Peace Prize to UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan and the United Nations itself.  How can an organization responsibility for so much war and intervention in foreign nations merit such a designation?  In a year of high terrorism, the committee apparently doesn’t even feel any embarrassment for having awarded the prize to one of the earth’s foremost terrorists, Yasser Arafat.  Kofi Anan’s peace keepers are no better for having betrayed 3 Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, who where then captured and killed by Hizbollah guerrillas.  Ask any the Balkan states or African nations how they feel about the prospects for peace after having endured years of UN peacekeeping and intervention.