Your Influence Counts ... Use It! The SPOTLIGHT by Liberty Lobby

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT March 1, 1999


By declaring Clinton innocent when he clearly is guilty, 55 senators in the one case and 50 in the other have set the terrifying legal precedent that anyone can now commit the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice with impunity.

Thus, these senators have made themselves accessories to the recognized crimes of Bill Clinton and by doing so have done greater violence to the rule of law than did Clinton himself.

The Senate's verdict was worse than merely partisan, corrupt and morally wrong. It was shortsighted and stupid, and took no account of certain consequences.

The Senate's partisan verdict was perpetrated on this country by a combination of racial and ethnic minorities with no concern for the historical development of the United States, no respect for the constitution and many of them without any knowledge of the heroic struggle throughout the centuries by Europeans to establish the rule of law on this continent.

Conscientious and hones Americans are now going to see the spectacle of defense attorneys for clients charged with perjury and obstruction of justice moving the court as a matter of law to exonerate their clients. Their grounds will be that the most weighty possible precedent has been set by the Senate of the United states, presided over by the chief justice of the United States; these two crimes are not crimes at all, they will say, and their clients have committed no wrong. Equal justice under law requires that their clients be freed.

Judges and juries will not have a difficult decision, thanks to 50 guilty politicians, and could lawfully and legally free anyone charged with these crimes.

But that's not all. Felons now in prison for these crimes can demand their release for the non-crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.
If perjury and obstruction of justice are, by order of the Senate, not crimes any more, why should bribery, theft, extortion, murder or even treason be crimes?

That Clinton is also guilty of bribery, theft, extortion, murder and treason can scarcely be doubted by anyone who has studied his career. But Special Prosecutor Starr for some reason chose to ignore all the evidence of these crimes in his report.

Perjury is a very serious crime. Without the ability to enforce truth, the courts become powerless, the enforceability of contracts and promises is impossible and business and the social order become a jungle. Perjury is no less a crime than bribery and theft, he who lies will steal and vice versa. If telling black lies are not crimes then why are outright theft, extortion or murder still crimes?

The stupidity of the 50 senators who voted to spring Clinton will immediately show itself in the courts. Like a spreading cancer, their crime of supporting Clinton's criminal behavior will hopefully turn against each of them and they will either be thrown out of office when enough voters discover the consequences of their VENAL STUPIDITY or, perhaps, be indicted themselves, as they should be, for being accessories to perjury and obstruction of justice.

Another sure consequence of the Senate's vote to acquit Clinton is the certain letdown of moral in our already-suffered armed forces. Some of the most intense supporters of Clinton's removal came from officers and enlisted men who rightfully fell that there should not be a double standard between their own behavior and the behavior of their commander-in-chief who must sign his approval of their punishment for adultery, perjury, obstruction of justice, disloyalty, treason and other crimes of which Clinton himself is guilty. It is a timeless principle of the Western military that a commander must by his example set the standard for his men; otherwise there can be no discipline save that based on sheer terror and fear of harsh punishment.
Now that the consequences of the vote to acquit taken by these 50 playacting poltroons is clear, what can be done about it? The Senate has spoken and established a vile precedent in law. Can this be overcome, and if so, how?

An interesting aspect of what has happened has been pointed out to this newspaper by Jim Johnson, former chief justice of Arkansas. What the Senate has done, in effect, is nullify the law. This is called jury nullification. It is exactly what the jury did in the case of O.J.; the jury ignored the law. Jury nullification is admirable when the law is tyrannical. In this case, such is not the fact. The laws making perjury and obstruction of justice crimes were simply ignored by the Senate.

Thus, the situation may not be hopeless. Judges can hold that the regrettable precedent the pols in the Senate have set does not change the law which still is that perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes.
But the senatorial precedent should be abolished and the only way to do this, it seems to us, is to indict Clinton for the two crimes dismissed by the Senate as well as many others, convict him and send him to a new house maintained by the federal government - one secured by high walls and barred cages.

And while this is being done, every one of the blind misfits who voted to find Clinton innocent should themselves be indicted and tried for the crime of being accessories to Bill Clinton.

The SPOTLIGHT March 1, 1999


President Clinton's sexcapades go far beyond Genifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. They may come back to get him yet.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

A federal judge says she is ready to punish President Bill Clinton for lying to her court in the Paula Jones trial and talking to others about the deposition contents.

U.S. district Judge Susan Webber Wright says she is prepared to "address the contempt issue" concerning Clinton's obstruction in the Jones case. Although the Senate cleared the president, the Judge now has several legal issues to resolve.

Judge Webber said she will give the case to another judge if she has a conflict of interest. She and her clerk were contacted by a House prosecutor as possible witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The White House also tried to suppress a story about a woman who claimed Clinton raped her 21 years ago, then pressured her into denying it under oath. The story surfaced as part of the Jones case.

White House Press Secretary Joe Lockart warned Fox television not to run the story, but it ran anyway.

FBI agents working for Independent Counsel Ken Starr questioned the woman, Juanita Broaddrick, about her claim that Clinton raped her in 1978, when he was Arkansas attorney general.

Her vivid account of being brutally raped by Clinton was corroborated by a nurse who said Mrs. Broaddrick told her during treatment about being injured by sexual intercourse with Clinton "against her will."

She was also portrayed as the victim of a "brutal rape" in a letter subpoenaed by Starr. That October 1992 letter was written to Mrs. Broaddrick by a friend named Phillip C. Yoakum of Fayetteville, Ark.

The letter recalled efforts to persuade her to go public with "how you resisted until he ripped your clothes off and how he but your lip until you gave into his forcing sex on you."

Mrs. Broaddrick has told the story at various times and -- from fear of reprisals, according to Paula Jones' attorneys -- she has withdrawn it. They produced documented evidence that she had contradicted her own denials.

In a filing last March, they said Mrs. Broaddrick's story was significant evidence that Clinton "forcibly raped and sexually assaulted her and then bribed and/or intimidated her and her family into remaining silent about this outrage."

The Jones attorneys argued it was relevant because it contradicted Clinton's sworn deposition that "in my lifetime, I've never sexually harassed a woman...I never have and wouldn't."

Still, Clinton's obsession with sex keeps the rumor mill busy. Because of a story in a supermarket tabloid some years ago, many in Arkansas believe Clinton had an affair with a black television reporter, Deborah Mathis.

She was questioned about the rumors by James D. Retter, author of a 1998 Clinton book, Anatomy of a Scandal. She laughed and replied: 'Hell, if I slept with that fat white boy, he'd still be smiling.

The SPOTLIGHT March 8, 1999


The mainstream press, Congress and the independent counsel all buried a story regarding the rape of a woman by Clinton 20 years ago.

By Mike Blair

What did Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and members of Congress know, and when did they know it, about serious substantiated reports about President Bill Clinton raping a woman in a Little Rock hotel room in Little Rock 20 years ago?

Starr and many of the House and Senate members knew of the charge against Clinton as the House Judiciary Committee debated and formulated articles of impeachment against Clinton.

Most House members should have known, or at least could have known if they had taken the time, before the House voted to impeach and disgraced president. And -- the most unconscionable -- each and every one of the members of the U.S. Senate who cast his vote to leave Clinton in office for the remaining two years of his term, ultimately at the expense of the nation and its people, knew before those votes were cast.

So, here is the biggest sham and cover-up ever pulled on the American people: How could the Senate leave the nation and its people at the mercy of "Willy the Rapist?"

What occurred in a hotel room in Little Rock, 20 years ago, on April 25, 1978, was not "consensual sex," as Clinton's tawdry affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was dismissed by his supporters.

When Clinton forced himself on a nursing home owner, Juanita Broaddrick, ripped off her clothing, savagely bit her lip and then forcibly violated her, it was nothing less than the act of a sex-crazed rapist. Most would think this disqualified him from even association with most decent Americans, not to mention his right to hold the highest office in the land.

Clinton belongs in jail, like so many thousands of others of his ilk. But, instead of being sent there, he was sent to the White House and the U.S. Senate affirmed his right to remain there.


It was one said: "It is like the layers of an onion. The more you peel away the more you wand to cry. There are two laws in our country. One for...him and one for the rest of us."

For weeks before the Senate voted on removal from office, stories were being revealed all over the landscape about how NBC News correspondent Lisa Myers was being "gagged" by her editors.

An interview she had cone with Mrs. Broaddrick, in which the nursing home owner admitted she had lied in a deposition before the lawyers for Paula Jones, had been "canned" by NBC executives.

Lisa Myers told Broaddrick in regards to the cancellation: "The good news is you're credible. The bad news is you're very credible." So much for the nation's "free press." dedicated to informing you of the truth. The interview was finally shown Feb. 24.

And yet every Democratic member of the Senate, plus an handful of pitiful Republican camp followers, voted to keep Clinton in the White House.

As the Broaddrick rape story makes headlines throughout the world, the Clinton apologists dismiss their mutual disgusting travesty as: "Oh, it is beyond the statute of limitations," or, "It was so long ago. Twenty years is a long time."

So, it will go away like a bad dream.

No, it will not -- ever.

These men and women -- our political leaders -- betrayed us, the Constitution that they, like Clinton, pledged, deceitfully, to defend, and the United States of America.

There are those, of course, who are not of this reprehensible mind-set.

Unfortunately, of those who currently hold office, those exceptions are few.

The SPOTLIGHT March 8, 1999


Boy Scouts leaders say they love scouting, but will not serve under an oath-breaker.

By Mike Blair

While in the midst of a long battle to keep homosexuals from their ranks, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are facing a new morality issue: President Bill Clinton.

The Scouts have been receiving many letters at their national head-quarters in Irving, Tex., from members across the nation. Scouts are complaining that Clinton poses a serious moral issue for the BSA.

The outrage is over the president's violation of the Boy Scout law and oath about being "morally straight."

Clinton, as has every president since the Scouts began, holds the position of the national organization's honorary president.

In addition, during his tenure, the president's official signature is affixed by a special stamp on a line designated for his honorary position on all certificates issued to Eagle Scouts -- the highest level a boy can reach in the BSA.

And if that isn't bad enough, Clinton was awarded the Order of the Silver Buffalo. This is the highest badge of merit that the BSA can bestow upon a person involved in the scouting movement.

One national leader of the Boy Scouts, Garry Brewer, the national representative for the organization's Western Colorado Council, demanded that the national leadership ask the president for the return of the Silver Buffalo citation.

The leadership in Texas refused and Brewer, a 48-year Boy Scout veteran, resigned.

What sticks like a thorn in many Scouts is Clinton's obvious violation of the oath which they revere.

The oath states in part:

"On my honor I will do my duty for God and my obey the Scout keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

It is the oath's last two words that Boy Scouts and their leaders across the nation have a problem with Clinton in view of his sexual activities in the White House and for lying about them.

"Bill Clinton does not deserve this award," Brewer says, referring to the Order of the Silver Buffalo badge. "He's tarnished the badge."

In addition to Brewer, a number of other leaders across the nation have demanded that the office in Texas take action.

As an example, The SPOTLIGHT has obtained a copy of a letter sent to the national headquarters by the "chartered organization representative" of Elk Horn District, Trapper Trails Council No. 589, in Logan, Utah.

The representatives have written to Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. president of the Boy Scouts of America, stating:

"We love Scouting. We love how it teaches young men duty, responsibility, morality and ethics, all packaged in a program of fun and adventure. There is one thing, however, we feel will sully the movement's reputation if it is allowed to continue.

"President William Jefferson Clinton should be removed as the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Clinton does not represent scrupulous or ethical behavior not is he an example of leading a life that is 'morally straight.' The meanings of the Scout Law and Scout Oath are as foreign to him as telling the truth. The President is not what a Boy Scout should be, indeed, he is just the opposite. His signature should no longer be allowed to denigrate each Eagle Scout certificate and the practice of stamping his signature on the 'Honorary President' line should be discontinued posthaste..."

Although obviously embarrassed, the national office has thus far refused to comply with the appeals to repudiate the disgraced president.

The SPOTLIGHT March 8, 1999



If you have ever been rebuffed by a member of Congress, or their staff, while seeking information available from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), there's good news for you. Bulls have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would place CRS reports on the Internet.

CRS is the research arm of the Library of congress. Even though taxpayers pay for it, to the tune of $67.1 million in 1999, CRS works exclusively for Congress. These reports provide the research and analysis that wind up as laws. In addition, these reports also go to congressional committees and members of Congress. They provide some of the most extensive information in Washington.

When you call your senator or congressman, you are often given a song and dance about how you aren't entitled to the information, or you are directed to the Government Printing Office or some other vendor and told to pay for it. But CRS has some 2,700 reports available on an internal congressional intranet.

On Feb. 9, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Ver.) And Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) And David Price (D-N.C.) Reintroduced S.393 and F.R. 654 respectively. These bills, named the Congressional Openness Act, would put CRS reports on the Internet.

"Under this bill, CRS will post issue briefs, reports, and authorization and appropriation products to a centralized web site no earlier than 30 days and no later than 40 days after the information is made available to members of congress through the CRS web site,' Shays said. "The 30-day delay will ensure that CRS has carried out its primary statutory duty of informing congress before making the information available for public release. Also, it will allow Crs to verify that its products are accurate and ready for public release."

"Congress has worked to make itself more open and accessible to the public,' he added. The Congressional Openness Act "will enable us to further engage the public in the legislative process and fulfill one of our missions as legislators to better educate our constituents."

The bill has been embraced by a number of open government advocates.

"Taxpayers ought to be able to read the research that we pay for,' says Gary Ruskin, a congressional watchdog. "But taxpayers cannot obtain most CRS reports directly. Instead, we must purchase them from private vendors, or engage in the burdensome and time-consuming process of requesting a member of Congress send a CRS report to us."

The congressional Openness Act is in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House Administration.

The SPOTLIGHT March 15, 1999


Is Big Brother interested in where you shop and what you buy?

By Mike Blair

The unknown is one of man's biggest fears. For example, many fear the coming of the year 2000 (known by most as the Y2K), because of the potential of an interruption in everyday services that run on computers.

If computers are confused when 1999 turns over to 2000, they may shut off. This could lead to problems if government computers malfunction or utility services are effected. It could bring a shortage of food if distributors can't get products to the market place.

Now there are reports for a plan to monitor the hoarding of food is partially in place across the nation and that the plan is being expanded rapidly. The plan is being secretly pushed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as supposedly an non-government effort. A Capitol Hill source told The SPOTLIGHT the plan "is taking place right under the noses of cooperative public, without their knowledge."

Actually, the system, which records the amounts and types of food being purchased by individual families, is viewed as a means by most Americans to save money at the grocery store.

Many large grocery chains throughout the nation have put in place discount card systems. When the customer uses the card, discounts are given by the store on certain products.

Dozens of large grocery chains are utilizing the discount cards, which customers are issued after filing an application with the store. The stores usually request the name of the customer, telephone number, sometimes a social security number and inquiries about number of family members, shopping habits etc. The cards are in most cases later mailed to the customer.

The cards usually contain a computerized bar code, which is scanned at the cash register, before the items being purchased are keyed.

If shoppers look at their cashier receipts they will note that each individual item is printed on the sheet, with its cost, and at the bottom the customer's savings is recorded.

In most stores, the cashier will ask the customers if they have a discount card before the items are rung up on the register.

This should appear as somewhat strange because the customer when not using a card does not get the discount and the store make that much more for the sale.

"Therefore," The SPOTLIGHT source said, 'Why is the use of the card encourage, almost pressed upon the shopper?"

Stores have the ability, he said, of keeping track of all of the items purchased in a computer bank, which due to the bar code on the card, allows the computer system to keep track of the customer - by name, address and, often, even by Social Security number.
If FEMA at some future point wants to know who is hoarding food or what types of food they are buying, all its agents need do is refer to the stores' computer banks.

Is the government really concerned about Americans hoarding food in the event of emergencies?

One example of the concern is the military curtailing the practice of selling surplus MREs (meals ready to eat) to the public. MREs are individual meals containing various courses which have a shelf life of years and are issued to U.S. troops in the field.

For years, survivalists have purchased MREs for their emergency rations. Now, if MREs are available they are almost always duplicated versions manufactured by a variety of companies or military surplus stores that were released as surplus before the practice was curtailed by the Pentagon.

It is reported that the military currently has millions of MREs in storage, and while they are not now released for civilian use, they are exported by the hundreds of thousands to foreign countries.

In addition to grocery chains utilizing the discount cards, The SPOTLIGHT source said, various shopping clubs are run as chains across the nation. These stores limit shoppers to "members only."

Usually for a price, the clubs issue membership cards, which are also computer scanned as purchases are made. The club stores beckon to families hoarding food because they sell it in large volume at discount prices.

The records from these club stores easily indicate those purchasing too easily indicate those purchasing to much food for just everyday use.

"What is most interesting about this program is how the American public has accepted it without a single thought about the potential consequences without even questioning the motivation," The SPOTLIGHT source explained.

The SPOTLIGHT March 15, 1999


Who will stand up for freedom?

By Tony Blizzard

Posse comitatus, cherished by free men as their force against tyrannical government long before the United States existed, is in danger of being lost to Americans. Downgraded by definition in new dictionaries as well as by the government, the law is often ignored and is presently in danger of being officially terminated.

Isolated instances of ignoring posse comitatus restrictions such as the WWI veterans' march on Washington met by machine-gun equipped Army troops, depression-era union vs. corporate wars, the Wounded Knee, South Dakota, Indian incident, and military backup and hardware at Ruby Ridge and Waco, have given way to a standard policy of some military intervention in the so-called "war on drugs." The illegal occupation of part of western North Carolina by a National Guard army, ostensibly for a one-man hunt, shows no sign of ending.

The SPOTLIGHT has also been reporting for years of mysterious movements of troops and war machines, black helicopter harassment of rural areas, and military training exercises in highly populated cities. Currently, frantic reports of alleged high altitude spraying of toxic chemicals by military planes which cause sickness and sometimes death, come in daily.

As the people are conditioned to a military presence, a global plantation cabal is working overtime to have posse comitatus eliminated in the name of "catastrophic terrorism." Secretary of Defense William Cohen has announced that the people may have to give up an amount of freedom -- his underlings specifically mentioning posse comitatus -- in an effort to achieve security from threatened terrorism.

Last year, President Clinton described military "technical assistance to civilian law enforcement," in one of the bills he favored, as including "conduction searches, taking evidence, and disarming and disabling individuals."

Never mentioned is that posse comitatus is a major block to the UN police state and its world army of "peace keepers."

That Posse Comitatus Act is expressed in law by a single sentence in the United States Code designated as 18 U.S.C. 1385.

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

A 1995 Congressional Research Service report states: "Existing case law indicates that 'execution of the law' in violation of the act occurs (a) when the armed forces perform tasks which are assigned not to them but to an organ of civil government, or (b) when the armed forces perform tasks assigned to them solely for purposes of civilian government."

However questions arise concerning military assistance to police. The report elaborates:

"Courts have held that, absent a recognized exception, the Posse Comitatus Act is violated...when the military is used so as to subject 'citizens to the exercise of military power which was regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.'"

The SPOTLIGHT March 15, 1999


Contrails are the cloudlike vapor trails that remain in the sky after a jet passes. Some folks wonder what else are they?

By Mike Blair

A year ago, The SPOTLIGHT alerted readers about mysterious aircraft contrails that were crisscrossing the skies in parts of the nation sometimes leaving a strange, spider web-like residue on the ground.

There were also outbreaks of mysterious illnesses, usually effecting the respiratory tract. Many patriots suspected the illness was caused by the strange matter dropping from the sky.

These outbreaks were reported particularly in western states, many being centered about the small town of Sallisaw, Oklahoma, near the Arkansas border. Restaurant owner Pat Edgar told The SPOTLIGHT his area was being inundated with the web-like white substance, believed to be causing many people, including himself, to become ill.

Now, about a year later, reports abound in local media across the country of people being ill with strange "flulike" illnesses. Many doctors are claiming this illness is not an influenza. It is difficult to effectively treat, its symptoms sometimes last for months. The outbreaks seem to follow the appearance of the strange aircraft contrails.

None of this, of course, is being reported in the national establishment media.

When The SPOTLIGHT first carried the story about the strange contrails it asked readers to report on about what they saw in the skies over their areas of the country.

In the weeks and months since dozens of stories have reached this writer from all across the nation. A total of about 40 of the 50 states have now reported the strange patterns in the sky, as well as reports from Great Britain and Australia, where illnesses have also followed the sightings.

Areas where the contrails have been particularly reported have been in the states of Tennessee, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Virginia and California.

The contrails are quite unlike those that have become familiar to Americans since large aircraft could fly at sufficiently high altitudes to create vapor trails in their wakes. These trails in the sky dissipate soon after a lone jet aircraft's passage.

The new contrails are unusually "fat," appearing in crisscross patterns across the sky of from several jets flying virtually abreast with large spaces between them.

Instead of dissipating like normal these contrails coalesce into broad cloud-like bands that gradually occlude crystal clear skies.

In Virginia, as an example, the contrails seem to separate, with a trail of dark-appearing material separating from a white vapor which appears to hang beneath the dark substance.

Many describe the contrails as "lace curtain" in appearance. At a quick glance many of them, long after the jets have passed overhead, can be mistaken for clouds, although if they are studied carefully the straight line in which they extend indicates they are only cloud-like in general appearance.

Government officials are avoiding questions of the contrails like the plague. Numerous members of Congress have refused to answer letters of inquiry from their constituents.

Most officials seem as puzzled as their inquirers.

One perplexed Federal Aviation Association official suggested the contrails may be the release of some type of substance that the military is testing to defeat radar detection.

Other explanations are that since about 1991, U.S. commercial and military jet aircraft are using different fuels, which are dirtier but less inflammable, thus providing better safety. It is suggested that the new fuels are causing the release of more pollutants, which could be acting as irritants or the cause of the illnesses being reported.

Still others suggest that the contrails are part of a government-sponsored weather control program.

If space permitted, The SPOTLIGHT could cite dozens of local newspaper stories about the contrails and the equally strange outbreaks of illness, as well as dozens of specific sites where the strange sky patterns are being reported. Virtually all of the reports, however, are essentially the same.

In any case, as the strange contrails continue to appear it seems wide-scale illness, particularly of a respiratory nature, will continue.

During the recent impeachment proceedings in the U.S. Senate against President Bill Clinton, a lady called in to C-SPAN which was taking calls at the time from people who wanted to express their opinions, pro and con, on the issue.

This particular lady strayed from the subject, posing a question of deeper concern to her. Why, she wanted to know, were the strange contrails in the sky not being investigated as a major concern?

She was hurriedly dumped from the line and another, more compliant caller replaced her.

At the time, the C-SPAN camera was focused live on a view of the Capitol. Overhead, as shown by the C-SPAN camera, three of the strange contrails appeared in the sky above the Capitol dome.

The SPOTLIGHT March 15, 1999



Two senators want experts from the nuclear powers to get together next New Year's Eve to eliminate any chance of a year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem triggering a false missile alert.

In a closed briefing at the Capitol on Feb. 2 senators were told that computer failures in Russia could blind early warning radar systems and lead to false alarms of nuclear attacks.

The pair, Robert Bennett (R-Utah), and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), are leading a Senate committee on the problem. "In this country we will have a bump in the road, but it will not be crippling," said Bennett, who heads the panel. Dodd is the ranking minority member.

The work of the panel, called the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Computer Problem, has been extended through February 2000 on a denate vote of 92-6. A budget of $800,000 was also approved.

Under the panel's plan, the experts would assemble at a temporary center in Colorado Springs, where America's missile-tracking headquarters - the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- is buried deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.

Russia has already agreed to a proposal by Washington to set up a temporary joint early warning system to avoid any risk of the millennium bug causing a nuclear Armageddon. But the senators are recommending that America should try to bring the other nuclear powers, including China, India and Pakistan, to Colorado Springs.

(Parenthetically, America's favorite nuclear power, Israel, was not mentioned. No one is supposed to know that Israel is a nuclear superpower.)

According to published reports, Dodd said the experts should be in the same room for the critical period when older computer systems -- using only the last two digits of a year -- could malfunction by misreading 2000 as 1900. "If something does break down, we've got people there who can monitor it and make quick decisions," he said.

According to published reports, the missile watchers at Cheyenne Mountain do not believe in principle that there is any danger of an inadvertent nuclear launch caused by the millennium bug. Missiles are not, after all, fired by computers, but by human commands.

They do see a risk of confusion in the event of a country suffering a blackout or breakdown in the power supply to its nuclear systems that could leave other countries "blind" to its intentions.

The experts would sit at a round table and be in touch with their head offices by telephone.

Under-Secretary of defense Edward Warner will go to Moscow with a Pentagon working group this month to meet their Russian counterparts and make plans for the center. It will be operational from the beginning of December this year until the middle of January 2000.

A continuous stream of information will be made available to the Russians via American satellites and ground sensors.

Last year President Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to pursue development of a permanent joint early warning center in Russia to continuously share data on missile launches. But it will not be ready by the end of the year.

Published reports quoted Pentagon officials that the Russians knew about the Y2K bug, but had not yet dedicated enough money or people to fight it.

A report from the special Senate panel says an accidental nuclear launch is unlikely. But Bennett was quoted: "When we get to New Year's Eve, everybody, no matter how informed we think we are, is going to be holding his breath."

The panel's 160-page report also warned that the nation's health care industry "lags significantly" in redressing the problem, as do millions of small businesses and many state and local governments.

Abroad, the situation is more critical, according to the panel. The report indicated that global communications, financial systems, air transportation and oil supplies could be interrupted for days or weeks, depending on the country. Important allies like Japan, Mexico and Germany are nine months to two years behind schedule in preparing for Y2K.

The senators stopped short of issuing a doomsday warning, but, echoing the same advice offered previously by The SPOTLIGHT, said Americans would be well advised to stock up on two or three days' supplies of food, much as they would for a blizzard.

On the subject of Y2K being a problem, but not a potential world-ending disaster, Dodd said: "We have tried to discount what I call the Y2K survivalist mentality." Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) Suggested people "prepare, but do not panic." He suggested Americans set aside some extra canned goods and bottled water, "but do not stockpile," he said.

According to published reports, the Gartner Group, a research and consulting firm, has estimated that only 10 percent of any computer failures in the United states are expected to last more than three days. And the panel saw few problems in utilities, telecommunications, finance and transportation.

In a related measure, the Senate voted 99-0 to authorize the government to guarantee loans to small businesses to fix computer problems.

Also, the House and Senate are considering bipartisan bills that would limit litigation, lawyers' fees and damage awards from breakdowns related to the Y2K problem. Lloyd's of London has projected that the worldwide legal cost could reach $1 trillion.

What has been called "an unlikely coalition of insurers, high-tech companies and large and small businesses" supports the legislation. It is opposed by consumer groups, trial lawyers and the Clinton administration.

Many fear calamity in the federal government on Jan. 1, 2000, but according to the latest General Accounting Office (GAO) audit of the IRS, the tax service's books are already a catastrophe.



International movers and shakers invaded Washington with sights set on the Global Plantation.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The Trilateral Commission (TC) was scheduled to meet in Washington D.C. on March 13-15 to ponder the future of the world economy as this issue of The SPOTLIGHT went to press.

Lawrence Summers, deputy secretary of the treasury, and James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, were listed as speakers at the closed-door gathering of the international elite.

Summers and such luminaries as banker David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger are also regulars at the even more secretive Bilderberg meeting, which will take place at a European resort in June.

The TC and Bilderberg share a common agenda that calls for a world government and the elimination of national sovereignty. These interlocking groups, with the Council on Foreign Relations serving as propaganda ministry, function as a shadow government.

The Trilaterals plan to seal off a large section of the posh Park Hyatt Hotel to conduct their sessions in secret.

In addition to international financiers and political leaders from Europe, North America and Japan, this year the Trilaterals are bringing in leaders from East Asia, Russia, Ukraine and Latin America.

Stanley Fischer, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, was expected to coach the Trilaterals on how to make Americans understand it is in their "best interest" to let his agency send additional tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars overseas.

The SPOTLIGHT March 22, 1999


Will the Feds' "Know-Your-Customer" bank snoops be put back in their cage?

By Mike Blair

Although the Federal Reserve won't let it go down without a fight, it looks like the latest plot to turn bankers into spies has gone down the tubes -- at least for now.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has indicated a "second look" is being taken at the intrusive "Know Your Customer" program that would force banks across America to participate in monitoring the banking activities of U.S. citizens for the Feds.

Ever since the Federal Reserve Board announced the controversial program last December, during a period to hear public responses, letters and e-mail messages have flooded the FDIC.

Most citizens were outraged by the federal proposal. The American people think Know Your Customer is another step by the Feds to stick their noses into your private business.

Banking regulators told the House Judiciary Committee that the controversial plan was dead.

But is the program really dead? Well, not according to Federal Reserve spokesman Kemper Baker, who met with 35 bankers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in February.

"We [the Federal Reserve] are operating under the assumption that the rule will be put into effect and banks will be subject to complying," Baker told the bankers at the Richmond meeting.

This brought a sharp response from the Virginia Banking Association, Which represents 175 Virginia banks and savings and loans.

"Banks have a well-deserved reputation for trust and this proposed rule undermines that," Jay Spruill, general counsel of the association, said. "It's natural for customers to be concerned about it. It smacks of 'big brotherism.' It simply goes to far."


Critics of the program point to the fact that some very powerful forces are behind the proposal -- the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision etc. -- and are highly unlikely to just dump what has been one of their key projects to keep tabs on all financial transactions.

"It's clear the public doesn't like this proposal," the FDIC's Steve Katsanos stated. "It's a question of balancing the legitimate interests of the public with interest in some quarters of combating crime. There's no question that certain crimes, such as drug trafficking, have relied on the use of financial institutions to channel funds."

But many say it is that the government is forcing the private sector more and more to employ their resources to keep track of virtually all the activities of the American people from the cradle to the grave.

The SPOTLIGHT March 22, 1999


A controversial international cult-cum-church is in trouble again.

By F.C. Blahut

Russian tax police and other security services spent 16 hours confiscating materials from the Church of Scientology's Moscow center on Feb. 25.
Police seized boxes of documents from the Scientologists and came back on Feb. 26 to questioned the cult's local leaders.

Russian authorities have moved against a number of religious organizations following the passage of a 1997 law that placed widespread restrictions on the "nontraditional" faiths.

But in this instance, authorities insisted they were investigating possible tax evasion and other financial irregularities.

The dominant Russian Orthodox Church strongly supports the law and often speaks out against religious or pseudo-religious groups that have been arriving in Russia since the Soviet breakup in 1991.


According to published reports, the Scientologists said the investigation against them was politically motivated.

"Cruelty was in the air during this visit by the tax police, which has reminded us that Russia has not yet acquired the right of freedom -- freedom to think and act in accordance with the convictions of conscience," Alexei Danchenkov, a Scientologist spokesman, told The New York Times.

The SPOTLIGHT March 22, 1999


The military is sending mixed messages about its attacks on American neighborhoods.

By Mike Blair

Public criticism has resulted in the Pentagon reevaluating its use of U.S. cities to conduct training in anti-terrorism efforts and urban warfare, a ranking retired U.S. Marine officer has told The SPOTLIGHT. Still, elite Special Operations Command (SOC) troops disturbed things in Texas last month as urban maneuvers were reported from McAllen to San Antonio. An editorial in The Monitor, based in McAllen, was titled "NO RESPECT: Military disregards public fears, safety."

It noted the Clinton administration is using the excuse of domestic terrorism to scare Americans.

"...In light of that, we see no excuse to deliberately terrorize unknowing residents by pulling surprise commando raids in downtown Kingsville, or anywhere else, for that matter...

"The current commando exercises suggest that Defense officials care little about public opinion -- or safety...

"Our military needs to develop a bit more respect for the people they've been sworn to protect."

Col. Ronald D. Ray, who served as a deputy secretary of defense during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, said the reaction of angry citizens to helicopters flying and releasing troops at roof-top levels, as well as the discharge of live ammunition, has caused military planners in the Pentagon to take a second look at the operations.

For several years, The SPOTLIGHT has run dozens of articles detailing the military operations and their inherent dangers to the public safety.

As a result, The SPOTLIGHT has repeatedly been attacked for being "alarmist" (or worse) by high-ranking pentagon brass, members of Congress who support the maneuvers and city officials who have cooperated with the Pentagon in the efforts.

Most recently, some urban centers have encountered such problems with the maneuvers threatening public safety that they have refused to allow them to take place. For example, San Antonio, Texas' mayor, police chief and other top
officials flatly told the Pentagon "thanks but no thanks."

But the black helicopters come anyway.

"A unit believed to be the Army's elite Delta force anti-terrorist team is poised for nighttime urban-warfare training this week at two San Antonio military facilities," the Associated Press reported on Feb. 17.
"I was surprised but not surprised," Mayor Howard Peak was quoted. "Surprised that they came back after we told them no, and then not surprised because this seems to be their MO [modus operandi]," he said.

There have been several ugly incidents resulting from the military efforts, which involve elite troops of most of the military branches, frequently practicing urban war games with local, state and federal police personnel.

In Miami, Fla., a bullet from live fire penetrated the window of a restaurant, frightening, and endangering, patrons of the eatery.

In New Orleans, helicopters flew at such low levels that the disturbance from their rotors caused extensive property damage in residential areas of the city.

Ray, who heads the Kentucky-based Coalition for American Veterans (CAV), says the maneuvers in urban centers have evolved, and greater emphasis has been placed on the use of SOC troops since the Vietnam War and particularly since the end of the so-called Cold War.

The retired Marine officer said that in America the parts being played by the police and military are being confused -- the police are intruding into military affairs and the military are becoming civilian policemen.

"It is a very dangerous concept," he warned.

The SPOTLIGHT March 22, 1999


By Charley Reese

Suppose, for the sake of supposing, that 10 winters hence, the population of California is 90 percent Latino and 10 percent Anglo.

Suppose two factions develop among the Latinos. One wants autonomy for the Latinos of California. The other group, more violent and bloody, wants independence.

Suppose the United States beefed up California's police and sent in federal troops.

Now suppose that China and Russia said that U.S. actions in California threatened the stability of the hemisphere, that the United States must grant autonomy to California's Latinos, that it must withdraw its troops and police, that it must accept occupation of California by Chinese and Russian forces to enforce the agreement the United States must sign or else get bombed.

Substitute Kosovo for California, Albanians for Latinos, and the United States and Great Britain for China and Russia, and you have the situation facing the Serbs. It is absurd and mad.

By the time you read this, one of several things will have already happened. Serbs may have caved in and accepted the agreement. They may have stood firm and gotten bombed. They may have stood firm and not gotten bombed. Whatever the outcome, the crime is in the assumption by NATO that it can simply declare that Yugoslavia is no longer an independent and sovereign nation and that it may dictate to Yugoslavia how it will conduct its internal affairs.

The implications of this insanity are enormous and bad.

Any shred of residual belief that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is defensive in nature has vanished. NATO is the new bully of Europe. Every nation in Europe not part of the "in" crowd of bullies should keep its powder dry and prepare for war.

Not one single nation on earth can draw any inference but that the United Nations is a completely dead issue, and expensive and impotent organization which violates its own charter and is nothing but the tool of the new evil empire, the United States. The international rule of law? Gone The United Nations charter? Made a mockery.

I have always thought Bill Clinton was a decadent sociopath, but now I think he's gone nuts. The expansion of NATO and use of NATO to bully and punish sovereign independent nations for having the audacity to disobey the orders of foreigners is a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions.

I've seen the smug, arrogant Americans scoff at Russia as being too weak and too broke. I've seen their cold, cruel indifference to the mass murder of Iraqi children by the embargo.

Well, let them be smug and arrogant. The minions of dying empires have always been that way. The poet Fobinson Jeffers said it well: "It becomes clear that we too may suffer what others have, the brutal horror of defeat...Therefore watch Germany and read the future. We wish of course that our women would die like biting rats in the cellars, our men like wolves on the mountain: it will not be so. Our men will curse, cringe, obey; our women uncover themselves to the grinning victors for bits of chocolate."

A bleak forecast, but the cosmic laws vernacularly summed up as what goes up must come down and what goes around comes around are unavoidable. As we destroy the rule of law, we destroy the concept of national sovereignty, we destroy it for ourselves.

The problem with Clinton as emperor of the world is that while he is self- indulgent, self-centered, cowardly, cruel and vicious, he is also incompetent. As he returns the world to law of the jungle, he stupidly proceeds to declaw and defang his own country.

The SPOTLIGHT March 29, 1999



An extremist scholar wants to revise history to make world government more saleable to Americans.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge are among those who would surrender U.S. sovereignty and bow their neck to a world government, according Robert B. Zoellick, a former U.S. undersecretary of state.

The desecration of Jefferson is a matter of putting words in his mouth that he never said. "But one system of ethics for men and for nations," as Jefferson said, is no call for a world government bought by plutocrats.

Jefferson often said, in numerous letters and speeches, that all men and nations should be moral and held to an equally high standard. He did not say they should form a world government.

Teddy Roosevelt "devoted his 1910 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to the idea of a league of nations, and by 1914 he had expanded the notion to include an 'international judiciary' backed by an 'international police force'" Zoellick added.

"Presidents Coolidge, Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt all pressed for U.S. membership in the World Court," Zoelick said in lecturing his Trilateral colleagues on how to sell world government to the United States.

President Franklin Roosevelt did working to build the UN when he died in April, 1945.

But Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover only supported the idea of a world court -- with no enforcement posers -- as a means for nations to argue about their disputes instead of fighting over them.

"The creation of the Bretton Woods economic institutions in 1944 and the United Nations in 1948" is further proof that world government is popular, Zoellick said.

Americans' commitment to ultimately surrendering national sovereignty and becoming subject of a world government has roots in the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain, Zoellick said, because "it introduced the device of international legal arbitration."

To seriously allege that Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge or any president until recently would subordinate the American Constitution and national sovereignty to a world bureaucracy is reaching to far, even for a Trilateral propagandist.

The SPOTLIGHT March 29, 1999


Internationalists called for world government and a single banking system at the latest Trilateral Commission meeting.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

A "globalization summit" to move mankind into a world government was urged at a meeting of the Trilateral Commission (TC) in Washington March 13-15.

The head of Goldman Sachs International, Peter D. Sutherland, called for the "globalization summit" both in a formal report and a personal appeal to the Trilaterals.

Sutherland's proposal was well received behind guarded doors at Washington's ritzy Park Hyatt Hotel. It is expected to be a major agenda item for the TC's brother group, Bilderberg, when it meets later in the spring.

"One mechanism for marshaling global leadership is a carefully designed summit meeting of heads of state -- a globalization summit," Sutherland told the TC. "The discussion would include an assessment of the adequacy of existing institutions" to manage the world.

Sutherland is a former director-general of WTO/GATT and a former member of the European Commission.

Heads of the United Nations, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the European Commission should also attend the summit effort to establish a world order, he said.


But there remain obstacles to establishing a world government, Sutherland warned.

"There are those who continue to argue that the development of economic or even political integration in Europe does not demand supranational institutions," he added. "This case is advanced by some in Britain who are genuine internationalists but who oppose the ceding of sovereignty."

Sutherland deplored nations that "cling tenaciously to their separate identities" and called for "sharing sovereignty." He applauded the memoirs of Jean Monnett that said "the European Union was part of a wider process of global integration based on institutions."

"Those who argue against European integration today are sometimes but not always those who attack global interdependence," Sutherland said. He cited people like Bruno Megret, the renegade who broke away form Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front in France; Gerhard Frey in Germany; and Jorg Haider in Austria.

"The pooling of sovereignty has fostered a more reliable and accountable Europe," Sutherland said.


But the move toward world government is making less progress in the Western Hemisphere, according to Sutherland.

While the WTO will probably call for a "Millennium Round" of trade talks at a meeting in November, it is doubtful whether "Congress will provide the necessary fast-track authority in the U.S.," Sutherland said.

Sutherland expressed concern about "isolationists in Congress" and their "rejection of international organizations and multilateral structures."

Recent military actions have advanced the cause of world government, said Hisashi Owada, president of the Japan Institute of International Affairs. Owada is a former vice minister for foreign affairs and former ambassador to the United Nations.

"The brilliant peace-keeping operation in Cambodia...was another epoch-making event, giving rise to hope for creating a new international order...with the United Nations as major center for action," Owada told the internationalists.

"The integration of the international community has generated a need to deal with global issues that affects all nations," Owada added. "They obviously include the problem of macroeconomic management of the world economy."

He also suggested the need for a global police force under command of the UN, which the Trilaterals and Bilderberg are trying to turn into a de jure, as well as de facto, world government.

"The problem of how to cope with transnational crimes like international terrorism and drug smuggling" result in "interdependence among the nations of the world growing stronger and deeper," he said.

Robert B. Zoellick, a former under secretary of state under President George Bush (himself a TC member) and now head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Americans are "definitely not isolationist" and expressed optimism over the prospects of a world government.

The world needs "a global economic system of finance, trade and information," Zoellick said. "That economic system needs to secure the benefits from integration, competition and efficiency, while coping with the inevitable stresses of capitalism on a global scale."

The SPOTLIGHT March 29, 1999



A funny thing happened to the republicans and Democrats in their battle on how to spend the budget surplus -- there isn't one.

That's the awful fact most politicians in Washington -- regardless of party affiliation -- aren't sharing with the taxpayers.

According to the "spin" from both the Democrats and Republicans, there was a budget surplus of $69.2 billion for the fiscal year that ended last September. The only battle was over how to spend it.

The Clinton administration was talking about things like education, Medicare and saving Social Security; the Republican-controlled Congress was touting tax cuts.

But the truth is that there is no budget surplus. Democratic hopeful Bill Bradley says the much vaunted "surplus" is really nothing more than accountants' smoke and mirrors. Congress should face up to some "honest accounting," he added. "There is no surplus."

That point was driven home in a recent column appearing in Barrons.

"When measured by proper accounting techniques, the federal government actually ran a deficit of $29.2 billion for its most recent fiscal year," says financial writer Gene Epstein.

He says that, for the current year, the deficit will widen to $41.7 billion. Things certainly have been worse, opines Epstein, but current conditions "in no way justify the orgy of spending that's now being contemplated in Washington.

It's nice to see a couple of mainstream stalwarts, like Bradley and Barrons, at least hinting at the truth. The truth is the federal budget, is a fraud. If the books were balanced and the government stopped its practice of debt spending, the financial system would fail. Because our nomey is based on debt, the interest of the debt has to be paid with more money. That money is also borrowed. So the system goes on and on and on.

The Establishment doesn't want you to realize this. According to them, the key is now what it always has been -- Social Security.

The current prevailing opinion by mainstream pundits has Lyndon Johnson as the grinch who "stole" Social Security receipts to "cook the books." He then replaced the money with a promise to pay. That's no the same as funds that can be invested to earn interest. The result, however, no matter which big-spending president winds up with the blame, is that any budget surplus is a phony.

Today, the same situation exist. The government is spending more than it collects in general taxes. But dump in SS Trust Fund collections, and a deficit magically becomes a surplus.

Bradley told The Star-Ledger, of New Jersey, the surplus has been built by Social Security taxes. That money, Bradley says, should be left to Social Security.

Here's what happened: By adding the SS system's $99.2 billion surplus to last year's $29.9 billion government deficit -- a magic $69.2 billion surplus appeared.

Added to this are the shenanigans by the leader of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OBM). Director Jack Lew has decided to follow President Clinton's lead and not bother to make the distinction between off-budget and on- budget items.

The OMB specifically lists the surplus from SS as an "off-budget" item. The deficit the government has really incurred is labeled "on-budget." But that didn't stop Lew from passing out rose-colored glasses to the masses. "Everybody in Washington would rather talk about surpluses than deficits," says Epstein.

What is really ironic is that the Clinton administration, after stealing the SS Trust Fund surplus, is promising the American people that he will use the (phony) general budget surplus to "save" Social Security.

But wait -- there's worse news. Social Security's so-called surpluses are only temporary. The system has been generating positive cash flow only because the Baby Boomers are currently working, and their contributions are being used to support today's retirees.

That's what politicians used to call "mortgaging our children's future." It's also comparable to a massive Ponzi scheme, in which current collections are used to pay off former investors. Eventually, the bubble bursts.

Enter Charles J. Zwick and Peter A. Lewis, director and assistant director respectively of the United States Bureau of Budget (not the OMB) under the aforementioned LBJ.

In an op ed piece in The New York Times, Zwick and Lewis lambaste a bill by Rep. David Minge (D-Minn.) That would separate Social Security from the rest of the federal budget.

Say the dubious duo: "The move would mean reversing a carefully considered decision made 30 years ago." They go on, in part:

"Now, as then, failing to include Social Security with the rest of the budget would create a distorted understanding of the state of the nation's finances. Public debate -- and congressional debate -- would become condused as different factions argued from different sets of numbers to make political (but not necessarily reliable points...

"Separate budgets make sense only if one believes that Social Security and other trust funds handled by the government are essentially private-sector operations or have no impact on the rest of the economy. But Social Security is based on involuntary collections by the government. It's hard to equate these payments with kinds of retirement plans offered by Merck or Microsoft.

They go on to suggest that separating SS Trust Fund monies from the general budget would indicate a government that is reneging on its obligation.

Some of the letters the Times received from its readers in reaction are woth excerpting.
From James Cook, Stanford, Calif:
"Borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund for purposes other than providing benefits to the elderly deceives the people who pay the tax by telling them that their money goes to help the elderly when it really finances other projects."

From Frank Lechner, Atlanta, Ga.:
"Using Social Security funds for general purposes has, in fact, distorted the public's perception of the government's financial condition.

"Zwick's and Lewis' argument that Social Security must be tethered to the budget in order to recognize the government's obligation to retirees implicitly concedes the appeal of privatization proposals. The writers do not acknowledge that under the current system, the government's obligation to the elderly can be reduced at any time, for example by continuing to raise the retirement age.

"Taking Social Security out of the overall budget would promote not only honest in government, but also discussion of genuine reform of Social Security."

From Michael Pellecchia, Loveland, Ohio:
"Please give the American people some credit for being able to understand the difference between the operating budget and retirement savings.

"Most of us have the ability to see the difference between our household operating budget(mortgage, electric and phone bills) and the money we put into saving for the future.

"The president and Congress are dishonest when they claim we have a surplus. By separating Social Security from the general fund, we can reduce the creative accounting that has given us a $3 trillion national debt."

From Harrison Kane, Iowa City, Iowa:
"Some Republicans propose to return part of the surplus as a tax cut, implying that the surplus is the result of excessive income taxes.

"Since the income tax is progressive, wealthy taxpayers would receive the largest returns. But the federal budget surplus derives from the regressive Social Security tax, because current Social Security costs are less than the current tax collections. So if the money is to be returned to anyone (and it shouldn't be), it should be returned in proportion to the Social Security taxes actually paid by the taxpayer.

The SPOTLIGHT'S's Seven Reasons Why the Budget Is a Fraud is available from The SPOTLIGHT, 3000 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. Eight copies are $4; 40+ copies are 30¢ each.