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

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT April 5, 1998

Clinton Gets Green Light for Balkans

On March 18, the House voted 225-193 against removing U.S. troops from Bosnia and Herzegovina. H.Con. Res. 227 said congress has not declared war; yet U.S. troops are stationed overseas in violation of the War Powers act. A vote of "yes" was for removing troops; a vote of "no" was for no action.

DeGette ........NO
Hefley ..........YES
McInnis ........YES
Schaffer, B ...YES
Schaefer, D ..YES
Skaggs ..........NO

The SPOTLIGHT April 6, 1998

Clinton Draws Bead on Hunters

President Bill Clinton is hoping to take advantage of controversial trade policies to force a new ban on various firearms.

By Mike Blair

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, chaired by Sen. Larry Craig (Idaho) has sharply criticized what it refers to as Bill Clinton's "backdoor" plan for a sweeping new ban on firearms.

According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), at issue are thousands of foreign-made firearms the committee describes as "legally importable under President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting purposes' import standard."

In 1994, the president, with help from Congress, managed to get a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of hundreds of semi-automatic firearms attached to that year's so-called Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill.

The measure was pushed in the Congress by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Clinton's current goal, with heavy support from Schumer and other anti-gun elements in Congress, is to ban guns by circumventing Congress and using his power to halt imports.

"While every firearm sold in the United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the administration is attempting to justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role of Congress," the GOP committee report stated.

Currently, the Treasury Department Action predicts the Clinton administration will use its arbitrary findings and "unconstitutional standard" to ban as many imported semi-automatic firearms as possible when the report is released.

By definition, a semi-automatic firearm is one that fires a single shot with each squeeze of the trigger. A more accurate term is "self-loading" firearms.

What Clinton will be doing, critics say, is banning firearms that are legal under the 1994 ban the president initiated and signed into law.

If Clinton has his way many fine firearms that have become popular in America, manufactured by such firms as Beretta, Walther, Sig, Heckler and Koch, FN Browning, etc, will be banned from importation.

The SPOTLIGHT April 6, 1998

Global Plantation Elite Develop Funding Plans

The New World Order crowd is planning the financial wing of the world government.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The International Monetary fund (IMF), a global agency planned to be an arm of the emerging world government, is making a grab for the power to override national and local laws if they "discriminate" against foreigners.

Of the IMF gains such power, it could overrule the Constitution, Congress, state legislatures and city councils.

This surrender of U.S. sovereignty is endorsed by President Clinton, a member of both the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg. It was first suggested to Hillary Clinton, the only first lady to ever attend a secret Bilderberg meeting, last spring near Atlanta.

In April, the IMP's executive board -- where the United States holds 18 percent of the vote -- will consider the amendment to its charter.

If cleared by the board, the amendment would go to the 182-nation board of governors for final action. If approved, the change would force member nations, including the United States, to become subservient.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, one of many administration representatives to Bilderberg, endorsed the surrender of national sovereignty. "If there is one lesson to be drawn from the events of the recent past, it is that capital account issues are here to stay," he said. "They are issues with which the fund will increasingly have to deal. Its charter ought to give it the tools to accomplish the task."

"The way in which countries go about opening their capital accounts has profound implications for the financial stability and economic growth...of the world economy," said IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus.

"The IMF, with its mandate over the smooth functioning of the international monetary system, has a keen interest in ensuring that the process of capital account liberalization is carried forward in an orderly way," Camdessus said.

An $18 billion payment to the IMF to bail out poor countries so they can pay off big banks for bad loans is pending in Congress. Resistance has emerged.

"I don't find it acceptable in the United States to abrogate our sovereignty when it comes to local and state laws that require investor performance, that require compliance with environmental and consumer protection laws, and I don't feel it would be consistent for me to export that value," said Rep. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.).

"I don't think that degree of interference and deprivation of sovereignty is appropriate for any nation," he said.

The SPOTLIGHT April 6, 1998

Dual-Flagged Mexicans Bode Ill for U.S.

Mexico has enacted a citizenship law that, experts say, will bring millions more into the U.S.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

As of March 20 as many as 5 million Mexicans now living in the United States citizenship -- with all welfare and other benefits -- while maintaining their Mexican rights.

With the single exception of Israel, American citizens can not apply for and obtain citizenship in a foreign country without automatically renouncing their U.S. citizenship

Many American Jews now proudly claim two flags, but the State Department prefers that Americans remain ignorant of this. When The SPOTLIGHT checked this out many years ago, the State Department stonewalled. Said one official:

"Many Americans have citizenship. If an American soldier is stationed in Paris and marries a local girl, he is automatically a French citizen under their laws," said one official. "You wouldn't want to take away his vote, would you?"

Now that Mexicans can also claim two flags, look for a tidal wave that will profoundly and adversely affect American culture, according to experts.

"If tens or hundreds of thousands of Mexicans are granted U.S. citizenship, the political consequences in the United States would be enormous," wrote Jorge Ramos Avalos, A Mexican-American who lives in Miami, in the newspaper Reforma.

"Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago San Antonio and Homestead, Illinois, could have mayors with names like Hornandez, Lopez Perez and Sanchez," and politics in those cities would mirror Miami, where Hispanic voters often prevail, Avalas said.

The State Department said the Mexican vote is an "internal matter" and hac no comment. At least 20 million Mexicans live in the United States, about 5 million of whom are here legally.

The issue raises obvious questions about patriotism. "Many Mexicans who are new U.S. citizens, it has to be said, would have their doubts about who to defend in a war," Avalos wrote. "Or, to go even further, if Mexico and the United States face off in this year's soccer World Cup, who would they root for?"

At a February soccer match between the United States and Mexico in Los Angeles Chicanos packed the coliseum, jeered the national anthem, spat on Old Glory, and pelted the American athletes with beer and bottles.

"It's part of the Bilderberg scheme for world government -- to so neutralize American culture that Americans don't feel American any more," said a State Department official.

The SPOTLIGHT April 13, 1998

Will Aliens Pick Next President? Mexicans Looking for Clout

Just what we need -- millions of new citizens whose loyalties lie elsewhere.

By Mike Blair

A new law in Mexico took effect March 20 which will allow millions of Mexicans living abroad, particularly in the United States, to hold dual nationality.

The new law will allow up to 5 million Mexicans -- many of them first generation migrants who have entered the United States looking for the proverbial (tax funded) pot of gold -- to become American citizens. That's something which many have not done in the past because they would have had to give up their Mexican citizenship.

That allowing the Mexicans dual citizenship will foul up U.S. immigration policy is obvious. However, less obvious, but very real, is the way it will affect the political landscape in the United States.

"If tens or hundreds of thousands of Mexicans decided to take out U.S. citizenship, the political consequences in the United States would be enormous," Jorge Ramos Avalos, a Mexican-American living in Miami, wrote in the Mexico City publication, Reforma.

U.S. officials, although troubled by the new Mexican law, commented only that it is "an internal matter of Mexico," although its impact will be felt in America.

It also illustrates the foolishness of past U.S. policy which allows dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship. There is little doubt about the impact that such dual citizenship has on the U.S. political process. In large cities, such as New York, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens vote for U.S. candidates.

Such citizens of dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship have long played a key role in heavily influencing U.S. policy in Washington, either through the ballot box or influence directly applied through lobbying on capitol Hill.

In addition to the 5 million documented Mexicans in the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that there are an additional 15 million Illegal Mexicans living here, many in living in Texas where both parties want their vote.

In the past, millions of Mexicans who live north of the border, "al norte del corazon" (north of where the heart lies), have never sought U.S. citizenship due to strong nationalistic feelings, and because they feared losing their rights to invest or own property in Mexico.

It appears that the U.S. government will, having established the precedent with Israel, permit dual Mexican-American citizenship to exist.

Making matters more complicated is that the law will allow Mexicans already U.S. citizens to regain their Mexican nationality, although it has not yet been fully determined whether they will have a right to vote, join the military or hold top-level government jobs there.

Ramos Avalon wrote in Reforma that "Many Mexicans who are new U.S. citizens, it has to be said, would have their doubts about who to defend in a war."

This reality has already been an accepted fact regarding U.S.-Israeli joint citizenship, with thousands of Israeli-Americans flocking to Israel to join its military and thus, must be assumed, in many cases avoid serving in America's military.

The SPOTLIGHT April 13, 1998

Israelis Perusing Candidates

Our "best ally" has its sights set on the next election -- ours.

By Mike Blair

The next U.S. presidential election campaign is still two years away -- in apparently already casting an eye upon who they plan to help make it to the White House.

"Now that we have our own president," Avinoam Bar-Yosef recently reported in the Jerusalem Post, "we can turn our attention to the really important elections -- for the president of the U.S."

And despite his currying of favor with Israeli interests. Vice President Al Gore, seen by most analysts as the successor to the scandal-ridden administration of President Bill Clinton, is apparently not the first choice of the leaders of the Middle East Ministate.

"Even if the Monica Lewinsky affair sinks to the bottom of the pile of inexhaustible intrigue in the American capital, Bill Clinton's Debatable reputation will have sullied Al Gore's election campaign,' Bar-Yosef opines.

Gore A Bore

Describing Gore as "someone who talks like former Secretary of State Warren Christopher Looks," Bar-Yosef reports that the vice president is "vigorously wooing the Jewish vote, particularly the Jewish pocket, but despite his pro- Israel record, we should not expect him to be any different from the incumbent present in his attitude toward Jerusalem," with apparently, the Israelis don't like very much.

In its story, the Post refers to a potential bombshell being dropped on the Republican Party, suggesting that perhaps it might be intended to overshadow the Lewinsky scandal currently giving the Clintons indigestion.

As the Post reports, the story suggests that a potential scandal is hanging out there, yet to be plucked by the U.S. media.

Again quoting the Post: "...a brilliant 28-year-old Male journalist committed suicide in Washington after having exposed a plot against House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his own party.

"The story goes that the reason for the suicide was a affair the journalist had with none other that the leader of the plot, a senior Republican, confirmed supporter of Israel, who championed family values in true Republican style..."

Is ti being suggested that this potential scandal might suddenly blossom in the heavily Israeli-influenced U.S. mainstream news media if the GOP doesn't play ball and promote a pro-Israeli candidate?

There are those in America -- in a position to know -- who have suggested that the Monicagate episode was orchestrated in the U.S. media by Israeli influence. The fact is that after ignoring Clinton's sexual peccadilloes for years, it suddenly discovered Monica Lewinsky and nothing much of interest has been heard about the Clinton administration since.

This is all, as the story goes, because President Clinton was not supporting sufficiently the hard-line Israeli posture in the Middle East.

As the Israelis seem to view the political landscape in America, Texas Gov. George Bush Jr., son of the ex-president, is the leading candidate" for the GOP nomination. That does not make the Israelis particularly happy, said the Post, noting that the younger Bush is not "the bearer of a particularly supportive approach to Israel."

In any case, the Jerusalem paper reports that the Israelis like very much such U.S. GOP politicians as Ron Lauder of the Este Lauder cosmetic firm fame and a long-time New York gubernatorial wannabee -- and avid Zionist -- Leslie Wexner.

They also indicate a particular fondness for former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, " a true friend of Israel," whom the Jerusalem Post reports is being "listed as the leading candidate for the post of secretary of state or defense in the event of a Republican comeback."

The SPOTLIGHT April 13, 1998

International Financiers Push Treaty That Will Subvert Sovereignty

A Canadian warns his countrymen about the dangers of an international agreement. The same applies to America and Americans.

By Alain Pilote

In their latest step toward global control, the world financiers came out with the MAI -- the Multilateral Agreement on Investment -- which gives corporations absolute power, and causes them not to be subjected to any national, provincial, or municipal law. It will grant multinational corporations the unrestricted "right" and "freedom" to buy, sell and move their operations whenever and wherever they want around the world, unfettered by government intervention or regulation.

In other words, corporations will be able to override laws enacted by the people, and will not have to abide by all of the same laws the rest of the ordinary citizens do. How can any government, that is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens, want that to happen? To accept the MAI is, for our elected governments, an act of high treason. Corporations, rather than elected governments, will be established as our final legal authority; elected governments will exist only to protect the rights of these corporations. The MAI has been negotiated since 1994 by the 29 wealthiest nations of the world, members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), based in Paris, France, and is due for final approval in 1998 (probably in May). The MAI is based on the investment provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), But the MAI amplifies these provisions and, unlike NAFTA, which only applies to the United States, Mexico and Canada, it would apply them world-wide. The director general of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Renato Ruggerio, said about the MAI: "We are writing the constitution of a single global economy."

The Effects of The M.A.I.

The guiding principle of the MAI is that any foreign corporation must be treated on the same level as a local or national corporation. This principle might seem fair at first sight, but it has serious consequences on national economies. For example, a government couldn't do anything to favor certain sectors of its own economy: subsidies to help local business, or help given to regions with high rates of unemployment, could be forbidden, being considered as an unfair advantage.

(The government would have to make the same subsidies available to all off the multinational giants asking for them, since the MAI requires that any investment incentives offered to local persons must be made equally available to foreign persons.) Even Social Security laws are at risk with the MAI, since countries offering more generous social benefits could be accused by foreign companies of offering their countries; workers unfair advantages.

Similarly, national laws that seek to limit foreign ownership of local resources and industries, including agricultural land, mineral resources and newly developing sectors of the economy, are also forbidden by the MAI. The MAI guarantees all foreign investors the right to establish investments in all economic sectors, including services such as banking, communication and construction.

For example, the present law, which says that no person or corporation can own more than 10 percent of any one of the big six banks in Canada, would no longer stand...and these banks could be bought by American banks

In fact, the MAI give foreign companies better than equal treatment. Under this agreement, governments cannot require foreign corporations to meet certain performance requirements of conditions, even if these conditions are imposed on local companies (such as requirements to use local suppliers, to take on local partners, or to hire a minimum number of local employees).

A Threat To Sovereignty

This MAI treaty is a real threat to the sovereignty of any country. It states, among other things, that any country can:

  • Unilaterally purchase and own any built structure or productive capacity of any other signatory nation, with no requirement to sustain its viability, employment level or location in the home country;
  • Own any salable natural resource of other countries, and have the national right to any concession, license or authorization to extract its oil, forest, mineral or other resources, with no obligation to sustain these resources, or to use them in the interest the host society; and
  • Bid for and own any privatized public infrastructure, social good or cultural transmission without any limit of foreign control permitted by law.

When a Canadian federal corporation, public utility or other government enterprise is privatized, the MAI states that it must be offered at tender to all the private sector investors of all the member MAI countries. If a province privatizes its hydro facilities, for example, there is nothing that could prevent them from being purchased by foreigners.

In a few years, transportation, education and security (police forces) could be supplied not by public authorities, but by the private sector. This is actually the trend being pushed by the big transnational corporations.

The MAI will hasten a world-wide "race to the bottom" by making it easier for investors to move production facilities from one country to another. This could hasten job flight from industrialized countries, and increase the pressure on all nations to compete for investment capital by lowering wages, labor, environmental and consumer-safety standards.

Corporations Can Sue Governments

With this agreement, corporations are given the right to sue governments, judged by an international tribunal, if governments pass laws that would damage corporate profits. Any law aimed at protecting the environment and public health could be considered unfair by any foreign investor.

For example, if a law forces a car company to install an antipollution system on its cars, this company could find this law discriminatory against it and sue the government, which would have to repeal the law and pay the company a fine. If challenged by a corporation, governments are obligated ("unconditional consent") to go before the tribunal. The tribunal members are to make their judgments based not on the laws of the host country, but on the rules of the MAI treaty. All awards are "binding," and shall be enforced "as if it were a final judgment of its courts."

In fact, the MAI stipulates that any national law that violates MAI rules must be eliminated (either immediately or over a short period of time), and forbids passage of any similar law in the future. This would mean the abolition of many existing national and provincial laws and regulations protecting the environment, natural resources, public health, culture, social welfare and employment.

It would be forbidden, for example, to have bans on the production or sale of dangerous product, or to have laws designed to conserve valuable natural resources or land. The ability of governments to encourage local economic development would also be restricted, because such laws could put foreign investors at a competitive disadvantage.

In this tribunal business, foreigners would be advantaged over nationals: The NAI requires that there be some international participant involved in an investment dispute. Any individual resident in an MAI country, or a business owned by that individual, can launch a claim against the government of another MAI country.

For example, Canadian investors are not eligible to bring disputes against the government of Canada; however, American of Japanese investors could. This results in the situation of foreign investors and their investments in Canada having access to the investor-state dispute process, while other Canadians may not. In essence, foreign investors are provided with a better legal remedy than Canadians, under these rules

A 20-Year Lock-In

Once governments join this agreement, it is very hard for them to get out of it. Most international treaties require a six month notice if a country wants to drop out. The MAI goes further. Contracting governments will not be able to withdraw from the MAI until five years after it has come into force.

On top of that, it is proposed that the MAI rules continue to cover existing investments in that country for an additional 15 years. In other words, once a country has ratified the agreement, it is virtually locked-in for a 20-year period, giving corporations an ironclad guarantee that the MAI's investment rules will remain in force for at least 20 years.

Say, for example, that Canada ratifies the MAI in 1998. Then, in 2001, a new prime minister and government are elected, and they have different views about foreign corporations. Too bad, because they can't pull our country out of the MAI until 2028. Foreign-owned corporations that are already in this country will have the MAI's special rights untill year 2028.

We Must Say No

What unifies the corporations and investors driving this agreement is the prospect of being freed completely in all of the signatory countries from and accountability to any government of citizen body. They will not have to answer to anybody for the manner id which they use or exploit the markets, resources, subsidies and assets of the 29 OECD countries, and, soon, of every country on earth. The MAI, if adopted, will make corporate rule absolute.

For Canadians, the real danger is the MAI will be swept under the rug and ratified without anyone even being aware of its harmful implications and consequences. Fortunately, there are many people and groups who are denouncing this shameful treaty. For example, over 600 non-governmental organizations have issued a joint statement to denounce it.

Last November 24, Archbishop Henri Goudreault, O.M.I, of Grouard-McLennan, in an intervention at the Synod of Bishops' Special Assembly for America, said:

"Governments are having to compete with one another in order to offer the financial giants ever greater advantages and guarantees. The globalization of the economy by multinational coronations is now a reality. Two hundred multinational corporations control more than a quarter of the world's economy, and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment currently being negotiated will give these corporations even greater freedom and power."

Maude Barlow, charwoman of the Council of Canadians, said: "Trans-national corporations have now become so large and powerful that they have replaced nation-states as the defining power structures of the global economy...Small wonder that the heads of state of the world's nations now come cap in hand each year to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to plead with the most powerful corporate leaders to favor their countries with investments. They are all to aware -- even if they will not let their citizens in on the secret -- that, while they may govern, they no longer rule.

"The MAI is a dangerous and profoundly anti-democratic proposal. It confers, in essence, nation-state status on private capital and political power to transnational corporations to shape our world in their image. Most distressingly, it has a 20-year lock-in. We can and must say no.

This article is excerpted from Michael Journal, 1101 Principale St., Rougemont, Quebec, Canada JOL 1MO.

The SPOTLIGHT April 13, 1998

Senate Bows To Bilderberg

After assuring the American public that it would not bow to internationalist pressure, the Senate just agreed to billions for the bankers.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The Senate has approved a measure providing $18 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -- a major part of Bilderberg's congressional agenda -- in a convoluted manner.

The Senate measure would impose "reforms" on recipient nations as a means of reducing national sovereignty.

But because all legislation giving away tax dollars must originate in the House, the Senate did not actually legislate explained a congressional staffer.

The Senate sent to the House language for IMF funding that it wants; if the House acts, the Senate must act again -- with the bill having a House number.

By requiring the agency to impose reforms, the Senate is following the Bilderberg lead in making the IMF a global commerce department capable of imposing its will on all countries including the United States(SPOTLIGHT, April 6, 1998).

The IMF has been Bilderberg's favorite conduit for sending staggering amounts of (mostly American money to poor countries so they can make usurious interest payments to big banks.

The practice has escalated since the spring of 1983 when The SPOTLIGHT revealed President Ronald Reagan's secret pledge of more than $50 billion to the IMF. That promise, later known as the Brady Plan, was more than kept.

U.S. Manipulated

"So Bilderberg is manipulating Americans into the situation where they give the money and take the orders from a world government," said a State Department official who is a veteran observer of the international scene.

"Only a month ago there was great doubt that IMF funding would be approved," he said. "Many in congress were acting as if they really wanted to represent America's interest.

Bilderberg was also instrumental in Stopping the American Land sovereignty Protection Act, which passed the House 236-191 in October, but has gone nowhere in the Senate.

This legislation, by Rep Don Young (R-Alaska), would stop U.S. officials from nominating U.S. parks and lands for designation as United Nations World Heritage Sites or International Biosphere Reserves unless a separate act of Congress approves each designation.

Young's legislation would also negate previous designations and require written permission of private landowners whose property is nominated as an International Biosphere Reserve.

Unless the Senate wakes up, the day may come when an American homeowner or farmer has to ask permission of the UN to drain a pond or plant a garden, the official said.

The SPOTLIGHT April 20, 1998

Militia Meets Secretly with Feds: Fbi Silent on Waco, Attacks on 'Terrorists'

Politics makes strange bedfellows. But some seemingly incongruous liaisons come as no surprise to patriots.

By Mike Blair

The SPOTLIGHT has learned that a group of militia leaders met secretly with members of an FBI anti-terrorism task force on April 4 at a remote schoolhouse in rural Texas, south of Dallas.

According to reporter Guy A. Shea, who has covered the story for the Ellis County (Texas) Press, "this is not the first secret meeting between government officials and various militia factions.

"The meetings have been taking place for over three years with this meeting being the third since January."

According to Shea, "The meeting was called by the FBI go-between, Raymond Smith," an electrical contractor from Teague, Texas.

Smith and his followers attempted to keep the press out of the meeting held at a remote schoolhouse on a rural road at Dew, Texas, about one hour south of Ferris and just south of Fairfield, off Route I-45.

Cars Lined Up

During the meeting, a row of unmarked government cars lined the school parking lot, along with vehicles belonging to militia representatives.

Retired FBI Senior Special Agent Ted L. Gunderson, ling a critic of the bureau's heavy-handed tactics used in recent years and "lack of professionalism," was invited by Smith to attend the meeting. He did not attend.

"No doubt someone [FBI] was outside taking down license numbers of the militia people's cars," Gunderson commented.

"I wonder if you had to sign a guest book?"

The former FBI veteran was disinvited to the meeting when the FBI learned of his invitation, stating their agents would walk out if he was there, unless he apologized for everything he has said critical of them.

"Of course, I had no intention to do that,' Gunderson said, "but I would have gone to give them a lecture on what has gone wrong with the bureau."

Dallas FBI office Special Agent in Charge Danny A. Defenbaugh, reportedly said that Gunderson would "not be welcome at my home for dinner."

"Who wants an invitation?" Gunderson shot back.

As far as the meeting itself was concerned, Gunderson said, "I think it was pointless. Only the FBI would benefit from it, probably by learning the identities of militia people.

"I think its more than a little ridiculous for the bureau to meet with these people after last year having its agents meeting with local law enforcement people across the country to tell them that the 'real terrorists' in America are patriots, the militias and Christian Fundamentalists.

"They don't seem to care about the Crips and the Bloods, the vicious street gangs that are terrorizing people all across America in the cities and now moving out into the rural areas."

Defenbaugh said, "We, the FBI here in Texas, have met with concerned citizens on a number of occasions over the last three years. Specifically the different militia that have been organized here. I just came of the Oklahoma City bombing. I was in charge of that over the last two and a half years... Our Reason to meet with the militia is to try to show them the facts, rather than believing some of the conspiracy theories out on the Internet. Some of these groups think the Fbi is out to get them, to attack them. I want to reassure them that is not the case."

When confronted with the fact that the FBI brought in military assistance to crush the Branch Davidians at Waco, Defenbaugh "lost it," spitting out: "What military? You just said you would not bring up Waco. Waco is over. What's your bitch?"

Senate hearing clearly established that the military was indeed involved in the Waco holocaust.

Dallas FBI Supervisory Agent John Fraga said, "We could not do our job without the support of the American people."

As he later left the meeting site, Fraga asked reporter Shea, "You are got going to quote us from this meeting, are you?"

The media needs to report the facts," Shea replied.

The SPOTLIGHT April 20, 1998

E.P.A. Plans U.S. Farm Grab

Embattled American farmers are about to be punished for a "dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.

By Charles White

U.S. Water News (April, 1998) reports that oxygen depletion in the Gulf of Mexico has created a large area in which no aquatic animals can live. This includes the fish, shrimp and crabs which formerly made the area famous for seafood. Last summer, the dead zone reached the size of New Jersey.

According to studies by the Coastal Ocean Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), plant nutrients flowing into the gulf from the Mississippi River can be linked directly with the oxygen loss. Nitrogen rich compounds and other plant nutrients, mainly from fertilizer runoff, feed the algae in the water.

In the summer the growth of these minute plants reaches extreme rates. Later in the year, the algae die and sink to the bottom, Bacteria decomposing the dead plants use oxygen as part of their life cycle, and deplete the oxygen in the bottom water layer. In cooler months, the river water flows over top of the heavier, slaty gulf water, and prevents oxygen from reaching the hypoxic zone.

Some Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) watchers believe that the timing of this report, given at the December 1997 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, signals the start of a renewed campaign by the EPA to get control of American farming. The EPA has tried and failed to regulate the use of fertilizer by farmers, and the runoff from cattle feedlots.

This report may be the push the EPA needs to get approval by Congress of legislation allowing them complete control of the agricultural industry.

The SPOTLIGHT April 20, 1998

Questions Remain in Paula Jones Decision

When it comes to favors, it's not what you know, it's who you know. Take the Paula Jones case, for example.

By Mike Blair

"Was there a quid pro quo?

"Is the judge in line to become the next Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court?"

That is the speculation today in certain anti-Clinton circles in Arkansas in the wake of U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright's decision to dismiss the pula Jones civil suit charging president Bill Clinton with making indecent sexual advances to her in a Little Rock hotel while he was governor of Arkansas.

"Judge Wright is not without some conflict of interest in this case," a long-time Arkansas political activist told The SPOTLIGHT.

He was referring to a once secret, and unethical, meeting that was held in Little Rock between Judge Wright and former U.S. Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.), in which Pryor apparently tried to encourage the judge to schedule a hearing to release from jail Susan McDougal. Mrs. McDougal is the estranged wife of the late Jim McDougal, a key figure in the Whitewater land scandal that has enveloped the Clinton administration since the president took office (SPOTLIGHT, Jan. 19, 1998).

Wright had jailed Mrs. McDougal for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury hearing evidence in the Whitewater scam presented by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

The meeting between Pryor who has long been known for hauling political water for Clinton, and Judge Wright, was secret until it leaked to the press in Little Rock and became a sensation for several weeks there.

At first it was denied, but after repeated press scrutiny it was finally admitted that the meeting had in fact taken place.

Sorry About That

Pryor is still trying to dodge questions regarding the meeting's purpose but judge Wright admitted the meeting took place, said it was improper and apologized, stating "I acknowledge I shouldn't have received him, in hindsight."

"Obviously, something is not right here," the Arkansas political activist said, "That this has to indicate a conflict of interest that should have caused the judge to remove herself from making a decision in Paula Jones' case.

In addition to her entanglement with Pryor, Judge Wright was a former constitutional law student of one-time college professor Bill Clinton.

"If anyone has a complete lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution, it is certainly William Jefferson Clinton," the Arkansan told The SPOTLIGHT.

The SPOTLIGHT April 20, 1998

U.S. Sovereignty Being Usurped

When free traders sold Congress on the idea of a global trade pact, they said national sovereignty was safe. They lied.

By Andrew Arnold

Critics of so-called free trade warned U.S. sovereignty was a t risk if Washington signed on to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. Critics were labeled with a number of smears such as extremists." Now another label can be added: "right."

What The SPOTLIGHT warned against four years ago has become fact.

On April 6, a three-member international panel in Geneva, Switzerland ruled the United states cannot prohibit shrimp imports from countries that fail to protect sea turtles from nets that drown the creatures.

Liberty Lobby, publisher of The SPOTLIGHT, was a leader in the fight against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the WTO it evolved into.

On September 12, 1994, this newspaper warned "The WTO will be the most powerful economic, and therefore political, body in the world. U.S. laws, regulations and administrative procedures must conform to WTO rulings. If these laws are not changed, the U.S. will be hit with sanctions."

Under EPA rules, shrimpers are required to equip nets with metal frills that exclude turtles and other large animals. In 1989, Congress passed a law prohibiting shrimp imports from countries not requiring the grill in their shrimp boats.

The law was aimed at protecting sea turtles, which some fear are at risk of extinction.

India, Thailand, Pakistan and Malaysia sued via the WTO.

The Clinton administration says it is weighing its options. Some have suggested the White House will simply ignore the ruling. That could result in fines or countervailing trade barriers.

A more likely response is to appeal the ruling to another WTO panel, but the outcome is likely to be the same; that is, the United States must change its law or face international sanctions.

Slap at Environment

"This is the clearest slap at environmental protection to come out of the WTO to date," said Daniel Seligman, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, in a published report.

Seligman had better get used to it, according to one international trade lawyer. "There isn't a strong basis for arguing a pro-environment position within the WTO," the lawyer said. "The environment is going to take a back seat whenever there is a direct and open conflict with open and free trade.'

It is at least the third time the United states has seen its environmental laws overruled since Congress passed WTO implementing legislation in 1994.

Congress was forced to change a U.S. law prohibiting tuna boats that trapped dolphins in their nets from being imported after Mexico challenged the law via the WTO in 1997 (SPOTLIGHT, August 18, 1997).

Also, U.S. environmental regulations against gasoline refining were struck down on January 17, 1996 after Venezuela challenged EPA rules. International bureaucrats of the WTO heard the challenge.

Both of these decisions fall in line with a pattern some have seen coming for decades. The WTO legitimizes world government in the eyes of the New World Order. It provides the judicial branch.

"The most controversial role of the WTO is trade court," says Washington columnist Jim Landaus. "... Such a court was planned at the Bretton Woods conference after World War II that gave rise to the World Bank and the IMF.

The SPOTLIGHT April 20, 1998

Senate Votes To Hand I.M.F. Billions

On March 26, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (84-16) to approve $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund and payment of "back dues" to the UN.


The SPOTLIGHT April 27, 1998

U.N. Chief Rolls Over, Plays Dead on Orders From The Power Elite

Money talks; big money and power scream. Just ask at the UN.

By Warren Hough

NEW YORK -- Using "pile-driver pressure tactics," whiskey billionaire Edgar Bronfman Sr., the imperious president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), and his son, media magnate Edgar Bronfman Jr., have successfully browbeaten UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The UN chief was coerced into covering up new evidence of Israel's lawless and violent meddling in some of the world's worst trouble spots, The SPOTLIGHT has learned exclusively.

Israeli troops, agents and mercenaries have been linked to a series of massacres, widespread torture and other "crimes against humanity" as well as drug deals and arms control violations in Central America and Africa, strife- torn regions where UN observer teams and "Truth Commissions" are currently investigating such abuses.

Annan has reportedly agreed to eliminate any mention of the ministate's major misdeeds from the final version of the regional surveys and reports published by the UN, concerned staff sources at the world organization's headquarters here have told The SPOTLIGHT.

Major Power

Bronfman Sr., who took over as WJC's head in 1979 and has since built this global pressure group into what even Zionist historians such as Jeremy J. Goldberg now describe as "one of the most feared organizations in the world," has recently become a major presence in the UN's corridors of power, these sources relate.

For on thing, Bronfman reportedly played a key behind-the-scenes role in setting up Ted Turner's widely publicized $1 billion donation" to the world organization last year.

"Although they are not known as friends, Turner and the Bronfmans are business Partners; They are major shareholders in Time-Warner" (the world'[s largest entertainment and communications conglomerate), explained Dr. Paul Adler, a business economist and corporate consultant.

To be sure, the UN has not yet received any of the wealth Turner pledged with such loud fanfare, "And it's unlikely it will ever see anything even remotely approaching a billion dollars," says Christopher Bryon, the noted Wall Street financial columnist.

Quid Pro Quo

But during the past year, Annan has privately asked a number of influential go-betweens for Israel, among them Bronfman Sr., to help persuade congress to pony up some of the $1 billion or so the UN claims the U.S. government owes it in late dues.

"Bronfman, in turn, asked Annan to exempt Israel from the scrutiny of a major arms-control survey launched by the UN last year" explained Adler.

"In particular, Bronfman wanted to insure that there would be no investigation of the ministate's illegal arms and military technology sales to Communist China -- a huge scam that lasted for a decade, netted billions, and criminally sold out hundreds of key U.S. defense secrets the Israelis were legally bound and solemnly pledged to protect closely," related this well- placed observer.

It is not yet known precisely what the UN received in return for its cover- up of Israel's blatant arms-control violations.

Despite the hope that the Zionist lobby would use its decisive influence to "sweeten" Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the crusty but devoutly pro-Israeli chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, into lending an ear to the global bureaucracy's pleas for more money. There has been no perceptible improvement in the UN's relations with Congress.

Nor has Turner's announcement of his $1 billion globalist giveaway been followed by any large cash handouts yet. "But the UN did receive a spate of favorable publicity," says New York media analyst Bruce Colville.

The trouble is that what Annan thought of as a one-time, strictly confidential concession -- to draw a veil over Israel's huge black-market arms deals with Communist China -- is becoming a habit, UN staffers complain.

"The UN has come under ongoing pressure from the Israel lobby to ignore the blood crimes committed by their Troops and agents in a number of war-ravaged lands," says Colville.

The world organization "now stands to lose whatever small remnants of credibility it may still have," warned Adler.

The SPOTLIGHT April 27, 1998

Greenies Pushing Big Lie

So-called "global warming" disregards the laws of physics and chemistry, not to mention nature.

By Glenn Arbuthnot

Global warming is a populace control mechanism. Keep the people frightened and government will be able to do anything it wishes. The concept flies in the face of long established principles of chemistry and physics.

One of the first principles of chemistry taught in the first year is the law of mass action. This law simply states that in a reaction essentially in equilibrium, if one of the reactant concentration changes, the reaction will move in such a way to re-establish equilibrium.

Carbon dioxide in the air is a necessary reactant to the life cycle. All plant growth is dependant on carbon dioxide in order to grow. Practically all plant structure is a combination of carbon dioxide and water. Other elements are minimal.

So, according to the law of mass action, if the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increases, plants will grow faster as long as there is also adequate water. As about 80 percent of the plant growth of this world occurs in the ocean, there is no shortage of water; and if the carbon dioxide level increases, plant growth everywhere will increase to to decrease the new carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

We're Not Guilty

Please note that according to Global Change(1), only a small portion of the carbon dioxide produced is due to human activity, and of course even less of it is due to the automobile.

The law of physics that is violated by the global warming concept has to do with the radiation (heat loss) of a body. If the temperature of the body increases, the radiation will increase by the square; conversely if the temperature of the body decreases, the radiation will also decrease by the square. Clearly this is a powerful force to maintain the status quo.

(1) Global Change is a publication of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security with editorial offices at 1347 Massachusetts Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003-1540.

The SPOTLIGHT April 27, 1998

Think Tank Poo-Poos Al Gore's Fears

Even the mainstream is distancing itself from Al Gore and the greenies on the subject of the global warming myth.

By Fred Blahut

Out in Indianapolis, Indiana, best known for its proximity to an auto race track which carries its name, is a think tank called the Hudson Institute. Said institute prides itself on being recognized internationally as a public policy research organization.

In mid-March, the Hudson Institute published the first issue of a new magazine, American Outlook. The quarterly journal, "an anthology of many of the nation's most noted scholars writing on the ideas, people, trends and technologies at work shaping the future."

One might expect that global warming would be a good subject for such a journal and, as a matter of fact, that's the magazine's inaugural cover story: "Global warming -- Boon for Mankind." In it, agriculture and environmental expert Dennis Avery "confronts the hand-ringing, doomsday predictions of ecoactivists." He writes that scientists are predicting at most only a minute, 2 degree Centigrade (3.5 Fahrenheit) increase in temperature for the next century.

"To frighten us into lowering our living standards, the activists have announced a whole series of terrifying claims, most of which have already been proven wrong," Avery emphasizes, "The world has experienced that much warming and in fairly recent history and we loved it."

"The modest global warming now predicted should bring back one of the most pleasant and productive environments humans and wildlife have ever enjoyed. We have nothing to fear but fear-mongers themselves."

If the Hudson Institute says so, then the mainstream must take notice. Could Gore & Co. be in trouble? Stay tuned.

The Hudson Institute is at 5395 Emerson Way, Indianapolis, Indiana 46226.

The SPOTLIGHT April 27, 1998

Publishers Warned About 'Terrorists'

American Patriots make foreign-born Secretary of State Madeleine Albright nervous.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's outburst before the American Society of Newspaper Publishers is a symptom of how nervous the administration has become over a rising tide of populist patriotism, according to a high government official.

"She was preaching to the choir, but they needed the message more and more from their readers that their loyalty belongs to the United States and not the United Nations," said the high State Department official.

Mrs Albright was echoing the sentiments of her leader, Bill Clinton, who on April 22, 1993 at the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, called Liberty Lobby, by name, "depraved and insensate." (See The SPOTLIGHT for May 10, 1993.)

A year ago, the administration would not allow such speeches by cabinet officers on grounds it "would dignify the right wing," said the official, who has been a reliable observer for more than a decade.

"Now, the issue of patriotism and national sovereignty is on the rise," he said. "More Americans -- the type who work, pay taxes and vote -- are becoming aware of the effort to make the UN a world government and they are being heard.

Thus, he said, the White House decided it was necessary to respond, and chose the publishers' meeting in Washington as the forum so the newspapers could be warned not to "deal seriously" with the issue.

Albright's Message

"There are some who believe the un is a sinister organization" with "a fleet of black helicopters which may, at any moment, swoop down into our back yards and steal our lawn furniture," Mrs Albright said.

"They say it is bent on world domination, which is absurd, and that we cannot trust it because it is full of foreigners, which we really can't help." Mrs Albright said.

"The UN is not an alien presence on U.S. soil, it was made in America," she said.

"She neglected to point out that the UN was made on land provided by the Rockefellers with a charter Alger Hiss helped draft," the official said. "When they go out of Manhattan to inspect our prisons or whatever, they are an 'alien presence on U.S. soil.'"

He was referring to the donation of the site of UN headquarters in Manhattan by the Rockefeller family and to the late Soviet spy who was the No. 2 man in the State Department, who traveled with President Franklin Roosevelt to Yalta in 1945 and helped draft the UN charter.

She drew applause from the publishers when she accused Congress of "blackmail" for attaching pro-life amendments to a bill to pay about $1 billion in arrears the UN Claims, saying America should pay her "bills."

"It is encouraging to see the hysteria mounting," the official said. "It means that patriots are gaining ground."