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

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT June 1, 1998



The world's most exclusive club wants supremacy in the judicial and economic fields.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

TURNBERRY, Scotland (May 16)- Although moderately distracted by the new nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, Bilderberg concentrated on its major goals on the road to world government:

* Establishing a global court that would be superior to the U.S. Supreme Court and to those of all nations;

* Pressing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to have the political courage to drag his country into the European common currency, the euro; * Pressuring the U.S. Congress into approving $18 billion to make interest payments to international banks which made had loans to uncreditworthy countries on the assurance that tax payers would make them good.

The Brit PM was summoned to shuttle back and forth from the summit of the eight industrialized countries held 450 miles away in Birmingham, England, at the same time -- by design.

Blair was hardly treated as a head of state. He was lectured severely for failing to bring Britain into the common currency, which is to be phased in beginning January 1. Blair assured Bilderberg that Britain would join, but he had to resolve "political problems" because "there is a surge of nationalism at home."


"You're a Maggie Thatcher in long pants," a German told Blair.
This was a crude reminder that Lady Thatcher had been dumped as head of state by state by her own Conservative Party -- on Bilderberg orders -- and replaced with trapeze artist John Major, for the precise same reason (SPOTLIGHT, May 29, 1989).

After being deposed, Lady Thatcher told The SPOTLIGHT she considered being denounced by Bilderberg a "tribute" because neither Britain not any country should surrender sovereignty.

"Helmut Kohl [German head of state] never flinched" in pressing his country to join the common currency, the German told Blair. "He may lose this election because of this. You know Germany has a problem with nationalism. But Helmut stood firm."

Blair turned and walked away.

There was much discussion and optimism among Bilderberg participants about a June meeting of the UN in Rome, to draft a treaty establishing a permanent International Criminal court (ICC). Unlike the present World Court, the ICC is to have enforcement power and could impose its decisions universally.

"Will America's nationalist [an expletive in Bilderberg dialect] give us trouble about the court treaty?" asked one.

"I think not," replied an American believed to be - but not positively identified as -- Casimer Yost, director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, school of foreign Service, at Georgetown University in Washington.

The American pointed out that in 1994, the U.S. Senate voted 55-45 to encourage establishment of the ICC under the UN. The Senate did so, he said, with the full knowledge that the global court, with judges from (Red) China or other rogue nations, may pass judgement on the United States and individual citizens.

"There was some objections by the American public but not much," the American said. "Most of them know nothing about it and probably won't."
"Unless one of them is sent to jail by the ICC," interjected another.
"Yeah, then they will notice." the American said.

The latter exchange was jocular and scornful.

On expanding NATO, Bilderberg participants were impatient.
"The shortest path to permanent peace is to bring everybody in -- including Russia -- as fast as practical," said one speaker whose comment met with general approval.

"Costs, you ask?" the speaker responded. "How much did two world wars, Korea Vietnam and the Gulf War cost Americans? Peace is far less expensive."

To ensure "permanent peace throughout the world requires a strong enforcement mechanism, which means keeping the expanding NATO intact but under UN direction, for which there is a precedent to which none except rabid nationalists objected," the speaker said.

The "precedent" referred to was UN forces in Bosnia, where American soldiers were issued the UN uniform and served under a foreign commander who reported directly to the Security council, with the U.S. president and Congress having no role at all.

Bilderberg participants were clearly stating that the UN is to emerge as a world government with its own army patrolling the globe enforcing it will.

Bilderberg luminaries expressed outrage that Congress did not approve the $18 billion for the International Monetary fund to bail out the big banks a year ago.

"How could you let your Congress get so out of control?" asked a Frenchman of an American during informal glass-tinkling. "It was never a problem before."

"Our Congress has a problem we call voters," came the answer.

"That's because we have direct communications," the Frenchman said. "Leaders of your Congress no linger accept our invitations to attend Bilderberg."

"Again, the problem is voters," the American explained. "For years and years, we enjoyed almost total privacy. Now, right-wing extremists stir the voters up and congressmen have too many questions asked of them."

For decades, such congressional leaders as former House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.), former Senate Banking Chairman Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and others attended Bilderberg. Bentsen continued as President Clinton's Treasury secretary, but was not listed among this year''s participants.

For the past several years, the only legislators to attend were Sen. San Nunn (D-Ga.) And a House member -- but only after each had announced his retirement.

"We need them back, as the IMF problem shows," the Frenchman said.

"But how?" asked the American. "Congressmen now consider attending Bilderberg to be political suicide."

Bilderberg regulars were all accounted for, including David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman of N.M. Rothschild & Sons of Britain and Europe.

President Clinton, himself a Bilderberg member, sent his usual assortment of administration officials: Marc Grossman, assistant secretary of state: Vernon Jordan Jr., a top unpaid advisor who will report Bilderberg demands directly to the president; Lawrence Summers, deputy secretary of Treasury; and Christine Todd Whitman (R), governor of New Jersey.

This is Mrs Whitman's first Bilderberg meeting, which means they have plans for her. After Clinton's first Bilderberg meeting, in Baden-Baden, Germany in 1991, he became president.

Other old-time luminaries present included Chairman Peter Carrington, former secretary-general of NATO; Paul Allaire, Chairman of Xerox Corp. And Conrad Black, Chairman of the Telegraph of London and owner of a vast newspaper chain, among other global interests.

The SPOTLIGHT June 1, 1998


Melees have rocked Switzerland -- and you're not allowed to know about it.

By Angus McLachlan

GENEVA, Switzerland -- In the worst public disturbances in Switzerland in memory, thousands of anit-globalist protesters rampaged through the streets here May 16-17, smashing shops and cars and fighting with police and Swiss army personnel brought in as reinforcements.

At the time, this city was hosting the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WTO), the World Trade Organization and GATT enforcement agencies.

Presidents from 132 countries had converged here officially to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the WTO but in fact they had come to get their economic and political marching orders from the Bilderberg honchos after their pow-wows in Scotland and England.

Hillary Clinton was already in attendance, staying in a room next to Fidel Castro at the Geneva Intercontinental Hotel.

There, communists and capitalists fed on champagne, caviar and the luxury they are accustomed to live with -- courtesy of their respective slaves and taxpayers.

While they were awaiting the arrival of Bill Clinton during the May 16 weekend, celebrating in endless parties in the balmy Swiss spring, the globalist were suddenly jolted by the furious cries of thousands of anti- globalist protesters demanding an end to "globalist tyranny and dictatorship."

The anti-globalists -- the People World Action -- include various populist grass roots organizations from all over the world. Of particular shock to the Swiss government was the presence of many Swiss citizens among the protesters. The slightest disturbance in Switzerland has always been blamed on "aliens."

The protesters targeted all the most representative emblems of globalism such as big banks, big multi-national corporations, big international bureaucracies such as the International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization and dozens of other international bureaucracies which they perceived as being the enforcers of the "New World Order."

The Swiss government, which saw the international confab as welcome relief after having been kicked around by Edgar Bronfman's World Jewish congress for months, literally panicked at the unsightly demonstrators. Thousands of police were sent to disperse them with water cannons, tear gas and billy clubs.

The orders were to run out of sight or arrest all the "aliens at any cost and restore Geneva to globalist serenity.


The Police interpreted the orders as a green light to beat up everybody and waded into the defenseless demonstrators with batons and great relish.

Police brutality only infuriated demonstrators, who until then had engaged in peaceful protest.

The anti-globalist protest turned into a riot which split the protesters into deferent streets of the city center, where they started to smash the windows of shops and institutions. The Swiss army was called in to cordon off the big Swiss bank buildings.

Despite massive police reinforcements, along with 42 police and army helicopters buzzing non-stop over the city, it looked as if they were losing control of the situation.

In panic the authorities closed down at least 20 border crossings between Geneva and France as well as all the roads leading to the city. Geneva was brought to a standstill.

From their luxury suites and plush offices the globalist elite could hear the riots and for the first time became apprehensive. Clinton was advised to cancel his planned appearance on May 18, but the Trilateral Commission told him the show must go on and ordered him to deliver his prepared speech in person.

Amid extraordinary security measures he was flown by helicopter back from the airport and the United Nations and whisked away again as soon as he finished; an unsightly exit.

The Geneva riots are coming on the heels of other disturbances around the world against globalist tyranny such as those in Malaysia and Indonesia and protests from the Asian countries who economies had been devastated by the IMF the World bank and George Soros.

Many Swiss people and foreigners were amazed that the three day riot in Switzerland was on covered in their local newspapers and television. Not a word was printed in the establishment press and media anywhere else in the world. Neither CNN nor The Herald Tribune, the establishment's main mouthpieces, uttered word over what the Swiss considered very major news.

In the U.S. only The SPOTLIGHT carried the story.

Damage to the city was calculated in the millions in addition to the loss of work hours and loss of business and freedom for the city inhabitants.

The globalist honchos were shocked that "ungrateful serfs" could protest their rule and policies, and mad as hell with the Swiss for having allowed such a crime of lese majesty to happen in a city they had designated to be the impregnable seat of globalism in the world.

The plutocrats are said to be looking for some other bastion of luxury where they can meet in calm and comfort without the sight and sound of the unkempt masses, and certainly without their protests and scrutiny.

The SPOTLIGHT June 1, 1998


Following is the official list of participants at the May 14-17, 1998 Bilderberg meeting at the Turnberry Hotel in Ayshire Scotland. The list, marked "confidential; not for circulation" is the official guest list. Some of the attendees indicated on the list cannot be confirmed as to actually having attended.

Key to countries:

A=Austria; B=Belgium; CDN=Canada; CH=Switzerland; CZ=Czech Republic; DK=Denmark; E=Spain; F=France; Fin=Finland; GB=Great Britain; GR=Greece; I=Italy; INT=International (no national loyalty); IRL=Ireland; N=Norway; NL=Netherlands; P=Portugal; PL=Poland; RUS=Russia; S=Scandinavia; TR=Turkey and; USA=United States.

(GB)Peter Carrington-former chairman of the board, Christie's International plc, former secretary-general, NATO.

(NL)Victor Hallerstadt-professor of public economies, Leiden University Alphabetical list of attendees:

Agnelli, Giovanni(I), honorary chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
Allaire, Paul A.(USA), chairman, Xerox corporation.
Almunia Amann, Joaquin(E), secretary-general, Socialist Party.
Balsemao, Francisco Pinto(P), professor of communication science, New University, Lisbon; chairman, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S., former prime minister.

Barnevik, Percy(S), chairman, (AB)B Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.
Bayar, Ugur(TR), chairman, Privatization Administration.
Bernabe, Granco(I), managing director, ENI S.p.A.
Bertram, Christoph(D), director, Foundation Science and Policy, former diplomatic correspondent Die Zeit.
Beugel, Ernst H. van der(NL), emeritus professor of international relations, Leiden University, former honorary secretary-general of Bilderberg meetings for Europe and Canada.
Black, Conrad M.(CDN), chairman, The Telegraph plc.
Bonino, Emma(INT), member of the European Commission.
Brittan, Leon(INT), vice president of the European Commission.
Browne, E. John P.(GB), group chief executive, British Petroleum Company plc
Bruton, John(IRL), leader of Fine Gael.
Buchanan, Robin W.T.(GB), senior partner, Bain & Company Inc. UK.
Burda, Hubert(D), chairman, Burda Media.
Carvajal Urquijo, Jaime(E), chairman, Dresdner Kleinwoort Benson SA.(Spain).
Cavalchine, Luige G.(I), permanent representative to the European Union.

Cem, Ismall(TR), minister for foreign affairs.
Chretien, Raymond A.J.(CDN), ambassador to the U.S.
Chubais, Anatoli B.(RUS), former first vice prime minister, chairman, RAO EES.
Clarke, Kenneth(GB), member of Parliament.
Collomb, Bertrand(F), chirman and CEO, Lafarge.
Courtis, Kenneth S.(INT), first vice president, research department Deutsche Bank Asia Pacific.
Coutinho, Vasco Pereira(F), chairman, IPC Holding.
Crockett, Andrew(INT), general manager, Bank for International Settlements.

David, George A.(GR), chairman of the board, Hellenic Bottling Company S.A.

Davignon, Etenne(B), executive chairman, Societe Generale de Belgiue; former vice chairman of the Commission of the European Communities.

Deutchy, John M.(USA), institute professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Chemistry; former director general, central Intelligence agency; former deputy secretary of defense.
Dion, stephane(CDN), Queen's Privy Council for Canada and minister of intergovernmental affairs.
Donilon, Thomas e.(USA), partnner, O'Melveny & Myers; former assistant secretary of state and chief of staff, U.S. Department of state.
Ellemann-Jensen, Uffe(DK), chairman, Liberal Party.
Engelen --Kefar, Ursula(D), deputy chairman of the Board of Management, Deutscher Gerwerkschaftsbund, DGB.
Feldstein, Martin S.(USA), president and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Reasearch, Inc.
Fischer, Stanley(INT), first deputy managing director International Monetary Fund.
Forester, Lyn(USA), president and CEO, First Mark Holdings, Inc.

Godeish, Orit(USA), chairman of the board, Bain & Company, Inc.
Gergorin, Jean-Louis(F), member of the board of directory, Matra Hachette.
Gezgin Eris, Meral(TR), president IKV (Economic Development Foundation).
Goossens, John J.(B), president and CEO, Belgacom.
Grierson, Ronald(GB), former vice chairman, GEC.
Grossman, Marc(USA), assistant secretary, U.S. Department of State.
Guetta, Bernard(F), editor-in-chief, Le Nouvel Observateur.
Hague, William(GB), leader of the opposition (Conservative Party).
Hannay, David(GB), prime minister's personal envoy for Turkey; former permanent representative to the United Nations.
Hoegh, Westye(N), chairman of the board, Leif Hoegh & Co.ASA; former president Norwegian Shipowners' Association.
Hoeven, Cess H.van der(NL), president, Royal Ahold.
Hoge, Jr., James F.(USA), editor, Foreign Affairs.
Hogg, christopher(GB), chairman, Reuters Group plc,
Hollbrook, Richard C.(USA), former assistant secretary for European affairs; vice chairman, CS First Boston.
Horta e Costa, Miguel(P), vice president, Portugal Telecom.
Ischinger Wolfgang(D), political director, Foreign Office.
Issing, Otmar(D), member of the board, Deutsche Bundesbank.
Jenkins, Michael(GB), vice chairman, Dresdner Kleinwort Benson.
Johnson, James A.(USA), chairman and CEO, Fannie Mae.
Jordan, vernon E. Jr.,(USA), senior partner, Akin, Gump, Strouse, Hauer & Feld, LLP (attorneys-at-law).
Kaletsky, Anatole(GB), associate editor, The Times.
Karamanlis, Koetas A.(GB), leader of the opposition.
Kirac, Suna(TR), vice chairman of the board Koc Holding A.S.
Kissinger, Henry A.(USA), former secretary of state; chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kohnstamm, Max(INT), senior consultant, the European Policy Center.
Kopper, Hilmar(D), chairman of the supervisory board, Deutsche Bank A.G.
Korteweg, Pieter(NL), president and CEO, Robeco Group.
Kovanda Karel(CZ), head of mission of the Czech Republic to NATO and the WEU
Kravis Henry R. (USA), founding partner, Kohlbberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kravis, Marie-Josee(USA), senior fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
Leschly, Jan(USA), SmithKline Beecham plc.
Levy-Lang, Andre(F), chairman of the board of management, Paribas.
Lipponen, Paavo(FIN), prime minister.
Lykketoft, Mogens(DK), minister of finance.
MacMillan, Margaret O.(CDN), editor, International Journal, Canadian Institure of International Affairs University of Toronto.
Manning, Preston(CDN), leader of the Reform Party.
Masera, Rainer S. (I), director general, I.M.I. SpA
Mathews, Jessica Tuchman(USA), president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
McDonough, William J.(USA), president Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Nas, Matthias(D), deputy editor, Die Zeit.
Netherlands' Queen Beatrix, (NL).
Olechowski Andrzej(PL), chairman, Central Europe Trust, Poland.
Ollila, Jorma(FIN), president and CEO, Mokia Corporation.
Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso(I), chairman, CONSOB.
Papandreou, George A.(GB), Alernate Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Prendergast, Kieran(INT), under secretary-general for political affairs, United Nations.
Prestowitz, Clyde V.(USA), president, Economic Strategy Institute.
Puhringer, Othmar(A), chairman of the managing board, VA-Technologie AG.
Purves, William(GB), group chairman, HSBC Holdings plc.
Pury, David de (CH), chairman, de Pury Pictet Turrettine & Co. Ltd.
Randa, Gerhard(A), Chairman and the managing board, Bank of Austria.
Rodes, William R.(USA), vice chairman, Citbank, N.A.
Roberston, George(GB), secretary of state of defence.
Rockefeller, David(USA), chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee.
Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias(E), vice chairman Banco de Santander.
Roll, Eric(GB), senior adviser, SBC Warburg Dillon Read.
Rothschild, Evelyn de(GB), chairman, N.M. Rothschild & Sons.
Schrempp, Jurgen E.(D), chairman of the board of Managenment, Daimler-Benz A.G.
Seidenfaden, Toger(DK), editor in chief, Ppilitken A/S.
Siniscalco, Domenico(I), professor of economics; director of Fendazione ENI Enrico Mattei.
Lolana Madarings, Javier(INT), secretary general, NATO.
Sousa, Marcelo Robelo de(P), leader of the PSD Party.
Storvik, Kjell(N), governor, Bank of Norway.
Suchocka, Hanna(PL), minister of justice.
Summers, Lawrence H.(USA), deputy secretary for international affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Sutherland, Peter D.(IRL), chairman, Goldman Sachs International; chairman, British Petroleum Company plc.
Taylor, J. Martin(GB), group chief executive, Barclays plc.
Thoman, G. Richard(USA), president and CEO, Xerox corporation.
Udgaard, Nils M.(N), foreign editor, Aftemposten.
Vasella, Daniel(CH), CEO, Novartis.
Vink, Lodewijk J.R. de(USA), president and CEO, Warner-Lambert Company.
Virkkunen, Hanne(FIN), senior editor-in-chief, Helsingin Sanomat.
Vits, Mia de(B), general secretary, ABVV-FGTB.
Vranitzky, Franz(A), former federal chancellor
Vries, Gijs M. de(INT), leader of the Liberal group, European Parliament.
Wallenberg, Jacob(S), chairman of the board, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken.
Whitman, Christine Tod(USA), governor of New Jersey.
Wissmann, Matthias(D), federal minister for transport.
Wolfansohn, James D.(INT), president, the World Bank.
Wolff von Amarogen, Otto(D), Chairman and CEO of Otto Wolff GmbH.
Wolfowitz, Paul(USA), dean, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies; former under secretary of defense for policy.
Yost, Csimir A..(USA), director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington.

Micklethwait, John(GB), business editor, The Economist.
Wooldridge, Adrian(BG), foreign correspondent, The Economist.

The SPOTLIGHT June 8, 1998


Al Gore, Congress Break With Administration

If Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) were running for president in Israel he could win hands down. The question is can he turn that kind of support into U.S. votes.

By Warren Hough

With President Bill Clinton on the ropes, Democrats and Republicans are seeking international support to finish the president off and move into the White House.

As the head of a joint congressional delegation visiting Israel, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), rose in the morning of May 26 to deliver a speech to the Knesset, the ministate's legislature.

In his address, Gingrich announced a historic rupture between two constitutionally co-equal branches of the U.S. government. Congress will no longer recognize the Middle Eastern policies of the Clinton administration as valid U.S. national strategy, the speaker suggested.

Instead, Capitol Hill will form an unprecedented direct alliance with the Knesset by means of an Interparliamentary Initiative Committee, which will ensure that Zionism's interests are served first, no matter what the White House -- or American taxpayers - may want.

This would have been an explosive call to revolt at any time, from a leading lawmaker who discarded the long-held tradition that while Democrats and Republicans may disagree on any issue at home. "Partisan politics stops at the water's edge."

But what gave the vent shattering impact was that only a few days earlier, on May 18, Vice President Al gore expressed similar notions in a major address to the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington.

Gore suggested the rebellion against President Bill Clinton has spread to the White House.

When The SPOTLIGHT's diplomatic correspondent called the White House, requesting the customary transcript of the vice president's talk, he was told by Gore's press secretary, Cass Calloway, that"it has been decided not to release this speech to the public."

This was a sharp departure from long-established standard operating procedures. But when this populist newspaper managed to obtain the verbatim text of Gore's remarks to AIPAC anyway, the White House's reasons for keeping it from the public became clear.

Just ignore what Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright have been telling you about the need to revive the moribund Oslo "peace process," Gore told AIPAC.

U.S. support for Israel "does not depend on the peace process. It transcends the peace process...Our commitment to the security of Israel is is ironclad, eternal and absolute,' Gore declared to the thunderous applause of the ministate's most meddlesome lobbyists.

Whether Israel settles its differences with Palestine's historic, indigenous Arab population, or whether it continues to occupy and oppress them, America -- apart from the billions of dollars it provides in economic and military aid -- "will continue to provide billions of dollars in joint economic ventures that helped make Israel into a second Silicon Valley,' (i.e. a leading competitor of America's own high-tech producers concentrated in the region of California known as Silicon Valley), Gore said.

The United States will also invest heavily in equipping Israel with a state-of-the-art anti-tactical ballistic missile system and "tactical high- energy laser weapons," gore pledged.

But doesn't the Zionist leadership owe the so-called "peace process" some concessions, as Clinton and Albright keep saying? Ignore them, Gore urged: "Israel alone must decide the steps to ensure its own security...That is Israel's prerogative. We accept that. We endorse that."

That leaves a key question: "Who are the 'we' Gore speaks for?" asked Dr. Salim Husseini, a Middle Eastern political scientist. "It can't be Clinton or Albright; they have both expressed directly contrary views in recent months."
In fact, official U.S. policy is that Israel must negotiate the parameters of its "security policies" -- which involve the illegal occupation of much of Palestinian territory and of Jerusalem -- in accordance with the agreement it reached with Palestinian spokesmen at the Oslo "peace conference in 1993.

But the White House position is now being disavowed, not merely by Gingrich but by Clinton's vice president -- an unprecedented rebellion in the administration's ranks. "What is going on here?" asked nationally syndicated columnist John Crudele.

In another column, published the same day Gingrich addressed the Knesset, William F. Buckley, a chat-show host with intimate connections to the Israel lobby, the Republican leadership and Gore's inner circle, offered an explanation of sorts.

Buckley recalled that on August 7, 1974, a delegation of three congressional leaders "drove up to the White House to tell President Nixon that he had lost effective political support in Congress...the next day, Nixon announced he would resign.

"It is entirely possible that the moment lies ahead of us when a similar delegation of one or more leaders will declare that the presidency of Bill Clinton is over..."predicted Buckley.

If so, one thing is certain: The message of doom carried by these emissaries to the Clinton White House "will be drafted by publicists for the Israel lobby," added Prof. Husseini.

The SPOTLIGHT June 8, 1998


They're at it again. The U.S. military is attacking another U.S. city.

By Mike Blair

A joint U.S. Navy Seal and Marine urban warfare exercise in a New Orleans residential neighborhood is the latest episode of what critics refer to as "Rambo games."

The exercise, which, as usual, panicked local residents, was held in the West Carrollton area of New Orleans between 9 and 11 p.m. on May 22, when seven, perhaps eight, military helicopters descended upon the neighborhood just slightly above the rooftops.

The helicopters were flying so low that considerable property damage resulted to homes and other buildings in the section of the city.

Mayor Marc Morial said he was concerned about the exercise, which apparently was more extensive, and disruptive, than city officials were promised by the Pentagon when arrangements were made for the maneuvers in an "urban warfare setting."

Morial said that dity officials were not aware of the type of exercises to be performed and that a special inquiry would be conducted by the city. "We're concerned anytime a neighborhood is disturbed," Morial said.

Residents in this instance were warned before the urban trainees descended from the helicopters on the Priestly Junior High School Building, discharging "flash bang" explosives and what was believed to be live ammunition from fully automatic weapons.

"They told us it was going to be one helicopter and it was about six," said Daryl McKnight. He was sitting on a friend's porch in the West Carrollton area when the exercise started.

"Their warning wasn't worth a hill of beans," McKnight explained. "They told us it was going to be a noise and it was a roar. They were flying real low and it was like a tornado. It tore shingles off houses and tore gutters off and put dust in everyone's eyes."


An outbuilding at the home of Georgianna Evans was leveled by the wind from the helicopters' rotors.

Another resident, Joseph James, said his awning was bent and shingles scattered all over in front of his home.

The Department of Defense, which organized the exercise with the New Orleans Police Department and Louisiana State Police, said the federal government would pay for the damages.

In a previous exercise in New Orleans about $100,000 in damages was reported.

The Marines claim that the exercise is part of Urban Warrior, a project that got underway last summer.

However, the Marines, as well as Navy Seals, Army Special Forces and Rangers, often accompanied by foreign elite troops, have been conducting the exercises in U.S. cities for the past several years.

In the case of New Orleans, the military practice hostage rescues at an abandoned Tulane Avenue Motel

More and more city officials across the nation are becoming disturbed about the exercises, which they are fearful could turn deadly, if, as an example, a helicopter, operated by a crew with night vision goggles, crashes into an apartment complex during the night.

An exercise by the Army's super secret Delta Force that was planned recently for San Antonio, Texas, was turned down by city officials (SPOTLIGHT, May 25).

During one of the "Rambo games" in Miami an errant live bullet penetrated the window of an all-night restaurant, endangering the lives of diners.

The SPOTLIGHT June 8, 1998


Could America face a financial meltdown similar to those in Asia and Mexico?

By Martin Mann

International financier George Soros has overthrown the government of Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation. He used a series of hostile financial raids to wrick Southeast Asia's national currencies. The raids were quickly joined by dozens of other scavenging speculators.

That Soros showed no compassion for the uncounted millions of threadbare Asian workers who lost their livelihood this year because of his intrigues came as no surprise.

Held in awe and fear on Wall Street as the "Lord High Executioner" in international finance, Soros became a multibillionaire in 1992 by sabotaging the British pound -- the currency of the nation that gave him asylum, as well as an education in economics, during World War II.

Now analysts are asking: Does the United States face a similar fate?

The question now confronting Americans is whether the combined steamroller of smash-and-grab financial markets and of the Israel lobby -- the powerful alien-interest pressure group to which Soros and most other cosmopolitan financiers belong -- will do to America what it has done to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and other nations devastated by international speculators.

The economic collapse that Soros and his "herd" of scavenging speculators have set off in Asia "could happen in America, too," warns Michael J. Mandel, economics editor of Business Week, a leading U.S. financial publication.

Drawing a parallel between the United States and Japan, now sunk in deep recession, with nearly a trillion dollars in sour bank loans and a deteriorating currency, Mandel noted that there are "disturbing resemblances" between the economic outlook in both countries.

In both countries, the period of boom, propelled by a single leading sector -- manufacturing in Japan, high tech in America - was overheated by runaway speculation and a soaring stock market - a characteristic "bubble economy," ripe for picking be unscrupulous wheeler-dealers, the business writer explained.

As Japan's economy peaked in 1990, speculators drove the so-called Nikkei stock index to five times its level in 1983. "The U.S. market is even more overheated. It's up tenfold from the same point," reported Mandel.

For a hopeful sign, Mandel could only point to the role played by Federal reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in staving off previous disasters.

"After the 1987 crash, the Fed pumped huge amounts of money into the economy, guaranteeing that large banks and brokerages would no go under," recalled Mandel.

But veteran Wall Street stock watchers scoffed at Business Week's naively optimistic forecast.

What Greenspan did in 1987 is called 'rigging the market,' and it's a felony crime when attempted by private investors," said John Crudele, the widely read financial columnist. "Apparently, when you use taxpayers' money to bail out the speculators -- that's what Greenspan did -- it isn't a crime; it's 'saving' the New York Stock Exchange."

Other observers were even more pessimistic in their assessment about U.S. economic prospects.

"Greenspan did bail out the big banks and Wall Street brokerages," says Alex Banfi, a veteran Wall Street portfolio manager. "He did it illegally, secretively, ladling out tens of billions of dollars in public money with no questions asked and lying about his covert strategy whenever Congress did ask him a few polite questions."

But in doing so, "Greenspan didn't solve any of the underlying problems," warned this market watcher. "He did the opposite - he turned America into a land of speculators harvesting make-believe paper profits from a bubble economy that is closer to bursting every day."

Soros and his gang of currency manipulators "could prick this bubble whenever they decided that 'shorting' [betting against] the U.S. economy looked like the most profitable deal at hand," noted Banfi. "And the time when Soros decided to do just that may be nearer than we think."

The SPOTLIGHT June 8, 1998



A new federal "GUN TAX" of up to $30 for each firearm purchased through a dealer is the latest plan of the Clinton administration to restrict the right of Americans to "keep and bear arms" as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The new program of instantly checking a prospective gun buyer's background before he or she can purchase a firearm will replace the five day waiting period that was mandated by the so-called Brady Act.

Under the Brady Act, named for James Brady, press secretary to President Ronald Reagan when both were shot during an assassination attempt on the president in 1981, the federal government is required to have the new system in place and operating by the FBI by November 30, of this year.

While certain parts of the Brady Act were declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme court, namely the requirement that local law enforcement agencies administer the federal statute, provisions of the act, including the NICS, still stand.

While the actual Brady Act required a waiting period of five days on only handgun purchases, after November 30, all firearms purchases, including rifles and shotguns as well as handguns, will be required to be approved through the new instant check system.

The new "gun tax" comes in the form of a "user fee" that will be imposed by the FBI and, according to the National Rifle Association (NRA), which opposes the tax, the FBI is considering the cost to be as high as $30 for each gun purchased.

Perhaps even more ominous is the fact that the FBI plans to retain the information obtained from the prospective gun owner checked through the instant check system for 18 months, which is actually a violation of current federal law which mandates that it be destroyed immediately once the transaction for the background check had been completed.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), long-time supporter of Second Amendment rights, has introduced a Bill, H.R. 3949, which will prohibit the FBI from charging a "user fee" to finance the NICS program and require that firearms transfer information be destroyed within two hours after the receipt of the data by the FBI.

The NRA is urging gun owners across America to contact their congressmen and urge them to co-sponsor the Barr legislation in the House. Similar legislation in the Senate is expected to be introduced shortly by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).

The SPOTLIGHT June 8, 1998


On may 13, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) a member of the House National security Committee, snuck a list of 40 Clinton crimes into the congressional Record. As Weldon says, they are "potential treason" and could lead to "impeachment." Weldon used special orders, a time when congressmen can take the microphone and say whatever they want. His comments started shortly after 10 pm.

By Rep. Curt Weldon

I rise tonight to talk about, first of all, an issue that I usually speak about on the floor when I get the opportunity. That is our national security, and our relationship with those countries who have been our adversary, or who may be our adversary in the future.

I rise to talk about both of those issues, our national security and a scandal that is currently unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we have seen talked about on this floor in the past six years.

This scandal involves potential treason, and if the facts are true as they have been outlined in media reports, which we are currently trying to investigate, I think it will require articles of impeachment.

There was a story that ran in the New York Times in the early part of April that outlined a technology transfer involving American companies and institutions in china involving the Long March space launch vehicle. In February of 1996 the long March space launch vehicle exploded, and destroyed a $200 million satellite built by the Loral company that it was supposed to place into orbit.

What happened after that explosion is the subject of intense investigation right now, but there are some fact that we do know. What we do know is that there was some degree of cooperation between on and perhaps two American companies and the Chinese government and their military and space agencies that allowed for a technology transfer to assist the Chinese in not just their commercial space launch program, but, more importantly, their ability to place long range missiles into the upper atmosphere and have a capability of deploying multiple warheads, posing an extremely significant threat to the U.S. and our allies.

The military significance of the technology transfer that took place following this explosion was of such gravity that a criminal investigation was opened by the U.S. Justice department, and a grand jury was empaneled. The grand jury was empaneled to consider whether indictment were warranted in this cooperative technology transfer with the Chinese.

However, before any formal charges were filed, the criminal inquiry was dealt a very serious blow two months ago, in fact, this would have been in February or March of this year, when President Clinton quietly authorized the export to China of similar technology by one of the companies under investigation, the Loral corporation.

So in effect, the president's quiet authorization of this technology transfer, which up until this time was not allowed under U.S. law, basically took the entire foundation away from the Justice Department investigation. We know the Justice Department opposed that decision by the white House, arguing that it would be much more difficult to prosecute the companies if the government gave its blessing to the deal that had occurred. It is probably now impossible to have any indictments against Loral and Hughes because of the president's actions.

The whole issue of this technology transfer itself is a scandal. Newspapers across this city and across this country, through bits and pieces, have picked up the story and have attempted to piece it together.

The speaker of the House, leadership on both sides of the national security effort in this body are concerned about the technology transfer itself as well as whether or not there was an impact of Loral corporation's CEO, Bernard Schwartz', involvement with one political party [Democrats] and convincing the president to waive the requirement that would have allowed the criminal prosecution of Loral and possibly Hughes to move forward. (SPOTLIGHT, May 25)

We need to know the answers, and we need to have that information provided to us. To me it is an absolute outrage that this occurred even without the connection of the dollars from the CEO of Loral and his contributions to the Democratic National committee.

I think even of more significance to us for the long-term security of our country is the fact that this is a continuing pattern that we have seen over the past six years of this administration, advocating an aggressive arms control policy but in fact doing the complete opposite when it comes to violations of arms control agreements or the transfer of sensitive technology.

There are those who are sitting in their offices tonight or those around the country who would say, here is another Republican just railing about this administration or railing about issues involving security, someone who wants to use China and perhaps Russia as a scapegoat for larger defense budgets.

This administration has a major problem in the arms control area. And this country needs to understand it, needs to think through the effect that this policy is having on us in the short-term and, more importantly, needs to understand the undermining this policy is going to have on future stability in the world in the 21st century.

I have given you one specific proliferation case, an egregious case that occurred this year that involves the potential for the largest scandal I think that this administration will have encountered since it took office six years ago. Unfortunately we see a pattern, a pattern that I think is causing us a more destabilized relationship with the major powers of the world, with the emerging powers of the world and with rogue nations.

This is extremely important because we are reading the headlines every day, most recently of India conducting underground nuclear test. We were assured by this administration that arms control agreements would prevent countries like India from further proliferating nuclear weapons by conducting underground tests. Right before these underground tests by India, in fact about a month earlier, the same newspapers reported on their front pages that Pakistan was testing a medium range missile, which perhaps led to India's underground nuclear tests. The question then becomes how and why are India and Pakistan becoming involved in what I think is one of the world's newest and potentially most devastating arms races?

One only has to look at the arms control record of this administration to see a pattern that unfortunately has occurred over the past six years.

The same pattern exists not just with technology involving missiles and weapons of mass destruction but involves supercomputers. Let me cite another example. Documents that have been made public, again by the news media, show that the Clinton administration approved the export of U.S. built super- computers to Communist China in late December 1997, even though the Chinese officials were unwilling to allow on-site inspections of the delivery venue of those supercomputers which is required by U.S. law. Facts have shown that commerce officials for this government at our embassy in Beijing were denied permission by the Chinese government to inspect the university where these super-computers were headed prior to the export of these digital high performance computers.

In fact, according to a December 19, 1997 letter to Lee Yu Hu, director general for science and technology at China's ministry of foreign trade and economic cooperation or MFTEC, cosigned by Commerce Department officials, Amanda Bus, assistant secretary for export enforcement, and Roger Mayjack, assistant secretary for export administration, and I quote:

"We were disappointed at MFTEC's decision not to allow an on-site end use check and refusal to permit an embassy representative to travel to the stated university at the university's invitation. Because we were unable to work through MFTEC, we gathered information on the end user through other sources and have approved the license through those means."

A case where the administration did not even abide by the laws on the books of this country to secure a complete understanding of where these supercomputers were headed. Why is that so important?

It is so important because this body and the other body passed a new law in 1997 requiring that we know where this administration is allowing supercomputers to be sold.

Well, why would we pass a law like that? We passed a law like that because in 1995 this administration allowed the export of high-speed supercomputers to Russia. Now, these supercomputers going to Russia were supposedly intended for a project involving wetlands analysis. When the actual determination was made as to where these supercomputers ended up, we found that these supercomputers ended up in nuclear weapons laboratories in Russia, a clear violation of the intent of the transfer and, obviously, a concern to members on both sides of the aisle in this institution and in the other body.

Because of that transfer and the fact that this administration allowed these supercomputers that were supposed to go to Russia for an environmental project to end up going to a nuclear weapons laboratory, we passed a law. That law was violated earlier this year when the president did not require the Chinese government to allow us to see the end location of where these most recent supercomputers were going in china.

This administration has maintained throughout the past six years that our security relationships around the world are based on arms control agreements. In many cases this administration has said that we do not need defensive military systems because arms control negotiations and deterrence and control of technology through these documents will provide the stability in the world and, therefore, we do not need defensive systems.

So not only has this administration opposed defensive systems, and not only have they tried to impose limitations on the Congress' ability to deploy these systems, but even more egregiously this administration, which claims to base its security arrangements on arms control agreements, has failed to enforce sanctions time and time again when proliferations occur; when companies and institutes in China and in Russia are caught transferring technology illegally to other nations.

Now, to back up my claim I would like to insert in the record for all of our colleagues and the American people to see several documents. The first involves a chronology compiled not by some Republican think tank but rather by the Congressional Research Service, an independent nonpartisan arm of the Congress, supported, I might add, by Democrats and Republicans. A chronology of Chinese weapons-related transfers since 1992.

Over the past six years our intelligence community caught China transferring technology illegally 21 times. This administration imposed sanctions once. Twenty-one times China transferred technology.

* November 1992. M-11 missiles transferred to Pakistan. Violations: Missile Technology control Regime [MTCR], Arms control Export Act, Export Administration Act. This time administration sanctions were imposed and then they were waived on November 1 of 1994.

* In 1994-95. Dozens and possibly hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized machine tools transferred by China to Iran. Violations of the MTCR, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act. The administration's response: Nothing. No sanctions.

* Second quarter of 1995. Parts for the M-11 missile to Pakistan. Violations: MTCR, Arms export Control Act, export Administration Act. The Administration's response: Nothing. No sanctions.

* December 1994 to mid 1995. Five thousand ring magnets to be used for nuclear enrichment programs for nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Violations: the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Export-Import Bank Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, the Arms Export Control Act. The administration's response: They considered the sanctions but they never imposed them.

* July 1995. More than 30 M-11 missiles stored in Sargodha Air Force Base in Pakistan. Violation: MTCR, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. This administration's response: Nothing. No sanctions.

* September 1995. Calutron electromagnetic isotope separation system for uranium enrichment to Iran. Again, for a nuclear Weapons program. Violation: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, Export Import Bank Act, Arms Export Control Act. Response by this administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* 1995 and 1997. C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles and C-801 air launch cruise missiles, again to Iran. Violation: Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* February 1996. Dual-use chemical precursors and equipment to aid Iran's chemical weapons program. Violation: Arms Export control Act, Export Administration Act. Result: Sanctions were imposed. The one time in 21. Sanctions were imposed May 21, 1997.

* Summer 1996. Four hundred tons of chemicals transferred to Iran. Violation: Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. Administration response: Nothing. No sanctions.

* August 1996. A plant to manufacture M-11 missiles or missile components in Pakistan. Violation: MTCR, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* August 1996 Gyroscopes, accelerometers and test equipment for missile guidance systems, again to Iran. Violation: MTCR, Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* September 1996. Special industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment to unsafe guarded nuclear facilities in Pakistan. Violation: NPT, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, Export-Import Bank Act, Arms Export control Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions imposed.

* July to December of 1996. The director of Central Intelligence reports, a "tremendous variety," of technology and assistance for Pakistan's ballistic missile program. Violations of the MTCR, the Arms Export control Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* July-December 1996 again. Again this Director of Central Intelligence reports, principal supplies of nuclear equipment, material and technology for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Violations: NPT, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, Export-Import Bank Act, Arms Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* July-December 1996. The same director reports key supplies for technology for large nuclear projects in Iran. Violations: NPT, Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, Export-Import Bank Act, Arms Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* Again in July and December of 1996. The same Director of Central Intelligence reports, considerable chemical weapons-related transfers for production equipment and technology to Iran. Violations: Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. Response by the Administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* January of 1997. Dual use biological items to Iran. Violation: The BWC, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act. Response by the Administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* 1997 again. Chemical precursors, production equipment, and production technology for Iran's chemical weapons program including a plant for making glass-lined equipment. Violations again of the Iran-Iraq Arms, Nonproliferation Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* September-December of 1997. The China Great Wall Industry Corporation provided telemetry equipment used in flight tests to Iran for its development of the Shahab III and Shahab IV medium-range ballistic missiles. Violation: MTCR, Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act. Response by the administration: Nothing. No sanctions.

* And finally, November 1997 through April of 1998. We now find they may have transferred technology for Pakistan's Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile that was flight-tested on April 6, 1998, violating the MTCR, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act. No sanctions. No action taken by the administration.

This is the record that is causing us to see a scenario unfolding that will place this country and the world at the greatest possible risk of confrontation. We see the administration daily railing about Iran's capability, Iraq's capability. We see them railing about India doing underground nuclear tests, Pakistan testing medium-range missiles. When here we have 21 specific cases, all documented, where this administration, which purports to base its arms control treaty relationships, as the basis fro stopping proliferation in a situation where they do not enforce any of them except in one case.

And yet they wonder why India and Pakistan are now in a major arms control race. It is this administration that bases tis security relationships on arms control agreements but never enforces those very agreements when they are in fact violated.

We have documented here for the record 14 specific violations since 1990 and 1991 by the Russians of various treaties, and only for two of those 14 did the administration impose sanctions.

* Early in the 1990s, the Russians sold drawings of a sarin plant manufacturing procedures and toxic agents to a Japanese terrorist group. And we all know, several years ago in Japan in a subway we had a sarin weapons attack in a subway that killed Japanese citizens.

* In 1991, Russia transferred to China, Russian entities, three RD-120 rocket engines and electronic equipment to improve the accuracy of ballistic missiles, a violation of the MTCR; the Arms Export Control Act, Section 73; the Export Administration Act, section 11(b). No sanctions imposed by the administration.

* From 1991 and 1995, Russian entities transferred cryogenic liquid oxygen hydro-rocket engines and technology to India. Now China is supplying Pakistan. Russia is supplying India. Violations: MTCR; the Arms Export Control Act, section 73; the Export Administration Act, section 11(b). Sanctions against Russia and India under both of those cases were imposed on May 6 for two years and then they expired after two years. But they were imposed in that one instance.

* From 1992 to 1996, Russian armed forces delivered 24 Scud-B missiles and eight launchers to Armenia, violating the MTCR, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act. Sanctions were imposed on June of 1993, but they were waived until July. No publicly known follow-up on those sanctions.

* 1995 to the present. Construction of a 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran. And by the way, there was a side deal that the Ministry of Atomic Industry in Russia initially had that even Boris Yeltsin was not aware of on this nuclear power plant deal, that only because inside of Russia ti was exposed was that separate effort actually canceled but the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant continued. Violations of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act. The response by the administration: They refused to renew some civilian nuclear cooperation agreements. They waived sanctions on aid. Waived sanctions.

* August of 1995. Russian assistance to Iran to develop biological weapons. Violations of the Biological Weapons Convention, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, the Foreign Assistance Act. No known sanctions.

* November 1995. Russian citizens transferred to an unnamed country technology for making chemical weapons, violating the Arms Export Control Act, and the Export Administration act. The sanctions were imposed in this case on a Russian citizen on November 17, 1995.

*December of 1995. Russian gyroscopes from submarine launched ballistic missiles smuggled to Iraq through middlemen. We caught them red-handed violating the United Nations sanctions, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, and the Roreign Assistance Act. No sanctions were ever imposed.

* July-December of 1996. The director of central Intelligence reported Russia transferred to Iran a variety of items related to ballistic missiles. Violating the MTCR, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration act, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, and the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. The administration's response, no sanctions.

* 1996 and 1997, Russia delivered three kilowatt diesel electric submarines to Iran, violations of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act. No sanctions imposed.

* January to February of 1997, Russia transferred detailed instructions to Iran on the production of the SS-4 missile, which within a year will threaten all of our friends and our troops in that theater, violating the MTCR, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Arms Export Control act, the Export Administration Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, and the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. No sanctions imposed.

* April of 1997, Russia sold S-300 anti-aircraft, anti-missile missile systems to Iran to protect the nuclear plant that they were building, again in violation of treaties. These violations were of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act and the Foreign Assistance Act. No know sanctions.

Curt Weldon represents Pennsylvania's 7th District.

The SPOTLIGHT June 15, 1998


Federal lawmakers have been offered a free subscription to this newspaper. Hopefully they will see the value of a free press.

By Hall Davis

SPOTLIGHT Editor Andrew Arnold sent a copy of the June 1 edition of this populist newspaper -- along with and explanatory letter - to all 538 members of congress imploring them to read some real news the mainstream is blacking out.

Specifically, Arnold pointed lawmakers' attention to the front page stories. One focused on the Bilderberg meeting in Turnberry, Scotland. Although plutocrats discussed a strategy to force congress to add $18 billion to the International Monetary Fund's annual serving of gravy -- to cover the Global Plantation's risks -- U.S. lawmakers were not present. Another story dealt with riots in Geneva, as world leaders net to celebrate GATT's 50th anniversary. The riots were not covered in America's mainstream press.

That edition of The SPOTLIGHT also included a column by Vince Ryan explaining how a foreign entity -- the Mossad -- has teamed with various groups in the United States to destroy this newspaper.

Will Congress stand up for your First Amendment rights to read an uncensored press? Only time will tell, but The SPOTLIGHT mailed the newspaper and letter along with an offer. Arnold said there was a free subscription for any member sho called and asked for one.

"The First Amendment is a terrible thing to waste," the editor says in closing.

The SPOTLIGHT June 15, 1998



Get out your wallet; you're about to fund an international economic war at the behest of a foreign power to detriment of the United States.

By Warren Hough

Israel, long given to fomenting unrest and strife among its neighbors, has now declared war on Russia -- and, as usual it is sending American taxpayers to fight its battles.

But this time, the cost is likely to be prohibitive, potentially rising to tens of billions of dollars, regional policy analysts and diplomatic observers have warned the Clinton administration.

The events leading to the latest international crisis lead back to May 18, when Yuli Vorontsov, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. was summoned to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful -- and aggressive -- alien pressure group in Washington, The SPOTLIGHT'S own investigation has discovered.

A computerized record of the meeting, never publicly released but obtained by this populist newspaper, revealed that at the AIPAC gathering Vorontsov found himself confronting Israel's minister for industry and trade, Natan Sharansky.

The Israeli leader was flanked by several key U.S. lawmakers, including Rep. Newt Gingrich, (R-Ga.) Speaker of the House, as well as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) And Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)


The ambassador should know, Rep. Harman began, that the U.S. Congress found it "urgent...absolutely imperative" to intervene directly in a series of high- tech trade deals between Russia and Iran.

No matter what the White House did, Congress was determined "Not only to stop these transfers, that's just part of it, but do the maximum we can to stop Iran from capability," Harman announced.

To halt any further cooperation between Russian and Iranian scientists or technicians, 80 U.S. senators have sponsored a bill imposing stringent economic sanctions on Russia, Vorontsov was told.

"This legislation is in response to our administration's failure to impose sanctions," Harman warned.

The stunned Russian envoy could only stammer that any such legislation "is going to be counter-productive...and could be a very bad reaction in Russia in the economic circle, saying, 'They are sanctioning us? They are not allowing us this or that?' It's bad."

Russia is already doing a great deal to block any sales of the weapons or missiles technology to Iran, discussing necessary measures with a newly formed U.S.-Russian export-control commission and sponsoring legislation in the duma -- Russia's parliament - to curb all military-related sales abroad, Vorontsov protested.

Moreover, the threat of sanctions would be "counter-productive so far as Russian-American economic relations are concerned," Vorontsov warned.

He was quickly proven right. Within days of this meeting Wall Street currency speculators -- moved by deep ethnic and emotional ties to Zionism -- launched a series of raids on the ruble, Russia's national currency, plunging it to record lows.

The Moscow stock market reeled, losing almost half its value in a fortnight. Hit by an explosive economic crisis, Russia's central bank raised interest rates to a crushing 150 percent and President Yeltsin turned to the Clinton administration for help.

On June 1, President Bill Clinton announced that the U.S. would support large-scale emergency economic aid to stave off the collapse of the Yeltsin government.

Just how this latest megabailout is th be financed -- through the International Monetary Fund, which in turn would rely on $18 billion in additional U.S. contributions, or by other means - is not yet clear.

What is clear is that in its eagerness to please Israel, the U.S. Congress has stumbled into triggering "one of the most expensive = and needless -- economic breakdowns ever confronting American taxpayers, who will ultimately have to foot the bill for these follies," concluded Dr. Paul Adler, the noted international economist.

The SPOTLIGHT June 15, 1998


State-run television stations can decide which candidate's views you hear and which you can't. Don't hold your breath waiting for alternatives to democrats and Republicans.

By Andrew Arnold

Censorship is alive and well at the U.S. Supreme court. On March 18, the court ruled 6-3 that public television stations have the right to prohibit candidates from televised debates (SPOTLIGHT, Oct. 20, 1997).

The decision allows television stations to black out independent candidates. They, often running on shoestring budgets, rely on public television to give them an opportunity to reach voters and receive equal billing with candidates from the big two parties.

The case, Arkansas Educational Television commission v. Forbes, began when Ralph Forbes ran for Congress in Arkansas in 1992. He was kept out of a debate sponsored by the Arkansas Educational Television Network. The sponsors said Forbes lacked public support.

After being excluded from the debate, Forbes sued, but a federal judge dismissed the case. He appealed to the 8th circuit court of Appeals and saw the case reinstated. The next step was the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day-O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted against Forbes. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens dissented.

The court seemed to buy the argument that Forbes was a "fringe candidate," and therefore could be treated differently than a Democrat or Republican.

"I'm absolutely outraged," Forbes told The SPOTLIGHT. "Suppose I am a fringe candidate, who should decide but the voters? To me it is very simple, but we have a bunch of idiot on the Supreme court.

"You can burn the American flag, or promote pornography, and that is free speech," he added, "but the core of the First Amendment {political speech] means nothing."

Looking at the facts, it is hard to dismiss Forbes as some sort of a "fringe" candidate.

Previously running for lieutenant governor as a Republican in 1990. Forbes received 47 percent of the vote in a statewide primary. At that time, Forbes carried all 16 counties in the Third Congressional District, the same district he later ran for Congress in.

Forbes has filed for another run at Congress in the Third District this year. He is on the ballot as the Reform Party candidate.

"For me to be on the ballot and not fight to have to get on is a big deal," Forbes said. "I've been fighting this since 1985 when I was with the Populist Party. The establishment guards access to the Arkansas ballot zealously."

The SPOTLIGHT June 22, 1998


When is flag-burning an expression of free speech, and when is it legally actionable?

By Mike Blair

Two Alabama men have been arrested and must stand trial for flag-burning. Hold your applause, Old Glory isn't involved.

William Lary Burchfield, 47, and James Edward "Jim" Floyd, 60, are having their case heard before Circuit Judge Frank Brunner in Alabama's Cullman County for setting fire, during an anti-immigration rally at a local civil center, the flags of the United Nations, Mexico and the "hammer and sickle communist rag" of the former Soviet Union.

In related flag news, in South Carolina, the only Southern state that still flies the "Stars and Bars: of the once-proud Confederate States of America from its state capital building, a bill has been introduced in the state legislature to fly -- on "black holidays" -- the three-colored flag (black, red and green) of the so-called Republic of New Africa. The proposal is part of a plan by racist blacks to transform five southern states -- Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and, of course, South Carolina -- into a new, all black "Afro- American" republic, where non-blacks would be somewhat less than welcome.

Elsewhere in the south the names of such "racists" as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson etc, are being stripped from the names of public schools and other buildings and replaced with the names of more politically correct heroes.

This, of course, is while President Bill Clinton and others of his political stripe in Congress are contemplating an extremist black demand that reparations be paid by the United States to the descendants of black slaves.

It is very difficult today to find a historic Confederate battle flag flying, as a proud antiquity, anywhere in the South. This is true even in Virginia, the home of its favorite son -- the immortal Robert E. Lee.

The politically correct have made it very unpopular to display the famous flag, which even mysteriously appeared as a symbol of rebellion against tyranny during the student protests in Tianamen Square in Peking a decade ago.

More recently, at a parade in Danville, Virginia, the final capital of the confederacy after Richmond was evacuated under assault by Northern troops, a demonstration and parade to honor southern heritage brought out about two dozen participants.

The SPOTLIGHT June 22, 1998



In America's war on drugs, Uncle Sam's left hand is unaware what his right hand is doing.

By Warren Hough

NEW YORK, New York -- The global narcotics trade, having grossed a record $400 billion last year, owes its prosperity not to faceless smugglers or street corner traffickers. The culprits are Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, two top U.S. officials who have aided and protected the drug deals of wall Street megabanks such as Citicorp.

That conclusion, long the talk of the town in this gateway city's financial district, but never before publicly addressed, has now received confirmation in official documents issued by law enforcement authorities from Switzerland all the way to Mexico.

Swiss prosecutors reported last month that they had traced some $200 million in payoffs made by the cocaine cartel to the family of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas. And subsequently cached in numbered Swiss bank accounts by the ex-president's brother, Raul Salinas.

To "sanitize" this drug graft, the Salinas family used the so-called "private banking" facilities of Citibank, now known as Citigroup after its recent merger with the Travelers Group -- the largest U.S. bank holding conglomerate.


A senior vice president of Citibank, Amy Ellicott, was assigned to take personal charge of concealing and laundering the drug profits of Mexico's first family, the Swiss findings have confirmed.

Most importantly, the Swiss prosecutor's report states that U.S. law enforcement authorities had detected the intimate links between the cocaine cartel and Mexico's ruling elites as far back as 1992.

But the U.S. Justice department took no action because "senior economic officials argues that it was not in the American national interest to expose the Salinas administration to allegations of criminality," the Swiss report revealed.

In this sentence, the term "national interest"should read "NAFTA interest...the Clinton administration was more interested in getting Congress to endorse that self-serving getting Congress to endorse the self-serving globalist scam {i.e., the North American Free Trade Agreement. -- Ed.) than in curbing the flow of drugs to this country," said Oliver Trombell, a retired Justice Department criminal investigator.

Pressured by Rubin and Greenspan, Attorney General Janet Reno buried the evidence she received from field agents -- and even from honest Mexican officials -- about the Salinas regime's ever-larger drug deals, this first-hand observer and other law enforcement sources have told The SPOTLIGHT.

Some of the pressure to whitewash the Salinas regime reportedly came from Rahm Emanuel, an Israel loyalist who became a top Clinton aide after making his mark as a bagman for the unsavory political empire of the Daley family in Chicago.

But the key power brokers who protected the criminal money laundering operations of Citibank and other Wall Street financial powers were Rubin and Greenspan, a case study newly released by the office of Mexican Attorney General Jorge Madrazo-Cuellar suggests.

In 1994-95, Greenspan and Rubin spearheaded the notorious $50 billion bailout of Mexico's graft-ridden payments system.

That rescue operation was launched, in reality, to protect the usurious profits of Citibank, Chase Manhattan -- the financial flagship of the Rockefeller dynasty -- and currency speculators such as George Soros, to whom Mexican private and public borrowers owed more than $12 billion at the time.

By pushing through their bailout in the face of considerable congressional opposition, Rubin and Greenspan did not save the Mexican economy; That they saved from collapse was a crime syndicate of U.S. and Mexican bankers engaged in "sanitizing" and hiding the billion-dollar profits of the cocaine cartel, the recently released documents suggest.

In an elaborate sting operation, some 22 senior executives from 12 leading Mexican banks were lured across the border last month, arrested and arraigned in Los Angeles on charges of having run "a major money=laundering operation that served an engine of the international drug trafficking trade," as Reno put it in her announcement of the indictments.

But there was no indictment of Citigroup, known to be under investigation in several countries for its role in laundering south-of-the-border drug profits, the Mexican attorney general's report has noted.

In a move that infuriated the Mexican authorities and startled even hardened Latino speculators, Rubin and Greenspan have now both approved an application by Citigroup be buy up a Mexican financial services chain known as Banco Confia -- a scandal-ridden bank whose owner, Jorge Lankenau, is in jail, after reportedly having helped Citigroup launder the Salinas family's dirty money.

The SPOTLIGHT June 22 1998


Did an eccentric, self-taught immigrant solve the riddle of the pyramids? Or are we missing something?

By Tom Valentine

He boasted proudly that he knew the secret of the pyramid builders, and he left his proof behind in a monumental grouping of stone that anyone may visit today whenever they travel to Homestead, Florida -- just south of Miami.

His name was Edward Leedskalnin, a five-foot tall, 110 pound Latvian immigrant, who was jilted by his fiancee in 1912, so he turned to a spectacular hobby. He built his 'coral castle" in the 1910s and 20s, finished it in 1928, then from 1934 till 1939 he moved all the huge stones to their present site in Homestead. He wanted the castle to be more accessible to public viewing.

Nobody knows how this smallish, mysterious, reclusive philosopher accomplished this remarkable feat of cutting, moving and placing 1,100 tons of rock with several individual stones weighing more than 20 tons and one in the range of 30 tons. A visit to the weird compound of massive blocks covering about an acre of ground is enough to convince any experienced engineer that Leedskalnin either knew how to overcome gravity (as he claimed) or else he had help from energetic aliens.

Since history is anything but a solid science, the rock solid evidence of massive stones which were obviously quarried, lifted, moved and placed by humans remains the most baffling pre-historic enigma. Since the dawning of the printing press and mass communications, the scholars and experts of this world have chosen to gloss over the stone-cold facts glaring out at them from various locations around the globe ranging from Stonehenge, to Easter Island to the grandest stone monument of all -- the Great Pyramid at Giza. EYEWITNESSES MISSING

No modern scholars or experts were around when the famous stone monuments of ancient times were constructed, so we can only guess at what took place. Not so with the coral Castle. But, alas, a grand opportunity to learn was missed. Leedskalnin lived until 1952. He had visits from the curious and the official, but his explanations were evidently too exoteric for the scholarly minds to absorb. The diminutive stonemason" said that modern scientists are "wrong, wrong, wrong" in their assumptions about physical nature.

According to Christopher Dunne, who studied coral castle thoroughly, Leedskalnin claimed that all nature is essentially tiny magnets and it is the movement of these microscopic magnets within materials and through space that produces measurable phenomena such as electromagnetism.

Dunne speculated that Leedskalnin may have utilized well-known principles of electromagnetism and magnetism but in a way that still eludes modern physicists and engineers. Among the gaggle of seemingly primitive stone-working tools on display at Coral castle are a number of pieces wrapped in copper wires.

Leedskalnin also had a "flywheel" with bar magnets around inside the cement casing. In older photos still available one can notice a tripod device that is not present today, and no one can be sure of what other items or artifacts he may have used that are missing.

In a seemingly unrelated matter, but with potential significance for Leedskalnin's magnetic claims, another independent thinker living in Florida, don Kelly of Clearwater, finally proved a thesis he has maintained about magnetism and gravity. Experiments have proved that magnetized plates are 15 percent less effected by gravity than inert plates. Kelly asked: "Do we understand the magnetism to gravity relationship?" The answer is not yet.

Leedskalnin did not trust others to his secret at all. Even when he moved the entire monument in 1934, he hired a trucking company to haul the stones to the new location, but refused to remove them from the trailer beds until he was sure he was alone and no prying eyes could see his methods of lifting and moving the huge blocks.

What is most amazing to the intense curiosity of a news writer is that, apparently, none of his neighbors had enough curiosity back then to stake out the site and spy on how he did it.

So the mystery remains. Instead of important physical knowledge, all we have today is a curious and weird monument attracting a few tourists every year. At the same time, the public is treated to televised tests of pyramid building theories where hundreds of men hauling on ropes try to replicate a small portion of the Great Pyramid's incredible structure. To date all such attempts have been boring, dumb and well off the mark.

No other structure defies our present scholarly claims more thoroughly and impressively than the Great Pyramid. When Leedskalnin boasted that he "knew the secret" he was boasting about important knowledge, indeed.

The Great Pyramid is beyond comparison with all the other pyramid structures in both ancient Egypt and central America. In fact, nothing else made to man, including the Great Wall of China, can compare in the precision of construction and size-placement of stones.

First of all it is a 40-story building on a base of 13 and a half acres. The huge cathedrals of Milan and Florence, plus St. Paul's Basilica in Rome and Westminster Abbey in England could all be fitted within the confines of the Great Pyramid's base. Were we to grind the estimated 2,300,000 blocks of limestone into gravel we could lay a roadbed 18 feet wide and a foot thick al the way from New York city to Salt Lake City.

The smallest of the 2.3 million building blocks were quarried from nearby rock obviously by human workers. We simply don't know who, when and how.

The four-sided exterior (22 acres total) was covered by magnificent White "Tura" Limestone casing stones weighing an estimated 15 tons each. These stones were cut from a quarry on the other side of the Nile River. They had to be cut, polished into a glistening finish, transported across the Nile and up to the plateau site where they were placed with astounding precision. Some of the casings are still in place today.

You cannot fit a business card in the space between the stones, and the cement is so fine and amazingly strong that it boggles the minds of stonemasons today. The polished limestone casing blocks will fracture before the adhesion will give, although less than a 50th of an inch separates the blocks.


There isn't a construction company in the world today that could bid and complete this job.

The change orders and cost-over-rides would doom the project to failure even if ti were backed by the federal Reserve. An Indiana limestone quarry expert was one asked to estimate delivery time for just the rough limestone blocks. He estimated that the 33 quarries would deliver the stone FOB their own rail siding, providing nothing went wrong, in about 27 years.

We are told by scholarly historians that Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) had the pyramid built, probably with slave labor, during his historically alleged (best guess) reign of 23 years about 2,600 B.C. Obviously, unhappy slaves can quarry and move stone blocks with primitive tools far more efficiently than modern quarry operations.

Frankly, along with the casing stones, the really impressive part of the Great Pyramid's construction is the interior chamber stones of granite.
Now, if we are to believe our modern scholars, the slave laborers had to build the structure up more than one/third of its finished height in order to construct the inner chambers in the center of the mass of stone.

These chambers are, in themselves, the marvel of construction marvels.

The "King's Chamber" is so much more impressive than the smaller "Queen's Chamber" that we shall concentrate on it to make the point. The walls, floors and ceilings of both interior chambers are made of huge blocks of a rose- colored granite. However, several of the blocks in the King's Chamber are estimated to weigh more than 85 tons each.


To get an idea of how heavy 85 tons is, consider this: In order to place a piece of equipment weighing a mere 65 tons, a crane capable of lifting it had to be trucked in on 15 semi-trailers and assembled. How on earth did the pyramid builders do it? Topes and log rollers? Were there that many trees available to the ancient Egyptians? Maybe that's happened to all the trees in that desert; clear cutting to get enough logs for rolling all those stones.

Nevertheless, what is known is that the huge granite blocks were quarried more than 200 miles from the site of the Great Pyramid and floated down the Nile. These perfectly cut blocks of granite were hauled up the plateau, then up the steep sides, or up a ramp covering the steep sides, and gently perfectly, neatly and precisely placed as the wills, floors and ceilings.

Did you ever try to place a small rectangular block of stone down into a position nest to other rectangular or square blocks? How did they get the ropes out of the way? How did they do it without chipping the perfect edges? Remember, they weigh 85 tons each.

There is such a vast difference in the skill level of the workmanship apparent in the Great Pyramid, and in the Second Pyramid it's inconceivable that only one generation separated them -- a fact never mentioned in our scholarly Egyptology texts.


The truth is, we don't have a clue about who built the Great Pyramid despite the fact scholars have a pretty good data bank regarding all the other pyramids, which were undoubtedly tombs.

The Great Pyramid existed thousands of years earlier than Ikhnation and Nefertiti; than Moses and the Exodus, than Antony and Cleopatra. It is because the Great pyramid is so far removed from us in time that we have only elusive theories to work with.

The idea that it was built by Khufu (2600 B.C.) has no good evidence at all. In fact, the hard evidence points to Khufu "adopting" the grand structure that was already there by building his family tombs around its base. The speculation about Khufu stems from a rough painted "cartouche" found on the back side of one of those beg granite slabs making up the ceiling.

What scholars aren't telling is that the cartouche for Khufu could just as easily, if not more so, been interpreted "Khuti" which translates "glorious light" which was the name of the Great Pyramid which glistened in the desert sun like a glorious light when all four sides were coated with polished white limestone blocks fitted precisely together. The painted cartouche on the back of a finished block is most logically translated as a worker's mark stating, "take this one to the pyramid."

Any way you look at it, the magnificent stonework that is the First Wonder of the Ancient World is solid, though mute, testimony to something having occurred that is beyond our present understanding.

Edward Leedskalnin, builder of the Coral Castle, put his stones, as they say, where his mouth is when he proclaimed to know "the secret of the pyramids"

The SPOTLIGHT June 29, 1998


What "racists," "extremists" and "right-wingers" have been saying for 50 years (and condemned for) has been established as official U.S. policy.

By William Carmichael

Ethnic cleansing has been made the official policy of the United States by President Bill Clinton. If you're white, you're the cleansee.

"In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States," Clinton said in a commencement address at Portland, Oregon State University on June 13.

He then confirmed the worst case scenario for whites in America - a fear that, when expressed by whites, has been condemned as "racist hate."

"Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston, Texas or New York City," Clinton said. Within five years, he added, there will be no majority race in California, the nation's most populous state.

"And in a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States," Clinton said.

In effect, what the president of the United States has said is that America as we know it is dead. It may linger for a while, but if the multi cultural onslaught continues -- and that is official government policy -- then America will disappear just as surely as all of the great civilizations of the world when overrun by foreigners.


What IS equally disturbing is the lack of coverage of this most important policy statement by the president. Where was The New York Times with "All the news that's fit to print"? Where were the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times?

Where were the television networks and their multi-millionaire evening news readers?

What "news" was presented to the American people from Clinton's speech was his urging Americans to eschew racism. Here was the president of the United States telling whites that they have had it as a race; theat their culture is doomed and there is nothing they can do about it. If reported at all, the mainstream media saw it as a call for good race relations. But what he actually said was sinister.

"We should share our country with immigrants, not shun them or shut them out," Clinton said.

He called on Caucasian Americans, descendants of those who built this country, gave it the Constitution, self-government and individual liberty and made it the greatest nation the world has ever known, to gracefully give up what they had earned by their own efforts and the efforts of their ancestors. A tide of new immigration "threatens to divide America" Clinton said.

But whites must accept that"in the 21st century there will be no majority race in the nation."

In a grasp of the obvious, Clinton said, "Mark my words: Unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten the bonds of our union.


According to published reports, "Clinton's remarks highlighted an emerging theme of his second-term agenda: convincing Americans that ethnic and cultural diversity can be a strength for this country and that America should set an example for the world."

This on the heels of overwhelming popular propositions passed on California which remove Clinton-backed special privileges for special groups, including bilingual education and affirmative action.

"No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude, over so short a time," Clinton said. "It can either strengthen and unite America or weaken and divide us. We must decide."

Americans have decided Whenever it is put to a vote, the people choose to limit immigration and demand that English be spoken and used in official documents.

In reporting the speech, the Associated Press noted that in 1996, the leading sources of new immigrants were Mexico, the Philippines, India, Vietnam and Red China. It did not report on legal versus illegal immigrants.

The SPOTLIGHT June 29, 1998


Taxpayers are in danger of being sold out -- again.

By James Tucker Jr.

House-Senate conferees trying to reconcile Internal Revenue Service legislation may water down a provision that places the burden of proof on the government -- and not the taxpayer -- according to Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio).

Traficant authored the burden of proof provision and it was passed by both chambers. But, he told The SPOTLIGHT on June 10, conferees are trying to weaken the measure.

Shifting the burden of proof to the IRS was part of the original Taxpayer Bill of Rights first proposed by Liberty Lobby, publisher of The SPOTLIGHT, before the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1997.

Much of Liberty Lobby's comprehensive proposal at the time has become law under a succession of "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" measures.

The SPOTLIGHT June 29, 1998


The Clinton administration is backing a patently illegal and unconstitutional supranantional judicial body.

By Martin Mann

In what may be the global elite's most tenacious and subversive thrust to nullify the U.S. Constitution and replace it with a regime of international enforcers, hundreds of official and non-governmental delegates from more than 1000 nations assembled in Rome this month to set up an International criminal Court (ICC).

Taking a look at the agenda of the so-called "diplomatic plenipotentiaries," gathered in the Italian capital even the cosmopolitan New York Times had second thoughts. It warned that "Many states at this conference seem intent on pushing for a supranational court that knows few jurisdictional bounds."

American legal scholars voiced even more concerned reservations about the new international tribunal. "As it is currently conceived, the ICC will combine in one institution the functions of investigation, fact-finding, prosecution, judgment, sentencing, appeal and pardon" noted Lee A. Casey, a former U.S. Justice Department law counsel.

Trials will not be by jury; guilt and punishment -- by imprisonment - will be decided by the judges, and the only venue for appeal from their ruling will be to the ICC's appellate division itself.

In effect, the global judiciary will make its own statutes "and there will be no recourse from its decisions; no options for overturning the law the ICC will set for itself,' Casey warned.

Fortunately, the U.S. constitution prohibits the government from delegating its judicial authority -- that is, the right to put Americans on trial for alleged violations they have committed on American soil -- to any authority or institution that is not a constitutionally convened court of the United states, legal experts say.

That provision alone makes the proposal of setting up an international criminal tribunal "highly questionable," Casey concluded in a recent study.

"The defining case here is Ex parte Milligan, in which, shortly after the Civil War, the Supreme Court Struck down the conviction of a civilian by army judges because the military tribunal had not been established under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore not part of the 'judicial power of the United States,'" the study concluded.

Other legal scholars concurred, pointing out that no matter how the ICC will eventually be organized, it will fail to provide the American defendants whom it indicts with any of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The Sixth Amendment, to note just one example, ensures that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the same state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," -- an obvious impossibility under a regime of globalist enforces.

In the Opinion of Dr. David B. Rikin the noted specialist in international law, the absence of such safeguards is all the more disturbing because, "The Supreme Court has stated plainly in an 1890 case, De Geofrey vs. Riggs, that the constitutional rights of Americans cannot be abridged by the federal government's power to conclude treaties."

Treaty power, the Supreme court has concluded, does not enable the federal government to "authorize what the Constitution forbids." Moreover, in what legal scholars call a particularly pertinent case (In re Yamashita) the court ruled that "In any conflict between U.S. laws and the laws of war, U.S. law must prevail."

That being the opinion of leading American legal experts, why is the White House sending an official delegation to Rome to negotiate the establishment of what is bound to be a wholly unconstitutional one-world judicial body? Asked Dr. Elemer Voros, a research fellow in international law at the State University of New York.

The answer is that the Clinton administration is shot through with "closet one-worlders" such as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, with cosmopolitan financiers such as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and with alien agents and dual loyalists of various stripes to whom "both the Constitution and the principle of U.S. sovereignty are fusty, remote, outdated concepts," Voros asserted, in effect answering his own question.

The SPOTLIGHT June 29, 1998


A member of Congress weighs in with a logical -- and therefore politically incorrect -- comment on needle exchange programs for drug addicts.

By Ron Paul

Free needles, like free lunches, do not exist. Needles cost something -- and there are some who believe taxpayers should foot the bill.

After all, the advocates of government-funded "needle exchange" programs say, the pennies each needle costs to distribute to drug users is small change relative to the costs of health care for those druggies who become infected with AIDS, hepatitis, or any other communicable disease.

As a physician, I can say with no uncertainty that it is far better for a person to use a sterile needle rather than a dirty one. Of course, it is also medically much better for someone to avoid putting harmful or addictive substances into their blood stream, or engage in risky sexual behavior.

I can also say, without a doubt, that the policy of distributing needles at taxpayer expense is both dangerous and immoral.


The argument for needle distribution is, of course, a very caring and pragmatic one. The proponents of needle distribution programs point -- correctly -- to the fact that using a clean needle will prevent the transfer of contagious disease and, therefore, the future health care costs to government will be reduced.

While factually this argument is true, it rests upon a huge but false premise.

Those making the relative cost argument in favor of these programs assume that the taxpayer has some obligation to pay one or both rather than neither. Unfortunately, this will be the focus of the debate. It is easier politically to lambaste the "drug user" as opposed to the federal health care beneficiary, despite the fact that if one accepts the premise that the federal government has a duty to provide health care, the provision of needles is the fiscally logical choice. Implicit in this assumption is the notion that the government should compel you, the non-user, to pay for the habit as well as the consequences of drug use.

And while I would not stop you from using your own private funds to provide sterile needles to those in your community, it would be immoral for the government of use government force to compel someone to pay for this program.

Of course, this socialistic approach to sharing health care costs is completely at odds with a society which values freedom. There is a casual disregard for risks then an individual knows they will not have to bear the costs associated with the consequences of their actions. Therefore, they respond to his incentive and pursue activities -- bad habits, sexual behavior, and so on -- with riskier consequences that they otherwise would.

There is a final argument against the distribution of needles at taxpayer expense, and it is an argument which goes more towards the consistency of the entire situation as it relates to the Constitution. Under our current laws, use and possession of particular substances is illegal. Yet needle exchanges would provide services to assist people in breaking the law.

This is ridiculous. Our government has become so big, and has stepped so completely outside the limited, enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, that contradictions such as these are the practical result.

When we allow the federal government to do things it is not constitutionally authorized to do, when we endorse the concept of federal intervention in what is constitutionally state and local matters, we are bound to see government tripping over itself to use its over-reaching powers in way to satisfy everyone. Again, case in point, the subsidization of both tobacco interests and cancer research.