The SPOTLIGHT January 4, 1999

FUTURE BLEAK FOR CLINTON'S 'ALLIES'

President Clinton has received a secret CIA report detailing the terminal illnesses affecting all the major Mideast leaders except Saddam Hussein and Iran's President Khatemi.

By Bob Smith

The future in the Mideast looks bleak for U.S. policymakers. The current generation of Arab leaders all have one foot in the grave. Many countries are expected to turn to anti-American fundamentalism in the near future.

Hafez El Assad, 69, has been president of Syria since 1971. He is dying of leukemia, a brain tumor and coronary complications. Round the clock medical care keeps Assad alive. He could die at any time.

King Fahd bin Abdulaziz has led Saudi Arabia since 1982. He is 77 and incapacitated by a series of heart attacks and cerebral strokes. CIA agents are governing through him, but the day Fahd dies they will be kicked out by the new Saudi King who is a long-standing nationalist and in favor of peace with Iraq.

Sheik Jaber Al Ahmad Al Sabah, 70, has ruled Kuwait since 1977, Jaber has been struck with AIDS, which he apparently contracted from his homosexual lifestyle. Jaber's heir apparent, Sheik Saad Al Abdallah Al Sabah, 69, suffers from colon cancer.

Jordan's King Hussein, 63, is dying of renal and lymphatic cancer. Jordan's population has sympathy for Iraq and the Palestinians and will not countenance another era of pro-Israel policy. His heir apparent, Prince Hassan, is in very poor health and does not command the loyalty of the population.

Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Nahayan, 86, president of the United Arab Emerates, has prostate cancer and his death is expected to bring an end to British and U.S. hegemony in the region.

Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, suffers from Hepatitis B and severe neurological disorders.

Yasser Arafat is 69. He bet everything on the good faith of Israel and some hefty CIA stipends to create a Palestinian bantustan under Israeli control. Arafat has advanced Parkinson's disease and severe neurological problems which renders him non-functional for days. His death, expected anytime, will leave the Palestinian masses no option but to join the Hamas leadership -- a definite minus for the globalists.

In Tunisia, President Ben Ali, 55, has serious cardiac problems including arterial internal bleeding.

In Libya, the health of President Muammar Qadaffi is unclear. There have been rumors for years about his bad health, but this is a closely-guarded secret.

Algeria has been consumed by a very bloody civil war since the pro-Israeli government rejected the democratic vote of the people and declared martial law. Objective observers expect that the fundamentalists will eventually win. When that happens the resulting government will be very hostile to the U.S.- Israel axis.

Ironically, all of the Arab leaders listed above have supported the CIA and the Clinton State Department against the wishes of the large majority of their people. Each on is likely to be replaced by a leader far less subject to American influence and far more supportive of the Arab cause.

Bob Smith is the pen name of an American oil executive with years of experience and many Arab contacts in the Mideast.

The SPOTLIGHT January 4, 1999

SUPREME COURT RULING SUPPORTS YOU OVER COPS

The Supreme Court ruled that police do not have the authority to conduct full searches on motorists in routine traffic ss.

By The SPOTLIGHT Staff

On march 6, 1996, Patrick Knowles was speeding in Newton, Iowa. Police pulled Knowles over and gave him a ticket. Then, a police officer searched Knowles' car, without permission and without suspecting another crime had been committed. Once the cop found a stash of dope and a pipe, Knowles was arrested for possession of an illegal substance.

Knowles was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail in 1996. He appealed the ruling on the grounds that the search was unconstitutional.

Knowles spent more than a year fighting the conviction. He said the police had no right to search his car. He was right.

The supreme Court voted unanimously on Dec. 8 that police may not conduct a full search of motorists and their vehicles if they have only been sped and ticketed for a routine traffic s.

The ruling was unusual in light of the fact that lately the Supreme Court has granted police more authority in cases where their lives may be in danger.

In hearing the appeal, justices reportedly were critical of Iowa's assistant district attorney, Bridget Chambers, posing the question: "Can you be strip searched for jaywalking?"

"No," said the attorney. "But searches may be conducted on people suspected of other crimes for committing an offense for which arrests can be made, such as a traffic violations or jaywalking."

BETTER OFF

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg responded that people would be better off if they were arrested, because at least then they would be informed of their right to remain silent and to an attorney.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the search was allowed under state law, but nevertheless violated the driver's Fourth Amendment right protecting citizens against unlawful searches and seizures.

Rehnquist said that searches have been allowed in the past to protect officers and to gather evidence, but in the case of routine traffic ss, "It does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusions attending a full search."

The SPOTLIGHT January 4, 1999

FORMER CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS: DAMN THE POLLS, FULL STEAM AHEAD

Now that representatives have done their job, it's up to senators to follow suit. The president has broken the law and should be removed.

By Adm. Thomas H Moorer

I appreciate the Judiciary Committee's invitation to submit these comments on the corrosive effects on the military's code of honor of having a commander-in-chief who has admitted misleading the nation. The president, by his own poor choices, has created a crisis of constitutional proportion within the same armed forces he is duty-bound to lead. It is now up to Congress to solve this crisis by holding the president accountable.

When I had the honor to serve as chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff in the early 1970s, I was the senior uniformed member of the United States armed forces. As such, like every other commissioned officer, I served "during the pleasure of the president." like ever other officer, I also swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same...So help me God."

The committee is addressing today a critical problem with in the armed forces that many civilians do not fully appreciate. The president is the commander-in-chief. Although he does not wear a military uniform, he is a military leader. In this regard, I urge the committee to address two fundamental issues of military leadership: honor and accountability.

Within the leadership of the United States armed forces, these virtues are indispensable. Without them, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians die unnecessarily.

If the committee finds that the commander-in-chief has engaged in conduct that undermines the standards Congress has set for military leadership -- to which the president has already indisputably admitted -- I urge Congress to hold the commander-in-chief accountable not only for the good order and discipline of the United States armed forces, but also, more fundamentally, for the survival of the American Rule of Law.

When a military leader chooses to engage in dishonorable conduct, he either resigns or is removed from any position of responsibility, i.e. cashiered, by those to whom he is accountable. In any event, military leaders are accountable for poor choices. Military leaders also serve as role models for honorable and virtuous conduct. Their troops expect no less. When the troops know a leader is not being held accountable for dishonorable conduct, the "corrosive effect" is devastation on the good order and discipline of the armed forces.

President Theodore Roosevelt, who served as assistant secretary of the Navy, leader of the "Rough Riders" in the Spanish-American War of 1898, as vice president, and then as president and commander-in-chief, said this about American national greatness and leadership:

"The stream will not permanently rise higher than he main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

Congress is responsible for wetting these "very much higher" standards of leadership for the United States Armed Services. Section 8 of Article I empowers Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Congress is also responsible for holding the commander-in- chief accountable for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Technical legal arguments that the Uniform Code of Military Justice may not apply to the commander-in-chief miss the point. At issue are some of the first principles upon which our colonial forefathers pledged their "sacred honor".

The first Article of the 1775 "Rules for the Regulation of the Navy of the United Colonies of North-America," which is still public law (10 U.S. C. 5947), mandates that: "All commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination...to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are guilty of them."

Likewise, the current congressional mandate that all commissioned officers comport to a higher standard of personal behavior -- both on and off duty -- traces to the 1775 "American Articles of War," which forbade officers from "behaving in a scandalous, infamous manner," and required that any offiver found guilty "of any fraud...be ipso facto cashiered, and deemed unfit for further service as an officer."

A crisis of military discipline looms if any commander, by his words and actions, promotes an adage that "you can engage in whatever behavior you get away with, and even if you're caught, it's OK to evade accountability if you can get away with that." A constitutional crisis looms if congress does not hold all officers with full responsibility to a standard of full accountability. Responsibility without accountability "according to law" undermines the core foundation of the Constitution, the principle known as the "Rule of Law" (as opposed to the rule of men), without which our Constitution is no more than a piece of paper. By definition, the Rule of Law cannot be influenced by public opinion, whether through public opinion polls or otherwise.

The United States armed forces now have a more fundamental challenge to leadership training than simply instilling character traits adverse to lying, cheating and stealing: How do we instill in young leaders the moral courage to admit when they are wrong and to accept accountability for poor choices? Personal example by senior leaders, up to and including the commander-in- chief, is an essential starting point -- and risk to personal ambitions is no excuse for any officer of the United States armed forces to fall in this regard.

I urge Congress to consider the high standards of personal conduct it has set for leaders of the American military, and to hold the commander-in-chief accountable to at least those standards -- for the good order and discipline of the United States armed forces and for the survival of the American Rule of Law.

The SPOTLIGHT January 11, 1999

CENSURE WOULD VIOLATE CONSTITUTION

The Democratic Party censure proposal would violate the Constitution.

By Vance Beardreau

The White House-sponsored censure as an alternative to a senatorial vote for conviction of President William Jefferson Clinton has been strongly lobbied for by the Democratic Party these past weeks.

Clinton even stated that he would accept a congressional vote of censure, to include financial penalties, as a compromise to avoid impeachment.

Democrats presented a motion to formally introduce the censure alternative for vote by the House, but the motion was voted down by Republicans.

The Democrats, in advocating a congressional bill of censure against Clinton, were in fact advocation a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder.

One of the Republican congressmen, speaking against the idea of "censure," stated that such a procedure was unauthorized by the Constitution as a power available to Congress.

Unfortunately, few people including many congressmen and attorneys, have any idea what a Bill of Attainder is or how the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder would be violated by a congressional vote of censure.

In the Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 states: No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder...On the other hand, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 and 7 address presidential impeachment and grants authority to the Senate to conduct any impeachment trial being presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

BILL OF ATTAINDER

A Bill of Attainder is a non-judicial infliction of punishment upon a specifically named individual or easily ascertainable group, usually by the legislature.

In England, a Bill of Attainder was usually a death sentence decreed by the King. The infliction of Pains and Penalties was a similar thing, only the punishment inflicted was less severe. Corruption of Blood meant denial of property right to an individual and a possible vendetta against his posterity.

The prohibition of Bills of Attainder, as intended in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, resulted from their fear of this and other punishments that they and their ancestors had suffered in England.

Not only were many of the Democratic congressman trying to belittle the issue of violation of the laws of the United States by our chief executive, but they were subscribing to an even more serious constitutional violation by advocating a bill of censure, which is but another name for a Bill of Attainder.

This blatant attempt to violate the Constitution could be the most serious offense yet committed by President Clinton and a large number of Democratic congressmen.

The oath of office President Clinton swore to before the Chief Judge of the United States Supreme Court as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Not only should the Senate be made aware of this potential violation of the Constitution when being asked by the White House to compromise with Clinton, but the House of Representatives should hold new hearing on Clinton's violation of his oath of office for an additional bill of impeachment.

The SPOTLIGHT January 11, 1999

AMERICA ASKS: WHY ARE WE AT WAR?

The Establishment news media reported in considerable detail on Bill Clinton's orders to dump tens of thousands of tons of bombs and cruise missiles on Iraq. But how are the people coping?

By Mike Blair

Almost nothing has been reported to show the impact of the U.S.-led United Nation's economic sanctions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

No one seems to know at this point just how many Iraqi civilians were obliterated during the four-day Operation Desert Fox. It is known that the sanctions are responsible for killing up to 7,000 Iraqi children every month since the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm.

There are not accurate figures available on how many Iraqis were killed during Desert Storm, though estimates of total Iraqis killed range as high as 680,000.

"As bombs began balling once again on Iraq, American peace activists expressed frustration that public concern over the nation's chemical and biological weapons was not matched by outrage over the deadly toll imposed by eight years of sanctions," John L. Allen wrote in the Christmas week issue of the National Catholic Reporter.

Calling the impact of the sanctions "silent genocide," Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit said, "Kids are dying of leukemia, of blood cancers, and their doctors can't cope. These diseases are totally treatable, but there's not medicine.

Dennis Halliday, who recently resigned as head of the UN program that permits Iraq to sell a specified amount of oil in order to buy food, said that up to 7,000 children are dying every month from respiratory ailments, malnutrition and other diseases directly related to the impact of the sanctions.

Halliday resigned last October in protest, telling reporters he believes that the sanctions violate the UN charter as well as the UN-sponsored Convention on Rights of the Child.

Other Christian groups have also come out in solidarity to condemn the recent bombings of Iraq. Church leaders across the country reacted with similar disdain for U.S. policy, calling the action "a moral and diplomatic failure."

Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, staff executive from the United Methodist Church's Board of church and Society said, "The bombing of Iraq is a matter of international disgrace that reaches far beyond narrow partisan interest."
The Archbishop of Newark and Chairman of the International Policy Committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference Rev. Tomas E. McCarrick told the press, "It is regrettable that the international community has not succeeded in enforcing by peaceful means the cease-fire resolutions that ended the Gulf War, but war is not the answer.'

PRESS AWOL

"Where is the press on this?" the Catholic bishop demanded to know. "There's been a total blackout, a very careful manipulation of the news coming from that country. It's all to prepare the way to destroy it."
The church leader pointed out that when Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector, resigned to protest Iraqi refusal to open alleged weapons sites, it generated intense media attention. When Jalliday resigned however, there was hardly a whisper anywhere.

A number of humanitarian groups have tried to aid the suffering Iraqi citizenry -- particularly the children.

Kathy Kelly, who coordinates an anti-sanctions campaign for the group Voices in the Wilderness, said sanctions and military strikes will not accomplish their supposed purpose of forcing reform in Iraq.

"You push a desperate person into a corner and you get an even more desperate response," Kelly said. "We need to build democratic structures in Iraq, as well as schools and social services, not to say to the Iraqis 'we're holding 7,000 of your children hostage.'"

Workers for Voices in the Wilderness just returned from their 18th trip to Iraq, where they delivered toys, medicine and other items in defiance of the U.S. embargo laws.

As a result of that humanitarian work, the group and four of its members face $160,000 in fines.

Kelly said that they have "absolutely no intention" of paying the fines.

Cumbleton said his missions to Iraq with medical supplies is also a violation.

"I'd be happy if they sent some sheriff out to arrest me," he said, indicating that possibly then the issue would attract some attention.

The SPOTLIGHT January 11, 1999

CLINTON'S WAR LACKS SUPPORT IN AMERICA

What would happen if a handful of courageous humanitarians spoke out against an unconstitutional war, but the mainstream media failed to report it?

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Numerous lawyers -- many of whom would hardly qualify for Liberty Lobby's Board of Policy -- have supported the Institution's opposition to military interference in the Persian Gulf.

They and other experts support the position of Liberty Lobby -- publisher of The SPOTLIGHT -- that under the Constitution only Congress can declare War.

Liberty Lobby also champions the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaims that the United States will not tolerate foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere, nor will this country interfere in affairs abroad.

The scholars called for the impeachment of President Clinton for bombing Iraq only hours before the House was to consider his impeachment for perjury, obstruction of Justice and witness tampering.

SUDAN ATTACK

They were also critical of Clinton's earlier bombing of a pharmaceutical factory which was in no way involved in weapons production.

"Our elected officials miss the point," said Barbara Lubin, head of the Middle East Children's Alliance. "There is a reason to impeach Bill Clinton and that's for high crimes -- the killing of innocent women and children in Iraq.

Here are some of their comments speaking to the Institute for Public Accuracy on Dec. 18.

"To go to war against two states, to launch military attacks on Them in the middle of the night, without any authorization by Congress, to destroy the civilian pharmaceutical factory in Sudan killing at least one person...subverts our constitutional system of government," said Francis A. Boyle, professor of Law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"If the Republican majority were really worried about the rule of law, they would be asking why Clinton bombed Iraq without congressional and Security council approval, as required by the Constitution and UN charter," said Jules Lobel, professor of constitutional and International law at the well respected University of Pittsburgh.

"The U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq is a grave violation of the UN charter," said John Quigley, professor of Law at Ohio State University.

Clinton has "turned Democrats who were cautious about war into supporters on unilateral bombings in the dead of night while children are sleeping," said Gwendolyn Muink, professor of politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

"Contrary to U.S. official claims, Arab governments have not backed these bombings," said Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee. They know Iraq is not a military threat and the Iraqi people have suffered enough."

In Washington, Samuel Berger, National security adviser, net with reporters for more than an hour. He offered no comment on the constitutionality of the Iraqi attacks and no reproter raised the issue.

The SPOTLIGHT January 18, 1998

MAINSTREAM MEDIA DISCOVER BILL'S SON

News flash: Your president sired a child with a black prostitute.

By the SPOTLIGHT Staff

The national media is buzzing with the news that President Bill Clinton has an illegitimate 14-year-old, son, Danny, born to a black woman, who is a former drug addict and prostitute named Bobbie Ann Williams.

If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because you perhaps first read it here in The SPOTLIGHT in our issue of Nov. 16.

The boy and his family are now going public and want to know if DNA tests will confirm that the president is the teen-ager's father.

As The SPOTLIGHT noted in a follow-up on Dec. 14, the story actually was first published on Sept. 15, 1992, by The Truth At Last, a Georgia monthly.

Later, the story was picked up by Slick Times, a humor magazine devoted to satirizing Bill and Hillary Clinton. The publisher of Slick Times even offered a sizable reward to anyone who could disprove the story. But there were no takers.

Internet "gossip" columnist Matt Drudge and The Star, a supermarket tabloid, are getting the credit for "breaking" the story, but the truth is Clinton- watchers have known for years about the allegations which were evidently common knowledge in Little Rock.

Although it is now becoming clear that many "big name" journalists were fully aware of the story, this latest scandal to tarnish the adulterer-in- chief is only now just reaching the attention of the American public, courtesy of the news arbiters in the major media who have appointed themselves as the guardians of 'what's news" and "when the news is fit to print."

The SPOTLIGHT actually first heard of the Clinton-Bobbie Williams affair long before Clinton's presidential campaign, when a former Little rock district magistrate, Travis W. McCoy, supplied the newspaper with photo copied handbills exposing the affair that had been circulated in Little Rock by "Say" McIntosh.

McIntosh, a black man in Little Rock, charged that then-Gov. Clinton had a predilection for adulterous affairs with women of color. Evidently, Macintosh's allegations also reached the hands of the national media which, at the time, was beginning to take a look at Clinton's reputation as a womanizer.

But the story remained buried, even though the story first emerged at the height of the 1992 presidential campaign. If the major media had done its job and the story had come out at that time, ti might have been enough to stop Clinton's campaign dead in its tracks.

What the Danny Williams story will mean for Clinton's impeachment remains to be seen, but the fact that the story was suppressed for so long by the self-styled "mainstream" media should send a signal to American voters that they simply cannot rely on that media for the news they need to know.

The SPOTLIGHT is planning to continue its investigation into the Clinton affair.

The SPOTLIGHT January 18, 1999

POLITICALLY CORRECT AMERICA HONORS A CULTURAL COMMUNIST, PLAGIARIST

Why honor Martin Luther King, Jr., a communist and troublemaker, rather than the first president, Thomas Jefferson or any number of the giants of history?

By James P. Tucker, Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr., Christopher Columbus and Jesus of Nazareth are the only individuals honored with a national holiday; although Feb. 15 is commonly called "George Washington's Birthday," it is legally, "President's Day."

This is because of public brainwashing that begins in the public schools and continues through the college years. Former President Ronald Reagan was aware of this when he reluctantly signed the King holiday bill on Nov. 2, 1983.

Reagan showed his awareness after receiving a letter from Meldrim Thomson, former governor of New Hampshire. Thomson urged Reagan not to sign the holiday bill honoring the memory of a man of immoral character whose frequent associations with leading agents of communism are well established.

Reagan responded:

"On the national holiday you mentioned, I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is the reality."

The image of King as a hero was cynically cultivated by John Kennedy and his brother, Robert, during the 1960 presidential election to curry favor with black voters. That accounts for John Kennedy's phone call to King, who was in jail.

But the Kennedy brothers knew they were stroking a scoundrel. President Kennedy later approved Attorney General Robert Kennedy's wiretapping and FBI surveillance of King because of his known communist connections.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called King "the most notorious liar in the country."

FBI wiretaps revealed the reverend's "extensive and vigorous sexual activities," says both a 1970 Time magazine report and other books, including one written by Rev. Ralph Abernathy accused King of whore mongering in his book And The Walls Came Tumbling Down.

Hoover did not live long enough to learn just how much he had understated King's lying. In January, 1989, The SPOTLIGHT published a King birthday article recounting how he had plagiarized his doctoral thesis.

Although King's plagiarism had been confirmed by the keepers of his papers at Emory University in Atlanta, Boston University declined to revoke his doctorate.(1)

The mainstream press worked energetically to keep the news of King's plagiarism from the public. Instead, the Establishment perpetuated the myth that King was "non-violent."

But writing in the Saturday Review in April, 1963, King called for the strategy of "going into the streets" in hopes of stirring up violence so Americans would "demand federal intervention and legislation."

The Late President Harry Truman called King a "troublemaker" in another classic understatement.

"But he won the Nobel Peace prize," reporters protested.

"I didn't give it to him," Truman snapped.

King was associated with the Highlander Folk School (SPOTLIGHT, Sept. 26, Oct. 17, 1983). Vice President Al Gore's old newspaper, The Nashville Tennessean, once said the outfit was a center, if not the center, for spreading of communist doctrine in 13 Southeastern states."

In 1965, as he appeared on Meet the Press, King attempted to dissociate himself from the communist school. King said he was only there to deliver a speech and that he knew nothing about the school. (Similar to what Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep Bob Barr (R-Ga.) Have said about their involvement with the Council of Conservative Citizens.)

However, in 1961, The New York Times reported King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Highlander Folk School had "joined forces to train Negro leaders for the civil rights struggle."

The list of King's communist associates is lengthy and has been published many times: Stanley Levinson, Carl and Anne Braden, Abner Berry, Aubrey Williams and Hunter Pitts O'Dell, among others.

Julia Brown joined the Civil Rights Congress in 1947. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Civil Rights Congress was a communist front. Mrs. Brown is a Black woman who spied for the FBI until 1960. "The communist cells that I was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise money for Martin Luther King's activities and to support his movement...while I was in the Communist Party as a loyal American Negro, I knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party," she said.

Today the mainstream portrays King as advocating "nonviolence," but an examination of historical fact finds riots, mayhem and death surrounded King. For example, when King and company invaded Chicago in July, 1966, the West Side was in flames just two days after King's Soldier's Field address. One person was dead, 60 injured, 280 arrested and 155 stores looted in Memphis following riots inspired by King's presence in 1968.

As an example of King's "non-violent" legacy, a "gangsta" rap group, fittingly named Public Enemy, produced a video showing Chuck D, the band's lead "singer" arming Security of the First World (the group's bodyguards) in order to assassinate Arizona officials. This was in 1992, and Arizona had not yet recognized King's birthday as a holiday.

The video ends with Chuck D pushing a button detonating a bomb under the governor's car.

This is the man patriotic Americans are told to honor on his birthday. What's next -- Clinton's birthday?

The SPOTLIGHT January 18, 1999

WILL Y2K MEAN THE END OF 20TH CENTURY LIFE
OR WILL THIS RESILIENT BUG BE EXTERMINATED?

By George Kadar

A computer consultant says it was difficult to take the Y2K problem seriously. We all thought that the set of problems were limited to the older main frame computers and the related software, mostly written in COBOL and FORTRAN computer languages. It seems that all those programers were looking forward to a lot of well-paid overtime.

As time went by, the pros kept adjusting their estimates. New areas in industry, information processing and our every day lives have proven to be date-sensitive and dependent on old chips, hard disks and data storage media. These computer-related components were manufactured when memory was expensive. Then, leaving two digits off of the year seemed like a perfect idea. Now many fear chaos will strike when the date changes to Jan. 1, 2000.
MAGNITUDE

We are actually in the process of developing a full understanding about the magnitude of the coming problem.

Level one problems are the ones that will present a clear emergency. These will be malfunctioning air and ground traffic devices, major power failures possibly lasting for weeks, the direct and instant emergencies produced by the failures, possible bank failures, failures of computer controlled medical devices, etc.

Level two problems will be the after shocks -- possible disturbances in food and fuel production and distribution, shortages in the drinking water supply and distribution, a rapid decline in the quality of medical services, social unrest created by opportunists and the like.

The great majority of the people do not have enough fact to judge the magnitude of a possible problem. For example, few of us realize how strong our dependence is on the infrastructure, how fast the food and fuel supply pipelines can empty and shortages develop, how easily a culmination of simultaneous problems can multiply by causing domino effects in the economy and else where.

These problems will not be presented to us as a package deal on Jan. 1, 2000. The problems will likely start surfacing in the summer of 1999. In fact we are already paying for the Y2K bug. An insider, who works for one of the larger banks, estimated that his bank has already spent $400 million on the problem. A large number of smaller banks were simply not able to handle the bug, so they merged with larger banks.

Business Week recently printed a chart on the rising repair costs at 10 major businesses. At&T moved from a $300 million to a $900 million estimate. Xerox corporation is investing in larger quantities of back-up supplies.

The present best estimates on fixing the problem are around $1 trillion and climbing. On Dec. 8, 1998, the Clinton administration raised the cost estimate for U.S. federal agency computers from $5.4 billion to $6.4 billion.

It is understood that with the dollar estimates, the time estimates also climb for fixing the problem.

The banks and the Federal Reserve system are very quiet about compliance levels, and the reason. It would take less than 2 percent of the American public to demand their cash to deplete the banking system of its total cash reserves.

On Dec. 8, 1998, a massive power outage hit San Francisco -- shortly after 8 am, 372,000 customers lost power. For a few hours life sped in the city. Elevators, trains, traffic lights, even the cable cars were sped. Mayor Willie Brown declared a city-wide state of emergency.

"The cause of the outage was simple human error, which then triggered a complex sequence of events," said a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. spokesman.

Y2K will almost surely release a whole cluster of very complicated human errors.

GREAT UNKNOWN

There are 25 billion microchips. They were built into everything, from house hold electronics to cars and military equipment. Because of their huge numbers nobody can trace or check them. Between two and five percent of them are estimated to have the date problem. They often carry the date in two digits code ad are sure to present us with more than a few headaches.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is supposed to save us from all those inconveniences. FEMA director James Lee Witt will share his Y2K plan in February at the meeting of the National Governors Association. Some skeptics are already thinking. "What a wonderful opportunity for our government agencies to prove how indispensable they are for us."

(Sorry, but I can not help but to be cynical after watching for the last 10 years how they have literally invited millions and millions of "Third Worlders" into the Southwestern United States and started "saving" us by increasing our taxes and doubling our police departments every few years.)

The federal government claims it is in better shape than the private industry. After all, there is no way that the IRS will be caught with its pants off, out in the cold, unable to take over your bank account or your children's color TV. On the other hand, a report by the House Government reform and Over House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology makes it clear that Uncle Sam is Cleaning up only the most critical systems.

Here is an excerpt of the committee's report:

"...preparations were released for the quarter ending August 15, 1998. There are approximately 7,300 mission critical systems in the Executive branch of the Federal Government. As of August 15, only 50 percent of these systems were Year 2000 compliant. At the current rate of progress, the percentage compliant would climb only to 66 percent by March 1999, the President's deadline to fix noncompliant systems and still have enough time to test and implement the systems.

"The committee is deeply concerned that approximately one-third of all Federal mission critical systems will not be compliant by arch 1999, only none months before January 1, 2000, and only six months from the beginning of the Federal Government's new fiscal year on October 1, 1999. This is troubling in part because once these systems are "compliant," they need to be put back into operation, their compliance must be verified by an independent party, and they must be put through a rigorous end-to-end testing process that ensures coordination among multiple systems. Testing and verification can take at least none months, and often requires even more time than that.

"Several additional factors raise concerns about Federal Year 2000 preparations. One is that the focus has been almost exclusively on mission critical systems. The problem is that mission critical systems are only a small percentage of the total number of federal computer systems are only a small percentage of the total number of federal computer systems. Many of these secondary systems are important even if not mission critical. It is unwise to ignore their Year 2000 compliance. A second concern is that many agencies are planning to replace rather than repair some of their noncompliant computer systems. This is a high-risk strategy. Experience shows that the government does not put new computer systems in place on schedule. This time, the executive branch faces a deadline that cannot be extended.

The fact is, every single system that can possibly fail was created by the productive element in this country. Therefore, it can be repaired and sustained by the same. Under normal circumstances the Y2k problem could be a shot in the arm for the computer industry and could mean major international opportunities for U.S. businesses.

As I was peeling away layer after layer of the Y2K problem, I did realize that this issue has some depth to it, but there is nothing that a healthy society with a strong economy could not handle. And that is the problem: we are not a healthy society, though our economy might look healthy for the millions of non-producers who are pushing paper around and live off the decay and destruction of this once robust industrial machine called America.

A substantial part of our industrial capacity has been shipped out of the country. To add insult to injury, a large part of the original European- American work force has been replaced by Third Worlders. Our wages are half (or less) in adjusted real dollars than what they were during 1975-1980 in Southern California.

It is anyone's guess how southern California's colored majority population will stand up to a possible period of serious economic hardships. The loyalty of the new population to the present social order is highly questionable.

In April 1992, law and order were abandoned in a 30 square mile area of greater Los Angeles, hours after the Rodney King verdict. This event was the final push for literally hundreds of thousands of white families to leave the area. We have entered the last stage of the dissolution of southern California's white population.

Has the Y2K problem the true potential to trigger a sudden socio-economic collapse in parts of this country?

Will the unelected masters of this society, who are hiding in the dark background, view the Y2K problem as an opportunity to extend their control to new dimensions just like they used the 1929 economical collapse?

Will FEMA and her little sisters (the BATF, FBI, IRS and who knows how many more agencies) suddenly find a shining brand new purpose in life: SAVE America, at the expense of our rights?

The answer to these questions will be shaped in the minds of those few dozen who are presently manipulating the levers of controls. And to think that these minds will stay stable and rational under the growing pressure of the populist movement of America is a rather optimistic approach to this problem.
By exploiting the Y2K bug, the masters of the Global Plantation might get closer to their New world Order. But if they lose control, the process of fumigation just might not stop after the Y2K but is exterminated.

The SPOTLIGHT January 25, 1999

FIRM EVIDENCE OF MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

UNCOVERED BY RESEARCHER

The researcher who looked into the facts relating to underground tunnels and bases has tackled an even more controversial subject: the development of technology used for electronic mind control. Richard Sauder discussed his new book on the technology of mind control, Kundalini Tales. Valentine's questions and comments are in bold type; Sauder's responses are in plain text.

Your book has an unusual title and it delves into an unusual subject: the area of mind control.

I stumbled across electronic mind control technology about 10 years ago. I was absolutely unsuspecting as to the existence of this stuff. Now I absolutely know that it exists through my own research and trough communicating with others, some of whom have had terrible experiences.

When I first published my book on underground bases, I received hundreds of letters from people who sent me information and asked questions. Among those letters were those from people alleging that they were the victims of electronic mind control harassment from federal agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, Army intelligence, the National Security Agency etc.

At first, I said to myself, "Well, you receive hundred of letters from the general public and some of them will be from fruit-loops and that's just the way it is." That's what I thought at first. However, having looked into this more deeply, I now think that some of those people (and maybe all of them) have indeed been harassed by means of electronic mind-control technology.

I have discovered patents issued by the U.S. patent and trademark office that I include as a lengthy appendix to my book, Kundalini Tales, and they spell out in black-and-white -- through technical diagrams and through computer programs and electronic schematics and through the actual text of the patents themselves -- that this technology is real and that you can, if you have the proper devices, remotely electronically extract an individual's brain wave.

You can digitize it and enter it into a computer. You can store it and modify that brainwave. Then you can take that modified, digitized brainwave back into the target subject's brain, thereby modifying his or her thoughts, mental state, emotions etc. That is electronic mind control. It's very scary, but this is a nuts-and-bolts electronic technology that exists in 1999.

Harlan Gerard has spent the last 20 years of his life researching what you are talking about. He has encountered hundreds of people who say they are targets of microwave beams. But how did you happen to get into this subject as you have?

I have had a number of varying interesting and curious experiences over the years. One of them was back in 1992, before I wrote the book on bases and tunnels. Late one night I was awakened from a sound sleep by a voice in my ear that seemingly out of thin air told me "the underground bases are real." I was very surprised to hear that. I didn't have long to wonder what I was going to hear next. The man's voice that was speaking to me said that there are indeed many underground facilities and installations and that there are a lot of people carrying on projects that the average person would be surprised to know about.

The voice sped as abruptly as it had begun and I was left with a very large question mark hovering over my head. I quickly determined that I wouldn't resolve that question that night and I went back to sleep. When I woke up the next morning, I certainly remembered what had happened and decided that I might never find out who had spoken to me or how. I knew that if what I had been told were true, I could go out and find a document trail since the scope of what I had described was extensive.

I did go out and discover the document trail and it's in my first book, and I've also laid out that document trail in a massive 750-page collection of hard-to-find federal documents that I call The Sauder Report: Notes on the Underground. It is available at $85 from my address. You don't have to do the research. I've done it. You can't get this at the library.

I wondered for a number of years how I had heard this voice. I didn't think it was the voice of an angel, a demon, God, an extraterrestrial or something like that. From the very beginning I thought I heard the voice of a very ordinary man who was a contemporary of mine who was living somewhere and who by some means unknown to me projected his voice into my ear.

Not until I discovered this patent, No. 4,858,612 did I first begin to understand how I probably heard that voice. This patent was entitled simply "Hearing Device."

It is a method and apparatus for the simulation of hearing in mammals (i.e. humans) by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the region of the auditory cortex. Multi-frequency microwaves are applied to the brain in the region of the auditory cortex by this method. Sounds are perceived by the mammal which are representative of the original sound received by the microphone. In other words, if you have the right radio transmitter, you can broadcast right into the human mind.

In essence, you can aim the transmitter right at the ear and hit it.

If you know where the person is, you can just target the beam at their house and you will probably reach the person you want.

Who took out that patent?

It's someone in Satellite Beach, Florida, by the name of Philip Stocklin. He may be fronting for someone else and I suspect he is. Now the intelligence agencies and the Fortune 5000 companies know of this technology. My guess is that a good number of them have access to these types of devices and use them.

In regard to your own experience, why would someone have transmitted this message to you?

Here's what I believe. I need to put this anecdote into some context. Just two months prior, I had published an initial article on the subject of underground bases in UFO magazine published out of Los Angeles.

In that article I discussed various underground facilities across the United States that I could document for the public record and I concluded there were a good number of such bases but that I could find no evidence of extra-terrestrials in them.

As you know, there are rumors of extra-terrestrials working in underground bases and in that short article I said that I could find no proof of that, in particular. I felt that, at that point, I had "been there and done that" and was through with the subject.

I believe that someone or some small group of people inside an intelligence agency or somewhere who could not speak because of their secrecy oaths had access to a transmitter that they used to try to nudge me to go out and do some more research and look into this question further. I believe that there may be people working in these installations who may be bothered by what they see but who are not able to speak freely because of their security clearance.

That's an interesting idea.

It's my own belief that a lot of these stories about aliens are being put forth by the intelligence agencies as disinformation to cover a lot of their underground activities with a veil of ridicule so that those who do inquire into the subject are ignored by the mainstream public.

I think you are on to something there and that a lot of these "flying saucer" stories are designed to cover up things that really are going on.

I have seen UFOs and I mention this in my new book. But let me speak very clearly: I don't pretend to know what I was looking at. I only know that I didn't know what I was looking at. So having said that, I will leave it to others to find out what I was looking at and to tell me.

That's why they call them unidentified flying objects.

That's right. If you know it is from another star system, then you have identified it. I make no such claim. I only know that I have seen some highly unusual things. I don't pretend to know where they came from or what they are.

Isn't it possible then that you could target someone's mind so that they could perceive these UFOs and find them to be very real and take a lie detector test which shoes that they are not lying about what they saw?

There's actually a lot of evidence indicating that the advances in holographic technology and the advances in electronic mind control technology may be a part of that. In fact, there's an Austrian researcher who is looking into this and has found that American intelligence agencies are heavily involved in many of these UFO events, including some of these so-called "extra-terrestrial abductions" and it raises real questions as to what the agenda is of certain elements in the U.S. military and the CIA and the NSA. It's chilling and I'm asking myself where it is all headed.

What I've learned is that the military-industrial complex has some very powerful and sophisticated devices and machinery. I don't discount anything I hear. I am in an information-collecting mode.

I have, for virtually my entire life, been a conscientious objector. I was raised in the Mennonite church. I no longer attend the church, but I am very much disinclined to support aggressive military intervention. I no longer consider myself a pacifist, but I do consider myself a conscientious objector and do not believe that most the wars fought are aggressive wars.

I was an anti-nuclear activist in the early 1980s and my method of protest was to climb over fences onto the launch lids of nuclear missile silos and /or to walk through the gates of missile bases and for that I was repeatedly arrested and jailed.

It was not very fun, but I thought it was important, and I learned a lot about the justice system and how the courts really work and how evidence is ignored and about crooked judges and attorneys, and conditions in jails across this country. So I don't regard it as effort or time wasted. It was a difficult exercise.

The SPOTLIGHT January 25, 1999

FEEL LIKE SOMEONE'S WATCHING?

SPOTLIGHT ON CONGRESS

Privacy concerns have taken center stage as Washington gets back to business.

The Federal Reserve System, Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are behind another invasion of your privacy by Big brother. This time the plan is for more stringent "Know Your Customer" banking regulations. If the Fed gets its way, your local banker could become a government spy.

Bankers already have some spy-like responsibility. Under the current Know Your Customer rules, banks are required to report transactions involving $10,000 or more. Officials would monitor all of your banking transactions and report any suspicious activity within 48 hours to the Federal Reserve. This process is known as "profiling."

The FDIC has been bombarded with consumer protests over these newly proposed regulations which would require banks to develop and maintain Know Your Customer anti-money laundering rules, FDIC's spokesman, David Barr said that some of the angry messages were from customers who believe the newly proposed rules would be an invasion of privacy by the federal government.

"I am appalled at even the suggestion of such an intrusion into our personal lives by the federal government," wrote a letter writer in Texas.

A Florida doctor said, "Next you'll ... be implementing an electronic chip in newborns at birth so they can be scanned as they walk into any bank as an adult."

The Christian Alert Network warned that the profiles would let the government track how consumers spend their money and could be part of a larger plan to "trace, track and control" all financial transactions.

The FDIC's Division of Banking Supervision and Regulations has initiated an open comment period that will run until March 8, 1999. Your comments should be sent to: Mary M. McLaughlin, Chief Financial Reports Section, Division of Reserch and Statistics, Mail Stop 97, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551. Questions should be directed to Richard A. Small, assistant director, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, at 202-452-5235.

The proposed Know Your Customer regulations would require each banking organization "to develop a regulatory program designed to monitor every transaction with a bank to determine the customers' identification with every interaction, the sources of their funds and the normal and expected transactions of its customers." Banks wold also be required to report any customer transactions that are determined to be suspicious or inconsistent with expected transactions for a particular customer to the Fed.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) calls the plan an "assault on privacy."

The Federal Reserve says that "an effective monitoring program would entail monitoring only for those transactions that exceed the established parameters for that particular class or category of accounts."

Bankers say this will cost an arm and a leg. For example, Gary Webster president of a bank in Nebraska, told the Fed his bank was forced to purchase "extremely expensive" computer equipment to comply with the Know Your customer Regulations. "We do not think banks should be acting as investigators," he added.

Consequently, the House Committee on banking and financial Services has voiced some opposition. The committee says it is also concerned with the potential acts of discrimination that could occur against the poor clientele and other customers who choose to conduct business in cash if these new rules were implemented.

The committee stated that "banking institutions are inadequately prepared to guard against criminal liability and that legitimate customers will pay the price under the newly proposed regulations by being scrutinized by the federal government and presumed guilty of unlawful behavior until proven innocent."

The plan is scheduled to go into effect in April of next year. Let your lawmakers and federal banking regulators, know where you stand.

ID CARDS

Last summer, many Americans were outraged the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) planned to have your Social Security number in a national identification document, such as a driver's license (SPOTLIGHT, July 20, 1998). The move hasn't gone anywhere, bureaucrats say it was unworkable.

The FHA's action was ordered by Congress as a plank of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Act of 1996. Since it is congress that ordered the plan, it seems only fitting that one of the first bills introduce in 106th Congress would be to protect "...the confidentially of Social Security account numbers."

The bill, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, H.R. 220, was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Jan. 6, the day the 106th session opened.

"This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing or regulating private transactions between American Citizens," Paul said. "This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers' licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Service to establish a uniform standard health identifier."

The Texas congressman called the growth surveillance state, "the greatest threat to liberty to liberty today.

"Unless Congress ss authorizing the federal bureaucracy to stamp and number the American people federal officials will soon have the power to arbitrarily prevent citizens from the opening a bank account, getting a job, traveling or even seeking medical treatment unless their 'papers are in order,'" he added.

Since 1935, when the Social Security number was created there have been number was created, there have been nearly 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number for non-Social Security programs, according to the congressman. For example, in many states you can't get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers' license of receive a birth certificate without a SS number. Parents must have a SS number for children to claim them as dependents on federal taxes.

"Just last year, 210 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote," Paul said.

(Last year, congress voted down the HR 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. By a vote 210-200, under suspended rules. Under suspended rules, a vote needs a super majority, that's two thirds, in order to pass. The bill would have allowed states to require voters to produce SS numbers in order to vote.)

Representatives and bureaucrats often claim they need the SS number to monitor Americans to help the government operate more efficiently. Paul says that dog won't hunt.

"Monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on it's head," he added. "The federal government has no right to treat all American as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers or bankers.

"In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local government by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment," Paul added.

The SPOTLIGHT January 25, 1999

TIME TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON MOTOR/VOTER

On Jan. 6 Rep. Bob Stump (R-Ariz.) introduced a bill to repeal the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called "Motor-Voter Act." His bill is H.R. 38. Millions of illegal voters are believed to have voted in the past two elections, thanks in part to the Motor-Voter Act.

By Rep. Bob Stump

I am today reintroducing my legislation to repeal the National voter Registration Act of 1993, the "motor-voter" bill.

The law, which took effect in most states on Jan. 1, 1995, requires states to establish voter registration procedures for federal elections so that citizens may register to vote by mail, at state and local public assistance agencies and while applying for a driver's license. Motor voter provides no funding to the states to carry out any of these prescribed features.

The motor voter law was crafted to increase voter turnout by making the ballot more accessible. In one sense, it has achieved its goal. Motor voter has extended voting rights to non-citizens, dead people, children and even animals. On a more serious note, motor voter has fallen woefully short of its intended goal. While it is responsible for adding massive numbers of new voters to the rolls, voter turnout remains at dismally low levels. In 1996, voter participation dropped to 49.7 percent, one of the lowest rates this century.

Motor voter has been a nightmare for many state election officials. Some have stated that motor voter has caused them to lose control over potential voter fraud. It ties their hands in removing "dead wood" from their rolls by requiring them to keep registrants who fail to vote or who are unresponsive to voter registration correspondence to be maintained on voter rolls for years. Moreover, it hails to provide for citizenship verification. As troubling, the law has actually hindered citizens' voting rights. In the last election, in my home state of Arizona, voters who registered to vote while applying for a driver's license were turned away at the pols. Apparently, their applications were not properly forwarded to the election recorder. This presents an interesting and poignant question: Why would we entrust our privileged right to vote to the wrong people?

There is absolutely no need for this unyielding federal presence in voter registration. The states carry the responsibility for administering all elections and should be free to do so without unnecessary and heavy-handed federal intervention. Law congress, we were unsuccessful in mitigating some of the more egregious provision of motor voter. Although I found this disappointing, I was encouraged by the heightened interest in reversing the law.

The fraud perpetuated by motor voter will undoubtedly contribute to increasing voter apathy. I urge my colleagues to continue their fight to preserve the integrity of the vote by repealing motor voter. Voters must have assurances that a fraudulent ballot will not negate their precious vote. Please join me in repealing this Ill-conceived federal mandate, which is a threat to our democracy.

Rep. Bob Stump represents the northwest sector of Arizona: He is in his 12th term as a representative.

The SPOTLIGHT January 25, 1999

IRAQ RID OF UN INSPECTORS

Bill Clinton's efforts to use Operation Desert Fox to deter and defer his impeachment in the House of Representatives wasn't his only flop.

By Mike Blair

During World War II, Germany's greatest field commander was Field Marshal Irwin Rommel. He was known by both friend and foe as the Desert Fox.

The success of his exploits fighting the British across North Africa astounded the world, until his elite Afrika Korps were cut of from reinforcements and supplies, and American forces entered the war there.

Unquestionably a brilliant tactical commander, it seems strange President Bill Clinton's Pentagon planners would have chosen Rommel -- the Desert Fox -- as the code name for Clinton's bombing debacle of Iraq.

Operation Desert Fox was anything but brilliant, and most military analysts probably would even go so far to call it just plain dumb.

Desert Fox failed to destroy Saddam Hussein's military infrastructure and ability to produce "weapons of mass destruction." It also made Saddam more popular throughout the Arab world.

"Rommel must be turning in his grave to have the dubious honor of having such a failure named after him," one military analyst told The SPOTLIGHT. Could it be that Clinton's military planners are as ignorant of military history, not having heard of Germany's immortal Desert Fox, as they so obviously are ignorant of long-range tactics?"

History has shown that relying upon bombing alone to destroy an enemy has never done the job. It failed when the German's powerful Luftwaffe attempted to bomb Britain into oblivion early in World War II. If tailed when thousands of American and British bombers later tried to do the same to Germany. It failed in Vietnam.

ENCOURAGED HUSSEIN

Diplomats in Bagdad told the Associated Press that the four-day series of air strikes created a situation in which "the Iraqi leadership seems to have been encouraged by the attacks and is reaping political benefits from the raids."

Hussein is reveling in divisions that have occurred between the UN security Council, Red China, France and Russia who all denounced the Clinton-ordered attack.

Russia even recalled its ambassador from Washington, something that is nto done unless an ambassador's government wants to make a very serious point, often a point just one step short of military hostilities.

In addition, Hussein is challenging U.S. and British aircraft in the so-called "No fly Zones" in northern and southern Iraq.

The Iraqi people have shown no interest in overthrowing their leader. In fact, they are supporting him as never before. Hussein is virtually thumbing his nose at the White House and No. 10 Downing Street, the official residence of Clinton's fellow traveler in desert fox, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"The Iraqi leaders have no incentive to cooperate with the UN to ultimately get the economic sanctions imposed on their country lifted," Daniel Smith of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information said. "They see no visible point at which the sanctions cease."

Just before Desert Fox began, UN weapons inspectors who were monitoring Iraq's efforts to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range weapons to deliver them, were withdrawn from the country. It has been Iraq's aim for years since Operation Desert Storm to get rid of them. For Hussein Mission accomplished.