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

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT February 1, 1999


The Clintons could be around Washington much longer than anyone expects.

By Mike Blair

If she can keep her husband in office until the year 2000 or -- at the very least -- maintain her current role as devoted wife, world humanitarian etc., Hillary Rodham Clinton is likely to become the world's most powerful woman.

A Capitol Hill source, close to key Senate and House Democrats, told The SPOTLIGHT that he has been told by "insiders" that Hillary Rodham Clinton has every intention of becoming the first woman president of the World Bank.

This will allow the first lady, whom he describes as "an old line Bolshevik," to be able to direct $20 billion in new World Bank loans every year to borrowers of her choice.

If that happens," he warned, "you can expect some big money to go to whatever left wing or communist country or national movement that she chooses.

"As an example," he said, "we will very likely see a reemergence of the Sandinista Marxists in Nicaragua on the world stage, financed with World Bank dollars, as well as other left-wing communist groups trying to seize power in countries of central America and around the world."

It is being rumored about Washington that Hillary Clinton has plans to set up residence in New York city to run to fell the Senate seat being vacated there by long-time Democrat incumbent Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or, which is mentioned even more, to get a post with the United Nations.

Our source pointed out that the part about a job with the UN is very possible, because, even though most Americans don't realize, the World Bank, or, as it is more correctly named, the International bank for reconstruction and Development (IBRD), is in reality a specialized and related agency of the world body.

The current president is American James O. Wolfensohn, whose term will expire on June 1, 2000.

This explains the first lady's inexplicable decision to remain with the president after he has seemingly betrayed her with countless affairs involving other women.

Because of her very wide traveling, she became familiar with the leaders of most foreign countries and presumably has wide support in her quest to head the World Bank.

Former Clinton aide Dick Morris has claimed many times that she is "in charge of the administration."

Morris claims that she was active in last fall's election campaigns because she was trying to pick her husband's ultimate impeachment jurors -- members of the U.S. Senate.

The first lady knows, according to the Capitol Hill source, that if her husband is removed from office it will likely quash her chances to cinch the World Bank job.

Sheer power is that motivates Hillary Rodham Clinton, the source said.

Her husband's disgrace, a stained and ruined presidency, embarrassment etc., are secondary.

The SPOTLIGHT February 1, 1999


Liberty Lobby Reports by Vince Ryan

The president's State of the Union speech was vintage Bill Clinton -- Clinton at his stellar best.

The Christmas tree was full of goodies for everybody America is truly heaven on earth and if you listened carefully, as the demographics in our land shift from the white European majority to a decidedly overwhelming majority of color, the United States will be the Promised Land.

But wait. This greatness will come not only at a high cost in dollars to those paying for it but also at great sacrifice by the white middle class. Nowhere in his address did Clinton extol the virtues and achievements of the white middle class.

He wouldn't have dared to do so any more that the middle class whites would do so in polite society. The white middle class male has no rights. To speak of his rights is not politically correct.

Today, the politically correct attitude to have is one that favors the preservation of the spotted owl over providing viable employment for loggers and reasonably priced lumber for home builders.

In some colleges and universities -- and in high schools, too -- the great writers of the Western world are downgraded and even replaced in the curricula with modern minority authors whose writing styles are filled with hatred for the west and "dead white males."

The life of primitive man and the glories of living in jungles and caves is preferred to reading Dante, Shakespeare, Milton and Goethe. What has taken root in our society is the false dictum that a potpourri of the alleged best of all cultures will somehow advance the fortunes of our country.

Often the teacher who leads young minds through the so-called exciting life before civilization is merely following the lead of those crafting the curricula, be they local school boards or college committees that promote cultural communism.

Still there is a higher level of influence that is molding the young minds so that they will take with them these culture-distorting concepts when they pursue their lives as mature adults.

Some of these young adults will realize that they have been misguided and corrupted but most will not realize what has happened to them. They will have company among their peers, in that everyone will hold the same inculcated values.

As The SPOTLIGHT has pointed out repeatedly, what has happened to the whites in Africa will surely happen to the Whites in this country. Take a good look, and note the crime and general deterioration of the big cities. Detroit and Johannesburg are good examples. You would not want to walk in either after dark or during the day.

But the starry-eyed liberals and the leading bankers, Zionist and communist assure us that the United States will not go the way of Rhodesia and South Africa. The SPOTLIGHT predicted years ago that Rhodesia's white minority would eventually loose their property.

The government of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) has begun to seize white-owned farms. Just how far this action will go will be interesting to watch.

The once beautiful city of Johannesburg is now crime ridden since the Mandela government took power. Mandela is merely a front man for the Zionists, communists and bankers who control the wealth of that country. Again, The SPOTLIGHT told you so.

The big question is will the United States become another South Africa or Rhodesia? The answer is clearly yes. What politician is going to prevent it from becoming so? What organization, politician or publication acceptable to the controlled media is going to speak out on this issue?

There are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate. Who among the white members of these bodies has dared to speak out in defense of his or her race? None. Members of Congress who are people of color have no reservations about speaking out on behalf of their race. And what is more, white members of Congress join in with them in extolling the virtues of races other than white.

White members know all too well that if they were to praise their own race they would be tagged as racists and would be marked for defeat at the next election. They insist on being politically correct. Political survival is worth more to them than principled patriotism.

During the presidential primaries in 1996, syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan gave some terrific speeches that were often interpreted to mean he favored a curb on immigration. But the careful listener would note that he favored legal immigration. He made no distinction when it came to the kind of immigration.

Since the days of Lyndon Johnson when the immigration laws were changed in favor of the non-European non-Western immigrant, the flood gates have been opened even wider t allow the dramatic change in the demographics of our country that would shock the Founding Fathers.

In Archdale, N.C., local leaders of the Sons of Confederate Veterans felt the wrath of the NAACP for sponsoring and teaching at a local college a course in appreciation of the Confederate soldiers, both black and white, who fought in that bloodiest of wars.

Particularly galling to the NAACP was the fact the black soldiers were depicted by the course instructors as loyal to the cause of the confederacy.
Courses such as this are rare today. When they do surface, they are immediately "exposed" as racist.

Liberty Lobby and The SPOTLIGHT will continue to speak out for freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. There are powerful forces in this country that would make the Bill of Rights selective and applicable only to the politically correct.

The power to the presidency, or even that of a member of congress, does not extend to the denial of these rights to anyone with whom they might disagree.

Let your representative and senators know where you stand. See if they really believe in the Constitution which they have taken an oath to defend.
Remember. Your influence counts. Use it!

The SPOTLIGHT February 1, 1999


What's being called "Israel's Watergate" may, in fact, have a direct link to America's "Monicagate." Here is the story.

By Michael Collins Piper

President Bill Clinton's long-standing behind-the-scenes war with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Netanyahu's allies in the United States may be catapulted to the forefront as a consequence of a bizarre burglary that took place in the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 5.

The Washington, D.C. police department and the FBI launched an investigation of the burglary of the Capitol Hill townhouse office of Greenberg Quuinlan Research (GQR), which is working with President Clinton's close friend and flamboyant advisor, James Carville, to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's reelection bid.

This was no ordinary burglary. The material stolen was confidential data relating to the efforts by Carville and GQR on behalf of Netanyahu's Labor Party challenger, Ahud Barak.

Interviewed on Israeli radio, Tal Zylberstein, a Labor Party spokesman, reported that "according to information from Washington, a Jewish group trying to hurt Barak's campaign" was responsible for the burglary.

Then, just two weeks later, on the evening of Jan. 18, burglars one again hit GQR -- and once again the target was data on the Carville team's work for the Barak campaign.

In the meantime, charges and countercharges are flying back and forth in Israel, and more than a few people have noted that on Jan. 4 The New York Post (which has been a loud critic of Clinton's Middle East policies and a fervent supporter of Netanyahu) reported that an advisor to the Israeli prime minister had said, "Clinton wants Netanyahu to lose. Carville was sent to do the job."

Evidently, if Barak's team is to be believed, Netanyahu's supporters decided to find out precisely how Carville and his associates planned to "do the job" -- and that's why the burglary is being called "Israel's Watergate."

In fairness to Netanyahu, however, some of the prime minister's supporters are suggesting that the burglaries are a "frame-up" designed to soil Netanyahu's Likud Party in the same manner Richard Nixon and the Republican Party were soiled by the Watergate burglary.

Whatever the case, the timing of the break-ins, in the midst of Bill Clinton's own impeachment imbroglio, is more than interesting, inasmuch as in the weeks leading up to the impeachment, the pro-Israel press in America has been damning the president for being insufficiently supportive of Israel.

For example, on dec. 24, leading long-time pro-Israel lobbyist, Morris Amitay, wrote an opinion column featured in the influential Washington Jewish Week newspaper declaring that "Clinton's Mideast policies endanger Israel," echoing long-standing complaints about the president's policies.

Amitay points out that although President Clinton has a "small coterie of Jewish Americans who are in charge of U.S. policy toward Israel," the policies they are pursuing are "also most suspect."

The fact that first lady Hillary Clinton called for a Palestinian state even in the midst of the media's frenzy over the eruption of the Monica Lewinsky affair also never sat well with the pro-Israel lobby. The lobby suspected that Mrs. Clinton was not only speaking for her husband, but also using the issue as a way of threatening the president's critics in the pro- Israel lobby.

Add to this the fact that Mrs. Clinton, when alleging a "right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, pointed directly to a number of American elements (such as Rev. Jerry Falwell, among others) who are very close to Netanyahu. (Hours before the Lewinsky affair was first brought to light, Falwell hosted an anti-Clinton rally at which Netanyahu spoke.)

That one of Kenneth Starr's closest associates, attorney Theodore Olsen was also the appeals attorney for convicted Israeli spy, Jonathan Jay Pollard, a darling of the Netanyahu forces, is another interesting detail that has been lost in the impeachment shuffle.

Others point out, too, that during the Starr grand jury inquiry into the Lewinsky affair, the primary media sources printing leaks that cast the president in a bad light were such distinctly non-Republican sources such as Newsweek and The New York Times, Newsweek is published by The Washington Post empire of CIA-connected Katharine Graham. The Times is best known for its allegiance to Israel.

The Times' bias for Starr and against Clinton was recently noted in a cover story in the Jan. 4 issue of the liberal weekly. The Nation, which is not been afraid to criticize the hard-line Zionist elements in Israel.

According to Michael Tomashy, writing in The Nation, "at every crucial turn and pivot, the Times' editorial page was marched in lockstep with the prosecutor and his cheering section."

"Why is this worth remarking on?" asked The Nation. Because, The Nation pointed out "on national matters the Times' editorial page serves as more of an ideological Baedeker, instruction the country's elite as to what constitutes responsible liberal opinion."

In other words, The New York Times -- voice of the pro-Israel elite -- was telling its readers that it was "okay" to support Ken Starr's maneuvering against President Clinton.

The question, then, is why one of America's most liberal residents would ever be the target of The New York Times' editorial wrath. Some suspect it might precisely be because Bill Clinton's policies have not been sufficiently supportive of Netanyahu.

It may will be that history is repeating itself. Don't forget that Bill Clinton's political mentor was Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright whom Clinton himself gave a presidential medal of honor shortly before Fulbright died in 1995, saying "he was a very close friend of mine and if it hadn't been for him, I wouldn't be here today."

Fulbright, it will be recalled, lost his Senate seat in 1974 after saying on CBS's Face the Nation that "Israel controls the Senate...The Senate is subservient, in my opinion, much too much. We should be more concerned about the United State's interest, rather than doing the bidding of Israel."

In response to Fulbright's remarks, the pro-Israel lobby launched a heavy- handed campaign against President Clinton's friend and mentor and denied him renomination in the Arkansas primary. Perhaps the president has not learned from history. Or perhaps instead he thought he really was "president" and could change history.

The SPOTLIGHT February 1, 1999


By Sam Francis

When The New York Times published a recent story about how more and more psychoanalysts are declaring themselves to be homosexuals, most readers probably weren't too surprised. Psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists and other psychos have long been the butt of jokes about being crazier that the patients they treat. But then the readers may have missed the story's point, which was not that homosexual shrinks are abnormal but that homosexuality is normal.

The normalization of homosexuality has long been the goal of the "gay rights" movement. In the American Psychiatric Association, the movement won an early and important victory in 1973 when the association dropped homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The psychoanalysts (not the same psychiatrists) caught up with this progressive view only recently. The American Psychoanalytic Association was planning to do much the same.

The rationale for normalization is that to consider homosexuality abnormal in any way -- was sinful, unnatural, unhealthy, perverse, deviant or maybe even just rather unusual -- is merely a reflection of Victorian prejudices. Indeed, it's more than prejudice; it's abnormal in itself. Hence, the head-shrinkers were planning a panel on the subject of "Homophobia: Analysis of a 'Permissible Prejudice,'" with no less a permissibly unprejudiced speaker than homosexual liberal Democrat Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) Thus, the psycho- doctors have come full circle, from regarding homosexuality as a mental illness and something to be cured to regarding opposition to homosexuality as a pathology all by itself.

There is a certain amount of guilt in this transformation because most earlier psychoanalysts certainly regarded homosexuality as abnormal, and so the meeting, as the Times reports, was planing "to acknowledge its own past homophobia." It is now permissible for psychoanalysts themselves to be homosexuals, even as they treat patients with mental problems, and the term "perversion" to describe their behavior is now taboo.

To be sure, there are some mental health specialists who disagree, and the Times article mentions Dr. Charles Socarides, who leads an organization dedicated to providing therapy for homosexuals. "But most analysts view the Socarides-led group an extreme," the Times hastens to explain.

Probably neither the Times not the witch doctors themselves grasp it, but the whole article, and most of what the psychos say in it, point to the ultimately to the rather phony claims that psychoanalysis makes to being a science at all. Real science doesn't adjust what it believes to be true on the basis of cultural and political fashion. The melting point of mercury and the distance from the Earth to the moon are the same, regardless of which culture you measure them in and despite the "prejudices" of the folks who do the measuring. But in psychoanalysis, apparently, that's not how you find the truth.

How you find the truth is vote on it, which is what the psychiatrists did back in 1973 when they decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. Voting is a swell way to find out when you'd like to hold the next convention, but it tells us nothing about the objective realities of human health and illness. In defining what's normal and what's not on the bases of fashion and political pressure, the shrinks simply expose their own profession as scientifically fraudulent. That, after all, is why they call them "witch doctors."

The Times article recounts how leading psychoanalytic theorists have quietly adjusted their theories to normalize homosexuality. As in most pseudo- science, the desired conclusion determines what the theory predicts and which facts are enlisted to support it.

The term "perversion" originally came into usage as a technical term of medicine, to avoid calling perversion "unnatural." It shouldn't be surprising that what started out as a technical euphemism quickly became synonymous with "unnatural vices." The same is true today of the pop euphemism "alternative life styles." It's not the term that creates the stigma; it's what the term -- whatever it is and however often you change it -- describes.

That in itself is one of the strongest arguments that homosexuality is just not normal. No matter what you call it or how pleasant and harmless you try to make it sound, most people (dare I say normal people) are going to find it abnormal, if not sinful, unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and deviant. That's because it is abnormal. If sexual attraction between members of the same sex were as normal as attraction to those of the opposite sex, the human race could never have reproduced itself.

Only a small percentage of human beings prefers those of its own sex as sexual partners. Maybe they can't be cured and maybe we can't know why they're like that, but the one thing most people do know that the witch doctors can't seem to learn is that they're not normal.

The SPOTLIGHT February 8, 1999


The White House has unveiled another weapon in its gun-grabbing arsenal: cheap imports.

By Mike Blair

While the Clinton administration is doing everything within its power to keep what it considers to be dangerous firearms out of the reach of law- abiding Americans, it appears that this image is not exactly what it seems.

Proving there is no limit to the administration's hypocrisy, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has recently approved importing a variation of the Russian-designed AK-47 assault rifle to the United States. The import comes in the form of a cheap sniper-type rifle originating from the Kalashnikov small arms complex in Russia. The manufacturer is named for the famous gun's designer, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov.

The guns are available through Kalashnikov-USA-Ltd., which has been set up in Port St. Lucie, Fla. It also has a West Coast distribution outlet.

This action comes at a time when the BATF, FBI and the Justice Department are supposedly concerned about highly accurate telescope sight-equipped rifles falling into the hands of young school students. Last year students were responsible for several multiple-shooting incidents.

The importation of the cheap Russian sniper-type rifles caused critics to question the Clinton administration's motivations.

Are they trying to encourage such random and sensational multiple-shootings to further their agenda of banning all guns from the American public?

"How can an administration that is pushing gun safety locks to protect children from firearms at the same time allow the importation into America of cheap rifles intended for sniping purposes?" one East Coast gun dealer asked.

The Russian rifle is selling at an advertised "one time only introductory sale" price of $495. This is one-third the cost of an American-made tactical sniper rifle at the low end of the American-made rifle pricing scale.

The Russian rifle is made on the basic AK frame in the standard 7.62 NATO or, as it is known more commonly in America, the .308 Winchester caliber, a far more powerful cartridge than the AK-47's original 7.62x39 millimeter.

The .308 Winchester round goes back to after World War II when it was chosen as the standardized caliber for countries belonging to the NATO military alliance. Virtually every country in NATO maintains the .308 today as the standard caliber for all of their sophisticated sniper rifles.

More interesting about the AK-type import, Known as the Saiga .308 Winchester Carbine, is the fact that the low price also includes what is identified as the Russian PSO-2 rifle scope. The scope is of 6 power magnification and includes a range finder, usually associated with sniper or some "specialized" sort of highly-accurate rifle system, and a sturdy mounting bracket to attach it to the rifle.

Other accessories with the gun are two 8-round clip type magazines. This addition means that the rifle can in no way be passed off by either its distributors or the BATF as a legitimate hunting rifle, since in virtually every state semi-automatic big game hunting rifles are limited to five-round capacity.

Other interesting firearms being offered in the United states by Kalashnikov-USA-Ltd. Include a 12-gauge, 3-inch Magnum semi-automatic shotgun, also priced at $495, which has a five-shot clip-type magazine and, as such becomes virtually the only clip magazine semi-automatic shotgun sold in America.

In addition, a Saiga carbine in the AK-47 original 7.62x39 caliber and a Russian PSO 4 power magnification scope sight with electrically-illuminated cross hairs sells for a "special" price of only $375.

For that particular gun, Kalshnikov-USA-Ltd., is also offering expanding hollow-point (outlawed for warfare by the Geneva Conventions) cartridges by the case of 1,000 rounds for only $105.

By comparison, a box or 20 30-30 Winchester deer hunting cartridges, made in the United States, sells for about $10 to $13, depending upon the brand and retailer.

In order to appear more like American-style sporting rifles, the Saiga rifles have been equipped with hunting type stocks with high combs and cheek pieces made of beechwood.

Nevertheless, they are the basic AK-type Russian military rifle.

The SPOTLIGHT February 8, 1999


SPOTLIGHT on the Internet

The SPOTLIGHT has informed you of privacy intrusions by government agencies such as the FBI, CIA and NSA. Now we have discovered that anyone with the right computer program can drop in on you uninvited anytime you are out on the Internet.

Computer application programmers tell us that "there are thousands of ways to add Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) to software." RPCs are useful tools but can also be misused as direct invasion of privacy via the wires connecting your machine to the Internet.

Generally clandestine RPC programming requires a technically knowledgeable hacker to operate, but since early last August, a user friendly program, "Back Orifice," which, according to one expert, "any 12-year-old could learn to use," has been found lurking in personal computers.

This intruder comes by way of installed software on which it has been piggybacked. It is restricted to software which runs on Microsoft's Windows 95 and 98 programs. These are networking programs which means they are designed to easily accept RPCs, prompting many computer engineers to distrust Microsoft's Windows and their leaky "back doors."

Microsoft's owner Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, has lately been getting his feet wet in global plantation politics in the company of such as Mikhail Gorbachev and the international set. Gates has an earned reputation of being ruthless and predatory. It may be a good idea to carefully examine all files of any Microsoft or Windows software before installing it on your computer.

Hacker programs like Back Orifice come by stealth and open the machines on which they are installed without the owner's knowledge or permission.

Back Orifice's tools allow a hacker to use an "on line" computer almost as if he were at the keyboard but usually without being detected by the operator. Hackers can steal anything in the computer, cripple or modify any program or data desired, even erase programs and/or data. Or they can must monitor the use of the machine for whatever reason.

The SPOTLIGHT has reported the full story (beginning in June, 1987) of Bill and Nancy Hamilton's Inslaw and their Promis software. It was unlawfully appropriated by the U.S. Justice Department under Ed Meese and is now used worldwide. This was a case of a software program with a built-in hidden back door used for clandestine purposes by the seller. Back Orifice is an example of the next step, a program that opens the whole computer to clandestine intrusion.

Regardless, it is another instance of high-tech privacy invasion without the victim's awareness.

To the rescue comes a good Samaritan in the way of a web site. PCHelp has checked on Back Orifice, run it, "waltzed" into computers around the world with it (but always informing the operator and helping rid the machine of it) and has come up with a means to detect its presence and delete it.

For all the information you need to discover if your computer is harboring a hidden copy of Back Orifice, and how to protect against it, type in at your URL line.

The SPOTLIGHT February 8, 1999


The Pentagon says it is ready for next year. Now governors are preparing.

By Mike Blair

The United States and Canada are making military plans to deal with the arrival of the year 2000 -- the "New Millennium," "Y2K" etc.

Detailed plans of the Pentagon about U.S. military measures are reported to be in place. Now individual state national guards are making precautions and coordinating with the military and the shadowy and all-powerful Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Across the United States and Canada are reports, some reliable and others not, of disruptions that may occur when the calendar turns to Jan. 1, 2000. That event was not accounted for in millions of computers and computerized systems, including super-sophisticated systems that control electrical power, communications, air traffic, freight handling etc.

Many in both countries fear a complete breakdown of the orderly operation of government and public services.

The SPOTLIGHT has received a report from the office of Washington Gov. Gary Locke (D), indicating the state will mobilize half of its ground troops on New Year's Eve" as a precaution against any civil disorder or breakdown in government services stemming from the computer 'millennium bug.'"

So far, little has been outlined for the public about military preparations in America. It is well known that various agencies of government including law enforcement and the military, are more that aware of the situation.

The SPOTLIGHT has received information about the detailed plans of two state national guards to deal with any problems that may result from Y2K. These plans range from distribution goods and services to the maintenance of civil order. The states are Washington and Wisconsin.

The National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C. is formulating plans for a mobilization test of all 480,000 members of the Guard in all states and U.S. territories. The project is code names COMEX/MEDEX. It includes contacting all national guardsmen without telephone, radio or television. The operation assumes that all communications have been interrupted.

If such a scenario occurs, the guard will be notified by alternative means throughout the nation.


About 3,000 Army Guardsmen will be on duty across Washington state as the year 2000 starts, according to Maj. Gen. Gregory Barlow, the state's guard adjutant general.

"We don't want to be unprepared and we don't want to overreact," Barlow said. "Readiness is our No. 1 priority."

According to the report, the state Military Department, which includes the 8.600-member Army and Air National Guard and the 100-member state Emergency Management Department, an adjunct agency of the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), will be on duty in the state's 39 National Guard armories in the they are needed by civil authorities.

Locke has established a special agency, the Year 2000 Office, headed by Chris Hedrick, to coordinate the activities of the state's various agencies.

Similar plans have been put in place in Wisconsin by Gov. Tommy Thompson (R).

Thousands of businesses, many involved in "survival" products, are running scary advertisements in newspapers and magazines, stating that their products are available to ensure survival during the chaos that will result from Y2K.

In Canada, there is a nation-wide military plan that is being put in place. It will include at least 32,000 members of the Canadian Forces to deal with what the Canadians have dubbed Operation Abacus, with thousands more to be made available, if needed.


Canadian military activities to counter any disruptions caused by Y2K WILL BE DIRECTED UNDER THE NATION'S Emergencies Act, which replaced the Canadian War Measures Act in 1968.

The extraordinary powers reserved under the War Measures Act was invoked by socialist Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on Oct. 16, 1970, to deal with the Front de Liberation du Quebec, a terrorist separatist group that had kidnaped British diplomat James Cross, who was later released, and a Canadian cabinet minister, Pierre Laporte, who was murdered.

That was the only time that the War Measures Act had ever been implemented with such sweeping powers, which amounted to virtual martial law during peacetime.

Whether the Emergencies Act will be "required or not will have to be determined at the time" of the millennium, said Maj. John Blakely, a spokesman fo Canadian Forces.

"It wouldn't take mich under the existing National Defense Act or the 'aid to civil powers' provisions to put military personnel on the streets," says retired Canadian Brig. Gen. Jim Hanson, a Canadian military analyst.

The SPOTLIGHT February 8, 1999


The SPOTLIGHT On Congress

Liberty Lobby recognized the dangers and unconstitutional nature of Executive Orders (EO) decades ago. Soon thereafter, members of the board of Policy (BOP) voted against presidential power to legislate by Executive Order. This position hasn't changed, and a president like Bill Clinton shows just how important the separation of powers remains.

On Dec. 10, Clinton signed EO 13107, "Implementation of Human Rights Treaties." Remember, bombs were about to fall on Iraq and Clinton was facing an impeachment trial. Perhaps the media can be forgiven for not examining this order. After all, everyone is in favor of human rights. The problematic words are "implementation" and "treaties," not "human rights."

The EO created a federal "Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties" for the purpose of "providing guidance, oversight and coordination with respect to questions concerning the adherence to and implementation of UN human rights obligations and related matters."

Worse still, the working group will focus on UN human rights treaties to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future," i.e., treaties the Senate has refused to ratify.


Some of these treaties include:

* The International covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is viewed in some circles as an attack on the First Amendment and Criminal law. This treaty would set up a Human rights Committee that would target sex discrimination among other things.

* The International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural Rights which, critics say, would force the United states to adapt UN dictates for our laws. The Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush administrations all rejected the treaty, Columnist Phyllis Schlafly says it was rejected because it refused to recognize the right of an individual to own property.

"This UN treaty would bind us...'to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need,'" Mrs. Schlafly says.

* The UN Convention on the rights of the Child would usurp parental responsibility with UN authority. A Child's "right" to "freedom of expression" would allow kids to download pornography from the Internet, watch Satanists' propaganda, listen to any type of music or watch any television program regardless of parental objection.

"While parents lost their right to set safe boundaries for their children, the state assumes full power to 'protect' the child and define the rules,' says Berit Kjos, a researcher who has examined international influences on education.

"Likewise, if parents restrict their child's 'right to freedom of association' or their child's ambiguous rights to privacy' or 'conscience and religion,' the parent would break this law and face the potential loss of their child to the state's 'protection,'" she added.

* The UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women would require Americans to 'follow UN/feminist dictates about 'customs and practices,' 'social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women,' 'family education' and even revision of textbooks," Mrs. Schlafly says.

* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in 1948, but implementation would be contrary to our Constitution. Articles 18 and 19 give world citizens "the right of thought, conscience and religion...and the right to freedom of opinion and expression" provided subjects think what the UN wants you to think.

For example, Article 29 says, "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."So if you as an American wish to exercise your sacred right to speak out against the UN or mistaken beliefs accepted as fact concerning history, you are in violation of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That seems to be the world the Clinton administration wants. But you can change that. Last year, Clinton tried to force EO 13083 down the throats of Americans. It would have broadened the scope of federalism. Many considered it a blatant power grab. You started making phone calls and writing letters. Soon thereafter, congressmen introduced resolutions against the measure and the White House rescinded it (SPOTLIGHT Sept. 7 and others).

Let the White House, Congress, editors of local newspapers and talk show host know how you feel about Executive Orders in general and EO 13107 in particular.

The SPOTLIGHT February 8, 1999


Foreign workers living as slaves produce apparel labeled "Made in the USA."

By L.A. Jasper

The Department of Labor estimates that more than half of this country's 22,000 sewing shops violate minimum wage and overtime laws.

Sweatshop Watch is a coalition of labor and civil rights groups committed to eliminating the exploitation that occurs in sweatshops in the United States. It reports that"many of these workers labor in dangerous conditions including blocked fire exits, unsanitary bathrooms and violation of health laws. Most of these garment workers are immigrant women who face verbal and physical abuse and are intimidated from speaking up for themselves for fear of losing their job or being deported."

In a world of free trade, real wages of blue-collar U.S. workers have been declining due to imports from low-wage countries. Garment factories in the United states have found that it is no longer cost effective to rely so heavily on domestic labor. Manufactures often look for subcontractors in other countries where labor and operating costs are substantially lower. In the global market of free trade, manufacturers reap the benefits of the lowest labor costs by exploiting workers world-wide.

Brand-name manufacturers, J.C. Penny and Nike for example, contract with overseas sewing shops, some of them are in Vietnam where workers average 12 cents per hour, and others in Honduras where workers average 60 cents per hour. Workers labor for 60 hours a week without overtime.


For the first time, litigation was filed in California and Saipan (a U.S. Commonwealth in the South Pacific) against high-profile American clothing manufacturers and retailers who allegedly exploit workers in foreign owned factories operation on U.S. soil.

Companies including The Gap, The Limited, J.C. Penny, May company, Sears, Wal0Mart and Tommy Hilfiger are among the 18 companies that have been accused of violating federal law by engaging in a "racketeering conspiracy" using indentured labor to produce clothing on the island of Saipan.

American consumers are deceived into believing they have purchased a product made by American workers protected by the U.S. Labor laws which are supposed to guarantee workers a decent wage and a safe work place.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 50,000 workers from China, the Philippines, Bangladesh and Thailand who worked in Saipan, which attorney Al Meyerhoff said was "America's worst sweatshop.' These workers were promised high pay and quality work in the United states. Instead, they found themselves working up to 12 hours a day seven days a week in unsafe and hostile conditions. They were paid little if anything.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexis M Herman said that "in this era of concern for civility, decency and family values, sweatshops are repugnant to our moral core."

Mrs. Herman stressed that "sweatshops reflect too vividly how we as a nation feel about the weakest among us." She reported that during the Clinton administration, the Department of Labor recovered $14.1 million in wages that nearly 45,000 U.S. garment workers were denied.

The Labor Department has worked in collaboration with apparel manufacturers, contractors and unions to set goals for a long-term solution to the sweatshop problems in the industry.


Congress is also concerned about the problem.

"We cannot continue to allow unscrupulous employers to drive responsible employers out of business. Nor should we continue to tolerate working conditions that undermine rather than promote the well-being of workers," said Rep. William Clay (D-Mo).

Clay introduced the Stop Sweatshops Act, legislation to congress on Jan. 6, 1999. It is an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. This bill, outlined by Clay, would help impede the re-emergence of sweatshops in the apparel industry by establishing liability on the part of manufacturers who contract with sweatshop operators for violations of the FLSA.

Clay also said the Stop Sweatshops Act would strengthen the ability of the Department of Labor to enforce the labor standards law and would improve the ability for garment workers to claim compensation where violations occur. The amended act would enforce civil penalties for violations of labor standard laws, which would encourage manufacturers to deal with reputable contractors.

These civil penalties, under the 1999 proposed Stop Sweatshops Act are designed to help enforce fair competition and would promote working conditions conducive to the well-being of the workers in the garment industry both in the United states and abroad.

Mrs. Herman said that "enforcement of labor standards laws and the successful eradication of sweatshops will not be possible without the active participation of retailers, manufacturers, investors, consumers, labor unions and public interest groups."

The SPOTLIGHT February 15, 1999


How many Iraqi children can we kill today?

By Andrew Arnold

Liberty Lobby warned Congress to apply a pro-American foreign policy for years. This includes strict neutrality in the Mideast. But Washington hasn't listened. Instead, policy makers have repeatedly sold out to Zionist interests.

Now, the hens are coming home to roost.

Within hours of being hailed by Palestinian Authority leaders as "the messenger of peace" and a Palestinian "ally," Bill Clinton ordered repeated missile attacks on Iraq.

The mobs who took to the streets to greet Clinton did once more, but this time they were shouting "death to America" and burning and trampling American flags.

"It is lamentable that Arab and Muslim blood has become the perfect prescription for gaining popularity in the West," the imam of a Nablus mosque told The Palestinian Times. He added that the widespread public support of the bombings shows "the American people are no better than their leadership."

Others point to the strong Israel lobby in Washington and conclude the United States will never give peace a real chance to succeed.

"America is the same evil power who has continually supported Israeli intransigence, its military occupation of a land not Israeli, and aided and abetted further subversive act of terror against the Palestinian and Lebanese people," says a Palestinian writer.

Many in the Mideast see Clinton and his mad bombers at the Pentagon as terrorists.

"Compared to Clinton, Osama Ben Laden's efforts are nowhere near terror," said one writer recently. "The real terrorist on a beg time scale is none other then Bill Clinton.

"It is he who should go into hiding for his crimes against his own people and humanity," he added.

Arabs are holding their own leaders accountable.

"It is the impotency of the Arab leaders that sold Palestine to the Jews in the first place," says another writer. "It is this same impotency that is selling the remnants of what is left of Palestine to Israelis who respect no treaties or ethics."

Iraq is winning the public opinion polls in the Middle East. As the United states continues to attack, Iraq moves cameras to under-stocked hospitals and suffering, dying patients.

The SPOTLIGHT February 15, 1999


What does the UN telling the Australians what the Aussies can, or cannot build in an Australian national park have to do with you? Read on.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

When Vice President Al Gore announced a $10 billion program to preserve the nation's "open spaces" on Jan. 11, followed the next day by President Clinton's $1 billion plan to expand federal wildernesses and urban federal wilderness and the urban parks, it was part of a grand design.

The federal government, and ultimately the United Nation's world government, will dictate how private land -- even your yard -- will be used.

This warning comes from sources within the Washington bureaucracy whose reliability has stood the test of time for more than a decade.

"This is another stepchild of the American Heritage Rivers and the UN's World Heritage Convention," one said, Under the rivers program, the federal government takes control of millions of acres of mostly-private river basin land.

Under the other, the UN designates "historical sites" around the world -- in this country, for example, the Statue of Liberty. "When Washington throws all your money around, bureaucrats by control, as they did with education funds," he said. "In the river basins, people are told what they cannot build or grow on their property."

But can the UN really dictate land use to a sovereign nation?
"No," said another official, "not to t truly 'sovereign' nation. But nations, including the United States, have been surrendering sovereignty to the UN for years and the people seem unaware."


On Nov. 25, the Reuters news service, which is relied upon by newspapers around the world, reported the UN has told Australia it must halt plans to develop a $7.7 billion uranium mine near Kakadu National Park because it is listed among the World Heritage sites.

Reuters quoted the UN statement:

"Kakadu National Park is exposed to a number of serious threats which are placing it under both ascertained and potential danger."

Australia has signed the World Heritage Convention of the UN, obligating itself to protect UN-listed "Heritage Sites" and comply with UN rulings.

Robert Hill, Australia's environmental minister, said he will appeal the UN ruling, Reuters reported.

"Could you imagine a future Senate ratifying that thing, so the UN could tell us how close to the Statue of Liberty a man could sell hot dogs?" on asked. "Unfortunately, I can," he answered himself.

The SPOTLIGHT February 22, 1999


The White House says food shelves will be stocked nest year. Do you believe them?

By L. A. Jasper

Increasing concerns over the effects that Y2K will have on today's technologically-dependent agricultural industry prompted a special Senate hearing on Feb. 5 to assess the U.S. food industry's readiness against the threatening computer glitch.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) is chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. He said that most people in the Untied States take it for granted that their local grocery stores will have "shelves stocked with food products that are safe and affordable."

"Many people do not realize the vital role technology plays in the nation's food supply, from the germination of seeds to the stocking of the shelves, information technology has become almost as critical to the nation's food supply as sun and rain," said Wen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Vice chairman of the Senate hearing.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Oreg.) used to work in the frozen food processing industry. He reported that farmers and ranchers use electronically-equipped irrigation, animal and transport systems. He said distributors, wholesalers and retailers depend on computer-driven equipment to transport, store and sell food products.

Smith added that inventory and accounting systems, harvesting equipment, refrigeration and security systems are also dependent on computations of computers.

"Any interruption within the farm-to-fork chain would result in not only a direct loss to food suppliers, but would also cause food shortages and price increases nationwide,' he added.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, reported that "the agricultural sector contributes 13 percent to our gross domestic product and has a trade surplus of $16 billion."

Lugar said "the food supply chain's year 2000 readiness is crucial to the availability of food and to the nation's economy."


In response to the extensive challenges of assessing the readiness of the industry's "farm-to-fork" interdependent process the President's Council on Y2K Conversion created the Food Supply Working Group. This group has been tasked to determine how the potential millennium bug would affect foreign countries as markets for U.S. agricultural exports and for suppliers of products to America.

"An interruption of the food supply so severe as to threaten the well-being and basic comfort of the American public is unlikely and key Markets of U.S. food will likely have a relatively low risk of Y2K disruptions to their import, processing, distribution and retail chains," a task force report says.

The Food Supply Group is currently building cooperative relationships with some 70 trade and commodity associations to help in the continued assessment and update reporting on the Y2K readiness of their members.

Lugar cautioned government officials to continue to monitor the food suppliers progress, "If left unchecked the digital pestilence of Y2K could gnaw away at corporate competitiveness and consumer confidence,' he added.

Lugar announced that he will soon introduce the USDA Information Reform and Y2K Compliance Act of 1999. He said this bill would serve to centralize all Y2K computer conversion activities within the Office of the Chief Information Officer of USDA to ensure that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on Jan. 1, 2000.

The senator stressed the importance of informing the public about the unlikely potential for serious interruptions in the U.S. food supply in order to prevent consumers' needless and frivolous stockpiling of supplies that could create industry shortages."

The USDA has a web site available to you to update the department's monthly progress in fixing the year 2000 problem. It can be accessed at: .

The SPOTLIGHT February 22, 1999


Feb. 22 marks the 267th anniversary of the birth of "The Father of our Country."

By George Roche

First and foremost among my heroes is George Washington: citizen, patriot, risk-taker, leader. He used to be every schoolchild's hero, but he selfom earns more than a passing mention these days. The greatest American of all times has become just another dead white male.

George did not cut down a cherry tree with a hatchet and confess the deed to his father by saying, "I cannot tell a lie." That is just a legend. But this man's real deeds turn out to be far more amazing than any of the tales that have been told about him.

He was born in 1732 on a small, struggling tobacco farm in Virginia. His father died when he was 11, and he had to work to help the family make ends meet. As a young boy, he also had to memorize over 100 rules of conduct devised by French Catholic monks. Here are a few examples:

* Speak not when you should hold your peace; always submit your judgment to others with modesty;
* Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement on any; * Let your conversations be without malice or envy;
* When you speak of God or His attributes let it be seriously; * Let your recreations be manful, not sinful; and
* Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

He didn't forget these rules or outgrow them. They were rules for life, and they were not just about common courtesy but about developing moral character and moral discipline.

By age 15, he was already working as a professional surveyor far beyond the Blue Ridge Mountains. The wilderness had a profound impact on him. It tested his mettle and endurance, forced him to improvise to meet unexpected challenges, and opened wide now vistas in his imagination. He was filled with the restless longing of the pioneer -- and, if it were not for his family obligations back home in Virginia, he undoubtedly would have become a legendary woodsman and explorer like his contemporary, Daniel Boone.

By age 21, he was a major in the colonial army. He fought during the French and Indian War, and his bravery made him a living legend. In one battle, he had two mounts shot out from under him, and his hat and uniform were riddled with bullet holes.

In 1775, after the first shots between the Redcoats and the Minutemen were fired at Lexington and Concord, the Second Continental Congress unanimously elected Washington as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. Why?

He was not a general. He was just a simple country farmer who happened to have some limited military experience. He did not enjoy his reputation as a powerful politician or a great orator. He also felt that, at 43, he was far too young for such an awesome responsibility. But he was the type of man who never quit, no matter how difficult the odds. If the American cause had to rest on the shoulders of one man, the delegates knew unquestionably that the ham had to be George Washington.

He was facing a hopeless cause, the Continents had no trained soldiers, no money, no ammunition, no weapons and no supplies. Yet they were about to take on the greatest army in the world -- Britain was a superpower. George, however, found ingenious ways to turn America's liabilities into assets. As a commander, he was bold, decisive and strategically brilliant. Moreover, he inspired his men by setting a personal example of bravery on the battlefield and endurance in camp. He lived in the same conditions as his men, He suffered the same cold, hunger and pain.

There is not question that the army would have deserted en masse at Valley Forge if it had not been for George. Think about that for a moment. What kind of man could command such devotion?

The War of Independence was essentially won in 1781 after George pulled off a stunning surprise attack at Yorktown. But his army couldn't be disbanded until a treaty was signed. His men were furious; they couldn't return to plant crops and care for their families. Worse yet, most of them hadn't been paid for two years.

It is hard to believe, but as late as March of 1783 they were still marooned in a dirty crowded camp in Newburgh, N.Y. Congress continued to turn a deaf ear to George's pleas that the men be paid or discharged. It wasn't just the enlisted men who were grumbling about this shameful ill-treatment. Scores of officers were circulating anonymous pamphlets calling for mutiny. The rag-tag army had won the war, but not it stood to loose the peace. It looked as though the American experiment would be over before it had really begun, and the nation would be plunged into bloody civil war.

Then George performed one last desperate act. He showed up unexpectedly at a secret meeting that was designed to launch the mutiny. He asked if he could speak and was reluctantly given the floor. He called for his officers to be patient just a little while longer. He reminded them that the army could not be a law unto itself. He also pointed out that they had fought together to institute democracy, not a new kind of tyranny. And he concluded by saying, "I have a letter here from a congressman that will prove that good faith of our government." He drew the parchment form his pocket and unfolded it.

But the light in the tavern was to dim for him to make out the words. With a trembling hand, he fumbled for his glasses. He hated them and had never worn them in public before. In a deeply mortified tone, he apologized, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

He started to read the letter, but he couldn't speak. His voice, as well as his composure, deserted him. He stalked out of the room without uttering another word.

The officers were all hardened soldiers who had witnessed terrible sights without flinching. But, seeing their beloved commander reduced to such a state, they began to weep openly. They immediately pledged to follow orders and quell all attempts at mutiny. Once again, George Washington had saved the new nation from destruction.

This single incident speaks volumes about our nation's greatest hero. He went on to become the first president of the United States in 1799. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution had him specifically in mind when they created the office.

George risked everything and gave up his private life one more to lead the struggling new nation, which was bankrupt, disorganized and weak. He said that being the first president was like "entering upon an unexplored field, enveloped on every side with clouds and darkness." he even confessed to a friend that he felt like a condemned man being sent to the gallows, but duty could not be denied.

Above all, George was keenly aware that forming "a new government requires infinite care," and that his actions as president would establish important precedents. In a letter written near the end of the Revolution, he acknowledged that "we have a national character to establish" and added that it should rest "on permanent principles." The two principles he named were justice and gratitude. His own dedication to these principles would be severely tested during his eight years as America's first chief executive. But he turned out to be the most successful president in American history. Here is a brief list of his accomplishments.

* He enforced the separation of powers and used the presidential veto to protect the Constitution.
* he straightened out the nation's finances, calling for full repayment of the Revolutionary war debt, frugal spending, a balanced budget and low taxes. * He advocated a simple code of legal justice that the common man could understand. He undertook the task of educating literally thousands of citizens about the Constitution, which was the new law of the land.
* He sought equal treatment for Indians on par with whites in the court. And in his will he freed the slaves he had inherited from his family.
* He defended religion and morality as what he called the "Twin pillars" of the free society. His diaries and letters are filled with references to his strong personal faith. He also defended religious freedom and tolerance for such traditionally persecuted groups as the Baptists, Roman Catholics, Quakers and Jews.
* He was a peacemaker. When two rival political parties formed, he made sure that he had representatives of both in his cabinet. Avoiding bitter factionalism was one of his strongest concerns. He constantly wrote letters to quarreling politicians in which he recited the virtues of trust, patience and forgiveness.
* He was a war hero who hated war. He harbored no romantic illusions about soldiering. Therefore he established a foreign policy based on strict neutrality and, despite considerable pressures, kept his administration free from "entangling alliance" with other nations.

His refusal to accept a third term was an extraordinary historical event. That a ruler would voluntarily hand over the reins of government to another was almost unthinkable; it had rarely ever happened in all human history. By gyving his awesome political power back to the people who had entrusted it to him, George gained something far greater than the power any king ever possessed: He became the father not just of a country but of the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known.

He showed us the tremendous power of one individual. He created not only a model for the chief executive but a model for every citizen. He was the living embodiment of what it means to be an American. There will never be another George Washington, but we should all aspire to be like him.

George Roche is president of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan. He has written several books.