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

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT April 5, 1999


Like a bloodhound on the trail of prey, Jim Tucker has once again chased down the global elite.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Bilderberg is scheduled to meet June 3-6 at the Caesar Park Penha Longa in Sintra, Portugal. Sintra is a remote resort about 40 miles from Lisbon.

Information about the secret meeting was provided by an agent inside Bilderberg.

Of all media in the world, only The SPOTLIGHT has tracked the Bilderbergers every year and reported on their secret meeting where vital questions and issues are decided which effect every person in the world.

American and European financiers, manufacturers, media moguls and politicians meet at remote luxury resorts, allow only "loyal" staff to remain on the job, empty the establishment of all others, and employ platoons of police, military and their own private security to seal themselves off. They have tried to keep the meetings secret for 45 years.

But this year, following extensive SPOTLIGHT-generated publicity last year in Scotland -- and earlier in Germany, Scandinavia, Georgia and Canada -- Bilderberg is taking more extreme steps, its agent confided.

Instead of closing down the Penha Longa to all outsiders on day before the meeting starts on June 2, Bilderberg has ordered the resort shut down a full 48 hours before the internationalist confab.

In addition, Bilderberg will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to reimburse the Portuguese government for deploying military forces to guard their privacy and for helicopters to seek out intruders.

All Bilderberg participants, their staff members and resort employees will wear photo identification tags that look much like state drivers' licenses. They will have separate colors to identify the wearer as participant, staff or employee. A computer chip "fingerprint" will assure the identity of the card's wearer.

Any intruders are to be manhandled -- cuffed, jailed, or, if resisting or fleeing shot -- the agent said.

Bilderbergers are greatly disturbed over the growing public knowledge of their control of the world and of resistance to their schemes for a global government as nationalism sentiment grows around the world.

Bilderberg was instrumental in tearing down Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded France's National Front. The French-first party has stunned the Establishment by regularly capturing 15 percent of the vote in that nation.

Expecting recession, Bilderberg feared Le Pen and "nationalists" from other countries would interfere with their "free trade" goals as they fight to protect their domestic industries from exploitation by the global cabal.

Because Bilderberg shares common goals with the Trilateral Commission, the agenda that emerged in Washington (SPOTLIGHT, March 29, 1999) will be major ics in Portugal, too.

This includes a "globalization summit" called for by Peter D. Sutherland, head of Goldman Sachs International. Sutherland attended the Bilderberg meeting in Scotland last May and is expected in Portugal.

Sutherland is expected to again call for "supranational institutions" to manage the global economy while denouncing nations that "cling tenaciously to their separate identities" while calling for "sharing sovereignty."

In a related ic, there could be renewed calls for the UN to be able to directly tax all people. In the past, Bilderberg has proposed a UN levy on international travel and on oil at the well-head, so all who travel to drive will be taxed.

The SPOTLIGHT April 5, 1999


One-worlders discussed the creation of a global currency at their Washington confab in March.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

There was much talk of a need for new international "financial mechanisms" to direct the "global economy" during the closed-door meetings of the Trilateral Commission in Washington.

After the three-day session ended March 15, The SPOTLIGHT asked Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and North American chairman of the Trilaterals, what it all meant.

Does it mean establishing a global Department of Commerce under the UN? Does it mean a global currency? Volcker followed the Trilaterals' standard line: There are "no recommendations on anything...there is no conclusion."

Critics maintain the opposite is true.

Among the private Trilateral papers acquired by The SPOTLIGHT was the text of a speech on The Quality of Money by one Domingo E. Cavallo, who was not on the list of participants the Trilaterals gave reporters.

Cavallo called for regional currencies, like Europe's euro. Though unsaid, this would be a step toward a global currency for the day when the United Nations is formally recognized as a world government, according to a State Department official.

If a "high quality currency" exists in a region, "The first stage toward the creation of a common currency could consist in the establishment of currency boards for each national currency in terms of the higher quality currency," Cavallo said.

"Following the necessary period of time required to agree upon the terms of the future common currency and of its central bank, all these currencies tied among themselves would be replaced by the common one," he added.

The new currency "would become the common currency, managed not by the national central bank but by a regional central bank," Cavallo said.

"Latin American countries, together or in regional subgroups -- South America, Central America -- would have two choices for the improvement of their currencies' quality: Move toward one of two common regional monetary unions or negotiate a monetary union with the U.S.A.," Cavallo added.

Mexico "would benefit most from such a regime" because of its "strong commercial integration with the U.S.A., he said. "We can foresee that nations, in their search for a higher quality currency, will decide to set aside independent monetary policies and this decision will eventually reduce the number of currencies in the global economy."

Cavallo said in the future, Asia could agree upon the creation of a common currency. "This would naturally follow if Japanese leaders adopted the same attitude toward their neighbors as German leaders did toward other European nations" in establishing the euro as a common currency, he concluded.

These proposals for common currencies among three great regions of the world are in line with a long-time major goal of the Trilaterals and their brother group, Bilderberg, with which they have interlocking leadership.

That goal is to divide the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of the emerging world government.

With Europe and, soon, Britain according to Prime Minister Tony Blair, surrendering national sovereignty to the European Union, the first great region is virtually established.

Next come the "American Union" as NAFTA expands throughout the Western Hemisphere, followed by the "Asian-Pacific Union." The recipe: three regions, three currencies followed by one world with a single currency.

The SPOTLIGHT April 5, 1999


Some Y2K problems have already been encountered.

By Godfrey Fortune

A recent article by Peter de Jager in Scientific American presents evidence for Year 2000 computer-related problems in a calm, convincing manner.

De Jager was involved in two-digit programming until the end of the 1970s, and explains that expensive computer memory and the efficiency of using two, as opposed to four, digits forced computer programmers into out current "doomsday" scenario.

According to de Jager, there have already been problems reported. Life insurance companies have had computer snafues because of the two-digit bug. Post-2000 expiration dates for chemicals led to rejection of a batch to be mixed at Amway Corporation. In 1993, Boeing had trouble with a system which used seven-year lead times for orders. Cash registers have rejected credit cards with post-2000 expiration dates.

Medical programs will also be adversely effected, causing the most suffering among the old and the infirm.

It was de Jager's article, "Doomsday 2000," published over five years ago in Computer World, which is credited with alerting industry and governments to the Y2K millennium bug.


Dates are hidden in terabytes of data, or large amounts of computer memory, used not only as such, but also in software. The computer, which can only interpret binary machine code, cannot simply be fixed. Numbers, for example, may well represent percent ages rather than dates. Spreadsheets which expand to accommodate 40-digit years will bump columns off to the right, which means that every program which retrieves that information must be adjusted accordingly.

The Windowing technique whereby a particular date in the 20th century is regarded as a picot, is also vulnerable. All dates before the pivot year are regarded as part of the 21st century and all dates after it as part of the 20th. But dates which existed before the pivot date was introduced are false when incorporated into post-pivot date scenarios.

Illustrating the problems associated with this, Mary Bandar, who is 100- years-old, was erroneously invited to attend kindergarten in Winona, Minn.

Long-term leases are vulnerable for the same reason.

Moreover, basic arithmetic is not easy to reconcile with the Gregorian dating system that we use today. According to a Gregorian calendar, exact correspondences of dates and days of the week take 28 years to recur. So time shifters add 28 years to every calculation and delete 28 years from the results. But this "encapsulation" becomes unwieldy for complex computations.

Data expansion (two to four digits), Windowing and encapsulation account for 95 percent of all Y2K fixes, says de Jager, but often only partially, or in combination, which leads to further complication and inaccuracy.

In Japan many companies have used an alternative system called the "emperor system" to record years in which 1999 is called "Heisei 11."

As the year 2000 approaches, the breakdowns already being experienced will grow and people will become more nervous.

The bottom line is well expressed by de Jager who says that "modern supported by an intricate foundation of interlocking codependencies. In particular, single points of failure can ripple quickly through the system, with disastrous results." In other words, an overlooked two- digit command can effect a whole system other wise made Y2K-compliant, and computers can infect other data banks.

The SPOTLIGHT April 12, 1999


One lost plane has given potential enemies a wealth of information about U.S. fighters and aeronautics.

By Mike Blair

Experts have told The SPOTLIGHT that U.S. technology has been compromised as a result of the downing of a U.S. Air Force F-117A stealth fighter-bomber over Yugoslavia on March 27.

In addition three U.S. POWs were captured near the Serb border with Macedonia on March 31. Yugoslavia says the POWs will be put on trial.

A retired Air Force major, who specialized in intelligence matters, said, "I have no doubt that an expert technical team was immediately dispatched from Russia to professionally collect the debris right after the crash.

The Russians "are very good at this sort of thing, in this case picking up our stealth secrets from the wreckage," said Sam Cohen, a retired nuclear scientist.


During the Vietnam War, the retired major said, the Russians scavenged for downed wrecks of U.S. aircraft to obtain details of their technology, particularly electronics. Cohen said that relying upon stealth technology for the nation's military capability is a mistake, in any case.

Cohen said that when a country obtains neutron warheads, of which he believes Russia, Israel and Red China have current stockpiles, then stealth technology is not all that effective.

Cohen explained that with the retrieval of the debris of the F-117A, it is important to realize that it is not the ability to duplicate the aircraft that is vital but the ability to defeat it or counter it.


Radar can be developed, Cohen said, that can at least obtain some type of warning of the approaching stealth aircraft, if not a pinpoint location.

Then a missile carries a neutron warhead aloft and detonates it, the retired scientist explained. If the aircraft is anywhere within a one-mile radius of the neutron blast, all of the crew are immediately irradiated and killed.

"There is nothing that is so good that it cannot be countered," Cohen said.

The retired Air Force officer said that the downing of the stealth fighter in Yugoslavia illustrates a weakness of the aircraft.

"While true that the plane is virtually immune from radar detection, if it can be seen from the ground, it can be shot down," he said.

Many suspect that a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile brought down the stealth fighter. It is one of the older Soviet anti-aircraft weapons and was used without particular success by Iraq in its clashes with Western aircraft.

The problem for U.S. airmen in the war in Kosovo now is that U.S. aircraft must soon fly low in a ground-attack role, attacking troop formations, tanks and other mobile vehicles that cannot be hit from the security of high altitudes.

The SPOTLIGHT April 12, 1999


The crowning jewel in Liberty Lobby's Taxpayers Bill of Rights will be introduced on April 15: Elimination of the federal income tax.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Symbolically, on the next income tax deadline day, Reps. Jim Traficant Jr. (D-Ohio) and Billy Tauzin (R-La) will introduce bipartisan legislation to eliminate the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.
Traficant volunteered this exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT.

They will propose replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. This is not to be confused with a "value added" tax, which is commonly referred to as a sales tax, Traficant stressed.

A value added tax places a levy on all products as they increase in value on the long journey from raw material to finished product to market.

For example, a tree cut into logs has a "value added" that is taxed. The log is cut into boards at a sawmill, and there is more "value added" that is taxed. By the time it becomes part of the wall to your living room, much "added value" has been taxed again and again.

The value added tax feels like a sales tax to the consumer because he pays it all at once, at the point of purchase.

The legislators are putting finishing touches on the sales tax proposal and the percentage is still to be determined.

Soon, after becoming chairman of the powerful, tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in 1995, Rep Bill Archer (R-Texas) said he favored abolishing the federal income tax in favor of a value-added tax.

Despite differences on alternative revenues, their goals are the same: Eliminating the income tax and abolishing IRS. This gives hope for momentum on the issue.

Constitutional scholars, however, have warned against a future threat that an income tax would be revived by Congress, leaving Americans with both a sales or value-added tax and an income tax.

While, is passed, both versions would legislatively eliminate the income tax, they warn it would be too easy for a future Congress to clamp it back. They suggest following up with a constitutional amendment eliminating the income tax.

The SPOTLIGHT April 12, 1999


On March 17, 1999, a week before NATO started bombing in Kosovo, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) reminded his colleagues of their role in declaring war. Too few heeded his advice. An edited version of his speech follows.

By Ron Paul

Those of us who argued for congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed.

Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to "wag the Congress," generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and Un resolutions.

This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member states would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action.

Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the president has authority to move troops and fight wars without congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress [see SPOTLIGHT March 29] once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the president has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.

Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared "the Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo."

If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The president can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.

Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.

Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that, if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The bullions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein's power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.

The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States' plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). If ever a case could be made for the wisdom on non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? "This violence is all America's fault," one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?

Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world's humanitarian policeman.

Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible was to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.

It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president's authority to wage war without congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the president greater power to wage war with congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.

It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution, but more likely it's the result of the growing imperial presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.

Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the president, that have been granted legislative, police and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it's Congress' responsibility to restore constitutional government.

As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.

We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic; individual liberty cannot be preserved.

Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the congress to do so, not much will be done.

Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from he people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The president today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without congressional approval. It shouldn't be that way. It's dangerous politically, military, morally, and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law.

Ron Paul represents Texas' 14th District. He is serving his sixth term in Congress.

The SPOTLIGHT April 12, 1999


What's this Kosovo thing all about, anyway?

By F.C. Blahut

The ware in Kosovo -- and there's no other word for it -- is far more involved than an exercise in ethnic cleansing.

Kosovo has always been majority Albanian. It was Albanian when the Serbians arrived.

Serbians call Kosovo "Old Serbia," and their existence as a people and sovereignty as a nation is tied to the province.

Historically, Slavs from the Caucasian Mountains originally arrived in the peninsula with a Serbian presence in Vojvodina(about the same as today's country of Serbia) documented to the seventh century. Serbians can document their habitation in Kosovo to the ninth century and were probably there before then.

That doesn't negate the fact that Albanians were occupying what is today Albania (to the southwest) and Kosovo when the Serbs arrived. But Kosovo was rugged, sparsely populated and the indigenous people tended to move around.

The Serbs, for their part, established churches, roads, town, and so forth, but were never the majority.


Other major Slavic incursions into the Balkans were by the Croatians and Slovenians. Add to these a religious sect, mostly Slavic, which came from what is today's Bulgaria, called the Bogomils. The first two settled, for the most part, where they are today and the Bogomils in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Now, move ahead to the 14th century and the advance of Islam. Having overrun what is Albania proper today, the forces of the prophet advanced into Kosovo where they were met by a Slavic Christian army composed mostly of Serbians.

The Serbians expected help from other Christians elsewhere in Europe, but the other Christian communities adopted a "better you than us" attitude.

The upshot was that the Serbians were defeated in the crucial Battle of Kosovo in 1389. From then to the 19th century, most of the Balkans were controlled by the Ottoman Turks.

The Serbians were mostly restricted to Vojvodina; the Croatians and Slovenians to where they are today; and the Bogomils converted to Islam, hence the Islamics in Bosnia-Herzegovina today.

Moving ahead, the internal weakening of the Turkish empire, coupled with independence movements in the peninsula and muscle-flexing by the Hapsburgs in Austria, led to several attempts to unify what became known as the Southern Slavs.

Yugoslavia translates loosely as "Union of Southern Slavs."

This brings us to the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 which solved nothing, but led to the hardening of the positions of the two major Slavic groups -- the Serbians and the Croatians.

Of the several unified entities prior to World War I, all were dominated by Serbia, headquartered in Belgrade and run more or less by a Serbian king.

With the assassination of the Hapsburg Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia came the domino effect leading to World War I.

Following the "War to End All Wars," the victorious Allies got together at Versailles to carve up what had been the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires.

So Yugoslavia was created, cobbling together a number of peoples who may have looked and sounded alike to the British, Wilson and French, but who were anything but.

The forcible union featured Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Slavic Macedonia. The last is to distinguish it from the northern area of Greece which is called the same and associated with Philip and his son, Alexander the Great.


Yugoslavia was nothing more or less than Greater Serbia, controlled from Belgrade. Kosovo had titular autonomy, which looks good on paper but doesn't work well in practice. The Serbs continued their centuries-long attempt to make Kosovo what they called it -- Old Serbia.

And so the situation simmered until the 1930s and war came to Europe once again. The Axis powers moved into the Balkans, the Croatians formed their own country under German protection and the Serbians split into two guerrilla groups, the communist Partisans and the nationalistic Chetniks.

Since the Partisans were the puppets of the USSR's Josef Stalin, and "Uncle Joe" was Franklin D. Roosevelt's very good buddy, the United States sold out the Chetniks and backed the Partisans.

At the end of the war, the Serbians were rewarded with another Yugoslavia, led by -- who else? -- "Tito."

To backtrack just a few years, the Partisans needed a local leader to unify their activities and to receive and transmit orders from Moscow. So a leader was created, called, not surprisingly, Tito (translated, "leader").

Following the war, a man emerged from the caves who identified himself as the aforesaid "Tito" and said his name was Josip Broz.

Tito ran the country as a repressive dictatorship until his death in 1980, when a revolving leadership plan was put into effect. Again, it looked good on paper. In reality, the country was still run by Serbia, featuring the army and secret police, not to mention leaders of all of the major bureaucracies.

It wasn't long before the current Serbian president, Slobodan Milosovic, took over. He immediately brushed aside the revolving leadership, and punished the hated Albanians in Kosovo by eliminating all vestiges of self-rule, including the dissolution of all teaching in Albanian.

But when the Soviet Union came apart, so did Yugoslavia. First Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence -- which they were allowed to do under the Yugoslav constitution.

Serbia sent a punitive force to Slovenia to whip them back into line and were shocked when the Slovenians put up a struggle. With Western Europe looking on -- particularly Austria -- Belgrade backed down and turned it attention to the Republic of Croatia.

With local Serbians acting as a Fifth Column, a bloody war ensued, but Croatia won its independence. Then Macedonia followed.

At this point in time, "Yugoslavia" consists of Serbia and Montenegro -- a defacto Greater Serbia. Montenegro has no say in Milosovic's government and no longer even gets "junior partner" lip service.

It is this Greater Serbia that NATO is bombing.

The SPOTLIGHT April 12, 1999


What charter? With Western Europe safe, NATO moves into the nation-building mode.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The U.S._led NATO attack on a sovereign nation is part of a much bigger Bilderberg plan than sping Serbians from butchering ethnic Albanians, according to a high State Department source.

"It is important to the Bilderberg scheme for world government to get NATO out from the limitations of its own charter," said the source, a reliable observer for more than a decade.

The treaty limits the alliance to a defensive position, providing that if any member nation is attacked, all NATO countries would respond, he pointed out. The treaty has no authority for an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

"By bombing Kosovo, the precedent is set," he said. "Despite the terms of the treaty, NATO now can go anywhere and attack anybody. This solidifies NATO's role as the UN's world army."

While not officially sanctioned by the UN because Red China and Russia would exercise Security Council vetoes and block the action, the UN bureaucrats privately celebrate NATO's attack, he said.

"It's all so transparent, but the media covers it up and Americans don't read enough anyway -- that's why they're so damn ignorant," he said.

While ethnic Albanian blood is being spilled, the amount is exaggerated for propaganda purposes and there are much bigger bloodbaths elsewhere if we're looking for a fight, he said.

He also insisted that there was absolutely no risk of the civil war in Yugoslavia spilling over borders and involving other nations, another of the White House rationales.

President Clinton, he said, is "the most blood thirsty draft dodger in history."

Giving NATO a global role instead of only a mission to defend Western Europe is part of both evolving a world army and conditioning the public mind to accept surrendering national sovereignty, he said.

The source pointed to a March 28 column by Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who regularly attends Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings.

"The intervention in Kosovo should revive the concept of a 'right to intervene' and lead to changes in the United Nation's standards for sovereignty and the existing protections those standards provide for criminal governments," Hoagland wrote.

"NATO's decision to bypass the Security Council to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes based on 'sovereignty' arguments reflects poorly not on NATO but on the Security Council as it is organized," he wrote.

Using the Kosovo operation to over-ride outmoded sovereignty concerns in international relations would be one measure of political success for this high- cost intervention," Hoagland added.

"Hoagland's column couldn't be better Bilderberg propaganda if Henry Kissinger had dictated it," the official said.

The SPOTLIGHT April 19, 1999


Was an American pilot manning the U.S. stealth fighter shot down over Yugoslavia? Or was he German? And did that pilot really survive? These are just three controversial questions that some people are asking.

By Mike Blair

Has the Clinton administration perpetrated another cover-up?

On the night of March 27, one of America's stealth fighter jets was shot down over Yugoslavia. Within hours a team of Russian investigators was dispatched to the scene to recover the debris of the $45 million warbird, the Lockheed Martin F-117A fighter, also known as the "Nighthawk."

Approximately seven hours later, the Pentagon claims, the pilot was safely rescued -- plucked from the ground by a helicopter-borne Air Force rescue team.

"I just can't conceive of this man being rescued," a veteran combat aviator told The SPOTLIGHT. The combat vet said he thinks the pilot was killed.

Just a few days later, Yugoslav television revealed the identities of three American soldiers it now holds as "war criminals" and everyone, particularly the Pentagon and the Establishment media, quickly refocused its attention. The downing of the Nighthawk, and the reported rescue of its pilot, quickly became history.

Obviously, there are some gaping holes in the story, and some very big questions need to be answered.

First, just who was the pilot of the stealth fighter and was he really rescued? How do we, the American public, know for certain?

Of course, we can believe what "the government" tells us, can't we? The Pentagon says the pilot's identity has not been revealed because "he doesn't want any publicity" or "he's waiting for transportation from Italy."

Secondly, at last report the Pentagon does not know how the plane was shot down -- by missile or gunfire -- or if it crashed due to some type of malfunction. Since the pilot was supposedly rescued and unharmed, why didn't someone just ask him?

Why didn't Clinton haul the pilot before the television news cameras after his rescue to help justify his war in the Balkans, as it did with Scott O'Grady in 1995? This could have assured the American people what a great job his administration is doing.

Are people really supposed to believe the pilot has been secreted away because "he does not want publicity"?


Imagine President Clinton passing up the opportunity of hauling out the rescued stealth pilot at his recent highly-publicized visit to the Norfolk naval base to visit personnel and the families of naval airmen flying carrier-based jets in the Balkans.

As one administration critic said, "The whole story smells like a dead fish -- just plain fishy."

Was the pilot really rescued or was he killed? Or, although less likely, is he still wandering around somewhere in the hills or mountains of Yugoslavia, hiding out and waiting to be rescued?

O'Grady had to hide out for nearly a week before he was rescued by a U.S. Marine Force Recon rescue team, a part of the U.S. military's Special Operations command.

The F-117A pilot was supposedly rescued, and very little has been said about his rescuers, by the least known of all Special Operations groups, the U.S. Air Force Air Commandos.

Here is what author Susan Marquis, author of Unconventional Warfare, said about them: "If 99 percent of the public doesn't know about them, I'd bet 75 percent of the military doesn't know about them."

In other words, they are the most secret of America's Special Ops troops.

Or, could it be that the Pentagon, because of manpower shortages and any number of other lesser known reasons, is employing mercenaries from other countries to fly our aircraft?

That's not implausible but it would be impossible to conceal if it had to reveal the identity of such a pilot flying and subsequently being rescued from the downed Nighthawk.

In this February issue, Military Magazine reported:

"As they lose pilots to civilian airlines, the USAF reports a rapid decline in experience. By next year, only 45 percent of their fighter pilots will have 500 hours of tactical flying experience."

This is the same USAF that is forced to engage in a war to blast the Serbs into submission and just a week into the effort is running out of tis best weapon, the cruise missile -- down to less than a hundred.

Again, referring to Military magazine, in the same issue:

"At the end of the Cold War and because of budget cuts, the USAF funded new aircraft projects instead of buying ammo, believing the Cold War stocks would last for years. This ammo has now been used up and much of what is on hand has been stored in the Persian Gulf desert and is suspect. The USAF is now short on ammo."

The issue of the magazine appeared two months before the start of the Balkans war.

Could, as an example, the pilot of the downed stealth fighter be a member or the German Luftwaffe (air force)?

The subsonic stealth Nighthawks are pert of the 40th Fighter Wing based at Hollman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Also based at Holloman are more than a dozen Luftwaffe Tornado fighter-bombers and more than 200 support personnel.

The German government has a long-term arrangement with the Pentagon to lease a large part of Holloman for training purposes, particularly for bombing practice.

Both the Tornado and the Nighthawk are best known for their ground attack roles, knocking out enemy tanks and troop concentrations on the ground.

The Holloman operations, both German and American, are cloaked in heavy security. Foreign planes and personnel being permanently based on U.S. soil has alarmed many Americans.

Finally, could the downing of the Nighthawk have been an accident?

It is reportedly a rather difficult aircraft to fly due to its inconventional airframe, so designed to contribute to this stealth characteristics.

Of 59 built by Lockheed Martin, the last in 1990, three have crashed in accidents. The remaining 56 are operated by the 49th fighter Wing in three squadrons.

The SPOTLIGHT April 19, 1999


The real story behind the crisis.

By Warren Hough

The latest blowup in the Balkans has been triggered, not simply by Serb atrocities, but by the Israel lobby.

"The road to hell in the Balkans was paved with missed opportunities and wrong strategic turns forced on the White House by a consortium of Wall Street billionaires who are committed Zionists heart and soul," says a Russian defense official attached to the UN secretary-general's "peacekeeping" staff.

Well placed sources, talking in strict anonymity, gave an "insider" version of the events that fueled the rising firestorm over Kosovo. Their account differed sharply from the front-page stories featured in the U.S. Establishment media.

"What we have been told is that on March 23, Russian Prime Minister Yevgenyl Primakov, en route to Washington by air for three days of crucial meetings, suddenly ordered the pilot to reverse course and return to Moscow," recalled Valery Petrov, a Russian broadcast correspondent in New York City. Petrov is one of the few knowledgeable commentators willing to talk on the record.

But the U.S. public hasn't been told the real reason for Primakov's abrupt turnaround in the long-planned schedule.

While in midair, Primakov received two phone calls from Vice President Al Gore.

In the U.S. mainstream media's version, what caused Primakov to turn around were these phone calls from the White House.

Gore, according to this account, warned the Russian leader that the negotiations with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic had just broken down and NATO air raids were about to begin.

"That version is utterly wrong," says a senior Russian delegate at UN headquarters here. "It's preposterous to think that Primakov needed a tip-off from Gore on the expected outcome of the Yugoslav negotiations. We knew well in advance what would happen there, we knew it from Milosevic himself."

Diplomatic officials give an entirely different explanation for the disastrous turn events took the last week of March.

Primakov was willing to come to Washington despite the imminent opening of the air campaign against Yugoslavia, these well-placed sources said.

The overriding, urgent, well-prepared reason for Primakov's trip was to negociate desperately needed new loans and financial aid with officials of the Clinton administration and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington.

"We knew there was trouble brewing -- in fact, boiling over -- between the U.S. and Yugoslavia," says the Russian UN delegate.

But Primakov was prepared to come to Washington, "First to settle the worst of Moscow's financial crisis, and then fly directly to Belgrade as an 'honest broker' and offer Milosevic a face-saving solution that would have settled the Balkan crisis," this source revealed.

To understand how this plan -- which also represented the Clinton administration's best hope for avoiding an all-out, no-win war -- went awry, it is necessary to look back all the way to March 4.

On that day, Gore made an unpublicized visit to New York City. At the Four Seasons restaurant, sealed off by police around the block, Gore sat down for a private meeting with some of the most powerful -- and wealthy -- Zionist leaders in the United States.

According to a list provided to The SPOTLIGHT by sources on the restaurant staff who served the dinner, those present represented "The heaviest of heavy hitters on Wall Street," as one staffer put it.


Among those who supped and "schmoozed" with the vice president were Edgar Bronfman Jr., the whisky and media magnate; Jon Corzine, the outgoing chairman of Goldman, Sachs; Steven Ratner, deputy chairman of Lazard Freres and Jonathan Tisch, chief executive of Loews Inc.

Also present at the meeting were Hank Greenberg, chairman of the giant American International Group; Mortimer Zuckerman, the real-eastate billionaire who owns both The New York Daily News and US News & World Report, a national news weekly and Lionel Pincus, the chief executive of E.M. Warburg and Co., the imperious international investment bank.

These money magnates, passionately involved in their ethnic and cultural links with Zionism, presented Gore with a detailed memorandum drawn up in late February by Phil Baum, the influential executive director of the American Jewish Congress.

The memo urged President Clinton to confront Primakov on his arrival in Washington with charges of "surging Russian anti-Semitism."

The memo pressed Clinton to declare that "Before a dollar of any new loan of aid could be delivered to Russia," the Primakov administration must make it a crime for any Russian to foment anti-Semitism or to make anti-Zionist statements.

"Those who do so, as Gen. Albert Madarov, [a Moscow legislator] did recently -- must be arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison," Baum's memo demanded.

"Unless the Primakov administration forcefully confronts and eradicates anti- Semitism at home, it will be judged undeserving of any further loans or financial cooperation from the U.S., the IMF and the West in general," the Baum memo concluded. Baum's demands were as presented to him by Wall Street's assembled "masters of the universe."

When advised that an iron-fisted crackdown on critics and antagonists of Judaism would be the first concession demanded of him as he arrived in Washington on March 23, Primakov objected.

"The premier was outraged, to put it mildly," one Russian diplomat related. The Crisis deepened as Primakov, getting ready for his visit to Washington, learned that apart from the scheduled financial negotiations, he was also expected to help put out an erupting wildfire in the Balkans.

Yuri Maslyukov, Russia's first deputy minister and economic czar, told Gore that Moscow was willing to lean on Milosevic and bring the Serb dictator "to his senses" -- something only a Slavic leader could hope to accomplish.

But he asked Gore to cancel the coming confrontation with Clinton and American Zionist leaders over so-called Russian anti-Semitism, those sources have revealed.

"Let's take care of the money issues and of Milosevic first," Maslyukov is said to have urged Gore. "The problem of anti-Semitism can be discussed at a later date."

Gore raised Maslyukov's request with figures of the Zionist lobby in Washington, the most influential alien-interest pressure group in the capital's history, but was rebuffed, sources close to these events say.

In the two airborne phone conversations with Primakov on March 23, Gore reported his failure to postpone the controversial showdown over alleged Russian anti-Semitism.

"Primakov's position back home was becoming more precarious by the hour as NATO launched its bombs on Yugoslavia," says Petrov.

To have agreed -- or even negotiated -- a deal with U.S. Zionists to criminalize Russian politicians critical of Judaism or of Israel would have made his position utterly untenable.

"Caught on the horns of this deadly dilemma, Primakov ordered his pilot to turn around, and canceled his Washington visits," the Moscow Journalist recounted.

The Zionist lobby's truculence also killed the Clinton administration's best -- it now appears, only -- hope to find a face-saving solution to the Balkans crisis before it turned into an apocalyptic disaster for all involved, diplomatic observers concluded.

The SPOTLIGHT April 19, 1999


A Moscow correspondent for The SPOTLIGHT reports that Russians see expanded NATO bombings on Serbia have not accomplished any of the military or political goals of the West.

By Mikhail A. Rostarchuk

Each day NATO bombings show the Kosovo problem has been driven by the Clinton administration to an impasse, and the expected "suppression" of Belgrade with bombs and rockets is absolutely impossible, say Moscow analysts.

In many of the countries of Europe, the public is protesting against the bombings.

Favorable attitudes toward America in Russia have been dropping, illustrated by student protests in front of the U.S. embassy with many charging that the United States and NATO have returned Europe to the days of the Cold War.

In the midst of this, Russian Premiere Yevgeny Primakov traveled to Belgrade to get concessions from Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

According to Russian sources, Milosevic agreed to a number of concessions, which were abruptly turned down by NATO officials as not offering a viable political solution that the West could swallow.

The SPOTLIGHT has received information on these concessions that could have sped the atrocities that are being committed in both Yugoslavia and Kosovo:

* Milosevic agreed to begin negotiations with Albanians again only after the termination of NATO air raids;
* The Yugoslavian president is ready to lower a level of the Serbian military and police presence in Kosovo;
* Yugoslavia is ready to guarantee the right for all Albanian refugees to return to their homeland in Kosovo; and,
* Milosevic is ready to restore the pre-war status-quo, but no more than that.

However, after Primakov's meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder, it become clear that officials in the United States and NATO were not ready to take this step with Belgrade.

After NATO's refusal to accept the compromise, sources close to Milosevic say Belgrade officials are now consider partitioning Kosovo and taking the north for Yugoslavia.

Milosevic wants the northern part, because Serbians have national sacred objects and orthodox churches in that region.

The Albanian population can remain in the south where they were previous concentrated before being pushed out.

According to officials, Moscow is going to continue its efforts to find a political settlement to the Balkan crisis and already is contemplating this new offer.


In Moscow, Russian officials believe that the United States and NATO are more interested in putting the whole Balkan region under their control. NATO doesn't see this as possible, so long as the keys are in the hands of an independent Milosevic.

Russians see the Balkans as historically part of their sphere of interest. Russian officials say they will not concede this region to NATO.

Furthering the tensions in Europe, the Russian Parliament passed a measure March 31, offering Milosevic military equipment and technical assistance in case of a further deterioration in the situation. The Russian military has also moved ships into the neighboring sea with anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities in moral support of the Serbian military.

Moscow politicians say that the aggression of NATO and the United States has destroyed the post-Cold War structure of international relations in Europe. Russians charge that NATO, and specifically the United States, by bombing a sovereign nation, has violated the very UN Charter they claim to uphold.

In the event that the United States and NATO decide to proceed to ground operations in Yugoslavia, it is widely believed in Moscow that the war with Serbia will become another Vietnam, ending in severe losses for U.S. forces.

Moscow officials believe a full-scale war in the Balkans will once again move mankind to a third and final world war.

However, the future flow of coffins from Serbia with the remains of U.S. G.I.s will quickly sober up America.

The SPOTLIGHT April 19, 1999


The United States is in a home-front struggle with foreigners for national survival.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Many foreigners now vote in American elections and help set public policy -- then go "home" and vote in their original countries' elections and set its often un-American policy.

Unless this trend is arrested, Americans of European descent will be a "minority race" in a few years -- a prediction by the Census Bureau joyfully embraced by President Clinton.

California will be the first state to be "majority minority," according to the Census Bureau, showing its bureaucratic tendency to use mutually-exclusive terms. Next will come Texas and other states that border Mexico.

The problem is dual citizenship. Argentina, Peru and Colombia allow immigrants who have obtained American citizenship to remain citizens of their native countries. Mexico, the border country that accounts for 27.1 percent of America's immigrant population, is also moving toward dual citizenship.

The State Department says it does not know how many or what countries in the world allow dual citizenship.

With the single exception of Israel, however, if an American applied for and obtained citizenship in another country, it was an automatic forfeiture of his U.S. citizenship -- until recently. The Israeli exception was part of 1951 immigration legislation.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts "voluntarily" and with the "intention" of forfeiting citizenship, including "obtaining naturalization in a foreign state" or "taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivision."

That language is clear enough, even to non-lawyers. But the State Department now has decided that obtaining citizenship in a foreign country and pledging allegiance to that country shows no "intention" of renouncing American citizenship.

In fact, there is a "presumption" that you want to remain an American, and you do. This obscure "policy" developed by the State Department is an important tactic for forces pursuing world government because it neutralizes and individual's feelings of loyalty to his country -- or countries.

But is a foreign voter in America is a dual or "half citizen," which half does the Untied states get? Recent history shows America gets the North half of the "dual citizen" if he is pointed south.

Not long ago, "Americans" of "Spanish descent" attended a soccer match between teams from the United States and Mexico. These "Americans" booed the American flag and poured beer on American players. Then, many of them voted in American elections.

Pollsters are universal in describing these "Americans" as voting for Democrats. In fact, that's why President Clinton had immigration authorities rush the citizenship process for millions of Latinos in 1995 and 1996 -- to increase his voter turnout.

The result was many "new citizens" who were illiterate. But party hacks knew how to tell them what knobs to pull in the voting booth -- and their ballot counted just as much as yours did.

Unless the trend toward fake citizenship ends, Congress will have a large "Hispanic caucus." Future Congresses will return to the welfare state, taking the dollars you earned with your labor to give to foreigners who choose to loaf.

The phenomenon is already affecting presidential politics. Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) is considered the heavy favorite for the Republican presidential nomination because he has a great deal of support from Hispanic voters.

The number of immigrants living in the United States has almost tripled since 1970; from 9.6 million to 26.3 million, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. As a percentage of the population, their numbers have more than double -- from 4.8 percent in 1970 to 9.8 percent in 1998.

That these new "citizens" become left-wing Democrats, even when unable to define the word, is a matter of economics: the poverty rate for immigrants is nearly 50 percent higher than for native-born Americans of all races.

Unlike the European immigrants at the turn of the century, who came to America eager to work hard and share the dream, the new immigrants come here for the welfare benefits. The proportion of immigrant households receiving welfare is 30 to 50 percent higher than others.

Unless the trend is reversed, America's cultural heritage will be lost.

The SPOTLIGHT April 26, 1999


NATO wants to be the plutocrats' muscle.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

When leaders of the 19 NATO nations gather in Washington to celebrate their 50th anniversary on April 23, they plan to redefine the alliance's role as the United Nations' global army.

Washington is preparing for the worst of all possible scenarios. Non- essential Federal employees will have the day off. Officials say this would relieve congestion on Washington streets. Unofficially, it would close federal buildings from possible terrorist attacks.

In anticipation of a chemical attack, additional portable decontamination sites have been deployed. SWAT teams are to be stationed on privately-owned buildings. Business owners will need security passes to get to their offices.

The redefining process has already begun. The first time NATO went to war was with the air invasion of the sovereign country of Yugoslavia, which is no military threat to the alliance or the United States.

The attack against Yugoslavia was in direct contradiction of NATO's own policy, restated often for 50 years: The alliance would only respond to the threat of an attack.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin was assured, repeatedly, that he had nothing to fear from an expanded NATO because it was only defensive, and would never start a war.

NATO's betrayal has been a political windfall for hard-line communists who want to rebuild the Soviet empire. It places Yeltsin's presidency in danger, according to a State Department official.

Knowing all this, NATO went to war and built its credibility as a world army, the official said. It was also a convenient distraction from President Clinton's latest scandal -- giving missile technology to Red China in exchange for campaign donations in 1996.

Equally transparent is the "humanitarian" justification of the invasion of a sovereign nation that poses no threat, the official said, pointing to the ignored blood baths in Africa.

NATO's more formal role as a world army, to be confirmed at the Washington summit, was clear in a secret speech to the Trilateral Commission in Washington during March.

A text of the speech by Rudolf Scharping, Germany's minister of defense, was provided by the State Department official, who has been a reliable observer of the world scene for more than a decade.

"The world of today and tomorrow is very different: a wide range of ill- defined risks calls for a wide variety of highly flexible politico-military instruments" for NATO, Scharping said.

NATO must deal "with new missions such as conflict prevention and crisis management," he said. "The alliance now successfully conducts operations such as in Bosnia and Kosovo."

He said this several days before NATO's invasion of Yugoslavia.

The operation in Bosnia was an important precedent for NATO, inspired by such powerful advocates of world government as the Trilateral Commission and its brother group, Bilderberg. In Bosnia, American soldiers wore the UN uniform and served under a foreign commander who reported to the Security Council.

Congress and the president had no role.

"We will also agree on a new strategic concept, outlining how to contend with new challenges and new the whole Euro-Atlantic area," Scharping said of the upcoming NATO summit.

"Those are the key words: 'whole Euro-Atlantic area,'" said the State Department official. "It presumes that America will abandon the Monroe Doctrine and allow the UN forces -- NATO -- to involve itself in affairs of the Western Hemisphere."

From that point, he said, "it's a small step" to deploy NATO forces worldwide as a world army.

"It is essential to implement the new command structure fully and rapidly," Scharping told the Trilateral Commission Secretly.

The SPOTLIGHT April 26, 1999


SPOTLIGHT on Congress

An unlikely candidate has risen to defend the Constitution and force Congress to do its job. His name is Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.).

Campbell has brought two measures to the House floor to help his colleagues to go on record regarding the war. One resolution is a declaration of war. An alternative resolution calls for a withdrawal of troops within 30 days under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

"If Congress does not stand up for it constitutional right to declare war in this instance, there is nothing left to the constitutional requirement that Congress and only Congress can declare war," Campbell told reporters.

Neither the Clinton administration nor its predecessors have recognized the act as constitutional or binding, according to The New York Times.

Under congressional rules, such a resolution could get to the floor for a vote by the end of April. Campbell is pressing for House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) To provide for a more immediate vote.

"The prospect of involvement in civil war is very troubling to me," Campbell said. "I believe that civil war is the accurate description of the situation."

Despite constant rhetorical carping about principles, lawmakers hate making stark choices. "It is a lot easier politically," Campbell said. "If it works out okay, you were with him; if it doesn't, you saw it coming."

But "That is unacceptable," Campbell added. The founding Fathers gave Congress the power to declare war, and Congress must take its medicine, no matter how bad it tastes, he says.

The SPOTLIGHT April 26, 1999


Russia has received a slap in the face with the unveiling of the Western military campaign in the Balkans. Having started a war in Serbia, the United States has humiliated Russia, showing that Russia's opinion simply did not matter. The Communist Party is the big winner.

By Eugene V. Bai

The official position of the Russian government is clear. The Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov (PM) has stated: "The barbarian NATO air strikes are a tragic mistake They destabilize the situation not only in Kosovo, but in the whole Balkan region, in Europe, and the rest of the world."

Primakov made similar statements when NATO announced its air strikes against Saddam Hussein. But this time, Primakov is firmly supported by the Russian populace, who now see President Clinton as an enemy.

According to David Hoffman, The Washington Post bureau chief in the Russian capital: "The winds of the Cold War are blowing from Moscow."

In my opinion, if NATO moves from air strikes to ground operations, the United States and Russia may well take their relations back to the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In 1997, I was in Belgrade, witnessing the majority of Serbs, who were opposed to Slobodan Milosevic's dictatorship, engaged in protests. Many resident of the Yugoslav capital were parading in the streets, carrying whistles and demonstrating civil disobedience to the unpopular leader.

Today in Serbia, no opposition party is criticizing Milosevic; the Serb nation has united as a result of NATO aggression.

In Russia, only a year ago, the majority of the political elite was pro-West. And despite disagreements with the United States concerning Russia's technology exports to Iran, as well as their military ties with India and other countries, Moscow still considered long-term cooperation with American the first global priority.


As of today, this priority has been eliminated. As Sergei Rogov, the director of the esteemed Russian Institute of American and Canadian Studies, points out: "We are now talking about the biggest crisis in bilateral relations since the end of the Cold War. This crisis concerns economic cooperation, foreign credit, debts sanctions and many other aspects."

Russia has witnessed changes comparable to those in Yugoslavia. With recent developments in the Balkan Campaign, Russian Communists and ultranationalists have taken advantage of the situation for their own advancement and political maneuvering.

These people have seized upon the opportunity presented by the deadly American air strikes. Once again, the image of "The Enemy" has been resurrected, with the notion that when the enemy challenges, the nation unites, being led, of course, by the followers of Lenin and Stalin.

At the same time, the NATO air strikes have also "hit" the Russian rightists, who have had, since 1991, a substantial influence on Moscow's position.

The result of this breakdown of Russian liberalism could lead to the Communists winning the Russian presidential election in 2000. If that happens, the country is certain to experience international isolation and roll back their international status to that of the Cold War.

Washington is watching with obvious contempt, as Russia sends military vessels to the Mediterranean. But it would be naive to suggest that Russia would have no reaction to the unprecedented aggression of 19 NATO countries against its old friend and fellow European state.

At this moment, the Liman, a Russian intelligence-gathering vessel, is in the conflict zone. The ship, built in the '60s, carries no weapons.

However, there is also a fleet of seven more warships on standby, ready to sail to the Mediterranean. Several sources speculate that the fleet may be led by the Admiral Glolvko, a missile-laden cruiser. One does not need to be a military expert to see the danger of these two adversaries having large amounts of fire power in the conflict zone.

Russian military officials realize that the outdated missiles on Russian warships don't stand a chance against superior American air power. But those same officials cannot be convinced that it is useless to flex your muscles when you don't have any.

Anatoly Kvashnin, the Russian military chief of staff, is taking great satisfaction in pointing out NATO failures in Yugoslavia. Fro example, the ultra-modern F-117A stealth plane was shot down by a mid-1960s Russian-made CUBE system missile.


With the escalation of NATO military action against Yugoslavia, the Russian military will see strong support for taking a "hawkish" position.

So far, the Russian government denies having any plans for providing military assistance to Milosevic. But the situation could easily change if the West initiates steps for ground operations in Kosovo.

If this happens, there will likely be a complete halt to all military contacts between Russia and America, the annulment of all arms-control treaties, and the liquidation of any new treaties, such as military cooperation in solving the Y2K problem pertaining to nuclear weapons.

In the past, Clinton's peace operations in Iraq, Haiti, ans Somalia have been less than successful, despite being labeled "exemplary" by the White House. But this time, the price that America will have to pay for pacifying Milosevic may turn out to be too high.

Clinton's Balkan adventure can become an unprecedented failure which then may render void all the post-Cold War achievements of humankind.

Not so long ago, most Americans didn't even know where Kosovo was. The question is: Are Americans ready to start building bomb shelters again, in case a nuclear war erupts?

The SPOTLIGHT April 26, 1999


By Vince Ryan

Officially the United States is not at war. The president has not declared war because he has no constitutional authority to do so. Only congress, that greatest of the world's deliberative bodies, can declare war. But its members are so out of practice at obeying the Constitution, which they have sworn to follow and defend, that their moment of greatness has passed them by.

Franklin Roosevelt, with all his slick maneuvering and patriotic posturing and trickery, did go before Congress to ask for a declaration of war in 1941. After the tragedy of Pearl Harbor, how could Congress refuse?

When it came Harry Truman's turn to embroil Americans in a foreign war, he skipped Congress and followed the wishes of the UN for our participation in the Korean "police action."

Thus an international organization decided the fates of thousands of young Americans and even veterans of World War II, who were recalled to active duty to serve in Korea. Since that time, the United States has gradually surrendered its sovereignty to the "world body".

Today, a regional organization of the UN -- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -- is calling signals for America to follow in our current incursion into Serbia.

In 1995, Michael New, a member of the Army who had served with distinction in Kuwait, refused to go into Macedonia as a UN soldier, under the UN flag, wearing a UN uniform and taking orders from foreign officers. For his love for America and his refusal to violate his military oath to be loyal to the United States and U.S. officers, New was court-martialed and given a bad conduct discharge. He is appealing his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court.

New's experience no doubt is being used as a warning to any American serviceman who questions the authority of a non-American entity such as NATO.

The fact is that NATO is running the war in Serbia. Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.), who has presidential aspirations, avers that it is correct for America to follow NATO'S leadership. He also believes that Congress should not take steps to defund the war or to withdraw our military might from the fray.
If the war remains an undeclared war, then there is no war, the United States remains at peace.

Peacemakers make peace with bombs ans other weapons of war. Then they assume the role of peace keepers.

McCain and his fellow GOP senator, Richard Lugar (Ind.), argue that America must win this war, and the only way to do so is by using ground forces.

However, the United States is so committed worldwide that not enough volunteers are available to pursue such an undertaking.


The one solution to the manpower situation, as some argue, is the draft.

Look around the lobby of your local post office and you will quickly spot the table containing a stack of colorful brochures intended for men between the ages of 18 and 25.

These are forms from the Selective Service System (SSS) which the young men are required to fill out and turn in to a postal clerk. They will subsequently hear from the SSS verifying that they are officially registered for the draft.

One question posed in the brochure is: "Will I be Drafted?" The answer given is "no," because no one has be drafted since 1973. No one can be drafted into the military unless ordered by Congress and the president. A draft would most likely occur only in the event of war or national emergency.

Since Congress appears to have the attitude that because the United States is now engaged in Serbia, even though under NATO control, they must follow up with some ex post facto approval and pay the price in dollars and in live.

The congressional leadership, together with the White House, is planning to fund this undeclared war through 1999. Public opinion molders are working overtime on radio, television and in print to convince the public that war is a good thing to preserve our national security and to keep peace in the world.

If Congress has the true interests of the American majority as their main concern, they would follow the America first positions of Liberty Lobby as expressed by our Board of Policy (BOP).

Among these BOP votes are those favoring the following:

* A pro-American foreign policy;
* Withdrawal from the UN;
* Opposition to world government;
* Opposition to undeclared foreign wars;
* Opposition to a unilateral presidential declaration of war.

If the Congress had followed the lead of Liberty Lobby, our BOP and The SPOTLIGHT, America would not be involved in debacles in Serbia or anywhere else.

It is time to pressure your representative and senators in Congress. Call them at 202-224-2131. The switchboard operator will help you locate your particular member of Congress.

Keep writing your local editors and calling radio and television talk programs.

Remember: Your influence counts. Use it! *


Here's to Your Health March/April


Many people are convinced that rape oil is poisonous to the human body because it congests the blood and restricts the flow of lymph fluid which can cause myriad physical and psychological disorders.

By Don Harkins

The cheapest cooking oil on the market today is called canola oil. It is used to fry potatoes in fast food restaurants and is found on the list of ingredients for mayonnaise sold in health food stores. Canola is taking the place of peanut oil in peanut butter and is being blended with olive for domestic kitchen use.

Canola is a name tht recently appeared in the marketplace and is apparently derived from Canadian-oil. Canola oil is actually produced from the rape seed plant. Rape (Brassica napus), a member of the mustard family, is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica as a poisonous plant with toxic effects which include "pulmonary emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability and blindness in cattle."


"The name canola disguised the introduction of rape oil to America," says John Thomas, author of Young Again: How to Reverse the Aging Process. "Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in Great Britain between 1986 and 1991," at which time its use was discontinued.

Most people remember the "mad cow" disease epidemic and that cows, pigs and sheep went blind, behaved insanely, attacked other animals and people and had to be destroyed.

Reports at the time blamed the erratic behavior of livestock on a viral disease called scrapie in sheep and pigs) and mad cow disease in cattle. "However, when rape oil was removed from animal feed, 'scrapie' disappeared," Thomas explained.

Dr. Len Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses, AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional, says: "What is scrapie in sheep, mad cow disease in cattle, wasting disease in wild game animals, and whirling disease in fish is Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in people."

English "experts" told people not to panic if they had been cooking with rape oil when "mad cow" disease was at its peak in Great Britain. "The 'experts' added that the effects of rape oil ingestion takes at least 10 years to manifest," Thomas said.

With grain prices down and grass seed growers faced with increasing opposition ot their seasonal field burning, beautiful yellow rape fields are contrasting deep green panoramas of what has traditionally been field after field of grasses and grains in the northwest United States.


Rape, the most toxic of all food-oil plants that has no natural insectoid predators, is a weed that can grow vigorously in most climates and terrains throughout North America.

The toxic properties of the rape plant are cyanide-containing compounds called "isothiocyanates." Thomas explains that cyanide inhibits the production of ATP in our bodies. ATP is the "energy" molecule that "powers the body and keeps us healthy and young.

According to Thomas, glaucoma is the result of insufficient blood flow due to the clumping together of the red blood cells and waste buildup on the cells and intercellular fluids. Thomas said he believes that ingestion of rape over time may cause glaucoma. He added that ingestion of rape over several years causes other vision irregularities such as retinitis.

Thomas says the clumped red blood cells cannot "squeeze through" the tiny capillaries in the posterior of the eye and, therefore, cannot deliver oxygen to the mitochondria (the rod-shaped bodies in a cell that facilitate the metabolism of fats, sugars and proteins).

Rape oil, as metabolized in the body produces the "latex-like" substance that causes the red blood cells to clump together, Thomas explained.

"In this respect, glaucoma has much in common with hair loss, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and hearing problems," he added.


Rape is an acetlycholinesterase inhibitor. Acetylcholine is critical to the transmission of signals from nerve to muscles. When the normal function of acetylcholinesterase is compromised, nerve fibers are not able to send the signals properly and muscles will not respond as expected.

In the last 20 years we have seen a dramatic increase in muscular disorders such as multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy. "Soy and rape oils are players in the outbreak of these disease conditions," Thomas said. "So are the organophosphates -- insecticides such as malthion -- used in food production in the name of efficiency.

"Moreover, using processed foods containing canola oil, soy oil and chemical additives confuses the body and weakens the immune system," he added.

Thomas recommends that anybody who desires optimal health must take personal responsibility for what they put into their bodies. "'Health care' industry is an oxymoron," concluded Thomas. "It protects its own health and its own economic interests. Learn to protect your health and economic interests by learning how to take care of yourself. Then act on that knowledge.


Here's to Your Health March/April


An alternative practitioner has returned fire against medical doctors using their own studies and methods.

By Don Jarkins

Just last St. Patrick's Day, a Sandpoint, Idaho, chiropractor, Blaze Welch gave a lecture on how to "get off of the disease scary-go-round." The purpose of the talk was to teach people that they are responsible for their own health.

Dr. Welch also discussed figures from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that prove, through accurate interpretations of their own words, that in the last century we chose the wrong fork in the road with regard to our health care paradigm.

Most people have been conditioned to believe in what is called the "germ theory" of disease -- that germs cause disease. The truth is that germs (bacteria) are everywhere and they are attracted to and proliferate in diseased tissues.

Bacteria decompose dead matter. That is their job. For instance, when a tree dies, bacteria come in and eat the tree and it eventually becomes soil. Bacteria does not eat a live, healthy tree. The same thing is true in people -- bacteria are attracted to dead matter. Therefore, if you have dead matter in your body, bacteria will come in and get to work decomposing the dead tissue so that it may eventually become soil.

In the mid 1800s, western medical science had the choice of going one of two ways. Bechamp's theory of disease maintained that every living thing has arisen from the microzyma (the "fundamental unit of the corporate organism") and "every living thing is reducible to the microzyma."

Bechamp believed that microzymas secrete fermentative substances that aid in digestion in a healthy body and evolve into bacteria when they encounter dead or damaged cells.

Pasteur's germ theory of disease maintained that diseases come into our bodies and make germs that we must fight so that we may be rid of them.

J.I Rodale explained Pasteur's "germ theory" of disease by stating that: "Germs live in the air. Every once in awhile they get into a human body, multiply and cause illness. Nothing to it at all. All you have to do is kill germs and disease is licked."

Bechamp's theory placed all of the responsibility of disease prevention on the individual and his lifestyle. In practical sense, there was no money in that and people would be empowered with the ability to resist disease by taking care of themselves.

Western medical science went with Pasteur's theory because it opened thedoor which created the world's medical and pharmaceutical industries. Since the 1850s, we have been developing new drugs to attack and kill the disease invaders and the result has been epidemics of cancers and illnesses and diseases -- and a very rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry.

Last year, the pharmaceutical industry did $182 billion in drug sales world wide. In contrast to that figure, it cost approximately $183 billion to treat bad reactions from al of those drugs, said Dr. Welch.

Dr. Welch read off some statistics which should cause concern to anybody who sees an allopathic doctor, has medical insurance or may end up in the hospital someday. Again, the following admissions were taken from JAMA:

The five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: Tobacco, alcohol, medical malpractice, traffic and firearms.

According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.

"The number of people that doctors kill per day from medical malpractice is roughly equal to the amount of people that would die if every day, three jumbo jet crashed and killed everybody on board. Just imagine what headlines would result if a chiropractor or a naturopath?"

Another JAMA statistic stated that 20 percent of all people who see an allopath will suffer a doctor-induced injury.

Again, according to JAMA, 16 percent of all people who die in the hospital are determined by ausy to have died of something other than their admission diagnosis. In other words, the doctor had no idea what was really wrong with the patient and, therefore, the patient may have died for want of appropriate care that would have been subsequent to an accurate diagnosis.

Another trade publication, American Medical News, stated that 28 percent of people are admitted to hospitals because they have suffered an adverse reaction to prescribed drugs.

"We are miserably losing the battle against viruses and bacteria. "Antibiotics do not work," Welch said. "We need to take a different tack because this is obviously not working."

Welch made numerous practical and logical observations throughout his lecture. One of them is so obvious that it deserves mention here. "When there is an epidemic of pertussis in a school and 14 200 kids get sick, who gets studied?" he asked.

The answer, of course, is that the sick kids get studied. They are studied by the county health district, who accumulates data. Then the newspapers are told about the epidemic of sickness and everybody flocks down to the health district or goes to see their doctor to get vaccinated.

"Would it not be more appropriate to study the 186 kids that did not get sick?" Welch asked.

Welch also read a quote from the British Medical Journal which states that only one percent of all scientific research papers which explore medicines are scientifically sound. So, if that is true, then not only are allopathic doctors incorrect in their understanding of the nature of disease, they are basing 99 percent of their conclusions, and therefore their diagnosis and treatment, on flawed science.

The SPOTLIGHT March/April


You're better off making your own soap rather than poisoning yourself with some of the name brands.

By Don Harkins

Trish Lockridge, 68, from the Columbia River Gorge-area in Oregon has spent the last several years of her life studying soap.

Mrs Lockridge's life story is one of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. She has been exposed (without her knowledge or consent to dangerous substances four different times in Oregon, California and Utah.

As a resutlt of her exposures to mercury, plutonium, uranium and a mysterious toxic gas in Lin Beach, California in 1942, Mrs Lockridge suffers from chronic chemical toxicity. As a result of her toxicity, Mrs. Lockridge is extremely sensitive to chemicals, particularly chemical additives to foods, cosmetics and soaps.

In her efforts to live a normal life, Mrs Lockridge has uncovered information about soaps that should be of concern to all people even if they show no outward signs of chemical sensitivity.

According to Mrs. Lockridge's survey, as of June, 1998, many soaps contained surfactants, but many did not and the consumer could make a choice. Suddenly, the element of choice was virtually removed from the supermarket shelves.

When asked if there was a law passed which mandated the use of surfactants in soaps, Mrs. Lockridge replied: "Not that we have been made aware of. It was just that all of a sudden, all at once, all of the soaps contained surfactants and other unusual and seemingly unnecessary additives."

If you take a look at any of your laundry or dish soaps, you will find that high on the list of ingredients are anionic and /or nonionic surfactants (anionic is positively charged, nonionic is negatively charged). Anionic (or ionic) surfactants are the bonding agents for the metals, the nonionic surfactants serve as water softeners.

Also high on the list of ingredients will be a silicate of some form -- usually aluminum silicate.

Mrs Lockridge, who has an acute sensitivity toward aluminum, call Amway for an explanation as to why the aluminum had been added to their product.

"I was told that the aluminum silicate was added to 'protect washing machines and sewage treatment plants' from the effects of soaps," she said.

Mrs Lockridge called the operator at her local sewage treatment plant and asked if the silicates were helping the operation of his facility. "He told me that if they were helping, he hasn't noticed and that he has no money in his budget to do the testing necessary to say for certain whether or not they were any help to the operation of his treatment plant," she recalled.

Then Mrs. Lockridge explained what she learned about the purpose of anionic and nonionic surfactants.

The aluminum silicate is added to the soap to reduce wear on washing machines caused by corrosion. Since aluminum and other metals have been associated with water pollution that in turn harms fish and aquatic plant life, the surfactants bond with the aluminum silicates so that they will stay in your clothing an not be released into lakes and rivers.


Mrs. Lockridge has experimented with soaps containing aluminum and surfactants and she believes that 60 percent to 80 percent of the aluminum silicate that is placed into a load of laundry with a ration of laundry detergent remains in your clothing.

Amway told Mrs. Lockridge that the original formula for their laundry soap without the surfactants is available, but that it will have to be ordered directly from the main office in Ada, Minnesota.

Clyde Reynolds, N.D. stated that "surfactants hold toxic waste in our clothing to be absorbed by our skin."

Reynolds said that the absorption of heavy metals in our bodies through soaps can cause skin rashes, can compromise peoples' immune systems and lead to the onset of adult diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis and a variety of other infections throughout the body. The medical profession has already linked Alzheimer's disease to aluminum exposure.

Reynolds said it is ironic that we are poisoning people with aluminum so that we can save fish.

"Not that I am interested in poisoning fish, but there are better ways to deal with soaps than to load our clothing with toxins," he added. "If we can put men into outer space and if we can separate from crude oil every single petroleum substance in the refining process, then we can treat waste water in a manner that is not harmful to people, fish or our shared environments."


Mrs. Lockridge said that anybody can check to see how much soap is left behind in their clothing by simply dropping a garment into a bucket of water and begin swishing it around. "You will see how much soap you can feel in the water and you will be amazed," she said.

"It is decisions like these in government and industry that are bringing on the cascades of sicknesses that we are suddenly seeing everywhere we look," Reynolds added.

Mrs. Lockridge said that you can neutralize the effects of surfactants by adding a cup or so of vinegar into a load of laundry during the rinse cycle.

Mrs. Lockridge also makes her own soap and advises other people to do the same. "Using due caution, soap making is inexpensive and easy to do, just go down to your local library and get a book on how to do it," she advised.