The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Candidate McCain Urging War on 'Rogue' Islamic States

• Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is willing to take the United States into the bloody fray in the Mideast to battle any country that does not acquiesce to Israel's agenda.

If elected president, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced that he would declare war on the Mideast by instituting what he calls "rogue states rollback" during a head-to-head debate Feb. 15 with his Republican rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, in Columbia, S.C.

"I will arm, train, equip and deploy both from without and within, forces that will eventually overthrow the governments [of so-called 'rogue states']," McCain claimed. Until those governments are overthrown, they will pose a threat to U.S. national security because protecting Israel is in our national strategic interest."

Although there was "heavy" press attendance at the debate, moderated by CNN talk-show host Larry King, reporters didn't question MdCain about his announcement, said Derek Holloran, who is covering the McCain campaign for a group of British radio stations.

"I gues some of the reporters who were there didn't believe their ears and thought they misheard him," Halloran said. "Others just seemed stunned. Somebody said: 'He can't mean it.' And most news people don't like to rock the boat when the talk is about protecting Israel."

All these impressions were wrong, this populist newspaper's inquiry found. The ominous reality is that McCain was neither improvising, bluffing nor exaggerating by threatening undeclared wars on Israel's behalf.

The term "rogue states rollback" was not even invented by the Arizona senator. It was coined by Richard Perle, who became known as a powerful agent of influence when he served as a high D.C. bureaucrat in the Reagan era.

Perle now serves as the Bush campaign's chief national security adviser and military strategist. His plan for an all-out "rogue states rollback" represents a carefully thought-out strategy for leveraging U.S. power into an underclared war against Islamic states that Israel considers unfriendly.

"Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, the Sudan, even Lebanon -- where Israeli warplanes have begun bombing civilian targets this month -- are all classified as 'rogue states,'" explained Dr. Dermot Cooney, a fellow in Mideastern studies at CETRA, the prestigious trans-Atlantic think-tank.

Perle's strategic blueprint envisions using guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, industrial sabotage, economic sanctions and disinformation, stirring civil strife and employing other covert-action tactics to "disrupt" and overthrow the governments of such countries, sources close to the Bush campaign say.

Bush decided to adopt this strategy at a closed-door luncheon with some 30 top leaders of Zionist pressure groups and American Jewish constituents in Austin, Tex., Sept. 27.

At the meting, Bush solicited the support of his guests with an even more tempting proposition. He offered to make Perle his chief national security adviser and grant him full power to map out a "proactive" strategy to bring outlas Islamic nations "to their knees," the sources recounted.

The deal was struck and proved beneficial to Bush, said Ira Wool, a New York media pollster and former Bush campaign consultant.

"The bush camp, already flush with cash, found it was getting even more money, and just as importantly, less needling from the press," Wool told The SPOTLIGHT.

McCain was also working hard to earn support. On the advice of Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, the most virulent unregistered alien-interest pressure group in the U.S., the senator unleashed a vitriolic attack on Buchanan, campaign workers claim.

McCain's handlers soon felt this wasn't enough. The Texas governor's pledge that in any future Bush administration the Israeli lobby would be included in U.S. national security policy making was proving a more effective way to ingratiate the candidate with this powerful alien pressure group.

Because the issue wasn't debated in public, the only way for McCain to make a similar all-out bid for support was by publicly declaring his own commitment to "rogue states rollback."

"That is what he did in south Carolina -- too late, to be sure, to help him in that state," Wool explained.

In the consensus of policy analysts and intelligence sources, this is not just a dangerous commitment. It is a "fateful" one.

"Such a strategy would be unconstitutional, criminal and utterly fool-hardy," Cooney said. "It would put the U.S. on a collision course with the vast world of Islam, already incensed by our servile support of Israel." Whatever else American voters do next, "they must make sure they shun any candidate who favors 'rogue state rollback,'" warned this scholarly observer.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Time to Stop Immigration Explosion

Pat Buchanan believes strongly in protecting the borders of the United states through immigration reform. For those immigrants who are already in this country, Buchanan believes it is necessary to educate them in the social, cultural and moral standards identified with life in the United states. Here's a brief statement by Buchanan on the question of Immigration -- both legal and illegal.

During the 45 years leading up to the Immigration Act of 1965, 10 million immigrants came to the United States, and by and large assimilated successfully into America Culture. They fought for us in four wars, built our factories, enriched our culture, and helped make the United States the mightiest industrial empire on earth.

But the onset of mass immigration in the 1960s overwhelmed the great American melting pot. Cultural institutions already under assault by liberals who despise our heritage were unable to assimilate the 30 million immigrants who flooded into the U.S. over the past three decades. Exploding statistics, swamped social services, and the rise of ethnic militancy tell the sad story.

This year, 1.3 million more immigrants will pour into the U.S. - 400,000 of them illegal aliens. If America is to survive as 'one nation," we must take an immigration "time out" to mend the melting pot.

As President, I will:

* Halt illegal immigration by securing our porous borders and strengthening internal enforcement.

* Stand with the three-in-four Americans who agree that ass legal immigration must be reduced by restoring the 20th century average of 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants per year.

* Support a national campaign of assimilation to teach newly adopted Americans our culture, history, traditions and English language. To do otherwise cripples American cohesion and keeps the newest members of the American family from full participation.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Buchanan for President State Organizers (updated)

Here is an updated list of the contact information for those who are organizing the Buchanan for President efforts where officially-recognized affiliates have been established.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

America Must Remain a Republic

On Jan. 31 and Feb. 2, a libertarian congressman attempted to explain to America how the country is being run unconstitutionally. Here is part of what he had to say. His entire statement is available on his web site at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

By Ron Paul

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general.

The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.

The Founders often spoke of "divine providence" and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility.

Understanding the principles that were used to establish our nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect.

Unbelievable changes have occurred in the 20th Century. We went from the horse and buggy age to the space age. Computer technology and the Internet have dramatically changed the way we live. All kinds of information and opinions on any subject are now available by clicking a few buttons. Technology offers an opportunity for everyone who seeks the truth to find it, yet at the same time, it enhances the ability of government to monitor our every physical, communicative, and financial move.

Let there be no doubt. For the true believers in big Government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause. We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, "Know Your Customer" regulations on banking activities, a National Security Agency all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things.

Government officials oversee everything we do from regulating the amount of water in our commodes to placing airbags in our cars, safety locks on our guns, and using our own land. Almost every daily activity we engage in is monitored or regulated by some government agency. If one attempts to just avoid government harassment, one finds himself in deep trouble with the law.

The idea that we're responsible for our own actions has been seriously undermined. And it would be grossly misleading to argue that the huge growth in the size of government has been helpful and necessary in raising the standard of living of so many Americans.

Since government cannot create anything, it can only resort to using force to redistribute the goods that energetic citizens produce. The old-fashioned term for this is "theft." It's clear that our great prosperity has come in spite of the obstacles that big government places in our way and not because of it. And besides, our current prosperity may well not be as permanent as many believe.

Quite a few major changes in public policy have occurred in this century. These changes in policy reflect our current attitude toward the American Republic and the Constitution and help us to understand what to expect in the future. Economic prosperity seems to have prevailed, but the appropriate question asked by too few Americans is, "Have our personal liberties been undermined?"

TAXES

Taxes are certainly higher. A federal income tax of 35 to 40% is something many middle-class Americans must pay, while on average they work for the government for more than half the year. In passing on our estates from one generation to the next, our "partner," the US government, decides on its share before the next generation can take over.

The estate tax certainly verifies the saying about the inevitability of death and taxes. At the turn of the century we had neither, and in spite of a continuous outcry against both, there's no sign that either will soon be eliminated.

Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the government owns the fruits of our labor, as well as our savings, and we are permitted by the politicians' "generosity" to keep a certain percentage.

Every tax-cut proposal in Washington now is considered a "cost" to government, not the return of something rightfully belonging to a productive citizen. This principle is true whether it's a 1% or a 70% income tax. Concern for this principle has been rarely expressed in a serious manner over the past 50 years. The withholding process has permitted many to believe that a tax rebate at the end of the year comes as a gift from government.

Because of this, the real cost of government to the taxpayer is obscured. The income tax has grown to such an extent and the government is so dependent on it that any talk of eliminating the income tax is just that, talk.

A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation, with an income tax and an inheritance tax, is incompatible with a principled belief in a true Republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership.

Not only have we seen little resistance to the current high tax system, it has become an acceptable notion that this system is moral and is a justified requirement to finance the welfare/warfare state. High taxes, except for only short periods of time, are incompatible with liberty and prosperity.

Rep.Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is in his sixth term in Congress.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

New Gun Law Worst Ever in America

Arbitrary seizure of legal firearms has begun in America.

By Mike Blair

Gun owners in Connecticut are finding that a new state law infringes on their Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

Pro-gun advocates in other states are concerned that their state legislatures may pass similar anti-gun legislation.

The Connecticut law, which went into effect Oct. 1, allows police to search a citizen's home for firearms and seize them even though the guns are legally owned, with a search-and-seizure warrant obtained from a local judge.

The law runs contrary to the right of Americans to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment. It also violates the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Critics claim the law is the worst assault thus far on the people's right to keep firearms that they have legally purchased and own.

Connecticut gun owners are worried that they will wrongfully accused by someone of being a danger to themselves or others. The police have been given the statute right to first order the gun owners to turn in their firearms. If they fail to do so, police can obtain search-and seizure warrants and go into gun owner's homes and forcefully take the firearms.

If a gun owner resists the intrusion, he could face all sorts of criminal charges.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle in Hartford, the state capital, are considering new legislation to kill the law before it gets out of hand.

"We could be sending officers into dozens of homes soon, maybe hundreds," state Rep. Richard Tullsano, a Democrat, warned. "It used to be thought a man's home was his castle. Now, there is a reason for filling the moat."

The law is so outrageous in its sweeping power and infringement upon constitutional rights that it is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the Gun Owners Action League.

Some Connecticut Second Amendment advocates, however, are venting their frustrations with the National Rifle Association, which is offering no support to the law's critics and remains strangely silent.

"This Law in Connecticut could be the beginning of the end of private gun ownership in America." a Salisbury, Conn., gun collector told The SPOTLIGHT.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Risk From Guns Exaggerated

By Charley Reese

Your risk of being murdered is .00006. Actually, for most Americans, it is much less than that. The majority of American homicides involve one lowlife killing another lowlife.

Thus, if you stay out of the drug business, which most Americans do, and if you don't hang out with lowlifes or foolishly wander into bad neighborhoods, your chances of becoming a homicide victim are very small.

In short, the danger of firearms is greatly exaggerated by politicians and press alike. In 1997, for example, 15,551 Americans were killed by firearms, compared with 28,400 who died in their homes as a result of accidents, only 1,000 of which involved firearms. Total deaths from firearms accidents were 1,500. Compare that with the 43,200 Killed in vehicle accidents; the 14,900 who died in falls; the 8,600 who were killed by accidental poisoning; the 4,000 who drowned; the 3,700 who died in fires; and the 3,300 who died from the ingestion of food or some other object.

In other words, eating poses more than twice the risk of a gun in causing an accidental death.

In 1997, whereas homicides with a gun took 15,551 lives and 1,500 died from firearms accidents, 88,000 died from pneumonia and flu, 91,000 from accidents (I've subtracted 1,500 firearms accidents), 110,000 from lung diseases, 159,000 from strokes, 537,000 from cancer and 725,000 from heart disease.

Deaths related to firearms -- including murder, accidents and suicides -- amount to a hair more that 1 percent of the annual deaths in the United States. Yet both politicians and press distort and exaggerate the danger of firearms to the point of hysteria.

If this two-headed demagogic monster would devote half the energy to cancer and heart disease it devotes to firearms, far more lives might be saved. Your diet and lifestyle are far more dangerous than a loaded firearm in terms of the likelihood of your being done in.

The two biggest threats to the future of American self-government are an irresponsible press and demagogues in public office. If we cannot discuss a public issue without being subjected to a totalitarian-style propaganda campaign, then we cannot really govern ourselves.

I want to put firearms deaths in perspective so you can recognize that you are being subjected to a deliberate propaganda campaign.

If the politicians and the press were really interested in crime, then they would face the race factor in crime -- but they both are scared to address it. The race factor is, simply stated, a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by blacks. That is not to say that race causes the crime; I'm merely pointing out that a disproportionate amount of the violent crime is being committed by blacks.

For example, I happened to have an analysis performed by the Chicago Police Department of the homicides in Chicago in 1991. There were 927 homicides. Of the offenders arrested, 702 were black, three were black Hispanics, 128 were white Hispanics and only 51 were white. Only 38 of the victims were white. Clearly, Chicago's homicide problem that year was not uniformly distributed but localized among blacks and Hispanics. Few of the homicides, by the way, involved drugs.

To back up what I said about lowlifes, 61 percent of victims and 77 percent of the offenders had prior criminal offenses on their records.

So don't worry to much about being murdered, but be careful in that supermarket, restaurant and your own kitchen. Those are dangerous places. As for keeping a firearm in the home, it's safer than a car in the driveway or a swimming pool in the back yard.

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Citibank Notifies Gun Dealers of Account Closure

The following is a copy of the letter informing a Las Vegas gun dealer that their bank is closing the business's account for no other reason that it does business in firearms.

Despite the fact that there have been no reports linking gun dealers to criminal activity, Citibank made this policy effective on a national level.

Repeated calls placed by The SPOTLIGHT to representatives from Citibank in Nevada, Citibank Corporate Headquarters and Citigroup were not returned. A branch manager in Las Vegas confirmed that hthere was a policy in effect to cancle the accounts of gun shops.

Nevada Pistol Academy
4610 Blue Diamond Road
Las Vegas, NV 89139

Customer Notice: Account Closure

Your Citibank checking account will be closed ten calendar days from the date of this notice. This action is necessary due to Citibank not maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in weapons.

Deposits to this account will not be accepted as of three business days from the date of this notice. Please refrain from writing additional checks on this account.

Checks presented for payment well be honored until your account is closed if sufficient funds are available. Any additional funds remaining in your account on the date of closure will be sent to you in the form of an official bank check.

If you have any question regarding our decision to close your account, please contact our 24 hour customer service telephone number, 800-756-7047 or Rel/TTD 800-756-0832.

Citibank (Nevada) N.A.
4065 South Jones Blvd.
Tel: 702-364-2061
Feb.7. 2000*

The SPOTLIGHT March 6, 2000

Clinton Lies To Push Anti-Gun Agenda

The president wants Americans to believe his legacy of gun control has been a great success. Don't believe him.

By Mike Blair

After seven years of trying to destroy the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding Americans "to keep and bear arms," President Bill Clinton in his final State of the Union Address to the nation called for more gun control.

He also hauled out erroneous statistics to illustrate the success of his administration in fighting crime.

He claimed that the Brady Act has kept firearms out of the hands of 500,000 "criminals," overlooking the fact that half of the Brady Act gun purchase denials resulted from the administrative errors.

He also failed to enlighten the American public with the fact that out of those 500,000 "criminals" supposedly caught in the act of attempting to buy a handgun almost none were prosecuted for violating Brady Act gun law.

A SAFER AMERICA?

Clinton claimed how much safer America is because he was able to get Congress to fund putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets and is calling for 50,000 more.

According to a report by the Justice Department, more than 100 American communities that received federal grants for new officers through the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which was passed by Congress as a part of Clinton's Omnibus 1994 Crime bill, ended up using the funds for other purposes.

Approximately 40,000 new officers made it to the streets as a result of the funding. But by now the cost of maintaining these new officers has fallen upon the backs of local taxpayers.

Moreover, an independent study by the Syracuse University-based TRAC reveals that gun law violation referrals of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) dropped 44 percent between 1992 -- the peak year for prosecutions and the year before Clinton took office -- and 1998.

During his address, Clinton also called for a national license to purchase an handgun. The proposal would require that anyone interested in lawfully purchasing a handgun undergo not only the National Instant Check System (NICS) administered by the FBI to determine if a person has a "clean" criminal and mental record but in addition show proof of having completed a "certified safety course or exam" before being issued a photo license.

To further harass the law-abiding, the licensee would be checked periodically to determine if he or she "has become prohibited from possessing firearms" since the license was issued.

Clinton further is calling for a system to "trace every gun...and every gullet...used in a crime in America," an effort which cannot be accomplished without further restrictions on private gun ownership in the nation.

Pro-gun organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America are urging Americans concerned about the future of the Second Amendment rights to keep pressure on their federal legislators to oppose any new anti-gun legislation.

They also remind all gun owners that when Clinton leaves office next year both Democratic candidates seeking to succeed him (as well as Republican aspirants) -- Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley -- are advocates of Draconian anti-gun legislation.

Gore is on record in favor of a federal mandate that all states implement their own licensing system for handgun buyers.

Bradley is even worse, openly calling for registering and licensing all American handgun owners, no doubt with the thought in mind of ultimately forcing everyone to be licensed to own any type of firearm -- to close "a loophole," no doubt.

The SPOTLIGHT March 13, 2000

One World Backers Going Public

Globalists have become more brazen in their shameless promotion of one world government.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

For decades, those plotting a world government preferred working in the shadows to avoid outrage from patriots, but, more and more, they are taking their campaign public:

* President Clinton praises efforts to achieve a "world government" in commending the World federalist Association.

* Walter Cronkite calls for world government in a speech to the WFA and subsequently in a Jan. 29 interview with BBC.

* Henry Grunwald, former editor of Time magazine, calls for world government in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal. Grunwald is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and both Time and the Journal are represented at Bilderberg meetings. Thus, to be so public in calling for world government, Bilderberg had to consent.

* Former Rep. John Anderson (R-Ill.), now president of the World Federalist Association, buys a full-page ad in the Feb.18 New York Times calling for world government.

* Vice President Al Gore, paying tribute to 19 American soldiers who were killed in Somalia while serving under a foreign command, said they died "in the service of the United Nations." (A father returned his son's medal to Gore, saying he thought his son was serving the United states.)

* The cover story in the Jan. 17 edition of The New Republic carried this headline: "America Is Surrendering Its Sovereignty to a World Government. Hooray." The inside headline: "World Government Is Coming. Deal With It."

Clinton sent a written statement to the World Affairs Association noting with approval that founder Norman Cousins had "worked for world peace and world government." The WFA was honoring Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, for advocating world government in Time.

"Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority," Talbott wrote. "It has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government."

After extolling the virtues of world government in an address to the WFA, Cronkite followed up with a call for "an international rule of law" in his BBC interview Jan. 28.

"We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice," Cronkite said.

The "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law," Cronkite said, "And I think that's going to come to other people as well."

SURRENDER SOVEREIGNTY

In his Jan. 1 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, Grunwald said

The Idea of the nation-state is in for some profound changes. The nation-state will undergo sharp limitations of its sovereignty.

Just as the old. Petty principalities had to dissolve into the wider nation-state, the nation-state will have to dissolve into wider structures. It "will be increasingly difficult for the future nation-state to argue that its treatment of its own citizens is a purely internal matter. Less dramatic forms of international law will also increasingly restrain the nation-state, touching on environment, drugs, communications, air and ocean traffic.

But he reassures his readers that "the forms and trappings of the nation-state will be with us for a long time, perhaps only as a kind of ceremonial show business."

In The New Republic, Robert Wright points out that "in recent years, more and more people have raised the specter of world government" and seen "an alarming concentration of planetary power in one or more acronyms: WTO, UN, IMF and so forth."

Such people "are widely considered fringe characters - flaky, if not loony," Wright writes. However, "this might be one of those cases when the flaky are closer to the truth than the sober...world government of a meaningful if more diffuse sort is probably in the cards...and what's more, it's a good idea."

The SPOTLIGHT March 13, 2000

'Victim' Responsible for Supposed 'Hate' Crime

What happens when hate crimes turn out to be self-inflected?

By William Carmichael

Stamford, Connecticut was officially stunned last summer when a swastika-emblazoned bucket filled with medical waste was left outside a synagogue. "Hate crime' cried the Jewish community.

We won't stand for this," said local politicians. The incident made the national news as an example of "anti-Semitism in America."

The investigation into the incident went on for months. Then, during the first week of February, Alan Jay Lorenz of Weston - who happens to be Jewish -- was arrested on a federal criminal complaint charging him with 'obstructing persons in the free exercise of their religious beliefs," a civil rights offense.

Stamford police discovered the bucket on the lawn of Temple Beth El on Aug. 17 -- a week after Buford Furrow Jr. allegedly went on a shooting spree at a California Jewish community center.

The white plastic container was marked with swastikas. A newspaper photograph of Furroe was taped to the container, along with a message saying, "A wake-up call to America to kill the Jews."

Furrow allegedly told authorities after his arrest that he wanted to send "a wake-up call to America to kill jews."

Inside the bucket were several syringes, gauze, cotton, glass tubes and plastic straws -- some with blood on them. Other medical waste was found on the lawn.

U.S. Attorney Staphen Robinson said Lorenz's motive was not clear.

Stamford police Chief Dean Esserman said Lorenz is also a suspect in a similar incident at a Norwalk synagogue.

He was quoted: "It is our expectation that further charges will be following."

Esseran would not comment on how police caught Lorenz. But the federal complaint said fingerprints were recovered from evidence left at the Stamford temple.

The FBI later determined that they were the fingerprints of Lorenz, who works as a salesman of medical waste disposal equipment.

If convicted in the Stamford incident, Lorenz faces up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

The SPOTLIGHT March 13, 2000

Strange Chemtrails, Odd Illness Plague Las Vegas

Reports of strange emissions from planes, known as "chemtrails," are turning up across the country. The following is an eyewitness account of the mysterious chemtrails from the editor of The Idaho Observer.

By Don Harkins

If I had any doubt that there was such a thing as "chemtrails" and that they were poisoning the public, it was removed after a recent road trip to Las Vegas to host the Committee for Local Media Seminar on Dec. 20, 1999.

Upon our return from the town that never sleeps, my email inbox had an unsolicited message from somebody on a list with a report from Dec. 4,1999. The email report stated that on the Las Vegas Channel 8 evening news every emergency room in the area was overcrowded with people suffering from uper respiratory infections. The story was rather in-depth for a TV news segment -- a little over a minute long.

The anonymous Las Vegas resident stated that he has witnessed many chemtrails over Las Vegas over the last month and that many others have also witnessed the phenomenon.

Chemtrails are similar in appearance to condensation trails left by airplanes. The difference is that while "contrails" are composed of water vapor that dissipates rapidly, some "chemtrails" may contain ethlene dibromide -- a substance that has been an additive to gasoline and airplane fuels as well as a banned pesticide. Ethylene dibromide has been linked to kidney, liver and lung damage.

Others claim that these chemtrails are part of a government program to test chemicals, possibly for mass inoculations, on an unwary populace.

The news story was eerily consistent with what we experienced in our travels through Nevada. My wife Ingri, Hari Heath and I traveled south all day through the sparsely populated Nevada high country of Interstate 93. Having seen contrails in the skies above north Idaho almost daily since last spring, we were habitually looking up as we drove toward Las Vegas.

ODD PATTERNS

We had noticed that the sparsely populated areas in Nevada had brilliantly clear blue skies and that occasional airplanes left vapor trails that dissipated normally. But as soon as we neared Las Vegas, the skies directly above the city recorded a smoky brownish gray grid pattern of airplane traffic.

We watched what appeared to be a military C-135 Transport spraying something over the populated areas over Las Vegas and then shut off whatever was being sprayed.

I do not care what the Channel 8 News people say, it is not "normal" for otherwise healthy people to experience epidemic upper respiratory infections when the weather turns cold.

The SPOTLIGHT March 20, 2000

Chinese Communists Rattling High-Tech Sabers

Red China, armed by Israel, threatens war over Taiwan.

By James Harrer

High-tech weaponry sold to Red China by Israel is "rapidly shifting" the balance of power between the communist mainland regime and the democratic Republic of Taiwan, setting the state for an "explosive confrontation," experts warn.

For decades, Taiwan's defenses have been considered "adequate" to ward of an attempted invasion by Chinese communist forces, reported military correspondent Thomas Crampton in The International Herald Tribune this month.

Missile technology and advanced avionics acquired by Red china from Israel, however, have given the communist the edge, rendering a successful invasion of Taiwan "feasible" Crampton explained.

The story of how Israel secretly sold Red China billions of dollars worth of armaments and sophisticated military technology, acquired largely from the United states, was broken by this populist newspaper 10 years ago in a series of world-exclusive investigative reports.

Until recently, Americans who wanted to know the facts about the ministate's criminal sellout of vital U.S. national security concerns -- a momentous betrayal that is raising the specter of war in Asia this month -- could get them only by reading The SPOTLIGHT.

To the utter consternation of the Clinton administration, the Red Chinese leaders flexed their high-tech military muscle brutally this month, threatening to seize Taiwan by force unless the island Republic agreed to negotiate the terms of its surrender to the communist regime.

With Israel applying the hardware and the know-how, "technology, which had long been played down by the [communist] People's Libertarian Army [in favor of vast masses of infantry] has suddenly become central to China's military operational principles," Crampton reported after a visit to the region.

Other expert observers expressed concurring views. "We have no capability of defending ourselves against communist missile attacks from the mainland," warned Dr. Andrew Yang, director of Taiwan's Council of Advanced Policy Studies.

The Clinton administration, stunned by mainland China's unexpected threats of war, has hurriedly sent of Adm. Dennis Blair, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to Peking, to "calm down" the communist Chinese leaders.

The White House has also announced that it will seek early congressional approval this month for extending China a grant of standard commercial privileges, called "permanent normal trading relations."

Opposition on Capitol Hill to what some lawmakers describe as "throwing the Chinese another sop" is mounting. The prospects are for a "real fight over these pro-Red Chinese concessions Clinton has been promoting," as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) put it.

The SPOTLIGHT March20, 2000

Chinese Communists Now in Atlantic

Why has a Chinese company set its eyes on the Bahamas

By The SPOTLIGHT Staff

Red China is fast developing a new class of energy weapons which could paralyze America's ships and planes by destroying their electronics systems, as reported in the Chinese news agency Jiefang Ribao.

Chinese "pulse" energy weapons, Explosive Magnetocumulative Generator (EMG) systems, are based on a Russian design that uses explosives to generate huge magnetic shock waves that destroy electronics on ships. This short circuits on-board computers rendering the mega-expensive battle boat defenseless.

"As an aircraft carrier fleet is apt to come under saturation attacks by satellite-guided missiles, its entire combat effectiveness can be paralyzed by paralyzing its electronic equipment, which is its central nervous system," says Ye Jian of the communist news service.

"If the central nervous system of an aircraft carrier is paralyzed, even a comparatively backward naval vessel or aircraft - like a Jian 6 -- will be able to aim at the aircraft carrier as a conventional target, thereby thoroughly changing the balance between the strong and the weak," he said.

"The strong magnetic field and electromagnetic pulse caused by an explosion can destroy all important integrated circuits and IC chips of the electronic equipment within the demolition scope, thus paralyzing the radar and telecommunication system of the aircraft carrier and vessels around it as well as the ship=mounted missiles and aircraft," he said.

The EMG is a conventional warhead that produces a magnetic pulsed field equal to a small nuclear bomb. The U.S. used similar weapons with great success in the attacks on the Serbs.

Some critics fear the Reds can surround the United States with their weaponry. A Pentagon report anticipates an attack on the Continental United States within a few years. After seizing operational control of the Panama Canal, China is establishing a new base in the Bahamas -- just 60 miles of U.S. shores.

The activities of Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd. in the Bahamas pose a serious security threat to the United states, according to military experts. Hutchinson Whampoa is an arm of China's People's Liberation Army and also operates at both ends of the Panama Canal.

"The Chinese military sees the benefit of having a base, a future base, so close to the United States," says retired Adm. Thomas Moorer. "What China is trying to do is get a kind of maritime position worldwide, and they need a home base, so to speak, in every ocean."

Meanwhile, the Senate is considering approval of a new trade pact with China that would lead to the communist nation's entry into the World Trade Organization, greatly benefitting its military with stronger economic underpinnings.

The trade pact is secret. Even the senators do not know what they are voting on (see page 8). The must take the word of President Clinton, whose last election was generously supported by Chinese money."

The SPOTLIGHT March 20, 2000

Here's Why the Media Hates Pat Buchanan

Even before maverick populist Pat Buchanan broke with the Republican establishment over the issues of free trade, immigration and foreign policy, the major media in America has smeared him as an "isolationist," a Protectionist" and worse. Here are the facts.

Back in the early 1970s, Buchanan was cognizant of the power of the major media to make of break political candidates. This, as a speech writer for then-Vice President Spiro Agnew, he drafted a speech, which the vice president delivered in Des Moines on Nev, 13, 1969.

In that speech Agnew warned of the unchecked power of the media monopoly. Upon delivering the speech, the vice president was promptly dubbed a dangerous extremist, and the press began a sustained attack on the vice president that ended only when he left office.

What follows is the abbreviate text of the speech (written by Buchanan), criticizing the power of the television networks. The warnings about the media's power are more timely today than ever before, particularly in light of a growing monopoly over the control of the American media by the international plutocracy.

No medium has a more profound influence than television news over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media...The purpose here is to focus your attention on this little group of men who...wield a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting the great issues of our nation.

First, let us define that power. At least 40 million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news...For millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news.

First, lwt us define that power. At least 40 million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news...For millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news.

How is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen "anchormen," commentators and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day's events in the nation and the world.

We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight.

* They can make or break -- by their coverage and commentary - a moratorium on the war.

* They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week.

* They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.

* For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue...becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury...

A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official...The poser of the networks...represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.

What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little, other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well informed on every important matter.

We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographic and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City -- the latter of which liberal columnist James Reston terms the "most unrepresentative community in the entire United States."

We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints...

The American people would rightly not tolerate this kind of concentration of power in government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government?

The views of this fraternity do not represent the views of America...As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve...

The upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes, in the minds of millions, the whole picture...

Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the government in Washington, but in the studios of the networks in New York...We would never trust such power over public opinion in the hands of an elected government - it is time we questioned it in the hands of a small and unelected elite.

The SPOTLIGHT March 20, 2000

Ban All Drug Advertising?

By Charley Reese

Some years ago, an excellent professor of economics told his class in his gravelly voice, "If you pay me $50,000 a year to solve a problem, I damned sure ain't going to solve it."

Thus he put his finger on a problem that is prevalent in our society: Too many people are being paid handsomely to solve problems or to ask questions. They darn sure have more sense than to solve them or to answer the questions, since either event would terminate their jobs.

Probably the worst thing that can happen to an organization is to achieve its goals. I don't think that can happen to an organization is to achieve its goals. I don't think anyone was more dumfounded when Jonas Salk discovered a way to make a vaccine for polio than the March of Dimes Foundation which was the chief fund-raising organization to combat polio, There was a whole organization with all its well-paid executives facing unemployment. But don't worry - they hustled and found a new disease to campaign against.

Fortunately, there will always be enough diseases to support various fund-raising organizations. Most likely, the nonprofit corporations engaged in fund-raising on behalf of diseases, causes and various ideologies are a bigger part of our gross domestic product that most of us would want to know.

One reason America will never solve its race-relations problem is that there are too many people making money on it. It seems to me that race relations are about the best they ever will be. That's hard to realize, given the media and politicians and professional racists constantly carping about racism.

Race is simply providing to many people with too good a living, and there isn't much money go be made saying, "Wow, things are pretty good right now."

The same thing is true of drugs. Thousands of people make a fine living combating or facilitating illegal drugs, the supply of which is ample enough to keep the game going indefinitely. About the only losers in the drug war are the addicts, who are treated as criminals, the petty retailers who go to t jail for budget justification reasons and the poor, dumb taxpayers, who have to pay for this charade.

It does not seem to occur to anyone that there is little hope of reducing demand for drugs in a society in which pharmaceuticals spend billions of dollars telling people that whatever ails them, a drug can fix them up. Nor should I have to say that doctors are not helping the cause by putting 6 million children of drugs for nothing more that acting like children. I see little likelihood of having a drug-free America when Americans are without a doubt the most over-drugged folks on earth.

If it's constitutional to ban tobacco advertising, then Congress certainly ought to consider banning drug advertising. The message that a drug will make you feel good is the same for both the illegal and legal peddlers.

I wonder -- if we eliminate our economic success and military power from the assessment -- how we would stack up among countries in terms of intact families, general sense of well-being, healthy children, fine arts and a wholesome culture? I doubt we's make the top 20.

We are probably more organized than is good for us. When I was a child, I had plenty of free time just to play. Today some children are involved in so many organized activities, the tots need Day Timers to keep up with their schedules, not to mention parents with more than one car.

Still, most Americans with adequate incomes who can afford to insulate themselves from -- dare I say it -- the lower classes seem content. We have always prided ourselves on being a classless society, but, in fact, that's never been entirely true. It would probably be more accurate to say that we have had flexible classes.

The SPOTLIGHT March 20, 2000

Citizens Must Claim Rights: Founders Gave Juries the Right to Determine Law

Some say jury nullification is the most practical way to stop the juggernaut police state.

By Tom Stahl

The Washington Post published a front page story entitled, "In Jury Rooms, a Form of Civil Protest Grows," last year. According to the Post article, jurors are not always following judges' instructions to the letter.

The article recounted that sometimes in jury trials, when those facts which the judge chooses to allow into evidence indicate that the defendant broke the
law, jurors look at the facts quite differently from the way the judge instructed them to. The jurors do not say, "On the basis of these facts the defendant is guilty."

Instead, the jurors say, "On the basis of these facts the law is wrong," and they vote to acquit.

Or, they may vote to acquit because they believe that the law is being unjustly applied, or because some government conduct in the case has been so egregious that they cannot reward it with a conviction.

In short, a passion for justice invades the jury room. The jurors begin judging the law and the government, as well as the facts, and they render their verdict according to conscience. This is called jury nullification.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, recently convicted, was acquitted several times in the past, despite his admission of the government's facts, of assisting the suicide of terminally ill patients who wanted to die. Those acquittals were probably due to jury nullification. And Kevorkian might have been acquitted again if the trial judge had allowed him to present his evidence, testimony of the deceased's relatives, to the jury. A corollary of jury nullification is greater latitude for the jury to hear all of the evidence.

The Post took a dim view of this and suggested that jury nullification is an aberration, a kind of unintended and un wanted side-effect of our constitutional system of letting juries decide cases. But the Post couldn't be more wrong. Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.

All CRIMINAL CASES

The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to "judge" or "determine" the law in "all criminal cases."

Article 23 of Maryland's Constitution states:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

Art. 1, Sec. 19, of Indiana's Constitu tion says:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Oregon's Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16, states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im posed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Art. 1, Sec. 1 of Georgia's Constitution says:

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.

These constitutional jury nullification provisions endure despite decades of hostile judicial interpretation.

LIBEL CASES

Twenty other states currently include jury nullification provisions in their constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel cases.

These provisions, listed below, typically state:

. . . . in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court.

But New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin omit the phrase "under the direction of the court." South Carolina states:

In all indictments or prosecutions for libel, the truth of the alleged libel may be given in evidence, and the jury shall be the judges of the law and facts.

Alabama (Article I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Article II, Sec. 10); Connecticut (Article First, Sec. 6); Delaware (Article I, Sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, Sec. 9); Maine (Article I, Sec, 4); Mississippi (Article 3, Sec. 13); Missouri (Article I, Sec. 8); Montana (Article II, Sec. 7); New Jersey (Article I, Sec. 6); New York (Article I, Sec. 8); North Dakota (Article I, Sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Article I, Sec. 7); South Carolina (Article I, Sec. 16); South Dakota (Article VI, Sec. 5); Tennessee (Article I, Sec. 19); Texas (Article 1, Sec. 8); Utah (Article I, Sec. 15); Wisconsin (Article I, Sec. 3); Wyoming (Article 1, Sec. 20).

Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas add the phrase "as in other cases." Tennessee adds the phrase "as in other criminal cases."

These phrases suggest that the jury has a right to determine the law in more than just libel cases.

The Tennessee Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 19, says:

. . . and in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other criminal cases.

The phrase "under the direction of the court," omitted by five states, provides for the trial judge to give directions, like road directions which the jury may or may not choose to follow, to assist the jury in its deliberations.

Our forefathers did not intend by this phrase for the trial judge to infringe in any way upon the sole discretion of the jury in rendering its verdict.

Although later courts have held otherwise, the Tennessee Supreme Court in Nelson v. State, 2 Swan 482 (1852), described the proper roles of the judge and jury as follows: The judge is a witness who testifies as to what the law is, and the jury is free to accept or reject his testimony like any other.

The Maine Constitution affirms these roles in its section on libel:

. . . and in all indictments for libels, the jury, after having received the direction of the court, shall have a right to determine, at their discretion, the law and the fact.

In addition, 40 state constitutions, like the Washington state Constitution in Article I, Section 1, declare that "All political power is inherent in the people," or words to similar effect.

And 34 state constitutions expound on the principle of all political power being inherent in the people by saying that "the people . . . have at all times . . . a right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper," or words to similar effect.

For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

If the people have all power, and have at all times a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper, then they certainly have the right of jury nullification, which is tantamount to altering or reforming their government when they come together on juries to decide cases.

A single nullification verdict against a particular law may or may not alter or reform the government, but thousands of such verdicts certainly do. Witness the decisive role of jury nullification in establishing freedom of speech and press in the American Colonies, defeating the Fugitive Slave Act and ending alcohol prohibition.

Of special note is the right of re vo lu tion in the New Hampshire Constitution.

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

If the people have the ultimate right of revolution to protect their liberties, then they certainly also have the lesser included and more gentle right of jury nullification to protect their liberties.

It should also be noted that New Hamp shire declares an unalienable "Right of Conscience":

Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

If the right of conscience is unalienable, then it can not be taken away from people when they enter the courthouse door to serve on juries. The people have an inherent and unalienable right to vote their conscience when rendering jury verdicts.

There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people were exercising in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:

In American legal theory, jury power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.

Jury nullification is therefore one of the "rights . . . retained by the people" in the Ninth Amendment. And it is one of the "powers . . . reserved . . . to the people" in the Tenth Amendment.

Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people's most important veto in our constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life. All other votes are for hypotheticals.

The SPOTLIGHT March 27, 2000

George W. Bush and Al Gore: What's the Difference?

If you wonder why the positions taken by Republicans and Democrats on major foreign policy issues look the same, it's because behind the scenes decisions are made by a few powerful men.

By Martin Mann

Voters who wonder why the vaunted bipartisan foreign policy of the Republican and Democratic parties is the same will be interested to know why. The reason is simple: both major candidates have foreign policy advisors who are indeed foreign in every sense of the word.

A good many of the key figures in this alien-dominated lineup of consultants and policy planners have names made familiar by decades of unremitting anti-American partisanship behind the scenes.

Among them are Richard Armitage, Stephen Bryen, Leon Fuerth, Richard Haass, Richard Holbrooke, Fred Ikle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol, Mar tin Peretz, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

Although these Beltway big shots are divided, in theory, between competing Democrats and Republicans, in reality they are united by common roots, shared beliefs and congruent policy positions.

All those on the list have deep ethnic and emotional ties to a foreign nation. They share the core principle of "Israel first." And they support, without exception, "rogue states rollback": the strategy of using America's economic and military resources to wage covert action, sabotage operations, terrorist strikes, undeclared warfare and even genocide against Islamic nations that refuse to recognize -- and bow to -- Israel's hegemony.

The term "rogue states rollback" was reportedly coined by Perle, the senior national-security adviser of Gov. George W. Bush. Perle, who served as an assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in both Reagan administrations, is a textbook example of the essentially bipartisan dual loyalist, whose zeal for serving Israel's cause makes him indifferent to American political or economic interests.

Perle made his name in the 1970s as chief of staff to the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), an influential Democratic legislator who became, under the persuasive influence of his staff, an unquestioning supporter of Israel. Under Reagan, Perle easily shifted to neo-conservative Republicanism. He became known as a ruthless, scheming, empire-building national-security bureaucrat, nicknamed by his Pentagon colleagues, "The Prince of Darkness."

Fuerth, Vice President Al Gore's longtime chief national-security adviser, shares many of the attributes of Perle, his Republican counterpart. A shadowy figure in Washington's corridors of power, it was reportedly Fuerth who first persuaded Gore, then still a junior representative from Tennessee, that unconditional support of Israel was both a virtue and a useful means of advancement in American politics.

Like Perle, Fuerth is a militant Israel-firster, who has converted Gore to "the philosophy that bombing rogue states, and using economic embargoes along with military force against them" is the right policy when such actions benefit Israel, said Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to the UN. Recently, "Democrat" Fuerth is said to have adopted "rogue states rollback," despite the fact that this strategy of aggression originated in the Bush camp.

So did Holbrooke, who became a prominent player in the Israeli lobby after he recently bragged about his Jewish roots beneath the Presbyterian identity he had assumed in his youth. Holbrooke, a key foreign-policy planner of the Democratic campaign, is the leading candidate for secretary of state in any future Gore administration.

His counterpart in the Republican camp is said to be Wolfowitz, dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. As a high State Department official, under Reagan, Wolfowitz took part in orchestrating the ouster of Philip pine President Ferdinand Marcos, known as a stalwart friend of the United States. The downfall of Marcos is known to be tied to his refusal to accept loans from international banks. Subsequently, Wolfowitz took over as undersecretary of defense for policy, replacing another committed Israel-firster, Ikle, in a key position. This year, Wolfowitz, Ikle and Bryen, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, have turned up as influential Republican campaign consultants. All three became known as Zionist agents of influence during the Reagan era, when Ikle served as Perle's boss and Bryen as his second-in-command in the Pentagon.

Bryen was an especially controversial example of a security risk getting a highly sensitive post merely because he was part of an influential Zionist network. He had been reported to the FBI as an alien intelligence agent by a witness who accidentally overheard a confidential conversation between Bryen and some visiting Israeli officials.

The FBI investigated and urged the indictment of Bryen on espionage charges. But the case was shelved by the Justice Department on the insistence of Washington attorney Nathan Lewin, an especially forceful spokesman for the Israeli lobby.

Together, Perle, Ikle and Bryen were responsible during the 1980s for what some critics now describe as a "monstrous" act of treachery. They granted Israel exclusive access to the closely guarded blueprints and weaponry of the most sophisticated U.S. war fighting technology. Simultaneously, these high-ranking Washington officials, in traitorous collusion with the ministate's military industries, condoned the secret Israel-China arms trade. That effectively gave the Communist Chinese -- fanatical enemies of the U.S. -- unrestricted access to America's most advanced armaments.

On the Democratic side, millionaire magazine publisher Peretz took a leading part in orchestrating the cover-up of the vast contraband commerce between Israel and Red China, that ran into tens of billions of dollars over the years. Peretz, who was Gore's instructor in international affairs at Yale University, has remained one of the rising Tennessee politician's closest mentors ever since, and is said to be the leading candidate for CIA director in any future Gore administration.

Like Perle and Wolfowitz, his counterparts in the Republican camp, Peretz is "skeptical" about the prospects of a negotiated settlement in the Middle East, and prefers forcible "rogue states rollback" instead.

This matching assortment of dual loyalist policy planners in the Republican and Democratic campaign "raises the same dark forebodings about future U.S. foreign policy and national-security strategy, whether Bush or Gore wins the election," says magazine writer Ross Pennekamp, who has been covering the presidential race.

"Maybe Pat Buchanan's 'America First' platform is the only safe and sensible option for voters in this season of dangerous political choices," he added.

The SPOTLIGHT March 27, 2000

The Only Bilderberg-Free Candidate

Bilderberg, the shadowy group of elites who run the show from the behind the scenes, controls the Republican and Democratic candidates in the 2000 presidential elections. But it's Pat Buchanan, the man they haven't mastered, who worries them the most.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Of the five major candidates for president, all except Pat Buchanan are under close control of Bilderberg.

When Buchanan first ran for president in 1992, he promised The SPOTLIGHT not to let these internationalists control America. He has since reiterated that promise.

But the others are under direct control of Bilderberg:

* Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) has for foreign policy advisers Richard Pearle and Richard Armitage, both old-line Bilderberg participants. His father, former President George Bush, was a member of Bilderberg's brother group, the Trilateral Commission.

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as national co-chairman and foreign policy adviser. Hagel, also a Trilateralist, was recruited by Bilderberg last June in Sintra, Portugal, and is a likely pick for vice president on the GOP ticket.

* Vice President Al Gore is the obliging puppet of his boss, President Clinton. Clinton is a long-time Trilateralist who was promoted to Bilderberg in Baden Baden, Germany, in 1991.

* Bill Bradley attended several Bilderberg meetings as a senator from New Jersey. Bilderberg retains its own for life, even if political expediency requires some discreet absences.

Buchanan told The SPOTLIGHT during his first run that he would not appoint anyone to one of his cabinets who did not put America before any other international body.

"I don't know who Bilderberg is, but I've known for a long time that our foreign policy is controlled by an international elite, including the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations," Buchanan told The SPOTLIGHT. "I would turn elsewhere for advice."

Liberty Lobby, publisher of The SPOTLIGHT, soon afterward placed extensive information about Bilderberg in the hands of his sister and campaign manager, Bay Buchanan. Her brother continues to denounce the "international elite."

CONTROL

The interlocked Bilderberg-Trilateral elite has always tried to control the office of the presidency by owning both horses in a two-horse race.
In 1976, Trilateralist Jimmy Carter defeated Bilderberg Gerald Ford, the incumbent president. Carter's vice president, Walter Mondale, was also a Trilateralist

In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned against Trilateralism in the primaries, forcing rival George Bush to "resign" from the group. Reagan was pressured into taking Bush then a pro-abortion advocate who had called Reagan's tax-cut plans "voodoo economics" on the ticket. The following March, Vice President Bush addressed the Trilaterals in Washington and Reagan hosted them at a White House reception.

In 1984, Reagan won in a landslide over Michael Dukakis, who was surrounded by Bilderberg-Trilaterals. Dukakis' running mate, then Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), chairman of the Banking Committee, was a Bilderberg regular. Bentsen continued attending Bilderberg meetings as Clinton's treasury secretary until a stroke incapacitated him three years ago. In 1992, Bilderberg Clinton ousted Trilateralist Bush.

National politicians understand the significance of support from the international elite. The Detroit News asked McCain: "What's the first thing you would do as president?"

McCain replied that he would call in, among others, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and Hagel and say: "We've got to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track."

Brzezinski is a long-time Trilateral power. Kissinger is part of the top interlocking leadership between the Trilateralists and Bilderberg. Hagel is a new Bilderberg recruit.

The SPOTLIGHT March 27, 2000

China Building Up Air Power in Central America

Red China wants to extend its military air power into the Western Hemisphere, where it will be within easy striking distance of the United States.

By Mike Blair

The Chinese government is attempting to buy Howard Air Force Base, at one time the main U.S. military base for Central America, which was abandoned to Panama when the U.S. turned over control of the Panama Canal earlier this year.

Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, and Larry Klayman, chief counsel for Judicial Watch, learned about the Panamanian government putting the former U.S. base up for bid during a recent fact-finding tour of that country.

Phillips and Klayman said they were told by Panamanian officials that two Red Chinese front companies have submitted bids, along with offers from two Russian companies and several private interests, including Texas billionaire Ross Perot.

Phillips said it is feared that the Chinese may use illicit means in the bidding process.

The sale of the base could go as high as $3.5 billion, Panamanian officials claim.

If the Chinese gain control of the strategic air base, it will provide them air strips from which they can launch strikes well into the United States.

The Chinese military's front company, Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., has already established bases on both ends of the Panama Canal. They are in a position to control traffic along the vital waterway.

As reported in last week's SPOTLIGHT, Hutchinson Whampoa has obtained and is expanding port facilities in Freeport, Bahamas.

The Red Chinese firm has also obtained a 50 percent interest in the Grand Bahamas Airport Company, which is adjacent to the port facility in Freeport.

The Hong Kong-based shipping company already owns one of the largest airport runways in the world, an 11,000 foot long strip, capable of handling the world's largest military transport aircraft.

Next to the airport, the Chinese have plans to build the Grand Bahamas Sea-air Business Center. This will give them some 8 million square feet of warehouse and storage space.

Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary in the Reagan administration, and other experts warn that the Red Chinese incursions into the Caribbean-Central American region are creating a grave concern for U.S. security.

Before he became president Ronald Reagan was opposed to the U.S. giveaway of the American canal in Panama, considering it as one of the world most critical "choke points" from which a major war could develop.

During the Reagan administration, the airport in Freeport was utilized as the main staging area for the U.S. invasion of the Marxist island nation of Grenada.

Hutchinson-Whampoa boasts on its web site that "Freeport is the closest offshore port to the East Coast of the United States, at the crossroads of routes between Europe and the Americas through the Panama Canal.

There is little wonder that the Chicoms are so intent upon extending their influence and projecting their economic and military influence in what is one of the most strategic areas on earth.