Reprinted from www.libertylobby.org, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
Upcoming IMF Protests Menace D.C. Internationalists
Organizers of the WTO protests in Seattle are gearing up for similar massive anti-globalist demonstrations in Washington, D.C., when the world's financial leaders gather this April.
By James P. Tucker Jr.
More than 60 organizations -- ranging from the ideological left to followers of Pat Buchanan -- plan Seattle-style demonstrations April 16 when the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meet in Washington.
It is to be a "strong stand against corporate globalization," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. His latest conclusions were presented at a press conference by the umbrella group, Mobilization for Global Justice, on March 14.
The groups plan to lobby Congress, hold educational forums and conduct peaceful demonstrations during the annual joint meeting of the World Bank and IMF.
Police said they are prepared to block the type of violence that shut down a meeting of the World Trade Organization last November in Seattle.
Many of the participating groups object to the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, IMF and such trade agreements as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). And they point to victories attributable to their popular resistance.
"Although NAFTA was ratified, more recent efforts to extend this model have so far been defeated," Weisbrot said. He cited Congress' rejection of the Free Trade Area of the Americas -- a 34-nation extension of NAFTA.
David Rockefeller, a power in Bilderberg and its brother group, the Trilateral Commission (TC), has publicly called for expanding NAFTA to include all the Western Hemisphere, a preliminary to establishing an "American Union" similar to the European Union.
The Multinational Agreement on Investment, another NAFTA-expander, and "fast track" authority for the administration to negotiate trade deals that could be voted up or down -- but not changed by Congress -- have also failed to pass, Weisbrot said.
"Although most people don't know much about it, there is an institution that causes more harm to working people than NAFTA -- that is the IMF," said Weisbrot, a Ph.D. in economics who has written on the subject for the Cornell International Law Journal and other publications.
"This is not a conspiracy theory; almost all of what we know about the IMF is in the form of publicly available information," Weisbrot said. "The information is there, but there are a couple of reasons that the IMF and its practices" receive little attention.
"First, the IMF deliberately tries to keep a low profile -- its practices are as secretive and unaccountable as it can get away with," he said. "And second, the IMF hides behind a veil of 'technical expertise,' with the result that most people don't try to find out what it does."
The IMF imposes NAFTA-like conditions on countries. Just as NAFTA made it easier for U.S. corporations to move their operations to Mexico, he said, the IMF makes it easier for them to move almost anywhere in the world.
"It forces governments to rewrite their laws, as NAFTA did to Mexico, so that they are more favorable to foreign investors," Weisbrot said. "This drives down wages everywhere and especially in those countries like the United States where businesses can threaten to move when workers try to unionize or demand higher pay. It also leads to job losses when these employers actually move their operations out of the country."
The IMF also forces countries to produce for export instead of domestic markets, causing global gluts that drive down prices and wages and encourage "dumping," he said. "Many of the 12,000 [U.S.] steel workers who lost their jobs over the last year are casualties of IMF policies in countries like South Korea, Russia and Brazil."
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
China Angling to Be Principal U.S. Ammo Provider
The Pentagon may soon depend on China to supply the country with a non-toxic, but very expensive type of ammunition.
By Mike Blair
If the Pentagon decides to make all shells and bullets used by the military services non-toxic and supposedly safe for the environment, the United States will rely on China for a supply of the strategic metal tungsten for the cores of the projectiles, The SPOTLIGHT has learned.
The conversion from lead to tungsten for ammunition is expected to spill over into the civilian sector, where all lead shot used in shotguns, as well as the cores of bullets for rifles and handguns, will also be banned.
This will have a major impact on American sportsmen who cast their own bullets from lead, which melts at a relatively low temperature. Tungsten requires the intense heat of oxy-acetylene-generated temperatures to melt.
Test results show that tungsten-core bullets of the 5.66 millimeter ball (full metal-jacketed) round is satisfactory for use in the U.S. military's standard M16A2 infantry rifle and the M249 squad automatic weapons (SAWS), according to spokesman Bob Whistine at the Army's Industrial Operations Command at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois.
While the Army is "not buying small caliber tungsten tipped ammo from China," Whistine said "China is a major source for tungsten metal in manufacturing."
"The green ammo [environmentally safe] program uses tungsten and other materials, primarily nylon, in the projectile," Whistine told The SPOTLIGHT.
Whistine said Rock Island Arsenal is using metal mined in this country to produce 100,000 rounds of the ammunition with tungsten cores for testing at the facility.
The mines, however, will be unable to produce sufficient tungsten for the military's ammunition needs, according to Charles Maxwell, a world-renowned research geologist who has conducted extensive research on strategic metals of the world for U.S. military intelligence.
According to the U.S. geological survey, in 1997, the United States relied on foreign suppliers for 85 percent of its tungsten. The United States produces all its lead domestically for U.S. consumption.
Maxwell said Red China is the world's major producer of tungsten. Smaller amounts of tungsten are mined in India, Indonesia and South Africa.
U.S. tungsten is mined from the sands along the beaches of South Carolina and Georgia and from underground mines in western Montana and western Nevada, Maxwell said. He pointed out there is not a sufficient amount for U.S. military ammunition needs from all of these sources combined.
In addition to making the U.S. military dependent on China for its small arms ammunition, the use of tungsten in bullets will run up the cost of ammunition production. Tungsten is priced at $2.70 per pound on the market, while lead costs approximately 21 cents per pound.
Late last summer, the Army selected Alliant Techsystems of Hopkins, Minn., to supply and produce the various small-caliber ammunition for the military for the next 10 years. There also is a 25-year contract with the Army's Lake City Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo., to produce the ammunition.
Alliant replaces the Olin Corporation, which has produced for years the famous Winchester-Western brand of ammunition for sporting and military purposes.
In protest of the Army's switch to Alliant, Olin asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the new contract for fairness. Late last year, the GAO issued its final report, which did not favor Olin.
Rod Bitz, a spokesman for Alliant, told The SPOTLIGHT that Alliant has not yet received an order from the Army for a change in the production process involving the switch from lead to tungsten.
Bitz indicated that his company does anticipate such an order. He said, however, before this order is received, his company could not discuss potential sources of the needed tungsten.
Along with the tungsten-cored bullets for small arms, the military is planning to end its use of depleted uranium for artillery shells, particularly for heavy tank guns.
Depleted uranium was effective in ammunition used by American tanks in the Persian Gulf War. It knocked out hundreds of Iraq's heavy tanks and other armored vehicles.
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
China Making Bullets on U.S. Soil
A Chinese-connected factory in southern California has begun production of bullet-cores made of tungsten imported from mainland china.
By Mike Blair
An ammunition factory in California with links to china is operating in California and producing military-style small arms bullets.
The role that the plant, J.J. Ammo, will play in future production of cartridges for the U.S. military with bullet cores of tungsten mined in China is unknown.
In its April 14, 1997, issue, The SPOTLIGHT reported the opening of the plant, located in Adelanto, Calif, about 75 miles from downtown Los Angeles. J.J. Ammo planned to open a massive 50,000 square-foot facility in an industrial park in Adelanto, this populist newspaper exclusively pointed out.
Part of the large complex, a 7,000-square-foot bullet manufacturing plant, later opened at 9800 Yucca in Adelanto. A skeleton staff, including workers from the Red Chinese mainland, produce by the millions 5.66 millimeter full-metal jacketed bullets of the same caliber used in the Army's M16A2 rifle and the M249 squad (fully) automatic weapon (SAW).
The SPOTLIGHT has obtained from sources at the plant the identity of at least one major purchaser of the military-style, fully brass-jacketed bullets. The firm, located in Colorado, resells the bullets, along with cartridge casings from one-fired ammunition, to individuals or firms involved in re-loading ammunition.
According to a source, plant officials plan to produce, under contract, ammunition for the U.S. military. It would fill massive orders, including bullets with the projected new tungsten cores, confirmed the source.
The Adelanto facility only has machinery set up to produce bullets, which it has been manufacturing in 5.66 and 9 millimeter calibers. Throughout the facility there are packing crates filled with machinery manufactured in mainland China, the source said.
Expansion of the facility, including production of complete cartridges, is dependent upon additional workers arriving from Red China, the Source told The SPOTLIGHT. The workers have been held up due to work visa difficulties.
When The SPOTLIGHT broke the story about the ammo factory in April 1997, the next month the Clinton administration pressured local officials in Long Beach, Calif, to lease the naval yard and port facilities to Cosco, the state-owned Red Chinese shipping arm.
At the time, a giant commercial center, the Du Zhong Hua Wholesale Town, was planned to house hundreds of Chinese wholesale and retail firms in Adelanto, near the former George Air Force Base. The Center would have products shipped in via the Cosco Long Beach port facility. The J.J. Ammo plant would have been tied in with that complex.
Plans for the commercial center fell through, according to Michael Sakamoto, a Spokesman for the Adelanto City Clerk's Office.
Salamoto said he has no knowledge of the ammo factory being owned by anyone other than John Chang, a native of Taiwan. The firm's main office is located in San Gabriel, Calif.
J.J. Ammo's marketing supervisor David Chiang, however, confessed that the firm has "other owners."
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
United Nation's Global Gun Grab Exposed
Thanks to massive public outcry, attempts by U.S. gun grabbers to ban firearms on a national level have been stymied. But all of that may not matter if the United Nations has its way.
By James P. Tucker Jr.
The United Nations, during a session from March 1-3, embraced a plan to register every handgun possessed by every human.
The meeting was to prepare an agenda for a UN summit on small arms next year.
Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France and co-chairman of the "Eminent Persons Group," called for a "Small Arms control Regime," or SACR, to impose "international standard."
SACR would have a "Small Arms Register" which would list ever gun and it's current ownership," Rocard said.
His proposals were received enthusiastically and will be on the agenda of the summit set for some time next year. (It is undecided if global gun control is to apply only to handguns; the UN also identifies "small arms" as any weapon that can be held by one man, such as rifles and shotguns.)
Rocard said his proposal is supported by the United States, Britain and other nations.
At this time, President Clinton is pressuring Congress to enact more gun laws.
"Improved simple and cost-effective arms-marking techniques can now document the year and place of manufacture and current ownership, enabling the register to maintain records on the movement of each weapon," Rocard said.
"Governments fail in controlling the end use of small arms exports," he continued. "We must get them to tighten national controls and to accept strengthened international standards for legal arms transfers. Such would lend itself to reducing supply -- significantly."
Guns are "a cancer growing on the moral conscience of the international community" and the UN should "apply to small arms transfers...rigid and intrusive controls," he said. "The nation-state system itself is in danger of collapsing under the heavy burden of having to cope with the proliferation of small arms."
"Measures must be devised to limit the access to small arms, to curtail the supply of small arms and to reduce the demand for small arms," he said. "The weapons of violence must be brought back into the control of the state with the state itself being made accountable for its deeds".
This "essentially means empowering the state at one level and using all tools available to induce more responsible behavior on its part at another," he said. "The two approaches must be mutually compatible."
The UN, he added, must establish "norms that would regulate state and non-state behavior alike."
A "comprehensive control regime should be put in place to regulate the activities of national and international agents who engage in the sale of small arms, he said. "There should be government licensing requirements for corporate and individual arms brokering activities. In order to reinforce and strengthen national laws, corporations and individuals should be subject to national jurisdiction for their worldwide arms brokering activities."
He also called for global rules requiring liability insurance on handguns and holding owners responsible for violence that occurs after they have sold the weapon.
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
David Duke Discusses State of U.S.
In recent years, former Louisiana State Rep. David Duke has appeared frequently on "mainstream" radio and television talk shows, expressing his point of view. No one has criticized those programs for promoting racism.
On March 12 Duke was a guest on The SPOTLIGHT's weekly call-in talk forum, Radio Free America (RFA), with host Tom Valentine and was permitted to discuss his views freely and openly and without combative interruption.
What follows is a transcript of the RFA interview with Duke. Valentine's questions start with a "Q". Duke's responses start with an "R".
Q. The reason I asked you to be my guest is because open-minded people would like to hear what you have to say -- not what the media has to say about you. You have a new organization that people want to hear about.
R. The new organization is the National Organization for European American Rights (NOFEAR). The group is just as the name suggests: We are for preserving the rights and heritage of European-Americans.
There are many organizations standing up for non-white groups, such as the NAACP for blacks, La Raza Unida, which stands up for Mexican-Americans. You have the American Jewish Congress which stands up exclusively for Jewish interests and for Israel, rather than the United States.
You have all these different groups which stand up for certain minority interests and we feel the time has come tht there be at least one organization that stands up for the rights and interests of European-Americans. Why do we need it? For a number of reasons.
The first reason is that we, as European-Americans, face discrimination in employment, promotions, scholarship, college admissions.
We also face a cultural discrimination by our liberal Hollywood media that constantly attacks our heritage.
Constantly, whenever there is a conflict between the white Americans and any sort of minority group, the white Americans are always protrayed as the evil ones.
We've seen the media report massive numbers of so-called "hate crimes" by whites against blacks, such as the James Byrd case in Texas, and many others, but the truth is that white people in this country are 56 times more likely to be attacked by a black person than a white person is to attack a black person. Those statistics are taken from data supplied by the U.S. Justice Department in the National Crime Victimization Survey.
Now I want to say this: I don't hate blacks. I don't want to supress blacks. And I'm not trying to attack black people as a group by saying these things. What I'm pointing out is that black heritage is respected by our liberal media, but European-American rights are not. It's not hatred to want your people to survive.
Q. It seems that NOFEAR is essentially an organization for European-Americans (just like me -- my parents came over here from Scotland), along the lines of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which represents Jewish Americans.
R. Exactly. The difference is that NOFEAR is not hypocritical like the ADL is. The ADL acts like they are for "equal rights" and for "tolerance" and os forth. But the truth is that they are a supremacist organization that supports the state of Israel, which, in fact, is a supremacist state.
Israel has segregated schools for Jews and Palestinians. Israel has segregated settlements and cities.
It's interesting to me that the same liberal media and the same government in this country that supports the state of Israel with billions of our American tax dollars is the same government that is trying to destroy our heritage as European-Americans.
Q. The "politically correct" thing for the media to do is to attack you, David Duke, as a "bigot" and a "hate-monger." You war a member of the KKK. Please tell us about that.
R. As a young man, I was a member of the KKK because, at that time, I came to believe that our country was adopting policies that would destroy our European-Christian heritage.
I saw things like this going on back in the 1060s and the only group I saw at that time standing up for European-Americans at that point in history, and openly so, was the Klan. I joined a group that was non-violent and was not engaged in any sort of illegal activities.
I left the Klan over 20 years ago I got tired of fighting that stereotyped image of illegality.
Then, in just over 10 years, I was elected to the Louisiana legislature. I served as a Republican. I'm currently serving as a Republican Party official as chairman of the largest Republican Party unit here in Louisiana, in st. Tammany Parish.
What interesting is that the only thing the media brings up is my Klan background. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who was once the Senate Majority Leader, was in the KKK, but the media doesn't refer to him as "former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd." the media doesn't refer to Rep Bobby Rush(D-Ill) as "former Black Panther Bobby Rush."
I tell my supporters all the time that they've got to realize that even without my background in the Klan, my critics would still be saying terrible things about me because of what I am saying.
Look at Patrick Buchanan. Here's a guy who was condemned Nazism again and again and again. He simply wrote a book talking about how the second world war was, in some ways, disastrous for Western civilization and that we could have avoided that war with a more prudent policy before the war. For that very mild statement and for saying that we should have an "America First" policy in the Middle East, we have the liberal media and liberal commentators calling Buchanan a "Nazi".
Q. As a practical thing, there are many people who are embedded in a multicultural lifestyle and they don't mind it at all.
R. Laws mandating integration or denying the right to segregation really destroy our right of association. The right of association also means the right of non-association as well. This is a big enough country that we should be able to do what we want to do.
Here's what I advocate we should do with our schools. I am not saying we should have forcibly segregated schools. I am saying that we should give people a choice. I think the overwhelming majority of whites want their kids to go to their own schools. They realize those schools are safer, and that those kids have less percentages of drugs, less violence.
Q. Would all-black schools and neighborhoods be able to solve their problems?
R. I can't say this would solve their problems, but European-Americans shouldn't have to suffer their problems, nor should the blacks suffer from our control. Blacks have a right to determine their own destiny, their own society, their own community just as we should have that right.
James Meridith, the black American who was once at the pinnacle of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, supported me when I ran for governor and U.S. senator in Louisiana, when I got over 50 percent of the European-American vote in those major statewide races. When he supported me, Meridith pointed out that when blacks had their own areas and couldn't go out into the white areas as they can do, blacks were forced, by the circumstances, to be more responsible in their own communities.
Q. There are a lot of patriots who, frankly, get nervous when these ics come up.
R. True, but we can't ignore the problem any longer. I'll give yo a good example. Take immigration policy. Every patriotic American is opposed to this massive immigration (both legal and illegal) that we have from the Third World.
This policy is not some accident. The policy has been purposeful to the end that 95 percent of the immigrants coming int America are non-European. Everybody should ge the fact very straight in their mind. This policy has been purposely changed over the last 50 years and the groups primarily lobbying for this change have been the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations.
In my book I cite, from leading Jewish sources, the fact that these groups brag that they are making European-Americans a minority in this country. Their theory is that by making European-Americans a minority in the United States, They (the Jewish people) will have more solidarity among their own people, to be able to control us. It's well documented.
Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress, supports an organization that brings Jews from around the world to Israel and encourages Jews to marry only other Jews and preserve their own genotype. In his own words, he says: "Isn't it great to sit next to someone ho shares your DNA?" In other words, your own racial and ethnic background.
Q. It sounds like his views might be described as "racist," since his view toward his fellow Jews reflects your views toward your fellow European-Americans.
R. The integration that the Jewish community promotes is integration for everybody else. I guess I'll be an integrationist too. I'll promote integration for everybody else except for European-Americans.
Our people are a great people. We've made the most sublime and beautiful poetry, literature, music, architecture and scientific advancement, and, of course, our wonderful Christian faith. But at times we don't have the sense to come in from the rain. We're so loving and so generous in terms of our attitudes that we are letting people take advantage of us and destroy our own hoes, values and our country.
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
Scientology Accused of 'Subliminal Seduction'
Battlefield Earth, starring John Travolta and Barry Pepper, Warner Bros., was scheduled for release this spring. Now it faces some major controversy.
By P. Samuel Foner
Warner Brothers, Morgan Creek and Franchise Pictures may be forced to halt distribution of the new $80 million John Travolta film Battlefield Earth, according to FACTNet, a cult watchdog group.
It's not because of an unfavorable review by The Washington Post. And it's not because Battlefield Earth is a really bad film based on a really bad book.
According to Internet postings, supported by FACTNet and Arnie Lerma, the reason is the connection of Scientology, the tax-free cult-cum religion founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, to the move.
Battlefield Earth is a book by the late Hubbard, founder of Scientology. And it contains many of the basic beliefs of Hubbard's cult including "souls" -- in Scientology they are called thetans -- from outer space brought to Earth millions of years ago.
But the main reason Warner may be forced to postpone -- or even cancel -- release of the movie are allegations that the movie illegally contains sophisticated subliminal messages designed to get people into the cult of Scientology.
The charge comes from -- among others -- FACTNet, a nonprofit organization that purports to reveal the truth behind cults and their beliefs. Many FACTNet members are former Scientologists.
Aside from the fact that Battlefield Earth is not just pulp fiction, but a bad example of cheap, grind-it-out sci-fi, both FACTNet and Lerma say that Scientology was behind the making of the movie from the word "go."
And, claim the anti-Scientology sources, this movie is designed to bring in thousands -- perhaps millions -- of new recruits to Scientology.
The plot, if it can be called that, of the movie involves intrepid Earthmen who fight forces from the outer space.
Psychiatrists are the Fifth Column on Earth. And, the Earth must be "cleansed" so that Earthmen can become "clear."
That sounds like the basic concepts of Scientology to Lerma, and he should know. Once upon a time, Lerma was a Scientologist. Then he decided to leave.
That was bad. What was worse, he decided to tell people what the Scientology business teaches and its basic aims. He's been under attack ever since.
According to sources in contact with FACTNet, the apparent leader of Scientology, David Miscavige, gave the final OK to the Battlefield Earth project to save the cult from disappearing. Many European countries designate Scientology a cult, and leaders have been convicted of illegal activities. New recruits have been lacking lately.
According to Internet postings, Miscavige had the idea to turn Hubbard's books into a sci-fi series that would recruit new members to Scientology.
And then, says FACTNet, he stepped across the line. Subliminals were to be used in the movie to convince people that they should join Scientology.
Says FACTNet, allegedly quoting from an inside source:
"Miscavige insisted that the urgency of the times make the risk worth the reward that if we did it right, we would not get caught.
"We also felt the risk was low because nobody was actively screening for subliminals anymore. The laws and the public outcry against it were 30 years old. Finally it was decided to go ahead with using subliminals because we controlled the film content, we would control production security and we would have trusted Scientology members in the key areas necessary to get it done.
The bottom line is that Travolta apparently twisted some arms at Warner to get the major movie firm to release the Scientology-backed movie. But now, some serious questions are being asked, and Warner apparently doesn't want to take the heat.
Can they afford to lose Travolta, a confirmed and committed Scientologist? At first they thought they couldn't. Now, they may have changed their minds.
The SPOTLIGHT April 3, 2000
Farm Rally Draws Thousands to D.C. Protest
American farmers and ranchers say they have had enough of low commodity prices, unfair competition and bad government policy. They want Congress to take real actions that will significantly improve economic conditions in farm country.
By Margo Turner
By car, bus and airplane, 2,000 farmers and ranchers from across the country converged on Washington, D.C., in late March, demanding Congress accept a five-point plan designed to fix what ails rural America.
Proposed by more than 40 grassroots family farm groups, the plan addresses critical farm issues: the need for a new farm bill that ensures farm income come from the marketplace and not from taxpayers, enforcement of anti-trust laws, consumer and environmental protection, referenda on mandatory pork and beef checkoffs and negotiation of fair trade agreements.
"It's time for politicians to stop paying lip service to rural America and start putting an effective plan in place for our long-term survival," said Rhonda Perry, a Missouri hog farmer and member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, at the "Rally for Rural America."
The two-day event kicked off March 20, National Agriculture Day, with a press conference, held at Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill. Farmers, ranchers and their families came to listen, despite a dreary, cold day.
Other speakers, including farm advocates and a dozen members of Congress, echoed the same sentiment: Farmers and ranchers are fed up with a failed farm policy, slumping crop prices and the increasing consolidation of the nation's food supply by corporate agri-businesses.
There will be further consolidation and corporate concentration in the food industry if Congress doesn't revamp the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, warned Bill Christison, a Missouri farmer and president of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), one of the groups pushing for the five-point farm plan.
NOT MUCH FOR FARMERS
As part of the event, rally organizers held a Farmer's Share Luncheon. The idea was to show the amount of money a farmer would receive for his contribution of food -- just 39 cents for a beef sandwich, baked beans, potato salad, cole slaw, milk and a cookie. This is a meal that would typically cost $7 or more on the retail level.
Following the luncheon, farmers, ranchers and rural citizens discussed the farm and rural crisis with key members of Congress, such as Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), who said he is urging his colleagues in Congress to hear farmers' concerns.
The second part of the rally was held March 21 on the Capitol Hill grounds. A steady rainfall, however, didn't deter participants from coming. "This is not fix-up time," Helen Waller, of Montana, a member of the National Family Farm Coalition, told the crowd. "It's time to junk the farm program and get a new model."
"We need a farm bill that makes sense to family farmers who own their own land. We need sensible policies," noted Ralph Paige, director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.
The big losers are the American consumers, who probably don't realize that the food they buy comes from multinational companies and not from hardworking farmers, Vicki Trytten, president of the Alaska Farmers Union, pointed out. If nothing else, the rally gave national exposure to the plight of the American farmer and ranchers, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) said.
The SPOTLIGHT April 10, 2000
Fed Chairman Greenspan Fingered as King of Cashwash
A congressional probe into the multi-trillion dollar international money laundering scandal that occurred earlier this year identified what banks are at the heart of the corrupt financial practices in the United States. But don't count on Congress to do anything about it.
By Martin Mann
While the Clinton administration and congressional leaders call for a crackdown on money laundering, there is no agreement as to how to tighten the statutory curbs on outlaw "private banking," thanks to the "boss of bosses" in this vast financial underworld -- Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
"There is no question that Greenspan is the key figure in the creeping criminalization of our payments system," said Dr. Alan Milinkovich, a former U.S. treasury enforcement official, now a private consultant on Wall Street.
"He has condoned -- on occasion even introduced -- the tainted practices corrupting the financial services industry, from countenancing deceptive accounting standards to churning billions in drug profits through the Federal Reserve system," Milinkovich pointed out.
That system, as SPOTLIGHT readers may already know, is made up of three principal components. At the grass roots, the network of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, run by private financiers and businessmen, is tasked with serving the banking industry in their territory. Over them sits the Board of Federal Reserve Governors -- seven presidential appointees who deal with policy questions and regulatory oversight. Finally, there is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a mixed panel made up of the seven governors and five regional Federal Reserve bank presidents. The FOMC meets periodically to debate -- and decide -- what to do about the nation's money supply, interest rates and other macroeconomic issues.
That, at least, is the official version. What Fed Chairman Greenspan and his organization of powerful economic enforcers -- who usurp the authority of high public office while being owned and controlled by private bankers -- do in reality is less well known.
That is because the Fed "enjoys privileges extended to no other agency in Washington," said William Greider, author of a major book on the system.(1)
The Fed operates in airtight secrecy without congressional supervision or public accountability. "No other agency of government, not even the Central Intelligence Agency, enjoys such privacy," Greider marveled.
The usage of this prominent author, a former Washington Post correspondent, is revealing. Even Greider, a perceptive critic of the system, tends to talk on occasion as if the Fed were one of the "other agencies" of government.
But the Fed is not a government agency. It is a singularly privileged and secretive coordinating center of the private financial services business.
Greider notes that the Fed likes to depict the economic subculture of banks and allied institutions Greenspan dominates as a well-ordered, open environment.
That is not the case, Greider said. The financial system is not as neatly laid out "as an accountant's static balance sheet . . . it works like a fantastically complicated labyrinth of pipes and storage tanks and boilers, with pressure valves and plumbing and auxiliary pumps, all elaborately interconnected."
Inside this serpentine system flows the financial wealth of the nation, "back and forth, through many channels and tanks, always seeking higher returns," that is, fatter profits, Greider concluded.
The fattest profits of the financial services business are to be found in money-laundering, a recent congressional probe discovered to its surprise.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations headed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) began hearings on the dirty-money deals in November 1999. But the probe was called off after two days when senators were shocked to hear testimony implicating Wall Street banks in a huge cash-wash that routinely converted trillions of tainted dollars. (See The SPOTLIGHT's front-page report on Dec. 6, 1999, for more details.)
The hearing started as an investigation of just how Citibank, the giant Wall Street money-center, came to launder more than $100 million in drug payoffs for the family of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas.
But the testimony of banking executives revealed more than the lawmakers had reckoned with. The largest U.S.-based banks, led by Chase Manhattan, the Rockefeller dynasty's financial flagship, routinely laundered tens of billions of dollars into deeply disguised false-front accounts around the world without questioning their origin.
Their explanation was that this was not "money laundering." It was "private banking."
Cash-washing on such a huge scale was inevitably done through the Federal Reserve system, the congressional investigation discovered. When Citibank took in millions of dirty drug dollars from the Salinas clan, it booked the loot -- falsely -- as clean deposits and sent them on to the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta to be added to its reserves.
When, perhaps a week later, it required fresh currency, Citibank simply drew on its surplus Fed reserve account. After deducting its lucrative "fees" and "royalties," Citibank transferred the narcotics nest egg of the Mexican ex-president's family to false-front Swiss ac counts, where they were eventually discovered by authorities only by accident.
However, the Salinas account, totaling a little more than $100 million, was "one of the smallest our private banking unit handled," a Citibank executive testified. It was merely an insignificant drop in the tide of tainted billions laundered by Wall Street banks through the Fed system. Frightened by the enormity of the abuses they had uncovered, they terminated the hearing -- just when it got interesting
Now, in a new attempt to discourage massive money-laundering -- or, at least, to make a credible pretense of doing so -- the Clinton administration is urging Congress to impose tighter controls on the financial markets.
The bill proposed by Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers would designate locations known to be heavily involved in masked money-management as "High Intensity Money Laundering and Related Financial Crime Areas," or HIFCAs.
But according to a list compiled last month by the General Accounting Office (GAO) the watchdog arm of Congress, when it comes to dealing in dirty money, the worst offenders are Israel, Russia, Ukraine and Mexico.
When the Mexican payments system collapsed in 1994, Greenspan rushed some $30 billion from the Fed's own closely held slush fund to save Mexico's banks from going belly up.
A year and a half after this bold bailout -- which Greenspan launched over the objections of Congress and behind its back -- the three largest Mexican money-center banks the Fed had rescued were indicted in the U.S. on drug-money laundering charges.
In less dramatic circumstances, Green span has intervened at least three times in the early 1990s to help stabilize Israel's currency and payments system with emergency loans.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), under fire for incautiously having lent Russia and Ukraine billions which were promptly stolen and laundered offshore, is complaining more and more loudly that these dubious disbursements were made only "under heavy pressure from the American Treasury and Federal Reserve," as former IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus put it recently.
The SPOTLIGHT April 10, 2000
Mexican Army Troops Fire on U.S. Border Patrol
The Establishment news media has neglected to report on recent hostile invasions by Mexican troops trying to collect bounties placed on Border Patrol agents by foreign drug dealers in the southwest U.S.
By Mike Blair
Mexican troops crossed the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso, Tex., March 12 and fired upon federal agents from one of two American-made Humvee all-terrain military scout vehicles, The SPOTLIGHT has learned.
The SPOTLIGHT is the only national newspaper to uncover the Mexican troops' hostile invasion on U.S. soil. Most of the national Establishment news media have ignored the incident.
The Mexican drug cartels reportedly offered $200,000 for the killing of agents with the border Patrol, the enforcement arm of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Border Patrol officials feared that the Mexican troops crossed the border to kill the U.S. officers and take the bodies back to Mexico, where the troops would be paid by the drug cartels.
Two Border Patrol agents encountered the Mexican mobile unites outside Santa Teresa, N.M., just west of El Paso.
The Mexicans in one of the Humvees fired two shots at the Border Patrol agents, who were on horseback, and began chasing them.
The troops continued pursuing the agents. The agents did not return fire until additional Border Patrol units appeared on the scene. At that point, the Mexican vehicle in which soldiers opened fired at the Americans, turned around and headed back over the border into Mexico.
The second vehicle was captured by Border Patrol officers, who took none Mexican soldiers, headed by a captain, into custody.
The Mexicans were questioned by Border Patrol officers and were released. The following day, Luis Barker, chief of the El Paso Border Patrol headquarters, allowed the soldiers to return to Mexico. Barker was acting upon orders from the U.S. Justice Department, according to reports.
The Mexican consul general in Juaraz told Border Patrol officials in El Paso that the incident was a "regrettable error in judgment" by the Mexican soldiers, according to Doug Mosier, the agency's public information officer.
Officials of the union representing the Border Patrol agents, however, are fearful that the encounter was far more serious and that the Justice Department is attempting to minimize its seriousness in order to avoid an international incident with Mexico.
Mosier told The SPOTLIGHT a shooting review is being conducted by the Border Patrol, which does not "dismiss the severity of this situation."
The Mexican soldiers who were taken into custody were armed with American-made AR-15 semi-automatic assault-type rifles and handguns, he said. The soldiers had what he referred to as a "drug detection canine," which indicates the soldiers had been assigned to the border as part of Mexico's anti-drug efforts.
Mexican soldiers, police and other officials have been linked to drug cartels in the past. Several years ago, high-level Mexican government officials were connected to the torture and killing of Drug Enforcement Agency agent Enrique Camerena, whose mutilated body was ultimately recovered by U.S. officials.
Encounters between the Border Patrol and Mexican soldiers and Mexican national police are not unusual, an American military source, who had been stationed at a number of locations near the U.S. southern border, told The SPOTLIGHT.
The source said several such encounters have occurred along the Mexican border with Arizona and at least on instance just over the border in California. In all incidents, shots were fired at the Border Patrol agents by the Mexicans, he added.
The SPOTLIGHT April 10, 2000
Marine Urban Training Cancelled Due to Uproar.
Resident of Phoenix, Ariz., were spared being awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of helicopters roaring overhead, the sharp rattle of automatic gunfire and the jarring of windows by "flash-bang" grenades during a military urban training exercise.
By Mike Blair
Members of an elite Marine expeditionary unit in full battle gear, including MP-5 submachine guns, M16A1 assault rifles and stun grenades, were about to board Blackhawk helicopters on March 23 for a mock hostage rescue training exercise in downtown Phoenix, Ariz.
Meanwhile, the homeless and their advocates prepared for the Marine onslaught. Bag ladies readied their shopping carts to lead a counterattack. Men crouched behind dumpsters with piles of empty wine bottles they planned to throw at the Marines.
At the last minute, the Marine commanders, fearing the dire consequences of their actions, called for a retreat.
The Pentagon brass decided to cancel their planned maneuvers on urban terrain in Phoenix when they received protests from advocates of the city's homeless.
The plan was to have units of the elite 13th Marine Expeditionary Force, stationed at Camp Pendleton in California, airlifted by helicopters to the intersection of 9th Avenue and Madison Street in downtown Phoenix. The Marines would rappel down and engage in a mock rescue of hostages. The training exercise also called for the Marines to evacuate civilians and deliver humanitarian aid.
The Pentagon, as usual, had talked city officials into cooperating, as part of their patriotic duty, with the training to supposedly prepare the troops for urban warfare in some foreign country.
The effort was the latest in a series of similar operations conducted by elite U.S. military units in American cities and some small towns.
In a few cities, the Pentagon has encountered opposition from local officials. A case in point is San Antonio, Tex., where local officials feared the military training exercise could be disruptive and dangerous to the citizens.
NOT AS FORTUNATE
Some cities were not as fortunate as San Antonio. Bullets penetrated the window of an all-night restaurant in Miami. There was damage to civilian property and a helicopter crash in Houston. A fire, caused by "flash-bang" grenades, raged out of control in New Orleans.
Although they urge that troops use urban warfare training centers located on most Army and Marine bases across the country, critics of the military maneuvers fear potential dangers to civilian life. The worse case scenario: A helicopter crashes as it hovers in the dark of night over a residential apartment complex during a mock attack on an abandoned building nearby.
In Phoenix, advocates for the homeless objected to the Marine training exercise because they felt it would disturb the homeless in the downtown section of the city. An estimated 25 percent of the homeless are military veterans.
"I wish they would be more understanding of the people who are still getting over the Vietnam war," one homeless veteran said.
When the Marines decided to go ahead with the exercise, Phoenix Chief of Police Harold Hurtt and City Manager Frank Fairbanks asked the Pentagon to call off the operation.
The Marines canceled their plans and quietly left the Phoenix area. They promised to find another site in the city for the exercise, where the people are more patriotic."
"I don't think anyone thought this through the initial impact," Fairbanks said.
The SPOTLIGHT April 10, 2000
Montanans Stage Rally to Protest Land Grabs
Patriots in Big Sky Country are planning a civil disobedience demonstration over the growing incidence of unlawful federal and UN land grabs.
By Mike Blair
Citizens of Montana plan a "Mass rally of civil disobedience" against what they refer to as the "Clinton Environmental Regime's War on the West" on April 15 in the city of Libby in the extreme northwest corner of Montana.
According to Terry Andreessen, an automobile dealer from Libby and a veteran of the U.S. military and the U.S. Forest Service, the rally will protest "the federal and global invasion of our rural communities."
Andreessen said that 3,000 Montanans plan to gather in Libby to parade down main street in protest with some people burning U.S. tax forms and the United Nations flag.
He said they are planning to fight what they view as the threatened rights of gun owners, loggers, miners, snowmobilers, ranchers, off-read vehicle owners and other critics of the changing land use policies in America's national forests.
"We just want to be able to survive," Andreessen said.
A flier released by leaders of the protest group states that the rally will be "for a forceful civil disobedience." It will protest the "federal and global invasion of our rural communities in the inter-mountain west that is out of control," the flier states.
"The intent is to follow-up the rally with acts of civil disobedience on July 4," said state Rep. Scott Orr (R-Libby), who is one of the rally organizers.
The April 15 rally, Orr explained, "is to be a fun, family, how dogs kind of event. The big boys' fun will be on July 4."s
The "big boys fun, "Orr said, might be to carve out a road into a friend's mining claim, which has been blocked by the Forest Service.
A letter to spread word of the rally refers to "little Clinonista envirotwerps." They, along with the UN, who have been invading U.S. forest areas by declaring them to be part of a global "biosphere" that must be "protected" from the incursions of man, intend to "starve or slaughter us."
Andreessen said that the "United Nations has been given authority to manage areas like Yellowstone and Glacier national parks."
And as the federal government gains power, Andreessen continued, "we're just being invaded.
"It's threatening our rural communities; our way of life," he said. "We're being shut out, and it's about our constitutional rights and our states' rights."
Orr denounced the federal government for closing down mines, logging businesses and parks on national forest land.
"A case can be made," Orr said, "that should you insert 'federal' in place of 'Great Britain' in the Declaration of Independence, it would be a pretty good fit."
The SPOTLIGHT April 17, 2000
Microsoft Smoke & Mirrors Prop Up Market
In the March 27 issue, The SPOTLIGHT reported on how Microsoft illegally manipulates its stock to hide the fact that it is massively in debt. Bill Parish continues his report illustrating how the megacorporation is raiding the pension system, including your 401K, and destabilizing the stock market.
© 2000 Bill Parish
This story is copyrighted by Bill Parish, but you may read it here on our web site.
For more detailed information on this amazing story, log on to Bill Parish's web site at www.billparish.com
The SPOTLIGHT April 17, 2000
Stop The UN Gun Grab!
This isn't just a "Second Amendment" issue. Our entire Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution itself are threatened.
It's another huge step toward dismantling America as a sovereign nation!
Make no mistake about it: Gun control legislation now before Congress will implement an ongoing UN plan to confiscate privately-owned firearms in every nation on the planet. Liberty Lobby, the populist Institution that publishes The SPOTLIGHT, is rallying all patriots to oppose congressional gun banning measures.
Here is an Emergency Letter from Liberty Lobby for more detail on this crisis. Find out how you can help expose and defeat this scheme.
EMERGENCY LIBERTY LETTER #51 April 17, 2000
Is the IRS 1040 Form going to be the mechanism for the latest back-door scheme by the New World Order crowd to disarm American patriots?
S. 2099: The most insidious scheme yet to force registration of every handgun in America.
It's the first step in a United Nations plan for a "comprehensive control regime" to restrict ownership of all privately owned firearms.
The major media is trying to keep this under wraps: The survival of our U.S. Constitution is at stake!
Bill Clinton is determined to leave office hailed by the global elite as the president who scrapped the Second Amendment and banned the right of private citizens to own guns in America. We can't let him claim this victory!
Here are the facts you need to know about the latest gimmick by the enemies of liberty to steal your constitutional right to keep and bear arms and to dissolve American sovereignty and freedom.
While "big name" gun banners such as Sens. Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Dianne Feinstein seek out the headlines and the limelight, little-known first term Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) Is doing dirty work behind the scenes.
On Feb. 24, Reed quietly introduced the so-called "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000." The bill is numbered S.2099. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. The bill would "amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns and for other purposes."
Among other things, S.2099 would do the following:
The UN has called for a "Small Arms Control Regime" to impose an "international standard" on every country and to require the listing of every gun and its "current ownership." And keep in mind that the term "Small arms" also refers to rifles and shotguns -- not just handguns!
The next step-maybe in your lifetime -- would be heavily armed UN "peacekeepers" in your town, a la Kosovo, East Timor or Congo collecting your firearms. If you think that's an "extreme statement," it's time for you to wake up!
Former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard is the spokesman for the UN cabal demanding a global firearms registration. This UN cabal wants to force sovereign nations to "tighten national controls." According to the UN, governments must start "using all tools available" to restrict access to firearms.
The Internal Revenue code modifications proposed in S.2099 will promote this UN-inspired gun grab in the United States, where Bill Clinton is leading the charge for the UN plan.
He has also called for a national license to purchase a handgun, requiring prospective buyers to undergo an FBI check.
And now, even the international banks are joining the effort. As we reported in The SPOTLIGHT, Citibank canceled the accounts of private businesses on the sole grounds they were lawfully buying and selling firearms. Only public outrage forced Citibank to back off.
HERE'S WHAT YOU MUST DO IMMEDIATELY
* Write and call your two senators. Urge them to not only oppose S.2099, but to also publicly denounce the bill. Ask your senators to give you a specific answer as to whether they support S.2099.
*Tell your senators and your representative in the House to oppose all legislation to ban firearms in America and to Work to repeal gun control laws now in force. We need to flood Capitol Hill with calls and letters from angry Americans now!
*Spread the word about Sen. Reed's dangerous proposal on call-in shows, letters to the editor, etc. Explain that S. 2099 is nothing more than a scheme to disarm Americans as Part of a UN plan to enforce worldwide control of firearm ownership.
You can write your senators c/o the U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 and your representatives c/o the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. To contact them by phone, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
*Make an emergency contribution to Liberty Lobby to help our lobbying effort on Capitol Hill to stop S.2099 dead in its tracks and to fight all gun-grabbling schemes!
Please respond immediately. You may charge your donation to Visa or MasterCard by calling toll-free 1-800-522-6292.
The SPOTLIGHT April 17, 2000
New World Order Gun Grab Bills Proliferate
At last count the 106th Congress had introduced at least 228 legislative actions on firearms. Most of the bills or resolutions remain in committee waiting for constitutionalist to let down their guard, at which time gun grabbers will undoubtedly attempt to ram the bad bills into law. Many of the bills will die in committee never seeing the light of day.
One of the worst bills is authored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.). His bill, S2099, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, allow government bodies to share that information and make a pair of new taxes on gun owners. It imposes a $5 transfer tax on handguns and a $50 tax upon the making of each handgun.
"The bill would require registration of all handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another individual without prior law enforcement approval," said Reed. "As it currently does for all (1934) National firearms Act weapons, ATF would conduct a background check on the transferee through the National Crime Information Center, the Treasury Enforcement Communication System and the National Law Enforcement Tracking System."
Some bills, like H.R.2122, a so-called juvenile criminals justice bill, have been defeated. Gun grabbers tried to add an amendment to the bill that would have required a 72-hour waiting period on gun sales at gun shows.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) Changed the amendment to 24 hours, scaring liberals away from the amendment. Dingell's amendment won, but it effectively killed the bill.
The problem is, what you see in Congress is not always what you get. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) added the 72-hour waiting amendment to a Senate bill in juvenile crime, S.254. Vice President Al Gore was called in to break a tie after a school shooting in Georgia last year and the amendment passed 51-50.
The House also passed a juvenile crime bill, H.R.1501. Although the Lautenberg amendment is not part of the House bill, a conference committee of congressmen and senators are supposed to hash out the differing versions of the bill. Gun grabbers will want the Lautenberg language in the final bill; gun rights proponents won't.
You must let your legislators know you oppose the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability Act. Sec.1605 of the Senate version which requires that the waiting period for any gun sale be "24 hours in a calendar day since the licensee contacted the system."
In other words, if you buy a gun on the Friday night of a three-day weekend, the FBI cannot be contacted until Tuesday. Given 24 hours to make its check, you can't pick up your weapon until Wednesday.
To a liberal, that might mean 24 hours, but to normal people that's five days from the time of purchase to time of delivery -- provided the gun is handed over then. It might take even longer to pick up the item. And to small-time gun dealers, who rely on weekend business to make a living such legislation means lost sales and profits that translate into sure death for their businesses.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Says he will use procedural rules to block any version of the bill that doesn't use the Lautenberg language. Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) says he will use the same procedures to block any version that includes the Lautenberg amendment.
Even if S.254 is defeated, liberals have another bill in the House, H.R.1903, which does the same thing. Introduced by Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) Last May, the Gun Show Accountability Act. Was referred to the House Judiciary's subcommittee on crime.
The Gun Show Accountability Act requires the criminal background check of the Brady law, i.e. submission of a potential buyer's personal information to state police within 24 hours. Blagojevich's bill also authorizes feds to "enter during business hours the place of business of any show promoter and any place where a show is held for purposes of examining required records and the inventory of licensees conducting business at the show, without a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant." So much for the Sixth Amendment rights of gun show promoters.
The Permanent Brady Waiting Period Act of 1999 was introduced in the House as H.R. 1062 by Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.) and the Senate as S.457 by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
This bill requires, when a person applies to buy a handgun that :
* The licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer contact the chief law enforcement officer of the prospective purchaser's place of residence; and
* Five (currently, three) business days have elapsed since the licensee contacted the national instant criminal background check system.
After the National Rifle Association (NRA) got tough with the president(se our editorial of April 3) many in Congress wanted to add their name to legislation aimed at enforcement of current gun laws. These bills are falling under the classification of Project Exile -- a successful strategy out of Virginia that state lawmakers credit with reducing crime. Criminals who use a gun in committing a crime of felons caught with a firearm are guaranteed prison time.
Rep. Bill Mccollum (R-Fla.) has introduced H.R. 4051 as a way of providing funds to take Project Exile national. Under the McCollum plan, Congress would provide $100 million in grants to states that implement programs of mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns or convicts caught with a gun. The bill has 16 cosponsors. The NRA favors this procedure.
Liberals have tried to claim Project Exile as one of their favorites, also. For instnace, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), introduced H.R. 4066. Her bill calls for more than 900 new prosecutors to try crimes involving huns, funding for so-called "smart gun" research creation of a ballistics database to trace bullets and tougher background checks. H.R. 4066 has 39 co-sponsors. Schumer is expected to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.
You have probably read about Smith & Wesson (S&W) caving into pressure from the White House to "voluntary" place jun locks on its pistols. In addition, S&W agreed to conduct "smart gun" technology research. The goal is to find a way of ensuring only the owner of a pistol could use it. The gun maker also said it will force gun dealers to conduct a background check on potential buyers.
Many gun grabbers have used the "Save Our Kids" battle cry while demanding gun locks. For instance, Mrs McCarthy has 60 cosponsors on H.R.1342, the Children Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1999.
Under Mrs. McCarthy's bill it would be illegal to manufacture or import an "unsafe" handgun. She describes "unsafe handgun" to mean:
* any handgun that fails a specified drop test;
Rep. Juuanita Millender-McDonald (D-Calif.) introduced H.R. 1512, the Child Safety Act of 1999. It has 25 cosponsors. Sens. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.), S.149, and Lautenberg, S.319, also have child safety lock bills in the cooker.
Fifteen cities and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are believed to be preparing a tobacco-like suit against gun manufacturers. The chief reason S&W caved in on the issue was to was to avoid being sued by the government.
Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) has a bill, H.R.1032, the Firearms Heritage Protection Act, which would prohibit civil liability against gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers. Although the bill has 95 cosponsors, it hasn't moved since being assigned to the House Judiciary Committee more than a year ago.
Although it often seems otherwise, not everyone on Capitol Hill is out to usurp your rights. For instance:
* Smith introduced S.954 to protect citizens' right under the Second amendment to obtain firearms for legal use and for other purposes.
The SPOTLIGHT April 17, 2000
Your Privacy Endanger by Census
How Private are your answers to the 2000 census form? There is evidence that the federal government may be overstating its promise of confidentiality.
By John Tiffany
The cover letter on the census 2000 form is a "carefully crafted deception "by the Census Bureau, according to Steve T. Fitzgerald, a researcher at Treasury Department.
A cover letter to the census form informing U.S. citizens of their rights, signed by Kenneth Prewitt, director of the Bureau of Census, states: "Your privacy is protected by law (Title 13 of the United States Code), which also requires that you answer these questions. That law ensures that your information is only used for statistical purposes and that no unauthorized person can see your form or find out what you tell us -- no other government agency, no court of law, no one."
This is a fraudulent presentation of the facts, the TTS spokesman told The SPOTLIGHT. TTS pointed out that under Title 13 of the United States Code, which guarantees Americans their privacy, Section 9(a) as confidential; exception" reads:
Section 210(f)(3) of the Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-119), however, reads: "Congress or any subcommittee can disclose any information obtained under section 210, it it can be unanimously agreed that withholding such information would be contrary to the national interest."
"The government knows full well that the pledge of privacy is, in reality, no good," Fitzgerald said. "The privacy of an American who fills out the census form is not protected by Title 13 of the United States Code, nor does the law ensure that the information will only be used for statistical purposes."
He said Section 210(f)(3) serves as a loophole for the government. Various federal agencies use the information on the census form in any way they see fit because every answer to every question can easily be construed to be in the "national interest," including how many toilets an American citizen has, he added.
"We at Treasury Tax Secrets think the real truth about the additional information requested on the census form is that it is strictly for inquisitorial purposes," Fitzgerald told The SPOTLIGHT. "If the government, or any of its agencies, decides that any information you give relating to your earnings or standard of living is not commensurate with your stated income, it can be construed to be 'contrary to the national interest'."
An official at the Census Bureau, who asked not to be identified, said he could not respond to SPOTLIGHT's inquiry. But he said, "No agency can access this information for 72 years, except in aggregate form. Information about a household's plumbing, to take one example, is needed by HUD and EPA for public assistance purposes and because of the Clean Drinking Water Act."
Jerry Gates from the Census Bureau's Policy Office denied the TTS claims and said the privacy section in Title 13 "overrides" Section 210 of the Related Agencies Act, and Citizens do not have to worry about their confidential information being released.
TTS scoffed at this response and said: "Mr. Gate's statement is patently untrue. Section 210(f)(3) fo the Related Agencies Act is specifically cited in Title 13 as an 'exception'. In effect, Gates is saying Title 13 overrides Title 13. This is Census Bureau double-talk to conceal the legal loophole allowing information obtained through the census to be divulged." TTS may be accessed at http://www.treasurytaxsecrets.com *
The SPOTLIGHT April17, 2000
On-Duty Marine Snatched, Jailed by Police in Mexico
The story of a young Marine jailed in Mexico on ridiculous charges illustrates how the U.S. government neglects the growing tensions on our southwestern front.
By Mike Blair
A U.S. Marine sent over the border into Mexico on official duty by his commanders was snatched by Mexican police and thrown into a filthy and over crowded jail cell in Tijuana for two weeks.
The Marine's harrowing story has emerged as a result of Mexican soldiers crossing the U.S. border on March 12 and firing at border Patrol officers. Some Mexicans were apprehended, but Border Patrol was ordered by high Washington officials to release them just hour after their capture.
The Mexican soldiers may have crashed their American-made Humvee scout vehicles through a fence separating the two countries and fired at two Border Patrol agents because they were trying to collect a $200,000 bounty that has been placed on the bodies of U.S. agents by Mexican drug gangs.
Sgt. Brian Johnston's ordeal began when he was assigned by his commanders at Camp Pendleton in Southern California to take his own vehicle across the border into Mexico. He was ordered to pick up two other Marines, who were visiting the country on leave and did not have a way to get home.
He pulled his vehicle to a stop near the border crossing point to ask Mexican police for directions. They immediately turned hostile and asked if he was carrying any firearms.
Johnston informed the Mexican officers that he had a sidearm, but it was fully dismantled and stored in a locked toolbox.
Mexican police immediately took Johnston into custody.
Despite showing them his orders and identification, Johnston was thrown into a 10-foot by 15-foot cell in a Tijuana jail, where approximately 10 other prisoners were being held. There were just five beds in the cell and a single toilet "facility in the center of the cubicle.
Johnston spent three nights in the cramped and filthy cell before he was allowed to contact anyone. Mexican officers denied him a telephone call to Camp Pendleton and to U.S. consular officials. The Mexicans claimed they did not have the funding for toll calls.
It took U.S. consular officials two weeks to get Johnston out of jail, during which time the Mexicans repeatedly warned hi he was going to spend 12 years in prison.
His release by the Mexicans was facilitated through the efforts of Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who had indicated that he personally had asked President Bill Clinton to intervene in the case.
According to Bilbray, Clinton said: "We can look into the matter." Bilbray added, however, that as far as he knew, the administration did nothing to help the young Marine.
Former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock, now a talk radio host, has taken an interest in the situation along the border.
The ex-mayor said the Mexican soldiers frequently cross the border into the United states to find safe crossing points for Mexican drug pushers. They try to to pinpoint the location of Border Patrol officers, he said.
Hedgecock estimates that there have been 40 instances in the past month where Mexican soldiers have made incursions into U.S. territory while armed.
Yet, the former mayor said, the Mexicans will not allow border Patrolmen or Drug Enforcement Agency agents ot cross the border while armed.
"We have to get real with the Mexican officials," Hedgecock said.
The SPOTLIGHT April 17, 2000
Dirty Money Laundering Rampant; Bankers, Fed Actively Participates
If you take $15,000 out of a savings account to make a down payment on a new home, your banker is obligated to report you to the feds. If you make a second withdrawal to purchase a car or put the proceeds from selling your current home in the bank, more red flags will be raised.
Presumably, a government agent will check out the transactions to make sure you're not a drug dealer.
But private banks, whose customers need to put up at least $1 million to open an account, often turn a blind eye to multi-million dollar transactions. Not only do they fail to investigate the source of these funds, as bank regulations require, but private bankers actively assist clients in establishing off-shore shell corporations and trusts that are a boon to money-launderers.
Raymond Baker, os the Brookings Institution, estimates that $500 billion to $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide each year, with about half of that moved through U.S. banks.
According to the Bank Secrecy Act, all banks are to have anti-money laundering programs. Of course, as Citibank officials told the senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in November, it had programs in place throughout the 1990s -- as the law required. The problem is, personnel at Citibank's Private Bank simply nodded and winked at the policies until one of its prominent international clients was busted for a host of felonies.
These findings by the subcommittee's Democratic staff were made public in the November hearings. Five months later, there are no laws, n0 new hearings and no changes in the system.
If congress can approve $1.6 billion in foreign aid for Colombia, in the name of the war on drugs, certainly Congress can pass a tougher law to prohibit drug lords from laundering their ill-gotten gains through U.S. banks. Congress should start with an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank.
However, if the example of Citibank in the 1990s is any indication how thse major clients obtain their funds in order to pump up the banks bottom line, according to the subcommittee's hearings
When Raul Salinas, the brother of Mexico's former president and a convicted murderer, came to Amy Elliott, vice president of the Citibank Private Bank in New York city, to open an account with $2 million in 1992, Mrs Elliott greeted him warmly.
Mrs. Elliott did not enter the Salinas account in the database known as the Client Account Management System (CAMS). Consequently, the bank didn't have any verified information on Salinas' business background or source of funds. Nor did Mrs. Elliott obtain the two written references demanded by company policy.
She did, however, arrange for a personal investment company to be opened by Cititrust, the private bank's trust company in the cayman Islands, to open a shell corporation -- Trocca Ltd. -- for a Salinas account.
Cititrust set up three shell Panamanian corporations to function as the board of directors. Three other companies were established to serve as corporate officers.
Banking in the cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Jersey and Switzerland is already governed by secrecy. Each shell corporation creates another level of secrecy for regulators to attempt to sift through.
A year later, Cititrust established a trust, identified only by number, to serve as owner of Trocca. Salinas' name never appeared on any documents.
The private bank did not disclose the name of the Salinas shell company to any private bank's trust personnel other than the personnel on the Cayman Islands and Switzerland who administered the account. The arrangement was so secret, not even Mrs. Elliott knew the name of Salinas' corporation.
The private bank did not use Salinas' name in bank communications. He was referred to as "Confidential client Number 2" or "CC-2." In 1994, a special Swiss account was opened for Salinas and his wife under the name "Bonaporte."
Through these accounts, Salinas passed $80 million to $100 million between 1992 and when the accounts were frozen in 1995, Citibank helped to secretly move the millions out of Mexico.
Mrs Elliott introduced Salinas' then fiancee, Paulina Castanon, to the service manager at the Mexico City branch of Citibank. Ms. Castanon was introduced as Patricia Rios in order to keep the transactions secret.
Ms. Castanon delivered cashier's checks to be converted onto dollars, which were wired to New York. The funds were then added to Citibank accounts and moved overseas under cover of Citibank so as not to attract attention.
More than $67 million moved from Mexico to New York and then to London and Switzerland between 1992-94 like this. No one ever questioned where the money came from.
Even after Salinas was arrested for murdering his ex-brother-in-law in1995, Citibank kept his account open. Mexico has an ongoing criminal investigation on alleged money laundering by Salinas.
In late 1995, after the bank demanded the account be closed, Mrs Salinas told Mrs. Elliott the Salinas account contained millions of dollars in funds from "other individuals."
In October 1998, a Swiss federal court linked the Salinas accounts to narcotics trafficking.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
If the brother of Mexico's president is involved in drug-running and murder, one has to ask how many other drug runners and murderers are being assisted by private banks in America.
One also need to wonder where the Federal Reserve is while felons are using U.S. banks to launder money. Congress passed a law that says banks have to:
* Develop internal policies, procedures and controls;
There are question as to how well Citibank trained employees to be on the lookout for laundered money, but there is no question that the bank complied with the law. The problem is the internal policies and audit results were ignored.
The Money Laundering control Act of 1986 makes it a crime for someone to "knowingly" engage in financial transaction of unlawful activities. In the case of Mrs. Elliott and Citibank, no one bothered to investigate where the Salinas money was coming from.
It was a case of "don't ask, don't tell," according to Tony Giraldi, a private banker convicted of "willful blindness" -- laundering drug funds for a convicted drug lord. He is doing 10 years. Ironically, Mrs. Elliott was an expert witness called at his trial.
Citibank wasn't charged with violating any U.S. laws, but the subcommittee raised the concern that felons are using the mechanisms of private banks to launder their loot.
THE FED KNOWS
If billions of dollars are moving through accounts in private banks, certainly the Federal Reserve Bank knows about it. The Fed is guilty.
According to SPOTLIGHT writer George Nicholas, drug pushers pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy each year. These funds are "recycled through the Fed and invested in legitimate businesses."
He said the Fed accepts this huge inflow of undocumented cash "because the depositors are bankers.
One thing that could correct this oversight is an immediate call for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve. Urge your congressman and senators to sponsor such a bill.
Contact the members of the permanent subcommittee on investigations and demand expanded hearings. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Ohio),Pete Dominici (R-N.M.), Thad Cochrane (R-Miss.), Arlene Specter (R-Pa.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mas Cleland (D-Ga.) and John Edwards(D-N.C.).
The SPOTLIGHT April 24, 2000
Israel Won't Quit Peddling High-Tech Arms to Red China
The world is finally catching on to what The SPOTLIGHT has been reporting for nearly a decade. Israel -- our "best ally" and biggest recipient of foreign aid giveaways -- routinely peddles our most advanced military technology to own of our more ardent enemies, China. Maybe this time the ministate's betrayal may come back to haunt it.
By Martin Mann
After long years of submissively catering to Israel's insatiable demands for humongous handouts, Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Ala.) Stood up in early April and announced that if Israel delivers a $250 million airborne surveillance system to China this year, he will cut an equal amount from the ministate's annual $3 billion aid package.
Callahan is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for International Operations, which makes the Crucial Decisions on foreign aid funding.
The veteran lawmaker's patriotic stand created a stir on capitol Hill, home of a legislature whose servile stance toward Israel has prompted British parliamentarians to ridicule Congress as "the rotten borough of Israel."
It came, moreover at a time when the long-simmering issue of Israel's arms trade with communist china appears to be coming to a boil, well-placed diplomatic sources say.
For two decades, congress and the Establishment media have remained silent while the Zionist statelet built up a covert commercial relationship with the Chinese military. Israeli officials repeatedly transferred advanced weapons systems that originally cost American taxpayers billions of dollars to one of America's most fanatical enemies.
Emboldened by the silence -- broken only by a groundbreaking series of investigative reports in this populist newspaper -- Israel no longer thought it necessary in the late 1990s to hide its billion-dollar military contracts with China.
The spectacle of the tiny Mideastern Zionist enclave gaining privileged access to the most closely guarded products of U.S. defense technology under the pretense that it was a particularly valued "ally," and then selling these products to America's worst enemies, infuriated the commanders of the U.S. armed forces, diplomatic sources say.
In February, the joint Chiefs of Staff told the White House that they would withhold from Israel the -secret satellite decoders mounted in U.S. warplanes. The reason: Israel might "re-sell them to unfriendly governments."
Fearful that the flow of military contraband from Israel to china was now a ticking time-bomb of a scandal, the White House sent defense Secretary William Cohen to Jerusalem earlier this month. Cohen met with Israeli officials to convince them not to sell the mainland communists a high-tech airborne command and control system worth $250 million.
The installation is "a copy of the U.S. AWACS technology the Israelis have picked up by hook or crook in Washington," an indignant Defense Department official told the Associated Press.
When the Israelis refused to cancel the sale, Callahan made his historic stand on the House floor, threatening to cut Israel's aid package in retaliation for the ministate's misbehavior.
Clinton, sensing storm signals in the air, abruptly summoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to Washington on April 11 for an emergency meeting.
Barak landed in the U.S. in a breathless hurry, a mere 24 hours before Chinese President Jiang Zemin's scheduled arrival in Israel.
Jiang's state visit was for the purpose of inspecting the new $250 million early-warning electronic aircraft built for the Red Chinese air Force by Israel Aircraft Industries, the giant government-owned, American financed armaments conglomerate.
Clinton's and Barak's sudden summit palaver lasted for four intense hours. Most follow-up news reports suggested that it was largely preoccupied with the stalled Mideast "peace process" involving the Zionist statelet, the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria.
But there were, for the first time, references in a number of news stories to the "problem" of Israel's illegitimate arms trade with communist China. That, in reality, was what this abrupt meeting was all about, well-placed diplomatic sources have told The SPOTLIGHT.
In an unexpected departure from long-standing protocol, Clinton and Barak refused to issue a communique, a joint comment, or even to talk to White House pool reporters as their encounter ended.
Leaving the White House in a fast-moving Secret Service motorcade, the tight-lipped Israeli premier rushed to Bolling Air Force Base and flew back to Israel without uttering a word about this -level White House talks.
Within 24 hours of his visit with Clinton, Barak was on hand to greet Jiang on the veteran communist leader's first visit to Israel.
In the consensus of news analysts and diplomatic observers, there is "no doubt" that Clinton's last-minute appeal to Barak to cancel the sale of the advanced airborne early-warning aircraft to China has failed.
The SPOTLIGHT April 24, 2000
U.S.-Mexico Border Skirmishes 'An Act of War'
There have been an alarming number of confrontations between federal agents and Mexicans along our southern border. But what is truly troubling bout these incidents is that they involve Mexican soldiers and police who attack U.S. Border Patrol agents and rarely -- if ever -- are punished for it.
By Mike Blair
Reform Party presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan has called a March 12 shooting attack on U.S. Border Patrol officers by Mexican Army troops on the U.S. side of the border, near El Paso, Texas, "an act of war."
Buchanan, the only presidential candidate to address the issue, has long-maintained that U.S. military forces should be used to halt the flow of illegal aliens and drug trafficking across America's southern border.
Just as Buchanan condemned President Bill Clinton and Mexico's President Ernesto Zedillo for failing to act on the rash of recent incidents, another serious confrontation between Mexican soldiers and American officers was occurring on the U.S. side of the border in Arizona.
Arizona police officers, armed with submachine guns, encountered Mexican soldiers in a drainage tunnel on the U.S. side of the border in Nogales, Ariz. The underground channel had frequently been used for smuggling drugs and illegal aliens across the border.
Faced with an obviously stronger U.S. force, the Mexican soldiers retreated out of the tunnel and back across the border into their own country.
In a previous encounter on March 12, Mexican soldiers outgunned the federal agents on horseback.
In that incident, Mexican officers crashed through a fence along the border with American-made Humvee military all-terrain vehicles and fired two shots at the Americans.
But when help arrived for the U.S. agents, some of those responsible for the shootings headed back to Mexico.
It is now believed that there were more soldiers and tree Humvees involved in the attack, instead of two as previously reported.
Those Mexican soldiers, who did not immediately head back across the border, were captured by the Border Patrol. In all, nine Mexican soldiers, headed by a captain, were detained by federal agents.
On orders from Washington, the Mexicans were released just hours later, in spite of reports that the soldiers in the Humvees were probably trying to collect on a $200,000 bounty placed by Mexican drug gangs for any dead federal agent they can kill or capture.
The SPOTLIGHT has learned that violent assaults on U.S. law enforcement operating on the U.S.-Mexican border have increased from 156 cases in 1992 to 502 last year .
According to a source close to the scene, since 1994, three Border Patrol agents have been killed as a result of confrontations on the U.S.-Mexican border.
In 1997, the source revealed, Mexicans crossing into the United States fired upon U.S. agents 97 times. During the same year, there were 64 instances in which Border Patrol vehicles were rammed by Mexican cars and trucks. U.S. officials reported that 20 bombs have been planted to kill agents.
The violence directed at Border Patrol agents is the worst in Arizona, where the agents are more spread out and very vulnerable due to a network of back roads.
The source indicated that from January to November of last year there were 208 documented events of violence against federal officers in Arizona alone -- more than in any other border state.
In recent instances, the Mexicans, armed with Russian-type fully automatic AK-47s, outgunned the Border Patrol officers. It is believed the Mexican military is obtaining the Russian assault rifles from the Chinese.
The worst confrontations occurred in June 1998, when Mexicans shot at point-blank range at U.S. Border Patrol agent Alexander Kirpnick on a dirt road in Arizona. Just four days later, two other agents were shot outside of McAllen, Tex.
The situation along the border has become so intense and violent that Border Patrol agents and their families are taking extra precautions, such as never taking the same route to and from work. They also hav to be constantly wary about bombs being placed in their vehicles.
A source close to the situation said that Border Patrol agents are fearful of speaking out because they may lose their jobs or face retaliation by higher-ups under the direction of the Clinton administration. The White House has a vested interest in keeping a lid on the violence in order to avoid a public backlash against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
What makes matters even worse for the Border Patrol and other federal agents is that the Mexican Army and national police (federales) are deeply involved with Mexican drug gangs and the smuggling of illegal aliens.
The SPOTLIGHT April 24, 2000
How Microsoft Avoids Its Taxes
In our continuing series on Microsoft, this issue of The SPOTLIGHT reports on how the megacorporation escapes paying its federal taxes and commits fraud.
By Bill Parish
Recently, while I was receiving a $12 haircut, I asked the hairdresser, a single mother, how much she made per hour. Ten dollars, she replied.
In that moment an astonishing realization occurred. This single mother, who earns $10 per hour, pays more federal income tax than the Microsoft Corporation does.
Meanwhile, Bill Gates is strolling the halls of Congress with the swagger of a national hero as if it were a hallway in his own house. He is also buying infomercials on television, paid for with funds pilfered from your retirement, his own employees and other average workers who do not know he is running a classic financial pyramid scheme.
At the same time, back in Redmond, Wash., his investment manager is aggressively selling his inflated Micro soft stock and making large investments in the so-called traditional economy. All his media outlets, including MSNBC, articulate the glories of the new economy. Even The Wall Street Journal recently did a major editorial titled: "Why now is the time to buy Microsoft."
These are scenes of corruption one would expect to see in Jakarta or Mexico City, not in the United States.
The company has never paid a dividend to shareholders either. That is tough to do when you have 6 billion shares outstanding, including 800 million still owed to employees. Pyramid schemes are not designed with equity or integrity in mind.
Equally surprising is that most of Microsoft's competitors that consistently operate in the red are paying staggering amounts of federal income tax via stock options exercised by employees.
For example, Amazon.com, an Internet-based book retailer, has never earned a profit, yet its employees have paid more than $300 million in federal income taxes.
This is a windfall for the government. Amazon.com can't utilize the tax deduction because the company has no profits. Microsoft is able to fully utilize its tax deductions and so it is effectively a "wash" to the IRS -- the employees pay, but the company takes a deduction. The net income to the IRS is close to zero.
The federal budget has been effectively balanced on the backs of Micro soft's competition.
My calculations indicate the NASDAQ could decline by more than 50 percent and the government would still not be greatly affected because the gains on stock options and related tax revenues would still be dramatic. Within two years wages will also rise, creating more revenue, therefore, the government should not fear initiating reforms now. The timing is excellent.
The so-called "Gates Seven" are responsible -- whether by accident or design -- for creating this massive corruption of our free market system. This fraud is responsible for destabilizing the global economic system and creating the single greatest threat to our economic prosperity as a nation.
The Gates Seven are Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.); former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R); two of Microsoft's former chief financial officers, Mike Brown and Greg Maffei; chief operating officer at Micro soft Bob Herbold; and Myron Scholes, a Nobel Prize winning economist and partner in the Long Term Capital Hedge Fund.
Gorton has marshaled large lobbying groups on Microsoft's behalf, including the Citizens for a Sound Economy. This group aggressively supports Microsoft -- even after receiving numerous versions of my study -- and also advocates litigation reforms that would make it much harder to sue a company like Microsoft for financial fraud.
Gorton has publicly insulted Judge Penfield Jackson, who has done a fair and efficient job of handling the Justice Department's anti-trust trial.
The government's anti-trust case is an important trial for every American. When Microsoft stifles innovation in the United States, most of the significant technology innovations occur in other countries.
Rubin, as treasury secretary, could have effected a rule change to remedy this situation. Instead, he later went to Citicorp as co-chairman only a few months after resigning as treasury secretary after the banking deregulation bill was passed. The main beneficiary of this deregulation is Citicorp, which together with Microsoft, now dominates the processing of electronic financial transactions.
Bush has publicly said that he would dismiss the Microsoft anti-trust case if elected president and is rallying public opinion around Microsoft. He also receives significant support from Micro soft. Although his staff has been made aware of Microsoft committing fraud, Bush apparently has no interest in addressing it.
Brown, a former chief financial officer (CFO) at Microsoft, was instrumental in setting accounting standards designed to give preference to Microsoft. He was also chairman of the board of the NASDAQ stock exchange during a period in which significant financial fraud oc curred in the form of price fixing NASDAQ stocks. Investment firms later paid $1.2 billion in fines for this.
Maffei, another former CFO, was very aggressive with the media and regularly lied and intimidated reporters, as evidenced in his rebuttal to a New York Times story entitled, "Financial Engineering 1.0." Greg is a brilliant financial person probably more suited to a hedge fund on Wall Street than this role at Microsoft.
Herbold, Microsoft's chief operating officer, is a "new media" genius who is leading an assault on privacy designed to make the sale of consumers' private information the number one product on the Internet. Herbold was head of advertising at Procter and Gamble before coming to Microsoft.
These revenues from the sale of privacy undermine competitors ability to sell content -- for example subscriptions to popular web sites -- since Microsoft is simultaneously marketing similar products and services at no cost.
Rather than focus on government standards, a discussion of the privacy issue -- a key revenue generator for Microsoft's scheme -- should begin in Redmond.
Scholes, a Nobel Prize winning economist and the seventh member of the Gates Seven, is quoted in The New York Times as saying that his firm has developed a strategy for "sucking nickels from all over the world." Whether you are on Main Street in the United States or a poor farmer in Paraguay, "sucking nickels" simply means a pyramid scheme that is out to extract financial resources from you and your family.
Support Arthur Levitt, an outstanding public official and chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Contact the SEC and tell them to take action against the Microsoft Corporation for financial fraud. This will restore integrity to the markets and establish a stronger foundation for future economic prosperity.
For more detailed information on this amazing story, log on to Bill Parish's web site at www.billparish.com.
The SPOTLIGHT April 24, 2000
Danes Debate Banning Bilderberg Attendance
Legislation pending in Denmark typifies the growing backlash against plutocrats who meet in secrecy to plan the world's affairs.
By James P. Tucker Jr.
In a move with potential global implications, Denmark is considering legislation banning its officials from attending secret meetings of the world planners, specifically referring to Bilderberg.
"In such secret meetings -- as the meeting of the Bilderberg Group -- the power brokers coordinate their views and cover up for each other," the "bill of decision" pending in the Danish Parliament reads.
"When it takes place in deepest secrecy it is a scandal that ministers at high level have participated in without any democratic insight," said Frank Aaen of the Party List of Unity, which is sponsoring the measure.
The action against Bilderberg was first reported in the Danish newspaper Politiken.
More members of the European Par lia ment and the Danish Parliament are insisting that ministers and commissioners who articipate in these secret meetings be exposed, the newspaper said. It noted that two Danes, Uffe Elle mann, former foreign affairs minister, and Ritt Bjerregaard, former member of the European Commission, have participated in Bilderberg meetings.
Over the years, at least a dozen Danish members have attended Bilderberg meetings, Politiken reported.
Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen said he saw "no basis to criticize if Danish ministers have participated in the so-called Bilderbeger meetings."
Similarly, the two participants at tempted to defend Bilderberg's secrecy.
"I have not briefed anybody about my participation because Bilderberg is a think tank that cannot make any decisions at all," Bjerregaard said. "There is no basis for being concerned that these people meet and talk to each other."
"There was no need [to report the meeting] by the simple reason that there was no talk of Denmark in anyway" being "bound by the informal debate," said Ellemann.
"This really scares Bilderberg," said a high State Department official who has been a reliable source for more than a decade. "What happens if legislatures in other countries take similar action? Even if defeated, Bilderberg would hate to become a public issue with the mainstream press forced to address it."
In recent years, SPOTLIGHT readers in Europe and the United States have been alerting local newspapers, television stations and broadcasters about Bilderberg meetings in their areas, leading to a blizzard of unwanted publicity.
"The best way for Congress to address the issue would be to propose legislation denying taxpayer funds from being used to pay the travel and lodging costs of public officials who attend," he said.
The high-level officials of the U.S. government, who attend Bilderberg meetings, fly first-class and pay for lodging and meals that exceed $1,000 a day at taxpayers' expense, he said.
Liberty Lobby, publisher of The SPOT LIGHT, has a copy of Henry Kissinger's Bilderberg travel voucher when he was President Nixon's secretary of state.
"Imagine Bilderberg's panic if a few members of Congress sponsor legislation denying public funds for travel costs and hold public hearings on the issue," the source said. "For almost half a century, they tried to insist that they didn't exist; that Bilderberg was only in the imagination of 'extreme right wingers.' "
This reference could only refer to Liberty Lobby and its weekly newspaper, The SPOTLIGHT.
(Only The SPOTLIGHT has for the past 25 years -- and Liberty Lobby, for longer than that -- annually reported on the Bilderbergers.)
The attempt to defend the secret meetings by participants follows a decades-old Bilderberg pattern. When members are confronted, they insist that the powerful group of international financiers and political leaders gather annually at sealed-off, guarded resorts for innocent chatter and mundane purposes.
But history indicates otherwise. Bilderberg reports have anticipated the election of the obscure governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, as president; the downfall of Lady Thatcher as British prime minister; and the Persian Gulf War, among other major world events.