The SPOTLIGHT July 3, 2000

Helms Pushes Bill to Block International Court

A bill introduced by Jessi Helms would block the U.S. from giving away sovereignty to an international court.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Legislation to blunt the effects of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) and to punish nations that embrace it is pending in both houses of Congress.

Significantly, much of the argument against the ICC are based on the surrender of national sovereignty that would ensue.

Until now, Liberty Lobby, publisher of The SPOTLIGHT, was a voice in the wilderness on the sovereignty issue.

Use of any "necessary force" to rescue U.S. soldiers jailed by the ICC is authorized under the legislation.

A treaty establishing such a court under the United Nations has been signed by about 100 countries -- including all major European powers -- and ratified by 12 of them.

The United States is not a signatory but, when enough nations ratify the treaty to establish the court, the court would claim jurisdiction throughout the world, including "non-signatory" countries.

The bill introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) would prohibit all U.S. agencies from cooperating with the court, including arresting suspects or providing information.

Helm's bill was referred to the senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The American Service Members Protection Act (S.2726) would cut of U.S. Military aid to any country that ratifies the ICC and prohibit U.S. forces from participating in UN peacekeeping operations unless expressly immunized from the court's jurisdiction by a UN Security Council resolution.

Helms enjoys powerful Senate support from Majority Leader Trent Loot(R-Miss.), Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), Intelligence committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) And Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), among others.

A coalition of House members, led by Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Tex.) and Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, introduced a companion measure (H.R. 4654) called the American Servicemen's Protection Act.

It was referred to the International Relations committee.

"As currently constructed, the ICC would jeopardize U.S. Military personnel. ...This allows any nation, under dubious circumstances, to prosecute military personnel for war crimes," said Jonathan Baron, a spokesman for Delay.

DeLay predicted "broad support" among House Republicans for the bill.

But the bills in both houses have a gaping hole: a provision effectively removes the threat of a military aid cutoff to NATO countries, virtually all of which have signed the treaty.

Other major beneficiaries of U.S. military funds -- such as Israel, Turkey and the Phillippines -- have not signed the treaty. The biggest impact would be in small countries in Africa and Asia.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same day, former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others addressed the most significant aspect of the ICC: the further erosion of national sovereignty.

"The whole concept test whether the idea of sovereignty exist anymore," Weinberger said. "Its another major step on the long road to wiping out the idea of sovereignty, but I don't think many of our people grasp that."

Weinberger's views were strongly supported by Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

The ICC represents a dramatic departure from traditional principles of national sovereignty," Rabkin said. It comes at a time when principles of national sovereignty have already been dangerously eroded and the ICC will only reinforce this trend."

The history of international law has been "to reduce occasions for conflict among sovereign states" and not to usurp the sovereignty of the states, he said.

Rabkin quoted a treatise called "International Law: chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States" written in 1945 by C.C. Hyde. He said:

"States are agreed that within the national domain, the will of the territorial sovereign is supreme. That will must, therefore, be exclusive..." Accordingly, "a state cannot determine the lawfulness of occurrences in places outside of...its control"

The treaty gives the ICC authority to prosecute government officials for allegedly violation the human rights of their own citizens even if the home state has conducted its own trial or issued its own pardons, Rabkin said.

The premise is "that sovereign states can no longer be trusted to decide for themselves when or how to prosecute perpetrators of serious human rights violations in their own territories," he said. "Instead, the ultimate responsibility for such prosecutions will be vested in an international authority -- with o responsibility for the ultimate political consequences of its actions."

Rabkin assailed the precedent-setting case of the former head of chile, Augusto Pinochet, where Britain decided it could extradite Pinochet -- who was visiting the country -- to Spain for crimes allegedly committed in Chile.

The aging Pinochet was subsequently returned to Chile because of poor health.

"I the Pinochet ruling is good law, it would seem that almost any country in the world now can seek to impose criminal liability on officials from almost any other country in the world, so long as the prosecuting state can get its hands on the officials it wants to try," he said.

"Other countries may want to share their sovereignty with an international criminal court," Rabkin said. "We should make it clear in advance that we would regard such action as an extremely hostile act against the sovereign rights of the United states.

"We should make it clear that we will defend our own sovereignty, what ever other countries may do," Rabkin said.

But, predictably, Ruth Wedgwood, director of the Project on International Organizations and Law for the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), argued that the United states should surrender sovereignty to the ICC.

The CFR operates as the propaganda ministry for Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and other arms to the world shadow government.

"There is every reason to believe that the ICC will wish to work hand-in-glove with NATO and the United States,' she told the committee. "This has been the story for the ad hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia."

She pointed out that the United States helped create an ad hoc tribunal under the UN Security Council to prosecute alleged war crimes in the former Yugoslavia in 1993.

This tribunal "has ben supported by the United States with personnel on loan, intelligence information and the assistance of the U.S. military in arresting defendants and providing area security to court personnel who must investigate facts on the ground," she said.

The United States must "show our allies that their desire for a responsible court...is consistent with the exercise of America's unique security role in the world," she said.

Meanwhile, the Clinton administration was campaigning hard in support of surrendering national sovereignty to the ICC.

The United States should cooperate with the ICC even if the Senate refuses to ratify the treaty, said David Sheffer, ambassador at large to the UN on war crimes issues.

"It may well be in the national interest of the U.S. to cooperate or offer assistance to the international court," he said. Sheffer said he was "surprised by the anti-court actions pending in Congress.

"Our role in the court could be considerable," Sheffer said. "We have the ability to relocate witnesses to provide expert personnel for the work, our diplomatic clout to encourage cooperation with such a court, the ability to share information," Sheffer said.

The SPOTLIGHT July 3, 2000

Chenoweth Says 'No' to UN Blue

Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho) has formally introduced legislation to keep American soldiers out of United Nations uniforms and from under the command of foreign officers.

"American young people risk their lives to defend the United States, not solve the problems of the world" under foreign command, she said in introducing her bill.

The legislation is a response to the case of Michael New, an American soldier court-martialed for refusing to sew a UN patch on his uniform for service in Macedonia in 1995 under command of a Finnish general. His case is on appeal.

"I have not forgotten the courage of that young man," Rep. Chenoweth-Hage said.

The Citizen Soldier Protection Act (H.R. 4669) would do two things, namely:

* Make it illegal to force any U.S. serviceman to wear the insignia, seal or rank of the UN or any foreign nation; and

* Require a vote of Congress and a declaration of war to commit U.S. troops to the command of another nation or to the UN.

"It's a shame this legislation is necessary," she said. "It is a shame the current civilian leadership does not understand what these young men and women are all about."

The armed forces "serve a single purpose -- to protect and defend america and American interests at all cost," she said. "Asking our servicemen to serve a foreign body betrays their sacrifice and makes light of what each and every one of them says when they take their oath: that they love America, that America is worth dying for and that they will stand and defend it. That is a sacred oath and we must never forget it.

The legislation says "Congress finds that:

* "...Members of the armed forces are being compelled, without lawful authority, to wear as part of their military uniform badges, symbols, helmets, headgear and other visible indicia or insignia of the UN and foreign states; and

*"In some instances being compelled...to serve under military and other officers of the United Nations and foreign states."

The legislation says it is intended "to restore to congress its rightful constitutional authority governing the deployment of members of the armed forces in service alongside and in conjunction with foreign states with which the United States from time to time is allied.

Co-sponsors of the legislation, which was referred to the Armed Forces Committee, were Reps. Tom Delay (R-Tex.), Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), Ralph Hall (D-Tex.), Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Roscoe Barlett (R-Md.).

Two years ago, a similar bill went nowhere but the climate in congress has changed Dramatically since then. Now, there is greater interest in UN-related issues and more questions raised about its role in the world.

Republican leaders are trying to prevent U.S. involvement in the International Criminal court and are questioning the widespread use of American troops as "peacekeepers." They are also complaining about the United States paying the lion's share of the costs of more than 16 UN "peacekeeping missions" as well as one-quarter of annual operating costs.

This is a more friendly atmosphere for Rep. Chenoweth-Hage's legislation.

The events which prompted the legislation began on Oct. 10, 1995, in Schweinfurt, Germany, where 550 American soldiers were being prepared to serve as UN "peacekeepers" in Macedonia which had been part of the former Yugoslavia.

All but one donned the blue baseball caps bearing the UN insignia. Spec. 4 Michael New told his superiors that his oath was to defend the Constitution of the United States, not a foreign entity commanded by foreign officers.

New was court-martialed and discharged from the Army. His case is pending in civil court. but he could not have known that day the impact his actions would have in Washington.

The SPOTLIGHT July 3, 2000

Commoners Confront Bilderberg Cabal as Plutocrats, Powerful Hide from Spotlight

Over the years, many journalists and others have helped The SPOTLIGHT penetrate the Bilderberg curtain of secrecy. Here, Tony Gosling, a free lance writer, describes his adventures at the latest meeting.

By Tony Gosling

Euro-Green party researcher Grattan Healy and I had a rare five-star dinner in the bar of the Chateau du Lac hotel, just outside Brussels. For once, our minds were not on the food. Rather, how to figure out whether or not the secretive Bilderberg club will tomorrow have sealed off this hotel for their notorious annual meeting.

Bilderberg takes its name from a hotel in Holland where the first secret transatlantic conference took place back in 1954. Original chairman and founder of the club, ex-SS Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands owned the place. Bilderberg's "steering group" boasts the wealthiest bankers and industrialists in the western world, no less.

Grattan's research has shown how elite clubs like Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission are managing somehow to install more of their members on the European Commission at the heart of Europe. And more recently links have been exposed with the powerful European Round Table of industrialists.

The current Bilderberg chairman founded it. Grattan's been getting embarrassing questions asked by greens at the European Union's rubber stamp department, the Parliament. As for me, I was curious to see these Bilderbergers in the flesh for the first time. Being stone broke as usual, I arrived in Brussels from Bristol mostly by skipping trains. It had to be the right place after all that effort.

During a snoop round the hotel interior, Grattan spotted a sign pointing to a "Steering Group" meeting. A deliberate hoax? We had to find out in the morning.

Mike Peters, Marxist sociology lecturer from Leeds who has written one of the most comprehensive studies to date on the Bilderbergers, flew into Brussels late that evening Wednesday, May 31. Another leap of faith.

Arriving at the chateau the next morning we noticed rear entrances had been padlocked and chained. Around the front, the mock-Florentine lobby had a rude addition: a white plastic entrance tunnel and drive-in awning had sprung up overnight. Was this to protect chauffeur-driven guests from the rain on this cloudless day? Or from prying eyes? This was no bum steer. The SPOTLIGHT's got the place, all right.

The limos began arriving. The shiny black Mercedeses with their characteristic "B" clearly displayed in the front windshield. We could just see into the awning and film most of the participants as they emerged from the backs of the limos. Doormen attempted to hold make shift curtains up to conceal the more sensitive guests. We managed most ly to film them between the gaps.

We had a chat with a photographer and a reporter for The SPOTLIGHT, the populist newspaper and the only people in the world able to root out Bilderberg venues ahead of the event. What a sincere, concerned pair they seemed, and we had been told SPOTLIGHT was neo-Nazi.

Chilling to think that without the bloodhound work of writer Jim Tucker no one but the participants would have known this meeting was taking place. "But we send out a press release," the Bilderberg office bleats if you bother to complain. What they don't tell you is that you have to request it from the hotel (how is anyone supposed to know where to call?) and they only release it as everybody's leaving. Too late for the press.

Thursday, June 1, is a bank holiday in Belgium. Families were out in the sun, taking a stroll round the lovely Genval lake, almost oblivious to the capitalist heavyweights emerging from limos feet away inside the awning. The regulars were arriving: Conrad Black, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Kenneth Clarke, David Rockefeller and James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank.

The new chairman, Viscount Etienne Davignon, came out to get what, we joked, looked like a bag of drugs from his car.

He owns most of the public utilities and one of the biggest banks in Belgium.

"Will you be holding a press conference, Davignon?" Grattan shouted. "I don't think so," Davignon replied.

"Why not?" Grattan asked.

"We don't have enough interesting things to say," Davignon replied.

Then, reporters and other on-lookers shouted questions and answers at each other.

"And who's that?" one asked. "It's Jean-Claude Trichet," came the reply. "Who's he?" "The next boss of the European Central Bank." He obviously won't have anything interesting to say either.

"What about this one?" "That's Daniel Vasella, CEO of Novartis with William McDonough, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York." "That one's the boss of The Washington Post [publisher Donald Graham] and hey, there goes George Soros! Look, it's one of the new European Commissioners, Pascal Lamy."

This looked like an elite group to me.

Another brand-new Mercedes arrived.

An aloof looking guest turned away from the cameras. We looked at each other and shook our heads, another one we didn't recognize.

Grattan called out to him: "Are you a big shot sir?" The passing Belgian public were spellbound by the line of polished black Mercedeses. "What's going on?" they kept asking, in French, as we prepared for the next arrival. "It's Bilderberg." They nodded in reply, as if they knew what we meant, then shuffled off looking puzzled.

Untouchable elite types were swinging out of limos next to a busy public road and footpath -- clearly an uptight security man's nightmare.

Men with bulging sweaters or badly-fitting jackets wearing dark glasses walked back and forth. Ah, that would be the plainclothes Belgian secret service with their guns.

I asked one if he knew what's going on at the hotel. "I don't know," he said, smiling and baring rat-like teeth. He was not a good actor. Glad I couldn't see his eyes.

A big CIA officer turned up and ordered the Belgians around. They knew their place.

This year's Bilderberg meeting had to be hastily rearranged after the Austrian anti-EU Freedom Party (do I hear neo-Nazi mud being slung?) was elected -- hence we and the public were so close by. We might never have gotten this opportunity again. If they had met as planned in Austria there would probably have been official criticism and heaps of publicity. For a cabal all publicity is bad publicity.

Bilderberg does everything it can to conceal where it's meeting and doesn't bother with a press conference any more.

Okay, out the window go journalistic freedoms which are the lynch pin of any democracy. Inside, media barons and compliant writers from The Economist, sworn to secrecy, smooch year after year.

They created a vacuum. We decided to get on the telephone. On Saturday morning the Belgian daily De Morgen delivered the goods with a lead front page story by the ex-editor all about the no-longer quite so secret Bilderberg conference.

Critical and amusing coverage on national Belgian TV news and in Sunday papers followed into the week. When the Belgian papers phoned the mayor of the local Genval principality, he said they must be joking. If Queen Beatrix and Henry Kissinger were there he'd have known about it. Bilderberg, it seems, is above politics.

Politicians, newspaper editors, European commissioners and civil servants who agree to enter Bilderberg swear complete secrecy. Not just about the content of the meeting but about the very existence of Bilderberg. They leave their accountability at the door. Have the bankers grown so arrogant that they see democratic institutions and public opinion simply as competition to be taken out?

Just as the Bilderbergers were leaving on Saturday, two secret servicemen asked The SPOTLIGHT photographer to show a Belgian press pass, then threatened to beat him up. They chased him into a nearby tavern where he was rescued by waiters only to be chased again at the local station. He made a narrow escape by running across the tracks to jump on a train going the wrong way. Surreal.

Was someone about to leave the hotel and they didn't want him known? Clinton was in Aachen, Germany, that day, just down the road. Bilderberg has been known to accidentally leave heads of government off the official attendance list before.

There was one question we wanted to ask. Bilderberg stretches our credulity, particularly when their habitually anonymous supporters use angry disinformation, mud-slinging and guilt by association in a shabby attempt to discredit critics, as on the Mayday email list earlier this year.

According to the hotel, this year's meeting was a croquet tournament "with some well-known spectators." Another cover story was that the French football team was staying there. Even the security name tags said Brussels 2000, just like the football.

These power brokers lie too easily. The more facts that emerge about Bilderberg's key role in lobbying for a corporate European superstate and the more lies they disseminate to try to cover themselves the more healthy suspicion they arouse.

Why, for example, might Tony Blair have said in answer to a parliamentary question by Christopher Gill, MP, in March 1998 that no members of his cabinet had attended Bilderberg meetings, when he himself clearly was on the official Athens conference list in 1993 before becoming Labor leader? His attendance was even commented on by William Rees-Mogg in the Times.

The Danish parliament is considering banning all politicians from attending.

So who's in charge? The bankers or the politicians? What about the proverb that says "the borrower is servant to the lender?" Can Bilderberg politicians like Clarke be trusted?

And are the governments of the world now just PR and tax managers for the banks? There simply has to be a thorough international examination of this private little bankers' club that has toes in so many political doors. And we must catch up on the right's ability to cut through complex-sounding economics gibberish. They have taken the lead on Bilderberg because they understand the power of the bankers better than we do.

Economic priorities detrimental to ordinary people in the West, not to mention the developing world, are pushed forward at Bilderberg by the ruling class, those who have more influence than anyone else over the future, in total secret.

It's time to call this elite cabal to account.

The SPOTLIGHT July 3, 2000

Was George Bush Guilty of Gulf War Crimes?

Did President George Bush order a mass slaughter of "elite" Iraqi troops trapped on an Iraqi highway?

By Martin Mann

The real aim of the 1991 Gulf war was not -- as the official version has long maintained -- the "liberation" of Kuwait. In reality, the "foremost U.S. military objective" was the "annihilation" of the elite Iraqi divisions loyal to the government in order to open the way for a military coup by Iraqi generals willing to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.

That stunning revelation, breaking one of the Pentagon's best-kept secrets, was made recently by an eminent military analyst, retired Marine Col. M. Thomas Owens, now a professor of strategy and force-planning at the U.S. Naval War College. It came in the midst of a debate among senior U.S. officers and investigative journalists about the alleged atrocities committed during Desert Storm (the Gulf War) by Gen. Barry McCaffrey and the 24th Infantry Division under his command.

There have been eye reports by eyewitnesses -- most of them from the 24th Division -- that on March 2, 1991, McCaffrey led an attack on a retreating column of Iraqi troops limping toward Baghdad in dejected surrender along a causeway across Lake Hammar - two days after President George Bush had announced a cease fire on Feb 28, ordering a halt to all hostilities.

According to eyewitness reports, the blazing assault by the 24th Division's artillery battalions, armored fighting vehicles and missile-firing Apache helicopters turned into a "carnage" and "mass slaughter" killing "not only panicky Iraqi soldiers but civilians and children as well."

Although the exact number of casualties has never been established, more than 700 Iraqi tanks and truck were destroyed in the hail of fire that lasted several hours.

In the aftermath, there were troubling accounts of the incident from some of the participants. The U.S. Army's inspector general received at least one anonymous letter accusing McCaffrey of having committed a "hideous war crime."

But a lengthy investigation by agents of the army's Criminal Investigations Division (CID) exonerated McCaffrey with the explanation that the battle had been initiated by Iraqi troops who attacked a forward brigade of the 24th Division with tanks and bazookas.

DISPUTED

Although a number of eyewitnesses disputed CID's official version, the Joint chiefs of Staff, then headed by Gen. Colin Powell, accepted it.

McCaffrey, unblemished, retired in 1996 as a four-star general to receive a presidential appointment as the director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy -- the nation's top narco-cop.

In late May, however, The New Yorker magazine ran a lengthy investigative article that made a persuasive case for calling the "battle" of Lake Hammar wanton carnage. It suggested that McCaffrey escaped unblemished only because of an elaborate army cover-up of what had been, in reality, nothing less than a massive war crime.

But the debate over the 24th Division post-surrender shoot-out did not really heat up until Owens threw his firebomb in mid-June. In a written statement intended to exonerate McCaffrey, the distinguished U.S. Naval War College professor of military science, explained that "in order to understand McCaffrey's actions [on March2, 1991] it is necessary to know that the foremost military objective of the ground war [against Iraq] was not the conquest of territory, but the destruction of Saddam's elite Republican guard." The reason for this barbaric war aim -- and what Owens and others fail to say -- is that Israel feared the Republican Guard.

When Powell told Bush on Feb. 27 that the time had come to declare a cease-fire in the Gulf, he knew that the "central military mission of the war -- the utter destruction of Saddam's elite divisions -- had not yet been accomplished. but he did not bother to inform the president or the secretary of defense of this," charged Owens.

Field commanders like McCaffrey, "painfully aware that their real task was nowhere near completion, were startled and staggered when the order came to halt the ground war...interpreting the cease-fire liberally, they scrambled to finish as much of their primary mission -- annihilation of the elite Iraqi divisions - as possible." That was the real rationale for the 24th Division's devastating March 2 assault on Iraqi forces attempting to withdraw with their armaments intact, Owens argued.

If anyone is to be faulted for this incident, it should be Powell, not NcCaffrey, who was, after all "merely the victim of Powell's error in calling for a cease-fire before his field commanders could attain the main objective assigned to them in secret White House briefings, a cease-fire Powell recommended for political rather than military reasons," this scholarly strategist concluded.

But Owen's explanation raised new questions about the propriety of the Bush white House issuing orders for what resulted, in the end, in the atrocious slaughter of a defeated Iraqi division - and quite likely a number os similar unreported outrages, human-rights activists say.

"If I were ex-President Bush, I would be careful not to travel around in places where I might be nailed by a sudden extradition writ on war crimes charges, the way chile's former president Gen. Pinochet was trapped in England," warned Dr. Emanuel Margalit, an international defense attorney.

The SPOTLIGHT July 3, 2000

New Technology Gives Feds 'X-Ray Vision

Big Brother may soon have its hands on the technology to know where yu are at any time.

By William Carmichael

You might as well give yourself up. If the government wants to know where you are, the technology to find you is so developed it's about to be released for use by anyone.

Now technology called ultra-wide-band will soon allow anyone to detect anything anywhere.

Ultra-band uses millions of narrow pulses each second to get an accurate reading of location and distance, opening the door for new applications in radar tracking, precise positioning and wireless communications.

The possibilities vary from short range computer networking for homes to devices that determine the location of criminals hiding behind a wall.

What regulators like even better is that ultra-wideband devices can work within frequencies already allocated for other radio services.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) believes the technology is so promising that the agency has proposed it to be used on an unlicensed basis.

Because of improvements in technology, it is now time to take a look at making this service available to consumers, businesses and public safety providers," said "FCC Chairman William Kennard.

It could be a year or more before the FCC gives final clearance.

Government agencies and private groups are testing to make sure ultra-wideband can safely coexist with other services, like the Global Positioning System, the U.S.-built network of satellites for navigation.

Officials want to put to rest any concerns about interference and could require the technology to be used above very congested frequencies, said John Reed, senior engineer in the FCC's technical rules branch.

That's not what concerns constitutionalists, who say the government wants to know where anyone is at any time. But the FCC didn't address that issue.

The technology is being touted for its ability to harness a small amount of power very efficiently. Ultra-wideband devices can emit such little energy, that it could interfere no more "than your laptop does with your TV," said Ralph Petroff, chief executive officer of Time Domain Corp., a Huntsville, Ala-based company.

The company is one of a handful that has received special government waivers to begin using the technology.

Time Domain already has developed some ultra-wideband products which allow law enforcement officials to detect motion through surfaces such as walls. That means firefighters could determine whether there are people inside a room before they knock down a door.

It also could allow any government agency to be able to look into a house to monitor someone in their home.

SUPER HIGH-TECH USES

In Fairfax, Va., members of the local county rescue squad were able to see people still breathing under qw feet of rubble using the devices after a building collapsed, Petroff said.

Newer versions to be introduced in the fall will provide even clearer silhouettes.

Petroff said the chief benefit of ultra-wideband "is the ability to create entirely new products that don't yet exist and entirely new industries."

A separate company has cropped up that intends to use the ultra-wideband specifically for the golf industry, so that club owners can detect the location of golfers on a course and even see how quickly players move through the holes.

Zircon, a Silicon Valley company that also has a waiver to use ultra-wideband, currently makes hand-held tools that can detect studs about an inch and a half behind a wall before carpenters begin drilling.

But ultra-wideband could scan to greater depths, possibly even providing a three-dimensional image of what's inside a slab of concrete, said Chuck Heger, the company's vice president of research and development.

Other potential uses include:

*A collision-avoidance sensor for cars so that when the vehicle starts to brake, the radar can sense the speed of the deceleration. The air bag could then be deployed to the appropriate level.

*Networking high-speed Internet access, computer, cable or other services throughout the home without wires.

*Special radios that allow for covert, secure communications between soldiers without being identified.

The SPOTLIGHT July 10, 2000

Elitists Chased Globally; Protesters in Italy Target Globalists

The would-be masters of the Global Plantation are being chased around the
world.

By William Carmichael

Internationalists who view themselves as the real leaders of the world are having a hard time keeping their meetings quiet. And the proletariat is getting restless.

From Seattle, Wash., to Washington, D.C., the internationalist money managers who use tax dollars to manipulate world governments -- and events -- are running into grassroots objections.

The latest took place in Europe. And the demonstrations prove that objections to internationalist manipulators cross party and ideological lines.

Italian riot police fired tear-gas and used batons against an estimated 1,500 protesters outside an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development summit which began in Bologna June 14.

The protesters, mainly young members of leftist "social centers," marched through the city to the strains of Beethoven, while anarchists staged a sit-in, blocking traffic in a nearby street.

Police said they charged the demonstrators when demonstrators tried to break through a cordon outside the summit on the globalization of small businesses.

Five people, injured in scuffles that ensued in the street and under the covered walkways, were taken to hospitals. Protesters later complained of police brutality.

Organizers said the protesters had "only asked to demonstrate."

Two members of Italy's parliament who were at the demonstrations -- Paolo Cento of Italy's Green Party and Ugo Boghetta of the Refounded Communists -- criticized the police for over-reacting.

The SPOTLIGHT July 10, 2000

Clinton-Gore's Land Grabs: Rest in Peace -- Anger Over Federal Land Use

Montanans took a novel approach to deliver to a Forest Service meeting their comments showing frustration with federal land use policy.

By Don Harkins

On June 21, a procession of motor vehicles picked up participants all along the 120 mile-long trip from Kalispell to Missoula, Mont., where western Montanans delivered their commentary on federal land use policy to a U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-sponsored public meeting held at the Doubletree Hotel. Nearly 1,500 Montanans filled out Clinton-Gore roadless initiative comment forms that had been symbolically placed in a black casket inscribed: "R.I.P. Clinton-Gore Roadless Plan."

The roadless initiative is a federal program to take large swaths of public land out of the hands of communities for the purpose of so-called federal "conservation."

The procession, dubbed "Freedom on the Move" by rally organizers, grew to 20 miles by the time it entered Missoula city limits. The Montana State Police even directed traffic as the north, south and west contingents of the rally merged outside of Missoula.

Organized by the Montana Wood Products Association, Montana Logging Association, Montanans for Multiple Use, Montana Snowmobile Association, the Missoula Snow Goers Association and Communities for a Great North west, the train of vehicles participating in the demonstration was several times longer than each of the several economically depressed towns through which it passed en route to the meeting.

Montana's resource-dependent economy has been hit hard by federal land use regulations that have destroyed the livelihoods and lives of thousands of people in western Montana.

Increasingly desperate people have been voicing their opposition to federal regulations at public meetings for over a decade. Not once have the voices of concerned people been able to halt the advancement of federal control over what, according to the Constitution, is state land and state re sources.

West is Organizing

"Freedom on the Move" rally organizer Jim Hurst also spearheaded the Montana effort to send 10,000 shovels to Jarbidge, Nev., where there will be a highly publicized opening of a USFS-closed road this coming July 4. Jarbidge shovel brigade member Elwood Mose spoke at the Missoula event and thanked Montanans for the "10,000 shovels of solidarity."

The communication and cooperation between Missoula organizers and Jarbidge organizers is an indication that citizens are quickly organizing in opposition to a federal government that can no longer veil its intentions to gain total control of land and natural resources found in the states west of the Rocky Mountains.

There was some resistance at the door by the USFS which did not want the black casket, which was led by Stone who was carrying a large American flag, to be allowed into the building.

However, after insisting that the USFS acknowledge its statutory obligation to receive citizen comments, it was agreed that the casket and its pall bearers only would be allowed into the meeting.

An "insider" was able to witness the crestfallen faces of approximately 650 "Sierra Club hat-wearing eco-whiners" who had hoped that the peaceful pro-American mission of Freedom on the Move would fall short of its message-delivering destination.

Public comments regarding the Clinton-Gore roadless initiative will be taken until July 17. You can send your letters and comments to: CAET-USFS, P.O. Box 22300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122; FAX: (801) 517-1021; email: roads/wo_caet@fs.fed.us.

The SPOTLIGHT July 10, 2000

Establishment Attempts to Derail Buchanan

The strange tale of how the Establishment will stop at nothing to derail the biggest threat to its strangle-hold on power: Pat Buchanan.

By Mike Blair

A faction of far-out members of the Reform Party, joined by far-left environmentalists, feminist extremists, gay rights activists and anarchists, are hoping to derail the campaign of Pat Buchanan and capture the party's nomination at its August convention in Long Beach, Calif.

Gathering behind John Hagelin, the founder and the 1996 presidential candidate of the little-known Natural Law Party, the group is planning to turn the convention into a raucous mob scene that will be portrayed as a party of disorganized rabble by the Establishment media and thus destroy Buchanan"'s chances in November.

That's the fallback plan if Hagelin is not nominated, as seems likely.

Hagelin has an odd personality. He believes transcendental meditation, or TM, is the key to solving all human problems. According to his own literature, Hagelin"'s trances have produced these positions:

• "Reduce crime by rehabilitating offenders and reduce the dangerous build-up of stress that pervades our cities and the nation as a whole." Hagelin criticizes "more prisons, stiffer sentencing, more police."

• "Improve education through programs that develop the inner-creative genius of the student." He cites no source for the conclusion that inside every student is a genius struggling to get out. Under the Constitution, education is a state -- not federal -- responsibility.

TM is an offshoot of the Hindu religion led by a "guru" called the Maharishi. Its leaders once argued that TM is not a religion but merely a form of meditation that cures the body's ills without the use of medicine -- establishment or alternative -- while solving all social problems.

TM's argument was once so successful that public schools used federal funds to teach its "meditation." But when The SPOTLIGHT revealed TM's religious nature in stories on Oct. 18 and Nov. 8, 1976, things began to change.

A year later, on Oct. 20, 1977, U.S. District Court Judge H. Curtis Meanor ruled that TM is a religion and cannot be taught in public schools.

The Newark, N.J., judge cited information contained in The SPOTLIGHT stories about students being forced into "incense-filled rooms" barefoot to worship the so-called "Geru Dev," a "Divine Master." They had to sing Hindu chants (SPOTLIGHT, Nov. 7, 1977).

The Maharishi ordered his followers to enter politics to reshape the "world consciousness" by means of government institutions. Hagelin is following his master"'s orders. Those who follow Hagelin are also following the Maharishi's orders, although most are unaware of this.

Most political pundits believe at this point that Buchanan has the Reform Party presidential nomination about wrapped up. However, the big danger seen by Buchanan"'s followers is that the funny people backing Hagelin will destroy the party"'s credibility at the Long Beach convention and thus destroy the party nominee's chances at the polls.

The Hagelin crowd is accusing Buchanan of promoting a "message of exclusivity and intolerance," which has been trumpeted by those within the Republican and Democratic parties who are trying to limit his presidential chances.

On July 5, Reform Party members started mailing in their primary ballots to nominate the presidential candidate of their party.

The party's selection of a presidential candidate is a complicated process. State parties have been holding conventions to name delegates, which required Buchanan followers to go into the state parties in many states and elect their own people.

However, the party must nominate whoever wins the mail-in primary unless two-thirds of the delegates at Long Beach vote to override the mail-in results which would be a public relations nightmare.

The party has mailed out a million ballots to party members as well as to anyone who has ever signed a party petition. The ballot must be mailed back by Aug. 4.

Buchanan and his followers are convinced that they can win the primary and defeat Hagelin with an overwhelming number of delegates at the Long Beach convention.

Buchanan is also convinced that the courts will overturn the current stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on the nationally televised presidential debates, in which "good ole boy" rules currently allow only the GOP and Democrat candidates -- Tex. Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore -- to participate.

Buchanan backers are certain that their candidate, a master of debate, will easily overshadow the lackluster "Gush and Bore" and awaken the American public to the righteous cause of the Reform Party candidate.

Recently, following Bilderberg, Lenora Fulani, the far-left political activist who had become the national co-chairman of the Buchanan campaign with the hope of making Buchanan"'s bid a right-center-left coalition, abruptly changed her mind and backed away from her support of Buchanan"'s candidacy.

Hagelin"'s followers view this as a plus for their man. But most Buchanan supporters, who were concerned that their political hero, Buchanan, had allied himself with Fulani and her socialist followers, view her defection as a bonus.

The SPOTLIGHT July 17, 2000

Homosexuality a Required School Topic?

A concerned parent looking into what a public school was teaching his son found out it was far worse than he imagined.

By Ingri Cassel

After discovering in 1999 that an aggressive pro-homosexuality agenda was being supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, Brian Cammacher, a concerned parent, discovered that the problem is more sinister than most people could ever imagine.

Several counties in the state were busing students aged 12-14 to attend events that can only be described as homosexuality workshops complete with graphic descriptions of how to engage in deviant sexual behavior.

Last year Cammacher, who lives in a Boston suburb, saw a traveling exhibit entitled "Multicultural Families: Helping Fight Racism" that his son had seen.

The exhibit portrayed pictures of bi-racial couples along with homosexual couples. He noted statements written by the children that they were trying to cure their parents of "racist" and "homophobic" sentiments.

Later that year he examined his 11-year-old daughter's health class workbook in which the stated goal of the course was that "the children should appreciate and take pride in their sexual orientation."

When he complained to the school, his concerns were dismissed. He was accused of not understanding and being intolerant. He was told that, "its not about sex; it's about civil rights and tolerance."

It was also noted that all area public schools participated in "Gay Appreciation Days" -- a week in which children were further indoctrinated with the concept that the homosexual lifestyle is normal. A pamphlet that was distributed during this week states, "If you've never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"

In an article entitled, "Homosexual Agenda in Massachusetts's Schools" by Massachusetts Constitutional Party committeeman Scott T. Whiteman, Massachusetts is described as being the model state for promoting the homosexual agenda in the nation's public schools.

According to Whiteman, it all started in 1992 when Massachusetts Governor William Weld created by executive order the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" under the guise of preventing gay youth suicide. The commission was comprised of 16 homosexual activists. Whiteman reported that one commission member, David LaFontaine, had organized an event to throw condoms at newly ordained priests at Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston and that another commission member had been convicted of breaking into a dynamite factory.

From 1993 to 1996, the commission began writing manuals on "Making Schools Safer for Gay and Lesbian Youth," including the mandatory hiring of gay teachers, required seminars for teachers to learn homosexual affirmation, and the formation of curriculum for the study of gay and lesbian issues.

The Massachusetts state budget has been appropriating money to the commission through the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The money appropriated to the Commission reached a record $1.5 million in 1998.

Massachusetts is currently the most "gay friendly" state in the country with 180 Gay/Straight Alliances (GSAs) in both public and private schools. Through out the country there are over 700 GSA clubs in schools coordinated by national homosexual activist groups and implemented by state departments of public health and education.

On March 25, Whiteman attended an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network and Project 10, both of whom receive funding from the Department of Education's $1.5 million appropriation. Numerous gay-friendly teachers and administrators received "professional developmental credits" for attending the event.

In one workshop run by two Department of Education employees one Department of Health employee, a group of 30 children were given graphic instructions in how to participate in homosexual sex.

In one session entitled, "Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum," a special education teacher told how she turned the holocaust portion of her curriculum into a "gay affirming" section. She shared a video produced by her students in which a seventh grade girl is narrating. The girl on the video tells us that the ancient Greeks "encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover."

Most of the literature distributed at the conference was aimed at children and contained incredibly disturbing material which encouraged young children to become actively involved in homosexual activities.

Children as young as 12 and 13 attended this conference, even being bused from other counties so that they could attend the event. Parents who protested were accused of being "intolerant" and "homophobic." Parents were not told what their children were learning and were purposely kept in the dark with regard to the subject matter of this conference.

If you would like more information on this topic, contact Debbie Hopper at (636)861-0060 or email at dhopper@constitutionparty.com.

* "Homophobic" is "newspeak" invented by the queer lobby. The word actually means "hatred of man." People who do not like homosexuals do not harbor any animosity toward men.

The SPOTLIGHT July 17, 2000

Party Founder Tries and Fails to Block Buchanan

Good News: Ros Perot's behind-the-scenes scheming to undermine Pat Buchanan in the Reform Part's presidential nomination have failed on all accounts.

By Clayton Potts

While the process of nominating a candidate is under way, the Reform Party has removed two major barriers facing Pat Buchanan:

* Ross Perot, the party's founder and twice a candidate, has refused to run in spite of pressure to do so from Buchanan foes; and

* Reform Party officials refused to include a "no endorsement option on the primary ballot, which had been sought by Perot as a means of denying the nomination to Buchanan.

This means voters in the Reform primary can choose either or John Hagelin or nobody. but the Reform Party will have a candidate.

"We decided that the "no endorsement" option wouldn't be consistent with the rules," said Michael Farris, chairman of the party's presidential nominations panel, in rejecting Perot's plan.

Opponents had recruited Hagelin as their last great hope but are worried that some may not hate Buchanan less but hate Hagelin more -- thus the failed "no endorsement" effort.

Hagelin, founder and twice candidate of the Natural Law Party, argues that transcendental meditation will solve society's problems by "rehabilitation" ax murderers and developing the "inner creative genius" he attributes to all students (SPOTIGHT, July 10, 2000).

Some in the Reform Party object to Buchanan's outspoken views against homosexuality and abortion, which are among various social issues on which they have chosen to remain silent.

If Nominated, Bushanan said, he would leave the Reform Party platform -- with its silence on social issues -- intact, but voters have a right to know his own views on those subjects. He will prepare a statement about his views on those subjects, Buchanan said.

"We are not going to change a line in the Reform Party platform -- I promised the folks that," Buchanan said. "What the people do have a right to know is where Pat Buchanan stands on the Supreme Court, where he stands on Bosnia, where he stands on immigration."

Buchanan again stressed the need for a new presidential choice in November. Ballots are being mailed to thousands of Reform Party supporters. Buchanan is far ahead in delegate counts, but winning the primary balloting is also important.

Under Reform Party rules, convention delegates, who have been chosen at the state level based on who they would support for the nomination, can reject the primary winner by a two-thirds vote.

If Hagelin somehow rouses enough meditators to win the primary, he would spend the rest of the presidential compaign calling himself the "people's choice and trying to discredit Buchanan. With many ignorant, uninformed voters, that would be an easy task.

The three members of the nominations committee were unanimous in rejecting Perot's "no endorsement" proposal, Farris said.

"If Ross Perot was allowed to have a line marked 'No Endorsement,' how could we prevent someone else having a line marked Colin Powell?" he asked.

Party officials expressed doubt that Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in 1992, making him the strongest third-party candidate in generations, would have a role in this year's election. Officials said they are not even sure if he will attend the convention this year, scheduled for Aug. 10-13 in Long Beach, Calif.

Gerry Moan, party chairman, expressed support for the ballot decision.

"I was not a fan of the no-endorsement option," Moan said. "There is an opportunity to do a no-endorsement at the convention. My feeling is that we invited Buchanan into the party and he's tried to play by the rules."

Perot, despite objecting to Buchanan, resisted pressure during a day-long meeting to put his name on the ballot to stop Buchanan, said his spokesman, Russell Verney.

Perot resisted such a "negative reason" for running and also thought it would be unethical to accept the nomination but not really seek the office, Verney said.

Perot, who recently turned 70, would be on the ballot in about half the states in November. Buchanan is expected to make the ballot in all states.

The SPOTLIGHT July 17, 2000

Mexico Leader Wants Globalism, Open Borders

The new Mexican president was elected on July 2 with much fanfare from the plutocratic-controlled media. Can you guess what policies the newly elected chief executive is advancing?

By Fred Lingel

Buried in the mainstream media's jubilation over Mexico's electing a "conservative" president and overturning the 71-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party is one chilling fact: President-elect Vicente Fox wants "open borders" between the United States and Mexico.

Under his proposal -- which sounds like a demand -- there could be no illegal aliens from Mexico because they would legally cross the border at will.

In discussing the problems on the U.S.-Mexican border, where violence has erupted in recent months as ranchers assist the Border Patrol in trying to stop the flow of thousands of illegal immigrants, the president-elect said:

"This situation isn't solving our problems for either of us. It appears to me that both of us have lost sight of the goal, because the United States' goal has been to put up walls, police and soldiers to stop immigration. That can't work.

"Mexico's goal has been to open the escape valve, avoid its own responsibility to create jobs here, allow 350,000 young people to cross the border each year and wash its hands of responsibility."

Instead, Fox proposed a long-range plan for development in Mexico with the help of foreign aid (mostly American tax dollars) while opening the border so Mexicans could cross at will.

He also called for advancing NAFTA to cover labor and small businesses.

Fox said he would soon travel to Washington to meet with President Clinton because "the goal is to become true partners, neighbors and friends."

An open border between the two countries is an idea Fox has long embraced. Campaigning for votes among Mexican-"Americans" in enclaves from Chicago to California, Fox repeatedly stressed that he would open the border between the U.S. and Mexico. He said nothing about opening Mexico's southern border.

In prepared remarks for the California Assembly, Fox said Mexicans look at U.S. immigration policy "with utmost indignation." The speech text was released to the press but never actually delivered because Latino leaders became alarmed at the uproar Fox was causing.

"We cannot fail because we have awakened too many expectations, too many dreams and desires," Fox said in a broadcast on independent Radio Red.

Readers had to search hard and deep into the stories in mainstream newspapers to learn about Fox's open-borders views, if at all.

Meanwhile, American leaders of both major parties hailed Fox's election and ignored the border issue altogether.

Clinton congratulate Fox and issued a statement calling his election a "vivid testimony to the depth of the democratic commitment of the Mexican people."

Former Secretary of State James Baker, who held high positions under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, called the election "a truly historic sea change in the politics of Mexico."

Fox was also praised by Bilderberg for his globalist views that demean national sovereignty.

"Fox promised a lot of new spending, which is based on assumptions of very strong growth founded on financial reforms that are still undefined," said Jorge Mariscal, chief Latin American strategist for the investment firm Goldman Sachs.

"For the first time in a long time, Mexico has the potential to address the key structural reforms," Mariscal said.

Fox is doing Bilderberg bidding by trying to eliminate his national border with the United States, by embracing and seeking to enhance NAFTA and by taking the view that national sovereignty is less than sacred.

Fox promised changes in Mexico's foreign policy that would downgrade national sovereignty by abandoning the current government position of strictly opposing intervention -- even by international organizations such as the UN -- in other nations' domestic conflicts.

"We can't just limit ourselves to unrestricted respect for other countries' decisions, without denouncing rights abuses or major crimes," Fox said.

Fox said he will maintain Mexico's "intense relations with Cuba and intensify them if possible." He said he will invite Cuban President Fidel Castro to his Dec. 1 inauguration.

The SPOTLIGHT July 24, 2000

Americans Jailed, Tortured By Israeli Government

U.S. officials are silent when it comes to Arab Americans tortured in Israel.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Israel is holding 10 American citizens in prison and at least six of them have been tortured but the U.S. government refuses to act.

Israel is the only developed country in the world where torture of prisoners is legal.

These 10 Americans, none of whom have committed a violent crime and all of whom claim innocence, have Arab family names.

Because of State Department indifference, the 10 Americans were identified by Partners for Peace, a Washing ton-based advocacy group. Of the six on whom the group has managed to obtain information, all have been tortured.

The State Department's own Foreign Affairs Manual spells out its obligation: "The consular officers are obliged to assist arrested or imprisoned U.S. citizens with dedicated professionalism, regardless of their own views as to the innocence or guilt of the individuals."

Jerri Bird, president of Partners and leader of the investigation, cited "most disturbing" patterns:

• Israeli detention of American citizens is random, but the victims are almost all very young, all are Arab-Americans and all will inherit land from parents or grandparents in the West Bank.

• "American consular officials accept without protest the Israeli abuse and torture of citizens of Arab descent" even when presented with "visible evidence of severe abuse."

A Jewish American told Partners that he was arrested for demonstrating against the destruction of a Palestinian home by Israeli soldiers. Phil Wilcox, an American consular official, got him out of jail in three hours.

"If you are Jewish, I can get you out in a few hours; if you are 'regular' American, I can get you out in a day or so," the Jewish American said Wilcox told him. "But if you are an Arab-American, forget about it."

"Such duplicity by our own government in the brutalization of our citizens in Israel must not be tolerated," Bird said. "I have been asked by Matt Finston, foreign service officer assigned to the Israel desk, to let Arab-Americans know that 'the American passport is no protection for them. Tell them that if they want to be safe, stay at home.'"

Most of the prisoners are second- and third-generation Americans, not new converts to citizenship. Some were tortured -- including being kicked in the genitals -- into signing a Hebrew language document they could not understand. It turned out to be a "confession."

Sleep and food deprivation, filthy conditions, threats of rape and sodomy and pouring hot water on the prisoner are also favored forms of torture.

The SPOTLIGHT July 17, 2000

Buchanan Solidifies Hold on Party

One of Buchanan's strongest enemies has been ousted from his credentials committee post in the Reform Party, paving the way for Buchanan's presidential bid. Buchanan Enemy Booted

One of Buchanan's strongest enemies has been ousted from his credentials committee post in the Reform Party, paving the way for Buchanan's presidential bid.

By Clayton Potts

Buchanan supporters have forced the ouster of Russell Verney, Ross Perot's paid agent, as chairman of the Reform Party's convention credentials committee. This is an action intended to prevent allies of Ross Perot from blocking Buchanan's nomination.

Verney, who led the party during Perot's 1996 campaign and was a major force in its founding, "basically decided to spearhead the anti-Buchanan efforts," said Bay Buchanan, the candidate's sister and senior adviser.

Verney had encouraged up to 25 challenges to state delegations at the August convention in an effort to turn the nominating process into "chaos," she said.

The credentials committee plays a crucial role in deciding challenges to the seating of individual delegates and entire state delegations at the convention.

Buchanan, in state-by-state campaigning, won an overwhelming majority of convention delegates. By a two-thirds majority, the convention delegates can reject the candidate who wins the mail-in vote, which is open to all.

Buchanan is the clear leader in the race for the Reform Party nomination and the $12.6 million in federal money that accompanies it. His only challenger is John Hagelin, founder of the little-known Natural Law Party whose main platform plank is a form of Hinduism known as "transcendental meditation" or TM.

As state parties met, leading up to the national convention, control has moved to Buchanan backers. In many states, Perot backers have been ousted, including in his home state of Texas.

These developments have angered Perot's minions, who have sought ways to block Buchanan's nomination and his growing control of the Reform Party.

Buchanan's efforts were called "brown-shirt bully tactics" by Jim Mangia, the party's national secretary. He said the executive committee plans to meet to effectively overturn Buchanan's takeover of the credentials committee by adding members committed to Hagelin in equal numbers to Buchanan supporters. Both aides agree that six of the 11 members favor Buchanan and the other five are allied with Perot, the party's founder.

But the Buchanan campaign has enough support from members of the national committee to require a meeting on Aug. 8 in Long Beach, Calif., two days before the convention opens there. If, as seems likely, Buchanan delegates constitute a majority, they will be able to take over all the key party offices before the proceedings begin, insulating Buchanan from any serious challenge during the convention.

Efforts to block Buchanan never stop, however. The brigade from Georgia reported June 8 that 30,000 signatures to place Buchanan on the ballot had "disappeared." Volunteers rushed in to make up the loss against a tight deadline. Buchanan hopes to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

While protesters plan demonstrations at the Democratic and Republican conventions in numbers unseen since the violence surrounding the Democrats in Chicago in 1968, they intend to leave the Reform Party gathering unmolested.

This, leaders of the umbrella group R2D2 Coalition told The SPOTLIGHT, is because they are opposed to two-party domination and want to see the rise of effective new parties.

Many of these demonstrators describe themselves as socialists and left-wingers but most also express agreement with Buchanan's views against the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and other elements of "globalism."

There is widespread opposition among coalition groups to multinational corporations that move their operations to poor countries to take advantage of slave wages and avoid the costs of paid vacations, health insurance and other costly benefits imposed on companies in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of such jobs have been lost in the United States since NAFTA.

About 200 groups plan to protest under the coalition's banner. They plan "shadow conventions" for the same time as the Republicans meet in Philadelphia and the Democrats convene at Los Angeles.

Many are veterans of the protests that shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle last December and hampered the IMF-World Bank meeting in Washington in April.

"When it hurts, it's time to holler and that's what we're going to do," shouted Cheri Honkala of the Up and Out of Poverty Now group, one of many speakers when the coalition announced its plans in Washington on July 6.

The SPOTLIGHT July 17, 2000

Feds Finance Breakup of Families

Every day, children across the United States are taken from their homes by the government, some because of neglect and abuse, but many for no other reason than their parents' conflict with state-determined standards.

By Nev Moore

Like small brush fires across the land, we are hearing stories of parents who claim that Child Protective Services (CPS) -- even though there had never been any type of abuse or neglect -- abruptly seized their children.

The stories we hear are eerie in their similarity. Without incident, warning or warrant, government agents from CPS, often accompanied by police officers, show up at a home or school and seize children, based on the most vague and frivolous of allegations.

The children are whisked away to strange foster homes. The parents are not allowed to know where their children are. The parents are not charged with any criminal act, therefore they are not entitled to due process.

In the United States, CPS seizes 3,000 children every single day. According to their own statistics, only 400 are for substantiated acts of abuse or neglect.

To make matters worse, Department of Health and Human Services documents that 68 percent of substantiated cases "do not involve child maltreatment." One might ask: What do they involve?

The majority are poverty-related issues, but due to several factors, almost anyone could lose their children.

The factors that enable government child abduction are:

• Anonymous reporting (meaning that anyone with an axe to grind or any mentally unstable busybody can anonymously file a report against you);

• Social workers who are given absolute power and immunity, and do not have to account to anyone;

• An agency that receives massive state and federal funding -- $12 billion a year and rising -- and is rewarded based on the numbers of children they process; and

• An obsessive mentality of social "restructuring" and control that is every bit as unstable and dangerous as the Hitlers, Pol Pots and Idi Amins of our history.

Thirty years ago a plan was formed to nationalize our children and make them property of the state. One of the original proponents of this plan was the late Dr. C. Henry Kempe of the University of Colorado.

Hillary Clinton praises the work of Kempe in her book: It Takes A Village.

Kempe was an open and wholehearted supporter of communist educators, who stated: "We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families and, frankly, nationalize them."

Kempe's vision was to remove the children and have them raised in state orphanages. His model was the orphanages of Rumania. He, and all the other "child savers" who follow his vision, including Hillary, ignore the fact that mortality in the Rumanian orphanages is 72 percent -- mostly due to starvation and medical neglect.

The plan involves placing a social worker in every American home to document "risk factors" that will be entered into an electronic portfolio kept on every citizen from birth. "Risk factors" may include not enough toys or too many toys, cigarette smoking or birth of a sibling.

The plan is clearly spelled out in President Clinton's "Goals 2000," a 154-page bill, signed in 1994 and already in effect. Unknown to the majority of the American public, Goals 2000 was called "The Restructuring of American Society, from Cradle to Grave." Goals 2000 is the culmination of Kempe's original plan. Clinton is just the patsy who signed it.

Why haven't we read about this Orwellian plan on the covers of Time and Newsweek? Kempe stated that the plan "must be initiated with stealth."

THE PLAN IMPLEMENTED

The unholy trinity being used to implement the plan is CPS, the Home Visitation program and outcome-based education.

The Home Visitation program, now active in 42 states, makes it compulsory for all parents of newborns to have social workers visit their homes regularly.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) wrote a letter to every member of Congress urging them to try to stop the program.

In his letter he stated: "This is 'big brother' intervention as we have never seen it before. It is a case of the 'village' mentality run wild. Americans have never experienced such intrusion into their family lives."

When Hillary espouses her it-takes-a-village philosophy, most Americans think she is referring to going back to a more traditional way of raising families, when our social structure was comprised of family, supported by church and community. Family matters were private; we were free citizens who could make our own decisions and mistakes.

This is not Hillary's vision. Hillary's "village" is the state. Her way of "helping" families is through condemnation, coercive governmental intervention and enforced social programs. Therefore she must dictate to us a societal ideal that we must follow -- a model, compliant citizen -- to whom she can dictate standards for families. Social workers, often pitiful, small-minded people who find relief from their own feelings of powerlessness by dominating others, will monitor and document our every move and micro-manage our daily lives.

As she said in a speech in New York last summer, Hillary wants a social worker in every American home -- well, except her own, of course.

The SPOTLIGHT July 31, 2000

It's Time To Pull Plug On Media Control Of Vote Count

An upcoming conference in Ohio will blow the lid off the issue of computerized major media vote fraud. Read on to find out how you can become a part of it.

By Fred Lingel

A conference to expose election fraud in the United states arranged by the founder of Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, Jim Condit, is drawing national attention and attracting high-profile speakers.

The Votescam Convention, scheduled to take place Aug. 22-25 at the Airport Radisson Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohil, is open to the public and, according to Condit, still has space available for those interested in attending.

"We are grateful to those Americans who have already purchased tickets to attend the meetings," said Condit.

The cost of the conference is only $35 per day or $105 for all three days. Three optional banquet meals are an extra $60.

Pat Buchanan has been invited and is expected to speak at the gala dinner on Saturday.

Other featured speakers at the convention include presidential candidates Howard Phillips and Charles Collins; Radio Free America host Tom Valentine; "Votescam" researchers Phyllis and Victoria Collier; Brent Belesky of the International Voters' Coalition; Dr. Phillip O'Halloran, editor of Relevence Magazine; and Linda Muller of Buchanan.org.

"Vote fraud is probably the most important issue today," Condit explained. "At the conference, citizens will learn how they can help bring honest reform to the election process.

At the convention, Americans will learn how to fight modern "ballot stuffing" via computerized voting machines, which could literally steal the election. Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan is the main target of election thieves this year.

To participate in this historic gathering, call Citizens for a Fair Vote Count at 513-389-7700 or simply send your reservation to P.O. Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 before the event is sold out. The web site at votefraud.org will provide more information on "votescam."

The SPOTLIGHT July 31, 2000

Huge Costs Upset Congress as Peace Talks Stall

What was behind the overly publicized stall in the Mideast peace process?
Read on to find out.

By Clayton Potts

While the Israelis and Palestinians have no trouble finding areas of disagreement, what really crippled the Mideast peace talks was growing resistance in Congress to a huge payoff.

Resistance began building after The SPOTLIGHT reported on July 24 that a peace agreement would cost taxpayers big bucks -- up to $240 billion in the years ahead.

Many in Congress simply refused to buy the "peace at any price" proposition. The 1979 Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt has cost taxpayers more than $100 billion -- and counting.

Top Republican leaders promptly sent President Clinton a letter reminding him that Congress is the "sole authority" for spending money on a peace pact.

Clinton had effectively bribed both sides to reach an accord and leave him a peace "legacy." The letter from House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill.), Major ity Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was a warning to all sides that Congress was writing no blank checks.

"We expect to be fully apprised of all aspects of the negotiations prior to entering any commitments on behalf of the United States," they wrote Clinton. "Your administration must work in concert with the Congress."

Resistance to big payoffs to buy Clinton a legacy is widespread.

Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Ala.) "is very concerned that a lame-duck administration looking for a legacy . . . might be willing to write a blank check to get an agreement," spokesman Jo Bonner told The Washington Times.

Any money promised by Clinton would amount to "empty promises" without congressional support, said John Czwartacki, spokesman for Senate Majority Lea der Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Congress has to be a partner in this," he said.

Congressional staffers expressed anger at the administration's refusal to brief Congress on the talks. In the absence of substantive reports from the White House, congressional staffers resorted to translating Israeli news reports from Hebrew to glean any information about the closed-door talks.

Responding to congressional anger, White House aides flooded Capitol Hill with calls saying the president does not yet have a price tag for the talks.

The White House leaked small figures eagerly accepted by the mainstream press, estimating the U.S price for peace at $17 billion. The theory is that such a "small amount" would be readily accepted by the American people.

However, skeptical congressmen are aware that the full price of the Israeli-Egypt settlement became evident only as the years passed. They regard the $17 billion as a small "down payment" on a huge, looming commitment.

The SPOTLIGHT July 31, 2000

Whites Will Soon Be Minority in United States

Ignoring massive illegal immigration is leading to the destruction of the White majority civilization in the United States.

By P.Samuel Foner

On July 4, the celebration of the Declaration of Independence, demographers had an ironic announcement for the citizens of the United States:

Whites will cease to be the majority in California next year" - and that's "a portent for the future of America."

Figures gathered by the California Department of Finance indicate that the proportion of the population counted as white -- non-Hispanic people of European or Middle Eastern origin -- will fall below 50 percent in the next 12 months.

It will make California the only mainland state to have a shite minority. Hawaii has a majority of Asians and Polynesians.

Demographers opined that, with Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois all becoming racially mixed at a rapid rate, America will lose its majority of white people by about 2070 at current rates.

Thirty years ago, eight out of 10 Californians were white. With the assistance of the Clinton administration, there has been a huge influx of immigrants, mostly from Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

A further five million immigrants -- two million of them illegal - are thought to have settled in the state since 1980.

INEVITABLE

In the past 30 years the proportion of Hispanics in California has risen to about 32 percent of the current population of 34 million. Sometime around 2040, when whites will make up less than a third of California's projected 52 million people, Hispanics are projected 52 million people, Hispanics are projected to form the majority. California is also home to huge immigrant communities from other countries.

According to government statistics, Los Angeles hosts the largest communities of Koreans and Iranians outside their native lands. In Glendale, once an almost exclusively white suburb, a violent gang war is being fought by Hispanic and Armenian youths.

"A more diverse population," Gov. Gray Davis (D) said, "creates some potential discomforts and even potential conflicts but it also brings great strengths."

However, Gray did not explain what "strength" he was talking about. can a heterogenous and multicultural population live together in peace? History does not afford even a single example.