The SPOTLIGHT September 4, 2000

National Transportation Safety Board Covers Up Tragedy of TWA Flight 800

The federal government's final ruling on the tragic downing of TWA Flight 800 has been called a sham and a farce by independent investigators and families of the victims.

By Christopher Bollyn

Federal investigators have dismissed wholesale at least 96 eyewitness accounts and concluded that the explosion that downed TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, killing all 230 on board, on July 17, 1996, was "most likely" caused by an electrical short circuit that ignited the fuel vapors in the center wing tank.

In a well-rehearsed and carefully staged two-day presentation of the draft of the accident report held in a converted movie theater Aug. 22-23, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accepted the findings of Dr. Bernard Loeb and his staff, which simply discarded problematic eyewitness and radar evidence that contradicted its accident scenario. This concluded the longest and most expensive investigation of its kind, costing Boeing and the NTSB $67 million.

When The SPOTLIGHT asked NTSB investigator James Wildey if the presentation had been well rehearsed, he said "Sure, you don't think we would wing it with all those slides, do you?"

The investigation has been called "totally phony" by a veteran 747 pilot who wonders "why are they going to such extraordinary attempts to conceal the truth?"

Donald Nibert, whose daughter, Cheryl, was one of the 16 French club students from Montoursville, Pa., headed for Paris aboard TWA 800, said that he still "perceives a cover-up."

Nibert noted that the two-day NTSB hearings failed to mention even once that the Navy had "an armada of ships" assembled in the area where the plane went down and that concerning the presence of this unidentified naval task force, "we were lied to in the first week and I've seen this continue."

"I find it disturbing that three satellites covering this area at the time of the crash . . . failed to function -- at the same time -- on the closest pass to the accident," Nibert said. "I find that hard to accept."

The NTSB began its hearings by attacking the independent investigators who have presented evidence that indicates that the streaking light that was reported by 96 eyewitnesses as rising from the surface and resulting in a fireball "four times larger than the sun," was a missile.

The NTSB insists that "the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile -- and the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the post-explosion pre-impact breakup sequence."

Dr. David Mayer, a non-engineer whose specialty is human psychology, who was recently hired by Loeb to deal with the problem of the more than 100 accounts that contradict the official accident scenario, dismissed the eyewitness evidence. Mayer called the eyewitness testimonies unreliable since they did not agree with the physical evidence, al though what physical evidence he meant was not explained.

Witnesses drunk?

NTSB member George Black suggested that eyewitness accounts could not be relied on since he assumed that many of them had been drinking, given the time of day and location of the accident.

NTSB Chairman Jim Hall, an ally of Al Gore, said at the outset, "I take exception to those who consistently distort the record and persist in making unfounded charges of a cover-up. They do a disservice to us all."

Hall insisted that there was no evidence found to suggest that the crash of TWA 800 was caused by a bomb or a missile. However, the FBI has confiscated a great deal of evidence from the NTSB investigators, which it still refuses to release.

Marge Gross, who lost her brother on TWA 800, said at a press conference after the hearings that it was the NTSB that was distorting the facts. Gross has been trying for years, to no avail, to obtain the shards of shrapnel that were found in her brother's body.

Hundreds of metal fragments were retrieved from the bodies of the victims and independent investigators insist that this evidence is crucial to understanding what happened to TWA 800.

Comdr. Bill Donaldson (Navy Ret), who has independently investigated TWA 800 and has conducted similar investigations of military aviation accidents for decades, called the NTSB panel "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves."

Donaldson said that the radar evidence proves that a missile struck TWA 800. He went on to say "the initiating event was not the center wing tank. It was a high-pressure event on the left side of the aircraft."

Donaldson maintains that a missile struck the first wing tank on the left side of the plane and that the physical evidence proves that the resulting explosion blew into the center wing tank which then exploded. He has also released radar data that shows metal fragments exiting the plane at Mach 2 speeds. These high-velocity fragments, he concludes, can only be pieces of a missile that passed through the plane.

As Hall was leaving the hearings, Gross and attorney John Clarke handed him a summons in which he and Loeb are named along with former deputy FBI director James Kallstrom and five other government officials, as being involved in a conspiracy to conceal the truth of the accident.

The plaintiffs in the suit are former police officer and investigative journalist James Sanders, the author of Altered Evidence,* and his wife Elisabeth.

Sanders' suit charges that in pursuance of a conspiracy eight individuals from the NTSB, the FBI and the Justice Department, trampled the civil and constitutional rights of the former law officer.

Sanders charges that government agents violated his First Amendment rights when they arrested him and his wife, unlawfully searched his phone records and seized his computer without a warrant and broke into his files.

The SPOTLIGHT September 4, 2000

Buchanan Sues Debate Organizers

In order for Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan to get his message out to the American people, Buchanan has to get into the presidential debates. Read on to find out how you can help.

By Clayton Potts

A decision on whether to include Reform Party presidential nominee Pat Buchanan in the debates may come on Sept. 6 or 7, according to his sister and campaign manager, Angela "Bay" Buchanan.

Buchanan and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader have filed separate federal lawsuits seeking to force the Commission on Presidential Debates to include them.

While a victory for either could well mean including both, Buchanan has the stronger case, according to legal experts. The Reform Party is a recognized national party and qualifies for $12.6 million in federal funds. Buchanan expects to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are unable to make these claims.

There are three reasons, according to people connected to the Democrats and Republicans, the Establishment wants to keep Buchanan out of the debates:

• Buchanan is more intelligent and would easily defeat either Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush in such eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations;

• If the American people are allowed to hear Buchanan's views from his own mouth -- not suppressed with only filtered trickles of information from the mainstream media -- millions of voters would turn to Buchanan and elect him president. This would end the two-party monopoly; and

• Buchanan would raise issues both parties prefer to ignore -- especially national sovereignty and the move toward world government.

The overwhelming majority of native-born Americans are patriotic and would be outraged at surrendering national sovereignty to a United Nations world government.

But even as leaders of the Establishment media, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, CBS and other major outlets meet secretly with Bilderberg and the Trilaterals to plot a world government, they maintain a complete blackout on Buchanan.

Buchanan would shine a light on their dark secrets and they would run for cover like cockroaches.

"We will reclaim every ounce of American sovereignty," Buchanan said in accepting the Reform nomination. He has said the same thing, in different words, many times to The SPOTLIGHT since first running for president in 1992.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want Americans exposed to a debate over illegal aliens. Both Bush and Gore are toadying for the Hispanic votes, many of them cast by illegal aliens who were registered while obtaining drivers' licenses (tested in Spanish in California so don't expect them to identify a stop sign).

Buchanan addressed this issue directly: he would bring all American troops home from the far corners of the Earth and deploy them along the Mexican border. Bush and Gore have tentatively agreed to five debates, one featuring the vice presidential candidates, to be held during October.

Unless the federal courts favor the actions by Buchanan, Nader or both, the commission exercises control over who participates. The panel says a candidate must reach 15 percent in five polls to qualify.

In previous elections, the commission said that a candidate need only have a mathematical chance of winning. That is, if he is on the ballot in a handful of states with, together, enough electoral votes to elect a president, the candidate participates on grounds he could carry all of those states.

Buchanan backers have been expressing their views by writing to Janet H. Brown, executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 445, Washington, D.C. 20036 or calling (202) 872-1020.

The SPOTLIGHT September 4, 2000

Globalists Meet To Expand Power Of UN Worldwide

An upcoming meeting at the UN to further solidify globalists' control over the United States is being met with protests around the nation.

By Don Harkins

Pro-American advocates are coordinating a massive three-day national protest, beginning Sept. 6, against the "People's Millennium Assembly" of the United Nations in New York.

Protest organizers say the assembly will usher in the age of global governance. The assembly is the greatest opportunity pro-Americans will have to stop the UN and gain momentum for getting the U.S. out, organizers told The SPOTLIGHT.

Former Soviet dictator-turned-environmentalist Mikhail Gorbachev is scheduled to open the assembly Sept. 4 at the New York Hilton. The assembly, which is expected to be attended by all 188 member nations of the global socialist organization, will continue through Sept. 10.

Assembly participants will consider the adoption of a revised version of the UN Charter, known as the Charter for Global Democracy.

The new charter calls for the massive restructuring and strengthening of UN authority worldwide. The UN will unveil plans to expedite the implementation of world government, The SPOTLIGHT has learned.

The new UN Charter calls for the creation of a global IRS to tax email communications and international money transfers and to place a worldwide tax on energy products. The tax revenue would be used to fund the World Trade Organization's control of international commerce through World Bank influence over the global economy.

Also under the new charter, there would be a standing UN army established to enforce international law. People who violate international law would be prosecuted in the UN International Criminal Court.

Among the organizers for the Millennium Assembly protest are the newspaper, The Idaho Observer; the American Policy Center; the Restoring America Committee and Detroit talk show host Tom Wayne.

On Sept. 6, Wayne will lead protests in front of the UN headquarters. There also will be rallies held at noon in front of district offices of members of Congress.

Organizers said the purpose of the protests is to peacefully demand congressional support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146, sponsored Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.). If passed by Congress, the legislation would effectively cease all American participation in UN activities and end all U.S. funding.

Call Washington

A national call-in to the switchboard on Capitol Hill is scheduled for Sept. 7, beginning at noon Eastern time. The call-in will enable Americans to express their opposition to trading national sovereignty for global governance, according to organizers. SPOTLIGHT readers are encouraged to call their congressman and two senators by contacting the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Tom DeWeese, executive director of the American Policy Center, plans to hold a press conference Sept. 8 on Capitol Hill to explain to the American public why "this is not your father's UN."

Joining DeWeese will be Paul and Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho), who supports H.R. 1146. DeWeese will deliver to Congress 250,000 petitions signed by Americans who support Paul's bill.

Take Action

What can you do to voice your opposition to global governance? Here are a few suggestions:

• Organize a group to converge on the district office of your congressman or two senators at noon your time on Sept. 6. Make signs. Call your local media outlets and tell them what you intend to do. Re member to protest peacefully, insisting that your congressmen support HR 1146.

• Coordinate letters-to-the-editor writing campaigns among your fellow activists over the several days before, during and after the Millennium Assembly. Make sure you hit the same points several times so that the local readers begin to understand the truth about the UN. Contact local talk radio and calmly in form people about the UN and the significance of the Millennium Assembly.

• Beginning at noon your time on Sept. 7, call your congressman and two senators in Washington. You can locate them through the Capitol Hill switchboard at the telephone number listed above.

• You may want to call the district office of your congressman and ask for a copy of H.R. 4453, which is the complete opposite of Paul's proposed Sovereignty Restoration Act. H.R. 4453 promises U.S. support and participation in the creation of a standing UN army, which would be given the authority to police on American soil. This bill is supported by many members of Congress.

• For more information, contact Don Harkins of The Idaho Observer; Liberty Lobby legislative liaison Christopher Bollyn, (202) 546-5611; Tom De Weese, the American Policy Center, (703) 925-0882; Joe Larson, Committee to Restore the Constitution, (573) 793-3156; Ben Hinkle, Citizens for Liberty, (360) 734-0193; or Tom Wayne, (616) 665-7168*

The SPOTLIGHT September 11, 2000

Votescam Activists Want Honest Elections

Amid compelling evidence showing that U.S. elections can easily be rigged, an election watchdog group is calling for hand-counted paper ballots to guarantee that the elite can't steal your vote.

By Christopher Bollyn

Election-reform leaders attending the Citizens for a Fair Vote Count (CFVC) convention in Cincinnati said Americans should demand that all future voting be by hand-counted paper ballots to reverse the tidal wave of vote fraud.

Speakers from across the nation presented compelling evidence that supported the assertion of Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party that "in the United States, vote fraud is not the exception, it's the rule."

"Hand-counted paper ballots" were the unanimous choice of the 150 participants at the first CFVC convention to prevent vote fraud. The convention was organized by Jim Condit, Jr. and held in Cincinnati, Ohio, Aug. 25 through 27.

The development of tabulating ma chines and computers has prompted most states to switch from hand-counted paper ballots to punch cards and other forms of voting. This has effectively re moved the local citizenry from the vote-counting and verification processes and centralized that authority in the hands of a select few who operate the machines or control the computers.

Only New Hampshire has retained the hand-counted paper ballot although 30 percent of the state's precincts have switched to using computers or machines for voting.

In New Hampshire, Buchanan scored an "upset" in 1996. Many of Buchanan's supporters insist that he would have been elected president that year if paper ballots counted by hand had been used in every precinct across the country.

Many voters fear that national elections could be rigged by those who write the computer code for the machines that tabulate the results.

Princeton University computer ex pert Howard J. Strauss supported these views in an interview with Dan Rather on the eve of the 1988 presidential election.

Ron Keller, one of the first investigators who exposed machine-vote fraud using the mechanical Shoup voting machines, told the convention that "Elections have been fixed for years."

Today, the election results are tallied on a central mainframe computer and supplied to the mass-media networks by a private corporation, known as Voter News Service, (VNS), located in New York City. This is how the networks are able to project results and declare the winners long before the polls close.

The SPOTLIGHT spoke with Lee C. Shapiro of VNS about its role in determining who wins the election.

Shapiro said that there is no published material about VNS available to the public, although she said, "we are working on that."

Readers with questions about who VNS is and what it does, can call company representatives at (212) 947-7280.

VNS has an executive director, Bill Headline, and a full-time staff of 30 that swells to 100 during an election year and 45,000 on Election Day.

She said that the firm is run by a "board of managers" that is comprised of one representative from each of the six major networks: ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC. She refused to reveal the names of the six managers.

Tom Valentine, host of The SPOTLIGHT'S weekly call-in talk forum, Radio Free America, spoke of the "unseen hand" that controls the vote count in order to put into power the "diabolical" scammers and further their agenda.

The "scam agenda" comprises three elements: the money scam, which includes the Federal Reserve System and usury; war mongering for profit and power; and the "scientific agenda," according to Valentine.

Valentine said that it is necessary to "energize the base" of the electorate to rectify a problem that has come about largely due to a lack of vigilance on the part of the citizenry.

The need for citizens to get involved locally during elections was echoed by each and every speaker.

Dan Gutenkauf of Tempe, Ariz., spoke of his experience in Maricopa County where he tried to exercise his right to observe the vote tally at his polling station.

Gutenkauf timed his vote to occur as the polls closed and then requested to be allowed to stay and witness the counting of the ballots.

Arizona election law clearly stipulates that "the tally shall be public." However, the police were called, and Gutenkauf and his brother were removed from the polling station.

Gutenkauf subsequently filed suit for deprivation of his civil rights and denial of access to public records.

Several speakers reported experiences of this kind and emphasized that enforcing the public's right to observe the local vote count was the first step to ensure a fair and honest count for the nation as a whole.

"If the electoral process is illegitimate, then the whole process is off track," said Constitution Party presidential candidate Howard Phillips.

Phillips said he believes there was massive theft of votes in Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas during the presidential election of 1960, stealing the election from Richard Nixon and giving it to John F. Kennedy.

Chris Schaper spoke of the vote fraud against Pat Buchanan in Dubuque, Iowa, during the 1996 Iowa caucuses.

Buchanan has been the victim of vote fraud and stands the most to gain from an honest vote count, Schaper said.

A Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Phyllis and Vicky Collier, widow and daughter of the late James Collier, author of Votescam: The Stealing of America.

James and his brother Kenneth Collier, via The SPOTLIGHT, were the first to make "Votescam" a national issue.

The SPOTLIGHT September 11, 2000

FEC Ruling on Buchanan Imminent

Big bucks and ballot access are hanging in the balance as the Federal Elections Commission approves the Reform Party nominee for president.

By Clayton Potts

A ruling by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) on Pat Buchanan's claim to the Reform party presidential nomination -- in which $12.6 million and ballot access in some states are at stake -- is due at any moment.

While legal experts believe Buchanan has an overwhelming case, spokesmen for John Hagelin, who imagines himself the nominee, say he will fight an adverse decision in federal court.

Courts are expected to expedite the case under the "time is of the essence" doctrine, but a delay of even a few days could be costly in gaining access to the ballot in some states.

The FEC and the courts can act quickly because of Buchanan's overpowering case. He was supported by nearly all of the convention delegates and by a two-to-one margin in the mail-in balloting.

Buchanan is certified as the candidate by the Reform Party chairman. Buchanan is on the ballot in 20 states when 10 are enough for him to be proclaimed the candidate. He expects to be on the ballot in all states.

But when states are confronted with two people who claim to be the Reform candidates -- even in this Mutt-and-Jeff situation -- some have a difficult time coping.

Most states are facing deadlines of late August or early September for having their ballots prepared.

In Iowa, election officials put both names in a bowl and Buchanan gained the ballot spot by pure chance. Officials in Montana did the same and Hagelin won this draw.

In California, Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones took Buchanan's name off the ballot -- another matter be fore the courts. As we went to press, the Buchanan campaign confirmed that Buchanan will be on the ballot.

Buchanan is on the ballot in Virginia as the Reform Party nominee. Hagelin is running under the name of the little-known party he founded which also "nominated" him, the Natural Law Party. Both met petition requirements.

Some states are putting both candidates on the ballot, some are allowing neither and some are putting the two on the ballot in different spots.

"Right now, we consider that party over nominated, so pending any withdrawal by one of the nominees or a court order, neither set of names will appear on the ballot," Larry Perosino, a spokesman for Connecticut's secretary of state, told Associated Press.

In Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Carolina and Michigan, officials are wrestling with the problem and considering asking the FEC for guidance.

"We're trying to get clarification who is the real candidate," said Chris Thomas of the Michigan Board of Elections.

"There is no decision at this time as to which candidate will appear on Wyoming's ballot," said Pat Arp, deputy secretary of state.

In Pennsylvania, Buchanan is the candidate. In Alabama, both will be listed as Independents and in Minnesota, the Re form party is considered a "minor" party although its governor, Jesse Ventura, was elected under its banner.

"There is no protection for the minor parties," said Mary Kiffmeyer, secretary of state. "This is a unique circumstance." Both Buchanan and Hagelin will be listed, she said.

Since Hagelin started the year as the Natural Law candidate, that's how West Virginia will list him, officials said. Hagelin will be listed that way in Ohio with Buchanan on the ballot as an Independent.

Buchanan's New York supporters turn ed in petitions with more than 30,000 signatures, twice the number needed to be listed as the Reform candidate.

North Carolina's Board of Elections voted 3-1 to list Buchanan as the Reform
candidate despite arguments by local Hagelin backers. Utah will also carry Buchanan as the Reform nominee.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Lynch burg, Va., ruled on Aug. 30 that he lacks the jurisdiction to decide who is the nominee of the Reform party.

Buchanan backers sought an order barring Hagelin forces from operating under the Reform banner but U.S. District Judge Norman Moon said he lacked jurisdiction because the conflict did not raise any constitutional issue.

Buchanan accepted an invitation from Judicial Watch to join Vice President Al Gore and Constitution Party nominee Howard Phillips in a debate on restoring ethics in government. George W. Bush has not yet accepted the invitation from the government watchdog group. The date is still being worked out.

The SPOTLIGHT September 11, 2000

Illegals Are Overwhelming Border Patrol

The tide of illegal immigration and illegal drugs is overwhelming the resources of local towns and federal law enforcement.

By Mike Blair

Mexican and other illegal aliens from Central and South America are flooding across America's southern border in numbers that are increasing daily.

The situation is "just out of control, in terms of both illegal drugs and illegal immigration," Border Patrol agents have told The SPOTLIGHT.

More THAN 8,270 Border Patrol officers stand guard over the 2,000-mile border which spans several states. But agents say they face an impossible task to try to stem the tide of immigration.

In Douglas, Ariz, one of the most dangerous border crossing points in the southwestern states, the number of illegal aliens caught increased by 500 percent in five years. There was a daily average of 147 crossing in 1995 compared to 729 now, according to the Border Patrol.

The situation is the same in border crossings at El Centro, Calif., and Del Rio, Tex., but the rugged terrain there makes it difficult and dangerous for Border Patrol agents to catch illegals.

The SPOTLIGHT previously reported that the Mexican army and the federales, the national police, are scouting border crossing points for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers, making it more difficult for law enforcement to police the border without creating an international incident.

Several months ago, Mexican soldiers in two American-made Humvee scouting vehicles crashed through a border fence and fired on Border Patrol agents. Several were detained but were subsequently released by orders from possibly the Clinton White House.

Mexican officials deny the incident ever took place.

Making matters worse is the fact that Mexican drug cartels have placed bounties on the heads of Border Patrol agents and Drug Enforcement Agency personnel, forcing U.S. officers to take extraordinary precautions to protect themselves and their families.

HELPING THE POLICE

In Arizona, residents are allowed to detain illegal aliens. Since October, the border Patrol has documented 32 cases of Arizona residents detaining illegal aliens, sometimes at gunpoint.

Last year, Douglas rancher Roger Barnett, who owns a 22,000-acre cattle spread, apprehended more than 1,000 illegal aliens he caught on his land. Barnett detained the Mexicans before turning them over to the border Patrol.

In Texas, citizen groups detaining illegals may be accused of false imprisonment, but border Patrol agents believe they are justified. Texas landowners along the border find their property ravaged by intruders from south of the border, the agents point out.

Although the Border Patrol frowns on the use of guns by residents living along the border, many agents realize that the aliens, who often mingle with drug smugglers, are armed and pose a threat to American landowners and their families.

Samuel Blackwell, a 75-year-old Arkansas retiree, is accused of shooting an illegal alien trespassing on his land. Blackwell said he was just trying to protect his family and his property.

The family of the deceased Mexican has filed a $15 million wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwell.

During the first nine months of this year, only 14 out of the 239 Mexicans who died sneaking across the border were shot. The rest died of heat exhaustion and drowning.

Some border ranchers are sympathetic toward the illegals making the crossing. Some leave plastic jugs of water out, only later to find the bottles littering the land scape, along with human waste and debris.

Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is making a campaign issue out of the continued influx of illegal Mexican aliens into this country while his major opponents, Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, are hoping that more Mexicans will vote for them than anyone else.

Buchanan recently visited the border between the United states and Mexico to see the situation for himself. He has since become popular among Americans who live along the border, especially ranchers who guard against illegal aliens trespassing on their properties.

Buchanan maintains that American military troops should be brought home from around the world to secure American's borders, especially in the Southwest.

The Immigration and Naturalization service (INS) has more than 40 investigative offices throughout the country where the public can report on illegal aliens. Here is a list of 10 offices and how to contact them:

Atlanta office for Georgia, (404) 730-2841, extension 346;
Boston office for Massachusetts, (617) 565-3100;
Cedar Rapids office for Iowa, (319) 364-3280;
Chicago office for Illinois, (312-353-4465;
Jackson office for Mississippi, (601) 965-5878;
Las Vegas office for Nevada, (702) 388-6414;
Omaha office for Nebraska, (402) 697-9154, extension 627;
San Antonio office for southern Texas, (210);
San Diego office for southern California, (619) 557-6011; and
Washington office for District of Columbia & Southern Virginia, (703) 578-4901
Call the INS toll-free national service center at (800) 375-5283 and they will provide you with the applicable regional telephone number for the federal agency.

The SPOTLIGHT September 11, 2000

Gringos Now Minority in California; Buenos Dios, California!

It's official. the Census bureau reports that the nation's Largest state is now minority white. As of today, whites are 49.9 percent of the population (16,526,103) with Latinos (mostly Mexicans) 31.6 percent (10,459,616). Asian and Pacific Islanders have 11.4 percent (3,763,072) and blacks are 6.7 percent (2,205,359), with American Indians about one-half percent. At their present rate of growth, Mexicans can vote the state back to Mexico and make Spanish the official language by 2050, when President Clinton happily reports the entire U.S. will be minority white.

The SPOTLIGHT September 18, 2000

UN Millennium Summit Promotes Global Army

Topping the agenda at the UN's Millennium Summit were plans on how to better execute the internationalist group's new buzz word, "global governance," one of which included the formation of a new mercenary army funded by U.S. taxpayers.

By Martin Mann

The UN will soon have its own standing army, constabulary and intelligence service licensed to kill if British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder -- notorious on-world elitist with links to the Bilderberg Group -- manage to put across a plan they have prepared for this month's Millennium Summit in New York City.

The two European leaders, both former militants of international socialism but converted in middle age into advocates of all-out "free trade," reportedly have the promise of White House support for their scheme to raise a global gendarmerie.

In fact, the makings of such a go-any-where intervention force are already available to the world forum, sources told The SPOTLIGHT.

"Theoretically, the UN can field 147,000 soldiers in an emergency," said William H. Luers, chairman of the United Nations Association of the United States. "That is the number 87 member nations have pledged to place on standby in case the international bureaucracy called for backup."

In reality, the only prompt responses to such calls for "multilateral" mobilization come, in most cases, from threadbare tropical nations that expect to be paid for any "peacekeeping" performed by their poorly armed, rag-tag battalions.

At present, 30,393 troops of largely Third World provenance, known as the "blue helmets," are on active duty under UN command in addition to 7,032 police officers and 2,946 civilian "peacekeepers." They hold the fort in 14 widely scattered trouble spots, from 12,606 troops in Sierra Leone to 30 "observers" and policemen in Croatia.

To keep this far-flung operation going, chief UN peacekeeper Bernard Myet depends on an annual budget of some $2.6 billion, with between 22 and 25 percent coming from the United States - while Senate foreign Affairs Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) looks the other way.

"None of this is good enough. The world needs more rapid and robust peacekeeping operations," Blair announced in New York on Sept. 6 as he delivered the five-minute address allotted to each head of state or government attending the Millennium Summit.

"The time has come to replace the present system with an entirely new contract between the UN and its member states," he added.

The British prime minister gave no details of the "new contract" he proposed. But from concerned staggers of the liaison unit of the U.S. Mission here, The SPOTLIGHT has obtained access to a lengthy summary of the reform measures British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook will submit to the UN Security Council in a formal report next month.

* The UN will be authorized to establish its own military staff college and troop training command in the United Kingdom. The British and German Governments will provide the land, facilities and startup staff needed. These institutions will train the cadres of a future permanent UN standing army.

* Under this plan the Un will also acquire its own "intelligence capability" and general military inspectorate in order to enforce "a base line of military competence which all (troop) contributing countries should measure up to."

* the permanent UN army will crack down with full military might whenever and wherever a national government fails to treat its people in conformity with UN criteria for "human rights" and "social justice," Cook's report forecast. The expanded mission of this international force will no longer be "peacekeeping" but "humanitarian intervention" as well as "peace enforcement" under "robust rules of engagement so that UN contingents are not forced to lose the initiative to hostile elements, as they have in the past.

* Enforcement of a "full economic, social ad political program to secure peace and stability must accompany military intervention. For entrenching the peace, (UN) policemen and judges, economic planners and administrators are becoming as important as soldiers," the Cook report concluded.

"If there has ever been any doubt that global elites have a well-defined plan of action to impose the iron rule of mongrel internationalism on the world's sovereign nation states, this so-called Cook reform plan should answer all doubters," said retired U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Matthew O'Connor, who publishes his own quarterly newsletter in upstate New York.

The SPOTLIGHT September 18, 2000

Feds Hold Up Pat''s Nomination

Is there a political reason for the FEC, led by Republicrats only, to miss its widely publicized ""dead line"" of Sept. 6 for deciding the issue of Pat Buchanan, the Reform Party nomination, and who gets $12.6 million? Answer: Yes.

By Clayton Potts

Pat Buchanan''s campaign headquarters believed the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) would decide on Sept. 6 whether he is the legitimate Reform Party nominee entitled to $12.6 million.

Somebody at the FEC also thought a decision would be handed down that day at 11 a.m. But FEC officials were unsure if it would be a written decision or a press conference.

It turned out that the FEC had decided not to decide and a court hearing on Buchanan''s suit to participate in presidential debates was being held at that time, contributing to the confusion.

Finally, the FEC said it would hold a public meeting on this issue Sept. 12.

A Sept. 6 ""deadline"" for the FEC decision had been widely published throughout the United States. But a FEC official said the panel had its own means of counting days.

Confusion has been the companion of politicians and bureaucrats during this election season.

Suspicions are voiced from various sources that the FEC''s dalliance is politically motivated. If it cannot rationally explain denying Buchanan, it can help the two major candidates by delaying the decision.

Each day that Buchanan is denied the funds to get his message to the American people is a gain for the two Establishment parties. The commission is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans. There is no third-party representation.

It is crucial to the major parties to keep Buchanan effectively gagged because he raises issues both of the two old corrupt parties would rather keep from the public, especially that of the emerging world government and resulting loss of national sovereignty.

Meanwhile, as the FEC sits on a decision that is obvious to most people -- Buchanan had almost 100 percent support of convention delegates, won a mail-in ""primary"" by a 2-1 margin over rival John Hagelin and was certified as the nominee by the Reform Party -- the campaign itself keeps kicking along.

The date for Buchanan to debate Democratic nominee Al Gore on the subject of restoring ethics in government has been set for Oct. 20 at the new Ronald Reagan Building in Washington. Republican George W. Bush has yet to accept an invitation by Judicial Watch, the debate sponsor, to participate. Howard Phillips, Constitution Party nominee, will participate.

Buchanan is on track to be on the ballot in all 50 states. Reform rebels briefly had Hagelin on the ballot and not Buchanan in California. But now the Buchanan campaign says he is back on California''s ballot.

The New York Right to Life Party has overwhelmingly endorsed Buchanan, automatically putting him on the state''s ballot.

In New York, Buchanan can be on both the Reform and Right to Life ballots and all votes count in the pursuit of the state''s electoral votes.

The Right to Life Party felt shunned by Bush''s tepid stance against abortion and was repelled by Gore''s current fierce advocacy of a ""woman''s right to choose,"" according to Donald Peters, the party''s vice chairman.

As on so many issues, Gore was once strongly opposed to abortions but reversed himself out of political expediency, not principle.

Buchanan won about 90 percent of the party''s districts in New York, Peters said, with some votes going to Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, who is also strongly pro-life.

The SPOTLIGHT September 18, 2000

Pedophiles Claim Perversion Is Protected

Advocation the subjection of children to perversion is constitutional, according to one of the leading cheerleaders for the international distorters.

By P. Samuel Foner

The ACLU has announced it will represent the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) -- a group that advocates sexual relations between men and boys -- in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.

The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Mass, said the NAMBLA and it web site -- which has been taken off the Internet -- incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

According to court records, one of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the homosexual group's web site shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications.

Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

ENTER 'RIGHTS CHAMPIONS'

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves constitutional issues of freedom of speech and association.

John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told The Boston Globe on Aug.31: "For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case.

"It has to do with commutations on a web site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior what so ever," he said.

ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape of violence. But actions of some members of the group seem to put the lie to that assertion.

Lawrence Frisoli, an attorney who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble location the group's members who (for obvious reasons) are very low profile.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said on Aug. 31 that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU reportedly will also act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.

According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.

At two separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances.

They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river.

According to court records, Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole in 23 years.

The Curleys were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari.

Even many libertarians who believe in principle in the concept that there should be no limitations on any kind of literary and photographic freedom of expression are among those who are first to point out that sexual relations between adults and children are against the law to begin with. So NAMBLA is going beyond the pale even in the minds of free thinkers.

The SPOTLIGHT September 25, 2000

FEC Proclaims Buchanan Reform Party Nominee

Pat Buchanan is the Reform Party's presidential candidate and is entitled to $12.6 million in campaign funds, the Federal Election Commission ruled.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

Dragged kicking and screaming into reaching a decision, the Federal Election Commission finally stated the obvious: Pat Buchanan is the Reform Party presidential nominee and is entitled to $12.6 million in campaign funds.

Further emphasizing the point, the FEC voted unanimously that John Hagelin is not the party's nominee. Hagelin said he will appeal the decision in federal court, which will briefly delay the disbursement of funds to the Buchanan campaign.

The FEC decision came at the conclusion of a three-hour public hearing on Sept. 12, where members displayed concern about how further delays would be viewed by the public.

The SPOTLIGHT reported in the Sept. 18 issue suspicion that the FEC was deliberately delaying action to keep the funds from Buchanan until as late as possible in the campaign and had discussed the matter with the FEC staff.

The six-man commission is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans, with no new-party representation.

Commissioner Karl Sandstrom (D) urged the commission to take no action and toss the issue into federal court. Failing that, he tried unsuccessfully to get the commission to further delay its decision.

Sandstrom was the only dissenter when the commission voted 5-1 to declare Buchanan the Reform nominee. The second vote, to declare Hagelin not the nominee, was a unanimous 5-0 because Sandstrom had left.

"It is incumbent upon us to make a decision," said Danny Lee McDonald (D), vice chairman. "It is our responsibility."

Even if the FEC chose to duck the issue and send the matter to federal court -- where it will go on appeal anyway -- the court would promptly toss it back and tell the FEC to do its job, he said.

It would be an "abdication of our responsibility" to make no decision and send the matter directly to federal court, said David Mason (R).

"No court will take this unless we make a decision," said Lawrence Noble, FEC general counsel.

Chairman Darryl Wold (R) said he agreed the FEC must make a decision and that Buchanan is the nominee.

Bradley Smith (R) said Hagelin "cannot claim that the Natural Law Party and Reform Party are the same and has not met the 10-state criteria."

To qualify under FEC rules, a candidate must be on the ballot in at least 10 states under his party's banner. Hagelin wanted to count the states where he is on the ballot as Natural Law Party nominee in qualifying as the Reform nominee.

"The Natural Law Party had a convention at the end of August and it is too late for two parties to come in and say 'we are the one and the same,' " Mason said.

McDonald asked the FEC staff what is the "best-case scenario" for Hagelin to meet the 10-state criteria. The best Hagelin could possibly do, the staff said, was to qualify in eight states.

Smith, who believes there should be no FEC or public funding of political campaigns, had his nomination to the panel held up for months by President Clinton because of his views. Normally, each party names its members and the selection is promptly rubber-stamped.

Hagelin "showed no fraud" in his petitions to the commission, Smith said, "only that he disagrees with what the convention did" in nominating Buchanan.
Hagelin kept a "prior pledge" to walk out of the Reform Party convention if Buchanan was nominated, Smith said and "Buchanan was nominated by convention" and is "quite clearly" the nominee.

He dismissed Hagelin's petty complaints, saying the FEC has no role in correcting "parliamentary errors."

Having clearly lost in his effort to get the matter sent to federal court without FEC action, Sandstrom pushed for a further delay on deciding who is the Reform Party nominee.

"There was an election held but we do not know who won," said Sandstrom of the Reform Party convention. He wanted the commission to consider petitions from two individuals challenging Buchanan's nomination.

Mason asked Sandstrom directly: "How do we know who the Republican Party nominated? If someone challenged [the nomination of George W. Bush] would we be required to consider it?"

"Every day we wait is going to deprive that person of the money to campaign," said Scott Thomas (D). "I think we ought to get going and make a decision today."

"Time is running," Wold said before the two votes were taken.

In its formal finding, the FEC said the Buchanan campaign had submitted documentation showing that it is "qualified to appear on numerous general election ballots" as the Reform Party candidate and "meets" the criteria.

In formally finding Hagelin not the nominee, the commission said "the Natural Law Party and Reform Party are two distinct and separate political parties" and both cannot be counted in reaching the 10-state requirement.

However, in states such as Michigan, which has kept Buchanan off the ballot, the commission indicated it would not intervene.

"The commission should not substitute its own judgment for that of a state with regard to who should appear on a state ballot as a party nominee," the commission said in its formal finding for Buchanan.

An appeals court has rejected an effort by the "Buchanan Brigade" to get him on the Michigan ballot and the issue is headed to the Supreme Court.

Buchanan won 35 percent of the 1996 primary vote in Michigan.

The SPOTLIGHT September 25, 2000

Military Trained for Police Ops

A retired colonel charges that the U.S. military's elite units are being trained in civilian areas in America to take over the role of domestic police.

By Mike Blair

A high-ranking retired Special Operations Command officer told The SPOTLIGHT that elite military units have been undertaking urban warfare maneuvers in cities and towns across the United States in preparation for assuming the duties of U.S. law enforcement.

The retired colonel confirmed for the first time that the mysterious training engaged in by U.S. Army Special Forces and Delta Force, Navy Seals, Marines Force Recon and U.S. Air Force Air Commandos is intended for domestic operations.

Use of U.S. troops to enforce civilian law is a gross violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, legislation passed during the Rutherford B. Hayes administration prohibiting the U.S. military from engaging in domestic law enforcement, and the Constitution.

The officer, a retired colonel, told The SPOTLIGHT that the Pentagon has been purposely misleading the public by explaining that these exercises are urban warfare training to prepare American elite troops for missions in foreign lands, such as hostage rescue operations at a be sieged U.S. embassy or other U.S. interest centers.

The colonel said, however, the fact is the troops are primarily training for police-type activities, particularly in the United States.

Two units have been heavily involved in the training: the Army's Delta Force and the Night Stalkers, the latter group being a unit of highly-trained helicopter pilots, who ferry the Delta Force troopers into action and have been responsible for flying low, at almost tree-top or roof-top level, over civilian areas.

The colonel, who spoke with The SPOTLIGHT on the condition of anonymity, has been supported in his revelations by disclosures to the Internet web site, World Net Daily, by former Night Stalker, Captain Jeff Norgrove.

"These aren't really military exercises," Norgrove said. "They are SWAT training. The Army will never admit that to you, but that's what it is.''

Last year, Delta Force and the Night Stalkers were involved in a controversial exercise in Kingsville, Tex., where the SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) troops used live ammunition and explosives to conduct their training.

Special Operations Command officials at Fort Bragg, N.C., insist that only "training ammunition" was used during the exercise in Kingsville and other American communities.

A number of retired military officers have come forward to insist that Army claims of the use of only training ammunition are untrue.

"They really think we're so stupid that we can't figure this out," Norgrove said.

Most of the Night Stalkers and the Delta Force troops, according to Norgrove and the retired colonel, are young and not fully aware of what is going on.

"They just do what they are told," Nor grove explained. "It's exciting and the pay is very good."

The colonel told The SPOTLIGHT that the young Delta Force soldiers and Night Stalkers involved in the activities are heavily indoctrinated.

"They would not have any hesitation to shoot at their fellow Americans if they were ordered to do so and felt that it was the right thing to do under a given circumstance," the colonel said.

"They are part of what the military refers to as 'the warrior class' and they are tasked to take out the enemy, and that could mean to them, under the right circumstances, either foreigners or their own countrymen," the former Special Operations officer explained.

While the FAA regulations require air craft to fly well above the tops of houses and buildings, the Night Stalkers are criss-crossing American cities and towns at extremely low levels, many contend, endangering the civilian population.

In Kingsville, as an example, a helicopter struck the top of a telephone pole, causing a fire near a home.

The Delta Force and Night Stalkers do not even wear standard military uniforms. Instead, just like any SWAT team, they are garbed in black uniforms, complete with black helmets and face shields. They also wear bulletproof body armor and are usually discharged from the Night Stalkers' helicopters wielding Ger man-made Hechler and Koch 9-mm machine guns.

The maneuvers are always conducted at night. The helicopters are painted dark with a special paint that has a sandpaper texture, appears black and enables the aircraft to avoid radar. They are flown without lights by Night Stalker pilots utilizing night vision goggles. The helicopters bear no markings that can be seen in the darkness.

The special paint is obviously responsible for stories about and sightings of "black helicopters," which have long been pooh-poohed by the Pentagon as the hallucinations of "right-wing nuts."

The SPOTLIGHT September 25, 2000

Liberty Lobby Visits Voter News Service

Liberty Lobby dropped by the corporation in New York City that counts your votes during elections. What we found was terribly strange.

By The SPOTLIGHT Staff

It is urgent for Americans to become involved in the upcoming election and vote-count as poll watchers, election judges, observers and reporters at every level and in every state to prevent massive vote fraud.

Citizens for a Fair Vote Count plans to conduct an independent tally of the election results based on reports provided by patriotic Americans from across the country in order to challenge the monopoly held by the major media networks on the national vote-counting process.

Despite the widespread belief that the government supervises the tally of the results on election night, the reality is entirely different: The vote is tallied by a little-known private corporation called Voter News Service (VNS), located in New York City.

Created in 1970 as News Election Service (NES), VNS has existed in near total secrecy for 30 years and may well be the most powerful corporation in the world.

VNS is a creature of the major networks, including Fox and CNN, the wire services, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

"The networks have total control of the vote-counting process in this country" is how James and Kenneth Collier described the power of VNS in Votescam: The Stealing of America.

VNS is run by Bill Headline, executive director, and a board of managers, which is comprised of a representative from each of the six major networks: Carolyn Smith from ABC; Tom Jory from AP; Kathy Frankovic from CBS; Tom Hannon from CNN; and Sheldon Gawiser from NBC.

Robert Zimmerman of Fox News re fused to provide the name of the Fox representative.

Liberty Lobby's legislative liaison Christopher Bollyn recently visited the office of VNS in New York City and al though Bill Headline was unwilling to be interviewed, Bollyn spoke with Lee C. Shapiro, director of media services.

When Bollyn asked Shapiro about allegations that VNS has co-opted the vote-counting process in America, Shapiro insisted that the results they disseminate are "unofficial."

"The office was surprisingly messy and unprofessional," Bollyn said. "There is a troubling atmosphere of secrecy and I wouldn't trust any data that these people provide."

When Bollyn asked Shapiro if she thought that the networks should be involved in counting the vote, she said that "there is no federal law mandating how votes are to be counted."

A VNS brochure provided by Shapiro states "Voter News Service is the only national news organization charged with tabulating election-night voting results."

The vote results are tabulated in each county, mainly by computer, and then transferred to VNS where they are tabulated in secret and disseminated to the public, which accepts them without question.

When Bollyn asked Tom Hannon, CNN representative at VNS, about the possibility of the election results being altered within the computer, by the internal computer code, which is secret, or by external "hacking," Hannon replied that he was "way off."

Hannon said that VNS does not "count the vote" but went on to say "I am confident that it is an accurate vote count. It reflects what we are being told by state and local officials."

However, computer tabulated votes at any level, precinct, county or state leave no paper trail -- they cannot be recounted or verified.

Only the person who wrote the program to count votes in each state knows if the results are fair or if fraud has been committed. The process is neither transparent nor verifiable. The software is not open to public scrutiny. Neither is VNS.

The brochure goes on to say "VNS is a member of the National Council of Public Polls (NCPP) and adheres to its standards."

However, when The SPOTLIGHT called the phone number for NCPP provided by Shapiro to ask about the standards, the phone was answered by the office of the Andrew Kohut at the Pew Trust.

Kohut's secretary told The SPOTLIGHT that NCPP "doesn't really exist anywhere" but that it has a web site, (www.ncpp.org).

From the web site all inquiries about NCPP are directed to Edward J. Efchak at (201) 646-4379, vice president of marketing and research at The Record, a newspaper in Hackensack, N.J.

When Efchak's office was called, the secretary said that she had never heard of NCPP.

DEPUTIZED

The West Virginia Reform Party, by unanimous vote of the executive committee, has declared Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, an election watchdog group, a standing political committee so members can receive credentials as official observers at all precincts on election day.

The executive committee's resolution will be presented to the general membership for approval during a statewide meeting Sept. 30 at the Mid-Mountain Conference Center at Flatwood.

Once approved, as party leaders expect, volunteers will begin receiving credentials to be present Nov. 7 for the counting of all ballots in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Reform Party is calling for use of paper ballots in all precincts to overcome fraud, citing the book Votescam by Jim and Ken Collier and
Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, based in Cincinnati.

The SPOTLIGHT September 25, 2000

Gore's House, Senate Voting Record Reveals Al as Liberal Internationalist

Vice President Al Gore's voting record, as a member of the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1985 and as a member of the U.S. Senate from 1985 to 1993, betrays Gore as a confirmed advocate of policies favoring special interest groups.

By Richard V. London

When then-Sen. Al Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) First stepped into the national political arena in an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, The SPOTLIGHT warned its readers in a May 4, 1987, exclusive: "Demo Hopeful Gets a Zero.: The SPOTLIGHT advised readers that Gore was "a liberal Democrat with strong internationalist leanings."

First elected to the Senate in 1984, Gore had previously served four terms in the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1985. Born in 1948 in Washington, D.C. Gore, a graduate of Harvard Law, is the sone of former representative and four-term Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Sr. Like his father the younger Gore established a liberal recorder in Congress.

In 1983 and 1984, then-Rep. Gore racked up high ratings from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), one of the most powerful private liberal lobby groups. In 1983 the ADA gave Gore 70 percent. In 1985 he rated 65 percent.

Another key liberal pressure group, the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy, best known for its opposition to defense spending and its support for nuclear disarmament, gave Gore a middle-range score of 38 percent in 1984. In 1983 the coalition determined that Gore voted "correctly" on nine issues out of 13 selected for analysis.

According to the non-partisan National Journal which rates lawmakers on a liberal-conservative spectrum, in 1983 Gore voted liberal 66 percent of the time on economic issues, 48 percent of the time on social issues and 49 percent of the time on foreign policy issues.

In 1984 Gore voted liberal 63 percent of the time on economical issues, 67 percent of the time on social issues, and 54 percent of the time on foreign policy issues.

Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist Institution, gave Fore a zero rating in its biennial Liberty Ledger issued in 1983. The 1985 Liberty Ledger granted Gore a 40 percent rating. By the time Liberty Lobby issued the 1987 edition of the Ledger, Gore's rating slipped back to only 10 percent in time for the 1989 edition and actually made is as high as 50 percent by 1991.

Here's a brief overview of key votes cast by Gore during his service in both the House and the Senate that reflect the Political orientation of the man who could very well be the next president of the United States.

KEY HOUSE VOTES

* FOR FORCED RACIAL BUSING. Although Americans of all races are largely against busing. Gore voted on June 9, 1981 against an amendment, attached to a Justice Department authorization bill, that prohibited the use of funds to bring any legal action that could lead to forced busing for the purpose of racial integration.

* AGAINST CUTTING INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES. On August 4, 1981, Gore was one of only 95 members of Congress who voted against a 25 percent across-the-board cut of income tax rates over a 33-month period. In contrast, 282 members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) voted for the tax cuts.

* FOR FOREIGN AID GIVEAWAYS. On December 9, 1981 and November 10, 1983, Gore voted for giving away billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayers funds in the form of so-called "foreign aid," although such funds could certainly have been put to better use here at home.

* AGAINST PROTECTING AMERICAN JOBS AND INDUSTRY. An all-out "free trade" enthusiast, Gore voted on Nov.3, 1983 against H.R. 1234, the Auto Domestic Contents bull which required the use of fixed levels of U.S. parts and labor on foreign cars sold in the United States. A narrow majority (219-199) of the members of the House supported this proper measure of "protectionism," but Gore was in the minority who opposed it.

* FOR BAILING OUT THE BIG BANKS. On November 18, 1983, Gore voted for a whopping $25 billion bail-out of the international banking houses by supporting H.R. 3959. This measure provided funding for the International Monetary Fund(IMF), the Export-Import Bank and multilateral development banks to which Third World nations are in debt.

KEY SENATE VOTES

* AGAINST AID TO THE CONTRAS. On April 23, 1985, Gore voted against S.J. Res. 106 which provided a paltry $14 million in assistance to the contras, the forces fighting the communist government of Nicaragua.

* FOR SANCTIONS ON SOUTH AFRICA. On July 11, 1985, Gore voted in favor of H.R. 1460 which imposed economic sanctions on the anti-communist, pro-American government of South Africa, a measure designed to further push South Africa into the hands of communist revolutionaries.

* AGAINST SCHOOL PRAYER. On September 10, 1985 Gore voted against S. 47, a motion that would bar federal courts, including the Supreme court, from considering cases involving prayer in public schools, thereby working to prevent the right of the states or local communities to permit school prayer.

* FOR FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS. On December 9, 1985, gore voted against H.J. Res. 465 which would limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations and related agencies to the same level as the Soviet Union spends. Gore has been a consistent supporter of the UN and has opposed all efforts to curtail its power and influence.

* FOR RE-AFFIRMING THE PANAMA CANAL GIVEAWAY. On October 7, 1987, Gore voted in favor of S. 1394, a measure to kill an amendment to the State Department authorization bill that would have stated that the United States should never have approved ratification of the Panama Canal giveaway treaties.

* FOR U.S. MILITARY BUILD-UP IN THE PERSIAN GULF. On October 21, 1987, Gore voted in favor of S.J. Res. 194 which endorsed continuing U.S. military involvement in the dangerous Persian Gulf region, further tying the United States into the conflicts in that strife-ridden corner of the globe.

(Later, on January 12, 1991, Gore voted in favor of S.J. Res. 2 which gave President George bush the go-ahead to launch the ill-advised war in the Persian Gulf, the consequences of which for the United States, although ostensibly "victorious," have been nothing but trouble.)

* FOR COUNTING ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE CENSUS. On July 13, 1989, Gore voted in favor of killing an amendment (S. 358) that would prevent the counting of illegal aliens for purposes of congressional reapportionment in the census figures. This vote effectively granted "citizenship" to illegal aliens by giving them equal status to American citizens in the census count.

* FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY HIKE. On November 17, 1989, Gore voted in favor of H.R.3660 which provided a massive 40 percent pay hike for senior federal bureaucrats, federal judges and cabinet members at the same time members of the U.S. House were receiving a similar hefty pay increase.

* FOR GUN CONTROL (THE BRADY BILL). On June 28, 1991, Gore voted in favor of S. 1241, the Senate version of the so-called "Brady bill" calling for a waiting period of five days for the purchase of a handgun and authorizing a computerized check system for criminal activity of potential gun purchasers. On this litmus-test measure of support for the Second Amendment, Gore failed badly, and he has become an ardent supporter of gun control in subsequent years and a hero of the anti-gun lobby.

* AGAINST LIMITING TRADE WITH RED CHINA. On July 23, 1991, Gore voted against a measure to deny Most Favored Nation trading status to Red china until it released political prisoners and made progress in human rights, among other conditions. This vote, quite tellingly, foreshadowed the Red Chinese intrigue and corruption linked with the Clinton-Gore administration.

These are only a handful of the many votes cast by Gore during his years in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, all told, they reflect Gore's political leanings and place him squarely in opposition to traditional American values and pronciples.