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

Reprinted from, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive

The SPOTLIGHT November 6, 2000

How Citizens Can Stop Computerized Vote Fraud

Here's what you can do to help keep the election in your precinct honest.

By Dan Gutenkauf

Every state code has a section devoted to elections. You can obtain a copy of your state's election statutes in booklet form at the secretary of state's office for about $10-$12. Or you can find them on the Internet by going to the web site and clicking to get to state resources, cases and codes. Locate your state code and then find the section dealing with counting the votes after the polls close.

As ruled in at least two Supreme court cases, U.S. v Mosley and Reynolds v. Sims, the Constitution protects your right to have your vote honestly counted.

One problem is that election workers may not allow you inside the polling place after the poll closes. This is the problem my brother and I encountered four years ago on election night.

I gave the election workers a copy of Arizona Revised Statute 16-601 Tally of the Vote, which provides that when the polls close and after the last ballot has been cast, the election workers are to immediately count the number of ballots cast. We also cited an attorney general's opinion, which said that we had a right to be present.

We filed a civil lawsuit in federal court and our case was dismissed at both the District and Ninth Circuit Appellate level. The Supreme Court also denied review of our case.

But we won a significant policy change in the election workers' training manual. They were forced to admit that we had a right to be present and videotape the counting of ballots after the polls closed.

There are two counts that take place, one at the polls and one at the central counting center. The results announced at each location must match.

Look up your state statutes. If it says the count should be public, with witnesses, photocopy the statue and present it to the election poll workers.

If your state statute does not provide for a public count of the votes after the polls close, then refer to your public records statute. Election results are public records.

Another problem you will encounter is that a computer counts your vote, and you can't see how it does so. Only the software vendor knows how the computer counts the ballots. It amounts to a "secret count," which is illegal.

Call the secretary of state's office and find out when the "computer logic and accuracy test" will be given. It is usually within seven days prior to election day, and it's open to the press and the public.

During question-and-answer sessions, ask who programmed the source code. If the elections director doesn't know of refuses to answer, then cite your stat's public records statute.

It is also unconstitutional to prohibit you from seeing that your vote is counted honestly on election night. It is a violation of your right to peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances, protected by the First Amendment.

Also video tape or audio tape conversations with elections officials. This can be used later to help make your case.


* Study voter registration requirements and learn the procedure for challenging an elector at the poll.

* Study your state statute on intimidation of an elector.

* Volunteer for your political party to do door-to-door checking of the voter registration list for your precinct. Verify the current residents and have invalid addresses and deceased voters' names purged.

*Study the requirements and procedures for absentee balloting and attend the counting of absentee ballots.

To paraphrase a legal maxim engraved in stone on the Arizona Supremem Court building: Where the law begins, tyranny ends.

The SPOTLIGHT November 6, 2000

Northeast Faces Potential Heating Oil Crisis

The Clinton administration is trying desperately to conceal the fact that Americans may be facing a critical shortage of heating oil for their homes this winter.

By Mike Blair

Americans may be facing dangerously low stockpiles of home heating oil this winter, according to analysts.

Department of Energy officials admit that the stock of home heating oil for the Northeast is 40 percent below last year's supply at this time.

Many industry analysts, however, contend that the current stocks are at a critical low of 60 to 70 percent.

This comes at a time when the National Weather Service forecasts a return to normal winter weather in the Northeast after three unusually mild winters.

Even with a mild winter last year heating oil supplies were not sufficient and ran critically low, sending prices through the roof and supplies to "run out" levels.

At one point last winter, supplies of oil in some areas of New England became so low that Coast Guard icebreakers were dispatched to break channels. Oil tankers were able to reach ports in that region to replenish diminished supplies.


Oil industry experts point out that, even though President Clinton recently released 30 million barrels from the nation's oil reserve, there is still a 17-million-barrel shortage of crude oil.

Oil industry experts point out that, even though President Clinton recently released 30 million barrels from the nation's oil reserve, there is still a 17-million-barrel shortage of crude oil.

In its drive to get Vice President Al Gore elected to the White House, the Clinton administration refuses to admit that only one-third of the 30 million barrels of oil will go to refineries to produce heating oil. Of those 10 million barrels of heating oil, only three to five million barrels will be sold to American homes.

The remaining two-thirds of cheap reserve oil displaces some 20 million barrels of expensive imported oil that refining companies are not buying, according to a report by DOE's Energy Information Administration.

Massachusetts state Rep. John J. Binienda (D), chairman of the Massachusetts House Committee on Energy, warned that if the "temperature hits five below zero and every company in the state starts scrambling to get to oil tanks, and those tanks are empty," Massachusetts will face "a prescription for disaster."

"I really question whether that product will make it further north than New Haven, Conn. in a time of need, given the amount of heating oil that can be consumed in one day in a major city," said Michael Ferrante, president of the Massachusetts Oil Heating Council.

Most New England states are taking their own steps to cope with the looming crisis. Maine, for example, has a fuel "SWAT team," which is preparing a special energy plan it hopes to release before November to cope with serious shortages and predicted astronomical prices. About 82 percent of Maine's population depends upon oil to heat homes.

Energy experts believe that before the end of winter, Americans may be paying as much as $1,000 to heat a home, compared to $622 each of the last three years. For low-income American families, this could mean the difference between keeping heat in the furnace or food on the table.

The SPOTLIGHT November 6, 2000

World Bank Details Plan To control World's Water

The World Bank -- another vehicle for the globalist agenda of undermining state sovereignty -- has outlined its plan to gain control of the world's water supplies.

By Karen-Lee Bixman

For the past three decades, the World bank has supported lending to Third world nations through investment in irrigation, water supply, sanitation, flood control and hydro power. Collaborating closely with many United Nations organizations, including the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the bank states its overall objective "is to reduce poverty by supporting the efforts of countries to promote equitable, efficient and sustainable development."

An analysis of the World bank's water Policy, A World bank Policy Paper -- Water Resources Management, reveals, however, the bank has been deeply involved in social engineering and has developed a new policy for the redistribution of land, resources, wealth and control over the world's water.

Referencing the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, the World Bank's 140-page policy paper uses Agenda 21 as the guiding principle to reduce daily water usage to 40 liters (10.57 gallons) per individual.

The world Bank asserts that governments "have often misallocated and wasted water, as well as permitted damage to the environment." The bank contends that "resolving these problems is particularly difficult in federal governments where states or provinces have jurisdiction over water in their territory."


"The bank will promote river basins as an effective way to intergrate and monitor activities concerning land use and availability and quality of water. Before committing funds to support operations with important interstate effects, the bank will require legislation, or other appropriate arrangements, establishing effective coordination and agree procedures for allocationg water among the states."

In essence, the World bank wants to eliminate all present country and state political boundaries and replace them with river basin boundaries. River basin authorities, composed of private corporations and "user associations" aould be set up for this purpose.

"Administrative controls include rationing, restriction on certain uses of water, programs that reduce leads in water distribution systems and educational programs that promote conservation."


To implement the new policy, the Economic Development Institute (EDI) of the World Bank will train country policy analysts, planners, managers and technicians to deal with legal, regulatory and privatization issues. River basin management, flood and drought planning, environmental protection and demand forecasting will also be done by EDI trained staff and instituted through a special initiative to support the implementation of the new policy.

Land within the river basin area will require an environmental impact study and will be assessed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the UNDP.

Private property located within the basin areas that are deemed environmentally significant can be taken by invoking "the privilege of eminent domain to obtain the right-of-way."

Recognizing that water has an economic value, a series of fees will be imposed to compel water user to reduce their consumption. These include "social fees, whereby the better-off cross-subsidize the poor."

Through the imposition of "pollution charges" and taxes, property owners will be taxed for any pollutants found on their land as well as for any economic benefit derived from that property.

"To reduce the cost of government waste, both industries and municipalities will be given incentives to reduce their waste loads based on the principle that the polluter pays."


Stating that agriculture uses 69 percent of the world's water, and developing countries use 80 percent, massive water reductions in the use of agriculture will be required.

"The aim is to require land users to bear the costs that their land management practices impose on others," bank officials wrote in the report.

Sighting California as an example, water reallocated from two agricultural areas to the metropolitan areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles would yield economic benefits of $2 billion in a ten-year period.

While the policy clearly indicates an increase in fees for farmers, the implied goal is to curtail the production of agriculture.

To impose their draconian policy, the World Bank plans to set up a national information data bank on water resources. This will include monitoring the water usage of urban dwellers as well as placing meters on rural water wells. Water fees will then "be structured do that consumers receive a limited amount of water at a low cost and pay a higher fee for additional water."

Countries that wish to receive financing for water project loan agreements must be willing to participate in all international initiatives, i.e., United Nation's treaties, agreements and conventions and adhere to all World Bank policies on land and water usage. Disputes between individual countries and their use of international waterways would be settled by imposing international treaties, eliminating the "perceived" water rights of an individual nation.

To obtain a copy of the World Bank Water Policy Paper contact the World Bank at 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433

The SPOTLIGHT November 13, 2000

Manufacturers Admit Voting Machines Unreliable

"American elections are a fraud and a scam" is the stern verdict of Pat Buchanan and a deeply disturbing commentary on the state of democracy in America.

By Christopher Bollyn

CHICAGO -- Despite acknowledging "failure rates" ranging from 16 percent to 28 percent, election officials here express no concern for the integrity of the ballot in the age of voting machines.

Across the United States, in precincts from coast to coast, computers equipped with cellular telephony and two-way modems count the votes. These ma chines, designed and operated by private companies, and the laws that ushered in their use, have essentially disenfranchised citizen election judges from the vote-counting process and relegated them to insignificant roles as public servants working for private business on election night.

Some officials concerned with elections have pondered the unthinkable, namely, the stealing of a presidential election by computer fraud in the metropolitan areas of key states.

Steve White, former assistant attorney general of California, said, "Given the importance of the national election, sooner or later it will be attempted. There is a real reluctance to concede the gravity of the problem."

Every official interviewed at the Illinois State Board of Elections was indifferent to the threat of computer vote fraud. Rick Fulle, assistant director of voting systems and 25-year veteran of the board said, "You can't secure any computer system."

A hand count of the votes by the election judges at the precinct level, before posting the results, is the only way to ensure that the machine tally is correct and that no computer fraud has been perpetrated. However, election officials discourage any manual audit saying that there are too many choices on the ballot and that a manual count would take too long.

Tests of computer vote-counting systems used in Illinois from 1983-1987, which checked tens of thousands of ballots, revealed significant errors in the computer counting in more than 20 percent of the tests.

Fulle said that in Illinois today there is "a 16 percent error rate" with ballot-counting machines. He expected numerous problems on election night saying "equipment will fail across the state."

"I don't understand why nobody cares," Michael L. Harty, former Illinois director of voting systems and standards said. "At one point, we had tabulation errors in 28 percent of the systems tested, and nobody cared."

Officials from the Illinois Board of Elections said election judges are only required to verify that the number of ballots tabulated by the machine matches the number of ballots counted by the judges -- as if voters are only voting for one candidate.

"Nothing in the [Illinois] law requires that the count be accurate," Fulle added.

In this way the basic role of election judges -- to count and verify the accuracy of the vote -- has been usurped and compromised by election machines operated by private companies.

Whether it was the Precinct Ballot Counter 2100 (PBC), the Optech Eagle III, the Model 100 Optic Mark Reader (OMR), or the Votronic touch-screen system that counted your vote, these machines have something in common: they are all designed and operated by Elections Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S). Each contains a two-way modem, allowing them to communicate -- and be communicated with -- while they are in operation.

What is particularly troubling about these machines is the fact that they contain an internal modem, which enables anyone with a modem-equipped computer, from hackers and vendors to telephone company personnel and politicians, to access and alter the computer's tally of the votes.

ES&S is "the largest company in the world focusing solely on automating the election process." The company "provides specialized systems and software to automate the entire election process for local, state, and national governments worldwide."

ES&S is a reorganized company that was given a new name in November 1997 after combining two of the largest election machine companies: Business Re cords Corp. (BRC, formerly part of Cronus Industries) and American Informa tion Systems, Inc. (AIS).

ES&S is a privately-held company owned by unknown investors and headed by Aldo Tesi, who refers to the democratic franchise as "the election industry."

The company is headquartered in Omaha, Neb. and supplies "thousands and thousands of machines being used across the country" to more than 2,200 U.S. jurisdictions in 49 states.

Cook County bought nearly 5,000 PBC machines from ES&S at a cost of $25 million for the suburbs and the city of Chicago in what a company spokesman called a "huge contract."

ES&S supplied Model 100 ballot-counting machines through a Madrid-based company called Indra for the elections in Venezuela.

It was reported in The Omaha World Herald that the head of Venezuela's National Elections Council, Etanislao Gonzalez, placed the blame for the technical difficulties during the election on the Nebraska-based ES&S.

The Omaha World Herald is published by John Gottschalk, who is one of the directors of ES&S.

"The firm flagrantly failed to meet its commitments and the failure had destabilized the country's electoral process," Gonzalez said.

A Venezuelan air force jet flew to Omaha to fetch experts to "salvage" the election. It was reported that more than 6 percent of the 7,000 voting machines broke down during the Venezuelan election and that there were major "technical glitches."

The PBC machines contain an internal Expedite modem made by Novatel Wire less, an international company based in San Diego.

Novatel is a "spin-off" of two Canadian companies, Novatel, Inc. of Calgary, a company specializing in satellite communications and global positioning systems, and an internationally owned oil company in Alberta.

"You certainly run the risk of somebody hacking into these [vote-counting] machines," a spokesman for Novatel Wire less told The SPOTLIGHT. "The machine can be accessed anytime it is plugged in," if someone knows the computer's Inter net protocol or IP address.

"Internet voting scares me," he added, "it puts us in the same situation as a Third-World country."

When asked about the ownership of Novatel Wireless, he said, "I've no idea who owns the company."

Roy Saltman, a computer consultant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Computer Systems Laboratory, wrote a report for the Commerce Department in 1988 entitled, Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying.

Saltman documented many instances of vote mistabulation and the inherent vulnerability of U.S. voting systems to error and fraud, including: "fraudulent alterations in the computer program or in control cards that manipulate the program" and "introduction of false voting summaries through changes in data stored in removable data storage units of precinct-located, vote-counting devices."

Herb Deutsch, who works in the technical department of ES&S in Rockford, Ill., where the PBC was designed, has worked with election software and hardware for 25 years and formerly worked for BRC.

Deutsch defended the PBC saying that its ballot tabulation program is "generic" and that its computer code has been "certified."

Deutsch said that he trusted that the election computers were safe from hackers on the very day that it was reported that Microsoft's computers and source code had been "hacked" for a week.

Each PBC machine is programmed and run by a pre-programmed 512-K memory card. According to Deutsch, "the memory card can be used for lots of purposes" and contains the coded instructions that "essentially tell the machine what to do" when it is turned on. These cards are programmed at the company offices of ES&S in Chicago.

The card is removed by the election judges and turned in to headquarters when the polls close.

Vikant Corp., a Chicago area company owned by Alex Kantarovich of Minsk, Belorussia, supplied the control cards to ES&S.

When The SPOTLIGHT inquired where Vikant cards are produced, Kan tarovich said, "I cannot disclose where the cards are made," but admitted that they are not made in America.

Kantarovich told The SPOTLIGHT that he has been in America for 11 years but declined to discuss his employment prior to running Vikant Corp., saying, "I don't want to disclose that information."

Kantarovich said he had obtained his degree in the Soviet Union and initially refused to answer questions about how his product was chosen for the ES&S voting equipment.

It is "inside information that I cannot disclose," he added.

Kantarovich said later that his firm was chosen over larger firms like IBM and Panasonic because Vikant was able to meet the specific requirements of ES&S and provide the cards on short notice. He added, however, that there had been "some problems" with the cards from other suppliers. "To tell you the truth, I have no idea how these vote counting machines work," Kantarovich said. "We are just the supplier of one particular product."

The SPOTLIGHT November 13, 2000

Watchdog Group Wants Judiciary Held Accountable

A group advocating judicial accountability is pushing for a ballot initiative that would allow citizens to punish judges for wrongdoing.

By Margo Turner

A ballot initiative that would permit the formation of special citizen tribunals to crack down on law-breaking judges could be considered by voters in 22 states.

Another 17 states are targeted for the same constitutional amendment, known as the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). The initiative is proposed by Ronald Branson, a Los Angeles County litigant in California and founder of J.A.I.L. for Judges.

California tops the list of states where J.A.I.L. for Judges hopes to have the initiative on the ballot.


In California, J.A.I.L. would eliminate the broad civil liability immunity judges enjoy and establish three 25-member "special grand juries" to investigate, indict and, through a special trial jury, sentence jurists for criminal misconduct.

Operating special grand juries would cost California $18 million annually, according to Branson. He proposes deducting 2.5 percent from the gross annual payroll of that state's judges, magistrates and commissioners to pay for the grand juries.

Branson and his J.A.I.L. advocates, which include a trio of Southern California lawyers, failed to obtain the necessary signatures to have their constitutional amendment qualify for the November ballot in California. The setback hasn't deterred them from their objective, Branson told The SPOTLIGHT.

"We have until 2002 to qualify J.A.I.L. for the next [California] ballot," Branson said. He said states on board in the order the ballot initiative was adopted are Washington, Georgia, Arkansas, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Maine, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, Mississippi, North Dakota, Colorado, Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, Ohio and Illinois.


Targeted for the ballot initiative are Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

A Baptist minister, Branson taught himself about the law. His goal is to give the citizenry the power to ensure judicial accountability and integrity.

Branson has had his share of run-ins with the law. He unsuccessfully pursued 13 cases up to the Supreme Court.

His current battle is with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court refuses to take judicial notice of the facts of Branson's complaint over a city of Los Angeles parking ticket.

The 9th Circuit judges ruled that the federal court does not have jurisdiction over Branson's case, threw the case out of court and fined the Baptist minister $112,000 in attorney fees and court costs for filing frivolous appeals.

Branson claimed the case is "a classic example of why J.A.I.L. is so necessary."

"J.A.I.L. is not designed to usurp existing laws or the system as we know it," he explained. "J.A.I.L. kicks in only after the system has been given every opportunity to work with all existing laws and procedures put to the test.

"Branson has drafted a similar bill, 'Judicial Accountability and Integrity,' for introduction in Congress. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is 'singled out' to sponsor the legislation in the House," Branson said.

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) recently forwarded Branson's proposed legislation to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who has sponsored previous bills concerning judicial corruption by federal judges.

Hyde introduced the "Judicial Reform Act of 1997" (H.R. 1252), which would have modified the procedures of the federal courts in certain matters. The bill passed the House on April 23, 1998, but was not acted on by the Senate.

Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) sponsored similar legislation, H.R. 1752, in May 1999. A hearing on the bill was held two months later, but no action has been taken.

The SPOTLIGHT November 13, 2000

What's the Beef With Meat Labeling?

Americans have no way of knowing if the meat they feed their families comes from livestock in the United States or in a foreign country. And yet, they can identify the origin of nearly every product in their home, from clothes to appliances, by reading the labels.

By Margo Turner

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat products sold in the United States is long overdue and must be established by Congress, livestock producers and farmers' advocates told a House agriculture panel.

With livestock producers "facing extremely low prices, disastrous weather conditions and an industry beset with high levels of concentration and integration, a label denoting country of origin can provide a valuable marketing tool and important consumer information," Wes Sims, president of the Texas Farmers Union and a board member with the National farmers Union (NFU), testified before the House Livestock and Horticulture subcommittee in late September.

A viable labeling program will enable livestock producers to improve their ability to market American beef and ensure that they are getting their money's worth from promoting the product, pointed out George A. Hall, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) during his testimony.

The NFU and NCBA endorse H.R. 1144, the Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Act of 1999, under review by the House agriculture subcommittee.

Sponsored by Reps. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho) and Earl Pomery (D-N.D.), H.R. 1144 was introduced in March 17, 1999, and referred to the House agriculture Committee a week later. The measure, which has 58 co-sponsors, was not forwarded to the livestock and horticulture subcommittee until Sept. 26, the same day of the subcommittee hearing.

H.R. 1144 would require a label on beef, pork and lamb, indicating the country of origin for imported meat, regardless of where it was produced. the bill also would provide for an American label on meat from animals born and raised in the United States.

Many countries require just this type of labeling on foreign products, Hall told the House panel.

"In some of our largest markets, Japan for example, we have taken advantage of labeling to better identify our product for Japanese consumers," he said. As a result, the Japanese consume more than $1.75 billion worth of clearly marked and identified American beef, according to the NCBA president.

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) Leads the fight in the upper chamber for mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat with S.242, which he sponsors. Under his bill, labeling would be required for beef, pork and lamb muscle cuts and ground meat products sold at retail in the United States.

Rep Chenoweth-Hage, a member of the House Livestock and Horticulture subcommittee, sponsors another bill, H.R.222, which Johnson claimed "closely mirrors" S.242.

Johnson said Congress seems unwilling to act on the country-of-origin meat labeling issue. Two years ago, he successfully attached a mandatory country-of-origin meat labeling amendment to the fiscal year 1999 agriculture appropriations bill in the Senate. When the conference committee met that year, his meat labeling provision was dropped from the appropriations bill by House Republicans. Instead, the conferees ordered the USDA to measure the benefits and costs of Country-of-origin labeling on muscle cuts of beef and lamb and report its finding to Congress.

Johnson said he and fellow proponents of Country-of-origin meat labeling legislation expected the USDA to recognize that labeling could benefit U.S. consumers and livestock producers. Rather that indorsing labeling legislation when they released their report in January, USDA officials stated that there are legitimate policy concerns about mandatory meat labeling.

The USDA considers mandatory origin-of-origin labeling too costly to domestic industry, consumers and government, Caren A. Wilcox, deputy under secretary for food safety, told the House panel reviewing H.R. 1144. Wilcox claimed the bill would require the labeling of more than 43 billion pounds of domestic beef, lamb and pork.

The USDA has the authority under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1046 to administer a voluntary certification program specifying certain quality grades, such as "USDA Choice," for beef and lamb meat carcasses.

"Unfortunately, American consumers today are misled to believe that the meat they buy with a 'USDA Choice' stamp is domestically produced meat," Johnson said. He pointed out the country-of-origin labeling legislation is needed so that consumers can identify the true origin of meat.

The SPOTLIGHT November 20, 2000

UN Peacekeeping Forces -- Next Stop: Israel

Saudi Arabia reportedly will offer Bill Clinton a bribe of possibly $1 billion to let the UN pacify Palestine.

By James Harrer

White House National Security Ad viser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who made his fortune as a street-smart trade lawyer before joining the administration, and a group of wealthy investors from the oil-rich Mideast, including Saudi Arabia, are discussing what well-informed diplomatic insiders are calling a "princely payoff" for lame-duck President Bill Clinton.

The transaction would end the flare-up of violence between Palestine's historic Arab population and the heavily-armed Israelis by erecting a dependable firewall between the two sides.

The proposal calls for the deployment of 350 UN observers and an international "rapid reaction" force of some 2,000 to 5,000 troops to be interposed between the two warring nations, with the added mission of gradually enforcing a number of UN mandates long ignored by Israel's hard-line leaders.

Enforcing the world forum's decisions -- known as General Assembly Resolutions 181 (II) through 242 -- on the status of the "Holy Land" and the hallowed city of Jerusalem, now under illegal Israeli occupation, promises to provide a "just and lasting" settlement of the long-festering conflict over the partitioning of Palestine, UN officials said.

The Palestinian leadership has long demanded international intervention in the bloody dispute with Israeli forces, who have killed more than 200 Arab demonstrators in recent weeks, and a number of European governments, led by France and Austria, are known to support such an initiative.

But it was only last month that Berger began to explore the prospects for such a move with Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel's acting foreign minister, who emphatically turned thumbs down on the idea.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak also voiced strong opposition to "internationalizing the struggle for Palestine, arguing that it would amount to a "reward for Palestinian violence."

A debate over armed intervention in Palestine by the world forum's forces took place in the UN Security Council on Nov. 9, and it is tabled for a vote by the General Assembly next month.

"As it stands, the proposal has little or no chance, because the U.S. has always vetoed any move opposed by Israel," said a veteran Islamic diplomat.

But the unspoken question is: what if Clinton -- a lame-duck president with no political chips to risk -- instructed his envoy, UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, to absent himself from the Security Council the day it casts its vote on enforcing a peaceable solution in Palestine?

"The answer is that if he has the fortitude to do that, Clinton can write his own ticket, and the face value of that ticket reportedly goes up all the way to a billion dollars," recounted a UN official. "The Gulf states' negotiators have told Berger they will pay that sort of ransom in any manner Clinton chooses: as an investment in a firm he may want to set up after retirement, as a political contribution, or as a deposit in a numbered bank account."

The oil-rich Persian Gulf governments believe that a categorical UN peacekeeping resolution the U.S. delegation did not veto for the first time in history would bring with it harsh sanctions if Israel proved defiant.

That would be the beginning of the end of the long-standing illegal Israeli occupation of the vast tracts of land the world forum's original partition decision re served for Palestine's historic Arab population, Islamic diplomats argued.

The SPOTLIGHT November 20, 2000

Rights Groups Charge Israelis With War Crimes

Israel's iron fist tactics have been condemned as war atrocities by an
international human rights group.

By Christopher Bollyn

Israel's military tactics in the occupied territories have been strongly condemned and "could amount to war crimes," according to the London-based human rights group Amnesty International (AI).

An American group, Physicians for Human Rights USA (PHR), also investigated the clashes by sending a team of three physicians to the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank from Oct. 20-27.

PHR reinforced AI's findings, reporting that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) uses live ammunition and rubber-coated steel bullets "excessively and inappropriately."

Five weeks of Arab-Israeli violence have left 200 people dead -- many of them children -- almost all of them Palestinian.

"There is a pattern of gross human rights violations that may well amount to war crimes," said Claudio Cordone, AI's international research director.

AI's latest findings go much further than its earlier criticism that Israeli troops were using "excessive force" against Palestinians.

Cordone repeated long-standing criticism of Israel's "iron fist" military response to Palestinian demonstrations that applies "combat reflexes" as opposed to what would be proper policing methods.

"There is excessive use of force resulting in killings that shouldn't take place," Cordone said. "If a kid is throwing stones at you but not posing any other risk -- you don't shoot him."

Geneva Conventions VIOLATED

AI says the Israeli forces are breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as their own rules, namely, that lethal force must only be used to counter an immediate threat to life.

As part of international humanitarian law, the Geneva Civilian Convention (1949) protects civilians under occupation and has applied to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since the 1967 war. An IDF senior officer told PHR that "the Fourth Geneva Convention and other humanitarian laws apply" to the current clashes.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit murder, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Included in the Geneva Conventions is a law against force that results in disproportionate and/or indiscriminate killing of or violence toward civilians.

In an occupation, such as Israel's of the West Bank and Gaza, the rule of proportionality applies and prohibits excessive force against civilians.


Israel has repeatedly used combat helicopters firing heavy machine guns and armor-piercing missiles on Palestinian civilians, towns, and even ambulances.

The PHR team examined a Red Crescent Ambulance in Gaza which was damaged by a helicopter gunship. The Israeli helicopter strafed the ambulance with five 50-caliber shells that passed right through the ambulance, including a metal gurney.

The bullets used by the IDF against Jewish citizens in Israel or Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are very different than those used on Palestinians. The bullets used for Jewish riot control are solid rubber. There have been no reported deaths resulting from these bullets.

The so-called rubber bullets used by the IDF against Israel's Arab citizens and Palestinians are significantly different. The "Arab bullets" examined by the PHR team are merely rubber-coated steel bullets and very lethal.

The rubber-coated bullets used on Palestinians are of two shapes: spherical and cylindrical.

The bullets used against Arabs only look rubber with a thin 2 mm outer rubber shell around a solid steel core 1.83 cm in diameter.


PHR concluded that Israeli soldiers are shooting high-velocity live ammunition and rubber-coated steel bullets with intent to kill and maim Palestinian demonstrators, based on the high number of injuries to the head and thighs.

PHR's analysis of fatal gun shot wounds in Gaza reveals that approximately 50 percent were to the head. The high proportion of fatal head wounds suggests that soldiers are specifically targeting Palestinians' eyes.

The IDF spokesman told the PHR team that he was aware of the high incidence of gun shot wounds to the head, and did not dispute that most of these injuries were inflicted upon people who posed no immediate threat to any member of the IDF.

After reviewing medical records of 31 Palestinians killed in Gaza between Sept. 30 and Oct. 24, PHR found that 53 percent were shot by high velocity weapons and 38 percent were under the age of 18.

PHR reported a pattern of high velocity gunshot wounds to the leg, particularly to the thigh. These wounds cause extreme injury, usually producing complex fractures and extensive muscle, nerve, and vascular injury. The majority of victims of these injuries will be permanently disabled, according to PHR.

Witness reports, IDF statements and information provided to other human rights organizations indicate that those injured in this manner were at most throwing stones and were not carrying firearms.

The numerous reports of thigh wounds suggest a specific IDF policy, according to PHR.

"A response to throwing stones that results in permanent disability constitutes a gross violation of human rights," PHR concluded.


PHR reported numerous instances in which the IDF blocked hospitals in Jerusalem and prevented injured patients from receiving care.

PHR also reported IDF shooting at medical personnel, who were wearing vests clearly identifying them as medical personnel, while they were providing care to the injured.

According the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), 33 ambulances were hit by gunfire and 17 were destroyed in 64 separate attacks. Between Oct. 1 and Oct. 23, PHR reported that 17 Palestinian ambulances were "utterly destroyed" by the IDF. During the week from Oct. 19 to Oct. 23 alone, PHR found that 26 ambulances were damaged by gunfire.

AI said that Israeli forces were no longer carrying out investigations into killings.

An IDF legal officer said soldiers, whose use of live ammunition results in the death of a Palestinian, need not file a report or face an investigation into the justification for the use of their weapon. This is a departure from the procedures in place during the 1987-1993 Intifada.

The SPOTLIGHT November 20, 2000

Pat Sees Populists Becoming Political Balance of Power

Pat Buchanan announced at a press conference that he plans to continue the fight, even teaming up with other new party candidates who are willing to join him.

By Clayton Potts

The new-party movement will continue and become the "balance of power" in American politics, said Pat Buchanan after the election.

Buchanan expressed concern about fraud in voting machines and had words of caution for President-elect George W. Bush about such internationalist groups as Bilderberg and Supreme Court appointments.

There will be a "firestorm" if Bush appoints pro-abortion, left-wingers to the Supreme Court who would legislate from the bench rather than interpret the Constitution, Buchanan warned.

While he calls himself a "strict constructionist," Bush as governor has appointed some liberals to the Texas Supreme Court who later said he had asked them no questions about their ideology.

Buchanan, when questioned, ex pressed concern about the influence such groups as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations would have on Bush.

They are a "breeding ground" for foreign policy wonks who favor internationalism and intervention in the affairs of other nations, he said.

As an example of potential fraud in voting machines, Buchanan cited a self-serving result: Some Florida voters who had pulled Vice President Al Gore's knob had their votes counted for Buchanan -- hardly the intent of election manipulators.

There is a "terrible potential for abuse" from voting by machines, he said.

Moments later Ralph Nader said Congress should hold hearings into the role of private business in public elections and the use of riggable computer ballot-counting machines.

There "were no national debates" because the two major-party candidates had a honeymoon before the cameras. While Bush and Gore agreed on most matters, such issues as national sovereignty, the World Trade Organization and NAFTA "were off the table," Buchanan said.

Will the third parties collaborate in fighting the Establishment?

Buchanan said the Constitution Party under Howard Phillips is in so much agreement with the Reform Party he heads that he hopes they can merge.

While he has great respect for Ralph Nader and his Green party, and they can collaborate on some issues, such as the WTO, NAFTA and international corporations, there are too many areas of disagreement to form a unified political coalition, Buchanan said.

He remains the leader of the Reform Party at the request of its top officials after the election disappointment, Buchanan said.

"The Reform Party I will build will be populist with traditional values, defending heroes like Robert E. Lee and George Washington," he said. It will stress "economic nationalism" and oppose the "interventionist" policies embraced by the major parties.

"I feel good about the enemies we have accumulated" and "the Establishment is frightened," Buchanan said.

The SPOTLIGHT November 20, 2000

Election Reveals Need for Electoral College Reform

Most Americans fail to understand the role the electoral College plays in undermining the popular vote.


Unless momentous and unexpected events occur, it appears that George W. Bush will have eked out an Electoral College victory over Al Gore and therefore won the presidency, even though Gore has actually won more votes.

Members of the board of Policy (BOP of Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist Institution that publishes The SPOTLIGHT, have long been conscious of election year quirks and, in the past, voted for reform of the Electoral College through adoption of an Electoral College reform plan offered by then-Sen. Karl Mundt (R-N.D.) And, more recently, in 1992, in favor of direct election of the president through the popular vote.

The events of 2000 have focused national attention on the Electoral Colege process, but actually Bill Clinton's lopsided landslide victory in the Electoral College in 1992, winning 69 percent of the electoral vote -- while drawing only 43 percent of the popular vote -- clearly illustrated the ambiguous nature of the Electoral College.

The way the Electoral College system works was well illustrated in the 1992 presidential election. The candidate who wins the popular vote of a state receives the electoral votes of that state - even if he wins that vote by only a plurality.

For example, in Kansas in the 1992 election, then-President George Bush won the six electoral votes of that state in the three-way race with Clinton and Ross Perot. However, Bush only won 39 percent of the actual popular vote. Clinton came in second with 34 percent and Perot ran a strong third place finish -- one of his best in the country -- with 27 percent.

A majority (270) of the 538 total electoral votes is required to win the presidency. However, as Americans are now beginning to realize, it is possible for a candidate to receive a majority of the electoral votes and not garner either a majority or a plurality of the popular vote.


When first instituted, the Electoral College was designed by our Founding Fathers to ensure that an uninformed electorate did not hand the presidency over to an unqualified candidate.

The Founding Fathers also realized that Congress should not be trusted to name a president. After all, the chief executive would be beholden to his masters in Congress, instead of the American people.

The Founders opted for an Electoral College in which the leading - and presumably fully informed -- citizens of the states were to vote for a national leader. It was the only way to preserve a republican form of government.

Under this system, states with larger populations were given a bigger voice since the number of electors is equal to the number of a state's representatives in both the House and Senate. Through this process, also smaller and more rural states had a voice since each state would have at least three electors.

The method worked for about three elections. By the beginning of the 19th century, however, a political evil emerged on the scene


Instituted in its place was not "democracy", but "plutocracy" -- a rule by a well-heeled, monied few who controlled the political process masquerading as political parties.

Indeed, most voters don't even realize they are not voting for the president and vice president. Rather, they are voting for slates of electors appointed by political parties at the state level representing the national party's candidate.

For many years the minorities, liberals and special-interest groups advocated some sort of change in the presidential election process that would give them a better handle on the procedure - and the results. Whenever they advocated a constitutional amendment, it was assailed by the conservatives who didn't want anyone messing around with the Constitution.

Then the minorities and special-interest groups found they could exercise more control over the electoral process than they could over a one-man, one-vote system. So they switched their tactics and opposed any change in the electoral College mechanism.

When Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), a liberal icon, introduced a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct election of the president in 1979, his proposal was defeated. Conservatives proclaimed that the Constitution had been "preserved" and that they had won a major victory. Not so, however.

Under the Electoral College, as we saw in the most recent presidential election, a candidate concentrates his time, money and appearances in the big slates with the big electoral votes (the "huddled masses").

If the Electoral college were eliminated, a rancher in a sparsely populated western state would be as important to a presidential candidate as a welfare mother in Philadelphia or a New York billionaire who votes for a presidential hopeful exclusively on the basis of the commitment to the state of Israel.

Interestingly, one of the reasons that the establishment fears a direct popular vote for the presidency is that direct popular elections would make the possibility that a "third party" or independent candidate could win the presidency more likely.

In 1934 populist Sen. George Norris (R-Neb.) introduced a measure to abolish the Electoral College and institute direct popular vote for the president. Sen Frederick Steiwer (R-Oreg.) rose in opposition, saying Norris' proposal would make "it easy for independent candidates to run for president of the United States."

On Election Eve 1992 the internationalist Washington Times published an opinion piece by Georgetown University Professor Walter Berns.

Berns criticized a measure proposed by then-Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.) that would abolish the Electoral College and replace it with popular election of the president, noting:

Under the Electoral college, the independent or third party candidate must win at least a plurality in at least one state to have any electoral effect, and that is likely to happen only in the case of a candidate with strong regional support. Otherwise, the argument goes, a vote for an independent candidate will be wasted...

But that argument would carry no weight whatsoever if we were to scrap the Electoral College in favor of direct popular elections. The supporters of a third party or independent candidate would have every reason to vote for him in November, especially if their candidate enjoyed the support of 35 percent of the voting population. Instead of being wasted, their votes would almost surely prevent either of the major party candidates from sinning the required 40 percent of the popular vote, and might even ensure their candidate a place in the run-off.

At this point, the real contest would begin, all of it being waged behind the scenes as the two finalists compete (deal, trade, bribe) for the support of the third-place finisher...Add the forth place finisher -- David Duke -- and in a direct popular election his, say, 5 percent might well earn him a place at the table and with it a share of the booty -- and we could have a system resembling the worst of those Southern gubernatorial contests in which the winning candidate was required to pay a bigot's ransom...

Berns' hypothetical scenario illustrates what the concern over direct popular vote is all about today. Note how Bern used the scenario of Louisiana's populist maverick, David Duke, as the "danger" posed by the direct popular vote. Clearly, the great fear within the Establishment is that the institution of a direct popular vote for president will increase the power of the people as a whole and undercut the power of the special interests.

The SPOTLIGHT November 27, 2000

Four Bilderbergers Hold Senate Seats

Two Bilderberg members were elected to the Senate Nov. 7 and will join two others who have been recruited by the secret international elite in recent years.

Hillary Clinton succeeds retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) after defeating Rep. Rick Lazio (D-N.Y) and Jon Corzine purchased the New Jersey seat for $65 million. This will double the Bilderberg bloc, which includes Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Chris Dodd (D Conn.).

A largely overlooked historical footnote is about to occur: for about two weeks, Mrs. Clinton will be both first lady and a sitting senator because the new Congress will be installed in early January and the White House changes tenants on Jan. 20.

Mrs. Clinton became the only first lady to ever attend a Bilderberg meeting when it met at a resort about 30 miles from Atlanta a few years ago. President Clin ton, long a member of the brother group, the Trilateral Commission, was anointed at a Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden, Germany, in 1991, launching his White House run.

Corzine had attended Bilderberg meetings for years, representing Goldman Sachs. He was absent last June when Bilderberg met near Brussels, Belgium, because the Democratic primary was taking place at the same time.

Hagel and Dodd were recruited into Bilderberg in Sintra, Portugal, in 1999 and returned to Brussels last spring.

Bilderberg traditionally had a strong Senate presence, with such luminaries as Banking Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) and Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) as regulars. Bentsen continued in Bilderberg as Clinton's first treasury secretary but has suffered a stroke and uses a wheelchair now. Bradley retired from the Senate and failed in a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

For some years, no senators attended Bilderberg, some telling inquiring constituents about "political problems" that emerged when their participation in the secret meetings became known.

Corzine called for registering guns, federal control of public education to facilitate the globalist brainwashing of American children and racial quotas ("affirmative action") in employment and education. All of this follows the long-established Bilderberg agenda.


The lame-duck Congress limped back to Washington on Nov. 14, passed a continuing resolution to keep the government operating until Dec. 5 and trotted back home to overdose on turkey.

With the presidential election still in doubt, lawmakers were unable to concentrate on six of 13 annual spending bills still pending. Republican congressional leaders were also negotiating tax cuts and health care legislation with the White House.

"If we're going to get an agreement on some of these really still touchy issues, we're going to need more time and they're going to have to resolve the situation down in Florida," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.). "Right now, it's a real tough time for people to stay focused" on negotiations.

Republican leaders have agreed to de lay final budget action because "the president is not here, members have schedules to keep and [we do not] know who is the president-elect," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

Congress and the administration broke off budget negotiations shortly be fore the election, expecting voters to express their sentiments on these issues through the ballot box, giving one party an advantage when Congress returned to complete its work.

After concluding that nothing major could be accomplished, White House officials signed off on an interim resolution to keep the government operating until Dec. 5.

Congress has to complete work on must-pass spending bills, consider a major $240 billion tax bill that includes a $1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage and $27 billion to restore Medicare subsidies to hospitals, nursing homes, managed-care operators and other providers.

Democrats are anxious to complete a $350 billion spending bill that includes large increases for education programs that negotiators agreed on shortly before the election, only to have House Republican leaders reject it.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is considering revising upwards its long-term forecasts of budget surpluses that would make it easier for the next president -- whoever he is -- to embrace spending and tax-cut proposals.

CBO officials met with outside economic advisers shortly after the elections to consider draft proposals for increasing its long-term economic growth projections by as much as one-half a percentage point. The revision could increase the projected $4.6 trillion surplus by $500 billion to $1 trillion over the next decade.

"When the dust settles, the projected 10-year surpluses will be somewhat larger than they were in July," said Robert Reischaurer, a former CBO director and a member of its economic advisory panel. "And therefore the new president will have more fiscal flexibility than was anticipated during the campaign."

Half of the projected surpluses is generated by the Social Security payroll tax and is considered untouchable by Congress. But the rest can be used for spending, tax cuts and debt reduction.

The projected increases in the surplus would make Bush's task of selling a $1.3 trillion tax cut easier or boost Gore's arguments for major spending initiatives and more targeted tax cuts.


President Clinton has vetoed a bill that would have criminalized the leaking of government secrets. The legislation might "chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy," Clinton said in rejecting the measure on Nov. 4.

The measure had been assailed by news organizations that said it would stifle their ability to obtain information vital to the public.

"We must never forget that the free flow of information is essential to a democratic society," Clinton said.

Clinton cited the "badly flawed provision" as the reason he vetoed a measure that authorizes spending for the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence activities for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

He urged Congress "to pursue a more narrowly drawn provision tested in public hearings so that those they represent can also be heard on this important issue."

The total intelligence budget is classified and not made public, but it is believed to be about $30 billion.

The SPOTLIGHT November 27, 2000

Election Flaws Open Process to Scrutiny

It's all part of the plan. First the media exposes the flaws in U.S. elections, then it recommends new technology to fix the situation. The only problem is this new technology opens up the process to vote fraud on an even larger scale.

Jim Condit Jr.

Major television networks are in the process of preparing a trap for American voters. After years of ignoring documented evidence of election fraud and easily-rigged computerized elections, the controlled media is suddenly doing a limited exposé on computerized voting systems, which they have been protecting for the last 20 to 25 years.

In the next phase, the same controlled major media will be clamoring for America to "enter the 21st century" by exploiting technology to create an election process that is even easier to steal.

On cue, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), point man for the ruling elite, has emerged to announce that he will be submitting new legislation to Congress and the Federal Elections Commission.

Prepare to hear the globalist Establishment calling for voting machines that can be easily manipulated from a central location. This means the new systems such as those manufactured by Election Software and Service (ES&S), have two-way computer modems inside each voting machine.

Amidst all the TV ads promoting the wireless internet, cell phones that can make wireless calls from one end of the country to the other, new ES&S voting machines can be accessed by satellite technology.

Those controlling the satellites and the computer codes could access and query the voting machines during election day -- and alter the results.

This raises the specter of hundreds of thousands of voting machines in precincts all over the United States being manipulated near the close of an election day -- changing the results of an election either nationwide or in any targeted region. Americans, who push the button at the end of the voting day and get the computer generated receipt, would have no idea whether the results generated were real or rigged.

The ultimate goal of the globalist-combine is internet voting, where everyone could vote from their home computer or from an ATM machine. While you would know how you voted, no one would know how everyone voted, except those at "command central," wherever that may be.


From June 21 to 25, a sinister conference took place in Athens, Greece, supported by billionaire George Soros and others of the so-called "Direct Democracy" movement.

The entire conference was a planning session on how quickly Internet voting could be forced down the throats of Americans and the people of the world. Representatives from almost every major country were present, even though the conference was not reported in the world's controlled press.

But, because the day is far off when every home will have a computer, the next hoped for phase is voting machines that can be controlled by satellite.

With either the new modem/satellite systems already in use in Chicago and Phoenix, or with Internet voting, the results would be totally unverifiable by local citizens.

This is exactly the opposite of how the election system should work.

Paper ballots, easily read and easily marked by voters, should be kept in public view in plastic boxes at each precinct all day. At closing time, citizens from every faction would count the ballots in public view, witnessed by those who were not counting -- a reliable procedure.

The results would then be posted in clear view for all to see at each neighborhood precinct before ballots left the neighborhood. Under such a system, no election could be rigged from a central location.

At the present time, Americans are paid below minimum wage to work in the election day process, even while their county is shelling out vast sums of money to one of a few mega-corporations who help "count" the votes.

Just as national defense is our safeguard against foreign enemies, honest elections are our defense against domestic enemies. After 25 years of computerized elections, the federal government looks as if it is being run by domestic enemies.

Remember, as Josef Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."

The SPOTLIGHT November 27, 2000

Bush, Gore 'Mostly Agree' On Globalization, Trade

More than anything, global corporations want "free trade" from the next president. They'll get their wish.

Above all, global corporations want one thing from the next president: "free trade," and the right to invest wherever they want without having to comply with pesky local laws and standards.

Al Gore has been one of the Clinton administration's most stalwart fighters for NAFTA, GATT, and now China trade. And George W. Bush is at least as enthusiastic.


In their 200-page policy paper, Prosperity for America's Families, Gore and vice presidential candidate Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman give a ringing endorsement of globalization, arguing that trade deals like NAFTA have created new jobs for Americans because of increased exports.

The Economic Policy Institute recently documented that while rising exports created about 4.1 million jobs, rising imports caused us to lose 7.3 million, for a net effect of 3.2 million jobs lost due to trade.

Of course, globalization has resulted in a lot more than the evaporation of a few million American jobs. Workers around the globe are being squeezed harder and forced to compete against one another for the opportunity to make a living. The Democrats do give our concerns a nod. Although they say that their "overarching aim. . . is to aggressively open markets," they also state that "all trade agreements should include provisions that will protect environmental and labor standards, as well as open markets in other countries."

Such provisions might give workers a focal point for organizing, but they can't undo the damage done by the trade agreements themselves. So says Cornell University's Kate Bronfenbrenner, who has just completed a report documenting how, in NAFTA's aftermath, employers have used plant closings, or just the threat of plant closings, to keep workers from organizing.

A trade agreement that included real teeth to enforce labor rights would help, says Bronfenbrenner. But even that wouldn't keep employers from effectively using hollow threats or implicit threats to intimidate vulnerable workers. When employers used such threats, Bronfenbrenner found, workers usually voted against the union. Without the threats, workers voted union 51 percent of the time.


Bronfenbrenner's new report, commissioned by the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, is available on the web at:

George W. Bush has no use for promises about labor and environmental standards. But he has lots to say about global trade.

Bush chided the Clinton administration for not pushing free trade hard enough. He pledges to secure fast-track authority (which would force Congress to pass or reject trade agreements without amendment). He says he will push for "free trade agreements with all the nations of Latin America," including Chile, Brazil, and Argentina, as well as Central American and Caribbean nations.

The ultimate goal, he says, is "free trade from northernmost Canada to the tip of Cape Horn."

Trade agreements like NAFTA and institutions like the World Trade Organization are the creatures of multinational corporations, designed to give them free reign of labor around the planet.

Goods produced under unfair labor conditions should not be allowed to enter the country. Companies that use child labor, suppress workers' right to organize, or fail to meet occupational safety and health or environmental standards should have their products seized at the border, and should be held financially liable for how their goods are produced.

Further, workers themselves should be empowered to investigate, present evidence, and petition to remove goods that are in violation.

The SPOTLIGHT November 27, 2000

No Free Speech for the Right-Minded

By Vince Ryan

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a name that is known to millions of Americans. Her syndicated radio talk program is heard over 450 radio stations and boasts 18 million listeners. And her new syndicated television program which debuted Sept. 11, was sold to 175 stations covering 90 percent of the country.

Halfway through November, Dr Laura's television program suffered a drastic loss in outreach. The CBS affiliate in Philadelphia, KYW-TV dropped the show on Nov. 10. Other CBS affiliates in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas "downgraded" the show to time slots in the wee hours of the morning, effective Nov. 13.

The show lost sponsors and full credit for its fall has been taken by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). But the Paramount Television Group, which syndicates the show, has steadfastly stood by Dr. Laura and the program.

Dr. Laura, an uncompromising champion of family values and the Ten Commandments, gives little time to those callers to her radio program who want her to validate their deviant lifestyles. She staunchly refuses to do that, and because of her firm stand, she has come under fire from militant homosexual activists such as those in GLAAD.

Now GLAAD, which wants free speech for itself, has decreed that because Dr. Laura does not consider homosexuality a proper lifestyle, she has no right to be on television.

Not surprisingly, no civil libertarian organizations have come to her rescue. Not even that great advocate of freedom in general and free speech in particular, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which always has something t say against prayer in the public schools, especially prayer before athletic events and at graduation ceremonies, bothered to step in to help Dr. Laura. They made this decision in the name of freedom of speech.

The ACLU is also active in the fight to keep the pornography industry alive and well, all in the name of freedom of speech as, so they claim, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Dr. Laura is not supposed to enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech because she has angered a very powerful minority group whose influence, unfortunately, extends into all areas of American life.

In their attack on Dr. Laura, the militant homosexuals, led by GLAAD and their liberal allies, deliberately distorted what she said about their lifestyle. What Dr. Laura said is that homosexuality is "deviant" behavior and "a biological error" in that it deviates from the norm of heterosexuality.

Her view of homosexuality is the ages old mainstream view for recorded history and remains so today despite an aggressive effort for the past 25 years on the part of 2 percent of the population -- trumpeted by the so-called "gay" media -- to have us believe otherwise.

The "regular" media, the big plutocrat-controlled press, aids and abets the homosexual agenda on a daily basis. This promotion appears with regularity in the entertainment, arts, theater, books, travel and home section of the major print media, not to mention the "news" section, including the obituaries.

Dr. Laura's new TV program received scathing ad hominem reviews from The Washington Post critic Tom Shales and USA Today Robert Bianco, and together with high-powered pressure from GLAAD, several sponsors did drop out, among them are American Express, AT&T, Gateway Computers, Geico Insurance, Kraftfoods, Procter & Gamble and Sky/tel pagers.

Worth noting is that sponsorships are not controlled by the companies concerned but by the advertising agencies who have tight contracts with the advertisers to place or pull their advertising at will. The agencies, all of which are Zionist, make all the big decisions.

It is no secret that some of the artistic directors and even the principals in the ad agencies are homosexuals. Most others are sympathetic to the cause. And, as has been mentioned in this column many times, the powerful Anti-Defamation League has its own "advertising lodge," which is the final arbiter of which advertising copy or clients do or do not meet standards, which the lodge sets up.

Advertising revenue is the lifeblood of television stations. And those television programs which do not attract advertisers do not stay on the air for long.

The feverish crusade by members of GLAAD and their allies to destroy Dr. Laura is part of a larger effort by a sinister alien cult to destroy Western civilization. Grounded in Marxism, these destroyers of all that is good, true and beautiful in our society are waging war to the finish on the very mind and soul of the West. The evil they spread is cultural communism and to stop its advance, we must know that it is.

The SPOTLIGHT has prepared a special report on cultural communism, which is available from The SPOTLIGHT at $2 per copy; six copies for $4; 40 or more copies 30 cents each. Keep fighting for those like Dr. Laura who are right and moral. Let them know. Let the media and especially the sponsors know, too.

Remember: Your influence counts...Use it!