FEBRUARY 25, 1999........................................................

WILL THE WOMEN OF AMERICA SAVE AMERICA? by Walter W. Cox

As I watched yesterday evening's NBC Dateline interview with Juanita Broaddrick, I couldn't help but wonder what American women will do when they absorb Mrs. Broaddrick's charge that 21 years ago Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock, Arkansas hotel room, leaving her physically injured and emotionally traumatized.

Because NBC interviewer Lisa Myers made much of the fact that Juanita Broaddrick cannot remember the exact date of the assault, I would like to recount a similar incident that happened to me many years ago.

Like Juanita Broaddrick, I remember the year and the season--Fall, 1966. I was nineteen years old.

I remember the barrel of a chrome-plated .38 emerging silently through the door to the bedroom I shared with my girlfriend, Barbara. I remember the man's exact words as I looked up from the book I was reading:

"Shut up and turn out the light, motherfucker, or I'll blow your brains out."

I remember the cascading thoughts, the futile hope I harbored that I might be able to open the drawer of the nightstand, retrieve our loaded handgun, and rise to defend Barbara in all my John-Wayne glory.

And, sooner than I could react, I remember his rush to the bed, the stench of his breath, the crushing weight of his knee on my back, the cold metal of his gun on the back of my neck, the continuing threats while he hog-tied me and deposited me on the floor in the corner of the room. All hope of effective resistance faded, yet I still had not guessed the full scope of our intruder's intentions.

Barbara was raped that night while I lay tied, enraged and shamed in the corner of the room. He terrorized us for four hours, and he robbed us. Each time I so much as twitched, our attacker would spin the cylinder of his gun, "Don't you move, motherfucker, or I shoot you, swear I will."

I remember it all so well--Barbara's trembling sobs after he finally left, the rage, the shame. But I do not remember the date.

So far, women have remained Clinton's strongest defenders. They have argued that his sexual exploits, while distasteful, are irrelevant to his performance as President. The sex with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, and it was private. Anyone might choose to lie under similar circumstances. End of story.

Now Juanita Broaddrick tells a disturbing tale of sex that was not consensual. Mrs. Broaddrick, a very successful professional woman, has little to gain and much to lose by telling her story--and she says that Bill Clinton raped her.

In a moving and credible interview lasting 6 hours, Mrs. Broaddrick tells how Bill Clinton assaulted her physically, and when she resisted he used his teeth to bite her upper lip and compel her to submit to his sexual demands. Mrs. Broaddrick describes a violent assault that left her shaken and injured, in person and in psyche.

Friends, witnesses to the aftermath of the attack, confirm Juanita Broaddrick's story. And other women have emerged, who tell similar stories. In "All the President's Victims: Bill Clinton's Long History of Sexual Assault Against Women," authors Daniel J. Harris and Teresa Hampton of Capitol Hill Blue detail a horrifying list of incidents that date from Bill Clinton's college days:

In 1969 a 19-year-old English woman charged that Clinton assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford University campus where the future President was a student. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed this week that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case.
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed.
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law professor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him and she left the school shortly after the incident.
In 1978, Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Bill Clinton's attorney general campaign, says Bill Clinton raped her.
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor reported seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually.
In 1982, Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the 1982 Miss America crown, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen, told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. She later recanted that interview and said she had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual.
Paula Corbin Jones, formerly an Arkansas state worker, says that in 1991 Bill Clinton invited her to his hotel room where the then governor exposed himself, masturbated and demanded oral sex. Mrs. Jones filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton, and Clinton settled the case recently with a large cash payment.
A former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. The woman has since married and left Washington.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Are all these women lying?! If not, what we have is a long, sordid history of sexual assault by a man, our President, who now occupies the most powerful office in the world.

But will any of it matter?

Bill Clinton's contempt for our system of justice was elegantly exposed by House prosecutors during his impeachment trial, yet the Senate failed to convict. Yes, the senators knew all about the Juanita Broaddrick story--Kenneth Starr saw to that--but the pressures were too intense. Given mass public indifference on the one hand and Hustler founder Larry Flynt's threats of public exposure on the other, too few were willing to sacrifice all to bring Clinton down.

I hope I will not be considered sexist when I say that the system of justice devised by men, the quintessentially rational Constitutional impeachment process, failed us. And there will be no repeat, no more impeachments, no more trials. No matter what Bill Clinton does.

Yet the women of America still have a power, a suprarational power, that only they can wield, and it lies in their power to shame.

Going back to Barbara's rape in 1966, the system of justice failed us then as well. Our attacker was arrested while committing another crime, yet he was released and never charged.

Shortly after his release, I was up late again one night, in the kitchen making a sandwich. And our silent intruder managed to surprise me a second time, coming from behind, gun drawn. This time I knew his intentions, and I resolved to resist, whatever the cost.

"So, it's you again," I said, looking him straight in the eye. Same chrome-plated .38, same stench--by then we knew that this husky, middle-aged black man was a hardened ex-con.

"I shoot you, swear I will. You don' believe me, but I will... I will...." He twitched nervously, knowing that this time I had gotten a good look at his face and could identify him in a line-up.

"I believe you," I assured him, "but you're not raping anyone tonight."

He looked at me, a fair-haired, unarmed white boy. "We jus' see 'bout dat," he said with a menace that matched his appearance.

Then from around the corner, Connie emerged, a striking young black woman. She took one look at our intruder, and in a voice that I have heard many black women reserve for small, misbehaving children, she laid into him.

"What you be doin' here?! What you think you gonna get tonight?! You jus' get outta our house, and leave us alone, an' don' you be comin' back here no more!"

This hardened criminal with a loaded .38 was brought down by the voice of a slight eighteen-year-old woman. The voices of his mother and grandmother probably echoed in Connie's words, and he hadn't expected that. He shrunk visibly and almost ran out the front door. With a power only women possess, Connie saved us that evening.

It is my hope that the women of America will remember what they have learned over the past thirty years. Rape is not a sexual act; it is a violent abuse of sexual power that is intended to shame and humiliate not just the woman attacked but all women--just ask the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends of rape victims.

It is my hope that the women of America will remember that unethical sexual behavior is a good predicter of unethical behavior in other areas. For anyone who thinks that a man's sexual behavior can be considered independent of his political behavior, I submit the case of Adolf Hitler, who also abused and assaulted women, especially his young niece, with whom he had an illicit sexual liason and who was found murdered.

By now it should be clear that Clinton abuses whatever power he has--physical power, sexual power, the power of charisma, intellectual power, and political power. In a recent interview Gary Aldrich details the severe beating of Gary Johnson, who was in possession of videotapes of Clinton visiting Gennifer Flowers, as well as the murder of Jerry Parks, an investigator who had complete files of Clinton's sexual liasons with women. Far worse is the fact that Clinton has compromised both White House security and, through the selling of favors to China, the security of the entire nation.

I submit that the women of America possess the power to save America precisely because Bill Clinton is accustomed to drawing power from women; he draws power from their adoration.

Deprived of that power, and shamed instead, he may not be able to continue. Just as Connie disarmed our intruder, the women of America can shame Clinton wherever he goes with their taunts.

"Liar!!!

"Rapist!!!"

"Murderer!!"

"Traitor!!!"

Let the public shaming of Bill Clinton begin this evening when Clinton arrives in San Francisco to dine at the Getty mansion in posh Pacific Heights. KSFO 560 radio talk show host Melanie Morgan and other Bay Area women will be gathering at the corner of Broadway and Divisadero at 5 P.M. to lead the charge. Tune your radio to AM 560 for the latest update, or use Real Audio to listen on the Internet at www.ksfo560.com.

DECEMBER 16, 1998..."Desert Fox"...that was the nickname given to Nazi General Erwin Rommel after he led the German Panzer invasion of France, then during 1942 defeated the British Eighth Army in the deserts of north Africa. As early as 1938, General Rommel had been charged with the personal safety of der Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler.

"Operation Desert Fox"...That's what Bill Clinton chose to name yesterday's bombing raids on Iraq. Well, names mean something, and any student of World War II history could not help but be struck by Clinton's choice of monikers.

Indeed, "Operation Desert Fox" ensures Clinton's personal safety from House impeachment--at least for a few more days.

Yet even Rommel had a change of heart, and in July, 1944 he helped stage an abortive attempt to assassinate Adolph Hitler-- too late to save the 50,000,000 lives lost to Hitler's power seeking ambition. Rommel chose suicide rather than face a Nazi trial for treason.

Which raises certain questions:

At what point are the citizens of a nation duty-bound to rise up and forcibly overthrow a corrupt government?
Must they, like Rommel, wait until their government has committed genocide and squandered the lives of countless young men?
If a corrupt leader is committed to obstruction of justice, including obstruction of constitutional impeachment processes, when must the citizens of a nation rise up and remove him by other means?

These are questions Americans may soon have to face if we do not gather our good sense, and our courage, and move decisively to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton, removing him permanently from office on the grounds of moral bankruptcy.

It would be hard to find anything more cynical than Clinton's assertion that respect for Ramadan, the monthlong Muslim holiday beginning this weekend, mandated an immediate attack to avoid offending Muslim's--akin to suggesting that an attack on a nation during Christmas Eve would be less likely to offend Christians.

And today's New York Post article, "Whistle-Blow Inspector: It's Wag the Dog, " quotes former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who charges that U.S. officials prodded inspection teams to return to Iraq last month to provoke a crisis to justify bombing.

For a final test of the legitimacy of Clinton's decision to declare war on Iraq the day before an impeachment vote of the House of Representatives, each American must ask himself the question, "Would I, on the strength of President Clinton's word, risk my life or the life of my son or daughter, to discipline Saddam Hussein for (of all things!) lying?" If the answer to this question is not an unreserved "yes," then that American must oppose President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq.

Posted in "Hot News."

DECEMBER 14, 1998.. It seems we have arrived at a historic turning point. For only the second time since the inception of our great Republic, a House Judiciary Committee has determined that the President of the United States will be subject to a vote of impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Yet many wonder, "Just what is impeachment anyway, and what does it mean?" Impeachment is no more, and no less, than a collective j'accuse , a clear statement by our Representatives that they have considered compelling evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton has acted in such a manner as to subvert our system of government. With regard to the Lewinsky matter, there is probably no more clear exposition of how Clinton has subverted our system of government than Dr. Alan Keyes' excellent December 12, 1998 piece, "Dr. Alan Keyes Replies to Mr. Charles Ruff."

Next comes a vote before the full House of Representatives, and if the House votes in accord with the judgement of the Judiciary Committee, the whole matter moves to a trial before the Senate.

And this is precisely what the Clinton White House wishes to avoid--the full exposure of a trial. Because as damning as the charges are in the Lewinsky matter--the carefully honed and fully debated articles of impeachment charge perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power--they pale in comparison with what is likely to emerge during a trial before the Senate.

Appearing yesterday on Barbara Simpson's KSF0 AM560 morning show, author William C. Triplette II revealed that during its deliberations the House Judiciary Committee favorably reviewed his just-released book, Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash. And the evidence is damning to Bill Clinton.

While many political journalists largely considered the second term of Bill Clinton's presidency in terms of his romantic interludes, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II follow up on one of the more controversial scandals of the 1996 reelection campaign. The Democratic National Committee was eventually forced to return $2.8 million in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign nationals, and much of it brought to the party by fundraising executive John Huang.

Huang originally represented U.S. interests for the Riady family, a powerful family of Indonesian businessmen with close ties to the Communist Chinese government. James Riady had been a "Friend of Bill" since 1977, and the two authors all but insinuate that the Riadys "scouted" Clinton--whether as an unwitting dupe, a sleeper agent, or merely an exploitable opportunist is never quite clear--and helped underwrite his bid for the White House. Why? So they could get John Huang a Commerce Department appointment... one that came with a top-secret security clearance.

Timperlake and Triplett gather together an astonishing--and largely convincing--mass of evidence that the Clinton-Gore administration "has made a series of Faustian bargains and policy blunders that have allowed a hostile power to further its aims in Washington." In addition to the potential security breach represented by Huang, they document numerous policy decisions that risk strengthening the technological and military power of Communist China, power that might well be used against the United States in the future. AMAZON BOOKS

Authors Timperlake and Triplett track Clinton's career from the beginning, and they show that he has been in the back pocket of the Chinese Communists for decades. In fact, without Chinese backing through the powerful Riady family (the Riadys are ethnic Chinese, officially citizens of Indonesia, but with clear connections to the People's Republic of China) even Clinton's 1992 primary bid would have failed.

Perhaps the American people are beginning to wake up. While polls show that only 38% favor impeachment, this represents an 11% increase during just the past two weeks. A clear majority of 52% of Americans consider the House Judiciary proceedings, under the studiously polite leadership of Henry Hyde, to have been just and fair. And most revealing, an astonishing 57% believe Clinton should resign if the House of Representatives votes to refer the matter for a trial before the Senate.

There can be no more important time to contact our Representatives in the House and insist on a full trial before the Senate. "Censure," that extra-constitutional remedy pushed by Clinton cohorts and apologists, would mean avoidance of the full exposure entailed in a Senate trial, a trial that will reveal President William Jefferson Clinton is indeed a traitor.

Posted in "Hot News."

NOVEMBER 30, 1998...Will Clinton's goose be cooked after all?

Just when it seemed the country was ready to give Clinton the nod for his apparently successful dodging of the impeachment bullet (quite incredibly, Hillary Clinton appears on the cover of this week's Vogue and Time is poised the name the Clintons "Couple of the Year"), along comes reporter Murray Waas with 20,000 pages of documents, smuggled out of the White House. These documents rival the Pentagon papers that were leaked during the Vietnam War in their capacity to reveal presidential corruption in foreign affairs. According the The Drudge Report:

The documents reveal new details on the Clinton policy towards China in which the White House allowed ballistic missile technology exports to China at the behest of wealthy Democratic campaign contributors.
The leaked documents include a history of the secret negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea, according to sources who have read them, describing the failed policy of trying to buy off North Korea to forego its nuclear weapons policy. They describe in great detail the intelligence and policy failures that led to the detonations of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan this year.
Most embarrassing, the papers appear to corroborate, according to sources who have read them, allegations by a former U.N. arms inspector that the Clinton administration concealed from Congress and the public details regarding Saddam Hussein's ambitious program to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Far from being a right-wing ideologue, Murray Waas is a Clinton supporter--though he did publish a piece in the May 29, 1998 edition of Salon magazine that discussed the failure of the Clinton administration to monitor China's use of missile-technology exports.

Reporter Waas is reported to be furious about the leak, as he was planning to hold the material until after Clinton had survived the impeachment proceedings.

Will waivering House Republicans (and a few Democrats) finally realize that Clinton is dangerous to all Americans? Will impeachment become a reality? Will we as a people set some limits on tolerable corruption and pass this test after all? Developing...

Posted in "Hot News."

NOVEMBER 3, 1998...Published in 1996, James Collier's Votescam: The Stealing of America describes the trial run (circa 1970) of a computerized vote fraud system. Collier says a subsequent generation of this system is now being utilized nationwide to control the outcome of critical American elections.

Collier and his brother inadvertantly stumbled upon the scheme when they noticed that pre-election predictions, based on local polling in Florida, precisely matched the actual election returns. "How could the predictions have been accurate to a tenth of a percentage point?" they asked.

Turns out the "predictions" were actually rigged election results. And, despite the Miami Beach Reporter's thorough exposure and reporting on the election fraud, no one was ever brought to justice.

In fact, Florida's assistant State Attorney refused to prosecute, despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. Her name--Janet Reno!

Now we have a present-day example of the same sort of thing in ABC's "Election Results," published yesterday on ABC's Web site--one day before any votes were even cast!

Red-faced ABC executives have now removed the "Election Results" from their Web site, however the reports are mirrored at the following locations for your amusement:

Governor Races By State

Senate Races by State

Propositions and Key Issues by State

Even though there is strong evidence that critical election results may be manipulated, no one knows for sure how far it goes. Your vote may still count, so be sure to get out and vote!

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 29, 1998...Are we living in a police state? With the increasing use of asset forfeiture by local police, state police and federal police, many people would say "Yes."

One of those people is Sarah Thompson M.D. , who has written an excellent piece on asset forfeiture, Justice Through the Looking Glass: Asset Forfeiture. Dr. Thompson begins her essay by quoting Lewis Carroll from Alice in Wonderland:

"No! No! Sentence first--verdict afterwards!"

You may think Sarah Thompson is exaggerating, but that is exactly how asset forfeiture works--assets are seized first, and a verdict is rendered afterwards, if at all. The only reason life is still bearable in these United States of America is that we have a tradition of due process, a tradition of justice, a tradition of honoring constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.

But mere tradition is not something citizens can bank on--only real due process, real justice, and a real commitment to actively defend individual rights provide citizens with sufficient security to live their lives from a position of power and strength.

Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee and protect our inalienable rights as individuals, since our Creator endowed us with those rights. A fading tradition of honoring inalienable rights is but a pale, inadequate substitute for actively guaranteeing and protecting those rights.

Posted in "What's Wrong With Asset Forfeiture."

OCTOBER 27, 1998...If the first casualty of war is truth, we must be at war.

This past Sunday, October 25, 1998, President Clinton visited San Francisco to attend a fundraising luncheon for incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer. The event took place at the Mark Hopkins Hotel on Nob Hill, and news reports claim that more than $1 million was collected for Boxer's flagging campaign to defend her seat against Republican challenger Matt Fong.

Nevertheless, far less than $1 million may be collected from the pledges generated by the Clinton/Boxer luncheon. Word on the street is that the luncheon was ill-attended, and at one point anyone who looked presentable was invited inside to help fill up the dining room.

Across from the hotel, on Mason Street, several hundred enthusiastic anti-Clinton protestors gathered to chant down the president and wave their banners expressing disapproval of his policies. "Mr. Cigar Man" posed for admirers, and one man displayed Clinton hanging in effigy.

Just around the corner, on California Street, a subdued handful of pro-Boxer people waved a few "Elect Boxer" signs. The Oakland Tribune reported Lisa Selby lamenting, "Where are all the Democrats?" as she urged passers-by to join the pro-Boxer group.

This editor counted between 150 and 250 anti-Clinton/Boxer protestors, depending on the time. The pro-Clinton/Boxer group ranged from a low of 6 and never grew to include more than 15 people. Yesterday's limited-circulation Oakland Tribune, 510 208-6300, was the most accurate in its reporting. "Clinton detractors outnumbered supporters by about 10 to 1," wrote Staff Writer Glenn Chapman. ( More like 20 to 1, Glenn, but let's not quibble. )

California's wide-circulation San Francisco Chronicle, 415 777-1111, embarked on a flat-out disinformation campaign. Political writer, Carla Marinucci , wrote:

The president's California weekend...marked a dramatic departure from just four weeks ag, when noisy protestors lined streets with jeering messages like "Jail to the Chief" and "Resign Swine."

California Democrats appeared to heave a collective sighs of relief as Clinton, their most formidable fund-raiser and cheerleader, was greeted with standing ovations time and again...

The excitement all but eclipsed a crowd of about 200 who gathered at the Mark Hopkins on Nob Hill to protest his San Francisco visit--just a few feet away from an equally large pro-Clinton, pro-Boxer crowd.

"An equally large pro-Clinton, pro-Boxer crowd..." This is not a simple mistake, not a differing opinion. This is a bold and intentional lie. No one who attended the Mark Hopkins rally--and a Chronicle reporter did attend the rally--could possibly write this without knowing it is false.

The Associated Press ran a similar story worldwide. This startled editor drove away from the rally listening to an Associated Press news report that said, "The rally at the Mark Hopkins Hotel attracted several hundred paticipants, about equally divided between pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton demonstrators."

Yesterday calls were placed to Representative Ron Harris and Supervisor Ann Peterson at the Associated Press office in San Francisco, 415 621-7432. Although they acknowledged that they had received several calls complaining about the inaccuracy of their Mark Hopkins rally report, both pronounced themselves "comfortable" with the report and refused to retract or correct it.

On further probing, Ms. Peterson said that the report was based on a KCBS radio news broadcast; she suggested a call to the station. A call to Managing Editor Dori Culver at KCBS, 415 765-4112, was scarcely more satisfying. She stated that reporter Mike Colgan had covered the Mark Hopkins event, and he would not be back in the office until mid-week. She promised to "look into it."

With the fast-approaching November 3 election, President Clinton and his supporters apparently feel the need to pull out all the stops to ensure no further erosion of Democrat presence in the Senate--even if it means twisting the truth. At present the two-thirds majority required for impeachment is not attainable in the Senate, and Clinton intends to keep it that way. Addressing his supporters at the Mark Hopkins on Sunday, Clinton said that so much is at stake in the upcoming November 3 election, that "it's like an election for president."

Or like a war. If we want to take a stand for integrity in leadership, if we wish to rid ourselves of this dangerous, twisted president, we must elect senators who are not compromised by Democrat Party loyalties. Here in California that means going with Republican challenger Matt Fong.

We might also encourage calls to the various news agencies at the numbers listed above, either to congratulate or to complain. Perhaps our calls will make them think twice before they once again sanction purposefully inaccurate reporting.

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 23, 1998...Sometimes even the most ardent of scribblers lose faith. It's all good and well to keep hammering away at the truth, but with this new-and-improved, latest-and- greatest, kindler-and-gentler supranational fascism, how much good can we really expect to do?

Even the words get fuzzed. "Fascist" for example, which we think we know means something akin to "totalitarian," which we think we know Hitler's brownshirts definitely were. But Hitler never was a "fascist"--he was a "National Socialist," hence a "Nazi." In fact fascisti existed for only a very brief while in Mussolini's Italy.

They've tried to clean up the word "socialist" these past fifty years--always referring to Hitler's followers as fascists, never as the socialists they were. So now the latest brand of socialists--the "Third Wayers" of the United States, of Britain, of Germany and of France--push their supranational agenda unimpeded by any Nazi taint.

Perhaps only we scribblers notice such things. And most of us have been co-opted, paid a fine salary to keep our scribbling between the lines. Even as far back as 1953, when Former Chief of Staff at The New York Times, John Swinton, was asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club. Swinton was admiringly called "the dean of his profession" by other newsmen, yet he chose the occasion to make this candid confession:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

That is the strategy, after all. In our system, which has now prevailed, there is no need to send a Solzhenitsyn to some gulag for criticizing Stalin in private correspondence. That just empowers the heretic; better to ignore, to marginalize, to "Now, now my dear boy...." him away. Buy up all the newspapers, all the radio stations, all the television stations. Make sure the evening news is entertaining, with just enough mention of factual things, so that the requisite percentage of citizens will let the ruling elite do whatever they wish.

Yes, we have had our victories. But they are few, and they seem to be very short-lived. Let's take just one recent example:

A couple of weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. You'd never guess it by reading the average newspaper article, but 429 (out of 434) representatives voted for starting impeachment proceedings of some kind. The distinction was between Democrats, who wanted impeachment proceedings limited to the Lewinsky matter, since they know the Senate will surely let Clinton skate on this issue; and Republicans, who wanted a broad-based inquiry that will examine Clinton's illegal requisitioning and use of FBI files, Clinton's acceptance of campaign donations directly from officers of China's People's Liberation Army, Clinton's transfer of critical military technology to the People's Republic of China, and numerous other issues.

The Republicans won their broad-based impeachment inquiry, yet this week Henry Hyde has been pushing to limit that inquiry to just two or three of the fifteen charges in Ken Starr's report. His justification for not going into all the other matters?...there is so much evidence of Clinton wrongdoing (much of it contained in Judicial Watch's Interim Report, submitted to the House Judiciary Committee three weeks ago) that it would take many years just to go through it all.

Yet despite this surfeit of evidence, the October 19, 1998 New Yorker leads with an article proclaiming that the impeachment inquiry is already over. In a New Yorker snapshot of the future, the Senate has already voted not to impeach Mr. Clinton, no matter how many televised hearings take place during the next several months, no matter how much scribbling we do, no matter how thoroughly exposed is Mr. Clinton's revolting character.

Which brings us back to Herr Hitler. It is nearly forgotten, but long ago, as early as 1921 and continuing through early 1933, Germany had some heroic scribblers. Even before Hitler rose to national prominence, before he came to advocate his particularly virulent strain of National Socialism, before the German people wildly embraced Hitler and all he stood for, Hitler's character too had been thoroughly exposed in the German press.

Just published by Random House, Explaining Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum tells the story of the Munich Post. The heroic editors and writers at the Post worked tirelessly to expose Hitler's appalling criminality--they exposed Hitler's "Cell G" death squad (precursor to the SS); they published internal memos that linked Hitler to sexual scandal, financial corruption and serial political murder; and they kept the heat on for twelve long years. The Frankfurt Times dispatched a correspondent to Munich and printed its own version of many of these articles. In fact Munich Post articles were published around the world.

We now know that no German who lived between 1921 and 1933 could have been unaware of the insistent Munich Post warnings regarding Adolph Hitler's character. Indeed Hans Frank, Hitler's attorney, complained to the courts that Hitler "could not look at a paper any more; the terrible smear compaign would kill him."

Some "smear campaign." It was day-to-day coverage of events--Hitler's "Cell G" death squad had been caught red-handed trying to assassinate some of his rivals within the National Socialist Party; Hitler's attractive half-niece, Geli Raubal, was found dead after word leaked out that Hitler had an on-going sexual liason with the young girl; in a December 9, 1931 piece titled "Jews in the Third Reich," the Post even picked up Hitler's euphemism for genocide--endlosung, the Final Solution. This 1931 article, still to be found in the archives of the Monacensia library in Munich, details with absolute precision the restrictions and persecutions Hitler's National Socialists planned to take against the Jews.

They got under Hitler's skin, these Munich Post scribblers. The moment his power was secure, in March, 1933, Hitler sent his thugs to the Munich Post, gutting the building, dumping trays of broken type in the street and hauling all the editors and writers to prison--some to their deaths. We should at least remember their names: Martin Gruber, Erhard Auer, Edmund Goldschagg, and Julius Zerfass.

So here we sit, scribbling again. Don Quixotes all of us, tilting at windmills. Hitler was not stopped; the moral perversions of his character cost 50,000,000 lives.

How many lives will Bill Clinton's character cost us? Will we scribble on until the FBI's newly empowered "Special Task Force on Internal Terrorism" simply comes and hauls us away?

The writers and editors at the Munich Post did at least end up doing some good--thousands of fine people were alerted to what was coming, and some of the lucky ones escaped Nazi Germany.

But this begs the question, "To where might we fine people escape today?"

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 13, 1998...Special Update

ITEM ONE: Some of the dates in today's Y2K article below were (during the wee hours of the morning) entered incorrectly--they are now correct.

ITEM TWO: Art Bell delivered a shocker at 2:57 a.m. this morning: He is leaving broadcasting, and last night's program was his last!

The Art Bell Program has been remarkable, providing an eclectic blend of wacky and wonderful. The program sometimes offered a platform to obviously bizarre (even crazy) guests, while at other times it served as an in-depth forum for the airing of serious issues--you never knew what to expect.

Art declined to discuss details regarding the reasons for his resignation, however he did say that it relates to death threats against himself and his family, which began approximately one year ago and have continued.

Some have speculated that part of the problem may be the recent sale of The Art Bell Program to a new syndicator. Earlier in the program, when a man called in to suggest a format change, Art replied, somewhat ruefully, "I'll have to check it out with the 'powers-that-be'....and there certainly are a lot of powers-that-be."

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 13, 1998...Most of us have come to accept the potential for significant computer-related problems come January 1, 2000. What is less well known is that testing of power plant computer controls and other critical systems will begin on October 15, 1998, and there are in fact nine milestone millennial dates that bear watching between now and March, 2000. In yesterday's Westergaard Year 2000 article, Y2K: It's Closer Than You Think, Michael S. Hyatt gives us the rundown:

January 1, 1999...Worldwide testing of critical systems is scheduled, with an anticipated missed-deadline rate of 80%.
April 1, 1999...Canada, Japan and the State of New York begin their new fiscal years, with widespread systemic failures a certainty.
July 1, 1999...Forty-four states begin their new fiscal years, with similar widespread systemic failures.
August 22, 1999...Global positioning systems that have not been upgraded will fail, affecting transportation worldwide.
September 9, 1999..."9999" will signal computers worldwide to end a file or shut down a program.
October 1, 1999...The U.S. federal government will begin its new fiscal year, with thirteen out of twenty-four departments not making the deadline.
January 1, 2000...Computers that have not been upgraded will fail or malfunction as each time zone enters the new millennium.
January 4, 2000...On the first business day of the new millennium, many businesses will be unable to open. Many power and communication systems will already have failed, and the remaining infrastructure will be severely overtaxed.
February 29, 2000...Although it is not widely known, every fourth turn-of-a-century is a leap year. This will not have been noted by many programmers, which will cause widespread systemic problems.

Hyatt concludes:

The bottom line is that you have much less time to prepare than you think. As these dates come and go, the chaos will increase, increasing public awareness and, possibly, even public panic. Supplies will become more scarce and prices will escalate. You cannot afford to wait. You must begin making contingency plans now, before things start unraveling.

Posted in "Agricultural, Economic, Political Crises Looming?"

OCTOBER 7, 1998...Chinagate, IRS-gate, Travelgate--with the October 5, 1998 endorsement of the Judicial Watch Interim Report, the list of issues being considered by the House of Representatives today is a long one. Some of these issues may seem a bit abstract, however Tony Snow 's column, Travelgate May Figure in Impeachment, brings at least one issue down to a human level. Billy Ray Dale had worked for the White House Travel Office for thirty-one years when Clinton's thugs not only fired him without cause, but also subjected Dale and his family to 30 months of legal harrassment.

A vote on whether to refer the impeachment inquiry to the Senate will occur as soon as tomorrow. Especially if your representative is a Democrat, he or she may need to hear from you today.

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 7, 1998...The story began at a snail's pace. Last week, George Bush voiced his opinion that President Clinton's August 20, 1998 Tomahawk missile attacks on a training center in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan could not have been a "Wag the Dog" phenomenon. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff," he insisted, "would never have gone along with such a thing!"

Now we discover that, while Bush may have been right about the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his reasonable assumption that they were involved in planning the attacks was dead wrong. Seymour Hersh's article, Annals of National Security: The Missiles of August, in the October 12, 1998 edition of The New Yorker magazine, is very succinct:

Most significantly, the four men who know more about the use of force than anyone in the White House--the three generals and one admiral on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who run the nation's armed forces--were not briefed about the use of Tomahawk missiles until the day before the raids. The only member of the Joint Chiefs to participate fully in the planning was the chairman, General Shelton, who was instructed not to brief the other chiefs or to involve senior officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Also left out of the loop was Louis J. Freeh, Director of the FBI, who at the time of the Tomahawk missile attacks was in Africa investigating the original embassy bombings. In fact lack of advance notice may have exposed Freeh, along with his crack team of select agents, to serious personal danger in the event of terrorist retaliation. Some say that Clinton does not trust Freeh's "political loyalty."

Yet even among the politically loyal, controversy regarding the August 20, 1998 attacks runs high. Attorney General Janet Reno, for example, urged restraint based on international law--Reno's advice was ignored even though the U.S. had failed to establish clear evidence against bin Laden. And the CIA considered the selection of targets, especially the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, "a rush to judgement."

To go beyond excerpts and get all the details, buy the October 12, 1998 New Yorker--it's worth it. A consensus seems to be forming among those who are best informed: "Wag the Dog" it was.

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 6, 1998...Yesterday afternoon Representative Bob Barr led the House Judiciary Committee in a historic move to broadly expand the impeachment inquiry by officially endorsing the Judicial Watch Interim Report. Please refer to our discussion of this report, which was formally submitted to the House Judiciary Committee on September 28, 1998. The Judicial Watch Interim Report concludes:

In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered a pattern of conduct by this President and his agents that indicates he has run, in effect, a criminal enterprise from the White House to obtain and maintain hold on the Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, he is likely in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a charge recently filed against him by Dolly Kyle Browning in federal court. This pervasive corruption, flowing from the Oval Office, is the common thread throughout the various "high crimes and misdemeanors" outlined in this interim report.

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 6, 1998...Jerome M. Zeifman was the chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, and he is a lifelong Democrat. In today's Wall Street Journal piece, To Save the Party, Democrats Must Vote to Impeach, he calls upon Democrats to find their consciences and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

To date the only defense taken by the White House and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is to take the offensive. They are attacking Kenneth Starr, arguing in the media that he has abused his legal authority. They have also declared "war" on Congress itself by charging Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde and House Republicans with partisanship and "unfairness." Contrary to all impeachment precedents in both American and English history, they argue that even if the president has committed perjury--a felony--it is not an impeachable offense...

Having long championed traditional Democratic causes, I simply cannot accept Mr. Clinton's own shameless defense and his supporters' offensive attacks on Congress and its traditional rules. Like most traditional Democrats--like most Americans--I have grave reservations about Mr. Clinton's morality and ethics. In my view there is now more than substantial evidence to consider our president a felon who has committed impeachable offenses.

I believe that Democrats should--and eventually some will--vote to impeach Mr. Clinton, who has betrayed the trust of both the country and the Democratic Party.

Posted in "Hot News."

OCTOBER 3, 1998...Even Salon Magazine, hardly known for its anti-Clinton bias, has published an article that damns Clinton's bid to "look presidential" by destroying the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan on August 20, 1998.

This article, "They Bomb Pharmacies, Don't They?," is interesting for another reason--its confusing tone. While author Christopher Hitchens clearly condemns the bombings, he cannot bring himself to think conclusively and demand President Clinton's removal from office. The closest he can manage is a cute cut-and-run:

Clinton needed to look "presidential" for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan, and killed wogs to save his own lousy Hyde (to say nothing of our new moral tutor, the ridiculous sermonizer Lieberman)...

Clinton must not resign, nor should he be impeached. He and his fans have earned the right to serve out their whole sentence.

Because both Democrat and Republican players in the Lewinsky matter exhibit personal failings (Bill Clinton's affairs and tawdry sexual encounters with "hundreds" of women, single and married; versus Henry Hyde's affair with a married woman who had three young children), many Americans have become constitutionally incapable of rendering judgement. Many of us seem to have retreated into a kind of terminal cynicism.

As a people, we Americans need to do better to pass this test. We must not allow pandemic corruption and information overload to render us incapable of recognizing the danger of our position.

The danger of that position is now clear. Our president has demonstrated a clear willingness to visit death and destruction on innocents abroad in order to bolster his own political fortunes. As Commander in Chief of the most powerful military machine in world history, Clinton is potentially more dangerous than history's most infamous villains--Hitler included.

Every American who remains silent underwrites Clinton's brutal, lawless actions and grants him permission to engage in more foreign adventurism.

President Clinton has become a danger to us all, and we must act quickly to remove him from office.

Posted in "Hot News."

SEPTEMBER 30, 1998...During these last few days of the 105th Congress, the Department of Justice is attempting to attach its wish list for expanded police powers to a House of Representatives appropriations bill. The Department of Justice is taking a stealth approach to incorporate these expanded police powers in a spending measure, since civil libertarians of all stripes fought to eliminate direct incorporation of the same police powers in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Bill.

The appropriations bill in question is H.R. 4276,"Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999."

Today we present, in its entirety, a press release from Congressman Bob Barr's office.

September 29, 1998

BARR EXPOSES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POWER GRAB

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (Georgia, Republican 7th District) released today information exposing an effort by the Department of Justice to obtain massive new enforcement powers in the closing days of the 105th Congress. Barr obtained the information from a confidential source within federal law enforcement. Among other things, the Department's "wish list" for new authority includes (among others):

A vastly expanded definition of terrorism to include domestic crimes having no relationship to terrorism.
The power to seize commercial transportation assets for federal use.
The ability to commander personnel from other federal agencies without reimbursement.
Expanded wiretap authority to allow "roving" wiretaps, and wiretaps without any court authority.
Enlarged asset forfeiture provisions to allow the FBI to seize personal property in both criminal and civil matters.
The establishment of a permanent "FBI Police Force."
Loosening of Posse Comitatus restrictions to allow more military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
Authority to force telephone and Internet companies to divulge information on their customers.

"These requests belong in some bizarre conspiracy novel, not in serious legislative documents being circulated at the top levels of federal law enforcement. These proposals represent a sneak attack on the most cherished principles of our democracy. If they become a part of our law, freedom and privacy in America will be permanently and severely diminished," said Barr.

Barr also noted the Department and the FBI are "shopping" this wish list in an effort to get the items placed in a spending measure without hearings or debate.

This press release appears on Congressman Barr's Web page at:

http://www.house.gov/barr/p_doj.html

Posted in "Preserving Individual Liberty."

SEPTEMBER 29, 1998...Judicial Watch, Inc. represents numerous victims of Clinton administration lawlessness. They have filed civil lawsuits on their clients' behalf, and through the power of subpoena they have deposed hundreds of witnesses. They have also used the Freedom of Information Act to good effect. If you were wondering where the beef was in the Clinton scandals--Filegate, Travelgate, IRS-Gate, Chinagate and so on--here is the Judicial Watch Interim Report, submitted to Congress yesterday morning. Some excerpts:

Judicial Watch, Inc.

Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel ,Thomas Fitton, President 501 School Street, S.W. Suite 725 Washington, DC 20024 (202) 646-5172 (202) 646-5199 (fax) Web Site Address: http://www.JudicialWatch.org Founded in 1994 by its Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch, Inc. is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to using the courts to fight corruption in government and the legal profession.

Judicial Watch, Inc., respectfully submits to the United States Congress its Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from Elected Office...

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

Beginning around the Fall of 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, his agents and subordinates engaged in bribery through the sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions. Subsequent thereto, President Bill Clinton, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close agents and subordinates, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of such bribery; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

Throughout his terms of office, William Jefferson Clinton has repeatedly engaged, personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, breaching the national security, impairing the due and proper administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office...

Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton and his agents have violated a number of federal laws relating to bribery, campaign fundraising, the theft of government services, privacy, corruption of federal law enforcement, abuse and misuse of federal agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service), perjury, civil rights violations, obstruction of justice, graft and likely breaches of national security.

The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates that President Clinton condoned, directed and effected this lawbreaking. It also shows that he was aided and abetted by, among others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert Gore, late Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis Herman...

The full report takes a while to download, but it's worth it. Posted in "Hot News."

SEPTEMBER 27, 1998...A special thanks to the thousands of Californians who took the time and energy to publicly protest at Clinton's appearances in San Francisco and Los Angeles this weekend. These people understand the words of civil rights activist Frederick Douglas, speaking in 1857:

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Witnesses at the events in San Francisco, traditionally a bastion of Democrat support, say those demanding Clinton's removal from office outnumbered supporters four-to-one. Between one-thousand and fifteen-hundred private citizens showed up to protest President Clinton's $25,000-per-couple fundraising dinner in Silicone Valley. Protests up north took the form of traditional chants and signs (some lit with flourescent lights), while in southern California one man came dressed as a full-sized Lewinsky cigar.

The protestors were at times raucus, however they observed a strict code of order and legal decorum--unlike some of Clinton's supporters who, enraged at being outnumbered, resorted to seizing protestors' signs and smashing them in the street.

Away from the din of public protest, Clinton's opponents voiced more studied objections to the pattern of lies that has characterized Clinton's political career, both as governor of Arkansas and during his presidency. Far from being confined to private matters--Gennifer Flowers, former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and, reportedly, "hundreds of women"--detractors are concerned that Clinton's lies have been used to obscure a pattern of lawlessness in all realms, public and private. A partial list of Clinton's alleged wrongdoings:

Clinton's manipulation of friends and prominent military figures to help him dodge the draft during the Vietnam War.
Clinton's heavy use of cocaine and other illegal drugs while governor of Arkansas during the 1980's, as well as his direct involvement with, and pardon of, convicted cocaine king-pin Dan Lasater. (Please refer to our list of resources. See especially items 3./ "Obstruction of Justice," 5./ Compromised by author Terry Reed, and 6./ "The Clinton Chronicles.")
Clinton's complicity with CIA drug running, money laundering, and illegal weapons shipments to the Nicaraguan Contras while governor of Arkansas. (Please refer to Morris/Denton article and associated commentary.)
Clinton's use of the FBI to murder 76 men, women and children at Waco, Texas, whose deaths he falsely claimed were suicides. (Please refer to our article highlighting the Academy Award nominated documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagement.)
The pattern of harrassment and beatings of anyone critical of Clinton, which continues to this day with former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen. (Please see today's New York Post article as well as last May's World Net Daily piece detailing the harrassment of Air Force forensic experts who questioned the accidental nature of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's death.)
The pattern of assassinations and "suicides" of scores of Clinton detractors, during the past decade (Please refer to this week's World Net Daily list and commentary).
The Clintons' shady Arkansas financial dealings, in land development, banking and futures trading.
The pattern of Commander-in-Chief Clinton's complete disregard for national security in his dealings with the People's Republic of China. During the past five years, Clinton has granted innumerable waivers that resulted in the transfer of military technology to the Chinese--supercomputers, missile guidance technology, and even entire factories that would enable the Chinese to produce fighter jets and cruise missiles--so that now China is able to target all major U.S. cities with "Long March" intercontinental ballistic missiles. (Please refer in particular to June 6, 1998 NBC News article, as well as to our series of articles in the May, June, July and August sections of "Hot News.")
Clinton's granting of unprecedented White House access to Johnny Huang and other Chinese officials and his acceptance of large donations from China's People's Liberation Army during his 1996 re-election campaign. (Please see "Hot News" archives, as above.)
Clinton's illegal requisitioning and use of between 900 and 2,000 FBI files of Republican political opponents, as well as systematic harrassment by the IRS of Clinton critics. (Please see World Net Daily article and IRS enemies list.)
Clinton's illegal firing and subsequent libeling of employees of the White House travel office.
Clinton's unprecedented use of executive orders, including this year's infamous Executive Order 13083, which would have allowed even more pronounced direct federal interference in every area of American life. Arkansas insiders say Bill Clinton established a virtual police state in Arkansas. Fortunately massive public protest, by common American citizens, the governors of the various states and the nation's mayors forced the White House to rescind this most recent bid for dictatorial power. (Please refer to original text of Executive Order 13083, James Hirsen's August 31, 1998 column, and Neal Boortz's July 10, 1998 piece.)
Clinton's "Wag the Dog" use of our military to attack and destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum on August 20, 1998. The United Nations states that this factory produced at least half the antibiotics, anti-malarial drugs, and other medicines for that impoverished nation. Numerous prominent figures, including fellow-Democrat Jimmy Carter, have voiced concerns that Clinton officials lied about the evidence, including soil residues at the plant that they claimed indicated the presence of a precursor chemical used to manufacture lethal VX gas. (Please refer to September 24, 1998 Boston Globe article.)

It should be clear by now that Clinton's pattern of deception is not confined to the private sphere--the criminal hue of his character is consistent in all matters, from his failure to moderate his sexual urges to his willingness to compromise the security of the American people. William Jefferson Clinton's dishonesty and lawlessness affects all Americans, and his crimes are committed in our name.

Americans need to remember that for Germans in the 1930's, Hitler presented a charming personna--he appealed to the prejudices of his generation. Just as the overwhelming majority of Germans found Hitler's personality appealing, today most Americans tend to like Bill Clinton--he is one of ours, and we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The face of evil possesses unlimited capacity for change. So despite the lack of apparent similarity between the two men, Clinton may be our Hitler--just as ruthless in domestic politics, and potentially just as dangerous on the international stage.

The mainstream press has failed to keep Americans informed as to what our leaders are really doing behind closed doors. Given this failure, we must take responsibility for informing ourselves. We must learn to separate style from substance, lawless charm from true character, and we must take a stand for integrity in leadership if we expect history to judge us more kindly than the Germans who underwrote the Third Reich.

Posted in "Hot News."

SEPTEMBER 24, 1998...Something new is emerging, and it is called "The Third Way." While Americans remain mesmerized by Clinton's sex-scandal sideshow, the world's economic/political elite are rushing at warp speed to implement a new architecture of banking, capital flow, and globalist government activism. Has the "New World Order," which George Bush referred to in 1989, morphed into "The Third Way"?

It is a bit difficult to get a handle on "The Third Way." Robert Reich, US Secretary of Labor between 1993 and 1997, provides us with what is probably the best primer on the subject in his September 21, 1998 Guardian article, Third Way Needs Courage:

The First Way involved redistribution of income and the creation of generous social safety nets. The Second Way (via Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) rested on deregulation, privatisation, free trade, flexible labour markets and fiscal austerity...

The central faith of the Third Way is that the economic growth spurred by its free-market policies can be widely shared if those initially hurt by them are given the means to adapt. This requires an activist government...

For the Third Way to succeed it has to be turned into a political movement, based on a new social contract between winners and losers. In return for the winners gaining what they need in order to do even better, they must agree to apply a portion of their added booty to the things that give the others a fair shot at joining the winners' circle.

"A new social contract..." Sounds good, but one thing is certain: When Tony Blair and Bill Clinton concentrate all their energies on the current global meltdown, as they did at Hillary Clinton's "Third Way" conference in New York on September 21, 1998, the rest of us had better watch out. As former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez remarked sardonically this week,"When I was a lad, Franco's was 'The Third Way'--and he wasn't the only Fascist to see political space 'between capitalism and communism'."

Regarding "The Third Way," Hillary Clinton tipped her hand in a 1993 article written for The New York Times:

I am seeking a unified field theory of life which would marry conservatism and liberalism, capitalism and statism, and tie together practically everything: the way we are, the way we were, the faults of man and the word of God, the end of communism and the beginning of the third millennium, crime in the streets and on Wall Street, teenage mothers and foul-mouthed children and frightening drunks in the parks, the cynicism of the press and the corrupting role of television, the breakdown of civility and the loss of community.

Grandiose...even preposterous. But not as preposterous as Bill Clinton's claim that this "unified theory of life" has been found. In this year's State of the Union address, he proudly proclaimed:

We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer. My fellow Americans, we have found a Third Way.

In trying to nail down just what "The Third Way" is, perhaps it would be instructive to focus on the questions Anthony Giddens asks in his new book, The Third Way, just published last week by Polity Press:

Can governments influence sex, parenting and life-styles which affect the public space?
What kind of new, international order is needed to regulate turbo-capitalism?
How can the growth of awareness of the physical environment be accelerated in order to support the dramatic changes in policy needed now?
How can people be persuaded to take part in public affairs when their interests seem to be narrowing to private and individual spheres?

Good questions these, and "Third Wayers" hope government activism will provide the answers. But is good old government activism adequate to the task? Or do these folks have something stronger in mind--perhaps global fascism under the auspices of a newly empowered United Nations and World Trade Organization?

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- Menken

On Monday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair published a Fabian pamphlet, "The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century." Then he jetted off to New York on the Concorde to attend Hillary's "Third Way" conference, along with leaders from Italy, Sweden and Bulgaria. And simultaneous with his attendance, Blair took the unprecedented step of pledging the British military to serve the United Nations.

In today's article, "Global Financial Crisis Ushering in "Third Way"," The Winds discusses Blair's dramatic step:

On the same day he participated on the panel, Tony Blair appeared at the United Nations and made an unprecedented statement regarding his country's military forces. He said, "I announce today that within six months we will conclude a specific agreement with the UN to ensure that it can make rapid use of what we have to offer when it's needed." In other words, Britain will be the first nation to contribute forces to a standing U.N. army. It is clear that world government and a standing army to back it up are important goals of the "Third Wayers," as is the concept that a nation's wealth and trading privileges are subject to a supranational authority. We need to take a "fresh look at the international financial architecture," Blair added vaguely.

Prime Minister Blair may be empowered to pledge the British military to United Nations service, however the U.S. Constitution grants our president no such authority. Despite this fact, there is precedent--in 1995, President Clinton subverted our military by putting U.S. soldiers under the command of the United Nations in much the same way.

During 1995, President Clinton ordered the U.S. army to serve in Macedonia, not as soldiers under U.S. command but as U.N. soldiers. U.S. soldiers were ordered to strip the American flag off their right shoulders and replace it with a U.N. flag. They were commanded to wear baby-blue U.N. uniforms. They carried U.N. identification cards which identified them as U.N. soldiers. They served under a U.N. general from Finland.

All this was in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yet only one soldier, Michael New, had the courage to resist Clinton's illegal order, and he paid for his stand with a bad conduct discharge that is currently being appealed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Winds continues:

On September 14, 1998, one week prior to the Third Way panel, Clinton traveled to New York to give a speech before David Rockefeller and his other friends at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In that speech he announced that within thirty days the heads of the major central banks would meet to discuss "reforming" the international financial architecture. "Above all, we must accelerate our efforts to reform the international financial system," he said. This proposal is pregnant with possibilities in light of the man making it and the audience receiving it.

"...We need to be honest with Russia and everyone else," Clinton continued. "No nation, rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian, can escape the fundamental economic imperatives of the global market. No nation can escape its discipline. No nation can avoid its responsibility to do its part."

"No nation can escape its discipline..." Soon to have its own standing army, the United Nations will stand at the ready to "discipline" any nation that won't play the tune of the international corporate elite.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

Kissinger, Henry--in an address to the Bilderberg Group, which met at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

The world's globalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission (see article below), are rushing to implement a plan they have nurtured since the beginning of this century. Only the moniker is new--"The Third Way."

Posted in "Hot News."