February 6, 1995
February 13, 1995
February 20, 1995
February 27, 1995
Three teams of U.S. Army Special Forces troops are with Russian
forces as "advisers-observers" that are brutally
attempting to crush a rebellion in Chechenya, according to reliable
sources.
The Sources told The SPOTLIGHT the American troops are
accompanying Russian soldiers who for weeks have had the Chechen
capital of Grozny under siege.
Also, this populist newspaper has obtained a video report from Independent Television News (ITN) which shows special Russian Interior Ministry troops, who were trained during the past year in the United States, as part of the 40,000-troop invasion force sent to Chechenya to crush the independence movement there.
Last year, an unknown number of these Spesnaz troops were brought to the United States, where they trained with U.S. military forces and with special police SWAT teams in several American cities. The training emphasized house-to-house gun confiscation.
It appears no coincidence that the Spesnaz troops who received the gun-confiscation training in the United States were dispatched by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to Chechenya, since the Russian Security Council has indicated several times during the past several weeks that the war there would not be over until "illegal armed formations" are disarmed.
Regarding the presence of U.S. Special Forces troops with the Russians in Chechenya, a retired Special Forces officer told The SPOTLIGHT it was more than likely American soldiers are part of 10th Special Forces stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado.
He explained that troops from the 10th have consistently, over the years, trained for action in nations of eastern Europe that were once part of the Soviet empire and southern republics of what were a part of the Soviet Union.
"I would indeed be surprised if they were not there," the retired officer said, "considering the fact that the 10th and Spesnaz troops have been quietly training together in both the United States and Russia."
He said training for covert activities connected with Soviet Bolc nations of Southeastern Europe and the southern republics of the Soviet Union were a top secret part of the 10th's operations, including the planning of mock missions into that part of the world.
GENERAL'S BROTHER
During the mid-1970s when such training was heavily emphasized, the 10th Special Forces, then stationed at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, was under the command of Col. Othar Shalikashvili, the now retired older brother of Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The brothers were born in Poland during the World War II era and their father was a native of what is now the Republic of Georgia, a break-away republic of the former Soviet Union.
The government of the Georgian republic is now headed by President Eduard A. Shevardnadze, Soviet foreign minister during the regime of Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin.
The Shalikashvili family emigrated to the United States after World War II. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his older brother are considered experts on Eastern Europe and the various former constituent republics of what were until a few years ago the south-western part of the Soviet Union.
The Joint Chiefs chairman is the driving force within the Clinton administration for joint military operations between the U.S. military, including the National Guard and the military establishments of former Soviet bloc nations, Russia and the various break-away republics of the former USSR. The overall program is referred to as the "Bridge to America."
Gen. Shalikashvili was a major force in promoting the program even before his nomination by President Clinton to head the Joint Chiefs, particularly while he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
Chechenya, which lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, is bordered on the south by the republic of Georgia.
Russian President Yeltsin has declared victory over the Chechen independence movement, a point sharply disputed by the Chechens who refuse to give up, and it presumably remains to the Spesnaz forces to finish the task of crushing freedom in the region, including the confiscation of all weapons.
In the October 10, 1994 issue of The SPOTLIGHT a Spesnaz soldier's photograph was featured, having been taken a few weeks earlier in the Moscow railroad station by an American woman of Russian birth who was visiting Russia. She had noticed that the soldier bore on the arm of his tunic a patch with the words "Team Special" in English. He was one of the Spesnaz soldiers who had either been in the United States or was coming here for training.
Spesnaz soldiers wearing the "Team Special" patches and bullet-proof vests they obtained during their training in the United States have been seen in Chechenya.
While training it the United States with American police officers, the Russian equivalents to American Special Forces troops were incorrectly identified in the Establishment media as "Russian police."
President Yeltsin and his followers claim that Chechenya is a part of "southern Russia." However, the Chechens aren't Russians and never have been. The people of Chechenya are predominantly Moslem and speak a different language. Neither their customs, not culture is Russian.
Imperial Russia first attempted to conquer and occupy Chechenya in the 17th century. It was not until the 19th century, however, that Russian forces were able to gain a foothold in the country, paying for every inch they took with blood, just as they are today during their efforts to crush the current rebellion.
Ironically, during his recent speech claiming victory over the Chechens, President Yeltsin apparently unwittingly admitted the Chechen people are not Russians, stating:
"I bow my head to the soldiers killed in this conflict.
And to those victims among the civilians, I express my condolences
to the relatives and next of kin. Let the tragedy experienced
by Russia, Russians and the Chechen people teach a lesson to peoples
and politicians..."
|Top|
During the "first 100 days," CWA promises to bring "to the House floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate and each to be given a clear and fair vote.
You've read about it and you've heard about it, now The SPOTLIGHT provides readers with the actual provisions of the Contract With America.
1. The FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT. This top priority item will,
if passed, include a "balanced budget/tax limitation
Constitutional amendment and a legislative line-item veto."
The line-item veto will allow the president to veto specific
provisions of a bill passed by Congress, without vetoing the entire
bill.
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT. A "tough" anti-crime bill that eliminates the social spending in the Clinton crime bill signed last fall. Sadly, it does not mention repealing any anti- gun measures passed by the last Congress, and signed into law by the president.
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT. A welfare reform measure that cuts welfare spending and imposes a work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT. Includes "Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening right of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws and an elderly dependent care tax credit..."
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT. "A $500-per-child
tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and...middle
class tax relief." The marriage tax penalty means that a
two- income married couple pays higher taxes than two single
individuals filing together with the same income.
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT. "No U.S. troops under United Nations command," and increased defense spending.
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT. "Raise the Social
Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of
the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits
and provide tax incentives for private long-term care
insurance..."
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT.Contains various "small business tax incentives," and eliminates future "unfunded mandates" on states and communities, all "to create jobs and raise worker wages."
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT. "'Loser pays' laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation." "Loser pays" laws would require the losing side in civil litigation to pay the legal cost incurred by the winning side.
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT. "A first-ever vote on
term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators."
It is important to note the Republicans have not guaranteed enactment
of their Contract With America. They have only promised to have
these measures voted on. Term limits, in particular, are not all
that popular with the newly-empowered GOP leadership, and are
far from assured of passage. Tax cuts are always more popular
than spending cuts, so deficit reduction may be another tough
nut for the GOP to crack.
|Top|
Does your "safe" Swiss bank welcome visits from the U.S. IRS?
One well-known Swiss financial concern is Swiss Bank Corporation. Although it is based in Basle and is ostensibly "Swiss-owned," it has representative office/agencies in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Las Angeles and Miami.
It has actual branch offices in New York, Chicago and San Francisco. As such, the bank falls under the jurisdiction of the IRS and other official agencies in the United States.
The SPOTLIGHT has been advised that at least one highly unethical "financial advisor" receives an illegal kickback from this bank whenever it gains an account steered to its coffers by this advisor.
Don't think for even a minute that any self-respecting Swiss bank with U.S. branches-such as the Swiss Bank Corporation-would refuse to cooperate with the IRS if the tax agency started looking into your holdings-even if your money reposed in a numbered bank account inside Swiss borders. When the IRS talks- banks listen.
ACCOUNTS NOT "SECRET"
What about Switzerland's famous "bank secrecy"? Aren't your deposits protected from the prying eyes of those who want to know about your finances? The answer is a resounding "no".
Ask former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos. She and her late husband, former President Ferdinand Marcos-unquestionably two of the richest people on the planet-reportedly secreted hundreds of millions of dollars in Swiss banks.
Yet, when push came to shove and the international Establishment came down on Marcos and his wife, the details of their reputed Swiss banking ventures became a staple of the tabloid press. Housewives on Long Island could open up the daily newspapers and quote the name and numbers in which the Marcoses allegedly kept their Swiss accounts. So much for Swiss bank secrecy.
If Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were vulnerable, so too can be the car dealer in Newport Beach, California, or the retired stock broker in Scarsdale, New York or the lawyer in Dallas or the farmer from Bismarck, North Dakota.
If the "Swiss" bankers are ready to turn over the private records of one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful families, don't kid yourself" they'll surrender you to the IRS in a heartbeat.
THE SWITZERLAND SECRET
If you've put your money in a Swiss bank account, you may never see it again.
There are many American families who can tell genuine horror stories of how a family member put his or her money in a 'Swiss bank for safe keeping and how, upon that person's death, the money simply never came home.
After years of litigation, fighting Swiss attorneys and Swiss bankers who are all part of a powerful, tightly knit elite, the money stayed right where it was-in the doffers of the Swiss banks in Switzerland.
The Swiss banking Establishment is a crafty, incestuous community of money lenders and manipulators who have been practicing their trade for generations upon generations. They are inter-married and know each other on an intimate basis. They are an elite few with a common agenda: enrichment. They are the financial manipulators who do the bidding of an even more powerful elite: the big money forces of the international banking Establishment.
Remember: Swiss bankers are no different from any other bankers.
And the Swiss banking system-like every other banking system-is
dependent upon the international financial
Establishment of which it is an integral part.
The Swiss banking system has survived countless European wars and bloody revolutions. Not even the Nazi or Bolshevik onslaughts were able to dislodge the Swiss banking Establishment.
If the international communist conspiracy had really been intent on wrecking the West-as some so-called "conservatives" still believe-then Switzerland would have been Josef Stalin's first stop when he rolled into Western Europe at the end of World War II. But Stalin did not take Switzerland. Have you ever wondered why?
Why didn't Stalin invade Switzerland and take command of hundreds of billions of dollars in gold and other assets stashed away by the Western super-capitalists? Can you guess?
Anyone with even a modicum of real understanding about the communist capitalist alliance can see the reason: The big money interests with which Stalin and the Soviets were allied told him not to. So he didn't. Switzerland and its vaunted bankers were off limits.
Switzerland has been a major financial outpost-call it a "neutral" ground, if you will-for the international mattoid criminal elite, whether they be communist billionaires such as Armand Hammer, Zionist mega-capitalists such as the Rothschilds and the Bronfmans or crime syndicate chieftains such as Meyer Lansky, all of whom helped introduce Swiss banking to corrupt American politicians and others on the take.
Money is power and the Swiss bankers have a lot of money under their control. And it is precisely that reason why they are so powerful. But they only have their power as long as their secret behind-the-scenes controllers let them have that power.
In short, Swiss banks are no place for American patriots to
have their money. If your money is in Switzerland, you're making
a very big mistake.
|Top|
Despite recent sharp price declines, the precious metals bull
market that started in February 1993 remains in place.
Additionally, silver makes a greater percentage move than either
gold or platinum in a bull market. Silver does, however, have
drawbacks: its weight and mass.
Invest $10,000 in either gold or platinum, and you can conceal
your investment in your pocket and walk away. A $10,000
investment in silver, however, would weigh approximately 150 pounds.
it would also full (in pre-1965 U.S. 90 percent silver coins)
a two-gallon bucket. Yet, despite it's weight and mass drawbacks,
silver offers other advantages.
Silver is unlikely to be confiscated by the government, whereas gold has been-not only be the U.S. government, but by other governments. Although Franklin Roosevelt called in gold coins in 1993, the government minted silver coins until 1964.
Silver, especially in coin form, is readily recognizable by most Americans.
In coin form, silver can be liquidated in convenient, flexible quantities.
Although the U.S. government ceased minting 90 percent silver coins in 1965, it redeemed silver certificates until 1967 in silver bullion. Since the government quit honoring its silver certificates, the value of the dollar-as measured by the Gross National Product (GNP) deflator-lost 75 percent of its purchasing power. (The GNP deflator is more broadly based than the commonly reported Consumer Price Index, making it a better measure of the dollar's decline.)
While debasement of the dollar gives cause to invest in silver, silver's positive supply/demand fundamentals make it an even more attractive investment.
The production of silver has been flat since 1983 but demand keeps soaring-producing deficits larger than those of the 1970s that helped launch silver to $50.
In silver's mass as contrasted with gold is no problem for you, considering the gold/silver ratio-at 80:1, gold bullion coins (Gold Eagles, Maple Leafs, Krugerrands, etc.) Should be traded for silver.*
Bill Haynes is the proprietor of Certified Mint, Inc. 3550
N. Central Avenue, Suite 705, Phoenix, Arizona 85012; Phone 1-800-
528-1380.
|Top|
Establishment Media Admits That Their Holocaust Story Is Wrong.
January 25 and 26 were "Vindicate SPOTLIGHT Days"
as the Establishment media admitted that their history of the
"holocaust" has been wrong all along.
As The SPOTLIGHT has reported for many years, the number of victims of "The Holocaust" has been greatly exaggerated. All "experts" until 1991 claimed that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.
This impossible figure was reduced in 1991 by the Polish government to 1.1 million, but the event went unnoticed by the Establishment media. In fact, it sparked a renewed effort on the part of the notorious Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an illegally unregistered agent of Israel, to perpetuate the profitable hoax.
In 1993, four books appeared and were heavily publicized in the American media. The purpose was to viciously attack historical revisionists-honest historians unable to accept the inflated figures. One author, so-called "historian" named Deborah Lipstadt, began an eventful tour around the country attacking anyone as an "anti-Semite" and "Nazi" who dared to admit the truth-that even Polish historians now admitted that no more than 1.1 million people were killed at Auschwitz, 3 million less than claimed and that the "official" total of Jewish dead should be reduced to 3 million from the media-accepted figure of 6 million.
On January 25 the San Diego Union joined historical revisionists by reporting that the leading conservative magazine in Japan, Marco Polo, alleged that there were no homicidal gas chambers in Nazi Germany.
Then, on January 26, other newspapers, including the Washington Post and even the New York Times-both of which have always upheld the inflated and false statistics-admitted that the Auschwitz death toll should be reduced by 2,900,000 to 1.1 million.
This admission is a death blow to the official history of World War II. All history texts, encyclopedias and study courses now have to be rewritten to reflect the historical truth.
The facts about deaths at Auschwitz, however, although now substantially revised, are still wrong. The Germans kept detailed records of Auschwitz deaths and issued death certificates for each person who died. These records were captured by the Soviet Army and have been in the Soviet archives since 1945. They show that no more than 120,000 persons of all religions and ethnicity died at Auschwitz during the war, including two years for which the death certificates are unavailable. The cause of death of these persons usually was old age. But many died from disease, such as typhus, which the Germans combated with an insecticide, Zyklon B.
Will these newspapers now subscribe to The Barnes Review, the
world's leading revisionist journal.
|Top|
Now the truth leaks out. The Establishment media is telling you why your tax dollars must bail out the bankrupt Mexican economy whether you like it or not. The Wall Street crowd wants control of Mexican natural resources-most particularly, billions in oil deposits.
Well, we told you so. As the lead story reports, two weeks ago we said that President Bill Clinton would pump funds into Mexico with or without congressional approval and the Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan would use the Fed's "slush fund" for the same purpose.
Now comes Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) with the kicker. He said it's important for the administration to explain "to Americans that Mexico's vast oil revenues are serving as COLLATERAL for these loans." That's a partial truth. Here's what Breaux didn't say.
Mexico has never repaid a loan and there is no possibility it will repay these latest ones. The international bankers don't want Mexico to repay the loans-they want the "collateral"-i.e., Mexico's natural resources. They don't care what happens to the Mexican economy or the Mexican peasants. Nor do they care what happens to American jobs or American taxpayers.
The Bottom line is: Your taxes make the loans and the bankers get the collateral. It's been this way since the end of World War II. It's part of the New World Order.
When Congress balked at giving $40 billion so Clinton's Global Plantation controllers could be assured of interest Payments and eventual control of Mexican natural resources, populists rejoiced and the internationalists became dyspeptic. They couldn't allow it. They had ordered billions of U.S. tax dollars into Mexico and billions of tax dollars would go into Mexico. Clinton got his marching orders and, like a good overseer or straw boss, swung into action.
Now, billions of your tax dollars will be pumped into Mexico. Mexico's crooked politicians will give up Mexico's resources and, ultimately, any semblance of sovereignty. But why should the corrupt Mexican ruling class care? They are well fed, well housed, pampered "house slaves" on the Global Plantation, compared to the average Mexican citizen, the suffering, overburdened field hand. And Americans aren't far behind.
In an incisive commentary on February 1, potential presidential candidate Pat Buchanan put it succinctly: "Why would any American statesman link the economic security of his country to markets controlled by a regime with as atrocious a record as Mexico's in shafting investors with devaluations and defaults? Who made us so dependent on exports to Mexico that we now have no choice but to go bail for Mexico?"
Those are two good questions which Clinton, Greenspan &
Co. aren't answering, because if the American public knew the
answers, Clinton's presidency wouldn't survive.
|Top|
More of your tax dollars are needed by the internationalists, so they'll get more of your tax dollars.
President Bill Clinton's dictatorial decision to shore up Mexico's corrupt and leaky economy on his own with billions of American tax dollars may have been a surprise for most people, but not for readers of this populist newspaper.
In the issue mailed on January 27, The SPOTLIGHT reported Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had already "secretly assured Citibank and other major lenders to Mexico" the Fed would use a $20 billion "currency stabilization fund" to compensate them (i.e. Wall Street financiers) "for any shortfalls...caused by a Mexican default."
As a result, while Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and other administration spokesmen cried "havoc" to Congress, warning of "Dire disruptions" and a "financial panic" unless Mexico got a prompt $40 billion bailout, Citibank, the largest U.S. creditor of Mexico racked up windfall profits on the crisis and doubled its dividend payout.
Mexico owes at least $2.9 billion to Citibank just in publicly- issued bonds and other debentures, it was revealed on January 30 by Walker F. Todd, the respected former general counsel of the Federal Reserve Board.
LENDING LAXITY
But Wall Street's bent for lending billions to "a gaudy band of tin pot dictators, kleptocratic presidents and bon vivant finance ministers" as Todd put it, is merely the tip of the iceberg, warned economist Dr. Paul Adler.
"Citibank is not just a big money lender, it is an even bigger speculator now," noted the well know financial consultant. "And speculators love the kind of crisis that hit Mexico. They have a word for it-`Volatility'-and every trader is taught that it rhymes with `opportunity.'"
Although neither Citibank with its intimate backroom links to Greenspan, nor Coldman Sachs, the giant investment bank closely tied to Treasury's Rubin, would comment, Wall Street was abuzz with rumors on February 1 that both financial centers made "multi- billion dollar trading profits by speculating in Mexican debt and currency during the crisis on leaked information from the Fed or from Rubin's inner circle," reported correspondent George Nicholas from New York.
The most knowledgeable financial sources now way that "far from being threatened by the Mexican debacle, the big Wall Street banks actually set it up and made a huge killing on it," added Nicholas, who has spent more than one recent afternoon in private conversation with veteran currency traders in New York and Boston.
As for the bamboozled and bilked American taxpayers, they could
hope for nothing from the latest round of Mexican payoffs, except
for losses and a lesson" on the Global Plantation, "One
class of people (the financial elites) borrowed money, and a different
class of people (workers, savings depositors and taxpayer) had
to pay it back," as Todd put it.
|Top|
After pressure from voters, the Senate voted to kill a national politically-correct history curriculum.
In a heartening victory for patriots, Washington will not force American school children to spend 12 years "learning" that Paul Revere, Daniel Webster, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers and the Constitution never existed.
None are mentioned in the politically correct "academic guidelines" the federal government planned to "certify" and punish local schools by withholding funds if they chose to teach genuine history instead of global propaganda.
Gov. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, chairman of the National Goals Education Panel, announced the federal government would abandon plans to "certify" history courses.
Bayh is the son of former Sen. Birch Bayh, whom voters ousted after he led the fight to give away the American canal at Panama. He was succeeded by Dan Quayle.
The defunct guidelines, which cost taxpayers $2 million to develop, made only a fleeting mention of George Washington and never identified him as the first president.
But the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) was denounced 19 times for exposing communists in the government during the 1950s and immigrants who came to the United States in the 19th century are identified as "intrusive European migrants."
The intent of the 12 years of "certified public school history was to condition the minds of today's youth to accept tomorrow's world government. The plan was first developed at Bilderberg's secret meeting in Bad Ragaz, Switzerland in April, 1970.
As public outrage mounted, telephone calls and letters educated
Congress and the Senate voted 99-1 to condemn the plan, with only
Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), dissenting.
|Top|
With a nod of approval from the United States, Muslims are being massacred in the Mideast.
The summit meeting of leaders from Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo on February 2 was not, as the world press headlined it, a cordial round of "peace talks."
It was held to coordinate a shoot-to-kill drive against Muslim dissenters, using intelligence supplied by Israeli agents for mass raids, The SPOTLIGHT has learned from highly placed diplomatic sources.
By February 8, foreign correspondents familiar with the Middle East were able to confirm additional details of this exclusive information at UN headquarters in New York.
"Right after that Cairo summit, truckloads of secret police in masks-they could have been Arabs or even Israelis-went on the attack in Southern Egypt," recounted Amin A. Ishaq, a veteran Pakistani news editor. "We now have reports that in the province of Al-Minya alone, the security forces killed 227 people in a couple of days."
CARNAGE CONDONED
But the Clinton administration, moved last year to public outrage-and military intervention-by the lesser atrocities of the Haitian military, made no attempt to protest the slaughter of Muslim faithful in Egypt, where the forces of repression are equipped and funded by U.S. tax dollars.
At the UN, U.S. Ambassador Madiline Albright calmly condoned the carnage, calling it "a firm pacification strategy for southern Egypt."
In a confidential memorandum circulated among UN delegates from Islamic nations, Albright is cited for "strong ethnic and cultural links to Israel," which prompt her to support, not just the ministate's moves, but the policies of its most hawkish political faction, the Likud.
Led by longtime terrorists Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir while it held power in Israel during the 1980s, Likud, the war party, is now the leading opposition group in the ministate's parliament. It aims at open conquest to create a Greater Israel, including all of Palestine and an adjacent area of Lebanon.
Likud's present leader, Benjamin Netanyahu warned during a U.S. visit last month that his party would return to power in the next elections and make sure that Israel is recognized as the "strongman of the Middle East."
To attain the goal the Likud must depend on unconditional American support, coordinated by Israel's infiltrated agents of influence within the Clinton administration.
The SPOTLIGHT will pursue its investigation of the ministate's
militant loyalists who often turn out to be the key policymakers
and trendsetters among the Washington elites.
|Top|
While trying to prove that they are tougher on crime than the Democrats, House Republicans took some stupid missteps.
Anyone who places the future of America in constitutional amendments should cast a wary eye at how Congress handled the legislative process around the "Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995"-a plank of the"Contract With America.
The proposal, H.R. 666, is designed to allow police officers more leeway in searching suspects and properties according to a summary prepared by a House subcommittee.
"H.R. 666 would legislatively expand the `good faith' exception to situations where law enforcement officials gather evidence without a warrant," the report says.
In other words, if a police officer believes he or she has a good reason to search you or your property, the officer can.
Conservatives have long argued, correctly, that too many criminals exploit technicalities to beat the rap.
On the other hand, critics have pointed out, correctly, that the Fourth Amendment protects all American-including criminals-from illegal, unconstitutional search and seizure.
"What an officer feels is irrelevant, where the Constitution has been violated," Nkechi Taifa, a legislative advocate of the American Civil Liberties Union/National Capitol Area, told The SPOTLIGHT. "This is just a new excuse to violate the Constitution.
"All of this hullabaloo is that the law enforcement officers ant separate rights," she added. "Who will police the police?"
Apparently some congressmen wanted to know the exact same thing.
For example, Democratic amendments to the bill excluded agents
of the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms from the rule.
Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) introduced the IRS exclusion and Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-Mo.) insisted the BATF abide by the Fourth Amendment.
"They are the biggest abusers of the rights of gun owners and private citizens," Volkmer said. "They're like a `Rambo' operation and people here are realizing that."
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) introduced an amendment to have the Immigration and Naturalization Service excluded. It was defeated 330-103.
The real danger of H.R. 666 lies in the attitude of Republicans. When Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.0 proposed replacing language in the bill with language very similar to the Fourth Amendment, the House voted 303-121 against his amendment.
Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), the bill's sponsor, said the language would "gut the bill." Several Republicans agreed with him on the record.
What the Democrats weren't telling anyone, is the Democrat
controlled Houses of the 101st and 102nd Congresses passed Bills
aimed at doing the same thing--possibly opening citizens to unconstitutional
warrantless searches, according to the subcommittee report.
|Top|
The Global Plantation is looking to take over money control in Europe.
Confident that momentum is building, the world shadow government hopes to introduce a single European currency within two years, eliminating the mark, lira, franc and all other "nation-state" money.
A long-term goal of the Trilateral Commission Bilderberg clique has been to first establish a single currency for the European Union, then expand it to the American Union (emerging from NAFTA) and finally the Pacific Union.
Ultimately, there is to be a single global currency to provide for a more efficient economy when the United Nations emerge as a de jure, as well as de facto, world government.
French president Fancois Mitterrand, who will leave office after elections this spring, told the European Parliament that a single currency was "an indispensable trump card" Europe must now play.
Prime Minister Edouard Balladur who is heavily favored to succeed Mitterrand as president, said "France has the economic capacity and political will to change to a single currency."
Both French leaders and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl are strong supporters of the European super-state, a common currency and world government.
All either attend or have close associates who participate in the annual secret meetings of the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg. The two groups have interlocking leadership and coordinate their world government agendas.
So strong is their influence that Kohl supports the single
currency although polls show most Germans are opposed, seeing
surrender of the Mark. correctly, as another surrender of sovereignty.
|Top|
U.S. and Russian troops are learning how to fight "insurgency" with special training here and in Canada.
The SPOTLIGHT has learned elite Russian troops, including Spesnaz are currently training at American military bases in the western United States and at remote locations in the Northwest Territories of Canada.
The Russians were among about 120 U.S. elite troops from the
amy's 10th Special Forces, stationed at Fort Carson,
Colorado,encountered by skiers January 26-28 at the Bridger Bowl
ski area, near Helena, Montana.
The Russians have been secretly training with U.S. Special Forces for about a year at sites in the United States, Russia, and republics that have broken from the former Soviet Union.
Some of the Interior Ministry soldiers, mistakenly identified by U.S. officials and the national media as "Russian police," have trained with special police SWAT teams in a number of U.S. cities, including San Francisco and Las Vegas.
These troops, with U.S. training, have been seen and
photographed in Chechenya, where soldiers of 10th Special Forces
have been reported as advisers/observers with the Russian elite
troops (SPOTLIGHT, Feb. 6).
The troops that have trained in the U.S. have been easily spotted in Chechenya due to the unit patches on the shoulders of their tunics, indicating, in English, that they are members of "Team Special."
At least a dozen of the Russians were identified by skiers at Bridger Bowl, where they were taken for ski training due to a lack of snow in Colorado.
A SPOTLIGHT source said the Special Forces, including the Russians were operating in teams of 10 to 12 men and the teams were in contact with each other by radio.
According to the source, the troops had been flown form Fort Carson to Malmstrom Air Force Base at Great Falls, Montana, and then to Fort Harrison at Helena.
In Montana, the binational force undertook special counter- insurgency training involving attacking mock guerrilla-type forces in natural caves and underground mines and shafts.
From Helena the elite troops were taken by bus to the ski area.
After leaving Bridger Bowl, the source said, the troops were taken to the Canadian Northwest Territories for wilderness training, probably with Canadian Forces, for an expected three-week period. They are to return to Fort Carson in the third week in February.
Officially, the Pentagon has not acknowledged the training activities involving the Russians and 10th Special Forces, the latter only recently moving to Fort Carson form Fort Devens, Massachusetts, due to base closings.
During the mid `70s, the 10th Special `Forces was commanded by Col. Othar Shalikashvili-now retired and living in Pennsylvania-the older brother of Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Since its inception, according to SPOTLIGHT sources, the 10th
has emphasized training for warfare in the nations that were once
part of the Soviet Union.
|Top|
Beware a behind-the-scenes power play at a planned historic meeting of state officials.
A Conference of the States (COS) is planned for later this year to propose major changes and amendments to the Constitution by the nation's governors, state legislators, and powerful special interest groups.
The strategy is for COS to be a historical reenactment of the 1786 Annapolis convention.
Delegates commissioned by the state legislatures met to discuss deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation, which was the law of the land at that time.
The Annapolis delegates agreed to another meeting, this time in Philadelphia, for the national constitutional convention in which a new form of government was adopted-a move not discussed or anticipated before the meeting.
Now, the nation's governors have unanimously approved a resolution in support of the COS. The action came during the January National Governor's Association (NGA) winter meeting in Washington.
Governors also approved a resolution backing the U.S. taxpayer bailout of Mexico. Last summer in Boston, the NGA, by voice vote, endorsed the sovereignty-robbing, unconstitutional World Trade Organization and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). it previously supported the North American Free Trade Agreement.
COS delegates-who will be appointed and not elected-will be each nation's governor and four state legislators, two from the chamber of each state legislature. Resolutions approving COS are moving quickly through state legislatures despite little public awareness.
The Council of State Governments (CSG) reports that resolutions have already passed in Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Utah and Virginia. Resolutions have been approved in at least one chamber of nine states: the state Senates of Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, New York and Ohio and the state Houses of North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Resolutions have been introduced in at least one chamber of: Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Washington.
The goal is to get a simple majority-26 states-to pass these resolutions.
One of the key COS promoters is the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), whose executive director refers to Gov. Mike Leavitt (R-Utah) as COS's "Founding Father."
GOVERNMENT OUTDATED?
In a May 17, 1994 memorandum, Leavitt said "our national government...is outdated and old-fashioned. It is not suited for the fast-paced, high-tech, global marketplace we are entering. There is a much better way."
The CSG will be the event's main funding tool. It has received grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. Also involved may be the Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations (ACIR), funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. ACIR writes executive orders for the president, as well as federal, state and local laws.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which has worked for at least 15 years to get a constitutional convention (con-con) is also involved with COS.
Attorney John Armor testified of behalf of ALEC before a committee of the Ohio state legislature in January on a resolution calling for a constitutional convention, ostensibly on the issue of a balanced budget amendment (BBA).
According to an ALEC staff member, the group has proposed at least a dozen different amendments which would "reinforce" the 10th Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The COS will also propose rewriting Article V of the Constitution, to make it easier to change and amend the document. Article V, or the entire present Constitution, currently provides for only two methods of change: amendments shall be proposed upon approval of two-thirds of Congress; or, two-thirds of the state legislatures may pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention for proposing Amendments.
RATIFICATION REQUIRED
Either an amendment or the product of a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions to become part of the Constitution. It is also possible that Article V could be proposed for change at a constitutional convention.
As pointed out in one-worlder economist Henry Hazlitt's book A New Constitution Now, it has been thought easiest to rewrite the Constitution by first amending Article V.
Initially, the COS, which was endorsed in a flattering article in the February 10 issue of Human Events, may seem appealing to conservatives distraught with the actions of a bloated Washington bureaucracy.
The legality of whether under the Constitution the COS could legally turn into a real constitutional convention as defined under Article V is uncertain.
Article V states that Congress must be involved in the process. It says that upon application of two-thirds of the states, Congress must call the convention.
Article V gives Congress no specific role beyond that.
SPOTLIGHT readers around the nation have provided this writer with background on this article. These patriots have been actively fighting the COS at the grass roots.
Many of them argue that if the governors, state legislators and organizations involved were sincere in reinstating states' rights under the Constitution, they would merely invoke the current 10th Amendment and refuse to obey mandates issued by the federal government.
Many of these patriots have said the forces pushing for a constitutional convention using the issue of a BBA-whose efforts have been so thwarted due to overwhelming populist opposition around the nation-have now changed strategy and are using the COS.
Con-con proponents had successfully gotten 32 states to call for a con-con ostensibly to pass a BBA. They are still two states short of the constitutional requirement needed.
One state legislator against the COS is Republican Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, who initiated the 10th Amendment restoration movement early in 1994.
"An Action Plan to Restore Balance to the Federal System" adopted by the CSG, NGA, and NCSL calls for making the federal government and the states equal partners.
president Clinton used the same rhetoric in his State of the Union address, as have the GOP leadership who have talked about "returning power back to the states and to the people."
The action plan says COS appointed delegates "must seek fundamental, long-term, structural change."
Delegates will draft States' Petitions, "a new instrument in American democracy," which would "constitute the highest form of formal communication between the states and the Congress."
Proponents say the "States' Petition gains it authority from the sheer power of the process the states follow to initiate it. It is a procedure outside the traditional constitutional process."
Petitions would be taken back to the states for approval by each state legislature. If the petition included constitutional amendments, those amendments would require approval by a super- majority of state legislatures to continue as part of the State's Petition.
"Rejection of (these States' Petitions by Congress) would
ignite a political debate that no candidate for Congress, president,
Governor or any state legislative race could avoid. If ignored
or brushed off by Congress, states will know clearly they must
look to other means to bring a better balance to the federal system."
|Top|
What will the Justice Department do with its own SWAT team?
A bill has been introduced in Congress that would allow Attorney General Janet Reno to establish a 2,500-member "Rapid Deployment Strike Force" within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to move into supposed local "high crime" areas to enforce both federal and local laws.
The proposal, known as the Rapid Deployment Strike Force Act, currently H.R. 97, is being sponsored by liberal Rep. Barbara Bailey Kennelly (D-Conn.) and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
Under the proposed new act, the Rapid Deployment Strike Force (RDSF) would be commanded by a deputy assistant director of the FBI and would be staffed by not only FBI agents but through the transfer of "personnel from other entities in the Department of Justice or any other federal agency."
One of the more onerous aspects of the act, the special force could include units of the U.S. military, as well as personnel of such federal agencies as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) or any federal agency.
GUN CONTROL EFFORT
The strike force could be brought into action, according to the wording of the proposed act, to enforce federal, state and local anti-gun laws.
It says the strike force could be utilized "upon finding that the occurrence of criminal activity in a particular jurisdiction is being exacerbated by the interstate flow of drugs, guns and criminals.
The question also arises as to whether, under the act and contrary to the U.S. Constitution, members of the strike force could be forcibly housed in private homes, since it states that local officials must "demonstrate a willingness to assist in providing temporary housing facilities for members of the Rapid Deployment Force."
Under the proposed act the federal agents of the task force would be able to enforce local laws, the act requiring "Members of the Rapid Deployment Force who are deployed to a jurisdiction shall be deputized in accordance with state law so as to empower such officers to make arrests and participate in the prosecution of criminal offenses under state law.
FEMA CONNECTION
The act says "Units of the Rapid Deployment Force shall be based in the nation's major regions at locations and facilities determined by the attorney general. Members of the Rapid Deployment Force shall receive training and education in the regional crime problems of the region where they are based. The deputy assistant director whenever possible shall deploy units in the region where they are based."
One source told The SPOTLIGHT the "regions" refereed to in the act would "very likely" be the 10 regional jurisdictions established by presidential Executive Order 11694, signed by President Richard M. Nixon during his administration, which are the operational regions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
FEMA, under an Executive Order singed by President Jimmy Carter, is designated to control the United States during any "national emergency" declared by the president, which includes the institution of martial law and the use of the U.S. military to enforce FEMA directives.
During a martial law situation, FEMA would have control over virtually every facet of the government and the lives of the people of the United States.
Actually, Miss Reno has already established a special rapid deployment force within the FBI, which is composed of at least 250 agents.
During the past year, the special RBI unit has trained with U.S. military rapid deployment units, other federal agents and state and local police in various cities and communities all across America.
Evidence of the existence of the special unit was recently revealed with the order for 250 Para-Ordnance .45 caliber semi- automatic pistols, specially designed to meet FBI requirements listed in bid proposals.
The pistols are a version of the Para-Ordnance .45 specially
designed only for the rapid deployment force. The contract for
their purchase allows for additional pistols to be purchased beyond
the initial 250.
|Top|
State legislators may not realize what they are approving by giving their nod to a planned conference.
With virtually no public debate, resolutions to participate in the Conference of the States (COS), which many patriots nation wide believe will likely be a second constitutional convention, are being rushes into passage through state legislatures.
The National Governors Association (NGA), the council of State Governments (CSG) and the National Council of State legislatures (NCSL) are promoting the COS as an "historical reenactment" of the 1786 conference of the states in Annapolis, Maryland which led to the Philadelphia convention which, in turn, drafted the U.S. Constitution.
Appointed delegates plan to meet July 6-9 in Annapolis-the week of Patriotic Independence Day festivities-to set bylaws, rules and an agenda.
Delegates, comprised of each state's governor and six bipartisan legislators from the leadership of each state's legislative chamber, will "incorporate"-giving them legal status.
The group will then convene in Philadelphia on October 22-25. It is possible that, at that point, they could pass a resolution to make the event a constitutional convention.
The timing of this historic event happens to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United nations on October 24.
The rapid statewide activity is coming from the top down with hardly any awareness or support from the grassroots. Model resolutions calling for participation in the COS have been provided to all 50 state legislatures.
As of February 10, they had been introduced in 41 states, passed by at least on chamber of seven states and passed through both chambers of nine states.
What is usually occurring is that a member of the State leadership-either the Senate president pro tem or the House speaker-introduces the measure as a joint resolution.
Then the sponsor speaks on its behalf when presented before committee or on the floor, the rules are suspended, and it is passed usually unanimously or by voice vote.
Here are details of the resolutions which have already passed nine states, according to the pertinent staff members in each state legislature:
* Arkansas-HCR 1006 passed the House on January 18 and later passed the Senate; no hearings were held;
* Delaware-HJR 3 passed the House on January 26 and the Senate by a vote of 21-0 on January 26; no hearings;
*Idaho-SCR 103 passed the Senate by a vote of 33-0, with two abstentions, on January 19 and passed the House on February 2 by voice vote. The resolution sponsor spoke in favor of the resolution. Two citizens, one from Boise and one from Weiser, spoke in opposition.
* Iowa-HCR 10 passed the House on January 23 by voice vote;
passed the Senate on February w by voice vote; no hearings;
* Kentucky-HR 11 passed by voice vote on January 27; SR 26
passed the Senate by voice vote on January 23;
* Missouri-SCR 1 passed the Senate by voice vote on February 2 and passed the House on February 1 by voice vote; no hearings; * Ohio-S ConRes 3 passed the House on February 7 by a vote of 95-2; the Senate passed it on January 25 by a vote of 30-0. The resolution's sponsor Senate President Stan Aronoff who spoke on behalf of the measure;
* Utah-SCR 87 passed the Senate on January 16 by a vote of 28- 1 (dissenting was Democratic Sen. Robert Steiner), and passed the House by a vote of 75-0 on January 16;
* Virginia-SJR 278 passed the Senate by voice vote on January
18 and passed the House on January 20 (97-0); no hearings.
|Top|
While patriotic American citizens are speaking out by the hundreds of thousands against their nation being made a part of a globalist New World Order, thousands of miles away, in Australia, patriots of that country have the same concerns.
And as Americans are banding together to form civilian militias to defend the nation from a globalist the nation from a globalist one world government, the Australians are similarly organizing.
Does the following, taken from a pamphlet currently being circulated by the thousands throughout Australia, sound familiar?
"This leaflet reflects the truth in our constitutional legal obligation to always defend our person, property, and families with our constitutional legal duty to bear (and use) arms of our own choosing to ensure our defense.
Events are now proving the Fabian Socialists and Communists (whether Labor, Liberal, National or Democrat) are deliberately destroying our economy, our constitution, and our Australian heritage and constitutional law," the pamphlet warns.
"Your freedoms, to own private property, to have a jury of your peers, to speak the truth, to know when a charge has been made against you, to keep the money you honestly earn, and to educate your children as you see fit, are gone."
Australians are concerned their civil rights have been seriously eroded by their government's passage of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which according to patriots in Australia, is "now apparently enshrined in federal law by treaty."
While Americans are deeply concerned about the NAFTA treaty forging unwanted ties to Mexico and the intrusion of foreign troops and military equipment all across America, Australians are concerned about a Japanese occupation of their country
AUSTRALIA FIRST
"Many political party politicians are knowingly, or unknowingly, inviting an Indonesian invasion (scheduled for 1994/1995), and the subsequent Japanese occupation (as peace keepers under the auspices of the united Nations) of Australia.
This is actually planned. Already, Japanese is a compulsory language in some Australian primary schools. Why? and yet English language literacy is suffering."
"Loyal Australians are encouraged to resist and fight this New World Order scheme," a brochure states. "For our children and the Australian way of life, do your patriotic duty."
"The planned New World Order of total domination of the people by a select ruling elite is just around the corner," one militia group, the AUSI Freedom Scouts, warns.
"Unless we act promptly to preserve our freedom, it could well be too late. How could this happen?
"1. The Fabian Society, which wields a powerful influence over our government, is working for our enslavement.
"2. Members of this society are committed to: The abolition of private property and rights of inheritance. Progressively increasing taxation and national debt. Monopoly of rights to issue credit-control of money. A state-dominated education system to brainwash our children.
"Once the New World Order is established," the AUSI Scouts warn, "all that is left of our freedom will be gone-as in all the countries overtaken by communism. If you object to what they do or refuse to go where you are sent, you will be classified as either an `enemy of the people', `insane' or `emotionally disturbed' and the appropriate government agency will `mercifully' deal with your `problem'...Remember that the ID Card legislation (Australia has enacted a law mandating a national identity card) provided that cards could be withheld from those who are not `normal'...Every country in the world that now `enjoys' the New World Order was overtaken by it, believing that `it could not happen here'."
NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
One Australian group, called Operation Phoenix, declares leaders have "illegally bound `Australians by international treaties betraying Australia's sovereignty."
Operation Phoenix demands "federal politicians pass
no laws and make no decisions further weakening our armed forces
capacity to defend Australia and her citizens, that federal politicians
halt all home, farm and business foreclosures by banks and lending
institutions, that both state and federal governments revoke all
laws denying the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
arms in defense of our families and our nation, that overseas
borrowing cease and the new Bank of Australia be established to
create national credit using the original Commonwealth Bank power
to set just rates for Australians" and that there be "an
immediate halt to all foreign takeovers or sell-offs of Australian
assets or lands."
|Top|