November 2, 1998
November 9, 1998
November 16, 1998
November 23, 1998
November 30, 1998
Christian groups across the United States are expressing outrage over the production of an off-Broadway play in New York City that depicts Jesus Christ as "King of the Queers." It puts forth the message, in foul language and acts, that Christ died because he defended homosexuality.
The play, Corpus Christi, by little known playwright Terrance McNally, is being produced by the Manhattan Theater Club. The group has received $400,000 in U.S. taxpayer funds through the National Endowment for the arts (NA) since 1994.
The play has renewed demands that Congress end funding for the endowment.
While the production is being attacked by various groups of many faiths, it is being supported by People for the American Way.
At the same time it defended the offensive production, People for the American Way aired television commercials across the country, urging that the nation overlook the sexual peccadilloes of President Bill Clinton so he can continue the business of running the country.
People for the American Way was founded by television producer Norman Lear.
Clinton, as might be expected, has been a strong supporter of U.S. taxpayer funding of the NEA, which has consistently funded lewd, pornographic and other offensive material that it considers "art." As a result, he gets strong backing from the Hollywood-oriented People for the American Way.
Barbara Handman, who heads the People for the American Way in New York, was questioned by Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News program, The O'Reilly Factor, about how she would react if a play ridiculed the so-called Holocaust, like Corpus Christi ridicules Christianity.
Handman said that such a production about the Holocaust would be "a terrible play," but she indicated that she cannot judge Corpus Christi because she has not seen it, although she has led pro-demonstrations outside of the New York theater where the play is being produced.
Radio and television newsman Shaun Hannity concluded that during a discussion of the play, in this "politically correct" atmosphere of liberals across the nation, they rush to defend any attack on Afro-Americans or homosexuals, but do nothing to defend Christians of Christianity being ridiculed.
Hannity concluded that Christians are the ony group left in America that it is okay to consistently attack.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious Civil Rights has been willing to talk on various radio and television shows about his objections to the anti-Christian play, as long as he doesn't feel that his criticism could lead to "gay bashing."*
On Oct. 8, the House voted, 258-176, in favor of a republican sponsored resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach the president. The resolution does not impose any limits on the scope or duration of the inquiry.
Here is how Colorado voted:
J. Hefley.......YES
S. McInnis......YES
D. Schaefer.....YES
B. Schaffer.....YES
D. DeGette......NO
D. Skaggs.......NO *
Are they "enlightened," or members of the secret sect started by Adam Weishaupt backing Bill Clinton? Can they make a difference?
Many readers of the mainstream Washington Post were probably shocked, or puzzled, by the following headline that appeared on Page A 23 of the Oct. 10 edition: "The Illuminati Rally around the President."
Was the Post referring to the Illuminati, the capital "I" version denoting the secret society of globalist elite who have been conspiring to seize and perpetuate control of the world for centuries, or the illuminati, with the small "I" the "enlightened," if you can find a dictionary that even has the word in it?
The Post headline reached its audience with an op-ed piece by writer Nat Hentoff, critical of what he described as the small "I" illuminati who were defending to no ends President William Jefferson Clinton in his current impeachment problems stemming from the so-called Monica-gate sex scandal at the White House.
THE ILLUMINATE RALLY
"Illuminati," as the writer described them, such as Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, were mentioned as having signed, along with others, a petition demanding an end to the "inquisitorial harassment of a fanatical prosecutor with unlimited power," who we assume must be Independent Counsel Ken Starr.
The others included such again-described "illuminati" as writers William Styron and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., as well as actresses Sophia Loren and Lauren Becall. Hentoff further added to the "illuminati" list Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz and film director Bernardo Bertolucci.
According to Hentoff, these "illuminati" have instructed us in their petition to remember that "a statesman is answerable to public opinion or to the law only for his public acts."
That doesn't sound very "enlightened," but it could pertain, one could suppose, to Hentoff's "illuminati" or the Illuminati.
This brings to mind the use by the Associated Press (AP) a couple of years ago of the little "i" version of the word in describing a group of supposed "world leaders," including House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in Europe to discuss global affairs, probably like those the Illuminati would no doubt be interested in.
In any case, it waxes strange that the mainstream media has suddenly decided to use a word that most dictionaries fail to mention, either the big "I" or small "i" versions. A coincidence, perhaps?*
Whether it's "protecting children" or "fighting crime," modern technology could devastate the Constitution.
Some civil libertarians are taking a close look at the potential for civil rights abuses that has been established by the FBI.
Ultimately, all 50 states will be linked to the FBI computer in Washington that contains genetic profiles of 150,000 convicted state felons and DNA profiles taken from evidence left at the scene of 4,6000 unsolved cases, according to Dwight Adams, chief of the national FBI laboratory's scientific analysis system.
The states have collected an additional 350,000 DNA samples from convicted felons but have yet to analyze them and enter the genetic profiles into the FBI database.
Although all 50 states have laws authorizing blood sampling of some convicted felons to obtain DNA profiles, eight states have not yet begun collecting the actual samples.
"The system has the potential for abuse," said Ted L. Gunderson, retired FBI official.
Britain began its own DNA database in 1995. Since that time, English officials have made over 360,000 entries and have linked 30,000 tested individuals to crime scenes. Police officials say that the program has been so successful, they want the entire citizenship DNA tested and recorded.
Opponents of the program in the United States see Britain, which has no constitutionally-guaranteed rights, as a harbinger for the U.S. system.
Gunderson pointed to recent disclosures of shortcomings at
the FBI national lab, including the sloppy analysis and handling
of evidence and the actual production and altering of evidence
to obtain convictions.
"My guess is that ultimately there will be a move within
the FBI and its parent Justice Department to expand the DNA files
beyond criminal elements and DNA evidence taken from crime scenes,"
Gunderson said.
"Someone is going to come up with the brilliant idea, probably for a start, to protect the nation's children by taking DNA samples at birth for addition to the national database," Gunderson said. "Then, since the claim will follow that it is aiding police to track missing children in America," the retired FBI chief said. "The brainstorm will then pop up that it would be a great idea to keep on file DNA samples of everyone.
"Imagine, you go to your doctor or a hospital and have blood drawn for some test or other and at the same time your sample is DNA classified for filing in a database in Washington.*
On Oct. 5, the House passed the H.R. 4655, the so-called Iraq liberation Act of 1998, by a tally of 360-38. The same bill passed the Senate two days later on voice vote. The House vote follows. A vote of "YES" is for the bill; "NO" is against it. The Israeli lobby endorsed this measure. America first advocates cautions that it would present America as an enemy of national sovereignty.
Colorado votes were:
DeGette........YES
McInnis........YES
Hefley.........YES
B.Schaffer.....YES
Skaggs.........No vote
D.Schaefer.....No vote
*
Regardless of what liberals say, every crime is a hate crime. If you do the crime, you should do the time. What you think shouldn't matter.
The slaying of an openly gay student in Laramie, Wyoming, has been seized upon by those pushing for a national hate crimes law which would punish thought - Orwellian style.
The young man, Matthew Shepard was tied to a post and pistol whipped into a coma, from which he slipped into death a few days later. Despite pleas from his father that Matthew's case not be used as a national rallying point by opportunists seeking to further "gay rights" and hate crime laws, members of such groups as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, Lambda Center and others are doing just that.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), has also been very vocal in pushing forward a draft of a bill that would bring the federal government jurisdiction in violent crimes that are "hate motivated."
Critics of the proposed law, of which there are many, argue that laws are already I place in every state of the union to punish violent crimes. The hate crimes law, would, however, punish the thought of the perpetrators, a blatant contradiction of the Constitution's First Amendment. It would also be very hard to prove in court.
The slaying also produced a backlash of sorts. Anti-homosexual groups protested the "lifestyle" Matthew led by showing up at the funeral as protesters, and sparked hateful e-mails to many organized homosexual groups.
The irony was that robbery was the main objective in the assault which led to Shepard's death.
His slaying also points out the wide gap remaining in the mainstream media and public elite versus grassroots Americans regarding homosexuality and its organized efforts to achieve recognition as a protected minority. While the former groups are in the forefront of pushing for, not just equal protection, but favored status as a persecuted minority, for homosexuals. Most Americans are content to either forgive the sinner or live with the fact of homosexuality without actively seeking to punish them or discriminate against them. But they refuse to given into demands that would give homosexuals special job preferences and other rights that average citizens don't enjoy.
The proposed national hate crimes law would also use the gender and racial status of the individual attacked. That is, any woman attacked because of her gender, or a general hatred of women by the perpetrator, would also be prosecuted by the feds. Of course this would be impossible to prove, as would the motivation behind an anti-homosexual attack. On the other hand it would be just as nearly impossible to defend against.
But the worst example of hypocrisy is the race component. Blacks commit crimes against whites at twice the rate of white on black crime, despite the disparity in populations. But blacks would not be held accountable under the proposed law, because they are considered a persecuted minority, and their crimes a persecuted minority, and their crimes stem from years of alleged abuse by whites.
The debate over hate crimes legislation is also likely to polarize the country. According to Valerie Jenness, professor of sociology at University of California at Irvine: "The reactions in these kinds of triggering effects are predictable but invisible. No one will say, 'I hate these people,' but it serves to confirm homophobic sentiments."
The lead investigator in the Shepard case, Sgt. Rob Debree, was pressured by reporters on whether he had information confirming the murder was a hate crime. He replied: "I wish somebody could give us a true definition of what they consider to be a hate crime. We don't have anything as law enforcement officers that we can actually dictate and go by as a statute."
With that statement, the sergeant sums up the entire problem. How does one determine the motivation, the thought, behind the crime? There are degrees of murder (premeditated, crime of passion) etc., but these are fairly easy to prove. The clear answer is to punish the illegal deed, against which all states have laws, rather than have the federal government come in Orwellian fashion and determine whether the criminal was right-thinking or wrong- thinking.*
Politically-correct researchers want you to think Bill Clinton isn't the first president to have sired a black child.
The purported DNA "proof" that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one child with black slave Sally Hemmings is now being touted by some as a form of justification for Bill Clinton's adulterous antics: that is, based on the theory that "All presidents do it - even Thomas Jefferson."
What the mainstream media has not reported, but which has been well-known in Arkansas for many years (and known to the national media) is that Bill Clinton reportedly fathered an illegitimate son with Miss Bobbie Williams, an admitted prostitute with whom Clinton conducted a long-standing business liaison.
When word of this affair first came to the attention of the press in the 1992 campaign, Betsey Wright, Clinton's deputy in charge of suppressing "bimbo eruptions," told reporters in no uncertain terms that if they were to bring the matter up, they would be called "racists" since Miss Williams like Miss Hemmings also happens to be black.
In any case, both Miss Williams and her son, named Danny, have disappeared. Some say they are in Paris. Others say Australia. No one really knows. Some wonder whether they are still alive.
But government-funded scientists whose stipends are handed out by Clinton- appointed bureaucrats are now hyping the big "current event" story that they have "evidence" that some 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson was naughty and, therefore, what their man Bill is doing today makes no difference.
Wesley Pruden - an Arkansas Clinton Watcher of ling standing - who is editor-in-chief of The Washington Times, wrote about Clinton's "Danny" connection on Nov. 3 and warned the president that he "ought to tell his loudmouth professor friends to shut up, no more bedtime stories abut presidents. There's a lot of DNA still out there."*
After idly sitting by as president after president issued unconstitutional executive orders, Congress finally stood up in the 105th and overrode the executive's attempt at writing law.
This was as a result of repeated bills in the 105th Congress (H.R. 4196, 4422, 4232 and the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 236) stating that the interpretation of our Founding Father's wishes was not in line with Clinton's.
A furry of executive orders expressly designed to take away your rights has come from the president's pen.
These orders are laws created by the president. According to the Constitution, Congress is solely responsible for writing laws. The Executive Branch of government is to run the federal government. The judiciary enforces laws. Each governing body is to be separate. This separation of power is unique to America. Since FDR, and increasingly with Clinton, presidents have corrupted this process by governing by executive orders.
For example, after the G-8 and Bilderberg group meetings this year, Clinton issued many orders, one of them that clearly "undermines, in not obliterates, the Tenth Amendment," according to Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.).
The Tenth Amendment states: "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."
Executive Order No. 13087, addressed "sexual orientation: and "nondiscrimination" in federal guidelines; No. 13061 made private lands public.
No. 13083, that caused the greatest uproar, was nonchalantly issued overseas, from the G-8 conference in England. What price the president put on our rights is not known; that the attempt to take them away is.
Barr said in reference to this blatant abuse of power that "President Clinton has shown a disturbing tendency to take what he wants by executive order."
Bipartisan support was leveled against the order from every level, leading the outcry against this power grab and were "incensed that Clinton signed the agreement in Birmingham, England," just three days and a short plane ride from the annual meeting of the Bilderberg group.
The group, lon-time foes of independence and masters of coercion, and "sworn to absolute secrecy" met in the posh Turnburry Hotel in Ayshire, Scotland. Jim Tucker reported on this meeting (SPOTLIGHT, May 25, 1998), thereby threatening those present with the exposure they deserve.
This outlandish executive order, hatched at the behest of the most influential group of power-brokers in the world, stated that the federal government should take over "When states would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations..."(Section 3, Item 6), "Necessary" according to the federal government, of course.
Section 3, Item 3 of the order states that intervention will occur "when there is a need for uniform national standards." Standardized schools; standardized inoculations; standardized identity cards complete with fingerprints and genetic code; standardized and watered-down standards.
Section 3, Item 5: "When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties." The federal government needs to tell you when you are not "adequately protected," and is attempting to pass "hate crime" legislation making minorities more "protected" than others.
Section 3, Item 8 foreshadows Executive Order No. 13061 (that puts homes on the banks of our great rivers under federal management0: "When the matter relates to federally owned or managed property..." With this order the government purloined some choice real estate.
Bi-partisan bickering and/or preoccupation? Not in this case.
Gov. Mike Leavitt (R-Utah) put it this way: "Given the secrecy surrounding this order and the complete turnabout of its language and scope, one can only conclude the Clinton administration deliberately set upon a course to expand the role of the federal government... Not exactly the end of the era of big government."
Disturbing as it is to have Clinton attempt to take away your rights, it is even more egregious to have him extend a state of emergency, without cause.
Executive Order 12808 (May 25, 1993) extended the Roosevelt 1933 War Powers Act, allowing Clinton to declare Martial Law any time there is cause to do so - on Dec. 31, 1999, as the Y2K bug paralyzes the nation.*
Informed Britons want to know, but British officials are covering for the world shadow government.
Bilderberg bureaucrats are slipping, sliding and ducking from persistent inquires about their conflicting interests as leaders of the British government and of the super-secret power elite.
Jim Bogusz, of Derbyshire, wrote to Dennis Skinner, a member of Parliament, on Jan.13, 1998 about the role of Martin Taylor in a "tax and benefits review."
"Martin Taylor was a member of the Bilderberg Group meeting in Toronto in 1996," Bogusz wrote. "This makes me wonder at what conflict of interest may arise, given that the Bilderberg Group allegedly hatched the idea of the European Union and single currency.
"One can argue for the merits and demerits of changes any state benefit, but when economies are to be made with the hidden agenda of reducing government expenditure to help finance our way into a single currency, then that has got to be reprehensible," he wrote.
Skinner responded promptly, saying he had "contacted the chancellor of the exchequer...asking for his comments on the important points you have raised."
Later, Skinner sent Bogusz a copy of a "Dear Dennis" letter from Dawn Primarolo, financial secretary to the treasury, in response to the Bilderberg inquiry. It extolled the virtues of Taylor without commenting on the Bilderberg issue.
Bogusz responded through Skinner, again asking about Bilderberg, as he had to such participants as Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Blair "regretted" not being able to answer questions about Bilderberg.)
"I am afraid I have little to add to my previous letter," Primarolo replied.*
The mindless insanity of the Israel-controlled political establishment in Washington obeying their master's voice and setting the stage for another attack on Iraq is virtually beyond words to describe.
American taxpayers and blood who are used to having political charlatans tell them when and who to fight in useless wars that benefit only others must might conclude this time that they are being had in spite of the angry chorus of America's corrupt press yowling for more gore.
This newspaper was virtually alone during Bush's aggressive war in accurately assessing it. We lost that war in the sense that we receive nothing but headaches and expense from it and the promise of more problems in the future.
During bush's contrived war, this patriotic, America-first newspaper was virtually alone in correctly assessing its consequences for our country and pointing out that there was no way we could win.
If you say we won, what did we win?
Since we did not win the war - indeed, there was no way we could have won it - we lost it in every real sense of the word.
Our aggression killed a lot of people, maimed more, caused the starvation of untold children and the destruction of a lot of property, yet we did not win.
Further, if our misled soldiers had invaded Iraq and hanged Saddam, then we would have been forced to financially support a ravaged country and administer it; our loss would have been greater to American taxpayers. The real costs would have been even more costly than our hit-and-run "victory."
In numerous editorials in these pages during 1990 and 1991, we repeated over and over again that the war against Iraq was totally without any benefit to American national interests; that it was created and directed for the benefit of an alien nation and for the international oil companies.
The last thing on Earth the oil companies want is to permit Iraqi oil on a free world market. This would devastate the price even of all Americans except oil company stockholders would benefit.
The last thing on Earth that Israel wants is a strong Iraq at peace with Iran and the other Arab states in the Mideast. Israel aims to dominate the Mideast militarily and control it politically by keeping the Muslim states in perpetual confusion and dependence, which spells bondage.
And Israel and its lap dogs, the America-last traitor politicians in Washington and the prostitute editorial writers in America's contrlled press, know what their master wants.
Few will deny that our actions to ward Iraq and anywhere else we send troops are acts of aggression as defined by international law.
If the precedent of Nuremberg would be followed, Clinton, Albright, Cohen and a thousand others who howl in unison for Israel would hang from a gallows. These are facts - uncomfortable fact - but facts.
The American people have tolerantly permitted and ALIEN PRESENCE to grow up in this country which now completely controls it and is bent on destroying it.
No one may say a word about it without the dread smear of "anti-Semitism" ruining them. Our proud America has been turned into a semi-nation of cowardly, mush-mouth, cringing idiots, bowing their heads before this alien force of Zionism even while they shake their fists at tiny Iraq, a sitting duck for our deadly and highly advanced means of mass murder and destruction.
Our continued aggression can only further our estrangement, not only from the huge Muslim world but from decent-minded people everywhere. America is a bad odor to the rest of the world. An object of contempt and ridicule and - to those who are directly victimized by our murderous bluster - and object of justifiable hate. And we wonder why "terrorists" have targeted America. Says Cohen, the Israeli spokesman: "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protectionism."
Perhaps that's the clue. Can it be that the Cohens who govern us have an added incentive for anti-Muslim armed aggression? The more terrorism they can incite in America, the tighter they can screw controls over Americans untill they arrive at what they want - a Bolshevik-like terror state with American liberties a dim memory.
Only then will they realize their goal.
It is past time for Americans to simply refuse to cooperate any longer in their own destruction and to defy these despoilers, these traitors to everything that America once was.
It is past time for Americans to boldly face up to the fundamental problem - that a foreign nation is now in control of all the levers of power in this once-great and once-independent country, now an arm of another government.*
The Washington media is starting to promote the idea of Hillary Clinton for president in the year 2000. If that sounds farfetched, read why.
On Nov. 8, Mary McGrory, one of the media's most ballyhooed liberal columnists in the nation's capital, launched what cold only be described as a trial balloon for a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Writing in the Washington Post, McGrory described Hillary's attributes and concluded: "Will she walk away in the millennium or keep up the career, the political partnership, on her own? She hasn't been able to be Eleanor Roosevelt, as she once hoped, but she sure can be bill Clinton." In other words - be president rather than first lady.
Then on Nov. 10, close on the heels of McGrory's speculation, influential Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen - another liberal - chimed in with a similar commentary. Though satirical, Cohen's column touted the first lady's political acumen and accomplishment. He concluded with the suggestion that Hillary may indeed be on her way toward a bid for the presidency when her husband's term comes to a close in 2000.
If any of this sounds familiar to SPOTLIGHT readers, it may be because that more than a year ago - ON June 30, 1997 - The SPOTLIGHT noted that populist pundit Van Loman of Cincinnati had been predicting since mid-1995 that Hillary woudl be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in the year 2000.
Although many Clinton haters were hoping at the time that the Whitewater investigation would result in the president and the first lady being shipped off to prison, the iconoclastic Loman pointed out that, instead, Mrs. Clinton had been invited to the exclusive Bilderberg meeting held that month (June 12- 15) at Lake Lanier, Georgia.
An invitation to the Bilderberg meeting was hardly the fate of someone destined for prison. After all, Hillary's husband had been invited to the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, where, insiders say, the then Arkansas governor was officially anointed as the plutocratic elite's choice for the White House in 1992.
Coming only one month after The SPOTLIGHT noted the possibility of a presidential bid by Hillary, the weekly "Intelligence Report" - in the July 20, 1997 issue of the popular Sunday supplement, Parade - asked the question "Can Clintons keep the White House in the Family," and pondered a presidential bid by Hillary in 2000. Parade reported that: "Washington insiders tell us her name keeps coming up, though nobody will admit it publicly at the moment."
On Aug. 11, 1997, The SPOTLIGHT commented on the item in Parade and noted that "although posing as 'light fare,' Parade actually has a long history of floating trial balloons and leaking information for the intelligence community and the plutocratic elite. So Hillary's candidacy may indeed be in the offing."
AIMING FOR WHITE HOUSE
More recently, in its Oct. 19 issue, The SPOTLIGHT featured a commentary by Loman in which he reiterated his prediction of ling ago, suggesting that, despite everything, Hillary - in his view - is very much aiming for the White House in the year 2000. That commentary predicted the very kind of hype that columnists McGrory and Cohen are using to boost a Hillary candidacy.
When learning of the recent major media boosts for such a candidacy, Loman told The SPOTLIGHT, "When leading Washington opinion makers start talking like this, you know something's in the works." Stay tuned.*
Unless the president is impeached, he will keep costing yu money for decades.
As Congress and the nation ponder the future of the administration of President William Jefferson Clinton, the first family must at this point be doing a little pondering of its own.
There is every indication that a thick skinned Clinton plans to "stick it out."
Many have been griping about the $41 million or more that Independent counsel Kenneth Starr has spent delving into the sewer of sex, malfeasance and corruption that the Clintons have wallowed in for the past six years.
However, most have given little thought, particularly those who are pressing for resignation, to what a resignation would cost the nation. Resignation would mean some big buck expenditures for America's taxpayers.
To start with, the ex-president would be able to draw an annual lifetime pension of $151,800, which could add up to $6.3 billion in 30 years, the largest amount ever paid to an ex-federal official.
There is also the matter of Secret Service protection, mailing privileges and various financial and office allowances given to ex-presidents. This could amount to up to $650,000 per year, not taking into account cost of living adjustments during those possible 30 years of exile.
It has been suggested that Hollywood moguls have a job all lined up for the president when he leaves office - either by choice or by boot.
It has been reliably reported that dozens of FOB (Friends of Bill) have been doing some planning for their hero's future.
As an example, actor Tom Hanks is said to have paid $3.2 million to buy a one-acre lot near his own luxurious home on the lush Palisades, exclusive Amalfi Drive. The property is a gift for his pals Bill and Hillary for a new home, assuming, of course, that Bill and Hillary remain together in their post-White House years, of which rumors to the contrary are also circulating.
Some of the FOBs involved in planning the first family's future, in addition to Hanks include: producer Stephen Spielberg, who lives a few blocks further along Amalfi Drive; Goldie Hawn; Barbara Streisand; Whoopi Goldberg; Billy Crystal; Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, both of whom have given $10,000 each to the president's defense fund and raised $3 million for his 1996 re-election campaign.
Now, if Clinton should stick it out, according to U.S. Code, he has an important fact to consider, being that presidents are eligible for pensions and other perks of their office "whose service in office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of Article II of the constitution" - impeachment.
In other words: If he gets the boot, he don't get the loot.*
Citizens' rights have been cast aside in the name of "justice" and "safety" as a federal manhunt takes place in the South.
A tinderbox is waiting to ignite in a remote area of North Carolina. Dozens of federal agents have harassed local residents while searching, in vain, for a wily 31-year-old carpenter accused of being a crazed bomber.
It is reportedly the biggest manhunt ever conducted by the FBI for a single individual.
Some 200 FBI and BATF agents are currently stationed in the small town of Andrews, in the mountains of western North Carolina. They are hunting for Eric Robert Rudolph, accused by the Justice Department of several bombings.
Rudolph has been charged with the 1998 bombing at the Olympic Games in Atlanta and an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala., last Jan. 29. Most recently, he was charged with the bombing in 1997 of a homosexual bar and an abortion clinic in Atlanta.
Last May, Rudolph was placed on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list and the Justice Department is offering a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest.
The agents have established a sprawling headquarters complex in a 15,000 square foot former factory building in downtown Andrews, behind the community's hospital. It serves as an elaborate communications center as well as barracks for the federal agents.
The facility is surrounded by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. It is protected by armed guards, a video surveillance system and motion sensors around its perimeter.
There are landing pads for five army helicopters, including at least one red cross-marked Medevac helicopter.
Residents of Andrews, which has a population of about 1,100 are beginning to confront agents in anger on the streets. This is after the agents have searched private homes, apparently without warrants, have followed private automobiles without cause, reportedly stopping some, and have had dozens of residents under surveillance of one form or another.
The FBI has been searching the Andrews area since early this year, concentrating their search in a mountainous area about 20 square miles around Andrews.
On Nov. 11, at about 10 p.m., the situation turned violent when someone, as yet unidentified, stopped a car along the street beside the complex and fired eight shots from a semi-automatic rifle. The bullets penetrated the metal-clad building, one shot creasing the scalp of an agent.
According to SPOTLIGHT sources on the scene who spoke with the FBI, the agents immediately instituted a state of emergency for Western North Carolina.
In order to be legitimate, a state of emergency must be declared publicly. This, however, was not done, although the fact that it is in place was told to local residents by FBI Special Agent Terry Terchie.
After the shooting, the agents fanned out through the community and the Army helicopters began flying overhead at near tree-top level.
While a helicopter hovered over one house, the homeowner, Philip Rogers, pointed at the aircraft with a red light from a toy laser obtained by his 10- year-old daughter from a local convenience store.
Rogers was immediately sought for assault and was driven to the Andrews Police Department by a neighbor Ramon Sparks. In the parking lot, the two men were surrounded and thrown to the ground by a black-clad FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) of about a dozen agents.
The two citizens were kicked and stomped by the officers and
taken into custody where they were again beaten as they were interrogated.
Sparks was released a short while later by the agents. Rogers
was held on $20,000 bond, apparently awaiting charges of assaulting
federal offecers to be filed.
As a result of the two men being taken into custody, there have been numerous "touchy situations" that have developed on the streets of Andrews, where citizens confronted agents with accusations of harassment and brutality.
Unable to get the attention of the media after learning of the brutal apprehension of their fellow townsmen, residents of Andrews circulated throughout the town a flyer, outlining the circumstances and calling the agents "brutal tyrants."
The SPOTLIGHT called the office of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), where a spokesman would say only that the senator was "keeping up with the situation there."
A call to Rep. Charles Taylor, a Republican who represents the Andrews area, was supposed to be followed up by the congressman's press officer. When he was asked if his boss was aware of the tension in Andrews, he said he would check and return the call. He did not, and a subsequent call by The SPOTLIGHT found him "out of the office."
Neither Helms nor Taylor has risen to defend the rights of their constituents.
The federal agents believe that Rudolph is holed-up somewhere in the mountainous area around Andrews.
Could Rudolph have ventured into the town to shoot at the FBI complex?
It is possible, although a Cherokee county police officer, who requested anonymity, said he doubts it.
However, last summer, he reportedly entered the town and purchased a supply of groceries from a store, located about a block from the FBI complex.*
A leading computer software company is in trouble with Internet users for linking up with a controversial group that wants to censor the Internet.
The Cambridge, Mass.-based Learning Company, one of the nation's most successful computer software firms, is gearing up to face a public relations disaster.
First Amendment advocates and Internet users have learned that it's the Learning Company that collaborated with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith in a comprehensive scheme to censor the Internet.
Susan Getgood, a spokesperson for the Learning company, admitted to The SPOTLIGHT that the company worked with the ADL in the production of a software (known as "HateFilter") designed to block access to Internet websites of which the ADL does not approve.
Hatefilter is just now being released onto the market. The ADL is behind a major public relations campaign promoting the censorship software.
"We are pleased to assist the ADL in its continuing battle against hate and bigotry in all forms, including its latest incarnation in cyberspace," said Richard A. Gorgens, vice president of Advanced Technology for the Internet Solutions Group of the Learning Company.
When someone who has the program signs onto one of the "offensive" sites targeted by the ADL, the HateFilter program will block it with a message explaining why and then refer the user to the ADL's own web site.
Although The SPOTLIGHT's web site (www.spotlight.org) is not one of the web sites censored by basic "Cyber Patrol" package assembled by the Learning Company, it is among those included for censorship in the ADL's customized "HateFilter" version of Cyber Patrol.
Wile no one can argue with an individual's right to use the software on his or her home computer, the big problem is that the ADL is engaging in a heavy- duty lobbying campaign to force public (and Private) school systems at all levels to integrate the software into their computer programs that students use for research.
Additionally, the ADL is using a variety of front groups to lobby Congress to require that Internet censorship be mandatory for federally-funded programs that provide for computer education and training in public schools.
This way, only ADL-approved information will be accessible to students using the Internet.
Critics of the deal between the ADL and the Learning Company are urging Internet users and others who value the First Amendment to boycott the Learning Company's product which are sold in over 23,000 retail stores in North America.*
For years, under the guise of promoting "ree speech," the leading "mainstream" promoter of obscenity in the mass media has been the ADL.
Now that grassroots Americans and their families are getting fed up with the rampant and widespread filth that the ADL helped promote, the ADL is taking crass advantage of public revulsion toward obscenity and is using the band wagon as a vehicle to suppress political speech to which the ADL objects.
In fact, many American conservative groups who have been enthusiastically backing Internet censorship in the guise of "fighting obscenity" and "Protecting children from filth" have found that their own Websites are now being censored by the very censoring devices they've championed - on the basis, of course, that the ADL and others find such Websites to be "hateful" and /or "political pornography."
GROUP IN QUESTION
One of the groups in question is the American Family Association which was an enthusiastic booster of Internet censorship until its own Website fell victim to censorship. The association was found to be "intolerant" because of its opposition to the demands of homosexual and other sexual "minority" groups.
However, there are many freedom of speech advocates, critical of censorship, who recognized long ago that much of the public opposition to "obscenity" and "pornography" on the Internet was simply a cover for a more insidious scheme to police political speech on "the net."
"Liberty Lobby has always been opposed to pornography of all kinds,' said Vince Ryan, chairman of the board of Policy of the Washington, D.C.-based populist Institution. "Pornography, in our view, is culture distorting and harmful to traditional family values. But now we are seeing a frightening Orwellian twist as public concern about pornography on the Internet is being used by the ADL in an insidious conspiracy against political freedom of expression."
As on libertarian critic of Internet censorship, Bernie MacMillan has concluded: "The thought police weren't after pornography nearly as much as speech that does not pass their litmus test of political correctness." (Access MacMillan's website at www.angelfire.com for more on the topic.)
Likewise, another critic of Internet censorship, Harold Covington, a self- declared white racialist, has commented. "As has been obvious for some time [some Zionists are] using kiddie porn as an excuse to establish laws and precedents which will be used later to allow the authorities to silence dissident political and racial views on the Net."*