From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #72 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, February 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 072 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:04:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Paxton Quigley check out the National Enquirer. Today's top story is a quick one on Paxton Quigley. factual, informative, interesting. just what one has come to expect from the tabloid press. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/index-fst.html ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 98 03:33:22 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fwd: Blind Man's Bluff in the Year 2000 (fwd) On Feb 17, Christopher Coffin wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - --WebTV-Mail-1117514577-17448 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3) (NIV) - --WebTV-Mail-1117514577-17448 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: info@garynorth.com Message-Id: <199802171113.DAA23722@mailsorter-101.bryant.webtv.net> To: IamBornAgainRU@webtv.net Subject: Blind Man's Bluff in the Year 2000 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:07:15 -0500 X-Mailer: Allaire Cold Fusion 3.1 BLIND MAN'S BLUFF IN THE YEAR 2000 What are you going to be doing for a living in the year 2001? Unless you're a fix-it man living in a small town, you won't be doing what you do today. If you make your living in financial services, you will surely be doing something else. If you're a journalist, you will be in a new profession. But what? What other useful service can you provide? You have very little time to make the switch. Let me show you why. We live in a world that depends on a high division of labor. That world has less than three years to go. In one gigantic collapse, the division of labor will implode. This implosion will begin in 1999. It will accelerate in 2000 and thereafter. Those who work in highly specialized fields will find little or no demand for their skills, in the face of an enormous supply of desperate, low-wage competition. Any job classification that did not exist in 1945 will probably not have a lot of demand in 2001, with one exception: computer software programming. The June 2 issue of Newsweek ran a front-cover story on the looming computer crisis of the Year 2000 -- called y2k (Year 2 K -- shorthand for a thousand). In the week it the article appeared (late May), the Dow Jones Industrial Average set a record new high. (It was beaten a week later.) If investors believed the information reported in the Newsweek article, the world's stock markets would have collapsed. Clearly, people don't believe it. That's why a small handful of people can get out now -- out of the stock market, the bond market, and any city over 25,000. Not everyone can get out at the top of a bull market. This includes the "bull market" known as modern industrial society. Pull the plug on the local power utility for 30 days, and every city on earth becomes unlivable. What if the plug gets pulled for five years? How do you rebuild the shattered economy if the computers go down, taking public utilities with them? Without electricity, you can't run the computers. Without computers, you can't fix computers. How can you assemble teams of programmers to fix the mess? More to the point, how do you pay them if the banks are empty? Chase Manhattan Bank has 200 million lines of code to check and then repair. Citicorp has 400 million lines. All big banks are similarly afflicted. And even if this could be fixed, bank by bank, there is no universal repair standard. Thus, the computers, even if fixed (highly doubtful) will not work together after the individual repairs. A noncompliant bank's data will then make every compliant bank noncompliant. Thus, the world banking system will crash in 2000. When the public figures this out in 1999, the bank runs will begin. You probably will not have your present job in 2001. "It Just Can't Be True!" You don't believe me, of course. Not yet. But I havepublished the evidence on this Web site. You can verifywhat I'm saying. But you still won't believe it. Why not? Because it's too painful. In their book, The Sovereign Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg make a very important observation: A recent psychological study disguised as a public opinion poll showed that members of individual occupational groups were almost uniformly unwilling to accept any conclusion that implied a loss of income for them, no matter how airtight the logic supporting it. Given increased specialization, most of the interpretive information about most specialized occupational groups is designed to cater to the interests of the groups themselves. They have little interest in views that might be impolite, unprofitable, or politically incorrect (p. 339). My views are all three: impolite, unprofitable, and politically incorrect. Impolite, because I am saying this: (1) those advising you are as blind as an eighth-century Israelite king; (2) they have given you information that will prove to be wildly unprofitable; (3) all the hype about your getting rich -- the world's getting rich -- is a clap-trap. We are heading for a disaster greater than anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague of the mid-14th century. Because the year 2000 begins on a Saturday, millions of victims will not be aware of their dilemma until the following Monday or Tuesday. They will pay no attention to advance warnings, such as this one, that they are at risk. As you read this report, I want you to think to yourself: "How will this affect me? Is my business at risk? Is my income at risk? What should I do?" I also want you to visit my Web site, http://www.garynorth.com and examine the accumulating evidence, week by week. The Origin of the Problem Here is the problem. Over three decades ago, computer programmers who wrote mainframe computer software saved disk space -- in those days, very valuable space -- by designating year codes as two-digit entries: 67 instead of 1967, 78 instead of 1978, etc. Back then, saving this seemingly minuscule amount of disk space seemed like an economically wise decision. This may prove to be the most expensive forecasting error since Noah's flood. What the programmers ignored for three decades is this: in the year 2000, the two digits will be 00. The computer will sit there, looking for a year. At midnight, January 1, 2000, every mainframe computer using unrevised software dies. If old acquaintances are in the computer, they will indeed be forgot. Programmers who recognized the implications of this change did not care. They assumed that their software would be updated by year 2000. That assumption now threatens every piece of custom software sitting on every mainframe computer, unless the owner of the computer has had the code rewritten. In some cases, this involves coordinating half a billion million lines of code. (Example: AT&T) One error on one line can shut down the whole system, the way that America Online was shut down for a day in 1996 because of a one-digit error. The handful of reporters who have investigated this problem have met a wall of indifference. "We're all using microcomputers now." "This is a problem only for a few companies that are still using mainframes." "Cheap solutions will appear as soon as there is demand." "The software will be updated soon, and I'll buy it then." "If this were a serious problem, we'd have heard about it." Yet this last response is given to someone -- a reporter -- who is trying to tell people about the problem. I first read about this problem years ago in a book by the pseudonymous author, Robert X. Cringely: Accidental Empires. It is not as though the computer industry has been unaware of it. Only a few weeks ago, I read a Wall Street Journal column on computers that mentioned it. The writer wrote that his editor is getting tired of having him mention it. This is typical. The general public hasn't heard about it, yet editors are already tired of hearing about it. "It's old news." Well, it's new news for most people. What does it matter, really? We use microcomputers. Microsoft has solved the Year 2000 problem, we assume. So have most software companies. Everyone uses desktop computers or, at the largest, minicomputers, right? Wrong. Governments Rely on Aging Mainframes and Software On September 24, 1996, Congressman Stephen Horn, who is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, submitted to the full committee a report on the Year 2000 problem. The Subcommittee held hearings on April 16. (Just one day of hearings. This indicates the degree of concern that the government has.) He said that these hearings revealed "a serious lack of awareness of the problem on the part of a great number of people in business and government. Even more alarming was the cost estimate reported to the Subcommittee to remedy the problem, which was said to be $30 billion for the Federal Government alone." Then he announced: Without greater urgency, those agencies risk being unable to provide services or perform functions that they are charged by law with performing. Senior agency management officials must take aggressive action if these problems are to be avoided. Yet despite Horn's valid warning, nothing visible is happening. He knows this. These agencies must shift hundreds of millions of dollars from their existing budgets to hire outside programmers to rewrite the code that runs these agencies. This isn't being done. More to the point, the longer they delay, the worse the problem gets. You can't just go out and hire programmers who are familiar with the code. As businesses find out what threatens them, the demand for these highly specialized services will soar. (If businessmen don't figure this out in time, payment will come due in January of 2000.) The Subcommittee's report warns: "This issue may cause banks, securities firms and insurance companies to ascertain whether the companies they finance or insure are year 2000 compliant before making investment decisions." It also says that companies will start demanding contractual warranties guaranteeing against Year 2000 breakdowns. A memorandum from the Library of Congress Research Service (CRS) has warned that "it may be too late to correct all of the nation's systems." So, the question arises: Which systems will survive and which ones won't? Here are some problem areas, according to CRS: Miscalculation by the Social Security Administration of the ages of citizens, causing payments to be sent to people who are not eligible for benefits while ending or not beginning payments to those who are eligible; Miscalculation by the Internal Revenue Service of the standard deduction on income tax returns for persons over age 65, causing incorrect records of revenues and payments due; Malfunctioning of certain Defense Department weapon systems; Erroneous flight schedules generated by the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic controllers; State and local computer systems becoming corrupted with false records, causing errors in income and property tax records, payroll, retirement systems, motor vehicle registrations, utilities regulations, and a breakdown of some public transportation systems. I don't think these are small issues. They will probably start receiving media attention when it is so late in the process that there will be massive foul-ups in coordinating the revisions. Notice, the biggest one is missing: an international bank run, as depositors demand cash. From that day on, all exchanges will be local: the collapse of the division of labor. When the computers' clocks think it's 1900, it soon will be. I realize that there has been tremendous progress in microcomputer power, but does anyone really think that all of the Federal government's forms -- not an infinite number, but approaching infinity as a limit -- can be put on three dozen Compaq desktop computers and run with, say, Lotus Approach or Microsoft Access? And even if they could, how would you re-train all of the bureaucrats to use the new systems? How fast will they learn? How fast do bureaucracies adapt? The Subcommittee's report warns: The clock is ticking and most Federal agencies have not inventoried their major systems in order to detect where the problem lies within and among each Federal department, field office and division. The date for completion of this project cannot slip. By "cannot," the Subcommittee's report-writer meant "must not." The date can surely be allowed to slip. It almost certainly will be allowed to slip. Additionally, the task may be more difficult for the public sector, where systems have been in use for decades, may lack software documentation and therefore increase the time it takes from the inventory phase to solution. Did you get that? The software code's records are gone! Remember also that we're not just talking about the United States government. We're talking about every government -- national, state, and local -- anywhere on earth that has its data stored on an unrevised mainframe computer system or which relies on any third-party computer service that uses uncorrected software. As the year 2000 approaches, word will slowly begin to spread: "After the three-day weekend that will inaugurate the year 2000, there is going to be a hangover the likes of which we have never seen before." For some, it will be a time of celebration. For others, it will be the end of their dreams. It depends on whether they are being squeezed by the government or dependent on it. But it's not just government that is at risk. It's private industry. Kiss Medicare Goodbye Some 38 million people will receive Medicare payments in 1997. In 2000, an estimated one billion claims will be filed, totalling over $288 billion. This, according to a May 16, 1997 report of the General Accounting Office (GAO): "Medicare Transaction System." Problem: the Medicare system won't make it through 2000. The same GAO report shows why. Medicare claims are not actually administered by Medicare. It's administered by 70 private agencies. These agencies have been informed that their contracts will not be renewed in 2000. The agency that officially supervises Medicare has plans for one huge computer system that will bring the program in-house. It is the same dream that motivated the Internal Revenue Service for the past 11 years. The IRS announced earlier this year that after 11 years and $4 billion, the attempt had failed. Medicare now knows that it has a problem with its computers. They are not Year 2000-compliant. So, to make sure that they will be compliant, Medicare has issued an appeal to the 70 newly canned companies: please fix the year 2000 problem for us before you leave. As the GAO report puts it, "contractors may not have a particularly high incentive to properly make these conversions. . . ." What if the system fails? (What if? Are they kidding? When!) The report says that the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which is responsible for running Medicare, has not made contingency plans. "HCFA officials are relying on the contractors to identify and complete the necessary work in time to avoid problems. Yet the . . . . contractors not only have not developed contingency plans, they have said that they do not intend to do so because they believe that this is HCFA's responsibility." Kiss the IRS Goodbye The IRS has 100 million lines of code. Their code is not year 2000-compliant. After the failure of the 11-year project to upgrade the system, Chief Information Officer Arthur Gross announced that getting the IRS year 2000- compliant is the "highest priority for the IRS." The IRS has nearly 50,000 code applications to coordinate and correct. This task will require the IRS to move 300 full- time computer programmers to the new project. (Reported in "TechWeb," April 21, 1997). For comparison purposes, consider the fact that the Social Security Administration began working on its year 2000 repair in 1991. Social Security has 30 million lines of code. By June, 1996, the SSA's 400 programmers had fixed 6 million lines. What if the IRS isn't technically equipped to pursue tax evaders after December 31, 1999? What if the IRS computer system isn't fully integrated with all of its branch offices? What if the system's massive quantities of forms are not stored in a computer system that is Year 2000-compliant? More to the point, what if 20% of America's taxpayers believe that the IRS can't get them if they fail to file a return? In 1999, the IRS may find a drop in compliance from self-employed people. If the IRS can't prosecute these people after 1999, there will be a defection of compliance by the self-employed. When word spreads to the general public, there will be a hue and cry -- maybe at first against the evaders, but then against employers who are sending in employees' money when self-employed people are escaping. Meanwhile, cash-only, self-employed businesses will begin to lure business away from tax-compliant businesses by offering big discounts. This will start happening all over the world. Once it begins, it will not easily be reversed. The tax system rests on this faith: (1) the government will pay us what it owes us; (2) the government can get us if we stop paying. Both aspects of this faith will be called into question in the year 2000 if the governments' computers are not in compliance. Big Brother is no more powerful than his software. On January 1, 2000, this strength may fall to zero. Actually, double zero. If the IRS cannot collect taxes, and if all the other mainframe computer-dependent tax collection agencies on earth do not fix this, what will happen to the government debt markets worldwide? To interest rates? To the government-guaranteed mortgage market? Kiss them all goodbye. "No Problem! Trust me!" There are a few conservative financial newsletter writers who have heard about y2k. They deny its economic relevance. A shut-down of all mainframe computers would mean that newsletter writers will be out of business after 1999 -- a thought too terrifying for them. So, they brush y2k aside with some version of this rebuttal: "Of course, the government may not get its computers fixed." This is supposed to calm you. It should terrify you. Ask yourself: What happens to T-bills and T-bonds if the IRS computer breaks down and a tax revolt spreads because taxpayers know the IRS will never find them, and that if they pay their taxes, they won't get their refunds? What happens to money market funds and bond funds that invest heavily in government debt when investors realize that if the IRS can't collect taxes, the government will default on its debt? What happens to the banks when depositors figure out that the FDIC is bankrupt and that nobody insures their accounts any more? What happens to your job when the banks close because of bank runs, and no business can borrow money or even write a check to its employees? What happens to the delivery of food into cities when money fails because the banks are busted? What happens to the delivery of public utilities when money fails because the banks are busted? What happens to your retirement fund when ERISA, the government pension guarantee program, goes bankrupt? What happens to the 38 million people in the U.S. who are dependent on Medicare? What happens to 42 million people on Social Security? What happens to every state government? What happens to crime rates when the state cannot imprison violent criminals and may have to release those who are locked up because they can't be fed? What happens to the world economy when this scenario is multiplied across every government? Kiss you job goodbye. Especially if you're a journalist. I know. I am one. I figure I'll be out of work -- forced retirement -- January 1, 2000. I'm making plans to be in small-scale agriculture. I'm out of debt. What about you? Psychological Deferral Those in authority prefer to defer thinking about this. They are playing Scarlett O'Hara: "I'll think about it tomorrow," followed by, "Well, fiddle dee-dee." Deferral is a normal response to distant problems. The question is: What can we afford to defer? People defer making this assessment. The fact that you have not read much about this looming problem doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. If your employer has not actively sought solutions to this problem, your firm had better not use mainframe computers or be dependent on suppliers that rely on mainframe computers. Everyone assumes that someone else is doing something to solve these problems. "It's being taken care of." The problem here is the passive voice. Who, exactly, is taking care of it? What, exactly, is this person doing? Is he on schedule? How do you know for sure? Are you taking his word for it? Anyone who takes the word of a computer programmer that he is on schedule is a person of very great faith. If the programmer says "Sorry, I didn't make it" on December 31, 1999, you're dead in the water. Meanwhile, he moves on. What You Should Do, Beginning Today First, you investigate whether what I'm saying is true. Second, think through what happens to you if the local power company and the local water and sewage company shut down in your city for six months. "Who ya gonna call?" Especially if your phone is dead? And if you do get through, how ya gonna pay if your local bank is defunct? Third, here is my personal strategy. I have adopted a question: "Can I prove on paper that he owes it to me?" I want hard copy print-outs of everything I do with the government. If you are owed money from Social Security, and you're dependent on this income, contact the Social Security Administration every year and get a letter telling you what you're owed. This is true of every government pension system. Do you have a copy of your birth certificate? If not, write to your place of birth and get it. Even if that community has not computerized the records, do it now. Even if it keeps the records in a desktop, do it. If word starts to spread, they may be buried in requests in 1999. You want your paperwork completed before word gets out. Do you have a copy of your college transcripts? If not, get it. The same goes for your work record history. Assume that your records are in some company's mainframe computer. Assume also that the company has failed to update the software. Do you have a print-out of all of your insurance records? Would they stand up in court? If not, get what you need, now. Have you spoken with your local insurance agent? Is he fully aware of the problem? Ask him straight out if he has scheduled an update of his software if he relies on vendor-supplied software. He deserves to know what is coming. So do you. (If you want to photocopy this issue to send him, go ahead.) Think through this problem in advance, before it gets out and creates a banking panic, all over the world. This story will get out eventually. In 1999, when reporters are running around looking for sensational Year 2000-third millennium stories, this one will at last surface. It already has: in Newsweek. At that point, every government bureaucrat whose agency is at risk will start playing the "No problem" game. "It's being taken care of." The bureaucrat's number-one rule is to evade responsibility. No one with any authority is going to admit that his malfeasance in office is going to create a disaster on Jan. 1, 2000. The basic response will be this: "There's no problem here, and furthermore, I'm not responsible when everything collapses next year!" Keep visiting my Web site for updated information: http://www.garynorth.com E-mail this report to anyone you care about. - --WebTV-Mail-1117514577-17448-- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:44:56 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Re: CAS: Secret Society? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:21:14 -0500 From: Jay To: The Perry's Cc: Newsgroup , Trent C Mulkern Subject: Re: CAS: Secret Society? The Perry's wrote: > > perrymv@sumter.net > > > While attempting to research Clinton's background, I came across this > link. Here is a snip from the page: Could this be a frame to > understand many of the strange events of the past 6 years? Is this > news to anybody but me? > > www.empireone.net/~monitor/rhodes.htm > > > According to Professor Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown > University, "The scholarships were merely a facade to conceal the > secret society, or more accurately, they were to be one of the > instuments by which the members of the secret society could carry out > his purpose." "The Rhodes Scholarships," Blumenfeld writes, "as > outlined in Rhodes' will, became the main instrument whereby the most > promising young people throughout the English-speaking world could be > recruited to serve an idea that Rhodes thought would take 200 years to > fulfill." And, says Blumenfeld: > > "Obviously, the way the secret society would recruit its > future leaders from among the Rhodes scholars was to dangle > before them the prospects of future advancement in whatever > field they chose to pursue, be it education, politics, > government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. Thus, > if you understood the implicit message being given to you by > your sponsors you might one day become president of Harvard, > President of the United States, a Supreme Court Judge, a US > senator, or president of the Carnegie Foundation. The road > to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the game > and obeyed the rules. The Association of American Rhodes > Scholars has an alumni membership of about 1,600. They have > become leading figures in the new ruling elite in America." > > ...No country that values its safety should allow what > [Rhodes-Milner] group accomplished - that is, that a small > number of men would be able to wield such a power in > administration and politics, should be given almost complete > control over the publication of documents relating to their > actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the > avenues of information that create public opinion, ... > > (in Rhodes' own words) create "a society copied, as to > organization, from the Jesuits." > > In case you are not aware of it, the Jesuits were the most > zealous and ruthless of orders. > > A more realistic portrayal of Oxford, and it's overly pompous "graduates", such as Clinton, Sarbanes, Bradley, etc. can be found in Roger Morris' book "Partner's in Power". Go to chapter 5, "Oxford". On page 83 & 84 starting with the last paragraph on pg. 83, you get an idea of the charade that is a Rhodes Scholar. Much of what I have always wondered about the vacuousness, yet glibness, of current-day Rhodes scholars fell into line after reading this part of Morris' book. Here's a few snips: "Unlike American higher education, there are no compulsory courses or lectures, no class quizzes or semester exams..." "Oxford places the emphasis on fluency and glibness," said one Rhodes scholar. "Serious discussions are not encouraged." "...one hour tutorial sessions but twice a week, the ungraded essays only to be read out to the instructor, and no examinations at terms end..." "You could do as little or as mich as you wanted. It was kind of a lark," said Dell Martin, a Clinton contemporary in the late 1960's. "Hard work is not only unnecesary, it's essentially frowned upon," said David segal, an American at Balliol College who later wroteof an Oxford "ethic...semi-officially codified as 'effortless superiority.'" "...few demands on underlying substance or sustained intellect." "My main impression was just how easy it was," said another Rhodes Scholar at Oxford just after Clinton. "There's a sort of a conspiracy of silence not to reveal this." ...William Weld typically remembered his Oxford years as "lager and chocolates, poker games and parties without end, ten sets of tennis every afternoon, played on grass courts so that no one ever got tired." The big secret about the "society" is that Rhodes scholars are simply layabout members of yet another good ol' boy network, given to the promotion of each other, and to keeping their shallowness and lack of actual hard work a secret. Jay A. - -- "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." - Michael Crichton ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:16:19 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: SNOW: Clinton's Lose-Lose Strategy for the U.S. in Iraq (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:18:36 -0600 From: Brenda Jinkins To: CAS Subject: CAS: SNOW: Clinton's Lose-Lose Strategy for the U.S. in Iraq For education and discussion. Not for commercial use. [Courtesy of Spotnews] CLINTON=92S LOSE-LOSE STRATEGY FOR U.S. IN IRAQ Creators Syndicate 2/17/98 Tony Snow February 17, 1998 CLINTON=92S LOSE-LOSE STRATEGY FOR U.S. IN IRAQ WASHINGTON -- Secretary of Defense William Cohen stormed Russia, Europe and the Middle East last week, seeking support for U.S. military action against Iraq. He had been given the unlovely chore of promoting a one-week bombing campaign that seems more like a temper tantrum than a show of serious force. Our allies were not impressed. Saudi Arabia, arguably our most important helper during the Gulf War, firmly refused to fulfill Cohen's request for help. Russia and France made no secret of their skepticism. Italy wasn't happy in the wake of our inadvertent attack on a ski resort. Germany remained conspicuous by its silence. Most European leaders want to end the economic embargo against Iraq so their businesses can get rich rebuilding the nation's decimated economy. Although Russia can't compete commercially, it still has left-over assets from the Cold War. Recent reports indicate that the Yeltsin government has sold Iraq the tools necessary to brew up chemical and biological weapons. So we stand virtually alone in our martial ambitions, supported only by such warlord states as Canada and Great Britain. The plan fits a pattern. The Clinton administration seldom thinks strategically when it comes to military engagements. It tends to leap from crisis to crisis, without regard to potential side effects. Unfortunately, complications abound. Right now, we have the wherewithal to bomb Iraq for a few weeks at most. But an officer who fought in the Gulf War points out that such attacks aren't likely to make much of a difference, since we've already reduced Saddam's fiefdom to rubble. "It's like hitting a car with a sledgehammer," says the vet. "When you see the first hit, you say: 'Wow! That was devastating.' But there's not a whole lot of difference between the 99th and 100th." If bombing runs didn't prove crippling, then what? A land assault doesn't look possible. Even if the Saudis let us use their kingdom as a staging area, we don't have enough bodies to pull off an invasion. The administration has slashed the Army to 10 divisions -- a 44 percent cut from 1991 -- and it has only three heavy artillery divisions. Virtually all our forces are accounted for. Every fighter in Europe is either on the way to Bosnia or on the way home. Most of the remaining troops find themselves either in Korea or on various "peacekeeping missions" promoted by Comandante Clinton. In other words, we would have to pull out of Korea or Bosnia or both if we decided to pacify Iraq. We're not prepared for that. Clinton's emphasis on peacekeeping has left our military establishment reeling --overworked, understaffed and burnt out. The president has mounted more military operations than any of his predecessors. Yet each year the budgets shrink, morale collapses, and the young men and women who serve ask themselves: What's the point? Right now, for instance, we are making war cries in the Middle East, even though we have one-third fewer fighter and bombers in the region than we did two years ago. We're on the verge of recalling one of the three aircraft carriers from the area. And the administration this week announced plans for further cuts in Air Force and Navy budgets. Is it any wonder our allies have a hard time taking us seriously? There are other concerns: If we send in the jets, women pilots will get into the fray. What happens if and when an aviatrix gets her own parade in Baghdad? What should we do after the raids? We can't count on an anti-Saddam insurgency. We betrayed the Kurds after Desert Storm, which means that nobody is likely to volunteer to do our bidding. Besides, as one Senate expert notes, insurrections tend to succeed only when their patrons live next door. Finally, what's the end game? We say we don't want to kill Saddam -- unless that happens to be the happy byproduct of a bombing. We don't want to take out his army. We just want to send a message: We are not amused. In an eerie reminder of the administration's inattention to history, the Pentagon has dubbed the latest build-up "Operation Desert Thunder." Students of military lore will recall that our failed effort to bomb North Vietnam into submission was: Rolling Thunder. In short, we have the potential for the worst of all worlds: We could shatter our brittle relations with European and Arab allies, without achieving anything significant on the battlefield. The best thing to do now is talk loudly, and walk away. Intelligence officers report that in the waning hours of the Gulf War, Saddam asked two questions: Will they kill me? And, will they cross the Euphrates? Upon hearing that the answer to both queries was no, he reportedly smiled and said, "Then I win." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:37:47 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: "Globalization vs. National Sovereignty: The Princes of the 20th Century" - a Bob Djurdjevic speech (Feb. 17) (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:50:01 -0700 From: Bob Djurdjevic To: timed@djurdjevic.com Subject: "Globalization vs. National Sovereignty: The Princes of the 20th = Century" - a Bob Djurdjevic speech (Feb. 17) FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA NOTE: If you do NOT wish to receive the e-mail editions of our reports, please send us your e-mail address and write REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE. We'll be happy to oblige. Just be sure to specify your EXACT address to which this is being sent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/2-4 17-Feb-98 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS - ----------------------------- Outline of the luncheon speech delivered by Bob Djurdjevic at the=20 Feb. 17 meeting of "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS" organization in Phoenix INTRODUCTION Orginally, the TiM editor intended to give his speech in his usual, off-the-cuff, extemporaneous manner. But following the announcement of his talk to WHTT in TiM GW Bulletin 98/2-3 (2/12/98), we've received a number of requests for a copy of the text from TiM readers around the world who could not physically be present. They hailed from New York, to Australia, to Russia, to Belarus, to some European countries... =20 So by popular demand, the TiM editor wrote out the speech in full. It was delivered today practically verbatim per the enclosed text. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Globalization vs. National Sovereignty:=20 Colonizing the World by Dollars Instead of Bayonets "THE PRINCES OF THE 20TH CENTURY"=20 (Multinational Companies)=20 "Valentine's Day Card" 1998 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- PHOENIX - [Skipping the usual introductory, crowd-warming remarks] Well, maybe I should tell you what I am planning to talk about today. As you may have heard, the title of my talk is Globalization vs. National Sovereignty: How "The Princes of the 20th Century" - the Multinational Companies - Colonize the World Using the Dollars Instead of Bayonets.=20 (So if you're here for a different reason, I hope it's still not too late to get a refund?) Within that, as a general topic, I plan to address the following specific questions: =09=B7 =09Who is still the Bogey - the Enemy No. 1 - of the New World Orde= r elite?=20 =09=B7 =09Why is the Great Asian Bailout yet another example of "Socialism International?" =09=B7 =09What weapons, besides the dollars, does the New World Order use t= o colonize or enslave sovereign nations? (I will touch on Bosnia, NATO expansion and the Middle East within this topic) =20 =09=B7 =09And finally, I plan to share with you my "Valentine's Day Card" 1= 998 But I have to warn you. Unless you're a full time "New World Order Watcher," you may find some things rather disconcerting. That's because "at a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act," according to George Orwell. Or putting it another way, "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise," as Thomas Gray put it in the 18th century. =09=B7 Who Is Still the "Bogey?" Talk is cheap, they say. Put your money where your mouth is. Money talks louder than words. If these truisms still work, the wallets of the New World Order's money holders have spoken loudly and clearly: Russia is still the "Bogey!" Forget the cheap talk about a "Partnership for Peace." Duplicitous partnerships like that are made in hell. They tend to lead to war, not peace, as the Hitler-Stalin pact of the 1930s had proven. =20 Forget the cheap talk about "nation building" and "democracy" whenever our government sends money or troops abroad. Follow the money to see into which mouth it is being put.=20 The investment decisions of the "Princes of the 20th Century" - the multinational companies - are telling us that democracy is for suckers. =20 The Chinese government shot its own people because they wanted democracy. The Russian government shot its own people in the name of democracy. So if "ET" dropped in on Planet Earth from outer space, he might have thought that the democratic leaders of the free world would have punished the Chinese and rewarded the Russians. Right? Sorry, "ET." This is Planet Earth, not Planet Hollywood. This is where Greed, not Justice rules supreme. Since the Tiananmen square massacre in June 1989, during the 1990-1996, China received $158 billion in foreign investments from the "Princes." That's about $40 million per head of each killed Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators, I figure. In just a single year (1996), communist China received nearly as much as all foreign investments the democratic Eastern European countries got in seven years of the 1990s - combined! ($42 billion vs. $46 billion). =20 As for Russia, some $400 billion dollars-worth of national assets were privatized and transferred to western banks under the guise of "reform," according to some opposition leaders with whom I met last year in Moscow. By contrast, during the entire period since the end of the Cold War, Russia's aggregate "reward" from the multinationals was less than $6 billio= n. So $400 billion out; $6 billion in! Communist China got 27 times more money from the "Princes" than the democratic Russia. =20 And that's exporting democracy and American values? Of course, not. And here is another example. =09=B7 Why is The Great Asian Bailout yet another example of "Socialism International?" The short answer to the above question is because it uses PUBLIC funds to bail out PRIVATE banking interests. Just as was the case on a smaller scale three years ago, when the Republican and Democratic leaders both joined the President in robbing the U.S. Taxpayer to bail out the Wall Street bankers in Mexico.=20 In short, the IMF and the World Bank are financial instruments which the New World Order uses to export socialism around the world. And to enslave sovereign nations with Draconian measures, as became quite apparent recently in Asia, when the PRIVATE capital fled. As the "Asian Tigers" were reduced to paper tigers by methods of usury, some of them are wishing they'd never taken the foreign investors' money. Too late now, of course. Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, said on November 24 at the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Community) conference in Vancouver, Canada: "Two decades of growth was wiped out in two weeks... Vibrant economies have been reduced to begging for aid from the IMF." Dr. Mahathir added that the free markets were "a recipe for slavery." True. But during the post-Cold War market globalization and expansion (1990-1996), the Asia/Pacific region attracted about $375 billion in foreign investments. That's about 74 cents of every dollar the multinational companies had invested anywhere in the developing world ($505 billion). But then the bubble burst in the fall of 1997, the recriminations followed. "Power corrupts," Dr. Mahathir railed in Vancouver. "As much as government can become corrupt when invested with absolute power, markets can also become corrupt when equally absolutely powerful. We are seeing the effect of that absolute power today - the impoverishment and misery of millions of people and their eventual slavery." So maybe Russia's relatively low intake of foreign capital may end up being its blessing in disguise? Nevertheless, such imbalances in capital investments are actually bad for world peace. The fact that it is done deliberately makes a mockery out of the globalists' line - "world peace through world trade." On the contrary, a state of low-grade perpetual war seems to be what Big Business wants. =20 Why? For answers to that question let's move on to the Balkans and the Middle East. =09=B7 Colonizing Bosnia I could probably spend several days talking about the Balkans as I traveled there many times during the Bosnian war. But in the interest of time, let me ask you to trust me when I say that the U.S. government's policies have stoked the fires of war which led to the greatest human and material carnage Europe since World War II.=20 NATO's bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in August-September 1995 ensured their defeat. This was done in the typical Gulf War style, including the use of depleted uranium against targets in populated areas, and with the "whole world" ganging up on the designated culprit - the 800 thousand Serbs! That's like the population of downtown San Francisco, half of Houston's or one-tenth of Metropolitan Chicago's. The war was eventually halted by a U.S.-imposed "peace" agreement signed in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995. =09=B7 NATO Expansion Since that time, 98% of foreign investment has ended up in the Muslim-Croat federation. The Serbian half of Bosnia got only 2% of foreign aid. So the war and colonization of the Orthodox Christian Serbs continues. It's just that money has replaced the bombs as the weapon of choice. Now, let me pause here and quickly shift gears to the proposed NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. What do you think, which will be the first country where NATO will be deployed? =20 Answer: BOSNIA! In fact, NATO has already been deployed in Bosnia for about five years, however surreptitiously. And it is there to stay. Just as the U.S. troops have never left the Arab lands after the Gulf War. =20 It is interesting, isn't it, therefore, how all this invokes similarities with the U.S. policy vis-=E0-vis Iraq? Another small country, another "hot= " region of the world, another gangland example of the U.S. and other western government's treachery and hypocrisy causing a massive loss of human life and property. =09=B7 Colonizing Iraq First, we built up Saddam Hussein's military capabilities in the 1980s. During the Iraq-Iran war, for example, it was the U.S. and British governments that supplied to Iraq most of the terrible weapons of mass destruction. The French and the Germans also pitched in. The Feb. 12 reports by Reuters and The Independent, as well as a Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal OpEd piece, provide the gory details. Yet all these self-righteous defenders of the "free of the free world" shamefully looked the other way as Iran vainly protested at the U.N. the genocidal use such weapons by Iraq against its troops in the 1980s. =20 Then, just as in Bosnia later on, the U.S. envoy to Iraq tricked Hussein into attacking Kuwait, a country minted arbitrarily by the British colonialists in the early part of this century. Before that it was a part of Iraq, just as Bosnia was a part of Yugoslavia. =20 As the NWO trap door closed behind Iraq, the "whole world" ganged up on it in a most massive display of military power since World War II. Some 250,000 Iraqis perished, most innocent civilians, according to Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, writing in "The Fire This Time," his 1992 book. Followed by more innocent civilian casualties due to seven years of U.N. sanctions. If peace in the Middle East were indeed the objective of the New World Order leaders, the coalition troops could have easily taken Baghdad and dislodged Saddam Hussein in 1991. But no, the victorious American President decided to save Iraq for another President to use as a punching b= ag. And now, a draft-evading, leftist President, who would not qualify even for the lowest security clearance had he not been elected Chief Executive, is trying deflect the nation's attention from his zipper by threatening to bomb the Iraqis again. =20 =09[speech interrupted here by spontaneous applause] What sort of monsters have we sent to Washington? Honor of the entire nation and the disgrace of the highest office in the land have sunk to a new low. =09=B7 But WHY do the New World Order leaders want perpetual low grade war= s?=20 Once again, let's follow the money... What country, in your opinion, leads the whole world in terms of the growth of its gross domestic product (GDP)? Correct answer: BOSNIA! Its GDP increased by 50 percent in 1996, the first post-Dayton year, according to the Jan. 17 issue of the London-based ECONOMIST. What nation came second? =20 ALBANIA! Another country which just had a close brush with civil war, and where international troops and monitors are deployed as "peacekeepers." Closer to home, we've seen similar tactics at work in Panama, El Salvador, Haiti... =20 In Panama, for example, a planeload of American business executives ready to start working on reconstruction projects arrived in Panama City while the street fighting was still going on, the head of OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) told me when we met in Washington in June 1990. The ill-fated Ron Brown mission was in Bosnia and Croatia even before all the I-FOR troops had been fully deployed. See a pattern? First destroy them, then take over and rebuild them. Which kind of puts a "black humor" spin on an old one-liner: =20 =09QUESTION: What's the difference between mechanical and civil engineers? =09ANSWER: Mechanical engineers build the weapons; civil engineers build th= e targets. =09[laughter] Either way, both the destruction and the rebuilding helps keep the bankers' and multinationals' businesses humming. Either way, Big Business wins. What do Bosnia, the NATO expansion and the perpetual Middle-eastern crisis have in common? Increased spending. More money for the "Princes."=20 So perpetual war for perpetual commerce - should be the real motto of the heartless and godless New World Order. And who loses? Well, the taxpayers do. The 200 million humans killed by the governments in the 20th century alone, according to the University of Hawaii professor, R.J. Rummell, certainly would also qualify as losers. And so could Liberty and National Sovereignty, especially if the MAI Treaty is signed as planned by April 28. In other words, what we are seeing is an evil, genocidal, parasitic, Machiavellian industrial-financial elite - enriching itself on the backs of other fellow-humans' pain and suffering. It's just that the weapons and the targets; the engineers and the victims; the countries and the ideologies... bear different names in various deadly cycles. That's precisely the kind of threat against which President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell speech in 1961: "In the councils of government, we must guard against acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-(congressional)-complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of that combination endanger our liberties or democratic process." And yet we have allowed to happen during the last 37 years. Through our lethargy; through our materialism; through our self-indulgence; through our greed; and through a deliberate process of educational and media-led "dumbing down of America," as I put it in an August 1997 column in the WASHINGTON TIMES. We did not heed President Eisenhower's warning. We did allow the New World Order elite to "endanger our liberty and democratic processes." =09=B7 What's to be done? In a word - disarmament! First regional, followed by a global reduction of the weapons of mass destruction. We must put these merchants of death out of business. I don't know if you saw today's OpEd piece in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman. He also argued the same thing. He said that "stemming the weapons proliferation should be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy." Friedman criticized Madeleine Albright for being inconsistent - on one hand threatening to expand NATO into the Baltics, on the other hand complaining about Russia not going along with the proposed bombing of Iraq. Well, no wonder some people who have known the Secretary of State for some time reportedly call her Madeleine Halfbright. =09[laughter] But Madeleine is Mrs. Fullbright when it comes to knowing what side her bread is buttered on. And who her real bosses are. Her policies may not make sense to people who seek real peace. But this Secretary of State is performing at the A+ level if the goal is "perpetual war for perpetual commerce." =09=B7 My "Valentine's Day Card" 1998 Which is why, I want to conclude my talk by sharing with you my "Valentine's Day Card" 1998. Its title: "Don't Cry for Me Argentina." Who can forget the hauntingly beautiful melody from "Evita?" It was a song of a passionate love for one's country. The patriotic flame burned fiercely in Eva (Duarte) Peron's heart despite turbulent times and grave illness which snuffed out her life at age 33. It was also a story of an "American Dream" the Argentinean way - a poor girl from the pampas countryside makes good and rises to become Argentina's First Lady at the age of 27. Here are some lyrics: =09Don't cry for me Argentina =09The truth is I never left you =09All through my wild days =09My mad existence =09I kept my promise =09Don't keep your distance =09And as for fortune, and as for fame =09I never invited them in =09Though it seemed to the world they were all I desired =09They are illusions =09They are not the solutions they promised to be =09The answer was here all the time =09I love you and hope you love me =09Don't cry for me Argentina... Or America... Or Canada.... Or Russia... Or Serbia... Or Germany... Or Iraq... Or Iran... Or Japan...=20 So my "Valentine's Day Card" 1998, inspired by Evita, was dedicated to the love of one's country. May we all cherish our different cultures, pray in our different ways, sing in our different languages, admire our different ethos... =20 For, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." May God gives us strength to defend our liberty and to regain our Constitution from the globalist colonizers; the Wall Street worshipers of the Golden Calf - the godless, heartless, materialistic New World Order elite. =20 "Vive la difference!" God bless all patriots of the world! God bless Americ= a! Thank you. - ---------------------- [long applause]=09=09=09=09(TOTAL LENGTH: 30 minutes) =09QUESTIONS & ANSWERS During a 15-minute Q&A period which followed the speech, the topics ranged from the Iraq crisis, to Bosnia, to the Federal Reserve Board and how the IMF gets its money. Since the latter question was only indirectly to the content of the speech, while building on it, here is a summary of the answe= r: A: You're right, Sir. Ever since the Federal Reserve Board was established in 1913, along with the introduction of the income tax, the financial elite have been gradually tightening the noose around our collective necks. In other words, they have been colonizing America using similar financial weapons as those I had described before. For example, income tax is NOT the plutocrats' God-given right; from a 17-page first tax law in 1913, it has now grown to over 3,000 pages. =20 (In the 1930s, the INDIVIDUALS' income tax was 1.4% of GNP; CORPORATE was 1.6% of GNP; In 1990, they were 8.8% and 2.0% of GNP respectively - a SIX-fold increase for individuals; only 25% for corporations.)=20 But the greatest travesty was how Big Business used World War II to push through as a TEMPORARY wartime emergency legislation during the FDR administration a law requiring employers to make collect income tax at the source - without compensation. This communist-style legislation turned the American legal principle - "innocent until proven guilty" - on its head. It gave the IRS the rights normally accorded a defendant while putting the burden of proof on the accused taxpayer. Over half a century later, this has given a whole new meaning to the term "temporary." Worse than that, this enabled the corporate elite to install a direct line into your and my wallets, taking out our money practically at will. Since these people worship the Almighty Dollar as the Golden Calf, the best way for Americans to fight back is by repealing this law, however belatedly. If you cut off the taxpayers' money supply to the Feds, the IMF and/or the World Bank, the effect would be like the same as disconnecting a dying patient from his life-support systems. As Chuck said in the introduction, we - Americans - are among the few nations in the world fortunate enough to have at our disposal the legal, non-violent means to hit back against the New World Order tyranny. All that's missing is the will to use them. So I say, let's start fighting back by cutting off the blood supply to the bloodsucking New World Order. Let's repeal the "temporary" law on automatic income tax deductions at the source. - ---------------------- You can visit the "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS" Web site at: http://www.whtt.org/ - ---- Bob Djurdjevic=20 TRUTH IN MEDIA=20 Phoenix, Arizona=20 e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com=20 Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #72 ************************