SPOTLIGHT EMAIL NEWSLETTER #21 Today's Kosovo War Dates Back to WWI What's this Kosovo thing all about, anyway? By F.C. Blahut The war in Kosovo-and there's no other word for it-is far more involved than an exercise in ethnic cleansing. Kosovo has always been majority Albanian. It was Albanian when the Serbians arrived. Serbians call Kosovo "Old Serbia," and their existence as a people and sovereignty as a nation is tied to the province. Historically, Slavs from the Caucasian Mountains (originally) arrived in the peninsula with a Serbian presence in Vojvodina (about the same as today's country of Serbia) documented to the seventh century. Serbians can document their habitation in Kosovo to the ninth century and were probably there before then. That doesn't negate the fact that Albanians were occupying what is today Albania (to the southwest) and Kosovo when the Serbs arrived. But Kosovo was rugged, sparsely populated and the indigenous people tended to move around. The Serbs, for their part, established churches, roads, towns, and so forth, but were never the majority. SLAV INCURSIONS Other major Slavic incursions into the Balkans were by the Croatians and Slovenians. Add to these a religious sect, mostly Slavic, which came from what is today's Bulgaria, called the Bogomils. The first two settled, for the most part, where they are today and the Bogomils in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, move ahead to the 14th century and the advance of Islam. Having overrun what is Albania proper today, the forces of the prophet advanced into Kosovo where they were met by a Slavic Christian army composed mostly of Serbians. The Serbians expected help from other Christians elsewhere in Europe, but the other Christian communities adopted a "better you than us" attitude. The upshot was that the Serbians were defeated in the crucial Battle of Kosovo in 1389. From then to the 19th century, most of the Balkans were controlled by the Ottoman Turks. The Serbians were mostly restricted to Vojvodina; the Croatians and Slovenians to where they are today; and the Bogomils converted to Islam, hence the Islamics in Bosnia-Herzegovina today. Moving ahead, the internal weakening of the Turkish empire, coupled with independence movements in the peninsula and muscle-flexing by the Hapsburgs in Austria, led to several attempts to unify what became known as the Southern Slavs. Yugoslavia translates loosely as "Union of Southern Slavs." This brings us to the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 which solved nothing, but led to the hardening of the positions of the two major Slavic groups-the Serbians and the Croatians. Of the several unified entities prior to World War I, all were dominated by Serbia, headquartered in Belgrade and run (more or less) by a Serbian king. With the assassination of the Hapsburg Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia came the domino effect leading to World War I.* Following the "War to End All Wars," the victorious Allies got together at Versailles to carve up what had been the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires. A leading figure was Woodrow Wilson of the United States. One of Wilson's "Fourteen Points" was "self-determination" for all the peoples within the conquered countries/empires. So Yugoslavia was created, cobbling together a number of peoples who may have looked and sounded alike to the British, Wilson and French, but who were anything but. The forcible union featured Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and (Slavic) Macedonia. The last is to distinguish it from the northern area of Greece which is called the same and associated with Philip and his son, Alexander the Great. GREATER SERBIA Yugoslavia was nothing more or less than Greater Serbia, controlled from Belgrade. Kosovo had titular autonomy, which looks good on paper but doesn't work well in practice. The Serbs continued their centuries-long attempt to make Kosovo what they called it-Old Serbia. And so the situation simmered until the 1930s and war came to Europe once again. The Axis powers moved into the Balkans, the Croatians formed their own country under German protection and the Serbians split into two guerrilla groups, the communist Partisans and the nationalistic Chetniks. Since the Partisans were the puppets of the USSR's Josef Stalin, and "Uncle Joe" was Franklin D. Roosevelt's very good buddy, the United States sold out the Chetniks and backed the Partisans. At the end of the war, the Serbians were rewarded with another Yugoslavia, led by-who else?-"Tito." To backtrack just a few years, the Partisans needed a local leader to unify their activities and to receive and transmit orders from Moscow. So a leader was created, called, not surprisingly, Tito (translated, "leader"). Following the war, a man emerged from the caves who identified himself as the aforesaid "Tito" and said his name was Josip Broz. Tito ran the country as a repressive dictatorship until his death in 1980, when a revolving leadership plan was put into effect. Again, it looked good on paper. In reality, the country was still run by Serbia, featuring the army and secret police, not to mention leaders of all of the major bureaucracies. It wasn't long before the current Serbian president, Slobodan Milosovic, took over. He immediately brushed aside the revolving leadership, and punished the hated Albanians in Kosovo by eliminating all vestiges of self-rule, including the dissolution of all teaching in Albanian. But when the Soviet Union came apart, so did Yugoslavia. First Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence-which they were allowed to do under the Yugoslav constitution. Serbia sent a punitive force to Slovenia to whip them back into line and were shocked when the Slovenians put up a struggle. With Western Europe looking on-particularly Austria-Belgrade backed down and turned its attention to Croatia. With local Serbians acting as a Fifth Column, a bloody war ensued, but Croatia won its independence. Then Macedonia followed. At this point in time, "Yugoslavia" consists of Serbia and Montenegro-a de facto Greater Serbia. Montenegro has no say in Milosovic's government and no longer even gets "junior partner" lip service. It is this Greater Serbia that NATO is bombing. * * * * * * *See The Barnes Review for a detailed study of the beginning of World War I in the Balkans and the disaster that was Versailles. Write The Barnes Review, 130 Third St., Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 202-546-1586. Congress, Not the President, Has Authority to Declare War; Congressmen Need to Follow the Constitution On March 17, a week before NATO started bombing in Kosovo, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) reminded his colleagues of their role in declaring war. Too few heeded his advise. An edited version of his speech follows. By Ron Paul Those of us who argued for congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to "wag the Congress," generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and UN resolutions. This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member states would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action. Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the president has authority to move troops and fight wars without congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress [see SPOTLIGHT March 29] once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the president has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself. Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared "the Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo." If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The president can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us. Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that, if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein's power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful. The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States' plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? "This violence is all America's fault," one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic? Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world's humanitarian policeman. Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect. It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president's authority to wage war without congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the president greater power to wage war with congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops. IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution, but more likely it's the result of the growing imperial presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it. Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the president, that have been granted legislative, police and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it's Congress' responsibility to restore constitutional government. As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of. We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved. Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The president today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without congressional approval. It shouldn't be that way. It's dangerous politically, military, morally, and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law. _______________ Ron Paul represents Texas' 14th District. He is serving his sixth term in Congress. War Seen Part of Plutocrats' Agenda What charter? With Western Europe safe, NATO moves into the nation-building mode. EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT By James P. Tucker Jr. The U.S.-led NATO attack on a sovereign nation is part of a much bigger Bilderberg plan than stopping Serbians from butchering ethnic Albanians, according to a high State Department source. "It is important to the Bilderberg scheme for world government to get NATO out from the limitations of its own charter," said the source, a reliable observer for more than a decade. The treaty limits the alliance to a defensive position, providing that if any member nation is attacked, all NATO countries would respond, he pointed out. The treaty has no authority for an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. "By bombing Kosovo, the precedent is set," he said. "Despite the terms of the treaty, NATO now can go anywhere and attack anybody. This solidifies NATO's role as the UN's world army." While not officially sanctioned by the UN because Red China and Russia would exercise Security Council vetoes and block the action, the UN bureaucrats privately celebrate NATO's attack, he said. "It's all so transparent, but the media covers it up and Americans don't read enough anyway-that's why they're so damn ignorant," he said. While ethnic Albanian blood is being spilled, the amount is exaggerated for propaganda purposes and there's much bigger bloodbaths elsewhere if we're looking for a fight, he said. He also insisted that there was absolutely no risk of the civil war in Yugoslavia spilling over borders and involving other nations, another of the White House rationales. President Clinton, he said, is "the most blood thirsty draft dodger in history." Giving NATO a global role instead of only a mission to defend Western Europe is part of both evolving a world army and conditioning the public mind to accept surrendering national sovereignty, he said. The source pointed to a March 28 column by Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who regularly attends Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings. "The intervention in Kosovo should revive the concept of a 'right to intervene' and lead to changes in the United Nation's standards for sovereignty and the existing protections those standards provide for criminal governments," Hoagland wrote. "NATO's decision to bypass the Security Council to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes based on 'sovereignty' arguments reflects poorly not on NATO but on the Security Council as it is organized," he wrote. "Using the Kosovo operation to override outmoded sovereignty concerns in international relations would be one measure of political success for this high-cost intervention," Hoagland added. "Hoagland's column couldn't be better Bilderberg propaganda if Henry Kissinger had dictated it," the official said. Crop Dusting The American People Is the government using you as a guinea pig again? By Don Harkins In the fall of 1997, several sources released information that the additive ethyl dibromide was suddenly being added to JP8 jet engine fuel. This additive was removed from gasoline in the 1960s due to its toxicity to people. The reports said that you can tell if the toxic substance has been added to jet fuel by the nature of the vapor trails, i.e., contrails, recorded in the sky. Unlike ordinary contrails that dissipate in a matter of minutes, the toxic contrails linger for hours without disappearing. Disturbed by the news that "they" were crop dusting the American public, I just filed this information away and kept looking at the sky. Enroute to Pendleton, Oreg., last spring, I saw all of the day's airplane traffic recorded in a clear blue sky-the contrails criss-crossing over the Tri-cities and Pendleton. Several months later I was heading south on Highway 395 and I noticed that there were cobweb-like things all over the place. I didn't pay that much attention thinking that it was a spider hatch of some kind. This past fall, I was heading west toward Spokane, Wash., on Interstate 90 when at sunset I first noticed at least 15 contrails criss-crossing the sky. Then I noticed that two small jets were methodically covering the area, leaving behind them a pattern that was reminiscent of rumpled graph paper. Recently I discovered that people throughout the country are suffering from upper respiratory infections that refuse to respond to antibiotics and other traditional therapies. Hospitals in 22 states are reportedly overflowing with patients suffering from mysterious ailments. After two years of noticing these things and waiting for confirmation of this story, it appears that our worst nightmares may be coming true: The American public is being crop dusted by "our" government. Remember, also, that according to Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520 of the U.S. Code, it is "legal" for the Department of Defense and its contractors to experiment with chemical and biological weapons on the unsuspecting American public. That is exactly what may be happening. America, are you mad yet or is it okay for the federal government to spray stuff upon us that makes us sick? If you think that conspiracy "theorists" are crazy, what would you call a government that makes laws which legalize the "testing" of chemical and biological weapons upon its unsuspecting populace sane? ------------ By Don Harkins is editor of the Oregon Observer. The Time Has Come for Decent Americans To Fight Cultural Communism Everywhere Charlton Heston spoke on winning the Cultural War at a Harvard Law School Forum on Feb. 16. By Charlton Heston I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy. As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty, your own freedom of thought, your own compass for what is right. Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you, the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I'm pretty old, but I sure thank the Lord I ain't senile. As I have stood in the cross hairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated. For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963-long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite. Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh. >From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!" But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown. In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something, without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it." Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation-all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their [being infected with] AIDS, the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not-need not-tell their patients that they are infected. At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name. In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery. In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three r's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic. At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students. That's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward-particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation Native American-with a capital letter on "American." Finally, just last month, David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign. As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly," (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance." What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression? Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason. You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that, and abide it, you are-by your grandfathers' standards-cowards. Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers. I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me." If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and 20,000 people. You simply, disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King, who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might. Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom. But be careful, it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated, to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water Cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story. A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so-at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer"-every vicious, vulgar, instructional word. I got my 12 gauge sawed off. I got my headlights turned off. I'm about to bust some shots off. I'm about to dust some cops offs. It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces Of Al and Tipper Gore. She pushed her butt against my . . . S Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner EDs selling it." Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk. When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself, jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80 percent of the students graduate with honors, choke the halls of the board of regents. When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment, march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you, petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month, boycott their magazine and the products it advertises. So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country. _____________________ Charlton Heston is president of the National Rifle Association. Encryption Ensuring The World's Secrets "The ability to protect a secret, to preserve one's privacy, is a form of power . . . The ability to learn a person's secrets without his or her knowledge-to pierce a person's privacy in secret-is a greater power still," says A. Michael Froomkin in his history of encryption, entitled: The Metaphor Is The Key: Cryptography, The Clipper Chip And The Constitution. According to civil libertarians and privacy experts, this statement illustrates the controversy surrounding the issue of encryption-a procedure that can convert any form of communication into a disguised and unreadable message that only the intended receiver can decipher. Government agencies want to be able to access all forms of communication, whether it be the average American calling someone on a cell phone or a criminal transferring information on laundered drug money accounts. Big Brother wants to be able to read the world's secrets. But privacy advocates, who do not want to grant that access to the government, or anyone else for that matter, see encryption for what it symbolizes: A battle between "the individual's power to keep a secret from the state and others, and the state's power to penetrate that secret," as Froomkin says. The SPOTLIGHT reported on April 5, in the Internet Column on H.R. 850, The Safe and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act, currently pending in Congress. It would free up restrictions on the export of encryption, allowing anyone in the world access to the most advanced communications-security technology available. But law enforcement officials, including FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General Janet Reno and the National Security Agency are fighting to maintain current restrictions on encryption technology. They say that the government needs access to communications to protect against criminals, such as terrorists and money launders, who might take advantage of secure communications for illicit purposes. They don't want to give up their power easily. 20-YEAR-OLD ARGUMENT The U.S. Data Encryption Standard (DES)-the standard used today-was decided upon in 1977 by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)-now called the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NBS used a mathematical process created by IBM to encrypt and decrypt messages, called an algorithm, to set the standard. DES is what is referred to as "a single-key cipher," meaning that the sender and the receiver use the same key to encode and decipher the message. DES keys are 56 bits long, and, at the time, were near impossible for anyone but the two who had the correct keys, to decipher. According to cryptologists-experts on codes and ciphers-were someone to try to decipher the message at random, he would have to try 72 quadrillion different possible keys before finding the correct one. Cryptography experts say that at the time of the decision, there was much controversy over the standard. Critics of DES feared that designers had built a so-called "back door" into the technology to allow government surveillance. Nevertheless, the current standard that the government is content to allow out in circulation is not secure, as evidenced by recent successes in deciphering 56-bit encryption in less than 24 hours, and people know it. WHO NEEDS ENCRYPTION In the United States, any computer user can use any encryption software domestically that they want, though many say that the government discourages software designers and industry from incorporating advanced encryption technology in their programs. Much communication today, however, is international and, experts say, U.S. laws are pitifully outdated, prohibiting the use of secure encryption technology. Still, privacy experts argue that there are many convincing reasons for allowing unfettered and indecipherable communications. Banks commonly use encrypted data transfers to ensure the security of account holders. Encryption is used by financial institutions to protect everything from ID numbers and pass codes at automatic teller machines (ATMs) to information on multi-million dollar personal and business accounts. Industry commonly uses encoded messages to avoid industrial espionage, ensuring the security of intellectual property. And cell phone companies use technology to insure some amount of privacy when calling. Just about every form of communication today, whether by telephone, fax or e-mail could benefit from encryption, making it that much more safe to send confidential information without the worry that someone else out who might be listening in on you. Fraud Sends Billions in Tax-free 'Contributions' to Israel Israeli fundraisers are more open than ever, and the IRS doesn't do a thing about it. EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT By Warren Hough At least a billion dollars is fraudulently diverted from U.S. tax revenues each year and smuggled to Israel under the guise of "charitable contributions." Raising tax-deductible donations from Americans in the name of "charitable" organizations that are, in reality, false fronts for Israeli political parties and militant Zionist movements, is illegal. But it has been "going on for years," confirmed Sheldon Cohen, a former U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner. It has become common practice, a SPOTLIGHT investigation has found. When former Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai, a leading candidate in the ministate's upcoming national elections, made a fundraising tour of U.S. cities last month, his aides openly solicited "tax-deductible" campaign contributions from wealthy American Zionists such as S. Daniel Abraham, the diet-drink magnate, this populist newspaper has learned. Potential U.S. contributors were told that they could help finance the Israeli general's run for prime minister by giving the money to a "charitable trust" set up in New York to convert tax-deductible American donations into Israeli political funds. The "charitable trust" known as the "American Friends of Amuta for Renewal and Democracy" was, in reality, a camouflaged conduit to help finance the campaign of Mordechai's newly established Israeli political party, explained Shelly Sitton, one of Mordechai's aides. When asked by reporter for the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz whether to collect money under such false pretenses was not a dubious practice, Ms. Sitton reportedly answered: "Maybe, but the other [Israeli] parties have been doing it for decades." A SPOTLIGHT investigation has found that at least three "charitable organizations" incorporated in the United States, known as the "Education Fund for Israel," the "Israel Development Fund" and "Youth Towns for Israel," had been set up by Steven L. Friedman, a registered foreign agent for Israel's hard-line Likud party. The registration form filled out for the U.S. Justice Department states that Friedman's work as a foreign agent in America would involve "soliciting funds and coordinating fund-raising activities for the Likud Party of Israel in the U.S." Reporters for Ha'aretz found that Friedman's Israel Development Fund had funneled tax-deductible cash gifts from American donors to the Likud Party. In a half-hearted attempt to disguise the connection between the ostensible U.S. "charity" contributions and the real beneficiary-the Likud, an alien political party-Friedman spelled the name of the recipient as "Lichud," Ha'aretz reported. In l997, an Associated Press report estimated the total volume of such "charitable" donations made each year by wealthy American supporters of Israel at between $900 million and $1 billion. Since then, the volume of this illegal cash flow has "greatly increased," perhaps even doubled, owing to the intensive fund-raising activities of alien agents, New York financial sources say. One question raised by these devious money-laundering operations run by Israel's leaders is why the IRS has never attempted to crack down on them. Zionists Have Mastered Avoiding Taxes Israeli fundraisers are allowed to usurp U.S. law and attack American values. EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT By Warren Hough There are hundreds of worthy causes in America and around the world that have earned no tax exemption for their contributors from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). But if you want to give money to Israel, there are dozens of devious ways you can make your contribution tax deductible-even terrorist funds. If you should happen to want to finance a movement for the suppression of Christianity, you can do so tax-free, provided you funnel your donation through Rabbi Shalom Lifshitz or Rabbi Eliezer Sandler. Their mission is to keep Christian clergymen out of the Middle East. Rabbis Lifshitz and Sandler head Yad L'Achim, an organization devoted to opposing the "outreach" of Christianity to Israel and any other enclave of Judaism around the world. America is a key target of Yad L'Achim's anti-Christian campaign. When it comes to confronting Christianity, "The U.S. is the belly of the beast . . . the heart, the nerve center of Christian evangelizing efforts. We must combat the efforts of American evangelical leaders and organizations to spread the gospel of Christianity," Sandler declared in New York City last month. Even movements condemned by the U.S. government as "illegal" and "contrary to America's national interests" qualify for tax-exempt contributions if they happen to be located in Israel, The SPOTLIGHT's survey found. American Friends of Ateret Cohanim and the One Israel Fund are recognized in the United States as a tax-deductible charities although they solicit contributions in the millions of dollars for the hard-line Israeli settler movement, denounced by successive U.S. administrations as an "obstacle to peace" in the Middle East. There is, believe it or not, a registered tax-exempt "charity" raising money in the U.S. for American Friends of Yeshivat Harav Meir, a violent group organized by fanatical followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, privately denounced as a "gang of terrorists" even by Israeli government officials. The resources illegally siphoned off from the US revenue budget for such malodorous alien schemes represent a huge added burden on American taxpayers. Congress would be well advised to take a closer look at these thinly veiled abuses-and find a way to curb them. Lost Stealth Technology Serious One lost plane has given potential enemies a wealth of information about U.S. fighters. EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT By Mike Blair Experts have told The SPOTLIGHT that U.S. technology has been compromised as a result of the downing of a U.S. Air Force F-117A stealth fighter-bomber over Yugoslavia on March 27. A retired Air Force major, who specialized in intelligence matters, said, "I have no doubt that an expert technical team was immediately dispatched from Russia to professionally collect the debris right after the crash." The Russians "are very good at this sort of thing, in this case picking up our stealth secrets from the wreckage," said Sam Cohen, a retired nuclear scientist. During the Vietnam War, the retired major said, the Russians scavenged for downed wrecks of U.S. aircraft to obtain details of their technology, particularly electronics. Cohen said that relying upon stealth technology for the nation's military capability is a mistake, in any case. Cohen said that when a country obtains neutron warheads, of which he believes Russia, Israel and Red China have current stockpiles, then stealth technology is not all that effective. The inventor of the neutron bomb, Cohen explained that with the retrieval of the debris of the F-117A, it is important to realize that it is not the ability to duplicate the aircraft that is vital but the ability to defeat it or counter it. Radars can be developed, Cohen said, that can at least obtain some type of warning of the approaching stealth aircraft, if not a pinpoint location. Then a missile carries a neutron warhead aloft and detonates it, the retired scientist explained. If the aircraft is anywhere within a one-mile radius of the neutron blast, all of the crew are immediately irradiated and killed. "There is nothing that is so good that it cannot be countered," Cohen said. The retired Air Force officer said that the downing of the stealth fighter in Yugoslavia illustrates a weakness of the aircraft. "While true that the plane is virtually immune from radar detection, if it can be seen from the ground, it can be shot down," he said. Many suspect that a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile brought down the stealth fighter. It is one of the older Soviet anti-aircraft weapons and was used without particular success by Iraq in its clashes with Western aircraft. The problem for U.S. airmen in the war in Kosovo now is that U.S. aircraft must soon fly low in a ground-attack role, attacking troop formations, tanks and other mobile vehicles that cannot be hit from the security of high altitudes. Capitalism Drives America's Foreign Interests When you think about terrorism, you should remember that there was once a time when Americans freely traveled the world and met nothing but admiration and perhaps a bit of envy. It is useful to ponder what changed between the time America was admired and the time today when America is often hated. America was admired when it followed the advice of George Washington and, in its foreign relations, offered friendship and commerce to all, with no favoritism and entangling alliances with none. America was admired when it was a republic, not an empire, and when it spoke in favor of people trying to throw off imperial governments. The change occurred following the War Between the States. America became an empire, and its first imperial war was the Spanish-American War, which, stripped of all the baloney, was a deliberate attack against Spain's foreign holdings for the purpose of acquiring an empire of our own. And we did. We took Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Instead of defending people's desire for liberty and independence, we crushed it. Soon afterward, we annexed the Hawaiian Islands. We fomented a rebellion against Colombia, created Panama and then took a 10-mile-wide slice of that country and built the Panama Canal. A Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, captured the era when he said of his 33 years in the Corps he spent "most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers . . . I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests. I brought light to Dominican Republic for American sugar interests . . . I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in . . . In China in 1927. I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." And so forth. Today, we are still using our military and the CIA as racketeers for capitalism. There is no legitimate national security purpose in our being in all the places we are. All of this imperial business stems from the London-New York financial axis that developed about the time America was suckered into the first of Europe's civil wars. It's in the history books if you care to dig it out. But the relevant point, which politicians never mention, is that U.S. policy creates terrorism, and the solution to the problem of terrorism is to change the policy. We shouldn't be meddling and bullying people in the Balkans and in the Middle East. We shouldn't be propping up dictators who cut deals with U.S. businessmen and trying to overthrow those who won't. It's funny, in fact, to hear the politicians and the terrorism bureaucrats talk. You'd think terrorists parachuted down from Mars and have no earthly reason to be terrorists. Of course, the last thing in the world politicians want Americans to realize is that it is the U.S. policies that are creating the terrorists. What does Osama bin Laden, the government's terrorist de jour, want? He wants the United States out of Saudi Arabia, and he wants the United States to quit supporting Israel's repression of Palestinians. I don't have a problem with that. There's no legitimate reason for us to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries of the Middle East. Our one legitimate interest is buying oil, and no matter who's in charge of the countries, they'll sell it to us. Which companies they do business with, and the terms, are not a legitimate national interest. We are played for suckers by the people who own our politicians. ©1999 by King Features Syndicates **************************************************************************** Subscribe to THE SPOTLIGHT! Only $59.00 for 1 year or $99.00 for 2 years. Every week, get the important stories that the popular media either miss... or ignore. For around $1.00 per issue, THE SPOTLIGHT is a steal! Don't wait any longer. Make sure that you never miss another issue. Subscribe now! To subscribe online, visit our SECURE server at www.spotlight.org. You can also mail your subscription to THE SPOTLIGHT, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. OR CALL 1-800-522-6292 **************************************************************************** If you wish to unsubscribe from this newsletter, send an email to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes) and type in the body of the email "unsubscribe spotlist" (also without the quotes).
