from: http://pages.about.com/search/chapter13.htm Click Here: <A HREF="http://pages.about.com/search/chapter13.htm">Preserving the legacy</A> ----- >From Hiss to Whitewater-cont- The agenda of the so-called American "patriots" who worked with Howard Hughes was to place one of their own cronies in the White House and their trademark was their willingness to obstruct justice and to subvert the political process. Obsessed with hatred towards the Kennedys, they did whatever they could think of to destroy them, as a matter of course -efforts to blackmail, bribery, murder... -as far as they were concerned, the end always justified the means. Corruption and the obsession with secrecy provided the capacity to deny their criminal culpability and even when they got caught red handed, they continued to deny involvement and to seek to cover up the truth. When Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was assigned the responsibility to investigate the Nixon White House, Nixon repeatedly stonewalled the investigation and ordered the Attorney General of the United States to fire Cox. When Richardson refused, Nixon predictably appealed to his perverted sense of the national security and said: "I'm sorry that you choose to prefer your purely personal commitments to the national security." Fortunately, Richardson and Cox were genuinely motivated by the principles that Nixon fraudulently claimed for himself [law and order] and they refused to be a party to cover up. Undaunted, Nixon ordered the FBI to seal off the office of the special prosecutor. By the 1970's, the arrogance of Richard Nixon, the self-proclaimed espionage operative who was, as far as he was concerned, entitled to subvert his enemies as though they were all KGB agents, is absolutely mind-boggling. In retrospect, Nixon produced and lived in a world which was entirely manufactured -there was absolutely nothing about his rise to power that did not have a fraudulent foundation. After the Hiss case, he developed the notion that he could break any law and get away with it as long as he appealed to what he termed national security interests. Indeed, Nixon even compared the indefensible Watergate scandals to the Hiss case, because in his mind, it was all the same -a game of creating appearances and destroying political enemies. Nixon betrayed the ugly fact that Watergate and the Hiss case were ultimately comparable at an impromptu news conference on October 5, 1972 when he said that the FBI Watergate probe made the 1948 investigation of Alger Hiss seem like a "Sunday school exercise."13 To be sure, history generally promotes the claim that Watergate was the source of Nixon's downfall, but the cover up ultimately successful because the genuine nature of Richard Nixon's criminal operations was never exposed. Nixon in fact used his sources within the FBI to seriously compromise an independent investigation. If the entire operation was not a "Sunday school exercise", to use Nixon's terms, it is because he was in fact forced to resign the presidency. At the same time, the Watergate plea bargain was sweet -Nixon did not serve jail time, he continued to exercise political muscle in Washington, the entire truth about Watergate was never exposed and Nixon is quite content that it never will. In his own words, "the factual truth [about Watergate] could probably never be completely reconstructed, because each of us had become involved in different ways and no one's knowledge at any given time exactly duplicated anyone else's."14 Ironically, the "Sunday school exercise comparison that Nixon alluded to ultimately reflects the fact that Richard Nixon was a shameless con artist who bemoaned nothing beyond the fact he had failed to mount a more aggressive Watergate cover-up [he claimed that he should have destroyed the tapes]. Perhaps, Nixon fantasizes, if he had destroyed the tapes, he could have pulled off the equivalent of that other successful endeavour, the Sunday school exercise that destroyed the political career of Alger Hiss. The only question of the scenario that Nixon regrets having pursued is: How many honest people would Nixon have had to murder, to make the Watergate cover up as successful as the fraudulent prosecution of Alger Hiss? Nixon believes that the judgment of history depends on who writes it. What else would a propagandist like him think? He has no concept of the fact that the only purpose of genuine history is to describe an event as it happened. There is no such thing as a historian who describes events in conformity with a perverted vision of the national security -that's what you call a propagandist. Some propagandists do indeed claim the credentials of a historian, but that does not make them so. When a historian confronts a tyrant who practices the art of destroying political enemies through clandestine schemes, it is his or her job to be as objective as possible and to expose the criminal operations of political saboteurs. When Richard Nixon's cronies broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist in an effort to find damaging information and smashed up the office to make it look like someone had robbed the place, they did not simply vandalize an office but reflected the consistent pattern of crime, fraud, cover up and secrecy that is responsible for the rise, the fall and the re-emergence of Richard Nixon. If Nixon's targets had a habit of getting murdered and Nixon's cronies had a habit of plotting murder, the connection between the violence and the will of anti-Communist fanatics demands investigation. Nixon allies like Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy and Frank Sturgis had certainly established a track record of plotting murder. In particular, the relationship between Sturgis and Nixon evidently stretches back to the Eisenhower years when they were co-patriots in the struggle to murder Castro. Sturgis never ceased to engage bizarre assassination plots. He even tried to brainwash Castro's mistress, in effort to turn her into a CIA-trained assassin. The effort to murder Castro through a poisoned cigar is merely one of an entire series of the strange plots that Sturgis enthusiastically embraced. Sturgis had initially supported the revolution and fought side by side with Castro, but anti-Communist hysterics turned an object of revolution into a target of execution, and the rest is history. In 1963 President Kennedy declared was on the paramilitary operations of anti-Castro extremists who responded with disdainful comments like: "In Florida, where we were once welcome, we must now operate in the hills of Escambray. We are watched like criminals." And so, by the fall of 1963, soldiers-of-fortune like Sturgis were primed to oppose a new enemy -not Castro, the Communist abroad, but Kennedy, the so-called Communist at home. The war between John F. Kennedy and anti-Castro exiles made Frank Sturgis and his American intelligence handlers ideal, low-level operatives in the plot to murder Kennedy. In 1977, the New York Times reported that Frank Sturgis was arrested for threatening a woman to prevent her from testifying before the Assassinations Committee. Marita Lorenz told police that three days before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, she accompanied Sturgis and Oswald on a drive from Miami to Dallas. If Sturgis was in fact involved in the effort to frame Oswald, then the soldier-of-fortune who had tried to brainwash Castro's mistress into becoming a trained assassin for the CIA, was evidently more successful at perverting the law at home than he was abroad. In retrospect, it appears like Watergate burglars Hunt and Sturgis were both involved in the Kennedy assassination cover up. According to correspondent Ted Szulz, "Hunt was serving in Mexico City at the time of Oswald's supposed visit to the Cuban Embassy. Hunt denies this."15 Choosing to believe Szulz, who has no motive to lie, Hunt's denial does not ring true and leads to the question: What, if anything, is he hiding? In 1975, an anonymous sender in Mexico City send U.S. researchers the following letter dated November 8, 1963, proven to be the authentic writing of Lee Harvey Oswald: Dear Mr. Hunt, I would like information concerning [sic] my position. I am asking only for information. I am asking that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else. Thank You, Lee Harvey Oswald. Just two weeks prior to the Kennedy assassination, Mr. Hunt was evidently seeking to "employ" Lee Harvey Oswald in some sort of operation that was too fuzzy for Oswald to understand. To be sure, Mr. Hunt is not addressed by his first name, but the controversy, the confusion and the Mexico connection implies "Howard". In retrospect, the fact that Nixon's cronies were directly involved in the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald is not at all surprising. Despite a plethora of illegal devious schemes that included cover ups, break-ins, bugging, burglary, false notarizations, destruction of evidence and fraudulent denials, the full extent of the illegal operations that the Nixon White House engaged was in fact covered up. Where Richard Nixon's operations were concerned, "dirty tricks" did not leak. The only thing that Richard Nixon ultimately allowed to be exposed is what he considered to be a part of the normal course of political engagement. If he did not take the necessary precautions to cover up what he called "espionage operations", it is because he assumed that it was all a part of the same game and that everybody was playing it. And so, in May of 1972, when the committee to re-elect Richard Nixon broke into the Watergate complex in Washington, it was no big deal -as far as Nixon was concerned, the other side was doing the very same thing. When the burglars bugged the offices of the Democratic National Committee and made their escape without detection, the game was over -no detection, no crime. It is only when the microphones they had planted failed to work that they went back and got caught. Nixon's cronies were saboteurs and intelligence operatives who were versed in the art of clandestine operations and who practised the art of covering up their tracks. It is popular to assert that they were incompetent amateurs because they got caught -but Watergate was the exception. The criminal operations of former FBI and CIA agents Liddy and Hunt and their Cuban cohorts did not begin or end with Watergate -they were essentially career criminals who routinely sabotaged American domestic politics in the name of the national security. And so, when they broke into buildings, planted bugs, and photographed documents in effort to re-elect Nixon, they did what they always did, and what they were never [save for Watergate] punished for. Indeed, even Watergate was essentially a successful cover up, because the corruption and the massive, illegal web of operations that Nixon embraced had penetrated the very heart of the investigation itself. Nixon's counsel, John Dean may have astounded the nation with the criminal revelations that he made available, but the fact that Dean was merely a "damage control" witness, evaded public notice. Indeed, the Nixon White House had managed to subvert independent disclosure by providing John Dean the opportunity to coach witnesses. Retired FBI agent Angelo Lano exposed the fact that the FBI investigation was compromised when he said: We had no idea that John Dean was getting the information. And what John Dean was doing with the information is circumventing our investigation. Every avenue that we tried, John was either there or was about to approach somebody -debrief them and I don't know exactly what he said to them -whether he told them don't say this or don't say that.16 Working closely with acting director of the FBI Pat Gray, Dean cultivated a position where he could selectively expose only what he could not cover up rather than everything he knew. As Lano explains: What was happening was, the acting director Pat Gray, insisted that certain material that we were gathering during the course of the investigation be made available to him either on a daily basis or every seven days, in the form of a report -and that report would consist of hundreds of documents. Unbeknownst to us, at the time it was happening, he was furnishing the results of interviews that were being conducted all across the country, as well as in the D.C. area, to John Dean. And of course, John Dean knew every step that we were about to take.17 And so, in retrospect, John Dean did not, by any stretch of the imagination, betray Richard Nixon. In fact, John Dean protected Richard Nixon by putting on a credible show that discouraged a more substantive probe of Nixon's criminal operations. The extreme hatred, the obsessive, anti-Communist zeal, the tendency to work with criminal cronies like Liddy and Hunt and the active mission "to screw" his political enemies, reflect the fact that Nixon had embraced violence as a tool to advance his political fortune. Indeed, the White House Transcripts, the New York Times release about the Watergate tapes, strongly suggest that Nixon was even a Kennedy assassination co-conspirator. Nixon's complicity can in fact be determined through an obscure quotation which ties him directly to the Kennedy assassination cover up. The passage reads as follows: Sept. 16. At a news conference, President Nixon says, would remind all concerned that the way we got into Vietnam was through.. the complicity in the murder of Diem.18 When Richard Nixon blamed the Vietnam war on the assassination of Diem, he removed the perplexity behind Howard Hunt's motivation to forge diplomatic cables. The cables were ostensively forged in order to blacken the reputation of John F. Kennedy, but the motivation of a forgery committed in 1971, eight years after the Kennedy assassination, was obviously far more significant than simple libel. In retrospect, the genuine motivation is obvious. If, for example, historians bought the forged assertion that the assassination of Diem is responsible for the Vietnam war, then Nixon and co-conspirators would have successfully covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination. In actual fact, the assassination of John F. Kennedy is responsible for the Vietnam war that Nixon and Johnson prosecuted, and their fraudulent efforts to determine otherwise are as repugnant as the depth of their duplicity. In particular, is there anything about Richard Nixon that can be taken at face value? He called himself a peacemaker, but he waged war. The U.S. dropped more than 7 million tons of bombs on Indochina -nearly three times the tonnage dropped in World War II and Korea combined. He claimed that he never obstructed justice but he always did. He called himself a patriot but he deployed the tactics of a terrorist. He claimed the duty to protect the national security interests of the United States but he provoked the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. He claimed he was a "square" but he was a hateful, intolerant tyrant whose only purpose was to declare war against Communism abroad and against dissent at home. One need only read the following passage from Nixon's diary to appreciate the depth of his hatred and the scope of his obsession. According to Richard Nixon: When I saw some of the antiwar people and the rest, I'd simply hold up the "V" or the one thumb up; this really knocks them for a loop because they think this is their sign. Some of them break into a smile. Others, of course, just become more hateful. I think as the war recedes as an issue, some of these people are going to be lost souls. They basically are haters , they are frustrated, they are alienated-they don't know what to do with their lives. I think perhaps the saddest group will be those who are the professors, and particularly the young professors and the associate professors on the college campuses and even in the high schools. They wanted to blame somebody else for their own failures to inspire the students. I can think of those Ivy League presidents who came to see me after Kent State, and who were saying, please don't leave the problem to us -I mean let the government do something. None of them would take any of the responsibility themselves.19 The ridiculous claim that the war was an emotional turn on and that once it was over college professors and students would not know what to do with themselves, is astoundingly contemptuous. In context, his reference to Kent State and the so-called weak, pitiful professors who scrambled around Nixon for protection is more repugnant than any claim that anyone can possibly conceive. At Kent State, students who were protesting the war in Cambodia were confronted by National Guardsmen [or Nixon cronies in disguise] who calmly levelled guns, aimed and fired into a crowd of students. When it was all over, four students were dead, eleven were wounded. Suddenly, the hateful Richard Nixon had made the cost of dissent very clear. Jeffrey Glen Miller, one of the victims, had reached the decision that he would never go to Vietnam to kill, and he wanted to make his intent clear. He was shot in the head. Bill Schroeder was a nineteen year old sophomore who was disgusted by the thought of the senseless killing. He was shot and killed. Sandra Lee Scheuer was filled with hope, humour and the will to live. She was shot and killed. Allison Krause was an honour student who despised the fact that Nixon had called anti-war demonstrators "bums." She was shot and killed. Richard Nixon, who was determined to prove that the Vietnam war was a moral and strategic imperative and anyone who did not agree was deluded, defiantly escalated the bombing. Richard Nixon, armed with the paranoia, the contempt and the insecurity that prompted him to score political points through espionage and sabotage, had evidently scored big through Kent State. After the killing, Nixon predictably placed the blame on the protesters and said "When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy."20 There were about five hundred students and about one hundred National Guardsmen at Kent State. There was no legitimate reason to indiscriminately fire into a crowd of students without provocation. But as far as Richard Nixon was concerned, dissent was provocation. If it threatened to interfere with the bombing of Cambodia, he would destroy it and he would prove that those spineless Ivy League presidents were irresponsible, because according to Nixon, they "invited" tragedy. Nixon provoked all that violence, and then he said: "Public opinion seemed to rally during the weeks after Kent State, when the military success of the Cambodian operation became increasingly apparent."21Ta lk about his astounding, relentless capacity to justify every brutality. Nixon was essentially saying that all the Kent State protestors were stupid and that the public was with him every step of the way. He certainly made a point of citing what he called his remarkable gallup poll, 65% approval rating and the pleasing survey which indicated that 58% blamed "demonstrating students" for Kent State while only 11% blamed the National Guard.22 In retrospect, Nixon himself evidently deserves all the blame. Nixon and his cronies were essentially criminals who always acted upon their national security-inspired delusions, and the proof that Kent State was merely one of many clandestine, criminal operations lies in the four students who were unnecessarily murdered and in the paranoid delusions that never failed to motivate Richard Nixon to the point of violence. The Watergate scandal forced Nixon to resign and most Americans thought they had heard the last of Nixon -well they had, but that was only because Nixon prudently kept a low profile -even though he continued to carry a big stick. As Nixon biographer Sam Anson has uncovered, Nixon has had an almost uninterrupted capacity to influence White House decision making. Code-named the Wizard, Richard Nixon had direct access to the Ford White House through an elaborate secret communication set up. Nixon's almost unbroken power was briefly interrupted by the Carter administration. Nixon predictably loathed Carter because he wasn't fanatically anti-Communist. But when Reagan got elected, Nixon had a loyal friend in the White House and given Reagan's hands-off policy, Richard Nixon and anti-Communist zealots like Bill Casey, were essentially granted the opportunity to direct American foreign policy. Sam Anson describes the incredible degree of influence that Nixon exercised over the Reagan White House when he said: Nixon gets into his office every morning about 7:30. By noon he Will have made and taken 40 calls, most of them to Washington. First he calls the White House and talks to (presidential counsellor) Ed Meese, (national security adviser) Bud McEarlane, and President Reagan. Then he starts working the State Department. Everyone from (Secretary of State) George Schultz on down. He not only gives advice on foreign policy, but on politics in general. What he says is taken very seriously.23 Ronald Reagan was such a "hands off" President that he was more than willing to give a so-called senior statesman like Nixon the opportunity to direct American foreign policy. Indeed, even Bill Casey exercised more direct control over American foreign policy and Nixon was in fact Casey's mentor. Moreover, when Ronald Reagan offered Casey the opportunity to be his campaign manager he simultaneously granted him the right to shape American foreign policy as he saw fit. Reagan was in awe of the intelligence spook who organized intelligence missions behind enemy lines for Eisenhower during World War II and as soon as Casey joined the campaign, Reagan said: "You're the expert Bill. Just point me in the right direction and I'll go".24 Richard Nixon, Casey's ideological twin, was "naturally" the senior partner in the shaping of American foreign policy when Ronald Reagan was the President. Absolute loyalty defined the relationship between Casey and Nixon. In 1970, when Richard Nixon was disturbed by anti-war demonstrators, Bill Casey let it be known that anyone who opposed the war was misinformed and irresponsible. It was Bill Casey who knew what was right for the national security and his unswerving support for Nixon's policies made Richard Nixon the architect of the Reagan agenda. Forever loyal, Casey even fed Nixon's ego through the Watergate crisis when he wrote: All of your friends, all of us who view you as a national asset with a historic mission, and the general public, want to pull all the political shenanigans behind us and get on with the vital things to be done.25 They sounded so much alike that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other and in the face of their relentless zeal, if Casey's alleged dirty tactics to elect Ronald Reagan are true, they even operated like one another. The tactic, which was exposed in the book October Surprise, relates an unbelievable plot to delay the release of American hostages held in Tehran until after the election, to sabotage Jimmy Carter's prospect of winning the election. Vigorously denied, the allegation appears to be true, as suggested by an obscure New York Times story which exposed the fact that Reagan's campaign manager, who was presumably supposed to be planning political strategy in America, was actually abroad. According to a brief item in the New York Times dated July, 30 1980, "William Casey plans to open negotiations with the Right to Life group when he returns from a trip abroad." Regardless, the Casey/Nixon agenda defined the Reagan years, and the so-called Reagan revolution was in fact a re-visitation of the Nixon years. Accomplished in the art of plotting clandestine schemes, Nixon and Casey were ideally positioned to usher in an unprecedented reign of terror. The unfinished agenda of the Nixon White House was the obvious focus of operation, and they promptly "liquidated" priority targets like John Lennon. On December 2, 1980, Richard Nixon betrayed his capacity to dominate American foreign policy through the introduction of his book The Real War, wherin he claimed confidence in "the background of those new policies that will now begin to emerge as the new administration takes office." Nixon's book paints a portrait of a nation waging an obsessive battle to win World War III. And Richard Nixon, the self-appointed patriot, placed himself at the center of the battle. Does it take very much to unravel the paranoia and the delusions of a man who was obsessively engaged in a battle to win World War III? One of the fronts of Nixon's so-called Real War was the realm of ideals and ideas, and according to the perversity that Nixon promoted "we will have to compromise some of our cherished ideals" as long as the battle is waged "in the name of that supreme priority."26 Having extolled the virtue of waging a covert, unethical war to support friends and destroy enemies, Nixon essentially justified his absolute commitment to do whatever was necessary, including the need to murder a "peacnik" like John Lennon, because in the words of Nixon's absolute delusion, "in World War III there is no substitute for victory."27 Committed to contain communism through the methods and means that totalitarian states deploy, Richard Nixon was the sort who was even able to assert that "senseless terrorism is often not as senseless as it may seem. To the Soviets and their allies, [and to those who deploy their tactics] it is a calculated instrument of national policy."28 That explains Kens State, doesn't it? Moreover, since Nixon proclaimed his absolute determination to do whatever was necessary in the multi-fronted effort to win World War III, he essentially exposed his determination to sponsor the murder of a so-called trendy like John Lennon. In his own words: If America loses World War III, it will be because of the failure of its leadership class. In particular, it will be because of the attention, the celebrity, and the legitimacy given to the "trendies" -those overglamorized dilettantes who posture in the latest idea, fount the fashionable protests and are slobbered over by the news media, whose creation they essentially are. The attention given to them and their causes romanticizes the trivial and trivializes the serious. It reduces public discussion to the level of a cartoon strip. Whatever the latest cause they embrace -whether antiwar, antinuclear, antimilitary, antibusiness -it is almost invariably one that works against the interest of the United States in the context of World War III.29 In short, what Nixon in fact exposed through his proclaimed obsessions is that he considered the murder of a "trendy" like John Lennon absolutely vital to the successful prosecution of World War III. The self-incrimination is so comprehensive that only a triumph of propaganda can ignore Nixon's compelling motivation to murder John Lennon. In Nixon's own terms, "in a less hazardous age we could afford to indulge the prancing of the trendies on the stage of public debate. But now our national survival depends on learning to distinguish between the meaningful and the meaningless."30 Hell will certainly freeze over before Richard Nixon convinces the world that the murder of John Lennon was "meaningful." The road to the murder of John Lennon had a long history of intrusive, illegal surveillance and harassment. In particular, the Nixon White House sought to "neutralize" Lennon's capacity to organize an antiwar movement and Hoover's FBI "policed" Lennon while the Immigration and Naturalization Service tried to deport him because of a 1968 conviction for possession of cannabis in London. The FBI surveillance of Lennon produced a stack of papers twenty-six pounds in weight, not to mention documents which remain classified or are "withheld in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy."31 In 1969, John Lennon protested the Vietnam war by organising bed-ins for peace. In his own words: The point of the bed-in, in a nutshell, was a commercial for peace as opposed to war, which was on the news everyday in those days. Everyday there was dismembered bodies, napalm, and we thought, "Why don't they have something nice in the papers?"32 A proposed bed-in in New York did not materialize, because, as Lennon recounted: We tried to do it in New York but the American government wouldn't let us in. They didn't want any peaceniks, so we ended up doing it in Montreal and broadcasting back across the border.33 Indeed, the effort to politically silence Lennon was less than accommodating and Lennon's lawyer exposed the full score when he told him that "if he did anything more along the lines of this anti-war rock and roll campaign he would almost certainly be immediately deported, but if he cooled it, through various legal manoeuvres, he might be able to stay."34 John Lennon did what he had to do to avoid being deported. At the same time, even though he was politically silenced, FBI harassment persisted and he appeared on the Dick Cavett show to expose the fact that he was being followed by the FBI and that his phones were being tapped. The FBI had indeed mounted a major offensive operation against Lennon, but many thought he was crazy and Lennon related the common scepticism in the following terms: "Lennon, oh you big-headed maniac, who's going to follow you around?" Most people did not understand or fathom the fact that Hoover's FBI did not have anything better to do. It was not until after the resignation of Richard Nixon that Lennon's immigration case was thrown out of court and in 1976, his Green Card finally came through. For the next four years, Lennon retired from all forms of public life, and in 1980, the self-styled peace advocate came out of retirement and prepared to mount a crusade to "turn the world on to peace." At the same time. Richard Nixon and Bill Casey were setting the stage for the Reagan declaration of war against Communism in Central America, and peaceniks like Lennon were caught in the crossfire. Reagan's foreign policy advocates prepared to satisfy the unfinished agenda of the Nixon White House and serious threats were promptly eliminated. The so-called lessons of the 1960's were very close to the hearts of "time warp patriots" who blamed the loss of the Vietnam war on the antiwar movement and they resented the influence of activists like Lennon to the point of paranoia. In short, Reagan's upcoming, anti-Communist crusade could simply not tolerate an invigorated John Lennon and "he had to be cut down before the reasons for his death became obvious: before Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981, before the world realized that Lennon was coming back to being the old Lennon, the man who sang Give Peace A Chance.35 In 1969, the Vietnam war prompted the largest anti-war demonstrations in the history of the United States and young people who rallied around Lennon's protest songs infuriated the Nixon White House. The Kent State massacre was immediately followed by protesters who circled the White House and chanted "all we are saying is give peace a chance" but the spirit of the peace movement was ultimately dampened by the slaughter. Regardless, the paranoia of Richard Nixon refused to wane. The Nixon White feared Lennon's capacity to disrupt the re-nomination of Richard Nixon and Hoover promptly dispatched his political police to "initiate discreet efforts to locate subject [John Winston Lennon] and remain aware of his activities and movements." Hoover died less that a year after the Republican convention in 1972, but the prejudice, fear and paranoia that motivated the Nixon White House survived and resurfaced with a vengeance in 1980. And when Bill Casey and Richard Nixon paved the road to systematically eliminate their "enemies" John Lennon became the first known casualty of the Nixon navigated, Reagan revolution. Reagan himself reflects the fact that Nixon's extraordinary White House authority practically exceeded his own. After leaving the White House, the Reagan's were disturbed by what they perceived to be "Reagan Bashing" by the Bush team, and it was Nixon who contacted Bush's Chief of Staff, to intercede on behalf of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. "Nixon made the call, telling Sununu that attacking the Reagans was counterproductive for the White House. For whatever reason, the attacks stopped".36 Nixon certainly did not have to physically occupy the White House to exercise power. At the same time, he evidently acted as though he was in fact the official President of the United States. When, For example, Richard Reeves interviewed Richard Nixon in his "exile sanctum" in New York in 1980, his apartment was arranged like the Oval Office. "The flags, the couch, the chairs were just like it..." Indeed, Richard Nixon was so obsesses with his role-play, that when the interview was concluded, he escorted Reeves to the supplies closet "because the closet door in the faux Oval Office was in the same place as an exit in the real Oval Office."37 In retrospect, Ronald Reagan was Jimmy Carter's political adversary in the 1980 election while Richard Nixon and other ghosts from the past [like Bill Casey] were his secret enemies. Consequently, the ultimate leader of the powerful, unaccountable, parallel government within-a-government that Oliver North operated was Richard Nixon himself -which probably explains the public controversy between Oliver North and Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the secret government "was believed to have grown out of a group Mr. Casey set up during the final weeks of the 1980 presidential campaign, called the October Surprise Group.38 Casey and Nixon were evidently full of surprises and on the very day that the press headlined the announcement that a "local screwball" murdered Lennon, the political backdrop was the innocuous headline, Reagan set to announce cabinet. The claim that John Lennon was the target of a political assassination is not original. In 1989, Fenton Bresler, an intelligent British Barrister wrote a book called The Murder of Lennon, and he raises many of the serious questions about Lennon's murder that have been almost totally ignored. In particular, he convincingly argues that Mark Chapman, Lennon's assassin was brainwashed by the CIA. Indeed, all the "traditional" motivations that are ascribed to Mark Chapman are relatively absurd compared to Bresler's analysis. On December 17, 1992, Chapman was interviewed on Larry King Live, and that was certainly an eye opener in terms of exposing the real Mark Chapman. In a nutshell, Chapman reflected the demeanour of a cold, dispassionate, methodical, cold blooded murderer. In particular, Chapman ascribed a phoney motivation to account for Lennon's murder, and that is certainly the mark of a cover up. On the one hand, Chapman claimed that he "was so bonded with Lennon" and on the other, he boldly asserted that he "struck out at something he perceived to be phoney, and that extraordinary contradiction, reflects duplicity, deception and the fact that Mark Chapman was not a "lone nut." The most striking, consistent element in the short adult life of Mark Chapman is his affiliation to the YMCA. Indeed, he had given serious consideration to applying himself to a career with the International Division of the YMCA. When he was arrested, one of the few items that Chapman left "on display" for the police to find was the following letter of recommendation from David Moore, then stationed at the Geneva office of the World Alliance of YMCAs: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to introduce Mark Chapman, a staff member of the U.S. International Division of the National Council of YMCAs. Mark was an effective and dedicated worker at the refugee camp in Fort Chaffe Arkansas following the mass influx of refugees after the change in governments in Indo-China in the spring of 1975. Mark was also the youth representative to the Board of Directors of the YMCA in his home town in Georgia. Mark will be visiting YMCAs in Asia and Europe and we look forward to his visit here in Geneva. I can commend him to you as a sincere and intelligent young man. Any assistance that you can give Mark during his travels will be greatly appreciated by this office.39 It is certainly not an exaggeration to assert that the YMCA was essentially Mark Chapman's surrogate family. But what is more significant however is the mysterious, troubling implications of the fact that Chapman was not a "lone nut." In 1967, Ramparts Magazine exposed the fact that the CIA used students to gather information from abroad and in the 1970's and 1980's, the CIA was evidently using YMCA patrons as spies. Philip Agee, the first-known CIA defector blew the cover on the CIA/YMCA link, and Mark Chapman's YMCA link was evidently too substantial and too "political" to preclude a CIA link as well. In 1975, Mark Chapman, the vehemently anti-Communist Southerner applied to represent the YMCA as a counsellor in the Soviet Union, but that bid was denied because Chapman did not speak Russian. Instead, Mark visited Lebanon, where, according to radio commentator, Mae Brussell, the CIA maintained training camps for assassins at the time.40 Whether Chapman was a trained assassin or not, his Beirut experience had a profound impact on his life, and following narrative indicates that Mark's harrowing overseas experience produced a very deep, psychological impact which was ripe for exploitation: June 1975 seems to have been the first time that Mark heard gunfire, the whizzing of bullets, bombs bursting nearby and the screams of people in pain and dying. It etched deep into his consciousness. This "gentle" man, who hated violence, came back from Beirut with a cassette recording that he had actually made of the barbarous sounds of warfare. He played it time and again to anyone in Atlanta who would listen. Says Harold Blankinship: "He played us this recording he had made in his hotel room at the YMCA in Beirut of all the fighting going on. You could hear the shooting, etc. That could have affected him. He was real up-tight about it, I know that." Whether intentional or otherwise, Lennon's future killer had indeed been "bloodied" in war-torn Beirut.41 The violence of war-torn Lebanon was Chapman's first, it wasn't his last firsthand look at the miserable dislocation that war produced. After Beirut, Chapman worked with Vietnamese refugees in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, where the YMCA was setting up services to accommodate them. Since the fall of Saigon, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese fled to the United States and in the eyes of "time warp" patriots, antiwar activists [phonies] like John Lennon were directly responsible for that particular "mess." And so, Mark Chapman, who travelled the world at the behest of the CIA-linked YMCA, was ripe for exploitation -he was an ideal brainwash victim -he had witnessed firsthand the world disorder that so-called phonies like John Lennon were responsible for. Indeed, Mark Chapman dabbled in the philosophy of "time warp" patriots who blamed the 1960's for every ill in society, and that sort of mentality is transmitted from "patriot" to receptive ear, it did not develop in Chapman alone. Since he murdered John Lennon, Mark Chapman boasted: "I murdered a man. I took a lot more with me than just myself. A whole era ended. It was the last nail in the coffin of the '60's."42 After killing his target and simultaneously satisfying the paranoia of "time warp patriots" who are in a perpetual war against the so-called 1960's, Chapman did not flee the murder scene, he calmly started to read his copy of The Catcher in the Rye when amazed New York City police officers arrested him. Chapman obviously wanted to get caught -the implication being that he would plead guilty and the Lennon case would close without investigation. Over the years, when asked why he murdered Lennon, Chapman would direct attention to the book The Catcher in the Rye. That in turn, directs attention towards patriots like George Herbert Walker Bush, who claim to have been most influenced by the books War and Peace and The Catcher in the Rye.43 The Catcher in the Rye is about a "crusade against phoneyness" and Mark Chapman, who used the assassination of Lennon to promote the book, claimed that he was motivated by Holden Caulfield, the book's sixteen-year-old "crusader". In a nutshell, Holden Caulfield hated phonies and Mark Chapman's crusade against a "phoney" like Lennon was "ideologically" aligned with the agenda of overzealous "patriots" who were occupied by the obsession to neutralize the influence of popular antiwar activists. In the awkward words of Mark Chapman: "I have a small part in me that cannot understand the world and what goes on in it. I did not want to kill anybody... I fought against the small part for a long time. I'm sure the large part of me is Holden Caulfield. The small part of me must be the Devil." 44 Seeking to activate the "big part" of Mark Chapman, his "handlers" could have easily exploited his evident compassion for children and made him believe that "phonies" like John Lennon were ultimately responsible for the horror and the dislocation of war. Friends and associates made a point of having observed a very close bond between Mark Chapman and children, and that certainly provided the opportunity to exploit his Achilles heel. In the words of Mark Chapman: "I never wanted to hurt anybody my friends will tell you that. I have two parts in me the big part is very kind, the children I worked with will tell you that."45 Chapman struggled to avoid hurting Lennon but his "big part won" and he took his gun out of his coat pocket and shot Lennon in the chest, in the left arm and in the head. Mark Chapman had evidently mustered up the courage he required to satisfy the agenda of patriots who considered themselves to be exempt from the normal restraint of the law, because in their eyes, the "big picture", the "big part", the national security interest or whatever else they chose to call it, was essentially a license to kill -and John Lennon was clearly a priority target. In the final analysis, the terrifying reality is that the impressionable Mark Chapman is just one of hundreds of thousands of young people who are not appreciably distinct, in the absence of the "exposure" they receive. Under the circumstances, since Chapman travelled the world as a guest of the YMCA, it is reasonable to expect the organization that sponsored Chapman's psychologically harrowing adventures to assume at least some responsibility for the extraordinary mental transformation -from Mark Chapman, the compassionate young man, to Mark Chapman, the awkward, reluctant assassin who had to be prodded, to murder John Lennon. If one looks at the foreign policy direction of the Reagan White House, it is glaringly obvious that "patriots" like Bill Casey and Richard Nixon were steering the course. Clearly, the "invisible prints" of the clandestine, foreign policy strategists who coordinated the entire intelligence apparatus of the government to mount a fierce, unprecedented war against dissent, belong to Casey and Nixon. Richard Nixon made that absolutely clear in The Real War, when he wrote: "I am confident that President Reagan and the members of his administration will have the vision to see what needs to be done and the courage to do it. Nixon's confidence obviously stemmed from the fact that Reagan's inclination to mount an anti-Communist crusade provided zealots like himself the opportunity to use the "acting President" to promote their vision. The Reagan/Bush years are certainly distinguished by the fact that "patriots" were routinely granted license to ignore the law as long as the intended consequence was to advance the President's anti-Communist crusade. The law was routinely violated in the process, and blatant, illegal acts of terror targeted domestic dissidents at home, and entire countries, abroad. Clearly, the CIA deployment of mines in the harbours of Nicaragua was an illegal act of war, and it is not possible to ignore the fact that the Reagan administration routinely disrespected and disregarded the law. Moreover, the paranoid, Nixon assertion that "we will do whatever is necessary" to win World War III, is a clear reflection of the violent, ominous assault that was deployed, to "neutralize" any influential activist who did not think like Richard Nixon's patriots. In the final analysis, the deaths of the people that Nixon targeted were as predictable, as they were tragic. Clearly, The Real War that Nixon waged produced Real Casualties, and "patriots" like Richard Nixon and Bill Casey were directly responsible for slaughter. One of the premises of The Real War was that the need to win on the battlefield was as vital as the need to control the public opinion arena, and the compromise of every worthy American ideal was deemed to be acceptable. After Mark Chapman hammered the so-called final nail in "the coffin of the '60's", Richard Nixon had the audacity to write a book called The Real Peace, and he was so excited about it that he privately printed and distributed it to more than 100 government officials, journalists and friends, before it was published by Little, Brown & Co. Ronald Reagan was officially the President of the United States, but time evidently warped when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger stood before a battery of microphones in Washington to brief reporters about their "brain-dead" vision for peace and democracy in Central America. Nixon had just finished testifying before Kissinger's National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (no, Kissinger was not Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State), and one can safely assume that like any predictable ideologue, Nixon simply disseminated propaganda. He certainly did not expose the inspiration behind The Real Peace: Did he get the idea to disparage the word "peace" before or after John Lennon was murdered? In retrospect, one can confidently state that Richard Nixon always targeted his enemies and he always managed to cover up the entire truth about his covert schemes, and since he rose to national prominence through successfully framing Alger Hiss, his positive track record bodes an ominous threat to all of his political enemies. Bill Clinton, the current President of the United States, is certainly the current, primary target of the Nixon agenda, and one can safely assume that he planned to destroy him through the so-called Whitewater scandal. As long as Reagan was the President, Richard Nixon, the cerebral commander-in-chief was able to exercise power, and in 1987, he personally extolled the virtue of "attack politics" in effort to make Robert Dole the next President.46 When Dole failed to win the Republican nomination, George Bush was an acceptable alternative -until Bill Clinton defeated him and became the President of the United States in 1992, and Richard Nixon was deeply offended. In particular, the Democrats lambasted the "decadent" 1980's, and Richard Nixon, who was extremely proud of his so-called "enlightened decade" was absolutely infuriated, and it was only a matter of time before Nixon developed a plan to destroy Clinton -the so-called Whitewater scandal. Indeed, Richard Nixon, the "patriot" who subscribed to the diabolical "assassinations formulae" -destroy your enemies through derogatory fabrication if possible, kill them if necessary, was certainly capable of producing and prone to manufacture a scandal like Whitewater. Nixon may no longer be around to advance his agenda, but "residue zealots' like Gordon Liddy are evidently still seeking to re-elect a Nixon clone. Appearing on Nightilne, on August 25, 1994, Liddy still sounds like he is engaged in a life and death struggle against communism and claimed that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Fidel Castro were the only communists left in the world. Given the obsession and the paranoia that still prevails, Canadian political commentators like Dalton Camp place the so-called Whitewater scandal in perspective when they say. "There can't be much doubt the purpose of Whitewater is to put Clinton off his agenda -notably, health care, which threatens so many powerful interests -and no better way than to flatten Hillary Rodham Clinton in the bargain".47 But despite the obvious facts that Dalton alludes to, an aggressive anti-Clinton crusade repeatedly draws false parallels between Whitewater and Watergate, and evidently seeks to cripple the Clinton presidency in the process. According to Senator Al D'Amato, who spoke to the press on March 8, 1994: It would seem to me, that with all of the attempts to stop a special prosecutor at first and now to stifle Congress from its legitimate role, which is to oversight of these committees, and then to say oh you' re interfering with our job, that smacks of what took place with Watergate. Senator D'Amato is either an extremely ignorant man or he has deliberately engaged a highly sophisticated, illegal plot to cripple the Clinton presidency. Either way, he certainly devalues the American Senate. If one wants to draw a parallel between Watergate and Whitewater, one can credibly say that Nixon [who never failed to target his political enemies] was evidently behind both scandals, but one can certainly not suggest that there is the slightest bit of significance in the reluctance to highlight manufactured allegations. The effort to reform the nation's health care system produced the most ambitious social legislation to face Congress since the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, and if history provides reliable insight, it also produced a violently ambitious opposition. In the battle to reform or not to reform, "Dole craft" [Nixon sponsored?] has thus far prevailed. During the election of 1992, Bush opposed a national health care plan, and while that is not surprising because George Bush routinely rejected Democratic initiatives, one should not ignore the fact that "patriots" like Bush traditionally deploy illegal tactics to deny the political will of their "enemies". Like Richard Nixon, George Bush was motivated by contempt for the opposition, and his "do nothing" domestic agenda diametrically opposed the "do everything" refrain of reform. The basic tactic of a "patriot" like George Bush is to snatch power away from the Democrats because, in his own words, "to accomplish things, you have first got to beat down the Democrats."48 Iran-Contra certainly exposed the fact that George Bush belonged to a sleazy cabal of "patriots" who proved that "powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes and get away with it", and that certainly does not bode very well with doubting Bush's capacity to pervert the law. Indeed, when George Bush was the vice president, fellow "patriot" Oliver North operated a powerful, parallel, unaccountable government, and Bill Casey had instituted a domestic propaganda apparatus that fulfilled the perversions of deluded spies and provocateurs who routinely targeted their perceived enemies. Oliver North may have evaded Congressional oversight by shredding the bizarre truth about the domestic, propaganda apparatus that routinely perverted the law in the 1980's, but the bizarre unfolding of the so-called Whitewater scandal strongly suggests that the diabolical plots of clandestine, political operatives, have survived the Reagan/Bush years. Indeed, given the fact that Whitewater reflects absolutely nothing [in terms of how it has unfolded] beyond a triumph of propaganda, one can safely assume that clandestine, political operatives, are busily defining the Whitewater agenda. The implications of the "timely" unfolding of the Whitewater witch hunt are certainly very clear. During Clinton's first major foreign policy encounter, for example, the President received favourable press coverage in Brussels, Prague, Kiev and Moscow over his handling of affairs, but reporters at home ignored the nature of his trip and questioned him about Whitewater. The politically motivated scheme frustrated the President, and even if the press was not a conscious participant in the effort to embarrass Clinton, history clearly demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate the press through "handing out" the news. If George Bush is a party to a sophisticated propaganda machine which seeks to manipulate public opinion, the press will certainly never report the fact -that kind of news is not handed out. Bush seldom, if ever, makes a casual dis closure, he is always very deliberate. In August of 1994, prior to speaking to reporters, Bush defined his restrictive ground rules when he said: "You'll waste your time if you ask me about American politics or Canadian politics, because I don't do interviews [on politics]."49 Enough said. George Bush obviously knows more about American "patriots" than he does about American politics, and the world of clandestine plots is evidently the primary "political arena" that "patriots" like George Bush acknowledge. In 1992, during his bid for a second term as President, Bush repeatedly questioned Bill Clinton's character, judgment and patriotism for opposing the Vietnam war and vigorously promoted the claim that Clinton was not fit to be the commander-in-chief because he was not a "patriot". Since 1980, when Bill Casey brought former covert operatives out of retirement, "patriots" enjoyed an uninterrupted, 12-year long period of domestic sabotage and spying that was sanctioned by the White House, and Bush-style intelligence zealots who equated "patriot" and "fit to govern", were obviously not very pleased by the election of Bill Clinton. The independent-minded public servants that Bill Clinton recruited did not stroke the fantasies of the "patriots" and they consequently became the targets of what can only be described as a plot to "realign" the White House. The sinister implications of the cloak-and- dagger clash between secret warriors and independent, dedicated public servants, are extremely repugnant and repulsive, but they are not surprising. George Bush is not even in the White House, yet all of his friends are on the offensive, while all of the President's are on the defensive. Roger Altman was recently forced to resign, simply because he allegedly failed to give a full accounting of Treasury Department contacts with the White House -and what was the "contact" about? It was about the so-called Whitewater scandal -the fraudulent, anti-Clinton assault which has been sustained through a covert, semi-government, semi-private witch hunt. Bernard Nussbaum resigned because he failed to discourage contact between the White House and the Treasury Department -that's right, contact about Whitewater. Vincent Foster was murdered [or he conveniently committed suicide] to deprive the President of a friend, an independent public servant, an adviser and a Whitewater expert. In the meantime, the media has made George Bush's friends the new spokespeople of America. On June 13, 1994, Ed Meese, a staunch Bush ally, appeared on Night line to proclaim that the President of the United States is not above the law and that Paula Jones, a Clinton accuser, deserved a prompt, delay-free day in court to air her frivolous [because they are obviously politically motivated] sexual harassment charges. Sounding like he personally represented Jones and that every word that ever came out of her mouth was an absolute fact, Meese certainly exposed his ignorant, extremely overbearing, anti-Clinton crusade. Perhaps Meese, the ultimate hypocrite, should acknowledge the fact that he was the Attorney General when Bill Casey revived illegal, covert operations that targeted American citizens and if George Bush had not pardoned criminal "patriots" who covered up the sinister truth about their routine tendency to pervert the law, Meese would probably be serving a life sentence for treason. There is evidently no shame and no limit to the pro-Bush, anti-Clinton witch hunt that is now called Whitewater. On August 5, 1994, a Federal appeals panel replaced independent Whitewater counsel Robert Fiske Jr., with Kenneth Starr, a former Bush administration solicitor general. Fiske's investigation had found no basis to accuse the Clinton White House of criminal wrongdoing, and the politically motivated panel of judges that appointed Starr was evidently so disappointed by the failure to "criminalize" the Clinton White House that they granted Starr the authority to re-investigate Bill Clinton. But history dictates the fact that politically motivated men are not judges, they are, as Judge Jim Garrison aptly demonstrated, criminals in legal garb. Judge David B. Sentelle, for example, who cast the deciding vote in the three-judge panel that appointed Starr, is responsible for overturning the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, obtained by independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. If Sentelle is so keen on throwing out convictions, then why is he seeking to "criminalize" the Clinton White House? In retrospect, the fact that Sentelle is simply a national security motivated "patriot" is too obvious to deny, and the fact that George Bush's friends have a perverse concept of law and order, should certainly not determine the course of justice in America. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Richard Powers, Secrecy and Power: The Life of J. Edgar Hoover, p.301. 2Ibid., p.281. 3Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.58. 4Ibid., p.232. 5Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason, p.419. 6Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.252. 7Ibid., p.252. 8LIfe, August 23, 1968, p.2. 9Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.308. 10John Ehrlichman, Witness to Power, p.156-57. 11Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.234. 12Michael Drosnin, Citizen Hugnes, p.480. 13The New York Times, The White House Transcripts, p.831. 14Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.832. 15Conspiracy, Anthony Summers, p.418-9. 16Arts and Entertainment Channel, The Key to Watergate, 1992. 17Ibid. 18The White House Transcripts: The full text of the Submission of Recorded Presidential Conversations to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives by president Richard Nixon With an introduction by R.W. Apple Jr. of The New York Times, 1974. p.815. 19Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.685. 20C.L. Sulzberqer, The World and Richard Nixon, p.165. 21Richard Nixon, The memoirs of Richard Nixon, p.466. 22Ibid., p.467. 23Toronto Star, August 26, 1984, p.F5. 24Joseph Persico, Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey, p.181. 25Ibid., p.160. 26Richard Nixon, The Real War, p.337. 27Ibid., p.304. 28Ibid., p.41. 29Ibid., p.263. 30Ibid., p.263-64. 31Howlett and Lewisohn, In My Life: John Lennon Remembered, p.92. 32Ibid., p.86. 33Ibid. 34Howlett and Lewisohn, In My Life: John Lennon Remembered, p.90. 35Ray Coleman, The Murder of John Lennon, p.8. 36US Mews & World Report, May 2 1994, p.22. 37Ibid. 38The Globe and Mail, July 6, 1987, p. A9. 39Fenton Breseler, Tbe Murder of Lennon, p.134. 40Ibid., p.103. 41Fenton Breseler, Tbe Murder of Lennon, p.105-6. 42Ibid., p.244-45. 43Maclean's, November 7, 1988, p. 35. 44Fenton Breseler, Tbe Murder of Lennon, p.199. 45Ibid., p.225-26. 46Newsweek, November 21 1988, p.88. 47Toronto Star, Match 9, 1994, p. A19. 48Time, January 7, 1994, p.32. 49Toronto Star, August 2 1994, p.A-4. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
