Essay by Richard C. Sizemore-July 5, 2000 : Updated September 23, 2000

Passage of the China trade bill making the outlaw nation equal to all others in trade with the United States was exhibit one in the exhibition of clout by the establishment moguls who control the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

President Clinton, the front man, staged an all out blitz in favor of the legislation, although he was unable to convince his own party to support him. At the nation’s mansion the lame-duck, impeached president summoned two former presidents – Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter -- who were rejected by the electorate to lobby in the interests of China and the corporations who want to do business there at any cost. Another voter-rejected ex-president, George Bush, also gave his support but stayed away. His son, George W., showed up a few days later, however, on Capitol hill to urge House Republicans to vote for the bill. Whether his son’s presidential campaign had anything to do with President Bush’s conspicuous absence is speculative, but the senior George had no trouble in showing up to lobby for the World Trade Bill a few years ago. Clinton in his full court press also announced he would seek national television time on the Sunday before the House vote to lobby for the bill but abruptly canceled that speech when several democrats told him it would be counter-productive.

Even old Alan Greenspan, chairman of the unconstitutional (it’s never been tested) Federal Reserve Board showed up in the Rose Garden to join the political fight and endorse the trade bill. Greenspan, incidentally, has gained such power outside his assumed economic realm recently that he jawbones on other political and policy issues. But when he is questioned sharply in appearances before Congress, he ducks behind the issues the board is supposed to be concerned with. When Greenspan speaks the minions on the Fed either echo his views or keep quiet in most cases. In this case Bob McTeer, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was given space in the biased Dallas Morning News to parrot Greenspan and the establishment’s views. Jawboning and lobbying appear to be extra responsibilities the Fed is taking on now that criticism of its questionable role in managing the people’s money and credit is practically nil. Incidentally, the News’ editorial page editor and its international economics reporter are both members of the same elite establishment that Greenspan belongs to – the Council on Foreign Relations. The News, of course, endorsed the Trade bill with the same superficial list of reasons propagandized by the establishment and the eastern liberal press of which it’s an extension.

The bill passed, of course, with Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members like Charles Rangel casting, swaying and deciding votes along with many of the same Republican members that had impeached Clinton only a few months before. Some Congressmen like Martin Frost of Texas demanded and got a little ‘’pork’’ for their vote. A bill for the Navy to update a facility in Frost’s district in this case. Does anyone really believe that a lame duck, impeached president had power enough to draw all these ex-presidents, Republicans and other dignitaries like CFR member Colin Powell together to pass such legislation? No, the power lay in the shadow government run by the CFR, the order of Skull & Bones, the Trilateral Commission and sister groups whose members include the banking and corporate who’s who.

The New York Times flew its biased establishment colors high in support of permanent free trade status for China. In the Sunday edition before the House vote it carried a long story listing all the usual arguments by the Chinese proponents of the bill – it’s in the national interest of the U.S.; could bring greater liberalization with the West; it’s an opportunity to push for reform in China; would ensure China’s full participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO); failure to pass would mean disaster for president Jiang Zemin; would expose the Chinese people to more liberal values and democratic institutions. The views of not one dissident was quoted in the story and if one had been he might have been subjected to the wrath of Jiang Zemin and the Times’ reporters expelled from China. Despite all these good things that the permanent trade status for China is supposed to bring about, the story failed to mention that at about the same time the bill was being debated, Jiang appointed a panel from the Communist Party to oversee or control the new direction the freer economy might take. It might not be as free as billed by the proponents like Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser. He said defeat of the bill might lead China to conclude it was ‘’a declaration that we see them as the enemy.’’

That’s exactly the way they see us already, according to Richard Bernstein and Russ H. Munro in The Coming Conflict with China. The book states that ‘’Internal (Communist) party documents have been circulating within the Chinese leadership since 1992 portraying the United States as China’s real enemy.’’(p.20). China’s policy is to be the dominant power in Southeast Asia and only the United States stands in its way. It is gobbling up Islands that have long belonged to the Dutch, British and other nations in the South China Sea, the sea lane so vital to Japan, and it threatens Taiwan almost constantly, sometimes with military demonstrations but most of the time with rhetorical threats. It uses the same tactics against the United States in relation to Taiwan.

Even a cursory look at China’s villainous behavior over the past few decades should caution against an appeasement policy which the Clinton Administration has been following. The list includes, of course, the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, an adamant stance on its trade barriers, its refusal to renounce force in its dealing with Taiwan, continued atomic testing that may have led India to test an A-bomb, export of American technology illegally to Pakistan and Iran, its overall human rights record, the torture of a Tibetan monk, confirmation by satellite that China has recently built six intercontinental ballistic missiles, and illegal contributions to political (especially Democratic) fund raisers in this country, and on and on. But the Clinton Administration managed to look the other way.

Despite China’s rogue behavior, which is continuing, 40 so-called scholars and diplomats urged president Clinton (Times June 29) to delay a decision on building a missile defense because it might provoke a series of negative steps by the Communist nation such as building more missiles. The signers were gathered by the Council for a Livable World. Four names mentioned in the story were Arthur W. Hummell, Jr., former ambassador to China; Gen. John M. Shalikashvili; former Sen. Sam Nunn and William J. Perry, a former defense secretary. All four have something in common. They belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Three days later the Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies told the Clinton Administration and Congress that China has continued to aid Pakistan’s effort to build long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. Yet, the U.S. still pursues an appeasement policy with China that fears any failure to give into her policies might lead to an arms buildup. But the sheepish foreign policy has not stopped China from doing exactly what she wants to do, and there is no guarantee appeasement will work. History tells us it won’t.

Sen. Jesse helms has warned that passage of the China trade bill in the Senate is not a sure thing and that he may head it off at the pass. That’s to be seen. The new report by the intelligence agencies may help Helms and other opponents of the legislation, despite the establishment clout exhibited in the House. It should send the foreign policy experts back to the drawing board.

Clinton‘s campaign finances in the 1996 election in which he was accused of allowing U.S. security to be threatened by taking money from the Chinese military are still being investigated. He overruled the State Department at that time and made it easier for U.S. firms to export potential missile technology to China. He claimed security wasn’t compromised and that, after all, he was just continuing policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations. So, it apparently doesn’t matter which party is in the White House, the same policy goes on. Winston Lord, prominent member of the inner core of the Order of Skull and Bones and former ambassador to China, was Clinton’s key adviser on China during his presidential campaign. George W. Bush and former President Bush are both members of the powerful Order that Lord belongs to and which has much clout in U.S. foreign policy. So, don’t expect any changes whoever wins the presidency.

Clinton did go further than the other presidents, however, when he became the first chief executive to publicly oppose Taiwanese independence and to openly articulate the American restrictive policy toward Taiwan. He expressed commitment to the ‘’three nos’’ policy that former Secretary of State Alexander Haig was most responsible for during the Nixon Administration in 1982. A Chinese-American Joint Communique at that time stated that the U.S. agreed never to pursue a Two Chinas or a One China-One Taiwan policy, and to keep arms sales to Taiwan at a certain level. It also called for no U.S. support for Taiwan’s membership in international organizations in which membership is based on statehood. Other U.S. officials have referred to the ‘’three nos’’ previously, but Clinton spelled it out in no uncertain terms. The Senate in a 92-0 vote with Democrats participating repudiated the president’s comments on Taiwan during his last China visit. They especially criticized him for using the word ‘’unification’’ relating to China-Taiwan relations, a word that does not appear in documents spelling out the U.S. ‘’one China policy.’’ The House later joined the Senate in affirming U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s sovereignty by a 390-1 vote.

Ever since John D. Rockefeller salivated over the prospect of selling oil (kerosene) for the lamps of China, American business has dreamed of selling products to the billion plus Chinese. They have succeeded to some extent but want to go full speed ahead at almost any cost, and they already are paying a dear price. The country-hopping multi-national corporations that are fast becoming responsible to no one, are also looking covetously at the 13-cent-an-hour Chinese labor force. Should China devalue its currency, that labor becomes even cheaper. Bernstein and Munro point out that ‘’No multinational…can expect an entry pass (to China) without divulging technology early and often.’’ The writers said that in a Chinese deal in the early 1980s, McDonnell Douglas Corp. ‘’provided enough technical data to fill a library,’’ and that served as a model for deals with other high-tech U.S. companies. Henry Kissinger and Alexandar Haig have made a bundle as consultants to businesses gaining entry to China. They also have used the revolving door to China to conduct American foreign policy and to speak out on television and in op-ed articles in major newspapers. Their corporate clients, according to the writers, include: the Chase Manhattan Bank, Coca-Cola, American Express, The American International Group, Continental Grain, H. J. Heinz, Atlantic Richfield, Midland Bank, and S. G. Warburg. Kissinger apparently is now one of Bush’s foreign policy advisers.

He joined Bush in Washington to lobby for unilaterally reducing the U.S. nuclear bomb arsenal. That was to assuage Russia while the United States would build a defense system. Clinton also wants to build a limited system, and the Russians were invited to the Pentagon for a briefing so the Clinton Administration could demonstrate the system would not deter their nuclear arsenal. A few days later we read that officials are now concerned that the system designed against countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq might offend such countries as China, India and Pakistan and trigger an arms race. So, if we stay vulnerable we won’t offend anybody. Those experts making U.S. foreign policy are steeped in profundity.

The United States over the past decade has seen its trade deficit with China mushroom from about $7 billion to $70 billion and through March of this year it was running 22 percent ahead of last year on an annual basis. The U.S. International Trade Commission projects the China deal will result in the loss of 872,000 American jobs over the next decade. The administration and the establishment played it down. But that’s not the worst that may happen under this trade bill.

Wei Jingsheng, dissident who spent 18 years in a Chinese prison before becoming an exile in this country said: ‘’The moment Congress says yes to permanent normal trade relations is the moment China stops listening to what the United States says about human rights.’’ In other words, the United States has lost a bargaining chip, but not only on human rights. Bernstein and Munro note that ‘’WTO (World Trade Organization) membership for China would virtually prohibit the United States from taking meaningful action in its trade disputes with China, since China would have the right to insist that any dispute be resolved via the WTO’s system of binding arbitration.’’

The establishment press argued that China would join the WTO regardless of what the U.S. does. It also argued that others will sell to China if we don’t. Those are the same arguments used during the cold war by the multi-nationals wanting to sell restricted technology items to Russia. They got their way for the most part. The United States is the biggest market in the world, and it has enormous clout not only with China but others trading partners as well. There was no use to give away the store. China would still have access to this market if the bill had failed. China has never lived up to any agreement, trade or otherwise, and there was no use to rush until some deeds and not words indicated a change in direction.

The same simple logic used by Ross Perot against a propagandized windfall surge in Mexican exports to this country under NAFTA applies in this case against China. The consumers of China don’t have the money to buy our products. How is a 20-cent-an-hour laborer going to buy a $25,000 to $40,000 automobile? Even if he could, think of the world pollution that would cause. And who would have the clout to argue with the Chinese Communist Government to reduce its pollution standards? The nation is already one of the most polluted in the world.

It should be mentioned that the Clinton Administration, as a sweetener to pass the trade bill, included in it a commission to report annually on human rights in China. So, we may get another non-productive, bureaucratic commission out of the deal. One that will have zero clout and waste some more taxpayer money. Congressman Ron Paul said the bill, which started out as three pages grew to sixty-six before passage and contained last-minute changes that made it ‘’a vehicle for government, managed trade, foreign aid giveaways and the creation of new government commissions. It also included about $100 million more taxpayer dollars for radio broadcasts to China and other Asian nations.

According to the establishment, however, this was a must deal, and it pulled up its heavy artillery to get the job done. Well, maybe all we have to do now is sit back and watch the spots on the Chinese leopard or dragon change. Maybe Jiang Zemin will become a Christian. That may be as plausible as some of the establishment propaganda used during the fight on the trade bill. But for those in doubt about who’s running this country and the awesome behind-the-scenes power it controls, this was a major exhibition of it.

A sequel was came weeks later when Jesse Helms the Senate passed the bill in mid-October with an overwhelming vote of 83-t0-15 after corporate executives rapped on the door of all 100 senators, according to the Associated Press.

‘’It’s another example of the way money influences policy in Washington,’’ said Donald Simon, general counsel of Common Cause. The New York Times, sometimes referred to by critics as The Establishment Daily, gushed: ‘’Passage of the measure ensures that the United States will benefit fully from a market-opening accord that Washington and Beijing negotiated in November…’’

A day after the bill passed, the government announced a record $31.9 billion trade deficit in July of which China accounted for $7.6 billion, surpassing Japan at $7.5 billion. Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. trade representative, painted a bright side to the picture. She reported that Florida and California had increased orange exports to China 100-fold since May. Incidentally, Barshefsky never should have gotten her job in the first place. An amendment to the trade laws rules out anyone who has represented a foreign government in trade matters, and she had represented Canada in a lumber dispute. President Clinton lobbied hard for her appointment despite the rules and won.

For those over-exuberant about Chinese trade barriers crumbling like the Berlin Wall, a look at Japan should trigger caution. It still runs a record trade deficit with closed markets after more than 50 years.

Barshefsky will head the new bureaucratic agency created in the bill to monitor China’s trade habits. It will take any complaints to the WTO since the bill eliminates U.S. sovereignty in China trade relations. Reuters reported the United States already is having trouble convincing China to submit to annual WTO reviews of its compliance with trade rules.

The Times laced its story mostly with proponents of the bill and quoted the staunchest opponent of the measure, Jesse helms, in the last graph. Sometimes its biased reporting is not subtle. Those voting against the bill included:

Democrats: Byrd, W. Va.; Feingold, Wis.; Hollings, S. C.; Mikulski, Md.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Wellstone, Minn.

Republicans: Bunning, Ky.; Campbell, Colo.; Helms, N. C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Inhofe, Okla.; Jeffords, Vt.; Smith, N. H.; Specter, Pa.

Top

An Essay by Richard C. Sizemore

What’s in a name?  In this case the name of Bush?

Shakespeare tells us a name doesn’t mean much and that a rose will smell the same whatever the name.  Pundits tell us the Bush name is a big plus for George W., who aspires to rule over us. On closer examination, however,  the name of  Bush may  not connote the magic that is being attributed to it.

The electorate voted the elder George Bush out of office in favor of a little-known governor from Arkansas.   The Bush name also is deeply affiliated with the Order of Skull & Bones, a Yale University Chapter (322) of a German secret society, according to Dr. Antony Sutton, former research fellow at Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Sutton claims  members of the Order:  ‘’…have created wars and revolutions, they have ransacked public treasuries, they have oppressed, they have pillaged, they have lied – even to their countrymen.’’

Voters are faced with a decision whether  they want the presidency turned over again to a member of the elite insiders and proponents of the so-called New World Order that diminishes United States sovereignty.  Do they want those occult points of light espoused by the elder Bush, who is a member of several other secret insider power groups to which his son, George, if not a member, certainly condones.    Bush avoids talking about any eastern establishment connections, however, and has even gotten irate when questioned about it.  Bill Minutaglio in First Son (Times Books, New York p. 191) relates how he became ‘’livid’’ when asked about possible involvement with the Trilateral Commission to which his father belonged.  Bush’s publicist refused to reply to a written request by this writer inquiring whether he belonged to the TC, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or Bilderbergs.  The 1996-1998 Texas GOP platforms called for a Congressional investigation as to whether these groups were undermining U.S. sovereignty.

American citizens are paying a heavy price for recent presidential choices such as George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.  It is time to look deeply into the backgrounds, qualifications, moral and health records (Clinton wouldn’t reveal his)  as well as club and social affiliations of oval office aspirants.  Character should count.

The country has tolerated, suffered and survived the misfeasance and malfeasance of presidents such as those named, and the damage is still not repaired.  It is nearing the time when it can’t survive any more presidents who front for insider shadow manipulators without surrendering what is left of U.S. sovereignty and almost totally dismantling the Constitution and jeopardizing national security.  Any more technological giveaways at taxpayers expense (such as those going to China and Russia in the name of diplomacy and trade) will also seriously jeopardize national security in the name of globalism.  If the trend toward downgrading U.S. sovereignty is to be reversed, the election of a president who will form a cabinet bent in this direction is vital.  It is highly doubtful that Bush, or his rival Al Gore for that matter, are such candidates. But this story is about Bush.  It is even doubtful that any such candidate could be elected and, if so, find non-establishment members to serve in his or her cabinet and other key posts.  The establishment has too strong a grip on all branches of the government. But at least irate voters could get the candidates on record on this and start an open debate about it.

Both major party  candidates for 2000 will be in line with the power elite organizations running the country.  They include: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergs, The Order of Skull & Bones (Bones), probably the most powerful, Freemansonry which has been infiltrated and others that are all closely aligned, overlap and command various slices of clout on the power totem pole.  All support One World Government, globalism, or as one writer put it, ‘’globalony,’’ and limited U.S. sovereignty.  In short, they want a one-world government that the elite can control.  And to get there they couldn’t care less which party label their minions carry -- Republican or Democrat -- so long as they are in control.  As the late George Wallace said, there isn’t a nickel’s  worth of difference between the two parties.

Those who watched  the spotlighted discord between Republicans and Democrats during the Congressional debates over Clinton’s impeachment must have known that the  power elites behind the scene were delighted that the public was given the impression the government is run by the two parties.   That took  the focus off of the real shadow government.   Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee that impeached Clinton also is a member of the Trilateral Commission and Dick Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat who led the impassioned plea against Clinton’s impeachment belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations.  Their goals are similar, and both favor one-world government.

 In May, 2000, this shadow power was again demonstrated clearly by the top level lobbying for the passage in the House of the China trade bill.  This clearly demonstrates there is just one party running government and that is the ‘’Trilateral Party.’’ By that is meant members of the Trilateral Commission, CFR, Skull & Bones, Bilderbergs and a few others that are all interlocked and overlapped.  All the rhetoric aimed at different constituencies makes little difference.  Both parties are controlled by the money of the elite power groups of the organizations mentioned, and the basic policy toward one-world government goes on.  With candidates like Bill Clinton and George Bush waiting in the wings to do their bidding, the power elite have no worry.  The only difference is party affiliation.  Bush and Gore, as Pat Buchanan likes to say, are carbon copies of each other.  But, again, the story is about Bush.

.

And there are those who contend the name is tainted.  This was not brought out during George the elder’s political tenure.  It should, however, be looked at more carefully now that there is a good possibility George W. may gain the nation’s highest office.

Antony C. Sutton, former research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and former economics professor of California State University, charges that the Bush family was involved with the early development of the Soviet Union, financing the Nazis, and vaguely behind the scenes in Angola.’’  George, the elder, he claims, was active in getting Communist China set up for a new ‘’dialectic’’ arm similar to the one started several decades ago in Russia.  More about that later.

Incidentally, Sutton’s contract was not renewed at the Hoover Institute for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University when he exposed the support given Communist Russia by the Rockefellers and other elite insiders.  His book National Suicide details this with abundant facts.  Like Eustace Mullins, Gary Allen and others who have written about the machinations of the inside elite, Sutton has been ignored by them and their minions.  ‘’He obviously was stepping on too many tender toes,’’ wrote Allen in his The Rockefeller File (p.123).

Sutton wrote an in-depth study of the Order of Skull & Bones in a book titled America’s Secret Establishment, an Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Liberty House Press, Billings, Montana, 1986.)  It is critical of the presidency of George Bush, his father Prescott Bush, both of whom are members of Bones, as is George Bush, the Texas governor and GOP nominee for president.

Inside elite power in the United States has been tied to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an off-shoot of the Milner or Rhodes Group in England, the Trilateral Commission, started by David Rockefeller, the powerful Bilderbergs and some related groups.  All have overlapping memberships, but Sutton maintains the dominant power belongs to Skull & Bones.  He maintains it is tied to The Illuminati, an international order whose alleged purpose is a World Order that it can control.

All of the organizations have some degree of secrecy and some, like Bones,  the Illumaniti and Free Masonary, which the Illumaniti infiltrated, have absolute secrecy as manifested by their oaths. The Illuminati dates to May, 1776, when Adam Weishaupt founded his group in Bavaria and later became a Mason to infiltrate Freemasonry.

Some writers contend Freemansonry in the higher degrees ‘’is a political conspiracy to secure offices and the control of the government.’’ But, they stress, many of the members don’t know what they are getting into or the plot behind it.  George Bush is on the list of Freemasons, and he also belonged to the CFR, Trilateral Commission and Bones as did his father, Prescott Bush. His son, the presidential aspirant and the Governor of Texas., is a member of Skull & Bones and condones the other organizations. As an example, CFR member George Shultz was an early member of Bush’s  exploratory team.   Bush has since surrounded himself with Henry Kissinger, Brent Snowcroft, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld, all CFR members, as well as Condoleezza Rice, the African American being mentioned by the press as a probable for Bush’s national security adviser or secretary of state.

The Russell Trust at Yale, which was set up in 1856 to finance Skull and Bones, was one of the earliest foundations  established in America, according to Eustace Mullins (The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Board, Bankers Research Institute, Stauton, Va.)  Mullins and others such as Sutton claim its members are the leading front men in America.   One other point,  Bush used the ‘’light’’ language in his 1991 State of the Union address when he also mentioned ‘’a New World Order.’’ Bush’s reference to the illumination of a thousand points of light was made much of in the press, which did not tie it to the esoteric language of the occult, as some writers have.

The origins of Bones goes back to 1833 when it was founded at Yale University by William H. Russell and Alphonso Taft, father of William Howard Taft, who supported the founding of the constitutionally questionable Federal Reserve System.  It was incorporated by the Russell Trust in 1856, and, according to Sutton, is a chapter (322) of a German secret society.  Members of Bones are sworn to secrecy  and that in itself raises the question of how President Bush and his aspiring son can take an oath to support the Constitution and belong to Bones, not to mention the CFR, Trilateral Commission and Freemasonry.  Note, George W. said he was sworn to uphold the law when he failed to prevent the execution of a prisoner in Texas in June, 2000.  If he wins the election and still belongs to the Order and any of the organizations mentioned, he may be faced with the same decision up upholding his constitutional oath. It didn’t seem to bother his father, Bill Clinton or any of the other presidents mentioned.

Sutton writes that the core of The Order of Skull & Bones comprises about 20 families who are mostly descendants  from the original settlers in Massachusetts in the United States, or old line Yankee families.  He adds:  ‘’The Order has penetrated or been the dominant influence in sufficient policy, research and opinion making organizations that it determines the basic direction of American society.’’ This includes the White House, political parties, foundations and ‘’think tanks,’’ banking and the Federal Reserve System, law, education, media, publishing, churches, business, industry and commerce.  Names of the families who have dominated The Order since its founding, according to Sutton’s study, include:  Whitney, Perkins, Stimson, Taft, Wadsworth, Gilman, Payne, Davison (a J. P. Morgan man who was instrumental in forming the Federal Reserve Board at Jekyll Island), Pillsbury, Sloane, Weyerhaeuser, Harriman, Rockefeller, Lord, Bundy, Phelps, Brown, Bush, Lovett and Woolley. Each year exactly 15 members (seniors) have been chosen for the Order at Yale University since it was founded.

It is not merely a fraternal organization.   Sutton concludes from his research that The Order ‘’is a clear and obvious threat to the constitutional freedom in the United States.  Its secrecy, power and use of influence is greater by far than the Masons, or any other semi-secret mutual or fraternal organization.  The Illuminati was a group of Bavarian conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of government,’’ according to Sutton who contends that Weishaupt’s purpose was world domination.  The organization’s papers were seized in 1783 when a messenger was killed and the Bavarian police found them. The Illuminati was raided in 1876 and put out of existence.  So, information about both the Illuminati and Bones came about as a result of raids.  The headquarters of Bones at Yale was broken into in 1876 and some of its papers and secrets stolen,  They are important to the research of Sutton and others.

One point about the methods of operation of Bones and the families that control it needs to be clarified to help understand why it is involved in what appears to be a contradictory agenda. It ‘’...uses the Hegelian dialectic process to bring about a society in which the state is absolute’’ and all powerful.  That, of course, is in conflict with the United States Constitution and rights of the people.   ‘’...It is illegal for any government officer or elected official to move the United States toward such an order...’’ Sutton notes.  Conflict of opposing forces or ideas is the basis of Hegelian philosophy.  It goes like this:  It starts with an idea or its implementation, ,‘’thesis.’’  encourages opposing forces, ‘’antithesis,’’  and  emerges as ‘’synthesis,’’ or something different from either thesis or antithesis.  The establishment uses ‘’managed conflict’’ to bring about a favorable outcome. George, the elder, Sutton claims, ‘’was active in construction of the new dialectic arm: Communist China.’’  This was a decision made by Richard Nixon, but it was placed into operation by Henry Kissinger, the Rockefeller representative, and George Bush of Bones.

More Bush background:  Prescott Sheldon Bush, father of the president, was a partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman (BBH), a private international banking firm, for 40 years.  He and the other partners were members of Bones.  George, the elder, and George, the younger, also are members, as noted.  Another prominent member of the firm that everyone remembers for his role in foreign policy and close ties to the Soviet Union was W. Averell Harriman, who also belonged to Bones.  Brown Brothers Harriman was founded in Baltimore, the 19^th Century capital of the slave trade, by Alexander Brown in 1801.  It is the oldest banking house in the United States and has ties to the House of Rothschild, according to Mullins. In the 1930s W. A. Harriman and Co. merged with Brown Brothers. Sutton writes:  By the 1970s BBH ‘’..had taken in so many of ‘the Brotherhood’ (Bones) that out of 26 individual partners, no fewer than nine were members of The Order.  We don’t know of any greater concentration of members.’’

Members of both Brown Bros. and W. A. Harriman Co. which formed Brown Brothers Harriman, have been in both firms.  This is significant, Sutton contends, because these most powerful formulators of U.S. foreign policy built the Soviet Union and also transferred technology to Hitler’s Germany.  (Sutton predicted the transfer of technology to Communist China years ago) They also are responsible for why the United States goes to war and loses (controlled conflict), and they have suppressed historical facts and directed education to where kids can’t read, and churches that have become propaganda founts, Sutton adds.

One other note about Prescott Bush.  In addition to being a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman, which had  connections  to the banking House of Rothschild, he also was the financial organizer of Columbia Broadcasting System of which he was a director for many years. CBS helped finance the Trilateral Commission and has had many board and other members who belong to the Council on Foreign Relations.  CBS as well as other major tv networks, newspapers, magazines and publishers is in the stable of the elite power brokers.  But that story has been well documented and is too long to take up here.

George Bush held all the posts where the establishment has influence before he became president—Ambassador of the United Nations, a post he held when the Republic of China lost its seat to Communist China, chairman of the Republican National Committee, head of the CIA, envoy to China, and vice president.  He gained the moniker ‘’wimp’’ while president and meekly accepted being called a liar on national television by Bob Dole.  Bush later bolstered Dole’s claim with the arrogant ‘’read my lips’’ line about taxes.  He also rewarded Dole’s wife with a cabinet post.  He is, of course, one of  only a few presidents in this century to be defeated for re-election.  Although his presidency was a flop, he is making out just fine with an annual pension of $148,000 and a budget of $391,000 and other perks, such as seven staffers and a dozen or so secret service men.

About the time of the dedication of his presidential library at Texas A & M University in November, 1997, Bush was interviewed by  Texas Monthly magazine and cited ‘’forming the coalition to fight Desert Storm’’ as one of the ‘’good things’’ his administration accomplished.  That coalition must have been slapped together with Elmer’s glue or rubber bands because it didn’t last very long.  The same countries that acted to save their own necks in Desert Storm, now have a reluctance to help clean up the mess Bush left behind, or to support U.S. policy.  Not only did he mess up the Gulf War victory, his inconsistent policy also is blamed by some pundits for the war in the first place.  In any event, Saddam Hussein is as much if not more a threat to Middle East peace now as ever.  Thousands of brave men were exposed to poison gas and chemicals, which the Pentagon tried to cover up, not to mention the ones who lost their lives.

‘’It bothers me that people buy into any kind of conspiracy theory,’’ Bush said in the Texas Monthly interview.   It bothers a lot of other people, too, but that doesn’t alter the fact that Bush belongs to an elite and powerful, secret  society involved in undermining this nation’s sovereignty.  Some claim outright,  as Sutton does, that The Order is involved in conspiracy.  Should Bush and other members of The Order be candid about the secret organization and open its secrets to the public, maybe they could combat the conspiracy charge.  That is not likely to happen, however.

It has been charged by several observers that the Gulf War was unconstitutional since Bush went to the United Nations and not to Congress for authority to use U.S. armed forces.  He rejected the attempt by some members of Congress to force him to obtain congressional authority, but the House and Senate voted anyway to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces.  The Gulf War was not declared.  Bush, in a self-serving book written with Brent Snowcroft -- his national security adviser, a member of the CFR, and now and adviser to young George, shows clearly that his position to sidetrack a Congressional declaration of war was well researched by his staff.  In  A World Transformed  (Alfred A. Knopf, New York) he states (p441) the United States has used force about 200 times and declared war only five times.  ‘’I wanted to avoid asking for ‘authorization,’ which implied Congress had the final say in what I believed was an executive decision.’’  So much for the Constitution, which says nothing about war being an exclusive executive decision.  Yet, without Congress’ approval for a joint resolution that supported U. N. resolutions authorizing the use of force, Bush feared impeachment (p.446).  This demonstrated how far he was willing to go to  avoid Congress and act under his on and U. N. authority.  He mentioned that ‘’a New World Order’’ was one of the opportunities offered by the Persian Gulf War. ‘’A new world was struggling to be born,’’ he added.  Obviously, it would be different and U. S. sovereignty would diminish in this new order.  At this writing Clinton  and his shadow government have two wars (three if you count East Timor) going without a Congressional declaration of war.

Bush discussed at length the coalition he built for the Gulf War, but the book also shows how frustrated he became in trying to keep it together.  We have seen how fragile it was and at that time and since. In defending himself, he and Snowcroft demonstrate the way they and their Trilateral security advisers vacillated in making Gulf War decisions.  Bush was almost as indecisive as Lyndon Johnson, if that’s possible.  The book gave Saddam Hussein a blue print for brinksmanship which he followed closely with Bill Clinton.  And up to the time he finally struck (some critics during the impeachment hearings said to try and save his own hide) Clinton and his Trilateral security advisers out-vacillated Bush with indecisiveness.  Now, there is still an on-going confrontation with Saddam that the power brokers apparently don’t want to end decisively.  Clinton also followed the Bush (power-broker) blue-print for bombing Iraq in December, 1998 -- Presidential and U.N. authority with no declaration of war, although a Congressional resolution supported the action.  The same thing happened in the Balkan War and East Timor.  Every member of the Bush and Clinton Administrations who participated in foreign policy decisions belonged to the organizations mentioned, except Jim Baker, Bush’s secretary of state, who was closely aligned to the others.

One other thing Bush’s Gulf War did and Clinton’s is sure to do, was to wake the rest of the world, especially China, to the necessity for the awesome electronic warfare that was demonstrated. China started an immediate policy of upgrading its defenses  by acquiring technological and atomic warfare capability by hook or crook, mostly crook.  While Bush’s administration helped the Chinese, Clinton’s practically gave away the store.  A House group has since confirmed this.  That story is still unfolding.  While the bombs were unleashed over Iraq, Clinton was on the phone to at least one Texas congressman trying to drum up support against impeachment.   That may shed some light on his priorities.

The first and second Gulf Wars were two more that the U.S. apparently was not supposed to win, and offers  more credibility to what Sutton said about the Order of Skull and Bones and the Hegelian dialectic under which it operates.  Congress rubber-stamped Clinton’s request for money to bomb in the Balkans, but declined to approve the war.  That led 31 congressmen to file suit against Clinton for ignoring the 1973 War Powers Act.  A federal judge ruled against the congressmen on grounds the House of Representatives was not consistent in its actions concerning the  war.   Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced a bill to repeal the 1973 War Powers Act.

GEORGE THE YOUNGER

Former Texas Gov. Ann Richards in her keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 1992 chided George Bush about being born with a silver spoon his mouth.  The spoon was apparently recast in gold and passed on to young George W. who has garnered windfall profits from family help and his father’s inside friends. Without that, how does he stack up on his own?  No better and probably no worse than the men who have recently held the presidency including his father, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Gerry Ford.  But remember he is being compared with light-weight presidents who were controlled by the power elite and fronting for their agenda. The Texas Governorship is mostly a ceremonial position, and it offers little in the way of qualifying a presidential aspirant for the job.  As Texas State Sen. Bill Ratliff said, ‘’Other than personal persuasion, arm-twisting and the bully pulpit, the governor doesn’t have the power to do anything right now,  (The Dallas Morning News) Ratliff and others are proposing a new Texas Constitution to expand the governor’s powers.

Bush’s MBA from Harvard is not convincing as a reason for his personal business success, although obviously he was better off with it than without it.  It is doubtful he was a ‘’boy wonder’’ as Calvin Coolidge facetiously labeled Herbert Hoover. Insider information from his Uncle Johathan Bush and seed money from his family are the more likely reasons for Bush’s success in the Texas oil patch.   How he parlayed these acquaintances and his oil patch money for windfall profits from stock in the Texas Rangers baseball club has been well publicized.  None of the get-rich-fast schemes necessarily qualify Bush for governor or president based on his business acumen.  But neither do they disqualify him on the basis of the presidents with whom he is being compared.  All of the presidents mentioned were mostly politicians with little foreign or domestic qualifications for being president and some most definitely were put in office by the power elites, including Bush’s father, Jimmy Carter and William Jefferson Clinton. Often the power brokers contribute to and back both sides, although one side more than the other, as in the case of Woodrow Wilson vs. William Howard Taft.  Both supported legislation to set up the privately-owned Federal Reserve Board. 

 Bush, the elder, had no foreign policy experience before Richard Nixon sent him to the United Nations, but he got on-the-job training from there on.  If someone had asked President Clinton about the ethnic contour of the Balkans during his first presidential campaign, he probably would have reacted like an aphasiac until he was briefed by one of his Tri-lat advisers.  Since presidents aren’t running foreign policy anyway, it probably really doesn’t matter what they know.  The shadow  government will handle that little matter for them.  Bush’s CFR ‘’brain trust’’ is already an indication of that.  They all belong to the CFR, as noted.

It is interesting to note that the last two Texas Republican platforms called for a congressional investigation to determine of the CFR and Trilateral Commission were undermining U.S. sovereignty. The new 2000 platform just condemns the concept of one-world government without mentioning the two organizations.  George Bush skipped town during the state GOP convention, and President Clinton attacked him for it and for not repudiating the platform, which Bush obviously can’t support and never has.  Clinton said a friend told him the platform ‘’was so bad that you could get rid of every fascist tract in your library if you just had a copy of the Texas Republican Platform.’’ (Dallas Morning News 6/26/00).  The Bush campaign shot back that the criticism was just a sign of frustration from the Democrats.

Domestic qualifications don’t really matter much  either since Alan Greenspan and the economic elite led by Treasury Secretaries with swinging doors to Wall Street  are going to be running the show.  With the power brokers behind the scene in organizations such as those mentioned, the presidency itself is becoming largely a ceremonial office.  Oh, there will be some petty squabbling among Democrats and Republicans over taxes, spending, abortion, social security, the environment  and other domestic projects that won’t amount to much in the in the end.  But whoever holds the office won’t be calling the shots that count.  In fact these squabbles take attention away from the real power behind the scenes. So young Bush can get out like the rest of the candidates and espouse all of his programs for economic and foreign progress with slogans  as  ‘’compassionate conservatism’’ and sound full of  innovative changes.  But it won’t amount to a bag of beans. As Sam Rayburn used to say:  ‘’The president proposes and the Congress disposes.’’  So, there is no guaranteed any lofty proposals or programs of candidates will ever become law anyway.  But both candidates are on idea and promise kicks now – coming up with as many new schemes as FDR’s brain trust during the depression years.

As for foreign policy,  Bush has long made it plain that he won’t be listening to any grass-roots suggestions on this subject. The Texas Republican Platform Committee is as close to the people as one can get, but Bush has disdained it on more than one occasion. In 1996 he disavowed the platform stating that he hadn’t even read it.  Bush said:  ‘’...If I disagree with certain parts of the platform, I just move on and campaign.’’  In 1998 Texas GOP delegates added a section urging party officials to ‘’strongly consider candidates’ support of the party’s platform when granting financial or other support.’’  But Bush hasn’t been relying on the party for his financial support.  A party rule also calls for candidates to fill out a questionnaire to test their allegiance to the platform.  The rule is voluntary and does not mandate any penalties for those not complying.  If it did, Bush would surely be penalized.  For example, here is what some of the planks in the 2000 platform would do:

Repeal the north American Free Trade Agreement  and withdraw from the World Trade organization (both Bush and his father lobbied for the China Trade Bill);  resign from the United Nations (where Bush went for support for the Gulf War); abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts; return to the gold standard, eliminate presidential authority to issue executive orders and encourage prayer in schools.  George W. will have problems trying to flaunt his ties to grass-roots Texas and distance himself from their platform, most of which he opposes.

Young George early in the campaign was also reported  to be trying to distance himself somewhat from his father whom voters rejected in favor of Clinton in 1996.  In a Dallas Morning News interview (2/24/99) Bush said ‘’I love my dad, but I’m a different person.’’   With Richard Cheney, Colin Powell and Brent Snowcroft, all in his father’s cabinet, and all at young Bush’s side in his May, 1999, Capitol Hill appearance, one finds that distancing statement a little shallow. 

Regardless of the outcome, it is obvious that the elite power brokers in the CFR and other organizations will be running foreign policy as they have at least since the days of Woodrow Wilson who ushered in the Federal Reserve Board, the income tax, and laid the ground work for the United Nations which came later. One point, however, Bush, like his father, belongs to Skull & Bones, and is a part of the inside establishment.  Unlike Carter and Clinton, he will not be merely representing the shadow government  since his family is a part of the power structure mentioned by Sutton.

The candidates are trying hard to define themselves, but as Buchanan said, there is no great difference between them on the big issues, and what there is mostly rhetoric and campaign talk.  Bush and his CFR advisers came up with a plan for a unilateral reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and a broader missile-defense system than Clinton and Gore who want limited systems.  Clinton tied missile offensive and defensive systems together in his talks with Russian President Putin on his visit to Russia, and that may have made it more difficult for either Bush or Gore in future negotiations with the Soviets.   It isn’t even known at this time whether either missile defense proposal is feasible.  Clinton has since delayed a decision as to whether to go ahead with it.

Bush also differs somewhat on Social Security proposing that some of the funds be put in stocks.  Congress will decide the issue in what promises to be a heated debate. Gore came back with a plan in which the federal government would contribute to private savings accounts.  One assertion that Bush has made may come back to haunt him as it did his father and that was to vow no new taxes. How can he know what the economy will do in the future when even Alan Greenspan, who will be calling the shots, admits he doesn’t understand the technological changes in the economy today.  Bush also has come to the aid of the oil patch and signed a bill in Texas giving owners of low-producing wells a $45 million tax break. Opponents claimed that most of the benefits went to big oil producers. Gore has charged the big oil companies with price gouging and called for an anti-trust investigation.  He also criticized contributions to Bush’s campaign from ‘’Big oil.’’

 There also is some difference between the candidates on school prayer and school vouchers.  But overall don’t expect any great changes in either domestic or foreign policy. The biggest change is that whoever wins the coveted spot there has to be a change in moral conduct for the better since it couldn’t much worse than it is.

No one running for president appears to want to chance it without a church affiliation that is made well known to the public, and Bush is no different.  Only three of the 42 presidents so far have been without church affiliations.  They were Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.  The Bushes, in fact, have the water front about covered when it comes to religion.  ‘’Poppy’’ Bush is an Episcopalian, young George is a United Methodist and Jeb, the Governor of  Florida, is a Catholic.  Incidentally, wonder whatever happened to Neil Bush, who got caught up in the savings and loan scandal and paid a $50,000 fine after being sued by federal regulators.   Haven’t heard anything about him during the campaign, except that he’s hanging his hat in Houston,  but the scandal apparently quashed any elective political ambitions he may have had.  

The Methodist Church is a historical denomination considered a ‘’mainline’’ church as is the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran and others.  Critics charge mainline churches have moved away from the ‘’clear proclamation of Jesus Christ,’’ as Pat Robertson put it, ‘’and have permitted the secularization of their seminaries and the liberalizing of their theology…’’  William J. Bennett, former drug czar in the Bush administration, calls the National Council of Churches of which the Methodist Church is a member, one of the left-wing groups in American society .  ‘’Much of the left-liberal elite despise traditional religious beliefs…’’ Bennett wrote in The de-Valuing of America.  ‘’The elite generally take a religious position seriously only when it accords with their ideology – for example, promoting ‘liberation theology.’ But in general they are profoundly uncomfortable with religious institutions and the traditional values they embody.’’(p.213)

George the younger,  converted to the Methodist Religion about 15 years ago after long weekend talks with Billy Graham who was visiting his parents at Kennebunkport, Me.  His wife also is a Methodist.  According to The Dallas Morning News in a front-page story (5/12/99) Bush ‘’…has been talking a lot about faith’’ in the last few months.  He has been quoting the Bible in speeches, meeting with preachers, speaking in churches and appearing on religious talk shows,’’ the News story related.

Bill Clinton who ‘’Messengers’’ tried to have removed from the Baptist Church a few years ago and again recently, also has been attending the Methodist Church to which his wife belongs.  Clinton has often been seen in newspapers with his Bible under his arm during his administration.  He interprets it his way which differs from most Southern  Baptist ministers read it.

Jefferson, a deist, and Johnson never explained the reason explicitly for their non-church affiliations.  But Lincoln said:  ‘’When any church will inscribe over its altar the Savior’s…statement of law and gospel:  ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself,’ that church will I join with all by heart.’’

Whether any of the presidents have given lip service to religion for political reason is open to question, but the actions of some suggest it.  Most aspirants to the office won’t chance non-church affiliation.  Bush is covered on the issue as is his brother, Jeb, if he ever runs for the higher office.  The elder Bush asked for divine guidance often during his administration – in announcing the Gulf War, when Kuwait was liberated, when natural disaster struck and on other occasions.  But he took Christianity underground in the Middle East War in deference to Islam.  Even America’s fighting forces were given special instructions on how to practice their religion for fear of offending the Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

CONSPIRACY

Is there a planned conspiracy by the ruling-class elites of which the Bushes are members?  If so, how do all the pieces fit?  No one who has written about it seems to be able to say precisely. Sutton draws a plausible conclusion based on his research, and his views must be respected.  He doesn’t see the CFR and Trilateral Commission (TC) as conspiracies because a. they are too large; b. their memberships are not secret (some apparently are on request such as Richard Nixon) c. too many people are included as members who are not given to membership in conspiratorial groups. 

A case could be built against this conclusion because these groups, as Sutton agrees, hold off-the-record discussions (that’s secrecy); their views mostly coincide with those of Bones, which Sutton does label a conspiracy; and there may be a hard-core inner-circle that decides CFR policy as claimed by Adm. Ward; their members overlap; they, like Bones and the Illuminati, have a foreign connection.   Also note that the CFR has saturated the government with its members to the extent that one almost has to be a member to be appointed to any key governmental position.  Bush has indicated his cabinet will be CFR-dominated.  Imagine any other ideological group with so much representation in high government positions. There would be a national clamor for an explanation about it. Yet, the CFR continues administration after administration with little criticism.

 Sutton places the CFR and TC on the outer circle of a series of concentric circles falling into the shadow of a conspiracy. Not much is said about the secret Bilderbergs, but Sutton places it on the outer ring with the CFR and TC.  Three other little known groups also are placed on this outer circle—the Pilgrim Society, the Bohemian Club (San Francisco) and the Atlantic Council. Gary H. Kah in En Route to Global Occupation (Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, La.) lists (p. 499) another organization in the changing mix of the shadow government—The World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA).  This group has roots dating back to World War II, but it wasn’t founded until 1959.  The goal of the WCPA is to replace the U.S. Constitution with a world constitution, Kah writes from first-hand experience with the group.  The inner circle contains The Order and probably one or more secret societies which Sutton or nobody else has proved to this date.  Sutton points out that one important distinction between the outer circle (CFR, TC etc.) and the inner circle (Bones) is funding which, he states, ‘’controls everything.’’  Families in The Order are closer to more foundations and more sources of funding than those of the other organizations.  Opponents charge that Bush’s funding comes from the establishment.  In any event, he isn’t having any money problems (a record $90 million at this writing).

Now, do you still want a Bush dynasty?  If so, consider what the late Dr. Carroll Quigley said about the Milner-Rhodes Group in England that was the parent of the CFR that has infiltrated American government.  ‘’Their (Milner or Rhodes Group) actions almost destroyed Western Civilization...’’  (p.309 The Anglo-American Establishment).  He also states (p.197):

‘’No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain—that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.’’  (Sutton says American history has been distorted as much as that of China, Russia or any other totalitarian government).  Isn’t that exactly what the CFR and related groups are doing?  Isn’t the press controlled? Pulbishers controlled? Government controlled as well as the economy and foreign policy?

THE BRAMBLE BUSH

The Bush clan wanting to rule over us brings to mind Judges 9:8-15 where the problem of deciding on a ruler is described in an allegory involving trees.  All the worthy trees declined to be selected ruler on grounds they had better things to do.  But the lonely bramble bush jumped at the chance with a stipulation that it have total authority.   Here’s the Biblical quote:

    The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

    But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

   And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and rein over us.

   But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake by sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

   Then said the trees unto the vine, Come and  rein over us.

   And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

   Then said all the trees unto the bramble, come thou and reign over us.

   And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you then come and  put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

The point leads back to the question, do we want another  Bush to rule over us?  Or is It time to beat the bushes for something better?

Top

An Essay by Richard C. Sizemore

And you thought William Jefferson Clinton had exhibited all the gall he had left when he pointed his finger at the American people and lied?  Or when he issued those crocodilian one-a-day apologies during the impeachment proceedings? And continued them in handing Al Gore his legacy?  Or when he twisted the language to obfuscate, if not lie, before a grand jury?  Or when he flat out lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones case?  You underestimate ‘’Slick Willie.  How about the brazen assertion that the Constitution was saved by his not being removed by the Senate from office?  That has to be the topper.

Twice in less than 30 years, the Congress has been presented with serendipitious opportunities to establish the precedent of impeachment thereby curtailing the power of incompetent presidents guilty of malfeasance or misfeasance in office.  It failed twice, but in one case, that of Richard Nixon, he resigned. He was given an out by ‘’sagacious’’ lawmakers, who patronized the American public, and he took it.  Some writers contend Nixon was framed and offer a believable case.  In any event both Nixon and Bill Clinton ate at the public trough all their working lives and were expendable for establishing the precedent of impeachment.  In the case of Bill Clinton, Congress not only missed a golden opportunity but may have established that impeachment of a president is practically impossible.  Think what that means.

It means that presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt can attempt to become a dictator by trying to take over another branch of government (in this case the Supreme Court), or can legislate with executive orders, or can take us into war without Congressional approval as Bush, Clinton and others have done; can misuse their power for other purposes without fear of being removed from office.  It practically nullifies that clause in the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the Congress to put manners on or rid the nation of presidents who abuse their public trust.

Our system of government is not like others such as the English parliamentarian form whereby parties and politicians can be removed from office on votes of confidence. Impeachment is all we have, and presidents must be made to respect that it is a real threat to them if they abuse their power.  Not only does the Constitution allow the removal of presidents, the Declaration of Independence states that the people have a right to abolish their government if they find their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state.  But the Declaration of Independence also cautions that established governments should not be altered or abolished for ‘’light or transient causes.’’ Neither should presidents be removed for the same reasons.  But when one who is supposed to be the guardian of the Constitution and the law lies under oath, that should be enough reason to remove him.   And it shouldn’t matter what the lie is about if it is intended to obstruct justice.  A lie, is a lie, is a lie, is a lie.

The Senate failed to remove Clinton from office – although half the Senators (50 members) thought he was guilty on one count – lying to obstruct justice.  It took a two-thirds vote to oust him.  So, Clinton was impeached by the House and half of the senators, but not the reputed paragon of virtue Joe Liberman, thought he was guilty of obstructing justice. It turned out to be a purely partisan affair, and it was obvious that the political arguments over ‘’High Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ and whether Clinton’s offenses fit what some tried to make out as a special presidential impeachment crime or not were simply buncombe.  It didn’t take a legal scholar to know the president lied under oath to obstruct justice and save his own hide.  As for the Constitutional clause to remove presidents, it simple states:

‘’The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’  In Clinton’s case treason and bribery were not pertinent.  ‘’other High Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ was.  This phrase was borrowed by the founding fathers from the English in their parliamentary impeachments.  The founders could have just written other crimes since they were not being specific but didn’t want to leave anything out.  ‘’Misdemeanor’’ now denotes a minor offense.  So, the argument really boils down to other high crimes, or simply crimes.  Since the crime was a lie about sex to obstruct justice, many of the democrats argued it wasn’t a high crime in the sense that it was grave enough to remove a president from office. By that logic it would seem to depend on what the lie is about, but nobody came up with a definition of big or small lies and lies that count and those that don’t.

Another argument used was that Congress should not reverse the decision of the electorate in voting for the president.  But that is precisely why the founding fathers gave the Congress this out if the voters made a glaringly wrong decision.  Under the system of electing presidents today where mainly money counts and selection of the candidates is rigged by selective primaries, millions of voters are already disenfranchised. So, undoing the electorate’s decision, if the case is warranted, should not be of great concern.  For those senators who fear the removal of presidents for gradations of lies about subjects ranging from sex to murder, it should be noted that Thomas Jefferson tried to use the Constitution to hang Aaron Burr with a lot less proof than the Senate had on Clinton.  Jefferson, who was in Europe when the Constitution was written, was saved from his own machinations by cousin John Marshall who presided at Burr’s trial.

So, Clinton continued as president, but the Democrats, and Republicans as well, that voted not to depose him should be held accountable at the polls, and that includes Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore’s running mate despite his lengthy apology for his vote.   Here’s some of the things that Clinton has done with the power extended to him:

Signed executive orders to bypass Congress thereby usurping the legislative authority; he is negotiating an arms deal with Russia; deciding on a missile defense system that even Congress is trying to persuade him to delay; lobbying the trade giveaway to China; used his high office to promote his wife for U. S. Senate, took trips to India, Japan & other places at taxpayers expense for no apparent pressing reason, and is planning an African trip at this writing; negotiated the nation’s economic role in the Big 8;  compromised the nation’s nuclear secrets with poor security; permitted the FBI to intercept and analyze e-mail; negotiated Middle-East peace that, if it proves successful, would cost U.S. taxpayers billions for refugees, bypassed Congress and used the alleged budget surplus to repay debt instead of cutting onerous taxes or social security payments.  Clinton also has vetoed tax cuts passed by Congress.  Paying on the national debt by presidential edict rather than Congressional action is in dire need of more scrutiny and debate.  After all this is taxpayer money, and a debate is needed on the merits of returning the money and the consequences if it is used to pay on the debt.  And all this from a man that his own state of Arkansas is questioning about being qualified to practice law there.  Even some members of his own party think Clinton should resign as honorary head of the Boy Scouts because of his views on homosexuality. 

This Bible-toting adulterer, who Southern Baptists twice tried to remove from his own church, looked the American people in the eye with almost one-a-day apologies during his impeachment proceedings.  He even quoted from an atheistic poem, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam to stress his sorrow. He said a friend had showed him the reference he quoted.  It was fortunate he didn’t trigger another incident with Iran and other Islamic countries.  The poem was written to satirize the Islamic Religion.  Remember Salman Rushdie? 

Throughout the history of this great republic, presidents have been given nicknames that reflect their character or lack of it such as Honest Abe (Lincoln), Useless Grant, ‘Ole Hickory (Jackson), Silent Cal (Coolidge), Give ‘em Hell Harry (Truman), Jubilation T. Cornpone (L.B. Johnson), Tricky Dick (Nixon) and Smiling Jimmy (Carter).  Clinton long was tabbed ‘’Slick Willie.’’ But he has improved on that considerably while in office, especially with his brazen assertion that the Constitution was saved by his not being removed.   Here are a few quick new name suggestions:  Master of Effrontery; Personator of Audacity; Impostor of  Sincerity, Sovereign of Impudence, No-Shame Bill, Semantic Bill, or Fine Print Bill.  You can probably do better, but you see what I mean.

Clinton has done as much to undermine the Constitution as any president since Woodrow Wilson (who gave the money and credit of the United States to private bankers in the form of the Federal Reserve System,  threw in an income tax and a host of socialistic measures as well as the Versailles Treaty that led to World War II) or indispensable Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took up where Wilson left off.  Roosevelt usurped power and undermined the Constitution without compunction.  Even so, he still failed to lift the country out of depression until World War II bailed it out with massive production and war debt.

But what a chance was missed to set the precedent of impeachment and make future presidents wary of violating the Constitution when the partisan democrats, including Liberman, let Bill Clinton off the hook.  Here was a politician who was certainly expendable.  Granted no president should be removed for small or passing reasons, but there were real, proven reasons for removing Clinton in addition to the many other offenses everyone knew he committed such as getting us into a couple of wars via executive orders, selling bed and bath at the White House, campaign finance abuse, and disgracing his office and the country in general.  If this powerful tool had been used and Clinton removed, nothing but good could have come from it.  Future presidents would be persuaded to act constitutionally or face the music.  Even George Bush feared impeachment when he entered the Gulf War without going to Congress for a declaration of war, but again Congress sheepishly  acquiesced to the usurpation of its authority.

Aside from the legal reasons the Senate had to oust Clinton, there were enough other questionable incidents in which he was involved to give reason for deposing him.  They included his belonging to organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission whose agendas opposes U.S. sovereignty, and Clinton took an oath to uphold the Constitution; supporting  Hillary Rodham’s mandatory health plan that would have put another 14 percent of the economy under control of federal bureaucrats and greatly benefited the largest health insurance companies and big drug companies; appointing people to high office who couldn’t meet character tests or who were removed after taking office, and questionable fund raising.  Clinton also has had more special counsel investigations into his affairs than any other president.  If the old adage ‘’where there’s smoke there’s fire’’ holds any truth, there was enough smoke in Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the Vince Foster suicide and some other matters to lead to a search for fire.

Clinton supported gays in the military; smoked pot but didn’t inhale; had one-way sex (that’s when your partner has sex with you but you don’t with her, the way Clinton tells it, I think) committed adultery but he also had sex without  committing adultery, according to his interpretation of the Bible. Clinton  would have us believe he only flirted on the edges of sin but never really sinned.  It’s ironic that Clinton’s first executive order as president involved ‘’ethics.’’  As soon as the 42^nd President of the United States saw George Bush off in a helicopter on January 20, 1993, he went back in the White House and signed Executive order 12834 titled ‘’Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Employees.’’  It involved the lobbying of cabinet and other senior executive employees and also covered giving truthful testimony under oath.  Harry Truman used to say ‘’if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.’’ Somebody should have told Clinton that if he couldn’t stand the truth, stay out of the pantry.

AL GORE

Poor Al.  He can’t seem to distance himself from Clinton, and some pundits claim he needs his mentor if he is to have any chance of being elected.  He gave a half-hearted effort at distancing himself from Clinton when he moved his headquarters to Tennessee, even if it wasn’t long after that he was appearing on the same platform with Clinton.  Granted, most vice presidents must support their presidents and are expected to do so.  Even loyalty (or kowtowing?)  a quality George W. Bush was said to have been looking for in his vice president when he chose Dick Cheney. But there is a line the vice president doesn’t have to cross, and that involves not supporting the president in crimes or questionable actions. Immoral conduct, illegal wars and other unsavory actions.  Gore has seldom spoken out or taken his own position against the president on major issues.  He supported him during the impeachment hearings and even participated with him in questionable conduct such as the E-mail flap and campaign financing.

Clinton is striving to leave a legacy in his remaining days in the White House, but he seems to be the only one that doesn’t know he’s already left one, and poor Al is the beneficiary.  Gore has long had presidential ambitions, and he is not blameless in many of Clinton’s offenses.  He has been trying to remake himself, but those leopard spots are hard to remove.  He and Bush don’t differ much on issues, and they won’t be calling the shots anyway.  The Federal Reserve Board will handle the domestic economy and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization of elites, will be running foreign policy. Bush is an elite insider and a member of the Order of Skull & Bones, a chapter of a German secret society with roots at Yale University.  He surrounds himself with members of the CFR as does Gore, who also is a member.  So, don’t expect great changes in domestic policy and none in the direction of foreign policy toward trade, or relations with China or Russia.

Both candidates have been busy throwing out more ideas than FDR’s brain trusts in the early days of the Great Depression.  They differ some on social security (Bush wants some of it placed in stocks); tax cuts; abortion (Gore is pro); missile defense (Bush wants a larger program); immigration (Bush wants to split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two groups, one for enforcement and the other for services), both are catering hard to the Catholic and Hispanic vote;  Bush is closer to the oil patch, which Gore wants to curb.  But there won’t be a lot of change whichever candidate gains the office. There won’t be much change because all are members of the establishment, Gore, Lieberman and Cheney are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Bush belongs to the elite Order of Skull & Bones and condones the CFR and other policy-influential organizations if he doesn’t belong to them.

It’s a shame the electorate doesn’t have better choices.  Reminds one of a quip by a former Texas Agriculture Secretary, Jim Hightower, that ‘’if the Lord had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.’’  So, voters are in the same old predicament as they have been in the past recent presidential elections – having to vote against the worst of two light weights.  The system of choosing presidential candidates relies on money and hired political guns to pick the candidates. Many voters are disenfranchised in the process and the end product doesn’t offer much.

The biggest issue in this election, as yours truly sees it, is that the winner will be in position to point the direction of the Supreme Court.  With major issues, such as abortion, school prayer, freedom of speech and other matters pending, this power of appointment becomes a major consideration. On that basis, Bush should be the one that will pick the more conservative justices who will stick to the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.  That alone should be enough to give him the nod.  But the way of choosing presidents has disenfranchised millions of voters and given more clout to the money elites. The system must be changed.

Top

Top

Top