FIVE PAGES OF THE 1999 First Volume of NoSmokeSignals
Page 1
In 1953 I participated in the formulation and publication
"The Smoke Signal" for our local junior high school. Later I took journalism classes in high
school and related writing skill's classes in college. The Smoke Signal was chosen symbolically as a sentinel perched on a high
peak in the Arizona desert diligently warning their friends of approaching
enemy.
I have had only passing interest in politics, but did participate
for my early years as a young Democrat.
I campaigned for Stevenson, and was taken with JFK. I was a Democrat from 50's, 60's and still
had hopes in the early 70's for a renaissance.
Therefore I sided with the premise that Democrats were for the people and
Republicans were for business. I
learned differently though as I matured and began exploring other options
deviating from my youthful commitments through 1968 when the Democrat party
went too far in it's rhetoric and platform to support principles alien to
America and the U.S. Constitution. In
the early 70's I began to learn about the GOP and signed up as a precinct
delegate in Michigan. When I moved to
Arizona I registered Republican. I
renewed that interest in the 80's and early 90's, but began to see, after
Reagan left, primarily that the GOP had fizzled in it's commitment to
constitutional principles and individual liberties. The melding of Democrats and Republican practices into the new
"Whig" party supporting royalty and aristocratic ends and using their
resources to divide individuals through class mania has resulted in a ONE party
government of country club mentality and a false superiority complex. I got fair grades on PSY and POLYPSY. We've been had as individuals and citizens of
the elite, for the elite and by the elite.
This little paper is my contribution for Americans and those
committed to liberty in law to open her eyes, roll up the sleeves and take off
the "kid gloves". We have a
lot of work to do to take back America and I also have the dream mouthed in
words burning in my heart that "every man, women and child may once again
sing…, Free at Last, Free at Last. Thank God almighty, I'm FREE at last."
As far as a practical system, unless you share as the selected few
that have used our system to accumulate wealth at the public's expense, we my
friends are far from being free. Pampered, used, abused, bought and paid for
maybe, but NOT FREE.
Look at these news bits, "Huang, you will recall,
funneled lots of money which, it appears, came from Chinese Intelligence, into the
1996 Clinton-Gore campaign." "Chinese Intelligence Wanted
Clinton Elected - because they could use him"
Why Do We Tolerate A President Who Has Sold His Country’s Secrets
to a Potential Enemy?
Where is it written, "government of the elite, by the elite
and for the elite"? I cannot find
it written down in the law anywhere.
Somewhere in my education and reading the constitution, I developed the
expectation that elected and appointed officials know the principles of the
constitution and common law principles.
It became an assumption that this trust we place in them was sufficient
to motivate them to not only abide the law openly, but embrace the principles
in their private lives. For the most
part, this has been the case. Lately,
however, with the evidence compiled for impeachment trial covered-up and all
but ignored and with the Cox report revealing violations of the most sinister
nature compromising our national security going unheeded, I am wavering.
Throughout the past several months I have written to every
congressman and senator directly, or an aid, with my concerns. I have repeatedly written my direct
representatives. The evidence of
propaganda replacing facts and myths replacing truth seem epidemic. It is alarming.
Write your elected representatves, & appointed princes. Plus the media.
I have concerns the charges that the President of the U.S., the
Vice-President, the Attorney General violating the law and the constitution and
perhaps principals within the leadership of both parties and the DNC
specifically seem to have made, at very least, grave errors in judgement. Perhaps in the most innocent concern to spare
the public from what they may have weighed as unfounded or corrupted data,
forgot the 1st Amendment right to accept information with the right to express
it. Perhaps in the frenzy and
fanatical rush to win at all costs their footings were forgotten and now we are
reaping the whirlwind. After all it has
been this administration and the Democratic drum they beat that, "the
people have the right to know".
Shouldn't that include every fact and information within the FBI files
compiled during this administration's rise to what has the very appearance of
almost absolute power? Every charge?
There are Federal and appeals courts of the land that support the
most outrageous conduct against nature, God's law and the law of the land in
the name of "freedom of expression". The prosecutions are selective to throw debtors in prison, and
drunk drivers that cannot pay high legal fees.
Criminals that will not bow to intimidation to abuse their own, any
"politically incorrect" person that dares to oppose tyranny and
confiscation of property face stiff sentences. These very courts continue to perpetuate lawlessness it seems
for what? A motivation to line their
pockets and build their power base?
Now we read the Pentagon has carried out illegal activities. Will heads roll there ignoring the principal culprits and example of the Commander in Chief or at the very least alleged malfeasance? How can we expect any subordinate to play dead and roll over, so to speak, when the very heads of state and leaders in congress thumb their nose at the law and the constitution? We have a serious situation here.
It was my observation that military men obey their superiors. The generals, other lesser officers,
non-commissioned officers and enlisted have been subjected to the most severe
penalties that have ruined their careers and their families. Where is
forgiveness for them? We have a
Commander in Chief that has committed offences that pale most of them while he
still is receiving honors and walking free.
There is something very sinister that will perpetuate this. It is wrong, it is inconsistent and it is
tearing this country apart, in my opinion.
Believe the polls? For the sake
of argument, suppose the polls were 100%, where is the rule of law in
this? The Constitution?
There really is only one process for a setting President and
Vice-President to have closure on such charges, impeachment. It is the business of congress. It is not a bother. It is part of the process and key to
"preserving and defending" the constitution specifically in warding
off tyranny at the highest levels and vindication for our leaders from
unwarranted and unsubstantiated charges.
When the charges are admitted, the administration is in our face pointing
the finger at others, spinning lies and distortions, you wonder what side of
the Atlantic or Pacific we live on.
This will not go away and fade into the night.
There are provisions in the 25th Amendment when either or both
President and Vice-President become so impaired that they cannot function for
an orderly transition either temporary or permanent. This appears to be the time.
Certainly due to the seriousness of the charges and implications, for
"the children", shouldn't one be willing to try it?
It is
written, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." In your heart, what do
you see? Was this oath honored? What is your duty? "Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery?" Will you? HELP?
Amendment XXV (1967)
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Cox Report access: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/cox_report_toc.html
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT documents
http://www.all-links.com/icreport/1cover.htm
More Documents:
http://207.244.115.13/dossier/dossier.shtml
TV Coverage:
http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/government/clintoncrisis/starr_report/
Huang, you will
recall, funneled lots of money which, it appears, came from Chinese
Intelligence, into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Chinese Intelligence Wanted Clinton Elected - because they could
use him.
Why Do We Tolerate A President Who Has Sold His Country’s Secrets
to a Potential Enemy?
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
(www.originalsources.com)
July 1, 1999
One of my readers faxed me a copy of an article entitled
"Clinton and Beijing" written by Peter Zhang in the current issue of
"The New Australian" which proves that, while most Americans appear
to have swept Clinton's impeachment and questions about his morals under the
rug, people in other nations have not. The great "free" press of
America, which smugly concluded that NATO destroying the Yugoslavia broadcast
studios was "good" because it was supposedly not telling the truth,
has simply not told the American people the truth about Bill Clinton and
National Security.
"I keep getting emails from American readers pleading to know
how deeply Clinton has damaged American National Security," Zhang wrote.
" ...American security has been shattered. Chinese officials have privately
bragged about the extent of their penetration, their placing of agents, their
successful use of bribery and blackmail. I've heard stories that I would never
repeat, though I know them to be true, because many readers would consider them
fantastic. But would they be any more fantastic than a president selling his
country's secrets to a potential enemy? And yet this is exactly what Clinton
has done. To gain some grasp of the danger in which Clinton may very well have
put America in one only needs to read the Cox report.
"As for Bill Clinton, I personally believe he is capable of
anything, a view shared by Chinese
officials who also hold him in the greatest contempt. He is not only
considered treacherous but unstable. A man completely incapable of seeing
beyond tomorrow. This goes, someway, in Chinese eyes, of understanding his
motives. I pointed out in another article that Beijing has a profile on every
member of Congress - the House and Senate. The interesting thing is that
Clinton's file goes back, so I have been told, to his student days.
"This information is particularly interesting because it is
clearly impossible for any intelligence agency, especially a foreign one, to
determine which students will always make a career out of politics. So this raises
an important question: why did Chinese intelligence show an early interest in
Clinton? I'm not suggesting that Clinton was involved with Chinese intelligence
form when he was a student only that it was aware of what I shall call his
potential. Clearly something or someone, and I'm not referring to the Russians,
alerted them. Who or what has not been revealed."
Zhang points out that Clinton had "Asian connections"
very early in his political career in Arkansas. Zhang is not the only foreign
journalist who knew this. In November 1996 the London Times reported: "The
Clinton Administration may have been penetrated by foreign intelligence. Behind
the complex web of the Lippo Scandal lies Chinese Intelligence interests. The
Chinese-born John Huang, before moving to Arkansas, worked for the Hong Kong
Chinese Bank, a bank jointly owned by Lippo Group and by Chinese intelligence
interests." Huang, you will recall,
funneled lots of money which, it appears, came from Chinese Intelligence, into
the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Clinton: "What's GOOD for Kosovo's 1.8 Million Albanians is
BAD for 21 Million Taiwanese"
Does Clinton Have the Republican Senate in his Back Pocket on his
Changing China Policy?
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources, (www.originalsources.com)
July 21, 1999
Does anyone remember what our China policy was BCI (Before
Clinton's Impeachment)? Or, put another way, does anyone CARE what it was?
Before the 1996 Presidential election really heated up, a democratic election
was planned in Taiwan in March of 1996, and China began "war games"
with live ammunition in the Taiwan Straits to remind voters that they didn't
REALLY want independence and that they would be safer if they didn't move too
close to Western notions of democracy. In response, Clinton sent the U.S.
aircraft carrier Nimitz and its battle group steaming into the South China Sea
to join the carrier Independence and its battle group off Taiwan. It was the
largest U.S. fleet to be assembled in Asia since the end of the Vietnam War in
1975.
The first direct vote to be held in Taiwan elected Lee Teng-hui,
although, Beijing claimed, their war games cut his support from 41% of the
total to 21%. That dispute, besides bringing much of the US fleet to the Taiwan
Straits, also prompted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to tell China it had the
"right to unify its lands," the United States notwithstanding, and
Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to warn the world to be on
guard against China because of what she called its willingness to "use
military threats against other countries, especially Taiwan."
For much of the past three years the tensions between Taiwan and
the mainland had sunk below the media's radar screen to the bottom of a news
pile while they concentrated on things like Monica Lewinsky, Impeachment of
Bill Clinton, and Clinton's enthusiastic dismemberment of Yugoslavia during
which he allowed arms through the UN blockade to Bosnia and Herzegovina
(population 2.6 million) Muslims, and Croatia,(5 million), and urged UN membership
for Slovenia (1.9 million) and Macedonia (2.1 million).
However, it appears that China and Taiwan have once again taken up
their respective roles. Only, this time something is very different. We don't
have ANY warships in the Taiwan Straits and President Clinton President Clinton
said yesterday that "he strongly reaffirmed the United States' "one
China" policy in a recent telephone call to Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
He made the call to reassure Jiang that the United States does not support a
separatist movement by Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui, who wants to deal with
China on a "state-to-state" basis. Clinton told reporters,
"We've made it very clear our policy has not changed and we would take
very seriously any abridgement of it." China has said it would use
military force to block Taiwan from breaking away from the mainland."
|
INTERVIEW-Chinese spiritual leader fears for life |
|
|
Updated 6:57 PM ET July 23, 1999 |
|
|
By Hugh Bronstein NEW YORK (Reuters) - The founder of a spiritual practice
that claims 100 million followers in China said he feared extradition from the United States and death at the hands of the Chinese government, which rounded up thousands of his followers this week. Li Hongzhi, who has lived in New York for about a year and a
half, said the practice of Falun Gong posed no threat to Beijing's communist rule because it had nothing to do with politics. "I just want to live a peaceful life. But recently I heard the Chinese government wants to extradite me," Li said in an interview with Reuters. Asked why he thought China might want to bring him back, he responded with a bladelike hand motion across his throat. "Probably to kill me," the 47-year-old former grain bureau clerk said. |
|
Can We Buy Back Our Supercomputer, Please?
By Jamie Dettmer
They are hoping Congress never
finds out -- and in the wake of the damning Cox report on Chinese espionage and
the recent flurry over major security lapses at U.S. nuclear labs, it is hardly
surprising. But soon officials at the Sandia nuclear laboratory are going to
have to explain to lawmakers how they managed 10 months ago to sell a $9
million surplus supercomputer for $30,000 to a California-based Chinese
national who specializes in exporting advanced U.S. goods to Beijing.
Reverse
ethnic cleansing: a post-war visit to Serbia and Kosovo
British
Helsinki Human Rights Group, 5th – 9th July, 1999
This is the latest report by the
British Helsinki Human Rights Group on the impact of the Kosovo crisis on human
rights and politics in former Yugoslavia. A month after the NATO-led war
against Yugoslavia ended 4 members of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group
visited Serbia, the Sandzak and Kosovo to assess the political and humanitarian
situation there. BHHRG representatives were in Belgrade during NATO’s
bombardment of Yugoslavia in mid-May 1999 and the Group’s report NATO targets Yugoslavia appeared on its website
soon afterwards. The Group has also had monitors in Macedonia and Albania.
This report consistes of the following
chapters:
The Serbian political scene today
The
parties: Democratic Party, Serbian Renewal Party, Serbian Radical Party
Refugees
from Kosovo in Kraljevo. The fate of the Gypsies
The war’s abrupt end came amid rumours
that the NATO alliance was planning a ground invasion in the late summer. In
Belgrade reports circulated that NATO intended to carpet-bomb the city and
other urban areas in Serbia if Yugoslavia did not accept its terms. It is
assumed that the prospect at least of a ground invasion caused the Milosevic
regime to seek a way out of the conflict and accept the proposals put forward
by the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin peace mission.
Both sides claimed victory in the war.
But, despite failing to inflict serious losses on the Federal Yugoslav Army
(JNA) and without the fulfilment of all the demands contained in the Rambouillet
Agreement, NATO looked very much like the winner. The fact that NATO was able
to secure terms under which its armies entered Kosovo and effectively occupied
the province (albeit under a UN mandate) which was a serious blow to its
prospects of remaining part of the Yugoslav Federation. Nevertheless, Belgrade
could claim that having stood up to the most powerful military machine in
history for two-and-a-half months it had obliged NATO to modify its original
demands and to accept the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, including
Kosovo, without even a repetition of US Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright’s verbal assurance to the Albanian delegation at Rambouillet of a
referendum on the province’s future status after three years.
First published: 19 July 1999