There is a common misperception that just as much money was stolen during the Clinton Regime as during the Bush Regime, but I would say that this contention is not true. Of course, the Department of Defense admits that $2.3 trillion disappeared, but that wasn’t even in the same range as the amount of money that disappeared during the Bush Cabal’s reign. Also it was not a State-sponsored systematic operation of fraud because they didn’t have the Republicans’ organizational capability. Besides the Clinton Administration (unlike the Bush Regime) did not specifically form operations to commit fraud.
You can simply look at all the people who were involved in all the large frauds of the 1980s (including members of the Vice President’s and subsequent President’s own family) as well as the number of assistant cabinet Secretaries, who were directly involved in the fraud by being members of limited partnerships and so on. They didn’t even try to hide it.
It’s not that $2.3 trillion is a small amount of money, but what made the Clinton Administration different is that there was not the State sponsorship of organized fraud, which had existed before. This would include a lot of the fraud committed against HUD, in which senior HUD officials were on the board of directors or involved in general partnerships of offshore secret limited partnerships and bogus real estate deals that were committing scams against their own agency. There was no real effort to hide it because it was State-acquiesced. And there was such control of the media (as there always is during a Republican regime), that there was little fear of it ever being exposed.
By the time of the Clinton Administration, things had changed. It was just an eight-year interlude or interruption in Bushonian control. Of course, I’m not saying that Clinton was wearing a white hat. He most certainly was not. But when you think about it, what was Clinton most noted for? The same old Democrat foibles: Women, Whiskey, and Weed. This is the well-known Achilles heel of the Democrats. The only difference this time is that the Republican Right was so well organized that they could make a big deal out of it.
Throughout the 1980s, there was Congressman Mills, who was involved with the stripper, Congressman Dellums with his cocaine habit, and Senator Boren with the little boys. Did you see the Republicans exploiting it? No, they didn’t bother. They knew that in the American people’s minds, Democrats are naturally associated with such peccadilloes.
When you think of foibles involving Women, Whiskey, and Weed, you naturally think of Democrats. Automatically. That’s just what you do. How much additional political mileage can they get by pointing out what the American people already expect?
I am not defending the Clinton Administration and all their policies. God knows -- I would be the last guy to do that, considering that they went back on their word to me in 1992-93. I kept my mouth shut about Clinton and Mena and Clinton and a lot of other things that I knew about. They promised to help me, but they pulled the plug on me. And in that way, they certainly acted like Republicans do in order to cover up their own liability. In context, though, when it comes to cutting up the Fraud Pie in Washington, the Democrats just get the crumbs.
Look at all the frauds the Clintons were involved in – Whitewater, Flowerwood Development, Beverly Enterprises, and on and on and on. These are all very small numbers -- $300,000, $800,000, $1.8 million – that type of thing.
Compare that with the fraud that the Bush sons were involved in. You see numbers like $300 million, one billion, three billion. And again you could say -- why don’t the Democrats use that against the Republicans? The reason why they don’t is that it goes the other way. The American people already expect it. The very word “Republicanism” is conjoined with fraud. People just roll their eyes and say, “Oh, it’s just another right wing Republican Billion Dollar Fraud.”
A question you can ask is this -- does the Monica Lewinsky Situation even begin to approach the level of various frauds committed by the Bush Sons?
People should have a sense of perspective. For instance, there was Jeb Bush and his partner Miguel Recarey, the infamous Cuban swindler and their International Medical Corporation scam, which the General Accounting Office, by 1989, finally figured out cost the American taxpayers $353 million.
What’s more important to the American people -- that the president gets a blowjob, or that they get hit in the wallets for $353 million?
Since they exert such influence in the American media, they can spin it and make a blowjob sound more injurious to the American people than a multi-billion dollar fraud.
Money certainly did evaporate during the Clinton years. The difference is that it was not a Government-Sponsored and Organized Scheme to defraud. You then decide for yourself what has a more negative impact on the nation. Fourteen trillion dollars in debt accumulated by the systemic waste, fraud, abuse, graft, and corruption of the Reagan Bush Regime? Or the fourteen blow jobs that Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton?
People get hung up on the politics and what they don’t understand is that politics is meaningless – social agendas, even military agendas to some extent are meaningless. When someone says that a nation boils down to a political, economic, social, military, foreign policy sphere, it really doesn’t. There’s only one thing that makes any difference and that’s economics. All other venues of government are subordinated to economics.
What media tries to do is to compartmentalize – that which is social, military, etc. without looking to the next level to understand that the only thing that makes any difference and where all power flows is from economics. But to get back to the sedition of the Bush Cabal, there are actual historical parallels in this country, such as the activities of the great Robber Barons of the 1870s. Before there was regulation and before the trusts were broken, there was unbridled monopoly capitalism.
After the Civil War, from 1865 to the early 1890s, there was an enormous consolidation of money and power. By 1892, less than one half of 1% of the citizenry controlled 96% of the wealth of the nation. This led to a dramatic drop in economic liquidity, which is what happens when all the money congested into very few hands. It doesn’t leave enough capital for the rest of the country to run. This in turn has often been blamed for the great economic depression of 1894.
Essentially the entire country became illiquid. This was before the time of the Federal Reserve, when the US Treasury would intervene directly into the economy. This is before any money supply was controlled. The illiquidity started at the US Treasury. We were then on a species economy and it was the scene of the Great Silver Debate. This was the time of Williams Jennings Bryan, who was called the “silver tongued orator.” He promoted the concept of the “tyranny of gold,” which was the original Democratic Party platform. Thirty years later, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes called gold “the barbarous metal.”
There was such a consolidation of money, i.e. gold, in the hands of so few people and the Treasury had been so drained of this gold, that by late 1893, the Treasury ran out of gold and thus could produce no more gold-backed bank notes. That’s where the illiquidity started, and then as it happens during the great recessions and depressions of the nineteenth century, there was a knee-jerk reaction in the rest of the business community.
It should be remembered that the Great Depression of 1894 was global; it was not just in the United States. What was different about the depression of ‘94 was that it was the first global depression. It was felt throughout the world and it nearly sunk the British Empire. This was the first time that the venerable Barings Bank nearly went down the tubes. A hundred years later it went down for good.
The illiquidity started as a gold shortage, which soon became worldwide. At the time, the Bank of England was the bank of last resort for the whole world. When the massive drain on Bank of England gold reserves began in late 1893, Britain ceased redemption of imperial currency and notes by July 1894 in order to preserve what gold they had left. That led to a massive loss of confidence.
The concept was to cease currency conversion of imperial bank notes and let it all fall apart. Then when it stabilized, they picked it back up again. That’s why there were fierce debates with William Jennings Bryan who wanted a silver-backed economy. At the time the United States Treasury had over three hundred times the silver deposits that it had of gold. This country has always been richer in silver. By the 1890s, the US Treasury was swimming in it. The counter-debate was that the US would lose their currency convertibility overseas. Trade by then had become a very important part of the US economy. US banknotes would effectively have to have a second tier market then. Britain and other countries complained that Bryan’s idea would consistently force down the price of silver, and in fact, it did exactly that. The fixed value of an ounce of silver at $1.25 per toy ounce -- this is one of the things that broke the Treasury. Because of Bryan’s popularity, the price of silver had declined until it eventually reached $ .60 an ounce. The market reaction caused the price of silver to fall, and Bryan had actually made the situation worse without realizing it at the time.
Regarding the sedition issue, though, here is the chain of events instigated by the Bush Cabal’s organized criminal conspiracy, which produced the net effect. A. The thinly veiled political policies, which allowed the fraud to take place. B. The mechanism of the fraud, that is, all the little nickel and dime companies which don’t really exist. C. Sharply declining financial capital marketplaces are the result, from whichthe conspirators take the money they’ve stolen from A to B, and use it to short the market. D. The net result is a destabilized US Government, or sedition.
The question then becomes simple. Did A, B, and C in concert rise to the level of D, or sedition?
The proper forum for this kind of case would have to be a grand jury action directly by the People of the United States. That’s the only way it would work It would be a People’s Grand Jury.
And what would constitute standing in a case like this? The People of the United States would have to prove that they were harmed by these actions, that they were harmed as taxpayers, as investors, as savers, and as people in a society expecting an actual defense to be maintained to defend them. That wouldn’t be hard. The argument is simple.
There have been many citizen grand juries in the past, but most of them haven’t amounted too much because they represent such a minority of the people. The reason why this would have a chance is that it would be the People of the United States in its truest form.
It’s in the law. People have the right to form a Citizens’ Grand Jury, so that the plaintiff is no longer the government of the United States, but the People of the United States.
This is also better than a class action suit or a RICO suit because it gets around the statutes of limitation. The problem with RICO is that to get around the statutes of limitation, you have to prove OCC (Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy). As any attorney will tell you, this is not an easy thing to prove.
The People’s Grand Jury is codified in law. It has been used numerous times, and it’s as old as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The reason none have ever been successful is because there has never been a suit filed wherein you could say that the plaintiff is the entirety, or nearly the entirety of the nation.
The Republican Party used to form these Citizens’ Grand Jury suits against the Roosevelt Administration incessantly in the early 1930s to prevent him from coming in with the New Deal and the Raw Deal and so on. The problem was that the Republicans were still only about 40% of the population at the time, and they were looked at as a political animal. You have to keep away from that, since that’s been the problem with these things before. You have to also make sure that it’s not perceived as a bunch of people acting out of sour grapes.
You would have to keep it bi-partisan, and you’d have to have big names involved. You would need to have figureheads from both sides of the aisle -- the Grand Old Men of the moderate wings of both parties. These would be men who are known to be politically moderate and who are respected.
It would also be a unique idea to try a civil class action suit. In this case, you’d have a group of lawyers formed to represent the People of the United States, but it’s probably not workable because you would have to send out a class action consent form to every person in the United States. As a practical matter, it would become unwieldy.
The whole point of this is to show that now we have another Bush Regime that is hell-bent on doing the same thing, except the ruse is different. Instead of Iran-Contra, we are now pummeled with the “war on terrorism” scam, another endless black hole of government expenditures, with the ultimate guarantor of this fraud being the American citizens.
Meanwhile there seems to be a significant shift in Bush Administration foreign policy. They are purposely antagonizing as many different nations as possible, particularly the Russians. It seems as though they are going out of their way to antagonize the Russians during the last several weeks. The latest problem was that the Bush Regime announced that they would begin Voice of America broadcasting into Chechnya – without telling the Russians first. The Russians were upset because it will be a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric. The week before, the decision was announced to lift the weapons ban against Azerbaijan – again without informing the Russians first. This means we will be allowing US arms dealers to sell Class One US armaments systems directly to Azerbaijan. This will effectively end the relationship of Azerbaijan being a weapons client of Russia. At some point, this would make Azerbaijan a potential threat to the Russian republic. As you can imagine, Putin was upset about that.
The week before, the Bush Administration announced unilaterally that we have come to an agreement to place US troops in Uzbekistan and to upgrade our military links with Uzbekistan -- again without telling the Russians first.
It seems that we have purposely gone out of our way to antagonize the Russians. Instead of supporting the Putin Regime as we had been doing, we are effectively beginning to undermine Putin and the moderates in the Duma, the Russian Parliament. What is re-emerging in the Duma is the hard right, or the hawks, in other words.
The Putin regime wasn’t that strong to begin with, and now, by this constant antagonizing of Russia, Bush is putting Putin in a very bad position. The hawks in the Duma are telling him that you’re supposed to be an equal partner with the US. Why is it that you’re not being told by the United States of its policy decisions in advance? Doesn’t it clearly indicate that Russia is being stepped on and you, Putin, are being sidelined as a nobody?
Is this being done on purpose to push Putin and the moderates out? After all we had helped Putin get into power, but now we seem to be reversing that policy. We will then be left with a substantially more hostile Russia.
If Putin wants to survive politically, he will be forced to distance himself from the Bush Regime and from their new friends in Europe. In order to stay in office, Putin will have to increase the Russian troop presence in the Trans-Caucasus, to potentially defend their southern borders because Bush Administration has become so chummy with Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
Bush is offering to put troops into Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. We have negotiated separately with them, which broke our agreement that we would include the Russians in any deals.
What we are doing is militarizing the Russian Republic’s Trans-Caucasus by becoming friendly to states, which are hostile to Russia to begin with, and we are placing US troops in those states and arming them with sophisticated weapons. We are purposely creating a threat to the Russian State.
The fact that all these states are well-known oil producers comes into the mix. We are trying to potentially guarantee oil supplies. The Azerbaijani Pipeline deal has come back to the fore, but instead of a joint US-Russian project, we’re now talking about us, the US taxpayers, funding these weak individual states to build it -- under US control. This would in turn destabilize the strategic situation between the Caucasus states and Russia.
The US then has the rationale to put in US troops to defend what would effectively be strategic assets of the United States. Putin will be put in a position where if he backs off, that’s the end of him politically and the far right takes over in Russia. Or he’s going to have to do what he can militarily – to threaten the United States. That is apparently what the Bush Administration is trying to do.
The United States has also recently changed a lot of its positions with China, and we have purposely antagonized Beijing. For example, the Bush Administration never cared about the issue of Tibetan independence. The Bush I regime never cared about it and Republicans in general don’t care about that issue. It has only been the Democrats that tried to make an issue out of it. Now all of a sudden the Republicans are playing the “Great Humanitarian.” They are beginning to increase pressure on China over the issue of Tibetan independence. Then they tell China they can’t put more military forces into their far western regions to “quell rising Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism.”
Western China has the same problem with Islamic terrorism, but now we will tell the Chinese that they can’t use their military within their own borders because the US is linking that to their human rights policy. Suddenly there’s also the increase in pressure against China over the religious freedom issue. The Chinese responded to that by invading a few Protestant churches and overrunning them with Chinese troops. The ministers were even beat up.
In addition to that, out of the blue, we suddenly announced that we were upgrading military ties to Taiwan. We will begin to sell Taiwan more sophisticated weapons systems than we had originally agreed. And all of these things have antagonized the Chinese, putting the Chinese moderates in Beijing once again in a difficult position because we’re strengthening the hand of the Chinese Army (the hawks), which is the other big faction. The hawks have been saying all along that the Chinese should never have entered into negotiations with the United States because it’s not in China’s best long-term interests.
From these actions, it can be determined that some group within the Bush Administration wants a more hostile world.
What we’re doing is creating a global situation (which the Bush Faction has always wanted) of hard and fast boundaries and borders -- military, psychological and commercial. We are creating the circumstances, wherein we are forcing others to build a new iron curtain.
The Pakistani situation has also changed. Suddenly the Bush Administration stopped pressuring Pakistan on the nuclear weapons issue. Now we are offering to re-supply them, while we purposely downgraded our relationship with India. India then immediately responded by increasing its nuclear posture against Pakistan, which then forced the Chinese to increase their nuclear posture against India, which in turn forced Russia to increase its nuclear posture against Pakistan.
The United States has been increasing hostilities worldwide. We have created a mess in the Middle East and the West Bank by essentially supporting agreements, which Arafat could not have possibly agreed to. We have threatened the Syrians outright about the 1967 border issue. The Lebanon situation is also becoming unraveled.
We are creating tension and hostility everywhere. It has to be a deliberate policy to ratchet up international tension. And I have said this from the beginning – the “War on Terrorism” in itself may be a ruse for something larger. The Bush faction has consistently done this, even during the Reagan-Bush Regime, which as I’ve said before should be considered the Bush I Regime. One policy then becomes a ruse for a much larger policy.
Could it be that this “War on Terrorism” is in fact a ruse to disguise a larger agenda?
Simply put – it is to turn back the clock to a New Cold War. As Marlin Fitzwater used to say about the Cold War, “ That’s something we fat bald old Republicans understand.”
And it’s true. It is something the old Republican Cabal understands– a world which is divided, a world divided by hostility. They understand this because then you just spend endless money on defense in a cold war posture. The old military industrial complex becomes a lot more solidified when there is an enemy. It’s a whole new spin on the way of looking at things.
Since September 11, we have followed a pattern of Bush lies. Just look at what Bush said on Sept 14, when he gave his first big speech on what was going to happen. He said we’re going to go to Afghanistan and we’re going to get Osama bin Laden and we’re going to smash the al Qaeda. And that was it. Then suddenly that gets expanded to overthrowing the Taliban government, which no matter how you look at it, was a duly constituted government. So then we did that and installed a pro-western secular government at an enormous cost to the American taxpayers. Then we make preparations to get involved in Yemen and Somalia and Sudan. Then suddenly we get more deeply involved in Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. Then suddenly we’re involved in the Philippines. We want to become involved in Colombia. We want to get involved in Indonesia. This was not what the American people were told up front.
In the end, the Bush Administration may find out it’s biting off more than it can chew. What is the rationale of threatening “terrorist” groups, particularly in Colombia for instance, or in the Philippines, which have never threatened the United States? They have never attacked the United States, and they have never attacked US assets abroad.
Why do we suddenly encourage new enemies? Why are we going out and making new enemies?
The first thing the Bush Administration said was we’re going to go out and make new friends in this world. No, we’re not. That was a lie. We’re going to make new enemies as a precursor to increase global tension, which in turn is a precursor to turn back the clock to a world that we understand, a world where the old cabal works, a world where it is the waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, and malfeasance of yesterday that the Bushonian faction of the military-industrial complex understands. It is a world where things can remain hidden under “National Security.”
One of the principal reasons why they love a “Cold War” is that so much can be hidden under “National Security”—defense appropriations, the way the money is spent, the way it’s accounted for. That can all remain secret. We are using a state of undeclared hostility, namely a “Cold War” to continuously expand the definition of that information which should be classified under “National Security.”
Now we understand that what was called “National Security” information is really political information about Cabalist activities and frauds and corruption schemes.
It’s really very simple. In order to hide behind the National Security Act, the United States must have an enemy.
When he was three-quarters of the way through a quart of Old Bushmill’s Irish Whiskey at the Turnberry Club in North Miami Beach, former Iran-Contra notable Major General Richard V. Secord used to say, “Son, there’s no more heroes, and nobody makes any money without a bogeyman.”
AL MARTIN is America’s foremost whistle-blower on government fraud and corruption. A retired US Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra. Al Martin is the author of “The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider” (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; order line: 1-866-317-1390) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence. His column “Behind the Scenes in the Beltway” is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt. Conspiracy www.almartinraw.com
How many angels are there on the tip of the needle? This question is just as pointless as an attempt to find an answer to the question of how many NATO missiles there are in Europe