Freemasons believe they are descended from the original Phoenician stonemasons who built Solomon's Temple in the 8th century BC. Although they frequently cloak themselves in Christianity, their occult belief is a form of the Gnostic heresy bitterly opposed by true Christians since ancient times.

The Club of the Isles and Freemasons are also behind the "British Israel Movement"; a cult that claims the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race is the true "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel." They believe the British sovereign and oligarchy are descended from King David and Jesus Christ, (who apparently was not crucified but married Mary Magdelene.)

They believe the "British" empire is biblically prophesied to rule the world. In 1919 the 40-odd British Israelite organizations were consolidated into the British Israel World Federation (BIWF), which spans the British Empire and the US.

They have fostered the powerful Christian Fundamentalist movement in the U.S. because prophecies based on the Book of Revelations fit "British" imperialist designs. These foresee the return of the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the Temple and an apocalyptic war followed by the return of Jesus Christ.

Before Zionism founder Theodore Herzl was even born, the "British" planned to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to check rival Ottoman and Egyptian interests and protect the Suez Canal route to India.

In 1865, when Herzl was five-years-old, the Club of the Isles established the "Palestine Exploration Fund" to finance Jewish immigration and settlement. Long before World War One and Two, they funded excavations to rebuild Solomon's Temple in time for World War Three.

Today the Rothschilds are personally financing plans to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount, the site of the Dome of the Rock, the third most sacred mosque in Islam, where the Prophet Mohammed rose to heaven. The proposal is "to relocate the mosque to Mecca."

This is the background to Rifat's claims. They are supported by the Masonic design of the new Rothschild-sponsored Israeli Supreme Court.

My aim is to give you something to think about, not to tell you what to think.

As my archives attest, I have opposed the Iraq war and predicted the current morass. If I were President, I would withdraw from Iraq immediately. The U.S. is thwarting genuine democracy.

I do not believe Islam represents a threat to the West. The opposite is true. The "British" (i.e. Club of the Isles, Mi-6, Mossad and CIA) and the Bush administration were responsible for Sept. 11. The purpose was to justify "British" imperialism and a series of regional wars leading to World War Three.

Generally speaking, I see our democracy as a charade designed to make the rubes think they have a say. Nonetheless, if Tim Rifat is right, the result of the November election could be very meaningful.

Bush appears ready to upset the "British" timetable. If so, Bush serves the U.S., Israeli and world long term interests better than Kerry. On the other hand, a nuclear attack on Iran is unthinkable.

Kerry represents Clinton-like peace and prosperity in the short term, and perhaps time to prevent World War Three without expanding the war in the Middle East. On the other hand, the Rothschilds might order him to step up the proxy war against Putin in the Caucauses.

When Americans vote Nov. 2, it may be their most important vote ever.

See British Masons and US Fundamentalists Launch Israeli Apocalypse

See Reader feedback below, especially letter documenting Freemasonry in Israel

Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas at henry@....

COLMAR, Pa., Sept. 9 -- Secret Service agents are famous for their willingness to take a bullet for the president. Less famous is their willingness to take out a heckler for the president.

Officially, the Secret Service does not concern itself with unarmed, peaceful demonstrators who pose no danger to the commander in chief. But that policy was inoperative here Thursday when seven AIDS activists who heckled President Bush during a campaign appearance were shoved and pulled from the room -- some by their hair, one by her bra straps -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct and detained for an hour.

After Bush campaign bouncers handled the evictions, Secret Service agents, accompanied by Bush's personal aide, supervised the arrests and detention of the activists and blocked the news media from access to the hecklers.

The Bush campaign has made unprecedented efforts to control access to its events. Sometimes, people are required to sign oaths of support before attending events with Bush or Vice President Cheney. At times, buses of demonstrators are diverted by police to idle in parking lots while supporters are waved in. And the Secret Service has played an unusual role; one agent cooperated with a plan by the Bush campaign last month to prevent former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a Kerry ally, from handing a letter to the agent outside Bush's Texas ranch.

The seven activists, with the AIDS group Act Up Philadelphia, signed up as volunteers and came to the event site, a warehouse here in suburban Philadelphia, the night before to set up with the other volunteers. The activists were admitted Thursday to the Bush speech, which they quickly disrupted with chants of "Bush lies, people die," and signs saying, "Bush: Global AIDS Liar."

Bush forced a smile as the seven interrupted his speech in waves. As the crowd drowned them out with chants of "Four More Years," the demonstrators were led roughly from the room by event ushers as a few attendees shouted "traitors." Outside, plainclothes Secret Service agents, joined by Blake Gottesman, Bush's personal aide, circled the demonstrators.

One uniformed Secret Service agent complained to a colleague that "the press is having a field day" with the disruption -- and the agents quickly clamped down. Journalists were told that if they sought to approach the demonstrators, they would not be allowed to return to the event site -- even though their colleagues were free to come and go. An agent, who did not give his name, told one journalist who was blocked from returning to the speech that this was punishment for approaching the demonstrators and that there was a "different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.

In the confusion, even Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had to cool his heels for 10 minutes before the Secret Service would let him leave the building.

The seven hecklers were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, then kept out of sight until Bush departed. They were left with instructions to call for a court appearance. One of them, Jen Cohn, said Secret Service agents interrogated the demonstrators and stood by as a police officer handled the arrests.

Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, said dealing with hecklers is the job of "the host committee and local enforcement" officers. "The Secret Service normally doesn't get involved." Mazur referred questions about the event to the Philadelphia field office, where Agent in Charge James Borasi was not available for comment.

A White House spokeswoman, Claire Buchan, said Bush's personal aide did keep a reporter away from the demonstrators but was not involved in the activists' detention.

War-games find Iran strike unfavorable

Washington, DC, Sep. 19 (UPI) -- CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency war-games have predicted unfavorable consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Newsweek quoted an Air Force source as saying, "The war-games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

Newsweek National Security Correspondent John Barry and Special Correspondent Dan Ephron have said administration officials were instead hoping to cause a regime change in Tehran-by covert means. However, the officials weren't ruling out the possibility of using force if necessary.

Sources quoted by Newsweek said circulated memos echo the administration's unsuccessful Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime and quickly install a pro-U.S. government. The plan has found disfavor with some U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence it has any backers at the cabinet level.

---

Environmental warfare may sound new to some, but it has been researched extensively in military circles for years. The first public description of weather modification techniques as a weapon of war was made on 20 March, 1974. At that time the Pentagon revealed a seven-year cloud seeding effort in Vietnam and Cambodia, costing $21.6 million. The objective was to increase rainfall in target areas, thereby causing landslides and making unpaved roads muddy, hindering the movement of supplies. (1) But interest in the exploitation of the environment for military purposes did not end there.

 

Air University, located at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, describes itself as a "center for advanced education" that "plays a vital role in fulfilling the mission of the United States Air Force" and whose "service members must place the nation's defense above self." The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force tasked Air University to "look 30 years into the future to identify the concepts, capabilities and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the 21st century." The study, completed in 1996, was titled Air Force 2025. One component was of the study was a paper titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. It is a chilling document. It is evident that the authors regard our environment as nothing more than a resource to be exploited for military purposes. They claim that by 2025 US forces can "own the weather" by "capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to warfighting applications." The authors describe weather modification as having "tremendous military capabilities" which "can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined," claiming the project would be "not unlike the splitting of the atom." The paper goes on to discuss how ionospheric research (The ionosphere is a region of the earth’s atmosphere ranging from about 30 – 1200 miles above the surface of the earth.) is necessary to achieve goals in both enhancing US communication capabilities and as a method of disabling enemy communications. "By 2025, it may be possible to modify the ionosphere and near space, creating a variety of potential applications." (2)

 

 

Dr. Bernard Eastlund, while working as a consultant for Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI) in the 1980s, patented devices that are described as capable of "causing…total disruption of communications over a very large portion of the Earth…missile or aircraft destruction, deflection or confusion…weather modification…" (3) These patents were based on the ideas and fundamental research of Nicola Tesla (many of his ideas were stolen by US corporations). Some of Eastlund's patents were temporarily sealed under a US Secrecy Order. APTI and Eastlund’s patents were quickly purchased by E-Systems, a company that is home to many retired and currently employed CIA agents. In 1993 E-Systems received $1.8 billion in classified contracts. Raytheon, the fourth largest US defense contractor and third largest aerospace company, currently holds the patents. (4)

 

 

In light of the above, it is significant to know that since the early 1990s the US Air Force has been sponsoring the world’s largest ionospheric modification project called HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program). HAARP, located in the remote bush country of Gakona, Alaska, is a small version of the antenna discussed in the Eastlund patents. APTI initially won the contract to build HAARP. Eastlund feels that the current version of HAARP, although the largest ionospheric heater ever built, is not yet powerful enough to bring the ideas in his patents to fruition, "But," he says, "they're getting up there. This is a very powerful device. Especially if they go to the expanded stage." (5) What they have done to date is definitely a necessary first step in the overall objective. Eastlund says, "The military was interested [in his patents] because, in the event of a Russian nuclear attack on the United States, an Alaskan site would be under the path of the incoming warheads."(6) HAARP is currently a part of the ongoing Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), popularly known as "Star Wars". (7)

 

A 1990 internal document obtained by Popular Science describes applications of the HAARP project as "Creating a "full global shield" that would destroy ballistic missiles by overheating their electronic guiding systems as they fly" and for "manipulating local weather." (8) The word "local" was used because some 150 international treaties prohibit "weather warfare". (5) However, Pravda reported: "the works continued anyway, despite the signed document. It was simply conducted under the disguise of scientific research or the development of double-purpose technology." (9)

 

HAARP is presented as a harmless scientific project, but The Washington Post reported that a growing number of physicists and others in the scientific community are becoming increasingly skeptical. A "small group of American physicists, some of whom have aired complaints in scientific journals…fear HAARP may not simply be the benign research experiment advocates describe, but possibly phase one of a secret US military program that could be seeking ways to blow other countries’ spacecraft out of the sky or disrupt communications over large portions of the planet." (6) Richard Williams, a physicist and consultant to the David Sarnoff laboratory in Princeton alleges HAARP constitutes "an irresponsible act of global vandalism." He and others fear a secret second stage where HAARP would "beam much more energy into the ionosphere. That could produce a severe disruption of the upper atmosphere at one location that may produce effects that spread rapidly around the Earth for years." (6)

 

In 2002 the website globalresearch.ca reported that the Russian State Duma's International Affairs and Defence Committee expressed concern that "Under the HAARP program the USA is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves…the significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the transition from cold steel to firearms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons." The deputies demanded an international ban on large-scale geophysical experiments of this sort and sent the appeal to President Vladimir Putin, news outlets, scientific groups, the UN and others. The article went on to say that the HAARP program "will create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions." (10)

 

Dr. Nicholas Begich, co-author of the book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, depicts HAARP as "a super-powerful radio wave beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam on them and then heating them. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything - living and dead." This ability allows for better communication with submarines and wide-area Earth-penetrating tomography (similar to radar) that can be used to locate underground missile sites, bunkers and oil reserves. Through his research he has come to the conclusion that HAARP has the potential to jam global communication systems, change weather patterns over large areas, interfere with wildlife migration patterns and negatively affect human health. It is also capable of potentially triggering targeted floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. (11)

 

More- The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction

Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change 

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases...

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists ... are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods." (2) Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm."

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s."(3) These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air Force calls for:

"US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications... From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.(5)

HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP)

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-- is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere". Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-- describes HAARP as:

"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." 7

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:

More- Washington's New World Order Weapons
Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change

Fourth Circuit to Moussaoui:

Ask Your Questions; Prepare to Die

By ELAINE CASSEL

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Richmond, Virginia, stayed true to its tradition of being to the right of the Supreme Court in the decision handed down on September 13, 2004, in the case of the United States vs. Zacarias Moussaoui.

The prosecution of Moussaoui in the Alexandria, Virginia federal court has been a tortured one--not in the sense of physically abusing the defendant, but in the prosecutor's abuse of the law and legal process.

When we last wrote about this case several months ago, trial Judge Leonie Brinkema had finally caved in to the government's insistence that national security precluded them from producing "enemy combatant witnesses for Moussaoui's lawyers to question", either in pretrial depositions or at the trial of the case. The government claims that to do so would risk the witnesses, intelligence value and even put the nation at risk of another terrorist attack.

So, Brinkema ordered that the government could not seek the death penalty against Moussaoui because she had determined from the government's own reports of what the witnesses would say, that they might testify in a way that would negate a finding that Moussaoui was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

If you listened to news reports about this ruling, you probably only heard that the appellate court ruled that Moussaoui could send written questions to the witnesses. He could use their answers to his questions at his trial if he chose. Of course, the government could produce its own version of witness statements. (Any guess as to which party would have the best testimony?) It was not widely reported that the court overruled Brinkema,s order about the death penalty.

Every American who thinks the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government that will protect its citizens from overreaching and illegal executive power ought to read the appellate opinion. The court buys the "war on terror" excuse, and backs off from interfering with the executive conduct of war. We should not, indeed we must not, it says, argue when the government tells us that it is withholding evidence in order to protect us.

To his credit, Judge Gregory dissented to the part of the majority opinion that put the death penalty back in play. Accepting the prosecutors' arguments about protecting national security, he still thought it a little unfair that a man could be put to death when his sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was so obviously violated.

Ah, but we live in different times. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the government's insistence on throwing out the rule book--the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government does not have to produce its game plan in the form of normal discovery. Its team of prosecutors can audible all the way to the end zone of the death house. The court stopped short of throwing in the towel and discarding all of its yellow flags. Perhaps it will throw down one or two for you someday, the way it has for Moussaoui. But the penalties for the government violation of the rules are meager--like a five-yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike conduct play that ought to get the government players ejected from the game.

The opinion admits that it the court is going out of its way to make the close calls all in favor of the government. With officials like these on the field, Moussaoui's legal team must surely be casting an eye to officials in the booth.

Instant replay before a full panel of justices, perhaps? Maybe, but a petition for a rehearing en banc is likely to turn out like it did for Yaser Hamdi. The full panel went even further than the three-judge court in marching to the war drums of President Bush.

Ultimately, Moussaoui may appeal to the ultimate arbiter--the Supreme Court, the NFL of the judiciary branch. Perhaps it will have a more measured response to the game as it is being played in Alexandria. Maybe it will have some thought for the future of the game if the rules are allowed to be ad hoc and arbitrary.

The Supreme Court told this very appellate court that it went too far in the case of Yaser Hamdi, allowing as how he ought to have a lawyer and be able at the minimum to have his day in court. And now, Hamdi is going to be released, in exchange for his giving up U.S. citizenship and returning to Saudi Arabia. Prosecutors count on Americans, short memory span to not recall their dire predictions, even to the Supreme Court earlier this year, that Hamdi was a grave threat to national security.

Maybe the Supreme Court will step in for Zacarias Moussaoui--and all of us--and hold the government to the decency and fair play demanded by the Constitution. It bears repeating that what the prosecutors do to Moussaoui, with the court's blessing, they will do to the rest of us.

It will only be a matter of time.

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teaches law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime's dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. Her book, The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights, will be published by Lawrence Hill this summer. She can be reached at: ecassel1@...

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teaches law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime's dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. Her book, The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights, will be published by Lawrence Hill this summer. She can be reached at: ecassel1@...

Ask Your Questions; Prepare to Die

	Home | Back

Campaign workers suspected of fraud

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

September 23, 2004

Overzealous or unscrupulous campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to register nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters, election and law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Officials in Wayne, Oakland, Ingham and Eaton counties have been contacted about the problem, which appears to be an outgrowth of unprecedented efforts by political interest groups to register thousands of new voters before the November election.

State Elections Director Christopher Thomas said he hoped criminal prosecutions would result. Thomas, who has held his post for more than 20 years, said the scale of voter-registration drives this year and the irregularities were like nothing he had seen before.

Although there is little likelihood that phony registrations could be used to affect the outcome of an election because of safeguards in place, alleged fraud undermines confidence in the system and burdens local elected officials, Thomas said.

"We don't want to give the impression that there are a lot of people who will be able to vote" using a phony registration, Thomas said, "but these clerks have enough to do without having to screen thousands of duplicates" and bogus applications.

Ingham County Sheriff's Detective Mark Bowser said an investigation of suspected registration fraud has been under way since late August and could be turned over to the county prosecutor by the end of the week.

Bowser said it is unclear how widespread the problems are. He said the investigation has reviewed "a couple thousand questionable registrations."

Representatives from two groups whose workers have submitted apparently-fraudulent applications -- the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) and Project Vote -- downplayed the issue Wednesday, insisting that it involved only a handful of workers and a limited number of registrations.

David Leland, national director of Project Vote, said fewer than 100 of the thousands of applications his group has collected in Detroit, Pontiac and other four other urban centers had been identified as fraudulent.

But the massive registration drives have produced thousands of registration applications from voters already on the rolls, city elections officials said.

Detroit Elections Director Gloria Williams said her office has been receiving several thousand new registrations a day, about half of which were duplicates of people already registered.

Heidi Blankenship, regional director of a PIRGIM voter-registration drive designed to generate 20,000 new voters in Ingham and Washtenaw counties, said only three or four workers out of dozens in the project were suspected of wrongdoing. She described them as "young students who didn't realize it was a potential felony."

She said PIRGIM pays workers a flat rate, with bonuses for exceeding registration targets. The group attempts to verify a sampling of new registrations, she said.

Project Vote's Leland said workers from the offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which are collecting registrations in Michigan, had produced nearly 70,000 new registrations with a very low error rate.

"I feel very happy with the way it is working out, but we will do whatever we can to ensure the integrity of the process," he said.

There have been scattered reports of similar voter-registration problems from around the country. The Project Vote office in Ohio fired two workers earlier this year for submitting bogus voter applications.

Ingham County Clerk Mike Bryanton said some of the alleged fraud he had reviewed was "pretty obvious," including names taken out of the phone book and as many as eight people registered from a single apartment address.

Bryanton said he didn't know whether the bad registrations violated election law or could be prosecuted under some other statute, such as forgery. But they are a "real pain" for local clerks, he said.

Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@....

Copyright © 2004 Detroit Free Press Inc.

Gotcha!
Kerry Dupes Democrats

by Erik Fortman

Gotcha, Democrats! That is what you get for not listening to the patriots. Tell me that Skull & Bones is just a harmless fraternity. Did you ever wonder how Kerry pulled ahead from nowhere in the primaries? Who actually voted for him - over Gephardt? Dean? EDWARDS? John Edwards was talking such good game, using rousing populist rhetoric, that I wanted to vote for him, and I'm Libertarian! Honestly, has anyone rounded up the delegates, and really asked them who they wanted to vote for; who they were supposed to vote for? I know that several times these people have been manipulated.

John Kerry is the man you Donkeys are being told your delegates voted for. Maybe, maybe not. If you would keep an open mind, you will see why the Neo-conservatives selected a brother, John Kerry, to run against his cousin, George Bush. Oh, yeah, that should have been your first warning label. How do men that are related to each other vie for the Championship of the World? We go back to the 'coincidental' vs. 'conspiratorial' view of history. If it were only family relations as evidence that Kerry is a war hawk plant, I would still subscribe to the latter.

Bush and Kerry are 9th cousins, twice removed. There is a familial tie. This status was upgraded since February 2004, at which time MSNBC claimed they were only known to be 16th cousins. So they may be closer than 9th, but no less. Additionally, they are both related to all sorts of important and royal figures. Both are related to Charlemagne, Walt Disney, MacArthur, and FDR, all Illuminists. They are both related to, tellingly, Benedict Arnold and John Hinckley, Jr. Finally, to go along with those elite sex slavery rumors, the 9th cousins are both 9th cousins with Hugh Hefner, also a royal. Let me see if I have this straight. Charlemagne was crowned the first Germanic Holy Roman Emperor, staged in a bizarre occult ceremony, according to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail.' From here, the line goes out, until some famous, blue-blood Plymouth Rocker gets to America to help spread the English empire. This would be Kerry and Bush's common ancestor, 11 generations ago. Then we have one of the supposed 13 Illuminati bloodlines, Walt Disney, according to Fritz Springmeier. MacArthur's military escapades are still debated, with much of the real information hidden or missing. Oh, I forgot the English traitor, Benedict Arnold. Is it any wonder both Bush and Kerry stand behind England. Finally, family-relation, John Hinckley, Jr., attempted to assassinate Reagan, a man who was against everything Bush, Sr. was for - until after the attempt. Now Bush and Kerry, relations to all those men, and related to each other, are 'locked in a struggle for power.' Come on!

I guess it is good that Bush and Kerry went to the elite secret society/fraternity a few years apart. I guess the atmosphere went from one ideological spectrum to another. Had they been together, they would have been at each others throator, maybe they would have plotted how to take over the two parties and stage an election which would allow the war hawk to win, thus keeping both the lineal businesses flowing with capital.

Seriously, though, the Skull & Bones connection has been glossed over too many times by otherwise intelligent Americans. If you didn't know that they were cousins, and both related to prominent Illuminati members, the S&B connection would still be enough to give the entire ordeal a conspiratorial edge. Yes, Skull & Bones was started with Nazi, drug, and slave money. Yes, there are strange rituals that happen inside their lodge, dubbed 'The Tomb.' 'Oh, it's just a college frat,' some say. It is a fraternity that is so tight, the week after Bush was elected he had a meeting in the White House with his Bonesmen alma mater. When asked about the group (and they have only been asked once or twice), both Kerry and Bush said the same thing, almost verbatim. We can't talk about it. Is this how you, Democrat or Republican, want your government to operate?

This is my theory. I may be wrong, and I am only guessing. 2004 will be a Skull & Bones, Charlemagne election regardless. Bones are very dominate in the Bilderberg group, which I chronicled in 'Webs of Power: Government Agencies, Secret Societies, and Elite Legacies.' Not only did Bush just so happen to be in Italy the same weekend that the Bilderberg conference was held there in 2004; John Edwards attended with fellow Neo-cons and Global Socialists alike. Next thing you know, Kerry has a running mate.

Alright, so it appears that Skull & Bones, and other Illuminati factions, anointed Edwards. Kerry's primary win was a farce. You see, Kerry hasn't voted for three-quarters of his votes. He has a shadier Vietnam history than Bush, no saint himself. He can't make up his mind. His wife calls the American people idiots (which they might be, but you don't say it out loud. Plus, their ignorance is her gain). Kerry totally chokes the Democratic Convention. He can't put together a cohesive message. Yet, he's supposed to be one of the greatest statesmen that the Dems have to offer?

This is a set up. The Middle East needs to be rearranged a bit more before good cops (Dems, U.N., World Socialists) come in. Plus, they would rather good cop be Edwards and Clinton, with the Billy Clinton heading up NATO or the U.N. That is, after Bush and Co. rough up the Arabs. Whatever the U.N. and the Democrats give them in 2008 will be ice-cream in Summer after seven years of Republican beatings, bombings, and sanctions.

A world hoax is being perpetrated. The news media is involved. We spent two weeks on hurricanes, two weeks on Kerry's record, and now two weeks on Dan Rather. We still haven't talked about the fact that Bush is a Socialist and Kerry is planning on at least four more years of Iraq!

Bush will have four more years! Kerry is a plant in the Democratic Party. Bush will win this election!

I can only leave you with a line from the infamous Pink Floyd.

Webs of Power
by Erik Fortman

Link URL for websites
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2004/gotcha.html

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

IT SHOULD be easy to work out what people with $300 billion to spend are doing with their money. According to America's Department of Energy, that is the sum that members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will haul in this year. Thanks to the surge in the price of oil, to nearly $50 a barrel a few weeks ago, the cartel's export earnings are running at almost three times what they were in 1998, when a barrel fetched only around $10.

In fact, getting to the bottom of the bonanza is no simple task. For a start, the amount of oil exported is not known with great precision, thanks to OPEC's secretiveness about production capacity. That makes it impossible to put a precise figure on OPEC's revenues. Sharif Ghalib of the Energy Intelligence Group, an industry publisher, uses different assumptions from the Department of Energy and comes up with a figure of $360 billion.

As for what is being done with the money, it is hard to unravel patterns of domestic spending inside OPEC, given that the accounts of most oil producers are not worth the paper they are printed on. Finally, it is tricky to work out the impact of “petrodollars” on the global financial system—especially when economic growth is decent, credit is easy and sources of liquidity are hard to identify.

History suggests that petrodollars can cause trouble, both for oil producers and for others. During the last great oil-price boom, in the 1970s, OPEC countries spent a lot, on lavish infrastructure projects at home, and saved a lot, in western commercial banks. The former wrought predictable distortions on their domestic economies. The latter had ill effects too, after the western banks lent freely to developing countries. This looked fine at the time—after all, the world's poorest countries needed capital. Alas, too much was lent and borrowed. Bankers were left embarrassed. Many of the world's poor suffered far worse, as their economies were saddled with enormous debts.

This time around, there may be less need to worry. One reason is that the windfall is smaller. Although revenues of $300 billion would be close to OPEC's largest ever in nominal terms, they would be far below the peak once inflation is taken into account (see chart).

Even so, oil producers have a fair bit in their coffers. The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a think-tank run by the financial industry, estimates that the six oil economies of the Persian Gulf will spend perhaps $200 billion on infrastructure projects during the next three years. Even so, reckons the IIF, they will enjoy a combined fiscal surplus this year and next of about 10% of GDP. Plenty will be invested abroad: the six should chalk up a current-account surplus of some $70 billion this year and next, about 15% of GDP.

Some are worried that easy money will spawn old mistakes, in the shape of popular but unsustainable spending schemes at home. That would be unfortunate, given that the shock of $10 oil has only recently led many oil-producing countries to embrace subsidy reform, trade liberalisation and saner fiscal policies. In the case of the big producers in the Persian Gulf, that worry looks premature. So far, it seems that these countries, especially Saudi Arabia, are using their windfalls to reduce their debts and balance their budgets. Moreover, says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, a consultancy, the population boom of the past few decades means that the capacity of these economies to absorb extra public spending is far greater today than it was three decades ago.

There is more cause for concern about Venezuela and Russia. Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, has used his windfall to expand social spending in politically clever, if economically incautious, ways. In Russia, which now vies with Saudi Arabia to be the world's biggest oil producer, there are signs that President Vladimir Putin, who has recently consolidated the state's grip on various parts of the energy sector, may loosen the budgetary belt.

The Russian authorities have attempted to squirrel away some of their petrodollars, and avert upward pressure on the rouble, by setting up a stabilisation fund to capture extra revenues. Unfortunately, the kitty is open to raids by politicians. Although Alexei Kudrin, the finance minister, promised the money would be used to repay debt and plug pension holes, some analysts worry that the prime minister, Mikhail Fradkov, who is set on fulfilling Mr Putin's goal of doubling GDP by 2010, has other ideas. Recently, Anne Krueger, a top official at the International Monetary Fund, publicly warned the Russians “against further fiscal relaxation, however good the current numbers look.”

The impact of the extra oil revenues on international financial markets is hard to assess. Flows of funds are never easy to trace, especially when their sources are keen to keep them quiet. There are dark whispers in oil circles that cartel members, especially Saudi Arabia, want to keep much of their new money out of American banks and markets because of “post September 11th scrutiny.”

Official statistics on the ownership of American Treasury bills, for example, show that OPEC countries' holdings are around $44 billion, $8 billion less than two years ago. Rebecca McCaughrin of Morgan Stanley, who has analysed the recent windfall, believes that the cartel is even shunning American goods. So far this year, oil producers' imports from the euro zone are up by a quarter on 2003: imports from America are up by just 8%.

Meanwhile, tens of billions of dollars are certainly finding their way into the offshore funds set up by some oil producers. Norway's pot, for example, contains perhaps $140 billion, and may receive another $13 billion this year. Other countries, including Mexico, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and East Timor, have set up similar funds, and are pouring money into them. Now Russia is joining the club.

Some are sceptical about the value of this—one recent article on the topic in the IMF's own quarterly was entitled “Oil Funds: Problems posing as solutions?”. However, argues Svetlana Tsalik of the Open Society, a group financed by George Soros, a well-known investor and philanthropist, these funds can help to sterilise capital inflows and (in theory) to save for a rainy day. The key, she insists, is that countries should get their policy and institutional frameworks right.

Whether or not these funds are good for producing countries, their investments in foreign markets appear to be no cause for concern just now. Ms McCaughrin estimates that “the [OPEC] cartel probably accounts for no more than 5% of global cross-border capital flows.”

This tallies with the IIF's estimates that the six big Gulf economies have increased their foreign assets by an average of $30 billion per year over the past five years, and might do so by about $80 billion this year and next. That may sound like a lot, but given that the world economy is far larger than it was during OPEC's last bonanza, Ms McCaughrin concludes that it is “still much too small to have more than a marginal impact.” For the moment at least, the world seems safe from the menace of another petrodollar crisis.