>From: "Joel Skousen" <jskousen@...>
>
>WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF March 16, 2001 Copyright Joel Skousen. Quotations
with
>attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs
Brief.
>Website: http://www.joelskousen.com
>
>BEWARE NEW DISINFORMATION SOURCES
>
>There are an increasing number of new Internet sites cropping up that
have
>all the marks of disinformation sources. I'm issuing a warning about
>them--not because they don't contain significant amounts of truth--but
>because the conclusions they draw are almost always erroneous, meant
to
>divert you from coming to a correct understanding of how the world
works.
>My suspicions are based upon my understanding of the wide difference
in
>what is possible between private sector intelligence and government
>intelligence. Only governments have the manpower and financial
resources to
>carry on extensive intelligence activities. Only government agencies
can
>tap into people's private lives with impunity--even when illegal,
because
>they control the judicial process by which they could potentially be
>prosecuted. Those private investigators that do carry out extensive
>snooping activities are almost always ex-government agents who still
have
>insider contacts, or who otherwise know how to use the same illegal
means
>to accomplish their ends.
>
>Good, honest people on the conservative side simply don't have the
legal
>power, the money or the access to corrupt insiders to track our own
>enemies. At best, we get occasional leaks from patriotic
whistleblowers in
>the dark side of government--but we never get any defectors from the
higher
>echelons of global control. If we could tap phones and eavesdrop by
>satellite, and decode scrambled high level conversations like the NSA,
we
>could crack the conspiracy of power in less than a year. But we can't.
Only
>the dark side of government has access to the full range of these
>activities. I used to have a top-secret clearance in the military. It
>always amazed me that I was allowed access to almost nothing of
importance.
>All the good stuff was obviously kept hidden from good officers in the
>military. It's not that I don't understand the concept of
"need-to-know."
>That is valid, except when used to hide illegal government actions.
>
>The bottom line is this: I know when a person or organization is
claiming
>to know too much. I know what you can and cannot know without being on
the
>inside, and all these sites claim too much to be in the private
sector.
>Let's look at a few. There are others, but this will suffice to show
you
>what I mean.
>
>STRATFOR.COM: From their own website, this is how they introduce
>themselves: "On March 23, 1999, an intelligence consulting firm in
Austin,
>Texas, launched an experimental web site to answer the question: Would
>people be interested in intelligence instead of news about a major
global
>event?" Intelligence consulting firm? What was their name? They don't
say.
>Who were their clients? They don't say and I don't believe their basic
>story. Yes, they were an intelligence firm, all right--but certainly
not
>private. If they did exist in the private sector before, they were
acting
>as government "cut outs" and their clients were probably government
>connected defense contractors--an incestuous relationship between
>government and corporate interests that doesn't qualify as truly
private.
>They don't tell who the principals are, how they are funded, who their
>sources are or who they were before they became "Stratfor.com." They
didn't
>charge for the information until recently, and their current prices
are so
>low as to make it unbelievable that they are funding this huge
intelligence
>network by subscriptions alone. Stratfor obviously has access to
>intelligence sources in every country of the world--which doesn't come
>legal or cheap. Nor can private companies get access to those sources
on a
>regular basis, no matter how much money they possess--unless they are
>secretly part of government themselves.
>
>The specific information Stratfor provides is voluminous and mostly
>accurate--that's what makes them instantly attractive. Their
short-term
>projections are often accurate as well, but their comprehensive
analysis of
>why things are happening and how the world works is completely
>flawed--totally worthless. Everything is analyzed with a perspective
of
>leaders working "in their national interest." There is no leader of
any
>country today that works strictly in his country's "national interest"
>anymore. Every national leader today is part of the international
control
>process--you can't get elected or stay alive if you are actively
resisting
>the Powers That Be. This doesn't mean they are all knowledgeable about
the
>broad conspiracy, or its specific plans, but at least they know they
are
>beholden to powerful international interests and have tacitly, at
least,
>agreed to go along. Although national leaders always attempt to excuse
what
>they do as "in the national interest," that is never the whole or real
>reason. My hunch is that Stratfor.com is a CIA proprietary
organization
>helping to control the information flow to the private sector. I can't
>prove that specifically, but it fits the evidence. I believe Stratfor
is
>part of the government's attempt to influence the public's increasing
>reliance on Internet news and analysis--feeding disinformation and
wrong
>conclusions to the new intellectuals of the free market. Why is this
so
>important? Without ready-made excuses for the apparent collusion
between
>national leaders, working against the best interests of their people,
smart
>people might come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy. By
feeding
>Americans a steady diet of phony explanations the dreaded "C" word is
>avoided.
>
>DEBKA.COM: Debka.com appeared out of nowhere six months ago with a
full
>slate of intelligence sources, a full blown website and everything is
free.
>This intelligence site is oriented strongly toward Israel. They even
have a
>Hebrew version of the site (which doesn't come cheap). However, they
don't
>tell who they are, where they came from or what their ideological
position
>is [anyone who claims to be neutral is lying]. There are no bylines or
>names of real people anywhere on the website. Their analysis is better
than
>the liberal media but it is also tainted with half truthful
conclusions.
>
>For example, in their analysis of the Rabin assassination they take
only a
>middle ground, allowing for a conspiracy but carefully aiming only at
>supposed co-conspirators of Yigal Amir, the shooter: "No one doubted
that
>Amir had pulled the trigger of the gun that shot the Israeli prime
minister
>two years after he signed the 1993 Oslo peace accords. But many
wondered
>out loud if he acted alone. And if not, who sent or programmed him for
the
>slaying? And if there was a conspiracy, what was the motive behind
it?" No
>one doubted Amir pulled the trigger? Hardly. They divert their readers
from
>Barry Chamish's startling revelations proving that Amir was shooting
blanks
>(a setup to place the blame on right-wing settlers) and that Rabin was
>actually assassinated by his own body guard (at the behest of the
>Shabak--Israel's secret service--under orders from former Prime
Minister
>Shimon Peres) once inside the limousine. They had to finish him off
inside
>the hospital when he was revived by doctors. Debka's evasion of the
Chamish
>revelations is telling. They could not possibly not know of Barry's
>charges--almost 80% of Israel now knows as well as thousands in the US
due
>to Barry's lecture tours. His evidence from original sources is
>irrefutable. That is why the Israeli government called upon US customs
to
>impound Barry's books and video tapes when they arrived at New York
Kennedy
>Airport. His revelations threaten the legitimacy of the Israeli
government.
>Barry is considered an "enemy of the state." Israeli authorities can
lie
>and cover up the crimes in their "official versions," but they can't
defeat
>his evidence. [For those of you who are not able to see Barry in
person
>during this tour, I have video tapes of his remarkable lecture as well
as
>extra copies of Barry's books on the situation in Israel. Prices are
$15
>for the video or any of his books. Email or call me (801-224-4746) to
order
>or if you have questions on which book to order].
>
>In Debka's coverage of the Lockerbie trial (regarding the terrorist
bombing
>of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie Scotland) they covered all the
conspiratorial
>angles involving Libyan, Syrian and Palestinian terrorists but failed
to
>point any fingers at the CIA's involvement through the process. An
entire
>CIA Middle Eastern team of agents was on PanAm 103 reportedly heading
back
>to the US to blow the whistle on CIA terrorist and drug dealings in
the
>Middle East. They were fed up with attempts to keep them quiet. Thus,
the
>CIA had a very big motive to use their terrorist connections to plant
a
>bomb on the plane. How does the CIA facilitate the passage of drugs,
bombs
>or secret papers on airlines? It has a working relationship with every
>airport authority in Europe and with every major airline. It can flash
its
>credentials and put any suitcase it wants into the cargo hold--with
full
>diplomatic immunity from inspections. One source in Germany said the
CIA
>specifically demanded that a suspicious suitcase be put on board,
despite
>his protests. But none of this was mentioned by Debka. Once again,
these
>disinformation sources carefully use portions of what is true, but
conceal
>the real reasons and the top players. Bottom line: I suspect Debka is
some
>type of Israeli government operation, perhaps linked to the Mossad
>(Israel's CIA).
>
>In contrast to Debka, Israel has a solid independent private news
source in
>Arutz-7--low budget, persecuted by the government and has solid news
and
>analysis. It's radio station operates on a ship in the Mediterranean
Sea
>and the government has attempted to shut it down on several occasions.
>Check it out at http://www.israelnationalnews.com. Contrary to the
website
>name, Arutz-7 has no connection with the government of Israel.
>
>Contrast these two suspicious sources with NewsMax.com and
>WorldNetDaily.com--two of the legitimate and best conservative news
sources
>online. I know both the principals behind these organizations, Chris
Ruddy
>and Joseph Farah. Neither came from shadowy backgrounds of government.
I
>saw both websites develop from small outfits working on a shoestring.
As
>they gained readership, they attracted advertising revenue. There was
no
>magical instant presence on the web with unlimited funding. All their
>writers are real live conservatives with names--no shadowy figures
from
>dark-side operations. Occasionally they will get information from
someone
>in government, but not on a regular basis. That's how free-market news
>sites develop. Stratfor and Debka do not fit the criteria. My
criticism is
>not to say that you should not read Strafor or Debka--only that you
should
>not accept any of their reasoning or conclusion without a healthy dose
of
>skepticism. It takes a pretty sophisticated analyst to see through
what
>they write.
>
>I'll mention just one or two more sites that are on our side, but that
have
>too-good-to-be-true sources. One is AlMartinraw.com by Al Martin and
the
>other is rumormillnews.com hosted by Rayelan Allan. Both give
extensive
>background and information about government cover-ups, illegal
activities
>and conspiracy. But Al Martin claims to know too much and Rayelan
Allan has
>some sources that I suspect are feeding her disinformation.
>
>Al Martin was a Lt. Comdr. in the Navy who claims to have been let in
on
>the Iran Contra scandal and to know all the principals involved. This
part
>is probably true, but he now puts out information, with minute first
person
>details, about almost every other government conspiracy and cover-up.
This
>is suspicious. One person can't know this much. Even Gunther
Russbacher,
>the highest ranking defector from dark-side CIA operations we have
ever
>seen didn't claim to know as much as this mid-level Lt. Comdr., Al
Martin.
>Martin makes reference to occasional shadowy sources, but has never
named
>any. In contrast, Rodney Stich, who I consider totally legitimate, has
been
>able to name most of his sources. Martin claims to hobnob with all
kinds of
>dark-side military and foreign armament dealers, and yet also claims
to be
>in hiding from a government manhunt trying to shut him down. His
stories
>about being arrested and slipping out of government hands don't match
what
>I know about reality. First, no one who uses this many sources
repeatedly
>and has this much of a website presence could successfully evade
capture
>from our dark-side government agencies for long. Either he is being
allowed
>to stay in circulation or he is marvelously adept at piecing together
other
>people's stories and claiming first hand knowledge--perhaps, both. I
have
>independent confirmation on a lot of what Al Martin writes, so you can
>learn a great deal from his writings, but I suspect he fills in the
blanks
>too often to be completely reliable.
>
>Rayelan Allan is Gunther Russbacher's ex-wife--which is her claim to
fame.
>I've been on radio shows with her and talked to her, and am convinced
she
>is on our side. But her sources are too good to be true--some group,
>claiming to be insiders, is making a concerted effort to feed her
>information. You don't get those kinds of insider sources just for
being
>the wife of one of the CIA's biggest defectors. Much of what she
predicts
>and discusses goes far beyond what she could have gotten from
Russbacher.
>Russbacher was a do-all man for the "company," with assignments that
>included flying George Bush Sr. to Paris in a YF-12 supersonic
aircraft to
>sign the secret deal with Iran, trading weapons for hostages
(operation
>October Surprise), and setting up many CIA proprietary operations to
>launder drug money. He had to flee to his native Austria to evade the
CIA's
>penalties for betraying company secrets. I suspect that the CIA's way
of
>defusing Russbacher's effectiveness is to feed Rayelan Allan a steady
>stream of facts, seeded with disinformation. The information she gets
from
>her sources has that same taint as Stratfor and Debka--some good facts
but
>faulty conclusions. Once again, I don't say these things about Martin
or
>Allan to discredit the good they do--just to give a warning not to
take
>everything they post at face value. All of this points to the fact
that you
>must have multiple sources of corroborating evidence before you can
>successfully discern fact from fiction in this maze of Internet "news"
that
>pours out in ever-more voluminous quantities.
>
>GRADING THE GOVERNORS ON FISCAL POLICY: UTAH'S LEAVITT GETS A "D"
>
>The libertarian Cato Institute puts out an annual report card on state
>governors in regards to who is the most fiscally conservative. See the
>complete report at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-391es.html. Tax and
>budget cutters receive the highest grades. Those who have increased
>spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades. As reported by
Cato,
>"Two governors receive an A on our 2000 report card: Paul Cellucci of
>Massachusetts and Kenny Guinn of Nevada. Three governors receive an F:
Tom
>Vilsack of Iowa, Gray Davis of California, and John Kitzhaber of
Oregon."
>Grades for the governors of the most populous states include George W.
Bush
>of Texas, B; George Pataki of New York, B; Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania,
B;
>George Ryan of Illinois, D; Bob Taft of Ohio, D; John Engler of
Michigan,
>B; Jeb Bush of Florida, B; and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey,
C.
>
>Cellucci is only praisworthy for some of his fiscal policies.
Otherwise he
>is a flaming liberal on social policy. He is notorious for his $1.5
million
>annual funding of homosexual activism in public schools. He is also
faulted
>by conservatives for his nomination of two Supreme Court justices who
had
>formerly been directors of Planned Parenthood. As lieutenant governor,
he
>co-sponsored a bill to lower the age of consent for abortions to 16
years
>old.
>
>Michael Leavitt, who has powerful political ambitions with
conservative
>ranks, gets a well-deserved thrashing in this report. He is ranked
38th and
>gets a "D" for fiscal policy and spending. The report has some
inaccuracies
>which I correct in brackets:
>
>
>"Michael Leavitt may be known today as Mr. Internet Tax. This has won
>Leavitt the enmity of some of his fellow governors, taxpayer groups,
and
>Utah voters. Leavitt is ideologically far to the left of his party--so
much
>so
>that he was nearly defeated during the Republican Party's nominating
>convention in 2000 [he was booed and challenged but not "nearly
>defeated"--not even close, sadly]. As head of the National Governors
>Association, Leavitt allowed that group to become a full-time
Washington
>lobbying outfit for Internet taxation. At home in Utah, Leavitt is a
big
>spender extraordinaire. He says that he "runs a very lean government,"
but
>the budget has exploded on his watch. During his eight years in
office,
>real spending per capita has risen by more than 30 percent. He backed
a
>massive $2.6 billion highway construction bill and hiked the gas tax
by 5
>cents a gallon to pay for it. In 2000 Leavitt backed a 7.4 percent
hike in
>school spending, the largest increase since the early 1980s. He says
>improving education is the "keystone to our state's success," but he
>opposes vouchers. [His 2001 budget diverted the vast majority of
Utah's
>huge budget surplus to public schools and allowed only token tax cuts
for
>the taxpayer]. Utah experienced rapid economic growth in the 1990s,
which
>caused the state tax coffers to swell with funds...What an irony: one
of
>the most conservative states in the union has one of the most
>pro-tax-and-spend governors."
>
>What is worse, he's heading for the Senate and then on to the White
>House--or so he thinks. Conservatives beware. Thanks to my brother
Mark,
>Editor of "Forecasts and Strategies" for bringing the Cato story to my
>attention. Check out his website at http://www.mskousen.com and his
newest
>book, The Making of Modern Economics






_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/