Bloody Bill Clinton - American Caligula
President Clinton may be in his final year of office but he leaves in his wake a trail of allegations that, if true, would rank him alongside some of history’s most notorious criminals. He has been implicated in cocaine use by none other than his younger brother Roger Clinton, himself a convicted drug trafficker. In an Arkansas State Police surveillance audio tape, obtained by freelance journalist Scott Wheeler, Roger Clinton can be heard describing how he smuggled large amounts of cocaine through airports. Most significant were his comments about the then Arkansas State Governor, “Got to get some for my brother; he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.”

This is not just groundless speculation. In 1990 Sharlene Wilson, an informant for the Seventh Judicial drug task force in Arkansas, testified under oath that she had supplied Governor Bill Clinton with cocaine. Shortly thereafter the drug task force was closed down and Wilson herself was charged with drug violations. In 1992 she was sentenced to 31 years for selling half an ounce of marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine. Clinton’s misdemeanors amount to more than drug use though, much more. One of the first things Clinton did on assuming the presidency was to appoint Patsy Thomasson - a top lieutenant of convicted drug dealer Dan Lasater - as White House chief of personnel. Clinton then installed his friend Webster Hubbel as “shadow” Attorney General, until Hubbel was jailed for fraud. Prior to his becoming assistant Attorney General he had been over billing clients at the Rose Law firm, in Little Rock Arkansas, where he had been a partner with Hilary Clinton.

Then we have the “suicide” of Vincent Foster. As reported in The SPOTLIGHT, featured in the previous edition of The Seeker, Forster had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and had been in the process of preparing a potentially damming report. So Clinton had good reason to want him out of the way and as many suspect his death was not a suicide; eyewitness accounts by police and ambulance crew members who recovered Foster’s body and official autopsy findings are distinctly at odds. One of the reasons that Clinton has been able to get away with so much is the compliance of the mainstream media. As one of the few journalist’s who has covered Clinton’s time in office with any honesty and insight, Ambrose Pritchard-Evans noted:
“The Washington press corps has chosen not to report this sort of thing, of course, because it always gives more weight to the utterings of an “official” source, with a title, than it does to the testimony of a common citizen.”

As a result Clinton has been allowed to get away with murder, almost literally. Yet he is guilty of far more. He has been implicated in rape, sexual assault, mass murder (Waco) and, as we detailed in a previous issue, War crimes in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that history may well place Bill Clinton alongside the likes of Nero and Caligula. Here then is a list of people who have been connected in some way with Bill Clinton and who have died in rather suspicious circumstances:

1) Susan Coleman: said to have had an affair with Clinton before he became President. Told friends she was expecting his child and was 7 months pregnant when she found dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Verdict, suicide.

2)Larry Guerrin: killed while investigating the INSLAW case. In brief this involved the US Justice Department using stolen software, modifying it for intelligence purposes and then selling it to foreign governments and making millions in the process.

3) Kevin Ives and Don Henry: two 16 year old boys who may have stumbled across drug running operations involving Clinton at Mena airfield in Arkansas in 1987. Initial reports, by State Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak, suggested that the boys had fallen asleep on the railway line and been crushed. However when the parents kicked up a fuss another forensic report showed Kevin’s skull had been crushed prior to being placed on the track whilst Don had been stabbed in the back.

4) Keith Coney said he had information on Ives and Henry deaths. Died in a high-speed motorcycle crash in 1989, said to have involved a car chase.

5) Keith McKaskle, said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. Stabbed to death in November 1988.

6) Gregory Collins, once again said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths and once again killed, this time by a gunshot wound to the face.

7) Jeff Rhodes was also said to have information on the deaths of Ives and Henry. He was found on a waste heap in April 1989 with a gunshot wound to the head.

8) James Milam also had information on the Ives and Henry deaths but before he could talk too widely he was found decapitated. Once again the State Medical Examiner, Fahmy Malak, ruled the death due to natural causes.

9) Richard Winters, a suspect in the Ives and Henry case had offered to cooperate and give evidence. However he died in a ‘robbery’, which was subsequently proved to have been a set-up.

10) Jordan Kettleson was also said to have information on the Ives and Henry deaths. He was found shot dead in his pick-up in June 1990.

11) Danny Casalaro, a journalist investigating Mena airstrip, the Arkansas coke trade and INSLAW. Had warned his family that he had learnt too much and not to believe it was suicide if he turned up dead. Shortly thereafter he was found in a bathtub in the Sheraton Hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Both his wrists had been slashed, one ten times, all his research material was missing and has never been recovered

12) Victor Raiser, the National Co-Chair for the “Clinton for President” campaign, died in an airplane crash in July, 1992.

13) R Montgomery Raiser also worked on the Clinton campaign and died in the same crash.

14) Ian Spiro, said to have supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings in the INSLAW case. His wife and three children were found murdered in their home in November 1992.All had gunshot wounds to the head. Ian’s body later was found in a car in the Borrego Desert. FBI reports concluded that he had shot his family and then committed suicide by taking cyanide.

15) Paula Grober, Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf. Killed in car smash with no other cars involved and no witnesses. She is said to have been very attractive and traveled extensively with Clinton prior to her death in December 1992. All the above died prior to Clinton’s inauguration in January 1993.In its aftermath the deaths not only continued but became even more numerous.

16) Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeahan and Conway LeBleu were the only four BATF men killed at Waco. In an autopsy performed by a “private Doctor” all four were found to have near identical “execution style” head wounds. All four had previously been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in April 1993.

17) Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley and Capt. Scott Reynolds. Once again all four men had been bodyguards for Clinton prior to their deaths in a helicopter crash near Quantico, Va. Reporters were barred from the scene whilst firefighters responding to the crash had their video tapes seized and a fire chief described a scene where, “security was tight” with “lots of marines with guns.”

18) Paul Wilcher [ See also #Prison Planet on him ] was found dead shortly after presenting Attorney General Janet Reno with a report on Waco, death ruled to “unknown causes.” See extracts from the report in this issue.

19) White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster was said to have been preparing a potentially damming report on Waco at the time of his death. As reported in the previous issue he had been deeply disturbed by events at Waco and his death, in July 1993, was officially labeled a “suicide.”.

20) Stanley Heard and Steven Dickson were members of Clinton’s Health Advisory Committee. Both died in an air crash in September 1993.

21) Jerry Luther Parks, Chief of Security at Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in Little Rock. He was shot through the rear window of his car, the killer then went to the driver’s side of Park’s car and pumped three more 9mm bullets into him. His family reported that shortly before his death their home had been broken into, despite a top line security system. Park’s had been preparing a dossier on Clinton’s activities, the dossier was stolen.

22) Ed Willey, a Clinton fundraiser, was found shot dead in November 1993.Once again the death was ruled suicide. His wife Kathleen, who was working as a White House volunteer at the time, claimed that Clinton sexually assaulted her when she had approached him, distraught over the loss of her husband.

Indeed allegations of sexual assault and even rape go back a long way with Clinton. As far back as 1969 in fact when Clinton was still a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. A retired State Department employee said he believed a young English woman who claimed she had been raped by Clinton.
“There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,” he said. “But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.”
She is not the only woman who has accused Clinton of rape. Early in 1999 Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Clinton’s campaign when he was attorney general in 1978, told NBC that he had raped her. Claiming pressure from the White House NBC shelved the report.
Then we have the case of Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas who claimed that Clinton had forced himself on her shortly after she won the State crown. In 1999 she told an interviewer that she did have sex with him but that it was consensual; she later recanted saying that she had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual. And still the killings go on...

23) Dr Roland Rogers a Dentist from Arkansas. Died on his way to the Sunday Telegraph in London to reveal “sensitive” information about Clinton in March 1994

24) Kathy Furguson, a 38-year-old hospital worker whose ex-husband was a co-defendant in the Paula Jones case. She died in May 1994, from a gunshot wound to the head, ruled suicide; curiously next to the body were several packed suitcases, as if she was getting ready to go somewhere.

25) Bill Shelton was Kathy’s boyfriend and an Arkansas police officer. He was found on her grave the following month with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Judged to be “suicide”.

26) Alan G Whither, oversaw Clinton’s Secret Service detail. He was transferred to a field office in Oklahoma City in October 1994.Whatever warning was given to the other BATF agents in the building (none of whom came to work that day) failed to reach him, he died on April 19 1995 in the infamous Oklahoma City bomb blast. Incidentally the families of the victims of the blast are now preparing to sue the U.S. Government, saying it had prior knowledge of the bombing.

27) Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary died along with 35 other people on April 3,1996, in an air crash involving Airforce 2. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated and had spoken publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. According to one report he allegedly told Clinton, “he was not going down alone.” However his death brought that possibility to an abrupt end. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the back of Brown’s head that resembled a gunshot wound. And we are not counting the other 35 people who died in the same crash.

28) Shelly Kelly, an Air Force stewardess was onboard the same flight, at the back of the plane, and suffered only minor cuts and bruises in the crash. Indeed she was able to board a rescue helicopter without assistance. She died later died in hospital, supposedly from a loss of blood. According to journalist Joe L Jordan, an autopsy revealed a three inch cut over her main femoral artery which was sustained over three hours after all her other cuts and bruises. Thereafter Clinton ordered the bodies of all the victims cremated.

29) Barbara Wise, a Commerce Department employee. She was found dead in her locked office, partially nude and covered in bruises, following a long weekend. Officially she is said to have died of natural causes.

30) Christine M Mirzayan, Clinton intern killed on August 1 1998.In the publicity prior to the Paula Jones law suit Newsweek revealed that “a former White House staffer” with the initial “M” was about to go public with a story about sexual harassment at the White House. Thereafter Christine was found beaten to death with a heavy object near Georgetown University, Washington.

31) Mary Mahoon was another former White House intern who was about to go public with a story of sexual harassment at the White House. Before she could though some unknown characters entered a Washington Starbuck’s, where she was working, and shot her dead. Her two assistants’, Aaron Goodrich, 18 and Emory Evans were taken to a room along with Mary and pumped full of bullets. Mary was shot in the chest, face and back of the head, probably with silencers as nobody in the densely populated area heard anything. Even though the killers left $4000 in the cashbox untouched, the police categorized the killings as a robbery whilst acknowledging its “execution style”.

As reported in the previous issue of the Seeker four members of Delta Force have recently died in training “accidents”. They were Lt Col Anthony A. Boyles and Sgt Eric Ellingson, killed in river “training accidents.” Master Sgt Gaetano Cutino, killed while “exiting” from a helicopter. And Sgt Jamey Dimase killed while participating in marksmanship training. These were the men who had actually gone into the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and carried out the killings of 86 men, women and children. These men were hardened professional killers, yet even they had been disturbed by what they had been ordered to do and actually done. So much so that given immunity from prosecution they had been prepared to come forward and testify. Although Paul Wilcher does not name them in his report these were the very individuals whose testimony could have demolished Clinton’s Presidency.

The Wilcher Report was buried along with Paul Wilcher and for a while things went on as before, in other words the killings went on and on. Then in 1999 the Wilcher Report resurfaced, when Attorney General Janet Reno was told she expressed “total anger”. According to unnamed eyewitnesses quoted in the Drudge Report: “Her face was flushed, she was clearly shaken.” In the following months the four Delta Force men all died in “training accidents”: to quote Paul Wilcher, “to silence their testimony forever.”

Gennifer Flowers was a bit smarter. She had a 12 year affair with Clinton, in its aftermath her apartment was broken into and ransacked and she and her mother received threatening phone calls. Realising that she was in danger she assumed a higher profile, launched legal proceedings against Clinton and embarked on a series of media appearances. Smart girl, it was probably this that saved her life, had she not done so she too would have been on this list. Finally it should be noted that this is only a partial list, for a more comprehensive picture we would refer you to some of the sources listed below.

Sources include:
www.genniferflowers.com
Daniel Harris and Teresa Hampton,Capitol Hill Blue
Ambrose Pritchard-Evans writing in The Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph.
The Drudge Report
www.Sudden Instant death Syndrome
#Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Organized Crime. Part 1  - http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/government/evans-pritchard-1-04-98.html  
#Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Conspiracy of Influence Part 2 - http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/government/evans-pritchard-2-04-98.html

 

Was Ron Brown Murdered By The Clintons' To Save Their Presidency?   [ 10 January 2022 ]
Quite possibly. Bloody Bill Clinton is known thus for a reason. Gun shot wounds, calibre 0.45 arouse suspicions. Then there is the multimegabuck fraud using the Clinton Foundation. It is all about Pay to Play. It was not cheap.

 

 

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Organized Crime. Part 1

    "Good bye, good riddance" said The London Daily Telegraph's Washington correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Such was the title of his parting shot at the current U.S. Administration, published in his home newspaper when he was recalled to London. In that editorial, Evans-Pritchard gave a penetrating and stinging analysis of the state of American politics as seen through the eyes of a foreigner who is apparently capable of discerning the "forest for the trees."

    The French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, during his visit to America in 1831, upon witnessing slavery and the unrest it was creating, predicted more presciently than anyone in this country that race issues would become the greatest national dilemma of the young republic. It is more often the rule than the exception that the finest and most accurate history of a country is set forth by historians who are not nationals of that country. This phenomenon very clearly expresses itself also in those tasked with the recording of the political events that will, themselves, ultimately become history. For this reason, Evans-Pritchard's analysis of the administration of William Jefferson Clinton takes on a sharp, focused perspective in which the British journalist pulls the flowers out of the White House political garden to reveal what is really fertilizing them. (Don't panic, environmentalists--the flowers are only plastic anyway).

    Mr. Evans-Pritchard's newspaper, along with other foreign press, was accused of partaking in a feeding frenzy within the "media food chain." When charged personally by the White House "spinmeisters" of making such outrageous statements as claiming that Vincent Foster was actually a spy, Evans-Pritchard reacted with apparent amusement. "The White House," he said, "seems to be displaying a standard of accuracy that would not pass muster at any of the newspapers they are attacking." American politicians accused of being less honest than the media?--a great stretch of credibility?

    The Telegraph reported that the White House legal office "issued a 331-page tome blaming a 'media frenzy' - orchestrated by 'right-wing' think-tanks and abetted by British newspapers - for the leader's [Clinton's] troubles." This is an interesting turn of events--a liberal administration accusing the media of collaborating in a "right-wing" conspiracy. Is it not that same media that conservative "right-wing" politicians continuously blast as being irrepressibly leftist? Is it possible that this distinction between "left" and "right" is blurred because the reality of it is that there is no distinction?

    The scandals of the Clinton White House have become international in perspective and proverbial for the disgust and dismay they have stimulated in other countries. The opposite, however, is often heard in America: that foreign nations, because of their own inherent political corruption, wonder at the "big deal" we make of such antics here. This view, created by the U.S. media for domestic pacification and to present the image of American honesty and forthrightness, is simply not supported by even the most casual perusal of any moderately honest foreign press--as Evans-Pritchard's article so clearly presents.

    The Telegraph reporter has been more than just a thorn in the side of the Clinton White House. He has managed to become an entire one-man briar patch. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is best known in this country for his penetrating articles castigating the Clinton Administration and his recently published book The Secret Life of Bill Clinton in which he documents and reveals just what the title proclaims. Reviewed as "an assiduously documented exposé of the crimes that have made the Clinton presidency easily the most corrupt in history," the book is causing considerable turmoil within the administration. Press Secretary Mike McCurry even claimed that Evans-Pritchard's articles are the genesis of virtually every scandal story on the Clinton White House.

    "Now apparently, " Evens-Pritchard says, with typically droll British humor, "the President's men are relishing the prospect of my departure after four years as Washington correspondent for The Telegraph - the notorious London 'tabloid', as they call it." The Telegraph, of course, is not a "tabloid" as the White House either ignorantly or contemptuously refers to it. It is, in fact, a full broad-sheet newspaper of considerable respectability. The comparison would be somewhat as likening the Washington Post  to the National Enquirer. (No sarcasm intended)

    The Telegraph's reporter quotes JFK, Jr.'s George magazine as citing a White House source commenting on the departure of Evans-Pritchard: "That's another British invasion we're glad is over." This "British invasion," like the last, burned Washington but in a different way than did General Ross in 1814. Mr. Evans-Pritchard explained how even he was taken in by the Clinton charm when he first arrived and before he became entangled in what he calls a "spitting match with President Clinton."

    "As for Hillary," he says, "I was rather taken by her image of flinty altruism." But when the new president "repudiated his campaign promise for a tax cut," the corespondent observed, "It was downhill from there.

    "The Clintons look good from a distance. As Yale Law School graduates they have mastered the language and style of the mandarin class. It is only when you walk through the looking glass into the Arkansas underworld they came from that you begin to realize something is horribly wrong.

    "You learn that Bill Clinton grew up in the Dixie mafia stronghold of Hot Springs, and that his brother, Roger, was a convicted drug dealer who was once taped during under-cover surveillance saying 'got to get some for my brother, he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner'. [1] You learn about sworn testimony that links Clinton to cocaine smuggling in the early 1980's. You learn that Clinton's chief of security in Little Rock was gunned down in 1993 by assassins who seem to be enjoying immunity."

    As Mr. Evans-Pritchard points out, Bill Clinton does not hold exclusive rights to being the only U.S. president with mob connections. "Harry Truman, for instance, was a protégé of the Pendergast crime machine in Kansas City. All you have to know about Bill Clinton is that he chose Patsy Thomasson - top lieutenant of convicted cocaine dealer Dan Lasater - to be his White House chief of personnel."

    "Once that has sunk in," the British journalist says, "you can start to understand how seriously this president has been compromised, and how much of a threat he could pose to the democratic system if allowed to get away with incremental abuse at a national level."

    Reviewing the beginnings of the administration, the writer observed that, "The Clintons wasted little time taking charge of the U.S. Justice Department. All U.S. Attorneys were asked to hand in their resignations. It was a move of breath-taking audacity, one that gave the Clintons control over the prosecutorial machinery of the federal government in every judicial district in the country." Where, one might ask, was the American media outcry over that counterpart to the "Saturday night massacre"?

    "They then set about eliminating the Director of the FBI,[2] William Sessions, who was known for his refusal to countenance White House interference in the affairs of the Bureau. The post of FBI Director is supposed to be a 10-year appointment that puts it above politics....Sessions was toppled in a Washington putsch...and replaced by the hapless errand boy Louis Freeh."

    The Briar Patch from London, in another article, briefly explained how the Clinton Administration craftily maneuvered Director Sessions before the Executive firing squad, and then he commented briefly on the manner in which it wasn't handled by the media. "Director Sessions," Evans-Pritchard says, "was fired on the grounds that he had used official resources for personal benefit - his wife had carried a bundle of firewood on the Director's small aircraft, and other such absurdities. It was an obvious set-up, although the Washington press corps allowed it to pass unchallenged."

    Evans-Pritchard voices a concern that has been entertained by most thoughtful persons when they come into contact with so much that seems so incredible and yet is accompanied by either irrefutable proof or too many witnesses to be comfortably ignored. "When you are living through events day by day," the journalist observes, "it is hard to know whether you are witnessing a historic turning point, or just mistaking the usual noise of politics for something meaningful. But there is no doubt," is his conclusion, "that strange things have been going on in America."

    The vivid impression one is left with when considering Evans-Pritchard's view of the "land of the free" is that Americans truly live in a hall of mirrors and, most disturbingly, we have no apparent desire to discern the illusion from the reality. The ones who do, it appears, seem to want to revert to an era when musket and cannon were effective instruments of changing the order of things.

    "The Clinton era," the Englishman observes, "has spawned an armed militia movement [3] involving tens of thousands of people. The last time anything like this occurred was in the 1850's with the emergence of the southern gun clubs. It is easy to dismiss the militia as right-wing nuts: it is much harder to read the complex sociology of civic revolt. At the very least the militias reveal the hatred building up against the irksome yuppies who run the country.

    "It is under this president that domestic terrorism has become a feature of life in America, culminating in the destruction of the Oklahoma federal building on April 19, 1995. What set the deadly spiral in motion was the Waco assault two years before, and the cover-up that followed.

    "No official has ever lost a day's pay for precipitating the incineration of 80 people, most of them women and children, in the worst abuse of power since Wounded Knee a century ago. Instead of shame and accountability, the Clinton administration accused the victims of setting fire to themselves and their children, a posthumous smear that does not bear serious scrutiny. It then compounded the injustice by pushing for a malicious prosecution of the survivors.

    "Nothing does more to sap the life of a democracy than the abuse of power. Public trust is dangerously low. According to polls, barely a quarter of the American people now feel that they can count on the federal government to do the right thing.

    "A majority refuse to accept that Vincent Foster committed suicide, [4] and they have good reason for their doubts. The paramedics and crime scene witnesses in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, tell a story that flatly contradicts the official findings. A police Polaroid shows a .22 calibre bullet wound in Foster's neck that the autopsy somehow failed to note. Are Americans to believe that Hillary Clinton's closest friend shot himself twice, with two different guns?

    "The Washington press corps has chosen not to report on this sort of thing, of course, because it always gives more weight to the utterings of an 'official' source, with a title, than it does to the testimony of a common citizen. It has the matter backwards, in my opinion, because the 'official' usually has the greater interest in lying."

    Evans-Pritchard makes the observation that contrary to the perhaps jealous, but definitely effective, smear campaign the mainstream media and the Washington administration has leveled at the credibility of the Internet, this medium has become the largest source of obtaining the very truth they attempt to suppress.

    The strongest indictment he makes, labeling it "the worst thing Clinton has done to America," was to make the FBI a mutated clone of the Arkansas State Police resulting in them becoming a mere rubber stamp for whatever the Clinton Administration declares as truth. "Whether it is the persecution of dissident investigators in the air disasters of Pan Am 103 and TWA 800, [5] or allowing the White House to peruse the secret files of political opponents, or the alleged intimidation of key witnesses in the Foster case, [6] the FBI is starting to look like the enforcement arm of a police state." "The FBI," he states in another article, "has now been politicized to the point where it cannot be trusted."

    A "shocker" as Evans-Pritchard calls it, was "the decision to punish Frederic Whitehurst, the whistle-blower who first came forward with tales of corruption at the FBI crime labs. An internal inquiry has conceded that the lab tilted evidence 'to incriminate the defendants' and cooked up the theory that a fertilizer bomb blew up the Oklahoma federal building after it found fertilizer at the house of a suspect, Terry Nichols. But the Justice Department seems more interested in denigrating Whitehurst, the lone hero of this sorry tale, than flagellating itself.

    "Look at the treatment of Carol Howe, [7] the undercover informant who tracked the early stages of what appears to be the Oklahoma bombing conspiracy. The moment she surfaced as a threat to the 'lone bomber' case against Timothy McVeigh, this January, ['97] she was indicted on criminal charges.

    "The FBI claims that she was dropped as an informant months before the bombing, but debriefing reports show the Bureau continued to receive her intelligence weeks after the blast. They also show that she named members of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell who had cased the Oklahoma federal building in December 1994 with the intention of bombing it. Yet the FBI did not follow up her reports. It conducted 26,000 witness interviews, most of them irrelevant, but could not find time to pursue the suspects who were specifically named by a paid informant."

    If the FBI has indeed been co-opted by the Clinton White House into, among other things, covering up the fact that the OKC bombing was "a bungled sting operation by the FBI, as some of the victims are now alleging," the British journalist has a novel idea of what the national response should be: "Gather an armada of D-9 cats and send the Hoover Building into eternity. Then on the rubble of that once-respected agency erect a monument inscribed with the Latin words 'Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?'--Who Shall Guard the Guards? ...as a warning to free-born Americans of the next millennium."

    Concluding his farewell address to the American people Ambrose Evans-Pritchard asks the rhetorical question, "Is Bill Clinton to blame?" and provides the implied answer and explanation, "Of course he is. Degradation spreads from the top down. Four years were damaging enough. Another four, if Clinton lasts, will do real harm to the institutions of the U.S. federal government. Degradation does spread "from the top down". It is, however, a hotly debated fact that Mr. Clinton is not the top, nor does he decide national policy, no matter how corrupt. The idea is essentially laughable on the face of it that anyone with such a well-documented history of moral turpitude, like that of even the charming William J. Clinton, could be elected by a popular vote from the fantasy-rulers they call the people.

    "Perhaps it is impolite for a London newspaper to say such things about a president of the United States. Many people think so. Clinton is not so bad, the argument goes. He is running a pretty good economy. The planes are flying on time. But you could have said the same about Benito Mussolini. A lot of people did, in fact, much to their regret later.

    "Critics tell me that I have invested too much emotion in my quarrel with the Clintons. To that I plead guilty. It comes from befriending so many of their victims. I am content to be blacklisted as the 'mad scribbler' - as the Washington Post  called me this week - for I am confident that one day historians are going to view Clinton as a the last great cad of the 20th century, or worse.

    "To the American people I bid a fond farewell. Guard your liberties. It is the trust of each generation to pass a free republic to the next. And if I know you right, you will rouse yourself from slumber to ensure exactly that."

    Likely the most damning testimony against the American people in all this is that, in the face of clearly demonstrated governmental and moral corruption placed directly at the White House doorstep, they remain unmoved in their approval of Mr. Clinton's presidency.

    The current (March 30th) issue of U. S. News and World Report  [8] reveals that the president's approval rating stands at 59 percent--"essentially unchanged from the heights he reached in January just before the first reports about Monica Lewinsky's taped allegations of an affair with the president sent the White House into crisis. Indeed," U.S. News continues, "in the nine weeks since the Lewinsky scandal has commandeered the headlines--interrupted only intermittently by developments in the Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey stories--the media, the political community in Washington, and even some of Clinton's own aides have been bewildered by the public's continued support for Clinton." It appears that even those peddling acceptance for the actions of the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are amazed at the profound moral apathy of "the people."

    Should one be surprised at that moral apathy when considering things such as the perpetual television role models those same people choose for themselves?--children raised by parents, primarily mothers, whose nearly entire perspective is shaped by such as soap operas and movies in which there is expressed almost non-stop hostility and violence, not to mention adultery? Is it surprising that these same mothers then pass on that value system to their progeny?--and on and on it goes. Is this what is meant by God when He says that He will visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exodus 20:5). Is it possible that we are the ones really creating the immoral legacy and that He is merely taking the responsibility for it?

    Those familiar with The WINDS are aware that this agency is largely in agreement with Mr. Evans-Pritchard's assessment of America and its politicians--EXCEPT--for the very last sentence of his closing statement. We have continuously emphasized the nature of the "beast" with which we are at war and the times in which we live. That emphasis has centered around the Scriptural accounts which focus upon this time as the day of judgment which has come upon all the earth. When Mr. Evans-Pritchard optimistically, and we believe sincerely, expresses faith in America that "you will rouse yourself from slumber to ensure" that this generation will "pass a free republic to the next," we must emphasize that the Lord of creation has indicated otherwise.

GO TO PART 2

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard articles cited:

1. Drug net draws closer around Bill Clinton
2. "Victimized" FBI chief savages meddling Clinton
3. Milita's aim to shed their KKK image
4. Picture points finger at White House
5. FBI blasts a hole in TWA disaster inquiry
6. Clinton aide case witness sues FBI
7. Victims sue in Oklahoma fight for truth

Other sources cited:

     8. U.S. News and World Reports: Why is he so darn popular?

Written 4/01/98

 

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This page is in the public domain.

Go to Top

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Conspiracy of Influence Part 2

    In Part 1 of this article The WINDS focused on Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's "farewell address" to the American people in which he broadsided the Clinton Administration with a biting summary of his observations while assigned to The London Telegraph's Washington bureau.

    This section details the content of a telephone interview with Mr. Evans-Pritchard. The WINDS contacted the British journalist and author at his London office. One receives the unmistakable impression from Evans-Pritchard's articles that he actually expected more of this country--a higher moral/political standard--than he had witnessed. That expectation also seems inextricably coupled with amazement and surprise at what is really happening here.

    "I had spent some time there, in the 80's," Evans-Pritchard began, "before I went there for The Telegraph.  I was there in Washington for three years and eighteen months earlier in Texas. At that time I'd pretty much assumed that the government was sort of telling the truth about things. And that was probably rather naive. I just imagined that the Justice Department and the FBI and such, behaved themselves with integrity. I didn't really challenge that basic assumption.

    "Over the years writing about not just America, but Latin America--I was there for many years and a lot of that dealt with American foreign policy--I tended to take the American line on things. So when I was in Latin America and many people were criticizing American policy, I was very supportive of the American position. I just took a lot of things on faith, and what I learned on this last assignment is that I have been rather naive."

The WINDS: Had things just changed or had you really been naive all along?

Evans-Pritchard: "I think it was a combination of the two. I think I had just been naive about how power works. There's another thing at work here, that being that this is a genuinely corrupt and deviant administration--in my opinion. I wasn't prejudiced against Clinton, as I said in that piece ["Good-bye, Good Riddance"], in fact, I had been quite charmed by him at first."

"CLINTON...REPRESENTS THE ULTIMATE DETERIORATION OF STANDARDS AND INTEGRITY"

The WINDS: Do you think the Clinton Administration is actually more corrupt or just more open about what they do, i.e., not as covert about things as other administrations?

Evans-Pritchard: "I think it goes further and is more pervasive. If you look at the Iran/Contra thing, that was pretty serious, really. But at least it had to do with foreign policy and national security. At least there was some kind of rationale. You could see that they had in their own minds some kind of justification for it.

    "The kind of corruption we're dealing with here is just flat out venality--without any kind of moral justification whatever and it has crept into every area of public life. That, I think, is a change. But I don't think it is because one party took over from another party. I think it has been a process of deterioration in every industrialized democracy in the world--whether it's Japan, France, Italy--they've all gone through this after the end of the Cold War.

    "Two things happened:

    "A. There's just been a general collapse of moral standards in every country--probably to do with television and money and all manner of things.

    "B. You have the end of the Cold War and people's willingness to tolerate corrupt governments just evaporated overnight.

    "We just saw the whole ruling class in Japan, Italy, and others, just being driven from power--a massive sort of outpouring of public anger. We've seen some of this in America too. It's been getting worse and getting worse and then it just sort of snapped.

    "But Clinton is just somewhat the end of the line for all of this. He brings to a head all of those trends that are happening in the culture. He is the incarnate figure of it all. He represents the ultimate deterioration of standards and integrity."

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD ON THE SEDUCTION OF THE AMERICAN PRESS AND THE "TWO-PARTY" SYSTEM

    The WINDS asked the British journalist how he viewed the public statement by the former New York Times  Chief of Staff, John Swinton on the whoredom of the press. [2]

Evans-Pritchard: "That's a pretty grim assessment. The thing is it's not quite as bad as that--and therefore it's worse, because much of the time descent is tolerated which creates the illusion that it is always tolerated. But at crucial moments it is not. That's how it works. I've seen a great deal of that in the Washington press corps. There are things that they instinctively know to avoid.

    "The Clinton scandals have been like that; I think the [Vince] Foster case was like that; the Mena [Arkansas] thing was like that. Those and the Oklahoma bombing have all been examples of this."

    Evans-Pritchard's observations when former FBI Director William Sessions was "roasted on the Washington spit" as he put it, was that the barbecue had been prepared for some time in advance because of the Clinton Administration's desire to get rid of him.

    "When it happened it just sort of passed without notice. The press didn't even question that this was an odd thing to do--to fire an FBI director in the middle of his term. This has never happened before in the history of the country. But by then, there had been so much underhanded conduct typical of the Washington way of dealing with anybody who's a problem.

    "What the press didn't do was to stand back and put this into perspective and say, 'Look what has happened here? They're getting rid of the director of the FBI. You're not supposed to do that.' In fact it should be done with congressional assent but there was not a peep from Congress either.

    "I don't really accept that America has a functioning two-party system. I don't want to sound Marxist about it, but I really do think it's a one-party establishment. This is the point that [Noam] Chomsky has been making from the Left--that this is a single-party state with two faces. I don't agree with him about everything, but I do about that."

    Mr. Evans-Pritchard compared this nation's "two-party system" with the Greens and the Blues of the Byzantine era of the Roman Empire. "Who can figure out which is which and who stands for what? They're just two factions bidding for power. They take each other's clothes, masquerade under each other's ideology. In the post-Cold War I don't see any coherent difference between the Democrats and Republicans except on certain social issues.

    "What happens with the press is that they get subsumed into this club. They get invited to barbecues on Saturday afternoon with the director of the FBI--and by then they're compromised. Nobody has to buy them off or anything like that. They come to absorb the outlook of the political establishment and they lose their independent, contrarian judgment. It happens by osmosis--they just assimilate their perspectives and points of view. You become friends with all these people and you become to think like them. They intermarry, literally. They are parents to each other's children, etc."

The WINDS: The press is often referred to as the "Fourth Estate," implying that it is a propaganda arm of the other three--Executive, Legislative and Judicial. How do you view that assessment?

Evans-Pritchard: "I think it has happened. I think it is inherent--it tends to happen in every country. It happens in different ways. Right now I think you've got a particularly co-opted press--by international standards. In Britain, even though the libel laws are tougher, there is much more lively pursuit of corruption. There's a much broader range of opinion expressed."

The WINDS: Do you print the truth as you see it or do you feel pressure to print the truth as your employer sees it?

Evans-Pritchard: "Well, we've been having this big debate over here about Rupert Murdock and the Asia editor on The Times being resigned because Asia policy was being mucked around with by Murdock to protect his satellite interests in China. They're having a big row over here about this whole issue--propriatorial interference."

The WINDS: Do you experience that?

Evans-Pritchard: "Everybody does. Nobody ever has to say anything for you to be aware of it. You just know where the boundaries are--and the boundaries move so you have to keep thinking where they might be. You just know. You know the way people behave and way people talk to you in the morning. But I would say that it doesn't compare to anything that I've observed in the way that, say, The Washington Post  works, for example, or The New York Times--the big American papers. I think that those constraints are very, very serious."

    Mr. Evans-Pritchard told The WINDS that there are many instances of which he is personally aware when the major papers would "spike" a story for reasons that were obviously vapid and without substance. "There've been any number of cases I've written about where stories are spiked....For example, they [The Washington Post] spiked the Roger Morris, Sally Dentin story [3] for the 'Outlook' section of the paper which was prepared and ready to go on Mena. I think that they were disingenuous about it. They said, 'Well, it wasn't very good anyway--and it was all staff'--and that wasn't true. They had the whole thing ready to go. They had the pages laid out, they had the illustrations done, the story was vetted [checked out line-by-line by Post lawyers for accuracy]--everything was set to go. It was half the inside of the Outlook section of The Post and it was just pulled. Somebody made an executive decision from the very top level of The Washington Post that 'this can't go in.'

    "There have been a number of instances of that. The point I want to make is that you have the illusion of this huge diversified press in America, but it's actually a very, very steep pyramid. The major national news stories are controlled by a tiny group of people. And if you're talking about Whitewater or anything like that, it's really only six or seven people because the networks don't do the right stuff. They take it from The New York Times  or The Washington Post. Essentially, the agenda is set by this very small group."

    It should be noted here that Mr. Evans-Pritchard's description of the pyramid is realistically a perfect description of an absolute dictatorship--a dictatorship that is, by necessity, either invisible or creatively camouflaged. It is well known that if one controls information flow, they also control the financial direction of a nation. If one controls the financial direction of a nation, one controls the nation. The media is a power the globalists dare not not control (double negative intended).

    "If you look at the way a story has been covered--like the Vince Foster story," Evans-Pritchard continues, "--when you've been involved in it for a long time and you've seen what they've written and you know what the relationships are, you can see what's happened. Three or four people who could have given that story any legitimacy early on, basically were persuaded not to write about it or persuaded to take a certain course of action.

    "Now how those strings are pulled, I don't know. Michael Isakoff [of Newsweek] has been crucial in this and I think he shills for the FBI--I've always felt that. The FBI covered up that death from the beginning. He's been absolutely crucial in presenting a certain line on this and, basically, dismissing any suggestions that there's something wrong with the Foster case--just dismissing them out of hand. And nobody's going to challenge Isakoff on this. They see him as the guru who knows it all. In this case it's a pyramid of one.

    "In Washington people have a beat--they cover the Justice Department, the FBI and whatever--and that's all they do. As a result, they develop a relationship with these people on a daily basis, they have to do their daily news feed, they have to maintain daily relationships. For that reason they censor themselves.

    "One of the oldest rules on a scandal investigation is that you must have a totally new team on it--not the people who normally cover the White House or, in our case here, Ten Downing Street in Britain. You must have a totally outside team on it who don't have any of those relationships which can screw things up. And the problem in America is that you always use the same guys to do the scandal investigations as you do who cover the regular beats"--those who go to dinner, the reporter added, with the very people they're investigating. It doesn't work", he said.

    "It's no fluke that the Watergate story was broken by two people who were not part of the White House press corps. They were rookies on the Metro Desk and totally outside that system. I don't think it could ever have been broken by the White House press corps. They are structurally incapable of doing so."

    How do publications like The WINDS fit into this globalist view of a controlled, obsequious press? The art of journalism is, without challenge, the most potent force on earth for shaping the opinion of the human mind. It can only come as a logical conclusion that this potent force would be suborned for the purposes of those who are intent upon total control of the "masses". In their attempt--and success--at this goal they have ingeniously created publications that present a great illusion of diversity--even appearing to directly oppose or contradict each other. In the foregoing, it can be abundantly seen that there "is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press...." [2]

NORTH AMERICA: A BANANA REPUBLIC WITHOUT THE BANANAS

    "One of the things I did recognize on coming back to the United States from being in Latin America for many years were certain patterns being replicated--particularly in the state governments in the South--that they were not that different from what I had encountered in Latin America. That is, in terms of basically a one-party system--a co-opted judiciary, co-opted police to be used for political purposes, etc.

    "I really felt that very strongly in Arkansas. I could smell it the moment I first set foot there--so to speak--it just smelled of Central America to me. Just the way people reacted--the way they responded. That really stunned me. The more I got into this the more I began to realized that political to-and-fro--the public debate in Washington--is just ethereal, utterly detached from the reality of what's really going on at ground level."

        There is a Scriptural maxim that says, "by beholding you become changed." That is an inescapable law of humanity. This country created a training curriculum and has used it to educate authoritarian Latin American government leaders for years on methods to control their citizens by the use of absolute political and police domination supplemented by a healthy dose of terror and torture. Is it not reasonable that if this country's leaders have convinced themselves that such methods are effective elsewhere, that the logical conclusion should be that they could be profitably applied domestically? They assimilate to themselves the very training and attitudes they create for others. [1] In its attempt to shape the Central American nations into an image of Washington's choosing, the United States has apparently become infected, as it were, with the political DNA of the very ones they sought to change and has, according to Evans-Pritchard, become a clone of them.

    Of one thing it may be concluded: there are no accidents in this grandiose political arena. Everything is meticulously sculpted and scripted. Of another thing one may be certain: whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap, and America has prepared for itself a great and terrible harvest--and the media will bear a very large responsibility for maintaining and, indeed, creating the facade of lies and disinformation.

    For those who believe that this magic land cannot be touched, domestically, by such as the genocidal horrors of Rowanda and the Balkins; who think that holocausts happen only "over there"; that death camps are for foreigners in foreign lands; that only those men, women and children of other nations can be fried by nuclear weapons--the Scriptures have something to say:

"Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand...for the prince of this world [Satan, the Prince of Darkness] cometh..." Matthew 26:45, John 14:30.

REFERENCES:

1. "U.S. Gets Blood on its Beak", former twelve-term Republican Congressman, George Hansen falsely convicted and tortured.

2. John Swinton, former Chief of Staff at The New York Times, was asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1953. Swinton was admiringly called "the dean of his profession" by other newsmen. He made this candid confession:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

3.* "About 'The Crimes of Mena'", an article by Sally Denton and Roger Morris on the spiking of their story by The Washington Post.

Transcript of a Phoenix talk-radio interview with Sally Denton and Roger Morris

* The WINDS does not endorse this particular reference for accuracy or authenticity.

Written 4/01/98

 

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This page is in the public domain.

Go to Top

Prison Planet tells us more about PW at Paul Wilcher Prison Planet Intelligence Agency Wiki FANDOM

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP key.  Home

Updated  on  Tuesday, 13 December 2022 16:32:02