Nov. 6, 2015

PJ-229

CHAPTER 1

 

REC #1    HATONN

THU., FEB. 19, 1998      7:36 A.M.     YR. 11, DAY 187

THU., FEB. 19, 1998

THE CURRENT JEWISH QUESTION

Why is there always an assumption that when we speak the word "Jew" that we are being disparaging and/or derogatory? I think the problem comes from the MISUSE of the term otherwise. Just as "Semitic" does NOT mean Jew, neither do I nor all other persons who speak on the subject mean the Jewish people. I am speaking of the New World Order World Controllers who seem to gain control of everything from religions to economics. These plunderers will take property in any way required to gain it. THEY call themselves Jews and therefore I, like most writ­ers, have no other suitable term to affix.

If you are of dark skin you are called Black, if you are pale you are called White, if you are Native you are called Red. NONE OF THE TERMS FIT CORRECTLY, NOR DO THEY EVEN MATCH COLOR--BUT NONETHELESS THESE ARE THE RECOGNIZED TERMS.

Semite includes all of the regional peoples, so how can one group claim that others are anti-IT? These are the very things which divide worlds and disallow harmonious interchange. IG­NORANCE is the worst offender of any age.

 

WE GET INSTRUCTIONS

Oh indeed, we get interesting input on our writings, especially my writings. This is good because we do not write just to exer­cise fingers. However, readers, you would be most surprised at some of the input. We have one highly respected party from a very well known magazine and paper producer who actually claims we are trying to please such as the Jewish ADL for run­ning their propaganda. That is in response to the Protocols no less.

When you REALLY LOOK at Henry Ford's writings you will note that they are observations after researching historical hap­penings, and from that "he" formed conclusions, nothing more.

What we always aim to achieve is to make people think, wake up to the moment, and see what is happening to the very things you CLAIM to hold dear and, then if and when appropriate, when things are NOT RIGHT, act accordingly. Yesterday you witnessed three Jewish high, high-level Administrators face a roomful of PEOPLE in Ohio. The whole staged plan was to gather with syrup the masses to the notion of bombing to hell Saddam Hussein's innocent citizens. It did NOT go well and one young man, bravely, after having his microphone cut off, said it was a staged CNN show for disinformation and he ob­jected. Well, so many objected that the speakers could not speak. Will it make a difference? Yes, they won't do that again unless they have prescreened attendees better.

The whole thing reminds me of Janet Reno's reason for burning up so many people in David Koresh's home, including all those babies and children--with their Mothers. It was to keep Koresh from "abusing" the children. Well, it is true, he can't abuse THOSE children any more or ever.

I do find myself pondering on just how many CITIZENS would line up in front of Mr. Zipper and these "Jack the Rippers" to save their lives. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens ready TO DIE before you can get to Saddam. Is something wrong with this picture?

What happens to a nation when the GREAT IDEALS are gone? ANARCHY! But the idea that change must come from Combat Revolution is also a misdirection of reason and logic.

It reminds me of the mentality of those who killed "Indians", which is not even the Native American's name. Whole tribes were wiped out like ants (and I don't even condone wiping out ants, for they have a purpose) with a flip of the hand and "they're only INDIANS". So, in Iraq, "they're only Moslems". Well, just as with the ants you invade--they will struggle until they can sting you to death--count on it. And people: IF YOU BUILD YOUR WOODEN HOUSE ON A TERMITE HILL--EXPECT TO HAVE TERMITES. IF YOU BUILD YOUR HOUSE ON FILL-DIRT OVERLOOKING THE "GRAND VIEW" OF THE OCEAN--EXPECT IT TO SLIDE INTO THE SEA WHEN THE STORMS COME! But of the ones needing help, just WHO do you think will get the most assistance from your government? That's right, the ones who can live another day to donate to campaigns and political parties.

 

ZIPPER UPDATE

And Monica Lewinsky? Why doesn't someone tell the media and poor Gerry Spence WHY THE INTERROGATION OF MONICA'S MOTHER? It is not over a bit of sex in the oval office; it is about hundreds of thousands of dollars in contribu­tions from Father and Grandfather Lewinsky. Even our good old buddy, Gerry, acts as if DAYS of grilling the "mother" "Lewis" is about the "Big Creep". NO, it is about bribery, cor­ruption and crimes in the White House on up and down. Mon­ica's family bought and paid for her place in the White House, Pentagon, and for Job placements, so who is kidding who? Moreover, THAT is the important "side chatter" ON THOSE TRIPP TAPES that matters.

 

VINCE FOSTER

MORE ZIPPER UPDATE?

(Never mind Linda Tripp-up)

Most people read the findings of Mr. Starr and dropped the thought of problems of Mr. Foster. He went forth and suicided himself, it was decided BY MR. STARR. Well, who cares WHO decided to ignore the facts. The subject only pops in now when you mention Ms. Tripp was the last to see Foster "alive". Well, she worked in or around his office so what might you ex­pect? Nonetheless, some observations continue to be made by astute writers who would like some JUSTICE out of this UN­JUST SYSTEM. Vince Foster was murdered. In NEW AMER­ICAN, March 2, 1998, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp 31-32 is a most inter­esting article.

The article itself is by William P. Hoar and is a review of Mr. Christopher Ruddy's book for which I will give information:

[QUOTING, NEW AMERICAN, March 2, 1998, (Book Re­view):]

 

PINK SLIP, WHITE HOUSE STYLE

The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation, by Christopher Ruddy, New York: Free Press, 1997, 316 pages, hardcover, $25.00. Available from American Opinion Book Services, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913. Add $3.00 for shipping and handling.

According to the Washington Post, author Christopher Ruddy is the White House's new "Media Enemy No. 1." This honor­able distinction comes as a result of Ruddy's reports on the deaths of deputy counsel and Clinton intimate Vincent Foster and, more recently, former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Before a national television audience not long ago, White House press secretary Mike McCurry questioned whether Ruddy should even be called a journalist, claiming that he writes "in a very vituperative fashion". [H: Hummnn, same complaints run rampant about us.] McCurry went on to blast Ruddy for using his personal view in ways "that border on hate".[H: Now isn't that typical of the hounds with which we deal at the top? An opinion that "borders on hate"? Well, Mr. Mc­Curry (not his original name) is making some pretty signifi­cant bloopers himself lately.

From the furious White House attacks on Ruddy, one would assume him to be a slashing, sneering polemical hack, belliger­ent to the truth, splenetic, and choleric to the core. Not so. A touch of the routinely measured and constrained nature of his work may be seen in an earlier interview in this (New American) magazine (December 23, 1996 issue). Well, someone might say, perhaps he is personally well-mannered, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a hate monger, as the President's spokesman suggests. In other words, The Strange Death of Vin­cent Foster could be simply a collection of lies and half-truths designed solely to embarrass the White House. A perusal of the book quickly puts that notion to rest.

What Ruddy does, and does well, is to point out the parade of errors, misstatements, and seemingly deliberate oversights that occurred following Foster's death in July 1993. This he does with deliberate understatement, buttressed by good, old-fash­ioned reporting. No, he doesn't say Foster was murdered or posit some mad conspiracy run by President Clinton down through the entire Park Police and medical examiner. But he does lay out hundreds of pages of evidence, concluding his trea­tise by speculating that Fort Marcy Park, where Foster's body was discovered, "may yet become the symbol of a cover-up conducted by people who have, with the help of the press, placed themselves above the law."

For his troubles, Ruddy has not only been maligned by the Clintonite left, but his book has even been panned in several supposedly conservative journals, by those who are ever quick to quash any hint of conspiracy in public life. [H: I wonder how they describe our Journals and paper? Are we "conservative"? Liberal? Conspirators? Left? Right? Does anyone even know what these terms mean? Absolutely NOTHING; they are terms like "weapons of mass destruc­tion" that are used over and over again until there IS NO MEANING.]

The way to judge Ruddy's book is fundamental: Read it. If, after viewing the facts he carefully outlines, you don't believe there has been an obstruction of justice and a cover-up, please send your name to those raising legal FUNDS for Bill and Hillary so you can be put on their mailing list.

SKEPTICAL OF OFFICIAL FINDINGS

Unless you have followed events closely, you probably didn't know that Miguel Rodriguez [H: WHO?], independent counsel Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor on Foster's death, left for ethi­cal reasons over the way the probe was being handled. The coverage of the event was minimal. Can you imagine the con­trasting uproar if a comparable figure had left, say, the Iran-Contra probe because it wasn't being carried out in good faith?

Sure, the Park Police, Robert Fiske's investigation, and Ken­neth Starr's report all assert that Foster simply killed himself. But many other knowledgeable observers are not buying that story. This includes the experts who concluded that Foster's "suicide note" was a forgery. Other skeptics include police homicide experts who determined that Vince Foster's body had been moved to Fort Marcy Park after his death. Ruddy, who is a correspondent with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and a media fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute, doesn't make this up, but merely takes note of it.

Crucial questions remain unanswered: Where is the bullet that killed Foster? Where are Foster's fingerprints if he used the gun at the scene to kill himself? Why were there no finger­prints (Foster's or those of others known to have handled the paper) on the torn-up "suicide note"? How did the note come to be in the briefcase many days after it was thoroughly searched--conveniently just when serious doubts about the violent death were beginning to be aired? Why were witnesses badgered into altering their stories to fit the pre-determined tale? Why, if Foster walked for a distance over the park grounds on that summer day, was there no soil found on his shoes? Why, on the other hand, were there so many carpet fibers on his pant legs, and why were they not checked against the locales where they were said to originate?

Why is there so much evidence that the body was moved af­ter death? What happened during the many unaccounted hours after Foster left the White House until his body was discovered? Why would the Fiske report state that the White House deputy counsel had lost weight, when the doctor's records indicate he had actually gained several pounds? If the White House really wanted to get to the bottom of all of this, why did its personnel rush to Foster's office and make off with Foster's files, then im­pede the investigation from the beginning? [H: By the way, Tripp is taking a bad bashing and why might that be? Well, she was called to testify in the Foster matter and had to, un­der oath, tell the truth about things. She KNEW those files just mentioned were immediately CARTED OFF TO THE WHITE HOUSE CLINTON PRIVATE QUARTERS. Don't you like the way the press says: After all, this is not murder (a bit of zipper problems in the Oval Office) or something serious. Well, what happened when there WAS MURDER AND "SOMETHING" SERIOUS? And moreover, there was NOT enough evidence LEFT WHOLE to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Foster was murdered. THAT must be proven by prosecutors, readers, in a court of law.]

Here's a question with an answer: Who was it that called the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock--where Hillary Clinton, Foster, and others had held sway before coming to Washington--to talk about the death. This person, on the evening of the death, told a Rose attorney: "Don't believe a word you hear. It was NOT suicide. It couldn't have been."

The answer: Then-Associate Attorney General WEBB HUBBELL made those remarks. He and others close to Foster obviously feared foul play had occurred. Hubbell later changed his tune over this--much as he did after he unguardedly admitted that he had noted no evidence of changes in Foster's behavior or appearance, nor was he aware that Foster was "experiencing any type of stress". Yet Hubbell would later testify before a Senate committee that "we were all concerned. Vince had lost weight, had seemed to be depressed." The contradiction went unremarked by the senators. Ruddy, however, took notice.

[H: I also take notice. The facts are that Foster did a courier run regularly to Switzerland to attend, at the least, Hillary's accounts in the foreign banks protected from pub­licity. You will note that within this month SHE had to make a trip (business of course--all first ladies attend foreign council meetings) to SWITZERLAND. She is having to check on and work out a way to get funds for fighting these growing and expensive legal battles. What they dig up THIS TIME could bury them all in prison or have them shot for criminal reasons and treason. This is why Starr keeps going back to Little Rock--not to check out the length of the dress "gift" for Ms. Monica. The target on Starr's back must make his neck itch and I would keep a lot of bodyguards if I were he.]

 

SLIPSHOD OR WORSE?

The riddles surrounding Foster's death were numerous; so, too, were the discrepancies in the various subsequent probes. The autopsy procedures were, at the very least, careless and in­adequate. Crucial X-rays are missing. Key photographs some­how disappeared. The evidence about a possible second wound might have been cleared up by a second autopsy--but it didn't occur. The Strange Death of Vincent Foster sheds enough light on the subject to make you wonder what the proper procedures might have revealed.

Similar doubts were expressed by independent police investi­gators, who examined the evidence and presented their findings to reporters in Washington, DC (though most ignored or played down the results). Sure, acknowledged the detectives, odd things do happen. Nevertheless, as Ruddy summarized their in­credulity over the gun: "It could not be identified by Foster's family as having been owned by Foster; it was an antique gun made from the parts of two or more weapons with no less than two serial numbers traceable to 1913; it had only two bullets in its cylinder (one spent, the other unfired), yet no matching am­munition could be found in the Foster homes; it was found, un­usually, in his hand yet with none of his fingerprints and no blood visible on the barrel; no one heard the gunshot; and the powder burns of Foster's hand challenged the idea that he even fired the weapon." [H: There was another BIG problem. There was only one spent bullet--but there WERE AT LEAST TWO BULLET WOUNDS! That takes some effort and the help of a ghost-shooter.]

Among the false assertions in the Fiske report was that "everyone known to have been in Fort Marcy Park on the after­noon or evening of July 20, 1993, also was questioned." As Ruddy explains in detail, there were at least five people whom Fiske did not even identify, let alone interview, among the dozen or more individuals known to have been in the park on the night of the death. [H: Still think nothing important might have been said in the Monica tapes? You know, something like "Talkers and tattlers end up Fostered".  Just a thought!]

 

THE STARR REPORT

[H: One thing about Starr: the White House should never have gone to WAR with Mr. Starr because the way it is now arranged it is either Starr or Clintons and either place is a very hard place upon which to sit. And readers, DO NOT OVERLOOK THE POTENTIAL OF BUTTERFLIES AND PROMISES AND SLAVES AND TRANCE FORMATION OF AMERICA!]

The independent counsel's report, prepared because of the many problems with the Fiske report, was seemingly forever on the verge of being released. Leaked press accounts repeatedly said Kenneth Starr had concluded that Foster had killed himself and that Starr would make public his proofs soon. The inquiry lasted almost three years and cost some $30 million. The publi­cation date for The Strange Death of Vincent Foster was September 22, 1997, and it began to cause waves at once. In short order, the Starr report was issued in the second week of October.

The Starr report is filled with changes in testimony and evi­dence that attempt to bolster the suicide findings. Yet, as noted by Phil Weiss, a liberal reporter who followed the case closely, those who put together the report were "dishonest" and pro­duced, in toto, a work that was "unbelievable".

Ruddy remains unconvinced, to say the least. Indeed, Ruddy says the Starr report actually proves to him "that a cover-up of significant proportion has taken place involving Vincent Foster's death." Ruddy, lest there be any misunderstanding, also empha­sizes that he does not believe independent counsel Kenneth Starr was "in a 'conspiracy' with the White House".

But the independent counsel, comments Ruddy, "has been busy making over $1 million a year at his private law firm, leaving the inquiry in the hands of prosecutors who are White House cronies (Mark Tuohey) and career Justice Department people." As Starr's Washington deputy, liberal Democrat Tuo­hey was friendly with top members of the Clinton Justice De­partment (even hosting a party for Janet Reno) and was seen so­cializing with such interested parties as Webb Hubbell.

The FBI, Ruddy writes, "has played a leading role in the in­quiry, and despite the fact its involvement was 'compromised from the beginning', as former director William Sessions has alleged, Starr, over the objections of prosecutor [Miguel] Rodrigez, allowed the FBI to essentially control the inquiry. The Starr report is disturbing because it indicates just how thor­oughly the FBI has been controlled and politicized...".

The independent counsel's report, continues Ruddy, is also "frightening". After all, he says, a "high official dies under suspicious and violent circumstances but the press has paid little attention to the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing that has been unearthed in previous inquiries. Now much of that evi­dence has simply been changed or altered and no one has paid much attention to that either."

If you want to know why the author is considered such an en­emy by the Clinton team, buy and read The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. There is a down side, however. After so do­ing, you, too, will feel even more uncomfortable about the folks in and around the White House. REVIEW: WILLIAM P. HOAR.

[END OF QUOTING]

Outrageous? Indeed! So what else is new in your world today?

 

I am reminded that continually LaRouche complains that "my enemies are the SAME ones who are out to get Clinton...". Oh? And why would that be, Mr. LaRouche? Could you pos­sibly be Referring to Bush, Kissinger, et al.? Wow.

 

PRINCESS DI

While speaking of murders, let us consider--AGAIN--the mur­der of Dodi and Di.

Just some questions to remind you there ARE things you haven't thought about and probably neither has Daddy al Fayed. Why was Mr. Jones the ONLY one in the car with a seat belt on? WHO DROPPED THE "MICKEY" IN MR. PAUL'S DRINK? If you can't believe this then where are you on the topic of Date Rape and Ruffles? Come on people, you-the-people are not THAT asleep. Why has Mr. Jones joined the "adversaries" to sue Mohammed? And why does Mr. Jones have bodyguards and keep as far removed and retired as is possible? Conspiracy? It is so obvious how and who that I marvel at your sleepy obser­vations of chanting the Rose of London without doing anything about the killers of that ROSE. Di was going to marry Dodi and BECOME A MOSLEM! Can you imagine what that would do to the CROWN OF ENGLAND? Does anyone remember that Royal Church of England where even the priests wear the coat of arms of the Windsors? And, while YOU mourn and play with Billy's zipper--the culprits GET AWAY WITH THE CRIME.

Now, I've done it: I've ruined your day? Why didn't I just keep talking about the Jews and let the guilty get away? Because I am weary of God's people being unconscious.

BOMBING IRAQ IS MURDER IN THE WORST DEGREE! DOES ANYBODY HEAR ME? THIS IS INTENTIONAL MURDER OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND CITIZENS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, WITH NO PICK OTHER THAN WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BRITAIN OVER "OIL" AND INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL AND MILITARY HIERARCHY WEAR­ING THOSE ADORATION CROWNS YOU PUT ON THEIR HEADS FOR THE LAST MASSACRE YOU PULLED OFF IN THE GULF MIDDLE EAST AGAINST IRAQ. GOOD FOR OHIO STATE AND SHAME ON YOU WHO MONGER FOR WAR!

GOD BLESS KOFI ANAN.

Adonai.

And, Vince Foster was MURDERED!

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J229.pdf