PJ 59
CHAPTER 5
REC #1 HATONN
WED., NOV. 11, 1992 8:05 A..M. YEAR 6, DAY 87
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1992
ROCKEFELLER BY ANY OTHER NAME
I am not going to take time to write much on the "daily". I want all of you to be prepared for some breaking news regarding the economy.

The plans are, NOW, to have a "December Surprise"--(so what else is new?)--and do their "thing" with the economy. The arrangements are already made in England through Russia and now that the Clinton puppet is about to be seated and so that his little cartel will be hidden in the actions--the economic bomb is supposed to drop so that it hits the outgoing administration rather than the "new".

CAN this happen? Yes, most certainly, for you are going to find that lots of things are NOT what they seem, including Bill Clinton. You are going to be finding out that Clinton is actually William Jefferson Blythe, IV, and actually is directly a Rockefeller. This will be breaking in the Center For Action Newsletter. I make no comment about it at all other than to say that you had better be paying attention very closely now. I wish to take no credit or blame for this information presented. However, in order to balance a bit the load that will be repercussion to those writers (correct or incorrect), we shall reprint Clinton information regarding other investigations and actually making it into the Washington Times. By the very route of public information, i.e., Washington Times, one must be a bit cautious but the facts are that what has been uncovered cannot be longer hidden and printing during election madness causes the whole of the information to be buried and considered "election lies". No, it is NOT election lies but is simply the steps in the taking of AMERICA before your "very eyes" and "under your noses". I must continue to protect "sources" who will present the full story. We are prepared at this time to reprint whatever is asked of us on this subject.

I believe you will find from yesterday's writing that I am no longer bound by any agreements to the adversarial opposition. They have broken contracts with the higher Command and bear no honor or integrity. It simply will be all but impossible to continue the massive subterfuge. I shall continue non-intervention but I will protect as necessary my crew and worker. What you do with information, readers, is solely up to you as individuals and, of course, the adversary believes you will continue your path of doing "nothing". So be it.


PJ 59
CHAPTER 6
REC #2 HATONN
WED., NOV. 11, 1992 8:41 A..M. YEAR 6, DAY 87
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1992
DECEIT
ONE DECEIT NEEDS MANY OTHERS, AND SO THE WHOLE
HOUSE IS
BUILT IN THE AIR AND MUST SOON COME TO THE
GROUND!
CLINTON TOURED MOSCOW AT WAR'S PEAK
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Monday, Oct. 5, 1992, Washington D.C.:

Six weeks after he helped organize a massive anti-war, anti-U.S. protest in London, Bill Clinton quietly turned up in the Soviet Union for a visit during the dead of winter and at the height of the Vietnam War.
The unusual trip, according to Clinton campaign officials, occurred while Mr. Clinton was on vacation from Oxford University, which he was attending on a RHODES [H: In honor of the man, Rhodes, FATHER and AUTHOR of the ONE WORLD ORDER!] Scholarship, and included a week's stay in Moscow as a "tourist".

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers, responding yesterday to a series of questions from The Washington Times, declined to identify whom Mr. Clinton met with while visiting Moscow other than to say, "He bumped into all kinds of people...but he did not do any anti-war organizing while there."

The Democratic presidential candidate refused to be interviewed on the subject of his travels through the Soviet Union but instead relayed his answers through Miss Myers.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan and three of his Republican colleagues have sharply criticized the Moscow trip during eight nights of speeches on the empty House floor that were televised nationwide on C-SPAN, saying there are many "unanswered questions" about why, when and where Mr. Clinton went.

The conservative California Republican has suggested that the former anti-war activist and draft evader may have been duped by Soviet intelligence officials.

The Bush Administration has been silent on the Dornan challenge which reportedly has drawn nightly television audiences of about a million people, and has prompted at least one placard at a Clinton campaign stop and countless calls to Capitol Hill, the media and talk radio shows.

Yesterday, however, Bush/Quayle ‘92 campaign spokeswoman Torie Clarke said: "It is yet another chapter of deception and deceit that has characterized his life. We would join in the chorus of people asking Bill Clinton to come clean on his draft status and anti-war activities. [H: But note, readers, he never did have to do so!]

Despite Mr. Clinton's claims to the contrary, recent statements, newly discovered letters and accounts by longtime friends and associates show that he was actively involved in the anti-war movement as both a participant and an organizer in at least three countries.

Asked if public knowledge of Mr. Clinton's anti-war activities would hurt him at the polls, Miss Myers said yesterday she didn't know. "There hasn't been a national candidate who grew up in that generation until Bill Clinton, so we're seeing it played out for the first time," she said.

"The Republicans want to re-fight the Vietnam War because they think it's a way to grab that wedge issue back with the American people, and it's our strong sense that they want to move beyond the Vietnam War and the shallow rhetoric," Miss Myers said.

The spotlight on the candidate's trip to Moscow, she said, is a "smear campaign pure and simple.... It has nothing to do with the real issues in the campaign."

According to Miss Myers, Mr. Clinton toured Europe during a vacation from Oxford. She said he rode alone by train from Helsinki, Finland, and went through Leningrad before arriving in Moscow on New Year's Eve 1969.

Moscow was the only Soviet city Mr. Clinton spent time in, and he visited the usual tourist attractions, Miss Myers said. "He was a tourist. He was a student traveling on a break. He paid for it himself," she said.

"He had a 40-day break in the winter of 1969-1970," Miss Myers said. "In that period, he took a trip through northern Germany, Scandinavia, the Soviet Union--Moscow actually--and then went to Prague."

Former U.S. Soviet and British intelligence officials who worked during the period in question said in interviews that Mr. Clinton's explanation raised questions in their minds.

A British Soviet specialist who advises defense and intelligence agencies in England and the United States said the Soviets made solo trips to Moscow by foreigners prohibitively expensive by requiring visitors to stay at first class hotels and hire KGB-controlled Intourist guides so that they could be closely supervised. [H: Please remember Mr. Clinton's claims that he was poor and had to go on a scholarship--a widowed mother raising him and so on--!]

Angelo Codevilla, an intelligence specialist with the Hoover Institute at Stanford and former Republican Senate Intelligence Committee staff member, said foreign visitors in 1969 and 1970 were under close scrutiny by KGB security police.

"If Bill Clinton's travel was not supervised and arranged by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, his was the only one," Mr. Codevilla said.

He said all travelers were treated as part of a major government propaganda effort, and Intourist, the Soviet travel agency, made sure that visits would "somehow benefit the Communist Party".

A top official in Britain's M15 intelligence at the time said Mr. Clinton "fit the profile perfectly" of someone the Soviets might cultivate and recruit as an "agent of influence". "He was articulate, attractive, popular, an American Rhodes scholar opposed to the war--just the person the Soviets went for," said the official.

A former Soviet official who took part in efforts to influence Western public opinion against the Vietnam War said liberal anti-war activists, such as Mr. Clinton, would have been of great interest to Moscow.

Through various "friendship committees" and fraternal groups, the Communist Party tried to lure liberal Westerners to the country who could be used knowingly or unknowingly in anti-Vietnam War propaganda efforts, said the former official, who declined to be named.

Paul Mercer, author of Peace of the Dead, which documents Soviet ties to British and European peace organizations in the 1970s and 1980s, echoed this assessment.

"He might have been relatively innocent, opposed to the war, but because he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, they (the Soviets) might have been trying to cultivate him," Mr. Mercer said.

The Times has been unable to determine thus far whether information about Mr. Clinton's visit is contained in recently opened Soviet archives.

In a June 12, 1989 article in the Arkansas Gazette, Mr. Clinton first acknowledged he had visited the Soviet Union "in the early ‘70s" and described the period as a time of "good relations between our two countries". [H: Good relations?? while in the middle of the most frigid "cold war" known to man AND a battle against one another in open warfare in Vietnam and parts south of the U.S.?]

Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, remembers the time differently. A POW in Hanoi during Mr. Clinton's visit to Moscow, he said the Soviet Union was actively supplying the North Vietnamese with weaponry and training.

He and Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Duncan Hunter, both California Republicans, have joined Mr. Dornan on the House floor calling for further explanations by Mr. Clinton of the Moscow trip and his anti-war activities.

Mr. Clinton was studying for a bachelor of philosophy in politics at Oxford at the time but never got his degree because he did not sit for exams or write a required 30,000-word thesis after being at the university for two years, according to Georgian Ferry, the university's press spokeswoman.

Oxford officials have clamped a lid of secrecy on Mr. Clinton's academic and travel records, including information about his trips to other countries and cities. Miss Ferry said the records are confidential.

Mr. Clinton has told Arkansas voters for nearly a decade that, while he was opposed to the Vietnam War, he was only an observer in anti-war protests during his days at Georgetown University in Washington and at Oxford.

He told the Little Rock Arkansas Gazette in October 1987, for example, that he attended only two protest marches and did so only to listen to the speeches. He said he never did anything with regard to anti-war demonstrations for which he would be "ashamed".

A variety of sources now reveal that Mr. Clinton was actively involved in the protest movement as both a participant and an organizer in at least three countries--the United States, Great Britain and Norway.

He also was one of 40 student leaders from throughout the United States who attended a closed-door meeting in early-1969 in Martha's Vineyard, Mass. during which anti-war strategy was discussed and nationwide marches and protests were planned.

....is described in a new pro-Clinton book, Bill Clinton: The Inside Story, by Robert E. Levin, a Wall Street investment broker and author who concluded in the book that Mr. Clinton "has what it takes" to be president. [H: I would certainly concede that this is a true and thoughtful statement--but how many "presidents" have you seen come from an unknown governorship in a tiny least forward American state walk right into the top slot of the used-to-be most powerful nation in the world? Note the Khazarian Zionists involved--even to the open writing of a false book biography!]

Mr. Levin said Mr. Clinton attended the weekend retreat shortly after he had begun to actively participate in the anti-war movement--"even helping to organize rallies and protests".

Federal authorities said it was the Massachusetts meeting that led to the Creation of the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, which sponsored and coordinated anti-war and anti-American demonstrations throughout this country and Europe.

The Moratorium Committee, along with the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, were the major coordinators of the nation's largest anti-war demonstration in Washington on Nov. 15, 1969.

The Moratorium Committee also was the primary organizer of Oct. 15, 1969, marches in the District, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, California, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Maine, Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida.

Hanoi radio publicly praised the October marches, saying the protests reflected the American people's desire to "save their sons from the useless death in Vietnam."

Mr. Clinton had returned to Oxford in the fall of 1969 and did not attend the November Washington protest.

But David Mixner, a founder of the Moratorium Committee, has credited Mr. Clinton with helping to put the protest together and has recognized him as a major player in the protest movement.

In the book, BILL CLINTON: The Inside Story, Mr. Mixner is quoted as saying Mr. Clinton "volunteered his time and efforts to assist us in preparing for the Washington protest and in anti-war protests in hundreds of cities and towns around the country."

It was Mr. Clinton and others who organized a March of Death on the U.S. Embassy in London in November of 1969. During that march, about 1,200 demonstrated against the war at the U.S. Embassy and later held a torchlight vigil. Many of the protestors wore black robes and painted their faces white and were praised by the New China News Agency, the official North Vietnamese newspaper Nhan Dan and the then-Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda.

"He (Mr. Clinton) didn't break the law, but he was pushing the police and the legalities as far as he could," said the Rev. Richard McSorley, head of the Center for Peace Studies at Georgetown University. "He was one of the main organizers of the American Embassy protest in 1969".

Literature announcing the march and inviting attendance said Vietnamese citizens were being "massacred" by U.S. troops and that the Communist Provisional Revolutionary Government was the "legitimate government of South Vietnam". It described U.S. policy in Vietnam as "bankrupt".

During the London demonstration, Father McSorley said Mr. Clinton joined protestors carrying a coffin with a cardboard effigy containing the name of a dead American Soldier: Later, when U.S. officials refused to receive the coffin, he said it was Mr. Clinton who negotiated with police to persuade them to get it inside the embassy compound.

In his 1969 book Peace Eyes, Father McSorley also described their trip to Oslo, Norway, saying the two visited with conscientious objectors and attended a prayer service the day after the London demonstration. He said he and Mr. Clinton also met leaders of the International Peace Bureau and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Both organizations had officers at the time who also served with the World Peace Council.

Federal authorities have said the World Peace Council's principal activity in 1969 and 1970 was to organize worldwide propaganda campaigns, coordinated on a regional basis by national peace committees. The British Peace Council is a subsidiary of the World Peace Council.

According to a 1980 report by the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The World Peace organization had received about $50 million from the Soviet Union to support Soviet national defense and international military objectives. One of its major goals, according to the report, was to support worldwide anti-Vietnam War campaigns.

* * *
Let us leave this copy for a minute. I would suggest you think on the FACTS actually involved herein. There is NOTHING wrong with speaking out or actually "demonstrating" against something with which you do not agree and find as abhorrent as was the Vietnam War--HOWEVER, CITIZENS--THE MAN IN RUNNING FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFICE OF YOUR NATION--LIED, LIED, LIED AND LIED ABOUT ANY SUCH INVOLVEMENT AND NEVER, UNTIL ELECTION, AGREED TO ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES. THIS CAN ONLY INDICATE GROSS COVER-UP OF BOTH ACTIONS AND INTENT. DOES THIS MAKE THE MAN A "BETTER" CANDIDATE PERHAPS? WELL, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACK-UP ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE SECRET ACTIVITIES, I SUPPOSE YOUR ANSWER MAY BE POSITIVE. I REMIND YOU, HOWEVER, THAT THESE ACTIVITIES TOOK PLACE HAND IN HAND WITH THE SOVIET KGB.

THE HOTEL IN WHICH MR. CLINTON HAPPENED TO STAY IN MOSCOW IS A NOTED (BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, FOR YEARS--THE "NATIONAL") HOTEL RECOGNIZED AS THE "KGB SAFEHOUSE" IN THE SOVIET CAPITAL.

So, now let us look at another rather interesting article on the subject:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Oct. 9, 1992.

HYSTERIA IN DEFENSE OF AWOL WILLIE
The Clinton media clique has rushed to battle stations, but it may be too late. [H: Never too late if the Soviet Bolsheviks are in control of an election!]

Mr. Slick may yet become President Slick, but nobody will ever be able to say they didn't know whom they were voting for. America is at last learning a lot about the man the home folks call Slick Willie

The questions that Mr. Slick raises every time he declines to answer questions about a past he's forever making up with lies and evasions continue to hang over the man who may be the 41st commander-in chief of the United States.

Nearly all the reporters covering the campaign steadfastly refuse to ask the hard questions that ought to be asked, and mock those who do, usually hysterically. Michael Kinsley needed first aid last night after his hysterical performance on CNN's "Crossfire", his voice reaching levels Jenny Lind never did and Jesse Norman never has, his mouth spraying spittle across the studio. (Two cameramen sent out for their raincoats.)

The reporters who have gone in the tank in pursuit of a Democratic president in their lifetimes definitely do not include the reporters for The Washington Times, who are, with the kind of digging that once marked nearly all great newspapers, unearthing a wealth of detail about the man who would command our armies.

Larry King, who is particularly resented in the news trade, where he is regarded as a superannuated disk jockey with a big head, nevertheless asked President Bush the obvious questions raised by the stories in this newspaper, and now nearly everyone beyond the nation's newsrooms wants answers.

Despite the odd lack of interest in the story by the dominant-media newspapers and the Associated Press, on which nearly all of the 1,700 U.S. daily newspapers depend, this newspaper has received dozens of calls from news organizations across the country every day this week, pleading for fax copies of our stories.

The dominant media write only about the reaction to the stories, the easier to discount and distort the story. The Los Angeles Times, for example, reported that the president, asking Mr. Slick for just a simple explanation of how he got to Moscow in 1969, who paid for the trip, whom he talked to and what they talked about, was merely "following the lead" of Rep. Bob Dornan of California, co-chairman of the Bush campaign, "who has been charging for weeks that there was something sinister about the Moscow trip." This is meant to prove guilt by association, but Mr. Dornan's questions are pertinent.

The Los Angeles Times noted, helpfully, that travel writer Frank Rounds reported "that the Soviet tourist agency Intourist was offering moderately priced packages in 1969 for $18.90 a day, including a hotel room and one meal."

Maybe. But yesterday Mr. Slick, for once not as slick as he thought he was, says he thinks he now remembers that he stayed at the National Hotel in Moscow. [H: see above re: National Hotel.]

This was unfortunate for Mr. Slick. The National is not a student hostel. In 1969, almost nobody walked in off the street to get a room. Rooms were priced 2 1/2 times the going rate for a room in a similar hotel in New York. A simple dinner in the National's dining room--"simple" is the right word--would run to $60. The National, regarded as the place to be by the Soviet political elite--it was at the National that old Joe Stalin wined, dined and occasionally shot his guests--was not the place you could expect to find an innocent from Arkansas playing Mr. Lonely Guy on New Year's Eve. Not unless he was TAKEN THERE BY SOMEONE SEEKING SOMETHING FROM HIM.

No one has accused young Bill Clinton of being a Communist, of being unpatriotic (this is the media's word), nor even of being a poor man's Jane Fonda. Some people do suggest that he was a naive and selfish rube, enjoying the left-wing limelight in London, organizing protests against the United States at a time when he had been excused from the draft on a worthless promise while other young men were fighting--and some dying--in his place in Vietnam.

He rejects the universally held notion, he said yesterday, that an American has an obligation not to criticize his country in public when he is abroad, just as a man never criticizes his mother to strangers. It's his lack of gratitude, and his utter contempt for decent and honorable Americans asking about what he was doing in London and Moscow, that are beginning to anger growing millions of us.

* * *
So be it--welcome home "comrades"! I trust you will enjoy?? your stay in the new Communist state of Soviet United States of Amerika! May God of Light in Christ forgiveness have mercy on you blind lambs. And for you who defend the nation within your hearts--may the "Force" be with you--because you will most surely need it!!

To clear now, please--there is much to be done on a personal front this day while you weep and wail over the results of that dandy war in Vietnam and flood a black memorial slab with tears to those who were uselessly slain and the ones unrecognized on return and, worse, now are dying in torment and tragedy from the hands of your so-called "LEADERS" INTO HELL.

Perhaps these things are worth retrospective thought on this day of "memorial services". So be it. Amen.