The Lion of Judah (Volume V, Issue 5, November, 1999)

LIES ABOUT Y2K: THE PRESENT REALITY OF THE MILLENNIUM BUG CRISIS

Don McAlvany
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor
P O Box 84904
Phoenix AZ 85071
www.mcalvany.com

Lion of Judah Editor Charles Lawson:I though it timely to report a condensed version of Bro. Don McAlvany's article on the Y2K bug. He cites a Naval and Marine Corps study that contradicts standard policy. Who is kidding whom? There may be nothing to Y2K and there may be something to Y2K. Who knows? Prepare as you would for any emergency and "...then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

It's official — Y2K is no big deal. According to Clinton officials (who we know, of course, would never lie to us) most of the federal government have solved their problems and are "Y2K ready." The banking, securities and utilities industry tell us the same. Recently, the White House, Securities and Exchange Commission, and major Wall Street firms issued a joint statement which said: "We're very pleased that we're able as an industry to report to 70 million Americans who are owners of equity securities that the first trading day of 2000 will be business as usual."

Since early 1999, there has been a steady public relations campaign by the government, the big banks, securities firms, public utilities and the media that Y2K is no big deal; that all essential systems are fixed; that Y2K will be at most the equivalent to a speed bump or a three-day hurricane or snowstorm; and that (in the words of FDR), "all we have to fear is fear itself." We are told that we should also fear and oppose the fanatics (mostly right wing or religious) who are trying to create a panic, stampede the public into hoarding of food, cash, etc., and who want to take advantage of the year 2000 by launching terrorist attacks or other violence.

As Jim Lord recently wrote regarding this government/media campaign to dismiss Y2K as a non-event:

QUESTION: Has the U.S. and much of the world really miraculously solved the biggest technological challenge in history in the past six months, or is the government and Establishment lying to us because they are terrified of a run on the banks and the stock market which could collapse the entire financial system and economy?

ANSWER: In this writer's opinion, based on the information to be discussed below, they are lying to us.

ATTACKING THE MESSENGERS — The Clinton Administration, the FBI, the media and other Establishment types continue to attack those who are warning about the Y2K crisis and urging preparations. On August 19, Y2K expert Jim Lord released a report about a Navy study that classified over 100 U.S. cities in danger of power, water, sewer or gas failures, including 44 cities where total failure is predicted.

The Establishment immediately went into their damage-control mode — viciously attacking Lord's credibility. John Koskinen, the Clinton Administration's Y2K Czar, responded, "There are a whole set of people out there who would like their predictions of the end of the world borne out." Capt. Cliff Szafran with the U.S. Navy characterized Lord as a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" and also said, "[The Navy website] was accessed by a couple of extremists who are using it to their advantage to tell people to buy guns and go to the hills."

New York Times journalist Barnaby Feder, in a supposedly unbiased news story, referred to Lord as a "prominent doomsayer." However, by launching such vehement attacks against Lord personally and all but ignoring the actual data in the Navy study, more questions about government cover-up and deception are being raised than answered. This comes at a time when the Clinton Administration is already under attack for its apparent cover-up of the situation in Waco.

THE PENTAGON PAPERS OF Y2K: CITIES AT RISK FROM THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER CRISIS

How many days could New York City survive without water and sewer services? How long would it take to evacuate eight million people in the dead of winter? Would thousands die in the process? Tens of thousands? More? When would the rioting and looting begin? How many National Guard troops would it take to control the largest city in the nation? What unthinkable devastation would be wrought on the global financial system? How might our enemies seize on the ensuing panic and confusion? Are these the crazed speculations of a Y2K alarmist? Not if you know what the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps know.

According to a June 1999 report titled, "Master Utility List," they believe "total failure is likely" for New York City's water and sewer systems because of Y2K problems. And they're holding this information back.

The Navy Department assessment is not limited to New York City; it covers all their shore facilities in the world — nearly 500 locations. The results are horrifying. They expect more than 26 million American citizens in 125 cities to be without electricity, water, gas or sewer services next January. Many more would be affected in foreign countries. London, England, for example, is expected to experience failures of all four types of utilities. Many of the people impacted by these failures would be military personnel and their families. And the Navy Department isn't telling anyone.

Forty-five of the cities named in the survey have populations greater than 100, 000. Eight of the nation's dozen largest metropolitan areas are affected. Here's what the Navy report projects:

Dallas — no water.
Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia — no gas.
Baltimore, Houston, New York and Miami — no water or sewer.
Atlanta — no water or gas.
San Antonio — no water or electricity.
Fort Worth and New Orleans — no water, gas or sewer services.

And the Navy Department is saying nothing.

CITIES AT RISK — The information presented is based on a U.S. Navy/Marine Corps survey dated June, 1999. The survey was conducted to determine the risk of utility failures at military facilities worldwide. Only United States information is
[McAlvany Note: Navy rebuttals to their own report (i.e., Clinton damage control "spin") and Lord's rebuttals to their rebuttals can also be found at Lord's website.]

Three levels of possible failure are indicated in the Navy document. Each table in this summary lists one of these levels.

Partial failure is probable.
Partial failure is likely.
Total failure is likely.

The terms "probable," "likely," "partial," and "total" are Navy terminology and were not clearly defined in the documentation. The terms "likely" and "total" however, represent the worst condition.
Cities in bold have populations greater than 100,000.

WHERE IT CAME FROM — This information came from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (Department of the Navy). They were apparently tasked to conduct a study of the Y2K exposure of their worldwide shore facilities. A copy of this study made its way into my hands.

Military bases in the United States are rarely self-sufficient when it comes to utilities such as electricity, water, gas and sewer. These services are almost always provided by the local economy. From a Y2K standpoint, this leaves the bases at the mercy of the local utility providers. Nearly 500 bases were assessed: approximately one-third are expected to experience utility failures.
These figures are completely out of whack with the federal government's August, 1999, Y2K assessment, which says: "It is highly unlikely that there will be national disruptions in electric power service on January 1, 2000... (I)t is expected that any (gas disruptions) that do occur will have minimal impact upon consumers... (I)t is increasingly unlikely that the date change will create disruptions in water service."

Mr. Koskinen, you need to check with the folks over at the Pentagon. They seem to have a different opinion. Or is it possible you already know about this information?

The information was obtained from a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity. The identity of this source will be staunchly protected. I don't have a copy of the detailed assessments of the individual bases nor do I possess the information on Army or Air Force bases. I am submitting a request for these documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), however. (In fact, I encourage you to help out by submitting your own FOIA request for these documents.)

The information from the bases and other facilities was compiled into an eight-page spreadsheet that is titled "Master Utility List" and dated June, 1999. No other markings appear on the papers. In particular (and this is of crucial importance), the document is not stamped or labeled with any national security classification markings.

[McAlvany Note: Since posting this report on his website, Lord has had 8 million hits. John Koskinen said recently that if there is a panic over Y2K, it will be people like Jim Lord's and Gary North's fault. Already the Clintonistas are getting ready for "operation scape goat."]

IMPLICATIONS —

a) One need not be even a mild "doom and gloomer" to realize that failures of the magnitude indicated in this Navy Department study are potentially catastrophic. The lives and health of millions of people are at stake. The national economy is threatened. Our way of life is jeopardized. The national security is at risk.

b) That the government is withholding this information from the American people seems to me a monstrous abandonment of principle. Each of these military bases has a commanding officer. For large bases this is typically a Navy Captain or a Marine Colonel. These military leaders have raised their hands in the air and sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. (I recall this oath clearly having taken it several times during my own naval career and having administered it numerous times during re-enlistment ceremonies.)

How can these commissioned officers remotely imagine that keeping this information from the citizens of this nation is in any way upholding their duty? I have no doubt they have been instructed by higher authority to maintain silence about these Y2K risks. How can they look themselves in the mirror each morning and conceive that what they are doing is right?

These commanders report to a chain of command of Admirals and Generals culminating in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How can these so-called "public servants" know that 26 million citizens are in such jeopardy and remain silent?

In the simplest terms — I stand bitterly ashamed of my former comrades. I cannot conceive of a blacker mark on the military leadership of the nation.

c) The government is holding out on its own people. The Navy uses a special message called an "ALNAV" (meaning all Navy) to communicate information to all naval personnel at once. On February 10, 1999, the Secretary of the Navy released such a message telling all officers and enlisted personnel they had nothing to worry about from Y2K. The message identifier is SECNAV 101715Z FEB 99. Here's a quote:

Perhaps the Navy Department had not yet completed their facility Y2K assessment last February when ALNAV was promulgated. Now that they understand their Y2K exposure, I wonder when they will let all those sailors and their families know about the anticipated utility failures? After all, the first line in the above mentioned ALNAV states: "It is important that we provide our sailors with sound, useful information on the potential impact of Y2K on their personal and professional lives, as well as the lives of their families."

I retired from the Naval Service in 1983 but I still hold a commission as a regular officer. I am still under oath. In "my" Navy, the highest unwritten duty of a Naval Officer was to take care of his people. This bit of traditional wisdom is apparently little practiced today. To each of the Naval and Marine Corps Officers who has had access to the information described herein, I lay down a simple challenge. Live up to this duty. Come forth. Tell us the truth.

d) If we're being lied to about this, how can we believe anything the government tells us about Y2K? How bad is this thing really going to be?

CONCLUSION

Of all the issues this writer has written about in the past 25 years, Y2K is one of the most controversial, divisive and confusing — with the government, banks, media, financial industry spinning it as "no problem," "a speed bump," etc., and others such as Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Jim Lord, Michael Hyatt, Joe Farah, Y2KNEWSWIRE, etc., seeing it as a huge potential crisis — one that could shake the foundation of our economic, financial, political and social systems.

A year ago, millions of Americans were beginning to wake up and make preparations (both individually and in banks, businesses, and local, state, and federal government agencies). Today, worldwide, about $1.2 trillion has been spent on fixing the problem — half or more of that in the U.S.

The Fortune 500 companies have spent $80-100 million each on fixing the problem; the 15 largest U.S. banks have spent $3.5 billion collectively. The next time someone tells you Y2K is not a big deal and never was, ask them why banks, business and governments have spent $1.2 trillion to date on a non-problem.

Today, the government/media party line is that the Y2K problem was never a big deal, and the bank/big business/Wall Street/public utility party line is that they worked on the problem, solved it, and are "Y2K ready." Since the government and media started their "not a problem" spin campaign in late ‘98 and early ‘99, most individuals (i.e., 90-95%) have gone back to sleep, ceased any Y2K preparations (if they ever began them), and now laugh at or ridicule anyone who still believes Y2K is a problem, who is making preparations, or recommending same.

Only a small remnant of Americans (probably under 5%) still seriously believe that Y2K could be a major problem and are continuing to make preparations. This writer wonders if most of the unbelievers will not remain unbelievers and the believers will continue to believe the crisis is real and prepare. One reason (in this writer's opinion) to believe that the crisis is real and continue or accelerate one's preparations is that Bill Clinton and his team say it's not — and they always lie!

There may be a year end panic by 20, 30, or 40 percent of the people who wake up at the eleventh hour and stampede into banks, grocery stores, filling stations, etc., — and there may not. One thing seems clear to this writer — the people who believe the crisis is real and who have been preparing will not be part of the panic — even though they and the watchmen who have been warning of the crisis will be blamed by the government (i.e., operation scapegoat) for causing the panic.

In talking with a number of very Y2K knowledgeable people around the country for the research and writing of this Y2K-update issue, several thoughts, ideas, or conclusions have emerged:

1. Computers fail in three ways: a) They simply stop. That's easy, the owner/operator must then reproduce what the computer was doing. b) They continue to operate, but the output is inaccurate. That can be seen quickly and the operation shut down. c) They continue to operate, put out garbage, but you don't know it is going on. Computer experts this writer has consulted with believe a) will describe about 5% of the Y2K failures; b) 85%; and c) 10%. [And] c) is the most dangerous.

2. The Y2K crisis will not all happen on January 1, or in the first few weeks or even months of 2000. Failures will probably spike up for the first two weeks of January and then level or drop off — at which time the government, media, banks, utilities and businesses will probably declare victory. But the really serious problems are likely to show up in the spring and summer as a slow deterioration in data continues to compound, ala failure scenario c) above, and more and more systems grind into gridlock (i.e., like a slow, but accelerating cancer).

3. If by mid to late January, the impact of Y2K "seems" to be subsiding, the watchmen who have been warning of the crisis, the suppliers who have supplied Y2K related self-sufficiency products, and those who have made preparations will be subjected to massive ridicule. And, if there is a panic in December and January, they will be blamed for the panic. It's called a lose-lose situation. John Koskinen has already said that people who are storing food are creating future shortages. This is a lie. At present, there is a great surplus of food in America.

4. If serious electric power failures occur, they are likely to begin to show up around July — when power usage is high and the deterioration has had a number of months to grind out and compound false data.

5. It appears to this writer at this writing that the five greatest dangers from Y2K will be: a) the safety of the water systems in various cities and parts of the country; b) the fragility of the financial system (domestically and internationally) which could be shattered by Y2K — especially if there are serious problems in global banks, securities firms, and financial transfer systems; c) major problems with foreign computers and systems which can infect and bring down our own — even those which are compliant; d) the U.S. government's response to the crisis (i.e., a power grab via a State of National Emergency and/or martial law); and e) the U.S. government/Establishment/political left (epitomized by the Clinton Administration) blaming any Y2K problem, panic that results, etc. on "the right wing," on "religious fanatics," "Christian millennealists," "dangerous religious cultists," "Y2K profiteers," etc., and cracking down on same.

6. It is interesting that when the panic stampede hit the grocery stores, filling stations, and lumber companies in Florida in mid-September, when Hurricane Floyd was approaching, that the number one item to be stripped from the grocery shelves was bottled water. As the Orlando Sentinel (9/14/99) wrote in an article entitled: "Water, Wood Fly Faster Than Floyd": " ‘... Water. That's what they've been buying as fast as they can get it out of here,' said Lovie Christofalo, manager at the Publix supermarket on State Road A1A in Cocoa Beach."

7. Jim Lord believes that nationwide martial law is unlikely but that martial law could be declared in some cities where the problems are very bad, and that the people will beg for same so the government can "stop the pain." Lord also strongly believes that the Alaskan Pipeline will go down — with grave economic consequences for the State of Alaska and oil supplies and prices on the U.S. West Coast.

8. This writer's contacts in several major corporations say that after a scramble to fix Y2K over the past year or so, whereby 80% of the problems were fairly easily solved, that most people have now gone back to sleep, believing that they can fix the remaining 20% (the more difficult to solve) on failure. When a fix is made, it must be tested, the new glitches found and fixed and then retested. There will not be time to do much of that retesting by the end of the year.

9. In Detroit, in spite of the fact that many of auto companies' suppliers are not compliant, Y2K is hardly discussed any more. Detroit Edison must have concerns about the power grid, however, in that they have spent $40 million on backup generators.

10. Estimates of the severity of the Y2K crisis vary among experts or people who are close to inside information. Bill Clinton or John Koskinen would say it's a one. (Have they ever misled, deceived, or lied to us?) On 9/17/99, Associated Press quoted Alan Greenspan as saying that Y2K will be a total non-event except for unwarranted fears: "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan today characterized as virtually nonexistent the threat that the United States will suffer massive computer failures because of the Year 2000 date change. But he cautioned that the economy could still be affected, depending on how many businesses and consumers alter their normal buying patterns because of unwarranted fears. ‘The probability of a cascading of computer failures in mission-critical systems is now negligible, given the testing that has been done, the backup plans that are in place and the great adaptability and ingenuity of the American worker,' Greenspan said." [McAlvany Note: Greenspan didn't add that he is terrified of a run on the banks.]

Gary North would probably call Y2K an 11. Jim Lord sees it as about an 8-1/2. Paula Gordon, a former high ranking FEMA official, said on C-Span on September 9 (on a program with Jim Lord) that if the government doesn't launch a crash program to solve the crisis, that she believes it will be a 9-1/2 — an unmitigated disaster. A FEMA official, recently in Florida to monitor public response to Hurricane Floyd, quietly remarked to a contact that FEMA is expecting massive nationwide panic in the last two weeks of December.

11. It is clear to this writer from Greenspan's, Clinton's, Koskinen's (et al) comments that their number one priority is not Y2K preparation, or remediation, or to tell the truth about Y2K — it is to prevent a run on the banks and the stock market.

12. More Y2K glitches are probably taking place around the country at this writing than will be officially admitted. There have been computer failures at LAX, Dulles and other airports; elevators getting stuck in office buildings; local power or utility failures; phone systems not working for hours or days at a time; and other strange, unexplained breakdowns in business, industrial, and even financial systems. Almost none are being called Y2K problems. Nor will be most other glitches around the country or around the world in coming months. It is almost as if wartime censorship was being imposed by the government and media. This writer would not be surprised to see censorship of Y2K news on the Internet and maybe even of reports like those of Gary North's, Jim Lord's, Y2KNEWSWIRE, etc., in coming months.

Regardless of whether Y2K (on the severity scale) is a 0,1,3, 5, 7, 9, or 11, this writer believes that it is wise and prudent for members of the remnant to be making preparations as if it were a 10. There may well be other crises (war, terrorism, depression, martial law, etc.) for which these preparations will ultimately be used. If the federal government can make preparations to protect its top officials — which they are doing at present, why shouldn't we?

With a track record of lying to us over the years from Pearl Harbor to Korea; from Agent Orange to Gulf War Illness; from Waco to Ruby Ridge; from Whitewater and Filegate to Monicagate and Chinagate — why should we believe the government pronouncements about Y2K when they are self-serving and in conflict with much information which is available from concerned insiders about the millennium bug?

In this writer's opinion, we should be skeptical of government, media, banking pronouncements about Y2K; pray for it to be a one; and prepare as if it were a 10. As Proverbs 27:12 says: "A prudent man [McAlvany Note: a small minority] seeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple [McAlvany Note: the majority] pass on, and are punished."

FINAL NOTE: From the time (in about 1996) that Y2K began to get widespread publicity, there have been a handful of individuals who have sounded the alarm and been responsible for the world waking up to the crisis: Dr. Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Jim Lord, Michael Hyatt, Ed Yardeni, etc. Foremost among the watchmen, however, who is responsible for tens of millions of people, tens of thousands of businesses and dozens of governments waking up to the severity of the crisis has been Dr. Gary North.

A lot of the $1.2 trillion that has been spent on Y2K repairs around the world might never have been spent if Gary North had not sounded an early, clear, and comprehensive warning. He has put out massive volumes of excellent information on Y2K (collected from many thousands of sources) on his website (garynorth.com) and in his newsletter, Remnant Review.

Gary is the person who first got this writer thinking about Y2K, along with two computer consultants to the Big Three auto companies in Detroit. He has since been joined by other watchmen (named above) who have also sounded the alarm. Even if Y2K should turn out to be a 2 or 3 [McAlvany Note: This writer believes it will become at least a 4 to 5 over the next 6 to 12 months] the repair and remediation which has been done around the world because of Gary North's wake up call have helped to lessen the impact of the crisis. Whether or not you agree with all of Gary's conclusions, he should be highly commended for his efforts to wake up the world to potentially a very large crisis.

About the Author — Jim Lord is the author of "A Survival Guide for the Year 2000 Problem: Consumer Solutions for the Worst Technical Blunder in History," a practical, 270-page guide to preparation for the Year 2000 computer crisis. He has written nearly 90 articles on Y2K. He is also the co-editor with James Talmage Stevens of the Journal of Personal Freedom, a newsletter which provides practical guidance in the restoration of liberty through preparedness and self-reliance. Mr. Lord has advised Congressional staffers, the Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense, the Center for Security Policy, and the U.S. Taxpayer's Alliance, and is a Y2K Research Associate at George Washington University. He has appeared on more than 200 radio talk shows as well as Fox News, ABC Nightline, the Discovery Channel, C-Span and PAX-TV. Mr. Lord is a retired Naval Officer with 24 years active service who came up through the enlisted ranks. His career was spent in the electronics field, including a tour as the Electronics Maintenance Officer on an aircraft carrier. Following his military career, Mr. Lord was involved in shipbuilding, communication systems design, satellite systems, software engineering, training and marketing. This experience included nine years in the software industry.

Sources of Current Y2K Information:
1) Remnant Review - Editor - Dr. Gary North; Agora, Inc. 1217 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 ($129/yr)
North's website (Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums): garynorth.com [McAlvany note: Very helpful in writing this report!]
2) Journal of Personal Freedom - Editor - Jim Lord - Publishers Management Corp, P.O. Box 84910, Phoenix, AZ 85017 ($129/yr). 1-888-925-2555.
Lord's website www.JimLord.to [McAlvany note: Very helpful in writing this report. Excellent background material on the U.S. Navy's Master Utility List.]
3) Michael Hyatt's Website: michaelhyatt.com. Phone: 1-888-925-7737; 1-615-794-2394; Fax 615-794-8860. Mail: Y2K Prep, 251 Second Ave., South, Franklin TN 37064.
4) Ed Yardeni - yardeni.com; e-mail - yardeni@yardeni.com
5) Ed Yourdon - yourdon.com; phone: 888-814-7605; fax: 888-814-7605.
6) Y2KNEWSWIRE - Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM.

A Contrarian View on the Impact
of the Internet

Intelligence Digest
Joe de Courcy
editor@intelligence-net.com
The Stoneyhill Centre
Brimpsfield, Gloucester GL4 8LF UK
1-800-237-8400

Lion of Judah Editor Charles Lawson: The Internet is being used by the devil — BEWARE! There is much good and much evil on the web.

This time last year we [Intelligence Digest] participated in a conference in Washington DC in which a number of speakers, including some for whom we have the greatest respect, extolled the virtues of the Internet as the great liberator of individuals from the shackles over overweening governments. We were not convinced and wrote as much in our post-conference summing up. A year on, it doesn't give us any great pleasure to see that the evidence is moving our way.

In our conference summary, published in the 30 October, 1998, issue of Intelligence Digest, we wrote:

The fact is that for the tax authorities, law-enforcement agencies, owners of intellectual property rights, and busy-bodies of all stripes, the Internet represents anarchy — and anarchy, like the Wild West, must be tamed.

The incentive to control is immense. Take the private sector alone. US companies estimate that they are losing $200bn a year to product piracy, something that is hugely facilitated by the Internet. The global software industry lost $11bn to piracy in 1998, with an estimated 38% of 615m new business software applications installed worldwide being pirated — and the Internet's role in this is huge and growing. The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) trade group says that 60% of the software being auctioned on the Internet is illegitimate.

The Internet is the perfect criminal arena because it creates huge jurisdictional loopholes for police and prosecutors. As one expert told us, a fraud can be perpetrated between Brazil and the US with the perpetrator located in Amsterdam.

Traditional criminals like the Chinese Triads and the Russian mafia gangs are becoming increasingly adept at using the Internet for criminal purposes.

So what will be done? We predict two major developments, both of which run directly counter to the theory that the Internet will be the great liberator of individuals.

First of all, national governments will greatly step up their monitoring of their own citizens' activities on the Internet. This will be justified — and to a large extent popularly supported — on the grounds that it is necessary for the prevention of terrorism and crimes against children.

This is already happening in the UK where the British government is now proposing to tap at least one in every 500 telephone connections to the Internet. This tapping proposal would increase the surveillance powers of the police and intelligence agencies in the UK to a level roughly 20 times that employed — so far — in other European countries. It is estimated that 10,000 tapping warrants a year will be issued by the Home Secretary— five times the current level of authorization.

Secondly, in order to deal with the jurisdictional questions uniquely posed by Internet crimes, the whole question of trans-national criminal law will undergo a huge transformation, with those countries that try to offer safe-havens meeting the full wrath of the major Western powers.

During the first week of October, a little-reported symposium for customs officials was held in Miami. Assistant US Customs Commissioner Bonni Tischler told the symposium: "I think [Internet crime] is going to dwarf every type of crime in the next millennium. They're going to have to figure out how to control the Internet."

The Internet causes genuine problems for civilized societies, and civilized societies will seek — with enough justification to gain public support — to control it. But the price will be high. There will be an increase in the monitoring of the activities of individual citizens (the innocent along with the not-so-innocent), and there will be a further major erosion in the concept of national sovereignty. The "Internet romantics" are set for a great disillusionment. JdeC.

Crime Is Issue, Not Homosexuality
of Suspects, Activists Say

By Lawrence Morahan
CNS Staff Writer
—http://www.cnsnews.com/culture.asp
01 November, 1999

Lion of Judah Editor Charles Lawson: This story is a perfect example of the news media's agenda. If the news doesn't "fit," it isn't reported. Have you seen or heard anything about this horrific crime on the national media? Consider the media frenzy if two men had done this crime to a sodomite.

(CNSNews.com) — Commenting on the rape and murder of a 13-year-old Arkansas boy allegedly at the hands of a homosexual couple, gay groups told CNSNews.com that in the interests of justice, investigators and the media should focus on the crime and not on the sexual orientation of the alleged perpetrators.

"It's a tragedy when anyone dies in this way, and anyone who kills them should suffer the severest consequences of the law, no matter what ‘side' they are," Mel White, a gay minister and author, told CNSNews.com.

White said the media attention surrounding the killing of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Arkansas and that of homosexual student Matthew Shepard, 22, in Wyoming last year "mustn't be our indicator of how deeply people mourn the losses."
"That's a kind of game we don't want to play. ‘ Who is suffering more' is not a game anyone can win. The fact is a child died when Matthew Shepard died on that fence, and now a child is dead in Arkansas. We grieve them all equally and we apply the law to all of these killers whoever they are, and whatever their sexual orientation, without respect to person," White said. White is chairman of Soulforce, an ecumenical organization that teaches "the principles of non-violence on behalf of sexual minorities."

Stephen Spurgeon, the director of communications for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), called the murder of Jesse Dirkhising "a crime of horrific brutality," in a statement to CNSNews.com.

"The intolerable sexual abuse and murder of a boy is the crime and must be the focus of the investigation. The sexual orientation of the alleged killers is not the crime. We share everyone's concern for justice and our sympathies go out to all those who knew and loved Jesse Dirkhising," Spurgeon said.

The trial of Aaron McKinney, 22, the second man charged in the 1998 slaying of Shepard, is currently underway in Laramie, Wyoming. Police allege McKinney and his friend Russell Henderson lured Shepard out of a Laramie bar, pistol whipped him because he was homosexual, and drove him to a remote country road where they left him tied to a fence. Shepard died in a hospital five days later.

The Shepard slaying received broad coverage in the media and reinvigorated the national debate on the need for special legislation for hate crimes, which are defined as anything from murder to assault against a citizen because of his or her race, religion, gender, national origin or sexual orientation.

By contrast, the Dirkhising murder received scant national coverage. The boy was found close to death at the apartment of two men, who police also described as homosexual lovers.

Joshua Macave Brown, 22, and Davis Don Carpenter, 38, each are charged with one count of capital murder and six counts of rape stemming from the Sept. 26 death of Dirkhising. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, currently are being held without bond.

According to a police affidavit provided to CNSNews.com, Brown testified that on the morning of September 26, he sneaked up on the boy, tied his hands behind his back, placed his pair of undershorts in the teen's mouth and secured the briefs with a bandana and duct tape. He said he blindfolded the youth, bound him to a bed and repeatedly sodomized him while Carpenter watched.

Investigators said they found notes from Carpenter to Brown, instructing him how to bind and sedate a child. A preliminary autopsy showed that the boy died from "positional asphyxiation." Police say the boy was sodomized with several objects.
Christopher D. Plumlee, deputy prosecuting attorney for Benton County, Ark., who investigated Jesse's death, told reporters he was a "little surprised" at the limited coverage this "horrible crime against a child" received.

Calls for equal treatment under the law for all perpetrators by human rights activists echo those of opponents of hate crimes legislation currently being championed by congressional Democrats.

"There is absolutely no question that whenever a person kills, assaults, or rapes another person, they should be swiftly caught, prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law, including the death penalty," said Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), in a statement on hate crimes to CNSNews.com.

Hate crimes legislation "has nothing to do with deterring crime, and everything to do with grabbing more power for an already bloated federal government," said Barr, a former federal prosecutor from Atlanta who serves on the House Judiciary Committee.

HATE CRIMES:
The "Tolerant" Inquisition

Michael Savage
November 9, 1999
Savage@newsmax.com

I recently wrote about hate crimes. There is no greater danger to our future than hate-crime legislation. Just to prove to you what we're in for if we continue in this direction, let's look at South Africa. They've overtaken us in hate-crime and other so-called civil-rights legislation and carried it to lunatic extremes. As you will see, if we don't put a stop to it, the same will happen here.

First, they started with special laws against homophobic and racially motivated crimes — as we have in the United States. But they've now expanded it to offensive language and have established "Equality Courts" to prosecute this new crime. In these courts anyone can bring an action against you, and you're guilty until proven innocent. If you can't prove your innocence, you have to pay and maybe do jail time. Were not talking here about the use of lewd and abusive language. The offense can be almost anything anyone dislikes about what you say.

For example, in South Africa it is now a bad thing, a hate crime, to say that someone is "obese." It's also a crime to say such felonious things as someone is "elderly," "married," "youthful," "disabled," "aged," "gay," and much more. We can be thankful that they've limited their list to several dozen "offensive" words and haven't yet included the whole dictionary. Otherwise South Africa would have to become a nation of mutes.

But what if you're a newscaster and you mention that an "elderly" person fell from his wheelchair or that a robbery was committed by a "youthful" perpetrator? If you do, you've committed a crime and will be fined or sent to jail. Admittedly, when you're old you dislike being elderly and when you're young you resent being youthful. And when you're married, maybe you don't like that either, so if anyone happens to mention it — have him arrested.

You have to give them credit for being thorough in South Africa. What you say is motivated by what you think, isn't it? So they'll now police your thoughts and intentions as well. Those dark, subliminal motives lurking behind what you say are now under official scrutiny. Not only that but your facial expressions and body language, too.

Let's say you're talking to a fat, excuse me, obese, that is to say, well-rounded person. But you have a facial tick and your eye twitches while you're talking; that can be taken as a smirk or sneer, and it's off to the Equality Court. But will they have enough jails in South Africa to hold all the violators? I know if I lived in South Africa, I would already be in one of them — many times over.

Is this really what the self-deluded liberals want for us — the Boxers, Feinsteins, and the likes of Hateful Hillary, who promote hate-crime legislation? Do you want to live in a country where you can't speak, even think, freely like in South Africa? Even the guru, pony-tailed college professors, the retired flower children of Berkeley — do they want that in America? Have they and the other liberals lost their minds? If left to their own lunacy, the liberals and the radical "gays" will turn America into a nightmare nation.

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed it fifty years ago: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."

Open Season on Christians?

By Thomas D. Schwartz
Christian News
3277 Boeuf Lutheran Rd.
New Haven, MO 63068

Is the blood shed by victims of one shooting spree somehow more valuable than the lives of others lost in a similar rampage? Judging by the response of the American political and media establishment to two strikingly similar recent violent acts, one might draw such a shocking conclusion.

During the summer, Buford O'Neal Furrow entered an almost deserted Jewish community center in Los Angeles and began firing aimlessly. Five people, including three small boys, were wounded.

Despite the gunman's extensive history of psychological problems, the shooting was immediately labeled — surprise! — a "hate crime." Furrow's past association with anti-Jewish groups such as the Aryan Nations, as well as books and other literature found in his abandoned van, was offered as compelling evidence that the underlying motive for his attack was anti-Semitism.

The usual suspects began clamoring for further erosion of the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. All of them worried openly about the "dangers" presented by numbers of "far-right political and religious groups." No explanations were forthcoming from any of these persons revealing how destruction of the second amendment would curb violent expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.

Well, not surprisingly, it was later grudgingly conceded that Furrow was not merely confined to a psychiatric hospital in the past, but also that:

He once pulled a knife on staff members at the hospital.

Furrow attempted to commit himself in October 1998, saying: "Sometimes I feel like I could just lose it and kill people."

He told staff members at the psychiatric hospital that he was considering killing his wife and her friends.

Police records indicated Furrow once admitted [to] wanting to rob a bank, so that the police would be forced to kill him.

In spite of all these facts, the political and media Establishment insisted that Furrow was motivated solely by hatred for Jewish persons. A logical question arises: Were those whom Furrow previously threatened or attacked exclusively Jewish? The obvious impact of his psychological problems upon his violent outburst largely has been ignored.

Yet when Larry Gene Ashbrook recently went on a shooting spree in Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, killing seven and wounding seven, the silence from the political and media Establishment was deafening. None dared to suggest that the murderer was motivated by hatred of Christians.

No, it was quickly noted that Ashbrook battled mental illness in the past! Therefore, despite the fact that the attack took place in a church, and despite Ashbrook's derogatory and insulting comments about Christianity before and during the attack, the amoral arbiters of political correctness informed us that his murderous rampage was not a hate crime.

Such is the state of intellectual honesty and logical consistency in contemporary America. The political and media establishment in our declining culture clearly value some lives more than others. That's good news if you happen to be the member of a politically preferred group, but bad news if you are a follower of Jesus Christ.

Hillary Backs Hate Art
Against Christians

By Thomas D. Schwartz
Christian News
3277 Boeuf Lutheran Rd.
New Haven, MO 63068

Ever since First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton began considering becoming a candidate for the United States Senate from New York, the large cross which she once wore around her neck has been confined to the bottom of her jewelry box. Her very public visits to her liberal United Methodist church, complete with husband Bill toting a huge black Bible, have waned.

Now Hillary's separation from the professed faith of her youth is complete. She recently openly embraced the "Sensation" exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, which features anti-Christian and pornographic "artwork."

Prominent among the exhibits is "The Holy Virgin Mary" by African "artist" Chris Ofili. (Appropriately, the spell check feature on my computer suggested that Ofili's name should be replaced with "Offal," which Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines as "rubbish.") The painting (?) depicts the mother of Jesus — defaced by elephant dung and surrounded by representations of the female sexual organ. Other works included a dissected cow and pig, a picture of a pedophile, covered with the fingerprints of his victims, and castrated male dummies lashed to a tree.

One wonders if Hillary would be so enthusiastic about a portrait of Martin Luther King, Jr., which was smeared with elephant dung. Is it possible that she would endorse an exhibition of art that featured works offensive to the adherents of any other religion? Somehow I doubt it.

Thankfully, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani — Hillary's expected Republican opponent — responded to the patently offensive nature of the exhibit by announcing that he was cutting off the museum's annual $7 million in city funding. He correctly attacked the exhibit as "sick," "Catholic bashing," and "pedophiles on parade."

Not surprisingly, Hillary fretted about "censorship" and the "chilling effect" Giuliani's move would have on the first amendment. Giuliani rightfully pointed out that his actions only remove taxpayer support for the exhibit, not permanently remove it from public view.

"There are several private museums in New York that would be happy to host this exhibit," he told NBC's Meet the Press. "Let them sponsor it. Don't make taxpayers pay for it with their hard-earned money."

The hypocrisy of Hillary and her ilk is acute. They only worry about "censorship" when the targets of hatred is the Christian faith. But they are certainly willing to censor the views of those with whom they disagree killing them, as Ruby Ridge and Waco demonstrate so gruesomely.

So far, Giuliani hasn't sent snipers to kill the "artists" whose works are on display, as the Clinton administration did to Vicki Weaver. The mayor hasn't burned the museum down with all of the exhibitors inside, as Hillary's husband did to the Branch Davidians.

It is becoming ever more clear to even the most casual observers that there are two sets of rules in contemporary America: one set for Christians, and one for everyone else.