Introduction

       This website contains voluminous and detailed descriptions of movements and events evolving from them which have the potential to weaken, dissolve, and destroy American civilization - the cultural, political, economic, and military structure which has been handed down to us by our Founding Fathers. These descriptions have been further refined, summarized, and published in my Eternal Vigilance journal, a bi-monthly newsletter - selected copies of which are furnished (FREE of charge) on this website. We must resist those movements. Voluminous resource materials on the global Salafist Islamic jihad are available at the hyperlink to a companion website at the end of this essay. We must be aware of and digest this material in order to fully understand the threat posed by this dangerous Islamic ideology.

       In a yet to be published 511-page document with over 1,000 references, I identified three major sources of danger. This document, Women in Combat: The Destruction of the U.S. Military (30 May 1994), contains the resource materials - all taken from open-source, public mainstream newspapers, magazines, books, and letters-to-the editor that grace the national scene. That document was the primary resource used in writing and publishing two books, The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future, (Atkinson Associates Press, June 1996) and From Trust to Terror: Radical Feminism is Destroying the U.S. Navy (Atkinson Associates Press, 1997). Those books have been purchased by over 7,500 people directly from Atkinson Associates Press as well as through such mainstream outlets as Borders Books, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com. In addition, the subject matter on this website has been accessed by over 150,000 people worldwide during the past calendar year. The word is getting out.

       Portions of that 511-page document are used here to illustrate what was known then (1994) about the dangers we faced and still face. With the advent of the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, a vast amount of open-source information reveals what we should have known and for what we should have been prepared. A comparison of what I wrote in 1994 and what is available now reveals how naïve, unprepared, leaderless at the highest levels, and vulnerable we were and how we are still suffering from lack of serious national level leadership. There is little hope for change in this situation, given the lack of  choices we may have in the coming 2008 presidential election.

       I am not a so-called 'expert' on terrorism. I am, however, the author of a then-classified report on the technology and policy aspects of the vulnerability of America's resource systems to terrorist attack. That report, State of the Art Report on the Vulnerability to Terrorism of U.S. Resource Systems, Science Applications Incorporated (SAI), 1 December 1980, was sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The report, though sponsored by such a feeble government agency, was nevertheless briefed to the branches of the Executive Department which had a nominal bureaucratic interest in the subject at that time (the early 1980s), including members of the National Security Council/Special Coordinating Committee (NSC/SCC) which dealt with terrorism.

       That early report dealt with the vulnerability to terrorist attack of eight principal resource systems (e.g. petroleum and natural gas, electric power, transportation, etc.). It concluded in 1980 what is now known from hindsight and a huge reservoir of open-sources that "Terrorist groups can cause major consequences on a regional or national scale by using conventional means of attacking U.S. resource systems. Even the meager information available which addresses the U.S. resource systems indicates that attacks with ordinary weapons, explosives, and chemicals are sufficient to cause wide-scale damage, loss of life or economic loss…U.S. society and its vital resource sectors have not been designed to combat terrorism. They have evolved in such a way that they are inherently vulnerable to certain accident situations and naturally occurring disasters. They are becoming more vulnerable to such situations as they become larger, more complex, and dependent on sophisticated high technology subsystems. These vulnerabilities could be taken advantage of by terrorist groups in the future to cause major disruptive consequences to U.S. society." Of course we now know that Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorists of global reach were capable of bringing down two of the most modern (read technologically complex and structurally vulnerable) designed 'twin towers' in New York city using our own airliners as 'cruise missiles,' each with thousands of gallons of explosive fuel aboard - piloted by suicide bomber jihadis.

       Those of you who are familiar with my recent essays know that I have addressed the subject of the threats to our nation's future. I have addressed the threat posed by those from within - the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation, including those whom I have labeled the Looming American Matriarchy, as well as the external threat from the global Salafist Islamic Jihad (and the nation-states which support it) - symbolized by what has been called the Looming Tower (taken from Lawrence Wright's insightful book, The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11), and finally, the threat posed by China. This essay deals with the two 'Loomings,' a comparison of the characteristic 'networks' of each of these two 'Loomings.' You may be surprised by both the commonality of these two seemingly unrelated entities and the major differences. A network analysis begins in this essay to shed light on these characteristics. Both are led by dangerous people with world-wide ambitions, preach 'hatred,' are based on what some call 'reforms' and others call 'spiritual awakenings' in two different religious domains, act in shadowy (if not secret) ways, use Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) to raise money, and are supported by fundraising in the United States of America. But first, we must look at what I wrote in the mid-1990s as the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation came to power in every institution in the land. I wrote of their threat to American civilization. It is repeated below for your review.

Where is the Enemy (What is the Threat?) - Circa 1994 - Quoted from Atkinson, Gerald L., "Women in Combat: The Destruction of the U.S. Military,"  30 May 1994

       In the context of traditional enemies who currently have the capability to cross our borders and overrun our country, there are none.  We do not have an external enemy which has as its goal the direct physical domination of the United States.  There is no nation on the international scene which is a serious ideological competitor with our form of democracy.  We need fear no nation for its possible imposition of a competing form of government on us or other nations.  There are nations which view their interaction with us as "warlike" in the sense that they seek economic domination of markets for which we are in competition.  Such domination does not translate to direct physical occupation of America.  The United States is perfectly capable of engaging in and "winning" such economic wars.  This is guaranteed by the fact that we have the best research and development establishment in the world.  In addition, we are a market for consumer goods that is, by far, the largest in the world. [Parenthetical note: 'Unfortunately, we have been and still are giving this market away to foreign interests'].

       There are national interests vital to our survival as a nation relative to the energy and other natural resources required to fuel our industrial society and that of our allies and trading partners.  Only one of these resources, oil, is of such importance that the U.S. need commit its armed forces to assure its continued supply.  It is clear that our current ability to project power abroad via air, sea, and ground forces will be sufficient, in concert with European and Asian allies, to assure this situation.  Other than the continual tension among Middle Eastern antagonists, there does not appear to be a dangerous threat to our access to these resources, either now or in the future.  If such threats did emerge and we were somehow unable to remove it, the United States has alternative sources of energy to last for centuries.

       The largest external physical threat posed to the citizens of the U.S. is their vulnerability to terrorist attack sponsored by foreign governments.  An Iraqi terrorist plot to assassinate former President Bush on a visit to Kuwait during April 1993 was handled by dispatch by the U.S. national security apparatus [1].  Through the national security advisor, actions were immediately coordinated to carry out a cruise missile attack on a major intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.  But the U.S. Government has been unable to offer anything like so neat an accounting of the terrorism that has struck closer to home.  The terrorist plot that created havoc at the World Trade Center in February 1993, and more recently threatened the Lincoln Tunnel and the United Nations, still wears the label of domestic crime.  And crime still tends to be treated with a different standard of seriousness.  The New York Times reports that [2] "...authorities in New York managed to foil the latest bombing plot, arresting nine supposed plotters in the last two weeks, is of course reassuring.  But there were reminders that their success only followed a series of fumbles, and fingers were being pointed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation for having failed to pursue hints that a terrorist operation was under way.  Among the clues that helped thwart the planned attack on the Lincoln Tunnel and the United Nations, its was reported, was information in Arabic-language documents first discovered by the F.B.I. in 1990.  But no one thought to translate the documents until after the World Trade Center attack.  The blast that rocked the World Trade Center, moreover, was only the most obvious of signs that Middle Eastern terrorism had arrived in the United States.  Two Central Intelligence Agency employees had already been slain by a Pakistani gunman outside C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia; in St. Louis, four Palestinians have since been charged with plotting to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington as part of the Abu Nidal terrorist organization.  Even more ominous, Government officials say, a widening network of Iranian-backed terrorism has almost certainly allowed the Party of God organization to establish North American cells."  The man charged with masterminding the plot to bomb the United Nations said he was told to kidnap Henry Kissinger as trade bait to free those charged in the World Trade Center bombing, according to secretly taped conversations [3].

       Nevertheless, compared to the number of agencies assigned to monitor terrorism abroad, only a narrow swath of Federal authority is set aside to control domestic terrorism.  For the plotted Bush assassination, the national security apparatus was activated; for the New York terrorist bombing plots, only the Justice Department was involved.  Part of the difference lies in American laws that give intelligence agencies and the military more latitude to operate overseas than in the United States.  The freedom from scrutiny that potential terrorists enjoy in our vulnerable nation, and easy immigration and due process laws compound the risk.  But such domestic inefficiency cannot be explained merely by deference to civil liberties.  Old notions of national security die hard; the idea of domestic terrorism remains something of an oxymoron.  Insulated for so long from such violence, Americans still tend to look abroad for threats; that they may already lurk within is more difficult to accept.  For example, a recent major natural gas pipeline explosion [4] in New Jersey incinerated 128 apartments of public housing, with over 1,500 people missing within 12 hours of the early morning explosion and blaze.  Preliminary reports have one person killed [5] and 50 unaccounted for but three buildings were pulverized and it is unclear, immediately after the explosion, how many may have perished there.  Whether or not this explosion was an accident, a criminal arson, or a planned terrorist  act, it is a perfect example of what kind of vulnerability to terrorism exists all over the land (in this case, a pipeline from Texas to the East Coast, buried at a depth of only 7 feet, easily accessible to small terrorist groups).  Preliminary investigation reveals the possibility of an accidental breach of the pipeline by some unknown means.  A scrape of one and one-half inches long and cut into the outer skin of the pipe about one-eighth of an inch, has been found [6], reducing the pipe's thickness from 0.685 inch to about a half-inch.  Authorities are still puzzled as to the cause of such a scrape.  Two-thirds of all pipeline leaks are caused [7] by contractors or excavators with backhoes digging near a main.  The rest are blamed on pipe corrosion, material defects or improper installation.  Investigators have dug a trench evacuated along the N.J. pipeline and have found [8] a veritable junkyard of metal and other debris including the cannibalized sections of a truck reported stolen three and a half years ago.  The truck was buried several feet underground and found perhaps 80 feet east of the point of the blast.  This discovery is ominous and worrisome.  If such excavation is so extensive and undetected, anyone (including terrorists bent on massive destruction) could easily dig surreptitiously to the pipeline anywhere along its thousands of miles of existence.  A small group of individual terrorists could easily, without detection, create many such explosions over the U.S. in populated areas with a small amount of C-4 plastic or other explosives.

       C-4 explosive, by the way, has been reported as being available to many who might desire it in the U.S., being imported from abroad (e.g. China) without controls, just as Mak-90 (China's version of the Russian AK-47) automatic rifles are being imported from China, both illegally and legally and without control [9,10],.  Several independent sources have reported the importation of such weapons, numbering from tens of thousands to one million during the last year.  In addition, reports of enough AK-47 automatic weapons to equip an army division have turned up in Columbus, Ohio, imported from Russia [11].  Russia's need for hard U.S. currency is behind this activity.  In the case of China, the rifles have been traced to a company closely associated with China's military, Norinco.  The Chinese sold 55 million rounds of ammunition for these rifles in the United States in 1992, at a retail cost of about 10 cents a round, less than a third of its American equivalents.  These weapons and ammunition are not going to "gun hobbyists" and "sportsmen."  They are available to the criminal element, gangs, and terrorists who have already infiltrated our society.  The United States does not have a security apparatus or military force of sufficient magnitude nor training to handle this internal threat to our security.

       Many such vulnerabilities arise in America from the centralization of the systems on which we rely for the distribution of jobs, food, electric power, gasoline, natural gas, water, transportation and banking.  Our borders are sufficiently vast and unguardable that they can be infiltrated at will by small groups which would do us harm.  Our legal immigration and asylum barriers are like sieves.  Nevertheless, even with the advent of nuclear devices in the hands of those who are not friendly to us, this problem is manageable.  But its management will require vast internal manpower resources, eternal citizen vigilance and cooperation, and (unfortunately) a voluntary restraint on our personal freedoms.  The personal freedom that we give up by allowing ourselves to be searched before boarding an airliner is only the first of many that will be required to neutralize the threat of terrorist attack on vulnerable parts of America.  We must take action to organize and plan for the kind of security which would guarantee against widespread terrorist attack carried out under the auspices of international terrorism on U.S. soil.  This is the most visible external threat to the survival of our nation.

       The threat that looms largest on the American horizon is not from afar.  Our nation faces a clear and present danger from within.  The economic, social, and political fabric of our nation is unraveling at a rate that parallels that of ancient Greek democracy.  In fact, one can find historical passages describing the decay and dissolution of Greek democracy into chaos, disorder, and finally, death that parallel, one for one, those events which can be read every day in our newspapers.  The decay of morality (as defined by the era), the loss of confidence in the elected officials, the loss of centrality of the family unit as the strength of the state, the class struggle for the wealth produced by the nation; all are current events on the front pages of America's newspapers.   The expenditure of public treasure on whimsical flirtations with grandiose visions of "creating a world of governments in our own image" and bringing "humanitarian goals," which drive the wasting of our natural and human resources, are all doomed to failure.  We must, instead, clearly define the "enemy" and attack with the same resourcefulness and perseverance that we previously applied to external enemies.  End of quote from the Women in Combat book.

       In the face of the threats delineated above, the Clinton Administration elected to travel down the road of frivolous triviality and invoked a foreign policy based on a pernicious idea of global 'humanitarianism.' One of his first moves was to attempt to create an entirely new office, that of Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Humanitarian Affairs and appoint Leslie Gelb to that position. Gelb, a radical anti-Vietnam War activist during the 1960s and 70s, was directly connected (while in Robert McNamara's Defense Department) with the movement to covertly 'leak' for publication the (in)famous Pentagon Papers account of our entry into the Vietnam War. In spite of the failure of this initiative, this shadowy, subversive move should have warned us of what was in the future for our use of force around the world by the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation. Our military would become a 'police force' for rooting out 'ethnic cleansing' and other 'crimes against humanity' wherever it might be perceived - with or without corroborative evidence. The first such venture would be the intervention in Bosnia on the side of the Muslims and Croats against the Serbs - a traditional ally whose people had suffered much at the hands of the Nazis for aiding downed American airmen shot down over Yugoslavia during World War II.

       My book, The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future, makes a connection between the Clintons' then-new foreign policy venture and the Looming Tower story of the growth of the global Salafist jihad being constructed by Osama bin Laden during this same period - completely unrecognized and incomprehensible to our nation's leaders at that time. America was, indeed, on a path toward supporting the future global jihad movement by directly training and funding Muslim mujahedeen fighting against the Serbs in Bosnia. And these fools, maybe innocently enough, used our Air Force and Navy to support the Muslims of Albanian extraction in Kosovo in their war against the Serbs. Our military was actually used as an arm of the terrorist KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), a militant ethnic Albanian Muslim group in Kosovo, to take over a part of Serbia which had been an integral part of that nation for centuries and which had a long and devout religious significance to the Christian Serbs. Even now, our foreign policy establishment is bent on forcing the secession of the Serbian province of Kosovo so that it may become a Muslim state.

       An excerpt quoted from the above book reveals the naiveté of these fatally flawed foreign policy ventures. Begin quote: The Clinton Adventure in Bosnia is taking the United States of America farther down the road to a mercenary armed force.  The Republican Congress is complicit in this adventure.  This journey may be an unintended consequence of U.S. efforts to train and arm the Bosnian Muslims.  Lacking even a shred of understanding of the history and possibly disastrous consequences of their parry to the Clinton fait accompli, the Republicans searched in desperation for a policy that they hope would appear well-grounded in common sense.  Arm and train the Bosnian Muslims and thereby enable them to fight for their own independence.  While sounding reasonable, the implementation of such a policy is fraught with peril.  It has the added difficulty of possibly widening the conflict to nations outside the current civil war.  Further, it opens the possibility of establishing a dangerous fundamentalist Islamic state in the 'soft underbelly of Europe.'  And even further, it takes us another step toward the establishment of a mercenary standing army in the United States of America, an eventuality that struck mortal fear in the hearts of our Founding Fathers.

       First, the widening of the conflict.  The pressure on the Clinton administration by the Republicans to arm and train the Bosnian Muslims has led to a U.S. agreement with Turkey.  Turkey will train [12] Bosnian Muslim military personnel using resources from the Arab Middle East, nations that provided such training and support to the Afghanistan mujaheddin during the 1970s invasion by the Soviet Union.  In addition, the Turkish foreign Ministry "announced last month it would sign a defense treaty with Bosnia soon."  Turkey!  Can you imagine the stupidity of such a move?  Not only do the Serbs and the Croats hate the Turks, but Greece, Hungary, and Austria have a six-century [13] fear and hatred of the Turks because of the attempt by the Ottoman Empire to slash through the Balkans to conquer Europe during the 1300-1900 period.  The ruthless, oppressive occupation of the Balkans by the Turks during this period earned the deep-seated fear and hatred of all occupied and neighboring peoples.  In fact, even now the Bosnian Serbs refer to the Bosnian Muslims as 'Turks,' in their mind a derogatory [14] term remindful of the Turkish occupations in previous centuries.  If our Washington leaders continue down this path, they could mind-numbingly escalate a minor, localized, civil war into an international conflict.

       Second, the Clinton and Republican initiative to train and arm the Bosnian Muslims could not only spawn a dangerous fundamentalist Islamic state in the Balkans, it could contribute to the introduction of dangerous Islamic elements into U.S. society.  Turkey is thought of as a secular nation, solidly grounded in the Cold War NATO alliance and firmly pro-Western in outlook.  But Turkey is slowly turning toward fundamentalist Islam.  This anti-Western religious zealotry has fueled a 20-year terrorist war in the Sudan and is currently destabilizing Algeria and Egypt.  It has its roots in Iran's turn toward Islamic fundamentalism during the the reign of the Ayatolla Khomeini.  During the December 1995 parliamentary elections, Turkey voted 21 percent for the party of the Islamic fundamentalists, the largest [15] score of any other party.  This represents a substantial and steady gain over their strength in previous elections.  Therefore, relying on Turkey to train and arm the Bosnian Muslims is a double edged cleaver which has the potential to both infuriate neighboring states, thus destabilizing the region even further, and lead to the introduction of a Western-hostile state in 'the underbelly of Europe.'
 
       We now learn that the person responsible for coordinating [16] U.S.-guaranteed training and arms supply within the Bosnian Muslim government is Brig. Gen. Dzemal Merdan.  Although an officer in the Bosnian Muslim Army, he swears direct allegiance to Iran.  "The most striking thing in [his office] is a large flag. It is not the flag of Bosnia, but of Iran. Pinned with a button of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's late Islamic leader, the flag occupies pride of place in Merdan's office...Next to it hangs another pennant, that of the Democratic Action Party, the increasingly nationalist Islamic organization of President Alija Izetbegovic that dominates Bosnia's Muslim region...While it claims to be apolitical and secular, Bosnia's mostly Muslim army of 110,000 men has increasingly turned to Islam and Iran during its three and one-half year war against the Serbs...Sources identified Merdan as being instrumental in the creation of a brigade of Bosnian soldiers, called the 7th Muslim Brigade, that is heavily influenced by Islam and trained by fighters from Iran's Revolutionary Guards."  In addition, Merdan is systematically purging non-Muslim officers from the Bosnian Muslim Army.  All of these events have led a West European diplomat to warn [17] that "It's a dangerous road the Americans are going down.  It's throwing gas on a fire." 

       The training of Bosnian Muslim soldiers is not only dangerous for Europe, it is equally dangerous for the United States.  "Six Bosnian soldiers picked by General Merdan are applying to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs for acceptance this fall."  "This is a beginning," said Merdan [18] the other day.  "We are expecting a lot more."  This practice, if implemented, is not only a direct signal to the Serbs that the United States has picked sides in the Balkan civil war but that we are even prepared to accept the infiltration of Iran-based Islamic fundamentalism in our own military institutions in the pursuit of our anti-Serb goals.  This cannot help the U.S. act as an impartial implementer of 'peace' in Bosnia.  We can never appear to be 'fair' in our enforcement of 'peace.'  This infiltration may even have grave consequences within the U.S.  The willful introduction of Islamic fundamentalism into any U.S. institution is a serious mistake. End quote.

       Indeed, as is pointed out in Lawrence Wright's seminal book, The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, there was to be much more infiltration of the global Salafist Islamic jihad into the fabric of not only the U.S. military but also into the very heart of America. America's leaders were and still are engaged in a foolish, disengaged, and dangerous path with regard to the war with Jihadistan which few understand - as they irresponsibly wage internecine domestic political battles for  power without a clue as to how to fight and win a nontrinitarian war against an insurgency.

       The Clinton administration's feckless foreign policy initiatives and weakness in the face of the Looming Tower threat by al-Qaeda was amply demonstrated by its inability to root out an indigenous radical Muslim jihadist who was hiding 'in plain sight' - right in our nation's capitol. An example, quoted below from my 1994 New Totalitarians book illustrates this shortcoming.  Under the heading, The Public Humiliation of the World's Remaining Superpower, I wrote, Begin quote:
       Another incident, made public through the President's new 'full-access' military public relations policy, belies the vaunted invincible 'superpower' title thrown around by Clinton administration foreign policy architects. They used this term profusely [19,20], while explaining the necessity of U.S. ground force insertion into Bosnia. As the only 'superpower,' the United States must show 'leadership' in Bosnia.  An incident which belies this laughably belligerent claim makes the U.S. appear weak and nearly helpless in the eyes of the world. Indeed, the world's only superpower, the United States of America, cannot even trust its own citizens wandering around in Bosnia!

       The incident is as follows [21]. "The Defense Department has ordered troops in Bosnia to detain a former Howard University groundskeeper who the Pentagon said is suspected of past terrorist activity  and is believed to be in [Bosnia]." The suspected 'terrorist' is Kevin Holt, known also as Isa Abdullah Ali, a native Washingtonian in his mid-30s, who has been arrested previously for posing as a U.S. serviceman. He has links to Muslim Mujaheddin forces fighting in Bosnia and is wanted in the United States for questioning about previous alleged terrorist activities.  U.S. troops in Bosnia have been warned of his presence through a poster with his photograph circulated at U.S. (NATO) base camps. The concern is that Holt, given his American accent and "...the proper uniform and equipment, could easily disguise himself as a U.S. soldier."  Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry called Holt "a known American terrorist." In 1982 Holt was interviewed by a Washington Post reporter in Beirut, where he was fighting with Amal, a Lebanese Shiite militia, against Israeli forces. During the interview, Holt, a Vietnam veteran, was carrying [22] "...a U.S.-made M-16 assault rifle and was dressed in U.S. Army camouflage fatigues and draped with war paraphernalia including binoculars, a dagger and a U.S. Army helmet." So the great superpower, the United States of America, is so alarmed by a single individual in Bosnia that it announces to all NATO troops and the world (through the open reporting of The Washington Post) that he poses a serious threat to U.S. fighting men in Bosnia. And thus, presumably, to the entire American policy and presence.  But that isn't the whole story!

       It turns out that Kevin Holt was a regular patron, during the past several years, of Madam's Organ bar on 18th Street in Adams Morgan in Washington, D.C. Bartenders and regulars say [23] that Isa Ali (Holt), "a very distinctive guy, about 6 feet 5 inches tall and very large, and very muscular, was a regular patron with a soft voice and a low-key demeanor in contrast with his imposing presence."  These people say that Ali never kept secret his history of providing covert military training to the Muslim 'freedom fighters' in the Middle East.  They say he also was open about his plans last summer (1995) "to join the Muslims in Bosnia as they battled Serbian forces while hamstrung by an embargo intended to deny them weapons."  Ali's wife, Maria, who lives in Takoma Park (a suburb of Washington D.C.) with their two daughters, said [24], "...her husband is no threat to the peacekeeping troops in Bosnia. His history is as a freedom fighter for oppressed people. And as the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."  Bar patrons said they recognized Mr. Ali when his photograph flashed across the television screen Wednesday (24 January 1996) as Secretary Perry described him as a threat to peacekeeping forces. "Last summer, around July, he gave us notice that he was leaving in 30 days to fight in Bosnia," they said.

       So there you have it. The world's only remaining superpower announces to its troops and the world that a single American citizen is a major threat to its vaunted armed forces in Bosnia.  The implication is that this threat is great because a single terrorist incident will render impotent the entirety of our Bosnian military deployment, the U.S. presence in Europe, and the world's only remaining superpower's entire foreign policy with respect to the European continent. This, of course, is sheer nonsense. If Mr. Ali is such a threat to American troops in Bosnia, why wasn't he as great a threat to American citizens while living in Washington, D.C.?  If he is so sought after now, why wasn't he apprehended while patronizing a public watering hole in Adams Morgan?  If his 'terrorist activities' were so well known to his friends, why was he not detained in the U.S.?  Indeed, if all of this was so well known, why was he not considered a part of the Islamic fundamentalist effort to invade U.S. electoral processes and U.S. foreign policy? 

       We have recently been informed [25] that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam in the U.S., have "agreed to work together to influence U.S. elections and foreign policy, building on a pledge to spend $1 billion [presumably supplied by Qaddafi] on Muslim causes in the United States."  In addition, during the meeting with Farrakhan, Qaddafi also called [26] for "...creation of a separate black state in the United States with its own army manned by black soldiers from the U.S. armed forces."  Qaddafi, explaining his overall strategy for this liaison, said "Our confrontation with America was like a fight against a fortress from outside, and today we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it."  After the meeting with Qaddafi, Farrakhan was quoted as saying [27] "I am happy with the results of this meeting in order to unify Arabs, Muslims, blacks and persecuted groups in America to play a strong role not only in the American elections but also in U.S. foreign policy."  Qaddafi has long been identified with Arab radicalism and a leader of state-sponsored international terrorism. The U.S. conducted a coordinated air raid in 1986, bombing Tripoli, and nearly killed Qaddafi. As a result, he clearly is a sworn enemy of the United States of America and will do anything in his power to bring the U.S. to ruin. His country is under stiff U.N. sanctions imposed in 1992 for its failure to deliver for trial in the U.S. or Britain two Libyans suspected in the 1988 bombing of a Pan American jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

       America's leaders had better wake up and spend less time and resources protecting against a rogue mercenary, Kevin Holt, in Bosnia and our ill-advised deployment of ground forces there and spend major economic, moral, political, and personal resources preparing the United States of America for the coming battle against the forces of disintegration from within. Bosnia is a foolish distraction. The real danger is right here at home!  What are our leaders doing about it?  Lacking sufficient understanding and vision, nothing!

       In summary, President Clinton's introduction of U.S. ground forces into Bosnia is a dangerous sham.  It is a wrong-headed move motivated solely by Presidential politics which could backfire for the American people in disastrous ways whether or not his presidential-election objectives are realized.  A SECRET report inside the Clinton administration reveals that the Dayton Peace Accords will not bring peace to Bosnia.  A recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), our nation's highest level intelligence summary, has been leaked [28] to a Washington, D.C. newspaper.  The NIE provides an inside look at how the Clinton administration views the fragile Dayton peace agreements and what is likely to happen after U.S. and NATO forces withdraw.  The report, used to brief the President, concludes that:
   *Bosnian factions are likely to continue to pursue nationalistic goals, possibly through renewed fighting, after U.S. forces depart later this year
   *The former combatants share a deep, mutual distrust and will continue to seek achievement of their fundamental goals, rather than accommodation, even as the Dayton agreements proceed
   *European governments will continue to provide troops after U.S. forces leave, although they will look for ways to get them out 'after a decent interval'
   *Parties [to the peace agreements] will 'generally hold' to the accord and 'minor violations' are expected while the NATO force is in place, but not 'major outbreaks of violence that threaten the renewal of hostilities.'  Note how this comports with the expectation of low U.S. casualties.

       This intelligence summary backs up the realities described in the account (constructed herein) of the President's ill-conceived Bosnian adventure.  But this shallow tactical account (domestic presidential politics) cannot be the root of the deep-seated fascination of America's current elite ruling class (the Clinton counter-culture Boomers) with Bosnia-type interventions.  There must be a deeper, cultural motivation for attempting to construct a nation out of the Muslim, Croat, and Serbian soup of the Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It exists.  We simply have to look much closer at the details of the Bosnian chaos to understand this deeper motivation.  And we must take a closer look at ourselves. End quote.

       In the New Totalitarians book, I delved deeply into the foundational reasons of why the New Age elite Boomers would take us into Bosnia. In a section entitled, 'Why are we in Bosnia [The Cultural View Rooted Deep in Reality],' I wrote:
Begin quote: President Clinton told the American people that [29] our "...values and interests as Americans require that we participate [in implementing the Bosnian peace agreements]."  He went on to describe the sacrifices that previous generations of Americans have made to further those values and interests.  "Because previous generations of Americans stood up for freedom and because we continue to do so, the American people are more secure and more prosperous.  And all around the world more people than ever before live in freedom.  More people than ever before are treated with dignity.  More people than ever before can hope to build a better life.  That is what America's leadership is all about."  Observe that in this litany, there is not one shred of connection between the threat to freedom of South Slavs in the former Yugoslavia and the freedom of Americans.  The case has not and cannot be made that the loss of freedom in the Balkans is in any way a threat to the survival and freedom of the United States of America.  Instead, if we look a little deeper, we see the real reason why the new-age, counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation would have America interfere in the internal affairs of the Balkan nations.

       "America is Back: The Mideast and Bosnia deals worked because the United States remains the only power with the military and moral force to get what it wants," screams a headline [30] in a Clinton administration outlet to the American people.  In spinning the Clinton Doctrine, this news outlet exclaims [31] that "[We are involved in Bosnia] because America is the world's sole remaining superpower ... America makes things happen for two reasons.  It is the only single country with a truly global military reach; and...it has a moral sense...Only America, moreover, professes to run its foreign policy on moral lines."  This moral do-goodism is fatally flawed.  It is the misguided utopians' view of reality.  It is in essence, a quest for 'empire.'  A quest, if not based on greed, is based on 'moral arrogance.'  Such a quest for empire has led to the dissolution of other 'superpowers.'  Ancient democratic Greece, the marvel of its time, disintegrated [32] from within under the strain of spreading its resources over an empire more vast than it could manage.  The Clinton quest for 'moral empire' holds within it the seeds of our own destruction!

       Robert Kaplan, a respected observer [33] of tribal and multi-ethnic conflicts around the world, recently stated [34] in The New York Times that "America needs to curb its missionary zeal to establish multiparty systems in every Third World country as fast as it can...Our rote prescription for undeveloped and newly 'liberated' countries -- elections within one year, followed by stability -- is more likely to lead to chaos than democracy."  Another astute observer of the Clinton Doctrine reminds [35] us that "The utopian socialists and communists of this century used to speak in similar terms of 'building a new society,' as if a society could just be 'built,' like a skyscraper from a blueprint.  And they tried, in country after country.  First, of course, old societies standing in the way had to be destroyed.  The utopians were very good at that part.  They tore down churches, seized private property, established easy divorce and abortion, and took charge of every cultural institution from the schools to the fine arts.  But their 'new' societies were less successful. They could be maintained only by guarding the borders and killing anyone who tried to flee.  Killing recalcitrant people, in fact, became a large part of the daily business of keeping up Utopia."  Indeed, the real threats to America's freedom in this century, fascism of Nazi Germany and communism of the Soviet Union have been removed.  The Balkans pose no such threat!  But the New Utopians, the new-age, counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation pose as great a threat to America.  Not directly, but indirectly as they squander America's resources in the quest of goals that are not achievable.  The Clinton Doctrine could lead us down a dark path to dissolution and chaos.

       But there is an even deeper cultural reason that the elite Boomers' would have America interfere in internal Balkan affairs.  It is tied to President Clinton's invocation of America's 'values' and 'interests' as a driving force behind the deployment of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia.  The writers and editors of 'The New Republic,' a liberal-left monthly magazine have published a book [36] which provides in-depth background for the President's views.  The book is an elegy, a mournful 'poem,' composed for the death of an idea.  The idea was simple: that within Europe, in Bosnia, a multiethnic people, who accentuate their differences, could exist in peace.  A peace based not only on tolerance, but a peace based on accentuation and celebration of their differences.  The same kind of peace that is visualized by the New Totalitarians for the United States of America into perpetuity!  The book concludes [37] that "...The pluralism of Yugoslavia was a complicated matter, to be sure: it required the iron fist of empire, the imperial inhibition of identity, first by Vienna and then by Moscow (and then by the little Moscow that was Tito's Belgrade); and then by the inevitable result of the mottled map of the region, in which ethnicities and religions were so entangled with each other that they could be disentangled only by violence, which is what happened.  Still, there were places in Yugoslavia in which pluralism was not only a necessity but also a virtue.  The city of Sarajevo in particular seemed like a monument to multiethnicity.  Even during the siege of the city, from 1992 to 1995, scores of thousands of Serbs stayed in the city, because it represented a principle and a practice worth suffering for, worth dying for.  Now Sarajevo is a monument to the failure of multiethnicity."

       The Bosnian Serbs, nearly 70,000 strong, fled their homes in the suburbs of Sarajevo during February/March of 1996 rather than live under Muslim governance in accordance with the Dayton Peace Accords.  Before leaving, they burned [38] their homes, schools, and public buildings.  They carried off everything they owned, sometimes even including the the exhumed bodies of relatives in their caskets.  Indeed, Sarajevo is a dark symbol of the failure of the celebration of multiethnicity.  The Bosnian Serbs voted with their feet.  They refused to live under the rule of a Muslim government, dictated by the force of NATO under U.S. leadership.  They would not accept the American-brokered 'peace.'  Indeed, Sarajevo is a failure of the cult of accentuation and celebration of the cultural differences among people.  A failure of the principle of accentuating minute differences in identity.

       Within this context, the Clintonesque writers ask questions that strike closer to home [39].  "...the catastrophe in Bosnia is also an American problem, and demands the reckoning of Americans. What do we represent?  What are the responsibilities of our power?  What do our values have to do with our interests?"  Aha!  America's 'values' and 'interests.'  The President's very words in explaining why U.S. ground forces must be deployed to Bosnia!  The New Republic editors continue [40], "...the indifference of the American government to the siege of Sarajevo was especially appalling, because it was an American idea that was under siege.  Sarajevo was destroyed in a time when the most powerful country in the world [the United States of America] was also the most pluralist country in the world; and this most powerful, most pluralist country was idle."  In this view, the United States of America is threatened by the evils of Balkan hatreds.  Not in terms of the Balkan peoples and governments themselves, but in terms of the possibility of similar hatreds taking root in America.  The editors of the book warn [41] that "...the war in Bosnia should serve as a warning about the fragility of pluralism.  We are living in a time in which the dream of integration, which was never very popular, is losing its popularity.  Hans Magnus Enzensberger recently wrote a book about the 'civil wars' of the contemporary world, and subtitled it 'from L.A. to Bosnia.'  Of course L.A. is nothing like Bosnia...but it is true that the repudiation of the dream of integration is everywhere.  The flight from universalism is universal.  Identity is laying waste to the world!"

       So, the horror of the disintegration of Bosnia, the civil war, its drive toward 'ethnic cleansing,' and its implications for NATO and Europe are not the primary motivations for the Clinton Doctrine.  President Clinton and his foreign policy architects are looking into the mirror of their imagination and, in attempting to visualize Bosnia, are actually seeing the United States of America.  They are looking over their shoulder and wonder if we see the same picture that they see.  That picture is clear.  We have the same problem that has split the Balkans.  America has a fundamental problem with the breakdown of authority at a time when divisive, separationist pressures are bombarding us from within, from every direction.  The Clintonesque answer to the problem of the breakdown of multi-ethnic pluralism in Bosnia is that we must impose a pluralist solution on Bosnia.  We are attempting to force Bosnia to prove to us that all that is required is a little more tolerance, a little more understanding.  In the words of the recently famous U.S. celebrity, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"  There is a direct reason for this direction in the Clinton Doctrine.

       The Clinton Doctrine is an implicit confession of the compulsive destructiveness of the new-age, counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation.  During the entirety of their adult lives, they have moved to drive wedges between all segments of U.S. society.  They have systematically attempted to weaken or destroy every stabilizing institution built up by our ancestors and strengthened, more recently, by the G.I. generation.  Since their anti-war days in the 1960s, their counter-culture revolution started America on the road to a complete breakdown of authority.  According to them, America has become a racist, sexist, homophobic, biased, anti-semitic culture dominated by evil patriarchal white males.  As a result of their efforts, American society is now becoming divided along racial, ethnic, religious, class, sexual orientation, and gender lines.  Americans are learning to dislike and distrust each other along these lines of division.  Influential and well financed special interest groups continuously promote these divisions in our work places, universities, schools, mass media, radio talk shows, the arts, our military institutions, and political life.  Where we once cooperated, tolerated, protected, pulled the same wagon, and cherished a bond of community, we now compete for 'identity.'

       The architects of the Clinton Doctrine are deeply grounded in this counter-culture revolution.  They were at the center of the anti-war demonstrations during the 1960s.  They have sown in America the same seeds which, over centuries of conflict in the Balkans, have grown to full-blown hatred.  While not nearly as intense, these hatreds are raising their ugly heads in American life.  Now, after having sown the seeds of extreme 'pluralism' in their youth, these new-age counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation are at the center of national power.  The New Totalitarians are now reaping the fruit.

       The Clinton administration is the first in our history to explicitly invoke quotas [42,43], along racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation lines in choosing its cabinet officers, political appointees, and high-level military leaders.  Their effort to make the Federal Government 'look like America' is in reality a means of invoking quotas under the guise of 'affirmative action.'  This explicit and divisive action by the New Totalitarians has been taken in direct opposition to the current of mainstream American opinion [44,45], concerning the granting of preferences to pluralist groups.  Indeed, Americans are retreating from the fuzzy notion of 'affirmative action.'  And for good reason.  John Leo, a syndicated columnist, asks [46] "How many times have the American people voted on affirmative action?  Four or five times, if you count votes in Congress.  Each time with little debate.  But if you mean direct voting by the people, the answer is never."  He points out that for over 20 years, polls have shown that a lopsided majority of Americans reject preferences and quotas.

       According to Leo, "...if you blur the language, Americans will support vague terms like 'affirmative action.'  But whenever [it] is clear that preferences or quotas are at stake, the public says 'no' quite loudly and defends merit standards and open competition."  It is expected that the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), which calls for banning race and gender preferences and set asides in state hiring and state college admissions, will pass by a wide margin in November 1996, perhaps 60 percent to 40 percent.  In the mass media, preferences are opposed only by 'angry white males.'  But Leo points out that "In the real world, white women are just as opposed (identically opposed, according to Gallup surveys), with minorities not very far behind.  Over four-fifths [80 percent] of identified Republicans are consistently against preferences, and two-thirds [67 percent] of Democrats."  The overwhelming opposition to preferences doesn't mean that whites think blacks have achieved equality or that the federal government shouldn't outlaw discrimination or help in other ways. It simply means that 'the principle of non-discrimination must protect everyone, not just members of designated groups.'

       Leo hits the nail on the head when he observes [47] that "What has happened with affirmative action is very strange and dangerous for a democracy.  Through behind-the-scenes bureaucratic maneuvers and judge-imposed plans, we now have a vast and intrusive system of race and gender preferences that rests on no social consensus at all.  It has been done to and for the American people without bothering to get their consent."  The New Totalitarians did it to us.  And the elites of the ruling class, represented by the Clintons, the New Totalitarians, invoked this 'dangerous' system in staffing their administration to 'look like America.'  This activity is consistent with their pattern of sowing divisiveness in American culture throughout their entire adult lives.  It has now simply reached fruition while they are at the apex of national power.  But, now, they can see the fruits of their endeavors.  They are looking at Bosnia.  They do not like what they see.  Not just for the future of Bosnia.  But, more importantly, for the future of the United States of America.

       The architects of the Clinton Doctrine see in the mirror of their imagination the possible disintegration of the United States of America -- down the same dark, chaotic, destructive path as Bosnia.  A path that they, the counter-culture elites, the New Totalitarians, chiseled out of the American landscape.  This is why they are so disturbed about the direction of the Bosnian civil war.  There, but for the grace of God, go they!  So, President Clinton, the most powerful representative of the New Utopians, the New Totalitarians, was simply compelled to deploy U.S. ground troops to Bosnia.  To have done otherwise would have repudiated the very essence of their entire adult lives. End quote.

       A president Hillary Rodham Clinton, the icon of the Looming American Matriarchy, would bring the same arrogant mindset, the same alien agenda, the same supporting cast, the same flawed and feckless foreign policy that her husband initiated during his eight years of presidential power. She would symbolize the capstone of the counter-culture revolutionaries who introduced Antonio Gramsci's cultural Marxism into America's bloodstream during the 1960s and 70s - a revolution that he predicted 'could not be resisted, even with the use of force.' This cultural Marxism was expanded by a small group of Germans from the Frankfurt School who immigrated to our shores in the 1930s, found their window of opportunity with Bill and Hillary Clinton and their generation's eight million or so young adults on our college campuses in the mid-sixties, and came to executive power as well as power in all of our national institutions in the 1990s (as have all previous generations in their time). Only, this generation, the Boomers, are different -- radically different from any previous American generation.

The Looming American Matriarchy Uses Stealth and Secrecy to Continue Their Counter-Culture Revolution
       I define the Looming American Matriarchy as that group of radical feminists (and their other supporters) who have used their gender to advance the concept that women have been oppressed by a so-called male patriarchy. Their anger reaches much farther than the normal frustrations, disappointments, and misgivings that ordinarily arise between humans of the two different sexes who bridge their differences through communion, marriage, bargaining, and courting - as has been the norm in civilized societies since the beginning of mankind's quest for a civil society. Their anger is fueled to the point of ridicule, contempt, and angst directed toward men that is displayed every day in our nation's TV programming, Hollywood movies, and many mainstream national newspapers. One is overwhelmed by the vast amount of such male-bashing, shaming of men, and male whining that abounds in our entertainment venues, our colleges and universities, and even in our K-12 public schools.

       This situation has finally reached the stage wherein it has produced hatred, yes, hatred of men. This hatred has led them to reach for political power - of a kind that has produced disastrous revolutions in the past - the French Revolution o f 1879, the Soviet Revolution of 1917, and the German National Socialist Revolution in 1933. This vitriol on the national scene of women versus men is of the same nature as that used by fundamentalist Islamic jihadists in their waging of Holy War against America. Indeed, both revolutionary movements - one in Islam, the other in Christendom - have similarities based on the secrecy, or at least shadowy nature of their dangerous agendas. How did this come about?

       I wrote extensively on this subject in my 1996 book, The New Totalitarians. I wrote, "The twentieth century has seen two totalitarian movements rise, attempt to dominate the world, and fall in defeat by armed force.  Nazi Germany and Soviet communism were both defeated by armed intervention, led by Americans.  Americans have a history of reacting steadfastly in opposition to totalitarian entities which threaten their freedoms, beginning with its revolution against the oppression of a totalitarian British authority.  The concept of individual freedom runs strong in the blood of Americans.  Any trend in American life that hints of creeping totalitarian control over us raises the hackles of resistance just as antibodies immediately form in the human body in reaction to the introduction of a virus in the system."

       I opined that "There are strong indications in current American life that suggest a new strain of totalitarianism is on the rise.  A strain that has grown through the usurpation of the rule of law by middle-age elite Boomers, trained and experienced in the use of the law.  They use and manipulate the law in pursuit of their quest for power.  This New Totalitarianism has infected the centers of power very gradually over the past three decades and rose to transparent visibility only over the two terms of the Clinton presidency.  The New Totalitarians are the new-age, counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation who have come to power across all aspects of American culture.  Political, judicial, mass media, education, law enforcement, the military armed forces, psychiatric services, child protective services, and other public services sectors are being used as levers or tools by the New Totalitarians to exert power.  This power is exerted in support of the social engineering being carried out within each of these American institutions.  Their reach is both domestic and abroad."

       The New Totalitarians exercise their will over us with a new set of tools.  Tools of manipulation born in the age of the mass media.  These tools have been cleverly designed to fit within the protection of 'free speech' and civil debate.  They are, however, honed from the same arrogant authoritative attitudes and techniques the elite Boomers used during the late 1960s to shut off debate and bar U.S. Government spokesmen from university campuses.  During their campus revolution, the young New Totalitarians 'shouted down' and physically assaulted speakers from the 'establishment.'  Now, they use a mixture of verbal character assassination and pleas to our human emotions to manipulate and control us.  Now, they 'feel your pain.'  They invoke the name of 'children' and the 'abused' to exert their authoritarian will over us.  They create 'taboos' that are imposed to stifle criticism and debate.  These 'taboos' allow the New Totalitarians to label [48] anyone who disagrees with them 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'anti-semitic,' miscogynist,' or 'homophobic.'  These labels, once aimed at extreme elements of our society for which they fit, are now aimed at Americans in the middle who are honest enough to criticize a minority 'pluralist' group or hold them responsible for their excesses.  The 'taboos' are created to shut off honest criticism and debate.  The rush to label a person is the grossest form of social assassination, a despicable form of intellectual terrorism.  These techniques, finely honed by the New Totalitarians, are every bit as evil as Joseph Goebbels' Nazi propaganda and Joseph Stalin's pogroms against rival groups.

       The indications of the usurpation of the rule of law in American life ranged from the control over the education of our children and their discipline to the attack on Second Amendment rights to bear arms to the fait accompli of introduction of ground troops in Bosnia in direct opposition to overwhelming American public opinion.  The observation of these indications by millions of Americans has resulted in a great 'unease' within the population.  This 'unease' ranged from a drastic loss of confidence [49] in the federal government by many Americans to outright paranoid fear [50] of that government by a few.  What has caused this 'unease' in American life?  What is the cause of this paranoid fear held by a few in American life?  The causes lie deep within the very essence of the new-age, counter-culture elites of the Boomer generation.  This generation is typified by former-President Clinton and his First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who have manipulated the levers of power over the entire spectrum of American life. During the 1990s, this power was in the hands of the New Totalitarians.  What are their roots?

       The totalitarian mentality of the 'new age' elites of the Boomer generation, who had the power of the federal government at their disposal, has slowly become apparent over the past three decades.  Where did it originate?  During the late 1960s, the elites of Bill Clinton's Boomer generation protested America's conduct of the Vietnam War by taking over university administrative offices and classrooms by physical force.  They exerted individual and group physical force and the threat of such force to deny speakers representing the U.S. government a platform on their campuses.  They had no objective other than to show that they could take totalitarian physical action to flaunt authority, an authority seriously weakened by lack of conviction [51].  During the 1990s, these 'new age' elites of the Boomer generation came to national-level power.  They were selected via the 1992 Presidential election to run America's affairs.

       How was the totalitarian mentality of the elite Boomers being manifest?  It was manifest over the whole range of our culture; in our universities, in our schools, in the federal agencies of the Clinton administration, in the Child Protective Services bureaucracies of the individual states, in our armed forces, and in our foreign policy initiatives.  This totalitarianism was also exerted through the use of the United Nations to exert control over U.S. citizens in terms of radical feminist activities in the area of the 'rights' of children and the 'abuse' of women.  It was used by environmentalists in control over U.S. natural habitats, such as Yellowstone park.

The New Totalitarians Misused Federal Agencies
       For a domestic example of misuse of federal power, take the case of Roberta Achtenberg.  She was a former official of President Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agency.  That agency, along with the Justice Department, took punitive [52] legal action against a group of citizens in California who had acted under their rights as U.S. citizens to organize and resist, within the court system, the Federal Government's placement of a group home in their neighborhood.  These group homes would house drug addicts and other unsavory characters.  "Using Justice Department lawyers as henchmen, HUD is flexing its bureaucratic muscle to intimidate and silence taxpayers who dare speak up for their rights," said the citizens' lawyer.  When this violation of their rights by Ms. Achtenberg, HUD and the Clinton Justice Department was publicized, HUD withdrew their legal harassing actions.  Only then did the elite totalitarians of the Clinton administration retreat.

       In another instance, the Federal Government, under its U.S. Civil Rights Commission, subpoenaed leaders of Florida's Proposition 187 movement in order to discourage [53] organizers from placing on the ballot laws which would bar illegal immigrants from getting public services.  A House subcommittee probed whether the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had abused its subpoena authority.  The committee complained [54] that the Staff Director, Mary K. Mathews, refused a request for a "...written explanation of the legal grounds for such a subpoena" and that "...she did not make two commission 'attorney-advisors' available to answer questions at the hearing.'" Again, this federal government intimidation was stopped only after it was widely publicized.  The elite totalitarians of the Clinton administration again retreated.

The New Totalitarians Used the United Nations to Implement Domestic Special Interest Agendas 
       The New Totalitarianism was especially manifest in the use of the United Nations and its official conferences to insert, into U.S. law and culture, the agenda of special interest groups in the U.S.  For example, radical feminists in the U.S. used the 'United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women,' held in Beijing during September 1995, to implement radical feminist initiatives in the name of children and the abuse of women in the U.S.  The story is now clear.  It has a recent traceable history.  This history revealed itself at the Beijing Women's Conference.

       Before the 12-day conference began, Congressman Chris Smith of the House Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights raised objections concerning the definition of 'gender' that might be promoted at the Beijing conference by the U.S. delegation.  He could not get the definition spelled out by Clinton administration officials before the delegation left for China.  Apparently, the official U.S. delegation favored a definition of 'gender' to delineate what radical feminists sometimes call 'sexual preference.'  That is, five [55] 'genders.'  They are male heterosexual, female heterosexual, male homosexual, female homosexual and bisexual.  All with equal legitimacy.  A State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Melinda Kimble, offered an interesting excuse for the absence of the words 'father' or 'mother,' 'male' or female' or 'sex' in the U.S. platform document.  "At least three U.N. languages have only one translation in their language for the term 'gender,' and that is 'sex.'"  So, when the document says 'gender' in English, it says 'sex' in Arabic.  Critics of the Beijing conference were quick to point out that [56] "If centuries of Arabic speaking make it impossible to say 'gender' instead of 'sex,' doesn't that tell us something?  Perhaps that the politicking of gender-centric Western Women's Studies professors is irrelevant?"  These definitions are at the heart of the debate over the role of women in our future, a future dominated by a Looming American Matriarchy.

       It is of interest to note that the radical feminists have carefully and deliberately changed the meaning of the word 'gender' even in its most fundamental usage.  That is, for over a decade they have used the word 'gender' instead of the word 'sex' when discussing the differences between males and females.  They have cleverly accomplished this to disguise the fact that there are inherent natural differences between male and female humans.  The word 'gender' has a primary grammatical meaning [57] of 'a set of two or more categories...'  The eminent linguist, Steven Pinker, reminds us that some languages, e.g. Kivunjo, comes with sixteen genders.  He further observes [58] that "...these 'genders' do not pertain to things like cross-dressers, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, androgynous people and so on ... To the linguist, the term 'gender' retains its original meaning of 'kind,' as in the related words generic, genus, and genre.  The Bantu 'genders' refer to kinds like humans, animals, extended objects, clusters of objects, and body parts.  It just happens that in many European languages the genders correspond to the sexes, at least in pronouns."

       A knowledgeable warrior of the 'gender' wars observes [59] a more fundamental distinction between the words 'gender' and 'sex.'   That is "...sophisticated feminists...avoid using the term 'sex,' replacing it with 'gender.'  The difference is not unimportant.  'Gender' refers to the different roles that a particular culture imposes on men and women.  'Sex' refers to a differentiation imposed by biology.   The essential argument of the 'women's movement' is that gender always trumps sex -- that biological differences are insignificant compared with the differences between men and women 'artificially' imposed by the society and its culture."  So there you have it.  The radical feminists have sanitized the discussion of male/female relations by masking the differences invoked by nature and use the word 'gender' instead of 'sex' in their discussions.  This is the same trick that has been used by the homosexual community in their use of the word 'gay' to describe a 'homosexual.'  Not only does the word have a nicer ring to it, it hides the true character of the behavior which defines a homosexual.  Many homosexuals are, indeed, far from 'gay,' that is, happy.  Males and females are not different 'genders' but are different 'sexes.'  Nature renders immutable this aspect of our species.  But the radical feminists in and allied with the Clinton administration would fuzz the meaning of 'gender' even further; five different 'genders.'  All equally legitimate.

       Critics of the Beijing Conference on Women claimed that the U.S. delegation consisted primarily of feminist activists, outside the mainstream of traditional thought concerning 'families.'  In fact, they claimed [60] that the conference was 'anti-family.'  President Clinton countered this criticism with an attack on his conservative Christian-right critics.  The president, using big lie techniques worthy of totalitarian states, said [61] "So now there's this huge effort in America to try to convince the American people that this conference is somehow anti-family, and that we're sending some sort of radical delegation there.  Why?  Not because it's true, but because it furthers the almost addictive, almost narcotic drive among some elements in our society to take every single issue and use it as a cause for division among our people when we need to be more united ... However anyone might try to paint this conference, the truth is, it is true blue to families -- to supporting them, to conserving them, to valuing them."  The liberal mass media supported the president in this subterfuge by branding [62] his critics 'wacko critics.'  Despite his assurances to the contrary, the president sent 46 official U.S. delegates to the Women's Conference who were dedicated feminist activists.  According to his critics [63], "...not one pro-life leader was among them.  There were no members of the pro-family movement on the delegation.  Only two Republicans were appointed, and they were both well-known social liberals.  The other 44 delegates were Clinton allies.  And, of course, the draft document was prepared at the United Nations by the likes of Bella Abzug and a battalion of feminist activists...The deck was clearly stacked...Because of this lack of diversity, millions of American women -- especially homemakers and those with conservative Christian convictions -- had no official U.S. government representation in China."

       The record of the U.S. delegation is now in the books.  The delegates from the U.S., Canada, and the European Union focused on redesigning the family, reordering the way males and females interrelate, promoting 'reproductive rights for women,' distributing condoms and safe-sex nonsense to kids, propagating 'homosexual and lesbian rights,' weakening parental authority, undermining 'patriarchal' religious teachings and spreading feminist ideology to every nation on earth.  Four days before the conference ended, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) wrote [64] to the chair of the U.S. delegation, Ambassador Madeleine Albright, "Sections of the document as currently drafted would declare new international rights to abortion, to abortion financing by governments, to non-discrimination on account of sexual orientation, and to rights of 'privacy' or 'sexual rights' that would apply even to young adolescents and could easily be construed as giving them the right to contraceptives and abortions without the consent of their parents.  There is little support for any of these new rights within the United States Congress or among the American people."  Congressman Smith was not the only critic of the U.S. position.  Women leaders from Third World countries were also critical of the conference's agenda.  Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan criticized [65] the platform, calling it "...notably weak on the role of the traditional family..."  Dr. Margaret Oogala from Kenya was especially leery [66] of the United States' admonition that the conference agenda was mainstream, "Apparently in the United States, the most powerful country in the world, the family is considered as nothing anymore."

       In an effort to characterize the 'mainstream' promoted by the U.S. delegation to the conference, Dr. James C. Dobson, a conservative Christian who sent a few observers to the Beijing conference, reported [67] the many bizarre activities sponsored in the Workshops there.  They included such topics [68] as:
     *The Role of Inflatable Life-size Plastic Dolls and Dildos in Improving Health
     *Lesbianism for the Curious
     *Spirit and Action: Lesbian Activism From an Interfaith Perspective
     *Lesbian and Mother: Talking About Being Sperm Donors
     *Lesbian Flirtation Techniques Workshop
     *How Religious Fundamentalism Helps the Spread of AIDS
     *Hips Hooray!  The Healing of Womanhood Through Body Joy
     *Lesbians in the Baltics: New Phenomenon of the '90s.
Dr. Dobson, in disclosing this agenda, chastised [69] Al Hunt (columnist for The Wall Street Journal) for labeling Dobson's organization (Focus on the Family) as "... 'wacko critics' that you hold in such contempt.  Do you still claim that only 'mainstream' women went to China?"

       Dr. Dobson recounted that one of his 'Focus' representatives attended a workshop on the subject of religion, and whether it helps or hurts women.  One feminist in the room characterized [70] the Almighty this way: "If God is truly a man, then we've hit the ultimate glass ceiling."  Another woman said, "Our scriptures are so patriarchal, so what we must do is deconstruct them and then reconstruct them.  After all, we are all theologians, not just the men who are in seminaries.  We can create our own theology and our own traditions."  This is the ultimate in the techniques used by the New Totalitarians.  Each 'pluralistic' entity will form the basis for its own 'religion.'  If these people would study even the rudiments of history, they would discover that mankind has already gone through its 'Tower of Babel' stage. Instead, we now enter the era of the Looming American Matriarchy.

       For example, pre-Christian history [71] (6,000-2,000 B.C.) is filled with accounts of the progression to the concept of one God from the concept of a huge number of 'Gods.'  In pre-Christian history, leaders became kings who, after death, became immortalized 'Gods.'  These 'Gods' were symbolized by smoke from burial huts, obelisks, and 'idols' which admonished and guided followers in their boring, repetitive daily agrarian tasks.  This practice contributed to their survival.  But, over time, the number of such 'Gods' proliferated to the point of incomprehension.  Chaos reigned.  The confusion that resulted, accentuated by natural catastrophic events (the eruption of volcanoes and the disappearance of the Minoan civilization beneath hundreds of feet of ocean), the drought that precipitated the collapse of the Mycenean civilization [72] and the resultant mass migration of peoples and their brutal slaughter by ruthless Assyrian peoples, set the stage for Judeo-Christian religions.  The multitude of 'Gods' provided neither protection nor salvation of the people who worshipped them.  Many of those people eventually turned to the concept of one God.  This became the foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

       Whether or not one agrees in whole or in part with the traditional Judeo-Christian orthodoxies, it is clear that they are the religious foundation of our Western Civilization.  They are, indeed, fundamentally invoked in the U.S. Constitution.  They are the 'mainstream.'  They hold within their grasp the contents of the meaning of 'family.'  It was President Clinton's New Totalitarians who would divide us by promoting and enforcing the extremes of 'pluralism' in our civilization.  This was evident at the Beijing Women's Conference.

Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a surprisingly conservative speech in Beijing.  It was apparently intended to silence her conservative critics.  Unfortunately, her rhetoric was directly contradictory to policies of President Clinton's administration.  For example, Dr. Dobson points out that [73] "...when she criticized countries that kill female babies, she overlooked the fact that sex-selection abortions are legal in the United States, and that the president has expressed no support for [U.S. Senate legislation] that would protect babies who have the misfortune of being the wrong sex."  In addition, President Clinton reversed previous U.S. policy which granted U.S. asylum to women fleeing the butchers of China.  Hence, those refugees were placed in detention until they can be deported [74].

       The most emphatic criticism of those opposed to the Women's Conference was that it was held in a country, China, that has abused more women than any nation on earth.  According to the critics, "This communist regime that monitors menstrual cycles to enforce its 'one child per family' law also imposes repressive punishment on its men [75].  Amnesty International reported that as many as 16 prisoners were executed immediately prior to the conference to 'clean up Beijing' before the arrival of foreign visitors [76]."  In addition, China was carrying out activities which were disruptive of world peace and counter to U.S. interests.  For example, China was providing Iran, a nation dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan,' the United States of America, with several virtually complete factories suited for making deadly poison gases [77].  The gases are nerve gases which have the potential to be weapons of mass destruction.  China, like Iran, has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty that bars any nation from developing or producing chemical arms or transferring such weapons to another country 'directly or indirectly.'

       Indeed, China was not an appropriate geographic location for a conference which is to be used to generate support for any political movement in the United States of America.  Among other things, China has carried out live missile firings at targets just miles from Taiwan's largest cities [78].  The missiles were intended to undermine the Republic of China and Taiwan's democratic government which is a long-time ally of the United States.  In fact, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, a U.S. law, states [79] that "America will regard any attack on Taiwan as a 'threat to peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."  It was clear that China was not a trustworthy or viable host for the Women's Conference.

       The New Totalitarians claim 'mainstream' for their radical, 'pluralistic' views and goals for America.  Meanwhile, the traditional 'mainstream,' that is, an America which recognizes, if not practices its age-old Judeo-Christian heritage, rooted in our Constitution, is labeled 'extreme.'  Such is the nature of the gospel of the New Totalitarians.  It is not so much that they change positions, tactically, to appear to be on the side of the 'majority' as displayed by modern-day polling and 'focus groups.'  It is more important that they use diffusive and fuzzy language that obfuscates their goals for America's future.  They use these stealthy techniques deliberately to misinform and to undermine traditional American democracy, based on the rule of law.  They intend to impose their will via executive fiat and 'invisible' surreptitious regulations.

       In terms of the religious aspects of this transformation of American culture, Christian critics claim [80] that the Beijing conference was a milestone.  "There on the world stage was an event that was unique in the history of mankind.  Representatives from 185 nations gathered to discuss issues of vital importance to the human race.  Christians had every reason to be alarmed.  At stake was the future of the family, the safety of every unborn baby, sexual purity before marriage and the heterosexual basis for marriage.  Also under siege was the delicate relationship between men and women upon which families are based.  Scripture was mocked and the Christian faith was contradicted.  Morality itself was on the line in Beijing -- yet the collective voice of the Protestant community was virtually mute.  God forgive us!"

       Dr. Dobson reported that it was the Islamic nations and the Vatican that marched out to meet the radical feminists from the U.S. at Beijing.  They battled valiantly against overwhelming odds.  Although Catholics and Muslims were unsuccessful in striking a resolution on reproductive rights, they managed to insert a qualifying statement that acknowledged the right of sovereign nations to reject portions of the document that violated various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions of individuals and their communities [81].  That took some sting out of the statement, but not without a battle with the Americans.  Donna Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, tried to eliminate the qualifying paragraph and thereby give away a portion of our national sovereignty.  Fortunately, she and her colleagues lost the argument [82].  But that did not stop the New Totalitarians from trying to impose their will on Americans through the 'window of opportunity' opened by them through the United Nations.

       The Chicago Tribune summarized [83] the Beijing conference in the following way.  "Two weeks of debate did not soften Vatican opposition to abortion and birth control, nor did it persuade Islamic nations to lift a little the veil on a woman's license.  'No sex outside marriage' was the unified Muslim stance ... Nations with liberal views, among them the U.S. and European Union members, were pitted against old foes from past conferences: the Islamic nations, the Vatican, and staunchly Catholic countries in Latin America."

       But these details of the Beijing Conference on Women are not the most important part of the tale.  The clincher was a warning about what we can expect next.  The threat posed by the New Totalitarians had just begun.  Their intention was and is to implement the platform agenda of the Beijing Conference in American law and practice.  President Clinton's Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, Timothy Wirth, revealed these intentions [84].  He said the Clinton administration has "...strategies to implement the platform agenda."  In other words, it is not necessary to get Congressional approval for the recommended changes and it is not necessary to win the approval of the American people.  Recall that President Clinton issued five executive orders on the third day of his administration.  The President could have done it again, and apparently intended to do so.

       Donna Shalala, immediately after returning from Beijing, held the first public forum on implementing the Beijing women's conference agenda in the U.S. by forming a federal council to advance the cause [85].  The Interagency Council, which had representatives from 30 U.S. federal agencies and offices, would help implement seven 'commitments' made by the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Fourth Conference on Women.  Most of the council members were strategically placed in the U.S. government.  Bonnie Campbell, director of the Justice Department's Violence Against Women Office, reported that the Senate approved funding of $1.6 billion, for a six-year program and that the House was also likely to approve the plan.  Shalala said [86] that "Most of the Beijing document is a consensus document in the United States as well."  Shalala was strongly supported by the radical feminists' special-interest groups which sent delegates to Beijing.

       Foundation executives who fund radical feminist activities joined Clinton administration officials in February 1996 in workshops to promote political implementation of the U.N-adopted women's Platform for Action.  Speaking during the workshop, Bella Abzug [87] said, "You made a contract with the world's women, and that has to be enforced."

       Joan Winship, Vice President of the tax-exempt Stanley Foundation, which funds radical feminist causes said that "...work is under way to achieve youth acceptance of the platform by getting high schools, colleges, and universities to organize courses and seminars on provisions of the Beijing document dealing with 'gender equity.'"  Kathy Hendrix of the President's Interagency Council on Women, created by President Clinton to spearhead the administration's government-wide effort to implement the Beijing platform in existing federal programs, said that "We have this little window of opportunity to get things done."  The implication was that the New Totalitarians would shove this agenda down America's throat with little or no public debate.  They would attempt to accomplish this through administrative fiat and regulations.

       The radical feminists had a cadre of foot-soldiers already in place to implement the Beijing platform in the American educational system. They are still active today. Feminist scholars have revamped mainstream college curricula [88] to include issues of race, sex, ethnicity and disability.  The goal is nothing short of revolutionary.  "It's a nationwide movement, closely related to multiculturalism in the public schools," said Deborah Rosenfelt, a professor of women's studies [89] at the University of Maryland in College Park.  "Multiculturalism in public schools is focused on race and ethnicity.  At the university level, it began in women's studies, with some intersections of race and ethnicity."  Some 400 'curriculum transformation projects' were under way at campuses across America.  It is still a powerful, well-funded movement to purge the curriculum of all traces of androcentrism, that is, male bias.  In concert with this effort to transform what America's children, young adolescents, and college students are taught in America's institutions of education, these radical feminists introduced lesbian issues in women's studies programs nationwide.  A conference of the National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) covered the following issues [90]:
     *Teaching Queer: Incorporating Gay and Lesbian Perspectives Into Introductory Courses
     *Lesbian Feminism in the Academy
     *Lesbian Perspectives on/in Literature
     *Lesbian Theory in Poetry
     *Initial Reactions to Lesbian Feminist Literary Criticism
     *Dykeotomy, an examination of how lesbians and gay men form an identity when language and rituals assume
       heterosexuality.

       Sue Mansfield, former co-chairwoman of the NWSA's steering committee on lesbian issues stated [91] that "...the intercollegiate program she coordinates consists of five undergraduate and two graduate schools that offer a total of 40 to 50 courses annually in women's studies."  It is clear that the infrastructure was in place for the radical feminists to impose the Beijing platform on America across the full spectrum of our intermediate and secondary schools as well as our colleges and universities.

       The New Totalitarians have introduced the Beijing platform at all levels of U.S. society.  Hillary Rodham Clinton, who led the U.S. delegation to Beijing, was featured in a video called 'Cornerstone for the Future.'  It was available through the National Education Association and the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA).  The CPA also released a report on the Beijing conference, highlighting the major issues that were covered, the actions that were recommended in the platform, and some specific examples of what already was being done in various American communities.  Both the book and video are designed to help teachers inform their students about the Beijing conference as well as conditions of women around the world and the global commitment to improve them.  The video was primarily designed to get a discussion going at the intermediate school level about what potential there is for women's leadership and what holds girls back.  What the book does [92] is "...to provide women with a context of what's happening in the world and in the U.S. on a series of important public issues and then to lay out what the platform for action actually says, and what some of the sectors are currently doing, whether it's the federal government, state, local or nonprofits who are taking the lead.  Each of the sections [of the report] ranging from health to sustainable development have some very practical ideas of what you can do in the workplace or in your town or your family...It's a guide for every American woman who is interested in how to bring this new sense of leadership home in their own life."  It was and still is obvious that this 'soft' language used to describe the Beijing platform has been and is being used to propagandize our children, at the most impressionable early age, to conform to the radical feminist's view.

       There were numerous domestic organizations pushing the radical feminist goals on America's children.  Patricia Rengel was the chief legislative counsel for Amnesty International in Washington, D.C.  She stated [93] that "...delegates to the [Beijing] conference are ... translating pledges made by governments...into real pressure to make real those pledges.  We're doing [it] here in the United States.  We have a continued high level of interest in what happened in Beijing and what's going to happen as a result of Beijing here in the United States."  Radical feminist commentators in major U.S. newspapers and other media beat the drums for the Beijing platform.  For example, Judy Mann of the Washington Post proclaimed [94], "...women in the media are in a unique position, according to the report.  By working to become more prominent in management...they have the potential to positively impact the portrayal of women -- thus potentially improving the situation of all women...The [Beijing platform] is based on the premises that media around the world can make a great contribution to the advancement of women...we are far behind some of our allies, such as Germany, India, and Taiwan, in recognizing the death of the nuclear family [father, mother, and children all living together within a stable marriage]."

       In addition to domestic propaganda, the radical feminists dished out U.S. tax dollars to foreign [95] lands to promote their agenda.  The U.S. Agency for International Development has given the Asia Foundation a $1 million grant to replicate several successful projects that have increased women's participation in electoral politics.  In 1995, more than 1,000 women in Thailand received political training and technical support, and 109 of them were elected to local office in five northern provinces.  That effort increased the number of women holding such offices from 1 percent to 14 percent.  Indeed, our U.S. tax dollars were and still are being used for purposes that few 'mainstream' American's realize.  The reach of the New Totalitarians is broad and deep. Welcome to the Looming American Matriarchy.

       Radical feminist leaders obtained Clinton administration support [96] for their demand that homosexuals and same-sex families receive global anti-discrimination protection in U.S. and U.N.-subsidized housing and urban projects.  Repeating a strategy they used at the Beijing Women's Conference, radical feminist leaders got a commitment during early February 1996 from ranking officials that the United States would push rights of homosexual partners at an upcoming U.N. housing and urban planning world conference (the Habitat Project) in Istanbul, Turkey.  Melinda L. Kimble, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for global issues, told Bella Abzug and her Women's Caucus during a U.S. briefing that administration officials want to beef up draft provisions recognizing multiple 'families,' including 'same-sex liaisons.'  As a minimum, the United States would insist that the final Habitat document include the same language as the Beijing document on sexuality, families, and gender.  At the insistence of the United States and European Union, the Beijing platform also gave same-sex couples equal status [97] with traditional man-woman-child and single-parent families, saying "various forms of the family exist in different cultural, political, and social systems."  The Clinton administration committed itself to implement provisions of the Beijing women's platform regarding sexual rights and told feminist leaders that U.S. projects funded by the Agency for International Development would be governed by its provisions.  Similarly, administration officials have said they are committed to implementing provisions of the Habitat conference through executive action or statutory changes in the United States [98].  Indeed, the New Totalitarians are using the United Nations to invoke their will on the American people.  They are doing this without our knowledge, consent, or any semblance of a national debate on the subject.

       Another example of the use of the United Nations by the New Totalitarians in exercising their authoritarian control over the United States was the intrusion into our national park lands.  A United Nations [99] delegation to Yellowstone National Park outraged Westerners who accused the international body of meddling in domestic U.S. policy.  After a three-day evaluation by international experts, the World Heritage Committee, a bureau of the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization, declared Yellowstone a 'World Heritage site in danger.'  Chief among the delegation's concerns was the proposed reopening of the New World Mine, a gold mine located near Yellowstone Park in Montana.

       A Clinton administration official, Interior Assistant Secretary George Frampton, invited the U.N. committee to Yellowstone Park, urging the U.N. body to lend its voice to those environmentalists who were fighting against the New World Mine.  Mr. Frampton issued the invitation at the request of 'concerned citizens,' including a coalition of 14 environmental groups working to halt the mine.  As if it weren't enough that U.S. government officials asked foreigners to help kill local economic activity, Americans are paying for the bullets.  Writes [100] the UNESCO official, "Due to the lack of available funds at the World Heritage Fund, the United States will assume the costs of the mission."  Montana State Senator Conrad Burns exclaimed [101] "It is astonishing that a group of extreme environmentalists can invite in a few folks from the United Nations to circumvent laws that Americans and Montanans have worked hard for and lent their voices to.  We have an exhaustive procedure in the books in Montana to decide where mines can and cannot be sited.  Why should we allow the United Nations to pick and choose when these laws and rules will be allowed to work?"  Over fifteen (15) other U.S. national parks have been placed under United Nations habitat protection cognizance.  Indeed, the New Totalitarians are at work to place the yoke of their will over nearly every aspect of our lives, including decisions concerning our public lands, and without even a semblance of national-level debate on the subject.  They are using the umbrella of the United Nations to accomplish their agenda. The Looming American Matriarchy has taken dead aim at our freedoms.  What element of our lives is next? In a Hillary Clinton presidency we would soon find out. It would not be pretty!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

1  Jehl, Douglas, "The Slow Awakening to Terrorism Here: America is better equipped to bomb Baghdad than to thwart attacks on its own soil," The New York Times, 4 July 1993.
2  Ibid.
3  Associated Press, "Kissinger was marked for kidnapping: Suspected mastermind tells of plan to use former secretary as trade bait," The Washington Times, 8 March 1994.
4  McFadden, Robert D., "New Jersey Pipeline Explosion: Relief at Apparently Low Toll,"  The New York Times, 25 March 1994.
5  Gladwell, Malcolm and Stassen-Berger, Rachel E., "Immense Natural Gas Explosion Destroys 128 Apartments in N.J.: 1 Dead, 50 Unaccounted for; Blast Compared to Earthquake," The Washington Post, 25 March 1994.
6  Hanley, Robert, "Pipeline Most Likely Gouged After '86," The New York Times, 29 March 1994.
7  Associated Press, "N.J. break in pipelines' safety net is huge puzzler," The Washington Times, 27 March 1994.
8  Hanley, Robert, "Edison's Pipeline Reopens As Mystery of Blast Remains," The New York Times, 14 April 1994.
9  Thomas, Pierre, "Illegal Firearms Imported From China, U.S. Reports," The Washington Post, 9 March 1994.
10  Dateline, "Deadly Cargo," NBC TV, Channel 4, 15 March 1994.
11  Bogert, Carroll, "Comrades Do a Booming Business," NEWSWEEK, pp. 31, 24 January 1994.
12  Schmitt, Eric, "Retired American Troops to Aid Bosnian Army in Combat Skills," The New York Times, 15 January 1996.
13  Roane, Kit R., "In Sarajevo Suburb, a New Border Stirs Tensions," The New York Times, 24 March 1996.
14  Ibid, Roane, Kit R.
15  Hoagland, Jim, "A Clinton-Dole Exit Strategy," The Washington Post, 28 December 1995.
16  Pomfret, John, "Arming the Bosnians: U.S. Program Would Aid Force Increasingly Linked to Iran," The Washington Post, 26 January 1996.
17  Ibid, Pomfret.
18  Ibid, Pomfret.
19  Elliot, Michael, "America Is Back: The Mideast and Bosnia deals worked because the United States remains the only power with the military and moral force to get what it wants," NEWSWEEK, pp. 44, 9 October 1995.
20  Thomas, Evan and Barry, John, "Shipping Out: The Bosnian peace agreement was a triumph of American Power," NEWSWEEK, pp. 29, 4 December 1995.
21  Priest, Dana, "Suspected D.C. Terrorist Sought by U.S. in Bosnia," The Washington Post, 25 January 1996.
22  Ibid.
23  Blomquist, Brian, "'Terrorist' was a regular in Adams Morgan bar," The Washington Times, 26 January 1996.
24  Ibid.
25  Lancaster, John, "Gadhafi Sees Alliance With Farrakhan: Libyan Plans Joint Effort To Influence U.S. Politics," The Washington Post, 26 January 1996.
26  Ibid.
27  Ibid.
28  Gertz, Bill, "U.S. report forecasts more strife in Bosnia," The Washington Times, 31 January 1996.
29  Clinton, William J., "The President's Address to the Nation," transcribed by The New York Times, pp. A14, The New York Times, 28 November 1995.
30  Elliot, Michael, "'America Is Back," NEWSWEEK, pp. 44, 9 October 1995.
31  Ibid.
32  Durant, Will, "The Story of Civilization, Volume II, The Life of Greece," pp. 554, Simon & Schuster, 1939 and 1966.
33  Kaplan, Robert D., "The Coming Anarchy," The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994.
34  Kaplan, Robert D., "Democracy's Trap," The New York Times, 24 December 1995.
35  Sobran, Joseph, "Cultural transformation misrepresentation," The Washington Times, 31 December 1995.
36  Mousavizadeh, Nader, Editor, "The Black Book of Bosnia: The Consequences of Appeasement," BasicBooks, 1996.