The delegation of power through
Executive Order #12919 and Presidential Decision Directives #62 and #63
A sequel to Presidential Treason 101. The stage is set.
It’s time to connect more dots. . .
Section 1. Introduction – Reviewing the President’s ‘accomplishments’ from Presidential Treason 101.The President successfully staffed his Administration with key figures of like mind who have/had connections to Communist China and/or Russia to create the permissive environment necessary to 1) accept illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese military; 2) cover-up the ongoing Chinese espionage at the National Labs, and 3) facilitate the transfer, legal or covert, of sensitive satellite, defense, and computer technology to Communist China and Russia.
The President has, indeed, earned an A+ in Presidential Treason 101. Now it’s time to move on to the possibility of a national emergency, martial law, suspension of the Constitution and an end to our form of Government . . .
Section 2. Imagine the following long-term KGB game plan developed and set in motion in Moscow December 1969.
1. Select a bright, personable young man from an out of the way place in America who loathes the military, is protesting against America, has no moral or ethical values and has an insatiable hunger for power – one who has his heart set on becoming the President of the United States.
2. Select the only target date, determined by computer experts, that can be predicted with certainly to be a time of turmoil in America – say in 30 years, at the turn of the century.
3. Set up the appropriate connections to provide the capital and influence to propel him along the path to the White House.
4. When the President is in place, continue to provide capital in return for the 1) transfer of secret technology to strengthen the Communist military and 2) increased trade revenues and monetary ‘aid’ to strengthen the economic structures of the Communist countries.
5. The President will cut defense spending which will not only weaken the American military and defense capabilities, but also create the illusion of a strong economy that will, at the ‘correct’ time, have the stock market in the most vulnerable position in decades.
6. As the target date approaches, the President will put in place the necessary combination of Executive Orders, Presidential Decision Directives and additional key figures to ready the Administration for the declaration of a national emergency and, if need be, martial law.
7. Sometime during 1999, the President will put the finishing touches on the ‘mission plan’ with a diversion that will continue through the end of the year. It must tie up the media and the Congress and, preferably, further exhaust the military and defense, divide the country and act to support other phases of the mission. A war will be the perfect solution. Select an area of continuous unrest where the timing of such an engagement will be optional and will enable the calling of reservists who will then be required to participate if martial law is declared.
8. By mid-1999 the stage will be set and the clock will be ticking on to the end of the century, a national emergency and the end of our form of Government.
Section 3. Selecting key figures to implement the plan.
1. National Security Advisor (a.k.a. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the #1 person at the National Security Council (NSC)): Samuel ‘Sandy’ Berger. Mr. Berger was a paid lobbyist for the Chinese while he was a partner in the international law firm of Hogan and Hartson where he headed the firm’s international trade group. Mr. Berger is still listed as an attorney with Hogan and Hartson, therefore, as a partner, he is still receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from dealings with China and Russia. This clearly is a conflict of interest (allegiances) which, by law, should deny him a security clearance and access to classified material. Mr. Berger participated in illegal Chinese fundraising, promoted and facilitated the transfer of sensitive technology to Communist countries, facilitated the cover-up of Chinese espionage, and dutifully supported Clinton’s China ‘policy’. Mr. Berger is also chief advisor in charge of the botched war in Kosovo and was second in charge of Clinton’s totally failed transition team for National Security.
2. Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls at the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President: Gary Samore. Mr. Samore worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1984-1987. From the New York Times 4/8/99: The Chinese tested a neutron warhead in 1988 using “secret data stolen from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.” It appears that Mr. Samore, as a senior National Security Council official, operated with Berger in facilitating the cover-up of the Chinese espionage at the National Labs. According to the New York Times 4/21/99: “After receiving more detailed evidence of Chinese spying in the summer of 1997, the National Security Council sought a quick, narrowly focused analysis from the CIA and used it to cast doubt on the troubling conclusions reached by the Energy Department analysis, officials said.” “Samore overstated the degree to which the CIA 1997 analysis cast doubt on the Energy Departments findings, according to an Administration official.” “At the time, Samore and Berger were deeply involved in planning the agenda of a U.S.-Chinese summit meeting.” The meeting was used to “elevate the relations between the two nations”.
3. Secretary of Commerce: William S. Daley. Mr. Daley was Clinton’s 1992 Illinois Campaign Manager, who appears to have been involved in questionable activities in the Chicago area involving fraud, the IRS and the FBI (http://www.crl.org/daleygeo.html). The lawsuit against Daley and his firm Daley and George, that dragged on for five years, (1992-1997) was suddenly dropped by the ‘prosecutor’ exactly one month after Daley was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce on 1/30/97. Also, he may have misrepresented himself in his Senate confirmation hearings. Mr. Daley is/was a partner in the international law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt where he was “concentrating in the area of corporate and government relations matters” (paid lobbyist?). The firm has offices in Moscow and Beijing, with emphasis on Communist China. If he is still a partner, on leave of absence or not, he is benefiting from the firm’s dealings with China and Russia and hence has a conflict of interest (allegiances) which, by law, should deny him a security clearance and access to classified material.
4. Inspector General of the Department of Commerce: Johnnie E. Frazier. (Nominated 3/25/99) Mr. Frazier had been the Assistant Inspector General at the Commerce Department where he supervised complex reviews, including trade promotions and export licensing. Freely translated, he supervised the export licensing when sensitive technology was transferred to China and Russia.
5. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade: Stuart E. Eizenstat. Mr. Eizenstat was Vice Chairman at the Washington office of the international law firm of Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy. According to their newsletter they have a keen interest in the U.S.-China trade policy and the shifting of licensing to the Commerce Department. Also of interest, Patricia Daley is the Senior Policy Advisor for their Government Relations Group (lobbying). According to her bio: “Ms. Daley has over two decades of political involvement ranging from Chicago mayoral campaigns…” The mayor of Chicago is the brother of William Daley, Secretary of Commerce. Also, Frank Kruesi, named Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Transportation Policy 5/11/93, was Chief Policy Officer in the Administration of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. A small world?
6.The Director of the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO): Jeffrey A. Hunker. (The CIAO is a planning arm of Clinton’s new bureaucracy mandated by his Presidential Decision Directive #63 discussed in Section 9.) Prior to joining the office, Dr. Hunker served as Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, where his responsibilities included issues relating to China. The timeframe places Dr. Hunker at the Commerce Department, dealing with China, at the time the illegal transfer of sensitive technology occurred.
7. Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): James Lee Witt. Mr. Witt, a native of Arkansas, was part of Governor Clinton’s corrupt, Chinese-backed, Administration in Arkansas. In February 1996, President Clinton elevated Mr. Witt to cabinet status – a first for a FEMA Director. (As of this writing, there is limited information available on Mr. Witt.)
8. The number two man at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Raymond Lloyd “Buddy” Young. (WND 2/2/99) To quote his official bio from the .gov website: Mr. Young is a native of Arkansas and “is a veteran of 26 years of service for the Arkansas State Police. He joined FEMA after serving as director of security for then-Governor Bill Clinton, a post held since 1983. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Mr. Young coordinated state security matters for the governor’s office.” “As Director of Security for the Office of the Governor, Mr. Young formed a close professional relationship with President Clinton and FEMA Director James Lee Witt.” Mr. Young also served in the Arkansas Highway Patrol. This is the same Buddy Young involved in ‘Troopergate’ and about whom the President was questioned in the Jones Case, as published in the New York Times 3/15/98.
9. Secretary of Energy: Bill Richardson, from New Mexico – home of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. White House Press Release of 9/18/98: “As a senior member of the Commerce Committee, he took a leadership role in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.” Mr. Richardson stated on the Chris Mathews’ program that China was not a Communist country, that China is our friend, that China could be trusted to control a port in Southern California and that China could be trusted with its presence in Panama where it could control both ends of the canal.
10. Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the Energy Department: David L. Goldwyn (Nominated 4/7/99) Mr. Goldwin was an associate with the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, with offices in Communist China, where he was a member of the international practice committee. He is the principal advisor to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary on all international policy issues at the Energy Department.
11. Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and National Security at the Department of Energy: Rose Eilene Gottemoeller. According to The Center for Security Policy on 4/26/99 regarding the years of warnings about penetration of some of the United States’ most sensitive facilities: “warnings that were suppressed by, among other superiors, Rose Gottemoeller, to whom the intelligence office reported until a reorganization last Fall”. For this, Ms. Gottemoeller was promoted to her new post on September 18, 1998.
12. Secretary of the Army: Louis Caldera. Mr. Caldera was with the international law firm of O’Melveny & Myers that has offices in Communist China.
13. Deputy Secretary of State: Strobe Talbott. Mr. Talbott was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar at the same time his friend Clinton was there dodging the draft, demonstrating against America, visiting Russia, etc.
14. Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ): Michael R. Bromwich who is/was a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Mayer, Brown & Platt. The firm has offices in Moscow and Beijing, with emphasis on Communist China. If he is still a partner, on leave of absence or not, he is benefiting, directly or indirectly, from the firm’s dealings with China and Russia.
15. Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice: Raymond C. Fisher. Mr. Fisher is/was a partner in the international law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe with offices in China. If he is still a partner, on leave of absence or not, he is benefiting, directly or indirectly, from the firm’s dealings with China.
16. Chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB): Anthony S. Harrington. Mr. Harrington is a senior partner of the international law firm of Hogan and Hartson (with Berger) and, as a senior partner, receives benefits, either directly or indirectly, from dealings with China and Russia. Mr. Harrington is still listed as an attorney with Hogan and Hartson.
17. Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB): Warren B. Rudman. Mr. Rudman is a partner in the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison with offices in Communist China and who, as a partner, receives benefits, either directly or indirectly, from dealings with Communist China.
Section 4. Review the existing US Code
1. Implementing a National Emergency: US Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II,
Sec. 1621. Declaration of national emergency by President. (a) “With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”
US Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter III,
Sec. 1631. Declaration of national emergency by Executive order. “When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act.”
2. Terminating a National Emergency: US Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II,
Sec. 1622 (a) Termination methods. “Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter (II) shall terminate if – (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.”
3. Martial law: Title 32, Chapter V, Part 501,
Sec. 501.4. “Martial Law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation; necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration.” “In most instances the decision to impose martial law is made by the President, who normally announces his decision by proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon.” When the Federal Armed Forces have been committed, “the population of the affected area will be informed of the rules of conduct and other restrictive measures the military is authorized to enforce. These will normally be announced by proclamation or order…” “Federal Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers…”
Sec 501.1 (e) “Units and members of the Army Reserve on active duty may be employed in civil disturbances operations in the same manner as active forces.”
Sec. 501.3 (a) “In the enforcement of the laws, Federal Armed Forces are employed as a part of the military power of the United States and act under the orders of the President as Commander in Chief.”
Note: Taking the subject of martial law from the realm of absurdity to that of a very real possibility: Senator Robert Bennett, Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem asked Deputy Defense Secretary, John Hamre: “In the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law,” will the military be ready? Hamre’s reply: “We’ve got fundamental issues to deal with that go beyond just the Year 2000 contingency planning. And I think you’re right to bring that up.” WND 6/18/98
Section 5. Evaluate and determine current situation and what must be changed.
1. Implementing a National Emergency: No problem – it is guaranteed that there will be at least minor disruptions and since the President determines the ‘need’, a national emergency can be declared. All the necessary Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives must be in place, with tight control established and maintained by ‘loyal’ participants. (See Section 3.)
2. Terminating a National Emergency: Since the Congress can enact into law a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency, the emergency must be declared while Congress is on recess or on Christmas break. Measures must be taken to prevent Congress from voting on such a joint resolution by taking control of communication and/or transportation systems.
3. Martial law: The disruptions guaranteed at the turn of the century will justify the declaration of martial law. Tight control must be established and maintained by ‘loyal’ participants. The Army Reserve must be put on active duty prior to the declaration to guarantee their participation. (Just recently the calling up of reserves began.)
Section 6. Clarification of facts relating to Sections 7, 8 and 9.
Note: The reader should keep in mind the following facts when reviewing Executive Order #12919 and Presidential Decision Directives #62 and #63:
1) Sandy Berger is the number one person at the National Security Council, he is the National Security Advisor and he is the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. These names are interchangeable – the reader should not be confused by the smokescreen created in these documents.
2) Gary Samore, occupying a high post at the National Security Council, coordinated with Berger (a) the facilitation of the espionage cover-up, (b) the transfer of sensitive technology to Communist countries and (c) the promotion of U.S.-Chinese ‘relations’.
3) This is critical: Care must be taken when reading the text of the following documents. Remember, Berger ‘sat on’ the espionage for a year before reporting it to the President. When you read that everyone ‘reports to the President through the National Security Advisor’ – think what that means. Since the President is to give the orders, if Berger decides not to pass the information ‘through’ to the President as he did with the espionage, then Berger will, in the President’s name, be giving the orders – that is an assignment of authority of the first order! Therefore, it is a fact that Sandy Berger has total control over all situations and information. Similarly, when various department heads act as his advisor, Mr. Berger is at the top making the decisions. While the National Security Council provides the guidelines, Mr. Berger gives the approval to FEMA and other participating agencies – that is, the ‘interpretation’ of those guidelines is up to Berger. Although power appears to be assigned to the National Security Council, Mr. Berger has the last word. Mr. Berger, as the last filter, has absolute power and control!
Section 7. Executive Order #12919 – NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS – June 6, 1994 – (US Code Title 50 Appendix – War and National Defense, Title VII, Sec. 2153) (This Executive Order revokes 9 previous EOs, revises 4 others and significantly changes Title 50 of the US Code.)
In times of national emergency, it delegates authority to the National Security Advisor to use Federal departments and agencies to take total control of our lives, our property and our government, with Congress receiving only ‘after the fact’ reports.
Enormous Federal Bureaucracy with Extreme and Absolute Power at the Top: The plan is for total control established through the use of Federal departments and agencies. For example: 1) The following is repeated numerous times in delegating authority to various Federal departments and agencies: The authority of the President “to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense” 2) Federal departments and agencies “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate industrial resources and production capability, including services and critical technology for national defense requirements.” 3) “responsible for defense acquisition (or for industrial resources needed to support defense acquisition)”. 4) “control and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership” 5) “control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market” 6) “control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.” 7) “usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, which can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements.”
It appears that every known non-elected Federal ‘official’ has an assigned duty under this order. Here is a list of those involved, in the order of appearance in the document: The National Security Advisor, Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, each Federal Reserve Bank, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Secretary of State, The United States Trade Representative, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Director of Central Intelligence, “and the heads of other departments and agencies as required”, Administration of General Services, Director of Selective Service “and such other persons as the director of FEMA shall designate”, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Attorney General, Secretary of each military department and “heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies”, Bureau of the Census. Plus, a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) is established with units in other departments or agencies and a huge coordination effort is to get underway. Then each of the aforementioned Federal departments or agencies can hire consultants.
This Executive Order is the most convoluted piece of work imaginable – and could never be implemented in the case of a national emergency, or any other time. On the surface it appears to make sense but the coordination of the various Federal departments and agencies would be impossible. It would require a fully functional coordinated network to be in place before the emergency occurs. It does not take a genius to figure out that an attempt to implement this order, in its current form, would create unimaginable chaos. (If you get nothing more from this writing, it is that you should not be financially exposed near the end of 1999.) So, if the order, as it stands, can’t be implemented, what is the purpose of its existence? Let’s take a look at the assignment of authority under this order and see who is at the top of the food chain.
Enter Sandy Berger – remember Mr. Berger is the number one person at the National Security Council, he is the National Security Advisor and he is the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. 1) “The head of every Federal department and agency assigned functions under this order shall ensure that the performance of these functions is consistent with National Security Council policy and guidelines” (HOWEVER) 2) The Director of FEMA will “provide guidance and procedures approved by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to the Federal departments and agencies under this order.” 3) “The National Security Council is the principal forum for consideration and resolution of national security resource preparedness policy.” (HOWEVER) 4) “if not resolved, such issues will be referred to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs for final determination” 5) The Director of FEMA shall “serve as an advisor to the National Security Council on issues of national security resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order.” 6) “The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs is hereby delegated the authority under subsection 101(c)(3) of the Act, and will be assisted by the Director, FEMA, in ensuring the coordinated administration of the Act.” 7) “The National defense Executive Reserve (NDER) shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs“. Is there any question who is in charge?
While the Director of FEMA appears to be given far-reaching authority, the final determination of policy always goes back to “the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” – in effect, the Director of FEMA ‘assists’ the National Security Advisor.
Although the laws appear to have been ‘reworked’ to assign more power and control to the Secretary of Commerce, he too must report to the National Security Advisor: “The Secretary of Commerce shall administer the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (“DPAS”) regulations”; “The Secretary of Commerce will redelegate to the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other departments and agencies as appropriate” “The Secretary of Commerce shall act as appropriate upon Special Priorities Assistance requests in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.” “the Secretary of Commerce, who shall redelegate to the Secretary of Energy”; “The Secretary of Commerce shall make the finding”. It appears that the Secretary of Commerce is near the top of the food chain.
Is there a way out of this? Although it would take a lawyer with the parsing talents of the President to determine a legal ‘finding’, we ask you to review the following:
US Code TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4 – DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
Sec. 301. “General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations.
The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, That nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part.”
This is the law, clearly cited in EO #12919, that gave the President the power to assign duties under this order. However, since Sandy Berger has been delegated the ultimate function in this order and Sandy Berger has never been confirmed by the Senate, there appears to be a problem with the legality of this Executive Order! This could also bring into question the delegation of authority of Berger over the functions outlined in PDD #62 and #63. (Source: The Senate Armed Services Committee who confirm appointees/nominees said Berger has never been confirmed by the Senate and that “no advisors to the president are confirmed.” The Senate Library search showed that Berger has never been confirmed. Similarly, a gentleman who deals with such matters for one of the leading Senators said that Berger had never been confirmed. In addition, the Parliamentarian’s Office of the U.S. Senate assured us, regarding ‘confirmation’ and ‘advice and consent of the Senate’ that “they are used interchangeably”.)
Where was our Congress when this destructive, and probably illegal, Executive Order ‘floated’ into our US Code? It’s up to them to act now to rectify this situation – time is running out . . .
Section 8. Presidential Decision Directive #62 – Combating Terrorism. May 22, 1998. This PDD is classified, with only a brief summary available. “This Directive creates a new and more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist threat of the next century.” Of importance: “PDD-62 establishes the office of the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-Terrorism.” The National Coordinator oversees the key agencies and offices established in Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Section 9). “The National Coordinator will work within the National Security Council, report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs“. This is critical – Mr. Berger is again at the top of the food chain – in charge of everything involving PDD #62 and PDD #63!
Section 9. Presidential Decision Directive #63 – Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructures – May 22, 1998. This directive is also a classified document with only a brief summary and a white paper available to the public. (The information contained here is from those two public documents and the two official websites: http://www.nipc.gov/ and http://www.ciao.gov/). “The National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-Terrorism shall be responsible for coordinating the implementation of this directive. The National Coordinator will report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.”
Valid Concerns: PDD #63 addresses the issues of “physical and cyber-based systems essential to the minimum operations of the economy and government. They include, but are not limited to, telecommunications, energy, banking and finance, transportation, water systems and emergency services, both governmental and private.” The emphasis in this Directive is on cyber-based systems, specifically computer systems.
New Government Bureaucracy with enormous power: PDD 63 sets up a new bureaucratic structure, with each component reporting to the National Coordinator established in PDD-62 who reports to theNational Security Advisor. The most powerful part of this structure is the “National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) at the FBI which will fuse representatives from the FBI, DOD, US Secret Service, Energy, Transportation, the Intelligence Community and the private sector in an unprecedented attempt at information sharing among agencies in collaboration with the private sector”.
Intrusive and Regulatory: This PDD authorizes control to be taken of communications, including the internet, with interception of information and monitoring, as implied by the following quotes: 1) The Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) “could serve as the mechanism for gathering, analyzing, appropriately sanitizing and disseminating private sector information to both industry and the NIPC.” 2) “the U.S. government should, to the extent feasible, seek to avoid outcomes that increase government regulation or expand unfunded government mandates to the private sector”, 3) “a shared responsibility and partnership between owners, operators and the government”, 4) “it is preferred that participation by owners and operators in a national infrastructure protection system be voluntary.” 5) “private sector owners and operators should be encouraged“, 6) “certain functions related to critical infrastructure protection that must be chiefly performed by the Federal Government (national defense, foreign affairs, intelligence, law enforcement).” 7) “PDD-63 calls for the establishment of a public-private partnership to accomplish its goals. This is the crucial component of this effort. As envisioned by the PDD, this partnership will demand a new level of trust, cooperation, and mutual understanding between the government and private sector.”
And again, enter Mr. Berger: (Please review Section 6 for interpretation of this paragraph.)
1) “The National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism shall be responsible for coordinating the implementation of this directive. The National Coordinator will report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.” 2) The National Coordinator “shall provide an annual report on the implementation of this directive to the President and the heads of departments and agencies, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.” 3) In order to engage the private sector fully, “The National Coordinator will be appointed by and report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, who shall assure appropriate coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.” 4) “TheNational Security Advisor shall appoint a Senior Director for Infrastructure Protection on the NSC staff.” 5) The President on 1/22/99 stated that he and Berger have been working on this plan “for the better part of 6 years“.
National Emergency and/or Martial Law? When the inevitable Y2K computer disruptions occur, it will be impossible to distinguish them from terrorist attacks on our ‘cyber-based’ systems, which will automatically activate all the enforcement arms involved in this PDD. The details are: 1) “The full authorities, capabilities and resources of the government, including law enforcement, regulation, foreign intelligence and defense preparedness shall be available, as appropriate, to ensure that critical infrastructure protection is achieved and maintained.” 2) President 1/22/99: “It is helping us to ready armed forces and National Guard units in every region to meet this challenge.”3) The National Plan Coordination (NPC) has now moved from the Defense Department to the ‘infamous’ Commerce Department 4) the President has authorized the FBI to expand its current organization to a full scale National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) which includes “the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, and other investigators experienced in computer crimes and infrastructure protection, as well as a representative detailed from the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community and Lead Agencies (law enforcement and internal security).” “to provide warnings of cyber-threats and attacks, and the capability to respond to such incidents.” 5) “No later than the year 2000, the United States shall have achieved an initial operating capability.”, “an interim security capability by the year 2000.”
Conclusion: PDDs 62 and 63 draw into the scenario those enforcement agencies not mentioned in EO #12919. The lead agencies now under the direction of Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor, for purpose of this PDD are Commerce, Secret Service, Treasury, EPA, Transportation, Justice/FBI (emergency law enforcement services), FEMA, HHS, Energy, Lead Agencies for Justice/FBI (Law enforcement and internal security), CIA (foreign intelligence) and National Defense.
Section 10. The Real Story. PDD-63 is the enforcement arm of Executive Order #12919. The orchestration of Executive Order 12919 and Presidential Decision Directives #62 and #63 is left to National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger. Through the three instruments outlined above, the President has assigned total control of every body of our government to his obedient National Security Advisor. These three instruments mandate complete control of our life and our freedom using every enforcement means available (FBI, Secret Service, Armed Forces and Reserves, CIA, etc.) – all under the dictatorship of the President and his National Security Advisor. While Mr. Berger’s ‘titles’ are mentioned numerous times throughout these documents, our elected officials were conspicuous by their absence. We ask you again to review Mr. Berger’s ‘qualifications’ as outlined in Section 3.
Section 11. As Vernon Jordan would say, “Mission Accomplished”.
Is it a coincidence that the two ‘appointees’, who have authority over the dissemination of information to the President regarding National Security, Berger and Harrington, are both partners in the same international law firm that has dealings with China and Russia? And that these two ‘appointees’ are currently listed as attorneys in the Washington branch of Hogan and Hartson (website updated August 1998), where they are, as partners, directly or indirectly, receiving benefits from dealings with China and Russia. This clearly is a conflict of interest (allegiances) which, by law, should deny them a security clearance and access to classified material.
Is it a coincidence that the Inspector General of the DOJ Michael R. Bromwich and the Secretary of Commerce William S. Daley were both partners in the international law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt, working out of the firm’s Washington office? The firm has offices in Moscow and Beijing, with emphasis on China. If they are still partners in the firm, on leave of absence or not, they are benefiting, directly or indirectly, from the firm’s dealings with China and Russia and hence have a conflict of interest (allegiances) which, by law, should deny them a security clearance and access to classified material.
Is it a coincidence that the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the Energy Department, David L. Goldwyn and the Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), Warren B. Rudman, were/are both with the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison with offices in Communist China?
Is it a coincidence, that the top two positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) who play a key role in national emergencies and martial law are held by Clinton’s cronies who participated in the then-Governor Clinton’s highly questionable Administration in Arkansas?
Is it a coincidence that, even using the highly edited White House biographies, it is clear that nearly all of the key people in this grand scenario, who would be integrally engaged in a national emergency or martial law, fall into one or more of the following categories:
1) Have previous, or current, ties to Communist China and/or Russia,
2) Were, or are, involved in the transfer of sensitive technology and/or its cover-up,
3) Work, or have worked, for international law firms with offices in Communist China and/or Russia,
4) Were tied to the National Laboratories where the espionage took place?
And, is it a coincidence that, after meticulously flowcharting through the smokescreen of diversions and deception in Executive Order #12919 and Presidential Decision Directives #62 and #63, that Sandy Berger, a man of, at best, questionable allegiances, emerged in charge of it all?
This summary of events does not begin to scratch the surface, as we only have access to limited White House-edited bios on the individuals mentioned here. A full investigation of the entire Administration should prove enlightening . . .
The evidence appears to suggest that Clinton has loaded the key positions in his Administration with individuals who are either his old time cronies of like mind and/or individuals who have a keen interest in promoting Clinton’s grand plan, or simply incompetents who would represent no barrier to any of his plans.
The information in this summary was obtained from official websites:.gov, AOL yellow pages, and webpages of the law firms mentioned herein, with limited use of the regular AOL search of highly reliable sources. (All quotes with no source given are from official .gov websites.) While the information included herein is certainly believed to be factual, the readers are left to ponder the evidence and implications and to draw their own conclusions. While we do not state that any of the above mentioned persons are consciously involved in any illegal activity, the facts are certainly curious.
This summary, of a possible preplanned scenario and the ‘enabling environment’ that has been created, is an attempt to bring to light the ease with which a corrupt President could destroy our fragile Republic. Hopefully, Congress will exercise every option to stop the damage.
Add this information to ‘Presidential Treason 101’, the Cox Report, the Thompson Report, the Judicial Watch investigations, the cover-up of espionage, and other treasonous ‘accomplishments’ of this Administration and the question must be asked:
Is this all a coincidence,
Or a carefully crafted plan to change our form of Government?
Footnote: While many people have reported their concerns regarding Y2K, EO#12919, PDD #63, a national emergency, martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, we have not read an accounting of ‘to whom’ the power will be assigned. Who will be in control of this country? Not an elected official, not even a person confirmed by the Senate, but the choice made solely by a corrupt and traitorous President – a man the President worked with in politics in 1972, shortly after returning from Moscow. We ask you to review, one more time, Mr. Berger’s ‘accomplishments’ in Section 3 and ask yourself if you want this man to be in charge of your life and freedom, and our Country. There is so much research to be done, and so little time to warn the American people…
Time is running out! It’s up to all concerned citizens to go after their elected representatives and to demand a review of Clinton’s Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives and to put a stop to this insanity!
This summary was prepared by: Gretchen Glass, May 6, 1999