9-11 --> Follow the Systems
And You'll Find the Money and the Perpetraitors



Agenda for the 1990's - Globalization

Internationalizing North America

The redesign of the government systems was Al Gore's project under the heading of 'reinvention of government'.  Internationalization of the U.S. government was a part of that agenda.  Toward that goal, Richard Feinberg, Anthony Lake, Sandy Berger and Al Gore arranged for a series of international meetings they called the 'Summits of the Americas'.  In a book titled, 'Summitry of the Americas: A Progress Report' by Richard Feinberg who was a Special Assistant to the President, he said they circumvented the normal bureaucratic flow to set up the first and subsequent Summits:

The deputies were the focal point of policy making on the trade initiative and, as the summit approached, they devoted much more time to it than any other single initiative (figure 4.1: US Decision Making on Trade Policy).  A number of NEC deputies--including Charlene Barshefsky from USTR, Joan Spero and her alternate, Daniel Tarullo, from State and Robert Kyle from the NEC staff-- were experts on trade policy.  NEC co-chairs Bowman Cutter and Samuel Berger had considerable trade experience in both the public and private sectors" [pg 75]. 

"There was no NSC subcommittee, no standing cabinet-level group, no Deputies Committee (DC) dedicated to hemispheric affairs.  However, this very lack of focus and coordination had made it possible for a few individuals to circumvent bureaucratic procedures and gain presidential approval of the summit. [pg 79] 

Administration officials realized that a massive undertaking like the summit would require more formal interagency coordination.... Deputy National Security Adviser Samuel Berger convened the first DC on the summit on 7 February 1994 to discuss summit themes.  Deputies present included Leon Fuerth (Office of the Vice President), Bowman Cutter (NEC), Joan Spero (State), Lawrence Summers (Treasury), Charlene Barshefsky (USTR), Carol Lancaster (USAID), and Frank Wisner (Defense). Commerce, US Mission to the United Nations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and the NSC were also represented... [pg 80]

The Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) on hemispheric affairs, which set the framework for administration policy and would be signed by the president was drafted at middle and working levels with senior-level clearances obtained by NSC staff by telephone.  Not once had the principals or deputies met to consider the PDD. [pg 80]

The purpose of the Summits of the Americas - which took place in 1994 and 1998 was to approve the work plans for the integration U.S., Canadian and Mexican government administrative functions including harmonization of regulations; systems planning/building integrated computer systems, transportation planning, etc.  In plain language, they were doing the administrative work to dismantle the U.S. sovereign government - replacing it with a corporate-run internationalized "governance" structure to serve the business interests of the North American Common Market (aka North American Union aka Pan America). 


Transition of Power

In November of 2000, the Rand Corporation presented the Bush Transition team with a foreign and national security transition report.  The report was prepared by a bipartisan group of experts both in and out of government.  The following are excerpts from the report.  While it may not be obvious to the casual reader, this report is replete with references to the global information systems that were begun during the Clinton Administration under Al Gore's initiatives:  

Setting the Direction [Transmittal letter]

You come to office at a time of double challenge: both to deal effectively with classical problems of power and purpose and to seize the opportunities provided by profound changes—from advances in information technology to “globalization.”

The New Global Agenda

The process of globalization—defined here as the increasing volume and speed of cross-border flows of goods, services, ideas, capital, technology, and people—means that the United States will be increasingly affected by a variety of forces that were once viewed as being limited to individual nations. Globalization will no doubt have a growing impact on the issues you will face in “foreign policy,” on the instruments available, on the relative degree of control over events exercised by governments as opposed to the private sector and NGOs, and on interconnections between events in different parts of the world.

Dealing with the domestic and international effects of globalization. Some social groups and even entire countries have been largely excluded from the prosperity and promise of globalization. This has domestic implications in the United States, especially for those industries and workers most deeply affected by globalization, and these call for domestic redress. Abroad, U.S. leadership is required to develop a modern global trading and financial system that is widely viewed as fair and equitable. The United States and its key economic partners must be willing to provide developing countries access to their home markets in exchange for sensible economic policies that can attract international capital, while devising mechanisms to reduce their exposure to the destabilizing effects of international financial crises. 

Reforming global financial markets. The international financial crises of the late 1990s have shown the limitations of global financial markets for self-regulation and self-adjustment. Your administration has the opportunity and the leverage to play a critical role in reform during the next several years. Your leadership can encourage cooperative steps that can make crises less frequent and less severe. Guidelines include:

Financial transparency is essential. The United States and its allies should use their financial leverage to create minimum international standards of accountability that are recognized and adhered to throughout the world.

Openness to international capital flows requires a strong domestic financial system that can absorb sudden reverses in capital flows and allocate capital inflows to productive uses. Developing countries will require international assistance in creating such a financial system.

Extending and deepening economic ties with Latin America. The United States has a strategic and economic interest in a stable, democratic, and free-market oriented Latin America. In the 1990s, Latin America and the Caribbean became the United States’ fastest-growing regional market and a potential partner in what could some day be the largest free trade area in the world. In particular, Mexico is undergoing a historic political transition. This transition means that the United States will have an opportunity to work with President-elect Vicente Fox’s administration to deepen the U.S.-Mexican relationship and integration into the North American market. At the same time, the disruptive impact of globalization, a lack of economic development in many countries, and the activities of the transnational criminal cartels have given rise to a variety of new threats to democracy and stability in Latin America, particularly in the Andean region. Meeting these new challenges will require more than traditional diplomatic and military responses. It will also require a proactive U.S. economic policy toward Latin America, informed by the requirements of building an institutional framework for open markets and a stable democratic order in the hemisphere. The key components of this policy would include efforts to promote economic development, ensure monetary stability, extend and deepen free trade areas throughout Latin America, and foster the development of a hemispheric security community.  (aka SPP)


Think back to the 1990's... what financial crisis?    It was the fraudulent stock market tech boom and bust.  The boom was a media creation led by Tech Stock IPO's.  The official myth of the boom was that it was kicked off by the Netscape IPO.  Netscape had developed a browser for the Internet..(big whoop).   Venture Capitalist John Doerr was behind the IPO working with tech stock analyst Frank Quattrone.  Quattrone went to jail for obstruction of justice in the governments pursuit of the dot.con scamsters.  Doerr apologized for his part in the multi-trillion dollar scam (oh.. and by the way, he is good friends with Al Gore and Bill Clinton).

Business Week, 1997 "The Top 25 Power Brokers"

Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

Dubbed the ''human hummingbird'' for his flitting among industry moguls, Doerr is perhaps the biggest power broker in Silicon Valley. He has financed such highfliers as Sun Microsystems, Netscape, and Compaq, and hobnobs with Clinton.

CEO, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Technology Group

Quattrone made Morgan Stanley one of tech's top investment banks by taking companies like Netscape public. Now he's out to do the same at DMG, Deutsche Bank's 16-month-old tech group. He has already raised $54 million with the IPO of online bookseller Amazon.com.

If you need a reminder of the number of investigations the SEC had going, you can look at THIS LIST LEFT COLUMN for a reminder.  


Treasure of the Silicon Valley

"We don't need no stinkin' borders, America or Americans"


From Al Gore's biography:

Vice President Gore also is a nationally recognized leader on technology. When he was a member of the U.S. Senate, Gore introduced and steered to passage the High Performance Computing Act to create a national, high-speed computer network and increase research and development of high-performance technologies. That legislation was signed into law in 1991, and is now part of President Clinton's technology and economic plan, the National Information Infrastructure, to help more the United States into the 21st Century.

To help strengthen and support democracy and economic development in countries throughout the world, Vice President Gore proposed the development of a Global Information Infrastructure. He led the U.S. delegation to the inauguration of the first freely elected President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, and has worked closely with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to build a partnership between the two former adversaries. The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission was formed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin to foster economic cooperation between their nations, particularly on the issues of space cooperation, business, science and technology, defense conversion, energy and the environment. His leadership was critical in getting passage through Congress of the historic North American Free Trade Agreement.


Because globalization effectively eliminates our borders and integrates our economy with Canada and Mexico - which is a merger of countries - it then follows that it must be governed at a higher level than national government.  The transfer of sovereign power to international organizations, is treason - pure and simple.  It subverts the U.S. Constitution and it changes the character and structure of our government - replacing elected, representative government with appointed representatives selected from special interest groups and the politically connected.  This is the communist system of "governance by soviets".  

The following diagram was included in a Henry Lamb presentation titled, "The North American Union - Part 2,   Fact or Fiction" showing how Constitutional government is subverted.  According to Mr. Lamb, the House of Representatives is required to implement the policies of the appointees to the NAFTA Commission.  And the proof that the NAFTA Commission overrides the Congress was revealed in the issue of Mexican trucks crossing the U.S. borders.  Congress voted to stop it - but they were ignored and the program continued because the NAFTA tribunal ordered it.

Globalization of government means giving up sovereignty and transferring it to an international authority.  In 2006, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an article that was published in the Taipei Times titled, "State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in a Globalized Era".  Recently, he wrote another article titled, "The Age of Nonpolarity".

More from the 2000 Transition Report - setting up the new administration for the sting

Possible Crises. In addition to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may face other immediate crises or opportunities. We single out four: Saddam Hussein may try some form of military action or reductions in Iraqi oil exports. Incidents in the Taiwan Strait could generate a crisis between Taiwan and China. You could face either a crisis in Korea or, as appears more likely, an opportunity for major improvement. You could also confront a crisis in Colombia, with wider regional implications, stemming from the central government’s loss of control over large parts of the country.

A Broader U.S.-European Strategic Partnership. After the United States, Western Europe is the repository of the world’s greatest concentration of economic capacity, military strength, and ability to undertake efforts in other regions. Thus, we recommend that early in your administration, you begin a strategic dialogue directly with the European Union (EU), in addition to the central U.S. strategic engagement with the NATO allies

On Iraq, we recommend that you be prepared to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and seek an understanding with Saudi Arabia and others to expand oil production; and, if provoked by Saddam Hussein, that the United States attack a wider range of strategic and military targets to demonstrate resolve and deter further challenges.

We also believe that U.S. force planning should take greater account of the potential capabilities of U.S. allies to achieve greater interoperability and to relieve some burdens. We also support far-reaching changes in the transatlantic regime for defense exports and investments, including more flexibility in U.S. transfers of high technology.


At the beginning of the Clinton Administration, Saddam Hussein sought to challenge the new president by provoking a crisis in the Persian Gulf. He may do the same to you; and even without a crisis, you will face a difficult situation in Iraq. Saddam Hussein refuses to allow inspectors to assess his compliance with United Nations (UN) resolutions on WMD. At the same time, international support for sanctions and U.S. Iraqi policy in general has declined. The United States has declared its goal of changing the regime in Baghdad but has not yet developed a viable strategy for doing so.

In forcing an early crisis, Saddam could step up his efforts to shoot down U.S. aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, move his forces into the autonomous Kurdish areas in support of one Kurdish faction, threaten Kuwait, or continue efforts to manipulate the oil market by reducing or stopping Iraqi oil exports. How you respond to such challenges will shape not only Saddam’s future actions, but also those of others in the Middle East. It will also have an impact on long-term U.S. goals, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, limiting the proliferation of WMD, and the security of the oil-rich states.  We recommend that your short-term strategy in responding to Iraqi actions adhere to the following principles:

  • If provoked, U.S. air attacks on Iraq should hit a wider range of strategic and military targets. Current U.S. strikes on air defense systems accomplish relatively little. As long as you are willing to pay the political and operational costs of a continued military campaign against Iraq, the campaign should be directed against targets that count: the forces of elite units, regime-protection assets, and suspected WMD sites.

  • The potential operational, diplomatic, and other risks of such attacks argue for rapid analysis of the situation you inherit, consideration of alternatives, and decisions about the key elements of an overall policy. In few, if any, other areas of foreign policy is the development of contingency plans rooted in a longer-term strategy more necessary at the outset of your administration.

  • The United States should continue its leadership in the struggle against Iraq, but it should be recognized that unless you are prepared to act unilaterally, exercising this leadership will require some accommodation to allied reactions and interests. For example, leading both U.S. regional and global allies will be easier in response to an Iraqi threat to Kuwait than to a move by Saddam against the Kurds. You should communicate early your determination to protect U.S. redlines—on WMD, on threats to Kuwait or other U.S. allies, and on interference in the Kurdish areas. If you decide, for example, that Iraq must be prevented from making any substantial progress with any of its WMD programs, you must be prepared to act if credible intelligence indicates such progress. You would also need to demonstrate that U.S. actions in Iraq are directed against the regime and to discourage, to the extent possible, divisions among partners that encourage Saddam to take hostile action or that complicate responses to that action.

So the transition report was the setup to focus on Iraq if the new president was challenged.  And 9-11 was nothing if not a challenge.  So what information did he get about who the perpetrators were?   We know that the British - Tony Blair provided the yellow cake evidence.  It was supposedly discredited but somehow it kept getting put back into the intelligence - and it ended up in several speeches.  

In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I'm not going to go through the whole 'he said' 'she said'  on the yellow cake claim because it's been covered ad nauseam in the media.  What was never talked about however was Clinton and Blair's common belief in Third Way Communitarianism (newspeak for communism)  and a 21st Century global governance model using information technology with the technology being the enabler for global governance.  Succinctly, a one-world system controlled by information technology.

On Sunday, April 25, 1999, the President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D'Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From.

With the big plans that the Third Way Communitarians had in mind - global governance and coup d'etat on the U.S. government - what's one little yellow lie between friends?  

On October 3, 2001, Tony Blair gave a speech titled, "The Power of Community Can Change The World"  that is revealing in terms of the globalist agenda for totalitarian world "governance" under a communist system.  


Recently, I found this review of a book - with a picture of George Bush studying a wall of flow charts that allegedly showing the flow of terrorist money through the international banking system.  No doubt Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden are prominent in the charts.  The funny part about it is that the very people who gave Bush the charts of the alleged flows of "terrorist money", are the same people who should have been looked at for their role in the terrorist events and the coup d'etat.  By all appearances, they dazzled Bush with BS flowcharts and he didn't even have to read anything!  



And with the benefit of hindsight - this is a most interesting press release. And we have a former military strategist laying out 'The Pentagon's New Map'  -  strategy from Wall Street's point of view.


Recently I found a video of Webster Tarpley talking about Bush and the day of 9/11.  Tarpley's analysis of Bush's vulnerability coincides with my thinking on Bush that day (note the Mark Gaffney article titled, "How Clinton Set the Stage For Bush").  The key information that Tarpley presents is that secret service was contacted with the message that "Angel is Next" and they had all the secret codes used to identify agencies.  And who would be in a position to have - or get those codes?  The previous administration and the technology corporations - involved in the redesign of government systems and who could look forward to making trillions of dollars more by installing systems and networks world wide.   

In 2004, John Chambers of Cisco Corporation made the following statement in an article titled, 'Tech companies building bridges with China'

John Chambers, the chief executive office (CEO) and president of Cisco Systems, Inc. doesn't care when economists think China is going to become the world's largest economy.  He's just thinking about what needs to be done for Cisco to tape into that market...

"What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company," Chambers said.

That statement is a blackmail statement.  Cisco makes the hardware and software of the Internet infrastructure - the routers, repeaters, network management software - the hidden elements of the Internet that make it work.  It would be difficult to quantify the extent of the national security risk if John Chambers moved Cisco to China and became a Chinese company.   So what was it that Chambers wanted?     

John Chambers was a member of the BENS Commission to advise the military on information systems - and in particular logistics.  How do you defeat an enemy?   You choke off their supplies - or perhaps you just control their supplies so that you have the hammer always over their heads.  

BENS - Recommends Supply Chain Management for Military Procurement (that's why our guys had light weight humvees that lacked armor.  With Supply Chain Management, you don't purchase inventory and store it... you order it when you need it.  Problem is that you can't be ready to defend your country using supply chain management because you don't need anything until you have a war...  

BENS Logistics Transformation

"Transforming its ponderous and antiquated logistics infrastructure is the most difficult challenge remaining for the US Defense Department as it seeks to adjust to a much smaller post-Cold War force.  However, with challenge comes the opportunity to bring private sector best practices into the solution.  Procedures and techniques, pioneered by the private sector, have direct application to the Department of Defense. Supply Chain Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, and e-business are more than buzzwords in the commercial world.  Companies like FedEx, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Catepillar have revolutionalized their integrated production, transportation, and customer support operations--mostly through stunning advances in information technology.  DoD can tap this talent and technology by partnering to accomplish its own logistics transformation."

Commission on Defense - Supply Chain Management

Corporate Restructuring of America's Defense

Sec Def William Cohen - Outsourcing the Pentagon

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen will make remarks at the kickoff meeting of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS) Tail To Tooth Commission at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106, 1st and Constitution, Washington, D.C. 9 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, Oct. 16, 1997

The BENS Tail to Tooth Commission will conduct a two-year study aimed at recommending workable business solutions to save the DoD up to $20 billion through outsourcing, BRAC, Acquisition Reform, Joint Requirements, DoD budget planning and headquarters reduction initiatives.

John Chambers threat to become a Chinese corporation and the BENS technology group with a strangle hold on the military supply system takes on a whole different aura in the context of Al Gore's activities in the 90's which includes his working with the Russians on what has been called the  Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.  From the agenda listed in Gore's biography it's obvious that this commission was a continuation of work on the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the goal of that was disarmament, economic integration and the shift to a so-called 'peace economy'. 

Contractor takeover of the Pentagon

From Donald Rumsfeld's congressional testimony on July 16th 2001 tells the tale:

"We have a crisis in the workforce in the Pentagon. There are almost three times as many civilian employees as military employees. Over the next three to five years, it's estimated that at least half of those civilian employees are going to be eligible for retirement. Those who are left have inadequate preparation for the kind of technological demands that the Department of Defense needs from them. And it's not just people in the field, it's people at headquarters. The Pentagon is one of the -- perhaps the largest, most outmoded and even anachronistic organization maybe in the world. And we need to figure out how the people that we need can be brought into the Pentagon to do the jobs that are necessary for the 21st century."

Note the contradiction between the above statement and this one:

Over the last seven years there has been a Reinventing Government initiative, where several hundred thousand federal civilian employees were dismissed. They retired, whatever, downsized. Almost all of that was in the Department of Defense. Many of those positions have not been replaced, and we don't have the people coming in that have the skills that are necessary, particularly in terms of technology.


As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.

REP. FRELINGHUYSEN: Part of the business world invests its time in what's called the Business Executives for National Security, BENS group. I know that we've briefly touched on BRAC, and that's a hot point, it's controversial. But that group has come up with a lot of, I think, some great suggestions, including improving process for contracting services, revising the A-76 process in terms of out- sourcing competitions successfully, making the private sector the preferred provider of military family housing, making the private sector the preferred provider of long-haul defense communications, et cetera, et cetera.

More from Rumsfeld - earlier in the testimony:

But what I worry about is, if you, as secretary of Defense, and General Shelton know that the country is underfunding the defense budget, then why can't we convince the president and OMB, which seems to be running this government, that we've got to have a significant increase, or we're going to let America's military capability deteriorate? That is unacceptable.

And he is right - the OMB is running the government - because they control contracting, they authorized the multi-agency redesign of our government and they are controlling the IT projects for the redesign of government.  


Planning for Treason in the 90’s

All through the 90’s - and especially in the late 90’s,  plans were made for the transformation of the government to be a market-based (i.e. fascist/communist - a new and “improved” variety called ‘Third Way') and it is during this timeframe that I believe planning was done for 9/11 because only a catastrophic event - a ‘pearl harbor’, national emergency and 'war on terror', Weapons of Mass Destruction would provide the environment necessary for the treason of the globalized, merged North American governments and subversion of the U.S. Constitution by ceding power to an international governing authority. 

Recently, I heard Barbara Honegger in a program on KPFA Guns and Butter talking about George Tenet’s Bin Laden unit that was supposedly set up to track his movements and to take him out if possible.   She believes that one of the analysts assigned to the CIA’s Bin Laden unit was Linda Franklin and that Ms. Franklin was transferred from the unit just shortly before being killed by the DC Sniper.  This was in the summer before 9/11.  Most interesting - and why would she be killed?  My research indicates that the Bin Laden unit was just for show and tell.  They were making the myth of Bin Laden as a Master Terrorist.  It seems logical that if Linda Franklin was not going to be a willing accomplice in a fraud perpetrated on the American people concerning 9/11, that she would be taken out ahead of time to ensure the Bin Laden myth couldn’t be challenged with any authority.  And the same is true of Masood, leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.  

The incentive for corporate participation in the fraud of 9/11 would be all the money that could be made by dismantling the U.S. government and stealing the assets of the American people by various means.  To fully implement an international system of governance, the U.S. Government and the American people have to be defeated and the bogus war on terrorism is the means by which they are doing it.  The strategy has many facets not the least of which is that they consider the American people themselves as terrorists and they are implementing control systems to monitor them. 

The Congressional Record is full of references to new information systems that were planned and - with the benefit of my experience of Systems Analysis, the designs of the new systems are apparent and they are completely contrary to the U.S. Constitution and our history, heritage and national values.   And because of that, 9/11 should be considered as a coup d’etat on the U.S. government.  In the past, it's been said that when you are doing a complex investigation into white collar crime, 'Follow the Money'.  In the 21st Century, it needs to be changed to 'Follow the Systems and you'll find the money and the perpetraitors'.   

The attempt to do a wholesale redesign of government and privatization of the systems made the government dysfunctional - and that led to opportunism of all kinds by people who were in a position to know what was going on.  That is what has made the identification of the reason for 9/11 and the real perps of 9/11 so difficult to identify.  By way of analogy, think of it as releasing all the inmates from a prison and then try to figure out which one of them was the kingpin for the breakout - and which of them have committed crimes on their way out of town.   


In the 1990’s - actually beginning even before that, Al Gore was a promoter of the technology industries - with technology being defined as communications and computing.  In 1991, as a Senator, he was successful at getting passed the 1991 High Performance Computing Act.  The purpose was to build the infrastructure for a national and global network capable of bringing the world of information to people everywhere - or so said the marketing material. This was the legislation for the Internet as you know it. 

Concurrent with the decision to build out the Internet was the decision to redesign the government operations to utilize the powers of the Internet and theoretically to save money in the process by eliminating government employees, streamlining processes and reducing ostensible waste by eliminating redundancy - same reasons corporations design or redesign systems.   

The project was officially called the ‘Reinvention of Government’ - a new government for the 21st Century.  It was a plan for the privatization of government - a soft coup d’etat - administrative. 

Blue sky redesign of processes is a Systems Analyst’s dream project and this is the mission that Analysts were given to redesign the government - Blue Sky.   As stated above, the conceptual design revolves around the concept of networks and communications to link networks - call it the Internet model.  

Servers and networks represented a monumental change in the computing environments of large organizations.  The large consulting firms sold corporations and government on the idea that their old way of doing business - Big Iron systems like IBM and all of the people who worked on those systems were obsolete (legacy) and that with PC’s everybody could be a Systems Analyst and Designer, Computer Operator and User - performing their unrelated job - all at the same time - all they needed was a little facilitated guidance and training.  

The consulting firms sold a packaged methodology for reorganization to meet the requirements of the new paradigm of servers and networks.  One of them was called Total Quality Management (TQM) and another one - I believe adapted for the military and/or government in general was called Six Sigma.  General Electric adopted Six Sigma and it was taught at the GE Management Training Center in New York.  Once GE adopted it, all big corporations that I’m aware of (I was in NY at the time) adopted it as well. 


The idea behind Six Sigma and TQM was to level organizations - eliminate their hierarchy of management and supposedly empower people on the bottom and in the User communities to redesign their own processes utilizing the new technology and the new systems design philosophies.   Effectively what this management philsophy did was to throw out nearly 50 years of accumulated wisdom - learned the hard way - of what works and what does not work when doing big systems projects.   As a System’s Analyst of legacy systems, I watched this evolution with a certain amount of amusement because it was obvious to experienced people that disasters would ensue - and they did.   I was witness to several failed projects or - if the project was completed, according to my world of IT, they were disasters because they did not work well - allowing bad data into the system; having some processes not work at all, all kinds of problems.  One system I was familiar with had problem reports nearly 3 reams of paper high.  That’s a disaster.   In all cases, the failures were do to management of the project by the User community - people who knew their jobs - but who had no idea how to manage a Systems project and the IT people who were assigned to work on the projects in the 2nd place position - my personal opinion was that they weren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell either.  It would be like an Architect letting the customer tell him where to put the load bearing walls.  


All IT projects disrupt the status quo and in many cases there is resistance from some quarter or another.  The bigger the project and the greater the impact on an organization, the greater the resistance.   Sometimes projects are cancelled or scaled back because the Analyst’s hit a wall of resistance that can’t be moved (think stovepipes in the official mythology).


Software and Networked Systems

In the 1990’s the software for servers and PCs was in it’s infancy.  IBM was developing server and operating system software - but they were doing it in the IBM way.  Their operating system was complex - but it was good and it was stable.  Most other software - and in particular Windows was crap.  It was cheap and thrown together quickly so it had lots of bugs.   It was flashy and easy to use, but from a professional’s point of view, it wasn’t professional quality ready for prime time.  Nonetheless, small systems were designed using it - because the capabilities of the machines and new systems design possibilities mandated it. 


Government Redesign

Put all the above together in your thinking and picture the biggest IT project in the history of the world - the redesign of U.S. government systems.  The redesign of those systems were to meet the goals ( eliminating government employees, streamlining processes and reducing ostensible waste by eliminating redundancy)  of collapsing established organizations, combining data and processes in the corporate image - to make the U.S. government run like a corporation (see Market-based governance). 

I can’t give you 20 years of IT experience in 25 words or less, but suffice it to say that had I been an IT Director in charge of computer systems that had national security implications (and they virtually all do), I would have, as a professional, citizen and patriot, done all I could do to block the new paradigm of the IT world from getting at my systems.  The consequences of free-for-all, wholesale redesign of big government systems by people who were incompetent - using software that was known to be trash, would have been akin to turning over those systems to enemy agents albeit unwitting in most cases - knowing that chaos in government operations would ensue making the government vulnerable for a coup d’etat.  

Information systems are integral to any big operation.  They can make the organization run smoothly or they can destroy it.  And despite what corporate CEOs and government officials think, it’s the IT people who have their hands on heart of any organization.  They can be your best friend - or your worst enemy.  And for our country - and in fact, for all the working people in the world, the tech industry has become our worst enemy.


Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George Tenet, Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, Charlene Barshevsky, Tech Industry leaders on THIS LIST


There is significant evidence to support the charge of the highest crime of treason against Clinton Administration and in particular Al Gore.  It's inconceivable that 9/11 was not directly connected to it.  As such, a Grand Jury must be empaneled to investigate 9/11 and the events leading to it and after it.     

Outline of evidence to support the allegation of treason against the people of the United States by subverting Constitutional government:  

  • On September 8, 2000, President William J. Clinton signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration which is a mandate for global governance. 

  • The above proposal by Al Gore for a Global Information Infrastructure.  The Global Information Infrastructure would be in support of the global governance initiative.  The Global Information Infrastructure makes our country vulnerable in so many ways it boggles the mind.  Recall that the Soviet Union wouldn't even publish maps of their country because of the vulnerabilities.  Their position was that if you didn't know where something was, it was because you didn't need to know.    Our country - being a free country has never been like that - but making virtually everything in our country visible to the world was opening us up to tremendous vulnerabilities that should have been thought about - and planned for before global systems were ever even considered.

  • The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission was an all out effort to bring to fruition the disarmament and merger of adjoining countries to create regions for global governance by cannibalizing existing governing structures as defined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.

  • On September 11, 2000, USTR Charlene Barshevsky gave a speech titled, "The Turning Point: The Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Free Trade of the Americas'.  In that speech she said the following:

This is an especially appropriate time for us to meet. The months ahead will mark a turning point in the relationship between the United States and the Caribbean region. This is true in the most direct terms, as we implement a newly strengthened trade and investment relationship. And it is true in a larger sense, as we prepare for a fundamental change in the economic environment of the entire Western hemisphere - as, in accord with our mandate from the Summits of the Americas, we complete a first draft of the agreement creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

The FTAA represents a dream two centuries old but never yet fulfilled - an integrated western hemisphere, united in democratic ideals and shared prosperity. This was the goal of the first Pan-American Congress held 170 years ago in Panama. And a renewed commitment to it - , drawing ideas from and building on the success of CBI together with NAFTA, Mercosur, CARICOM and the Central American Common Market - was President Clinton's central aim in convening the first Summit of the Americas in Miami six years ago.

Implicit in Barshevsky's message is the agenda to subvert the U.S. Constitution by creating a hemispheric union - common market and by definition a regional government structure in the same vein as the European Union.  

"America's trade policies are connected to our broader economic, political, and security aims. This intellectual integration may confound some trade scholars, but it follows in the footsteps of the architects of reconstruction after 1945."  Robert Zoellick

Quite simply, if U.S. trade policy was about trade, trade scholars wouldn't be confounded qed. Since Zoellick had been involved in the globalization of trade since the first Bush Administration - and since he was the USTR when he made that statement, there was nobody in a better position to know than Robert Zoellick. It should also be noted that Robert Zoellick was the emissary to aid in the organization of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) which is the regional organization for Asia - same as the North American Union and the European Union.

  • In 1992, there was a United Nations conference in Rio de Janiero which met to define a global agenda for the environment.  While the U.S. did not sign any agreements to implement the agenda, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 Establishing the President's Council on Sustainable Development (code for Agenda 21) giving them the mission to effectively re-orient the economy and life in general - in the United States to meet the requirements of Agenda 21.  All things considered, it's not a stretch to think that Agenda 21 was the social and economic plan to reorient - moving away from what the internationalists perceive to be a war economy - towards a peace economy -  the plan for which goes back to 1961 and John Kennedy's call for disarmament of the United States.  

"AGENDA 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by
every person on earth... Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society,unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources."

— Environmental activist and attorney Daniel Sitarz

The overview of the mission of the President's Council on Sustainable Development says the following:

The President's Council on Sustainable Development was established on June 29, 1993 by Executive Order 12852. The Council adopted the definition of sustainable development as stated in the original Brundtland Commission report: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The 25-member Council is a groundbreaking partnership drawing leaders from industry, government, and environmental, labor and civil rights organizations, and is charged with developing bold, new approaches to integrate economic and environmental policies.

President Clinton appointed Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute, and David Buzzelli, Vice President and Corporate Director of Environment, Health and Safety and Public Affairs at The Dow Chemical Company as Co-chairs of the Council. The Council's Executive Director is Molly Harriss Olson.\

The councils below cover all the key areas of the economy and life in the United States.  The goal of these task forces was to redesign life in America to a Communist system of control of resources, transformation of the schools for indoctrination, strangulation of economic activity using environmental regulation.

Council members serve on eight task forces:

  • Eco-Efficiency will identify models of sustainable manufacturing, pollution prevention and product stewardship that will enhance recommendations for policy change.
  • Energy and Transportation will develop long- and short-term policies to contribute to a more sustainable energy future.
  • Natural Resources Management and Protection will develop guidelines to better manage and protect our nations natural resources.
  • Principles, Goals, and Definitions will articulate sustainable development principles and goals.
  • Population and Consumption will identify the impact of population and consumption patterns on sustainable development and recommend actions to address these issues.
  • Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education will work to foster public dialogue and develop educational outreach activities.
  • Sustainable Agriculture will examine and make recommendations relating to sustainable agriculture production, practices and systems.
  • Sustainable Communities will explore the obstacles and opportunities for sustainable development at the community level.

Task Force Council Membership

  • Jay D. Hair, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation
  • William D. Ruckelshaus, Chairman and CEO, Browning-Ferris Industries


  • Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
  • Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Ronald H. Brown, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce
  • Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., Environmental Justice Advocate
  • Thomas Donahue, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
  • Michele Perrault, International Vice President, Sierra Club
  • Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Ron Brown's participation in this task force is significant because he was also the Chairman of the Information Infrastructure Task Force which was the lead organization tasked with the redesign of government systems within the global information network as envisioned by Al Gore.  In fact, the ostensible plan for the U.S. economy was the move to a 21st Century Information Economy

February 24, 2000

The problem of course was that the boom during the Clinton Era was illusory.  The stock market bubble was a media creation fed by Alan Greenspan and the tech companies themselves.  The savings from the 'reinvention' of government were one-time savings brought about by loss leader contracts with corporations in the privatization of government - moving to the so-called 'market-based' governance structure - which is in reality the communist system of governance by 'soviets' - coupled with the technological capability of hiding the transference of government power to the private sector behind the communications technology and interactive capabilities of the Internet.   Once corporations "own" the government function, they are then free to make demands for significant increases in contractual payments for the 'service' of running the government function because once contracted out - and the knowledgeable government employees are released, it's very difficult - if not virtually impossible for the government to take back the function - leaving the government in the position of being merely a facade with the real power of government in the hands of the contractors.  In addition, with the power of government, the controlling corporations are in position to make demands of the Congress for laws that change the very nature of the U.S. government and serve to solidify their own power. 


From North Carolina digital archive in the Information Infrastructure Task Force:

“All the key agencies involved in telecommunications and information policy are represented on the task force. The task force operates under the aegis of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Economic Council. Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, chairs the IITF, and much of the staff work for the task force will be done by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce.”


While this information doesn't really focus on education, the council was heavily involved in the redesign of our education system, the information infrastructure and they were working at the Presidio - the significance of which we see in 1995 when Mikhail Gorbachev moved in with his State of the World Forum which is when the agenda to transform the United States into a communist country governed by a world "governance council" really got rolling.   


While this information on PCSD doesn't really highlight the focus on education, the council was heavily involved in the redesign of our education system and  the information infrastructure and they were working at the Presidio - the significance of which we see in 1995 when Mikhail Gorbachev moved in with his State of the World Forum which is when the agenda to transform the United States into a communist country governed by a world "governance council" really got rolling.   One of Gorbachev's main areas of interest was his "Green Schools Initiative" and coupled with that, Al Gore's GLOBE program.

Keeping in mind that Al Gore's Information Infrastructure was global in scope, the Global Crossing scandal makes a whole lot more sense - and Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen was right in the middle of it as a member of the Board of Directors.   Add to that, Frank Wisner, also with the Defense Department was working with the Indians on the Knowledge Trade Initiative and of course we all know that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was killed while on a trade mission to the Soviet Republics.  And Enron collapsed as a result of their attempt to corner the global commodities market by designing and building the Internet-based 'Mother of all Procurement Systems' for commodities.  And, Lynne Cheney was a member of the Board of Directors for Lockheed and Lockheed is in partnership with Hutchinson Port Holdings (aka Hutchinson Whampoa aka COMMUNIST Chinese military), to implement surveillance technology on all of America's highways that are being built to facilitate the Global Supply Chain Management system. 

In the area of international leadership the PCSD has taken a more active role in the current term. In March 1997, Jonathan Lash, along with the chair of the Philippine CSD, cochaired a working group to assess national councils in the five years after the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro. This assessment, carried out with the participation of representatives from more than 60 national councils, was part of the Rio+5 conference that supported an even broader UN evaluation of progress since 1992 in fulfilling Agenda 21.

Since early to mid 1997 PCSD participation in international fora has been limited. But the PCSD, through the current international task force, has identified a substantive issue they would like to use as a hook to engage other national councils. The task force is currently examining the impact of international public and private capital flows and identifying opportunities that support sustainable development. The PCSD hopes to engage other national councils (e.g., a conference of the parties to an international convention, WTO meeting, OECD forum, etc) to advance thinking on this issue. The objective is to demonstrate the contribution national councils can make to mainstream sustainable development.


* Build Bridges Between Domestic and International Agendas

Another challenge facing the PCSD is finding a way to connect the PCSD’s domestically driven agenda with official U.S. commitments to fulfill Agenda 21. Outside observers have sharply criticized the PCSD for failing to fulfill or to monitor progress in meeting these commitments. These critiques are valid; the PCSD has only obliquely addressed Agenda 21. But there is a danger in the PCSD assuming full responsibility for Agenda 21. The PCSD might turn into a monitoring and reporting body, and many of its strengths (providing policy advise, engaging a variety of actors in problem solving, supporting ideas and efforts generated by local and regionally-based groups ) could be diluted or completely lost.

The PCSD might be best suited to act as a bridge builder, for example, to deliberate and propose a strategy for meeting and monitoring progress on Agenda 21. Execution of this strategy would ultimately not rest on the shoulders of the PCSD. This process might begin with a comparison of recommendations contained in Sustainable America and Agenda 21 commitments to assess the degree of complementarity between the two. The objective is to gain commitments as well as harmonize and give due representation to both domestic and international priorities or interests.

Finally, the PCSD’s somewhat sporadic efforts to engage internationally with other councils needs to be more systematic and consistent. To date co-chair Jonathan Lash has carried the banner of the PCSD in forums outside the United States. The international task force needs to institutionalize such interactions in its work. This task force’s current work plan appears to be heading in that direction, but whether it bears fruit remains to be seen.



Internationalization of cities  



The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was a government building.  The official myth was that it was bombed in retribution for Waco which itself was a bullshit story - a staged event that was no doubt used for demonstration purposes as well as the set up for OK City.  I believe that the Murrah Building was the location of an IRS tax processing center.  The IRS system was one of the first systems targeted for redesign using y2k as justification for a complete rewrite.  The project didn’t begin in 1995 - it began a few years earlier because around about that same timeframe, I read an article in the newspaper that the government was considering firing the contractor because the system wasn’t working as it should.   In the late 1990’s when the government was holding hearings on the abuses of the IRS and how they were going to legislate a ‘kinder and gentler’ IRS, I knew - based on my experience, that the real reason was because the IRS systems were hosed and they had to slow up enforcement because they were making too many mistakes due to the messed up information systems. 


9/11 was a two-fer (three-fer if you count the Iraqi oil and war profiteering) 


Everybody knew the twin towers were white elephants - and would continue to be white elephants even without the asbestos abatement problem.   All other considerations aside, the most cost effective solution was to demolish them.  It was convenient to use the towers as a pyrotechnics show and that was needed for the official myth of 9-11.  I believe the real target of 9-11 was WTC 7 - another government building and probably with one or more IT departments - not to mention the SEC records of investigations of stock market manipulation of the 1990’s. 

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld declared war on the Pentagon in a speech to kickoff the DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week - ‘Bureaucracy to Battlefield’.   In that speech, Rumsfeld talks about the legacy systems and the resistance to change - but given the reinvention of government initiatives, it's not clear that the problems are because of legacy systems or because of the redesign of government systems - and possible sabotage of the systems.  On the morning of 9-11, Rumsfeld was meeting with a group of Congressmen - probably all from the Transportation subcommittee and perhaps intelligence committees when he told them to expect the unexpected.  We know that because Representative John Mica (R-FL) told us that in a hearing on Pat Tillman’s death.  His statement was recorded - and should be in the Congressional Record.  My guess would be that Rumsfeld knew about the planned false flag attack and he was giving a heads up to the members of Congress to go along and keep quiet.   And I think the evidence provided by Rumsfeld himself on the plans (non-plans) for the war in Iraq show that his goal was to get in and get out - rather like the follow-thru of necessity to support another lie - but not something they were really serious about.  

That's the problem with administrative sabotage - and a redesign of government systems.  The people who are not systems people would have no way to know the truth or falsehood of what the technical people tell them.  A speech that Senator Ted Stevens made on the floor of the Senate - and a video made by some tech hotshots highlights the problem far better than I could describe. 

"The good news from Washington is that every single person in Congress supports the concept of an information superhighway. The bad news is that no one has any idea what that means." ~ Cong. Edward J.  Markey


Philip Zelikow, the person being called the Official Myth Maker because of his work on the 9/11 Commission, was also the Executive Director of the Markle Foundation project, “Task Force on National Security in the Information Age”.  And the 9/11 Commission report was more about the changes they wanted to see in government (elimination of the stove pipies) than it was an investigation into the events of 9-11.  This is a big clue to motivations.   Zelikow was also one of the authors of a report titled, “Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy” which had a subtitle of ‘Visions of Governance in the 21st Century’ - which when you look at that link, is about ‘Market-Based Governance’ - the new paradigm.   (Note:  Zelikow’s history of working with the Russians when the Berlin Wall came down is relevant too - but I’m not going to go into that here).


The attempt to do a wholesale redesign of government and privatization of the systems made the government dysfunctional - and that led to opportunism of all kinds by people who were in a position to know what was going on.  That is what has made the identification of the reason for 9/11 and the real perps of 9/11 so difficult to identify.  By way of analogy, think of it as releasing all the inmates from a prison and then try to figure out which one of them was the kingpin for the breakout - and which of them have committed crimes on their way out of town.   

And if it wasn't clear, the redesign of the systems was not the point of 9/11 - it was the redesign of our government from a Constitutional government to a Third Way - Communist-fascist partnership system of government run by corporations behind the curtain that was the point.  The Mega-IT project enabled the coup d'etat by crippling the existing government organizations and the systems that made it work.  And September 11, 2001 was the insurance - the event that ensured the continuation of the plan to dismantle the U.S. government and the disintegration of the United States as a sovereign nation.  And every time the coup forces don't get what they want, there is another "event" that is used as a dialectic and the media that aided and abetted in the fraudulent tech boom and creation of the official mythology of 9-11, floods the airwaves with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

September 11, 2001