Condoleezza Rice And The
New World Order
From Dick Eastman

Two letters recieved this morning from someone unknown to me:
Letter #1, what Condoleezza Rice said in March of 2000:
I very much enjoy and appreciate your posts.
I cannot exercise my Freedom of Speech at this time. So I am very happy to see someone else giving voice to the exact same thoughts, analysis, and sentiments that I have.
Here is some information you will find interesting;
Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, was in Houston to give a speech in March of 2000. This was prior to Bush assuming the Presidency and her assuming her new position in his administration. She had worked under Bush Senior as head of Russian and East European Affairs. Her words were most prophetic. She said, and these are exact quotes:
These statements were not in response to questions but were in the body of her speech.
Afterwards XXX asked about about American losing it's moral authority which, I believe, was the greatest contributing factor in our victory in the Cold War. This led to the destruction of the Soviet Union which our military might could not do. She was visibly angered and disturbed by XXX comments and simply retorted. "We have other means of asserting our authority". Meaning, of course, military might and deception.
It is clear to me that the September 11 crashbombing fit perfectly into her idea of what "we need", what Bush wants. Bush has, to date, been the greatest benefactor of the events of September 11 and for the foreseeable future will continue to be.
(end excerpt of excerpt)

Letter #2, on following the money even if they won't:
Remember what Deep Throat said "Follow the Money". It brought down the Nixon Administration.
The best lead on who was behind this was the puts purchased (stock option contracts betting the price will fall). On one of the cable shows on finance a analysist said the number of puts in United Airlines, American Airlines (only in the airlines used by the hijackers) and businesses in the WTC that were going to be substantially impacted, was 90 times the number of puts purchase on a daily average THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK and this was WORLDWIDE purchases. He gave some examples of a put purchased for $375,000 that was worth $2.4 million the day after the attack. Who would gamble that much without insider knowledge? The numbers of puts purchased, in addition to the size of the investments, indicate that an extremely large number of people, possibly thousands, knew the exact day of the attack, the exact target, and the exact means.
The "money trail" was a big story for a day and then very suddenly no further mention has been made of it. It was used just long enough to secure the seizure of money from targeted groups and additions to the anti-terrorist legislation.
I look forward to seeing the information I am providing you included in your posts
One more thing I picked up on the news. Some bigwig in the military, I don't remember his name, was being interviewed on the 17th day following the attack. He was asked "when can we expect some action in Afganistan". His reply "The buildup there has been going on for several weeks so it could be very soon." 17 days is a little short of "several weeks". The quick response indicates the buildup was beginning even before the attack took place.
A thought I had - If you know, or suspect, you are going to be attacked, it might be strategic to stage an attack on yourself so you can be ready with the response. Thus catching your enemy off-guard and unprepared. When comparing this operation with the attack on WTC in 1993 it appears far too sophisticated and effective for the type of group it is being blamed on. It would seem that Some intellegence would have been picked up on an operation of this size. It could be that some in the intellegence community allowed, or even assisted, in it happening for the strategic purposes of those they answer to.
If not guilty for the actual attack there are those in the US governmnet that are guilty of knowing about it and letting, if not aiding and abetting, in making it happen. It is interesting to note how little criticizm there has been of the CIA, FBI, or the intellegence community for letting this happen. Rather they have been rewarded with bigger budgets and more power.
What people need to continue to ask themselves is not just "who had motive" but WHO BENEFITED THE MOST. (end of letter) =============
Is there a real journalist in the house?
Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington
Who IS Condoleezza Rice And
What Is Her Role In The
New World Order?
From Grugyn
As I began to investigate Condoleezza Rice, the first irony that I noticed was an almost complete absence of original writings. It appears her important books and papers are all co-authored. As an intellectual in her own right, she shows up nowhere, and almost the only original "work" by Condoleezza that I could find was her Class Day Speech 12-Jun-99. Some revealing "Condi-isms" from that speech follow:
"Reflect not on what you have learned but on how you have learned it ... You were not admitted to Stanford for what you had already achieved. You were chosen because of your potential to contribute from here on." [i.e. "how we can use you"]
"This is, I believe, the greatest challenge that we, the human race, faces in the century to come: building multiethnic democracies that work --"
"We need a more inclusive notion of culture and identity -- one that does not make culture a barrier, where the price of admission is origin and blood. I am one who believes that cultures can be adopted."
"To be multicultural is not just to have many cultures represented within an institution -- it is to recognize that individuals can be and often are multicultural themselves. In some sense, multiculturality is at its best when it is within each and every one of us."
"We need to find forms of governance that permit people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and creeds to live together and push toward a common goal. I know that the American concept of citizenship is not universally shared. But it does have its advantages. That you can be American not by virtue of blood but by acceptance of a set of values and beliefs is so much the story of this country's success. And it is a model that is spreading -- delinking citizenship and territory and ethnicity. Even in Germany, a country for which the iron link between blood and nation has caused so many woes, universal citizenship is finally coming into being. Often it is pointed out that this is not natural. But I ask you, what is the alternative? If every group must rule itself, there is no end to the chaos that self-determination will bring as borders are drawn and redrawn." --[Citizenship that is "based on beliefs" means only the politically-correct will have "rights"]
"Are you really committed to living in accordance with all that you say about the value of diversity -- are you just tolerant of them, or are they among your friends?"
Remember, this is the President's National Security Advisor. I think we can presume that she sees no threat whatsoever from the millions of Mexicans and other nationalities who are invading our country, and that she is in complete accord with Colin Powell's statement:
"Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, values and culture,"
For background on Condoleezza, see the Salon Page Feature:
"She gave up on a career as a pianist midway through, and eventually wound up falling under the spell of Josef Korbel, a former Czech diplomat (and international art-theif) best known for being the father of Madeleine Albright. Rice sometimes dined at the Korbel home, along with the future Secretary of State -- but emerged with views much more in line with Korbel's than Albright's." [Korbel was an archtypical "man without a country" who believed, like Adam Weishaupt, that the "intellectual elite" should be ruling this world.]
So Condoleezza has a close attachment to both Josef Korbel and Albright. Korbel, as pointed out, was a Czech Marrano who had converted his family from Judaism to Roman Catholicism to advance his career, and finally settled-in as a professor of International Studies at the University of Denver. His daughter, Madeleine, later converted from Catholicism to Episcopalianism for much the same reason. What we have here are people who willingly change their "deepest" beliefs -- and their outward loyalties -- like a suit of clothes. To them, religion, morality, culture and nationality are mere stepping stones. That they raise their children, as they had been raised, to be atheist Church-goers, we may as well call them Children of Satan. Condoleezza is one of them.
An interesting article about Strobe Talbot visiting Stanford (where the Clintons sent Chelsey to school) underscores how easily Condoleezza moves among other Democrats as well. Condi is a member of the CFR, if anyone should ask.
Her former position as Stanford Provost made Condoleezza something of an MC for Multicultural Events -- a job which appears to have kept her very, very busy. That's why she needed so many co-authors, I suppose.
From another Stanford Bio, we learn that Condoleezza has a long-standing relationship with both the NSC and the "Dubya" Bush team:
She began, in 1989, as director for Soviet and East European Affairs at the National Security Council, where she reported directly to National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. After a year on the job, she became Bush's principal adviser on the Soviet Union ... Rice first met Scowcroft in 1984, during a dinner at Stanford's Center for International Security and Arms Control (Part of the Institute for International Studies). "I had two bosses whom I adored, both in President Bush and Brent Scowcroft. And the people I worked with - Cheney, Powell, Scowcroft, Baker - it was a magnificent team,"
The picture that begins to emerge is that Condoleezza is not a scholar, but a spokesperson / liason for the Stanford International Institute Programs. These are the people who are shaping our National Security policy. Please visit their site, and check the Project on Sovereignty and Governance. Also note, on the same page, just above that, the Comparative Democratization Project, which focuses on "Development of theories about democratization that can apply both within and across different regions."
Now, recollect what Colin Powell had said about the U.S.-Mexican border: "Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, values and culture."
Are you beginning to get the picture?
The Bush "mud-babies" Condi and Colin are just like Frick & Frack ... they are people without a nation, without a culture, without a God and without a people ... and they want to make everybody else in the world just like them.

This Site Served by TheHostPros