Larry Abram, the author, is a highly-respected analyst and author of the INSIDER REPORT newsletter.
Read this extract with care - the future is unveiled here for you, and current trends and policies which seem to have just "naturally arisen" suddenly take on a far more sinister and threatening aspect.....
Niccolo Machiavelli observed almost 500 years ago, "Men in general make judgments more by appearances than by reality, for sight alone belongs to everyone, but understanding to a few." This keen theoretician of State power understood then what every smart political operative both before and since has recognized and applied. Machiavelli's 20th-Century counterpart, Henry Kissinger, put it this way: "Perceptions become reality."
As we observe the world around us, our constant struggle is to make the distinction between what the author of The Prince called "appearances" and what events mandate as reality. This is no easy task under the best of circumstances. In modern times it has become almost impossible. When we pit our common sense against the tidal waves of misinformation flooding out of the major media, too often we capitulate to what appears to be an overwhelming consensus. Time and time again, on issue after issue, this mental surrender occurs.
The "creation of the appearance of popular support" is at the center of all contemporary political activity. This technique is so all-pervasive as to lead even the most rational among us to conclude even in the face of the most outlandish proposals, "I must be the only one who feels this way." Our opposition to some preposterous scheme seems to be unique, with the result that we shrug our shoulders and accept what we are told is "the wisdom of the majority" or the all-conclusive, argument-ending "world opinion."
Adding impetus to this emerging mindset is the innate desire to believe the best. We have been nurtured on happy endings and the vision of the "good guy" riding off into the sunset, having righted all wrongs. It goes against our nature to believe the worst, to assume we are being deceived, or to be always on guard against such deception. And every power seeker from Sun Tsu to Gorbachev knows this implicitly. "Tell them what they want to hear," Lenin admonished Dzierzhinski.
In more contemporary times, say the past eight or nine years, the soothing voice of the Great Communicator [Ronald Reagan] worked its magic on the unspoken concerns of the West, and the American people specifically. The ritual of keeping alive the Reagan rhetoric has become for Conservatives something akin to the custom of the Bunyoro tribesmen of Uganda. When the king died and his heir emerged, he would return to his father's corpse and remove the jawbone. The new king would then bury the jaw-bone with full ceremonies. Later, a house would be built over the spot for the dead king's regalia -- with the rest of his body being unceremoniously discarded. The tomb housing the royal jawbone would long be venerated.
Now don't judge me or Mr. Reagan too harshly by this amusing comparison. He did much to deserve our gratitude, just as, I am certain, did the late lamented Bunyoro king for his constituents. But the fact remains that venerated jawbones do little to cast the light of reality on our clear and present danger.
And just what is that clear and present danger? It has been decades in the planning it has been built on the corpses of millions of innocents. The ultimate goal has been described by the Insiders themselves as the creation of a New World Order. As I pointed out in the last chapter, the most important current strategy in that design can be summarized as "The Greening of the Reds." Let me cite a few recent news items and articles to illustrate my point.
Since I outlined these specific citations in the July 1989 issue of Insider Report, not a single day passes without some dispatch or news items carrying the same theme. An Op-Ed piece in The New York Times of March 27, 1990, is typical of this barrage. It was headlined, "From Red Menace to Green Threat". The writer, Michael Oppenheimer, co-author of Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect, writes, "Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse." He continues, "As the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern." My files are bulging with variations of this same theme and it is coming from every point on the compass.
Are you getting the impression that there may be a trend here? And just what is this "new reality" to which the Reds themselves refer? This phrase keeps popping up in some very interesting and diverse places. In the Summer 1988 edition of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (the senior Insider organization in the United States), Henry Kissinger and Cirus Vance co-authored a lengthy piece for the incoming and yet-to-be-determined president. It was called, "Bipartisan Objectives for American Foreign Policy."
Within this presumptuous 22-page epistle, Messrs. Kissinger and Vance used the phrase "new realities" three times -- without once defining what they mean. Mr. Gorbachev, in the aforementioned UN speech six months after the Kissinger- Vance article, used the phrase "newly emerging realities" -- again, without explanation. Now the same phrase appears in the June 1989 meetings of the Socialist International in Stockholm, Sweden.
Since these "wise men" don't reveal what their "new reality" is based on, let me tell you what it encompasses.
All around the world the move is on to transfer the rain forests, the deserts, the jungles, the plains, and even private property to a consortium of foundations, international agencies and councils, all of which are interlocked through directorships and agenda.
In almost every state of America -- I can think of no exception --local environmental groups are pushing ahead with their plans to seize ownership of some of the most productive and beautiful areas of our planet. The same thing is happening in other parts of the globe: Africa, South and Central America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and even Asia. And always and everywhere, there is some local crisis or pending catastrophe to justify their move. In my home state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, the beneficiary of this concern is the spotted owl. In Montana it is the timber wolf. In Nebraska the whooping crane. In Africa the elephant takes center stage. (In the case of the spotted owl, the leader of the Sierra Club was quoted as saying, "If the spotted owl did not exist, we would find it necessary to genetically engineer one.")
Add to this the so-called threat to the ozone, the greenhouse effect, and countless other real or ersatz environmental concerns, and you have the prescription for a worldwide control mechanism which is awesome in its scope and power.
Standing astride this environmental juggernaut like a colossus is the same group of Insiders who have been playing God with people's lives since before World War I. Thanks to their "internationalism" and "balance of power" schemes, the 20th Century has proved to be the bloodiest in all human history. Yet these so-called "wise men" finance tyranny, replace governments, elect presidents and prime ministers, and, in general, act as the un-elected rulers for a world gone crazy.
Let me be specific. I am talking about the economic and political cartel represented in Britain by membership in the Royal Institute for International Affairs, in the United States within the Council on Foreign Relations, and internationally in such groups as The Bilderbergers, The Club of Rome, and most recently, The Trilateral Commission.
Now I know that to single out these organizations and the men or women who lead them is not viewed as "responsible" in some circles. But where will an examination of reality take us if not there? Are we to believe that all of this "greening" is the result of some overnight worldwide consensus?
As we examine such foundations as the World Wildlife Fund, the Heritage Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the World Wilderness Congress, Conservation International, the Center for Earth Resource Analysis, to name but a few, what do we find? Not so strangely, key members of the Insider institutions cited above are leading or directing every one of them. This doesn't take into consideration the UN organizations which are, at the very least, co-directed by representatives of Communist members.
Why is it that so many radical leftists, mega-bankers and Corporate Marxists are suddenly concerned about our environment? Could it be that there is another agenda afoot --a "new reality?"
Allow me to quote briefly from a letter I received in the mail June 1989. It starts:
Dear Investor,This letter goes on for four more pages, bragging about the various activities of the organization whose letterhead it bears, "The Nature Conservancy." They boast, "We own and manage a national system of more than 1,000 sanctuaries." This is the very same group that, along with Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, and Bank of America, is up to its ears in debt-for -nature swaps in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and the state of California. (And let me add parenthetically, it is only one of the eco-groups involved in these debt-for-nature swaps which are now being played out throughout South and Central America.)"I'd like you to prepare yourself for a mild shock of a most rare and welcome kind. There is indeed a group that has quietly 'bought up' acres and acres of wild land in your state. But not for condominiums or shopping centers, golf courses or industrial parks, not for strip mining or highways or parking lots. Not for profit or private gain at all. For love, for life, for the preservation of this exquisitely beautiful planet of ours for the benefit of future generations of all its inhabitants."
Not long ago in Insider Report I cited two such deals that deserve a mention. One was a $9-million Ecuador foreign-debt exchange for such priority targets as part of the Ecuadorian Andes and Galapagos National Park. The World Wildlife Fund and Nature Conservancy bought this debt for twelve cents on the dollar. Earlier that same month, the ubiquitous Nature Conservancy announced a debt-swap deal with the Bank of America for a foreclosed property in California called the Dye Creek Ranch/Preserve. It includes 40,000 acres of redwoods and an option on another 2,900 acres.
In April of 1989 I reported that Brazilian president Jose Sarney was up in arms over what was being planned for his country and the 1.9 million square miles of the Amazon Basin. An A.P. dispatch from Rio earlier that same month said that Sarney's speech was "...marked by a strongly nationalist tone [as] Sarney raised Brazil's century-old battle cry, 'A Amazonia e nossa [the Amazon is ours].'" The article went on to report that, concerned about "...national sovereignty, Sarney ruled out debt-for-nature swaps, financial arrangements under which Brazil would retire discounted dollar debt in return for contributing in local currency to Brazilian environmental projects."
Then comes the punch line, revealing who all joined the big banks in putting pressure on Sarney to do the deal. The article states, "Last Friday as Sarney presided over a meeting of Latin American environmentalists in Brasilia, Mostafa Tolba, an Egyptian diplomat representing the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, chided him for opposing the debt-for-nature swaps."
This is really getting hit by traffic going both ways. Here's a Brazilian president getting a dressing down from a Third World leader because he won't give up sovereignty within his own country to the big banks and their greenie front groups. Do you get the idea that maybe, just maybe, somebody in the United Nations also understands how this scam -- or should I say, "new reality" -- works and expects to participate in the payoff downstream? This same Mostafa Tolba is now the Executive Director for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and was a featured speaker at Globe '90, the aforementioned conference held in Vancouver, B.C., in March of this year.
In his speech Tolba said, "The Cold War is dwindling... Environment has rocketed to the top of the world political agenda...We need a global partnership -- dynamic, innovative and highly interconnected...We have no choice but to curb the wasteful consumption by the rich and lift the status of the poor...More bilateral and multilateral assistance is needed. Much more. We are talking hundreds of billions."
And then get a load of this as part of his conclusions. "We need shifting of resources from destruction to building -- from arms to protecting our environment. We need to think of new sources. I am advocating The Users Fee, a fee for using the environmental resources like air." [Emphasis added] Who says you can't raise big money out of thin air?
As I write this, House Resolution 876, titled the "American Heritage Trust Act," is being gently guided through Congress. This bill would appropriate in its first year alone a minimum of $1 billion to be used in the purchase of private tax-paying property and lock it away under the guise of preserving our heritage. Utilization of these funds would not so coincidentally be available to "private non-profit organizations...qualified for exemption from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code..." The Nature Conservancy, perhaps? These moneys will be extended as matching funds to the various states which are rushing to take advantage of such a windfall.
I could continue for pages on this scheme alone. But before we move on, consider these few statistics. In just the 11 western states of the U.S., wilderness areas now account for 86,474,870 acres. Federal] agencies have recommended another 20,256,780 acres for wilderness designation. And further "studies" for possible inclusion would add up to 133,653,459 more acres. In countries like Brazil and Australia, the lockup numbers are not measured in acres, but in square miles.
[extracted from Chapter 3 of Larry Abram's excellent book, 'THE GREENING', which we strongly recommend that you buy, read, and loan widely to your friends and co-workers!]
Sierra Club Board Member Gets Money from Chevron and Freeport McMoran
by Bernardo IsselThe Sierra Club has been a leading critic of corporate polluter funding of politicians and of corporations trying to greenwash their record. So it is with great surprise to find that Sierra Club Director Anne Ehrlich benefits from donations from Chevron and other interests linked to polluting corporations. The membership of the Sierra Club recently re-elected Mrs. Ehrlich to the board, but without knowledge of these environmentally tainted funding sources.
Mrs. Ehrlich is the associate director of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology (CCB). The Center was founded by Mrs. Ehrlich's husband, Paul, who is current president of CCB. Since at least 1995, the oil giant Chevron has funded CCB. This is problematic to say the least.
Chevron operates polluting refineries in Richmond and Los Angeles, California. Its basic product oil is a major contributor to air and water pollution in California and elsewhere. Its product also contributes to global warming; and Chevron has been a supporter of the Global Climate Coalition, a leading global warming naysayer. Abroad, environmentalists have challenged Chevron drilling operations for despoiling the environment. A recent Human Rights Watch Report charged Chevron with involvement in severe human rights violations in Nigeria, including ties to "Kill-And-Go" death squads.
In an interview, Mrs. Ehrlich brushed off concern about the Chevron support, explaining that it merely funded a few graduate students and that the donation was given with no strings attached. Well it just so happens that Mrs. Ehrlich supports continued oil drilling to meet future global demand, a position that she failed to disclose in her Sierra Club ballot statement. One is reminded of the rationalizations by politicians receiving oil funding. If Chevron is quite happy to support the Ehrlichs, it raises questions as to why their environmentalism is acceptable to this environmentally noxious company.
In light of Mrs. Ehrlichs outspoken stances on population control and immigration restrictions, the fact that she is comfortable accepting funding from a company whose profits have been described as "blood money" is exceedingly loathsome. As an advisor to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, she supports tight controls on immigration into the United States, but is apparently comfortable taking funding from a company bringing in oil from abroad where it has despoiled the environment and violently repressed opposition to its operations, as in Nigeria. The Sierra Club has been at the forefront of criticizing Shell Oil's operations in that county, yet has been seemingly silent on Chevron, the actions of which have been viewed as comparable to that of Shell. It so happens that Chevron is headquartered San Francisco, California - the site of the Club's own headquarters and the Club's home state. It would seem that a Sierra Club campaign exposing Chevron's odious environmental and human rights abuses could fruitful results. Yet with Ehrlichs' funding from Chevron, one should not expect her to be supportive of such an effort.
The funding by Chevron is not the only questionable funder of the Ehrlichs' conservation work. Others include:
Ward Woods, a director of Boise Cascade, Freeport McMoRan, and Kelley Oil - Boise and Freeport are environmentally rapacious companies; for example, Freeport, the New Orleans based mining giant which invited Henry Kissinger on its board, has been charged with cultural genocide and eco-cide for its operations in Indonesia.
Global coal and natural gas power plant billionaire Roger Sant of AES
The Ehrlichs' leading benefactor NYC apartment property heir Peter Bing sits on the board of the conservative Hoover Institute along with the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and Dwayne O. Andreas(Archer Daniels Midland CEO). The Hoover Institute has long been a fountain of anti-environmentalism, recently publishing a book touting the benefits of global warming.
Support from the Munger foundation, which receives its wealth from the founder of and partner in law firm that represents Unocal and Southern California Edison. Stanford's board of trustees has close ties to Edison, including the presence of Edison CEO John Bryson. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mrs. Ehrlich views Edison as one of the most forward looking corporations. Edison's efforts to run the Carbon II power plant without scrubbers seems not to be a concern to Ehrlich. The California chapter of Sierra Club in 1998 supported a repeal of billion dollar bailout of Edison's nuclear stranded costs, but with no help from Sierra Club leadership - no wonder with board members like Anne for whom it would be awkward.
Donations from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the foundation of the scions of Sun Oil, which has been criticized by many grassroots environmentalists for its domineering funding strategy. In the 80's Pew was viewed as part of the right wing funding community. In this decade the foundation has tried to remake itself as a centrist do-gooder agent, yet Pew supported pro-NAFTA advocacy of the Heritage Foundation while simultaneously generously funding many of the environmental groups that supported NAFTA. Sierra Club courageously opposed NAFTA.
Funding from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) trustees Teresa Heinz and Wren Wirth through the Winslow Foundation. On a variety of policy matters, i.e. NAFTA, global warming, and air pollution strategies, EDF has been at odds with Sierra Club. The Ehrlichs' recent book acknowledged input from EDF staffers and extolled market based environmentalism, yet seemed to have no link to or mention of the Sierra Club. Perhaps Mrs. Ehrlich would be more comfortable at EDF. This briefing at the very least raises several disturbing questions that Sierra Club members have not been informed of about the resume, financial backers and environmental philosophy of Anne Ehrlich, when they elected Ehrlich to the board of directors of the Club. While Mrs. Ehrlich separates the funders of CCB and her role as a Sierra Club director, it is not clear that Sierra's membership would agree with this compartmentalization. At the least, there is concern that Ehrlich's corporate ties create a conflict of interest with her role as a director of the Sierra Club.
A Sierra Club volunteer Karen Jones who served on a Sierra Club consumption task force with Mrs. Ehrlich while Ehrlich was a Club director found a disinclination by Ehrlich to take into account the role of corporations in driving consumption and resource extraction; ultimately the report included none of the concerns of Jones who had her name removed from the report. In a letter of dissent, Jones cited the case of populations in foreign countries unable to control the operations of oil companies taking advantage of repressive political regimes -- ironic in light of how this reflects Chevron's operations in Nigeria.
ENVIRONMENT: People and Predation
by William Norman GriggThe biocentric eco-activists who seek the removal of industrial civilization from North America consider human life just another link in the food chain.
"‘Biocentrism," the ideology that inspired the Wildlands Project, holds that humanity is just one species in a democratic "biosphere." From this perspective, humans who choose to live within the habitat of a protected non-human species are interlopers. This is why Wildlands fanatics - in addition to shutting down economic development, private land ownership, and recreational use of "re-wilded" lands - seek to "re-colonize" those lands with non-human species. This process is presently underway within the proposed Yellowstone-to-Yukon (Y2Y) "bioregion."
"Already, transplanted wolves from [British Columbia's Muskwa-Kechika] region formed the foundation of Yellowstone's successful lobo transplantation program," reported the Christian Science Monitor. "Thriving Canadian lynx and wolverine populations could also be tapped for augmentation. And [last] November, the US Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], in conjunction with a plan by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation, announced that in 2002 Canadian grizzly bears will be relocated to the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness of Montana and Idaho."
Animals like the grizzly, lynx, and wolf are what Wildlands co-architect Reed Noss calls "flagships" - "charismatic species that serve as popular symbols for conservation." Wildlands propaganda abounds in poignant pleas on behalf of threatened "flagship" species and invocations of the duty to preserve such animals "for our children." Such media-friendly mantras are used to conceal the vicious misanthropy that animates the Wildlands Project. As Wildlands activist John Davis stresses, "in the long run all lands and waters should be left to the whims of Nature, not to the selfish desires of one species which chose for itself the misnomer Homo Sapiens."
According to Wildlands-linked activists on the Canadian side of the Y2Y zone, human beings across most of the western half of North America may have to be shoved aside to make room for grizzlies. British Columbia's Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, which was published in 1995 and remains the basis for the province's protected areas policy, employs the "charismatic species" concept by insisting that "nothing is a better measure of our success in maintaining biodiversity than the survival of this species."
Apparently, "recovery" of the grizzlies will require ample Lebensraum, since "over its lifetime, a single grizzly bear will require a home range between 50 and 100 square kilometers, and - in some cases - up to thousands of square kilometers." Within "grizzly bear management areas," continues the document, human activities "that are not compatible with grizzly bears [will be] carefully controlled or not allowed."
The Wildlands Project mission statement speaks of a day in which "Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska...." British Columbia's provincial Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy reflects that same vision by describing the historical range of the North American grizzly as encompassing "the western half of North America from the Arctic to central Mexico" - thereby conjuring up the decidedly improbable image of grizzlies frolicking on the slopes of Popocatepetl (see map).
"Zone of Imminent Danger"
The case of Montana rancher John Shuler, who was fined $7,000 by the FWS for killing a grizzly that had attacked his sheep and threatened his home, illustrates that in conflicts between humans and non-human predators within protected areas, it is the predator that will be given the benefit of the doubt. When Shuler appealed the FWS fine, a federal administrative law judge ruled that when he had sought to protect his property he had "purposefully place[d] himself in the zone of imminent danger of a bear attack" and fined the rancher an additional $4,000.
Wildlands activists seeking to recover large predators throughout the mountainous West are placing landowners across the region in the "zone of imminent danger" by design. According to one supporter of re-wilding Western lands, the introduction of large predators like grizzly bears and wolves is to "bring back another element that has been vanishing from the Western back country. That ingredient is fear. Wolves [and similar large predators] are killers.... People will think twice before traipsing into the back country."
According to Wildlands Project board president Harvey Locke, "helping large carnivores recolonize parts of their former range" is a major aim of the re-wilding process, since the effort would "preserve or restore species at the top of the food chain." This would come as news to those people in the areas slated for re-wilding, who may have assumed that humans are the "species at the top of the food chain." Difficult though it may be for rational people to understand, many biocentric radicals consider ecologically "unenlightened" humans to be little more than a source of protein for non-human predators.
In July 1997, a female cougar killed a 10-year-old in Colorado's Rocky Mountain Park. Rangers tracked the animal down and killed it, prompting voluble protests from several biocentric fanatics. "The female lion represented the future of her species, which I believe has an equal right to exist on this planet," wrote environmental activist Gary Lane in a letter to the editor of a local paper. "The lioness deserved better treatment from the rangers." The cougar's destruction also angered Sherrie Tippie of Wildlife 2000, a Denver-based biocentric group, who complained that "the only species we have too many of is the human one. I am very concerned about the influx of people into our state who are not educated about our wildlife."
In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 117, a measure banning the sport hunting of mountain lions. In predictable fashion, the cougar population exploded, ravaging food sources and driving the starving carnivores into human population centers in search of sustenance - with lethal consequences for both livestock and human beings.
After a cougar attacked a 10-year-old girl near Los Angeles in September 1993, two park rangers reluctantly dispatched the crazed predator. Other attacks resulted in physical injury to human beings. Finally, in April 1994, a woman named Barbara Schoener was attacked by an 82-pound female cougar. The cat crushed Schoener's skull, then dragged the hapless jogger 300 feet and devoured her face and most of her internal organs. Fish and Game officials hunted the cougar down and killed it, and in doing so provoked the wrath of local biocentrists.
In a letter to the Sacramento Bee, one eco-radical suggested that "this noble creature may well have been venting centuries of mountain-lion anger against the humans who have driven it from its land, destroyed its home, ruthlessly hunted it down, and, as the final indignity, debased it to an advertising device to sell cars." Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Humane Society, accused those who were outraged by the death of Barbara Schoener of using harmful stereotypes. "The HSUS accepts that individual animals judged to be a threat to people should be removed. But the injurious act of one animal should not provide a license to wreak vengeance on other members of an animal population. We are encroaching on their habitat, and we must respect that they should have a place to live as well." (Emphasis added.)
In late 1995, 56-year-old high school counselor Iris Kenna was attacked and mauled by a 140-pound cougar in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park near San Diego. Commenting on that and other cougar attacks, pollster Michael Manfredo told the January 8, 1996 issue of Newsweek: "There's a value shift about how people view wildlife, a high willingness to accept mountain lions on the urban fringe - even if they kill people." As the Wildlands Project unfolds, cougars, wolves, bears, and other predators will have ample opportunities to test that "value shift."
Some eco-radicals have candidly admitted that one purpose to be served by re-colonizing predators in or near populated areas is to drive recalcitrant humans off the land. Few biocentric radicals have expressed this militant misanthropy as candidly as David Garber, a research biologist with the National Park Service:
"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature, but that isn't true.... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
'How Canada Lost Its Rights And Liberties - And Few Cared!'
'How Britain Legislated Away 2,000 Years Of Rights And Freedom'
| ||||
, Travel DVDs, Atlases and Maps and Guidebooks invaluable!
You'll Find These Related Books And Videos Intriguing, Too...
"The Clinton Chronicles Book" - edited by Patrick Matrisciana
"Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security" - Robert Patterson
"Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster" -edited by Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher Jr.
"The Boys on the Tracks" - Mara Leveritt
"The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories" - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
"Betrayal : How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security" - Bill Gertz
"Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash" - Edward Timperlake, et al
"The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House" - Barbara Olson
"Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton" - Barbara Olsen
"The Case Against Hillary Clinton" - Peggy Noonan
"Hig