Progressive Review © 2000

[Back when Colin Powell was last in the news -- as a possible 1996 presidential candidate -- we proposed a few questions for him]

- Who won the Gulf War?
- If the answer is the US, then how come Saddam Hussein is still in power?
- Well then, if that's the case, when exactly did Hussein stop being the "modern-day Hitler" as we were told at the time?
- How many people did your troops kill during the Gulf war?
- Why did we have to kill that many?
- How many dead Iraqi draftees did your troops bulldoze into mass graves?
- Wasn't the immolation of retreating Iraqi soldiers along the "Highway of Death" a bit excessive?
- How many oil refineries were ignited by your own bombs?
- How much radioactive material did you leave in the Iraqi desert?
- How many civilians did our troops kill in Panama?
- How many were buried in mass graves?
- Is the sort of censorship, disinformation, and misinformation provided by the military during the Gulf war and Panamanian invasion what we could expect from a Powell presidency?
- What differences are there between American-style democracy and the civilian operations carried out by the US military in places such as Panama, Kuwait and Somalia?
- Which style of governance would your administration favor?
- Describe the nature of your professional experience with each style of governance.
- Why did you help to cover up allegations of a massacre of 400 Vietnamese at My Lai?
- While in Vietnam what steps, if any, did you take to stop war crimes such as the shooting of unarmed civilians from US helicopters?
- Why did Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh find your testimony in his investigation to be "at least misleading" although it "did not warrant prosecution?"
- Describe your efforts to reduce the more than $30 billion in Pentagon "problem disbursements" i.e. money that was spent but the military can't figure who spent or authorized it to be spent.
- Does the fact that about half the front-line troops in the Gulf War were from ethnic minorities reflect your concern for civil rights?
- Why do you think it is that a higher percentage of American veterans than non-veterans are unemployed, homeless or imprisoned?
- You have shown considerable interest in the Buffalo Soldiers. Discuss their role in the ethnic cleansing of native Americans by the US military.
- You urged military men to resign if they also opposed Clinton's policy on gays in the military. Name one or more other issues in which you expressed public opposition to your commander-in-chief?
- Are you at all concerned about the growing intrusion of the military into democratic American life -- including law enforcement? Discuss.
- What can you tell us that would reassure that in voting for you we would not only put a military man in office but the military as well. -- Progressive Review, November 1995


PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, March 1996: Much of the military's intrusion [into civilian affairs under Clinton] has been accomplished without public notice. For example, the Pentagon has greatly expanded JROTC programs. Last year, the American Friends Service Committee found retired military personnel teaching approximately 310,000 students, ages 14 and up, in about 2200 high schools (with another 700 on the docket). As the AFSC pointed out:

"Public schooling strives to promote respect for other cultures, critical thinking and basic academic skills in a safe environment. In contrast, JROTC introduces guns into the schools, promotes authoritarian values, uses rote learning methods, and consigns much student time to learning drill, military history and protocol, which have little relevance outside the military. It pays off, though, for the Pentagon. Although the JROTC denies it is engaged in recruiting, 45% of all cadets completing the program sign up, mostly as enlisted personnel. AFSC also found that JROTC programs are more often found in schools with a high proportion of non-white students -- now providing 54% of all cadets -- and in non-affluent schools."

And what are these cadets being taught? Says the report:

"A comparison of the JROTC curriculum and two widely used civilian high school civics and history textbooks demonstrates that the JROTC curriculum falls well below accepted pedagogical standards. Units on citizenship and history are strikingly different from standard civil texts on these subjects. For example . . . the JROTC text portrays citizenship as being primarily achieved through military service, provides only a short discussion of civil rights; and downplays the importance of civilian control of the military. . . . In comparison to the civilian history text, historical events in the JROTC curriculum are distorted . . History is described as a linear series of accomplishments by soldiers, while the progress engendered by regular citizens is marginalized. America's wars are treated as having been inevitable.
While it claims to provide leadership training with broad relevance, in fact the JROTC curriculum defines leadership as respect for constituted authority and the chain of command, rather than as critical thinking and democratic consensus-building . . . Finally, the text encourages the reader to rely uncritically on the military as a source of self-esteem and guidance."

Further, at a time that schools are trying desperately to discourage violence, the JROTC is teaching students how to kill more effectively. It is also teaching them -- in a text that addresses the "Indian menace" that "Fortunately the government policy of pushing the Indians farther West, then wiping them out, was carried out successfully. "

And just where did the idea come from for the expansion of military indoctrination in our high schools? From none other than that very media model of a major modern general -- Colin Powell.

Following the LA uprising in 1992, writes Steven Stycos in the Providence Phoenix, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "proposed a massive expansion of the program. Powell urged the new units be targeted to inner-city youth as an alternative to drug use and gang membership." In New England the number of students involved nearly tripled.

Was Powell seeking citizen officers to balance the academy-trained military? Absolutely not. The JROTC students are grunt-fodder. Besides, while referring to ROTC as "vital to democracy," Powell closed 62 college-based ROTC units during this same period. The inevitable result was that the proportion of academy-trained officers rose and the role of the citizen-officer diminished. You may recall that Powell was the man whom the media pushed for president, depicting him as in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower. The media forgot to tell us that while Eisenhower warned of a growing military-industrial complex, Powell has been one of its biggest beneficiaries and boosters. While Eisenhower fought to restore democracy, Powell fought to preserve sheikdoms. While the Eisenhower-era military followed the wartime orders of strong civilian leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt, the Powell-era military won't even follow Bill Clinton's orders in peacetime. While Eisenhower was part of a unique military demobilization after the Second World War, Powell was among those who prevented demobilization after the Cold War. On top of which he wants kids to know that the Indians were a menace.


Recall from previous CCW Alerts that "Those who operate under the DIRECTION and CONTROL of the World Bank owe their "primary allegiance" to the principles and policies of the World Bank, and DO NOT take directive from ANY Nation or State. Mendaro vs. The World Bank, 717 F.2d 610; Articles of Agreement of the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development, Article VII, 60 Stat. 1457.   The World Bank and The Fund are the "principal", and it is the World Bank's POLICY that is being implemented by and through various "intergovernmental" agencies (International Organizations) in accordance with the "Brady Plan", the "Multilateral Economic Assistance Act of 1989", Public Law 101-167, and as specifically declared under the subheading of "Environmental Concerns" found at 103 Statutes At Large, pages 1227 and 1228, in addition to numerous other United Nations agreements, such as the "Adoption Of Agreement On Environment And Development, June 3 - 14, 1992 at the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro, out of which AGENDA 21 was born, to produce "sustainable communities", and "sustainable economic development". Additional evidence of DIRECT INVOLVEMENT by the World Bank is found in the "Convention On Biological Diversity", Articles 21 and 39, Treaty Document 103-20, among others.   The general public, however, have never read any of the foregoing documents or public laws, and therefore is left without specific reference to such important documents and to the TRUTH about the operations of the World Bank and their "collaborators", including all of their inter-related NGO's, "stakeholder councils", etc. Sadly, few, if any, would understand what is really being promoted and implemented and even fewer would know of the distortionary interventions and known ADVERSE affects of their international agenda.

Example: The World Bank published its own book called "Growth-Oriented Adjustment Programs", and in the Chapter entitled "Agricultural Structural Policies", under the subheading "Distortions in Rural and Agricultural Sectors", the World Bank openly admits the following:
"Governments seem to have an almost infinite capacity to create distortions in their rural and agricultural sectors. Not only is there a wide variety of such distortionary interventions, but the severity of the extortions imposed by some distortions has reached amazing levels, as will be illustrated later. Compared with some governments the famous American frontier bandit, Jesse James, was a saint." 
The World Bank indeed understands the "programme", mode of operation and the consequences, however, the passage from the book is NOT properly talking about "Governments." The World Bank is acknowledging the activities of its OWN corporate stockholders, such as the "United States" with its controlling 19.96% share of voting share stock in the World Bank, and who are operating under ITS CHARTER and NOT in sovereign character, capacity or attribute. When the United States becomes a voting share stock holder in ANY trading company, it WAIVES all the character of sovereignty and takes on the character of the corporation. The United States, in effect, becomes the ALTER-EGO for the true principal party in interest, which is The Fund (IMF) and The Bank (World Bank). See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. 244. So, the MISCONCEPTION of Governmental character, capacity and attributes can now be dispensed with. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT that is instituting these plans and programmes, such as Local Agenda 21, and hence forth, local community plans (such as the "South Hill Community Plan").
Public Law 85-766, Section 1602, which is codified at 50 USC 407, PROHIBITS the United Nations plans and progammes on U.S. soil. United States Criminal Code 18 USC 219, likewise, absolutely PROHIBITS any officer, employee, or agent of the United States from acting as an agent of any foreign principal. The Constitution for the United States of America, Preamble, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, clearly specify "FOR" the "common defence and general welfare of the United States" and pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2, all Treaties and international agreements must be UNDER Authority.
The global brand of leadership by the United Nations and its sister international organizations, corporations and associations, the World Bank, and its subsidiary international lending institutions, such as the Inter-America Development Bank (Public Law 101-167), and the Agency For International Development, is admission of who the true principal party in interest is. It is NOT the Government of the United States or the Government of the State of Washington.
The international plans and programmes to direct and control economic, natural and human resources under the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Treaty Document 97-19, as well as the common public and private property, and place them under the direction and control of such an entity and association raises some serious questions, including but not limited to, allegiance, conflict of interest, fraud, and the true intent and objectives.
All of the "International" programs being implemented by the United Nations and through its sister International Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including The Bank and the Fund as well as numerous NGO's, violate fundamental principles and are in clear breach of trust. As stated by John Locke in his noted writing, "A Treatise On The true Original Extent And End Of Civil Government, Chapter XIX, "Dissolution of Government", Section 231:
"That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantage by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offense is thereby the greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and by breaking the trust which is put into there hand by their  brethren."
The numerous COVERT MEETINGS in such places as Rembouillet, France (See: Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148), and Rio de Janeiro (UNCED  Earth Summit 1992 & Agenda 21), where such plans and executory accords and other nefarious agreements are reached, always raises questions of true intent and objective. The concept that the principal, that is the sovereignty, is not bound or obligated by the secret agreements of the agent is as old as the fundamental concept that governments are formed and established only by the "consent of the governed."
It is more than obvious to an inquiring mind that the International Organizations, Corporations, Associations, and combinations are of ARISTOCRATIC FORM and have been historically and presently known for despotism and tyranny. The Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, ONLY secures a "Republican Form" of governance. Therefore, these Organizations are UNconstitutional and UNauthorized.
Regarding the website below, when you click on it you will be particularly interested in the third item, "U.S. gets a pie in its face".... a lot of good information below the pictures.... The article reveals how and why these so-called "protestors" and NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations), who are identified as "collaborators", show up at each of these STAGED United Nations events, like they did last year in Seattle at the WTO, and during the anniversary of it yesterday-- quoting from the "Pie" story:
" least five of these NGOs, (including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund) are identified in the financial reports of the Global Environment Facility, as "collaborators" in projects funded to the tune of more than $750 million per year.
"These NGOs are the activist army of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the granddaddy of all extremist NGOs. The IUCN develops the policy proposals which the United Nations legitimizes through international treaties. The NGOs drum up public support through extravagant propaganda so the treaties are adopted at international conferences and implemented by participating governments.

"The uncivil acts of the so-called "civil society" attract the attention of the press. The siege in Seattle surrounding the WTO meeting is a recent example. The press amplifies the claims of the extremists and public opinion is influenced - without the benefit of factual information." (And of course, the media is presenting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right? WRONG!!!)

Real cute, huh? And the media as well as the Sheople who are watching and listening, don't have a CLUE as to "who" is doing what to whom!

/s/ John R. Prukop, Legal Researcher

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it."
--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ("Conclusion")
  "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
  CCW Coalition: Citizens For A Constitutional Washington Pro Se LEARN: Litigate, Educate, Agitate & Recall Now!
John R. Prukop, Executive Director
11910-C Meridian Ave. E., #142
Puyallup, Washington 98373
TEL:  (253) 840-8071
FAX: (253) 840-8074