THE ATTACK OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES

By Cheryl Chumley
April 4, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

To borrow from Alice, the business of farming grows curiouser and curiouser.

Only the most blissfully unaware would think of today’s farming as a pure industry, driven solely by free-market principle and supply-demand economics, devoid of federal intervention and subsidy or international influence and trade treaty. But the picture painted at the 2005 Agricultural Forum, hosted Feb. 24-25 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, holds the future of farmers as this: While one hand plants, the other is busied whapping back the conservationists who want nothing more than to control giant swaths of this nation’s lands.

How else to perceive the sheer abundance of conservation and land preservation tables in the exhibition hall of this forum?

Mixed among the expected displays the tables offering the likes of grains’ and soybeans’ outlooks and research on weather trends were slews of land-use and land policy materials. From new conservation programs to invasive species alerts, the core theme captured was this: Farmers are being bombarded from all directions with messages on environmentalism, to such extent that food production is starting to seem secondary to land preservation.

Just take the topic of invasive species, for one.

Defined as “alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm to human health,” the issue was thrust front and center during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. In a 1999 executive order telling in itself, by the way, as it indicates little support from Congress Clinton tasked officials from a range of federal departments, from Commerce and Interior to Transportation and Defense, to form a council and develop a management plan to halt the spread of invasive species.

Given that invasive species is defined as alien species, and that alien species is subsequently defined as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spore, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem,” the management plan ostensibly carries with it justification to oversee the spread of almost any plant, animal or organic life form nationwide. As an aside, it would seem logical that Americans themselves could be labeled “invasive species,” as those of English, Irish, French, and the rest of the descending ethnicities came from abroad, and have since arguably “caused economic and environmental harm.”

But back to point, and the significance of this executive order, which is that the federal agencies making up the Invasive Species Council have, at their disposal, a vast array of laws and powers to carry out eradication efforts, including the right to control activities on private lands, especially those located near national parks, forests and ranges.

Interestingly, both Defense and State departments are exempted from Invasive Species Council mandates. But for the rest of America, the danger of these species is real so real, in fact, that it’s characterized, rather humorously, as one of the most vicious threats facing our nation since well, since the last environmental threat, anyway.

In its management plan, Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge, the Council found “invasive species are everywhere” and are “one of the most serious environmental threats of the 21st century.”

Wow, that’s pretty darn serious. Who would have thought the likes of golf course grass seed, commonly imported from Afghanistan, could carry such risk? If only the invasive species weren’t so sneaky, perhaps the level of danger would not be so high.

But these pesky, oft-invisible critters “move as unknown stowaways and hitchhikers by air, water, rail or road, threatening “plant, animal and human health” in the process, refusing to rest until the devastation is complete, the report continues.

The cost to the innocent? Roughly $137 billion and untold acres per year, researchers say.

“Every year, (invasive species) spread across three million additional acres, an area twice the size of Delaware. Every day, up to 4,600 acres of additional federal public areas in the (West) are negatively impacted, this same Invasive Species Council report finds.

Good God, why hasn’t someone called out the National Guard? If the United States is losing the comparable land mass of two Delaware's per year, then shouldn’t we be doing something other than setting up informational booths at farming forums?  

Of course, maybe this scare is just that - yet another environmental fright thrown our way, next to climate change and global warming, to enact an agenda that seems more aligned with taking and controlling private property rather than truly “saving” humans from any real danger.

© 2005 Cheryl Chumley - All Rights Reserved

DID INHOFE KNEW OF CRIMINAL

ACTIVITY IN OKC BOMBING?

Patrick Briley
April 4, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

David Schippers was the legal counsel for the House Managers of the Senate trial of President Clinton. He recently published a book entitled “SellOut “ and appeared on TV and radio programs talking about the meeting he, the House managers such as Henry Hyde and US Senators had while preparing for the Senate trial.

On page 21 of his book, Schippers states that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma came to the meeting with the group of Republican Senators , Domenici and Stevens, who opposed the House managers attempts to call 10 to 15 witnesses and to introduce much more serious evidence involving national security against the President besides the Lewinsky matter and other sex scandals.

In a live radio interview with Tom Valentine of Radio Free America, Schippers was asked to elaborate about Senator Inhofe’s conduct in the meetings with Schippers and the House managers. Schippers expressed anger about Inhofe in the interview. While Schippers said that Inhofe did not openly oppose the House mangers, Schippers also said that Inhofe did not speak up in the meetings to support the House managers or to rebuke the other Senators that Schippers accused of reprehensible acts and statements in the meetings.

The other Senators had flaunted their contempt for the Constitution and even their own Senate rules and yet Inhofe did or said nothing about it according to Schippers. Schippers went on to say that Inhofe has not really adequately spoken up about the blocking of the House managers or the corruption of his fellow Senators or the other evidence of criminality even to this day.

Gary Hoitsma, Inhofe’s press secretary, contacted me from Washington DC at my home on September 12, 2000 in an attempt to address my concerns. I also called Hoitsma on September 19, 1999 to inform Hoitsma in detail of what Schippers had said publicly about Inhofe on the Valentine radio program. And Hoitsma acknowledged that he knew that Inhofe and Valentine had known each other for more than twenty years.

Hoitsma said that Inhofe had been in favor of calling witnesses at the Senate trial before the meetings with the House managers and other Senators. But he also said he did not know why Inhofe did not speak up about the witnesses when it counted in the meetings. And Hoitsma went on to strongly criticize Senators Stevens and Domenici for their opposition in the meetings. He said they, and not Senator Inhofe, should be blamed. I asked him, well then why had the public not heard a complaint about Stevens and Domenici from Inhofe or his office? He said he did not know why.

Mr. Hoitsma told me that he and Senator Inhofe were aware of “criminal activity in the White House “ (I am quoting Mr. Hoitsma) at the time of the Senate trial. I pressed Mr. Hoitsma about why Inhofe was with the Senators who blocked the House managers and why Inhofe did not speak up in the meeting or after the meeting about his knowledge of “criminal activity in the White House”. Mr. Hoitsma stated that Inhofe had to “pick and choose” what issues Inhofe would pursue. I asked him if Inhofe had picked any of the criminal activity issues and he said he was not aware of any that Inhofe had yet picked.

I asked Hoitsma if Inhofe was aware of Schipper’s allegations in 1998 and 1999 that Gore and the White House had brought in one million immigrants to the US and illegally had them prematurely naturalized so they could vote Democratic in the 1996 national elections. Many of these immigrants were committing serious crimes of murder, robbery and rape and were in a position to vote in the 2000 national elections. Hoitsma said he and Inhofe were aware of the allegations and thought they may be true and that Inhofe had not picked this issue to pursue as well as other criminal activities. He was at a loss to explain Inhofe’s silence or inaction.

I asked Hoitsma why it was that Inhofe would at least not speak up for his own party about the illegal immigrant voters since they could help defeat Republicans in the 2000 elections. Hoitsma did not know the answer to my question he said.

My response to Hoitsma was that I was not aware that Inhofe had adequately picked or chosen or pursued any major issues relating to criminal activity. I told him Inhofe’s inaction and silence was indefensible particularly when Inhofe knew our country, like Rome was on fire and burning. He acknowledged that our country was, in effect, on fire with criminal activity in the White House and he even referred to conversations Inhofe had with former FBI agent Gary Aldridge about some of the criminal activities.

I went on to explain to Hoitsma that I had talked personally in detail to Inhofe in January 1999 about FBI and DOJ criminal conduct in the OKC bombing case, including but not limited to threats made by FBI agents against me, my wife, law enforcement and military personnel, and victims and witnesses in the case. I had reached Inhofe by phone at his home in Tulsa in January 1999. Inhofe told me he was on the phone at the same time with Senator Sessions of Alabama discussing the Senate trial for Clinton.

Inhofe had met me before and knew me since I served as a volunteer in his Senatorial election campaigns in 1994 and 1996. He even introduced me to his daughter, a professor at the University of Arkansas, during one of the campaign events.

During the phone call, Inhofe personally assured me he would take action on the matter and the information I and the Pentagon terrorism advisor had given him and his office in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Inhofe also told me he would help protect me and my wife from the threats of the FBI against me and my wife over the OKC bombing case.

Inhofe asked me the name of the FBI agent who had made the threats, and I told Inhofe it was James Carlysle as well as the wife of FBI agent Jon Hersely, Christy Hersely. Christy Hersely threatened my wife twice with loss of employment over what Hersely and the wife, Dee Vogel, of another FBI agent, Dan Vogel, had told my wife on the morning of the bombing about FBI foreknowledge and being tipped in advance.

Jon Hersely was the senior case agent on the OKC bombing case and testified for the FBI before the Federal Grand Jury, the Oklahoma County Grand Jury, the Federal trials in Denver and the Preliminary hearing on April 27, 1995. I believe he gave false, misleading testimony and deliberately withheld evidence of FBI criminal conduct in the case from the courts. He and Carlysle are known to have threatened other witnesses and falsified FBI interview reports with these witnesses including local law enforcement personnel.

This evidence given to Inhofe’s office and described by me to Inhofe included a tape recording of a conversation between an FBI agent and the terrorism advisor discussing the policy of allowing known Middle Eastern” terrorists to circulate for extended periods of time inside the US to track their movements before bringing them to justice even though they were in position to commit terrorist acts during the time.

This is consistent with testimony Louis Freeh gave to Congress in May 1995, in which Freeh openly discussed populating Middle Eastern cells in the US with known terrorists to track them. And according to the December 1998 New York Times, the highly paid and recruited CIA and FBI operative, Ali Mohammed, was indicted in December 1998 for his role in helping Bin Laden do the World Trade Center, the Kenyan and Tanzanian bombings, as well as setting up terrorists cells in the US believed to have assisted McVeigh in the OKC bombing. Mohammed’s activities occurred while he was an FBI operative out of Sacramento, California form 1992 to 1998, according to an FBI spokesman quoted in the Sacramento Bee.

The context of the taped conversation with the FBI agent and the Pentagon terrorism advisor was the OKC bombing as well as Ishan Barbouti, an Iraqi who had obtained weapons of mass destruction for Saddam Hussein and whose son, Haidar Barbouti, has been mentioned as a possible suspect in the OKC and Lockerbie bombing cases. The Barboutis had had contact with the CIA and were known to the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senator Dennis DiConcini in the late 1980s and in the aftermath of the Gulf War. I was also a topic of conversation during the taping in a way that even the Pentagon advisor and Mike Murray found repugnant.

Furthermore, Inhofe discussed directly with me that his former Chief of staff and closest advisor, Herb Johnson, had written and signed a letter pertaining to the OKC bombing cover-up and provided the letter for a TV reporter Herb had spoken to, that Inhofe knew of, and that I know personally. The letter describes the FBI and DOJ knowledge and cover-up of Middle Eastern involvement in the OKC bombing.

I had spoken with and worked with Herb Johnson on several occasions during the 1996 Senate campaign to help him and Inhofe locate a campaign headquarters in OKC. I thought Herb was an honorable and courageous man. I was very sorry to learn of his heart attack in DC in November 1998. I know someone who was his pallbearer and who worked closely with Herb on the OKC bombing starting moments after the explosion.

I also told Inhofe about the letter his staff, Mike Murray and his legal counsel, Ed Wheeler had written to the FBI under Inhofe’s signature concerning me and the OKC bombing and about the FBI response. I explained to Inhofe that Wheeler had told me on at least three occasions, after the letters were sent and received, that Inhofe would not ever be informed about my case, the evidence provided by the Pentagon terrorism advisor, or the letters between his office and the FBI even though I have copies of the letters.

I told Inhofe that either his staff was sandbagging him or they had been under orders not to tell him to maintain ”plausible deniability.” Although he thanked me for telling him this, he did not explain the actions of his staff.

The letter sent to the FBI by Inhofe’s office, under his signature, did not address the evidence provided by the Pentagon terrorism advisor and the letter was very weak and watered down compared to what Wheeler and Murray originally told me was going to be put in the letter. They both later acknowledged the letter’s weakness to me but would not give me an explanation for why it had been weakened. They delayed about six months sending the letter after first assuring me that a strong letter would be sent to the FBI in September of 1996 especially after Murray said he took the tape and played it for himself.

They told me later they did not want to send the letter until after the 1996 Senate campaign for fear it might come up in the election. Inhofe had been criticized by the Democrats in campaign ads for Inhofe publicly questioning why there had been such high absenteeism among Federal workers at the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995.

Murray and Wheeler sent me the FBI response to the Inhofe letter and I believe every sentence in the FBI’s letter was false. I wrote a rebuttal to the FBI letter and sent it to Wheeler and Murray. I asked them to have Inhofe respond to the FBI letter and address the points in my rebuttal letter. It was at that time that they told me they had not and would never make Inhofe aware of these letters or the evidence.

I called Julia Clay of Senator Inhofe’s office in Tulsa in 1996 and 1997 about the letters and the conduct of Wheeler and Murray. I regularly kept her informed of these matters and the OKC bombing case and threats to me and my wife by the FBI from 1995 through 1999. She spoke with me several times when I worked with Herb Johnson and she and her husband have known Inhofe for more than 35 years. On all occasions I spoke with her, she told me she would tell Inhofe.

The day after I spoke with Inhofe in January 1999, his DC office called me and told me they had been instructed by Senator Inhofe to send all letters and evidence pertaining to me, the Pentagon terrorism advisor, and the OKC bombing case directly to the Senate Intelligence Committtee. I asked the DC office if they were retaining copies of everything they were sending to the Intelligence Committee and I told them in my opinion they should. They told me that they were not asked to retain copies but would ask if copies should be retained.

Inhofe and his staff had waited for over three years to send much of these materials to the Intell Committee and they were not retaining copies? Why did he wait so long? Did Inhofe want to make it look like he had done something after speaking to me and yet have deniability for not keeping records in his office on the letters and evidence?

I do not believe Inhofe had not been informed much earlier by his staff about the evidence and the letters. Particularly since his legal counsel was involved and even more because I made sure that Julia Clay did tell Inhofe in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Clay assures me she did tell Inhofe during those times.

In February 1999 I contacted a legal counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee, Joan Vale Grimson, and told her about the Pentagon terrorism advisor, the correspondence between Inhofe and the FBI and the taped evidence concerning the OKC bombing as well as the Herb Johnson letter.

Mrs. Grimson, met with the Pentagon terrorism advisor in April 1999 for several hours to discuss the OKC bombing case. Senator Inhofe’s representative on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ken Johnson was invited to the meeting. According to the Pentagon advisor, Ken Johnson showed up very late for the meeting and acted disinterested and did not contribute to the meeting or followup with any meaningful questions.

I called Mrs. Grimson and confirmed the meeting had taken place with the Pentagon advisor and Ken Johnson and her. I called Ken Johnson within a day of the meeting and reiterated my evidence and concerns about the OKC bombing. In my opinion, Johnson did not act very interested and to this day, to my knowledge, has not followed up with any meaningful questions with me or the Pentagon advisor.

Mrs. Grimson later apologized to me for the way the FBI had treated me, my wife and my family over the OKC bombing case. And she acknowledged that the Pentagon advisor had told her that the FBI had conducted the worst coverup of a criminal investigation in American history over the OKC bombing case. The Pentagon advisor had told the same thing to a legal counsel, Kolan Davis, for the Senate Judiciary Committee in Senator Charles Grassley’s office in my presence on December 15, 1997. I wrote a letter to the editor of a prominent national magazine quoting the advisor about the FBI coverup in the meeting with Kolan Davis, with the full permission of the advisor. My letter was published.

Inhofe sits on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees and as of this date, he and the Committees have not done a follow-up or investigation of the evidence and allegations about the OKC bombing case with me or the Pentagon terrorism advisor.

Inhofe had every opportunity to bring up criminal evidence against the White House and DOJ in the Senate trial including evidence he has about the FBI coverup of the OKC bombing case from his own Chief of staff, Herb Johnson. Why did he not bring it up then? Why has he still not told the public about it to this day? Why has he not taken any adequate actions to stop the criminal activities which Hoitsma says Inhofe is aware of including the OKC bombing?

I have been told by a reliable person, close to the OKC bombing investigation and in a position to know, that a prominent US Congressman had planned to bring up evidence pertaining to criminal misconduct by the White House in the OKC bombing case. However, due to the actions or inaction of some US Senators, Republican and Democratic, the US Congressman was blocked from doing so and the House Managers were not allowed to bring up evidence other than Lewinsky.

Of course, if this story is true, then why has this Congressman or the other Senators, like Inhofe, still not brought up the criminal allegations and evidence before the American people or in other legal forums? They are not restricted to just pursuing the matter in a Senate trial.

Even if the story about the US Congressman would turn out to not be accurate, I know some of what evidence Inhofe has and I know he did not bring it up at the Senate trial and still has not brought it up anywhere else. But, if Inhofe knew of the US Congressman’s evidence and desire to bring up the evidence on OKC, then Inhofe is really without excuse not to help the Congressman at the trial meetings or even now not make the evidence and allegations known.

Inhofe’s silence and inaction on these matters in the OKC bombing and the Senate trial is tantamount to criminal cover-up on his part. He has not upheld the Constitution or the laws of this land and has not adequately protected me or his fellow citizens. I told Hoitsma that Inhofe was not entitled to not pick the OKC bombing case as one he would not pursue given Inhofe’s knowledge of criminal conduct in the case by the FBI and DOJ.

Inhofe violated his promise to me to adequately pursue the OKC bombing case. Inhofe’s deliberate inaction is exposing me , my wife and family, and millions of Americans to Middle Eastern terrorism, a corrupt FBI and DOJ, and a corrupt White House. Inhofe is without excuse because Inhofe knows about the terrorism and White House criminal activity and he is not doing anything adequate to try and expose and stop it.

“To whom much is given, much is required,” I reminded Hoitsma. Hoitsma replied that Inhofe himself frequently quotes the same phrase. Therefore, Inhofe is totally without excuse since Inhofe knows better and deliberately has let American “burn” like Nero let Rome burn as he fiddled.  

I told Hoitsma that Inhofe did not deserve to wear the mantel of authority Inhofe had assumed to protect this country and Christians because Inhofe had knowingly failed his country and the House managers and even me at a time when he was most needed.

Inhofe’s strong speeches on the floor of the Senate against Clinton and in defense of our military are not adequate in exposing and stopping the criminality and terrorism Inhofe really knows about. The speeches will not remove the blood from his hands if anyone gets killed because of his silence and inaction.

© 2005 Patrick Briley - All Rights Reserved