We as spiritual beings or souls come to earth in order to experience the human condition. This includes the good and the bad scenarios of this world. Our world is a duality planet and no amount of love or grace will eliminate evil or nastiness. We will return again and again until we have pierced the illusions of this density. The purpose of human life is to awaken to universal truth. This also means that we must awaken to the lies and deceit mankind is subjected to. To pierce the third density illusion is a must in order to remove ourselves from the wheel of human existences. Love is the Answer by means of Knowledge and Awareness!

Enron - Baxter's Suicide Was Murder 
Say Top Cops 
By David Wright, Kevin Lynch, and Courtney Callahan The National Enquirer
3-4-2

It was murder. That's the stunning verdict of top law enforcement experts 
who have independently examined the shooting death of Enron executive Cliff 
Baxter, which was hurriedly ruled a suicide by a controversial medical 
examiner. 
  
And insiders believe the popular boss' tragic death is linked to the giant 
energy company whose shoddy dealings and bankruptcy have shattered the lives 
of thousands of employees. "Mr. Baxter's death was NOT a suicide-and nothing 
points to a natural death, which leads to the unavoidable conclusion that 
foul play was involved," said Peter Levin, a veteran prosecutor in 
Philadelphia. 
  
Baxter, a 43-year-old former vice-president of the Houston-based company, 
was found dead in his Mercedes just half a mile from his $700,000 home. 
  
He had been steeling himself to testify before congressional committees 
about Enron's questionable accounting practices-and just days earlier had 
talked to a business associate about "perhaps needing a bodyguard." 
  
"He knew where all the Enron bodies were buried and he was apparently ready 
to talk," former congressman John LeBoutillier, who attended Harvard 
Business School with former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, told The ENQUIRER. 
  
"The evidence for foul play is pretty strong. Here's a man who had 
everything to live for-children he loved and a comfortable future. He's 
lying in bed in the middle of the night when he suddenly gets up, dresses, 
gets into his car, drives a short distance and blows his brains out. It 
doesn't make sense. 
  
"There's billions of dollars missing. If the people involved are capable of 
cheating, lying and stealing money, it's not going much further to hire a 
hit man and have someone whacked." 
  
Veteran prosecutor Craig Silverman, who nailed dozens of murderers in his 16 
years as chief deputy district attorney of Denver, Colo., told The ENQUIRER: 
  
"A trained killer can make a murder look like a suicide. There are hit men 
who work for lrge sums of money and do a very efficient job of killing the 
the way that suits their clients' purposes." Company insiders say Enron was 
a cesspool of greed, inflated egoes and illicit sex. And Baxter's friends 
and co-workers have deep doubts about the so-called suicide of a former boss 
who knew the inner workings of the firm. 
  
"He wasn't the kind of guy who'd kill himself," his friend Lyndon Taylor 
told The ENQUIRER. 
  
"Cliff had a happy disposition and I never really saw him get rattled. If 
someone could have walked out of this Enron scandal it would have been 
Cliff. He was a survivor." Added another close friend: "Here is a guy with 
everything in the world to live for. He still had his money, he had a huge 
yacht and a wonderful family. The thought that he would kill himself is 
absolutely mind-boggling." 
  
Baxter's body was found at 2:23 a.m. on January 25, Harris County medical 
examiner Joye Carter completed the autopsy and decided it was suicide by 
that night-unusual speed, according to insiders. 
  
Dr. Carter has a controversial past, an ENQUIRER investigation reveals. In 
1993 she was the District of Columbia Chief Medical Examiner when Washington 
lawyer Paul David Wilcher was mysteriously found dead in his apartment. 
Wilcher had been investigating the events leading up to the Branch Davidian 
fire in Waco, Texas. But no cause of death was ever determined and autopsy 
reports were never made public. 
  
In February 2001 Carter was fined $1,000 and narrowly escaped being fired 
for allowing an unlicensed pathologist to perform roughly 200 autopsies in 
the Houston area. And during her time in Houston, the county has paid hefty 
damages in two lawsuits brought by whistle- blowers on her staff who alleged 
official mis-conduct. 
  
Nine days after Baxter's death, police still hadn't publicly supported the 
suicide verdict. "It's highly significant that the police are being so 
cautious," a former senior detective told The ENQUIRER. "There are so many 
questions here-most importantly, why did he leave the house so suddenly? Was 
he lured by a phone call? Had he agreed to meet someone? 
  
"The fact that the police investigation is still going on tells me that 
despite what the medical examiner says, the detectives on the ground haven't 
ruled out murder." 

*****

x ** TOP_VIEW ** x
The Bigger Picture

3.2.02
CBS Poll: Enron Hurting ShrubMob BIGTIME


Hopefully not too little, too late.

The "emperor" is NOT invincible; and he is NOT wearing ANY clothes at all at 
this point.

ALL "cover' is BLOWN.
= = = = = = = =
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/28/opinion/printable502464.shtm l

Poll: Enron Hurting White House
CBS News Online
NEW YORK, February 28, 2002
Poll: Enron Hurting White House
NEW YORK, Feb. 28, 2002


The latest CBS News poll shows the fallout from the Enron bankruptcy 
continues to haunt the Bush Administration. Majorities of Americans now 
think the Bush administration and Vice President Dick Cheney are hiding 
something about their dealings with Enron. For the Vice President, the Enron 
connection comes in the form of the General Accounting Office lawsuit to 
access records from his energy task force meetings with industry executives. 
Most Americans believe big business has too much influence on both Congress 
and the current Administration. 

While the public is skeptical about the Enron situation, those Americans 
with 401-K money invested in their company's stock are unworried about the 
possibility of losing their own retirement savings, as many Enron employees 
did. 

Now, three quarters of the public think the Bush Administration is either 
hiding something or lying when it comes to its dealings with Enron 
executives, up from 67% just a month ago. The number of people who say the 
Administration is lying has more than doubled, to one in five now. Only 13% 
think members of the Bush Administration are telling the entire truth. 

IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR DEALINGS WITH ENRON? 

Now 
Telling the truth 13% 
Hiding something 55 
Lying 20 


1/02 
Telling the truth 17% 
Hiding something 58 
Lying 9 

Moreover, a majority of the public, 56%, says the Bush Administration is 
hiding "something the public needs to know" in their dealings with Enron. 
Just a month ago, 44% said so. 

IS THE ADMINISTRATION HIDING SOMETHING THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW? 

Now 
Hiding something, public needs to know 56% Hiding something, public doesn't 
need to know 19 Not hiding anything 13 


1/02 
Hiding something, public needs to know 44 Hiding something, public doesn't 
need to know 21 Not hiding anything 17 


Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think the Bush Administration 
is being forthcoming, 23% to 4%. Even so, the number of Republicans who say 
the Administration is telling the truth has gone down; a month ago, 32% of 
Republicans said the Administration was telling the truth. 

PROBLEMS FOR CHENEY 
There is another potential problem for the Bush Administration. Vice 
President Dick Cheney is currently facing a lawsuit by the General 
Accounting Office to make public records from meetings his energy task force 
held with executives from the energy industry, including some executives 
from the now-bankrupt Enron. 53% think Cheney is refusing to hand over 
records from those meetings because he has something to hide, and 37% think 
he is doing so on principle. 

WHY IS CHENEY REFUSING TO DIVULGE RECORDS ON TASK FORCE? 
Hiding something 53% 
Principle 37 

Political affiliation makes a big difference in people's views on this 
matter. Nearly two thirds of Republicans think Cheney's refusal to hand over 
the records was based on the principle that the executive branch needs to be 
able to seek advice freely, while 72% of Democrats say it was because the 
Vice President has something to hide. 

Opinions about this specific case are different from those about executive 
privilege in general, however. Most Americans believe it is the prerogative 
of the executive office to withhold such information. 59% say it should be 
up to the Administration to decide what to make public, and 31% feel that 
records from White House meetings should always be made public. 

CORPORATE INTERESTS AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION 

It's not just the Bush Administration that is thought to be influenced by 
big business. While 55% see the Bush Administration as too beholden to 
corporate interests, even more, 66%, say that about the House and Senate. 

CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT 

Bush Administration 
Too much 55% 
Too little 5 
Right amount 26 


Congress 
Too much 66% 
Too little 9 
Right amount 15 

Nevertheless, both of those figures have declined since last month, perhaps 
because the House recently passed campaign finance reform legislation, which 
would limit various types of campaign contributions, including contributions 
from big corporations. 

In addition, the public continues to think Enron executives had closer ties 
to Republicans than to Democrats, 44% to 10%. 

ENRON EXECS HAD CLOSER TIES TO: 
Republicans 44% 
Democrats 10 
Both equally 13 

When it comes to government regulation of business, 35% say the federal 
government regulates business too much; 26% say it regulates business too 
little, and 25% think the amount of regulation is about right. 

ENRON AND YOU 

34% of Americans report having portions of their retirement savings invested 
in a 401-K plan. Among those people, just over a third say their 401-K has 
money invested in their employer's company stock. 

Enron may have cast a cloud over the prospect of a financially secure 
retirement for some Americans, but most are not worried. 57% of those who 
have some of their 401-K in their company's stock are not worried about the 
stock's value going down, as happened with Enron. 33% of this group say they 
are worried (one in ten are very worried). 
Obviously, the effect still remains to be seen. 

WORRIED ABOUT COMPANY STOCK GOING DOWN (Among Those Whose 401-K Invests In 
Company Stock) Very worried 10% 
Somewhat worried 33 
Not worried 57 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 861 adults, 
interviewed by telephone February 24-26, 2002. The error due to sampling for 
results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage 
points. Sampling error for subgroups may be higher. 

© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

*****

Dacor@aol.com
---------------------------------
The Loyal Opposition
The Bush Doctrine: 
Ain't Nobody's Business But Our Own

BY DAVID CORN

Every so often, our elected leaders -- or somewhat elected leaders -- get 
something exactly wrong. Consider the Bush White House's over-our- 
dead-bodies refusal to release records on Vice-President Dick Cheney's 
energy task force to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress. Democrats and Republicans across town have been saying for weeks 
this is a boner of a move -- from a political vantage. It makes the White 
House looks guilty, and it continues to draw attention to the Bush-Enron 
connection. There's no one in the capital -- outside of the White House -- 
who believes this information won't pop out sooner or later. 

It's the principle, the principle, the White House keeps bleating. 
The Bushies are playing it like a good cop/bad cop routine: "I'd like to 
release this material, really I would, but my hard-ass partner here, Mr. 
Principle..." So what's the "basic fundamental principle," as Cheny calls 
it? Here it is: the White House should not have to tell the American public 
with whom it consults, for that would hinder the executive branch's ability 
to solicit the advice of outside experts. "I receive advice," George W. Bush 
said a few days ago, "and, in order for people to give me sound advice, that 
information ought not to be public. Somebody is not going to walk into the 
Oval Office thinking that the conversation is going to be public and give me 
good, sound advice." 

The President was being disingenuous. The GAO lawsuit seeking information on 
the Cheney task force only asks the White House to reveal the identities of 
the several hundred people who huddled with Cheney's crew as it drew up its 
energy plan last year. The GAO is not seeking minutes or transcripts of 
those sessions. But back to Bush's explanation of the "principle." Why 
assume that somebody who obtains an audience with the President to discuss a 
policy matter would be unwilling to supply "good, sound advice" if the 
public is notified of the session? Put another way, why would Bush or Cheney 
have to meet secretly with someone -- say, a corporate lobbyist -- in order 
to receive that person's frank and honest opinions? This sounds more like 
the ways of the mob than the conduct of government. 

Bush and Cheney are suggesting that an executive from Enron (I just picked 
that title randomly) would not feel free to tell them -- or the staff 
assistants of an administration task force -- his thoughts about electricity 
deregulation, if a newspaper were to note this exec had attended a policy 
chat at the White House. Does this make any sense? Most lobbyists would kill 
-- or donate millions -- for a minute of face-time with an aide to the Veep, 
during which they could plead their case. Would a lobbyist turn down such an 
opportunity because the White House had to report to Congress that she had 
been on the premises of 1600 Pennsylvania? Would a trade association 
official not share his unvarnished views unless he could sneak in and out of 
the West Wing? Remember, Bush and Co. are not erecting barricades to keep 
the contents of these conversations confidential; they are battling for the 
right to say to Congress and the public, who we meet with is our business, 
not yours. 

Cheney's much-cherished "principle" is bogus. Can Bush tell us why people 
won't openly trot into the Oval Office and talk honestly to the president? 
What are these would-be president's helpers scared of? One could argue Bush 
ought to be suspicious of receiving advice from anyone not willing to be 
seen entering the White House through the front door. 

There is a principle at stake. It just happens to be the opposite of what 
the Bush gang is pitching. Bush and Cheney are forgetting they are public 
servants. Their deliberations and decisions are public business. They work 
in a public facility (except, perhaps, when Cheney is in an undisclosed 
location). The presumption should be that they will reveal as much as 
possible to the public -- their bosses -- about what they do to earn their 
paychecks. This does not mean the President has to disclose to the public 
the sensitive details of diplomatic communications or classified national 
security activity. (He might, though, have to tell Congress.) But 
transparency should be considered an operating premise, not an inconvenience 
to be avoided if possible. 

The desire for good advice is a canard. Which leaves two other possible 
reasons for why the White House is reluctant to let loose this information. 
Either the White House doesn't want people to know specifically who it 
relied upon as it drafted its energy plan. (The New York Times reported that 
18 of the energy industry's top 25 financial donors to the GOP were 
permitted to peddle advice to Cheney's task force.) Or the Bush White House 
generally wants to be able to do whatever it damn well pleases with the 
minimum of pesky interference from anyone beyond its gates. That's a natural 
impulse for most administrations. But the Bush people are setting records in 
this area. 

A partial list: The President has deployed troops for the war on terrorism 
to the Philippines, Yemen and Georgia without consulting Congress. He issued 
an order limiting the release of records from previous administrations 
(including his pop's). Homeland security czar Tom Ridge refused to appear 
before Congress to discuss the anti- terrorism budget. Attorney General John 
Ashcroft sent out a memo encouraging federal agencies to be stingy in 
responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The administration, 
without fully informing Congress, set up a so-called "shadow government" of 
high-level bureaucrats stationed in undisclosed bunkers outside of 
Washington, who are prepared to take over the federal government should 
disaster - - that is, a nuclear explosion -- strike D.C. 

There's nothing wrong with such an exercise, but the congressional leaders 
who are in the line of presidential succession and who could end up in 
charge of this emergency government -- House Speaker Denny Hastert and 
Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate president pro tempore -- were not aware of 
the set-up. (Flashback: On the awful morning of September 11, I was outside 
my office, which is half a block from the Capitol, and in all the confusion 
I spotted Byrd seeking assistance from Capital Hill police officers. He had 
no clue where to go or what to do. So he decided to leave town quickly. The 
cops had to give him traffic directions for the best driving route out of 
Washington.) 

By the way, the history of COG -- continuity of government -- planning 
suggests Congress should take a keen interest in this subject. In 1987, 
during the Iran-contra scandal, The Miami Herald reported National Security 
Council aide Oliver North had helped draw up a COG plan that called, in the 
event of nuclear war, for the suspension of the Constitution and the 
imposition of martial law. When a congressman tried to ask North about this 
during the Iran- contra hearings, the committee chairman cut off the 
question and noted it was too dicey a topic to be handled in public. 

The White House's secrets-'r-us stance has taken a few shots in recent 
weeks. One federal judge, in response to a Freedom of Information Act 
lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, ordered the Energy 
Department to release documents related to Cheney's energy task force. 
Another federal judge, addressing a lawsuit brought by the rightwing 
Judicial Watch, instructed several federal agencies to make public thousands 
of documents related to Cheney's energy task force. At this rate, there soon 
may not be many secrets for Cheney to protect. But there's always that 
principle. 

In explaining why the Bush White House was entitled to hold closed- door 
meetings with energy industry representatives, Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer 
quipped, "The Constitution was, of course, drafted in total secrecy." But 
those doing the drafting were not a secret. And, more importantly, a chief 
concern of the 55 delegates was that the new central government would be too 
powerful and, in the words of my old college textbook (coauthored by Arthur 
Schlesinger Jr., C. Vann Woodward and other notable historians), "fall into 
the hands of a select group of wealthy and clever men who would use it to 
their own advantage and to the disadvantage of ordinary men." Hmmmm. 

Consequently, the founders concocted those famous checks and balances. But 
in the Bush White House, all that delicate constitutional craftsmanship 
yields to a higher principle, one that Bush and Cheney are so selflessly 
willing to fight for tooth and nail: mind your own business, and we'll mind 
ours. 
Published: Mar 08 2002

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation. His first novel, Deep 
Background, a political thriller, was published recently by St. 
Martin's Press.