United States Marine Field McConnell has linked his sister Kristine Marcy’s INS Pedophile Paperclip Project to the late John Shalikashvili, who as a former Clinton Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Boeing director, transferred Boeing’s headquarters to Chicago in 2001 where he allegedly set up an SBA mentor-protégé contract killing (hit) of Captain Chic Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flight 77, on 9/11.
John Malchase David Shalikashvili (Georgian: ჯონ მალხაზ დავით შალიკაშვილი, IPA:[ʃalikʼaʃvili]; June 27, 1936 – July 23, 2011) was a United States ArmyGeneral who served asChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Supreme Allied Commander from 1993 to 1997. He was born in Warsaw, Poland to Georgian parents. Shalikashvili was the first foreign-born soldier to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He served in every level of unit command from platoon to division. Shalikashvili died of a stroke in 2011. … John Shalikashvili was a scion of the medieval Georgian noble house of Shalikashvili. His father, Prince Dimitri Shalikashvili (1896–1978), born in Gurjaani served in the army of Imperial Russia; Dimitri was a grandson of Russian general Dmitry Staroselsky. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Dimitri became a lieutenant-colonel in the army of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. When the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Georgia in 1921, Dimitri was on diplomatic service in Turkey. Dimitri then joined other Georgian exiles in Poland, where he met and married John’s mother, Maria; she was Polish and of part German ancestry, and the daughter of Count Rudiger-Bielajew, a former Tsarist general. They had three children: Othar, John and Gale. Dimitri served in the Polish Army (along with other Georgian exiles) as a contract officer. In 1939, he fought against the German invasion of Poland. After the Polish defeat, Dimitri was demobilized. In 1941, he enlisted in the Georgian Legion, a force of ethnic Georgians recruited by Germany to fight against the Soviet Union. The unit was later incorporated into the SS-Waffengruppe Georgien and transferred to Normandy. Dimitri surrendered to British forces [operating the Pedophile Paperclip Project to subvert the American government] and was a prisoner of war until after the war. A collection of Dimitri Shalikashvili’s writings are on deposit at the Hoover Institution. Meanwhile, Maria, John and his two brothers lived through the destruction of Warsaw. As the Red Army approached Warsaw in 1944, the family fled to Pappenheim, Germany, being reunited with Dimitri along the way. It was in Pappenheim in the closing days of WWII that John first laid eyes on American soldiers. His family stayed with relatives there in Pappenheim for eight years. In 1952, when John was 16, the family emigrated toPeoria, Illinois. They were sponsored by Winifred Luthy, the wife of a local banker, who was previously married to Dimitri’s cousin. The Luthys and the Episcopal Church helped the Shalikashvili family get started, finding jobs and a home for them. Dimitri worked for Ameren, and Maria was a file clerk at Commercial National Bank.”
“On September 1st, 1939, Hitler’s armies invaded Poland. Six years of war would follow with the full participation of the Hitler Youth eventually down to the youngest child.
At the onset of war, the Hitler Youth totaled 8.8 million. But the war brought immediate, drastic changes as over a million Hitler Youth leaders of draft age and regional adult leaders were immediately called up into the army.
This resulted in a severe shortage of local and district leaders. The problem was resolved by lowering the age of local Hitler Youth leaders to 16 and 17. The average age had been 24. These 16 and 17-year-olds would now be responsible for as many as 500 or more boys. Another big change was the elimination of the strict division between the Jungvolk (boys 10 to 14) and the actual HJ (Hitler Youth 14 to 18).
America’s entry into the war in December of 1941 had resulted in a massive influx of air power into England. As the Allies stepped up their bombing campaign, the Nazis began evacuating children from threatened cities into Hitler Youth KLV (Kinderlandverschickung) camps located mainly in the rural regions of East Prussia, the Warthegau section of occupied Poland, Upper Silesia, and Slovakia.
From 1940 to 1945, about 2.8 million German children were sent to these camps. There were separate KLV camps for boys and girls. Some 5,000 camps were eventually in operation, varying greatly in sizes from the smallest which had 18 children to the largest which held 1,200. Each camp was run by a Nazi approved teacher and a Hitler Youth squad leader. The camps replaced big city grammar schools, most of which were closed due to the bombing. Reluctant parents were forced to send their children away to the camps.
Life inside the boys’ camp was harsh, featuring a dreary routine of roll calls, paramilitary field exercises, hikes, marches, recitation of Nazi slogans and propaganda, along with endless singing of Hitler Youth songs and Nazi anthems. School work was neglected while supreme emphasis was placed on the boys learning to automatically snap-to attention at any time of the day or night and to obey all orders unconditionally “without any if or buts.”
Isolated in these camps and without any counter-balancing influences from a normal home life, the boys descended into a primitive, survival of the fittest mentality. Weakness was despised. Civilized notions of generosity and sympathy for those in need faded. Rigid pecking orders arose in which the youngest and most vulnerable boys were bullied, humiliated, and otherwise made to suffer, including repeated sexual abuse.”
“Remarks by General John Shalikashvili To China’s National Defense University
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
PLA National Defense University
On U.S.-China Engagement: The Role of Military-to-Military Contacts
May 14, 1997
Good Morning. Thank you, General Xing, for your kind introduction. I am delighted to be in China and honored to be here at your National Defense University.
Being here this morning brings to mind my visit to China ten years ago in the company of the then-Army Chief of Staff, General John Wickham, Jr. We were very impressed then, but I must tell you that the effects of your rapid economic growth and the massive amounts of construction in China are breathtaking. But these changes are not quite as breathtaking as the change in our political relations.
It has been twenty-five years now since President Nixon journeyed to China, where he and Premier Zhou Enlai approved the Shanghai Communiqu, breaking a quarter century of hostility and misunderstanding, and laying the foundation for a more fruitful bilateral relationship. Later on, both of our countries came to owe a special debt of gratitude to the late Deng Xiaoping, whose pragmatism and vision provided the foundation for the rapid economic development of China, as well as the rapid expansion of cooperation between our two countries.
Today, one statistic speaks volumes about the level of our interaction: there are more than 40,000 Chinese students in American universities and schools. Who would have imagined that 25 years ago?
But now, following diplomatic gains, student exchanges, and our many business ventures, our two nations are pursuing military- to-military ties to improve communications, reduce potential misunderstandings, and carry out mutually beneficial activities. Some of these military to military contacts will be symbolically important, even if relatively simple affairs, like the visit of two Chinese destroyers and an oiler to Pearl Harbor and to San Diego, California in March of this year.
By the way, I am happy to report that, while the U.S. won in basketball, we played soccer to a hard-fought tie. But I have to tell you, our naval commanders were worried that they might have to face a Chinese team in gymnastics or ping-pong!
But at the same time, there are aspects of our military-to- military ties that are more substantive. As you know, then- Defense Secretary William Perry visited China in 1994 and General Chi visited the United States last December and spoke at our National Defense University. While he was there, General Chi neatly summarized why he came to America, and indeed, why I am here today.
General Chi said: so long as we make concerted efforts in the spirit of equality and consultation, our military-to-military ties will continue to move forward and give positive impetus to the improvement and the growth of relations between [our] two countries.
So, with improving our military to military contacts in mind, I would like to discuss with you the United States National Security policy, how our Armed Forces are organized to protect our interests, and the importance of the Asia-Pacific region, where, as General Chi noted, both the United States and China are major powers.
To begin, the U.S. National Security Strategy, the strategy that guides our diplomatic, economic, and defense policy has changed considerably since 1989. With the end of the Cold War and a significant decline in the threat from the former-Soviet Union, we have developed a new National Security Strategy. Our new strategy hinges on Engagement, engagement with old friends and old adversaries alike.
The goals of our strategy are: to enhance our security with effective diplomatic representation abroad; to deter war but, should deterrence fail to be ready with military forces that are prepared to fight and win; to bolster America’s economic revitalization, primarily by means of free and open trade; and to promote democracy abroad.
Our new national strategy and a declining threat have enabled us to cut our military personnel by one-third, that’s a reduction of 700,000 high quality volunteers, the soul of our Armed Forces and the real source of our military power. Today, worldwide, the United States has less than 1.5 million people in its active forces . In terms of combat formations, we have reduced Army divisions and Air Force wings by 45 percent, and Navy ships by 38 percent. Our defense budget has been reduced by 40 percent over its high point in the Cold War. And as some of you may know, three days after I leave China, we will announce the results of a major defense review, one that will result in further modest cuts to our Armed Forces.
In the interest of transparency, I have asked the staff here to distribute some charts, which show the current location and status of all of our forces worldwide. These charts are from the detailed Department of Defense Annual Report, a few copies of which I will give your President for your library. I will also leave behind a series of publications that detail the characteristics of nearly every major American weapons system, as well as other pieces of equipment.
But data on our force structure doesn’t tell the whole story of the U.S. Armed Forces after the Cold War.
In America, many observers noted with some irony that the Cold War was followed by a hot peace! After the Cold War, we found ourselves faced with some new regional aggressors, like Iraq, as well as some old ones, like North Korea. Those were the greatest and most immediate threats to our interests.
But after the Cold War, we also found a world adrift in a sea of instability, with disintegrating states, ethnic conflicts, the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the rise of sophisticated terrorist movements.
To protect our interests, U.S. forces together with those of our friends and allies have had to carry out a number of operations around the world in such places as Bosnia, Haiti, and the Middle East. Most of these operations have been peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, or operations to evacuate civilians, including on several occasions, Chinese citizens from war-torn areas. Interestingly, none of our major operations have taken place in the Asia-Pacific region, which, compared to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East is an island of relative stability.
As you might suspect, as the environment evolved and our appreciation for this new world evolved, so has our defense strategy. We abandoned the Cold War strategy of containment and the bilateral competition of the Cold War. While we cut back our forces, we re-oriented them on the need to respond to two, nearly simultaneous, major military conflicts, such as we might face with Iraq or North Korea.
But, over time, this two major conflict posture, as important as it was, failed to adequately describe the whole set of requirements that faced our Armed Forces. As we worked to build a strategy to guide our forces into the Twenty-first Century, we came to see our key tasks in a new light.
For the future, our Armed Forces worldwide will focus on three tasks. First, we will seek to shape the strategic environment, hoping to prevent the conditions that cause war, or at the very least, deter war from breaking out. Along with diplomacy and trade, our forces can shape a more peaceful and stable environment by forward presence, security assistance to our friends and allies, and military to military contacts, which promote communications and help to reduce misunderstanding.
But our attempts to shape the environment and to prevent conflict will not succeed everywhere, all the time. As a second major task, we believe that, when deterrence fails, we must be ready to respond across the full spectrum of crises when it is in our interest to do so. While we remain prepared for multiple major contingencies, whether in Korea or the Middle East, we recognize that the most likely form of conflict that we will face will be a smaller-scale contingency operation. Included in these operations are humanitarian assistance, non-combatant evacuations, as we recently did in Albania, or peace keeping operations, as now going on in Bosnia.
Whatever the level of our involvement, we believe that we must also prepare for asymmetric threats, such as terrorism, the use of chemical or biological weapons by an adversary, and even attacks on our information infrastructure abroad or in the United States.
As a final task, we believe that the U.S. Armed Forces must prepare now with a prudent modernization program to meet the challenges of an uncertain future, one that promises to be as challenging as today’s environment. I tell my staff that modernization spending today is the foundation of readiness tomorrow. After a decade of limited investment, the United States Armed Forces must have an investment program, that unites our efforts to replace old and aging equipment and adapt to the Revolution in Military Affairs, with efficient acquisition and management techniques.
In the next decade, our nation will probably not spend more on defense than we do at present. To afford modernization, we will have to work harder and work smarter. And part of improving our forces in the future will come from harmonizing the force development efforts of all of our services and our unified commands. A year ago, we published Joint Vision 2010, based on new operational concepts, which will guide the development of our Armed Forces for the next 15 years. Everything — doctrine, training, senior officer education, requirements, procurement — all of these things hopefully will be influenced by Joint Vision 2010 and its implementation documents. Again, in the interests of transparency, I will leave copies of this document with your President.
So, that is the essence of our new defense strategy: shape a peaceful and stable environment, respond to crises and conflicts as necessary, and prepare for the future with a balanced, sensible, coordinated modernization program.
How does all of this apply to our policies in the Asia- Pacific region?
Today, in the Asia-Pacific region the United States has vital security and economic interests, some of which have roots that are more than a century old. Because of its geography and its interests, the United States is and will remain a major power in the Asia-Pacific region.
First, geographically, we are, just as China is, a Pacific nation. The Pacific Ocean washes the coast of the continental United States and the states of Alaska and Hawaii. When I go home to the state of Washington, on the west coast of the United States, I awake each day to the sounds of the Pacific Ocean. And the state of Hawaii and our territories extend thousands of miles into the Pacific.
But we realize that we are not alone in the Asia-Pacific region. We realize that this vast region is an area where four great powers have overlapping interests. In this century, we have fought three wars in this region. And in the next century, we do not wish to repeat that.
Second, we have major allies and friends like Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines, who also want our presence in the region as a force for peace and stability. In keeping with that, the United States, ashore and afloat, maintains about 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the Asia-Pacific region.
Indeed, among our friends and allies, there is some misplaced anxiety that we may soon reduce our military presence in the region. On that issue, let me repeat what Secretary of Defense Cohen recently said. We have no plans to reduce our troop presence in the Asia-Pacific region. To reduce our troop presence could destabilize the region and could set off a heated arms race in the area. And thus, we think the whole region, including China, benefits from our presence.
But having allies presupposes that they see a common threat. It is fair to ask: what specific threats do the United States and our friends and allies see in the Asia-Pacific region?
First, and most threatening, is the unpredictable regime in Pyongyang, which poses a major threat to peace on the Korean peninsula and in the surrounding area. This threat is magnified by the regime’s current economic problems and its apparent inability to feed its population. This is a sad situation. Today, the security situation on the Korean peninsula is worse than it was 25 years ago, when I served there as a military planner.
Let me add that we continue to welcome China’s active participation in the four power talks and its bilateral efforts to help reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. And we appreciate China’s efforts to help us keep nuclear weapons off of the Korean peninsula.
Other threats in the region may come in the form of nuclear, chemical, and missile technology proliferation both in the region and coming from the region. We are, in that light, very concerned about arms transfers by China to Pakistan and to Iran.
In the region, there are also some significant territorial disputes concerning Japan’s Northern Territories, as well as islands in the South China Sea. And finally, drug trafficking and the ever-present potential for terrorism are both cause for concern.
In addition to these specific, well-known threats to peace and stability, there are also uncertainties that concern every nation in the region. Among these uncertainties is what will happen this summer with the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. As the clock in Tiananmen Square counts down the hours, we hope that the reversion of this vibrant city to Chinese control takes place peacefully and with respect for the welfare and the human rights of the people involved.
On the issue of Taiwan, the United States remains committed to our policy of One China, as defined in the three communiqus and the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. law on this issue. Again, we hope for the resolution of the issue, which is clearly a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to resolve in a peaceful manner.
But we are all also concerned with the peace and stability of the region and in the surrounding international waters. I would be remiss, if I did not add here, that last March we were concerned by the harsh rhetoric and some of the military actions in that area, that may have had unpredictable consequences. We are pleased that this situation is beginning to move onto the more constructive path of rational dialog. We hope, as I am sure you do, that future developments concerning Taiwan will take place peacefully, with full respect for the welfare and human rights of the people involved, as well as for freedom of navigation in the area.
A final reason why the United States will remain a major power in the Asia-Pacific region is that the U.S., like China, is a trading nation, with one-third of our annual product tied to our exports and our imports. The Asia-Pacific region is not only the engine of world economic growth, but it is also home to five of America’s top ten trading partners. U.S. trade with East Asia alone surpasses 400 billion dollars, annually accounting for more than 3 million American jobs, and 40 percent of our total trade.
Thus, for both economic and security reasons, we in the United States believe that peace, prosperity, and stability in the Asia-Pacific region are vital to our interests. And we know that to a large extent you share many of those same interests.
China is a Great Power, and it is rapidly becoming a Greater Power. And believe me, we see your development, as being in our interest. I am told that there are some people here in China, who believe that the United States seeks to contain China. Nothing could be further from the truth. Containment would have to include severe political, economic, and military policies, none of which are in evidence in our policy toward China. Our interests can only be served, in the words of Secretary of State Madeline Albright, by a China that is neither threatening nor threatened. In the information age, at the dawn of the 21st century, our security and prosperity, and your security and prosperity are inextricably linked.
President Clinton said that we are anxious to see a China that is stable politically and open economically, that respects human rights and the rule of law, and that becomes a full partner in building a secure international order.
The mutual interests of China and the United States demand better understanding, clearer communications, greater confidence, and deeper cooperation. And military-to-military contacts must be an essential part of all that.
But these military-to-military contacts must not remain limited to occasional meetings between senior officers, or routine troop or ship visits. To be a fruitful form of engagement, our military-to-military contacts must deepen and become more frequent, more balanced, and more developed.
Our mutual goals are easy to understand. We, as two of the great powers in the Asia-Pacific region, both seek to decrease suspicion, further mutually beneficial military cooperation, and lessen the chances for miscalculation in a crisis.
For our part, to accomplish these objectives, the United States wants: a more equal exchange of information with the PLA; the development of confidence building measures to reduce further the possibility of miscalculations; military academic and functional exchanges; PLA participation in multinational military activities; and a regular dialog between our senior military leaderships.
We want these things for our own interests, and we are sure that China has a similar list. Let’s compare our lists!
One item that should be on both of our lists is the completion of the Military Maritime and Air Cooperation Agreement. This latter agreement will improve our protocols for communications between our forces at sea and in the air. It will create common expectations and lessen the possibility of miscalculation throughout the vast Pacific Ocean area.
But we should not fool ourselves. Improving our military-to- military contacts will not be easy. And in order to earn big dividends, we must make a big investment. If we listen to the suspicious side of our military minds, if we don’t pursue exchanges on a fair and equitable basis, if we lack openness, transparency, or reciprocity, or if we hold back even routine information on our military forces, then we will fail.
To succeed, we will have to overcome our past and struggle up-hill against our suspicions to reach the point, where, together, we can with greater confidence see a better future. But if we make that climb, if we get to the top, we will know the truth of the words spoken by Zhou Enlai to President Nixon: … on perilous peaks dwells beauty in its infinite variety.
Thank you for your attention. “
1. Kristine Marcy (nee McConnell) [Revised November 8, 2012: Kristine Marcy is a Matrix 5 principal and the 1979 founder and de-facto president of the Senior Executive Service (‘SES’); allegedly conspired with Bill Clinton and other alumni of Oxford University’s Rhodes Scholarship scheme to develop the Paperclip Pedophile Extortion (‘PPE’) Party to subvert the sovereign state; allegedly used Nortel-developed Joint Automated Booking Station (JABS) to process passports of the 8(a)/USAID snuff-film team in Benghazi for the 9/11 rape of Obama’s Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens; she and co-recipients of the Gore Hammer awards, allegedly used Clipper chips and JABS in the spoliation of evidence of a home break-in and torture murder of JonBenet Ramsey on Christmas Day, 1996 in Boulder, Colorado; allegedly used Clipper chips and JABS in the spoliation of evidence of out-of-town contract hit and torture murder of Gareth Williams sometime in August 2010 in Pimlico, London, U.K.; she allegedly developed JABS for David Blood and Al Gore to authorize serial and/or mass murders of ‘Mindless Breathers – Useless Breeders’; she is allegedly rewarded with other JABS users for the management of evidence at Blood & Gore crime scenes with money laundered through the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund; she was the 1996 recipient of Vice President Gore’s Hammer Award for Reinventing Government Programs for her work in creating the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS – nick named ‘Con Air’); she allegedly organized the theft of PROMIS and its translation into a French version of JABS for La Sûreté du Québec and Francophonie 9/11; she and co-recipients of the Gore Hammer awards, allegedly used the Nortel JABS system in the spoliation of evidence of a home break-in at the former Glyndon property of her brother, Field McConnell; she allegedly conspired with FAA’s Collaborative Decision Makers who also won Gore Hammer awards, to overthrow the United States Government on 9/11; she allegedly sent bogus Con Air passenger manifests and flight schedules to the FAA’s air traffic control headquarters in Herndon, Va., to paralyze blue-team responses to electronic hijacking during the phony Gore Hammer war game on 9/11; she allegedly used Con Air to fly victims to cannibal oath ceremonies at a British Columbia pig farm where they would swear to uphold the principles espoused in Al Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’; she allegedly conspired with her former SBA loan syndicate client, Wells Fargo, to promote the Al Gore : Inconvenient Truth [Death by Breath?] propaganda on her brother’s birthday October 02, 2007 at the Wells Fargo Theatre in Denver, CO; she allegedly authorized DOJ Pride to set up a ConAir pedophile transport system to entrap and extort KPMG clients at SOS Children’s Villages in the State of Illinois and 130 countries around the world; she allegedly launched DOJ Pride in 1994 to infiltrate Uranian – third sex – entrapment experts into crime scene investigations to accuse the innocent and shelter the guilty; she allegedly used a Federal Bridge Certification Authority to give the U.K. Ministry of Defence an electronic warfare backdoor into the Air Force Special Operations Command and its SBA mentor-protégé programs for ‘Gore Hammer 9/11’; she allegedly converted a Pennsylvania mine to hold pedo-file images for use by her DOJ Pride colleagues to extort pedophile government employees and undermine the integrity of a Federal Bridge Certification Authority (‘FBCA’); she allegedly holds proxy keys to the FBCA which give Barack Obama distance from contract hits such as the Fast and Furious assassination of ATF agent Brian Terry; she is the former Senior Counsel for the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); she allegedly issued time-lapse private keys to the SBA’s extorted 8(a) HUBZone voters to ensure Barack Hussein Obama was fraudulently elected POTUS 44 in November 2008 and re-elected in November 2012; she allegedly procured time lapse keys for use by a matrix of Her Majesty’s Crown Uranian (see anagram for Manchurian) cells inside DOJ Pride to conceal Paperclip passport frauds exposing Obama as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC); she allegedly directs the extortion of man-in-the-middle officials in the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bar Associations of the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court; she appears to have used .tv snuff films to extort the Office of Personnel Management into concealing Obama’s ties to a Mau Mau oath-taking family in Kenya; she allegedly linked the U.S. Small Business Administration’s HUBZone Settlements to an E-Comm command center in British Columbia where 9-1-1 operators learn how to stage a murder during the production of a horror film production with unwitting (?) actors or extras; she allegedly formed a joint venture between Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates and the U.S. Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (‘Con Air’) to use Sabre seat reservation technology to monitor the movements of pig farm oath takers; she allegedly used SBA 8(a) mentor-protégé companies to modify an EC135C Speckled Trout aircraft carrying General Henry Shelton and support a Uranian attempt to overthrow of the United States government on 9/11; she allegedly set up a revolving fund (# 15X4275) with bona vacantia – ownerless goods – in a joint venture with Star Chamber insiders, the Treasury Solicitor, Permira (Schroder Salomon Smith Barney in WTC#7) and organized crime groups to finance modifications of aircraft for the 9/11 attacks; she allegedly procured ‘Con Air’ Lear Jet aircraft for use by Bombardier’s homicidal EW pilot, Russell Williams to support the SES Speckled Trout chain of command and the decoy-and-drone maneuvers of 911; she allegedly used USIS files and Canadian Privy Council insider and NAPA vice president Lena Trudeau to create virtual ‘al-Qaeda’ operatives; she allegedly auctioned off SBA 8(a) CDOs just before the 9/11 attacks and assigned patented-device incendiary liquidation rights to D2 Banking and KPMG clients at Canary Wharf; she allegedly used images of Uranian pig-farm oath ceremonies to extort 9/11 cooperation from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Frank Carlucci, Lynn McNulty, Dr. David Finkleman, Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, Rear Admiral Gordon Piche, Robert Mueller, Bruce McConnell and Generals Haig, Shelton and Shalikashvili – the latter being the Paaperclip son of a former major in the Waffen SS; she is the de facto President and Chief Executive Officer of Washington D.C.-based NAPA (The National Academy of Public Administration); she allegedly infiltrated pig farm Greek Life oath takers into George Washington University, University of Chicago and Northwestern University and University of Hawaii (BA French) and Georgetown University ( MFS, master foreign service); she allegedly exfiltrated U.S. Marshals from Murrah Building OKC before initiating the bombs fraudulently attributed to a subsequently-executed decoy, Timothy McVeigh; we infer from spoliation through pay-per-view encryption that she re-assigned SBA liquidation rights in patent pool devices used on 9/11, including .tv to USAID and Crown Agents’ City & Guilds Livery Companies such as the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers]”