For those people who still think Y2K believers are far out kooks who
have been watching too much prime time television, here’s a little bit
of news for you. Some notable experts — people who ought to know and
who do know what’s going on in this country regarding Y2K — are
as worried as we “kooks” are. Worse, these experts are not simply
worried about the problems endemic to widespread computer failures.

Last week a consulting firm headed up by ex-Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Neil Livingstone issued a new “White Paper” on Y2K. In
that paper quite possibly lies the future of this country and, for that
matter, much of the rest of the world. My only hope is that
Livingstone’s company, GlobalOptions, gets the message to lawmakers and
government agencies that not only is Y2K real, but other problems
associated with it are also real — and imminent.

Livingstone told Reuters last week he “has every reason to believe”
the U.S. will soon be subjected to terrorist attacks due either directly
or indirectly to the Y2K problem.

“Whether by bombing a jetliner or attacking crowds in (New York’s)
Times Square, it’s almost certain the Year 2000 will be ushered in with
a major terrorist attack,” he said.

Specifically, Livingstone’s firm predicted a “violent upsurge in
guerilla violence” against America by cultists, crazies or just plain
old terrorists trying to take advantage of any security lapses that
might occur because of the Bug.

Furthermore, another former Joint Chiefs Chairman, retired Adm.
William Crowe joins Livingstone in his assessment. Crowe, who is also a
former U.S. ambassador to Britain, conducted an investigation directed
by the U.S. State Department following the August 1998 U.S. embassy
bombings in Africa by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. His research led
him to conclude that because of our high-tech military weapons systems,
terrorists will have to resort to bombings and other acts of domestic
violence. And, he believes, Y2K — or the threat of it — provides the
best cover for terrorists, both foreign and domestic, to make their

“They either hurt us in this fashion or they don’t hurt us at all,”
Crowe told Reuters last week.

Now I don’t know about you, but these kind of people ought to be
taken seriously — at least seriously enough to do some advanced

Only God Almighty knows for sure what is and is not going to happen
at or around the Year 2000, but clearly there are other warning signs
which should tell us to get prepared for something.

Besides these most recent warnings, WorldNetDaily’s David Bresnahan
has written extensively since January of this year on secret plans the
National Guard and other departments and divisions of the Pentagon are
making in anticipation of Y2K. Also, this paper published an article
about the FBI canceling all personnel vacations and leaves during
the four-week period of time beginning in mid-December of this year.

Furthermore Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, has made often not-so-veiled
warnings to Congress, the president and the American people regarding
the lack of readiness of U.S. businesses and government agencies to
handle Y2K “glitches.” Most notably, a recent story by the Associated
Press quoted a government report stating that “up to one third” of the
country’s 102 nuclear power plants “may be Y2K ready but not necessarily
Y2K compliant.”

A few months ago a separate story said most U.S. small businesses
were not compliant, and there is no indication that other
countries with which we do business are anywhere near Y2K compliant.

And remember, Congress is working on legislation — supported by the
president — that will not allow private citizens to sue large
corporations and the government for any Y2K-related problems even though
— supposedly like the tobacco companies — those problems were foreseen
by corporations who chose instead to ignore them. Now why would
Congress go to all this trouble if something weren’t liable to happen to
American businesses — most of whom contribute in a big way to
politicians’ campaigns?

In spite of all these clues the only thing a rational person can
conclude is that somehow, someway, it is highly probable that
something bad will happen either because of Y2K or on behalf
Y2K. Problems and violence will either be born of lunacy or
rationalized planning, of a foreign or domestic nature, and on either a
small or large scale, but you can bet — say the experts — that
something will happen.

The only voices of “calm and reason” are, of course, coming from the
Clinton administration — hardly reassuring because of the
proportionately few truth tellers there.

Jack Gribben, a spokesman for the President’s Council on the Year
2000 Conversion, told Reuters that the government has been telling
workers and system analysts for months to be on the lookout come the New
Year. His approach is to use reverse psychology spread within denial
layered in diversion.

“It is also the case that people operating systems will be on the
lookout for anything abnormal,” he said of the dire predictions about
Y2K. “And in many ways, Jan. 1, 2000, would be the worst time for
someone to try to sabotage or to otherwise break into a system.” Yeah,
sure, Jack — provided the systems are working in the first place.

But what if they’re not? How many catastrophes can the government
absorb? How many random acts of violence would it take to avert
attention away from critical infrastructures, thus leaving the rest of
us open to more attacks?

That, I believe, is an unspoken finding in the Livingstone White
Paper. It sounds to me as though the former Joint Chiefs Chairman
doesn’t have much faith that Uncle Sam can avoid most of this because,
for one thing, neither Livingstone nor Crowe agrees the government is
adequately prepared. There’s really not much more to say other than

Except for this.

On an almost daily basis God is allowing us to be forewarned about
Y2K and the possibility that our lives will be disrupted in a big way
come January 2000. What we do with this information is up to each of

Personally, I plan to listen to God. Praying to Him, too, wouldn’t be
a bad idea either.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.