[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Corrupt Government Title: The Insiders Part3 the Bush Years Part III — 1992 The grip on the reins of the U.S. government possessed by the Insiders grew dramatically when George Bush entered the White House. Far from being an opponent of the powerful few who dictate America's policies, Mr. Bush is a long-standing member of the Insider clique, sometimes known simply as "the Establishment." Staff reporter Sidney Blumenthal could write in the February 10, 1988 issue of the Insider-led Washington Post: "George Bush, in fact, has been a dues-paying member of the Establishment, if it is succinctly defined as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission." In his article, Blumenthal noted that Mr. Bush severed his formal ties with both organizations in 1979. But the Post reporter sought comments about Mr. Bush's twin resignations from David Rockefeller, the powerful Insider who had been chairman of both organizations when the future President began his quest for the White House. Mr. Rockefeller told Blumenthal in 1988: Bush has the knowledge and has the background and has had the posts. If he were President, he would be in a better position than anyone else to pull together the people in the country who believe that we are in fact living in one world and have to act that way.... I don't know what I would have done [about certain criticism for holding memberships in both the CFR and the TC]. I don't think he really accomplished what he hoped. It was still used against him. He has since spoken to the Council and the Trilateral and has been fully supportive of their activities. Even though he has resigned, he hasn't walked away from them. Clearly, George Bush may have resigned formal memberships in the CFR and TC in 1979, but his heart was still with both organizations. On March 29,1981, only nine weeks after he took the oath of office as Vice President, he addressed a Trilateral Commission meeting held in Washington. The next day was to have been the occasion of a meeting of Trilateral officials with President Reagan in the Oval Office. But it had to be canceled because of John Hinckley's attempt on the President's life that very morning. (40) Early in the 1980 campaign, Mr. Bush distributed a statement about his affiliation with the Trilateral Commission. Given on "George Bush For President" stationery, it said: "I personally severed my association with the Trilateral Commission as well as with many other groups I had been involved with because I didn't have time to attend the endless conferences." Once an elected Vice President, however, he managed to find enough time even to deliver a speech at one of those "endless" Trilateral conferences. The Bush Path to the White House There wasn't much doubt that George Bush would receive the Republican nomination for President in 1988. For eight years, he had dutifully followed the lead set by President Ronald Reagan and all of the CFR-member appointees dominating that administration. How many CFR members were part of the Reagan-Bush team? CFR Annual Reports for 1981 and 1988 show that in the early months of the Reagan Presidency, 257 CFR members held posts as U.S. government officials. By mid-1988, however, the number had risen to 313. Ronald Reagan was ultimately responsible for this growing CFR dominance, but George Bush was surely not complaining about it. As Vice Presidents are expected to do, Mr. Bush stayed out of the limelight. He spent those years representing the United States at scores of foreign funerals, making appearances at Republican fundraising events, sitting behind Mr. Reagan in full view of the television cameras during each of the State of the Union addresses, and nodding in approval at whatever the President was saying or doing. It wasn't difficult for him because, even though Mr. Reagan had at times uttered some conservative sounding sentiments and seemed like an opponent of the Insider Establishment, the President's actions were very much in keeping with the agenda of the Insiders. The Reagan performance rarely matched the Reagan rhetoric, and it continuously indicated that the President didn't really mean what he was saying. Good Republican soldier George Bush was even willing to suppress his stinging characterization of candidate Reagan's 1980 economic plans as "voodoo economics." The Reagan program called for increased defense spending and decreased taxation, all of which the former California governor claimed could be accomplished while still producing a balanced budget. Spend more, take in less, and balance the budget? While George Bush was still contesting for the 1980 Republican nomination, he was on the attack. and his choice of the word "voodoo" to describe the Reagan plan was both reasonable and colorful. When the economic reality dawned (the $110 billion deficit for fiscal 1982, the first full year of the Reagan Administration, was the highest in U.S. history), one wag suggested that Reaganomics was giving voodoo a bad name. But, as a stalwart Insider even more than as a member of the Reagan team, George Bush dutifully bit his tongue and supported the piling up of huge deficits for the next generation to shoulder — even as they grew larger and more threatening. How bad did it get? The average annual deficit for the eight years of the Reagan Administration exceeded $200 billion. If the vaunted "Reagan revolution" had promised anything, it had promised fiscal responsibility. Yet, the Insiders whom Mr. Reagan placed in charge gave the nation exactly the opposite. The fiscal profligacy was there for anyone to see. When the Republicans took office in January 1981, the accumulated national debt amassed over the 200-year history of the United States stood at $935 billion. Then, on September 30, 1988 (four months before the end of the Reagan Presidency and the end of the last full fiscal year of the Reagan era), that debt had just about tripled and stood at $2,572 billion. During those eight years, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to becoming its largest debtor. No more could we scoff at Mexico, Argentina or Brazil. We were in worse shape. The future of the American people and their nation was being mortgaged by the Insiders running the Reagan-Bush team, but George Bush's political future dictated that he keep quiet about it. And the Insider-dominated media, that should have repeatedly reminded him of his "voodoo" remark, ignored the plunge into debt and gave the impression that there wasn't anything anyone could or should do about it. Why this conspiracy of silence? Because deficits leading to socialist control of the American people were exactly what the Insiders wanted. Because no one knew this better than the Vice President whose ties to the Insiders were both numerous and unbroken. And because the media itself was Insider dominated. The Loaded Resumé There has never been a Presidential candidate who could produce a more impressive — and a more Insider-connected-resume than the one George Bush offered in 1988. He had served virtually everywhere. Other than his two terms as a Republican congressman from Houston, however, he'd been appointed by Insiders to every position he ever held. With connections orchestrated early in his career by his father, Prescott Bush, a Wall Street international banking Insider who served as a liberal Republican senator from Connecticut during the 1950s, George had access to many of the "right" people. And he had other early connections too, such as his membership in the very prestigious yet downright spooky Skull & Bones Society at Yale. According to a 1977 article in Esquire magazine, this little-known Society forces its members to participate in arcane rituals, maintain deep secrecy, and swear unswerving loyalty to the organization itself. (41) Each year at Yale, fifteen seniors are welcomed into the group. The Skull & Bones roster lists some extremely prominent and influential Americans, many of whom are distinguished for having been lifelong internationalists. These include W. Averell Harriman, Henry Stimson, Henry Luce, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, Winston Lord, and Robert Lovett. Questions to members about what goes on within Skull & Bones always go unanswered, inviting the charge that something is indeed being hidden. The late Gary Allen [Gary Allen wrote the landmark book: None Dare Call it Conspiracy] believed the group to be a "recruiting ground for the international banking clique, the CIA, and politics." It is hardly surprising that Mr. Bush chose Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to administer his oath of office as Vice President in January 1981. A 1937 graduate of Yale, Justice Stewart was himself a Skull & Bones member. A presidential candidate's membership in a secret society such as Skull & Bones ought to evoke numerous questions from the mass media and the public. But because the group is so little known, there is virtually no controversy about it or about the President's affiliation with it. In 1970, George Bush was soundly defeated in his bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas. Council on Foreign Relations veteran Richard Nixon rescued him from potential obscurity by naming him U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The new appointee began his duties by recommending the seating of Red China alongside Nationalist China. When the UN voted to seat only the Communist Chinese, and their delegate used his maiden speech to condemn the United States, Mr. Bush expressed mere "disappointment." A better man would have walked out of that nest of anti-American tyrants, which is exactly the response Mr. Bush once advocated. In 1964, he declared: "If Red China should be admitted to the UN, then the UN is hopeless and we should withdraw." (42) Rhetoric is one thing and, as this statement and what followed surely proves, performance is frequently quite the opposite. What is also true is that a better person than the man sitting in that UN post would never have accepted appointment to it in the first place. How seriously our nation was hated at the UN could be gauged by the spectacle of delegates actually dancing in the aisles when the General Assembly ousted Free China, gave China's seat to the communist regime and delivered an intentional insult to the United States. Ambassador Bush responded meekly and then proceeded to welcome the emissary of the Peking tyranny to the Security Council seat from which the anticommunist Chinese had just been expelled. He then found no difficulty supporting Mr. Nixon's growing friendship with Peking's murderous tyrants, and he helped to make the grovelling 1972 Nixon pilgrimage to the land of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En Lai a much-needed source of legitimacy for the Red Chinese regime. During that highly publicized visit, President Nixon's formal banquet toast to Chairman Mao and Premier Chou included his revealing assurance that their history-making meeting was taking place because of "the hope that each of us has to build a new world order." (43) The use of the phrase was unsettling to Americans who knew that Insiders had been employing it for generations. But it didn't upset George Bush. And claims in 1991 by the White House that Mr. Bush and National Security Advisor Scowcroft had dreamed it up themselves during a boat ride off Kennebunkport in August 1990 were bald-faced lies. (44) After Red China had been completely accepted at the United Nations, and after the future President had spent a considerable amount of his time trying to repair the UN's sagging reputation with the American people, George Bush abandoned the UN post in early 1973 to accept "election" as National Chairman of the Republican Party. (This was essentially another appointment even though party regulars went through the formality of electing him.) Almost immediately he found himself embroiled in the Watergate travails of his good friend Richard Nixon. He managed to survive that curious episode in American history although Nixon did not. Then, given his choice of posts by President Gerald Ford, whose Administration was in the hands of such highly placed Insiders as Henry Kissinger, Mr. Bush opted in October 1974 to lead the U.S. Liaison Office in Peking. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee's 1971 report entitled Human Cost of Communism in China (45) had detailed the systematic liquidation of tens of millions of Chinese by the forces controlled by Mao and Chou. Mass murder and other forms of inhuman treatment of the Chinese and Tibetan peoples were still going on. But none of that deterred Mr. Bush from doing what he could to provide the murderers with much-needed legitimacy. It was Insider policy to bring Mainland China into the community of nations, President Ford then enabled Mr. Bush to add another item to his resume by appointing him Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in December 1975. He lasted only a year at CIA because his newest patron, Gerald Ford, lost to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 Presidential race. The final entry in the Bush resume, of course, focussed on his eight years as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. All in all, a stunningly impressive listing of credentials: two terms in Congress; Ambassador to the UN; Chairman of the Republican Party; chief of the U.S. Liaison office in Peking; CIA Director; and Vice President of the United States. These were his open credentials, the ones George Bush wanted everyone to be aware of. Insider Credentials But George Bush had other credentials that he kept quiet-although he wanted them known within Insider circles. He had accepted membership in the Council on Foreign Relations during 1971 (46) and a place on the roster of the Trilateral Commission during 1977. (47) As all members of these elite groups always do, he avoided publicity about his Insider connections because a growing number of Americans had learned about their goals and didn't want what each advocated. Unlike the CFR that delights in listing its important members, the Trilateral Commission has a policy of denying or suspending membership to holders of national government posts. The group periodically publishes a list naming "Former Members in Public Service" along with its fewer than 300 members (a third each from North America, Europe and Japan). As soon as their government service is completed, however, these individuals are frequently welcomed back into the organization. Had he not been serving in government posts, Mr. Bush would likely have been tapped for Trilateral membership earlier than 1977. The Commission, formed in 1973 by CFR leaders David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to promote world government, was made to order for an ambitious implementer of Insider objectives. Out of government service early in 1977, Mr. Bush immediately signed on with the Trilateral elite, and also accepted a post on the 25-member Board of Directors of the CFR. (48) Over the years, many CFR members have sought to defend their own participation in this world-government-promoting group by insisting that they were trying to bring a more patriotic perspective into the group's proceedings. It is safe to say, however, that no one trying to challenge the overall thrust of the CFR ended up on its Board of Directors. With duties surrounding his Board of Directors service in the CFR and his new membership in the TC (the twin pillars of the Establishment, both led by David Rockefeller), Mr. Bush was kept very busy. But he also began spending time in Houston where he teamed up with James A. Baker III, the man who made a name for himself during the 1976 Republican sweepstakes both with his strong support for Establishment favorite Gerald Ford and his equally strong distaste for Ronald Reagan's conservative pronouncements. The two began planning for a 1980 Bush run at the White House. Atlantic Council Another credential Mr. Bush didn't publicize was his mid-1970s membership on the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council of the United States (AC). Formed in the 1960s by former Secretary of State Christian Herter, the AC's formal Policy Statement, approved on May 10, 1976, was endorsed by George Bush when he became an AC board member in 1978. It claims that the changing world "can no longer be accommodated by political forms and sovereignties developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries." (49) What this means in the view of the Atlantic Council's planners, of course, is that the independent United States of America formed in the Eighteenth Century is an anachronism. The AC Policy Statement boldly enunciated a desire to form institutions "to deal adequately with problems with which no existing nation-state can cope successfully alone." In other words, let's do away with nation-states, like the United States. Atlantic Council founder Christian Herter was one of the proteges of CFR founder Edward Mandell House, perhaps the most prominent Insider within the U.S. in the Twentieth Century. Herter was with his mentor at the 1919 meeting in Paris when the contingent of Americans led by House and a group from Britain holding similar distaste for independent nations formed America's Council on Foreign Relations and the British Royal Institute for International Affairs. (60) It can truly be said of Herter and other Insiders at the CFR's launching (John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were also there) that they spent their lives seeking to cancel the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Atlantic Council's 1975 report entitled Beyond Diplomacy gave proof of the group's utter disdain for national sovereignty in passages such as: "Interdependence, whether we like it or not, is the overriding international fact of the last half of the 20th Century." Of the anti-American UN, an AC publication entitled The Future of the United Nations praised the idea of "global interdependence" and stated, "The UN system...can and should perform the bulk of the global functions." Other members of the Atlantic Council's Board who served alongside George Bush included such prominent Insider CFR stalwarts as Henry Kissinger, Paul Nitze, William J. Casey, Brent Scowcroft, Harlan Cleveland, and Eugene Rostow. The organization's publication Issues and Opinions also noted that its Board of Directors included "George S. Franklin Jr., Coordinator, The Trilateral Commission" and "Winston Lord, President, Council on Foreign Relations." Interlocking memberships and directorates in these Insider organizations have always been common. Insider enthusiasm for one of their own to occupy the President's office has been just as common. An Insider in the White House Mr. Bush won the 1988 race for the Presidency against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis by characterizing himself as a conservative and his Massachusetts governor opponent as an archliberal. He was honest only about Dukakis. Yet Dukakis was seeking Insider approval himself as indicated by his appearance at CFR headquarters to give a speech about his views in December 22, 1987. CFR leaders thought favorably enough of him to include his photo in the organization's 1988 Annual Report (page 40). Then, in the 1989 Annual Report, who should be listed as a new member of the CFR but Michael Dukakis? The exact date of the Dukakis entry into the rarified atmosphere of this Insider nest has not been publicized. It did occur between June 30, 1988 and June 30, 1989. It is entirely possible, therefore, that during the heat of the 1988 presidential race, Michael Dukakis was already a CFR member. The Insiders knew they could count on George Bush to carry their ball but they made sure their influence would be present even if the Massachusetts Governor confounded the experts and won the 1988 election. As usual in national politics, the CFR had all the bases covered. As President, Mr. Bush dutifully awarded the following key posts to Insiders of the CFR: Secretary of Defense went to Dick Cheney (like Mr. Bush, Cheney had been a CFR board member), Secretary of the Treasury was given to Nicholas Brady, National Security Advisor to Brent Scowcroft (another CFR Board member), Attorney General to Richard Thornburgh, CIA Director to William Webster, Deputy Secretary of State to Lawrence Eagleburger, Office of Management of Budget Director to Richard Darman, Federal Reserve Chairman to Alan Greenspan, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman to General Colin Powell. As of February 4, 1991, the Trilateral Commission — hardly a disqualifying credential for service on the Bush team — could proudly list as "Former Members in Public Service": George Bush, Richard Darman, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alan Greenspan, and Brent Scowcroft. The absence of Secretary of State James A. Baker III's name from any CFR roster breaks the string of ten Secretaries of State in a row (starting with Dean Acheson in the Truman Administration) who held membership in the organization. Why Baker has never been appointed, or why he has declined an invitation if one were ever offered, is unknown. He is ideologically in tune with everything the CFR wants for America and has himself chosen CFR members as his top advisors. According to a lengthy article in the October 28, 1991 issue of the Insider-led Washington Post, the Secretary of State's closest aides, both of whom are credited with "a major role in many of the Bush "administration's foreign policy triumphs and failures" and who are "Baker's two principal idea men" are Dennis Ross and Robert B. Zoellick. (51) The Post didn't tell readers but both are CFR members. With Ross and Zoellick right next to Baker, and numerous other CFR members serving in the State Department as Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretaries, the State Department remains CFR-occupied territory. The Baker-led State Department shocked even its most intense critics in late April 1990 with its invitation to Tim Wheeler to be the featured speaker at a May Day luncheon in the department's plush reception rooms. At the time, Wheeler was the veteran Washington correspondent for the People's Daily World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. (52) With CFR members dominating State, this invitation is not too surprising. It calls to mind a revealing comment about Anatoly Dobrynin, Soviet Russia's valued ambassador to the U.S. from 1962 until 1986. A very suave spokesman for his tyrannical government, this ex officio head of the KGB in the United States had actually befriended many American leaders during his long stay in Washington. Writing about him in the May 13, 1984 New York Times Magazine, Madeline G. Kalb noted his distaste for speeches and interviews but revealed that he had always kept "in touch with influential journalists and top people at such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations." Communist officials always found CFR leaders far more compatible than any anticommunist Americans. What CFR Membership Means Let us digress from the Bush record for a moment to repeat a long-standing assessment of those who affiliate with the CFR. It is that a CFR member is not necessarily a fully committed plotter dedicated to the destruction of the United States. The CFR frequently invites individuals to membership in order to influence them. A new member who grabs hold of the thinking and direction of the organization's leaders will likely be rewarded in his or her profession by other CFR members, or might be invited to take a government position, or might even be named to the group's Board of Directors. Names frequently disappear from the CFR list. These persons probably never caught on to what is expected of them or, if they did figure out what the CFR really intended, and wanted nothing further to do with the organization, they were simply dropped. Too many ambitious and unprincipled individuals, however, are delighted to join groups like the CFR and TC. Their initial motivation usually stems from a desire to advance their personal careers. They don't care about patriotism or national independence, just self. They will follow the lead of whoever seems to be winning and would even become hard-working patriots if doing so became the way to move ahead. But others who affiliate with the Insiders are committed to the world-government aspirations of CFR founder Edward Mandell House, and they are unalterably committed to destroying the sovereignty of the United States. If they hold a government post where an oath to support the U.S. Constitution is required, they have perjured themselves. According to the CFR s 1991 Annual Report, a whopping 382 of its members were serving the Bush Administration as U.S. government officials. The organization's total membership numbers only 2,790, meaning that 14 percent of those who have joined this leading Insider group hold high government positions. No other remotely similar organization can claim such clout within the government. This startling dominance over the nation's affairs ought to be a burning issue, but similar CFR dominance of the mass media keeps most Americans totally unaware of who is really running the U.S. government. The Insiders, of course, hope that they remain unaware. Iraq Invades Kuwait On August 2,1990, Iraq's armed forces invaded neighboring Kuwait. The defining moment of the Bush Administration's foreign policy had arrived. Far more than the remarkable events occurring in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it was Iraq's warlike aggression that drew from the President words and deeds fully in accord with the long-standing political goals of the Insiders. A virtual green light given to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie one week before the invasion convinced the Iraqi dictator he had nothing to fear from any U.S. response. The transcript of her face-to-face confrontation with Hussein just prior to the Iraqi assault was actually released by Iraq. In it, Ms. Glaspie told the Iraqi dictator that the U.S. had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like you're border dispute with Kuwait." (63) Back in the United States, Ms. Glaspie immediately became "unavailable for comment." Then, in March 1991, after all the shooting had ended, she was brought before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she insisted that the Iraqis had lied about her conversation with Hussein. In July, however, the same Senate committee obtained copies of the secret cables she had sent from Iraq summarizing the meeting. They showed her far more conciliatory toward Hussein than she had described herself and also showed that the Iraqis had not lied about her remarks to Hussein. Believing they had been "misled" by the Ambassador, the senators voiced their displeasure to Secretary of State Baker. Then in September 1991, a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee conducted more hearings into the matter. Their effort showed that State Department official Margaret Tutwiler had publicly stated essentially the same message given by Glaspie a day prior to the Glaspie-Hussein meeting in Baghdad. Also, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and Far Eastern Affairs John H. Kelly (CFR) had repeated the identical "no commitment to defend Kuwait" stance when questioned by House members two days before the invasion. The New York Times reported about these congressional hearings with such headlines as "Senators ... Misled," and "Before Invasion, Soft Words for Iraq." (54) It is hard to believe that April Glaspie was not relaying the attitude of the Bush Administration when she gave Hussein what everyone later considered to be a green light for his invasion. It is harder to believe that she was not also following the Administration's line when she sought to deceive senators in March — Why did she engage in deceit about what she said to Hussein? Why did the State Department try to keep her from the press and the congressional committees? Could the answer be that she was, wittingly or unwittingly, a player in an unfolding plan to have hostilities break out in the Middle East so that the Bush Administration could launch a war to promote the "new world order"? The "New World Order" President Bush reacted to the Iraqi attack by immediately sending U.S. military forces to the Middle East. He furiously gathered support for a coalition-backed effort to confront Saddam Hussein. He went to the United Nations where he supported economic sanctions against Iraq, even as he was stepping up his own anti-Hussein rhetoric and sending increasing numbers of U.S. troops into the region. He turned to the United Nations, not the U.S. Constitution to which he'd sworn a solemn oath, for authorization for his military moves. He then began to state his goals — over and over again. * September 11, 1990 televised address: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge.... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." * January 7, 1991 interview in U.S. News & World Report: "I think that what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake here is whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a reinvigorated United Nations." * January 9, 1991 Press Conference: "[The Gulf crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that new world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective." * January 16, 1991 televised address: "When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." * August 1991 National Security Strategy of the United States issued by the White House and personally signed by George Bush: "In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by it's founders.... I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the crucible of the new world order." Two common themes are present in each of these pronouncements: 1. The President is clearly committed to a "new world order"; and 2. his view of this "new world order" includes his boosting of the prestige and power of the United Nations. What he didn't explain is that the phrase "new world order" has been used for generations by individuals seeking to control the world. Those employing it have sought socialism (economic control) and world government (political control) over mankind. And, as we intend to demonstrate in what follows, this goal has become Mr. Bush's exact agenda for our nation and for the world. Who are some of these advocates of centralized world control who have used the phrase "new world order" during the past few generations? Some prominent individuals who have called for a "new world order" by name include Socialist H.G. Wells, National Socialist (Nazi) Adolph Hitler, Insider Nelson Rockefeller, Communist Fidel Castro, CFR theoretician Richard N. Gardner, Insider Henry Kissinger, and Communist/Socialist Mikhail Gorbachev — to name just a few. (55) In addition to advocating socialism — economic control of the people by government via taxation, regulations and bureaucracy — each wanted world government either by military conquest or through the route of a world political organization such as the United Nations. Some early advocates of the "new world order" sought world political control through the now-defunct League of Nations. The successor to the League, formed in 1945 by Insiders of that era, is the United Nations. The War for a "Reinvigorated" UN Mr. Bush's revealing statements called for a United Nations as envisioned by its "founders." It becomes critically important, therefore, to know who these founders were. A leading member of the U.S. delegation at the founding UN conference in 1945 was Alger Hiss, later shown to have been a secret communist. There were 15 other government officials working for the establishment of the UN who were also later discovered to have been secret communists. (55) One of the more important of these was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, the architect of the International Monetary Fund to which Mr. Bush advocates giving huge amounts of U.S. taxpayers' money. Added to the listing of communists busily working to create the UN were 43 current or future CFR members. Men of prominence in this group included CFR founder House's protege John Foster Dulles. (67) Also, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Adlai E. Stevenson, Edward R. Stettinius, Ralph Bunche, Philip C. Jesgup, and future CFR Chairman John J. McCloy. (58) There was, of course, a delegation from the USSR. It was led by Andrei Gromyko who, along with all of his Soviet colleagues, was a communist. Other delegations from the total of 50 nations participating in the founding were top-heavy with socialists, communists, internationalists, one-worlders, and despisers of national sovereignty. There were also a few starey-eyed dreamers who believed they were participating in the founding of a totally benign peace-making organization, not something designed by its many founders as an organization meant to take control of the world. The real "vision" of the UN founders should hardly be a mystery to anyone. All communists who have ever walked the earth have sought world government, an end to national sovereignty, the end of personal freedom, and the domination of the many by the few. And every socialist has always sought government control of everyone economically, a tactic that leads more subtly to the same goals sought by communists. The UN was literally made to order for totalitarians — which is exactly why those who seek political or economic domination worked so hard to bring the organization into being. Also, wouldn't it be quite ridiculous to suggest that the likes of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Andrei Gromyko, John Foster Dulles, and John J. McCloy were duped into supporting an organization that would thwart their one-world designs? These men are prime examples of those who envisioned a world run by the UN that they would control. These UN founders, including the top Insiders of their day, wanted the U.S. in the world body and they knew that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have to be scrapped along the way. Therefore, Mr. Bush's determination to use the Gulf War to see the United Nations "reinvigorated" according to the wishes of its "founders" is both revealing and frightening. His hope that the war would be the "crucible of the new world order" says it all. Sad to say, the President's desires are being realized. An ill-informed American public has applauded the boost in prestige Mr. Bush's actions have given the world body. Publicity praising the UN as a "peace organization" is everywhere. Few take the time to cut through the propaganda and realize that the UN Charter itself (59) explicitly authorizes war, certainly including the kind waged in the Middle East by U.S. forces with President Bush's hearty approval. Is the UN a peace organization? Ask what's left of the civilian population of Baghdad. These Iraqi civilians have undoubtedly figured out that UN-style peace either means total submission to UN will or a UN-authorized force will bomb them to kingdom come. It is worth noting that Mr. Bush stated very clearly in his September 11, 1991 address to the nation. "Our enemy is Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people." Yet, when the shooting stopped, Saddam Hussein was given free reign to destroy his Shiite and Kurdish adversaries, which is exactly what he proceeded to do. And the war left tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. Like "Read my lips, no new taxes," a complete turnaround of Mr. Bush's statement naming his enemy would have revealed what was about to transpire. During much of the 1980s, the U.S. government willingly cooperated in the use of economic sanctions against friendly South Africa. But sanctions were never given a chance against Saddam Hussein. Had sanctions been employed against the Iraqi dictator , the United Nations would not have been "reinvigorated" as it clearly has been in the aftermath of that strange war. A War to Create World Government Liberal Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) addressed his Senate colleagues on January 10, 1991, a few days before President Bush gave the go-ahead to unleash the U.S. military. With war a virtual certainty, he criticized the President for "giving up on the sanctions option." He said his concern was shared by others including Senator George Mitchell (D-ME), who had earlier that same day given his opinion that the being made prematurely. The two senators had toured the Middle East and even visited U.S. bases only three weeks earlier. Hoping to influence the President to stick with sanctions and avoid bloodshed, Simon and Mitchell had gone immediately to the White House upon returning from their December trip and were dismayed to find Mr. Bush eager for war. Simon reported that during their conversation, the President spelled out his reason for the course he intended to pursue as follows: "If we use the military, we can make the United Nations a really meaningful effective voice for peace and stability in the future." (60) According to the President himself, therefore, his overriding objective in sending 500,000 U.S. troops into combat was to build the clout of the United Nations. How many of the men and women wearing the uniform of this nation understood that as they were sent into battle? How many understand it today? On February 27, 1991, during his address to the nation from the Oval Office in the White House, Mr. Bush was basking in the glory of victory over the ragtag Iraqi forces. In mid-speech, he again summed up the whole operation, saying "This is a victory for the United Nations." As Mr. Bush's private and public pronouncements frequently indicated, his goal in the war he unleashed against Iraq had far less to do with liberating Kuwait than it had to do with building the prestige and power of the United Nations. History confirms that war has always been big government's best friend. In this instance, war was used by the President of the United States to be world government's best friend. Without question, the Insiders were delighted. Similar instances of the exercise of such imperial power throughout history had once prompted a young Abraham Lincoln to remind a law partner why the founding fathers had so carefully assigned war-making power solely to Congress. In a letter he wrote to William Hendon on February 15, 1848, Lincoln said: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved so to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. (61) Can there be a better summation anywhere of the wrongness, even the unconstitutionality, of the way Mr. Bush used our nation's military? During the period leading up to the military assault against Iraqi forces, Mr. Bush repeatedly maintained that he posessed full authority as commander-in-chief to commit U.S. forces to action without the approval of Congress. As commander-in-chief, the President has always had the power to commit troops in order to defend U.S. property or personnel from any sudden provocation. But there was nothing sudden about the operation being planned here. The President had shifted the entire purpose of the troops from the defensive mode to protect Saudi Arabia to an offensive force designed to attack Iraq. As early as October 17 and 18, 1990 (three months prior to the start of the war), Secretary of State Baker emphatically rejected the idea that the Administration was obliged to obtain approval from Congress before launching offensive military operations against Saddam Hussein's forces. (62) Congress finally got around to expressing its opinion about the coming war and the President's highhandedness on January 12, 1991. With the House voting 250-183 and the Senate 52-47, both Houses approved a Congressional Joint Resolution authorizing the President "to use U.S. Armed Forces pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 678." (63) In no way was this a declaration of war as called for by the Constitution. Congress meekly authorized the President to do what he intended to do anyway. The transfer of authority here is immense. The new attitudes coming out of this incident hold that Congress will pass a resolution supporting what the President intends to do, and the President can seek authority to make war not from Congress but from the United Nations. An Ominous View From the President Five times each year, the Council on Foreign Relations publishes its weighty journal, Foreign Affairs. Early in 1991, in an unusual departure from its norm, Volume 70, Number 1 led off on page one with an unsigned four-page editorial. Headlined "The Road To War," its text began: Never before in American history was there a period quite like it. For 48 days the United States moved inexorably toward war, acting on authority granted by an international organization. On November 29, 1990, in an unprecedented step, the United Nations Security Council authorized the use after January 15, 1991, of "all necessary means" to achieve the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. On January 12 the Congress of the United States authorized President Bush to use American armed forces to implement that resolution. This too was unprecedented. (64) While only CFR members and like-minded individuals could applaud such remarkable developments, who can argue with this poignant assessment? The vote of the U.S. Congress authorizing President Bush to use U.S. troops to implement a UN resolution was perhaps the more chilling of the "unprecedented" steps described by Foreign Affairs. Any search of the U.S. Constitution will produce no basis whatsoever for either the President's action or the weak-kneed congressional sanction of what he was determined to do — with or without congressional approval. With President Bush's determined effort and the delight of both the UN and the Insiders, America's military had become the policemen of the world. A few months later, on September 23, l991, Mr. Bush went to UN headquarters in New York to urge the formation of what he called a "Pax Universalis." In his speech, he discussed the need for "collective settlement of disputes," and he very clearly supported international action to settle "nationalist passions" even within the borders of sovereign nations. He applauded the continuation of UN sanctions against Iraq, and stated that he wanted them kept in force for as long as Saddam Hussein "remains in power." With this speech, the President of the United States called for the use of UN-created international sanctions against a targeted regime, not merely to roll back its aggression against another nation but to dictate its internal political makeup. He also put a stamp of approval on UN action to eliminate an unapproved (by the Insiders) government of a sovereign state. If the UN assumes the power Mr. Bush has endorsed, aren't all nations threatened? Even our own? Hasn't the President sanctioned the use of UN force to remove political leaders, restructure a nation's government, even demand the alteration of its internal policies? He has opened the door for UN force to settle internal problems existing within any nation's borders, including problems here in the United States. Even veteran CFR member Leslie H. Gelb writing in the New York Times was forced to comment: "What could be more revolutionary, more threatening to the regimes that inhabit the UN?" He went on to ask who would decide when and which states had violated the standards named by Mr. Bush. "The UN? The U.S.? And who would intervene to protect the oppressed, and how?" (65) When a prominent CFR member describes Mr. Bush's proposals as "revolutionary" and "threatening," everyone should take notice. Can there be any doubt that this President is following a plan to sacrifice national sovereignty and have the world run by the United Nations? Even before he formally opposed Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination for President, journalist Patrick Buchanan said what many Americans had been longing to hear from a Presidential candidate. Attacking the President's policies only weeks after the campaign against Saddam Hussein had begun, he wrote: The Trilateralist-CFR, Wall Street-Big Business elite: the neo-conservative intellectuals who dominate the think tanks and op-ed pages; the Old Left, with its one-world, collective-security, UN uber alles dream: All have come together behind the "new world order." Everyone is on board, or so it seems. But out there, trying to break through is the old, authentic voice of American patriotism, of nationalism, of America First, saying hell, no, we won't go. (66) He was clearly challenging both the Insiders' goals and their favored President who was busily promoting their cause. And he refused to back down in the face of angry and vicious attacks. On December 10, 1991, in his New Hampshire speech announcing his candidacy for the nomination, Buchanan said of the President: He is a globalist and we are nationalists. He believes in some "Pax Universalis"; we believe in the Old Republic. He would put America's wealth and power at the service of some vague new world order; we will put America first. Back in 1975, a former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy named Chester Ward had spoken out about the CFR's purposes. After holding membership in the organization for 20 years, the retired admiral stated in a book he co-authored that the CFR's goal was the "submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." And he added: "In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning as deep as 'America First.'" (67) Without naming them, Buchanan had attacked the Insiders at their core and their favored President where he was most vulnerable. His use of the term "America First" was certainly not overlooked by the Insiders. Quicker than a wink, he was attacked for supposed "anti-Semitism," "jingoism," "nativism," "racism," and even "fascism." But the attacks didn't come from certifiable liberals; they came from individuals dubbed "conservatives" by the Establishment's Insiders. Of these Insider-connected journalists, most are "conservatives" who threw the nasty adjectives at Buchanan. Yet, the following dozen who attacked Buchanan are members of the Council on Foreign Relations: A.M. Rosenthal, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, Charles Krauthammer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Paul A. Gigot, George Weigel, Gen. P.X. Kelley, Newt Gingrich, Irving Kristol, Michael Novak, and Norman Podhoretz. The Insiders, always anxious to have all the bases covered, have certainly covered much of the conservative movement. When Buchanan offered a challenge to their leadership, these toadies of the Insiders pounced on him like piranha. The CFR to which they belong would have it no other way. Dragging America Down While world government is an ingredient of the "new world order," it is only half of what the phrase means. The other half is socialism: economic control of the people by government. Socialism doesn't require government ownership of your property, but it certainly includes control. The hallmarks of socialist domination are oppressive taxation, bureaucratic controls, numbing regulations, and Big Brother-type government. Sound that this is precisely what the Insiders are doing to them and their nation. What will it mean if the trend is not reversed? In other nations where both economic and political control has been established, the authorities slew over 100 million innocent victims. They were aided in the acquisition of total power every step of the way by Insiders in our government who supplied them with aid, trade, legitimacy, credit, equipment and technology during all of their years of domination. Does anyone think for a minute that complete control of this nation by the Insiders will somehow be benign? That all we have to worry about is taxation and control? That we don't have to fear for our very lives? Make no mistake about this: The goal of the Insiders is not the completion of some academic exercise. They mean to rule and, if history is any guide, they mean to rule with savage brutality. The steps being taken to create socialism in the United States and elsewhere are annoying, but the eventual use of the power being accumulated can't help but lead to a repeat of the human slaughter suffered by the peoples of Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, China and wherever total government took over. To think of the Insiders as anything else but a power-hungry and totally ruthless clique of conspirators is to miss the point entirely. One of the more sinister tactics employed by socialists to gain economic control of the people involves accumulating huge national indebtedness. Paying interest on the debt then gives government leaders the excuse to impose more and more taxation. Another well-used tactic involves inviting — or forcing — massive numbers of citizens on to welfare rolls where they become dependent upon government. And still another calls for burdening the productive sector with costly, unnecessary and downright production-inhibiting regulations. The Bush Administration is guilty of all of these socialism-building tactics even as the President dramatically boosts the world-government prospects of the United Nations. Immediately after taking office in January 1989, President Bush unveiled a federal budget containing economic forecasts, as required by law, for several years into the future. On that occasion, the President's projections included $1,249 billion in spending for fiscal year 1992 with a sharp decline in the deficit to $30.6 billion. His forecast for fiscal 1993 estimated spending at $1,284 billion with a surplus of $2.5 billion. Three years later, in January 1992, the same President was forced to admit that the deficit for fiscal year 1992 (ending September 30, 1992) would top out at $399 billion, missing his earlier forecast by an astounding $368 billion! The deficit alone now exceeds the total federal budget during the height of the Vietnam War. He also announced that the 1991 fiscal year had been completed with a deficit of $267 billion. In addition, his January 1992 forecast included a spending level of $1,520 billion for fiscal 1993 (up $236 billion from his 1989 projection) with a projected deficit of $352 billion instead of the modest surplus. The President's defenders pointed to the costs of the Persian Gulf War as if it was acceptable to spend huge amounts of money to build the power of the United Nations. They also sidestepped the fact that some payments were made by many of the "allies" during the conflict, and the further fact that military spending has actually been reduced, both as a percentage of the entire federal budget and in dollar amount. They pleaded that the deficit was caused by the S&L bailout when that government-inspired fiasco cost only 20 percent as much as the enormous increase in domestic spending during the first three years of the Bush Administration. Then, they blamed the recession on reductions in expected federal revenues. But no Bush partisan wanted to talk about the huge deficits of the Reagan-Bush era that had contributed to America's slowdown and had thereby diminished the revenue collected by Uncle Sam. The simple truth is that the huge increase in spending was due mainly to huge increases in domestic spending for interest on debt and for an escalating number of share-the-wealth schemes that are hallmarks of socialist takeover. And, as history shows, a socialist takeover leads to consequences that are far more damaging than empty wallets. In addition, the huge increases in the deficit totals under George Bush-making even Ronald Reagan's $200 billion per year average seem thrifty-have boosted the annual payment for interest on the debt to a staggering $303 billion. With a national population of 240 million, that's $1,260 for every man, woman and child in America. But not all men, women and children pay taxes. Excluding children and other non-earners, the average government take for interest alone is over $3,000 per taxpayer. This bill for interest on the national debt already exceeds the entire defense budget and is rising rapidly. In July 1990, Budget Director Richard Darman (CFR & TC) gave lip-service to the threatening situation he was helping to arrange by warning: "Drastic consequences would occur if a way could not be found to reduce the deficit." He was correct, and the deficits have indeed grown larger as the nation slipped into the deepest recession since the 1930s. One year after Darman's remark, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts, a former Treasury Department official in the Reagan Administration, advised readers in his syndicated column, "Get ready to sell your home to pay your taxes!" (68) If the productive sector has to come up with over $300 billion just for interest on the national debt (20 percent of the federal budget!), and if it has to provide more hundreds of billions for an increasing number of share-the-wealth and control-the-productive-sector programs, is it any wonder that America has slowed down? Blame Congress for going along with the President, but realize that the President is fully backing the spending binge that is killing the U.S. economy. The Insiders could hardly be more pleased. "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" Most Americans remember the famous pledge given by candidate Bush in 1988. "Read my lips, no new taxes!" was the catchiest campaign slogan the nation had heard in many years. Yet, in October 1990, the President signed one of the largest tax increases in American history, $164 billion over five years. It was another body blow delivered to the nation's producers. If any economic tinkering can help the nation out of a recession, it certainly isn't a tax increase. Yet, in the midst of the most severe economic slowdown since the great depression, the President cooperated in making it even worse by supporting the huge tax increase. A freshman economics student would tell you that you don't gobble up more consumer money with taxes when consumer spending is needed to spur economic recovery. As bad as the Bush deficit and taxation picture is, it is closely rivaled by the President's support for the Insiders' goal of strangling business with additional regulations and controls. He supported the Clean Air Act that competent scientists say is completely unnecessary. It will add $40 billion of regulatory requirements to business and industry. He burdened business with the costly provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act; he supported an extension of unemployment taxes; and he backed the 25 percent boost in the minimum wage. These and other burdens must be borne by productive Americans, and each new burden reduces the number of those who are still able to produce and provide jobs for others. As early as December 1990, Newhouse News Service reporter Tom Baden wrote: The federal government's regulatory watch dogs, muzzled in the Reagan administration, have been unleashed in the first two years of the Bush presidency. The Transportation Department has issued tougher auto safety standards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has levied record fines on corporate violators. The Food and Drug Administration has devised strict rules for health claims on food labels. And 7,400 employees have been added to the 51 major regulatory agencies, according to one academic study. (69) The President then signed the 1991 Civil Rights bill, saying it was a "compromise" measure that did not contain racial hiring quotas. (Put the words "civil rights" in front of any piece of legislation, no matter how costly or destructive of real rights it is, and watch venal politicians line up to support it.) This particular bill places the burden of proof regarding bigotry on the employer. The employer is guilty as soon as he's accused, and he stays guilty until he can prove himself innocent, often at great cost in time and legal fees. If businessmen (or businesswomen) fail to demonstrate that their firm's hiring practices are necessary, or if the racial composition of their employees does not meet government "guidelines," they can see both their reputations and their companies destroyed. Unscrupulous lawyers will have a field day with this destructive and race-based legislation. Seeking out malcontents in order to wage war against private citizens trying to engage in the business of America will become the latest form of lawyer abuse directed against productive Americans. What can an employer be expected to do when faced with these threats other than try to meet the "guidelines" before getting hauled into court? The President said the bill didn't have any quotas. Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) bluntly disagreed and stated, "This is a quota bill." Either meet the "guidelines" or face the prospect of big trouble. Also, this bill can't help but increase racial tensions while it solidifies an already prevalent Marxist principle in the minds of millions of Americans. The basic thinking it employs is that rights (such ag the right to a job-which is no right at all!) belong to a group, not to an individual. Karl Marx agreed that individuals don't count, only the groups to which they belonged. Only a few days after moving into the White House in 1989, Mr. Bush announced, "I am an environmentalist." Later, he outlined plans to make the Environmental Protection Agency a cabinet level department, a move that will surely give it increased clout to wreak more havoc on productive America. It is hardly surprising to note the name of EPA chief William Reilly on the CFR's membership list. He is one of many Insiders championing environmental legislation. On January 3, 1990, the President gave a huge boost to the radical environmental movement in America by proclaiming April 22nd as Earth Day. The Insider-controlled press gave the project publicity that would ordinarily cost billions. In remarks given while issuing that proclamation, he stated his desire to "heighten public awareness of the need for active participation in the protection of the environment and to promote the formation of an international alliance that responds to global environmental concerns." Insiders everywhere were delighted to hear his call for an "international alliance." Following Insider Guidelines As recounted in Part I of this book. an Insider guru named Richard N. Gardner authored "The Hard Road To World Order" for the Spring 1974 edition of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs. Boldly calling for world government and piecemeal delivery of the U.S. into its clutches, he actually advocated performing "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." To accomplish his twin goals, he urged the use of such agencies as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, even a UN military force. On January 19, 1988, the New York Times announced that President Reagan "has opened the door to Soviet memberships in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade." Reporter Clyde Farnsworth noted, "The new position contrasts with the President's strongly stated opposition last year." It also contrasted sharply with Mr. Reagan's earlier characterization of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire." The Reagan turnaround made Gardner's "hard road to world order" a great deal softer. Early in 1992, President Bush announced that he would apply strong pressure to have Congress approve a contribution of $12 billion more to the IMF for immediate transfer to the former Soviet Union. Currently a law professor at Columbia University in New York, Richard Gardner has been a potent influence within the clique of Insiders no matter who occupies the President's office. A protege of Harlan B. Cleveland, he is a product of Harvard University, Yale Law School, and the Rhodes Scholar program — Cleveland, a member of the CFR from 1953, was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. Security evaluators at State ruled against granting him a security clearance, however, because of his ties to communist-controlled organizations within our nation. Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR) promptly waived the security clearance and Cleveland took the post. He immediately tapped Gardner as his Deputy Assistant Secretary. Three years later, Gardner authored a full-length book entitled: In Pursuit of World Order. (70) The book contains a glowing Foreword by Cleveland calling for the building of a "decent world order...brick by brick" and touting Gardner as a man who "understands the process of international institution-building as clearly and as deeply" as anyone. And Gardner notes in the Introduction to his own book that "the person responsible for bringing me to Washington and the guiding force in the development of the ideas contained in this book has been Harlan Cleveland." The book was clearly written to promote the United Nations. In it, Gardner writes, "Discussion of whether or not we should be in the United Nations is about as useful as discussion of whether or not we should have a United States Congress." And casting all modesty aside, he notes that he "has helped to shape the policy of our government on most of the subjects discussed in this book." Figuring prominently in Gardner's 1964 opus is the matter of disarmament under UN auspices. Though he doesn't say so explicitly, he surely had a hand in crafting the infamous State Department disarmament proposal entitled Freedom From War. (71) It calls for the succession of steps toward disarmament already taken by our government and culminates in the complete turning over of national military forces to the UN. The text actually states that, eventually "no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." A UN Peace Force has certainly been "progressively strengthened" as a result of the war in the Persian Gulf. And disarmament proceeds according to this truly subversive plan. But Gardner has also laid out other paths for taking the United States and the rest of mankind into the UN. The man is determined to see an end to an independent United States. In its Spring 1988 issue, Foreign Affairs featured "The Case For Practical Internationalism" written by this very busy Insider. It urged continued use of the IMF, World Bank, and GATT to accomplish the Insiders' internationalism. But it also urged taking advantage of opportunities presented by five other challenges, each of which he discussed at length: nuclear safety, AIDS, drug abuse, overpopulation and environmental destruction. Picking up where Gardner had left off, CFR member Jessica Tuchman Mathews, a Vice President of World Resources Institute, stated in her own Foreign Affairs article in the Spring 1989 issue, "Environmental strains that transcend national borders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty...." In the July/August 1990 issue of this CFR journal, she approvingly said that "environmental imperatives" are leading to "economic interdependence; and diverse invasions of national sovereignty." Recall that shortly after he took office, Mr. Bush announced, "I am an environmentalist." Both his statements and his actions confirm that his self-description is correct. Richard Gardner ended his 1988 article in Foreign Affairs with, "The next president will need to convince the American people that strengthening international institutions...will serve a more stable and cooperative world order." Mr. Bush could have added that he intends to be that president. Keeping Congress Liberal President Bush customarily resorts to bashing Congress when he gets pinned down about spending, the growth of government power, or the nation's economic woes. He will insist that Congress is too heavily laden with liberal Democrats. If liberal Democrats are to blame, one would expect the President to work extremely hard to fill the Congress with Republicans-especially conservative Republicans. One would also expect the President to propose reductions in federal spending along with balanced budgets, neither of which has been forthcoming from Mr. Bush. But as the 1990 congressional elections drew to a close, Time magazine for November 5, 1992 (72) published its assessment of Mr. Bush's counterproductive efforts on behalf of Republican candidates. Half in jest, the Time article concluded, "George Bush is a Democrat in disguise." Why? In June, the President gave away the Republican Party's best campaign issue when he reversed himself on his pledge for "No new taxes!" and signed one of the largest tax increases in the nation's history. Just before the election, he arranged to have Ed Rollins, the co-chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee, fired from the staff. Charged with helping Republican candidates win, Rollins had advised all of them, "Do not hesitate to oppose either the President or proposals being advanced in Congress." It was the kind of good advice a Republican should follow, but it cost the man who gave it his job. Incumbent Vermont Republican Peter Smith publicly differed with the President during a breakfast meeting in Vermont while Mr. Bush was sitting alongside. Even that didn't help as he lost to Socialist Bernie Sanders, the first avowed socialist elected to Congress in 50 years. At a fund-raising luncheon in New Hampshire for the earnestly conservative Bob Smith, who was trying to move from the House to the Senate, the President was there but Smith managed to stay away. Unwilling to be photographed with the increasingly unpopular President, he won. Moving on to Connecticut, the President announced that he was "confused." Time quoted Democratic National Committee staffer Paul Tully as saying, "The President has been our best ally.... We're just trying to stay out of his way." Opposition to Insider plans for America has always been more likely found in the Congress among Republicans than among Democrats. Insiders, therefore, would obviously prefer that Republicans not gain a majority in the House and Senate. President Bush's activity certainly helped to keep Republicans as the minority party. Communism Collapses Into Socialism Recent remarkable changes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been effusively described by the President as "the dawning of freedom." He has repeatedly heaped great praise on his "good friend" Mikhail Gorbachev, referred to the Soviet Union as "our ally," and taken numerous steps to see that America's taxpayers foot the bill for bailing out the failed socialist systems in Russia and elsewhere. The Bush Administration claims that the American people must save the "reformers" or the nasty old communists will return to power. The truth is that the nasty old communists merely took off their communist faces and are now presenting themselves to the entire world as socialist reformers. Another important truth is that the U.S. government-guided by a succession of Insiders-supplied the nasty communists with massive amounts of loans, credits, equipment and technology. (73) It kept successive communist regimes afloat and even enabled them to threaten the West with periodic bursts of nuclear sabre rattling. The aid given to Moscow also had the result of persuading many Americans to favor world government under the UN as a way to avoid the alternative to Soviet-launched nuclear bombs. Corroboration about this important aspect of Insider strategy came in 1962 with the release of a taxpayer-funded State Department report entitled A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations. (74) Authored by CFR member Lincoln P. Bloomfield, it placed great emphasis on Soviet military might and noted "...if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." Clearly, the Insider-directed policy of helping the communists acquire and brandish their missiles had as its goal the acceptance of world government by the American people. Even though the communists in what was once the Soviet Union are now merely socialist reformers," the Insiders are still telling Americans that we must fear a nuclear threat and want a UN-directed world government because the communists might return to power. They would have America's taxpayers send massive amounts of aid to leaders who only yesterday decided to renounce communism. Not surprisingly, these new leaders are determined supporters of the United Nations. Understanding the charade being acted out here is enormously important. Everyone should realize that a communist is and always has been a socialist. To be more precise, a communist is a socialist who seeks speedy imposition of economic control with brute force and terror. Communists don't work for years persuading their victims to choose economic slavery; they force it on those they capture in lightning quick steps. But the end result is the same whether it is achieved slowly through the route of socialism or swiftly through communist conquest. The full name of the former USSR was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So, if communists decide to be mere socialists, why should our President proclaim victory over the forces of totalitarianism? Socialists are totalitarians. And why should he insist that our nation's best interests are served by taxing the American people to keep socialists in power in Russia — or anywhere else? The Insiders don't really care what route they follow in order to achieve total control of the planet. They can gain economic control via socialism, fascism, communism, syndicalism, monarchism or any one of numerous other isms. If attempting to reach their goal through communist conquest hasn't worked out, then why not shift gears slightly and travel down the road labelled socialism? The end result is all that really matters, and the end result for the Insiders is the acquisition of political and economic power-totalitarianism-over the rest of mankind. Anyone who concludes that threats to personal freedom no longer exist because communism has faded away doesn't know what socialism really means. It is just as destructive of basic rights as communism because it calls for the same goal as communism. Socialists want control over the lives and actions of the people, exactly what the U.S. government is rapidly acquiring over Americans. Famed British playwright George Bernard Shaw spent his entire adult life as a determined socialist. In 1928, his Intelligent Woman's Guide To Socialism confirmed the tyrannical nature of socialism. He wrote: I also made it clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well. There is not now and never has been any room for freedom under socialism. It means just what it has always meant: power for a few with regimentation, prison-like equality, enforced conformity, extermination of adversaries, and a low standard of living for everyone but rulers. This is what Americans are currently facing as socialism replaces freedom here. Along with socialism, the drive toward making the United Nations the world's all-powerful political force constitutes the second of the two prongs of the "new world order." And George Bush is doing all that he can to see that both prongs dig deeply into the American people. Gorbachev, Perestroika and Yeltsin The individual given most of the credit for the changes in the former Soviet Union is Mikhail Gorbachev. His program for change is called "perestroika," a Russian word for restructuring. If he were to seek a restructuring that threw out all vestiges of socialism and allowed the people to practice unfettered free enterprise, he wouldn't want or need help from the West. But there are two reasons why he has never even tried to bring such a change to his country. First, he remains a socialist and keeps reminding us that he is. And second, discarding socialism does not fit into the plans of the world's Insiders to create their "new world order." Were Gorbachev to attempt something other than cooperating with the Insiders who intend to establish economic control and world government, he'd likely develop a terminal illness — maybe even stop a bullet. But Gorbachev is a willing player in this sinister game. And he has been very open about his intentions. Throughout his 1987 book, Perestroika, he stated his unshakable preference for socialism. In one passage, he wrote: To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we will move away from the socialist standard will be greatly disappointed. (75) President Bush had to be aware of Gorbachev's commitment to socialism when he stated in his November 22, 1989 televised message to the American people that "there is no greater advocate of perestroika than the President of the United States." He continued to defend Gorbachev no matter what the Soviet leader did, even when the Soviet leader consolidated power for himself in December 1990. (76) Then, in his 1991 book entitled The August Coup, Gorbachev reiterated his socialist conviction, stating "I am a confirmed supporter of the idea of socialism." In keeping with his turning away from force and turning to persuasive-style socialism, he set himself apart from the communism his nation has endured for 70 years. He even criticized the Soviet Union's past because it featured "the forcible imposition of the Stalinist model of society." Ever the socialist, he had departed from forcing it and now wanted socialism to be chosen. (77) Is Russia now free? Of course not. Yes, elections were held but all the candidates were communists, former communists, or socialists, most of whom had spent their entire adult lives as communist apparatchiks. The same can be said of the elections in other former Soviet republics and in the nations that once made up the Eastern European Soviet bloc. President Proposes Aid for Russia Boris Yeltsin is currently the fair-haired hero of America's Insiders. Welcomed to New York City by David Rockefeller in September 1989, he was brought to CFR headquarters (58 East 68th Street, New York NY 10021) for a closed-door session presided over by the powerful former CFR Chairman. (78) The Russian leader went first to CFR headquarters and then to Washington to meet with President Bush. (79) Eventually talking to reporters, Yeltsin lamented that "only one of the five classical components of socialism has been implemented — the nationalization of property." Yeltsin says he doesn't want a totally state-controlled economy, just 85 to 90 percent control. Let the people own 10 to 15 percent, he argues. He, too, is a socialist through and through. (80) But in June 1991, President Bush named Robert S. Strauss to be U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Strauss is a lifelong Democrat who led his party from 1972 to 1977. He was the top Democrat working for the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter's opponent at the time, Gerald Ford, had a campaign manager named James A. Baker III. Baker is now Strauss's boss as Secretary of State for George Bush. The Insiders care little which political party anyone belongs to, only whether a person is willing to promote Insider goals. They know that membership in either political party is virtually meaningless. Why did the Republican President and his Republican Secretary of State choose Strauss? Two reasons. First, Strauss had enormous experience in setting up business deals with Soviet Russia, and the Administration wants him in Moscow to arrange for transactions that will help keep the new socialist regime in power. Second, Strauss is a veteran member of the CFR who can be counted on to work for the goals of the Insiders. His yearly salary earned as an Insider-connected Washington lawyer totalled over $4 million per year. As ambassador, he will receive $115,300. Chalk it up as another indication of loyalty to the cause of the "new world order" from another Insider. (81) The struggle for leadership in Russia between Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin has been won — at least temporarily — by Yeltsin. But the fight between these two has always been like the Insider-take-all struggles between George Bush (TC and CFR) and Michael Dukakis (CFR), or between Gerald Ford (CFR) and Jimmy Carter (TC), or between Richard Nixon (CFR) and Hubert Humphrey (CFR), or between Dwight Eisenhower (CFR) and Adlai Stevenson (CFR). (82) Each of these U.S. politicians willingly cooperated with the Insiders whose organizations they were happy to join. So too do Gorbachev and Yeltsin cooperate with the same Insiders. Something about the leaders of Russia needs to be said here. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin are among the many former communists who share enormous guilt for the murder, terror and denial of basic human rights for millions in the former USSR and its captive nations. Both should be held accountable for their part in those crimes and for the slaughter of 1.4 million Afghan civilians during the 1980s. As members of the USSR's ruling Politburo during the incredibly cruel rape of Afghanistan, they are and should be classified arch-criminals. And if they are not, there is no such thing as an arch-criminal. But President Bush — backed by the Insiders in government, the media, and elsewhere — is doing everything within his power to sustain such monsters in power. Promises of direct U.S. aid have been kept; commitments for more in the future have been given; and pledges of indirect aid from the International Monetary Fund have also been made. Early in 1992, Mr. Bush asked Congress to boost the U.S. commitment to IMF by $12 billion so that this organization could assist the socialists in Russia. He did so even while informing the nation that the U.S. government would, in that same year, add $400 billion more to its red ink totals. Still Friendly With Red China Supporting the socialists who lead Russia and the other European nations formerly labelled communist is a fixed policy of the Bush Administration. Just as fixed is its support for China's socialists who still maintain their rule with the communist iron fist. In June 1989, Chinese tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square crushing the unarmed students demonstrating for freedom. While most Americans can recall the horror and brutality marking the event, few recall that President Bush had actually encouraged the students to "fight for what you believe in" two weeks before. Yet, even after videotapes of elements of the crackdown had been shown on U.S. television, the Bush response amounted to a few stern words and a handful of slap-on-the-wrist sanctions. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (CFR) excused the Chinese brutality on U.S. television and in his syndicated newspaper column. (83) Six months later. Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft — two CFR members who are also proteges and former employees of Kissinger Associates — were in Beijing arranging for removal of the minor sanctions. Upon their return, the President canceled restrictions on Export-Import bank loans. (84) While they were in China in December, word leaked out that Scowcroft and Eagleburger had also been to Beijing in July, only one month after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Confronted with the information about this betrayal of the brave Chinese students, Secretary of State Baker initially lied about the July trip, then admitted a few days later he had "misled" the public about it. Former U.S. Ambassador to Romania David B. Funderburk has supplied valuable details about the Kissinger-Eagleburger-Scowcroft relationship in his hard-hitting book about President Bush's appeasement of communist dictators, Betrayal of America. (86) To make certain that the U.S. response to Chinese tanks rolling over unarmed students in Beijing didn't jeopardize Insider plans, CFR member Winston Lord took the first opportunity available to him to write in the Fall 1989 issue of Foreign Affairs that "the administration has wisely chosen to suspend rather than dismantle relationships." And he applauded the continued existence of an "impressive web of legislation, umbrella agreements and consultative mechanisms under which a broad range of visits and projects go forward." Winston Lord served as U.S. Ambassador to China from November 1985 until April 1989, two months prior to the bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Prior to that, he served under David Rockefeller as President of the Council on Foreign Relations for eight years. He is another Insider's Insider whose policy guidelines are closely monitored and acted upon by the administration in power. On October 2, 1989, less than four months after the tanks rolled over the students, Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen showed up at CFR headquarters for another of the organization's closed-to-the-press sessions. (86) While in New York, Qian arrogantly refused to allow any discussion of the incident involving the students, claiming that any criticism of his government's actions amounted to "interference in China's internal affairs." A few months later, the Bush Administration lifted opposition to World Bank loans for China. During Mr. Bush's frantic gathering of support at the UN for his "new world order" moves against Iraq, China did him a favor by abstaining on the Security Council vote to authorize force. Had China voted against the resolution, it could not have passed because China is one of only five nations possessing veto power. On the day following what Foreign Affairs labelled the "unprecedented" UN vote, the Chinese foreign minister met with President Bush, the first contact China enjoyed with the President after the Tiananmen Square murders. The price paid for China's willingness to go along with President Bush's plans for a new world order even included American abandonment of the cause of the Chinese students. Business as usual then grew more dramatically with the totally unapologetic murderers in Beijing. In May 1991, President Bush proposed a continuation of Most Favored Nation status for China In January 1992, Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng, the man who actually ordered the troops to crush the students, journeyed to New York along with the leaders of 16 other nations for a session of the United Nations Security Council. Li told his UN audience China stands "opposed to interference in the affairs of other countries, using human rights as an excuse." President Bush then met privately with the Chinese tyrant. Six weeks later, the President vetoed an attempt by Congress to impose trade restrictions on China in the wake of China's continuing violations of human rights. (87) There is virtually nothing a communist or socialist can do to earn meaningful ostracism for himself or his nation from the Insiders. They want power and, if any national leader gains power and is willing to follow the guidelines set down by the Insiders, he gets help to stay in power. When Adolf Hitler, a socialist who had come to power in his nation, attacked the USSR, he became the worldwide target of the Insiders who have by numerous deeds over many decades shown little opposition and plenty of favoritism for communists. Nations not dominated by the type of socialism or communism favored by the Insiders stand as obstructions to the plans for a "new world order." It is these that earn sanctions and pressures designed to destroy them or force them to change their internal policies. The treatment accorded South Africa is an example of selective isolation strictly enforced sanctions and pressures designed to destroy them or force them to change their internal policies. The treatment accorded South Africa is an example of selective isolation, strictly enforced sanctions, and international pressures of every conceivable type short of military assault. South Africa was never part of the "new world order," but is being made over for an admitted socialist like Nelson Mandela so that it can be. If it means bloodshed and terror, so be it. Proponents of the new world order never let the blood of tens of millions bother them; and they won't be bothered one little bit by a river of bloodshed in South Africa. Stopping the Insiders a Must In the CFR's Annual Report for 1989, Peter Tarnoff, the organization's president, announced plans to create a larger office for the CFR in the nation's capital. Once built, he explained, the organization "will be better able to grow in Washington, and to attract many more Senate and House members and their staffs to our programs." CFR intentions to increase Insider influence over our nation's government were clearly enunciated. On April 10, 1990, the Wall Street Journal published a small excerpt from a speech given by veteran CFR member Paul H. Nitze. The occasion for his remarks was the March 12th opening of that new Council on Foreign Relations office in Washington. Nitze described the great influence held by the "enormously important New York business and intellectual community," referring, of course, to CFR members who continue to reside in the New York area. But while noting that Washington's importance within the CFR had grown dramatically, Nitze stated quite clearly exactly how the CFR had dominated U.S. policy from New York for 70 years. Beginning with a description of the Council's influence during the period of the 1920s and 1930s, he said: The State Department and White House might conduct diplomacy in peace and raise and command armies in war, but policy was made by serious people, men with a longer view, i.e. the great men of finance and their advisers. New York was where they were to be found. Then, this veteran Insider from within the CFR, who has served in numerous administrations, added: In the postwar years, the Council has continued to represent an invaluable way for many of us Washingtonians to tap the enormously important New York business and intellectual community. (88) In other words, national policy was set and continues to be set in New York, not by the elected leaders of this nation, but by members of "the Council." Over these years, national policy has included financing tyranny and destroying liberty all over the globe. (89) And President Bush has placed more CFR members in government posts than any predecessor. These Insiders, along with dozens of CFR members in the House and Senate, (90) plus those in New York who have not taken government posts but who retain great influence over national affairs, are leading this nation into the long-desired, tyrannical new world order." No American worthy of the name wants a "new world order." The world government it calls for would mean an end to the nation we inherited, and the destruction of the greatest experiment in human liberty in the history of mankind. It would also establish socialism in place of the free market system, a certain route to conversion of this nation into another Third World deadend. And, even worse, it would mean that tyranny had replaced liberty, a kind of tyranny that has been experienced by countless millions throughout the Twentieth Century — a century of unparalleled barbarism created, sustained and favored by the Insiders of the most powerful conspiracy in the history of mankind. The Insiders have taken us far down the various paths toward their satanically-inspired goal. And time is running out if we are to save our nation and ourselves from their designs. Real Americans who love their country and want to remain free don't have to lose this struggle. It can be won if enough seize the opportunity to take the U.S. government away from the Insiders and return it to individuals who believe in national independence and individual liberty, and who are not working for the "new world order." And there is still time to thwart the plans of the Insiders and climb out of the tyrannical straight-jacket they have prepared for us. Understanding the domination of the Bush Administration by the Insiders is an essential beginning step toward achieving victory over the whole rotten cabal. The enemy faced by Americans is a conspiracy, an organized group of Insiders seeking tyrannical control of this nation, and all nations. Its plans and its agents can be exposed and routed by an opposing force firmly rooted in principle and unwaveringly propelled by courage. The John Birch Society is such a force. Diligent adherence to the program of the Society by enough determined Americans is exactly what's needed to thwart the Insiders and to keep America free. Your inquiry about how to get started on the climb back to full independence for our nation and economic freedom for yourself will be most welcome. We invite you to contact us without delay. Footnotes 40. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, "Bush and the Trilateral Commission," St. Petersburg Times, April 12, 1981. 41. Ron Rosenbaum, "The Last Secrets of Skull & Bones," Esquire, September 1977. 42. J. A. Engles, "U.N.Envoy Brash, Flexible," Rochester (NY) Times-Union, October 12, 1971. 43. United Press International dispatch from Peking, February 25, 1972. 44. Doyle McManus, "A New World Order: Bush's vision still fuzzy," Milwaukee Journal, February 24,1991. 45. Human Cost of Communism in China, 1971 Report issued by the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws. 46. Annual Report 1972, Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021. 47. "Membership List as of July 26, 1977," issued by The Trilateral Commission, 345 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10021. 48. Annual Report 1978, Council on Foreign Relations. 49. Issues and Opinions: The Work Program of the Atlantic Council of the United States, 1978, Atlantic Council, 1616 H Street NW, Washington, DC 2006 50. Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign Relations, 1960. Overbrook Press, Stamford, CT. Shepardson was one of the founding members of the CFR and served on its Board of Directors from 1921 to 1966. 51. David Hoffman, "Little-Known Aide Plays Major Role in Foreign Policy," Washington Post, October 28,1991. 52. News item, Appleton (WI) Post-Crescent, April 22, 1990. 53. Jim Hoagland, "U.S. tempted Saddam to invade Kuwait," Boston Herald, September 18, 1990. 54. Elaine Sciolino, "Envoy's Testimony on Iraq is Assailed, Senators Say Glaspie Misled Them on Hussein Talks," New York Times July 13, 1991; and Elaine Sciolino with Michael R. Gordon, "U.S. Gave Iraq Little Reason Not to Mount Kuwait Assault," New York Times, September 23, 1991. 55. Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., The New World Order, 1992, America's Future Inc., Milford, PA 18337. 56. G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, 1964, Western Islands, Appleton, WI 54913. 57. Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, 1953-1959, 1968, Western Islands, Appleton, WI 54913. Mr. Stang's critical biography of John Foster Dulles supplies an excellent introduction to the conspiratorial view of history. 58. Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy, 1981, Western Islands, Appleton, WI 54913. 59. United Nations Charter; See Articles 42-45. Article 42 states in part that the Security Council may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace or security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." 60. Congressional Record, January 10, 1991, Pages S106-S107. Senator Simon supplied constituents with copies of these pages of the CR containing his full statement to fellow senators. 61. Lincoln On Democracy, Edited by Mario M. Cuomo and Harold Holzer, 1990, HarperCollins. 62. George de Luna, "Baker blunt: Bush needs a free hand," Chicago Tribune, October 18, 1990; George de Luna, "Baker rejects partial Iraq pullout," Chicago Tribune, October 19,1990. 63. "U.S. Congress Authorizes Use of Force Against Iraq," Facts On File, January 17, 1991, Page 32. 64. Foreign Affairs, "America and the World 1990-1991," 65. Leslie H. Gelb, "Why the UN Dog Didn't Bark," New York Times, September 25,1991. 66. Patrick J. Buchanan, "The Gulf Crisis Is the Last Hurrah of the Globalists," Union Leader, Manchester, NH, September 26,1990. 67. Phyllis Shlafly and Chester Ward, Kissinger On The Couch, 1975, Arlington House, New York. 68. Paul Craig Roberts, August 3, 1991, quoted by Phoebe Courtney, TAX FAX No. 235, "Why a Tax Revolt Is Brewing," Independent American, P.O. Box 636, Littleton, CO 80160. 69. Tom Baden, "Red tape rolls as Bush unchains regulatory watchdogs," Houston Chronicle, December 30,1990. 70. Richard N. Gardner, In Pursuit Of World Order, 1964, Praeger Publishing Company, New York. 71. John F. McManus, Whose Side Are They On?, 1991, The John Birch Society, Appleton, WI 54913. This booklet contains a complete photographic reproduction of the 24-page 1961 State Department Document No. 7277 entitled Freedom From War: The U.S. Program For General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. 72. Michael Duffy, "The Perfect Spy," Time, November 5,1990. 73. Antony C. Sutton, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, 1986, Liberty House Press, Billings, MT. Dr. Sutton's earlier and more comprehensive works detailing the flow of Western aid to communist nations include National Suicide and the three volume Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. 74. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, "Study Memorandum No. 7: A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations." Dr. Bloomfield's work carried the notation, "Prepared for the Institute of Defense Analysis in support of a study submitted to the Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated February 24,1961." It was released by IDA on March 10, 1962. 75. Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, 1987, Harper & Row, New York. 76. Paul Bednrd, "Bush defends power grab by Gorbachev as necessary," Washington Times, December 28,1990. 77. Mikhail S. Gorbachev, The August Coup: The Truth and the Lessons, 1991, HarperCollins, New York. 78. Annual Report 1990, Council on Foreign Relations. 79. Facts On File, 1989, Page 916. 80. A.M. Rosenthal, "Yeltsin fails to charm," Milwaukee Journal, September 21, 1989. 81. Stephen Labaton, "Strauss to Forego $4 million in Pay to Take Moscow Post," New York Times, July 13, 1991. 82. During the 1992 Presidential primaries, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton's membership in both the CFR and the TC never became an issue. Opponents Paul Tsongas. Jerry Brown. Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey were not themselves formal members of either of the Insider group. Their refusal to make an issue out of Clinton's memberships, especially the fact that his ties to these organizations linked him to George Bush, can only mean that they would like to hold such memberships themselves and are not going to jeopardize the possibility of being invited to join either or both in the future. 83. John J. Fialka, "Mr. Kissinger Has Opinions on China - And Business Ties," Wall Street Journal, September 15, 1989. 84. James J. Drummey, The Establishment's Man, 1991, Western Islands, Appleton, WI 54913. 85. David B. Funderburk, Betrayal of America: Bush's Appeasement of Communist Dictators Betrays American Principles, distributed by Betrayal of America, Dunn, NC 28334. Dr. Funderburk served as U.S. Ambassador to Romania during the early years of the Reagan Administration. His book supplies details about then-Vice President George Bush's friendliness to Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu and Mr. Bush's refusal to consider Dr. Funderburk's critical assessment about the conditions in Romania and the unreliable personnel in the State Department. 86. Annual Report 1990, Council on Foreign Relations. 87. "Bush to Renew China's Trade Privileges," New York Times, May 28,1991. 88. "Notable & Quotable," Wall Street Journal, April 10, 1991. Four top leaders of the Wall Street Journal hold membership in the CFR: Chairman & Publisher Peter R. Kann; Executive Editor Norman Pearlstine; Editor Robert L. Bartley; and Managing Editor Paul E. Steiger. 89. For a comprehensive and revealing history of the Council on Foreign Relations using its own source documents for evidence of its intentions to destroy national sovereignty and abolish personal freedom, see James Perloffs The Shadows of Power, 1988, Western Islands, Appleton, WI 54913. 90. As of June 30, 1991, the CFR Annual Report 1991 lists the following U.S. Senators as CFR members: Boren (OK), Chafee (RI), Cohen (ME), Dodd (CT), Graham (FL), Lieberman (CT), Mitchell (ME), Moynihan (NY), Pell (RI), Pressler (SD), Robb (VA), Rockefeller (WV), Roth (DE), Rudman (NH), Sanford (NC), Wirth (CO), and Wofford (PA). The following are some of the CFR members in the U.S. House of Representatives: Aspin (WI), Fascell (FL), Foley (WA), Gejdenson (CT), Gephardt (MO), Gingrich (GA), Houghton (NY), Hyde (IL), Johnson (CT), Levine (CA), McCurdy (OK), Moody (WI), Petri (WI), Schroeder (CO), Snowe (ME), Solarz (NY), Spratt (SC), Stokes (OH), and Wolpe (MI). In April 1991, the Trilateral Commission listed the following U.S. Senators as members: Chafee (RI), Cohen (ME), Robb (VA), Rockefeller (WV), and Roth (DE). And the TC listed the following U.S. Representatives as members: Foley (WA), Leach (IA), and Rangel, (NY).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|