From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.guns
Subject: BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 3 of 4
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Date: 11 Jan 1993 15:47:54 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu



                             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 Resume

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.

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton