From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.guns
Subject: BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 4 of 4
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Date: 11 Jan 1993 15:52:20 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu


                     "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).
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  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,soc.culture.USA