From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Repost: "The Insiders" part 2 of 4
Date: 19 Jan 1993 11:19:50 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu


=============================================================================
    File Name:      ins2of4.txt
    Description:    BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 2 of 4


    Original copies of this material may be ordered from:

                    The John Birch Society
                    Post Office Box 8040
                    Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
                    (414) 749-3780

    This file was scanned using the CAERE "Text Plus Graphics" Scanner
    + OCR system for the IBM PC.  It has been carefully checked for
    errors.  In the event that an error is found, please contact me.

    Lance Bledsoe
    lwb@cs.utexas.edu
================================= CUT =======================================


                             Part II - 1983

The John Birch Society's survey entitled The Insiders was released
early in 1979. Over twelve hundred copies were purchased and put into
use by members in a matter of months. Several hundred thousand copies
of the printed text, in booklet form, were also purchased and
distributed throughout the nation. In addition, reprint permission was
granted to several other publishers, and their efforts undoubtedly
doubled the readership of this analysis of the powerful few who dictate
American policy.

It is impossible to know how many Americans saw or read The Insiders or
one of the many similar treatises which paralleled it or were
stimulated by it. Millions, for sure. Tens of millions, most likely.

By early 1980, the accumulated exposure of the Trilateral Commission
and the Council on Foreign Relations, the two most identifiable Insider
organizations, had begun to produce some dramatic effects. For one,
these organizations became well enough known to be "hot topics" on the
campaign circuit. Informed voters from coast to coast, especially those
who were disenchanted with the Carter Administration, began to seek
candidates who were not tied to either of these groups.

In New Hampshire, for instance, where the first presidential primary is
held every fourth February, most of the candidates for the Republican
nomination were happily responding to voters that they were "not now
and never have been" members of Davld Rockefeller's Trilateral
Commission or his Council on Foreign Relations. But Republican
candidates George Bush and John Anderson could not join in such a
response because each had connections to both of these elitist
organizations.

This issue was not confined solely to New Hampshire either. It was a
nationwide phenomenon. Witness a February 8, 1980 article in the New
York Times. (26) Reporting on a Ronald Reagan campaign trip through the
South during the first week of February, the article stated that Mr.
Reagan had attacked President Carter's foreign policy because he had
found that "19 key members of the Administration are or have been
members of the Trilateral Commission." It also noted that when Mr.
Reagan was pressed to back up his charge, an aide listed the names of
President Carter, Vice President Mondale, Secretary of State Vance,
Secretary of Defense Brown, and fifteen other Carter officials.

The report further stated that Reagan advisor Edwin Meese told the
reporters: "...all of these people come out of an international
economic-industrial organization with a pattern of thinking on world
affairs." He made the very interesting comment that their influence led
to a "softening" of our nation's defense capability. Both he and Mr.
Reagan could have added that practically all of these Carter
Administration officials were also members of the Council on Foreign
Relations. But neither chose to do so.


                        Anti-Elitist Reversals

The history of that period shows that Ronald Reagan exploited this
issue very capably. On February 26th, in New Hampshire where the matter
had become the deciding issue in the primary, voters gave him a
lopsided victory. His strong showing and the correspondingly weak
showing by George Bush delighted the nation's conservatives and set a
pattern for future victories that carried Mr. Reagan all the way to the
White House.

But something else happened on February 26, 1980 that should have
raised many more eyebrows than it did. On the very day that Ronald
Reagan convincingly won the nation's first primary, he replaced his
campaign manager with longtime Council on Foreign Relations member
William J. Casey. Mr. Casey served as the Reagan campaign manager for
the balance of the campaign, and was later rewarded with an appointment
as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The selection of William J. Casey in the strategically important
position of campaign manager was highly significant. He is a New York
lawyer who served the Nixon Administration in several positions
including Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and Chairman of
the Export-Import Bank. In those two posts especially, he gained a
reputation as a crusader for U.S. taxpayer-financed aid and trade with
communist nations.

During this same period, while serving as an official of the State
Department, Casey declared in a public speech given in Garden City, New
York, that he favored U.S. policies leading to interdependence among
nations and to the sacrificing of our nation's independence. (27) These
attitudes are thoroughly in agreement with the long-term objectives of
the Insiders, but are not at all consistent with the public positions
taken by Mr. Reagan. But very few made note of the Casey appointment
because very few knew anything about Mr. Casey.

With CFR member William J. Casey on the team, the Reagan campaign was
still able to focus attention on the Trilateral Commission and on
fellow Republican George Bush's ties to it. But nothing was said about
the older, larger, and more dangerously influential Council on Foreign
Relations.


                           Rockefeller Ties

In April 1980, Mr. Reagan told an interviewer from the Christian
Science Monitor (28) that he would shun the directions of David
Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. But George Bush, who had recently
resigned both from the Trilateral Commission and from the Board of
Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, could not shake the
stigma of his Insider connection.

In Florida, understanding about the Trilateral Commission led to
widespread use of a political advertisement which claimed, "The same
people who gave you Jimmy Carter want now to give you George Bush."
(29) An identical ad appeared in Texas. The Reagan bandwagon, propelled
in part by its attack on the Insiders, began to score one primary
victory after another.

Eventually, Ronald Reagan convincingly won the Republican nomination.
Conservatives across the nation were delighted That is, they were
delighted until he shocked his supporters by selecting George Bush as
his running mate. George Bush was the very epitome of the Insider
Establishment type that had made so many of these people strong Reagan
backers in the first place. That night, at the Republican convention,
the word "betrayal" was in common usage.

Ronald Reagan had repeatedly and publicly promised that he would pick a
running mate who shared his well-known conservative views. But, of all
the Republicans available, he picked the man who was the darling of the
Rockefellers. Nor was the Rockefeller-Bush relationship any secret.

Campaign finance information had already revealed that prior to
December 31,1979, the Bush for President campaign had received
individual $1,000 contributions (the highest amount allowed by law)
from David Rockefeller, Edwin Rockefeller, Helen Rockefeller, Laurance
Rockefeller, Mary Rockefeller, Godfrey Rockefeller, and several other
Rockefeller relatives and employees.

Staunch Reagan supporters frantically tried to stop the Bush
nomination. But political considerations quickly forced them to go
along. One after another, they began to state that their man was still
at the top of the ticket. "It was Reagan-Bush, not Bush-Reagan," they
said. But all had to admit that the issue of Trilateral domination of
the Carter Administration could hardly be used with a Trilateralist
veteran like Bush on the ticket.

>From the time William Casey joined the Reagan team in February, the
issue of CFR domination of America could not be used. And when George
Bush was tapped as the Reagan running mate, the Trilateral issue was
also dead. Only a very few realized that when those two issues were
lost, the hope that future President Reagan would keep Insiders from
key positions in government was also lost.

As the summer of 1980 faded into fall, Insiders were showing up in
every conceivable part of the Reagan campaign. In September. a casual
"Prelude to Victory" party was given by the Reagans at their rented
East Coast home in Middleburg, Virginia. A photo taken at the party
shows that the place of honor, at Mr- Reagan's immediate right, was
given to none other than David Rockefeller, the leader of the CFR and
the Trilateral Commission. Guests at this party included Dr. Henry
Kissinger and other CFR and Trilateral members. (30)

Two weeks before the election, the front page of the New York Times
carried a photo showing the future President campaigning in Cincinnati.
Alongside him as his foreign policy advisors who the President said
would answer questions for him, were Senator Howard Baker, former
Ambassador Anne Armstrong, and former Secretaries of State William P.
Rogers and Henry Kissinger. All were members of either the CFR or the
Trilateral Commission or both. (31)


                         Stacking the Cabinet

Election Day 1980 produced a Reagan landslide. Caught up in misguided
euphoria, conservatives began talking about the return of fiscal and
diplomatic sanity to the federal government. But the shock they felt
when their man had chosen George Bush as his running mate returned when
President-elect Reagan announced his selections for the new cabinet.

For Secretary of State, he chose Alexander Haig, a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. For Secretary of the Treasury, Donald
Regan, and for Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldrige - both members
of the Council on Foreign Relations. Back in February, Edwin Meese had
told reporters that Mr. Reagan opposed the Trilateral Commission
because the organization's influence led to a "softening of defense."
Yet, he chose for his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, a member
of the Trilateral Commission. Men from the same Insider team were still
in power!

Five months after Mr. Reagan had been sworn in as President, the
Council on Foreign Relations noted in its Annual Report that 257 of its
members were serving as U.S. government officials As in previous
administrations, these individuals filled many of the important
Assistant Secretary and Deputy Secretary posts at the State Department,
Defense Department, Treasury Department, and so on.

For the critically important post of White House Chief of Staff, Mr.
Reagan named James Baker III. The White House Chief of Staff determines
who gets to see the President, what reading material will appear on his
desk, and what his policy options might be on any given situation. But
James Baker had fought against Ronald Reagan as the campaign manager
for George Bush in 1980, and as a campaign staffer for Gerald Ford in
1976. He is a confirmed liberal who was an opponent of the philosophy
enunciated by Mr. Reagan during the 1980 campaign. In his White House
post, he leads a team of like-minded men who have virtually isolated
the President from the many conservatives who supported his election
bid.


                           Policy Reversals

As President, Mr. Reagan has been given the image of a tough
anti-communist and a frugal budget-cutter. But the images do not hold
up under close scrutiny. Only one year after taking office, he
acquiesced in the taxpayer-funded bailout of Poland's indebtedness to
large international banks. Even worse, he skirted the law which
mandates that any nation in such financial difficulty must be formally
declared in default before the U.S. government could assume its debts.
What made this action doubly revealing was that it occurred at the very
time that thousands of Polish citizens had been incarcerated in a
typical communist crackdown against even a slight semblance of freedom.

During 1981 and 1982, Ronald Reagan personally signed authorizations
for the U.S. Export-Import Bank to finance nuclear steam turbines for
communist Rumania and power generation equipment and a steel plant for
communist China. (32)  Tens of millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars are
being provided for the industrialization of these Red tyrannies.

Also, Reagan Administration officials announced plans to sell arms to
Red China; they told anti-communist businessmen in El Salvador that the
U.S. would oppose efforts by any anti-communist Salvadorans to gain
control of their country; and these same Administration officials
refused to honor a pledge to supply Free Chinese on Taiwan with the
fighter planes deemed necessary by the Chinese for defense.

When the President authorized a joint Peking-Washington communique
which stated that military support for the Free Chinese is no longer
our nation's "long term policy," even CFR member Dan Rather of CBS News
called the document a startling reversal of frequently stated Reagan
rhetoric.

On the domestic front, the record of reversals is just as dramatic.
When Mr. Reagan campaigned against Jimmy Carter, he said he would cut
two percent ($13 billion) from the fiscal 1981 budget which he would
inherit if elected.33 He did nothing about that budget.  Instead, he
went to work immediately on the budget for the following year.

On February 18, 1981, in one of his first speeches to the nation as
President, he delivered his own budget proposals. In that address, he
stated: "It is important to note that we are reducing the rate of
increase in taxing and spending. We are not attempting to cut either
spending or taxing to a level below that which we presently have."
(Emphasis added.) Yet, America was inundated with propaganda which had
practically everyone believing that the Reagan economic package
contained a substantial reduction in federal spending. Supposed budget
cuts were labelled "massive," "drastic," "historic," and "cruel." But
simple arithmetic showed that what President Reagan proposed for fiscal
1982 was $40 billion more spending than could be found in the 1981
budget. By the end of fiscal 1982, instead of being reduced as
candidate Reagan had promised, that figure had grown to a $70 billion
increase over spending from 1981. And the deficit associated with it
soared to $110 billion.

But the Reagan reputation, which had been gained by his campaign
oratory and by erroneous descriptions of his economic program,
continued to delight conservatives and anger liberals. At a press
conference one year later on March 31, 1982, a reporter asked the
President to respond to the accusation that he cared little for the
nation's poor. Part of his lengthy response included the following
statement: "Maybe this is the time with all the talk that's going
around to expose once and for all the fairy tale, the myth, that we
somehow are, overall, cutting government spending.... We're not gutting
the programs for the needy." He then heatedly boasted that federal
spending for student loans, welfare, meals, rents, job training, and
social security was higher than it had been under Jimmy Carter's last
budget.

It was the Reagan-led conservative philosophy that won a decisive
victory in the 1980 elections. Promises to get tough with the
communists, to cut spending, to balance the budget, and to abolish the
Departments of Education and Energy appealed to millions. But there has
been no change in the government's direction. America continues to help
communists and to harm our nation's anticommunist friends. Federal
spending continues to grow, and deficits are skyrocketing. And the
bureaucrats at the Departments of Education and Energy are still in
place.


                         More Reagan Duplicity

At the halfway point of the Reagan four-year Presidential term, the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office forecast budget deficits in
the $150 billion range for the Reagan-directed fiscal years 1982, 1984
and 1985.34 Others insisted that the deficits would be even higher. The
largest deficit in the nation's history, prior to the Reagan
Administration, was $66 billion during the Ford years. Budget deficits,
of course, translate into inflation, high interest rates, business
slowdown, higher taxes, and unemployment. If federal spending were no
more than federal revenue, if we had the benefit of a balanced budget
in other words, some of these problems would be far less severe.

Shortly after he took office, Mr. Reagan twisted the arms of
conservative senators and congressmen to get them to raise the ceiling
on the national debt. Had he insisted on no further increases, the
spiralling growth of government could have been checked. But instead,
he used his influence to authorize more debt. Then he did the very same
thing again eight months later, and again in 1982. As a result,
interest on the debt alone grew to $117 billion for fiscal 1982.

In his State of the Union address on January 26, 1982, President Reagan
again appealed to conservative Americans when he stated:

    Raising taxes won't balance the budget. It will encourage more
    government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will
    slow economic growth, reduce production and destroy future jobs....
    So, I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of
    the American taxpayers. I will seek no tax increases this year.

But, in August 1982, his actions again failed to parallel his rhetoric,
and he used all the muscle he could muster to get Congress to pass the
largest tax increase in our nation's history - $227 billion over five
years. Opponents of this huge tax increase were the principled
conservatives who had supported his election bid. The President's
allies on the tax increases included big spending liberals like Senator
Edward Kennedy and Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill.

One result of the failure of the Reagan Administration to stand by the
philosophy which brought the President to the White House is that
conservatives everywhere have been blamed for the nation's woes. The
congressional elections of 1982 amounted to a significant setback for
the entire conservative movement. It seemed to many voters that the
conservative program had been tried and found wanting. The truth is
that the conservative program has yet to be tried. And the reason why
it has not been tried is that the Insiders who surround Ronald Reagan
are still in control.

The President himself supplied dramatic evidence of the existence of
this control in comments he made about the $5.5 billion increase in
gasoline taxes he signed into law on January 5,1983.

At his press conference on September 28,1982, he was asked: "Knowing of
your great distaste for taxes and tax increases, can you assure the
American people now that you will flatly rule out any tax increases,
revenue enhancers or specifically an increase in the gasoline tax?"

Mr. Reagan responded: "Unless there's a palace coup and I'm overtaken
or overthrown, no, I don't see the necessity for that. I see the
necessity for more economies, more reductions in government
spending...."

Less than three months later, he was vigorously promoting that increase
in the gasoline tax. Call it a "palace coup" or whatever, the chain of
events certainly suggests that someone other than the President is in
control.


                              CFR Lineage

When CFR member Alexander Haig resigned as Secretary of State, CFR
board member George P. Shultz was immediately named to replace him.
During confirmation hearings, several senators and a number of
political writers worried openly about what became known as "the
Bechtel Connection." It seemed almost sinister to them to have Mr.
Shultz join another former Bechtel Corporation executive, Defense
Secretary Caspar Weinberger, in the Reagan Cabinet's inner circle. But
the senators and the supposedly hard-nosed, prying reporters were
assured that there was no cause for alarm, and the matter died.

If a common corporate lineage of these two cabinet officials stirs
concern, however, why is there no concern whatsoever over the fact that
both are current members of the Council on Foreign Relations? And why
not even a bare mention of the fact that Mr. Shultz would be the tenth
Secretary of State in a row to hold CFR membership before or
immediately after his tenure?

That the CFR owns the State Department can hardly be denied. But it can
be ignored, which is precisely what has been going on in America for
decades. The result? Most Americans remain totally unaware that the
same powerful Insiders still control our government.

The Council on Foreign Relations rarely receives any press coverage.
When confronted by adversaries, spokesmen for the organization
repeatedly insist that it is merely a glorified study group which takes
no positions and has no stated policy on foreign or domestic affairs.
Rather, they insist, the CFR merely offers the diverse thinking given
by important students of world affairs.

Yet, in an unusually frank article about the Council appearing in the
New York Times for October 30, 1982, author Richard Bernstein obviously
reflected the attitude of the CFR executives with whom he had spoken
when he wrote: "It [the Council] numbers among its achievements much of
the country's post World War II planning, the basic ideas for
reconciliation with China and the framework for an end to military
involvement in Indochina." (35)

If an organization takes no positions and has no stated policies, how
can it list as "achievements" the shaping of some of our government's
most important decisions over the past forty years? And what
"achievements" these have been!

Post World War II planning has seen the United States descend from
undisputed world leadership and the admiration of virtually all nations
to being militarily threatened by the USSR and being despised by almost
everyone else. Post World War II planning, for which the CFR claims
credit, has seen the United States bumble its way from a defeat here to
a setback there to an error in judgment somewhere else, while freedom
has retreated everywhere and the world increasingly falls under
communist control.

Reconciliation with China, rather than being an achievement, puts our
nation in bed with the world's most brutal tyranny and is making us
adversaries of the friendly, productive, free and honorable Chinese on
Taiwan.

Nor is the disgraceful conclusion to our military involvement in
Indochina anything of which to be proud. The end saw three
nations-Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam-fall to typically brutal
communist tyranny. The toll in human slaughter which had followed in
the wake of our nation's pullout from Southeast Asia is indescribable.
And those who said that these nations would not fall like dominoes are
now strangely silent.

It is highly significant to see this corroboration of our long-held
belief that the CFR helps to shape our nation's policies. The policies
noted in Bernstein's New York Times article have produced communist
victories in every case. It is, therefore, even more significant to
have this admission of the remarkable dovetailing of CFR and communist
goals.


                        Double Jeopardy Elitism

The Trilateral Commission also attempts to convey the impression that
it exists simply as a high-level discussion group which merely fosters
economic and political cooperation. In 1982, the Commission released
East-West Trade At A Crossroads which it quickly claimed contained only
the views of its authors. (36)

This study recommends an increase in the trade with communist nations
that fuels their military capabilities. Even after noting that the
communist bloc nations are already heavily in debt to the West, and
that previous trade had "produced no significant change in the foreign
policy of the Soviet Union," the study also recommends supplying even
more credit to stimulate greater trade. That credit, of course, is to
be supplied by America's taxpayers. Nor is this any departure from
previously held positions published by the Commission, or enunciated by
its members.

What is most significant is that the recommendations given by this
Trilateral Commission report are wholly in tune with the policies both
of the U.S. government and the governments of the communist bloc
nations. The American people do supply the communist nations with
equipment, technology and credit, even while communist troops crush
Poland and ravage Afghanistan, and while Soviet missiles are menacing
the United States. What this Trilateral Commission publication
recommends is no less consistent with Soviet desires than have been the
so-called achievements of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Insiders of the Council on Foreign Relations and the newer
Trilateral Commission have been controlling U.S. policy for decades.
Unfortunately, these same individuals are still running things, despite
the fact that the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan can be
substantially attributed to a growing national revulsion at years of
Insider control of this nation.


                           The Reagan Enigma

How then can one explain Ronald Reagan, the man on whom so many
Americans placed such great hope? All we can say is that there are
several theories to choose from, all of which fall in the realm of
speculation.

One theory holds that he is a good man with fine instincts and
excellent intentions, but is such a hater of confrontation that he has
effectively been steamrolled by the non-conservatives who surround him.

Another theory holds that he was never a real conservative in the first
place, but i8 a very capable orator who can read a good speech and
produce a convincing image. The United Republicans of California
published such a view in 1975, after having experienced all of the
years that Ronald Reagan governed their state.37

One individual who shares the view that Mr. Reagan's political effect
has never been conservative is Thomas Gale Moore of Stanford
University's Hoover Institution. In a syndicated column appearing in
May 1981, (38) he discussed the much-publicized Reagan plans to cut
spending and reduce bureaucratic regulation. But Mr. Moore then
cautioned:

    Skeptics find President Reagan's record as governor, often alluded
    to during the campaign, far from reassuring, especially since he
    used much the same rhetoric during his gubernatorial campaigns as
    appeared later during his campaign for the presidency.

    While in Sacramento, he converted the state income tax into one of
    the most progressive in the nation, introduced withholding taxes,
    raised sales taxes, and sharply increased taxes on business.

    While he was in office, California government expenditures
    increased faster than was typical of other states. Notwithstanding
    his campaign rhetoric, welfare expenditures alone escalated 61
    percent in real terms during his two terms as governor.

That is hardly a record that should merit the label "conservative."

A third theory would excuse the President by holding that government is
out of control in the fiscal sense, and that previously arranged
international entanglements are so binding that not even a President
can reverse runaway spending or call a halt to the increasingly obvious
pro-communist stance taken by Washington. Happily, there are not too
many who believe that this theory has any validity.

Finally, another theory, which is not inconsistent with certain aspects 
of the first two given above, is that, while Ronald Reagan is indeed 
the President, he is not the boss. Nor have a number of his 
predecessors really been in charge. Instead, the Insiders who really 
run America select a man whom they then permit to occupy the White 
House. But it is they who still run the government through like-minded 
individuals with whom they surround the President.

When Ronald Reagan announced that CFR member Donald Regan was to be his 
Secretary of the Treasury, an aide pointed out that Mr. Regan had 
donated $1,000, the maximum personal contribution allowed by law, to 
Jimmy Carter's reelection campaign. And that, in 1980, Donald Regan had 
also contributed to and raised money for left-wing congressmen who were 
engaged in tight races with conservative, Reagan-backed challengers. 
When an aide asked then President-elect Reagan why he would choose a 
man with such a background, Mr. Reagan is reported to have said: "Why 
didn't anyone tell me?" (39)

Why indeed did Ronald Reagan place Donald Regan in his cabinet? We 
suggest that he did not make the selection, but that the Insiders made 
it and have made many others, and that such a practice has been the 
rule rather than the exception for years.

In late 1960, when John Kennedy formed his cabinet, his selections 
included Robert McNamara for Secretary of Defense. At a gathering prior 
to their taking office, Mr. Kennedy had to be introduced to Mr. 
McNamara. Could he logically have picked a man to be Secretary of 
Defense whom he had never met? Or. is it not more reasonable to assume 
that the selection had been made for him? As Secretary of Defense, 
Robert McNamara did a great deal to destroy our nation's 
then-unchallenged military advantage.

Time magazine reported that Richard Nixon selected Henry Kissinger for
the White House post of Director of National Security based on having
once met him at a cocktail party, and having read one of his books.
Yet, CFR member Henry Kissinger was widely reported to have wept
publicly when his patron Nelson Rockefeller lost the 1968 Republican
nomination to Richard Nixon. Did Nixon choose Kissinger? Or, were the
reports in U.S. News & World Report and elsewhere correct when they
openly stated the Rockefellers placed Kissinger in the Nixon
Administration's inner circle?


                         Routing the Insiders


There is, of course, nothing wrong with any President relying on the
advice of others in selecting his top assistants. What is vitally
important is whose advice is being followed, what type of individuals
are named to the positions, and what they do with the power given to
them.

It is our view, as we implied earlier, that a tightly knit and very
powerful group has run America far more than has any recent President.
Its effect on our nation has been horrible. We call this group The
Insiders and we dare to label their activity a conspiracy-a conspiracy
that must be exposed and routed if the disastrous national policies of
the past several decades are to be reversed.

The route that must be followed in order to accomplish this reversal
must begin by placing the mass of evidence about this conspiracy before
the American people. A well-informed public will then work to see that
it is represented by men and women at the congressional level who will
not be intimidated or corrupted by Insider influence in government, the
press, the academic world, the big labor unions, or anywhere else. The
Insiders may indeed have working control of the presidency and the
mechanisms for choosing a president, but their clout at the
congressional and senatorial levels is a great deal less and exists
largely through bluff. In time, a sufficiently aware public can even
break the Insiders' grip on the White House itself.

Will America continue on a path which amounts to fiscal suicide? Will
our government continue to build and support communism everywhere,
while it works simultaneously to destroy the few remaining
anti-communist nations? The John Birch Society wants to put an end to
Insider control of the policies of this nation. If we are to succeed,
the active help of many more Americans is needed in a massive
educational crusade. Whether or not you decide to help will count
heavily toward whether the future for this nation will be enslavement
or freedom.

The Insiders are hoping that you will do nothing. But true Americans
everywhere are asking for and counting on your help. The best kind of
help you can give is active support for and membership in the John
Birch Society.


                               Footnotes

26. "Reagan Steps Up Attack on Carter's Foreign Policy," New York
Times, February 8, 1980.

27. "The Reshaping of the World Economy," an address by Acting
Secretary of State William J. Casey at Adelphi University, March
3,1974.

28. "The Strange Tale of How Ronald Reagan Sold 0ut to the
Trilateralist-tinged Republican Establishment," Kevin Phillips, Los
Angeles Herald-Examiner, August 4, 1980.

29. Newsweek, March 24, 1980.

30. W Magazine, September 26, 1980.

31. "A Day With Reagan," James Reston, New York Times, October 27,1980;
also, New York Times, October 21, 1980.

32. Federal Register, May 29, 1981, Page 28833; Federal Register,
September 9, 1982, Page 39655.

33. Televised address of October 24,1980.

34. The Review Of The News, August 11,1982.

35. "An Elite Group On U.S. Policy Is Diversifying," Richard Bernstein,
New York Times, October 30, 1982.

36. East-West Trade At A Crossroads, Robert V. Roosa, Armin Gutowski,
and Michaya Matsukawa, Trilateral Commission, 1982.

37. Oppose Candidacy of Reagan, United Republicans of California, San
Gabriel, California, May 4, 1975. The UROC Resolution said of Ronald
Reagan that his "deeds have served the liberals"; he "doubled the State
Budget and raised taxes"; he "promoted regional government contrary to
his expressed philosophy of local government"; and he "betrayed
conservative principles in the areas of property rights, income tax
withholding, gun control, medicine, mental health, welfare reform,
crime control, etc." 38.

38. "Did Liberal Hearts Beat Under GOP Conservative Clothing?" Thomas
Gale Moore, Boston Herald-American, May 12, 1981. Mr. Moore also showed
that, after World War II, government always grew at a faster pace while
Republicans occupied the White House (Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford) than
it grew while Democrats held the Presidency (Truman, Kennedy and
Johnson). He wrote, "In fact, the evidence suggests that a voter who
wants a liberal policy should vote Republican; if he yearns for a
conservative policy, he should cast his ballot for a Democrat."

39. Regan At Treasury, Gary Allen, American Opinion, February, 1981.
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china