DP Tool Club 12/CD_ASCQ_12_0294.iso/vrac/insider.zip/INSIDER.TXT

Text File | 1994-01-22 | 183KB | 3,454 lines

                             The Insiders
                                  by
                            John F. McManus

                        The John Birch Society
                    Appleton, Wisconsin 54913-8040





            First printing, August 1992 .....25,000 copies
            Second printing, November 1992 ..25,000 copies

             Copyright (c) 1992 by The John Birch Society
                          All rights reserved







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

                Printed in the United States of America
           Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-73378

                          ISBN: 1-881919-00-5








                           About the Author

John F. McManus joined the staff of the John Birch Society as a Field
Coordinator in New England in 1966. He was promoted to the headquarters
staff in 1968. In 1973, he was named the organization's Public
Relations Director and worked very closely with the Society's founder,
Robert Welch, until his death in 1985.

In conjunction with his public relations duties, Mr. McManus became the
organization's chief spokesman. He has appeared on many hundreds of
radio and television programs and given an equal number of interviews
to representatives of the press. He has traveled the nation extensively
and has conducted Society business in every one of the 50 states.

A native of Brooklyn, New York, Mr. McManus earned a Bachelor of
Science degree from Holy Cross College in Massachusetts, served as an
officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, and was employed in the early 1960s
as an electronics engineer. Married in 1957, he and his wife are the
parents of four.

He is a writer, film and television producer, editor, speaker, and
newspaper columnist. His weekly Birch Log columns have provided
valuable insight about the affairs of our nation since 1973. His first
book, An Overview of Our World (1971), analyzed the great conspiracy
against mankind and its harmful effects on contemporary civilization.

In 1991, he was named President of the John Birch Society.



                                Preface

In addition to previously published surveys of Insider control over the
administration led by President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, this
edition of The Insiders contains a new Part III, a survey of the
control exercised by the Insiders over the administration headed by
President George Bush.

A key to understanding the dominance of the Insiders over contemporary
America is an understanding of the history and purpose of such
organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
commission. Much of this history appears in Part I and is not repeated
in Parts II and III. The definition of the term Insiders, as it was
first given by John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, and as it has
been employed by the John Birch Society, is provided toward the end of
Part I.

Readers familiar with the author's critiques of the Carter and Reagan
Administrations are encouraged to turn immediately to the survey of the
Bush Administration beginning on page 47. Others who are new to the
type of analysis given here would do well to skip over nothing, for the
administrations led by Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan were dominated by the
Insiders, and the pattern of this dominance over America's affairs is
itself an important part of the story told in this book.

We hope that this glimpse of the increasing growth of Insider control
over the U.S. government will stimulate many readers to become involved
in the fight to turn the Insiders out - out from their control of our
nation's government and numerous other vital sectors of American life.

Each portion of this book closes with an invitation to all to join the
John Birch Society. We repeat that earnestly-given invitation as we
begin the Third Edition of this carefully researched book.

                                               THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY
                                                            JULY 1992



                             Introduction

If a member of your family were suddenly felled by a strange malady,
you would quickly run to the family physician. So, too, would you
hasten to a doctor's office when a more familiar disease struck, or
when an accident caused a broken bone or torn flesh.

Once in the presence of the doctor, you would hardly waste his time or
your own by demanding of him some assurance that he favors good health.
You know he already does. And you know he opposes fever, earaches,
broken legs, etc.

We mention this because the John Birch Society has often been accused
of promoting only negativism, or of merely finding fault. Yet any
honest survey of our literature demonstrates that such a charge is
baseless. The doctor who wants healthy bodies doesn't take time to
explain that he wants good health Nor do we always explain that our
first and foremost goal is a strong nation and a healthy civilization.

The Insiders explains much of what has gone wrong in America and who is
causing her ills. We doubt that we will be accused of presuming too
greatly in believing that most Americans know something is eating away
at the foundations of this great nation. Unemployment national and
personal indebtedness, economic slowdown, loss of faith, declining
national stature, a vaguely defined "new world order, broken families,
and much more have stimulated worries from coast to coast and from all
sectors of our social and economic strata.

The John Birch Society believes in America-in her magnificent
Constitution, her glorious traditions, and her wonderful people. Where
America is strong, we seek to preserve; where she has been weakened, we
seek to rebuild. Sadly, we witness the presence of powerful forces
working to destroy the marvelous foundations given us by far-seeing
and noble men 200 years ago.

The information and analysis given in this book will undoubtedly upset,
even anger, some readers. But if the history contained in these pages
is disturbing to both the reader and ourselves, we urge that the blame
be directed toward those who made it, not those who published it.

Doctors can't treat patients until they identify the causes of
ailments. Similarly, no citizen can act to help his nation until he or
she understands what constitutes good national health and what is
ravishing it. It is our hope that the information presented in these
pages will assist a great many more Americans to identify our nation's
diseases - and those who spread them - and then take action to speed
her back to the robust health she once enjoyed.



                            The "Insiders"

                            Part I - 1979

Immediately after World War II, the American people were subjected to a
massive propaganda barrage which favored the Chinese communists and
frowned on the Chinese Nationalists. Newspapers, books, magazines, and
experts in government did their best to convince Americans that the Red
Chinese were not communists at all, but were merely "agrarian
reformers" seeking fair play for the Chinese people. (1)

In the midst of this propaganda blitz, our government completely turned
its back on the Nationalist Chinese in 1947, refusing even to sell them
arms. By 1949, the communist forces under Mao Tse-tung had seized all
of mainland China. After the communist takeover, serious students of
the situation lost no time in declaring that China had been lost in
Washington, not in Peking or Shanghai. And they were correct. (2)

Eventually, the full truth about the Chinese communists became widely
known. A U.S. Senate subcommittee report, (3) published in 1971,
contains gruesome statistics which show that the Chinese communists
have murdered as many as 64 million of their countrymen. Despite
current propaganda to the contrary, Communist China continues to this
day to be one of the most brutal tyrannies in the history of mankind.
And the Chinese Reds have exported revolution and terror to every
continent.

The American people were misled thirty years ago. If the truth about
China had been widely known, our government would never have intervened
in the Chinese struggle as it did. China would not have fallen into
communist hands; there would never have been a Korean War in the 1950s;
and there would never have been a Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s. The
course of history would have taken a far different path-if only the
American people had not been misled about the Chinese communists.

In the late 1950s, the American people were again misled. We were told
that Fiddle Castor was the "Robin Hood of the Sierra Maestra
Mountains," and that he was the "George Washington of Cuba." Some
Americans knew better and tried to spread the alarm. But, in spite of
their efforts, our government repeated the process it had followed in
China and Castro eventually seized control of Cuba. (4)

Again, the American people had been misled. If the truth about Castro
had been widely known, our press and our government would never have
aided him, and he would never have succeeded in capturing Cuba and in
spreading communist subversion throughout Latin America-and now even
into Africa.

The question we must ask ourselves today is: Are there any other
important but similarly erroneous attitudes that have been planted in
the minds of the American people? The answer is that there certainly
are.

One dangerously wrong attitude held by many Americans is that all
prominent businessmen in America-the American capitalist as they are
called-are by definition the archenemies of communism.

In fact, the mere suggestion that a prominent capitalist, like David
Rockefeller, if in league with communists invites scorn or ridicule.
The notion appears to many to be totally absurd because a man like
David Rockefeller, it seems, would have so much to lose if the
communists should ever triumph.

But, in the last few years, David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank
has been favored by the Reds as the first American bank to open an
office in Moscow, and also the first to do so in Peking. And this same
Chase Manhattan Bank has bankrolled the building of the largest truck
factory in the history of mankind, at a place called the Kama River in
the Soviet Union. It is totally inaccurate to consider David
Rockefeller an enemy of communism.

It is also inaccurate to believe that all prominent businessmen in our
nation are conservatives who are always the most determined opponents
of socialistic government controls. We agree that businessmen should be
anti-communists, and that they should be advocates of limited
government, as given us by our Founding Fathers. But many are not.

As communism continues to advance toward total world domination, as
America's place in the world slips from undisputed leadership to
second-rate status, and as our own federal government's control over
all of us grows with each passing day, many Americans are looking for
an explanation of what they see happening.

We believe that the first step toward learning what is really going on
in our country is the realization that some so-called capitalists are
neither conservative nor anti-communist. Instead, they are
power-seekers who are using their great wealth and influence to achieve
political control. What follows will take a hard look at what we
perceive as an on-going drive for power. Not only the kind of power
that flows from great wealth, but absolute power, the kind that can
only be achieved politically. We are going to take a look behind the
headlines at the men who really run our country, the men whom Jimmy
Carter called "the Insiders."


                        Who Is Running America?

One of President Jimmy Carter's favorite themes during his campaign for
the Presidency in 1976 was that, if he were elected, he would bring new
faces and new ideas to Washington. He repeatedly told campaign
audiences that he was not part of the federal government and not
beholden to the Washington-and-New York-based Establishment that had
been running things for so long.

Perhaps the clearest example of his campaign oratory against what he
called the Insiders was given at a Carter-for-President Rally in Boston
on February 17,1976. What he said on that occasion showed up in a
widely distributed paperback I'll Never Lie To You' - Jimmy Carter In
His Own Words. (5) On page 48, Mr. Carter's statement at that Boston
Rally is given as follows:

    The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are
    not going to get these changes merely by shifting around the same
    groups of insiders.... The insiders have had their chance and they
    have not delivered.

The message undoubtedly persuaded a good many Americans to cast their
ballots for Jimmy Carter, for the existence of such an inside group
running things is both widely suspected and widely resented. And yet,
while the former governor of Georgia played up to this resentment
throughout the campaign, he carefully avoided naming any names or
discussing any of the organizational ties of the easily identifiable
Insiders.

This, we intend to do. For we agree with Mr. Carter's campaign oratory,
that for several decades, America has been run by a group of
Establishment Insiders. We also intend to show that, despite his strong
pledge to the contrary, Jimmy Carter has literally filled his
Administration with these same individuals. Since Jimmy Carter moved
into Washington, it has been business as usual for the Insiders who are
running the United States.

The man popularly credited with devising the strategy that landed Jimmy
Carter in the White House is Hamilton Jordan. A few weeks prior to the
November 1976 election, he stated:

    If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of
    State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I
    would say we failed. And I would quit. You're going to see new
    faces and new ideas. (6)

After the election, Mr. Carter promptly named Cyrus Vance to be his
Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the head of National
Security, exactly what Mr. Jordan had said would never happen. But the
real question is: What is it about Mr. Vance and Mr. Brzezinski that
prompted Jordan to make such a statement? And the answer is that these
two men are pillars of the very Establishment that candidate Carter so
often attacked.

When Jimmy Carter appointed him to be Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance
was a Wall Street lawyer, the Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller
Foundation, and a veteran of service in the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon
Administrations.

Zbigniew Brzezinski had taught at Harvard and Columbia Universities,
served in the State Department during the Johnson Administration, and
authored numerous books and articles for various Establishment
publishers and periodicals.

But, beyond all of these Establishment credentials, at the time of
their appointment by Jimmy Carter, both Vance and Brzezinski were
members of the Board of Directors of a little-known organization called
the Council on Foreign Relations. Also, each was a member of the very
exclusive Trilateral Commission. Most Americans have never heard of
these two organizations. But knowing something about them is essential
to understanding what has been going on in America for several decades.
So, let us examine, first, the Council on Foreign Relations and then,
later on, the Trilateral Commission.


                          The House Blueprint

The Council on Foreign Relations (7) was incorporated in 1921. It is a
private group which is headquartered at the corner of Park Avenue and
68th Street in New York City, in a building given to the organization
in 1929.

The CFR's founder, Edward Mandell House, had been the chief adviser of
President Woodrow Wilson. House was not only Wilson's most prominent
aide, he actually dominated the President. Woodrow Wilson referred to
House as "my alter ego" (my other self), and it is totally accurate to
say that House, not Wilson, was the most powerful individual in our
nation during the Wilson Administration, from 1913 until 1921.

Unfortunately for America, it is also true that Edward Mandell House
was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912
House wrote the book, Philip Dru: Administrator; (8) In it, he said he
was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." The original
edition of the book did not name House as its author, but he made it
clear in numerous ways that he indeed was its creator.

In Philip Dru: Administrator, Edward Mandell House laid out a
fictionalized plan for the conquest of America. He told of a
"conspiracy" (the word is his) which would gain control of both the
Democratic and Republican parties, and use them as instruments in the
creation of a socialistic world government.

The book called for passage of a graduated income tax and for the
establishment of a state-controlled central bank as steps toward the
ultimate goal. Both of these proposals are planks in The Communist
Manifesto. (9)  And both became law in 1913, during the very first year
of the House-dominated Wilson Administration.

The House plan called for the United States to give up its sovereignty
to the League of Nations at the close of World War I. But when the U.S.
Senate refused to ratify America's entry into the League, Edward
Mandell House's drive toward world government was slowed down.
Disappointed, but not beaten, House and his friends then formed the
Council on Foreign Relations, whose purpose right from its inception
was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States and
lead our nation into a world government-if not through the League of
Nations, then through another world organization that would be started
after another world war. The control of that world government, of
course, was to be in the hands of House and like-minded individuals.

From its beginning in 1921, the CFR began to attract men of power and
influence. In the late 1920s, important financing for the CFR
came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. In
1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR
gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained
that domination ever since.


                       The Making of Presidents

By 1944, Edward Mandell House was deceased but his plan for taking
control of our nation's major political parties began to be realized.
In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas
Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, the CFR could boast that
Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members, as were Democrats
Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. The American people were
told they had a choice when they voted for President. But with precious
few exceptions, Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR
members.

But the CFR's influence had also spread to other vital areas of
American life. Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the
New York Times, the Washington Post, the Des Moines Register, and many
other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Life, Newsweek,
Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR
members. The organization's members also dominate the academic world,
top corporations, the huge tax-exempt foundations, labor unions, the
military, and just about every segment of American life. (10)

Let's look at the Council's Annual Report published in 1978. The
organization's membership list names 1,878 members, and the list reads
like a Who's Who in America. Eleven CFR members are U.S. senators; (11)
even more congressmen belong to the organization. Sitting on top of
this immensely powerful pyramid, as Chairman of the Board, is David
Rockefeller.

As can be seen in that CFR Annual Report, 284 of its members are U.S.
government officials. Any organization which can boast that 284 of its
members are U.S. government officials should be well-known. Yet most
Americans have never even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations.

One reason why this is so is that 171 journalists, correspondents and
communications executives are also CFR members, and they don't write
about the organization. In fact, CFR members rarely talk about the
organization inasmuch as it is an express condition of membership that
any disclosure of what goes on at CFR meetings shall be regarded as
grounds for termination of membership. (12)


                         Carter and CFR Clout

And so, very few Americans knew that something was wrong when Jimmy
Carter packed his Administration with the same crowd that has been
running things for decades. When he won the Democratic Party's
nomination, Jimmy Carter chose CFR member Walter Mondale to be his
running mate. After the election, Mr. Carter chose CFR members Cyrus
Vance, Harold Brown, and W. Michael Blumenthal to be the Secretaries of
State, Defense and Treasury-the top three cabinet positions.

Other top Carter appointees who are CFR member include Joseph Califano,
Secretary of HEW; Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of HUD; Stansfield
Turner, CIA Director; Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor;
and Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations. The names of scores
of Assistant Secretaries, Undersecrtaries, Ambassadors and other
appointees can also be found on the CFR membership roster.  As we have
already noted, a total of 284 CFR members hold positions in the Carter
Administration.

To put it mildly, the Council on Foreign Relations has a great deal of
clout.  In our opinion, however, not every member of the CFR is fully
committed to carrying out Edward Mandell House's conspiratorial plan.
Many have been flattered by an invitation to join a study group, which
is what the CFR calls itself.  Others go along because of personal
benefits such as a nice job and a new importance.  But all are used to
promote the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.  Over the years, only a
few members have ever had the courage and the awareness to speak out
about the Council on Foreign Relations.  These few are now ex-members
who have always been ignored by the press. (13)


                        Toward World Government

The CFR publishes a very informative quarterly journal called Foreign
Affairs. More often than not, important new shifts in U.S. policy or
highly indicative attitudes of political figures have been telegraphed
in its pages. When he was preparing to run for the Presidency in 1967,
for instance Richard Nixon made himself acceptable to the Insiders of
the Establishment with an article in the October 1967 issue of Foreign
Affairs. (14) In it, he called for a new policy of openness toward Red
China, a policy which he himself later initiated in 1972.

The April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs carried a very explicit
recommendation for carrying out the world-government scheme of CFR
founder Edward Mandell House. Authored by State Department veteran and
Columbia University Professor Richard N. Gardner (himself a CFR
member), "The Hard Road to World Order" admits that a single leap into
world government via an organization like the United Nations is
unrealistic. (15)

Instead, Gardner urged the continued piecemeal delivery of our nation's
sovereignty to a variety of international organizations He called for
an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."
That means an end to our nation's sovereignty.

And he named as organizations to accomplish his goal the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the
World Population Conference, disarmament programs, and a United Nations
military force. This approach, Gardner said, "can produce some
remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an
across-the-board basis."

Richard Gardner's preference for destroying the freedom and
independence of the United States in favor of the CFR's goal of world
government thoroughly dominates top circles in our nation today. The
men who would scrap our nation's Constitution are praised as
"progressives" and "far-sighted thinkers." The only question that
remains among these powerful Insiders is which method to use to carry
out their treasonous plan.


                         The Trilateral Angle

Unfortunately, the Council on Foreign Relations is not the only group
proposing an end to the sovereignty of the United States. In 1973,
another organization which now thoroughly dominates the Carter
Administration first saw the light of day. Also based in New York City,
this one is called the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission's roots stem from the book Between Two Ages
(16) written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. The following quotations
from that book show how closely Brzezinski's thinking parallels that of
CFR founder Edward Mandell House.

On page 72, Brzezinski writes: "Marxism is simultaneously a victory of
the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of
reason over belief."

On page 83, he states: "Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in
the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to
conceptualize his relationship to his world."

And on page 123, we find: "Marxism supplied the best available insight
into contemporary reality."

Nowhere does Mr. Brzezinski tell his readers that the Marxism "in the
form of Communism," which he praises, has been responsible for the
murder of approximately 100 million human beings in the Twentieth
Century, has brought about the enslavement of over a billion more, and
has caused want, privation and despair for all but the few criminals
who run the communist-dominated nations.

On page 198, after discussing America's shortcomings, Brzezinski
writes: "America is undergoing a new revolution" which "unmasks its
obsolescence." We disagree; America is not becoming obsolete.

On page 260, he proposes "Deliberate management of the American
future...with the...planner as the key social legislator and
manipulator." The central planning he wants for our country is a
cardinal underpinning of communism and the opposite of the way things
are done in a free country.

On page 296, Mr. Brzezinski suggests piecemeal "Movement toward a
larger community of the developed nations...through a variety of
indirect ties and already developing limitations on national
sovereignty." Here, we have the same proposal that has been offered by
Richard Gardner in the CFR publication Foreign Affairs.

Brzezinski then calls for the forging of community links among the
United States, Western Europe, and Japan; and the extension of these
links to more advanced communist countries. Finally, on page 308 of his
309-page hook, he lets us know that what he really wants is "the goal
of world government".


                          A Meeting of Minds

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Between Two Ages was published in 1970 while he
was a professor in New York City. What happened, quite simply, is that
David Rockefeller read the book. And, in 1973, Mr. Rockefeller launched
the new Trilateral Commission whose purposes include linking North
America, Western Europe, and Japan "in their economic relations, their
political and defense relations, their relations with developing
countries, and their relations with communist countries." (17)

The original literature of the Trilateral Commission also states,
exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced
communist states could become partners in the alliance leading to world
government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's
proposal. The only change was the addition of Canada, so that the
Trilateral Commission presently includes members from North America,
Western Europe, and Japan, not just the United States, Western Europe,
and Japan.

Then, David Rockefeller hired Zbigniew Brzezinski away from Columbia
University and appointed him to be the Director of the Trilateral
Commission. Later, in 1973, the little known former Governor of
Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was invited to become a founding member of the
Trilateral Commission. When asked about this relationship, Mr. Carter
stated:

    Membership on this Commission has provided me with a splendid
    learning opportunity, and many of the members have helped me in my
    study of foreign affairs (18)

    We don't doubt that for a minute!


                       Carter's Trilateral Team

When Jimmy Carter won the nomination of the Democratic Party, he chose
CFR member and Trilateralist Walter Mondale to be his running mate.
Then, the man who told America that he would clean the Insiders out
chose Cyrus Vance, W. Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown for the top
three cabinet posts, and each of these men is a Trilateralist, as well
as a CFR member. Other Trilateralists appointed by Mr. Carter include
Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor; Andrew Young as
Ambassador to the United Nations; Richard N. Gardner as Ambassador to
Italy; and several others as top government officials.

The membership list of the Trilateral Commission now notes seventeen
"Former Members in Public Service" including Carter, Mondale, Vance,
etc. Their places on the Commission have been taken by other
influential Americans so that approximately eighty Americans, along
with ten Canadians, ninety Western Europeans, and seventy-five Japanese
are members today. Among the current Trilateralists can be found six
Senators; four Congressmen; two Governors; Hedley Donovan, the
Editor-in-Chief of Time Incorporated; Winston Lord, President of the
Council on Foreign Relations; William E. Brock, Chairman of the
Republican National Committee; and Dr. Henry Kissinger. (19)

As with the CFR, we do not believe that every member of the Trilateral
Commission is fully committed to the destruction of the United States.
Some of these men actually believe that the world would be a better
place if the United States would give up its independence in the
interests of world government. Others go along for the ride, a ride
which means a ticket to fame, comfortable living, and constant
flattery. Some, of course, really do run things and really do want to
scrap our nation's independence.

On March 21, 1978, the New York Times featured an article about
Zbigniew Brzezinski's close relationship with the President. (20) In
part, it reads:

    The two men met for the first time four years ago when Mr.
    Brzezinski was executive director of the Trilateral
    Commission...and had the foresight to ask the then obscure former
    Governor of Georgia to join its distinguished ranks. Their initial
    teacher-student relationship blossomed during the campaign and
    appears to have grown closer still.

The teacher in this relationship praises Marxism, thinks the United
States is becoming obsolete, and is the brains behind a scheme to end
the sovereignty of the United States for the purpose of building a
world government. And the student is the President of the United
States.


                           What It All Means

Let's summarize the situation we have been describing in three short
statements.

1. President Carter, who was a member of the Insider-controlled
Trilateral Commission as early as 1973, repeatedly told the nation
during the 1976 political campaign that he was going to get rid of the
Establishment Insiders if he became President. But when he took office,
he promptly filled his Administration with members of the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, the most prominent
Insider organizations in America.

2. The Council on Foreign Relations was conceived by a Marxist, Edward
Mandell House, for the purpose of creating a one-world government by
destroying the freedom and independence of all nations, especially
including our own. Its Chairman of the Board is David Rockefeller. And
its members have immense control over our government and much of
American life.

3. The Trilateral Commission was conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who
praises Marxism, who thinks the United States is becoming obsolete, and
who also wants to create a one-world government. Its founder and
driving force is also David Rockefeller. And it, too, exercises
extraordinary control over the government of the United States.

The effect of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
Commission on the affairs of our nation is easy to see. Our own
government no longer acts in its own interest; we no longer win any
wars we fight; and we constantly tie ourselves to international
agreements, pacts and conventions. And, our leaders have developed
blatant preferences for Communist USSR, Communist Cuba, and Communist
China, while they continue to world for world government, which has
always been the goal of communism.

The Insider domination of our government is why America's leaders now
give the backs of their hands to anti-communist nations such as South
Korea, Rhodesia, Chile and our loyal allies in Taiwan. These few
nations do not want to join with communists in a world government. and
therefore, they are being suppressed. In short, our government has
become pro-communist.


                           More Observations

The Carter Administration, unfortunately, is only the current
manifestation of this problem that has infected our nation for decades.
Previous administrations, however, have carefully pretended to be
anti-communist and pro-American. But there is very little pretense in
an Administration which arranges to give the Panama Canal to a
communist-dominated government in Panama, and paid the Reds $400
million to take it. Or, when our President turns his back on America's
allies in China and diplomatically recognizes the Red Chinese, who run
the most brutal tyranny on earth. Or, when our President continues to
disarm and weaken the United States, even as he presses for more aid
and trade with Red China and Red Russia.

The foreign policy of the Carter Administration, which is totally
dominated by CFR and Trilateral Commission members, could hardly be
worse. But the domestic policies of our government also fit into the
scheme to weaken the United States and destroy the freedom of our
people. Government caused inflation continues to weaken the dollar and
destroy the economy of our nation. Federal controls continue to
hamstring America's productive might. And the Carter energy policy can
be summed up very simply as a program to deny America the use of its
own energy resources and to bring this nation to its knees through
shortages and dependence on foreign suppliers.

The real goal of our own government's leaders is to make the United
States into a carbon copy of a communist state, and then to merge all
nations into a one-world system run by a powerful few. And in 1953, one
of the individuals committed to exactly that goal said as much in a
very explicit way.

That individual was H. Rowan Gaither, a CFR member who was the
president of the very powerful Ford Foundation. It was during the
preliminary stages of a Congressional investigation into the activities
of the huge tax-exempt foundations that Mr. Gaither invited Norman
Dodd, the Director of Research for the Congressional Committee, to Ford
Foundation headquarters in New York City. The purpose of the meeting
was to discuss the reasons why Congress wanted to investigate the
foundations. At the meeting, Rowan Gaither brazenly told Norman Dodd
that he and others who had worked for the State Department, the United
Nations, and other federal agencies had for years

    ...operated under directives issued by the White House, the
    substance of which was that we should make every effort to so alter
    life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger
    with the Soviet Union.

Then he added, "We are continuing to be guided by just such
directives."

When the thoroughly shocked Norman Dodd asked Rowan Gaither if he would
repeat that statement to the full House Committee so that the American
people would know exactly what such powerful individuals were trying to
accomplish, Gaither said: "This we would not think of doing. (21)

As further proof of just how powerful these subversive influences
already were in the early 1950s, the Committee, headed by Congressman
Carroll Reece of Tennessee, never did get to the bottom of its
investigation of the tax-exempt foundations, (22) and it was soon
disbanded. A summary of what was learned appears in Rene Wormser's
book, Foundations, Their Power And Influence, (23)


                        "World Order" Nightmare


But the drive toward a merger of the United States with communism
continues. The final goal, as we have already stated, is a world
government ruled by a powerful few. And lest anyone think that such a
development will be beneficial to the world or agreeable to himself,
let us list four certain consequences of world government.

One: Rather than improve the standard of living for other nations,
world government will mean a forced redistribution of all wealth and a
sharp reduction in the standard of living for Americans.

Two: Strict regimentation will become commonplace, and there will no
longer be any freedom of movement, freedom of worship, private property
rights, free speech, or the right to publish.

Three: World government will mean that this once glorious land of
opportunity will become another socialistic nightmare where no amount
of effort will produce a just reward.

Four: World order will be enforced by agents of the world government in
the same way that agents of the Kremlin enforce their rule throughout
Soviet Russia today.

That is not the kind of world that anyone should have to tolerate. And
it is surely not the kind of an existence that a parent should leave
for a child. Yet, that is what is on our near horizon right now, unless
enough Americans stop it.


                           Or a Better World

The John Birch Society was organized in part to stop the drive toward
world government. In 1966, Robert Welch, the founder and leader of the
John Birch Society, delivered a speech which he called The Truth In
Time. (24)

One of the most important sections in this valuable survey is Robert
Welch's discussion of the individuals who are carrying out the
Conspiracy's goals, but who have never been communists. Mr. Welch
coined a word to describe these powerful men. He called them the
Insiders.

Strangely enough, we have seen that Jimmy Carter attacked what he, too,
called Insiders during his campaign for the office of President. We
are, however, making no inference that Mr. Carter used the word because
Robert Welch had. The amazing aspect of this coincidence is that, in
using the word "Insiders," both Jimmy Carter and Robert Welch were
referring to the same individuals, and to the same force. But Jimmy
Carter had obviously thrown in his lot with them, and was dishonestly
seeking votes by condemning them.

Robert Welch, on the other hand, has condemned the Insiders, named the
Insiders, and formed the John Birch Society to stop what they are doing
to our country and to the world.

The Insiders must be stopped. The control they have over our government
must be broken. And the disastrous policies of our leaders must be
changed. The way to accomplish these urgent tasks is to expose the
Insiders and their conspiracy. The American people must be made aware
of what is happening to our country and who is doing it. If sufficient
awareness can be created in time, the Insiders and their whole sinister
plan will be stopped. This is the goal of the John Birch Society.
Education is our strategy and truth is our weapon. (25) But more hands
are needed to do the job. More hands are needed to wake the town and
tell the people.

You don't have to be political scientist, or an economist, or a Ph.D.
in world history to be a member of the John Birch Society. The most
important single requirement has always been a sense of right and
wrong, and a preference for what is right. If you want to do your part
to save your country, and to stop the Insider-controlled drive toward a
communist-style world government, then you ought to join the Society
now.

The John Birch Society has the organization, the experience, the tools,
and the determination to get the job done. God help us all if, for want
of willing hands, we fail!



                               Footnotes

1.  John T. Flynn, While You Slept (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951, and
    Boston: Western Islands, 1965).

2.  Robert Welch, May God Forgive Us (Chicago: Regnery, 1952) and Again
    May God Forgive Us (Boston, Belmont Publishing Co., 1963).

3.  Human Cost Of Communism In China, Report issued by Senate
    Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal
    Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, Ninety-Second
    Congress, 1971.

4.  Nathaniel Weyl, Red Star Over Cuba (New York: Devin-Adair, 1960).

5.  Richard L. Turner, "I'll Never Lie To You" - Jimmy Carter In His
    Own Words (New York: Ballantine Books, 1976).

6.  Sam Smith, "Carter's Crimson Tide, Boston Globe. January 29, 1978.

7.  Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Boston: Western Islands, 1977).

8.  Philip Dru: Administrator (New York, 1912).

9.  Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Boston: American Opinion, 1974).

10. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government.

11. The eleven United States Senators listed as members of the Council
    on Foreign Relations in 1978 are: Howard H. Baker; John C. Culver;
    Daniel P. Moynihan; Claiborne Pell; Jacob K. Javits; Charles McC.
    Mathias, Jr.; George McGovern; Abraham Ribicoff; William V. Roth,
    Jr.; Paul S. Sarbanes; and Adlai E. Stevenson III. See Annual
    Report 1977-1978, Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., New York.

12. June 1978 By-Laws of the Council on Foreign Relations, Article II:
    "It is an express condition of membership in the Council, to which
    condition every member accedes by virtue of his membership, that
    members will observe such rules and regulations as may be
    prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors concerning
    the conduct of Council meetings or the attribution of statements
    made therein, and that any disclosure, publication, or other action
    by a member in contravention thereof may be regarded by the Board
    of Directors in its sole discretion as ground for termination or
    suspension of membership pursuant to Article I of the By-Laws."
    Annual Report 1977-1978.

13. Examples of former CFR members who did what they could to expose
    the purposes of the organization are former Assistant Secretary of
    State Spruille Braden (see Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government) and
    retired Rear Admiral Chester Ward (see Phyllis Schlafly and Chester
    Ward, Kissinger On The Couch, New York: Arlington House, 1975).

14. Richard Nixon, "Asia After Vietnam," Foreign Affairs, October,
    1967.

15. Richard N. Gardner, "The Hard Road to World Order," Foreign
    Affairs, April 1974.

16. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages (New York: Viking Press,
    1970, and New York: Penguin Books, 1976).

17. Report of Purposes and Objectives, by Trilateral Commission March
    15, 1973.

18. Jimmy Carter, Why Not The Best? (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1975).

19. Membership list of the Trilateral Commission, January 31, 1978.

20. Terence Smith, "Brzezinski, Foreign Policy Advisor, Sees Role as
    Stiffening U.S. Position" New York Times, March 21, 1978.

21. Norman Dodd in letter to Howard E. Kershner, December 29, 1962.

22. Tax-Exempt Foundations, Report of the Special House Committee to
    Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (Reece Committee), Eighty-Third
    Congress, 1954.

23. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations, Their Power And Influence (New York:
    Devin-Adair, 1958).

24. Robert Welch, The Truth In Time (Boston: American Opinion, 1966).

25. Robert Welch, The Blue Book of The John Birch Society (Boston:
    Western Islands, 1959).

----

Original copies of this material may be ordered from:

    The John Birch Society
    Post Office Box 8040
    Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
    [phone]





    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
                    [phone]

================================= 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.




    File Name:      ins3of4.txt
    Description:    BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 3 of 4


    Original copies of this material may be ordered from:

                    The John Birch Society
                    Post Office Box 8040
                    Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
                    [phone]

================================= CUT =======================================


                             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.

    File Name:      ins4of4.txt
    Description:    BOOK: "The Insiders" - part 4 of 4


    Original copies of this material may be ordered from:

                    The John Birch Society
                    Post Office Box 8040
                    Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
                    [phone]

================================= CUT =======================================


                     "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).




<<<>>>