Council On Foreign Relations - The New American Magazine - August 3 2009

Muslim Face of the EU • Russia: The Lies That Blind • China Betrayed Into Communism

$2.95

ThaT Freedom Shall NoT PeriShwww.TheNewAmerican.com

August 3, 2009

Council On Foreign Relations

InfluencingAmerican Government

Immigration News UpdateThe issue of immigration won’t rest until the U.S. Congress takes decisive action. As the U.S. economy continues to melt down, learn the players and gambits in the immigration debate — and learn what would likely be the best solution. (July 20, 2009, 48pp) TNA090720

Freedom and ProgressProgress and self-fulfillment go hand in hand with governance that moves away from absolutism. Yet in America, where the people should know better, freedom is being stifled at an alarming pace by overarching government regulations. (July 6, 2009, 48pp) TNA090706

Green Fairy TalesThe Obama-Biden “New Energy for America” plan reverses traditional thinking on U.S. energy policy. Instead of being concerned with generating increasing amounts of energy, it focuses on decreasing America’s usage of energy and on going “green.” But will it work? (June 22, 2009, 48pp) TNA090622

Tracking Your Digital TrailDo you ever wonder what happened to the “assessments” you took in high school or to the marketing surveys you have filled out or to the answers you gave your doctor about, say, guns in your household? This issue tells who is keeping track of your personal information. (June 8, 2009, 48pp) TNA090608

Council On Foreign RelationsIt seems that despite promises of “change” by various presidents, including Reagan, Carter, and Obama, that the overall direction of our country doesn’t change. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows that each president’s administration is larded by individuals from the same small organizations — the power behind the throne. (August 3, 2009, 48pp) TNA090803

ENTER MIx OR MaTCh QUaNTITIEs aND sUbTOTal


Immigration News Update

Freedom and Progress

Tracking Your Digital Trail

Green Fairy Tales

FeaturedProducts

✁

Mix or Match ❏ 1 copy $2.95❏ 10 copies $12.50 ❏ 25 copies $22.50 100+ copies*

Make checks payable to: shopJbs Order subtotal

$0-10.99$11.00-19.99$20.00-49.99

standard shipping$4.95$7.75$9.95

Rush shipping$9.95$12.75$14.95

standard: 4-14 business days. Rush: 3-7 business days, no P.O. boxes, hI/aK add $10.00

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

QuAnTITy TITlE/DESCrIpTIon ToTAl prICE

SUBTOTAL TOTalWI REsIDENTs aDD 5% salEs Tax

shIPPING(sEE ChaRT bElOW)

For shipments outside the u.s., please call for rates.

* For rush orders and special rates for case lots of 100, call (800) 727-TRUE or go to ShopJBS.org.

Order Online: www.shopjbs.orgCredit-card orders call toll-free now! 1-800-342-6491

090803

MaIl COMPlETED FORM TO:ShopJBS • P.O. BOX 8040

APPLETON, WI 54912

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

❑ Check ❑ ViSA ❑ Discover❑ Money Order ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ___________________________________________________

Mix or Matchfor SpecialQuantityDiscounts

See Dean Sellers Ford for your new Freedom Machine

2600 Maple RoadTroy, Michigan(248) 643-7500

www.deansellersford.com

Cover Story

Politics

10 council on Foreign Relationsby James Perloff — Despite promises of “change,” successive presidential administrations have in common the fact that important posts are staffed by individuals from the same small organizations — who direct our nation’s policies.

coVER Design by Joseph W. Kelly

FeatureS

WoRld

17 Muslim Face of the EUby R. Cort Kirkwood — As European birth rates fall well below replacement levels, the birth rates and immigration rates of Muslims have been high. A lack of assimilation makes strife inevitable.

RUssia

23 the lies that Blindby William F. Jasper — Is communism dead? For the past 25 years, Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn has been publicly warning the West against acceptance of this deadly illusion.

Book REViEW

27 darwinism: Flawed, disastrous — and Stolenby Joe Wolverton — Eugene G. Windchy makes the case that not only has Darwinism not been proven, but that Charles Darwin was an unscrupulous man who stole and then peddled others’ theories.

HistoRy — Past and PERsPEctiVE

31 china Betrayedby James Perloff — Interventions by the U.S. foreign policy establishment resulted in oppressive dictatorship.

tHE last WoRd

44 obama abroad: Much to Worry aboutby John F. McManus

23

17

27

31

DepartmentS

5 letters to the Editor

6 inside track

9 QuickQuotes

30 the Goodness of america

41 Exercising the Right

42 correction, Please!

10Vol. 25, no. 16 august 3, 2009

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

esD

esig

n b

y Jo

sep

h W

. Kel

ly

DiamondM RanchDiamondM Ranch

REGISTERED & COMMERCIAL

HEREFORDS

Engaged In Accenting The Hereford Influence

Box 99Laurier, WA 99146Len: (509) 684-4380(Summer phone)

The McIrvin FamilyClive

Len & PatBill & RobertaShirley & Jack

646 Lake Rd.Burbank, WA 99323Len: (509) 545-5676

(Winter phone & address)

REGISTERED & COMMERCIAL

HEREFORDSRange Bulls, Replacement Females, Stocker & Feeder Cattle

(one or a truckload)

Engaged In Accenting The Hereford Influence

“This is a republic, not a democracy

– Let’s keep it that way!”

Publisher John F. McManus

Editor Gary Benoit

Senior Editor William F. Jasper

Associate Editor Kurt Williamsen

Contributors Dennis J. Behreandt

Christopher S. Bentley Steven J. DuBord

Selwyn Duke Jodie Gilmore

Gregory A. Hession, J.D. Ed Hiserodt

William P. Hoar R. Cort Kirkwood

Warren Mass Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Alan Scholl Ann Shibler

Liana Stanley Michael E. Telzrow

Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

Editorial Assistant Denise L. Behreandt

Art Director Joseph W. Kelly

Research Bonnie M. Gillis

Marketing Larry Greenley

Public Relations Bill Hahn

Advertising/Circulation Julie DuFrane

Printed in the U.S.A. • ISSN 0885-6540P.O. Box 8040 • Appleton, WI 54912920-749-3784 • 920-749-3785 (fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]@TheNewAmerican.com

Rates are $39 per year (Hawaii and Canada, add $9; foreign, add $27) or $22 for six months (Hawaii and Canada, add $4.50; foreign, add $13.50). Copyright ©2009 by American Opin-ion Publishing, Inc. Periodicals postage paid at Appleton, WI and additional mailing offices. Post-master: Send any address changes to The New AmericAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912.

The New AmericAN is pub-lished biweekly by Ameri-can Opinion Publishing

Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.

la Raza isn’t separatistI read with interest Jack Kenny’s article “The Sotomayor Selection,” in the July 6, 2009 edition of The New AmericAN.

The information presented about the or-ganization the National Council of La Raza, quoted from the John Birch Society Bulle-tin, appears to be inaccurate, however.

I think John Birch Society President John F. McManus got his information wrong regarding the National Council of La Raza [NCLR] in his piece in the Bul-letin — which Kenny quoted.

The group that has been known for call-ing for the creation of a homeland called “Aztlan” in the American Southwest is MEChA, the Movement for the Education of Chicanos in Aztlan — not the Nation-al Council. It is a popular group among Mexican-American students on college and high-school campuses. These young activists fantasize about a homeland in the Southwest, although none of them want to be governed by Mexico.

The National Council of La Raza is a group composed mainly of highly educat-ed Hispanic professionals, and the quality of their work appears to be of a pretty high level, although decidedly of a social dem-ocratic political orientation.

Regarding the dispute over the name “La Raza,” it is unfortunate that this name for the Mexican people became associ-ated with the Brown Power movement of the seventies, an important component of the “identity politics” that emerged in that era.

The term actually was popularized by Mexican Minister of Education Jose Vas-concellos in the 1920s, as the revolution-ary government in Mexico consolidated authority. Mexican society, traditionally very caste-ridden, was violently reengi-neered by the Mexican revolutionaries, who sought a means to bring indigenous and mestizo peoples fully into a new so-cial compact.

Ironically, it is sad that younger gen-erations of MEChA activists now see the term of “La Raza” as embodying only the indigenous traditions of Mexico, and often are guilty of blunt denial of their equally important Spanish inheritance. They have completely forgotten Vasconcellos’ unify-ing vision.

DouglAs hAwes

San Jose, California

In trying to craft a more moderate image, the NCLR publicly distances itself from the militant rhetoric of its founders — even while honoring them and promoting their ideas. The radical Aztlan “reconquista” movement sprang not only from MEChA, but also from the La Raza Unida (The Race United) Party and the Southwest Council of La Raza (SCLR), which was NCLR’s name before it went national. SCLR’s founding president Henry Gallegos is still an NCLR director emeritus. La Raza Unida founder Maclovio Barraza (a Communist Party or-ganizer) was also the founding chairman of NCLR, which gives an annual award named in his honor. NCLR’s leadership is filled with former MEChA activists, and NCLR supports and sponsors MEChA stu-dents and chapters. NCLR also supports Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Arizona, and dozens of similar “La Raza” schools in its “NCLR School Network.” — Ed.

Send your letters to: The New AmericAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Or e-mail: [email protected]. Due to vol-ume received, not all letters can be answered. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.

coRREction: In the “Freedom Index” in the July 20, 2009 issue of TNA, we made an error in generating the vote key that caused the entire column of pluses and minuses for Senate Vote #6 to be wrong. All minuses should be pluses and all pluses should be minuses in that column. This error additionally skewed the percentages assigned senators, and lowered from 35 percent to 34 percent the overall Senate score. Senator Tom Coburn, who was assigned a score of 90 percent, actually earned 100 per-cent — making him the only senator to achieve a perfect score. The description of Senate Vote #6 accurately describes how we intended to score the vote.

We have corrected the online (PDF) version of this July 20 “Freedom Index.” We encourage readers to download the PDF and use it to share with others. The online version is available at: www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-1.pdf

We deeply apologize for this error.

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today! 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

After a mere 40 days under bankruptcy protection, the “new GM” emerged on July 10 amid promises from CEO Fritz Henderson to operate more profitably and competitively in the future.

The new incarnation of the storied auto company is pledging to do away with managerial inertia and produce far more quickly than before cars that consumers will want to buy. Henderson is cautiously predicting that GM may break even next year, and return to slender profitability by 2011.

Ah, but there’s a catch, naturally. GM also received on July 10 the final installment of federal aid from its latest bailout, roughly $20 billion. The federal government owns a 61 percent stake in the company, making GM in effect a government entity. Yet gov-ernment overseers are vowing not to micromanage affairs at GM and to stay out of day-to-day decision making.

If you believe that, we’ve got a used Oldsmobile we’d like to sell you. The very notion that federal bureaucrats — whose every

instinct is to meddle, tamper, regulate, restrict, control, and oth-erwise exert their powers to the fullest extent they can get away with — will magically refrain from acting on their dictatorial im-pulses in GM’s case is farcical. Given the politically correct tenor of the Obama administration, it will not be long before new fuel efficiency standards, anti-global-warming standards, consumer safety standards, and quotas for the production of alternatively fueled cars like hybrids are foisted on the new GM.

the “new GM” Hits the Road

Back in February, California politicians and taxpayers received a wake-up call, but apparently, the alarm wasn’t loud enough to wake them.

On February 3, California’s bond credit rating was downgrad-ed below that of every other state by Standard & Poor’s, one of the Big-Three Wall Street rating agencies. The agency reduced its rating on $46 billion of California’s general obligation bonds from “A+” to “A.” While an “A” rating may not sound so bad, it’s at the lower end of investment grade bonds; most states have “AA” or “AAA” ratings.

Following the failure of the state to meet its budget deadline of June 30, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal state of emergency, and state Controller John Chiang began issuing

$3.3 billion in IOUs, instead of checks. Those being hit first and hardest are counties and local governments that rely on millions of dollars from the state each month, taxpayers expecting state income tax refunds, and businesses and contractors who do busi-ness with state agencies.

Every day the state prolongs its budget standoff puts the state’s bonds at greater risk. Of course, if the final “solution” arrived at by the governor and the legislature fails to address the big-spending, big-taxing, big-regulating policies that put Cali-fornia into its present crisis, the situation is sure to deteriorate, with even more dire consequences. The nation’s most populous state, with the world’s eighth largest economy, is tottering on the brink.

california Bonds totter as state issues ioUs

President Barack Obama entered office with a promise of in-creased transparency, especially regarding the media. However, Helen Thomas, the dean of the Washington press corps, told CNSNews.com on July 1 that Obama is attempting to control the press and that he’s going beyond what even Richard Nixon tried to do. “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.”

CNSNews.com also reported:

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the ar-rangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press con-ference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the report-er the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask ... you,” Thomas said.

Thomas’ comments followed the July 1 briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. At the briefing, Gibbs and CBS White House corre-spondent Chip Reid (with Thomas jumping in) engaged in a back-and-forth exchange on how (in Reid’s words) “the audience and the questions are being selected” for the president’s town-hall meeting on healthcare that day. “Why pre-select?” Reid asked. “Why not just open it up for people and allow any question to come in?”

White House accused of trying to spin the news

Helen Thomas

6 THE NEW AMERICAN • AugusT 3, 2009

Inside Track

AP

Imag

esA

P Im

ages

The U.S. House on July 9 voted almost unanimously (429 to 2) to rebuke President Barack Obama for his June 24 signing statement openly declaring that he could ignore provisions of the legislation he was signing into law.

The legislation was the fiscal 2009 supplemental appropria-tions bill, which included $108 billion in new funding for the International Monetary Fund as well as conditions for how the money could be used. Obama claimed he could ignore those con-ditions.

The House vote rebuking Obama was on an amendment of-fered by Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) that would add the following language to the State-Foreign Operations appro-priations bill (H.R. 3081): “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate an agreement in contravention of [law].”

That Obama’s signing statement was a clear assertion of dic-

tatorial powers was recognized by Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress. Repre-sentative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) stressed that “we do this not on behalf of this institution, but literally on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. And there is a kind of a unilateralism, in an undemo-cratic, unreachable way, to these signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here.”

congress Rebukes obama on dictatorial claim

Hollywood’s depravity continues apace, this time with the Con-stitution’s most famous champion in its crosshairs. In Sasha Baron Cohen’s new film Bruno, Cohen (who plays an out-of-work “gay” Austrian talk-show host) pulls down his pants during an interview with Congressman Ron Paul that was interrupted (by design) with technical difficulty.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow explains that “Bruno tries very unsuccessfully — I have to say — very unsuccessfully, to se-duce Dr. Paul.” Dr. Paul was the model of a perfect Christian gentleman throughout the disgusting scene. But the film, which was number one at the North American box office its opening weekend, serves as a reminder of the crass nature of the “enter-tainment” Hollywood is serving out these days.

Cohen has made a rather prosperous career out of being lewd and crude. In his last film, Borat, Cohen played a crass Ka-

Pope Benedict XVI called for a “true world political authority” to manage the economy in his new encyclical on social justice. The encyclical, entitled “Charity in Truth,” was released by the Vatican on July 7 and signed by the pope a day earlier.

Benedict’s encyclical specifically called for “regulation of the financial sector” and a “worldwide redistribution of energy resources.” Benedict added that “the State’s role seems destined to grow” if his political prescription is followed.

zakhstani who comes to America to seek his fortune and seduce women. He also was lowered down from the ceiling bare-bot-tomed at the most recent MTV movie awards.

Dr. Paul explained in an interview with radio talk-show host Curtis Sliwa that the entire “interview” was a fraud: “I was ex-pecting an interview on Austrian economics. So that didn’t turn out that way. By the time he started pulling his pants down I thought, ‘What in thunder is going on in here?’ I ran out of the room [and said] ‘this interview has ended.’ I think that when this all gets out, I’m probably going to have to apologize to my sup-porters because I think most of them are going to [ask] ‘Why in the world didn’t I just sock this guy in the nose?’”

Dr. Paul, however, has no need to apologize. Only the lewd-and-crude actors and Hollywood studios who put out this trash need to apologize

“There is urgent need of a true world political authority,” Bene-dict wrote in the 30,000-word encyclical, calling for “reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic insti-tutions and international finance, so that the concept of the fam-ily of nations can acquire real teeth.” Benedict described what a powerful world government with teeth would look like: “Such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vest-ed with the effective power to ensure security for all.” He added: “Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compli-ance with its decisions from all parties” — that is, nations.

When the pope met President Barack Obama at the Vatican on July 10, he gave the U.S. president a copy of “Charity in Truth,” as well as a booklet on bioethics opposing abortion and embry-onic stem-cell research.

Hollywood Puts Ron Paul in its crosshairs

Pope calls for “World Political authority”

Pope Benedict XVI

Barack Obama signing supplemental appropriations bill

www.TheNewAmerican.com 7

AP

Imag

es

AP

Imag

es

... Serving the Chicagoland area for over 90 years

744 East 113th St. • Chicago, IL 60628 • (773) 785-3055 • www.raffinconstruction.com

Environmental doomsayers may still be claiming that we must radically reduce carbon-dioxide and other “greenhouse” gas emissions in order to prevent catastrophic global warming, but they cling to that position despite the fact that the warming they’ve been forecasting has not occurred. In fact, the average global temperature has gone down, not up, in recent years.

The divergence between IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) tem-perature predictions and the actual temperature record was graphically illustrated in a March 16, 2009 internal report by EPA research analyst Alan Carlin entitled “Com-ments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Green-house Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.”

Dr. Carlin’s very telling graph, from page four of his report, is reproduced here. As Carlin explains on the page following the graph, the red, purple, and orange lines show IPCC temperature predictions assuming different emission scenarios; the yellow line shows what the IPCC claims would happen if the CO2 concentration were to remain the same; and the blue and green lines show the actual temperature records based on ground and satellite readings, respectively. The lines reflecting the actual temperature records are the only lines dropping instead of climbing. In fact, the actual global tem-perature has fallen by 0.3°C in just the last three years according to the satellite data.

The EPA document also notes that the actual data conflict with the theory that CO2 causes temperature to rise: “What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated.... And yet, despite accelerating emis-sion rates and concentrations, there’s been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline.”

In the preface of his report, Carlin opined that his “concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject of endangerment” from greenhouse gases. But the concerns raised by Carlin are not the concerns the Obama administration wants raised. n

Global temperature is dropping, not Rising

Inside Track

supreme court nominee Favors Use of Foreign law“To suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. What you would be asking American judges to do is close their minds to good ideas.”Shortly after being contacted about filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor includ-

ed these remarks in a speech to the Puerto Rican Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, though it’s not the job of a judge to make law, but merely to see that American law is followed.

no constitutional convention for california“I think a convention could be an unmitigated, total disaster. Playing 52 Pick-Up, just throwing a deck of cards on the floor and hoping something good comes of that, is fairly high-risk.”Democratic strategist Darry Sragow responded to a proposal aired for a con-con by the Bay Area Council.

stimulus continues but Jobs don’t Result“Unemployment has soared above nine percent, and now the president admits that it will soon reach double digits. After all this spending, after all this borrowing from China, the Middle East, our children and grandchildren, where are the jobs?”Speaking for the Republican Party, Minority Leader Representative John Boehner of Ohio noted that 1.6 million jobs have been lost since the Obama administration launched its trillion-dollar stimulus package.

He’s no Fan of the President’s oratory“As I often say, he reminds me of a champion high school orator, knowing how to say the sort of things grownups like to hear — trite platitudes — but unable to think independently.”Hoping that the “fashion for him soon passes,” columnist Joseph Sobran also believes that the presi-dent’s highly acclaimed March 2008 speech on race was “simply incoherent.”

an Underreported cause of the supposed Healthcare crisis“We don’t have an uninsured crisis, we have an immigration crisis.”Pointing to huge numbers of legal and illegal immigrants who are uninsured, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that a hard look at these figures should kill the administration’s drive for universal health insurance.

Freeing drug traffickers is Part of His Reelection campaign“Karzai is pulling out all the stops in his bid to get reelected.”Handing out pardons to convicted drug lords may help Hamid Karzai win reelection in late August, but Jake Sherman, a former UN official in Afghanistan, knows the newly adopted policy will harm U.S. efforts to curtail the production of narcotics, Afghanistan’s largest industry.

Minimum-wage Folly Explained“If aiding the needy were as easy as setting a compulsory minimum wage, why not set it at $20 an hour — or better yet, $120 an hour — and really help them out?”

Noting that minimum-wage hikes will lead to fewer jobs being available, columnist Jeff Jacoby exposes the folly of a favorite liberal tactic supposedly benefiting the poor.

Home Values Go down but taxes stay Up“If the house is not worth what I bought it for, why am I paying the same amount in taxes?”In her community near Los Angeles, 70-year-old Joylette Lynch has seen home prices in her neighborhood decline from $280,000 to less than $100,000. n

— Compiled by John F. McManus

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

QuickQuotes

9

Sonia Sotomayor

Whi

te H

ouse

AP

Imag

es

by James Perloff

Due to space limitations, this article in-cludes only a sketch of the history of the CFR’s impact on American government. For details and documentation, see the au-thor’s book The Shadows of Power (adver-tised on the inside back cover). — Editor

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.”

Such promises aren’t new to the voting public. When Jimmy Carter ran for presi-dent, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by

shifting around the same group of insid-ers.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you

James Perloff is the author of The Shadows of Power:

The Council on Foreign Relations and the American

Decline and Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless

Myth of Darwinism.


Politics

Despite promises of “change,” as uttered by Jimmy carter, Ronald Reagan, and now Barack obama, successive presidential administrations have in common the fact that important posts are staffed by individuals from the same small organizations — who direct our nation’s policies.


InfluencingAmerican Government

find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as Na-tional Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.

Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:

I don’t believe that the Trilateral Com-mission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.

Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administra-tion such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Repre-sentative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American mem-bership of the Trilateral Commis-sion has never numbered much over 100.

The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in of-fice: they draw their top person-nel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.

Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifes-tation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Demo-

crat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.

Power Behind the throneIn theory, America’s govern-ment is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this con-cept rang true in early Ameri-ca, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and power-ful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, grand-daughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:

The word “Establishment” is a gen-eral term for the power elite in in-ternational finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “le-gitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet

post or State Department job. It af-fects the nation’s policies in almost every area.

Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”

David Rockefeller, the longtime chair-man (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the es-tablishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:

For more than a century ideologi-cal extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon

In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations.

AP

Imag

es

longtime cFR chairman david Rockefeller acknowledged in his 2002 book Memoirs that he had worked to establish “one world.”


well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic in-stitutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Two major means the establishment em-ploys for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can as-sure that America will move in the direc-tion it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.

BackgroundPrior to the CFR’s founding, what Con-gressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefel-ler, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benja-min Strong, who had secretly planned the

Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system it-self. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend with-out limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New AmericAN or www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/946.)

Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elec-tions, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recog-nized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.

Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of

1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Ver-sailles Treaty, the United States did not join be-cause the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.

In response to this rejection, the bank-ers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporat-ed in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.

architects of a new World orderThe CFR’s goal was formation of an incre-mentally stronger world government. Ad-miral Chester Ward, former Judge Advo-cate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the dis-armament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

After World War II, the League’s suc-cessor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was con-ceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his high-est postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.

Though the UN was not initially set up

Admiral Chester Ward was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

the Un was developed by the CFR’s “Informal Agenda Group” — not by nations tired of war — and financed by the Rockefellers.

THE NEW AMERICAN • AugusT 3, 200912

Politics

as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later be-came Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpay-er money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Fur-thermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bail-outs, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.

Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented

by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard com-mencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be per-ceived as politically neutral and help gar-ner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Com-missioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.

The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Res-olution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nick-named “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking

critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American col-lege students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the lead-ing architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.

Broadening the schemeThe CFR is not a uniquely American phe-nomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Eng-land, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.

To help coordinate policy on an interna-tional scale, CFR chairman David Rock-efeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Tri-lateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multina-tional consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately as-semble and plan our destiny.

Jimmy Carter was a member of the com-mission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzez-inski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Cart-er Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of for-eign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio So-moza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and be-traying Taiwan in order to recognize Com-munist China — a move previously set up

Vietnamese commandos are dropped from American helicopters during a battle with the Viet Cong in 1964. Unprecedented “rules of engagement” prolonged the Vietnam War and precluded victory.

AP

Imag

es

13Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.

Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mex-ico and Canada. This arrange-ment was created by the estab-lishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a conti-nental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowl-edged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come politi-cal integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international govern-ment. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin consider-ing formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]

A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “eco-nomic” alliance called the Common Mar-ket, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the su-per-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.

Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican Presi-dent Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Secu-rity and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”

Furthermore, regional alliances such as

the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world govern-ment in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”

In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Com-mission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory coopera-tion, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological de-velopment, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and vari-ous other steps toward economic integra-tion. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a politi-cal union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee pro-moted a merger they called “Atlantica.”

Enter obamaCandidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlan-tic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.... Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship con-tinue to bind us together.... In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Eu-rope for a series of meetings with Euro-pean leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.

Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January

Beginning the sPP: President Bush meets with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership in March 2005.

AP

Imag

es


Politics

12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:

As the new U.S. administration pre-pares to take office amid grave fi-nancial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative di-plomacy....

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible pri-orities comes into being....

The alternative to a new interna-tional order is chaos.

Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is com-ing into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simul-taneously.... His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be cre-ated. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

Past statements reveal that the estab-lishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world cur-

rency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gard-ner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”

In March of this year, Obama and Brit-ish Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that

Globalization can be an enormous force for good.... But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries de-signed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is chan-neled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.

If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further ev-idence that Obama’s admin-istration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indi-cated by his appointments.

cFR domination continuesDuring his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.

For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in Inter-national Economics at the CFR, Bilder-berger, former head of the New York Fed-eral Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. As-sisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.

For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency cre-

Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”

President obama is flanked by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (CFR, Bilderberger) and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (Bilderberger) at a White House economic briefing, March 23, 2009.

AP

Imag

es

15www.TheNewAmerican.com

ated by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”

For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the De-fense Department are fellow CFR mem-bers Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Sec-retary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).

For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Stein-berg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.

The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance so-ciety, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on Na-tional Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particu-larly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergov-ernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of Interna-tional Affairs).

Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, de-fense, foreign policy, and security. To this

may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Vol-cker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Represen-tative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).

the FutureThe idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” move-ment is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally un-known to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our govern-ment, mega-banks, and multinational cor-porations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.

Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore global-ists who, linked with

their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.

Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.

As long as the CFR controls our gov-ernment, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; pro-gressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North Ameri-can Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.

Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom. n

EXtRa coPiEs aVailaBlEAdditional copies of this issue of The

New AmericAN are available at quantity-discount prices. To place your order, visit www.shopjbs.org or see the card between pages 34-35.

➧

AP

Imag

es

Zbigniew Brzezinski (right) and Brent Scowcroft (left) are both former National Security Advisers, as well as members of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergers.


Politics

by R. Cort Kirkwood

In early May, Libyan dictator Muam-mar Gaddafi predicted Europe’s fu-ture: “We have 50 million Muslims

in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” And he is right, if present trends hold. Muslims will dominate Eu-rope if Turkey, which contains 77 million Muslims, is allowed into the European Union, as is now proposed, and its citizens are allowed to live anywhere in the EU.

That is about the only conclusion one can draw from the growing Muslim population of the continent, which shows no signs of slowing. The demographics prove it. About 1.5 million Muslims live in Great Britain. Another 890,000 live in the Netherlands,

with 380,000 in Belgium and 280,000 in Sweden. Nearly 200,000 live in Austria. France and Germany have more than 6 million and about 3 million respectively. In all, some 50 million Muslims have entered Europe since the 1950s, when virtually no Muslims lived there. They now compose 7 percent of the population.

As Muslim birth rates surge, native Eu-ropeans are aborting and contracepting themselves to death. The collapsing birth rates across Europe aren’t just low; they are below replacement levels, meaning that Europeans will soon go the way of the dodo bird. The bare minimum replace-ment rate is 2.1 children per woman (or 210 children per 100 women). Germany and Italy, at 80 births per 100 women and negative population growth, are headed for literal extinction. The German gov-ernment predicts that the land of Goethe and Beethoven will be a Muslim coun-try by 2050. France isn’t far behind with 125 births per 100. The Netherlands’ and Spain’s rate is about 100 births per 100

women. The European Union as a whole is 102.5 births per 100 women.

The concern is what Europe’s face will look like when Muslims are ascendant demographically, and how much that face will remotely resemble what used to be called Christendom.

Cultural ChangeNaturally, as the Muslim population has grown, so has its visible presence. Rot-terdam’s mayor is an immigrant Mus-lim. Another Muslim immigrant sits in the British House of Lords. In Southern France, mosques are more numerous than Catholic churches. As European Christian-ity declines, its churches become mosques as well. Minarets poke into the skyline of Europe’s old cities and towns. In Brussels, Belgium, Muslim squatters simply began holding services in Our Lady of Perpetual Succor, apparently with the permission of the bishop. Open-air meat markets line city streets. Schools serve Halal food (foods permissible under Islamic law), not just

R. Cort Kirkwood is managing editor of the Daily

News-Record in Harrisonburg, Virginia.


WoRlD

As overall birth rates throughout Europe collapse, falling well below replacement levels, the birth rates and immigration rates of Muslims have been high. Because Muslims often don’t assimilate, strife is inevitable.

Muslim Face of the EU

to Muslim children but also to Christians without their knowledge, while so many Muslims populate Norway’s prisons that the authorities gave up trying to serve dif-ferent foods and adopted an all-Halal diet for prisoners to keep the Muslims quiet. Public swimming pools now segregate men and women into different times of the day. In London, the Croydon Council adopted a Muslim-only swim time.

The Muslim transplants often do not ac-cept cultural differences and are not hesi-tant to show their disdain of non-Muslims. As the late Oriana Fallaci observed, Mus-lims in Europe often show their contempt for Christianity by publicly urinating on church properties. Others urinate in bap-tismal fonts or defecate on altars.

CrimeThis sacrilege and cultural jihad is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what Europeans face every day, for the illegal immigrants from North Africa and else-where are also conducting a crime wave.

A quick Google search of the Internet reveals just what radical Muslim immi-grants and their European-born children have done, and are doing, to the continent.

A few years ago, a Muslim fanatic mur-dered Theo van Gogh because he produced the film Submission, which documents Is-lam’s inherent misogyny. The woman who produced it with him, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is under sentence of death by Muslim radi-cals. In November 2005, Paris and other cities in France went up in flames when “youths,” as the media described them, went on a rampage after police killed an-other “youth” they were pursuing for a crime. Of course, the “youths” were Mus-lims, and cars burned around Paris for three days. In the City of Lights, the police know which areas they had better not go into.

In Scandinavia, European girls have suffered under what the European blogger Fjordman calls a “rape wave.” As he re-ported in 2005, “according to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly

overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001.”

And then, of course, Europe is suffering with its share of “honor killings,” the Mus-lim practice of killing wives, daughters, and sisters who displease their husbands, fathers, and brothers by considering di-vorce, dating non-Muslims, or adopting western attitudes or accouterments.

On February 7, 2005, the Boston Globe reported in 2006, a man walked up and shot his sister to death because she fled the husband in her arranged marriage and returned to Germany with their son. She also refused to wear the hajib, the Mus-lims’ scarf, and instead adopted west-ern wear, including earrings, makeup, and jeans. Frighteningly, all three of her brothers planned it. Students at a Muslim school outside Berlin, the Globe reported, “greeted news of her slaying with loud ap-proval. Her brothers were hailed as local heroes.” Der Speigel, in its article on the subject in 2005, put an even finer point on the schoolboys’ approval of these kill-ings. “She only had herself to blame,” one boy said. “She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German.”

Muslims ascendant: In the 1950s, few Muslims lived in Europe. Now Muslims are 50-million strong and growing, while the population of people of Christian heritage plummets. Because Muslims often live in enclaves and don’t assimilate, many expect violent cultural clashes to occur.

AP

Imag

es


WoRlD

Nor is Britain spared these grisly murders. In London in 2004, Iraqi Kurd Abdullah Yones held his 16-year-old daughter over a bathtub, then slashed her throat. Her crime? She wrote love letters to a classmate. In Bir-mingham in 1998, 19-year-old Rukhsana Naz, pregnant by her lover, tried to leave an arranged marriage. Her brother strangled her with a jump rope while her mother held her down. Fadime Sahendal also refused an arranged marriage and planned to marry a Swede. In 2002 in Stockholm, her father put a bullet in her head.

These honor killings are so widespread that European police forces convened a meeting in The Hague in 2004 to discuss them. As Der Speigel reported, “The Turk-ish women’s organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996. Examples include a Darmstadt girl whose two brothers pum-meled her to death with a hockey stick in April 2004 after they learned she had slept with her boyfriend. In Augsburg in April [2005], a man stabbed his wife and seven-year-old daughter because the wife was having an affair. In December 2003, a Tuebingen father strangled his 16-year-old daughter and threw her body into a lake because she had a boyfriend.”

In its article from 2006, the Globe report-ed that police in Germany and England are investigating cold-case murders. In 2005 alone, eight women in Berlin were murdered

suspiciously, along with nearly 50 in the six years before the Globe article was published. In 2005, British police reclassified 18 murders as honor kill-ings: “Scotland Yard has reopened probes into 109 suspicious deaths, cover-ing a 10-year span, that seem to have been family conspiracies to kill Mos-lem women.” London’s metropolitan police began reviewing files as well. In 2004, they began reinvestigating 52 murders in London and 65 across England and Wales.

Nothing has changed since that report was filed in 2005. In May last year in Hamburg, Germany, a Muslim man, also a career criminal, stabbed his sister 20 times because she was not living the se-date life of an obedient Muslim woman as he thought she should. She paid for that “crime” with her life. A year later, also in May, the Voice of America disclosed that “a report compiled by the Council of Eu-rope warns that the killings of women by family members to protect their so-called honor is far more extensive in Europe than previously believed. The report was pub-lished by the council’s gender equality committee at a meeting in Istanbul.”

Given that Europeans are consider-

ing admitting Turkey to the European Union, they may want to consider what they might be importing. “Here in Tur-key the figures for 2007 show that over 200 women were killed here in the name of family or community honor,” a Brit-ish parliamentarian told VOA. “And it’s just the tip of the iceberg: In the United Kingdom; in Germany; in Belgium; in France; in Norway, there is evidence of honor crimes and honor killings.”

The End of Free SpeechAside from criminal violence, Muslims in Europe, particularly politically active Mus-lims, are perpetrating another crime against the Frenchmen, Italians, Germans, and oth-ers who welcomed them. Those who would protest the Islamization of Europe have for several years suffered criminal prosecution

for violating hate-speech laws.The most prominent among

the last is Dutch Parliamentar-ian Geert Wilders. Alarmed by what Muslims are doing to the Netherlands, Wilders produced a 14-minute film called Fitna, which documents the violence, misogyny, and anti-Semitism with which the Koran, the Mus-lims’ holy book, imbues its re-ligionists. As reported on The New AmericAN’s breaking-news website, Wilders has been subject to all manner of indig-

Given that Europeans are considering admitting Turkey to the European Union, they may want to consider what they might be importing. “Here in Turkey the figures for 2007 show that over 200 women were killed here in the name of family or community honor,” a British parliamentarian told VOA.

Worth screaming about: A sculpture entitled “Scream” is unveiled near where filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot to death in Amsterdam by a Muslim for producing a film criticizing Islam’s treatment of women.A

P Im

ages


nities for telling the truth about Islam. Indeed, Wilders runs afoul of some hate-speech law every time he speaks.

For producing Fitna, Wilders must face a trial. In January, after a lower court ruled that Wilders was merely exercising his free-speech rights making Fitna, an appeals court ruled that Wilders must be prosecuted for making “statements which create hate and grief.”

In early May, organizers of a free-speech conference in Denmark postponed their conference because of Wilders. According to the Copenhagen Post, the Danish For-eign Ministry feared Muslims would not attend a climate conference in the country if Wilders were allowed to speak the truth about the creeping sharia gaining power over Europe.

Before that, in February, as The New AmericAN web-site reported, Britain denied entry to the Dutch politician after Nazir Ahmed, a Mus-lim member of the House of Lords who was born in Pakistan, decided Wilders must not be allowed to speak. Wilders lives under 24-hour guard thanks to a Muslim death threat, but it was he, the British border agency said, who threatened

harmony and public security. After that ig-nominious episode, the French Association for the Defense of Human Rights (AEDH) announced that it wanted the authorities to prosecute Wilders for “hate speech.” AEDH cited a speech he gave at the Hudson Insti-tute in New York in September, which was part of Wilders’ truth-telling crime spree.

If convicted, Wilders could face a year in prison. In the United States, Wilders in-vited the ire of the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations after a speech in Florida. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terror-financing trial that shut down the Holy Land Foun-dation for Relief and Development.

Wilders, however, isn’t the only cou-rageous voice baying in the European wilderness. Brigitte Bardot has been con-

victed five times for speaking out against Islamic immigration and Muslims. Oriana Fallaci, the famous journalist and resis-tance fighter from World War II, faced trial in Italy for “hate speech” against Muslims before she died of lung cancer. Fallaci, who called herself a “Christian atheist” because she loved the cultural patrimony Christendom bestowed upon Europe, au-thored three books that sent Muslims into a rage. Of course, she told the truth.

Rise of the DhimmisUnhappily, intolerant Muslims can count on allies in their effort to stop free speech and to dictate behavior according to sharia. Among the collaborators are the Archbish-op of Canterbury in England, who said that Europeans and Britons likely must accept some form of Muslim law, known as shar-ia. In Germany a few years back, a woman judge actually ruled against giving a bat-tered Muslim woman a divorce because the Koran sanctions “castigating wives.”

As Srdja Trifkovic described the case in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, “The husband routinely beat his 26-year-old German-born wife, mother of their two young children, and threatened to kill her when the court ordered him to move out of their apartment in Hamburg. The police were called repeatedly to inter-vene. The wife wanted a quick divorce — without waiting a year after separation, as mandated by German law — arguing that the abuse and death threats she suffered easily fulfilled the ‘hardship’ criteria re-quired for an accelerated decree absolute. The judge — a woman by the name of Christa Datz-Winter — refused, however, arguing that the Kuran allows the husband to beat his wife and that the couple’s Mo-roccan origin must be taken into account in the case.”

The judge even referred to Sura 4, Verse 34 of the Koran: “Men have the authority over women because God has made the

Unhappily, intolerant Muslims can count on allies in their effort to stop free speech and to dictate behavior according to sharia. Among the collaborators are the Archbishop of Canterbury in England, who said that Europeans and Britons likely must accept some form of Muslim law, known as sharia.

Honor killings: Europe, like Muslim-dominated countries, has seen many Muslim “honor killings,” where male family members kill nonconforming female family members. Shown are police outside a court in Copenhagen, Denmark, at a trial in the murder of 19-year-old Ghazala Khan, killed by her brother and eight accomplices because they disapproved of her choice of a husband.A

P Im

ages


WoRlD

one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their un-seen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobe-dience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.”

Trifkovic made a trenchant observation:

Such treatment of women might be ex-pected to make Islam abhorrent within the cultural milieu epitomized by the equal-rights obsessed European Union and the neofeminist New York Times, but this has not happened. There is a reason for this. It is the refusal of Islam to accept the wife as her husband’s closest and inseparable loving partner and companion. Islam therefore chal-lenges Christian marriage in principle and in practice. Moslem teaching on marriage and the family, though “con-servative” about “patriarchy,” denies the traditional Christian concept of matrimony. Islam is therefore an “ob-jective” ally of postmodernity, a few beatings here and a few rapes there notwithstanding.

The judge’s point seemed to be that sha-ria must supersede German law, which is what the Archbishop of Canterbury said last year. Echoing that sentiment, Piet Hein Donner, the Dutch minister of justice, agrees that sharia is coming to his country: “It must be possible for Muslim groups to come to power via democratic means,” he said in an interview for a book. “Every citizen may argue why the law should be

changed, as long as he sticks to the law. It is a sure certainty for me: If two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed!’ The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.”

Not surprisingly, Donner does not be-lieve Muslims should assimilate: “That is not my approach.”

Indeed it isn’t. Western elites will not condemn Muslim outrages and fight against uncontrolled immigration for two reasons: first, they hate their own culture and themselves. Second, they are terrified of the “racist” or “Islamaphobic” label.

A Muslim woman forced into an ar-ranged marriage at 15 years old could not persuade German publishers to use her writings. Serap Cileli told Der Spiegel magazine in 2005 that “people were afraid they would be called Nazis if they dared to bring up issues of human rights in the Turkish community.” Thus, “everything I wrote from 1994 to 1999 was rejected, even by newspapers. They told me I was writing about a minority issue and they were afraid of appearing racist.”

Oddly, these same Europeans, who are at least nominal or baptized Christians, have little problem trashing their own cul-ture and other Christians.

Across the board then, the left in Europe views its own society, particularly Christi-anity, as oppressive and patriarchal, worse than Islam, it seems. But the multicultural left will learn the hard way that when Muslims predominate, Muslims will not

tolerate them. When Islam ascends, the feminists and homosexuals will feel the sword of Islam drop upon their necks.

TurkeyDonner’s “approach” brings the subject back to Turkey, for all these truths sug-gest that Turkey’s bid for membership be rejected, regardless of President Barack Obama’s enthusiasm for the idea. And the bid ought to be rejected for a simple rea-son: Turkey is a hardline Islamic nation. Even its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Er-dogan, disputes the widespread belief that his country or Islam is “moderate.”

“It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition,” the prime minister has said. “Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not.” The Hurriyet Daily News Service, which reported those remarks, also added these from Erdogan: “It should be known that adopting a malicious and offend-ing approach toward the sensitive issues of [the] Islamic world by hiding behind some democratic freedoms like freedom of speech and right of free publication is unacceptable.”

Erdogan, as mayor of Istanbul, opposed Turkey’s entering the EU and thought the nation should quit NATO. He was jailed for Islamist sympathies, which included these words from a poem: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.” In 1995, Erdogan said, “You cannot be secular and a Muslim at the same time. The world’s 1.5 billion Mus-lims are waiting for the Turkish people to rise up. We will rise up.” Erdogan, who now supports EU membership for Turkey, may well implement sharia there.

So the question for Europe, given that Islam is already reshaping the continent legally and politically, is whether it can tolerate another 77 million Muslims.

The answer is obvious. n


Banned but not banished: Dutch politician Geert Wilders was banned from entering Great Britain because he produced a short film, Fitna, warning about the contents of the Koran. Though he is often accused of hate speech, a poll by Maurice de Hond in March 2009 discovered that the Party for Freedom, founded by Wilders in 2006, was the Netherlands’ most popular political party.

AP

Imag

es

Founded 1880

ScottFarm

The John W. Scott FarmJOHN W. SCOTT • JACk SCOTT

To what avail the plow or sail or land or life if freedom fail?

OFFICe • 701-869-2446FACSImIle • 701-869-2829emAIl • [email protected]

P.O. BOx 186GIlBy, NORTH DAkOTA 58235

FeedingAmerica

by William F. Jasper

Two critically important (and cru-cially intertwined) events that con-cern our national security — and

our survival — occurred during the week of July 5-11, but you almost certainly didn’t hear a peep or read a word about ei-ther one of them. Apparently, our political and media elites think it’s not important for us to know about such things.

Here is the first event to which I refer, as presented by the Sino-Soviet “news” agencies.

“Russian troops are getting aboard a Chinese train Wednesday to take part in joint anti-terrorist exercises Peace Mission 2009, that will be held on the Chinese ter-ritory,” the Russian agency ITAR-TASS reported on July 8, 2009. In addition to a Russian motorized rifle battalion and an airborne company, the Chinese train also transported 150 Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers, and trucks. Some 20 Russian aircraft — bombers, fighter jets, transports, and helicopters — were flown to the exercise site in northeast China.

The headline of a July 12 story for Com-munist China’s Xinhuanet news agency re-

ported, “More Russian military forces ar-rive in China for joint anti-terror exercise.” The massive five-day war games, held July 22-26 in the Shenyang Military Area Com-mand, are a repeat of similar China-Russia joint military exercises in 2005 and 2007, which also took place under the name of “Peace Mission.” A shorter two-day joint “anti-terror” drill took place in April of this year. The operation, dubbed Norak-Anti-terror 2009, was conducted in Kazakhstan on April 17-18 with units from the armed forces of the Shanghai Cooperation Orga-nization (SCO): Russia, China, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

These military operations (which have gone virtually unreported in the United States) underscore the extensive and grow-ing military, economic, technological, and political cooperation between Moscow and Beijing over the past decade and a half. They also demolish the supposed wisdom of the prevailing “experts” at the CIA and State Department, who contended that the “Sino-Soviet split” was “permanent,” and that the United States should encourage this perceived split by wooing both com-munist regimes with diplomatic overtures, aid, and trade.

Four decades of this bipartisan wis-dom by U.S. policymakers has resulted in the transfer, virtually, of America’s en-tire manufacturing base to China and the transformation of Mao’s “People’s Repub-lic” from a weak and hopelessly primitive Third World state into a global economic and military superpower.

The second event to which I referred above took place in Moscow about the same time as the Sino-Russian military operations were being set into motion in China: President Barack Obama and his entourage landed in Russia on July 6 for a three-day state visit. In addition to meet-ing with Russian President Dmitry Med-vedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Obama met with former President Mikhail Gorbachev and Gennady Zyuganov, chair-man of the Russian Communist Party, who said he complimented President Obama on his economic stimulus program. “I said that I had thoroughly studied [Obama’s] anti-crisis program, that I liked it, as well as that it is socially oriented and primar-ily aimed at supporting poor people and enhancing the state’s role,” Zyuganov told Interfax, a Russian news agency. “I said all this to President Obama.”

Is communism dead? For the past 25 years, Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn has been publicly warning the West against acceptance of this deadly illusion.

The Lies That Blind

President Barack obama meets Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Putin’s country villa on July 7, 2009.


Russia

AP

Imag

es

These two events illustrate two fatal fallacies that underlie our decades of sui-cidal policies vis-à-vis Russia and China, as implemented by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

“splits” and scissorsBelief in a strategically exploitable Sino-Soviet split became not only the founda-tion for U.S. policy toward Communist China, but also provided the rationale for our relations with all communist regimes. If the world communist monolith was fragmenting owing to internal fissiparous forces, the argument ran (and continues to run today), then why not speed the pro-cess? Thus we saw policies aimed at court-ing communist regimes in Yugoslavia, Ro-mania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere, with the announced aim of wooing them from the Soviet orbit.

From the strategic “split” doctrine came a corollary: besides working to create cleavages between communist countries, why not also work to create cleavages within communist countries by supporting “liberal” and “democratic” political fac-tions among the ruling communist elites?

Of course, that is what the bipartisan strategists such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski claim to have done. Communism has collapsed, they say; the former Soviet Union has fragmented, with the former Warsaw Pact nations joining the European Union and NATO, and the Com-munist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) no longer holds sway in Russia. Yes, China is still ruled by the Communist Party of China (CPC), but the “hardline” Marxists in Beijing have lost out to the regime’s pragmatic capitalists, goes the argument.

Unfortunately, the delusional accep-tance of these fatal fallacies has achieved the exact opposite of the benefits promised by the “wise men” of foreign affairs. The supposed permanence of the Sino-Soviet split — as noted above, and as could be demonstrated by hundreds more examples — has proven as evanescent as a popsicle in Hades. The new Sino-Soviet axis, thanks to our aid, is far more dangerous now than ever it was during the Cold War.

As far as Russia goes, even many of the erstwhile enthusiasts of the so-called sea-change events of 1989-1991 have been forced to admit in recent years that Vladimir Putin has, in many ways, rein-

stated the Soviet model of dictatorship. In fact, by 2006 much of the western media had finally awakened to the reality that KGB veteran Putin had stacked the top levels of the Russian government with comrades from the KGB (and its succes-sor, renamed the FSB) to the tune of 80 percent — a higher percentage than had ever been seen in Soviet history. The iron fist is now showing through the velvet glove in ways that were predictable, and were indeed predicted.

When the delusions of the Sino-Soviet split and “democratization” were being sold to the American people and U.S. pol-icymakers a generation ago, there were many who soundly warned against ac-cepting such dangerous deceptions. The most cogent and authoritative analysis exposing the looming danger came from KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. For the past nearly 50 years he seems to have been destined to experience the agony of Cassandra, who in vain warned her disbe-lieving countrymen against bringing the Greeks’ gift horse inside Troy’s impreg-nable walls. In a series of memoranda to the CIA, which were later published as two books — New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995, U.S. edition) — Golitsyn provided a re-markably detailed exposé and penetrating analysis that is probably without parallel in human history.

Over the past 90 years, there have

been many defectors (both genuine and false) from communist countries, some of whom have provided us with very valuable information and insights. What makes Golitsyn so unique? Golitsyn was a member of the super-secret “inner” KGB — Department D — which planned long-range, strategic disinformation. Other members of the “outer” KGB did not even know of Department D’s exis-tence. It was a crucial creation engineered during the 1959 reorganization of Soviet intelligence by KGB Chairman Alexan-der Shelepin. Shelepin and the top Soviet leaders determined to undo much of the damage caused by the recently deceased Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, whose para-noia and bloody purges had devastated not only the USSR but the entire global communist system. The KGB would be redirected away from Stalin’s ham-fisted use of the agency primarily for espio-nage and brutal police-state oppression, into Lenin’s conception of the “Cheka” (NKVD, predecessor of the KGB) as an instrument of strategic deception that would manipulate and control the Soviet Union’s enemies (the United States and the West) by manipulating and control-ling the enemy’s perceptions of geo-stra-tegic realities. Shelepin and the Kremlin strategists set out to recreate and test two of Lenin’s most successful strategic de-ceptions of the 1920s: the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the “Trust.”

sino-soviet split? Russian and Chinese troops engaged in joint military operations dubbed “Peace Mission 2009” in China. The photo is from “Peace Mission 2005.”

New

scom

24

Russia


lenin’s ModelsUnder Lenin’s NEP, limited private enter-prise was allowed. This was heresy to com-munists, of course, but Lenin the pragma-tist explained that this was just a temporary step backwards in order to gain strength for the next steps forward in the socialist revolution. The NEP was necessary both to provide the Russian people with incentives to produce and to lure western capital to the Soviet Union. It worked: Ford Motor, DuPont, General Electric, U.S. Steel, and other western companies flocked to Rus-sia, providing the essential wherewithal and technical assistance needed to rein-dustrialize the Bolshevik regime. When the Kremlin strategists determined that the NEP had finished its usefulness, they shut it down, renationalized all private enter-prise and reinstituted the harsh Bolshevik program. The NEP deception would be repeated again (and again) to win further western concessions and aid under new labels: “peaceful co-existence,” “détente,” “glasnost,” and “perestroika.”

Lenin’s “Trust” was the forerunner to the KGB’s fake revolutions and dissident movements that would be unleashed later in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact coun-tries. The Trust, supposedly, was a pow-erful, secret anti-communist group within Russia that had widespread support among the people and even among leading offi-cials. The Trust carried out spectacular raids and guerrilla activities throughout the USSR and convinced western intel-ligence agencies to support it. But after several years of this elaborate charade, the Trust was revealed to have been purely an invention of the Cheka, and is the case study par excellence of what the KGB terms the “scissors strategy.”

The term derives from the application of the Marxist-Leninist dialectic methodol-ogy, which allows communists to achieve victory by creating phony struggles in which they control both sides. The unwit-ting adversary is lured into making alliance with the ersatz “dissidents,” “liberals,” or “democrats,” only to be trapped and cut in half by two sides he thinks are opposed to one another. Through its adroit use of the

Trust, the Cheka manipulated western government policies regarding the Soviet Union and lured many true Russian anti-communists into the open, so they could be ar-rested, tortured, imprisoned, and executed.

According to Golitsyn, the Kremlin strategists used the newly reorganized KGB (of which he was a key “inner” member) to launch a suc-cession of Trust and NEP deceptions that would be part of a decades-long process to implement “a strategy for ‘restructur-ing’ the whole world.” In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn argues:

The Soviets are not striving for genu-ine, lasting accommodation with the Western democracies but for the final world victory of Communism.... They intend to exploit the same illusion to induce the Americans to adopt their own ‘restructuring’ and convergence of the Soviet and American systems using to this end the fear of nuclear conflict.

According to Golitsyn, Gorbachev (and his predecessors and successors) is pursu-ing an incredibly intricate “global strategy

… to lure the United States into conver-gence and World Government.”

The charge would be too fantastic even to contemplate except for two things: 1) Anatoliy Golitsyn has correctly called the shots — often years in advance — on some of the most astounding geo-political events of our age; and, 2) The verifiable facts on the ground more accurately fit his analy-sis than all the wishful thinking and deceit peddled by the acclaimed (but always co-lossally wrong) “experts” of the disinfor-mation axis in Washington and Moscow.

Concerning the first point, we should note that author Mark Riebling (Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, Knopf, 1994) conducted a systematic anal-ysis of Golitsyn’s book New Lies for Old, and found that out of a total of 148 falsifi-able predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993, giving Golitsyn an accuracy rating of 94 percent. And his predictions were

According to Golitsyn, Gorbachev (and his predecessors and successors) is pursuing an incredibly intricate “global strategy … to lure the United States into convergence and World Government.”

Partners in power: Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin confer at the 2004 German-Russian Summit in Germany.

AP

Imag

es

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today! 25

not small matters; they included details of the forthcoming fake liberalizations throughout Eastern Europe, followed by similar developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and the admittance of former communist Warsaw Pact nations into the European Union.

Facts on the GroundConcerning the second point, the facts

today argue more strongly than ever that Golitsyn’s analysis was — and is — cor-rect. Among the literally hundreds of ex-amples that could be cited that have been barely mentioned, completely ignored, or misreported in the western media:

• Contrary to the claims of the “end of communism” school of thought, “for-mer” KGB and Communist Party leaders continue to dominate the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, occupying the crucial centers of power: the military, the security services and police, the main political parties, the media, the financial institutions, the educational institutions, virtually all economic sectors, and all branches of government.

• This overwhelming dominance by un-repentant and unchastened communists accounts for the fact that “lustration” laws aimed at ferreting out those responsible for murder, torture, imprisonment, and op-pression on a scale never previously seen in history have been almost completely thwarted. Nothing remotely comparable to the post-World War II de-nazification of Germany has occurred; only a handful of communists have been prosecuted.

• Russian Orthodox Christians con-tinue to suffer horrible betrayal by their KGB-controlled clergy, who fully support Putin and the Kremlin leadership. The death in 2008 of Patriarch Alexy II, head of the Russian Orthodox Church (and a

dedicated KGB agent since 1958), showed the continuity of the Soviet state. All three replacement candidates were identified KGB operatives, including Archbishop Kirill I, who was chosen to be the new patriarch.

• In Russia, Putin has been able to use his KGB-FSB si-loviki to harass, intimidate, kidnap, torture, imprison, and

assassinate his opponents, whether journal-ists, politicians, businessmen, or activists.

• The European Union is being drawn ever tighter into Moscow’s noose of en-ergy dependency through the Russian state oil and gas mega-corporations — Rosneft, Gazprom, Nord Stream — run by Putin’s “former” KGB-FSB comrades.

• The United States is traveling the same path, with the KGB-run LUKoil taking over more than 2,000 gas stations on our eastern seaboard that formerly were owned and operated by Mobil and Getty Oil.

• KGB operatives who have been ex-posed in top positions of the “post-Soviet” European countries include Polish Prime Minister Jozef Oleksy; Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski; Lithuanian Prime Minister Antanas Valionis; Lithu-ania’s head of State Security, Arvydas Pocius; Hungarian Finance Minister and Prime Minister Péter Medgyessy; Hun-garian Prime Minister Gyula Horn; and Bulgarian President Georgi Sedefchov Parvanov.

• Hungarian KGB agent Sandor Laborc was made head of Hungary’s secret servic-es and then intelligence chief for NATO, where he was put in charge of the West’s

most sensitive secrets. Estonian Defense Ministry official Herman Simm was re-cently exposed as an FSB asset who has passed many NATO secrets to Moscow.

• While pretending for decades to op-pose the European Union, the KGB’s most trusted moles played major roles in build-ing the “Europe from the Urals to the At-lantic.” Two key French KGB agents on the EU project were Alexandre Kojeve and Charles Hernu. Kojeve wrote that a world socialist state could be realized through the gradual expansion of European inte-gration across the globe.

• Lifelong Marxist-Leninist Mikhail Gorbachev has approvingly described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has disap-provingly warned that “having just buried one monster, the Soviet Union, another re-markably similar one, the European Union, is being built.... The EU is the old Soviet model, presented in Western guise.”

• Western politicians and intellectuals may insist that Beijing has abandoned Mao’s communist ideology, but Hu Jintao, Chinese president and general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and other top CPC officials regularly affirm their commitment to Marxism-Leninism and point to market “reforms” as a tempo-rary expedient along the lines of Lenin’s NEP.

• Before he was murdered, former KGB-FSB Lt. Col. Alexander Litvinen-ko revealed that al-Qaeda’s No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawihiri, was an operative of the FSB, as are many of the other so-called “Islamic” terrorists. “The bloodiest terror-ists of the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB,” he said. n

The European Union is being drawn ever tighter into Moscow’s noose of energy dependency through the Russian state oil and gas mega-corporations — Rosneft, Gazprom, Nord Stream — run by Putin’s “former” KGB-FSB comrades.


Russia

26

by Joe Wolverton

The End of Darwinism: How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold, by Eugene Windchy, Bloomington, Indiana: Xibris Corp., 2009, paperback, 264 pages, $19.99.

Within 20 words of the beginning of the prologue to his book, The End of Darwinism, former U.S.

Information Agency Assistant Science Adviser Eugene Windchy announces the thesis upon which the rest of the book will be built: “In reality, Darwin was a master of tact and charm, but underneath those polished manners lurked an intensely am-bitious scientist who advanced his career by means of deception and intrigue. In that way he also advanced the theory which is attributed, incorrectly, to him.”

Upon that forthright foundation is built a compelling and certainly controversial com-pendium of the foibles, fibs, and outright fabrications that undergird Darwinism and the quasi-religion established around it.

FlawedMost disinterested scientists will admit the existence of gaping holes in the tapestry of Darwinism, the most famous of which is the story of the origin of the long necks on giraffes. Darwin asserted that the necks of the giraffes were elongated over time so as to aid the animal in eating the leaves from tall trees. Truly, as Windchy reports, “most American adults living today have had this

hoary nonsense foisted upon them,” despite overwhelming contrary scientific and obser-vational evidence regarding the feeding habits of giraffes that makes this “proof ” absurd and illustrative of other fatal cancers in the body of Darwin-ian “science.” (Giraffes eat mostly from bushes, not to mention that the female gi-raffes are so much shorter than males that according to Darwin’s theory, they would eventually die out.)

The sine qua non of Darwinian doctrine is the theory of natural selection. Darwin argued that 90 percent of the evolution-ary change we see is the result of natu-ral selection. Yet the former president of the Paleontological Society and recipient of the National Science Medal, David M. Raup, has called into question the impor-tance of natural selection and, as Windchy rightly reasons, “that criticism goes to the very heart of Darwinian theory.” As fossils are found and the tools for study-ing them improve, there is much in them that reveals contradictions to Darwinian natural selection and shines the light of doubt onto many of the central assump-tions of this well-established key principle of evolution. Windchy’s book is rife with compelling examples of these scientific advances and the problems they cause for Darwinism’s first article of faith.

stolenNot only is Darwinism a theory that hasn’t well withstood peer scrutiny, it wasn’t even

developed by Charles Darwin, according to Windchy. He quotes journalist Arnold C. Brackman as saying, “Darwin engaged in what Leonard Huxley called ‘a delicate arrangement,’ the greatest conspiracy in the annals of science.” In fact, so success-fully did Charles Darwin steal the theories ascribed to him that the other scientists from whom he plagiarized are unknown to most people, even the educated.

After briefly (though engagingly) de-scribing ancient Roman and Greek adher-ents of evolutionism, Windchy begins his explication of the theft of the theory by revealing other scientists who had contem-plated the same subject.

Despite the synonymous attachment of “natural selection” with Charles Darwin, two British scientists had works on the subject that preceded Darwin’s own and, according to Windchy, significant portions of the findings of these two men were sto-len by Darwin, including the term “natural selection,” which was derived from a book written by Patrick Matthew in 1831. De-spite Darwin’s assertion that he never read Matthew’s book, much less plagiarized from it, Darwin biographer Loren Eiseley reckons that, given many circumstantial similarities, Darwin was in fact familiar with Matthew’s work. As a matter of fact, Darwin mentioned Matthew in later edi-tions of his own book.


Book RevieW

Eugene G. Windchy calls to the stand numerous credible witnesses to make the case that not only has Darwinism not been proven, but that Charles Darwin was an unscrupulous man who stole and then peddled others’ theories.

Darwinism: Flawed, Disastrous — and Stolen

The second prominent man to publish theories of evolution was naturalist Ed-ward Blyth. Blyth wrote of natural selec-tion, variation, adaptation, and gradualism in his studies that were published in 1835 and 1837 in the journal The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Again, Dar-win failed to give proper credit to this sem-inal work and passed off much of Blyth’s proposals as his own.

Neither of these examples mentioned by Windchy is nearly as shocking or shame-ful as the scholarly swindle perpetrated by Darwin on the work of a third biologist, Alfred Wallace.

Wallace was a Welshman who published an article entitled “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of a New Species” in 1855. This article described what came to be known as the Sarawak Principle, the salient point of which was quoted by Windchy: “Every species has come into existence coincident in time and space with a closely allied species.” De-spite the well-founded explication of his theories, Windchy relates, Wallace’s work made little mark in the scientific commu-nity, with the notable exception of Charles Darwin, who was involved in writing his own monograph on the subject.

Surprisingly and notwithstanding their apparent status as academic rivals, in 1858 Charles Darwin received a “com-pleted formal paper on evolution by natu-ral selection.” In the letter accompanying the manuscript, Wallace asked Darwin to forward it along to Sir Charles Lyell. Al-though reputedly meticulous as to saving correspondence, Windchy reports, Darwin destroyed all the letters he received from Wallace, a fact Windchy calls “odd.” Odd or not, it is remarkable if one accepts the description of Darwin as a fastidious let-ter saver (evidence of which is provided by Windchy, who mentions that Darwin’s

collected correspondence fills 15 volumes). Windchy, it seems, describes this habit of Darwin for the purpose of implying that Darwin delib-erately destroyed the corre-spondence with the purpose of hiding his tracks.

Other scholars have un-earthed indisputable evidence that Darwin drew signifi-cantly from Wallace’s effort

and then took advantage of his money (Darwin’s father was prosperous and his mother was a Wedgewood) and his con-nections at the influential Linnean Society to diminish Wallace’s contributions to the field of evolutionary theory and exaggerate his own. Two of Darwin’s cronies — Sir Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker — acted as co-conspirators in concocting and car-rying out the plan to promote Darwin and thus relegate Wallace to footnotes in the annals of scientific development. Regard-ing the particulars of this all-but-untold story, Windchy adroitly stacks brick after brick of evidence into a seemingly insu-perable wall of proof.

soldAlthough it only took three powerful and prominent men to invent “Darwin as the father evolution,” it took many more to foist this theory on the public as sound scientific fact. It took support by moneyed interests, ambitious investors, and scien-tists servile to an “ism” in opposition to Christianity and its doctrines (including the creation of all things by God).

One of the conspirators in on the ground floor was Thomas Huxley. Windchy quotes Darwin as explain-ing to Huxley, “If we can once make a compact set of believers, we shall in time conquer.” Huxley stepped to the sound of his master’s voice and immediately wrote a favor-able review of On the Origin of the Species. Darwin dem-onstrated his gratitude by making a timely deposit of £ 2,100 into Huxley’s per-petually empty bank ac-count, thus enabling the penniless Huxley to pay off his mountainous and immobilizing debts.

Huxley found and formed a cadre of influential and well-placed scientists and socialites (Darwin’s “compact set of be-lievers”). Huxley and his band would capitalize on the seminars, books, and speeches to be given, not to mention trad-ing on the allure of the power to be had by placing converts in positions of power whereby they could make gain from ped-dling influence.

In fact, many of these wealthy investors and silk-stockinged hucksters were able through the pulling of school ties and purse strings to place Darwinists on the science faculties of Oxford and Cambridge Uni-versities, thus ensuring that the theories would be disseminated in the minds of generations of students, who in turn would broadcast them throughout the world.

a telling taleEugene Windchy has convened a trial on the merits and true provenance of the theory of evolution known as “Darwin’s theory of evolution.” He has ably and con-vincingly presented evidence to inculpate Darwin and others in masterminding and purposely perpetrating a massive fraud on the world. To this day, Darwinism has supporters, including scientists, who are as zealous and brainwashed as followers of any of history’s notorious cult leaders, even in the face of dispassionate, disinter-ested, distinguished detractors.

In fact, Eugene Windchy’s book is a con-vincing, well-researched, and well-crafted brief against the continuing and irrational acceptance and spread of Darwinism and its concomitant doctrines. n

To this day, Darwinism has supporters, including scientists, who are as zealous and brainwashed as followers of any of history’s notorious cult leaders, even in the face of dispassionate, disinterested, distinguished detractors.


Book RevieW

Cleveland Ave.(Rt. 41)

Ft. Myers, Florida

Stamra Inc.

TRAILWINDS PLAZA

SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

CALL FOR YOUR FREE 452-PAGE CATALOG

CHICAGO • ATLANTA • DALLAS • LOS ANGELES • MINNEAPOLIS • NYC/PHILA

1-800-295-5510 uline.com

• CORRUGATED BOXES • STRETCH WRAP • LABELS

• CARTON SEALING TAPE • BUBBLE CUSHIONING • MATERIAL HANDLING

OVER 950 BOX SIZESALWAYS IN STOCK

ONLINE & SOCIAL NETWORKINGNetwork with like-minded people to preserve freedom

Wounded Warriors “I spent six months in a hospital 700 miles from my hometown recovering from com-bat injuries sustained while flying a heli-copter in Vietnam. My healing began in earnest when my family was able to gather the resources to make a trip to visit me.” Little did Walt Fricke realize that those injuries would help determine his post-military mission over 30 years later.

When Fricke retired from his mortgage-industry position in 2006, though, and was facing the decision of what to do with his retirement, he recalled that time and how important it was to have his family near him for his recovery — and how difficult it was for them to get to the hospital. His thoughts turned to present-day wounded soldiers, and he realized that they would be facing the same difficulties that he did so long ago.

MSNBC reported on June 22 that what started out simply as a desire to use his air-plane to fly families to the local VA hospi-tal has evolved into a nationwide network of pilots and aircraft owners. Today, Vet-eran’s Airlift Command (VAC) has almost 1,000 volunteers who fly soldiers home for convalescence leave, transport family members to see hospitalized veterans, or fulfill any other “compassionate” need.

The organization’s first mission was for a wounded young Marine who needed to get from Florida to North Carolina to pick up his Purple Heart. The trip via a com-mercial airline, using a donated frequent-flyer ticket, took 13 hours, and the poor soldier arrived for the awards ceremony completely exhausted. However, through a referral to Fricke’s service from the De-partment of Defense, the vet was able to make the return trip in a private plane in only two hours. The pilot who made that flight belonged to a pilot network; the net-work did a story on the event, and VAC took off from there. Within a couple of weeks, over 40 volunteer pilots from all over the country had signed up for the program.

Wounded soldiers at any military hos-pital can put in a travel request directly on the VAC website, www.veteransairlift.org. The service will then “blast” an e-mail to its volunteers that there is a need, and pilots

will offer to take the job. Fricke says that frequently several volunteers will respond within minutes to take the job. VAC puts the pilots in touch with the soldiers, and the pilots and soldiers take it from there.

The service is completely free of charge to the wounded vets, with the pilots bearing the entire expense of the flights, including the fuel, themselves, and any overhead ex-penses funded solely by donations.

Fricke told MSNBC that not only are lifelong friendships often developed be-tween the pilots and passengers, but each flight is a win-win situation. The volun-teers, “true patriots” who are more than willing to give of their time and aircraft, gain new respect for our military person-nel and pass that on to others. And the service is, of course, truly a blessing for the soldiers. “These wounded warriors come back saying, ‘I really feel the love of America when someone puts their private airplane to use flying me home.’ ”

the “Faith stimulus”The 2009 Memorial Day service at Bay Community Church in Malbis, Alabama, was certainly unique. That was the day, according to South Carolina’s June 7 Post and Courier, that the church distributed $50,000 of “faith stimulus” money to its parishioners. The recipients were not to keep the money, but use it to help the community or those in need. Each of the church’s 2,000 members received an en-velope containing between $20 and $100, with instructions to “turn around and bless someone.”

“The instructions were simple, you can’t give it back to the church and you can’t spend it on you and your family,” said Associate Senior Pastor Trey Taylor, the inspiration behind the unusual plan. Parishioners were also instructed not to just give the money to “the first person you can find,” but to prayerfully consider what to do with it, be creative, and make the money go as far as possible. Some of the stimulus money “middlemen” described how they used the money on www.stories.baycommunity.com. The end recipients included a grandmother with cancer caring for her mother and two grandchildren; an

unemployed father of a large family that recently immigrated from Turkey; some-one who lost all he had in a tornado; and numerous cancer victims. One family in the church was led after much prayer to personally multiply what they received by six and bless six different families!

The church’s leaders said, “We don’t ‘go’ to church, we ‘are’ the church. What can we do to bless our community?” Ap-parently very much indeed.

Pizza Party!Picture a pizza party. Birthday? Super Bowl? Ten friends, or maybe 20? Well, how about 350 friends? How about 350 homeless friends? If you can picture that, you can picture the pizza party put on by Warrington, Pennsylvania’s LeeAnn Camut.

This is the second year LeeAnn has or-ganized the event for the St. John’s Hos-pice for Men in Philadelphia. The center serves noon meals to homeless men each weekday and, according to the Philadel-phia Daily News for June 27, Camut first got involved by donating casseroles once a month. Last year, though, she decided she “wanted to feed their souls and not just their bodies. I wanted to make them feel special.”

For the party this year, Camut recruited 25 volunteers to serve and clean up, en-listed friends and neighbors to help raise money and collect food donations, and solicited help from local businesses. Mar-ketWay Flowers provided roses for each table, Starbucks provided pastries, and Station Pizza provided 100 pizzas at a large discount. LeeAnn’s children donated the proceeds from their lemonade stand, and she and her husband personally con-tributed $750 to the event.

The St. John’s website noted, “We served more than food to our guests today. Our men shared joy and good cheer, [and] left with smiles on their faces.... It is one of those days when we felt a bit more closely connected to our mission of helping our men find dignity, respect, nourishment, and opportunities for new beginnings. We are truly blessed.” n

— liANA sTANley


THE GOODNESS OF AMERICA

by James Perloff

A lthough the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olym-

pics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes. The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revo-lution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires mem-bers to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by compulsory abortion, restricting most families to one child. (Since Chinese traditionally prefer male offspring, this has led to dispropor-tionate abortion — even infanticide — of female babies, creating an artificial ma-jority of males in China.) The government directly controls most media, blocking criticisms of itself on the Internet.

Perhaps worst is suppression of reli-gious freedom. Christian churches, though permitted, must submit to government control and censorship — either as part

of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Independent house churches, comprising some 90 percent of China’s Christians, face persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs reports:

The human rights record in China is one of the worst in the world. Its sys-tem of “re-education through labor” detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing.... The house church movement (unregistered churches) endures unimaginable persecu-tion, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel, no matter the cost. China continued its crackdown against Christians and missionaries in 2008, as they sought to purge the country of religion before hosting the Olympic games.... Church property and Bibles were confiscated. Chris-tians were harassed, questioned, ar-rested and imprisoned. Christians in prisons are routinely beaten and abused.

Japan and Manchuria What surprises many Americans: the re-gime ruling China was largely put there by the United States. In the 1930s, Japan, then militarily powerful, was the main barrier to Soviet ambitions to communize Asia. Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the ri-valry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.

The Russians were hopeful that the war would break out soon, because that would greatly secure the safety of Russia’s Siberian borders and would so weaken Japan that Russia would no longer have to fear an at-tack from her in the East.... Stalin is perfectly willing to let Americans die in defense of the Soviet Union.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Sec-retary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Sovi-et Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan.... To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly at-tempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the op-portunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely men-

July 1939: A Japanese tank crew rests during a drive on Soviet positions near the Manchuria-Mongolia border. The U.S. government protested Japanese troops in Manchuria, but not Soviet seizure of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang.

AP

Imag

es


— Past anD PeRsPectiveHistoRYHistoRY

Interventions by the U.S. foreign policy establishment resulted in oppressive dictatorship.

China Betrayed

tion that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — name-ly their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dal-las, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese states-men that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expan-

sion in Manchuria was a national imperative.... But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the So-viet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.

The Chinese Republic China had been ruled by emperors until 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was over-

thrown. The revolution is largely attributed to Sun Yat-sen, who sought to make China a constitu-tional republic, led by the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China. However, Sun encountered extreme difficulties in unifying the enormous nation under his idealistic principles. After the emperors’ fall, China was largely ruled by local

warlords, and following Dr. Sun’s 1925 death, the task of unifying China fell to Chiang Kai-shek, a Christian and Kuo-mintang leader.

The Soviets tried infiltrating the Kuo-mintang, but Chiang Kai-shek eventu-ally saw through their schemes, and by 1928 had deported many USSR agents. That same year, 1928, Foreign Affairs, American’s most powerful foreign policy journal, published its first article criticiz-ing Chiang. From then on, he became the enemy of both the Soviet Union and the American establishment — which had ironically sought to support communism since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Chinese Reds: Soviet Puppets The Chinese Communist Party was little more than a puppet of the Soviet Union, which recognized the value for commu-nism’s future in China’s massive man-power. In 1933, the Chinese Communist Party sent this message to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: “Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!”

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival in Manchuria in 1937, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks on the Na-tionalists because the latter were repelling the Japanese, whom Stalin considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

This order was amplified after June 22, 1941, when Germany and its European al-lies invaded the Soviet Union, and began decimating the Red Army. Stalin feared that Japan — Germany’s ally — would invade Russia from the East, destroying himself and world communism’s center. One may reasonably conclude that proven Soviet agents within the U.S. government — such as Harry Dexter White, Assis-tant Secretary of the Treasury; and Alger Hiss, a leading State Department figure — shared this concern.

This author has documented in The New AmericAN that Washington had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but did not warn our military commanders; and also that Washington sought to pro-voke the attack through such measures as a freeze on Japan’s U.S. assets; a steel and oil embargo; closure of the Panama Canal to Japan’s shipping; and humiliating ulti-matums to the Japanese government (see,

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks because the Nationalists were repelling the Japanese, whom he considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

shanghai citizens cheer Nationalist troops disembarking from a U.S. transport plane in 1945. American support would soon cease as George Marshall boasted of disarming 39 anti-communist divisions “with the stroke of a pen.”

AP

Imag

es



for example, http://thenewamerican.com/history/american/574).

The U.S. war with Japan fulfilled the Gitlow and Bullitt warnings. Since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists were also fighting the Japanese, official U.S. policy was to support them, especially after President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Chiang at the 1943 Cairo Conference. Stalin ordered the Chinese communists to help against the Japanese too — but in a very limited capacity. Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung told followers: “Our determined policy is 70 percent self-development, 20 percent compromise, and 10 percent fight the Japanese.” The Reds spent little en-ergy against the Japanese, mostly attack-ing the Nationalists, whom they planned to overthrow at the war’s conclusion. This emphasis increased as Japan’s defeat, from U.S. advances in the Pacific, became imminent. Robert Welch, in his study of China’s downfall, Again, May God For-give Us, wrote: “In Shantung in 1943, just for one illustration, they [the communists] attacked from the south an army of twenty thousand Nationalists, simultaneously with a Japanese attack from the north, and helped to slaughter the whole force.”

Roosevelt’s Betrayal But China’s destruction came not only from communists. Fateful decisions re-sulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

At the Teheran and Yalta wartime con-ferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this de-mand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the sup-plies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Court-ney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn im-mediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok.... Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian sea-ports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign terri-tory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Con-gress or the American people.

The State Department official repre-senting the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subse-quently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of

China in secret agreement at Yalta.” The decision to invite and equip Sta-

lin — a known aggressor — into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

After barely firing a shot, the Soviets re-ceived surrender of Japan’s huge arsenals in Manchuria. These, with their American Lend-Lease supplies, they handed over to Mao Tse-tung’s communists to overthrow the Nationalist government.

Vinegar JoeAnother means of destroying the Nation-alists: U.S. personnel assigned to China. Among the worst was Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. Though generally respected as a strategist, Stilwell became notorious for hatred of Chiang Kai-shek — whom he nicknamed “the peanut” — and admiration for the communists. Stilwell wrote in a letter: “It makes me itch to throw down my shovel and get over there and shoulder a rifle with Chu Teh.” (Chu was commander-in-chief of the Chinese com-munist armies — as he was later in the Ko-rean War, overseeing the killing of GIs.)

Because Japan controlled China’s ports, the Nationalists had to receive supplies by air lift from India. Stilwell oversaw a campaign of Chinese troops against the

chiang kai-shek reviews field officers. Our ally during World War II, he swiftly became expendable after Japan’s defeat, and the left began painting him as a “fascist.”

AP

Imag

es


Japanese in Burma, attempting to open a land supply route. When the effort failed, Stilwell demanded the operation be tried again, using 30 Nationalist divisions.

At this, Chiang balked: diverting 30 divisions south into Burma would facili-tate further conquest of China by both the Japanese and the Chinese communists. General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed “Flying Tigers,” agreed with Chiang. Significantly, Stilwell did not re-quest use of communist forces — whom he so vocally admired — for his envisioned Burma campaign.

Stilwell complained to Washington, and received a message from President Roosevelt directing Chiang to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces, and send troops to Burma. After jubilantly handing this message to Chiang, Stilwell wrote in his diary:

I’ve long waited for vengeance — At last I’ve had my chance. I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye And kicked him in the pants... The little b*****d shivered And lost the power of speech. His face turned green and quivered And he struggled not to screech.

But Stilwell’s scheme backfired. Chiang refused the directive and asked Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Otherwise, he said, he would go it alone against the Japanese — as he had for the four years preceding Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was forced to concede. To his chagrin, Stilwell was relieved by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who saw eye-to-eye with Chiang.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opin-ion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or ap-paratus that existed at the time in the Gov-ernment in Washington.”

State Department Junta What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a

State Department clique favoring a Chi-nese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became As-sistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, includ-ing Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who con-sistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others.

“The Communists relied very strongly on Service and John Carter Vincent,” said Budenz, “in a campaign against Ambassa-dor Hurley.” Hurley, an honest statesman, was shocked by the maneuverings of those under him. “The professional foreign ser-vice men,” he reported to President Tru-man, “sided with the Communists’ armed party.”

Hurley was compelled to dismiss 11

State Department members. Upon return from China, however, they were mysteri-ously promoted, and some became Hur-ley’s superiors — after which he resigned. “These professional diplomats,” he wrote, “were returned to Washington and were placed in the Far Eastern and China divi-sions of the State Department as my su-pervisors.”

Pro-communist Stratagems This State Department clique employed several tactics to advance Chinese com-munism. Among the chief: claiming Mao’s followers weren’t communists, but merely “agrarian reformers.” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had commanded: “Workers of the world, unite!” But since China had little industry, Chinese commu-nists made farmers their focus.

Professor Kenneth A. Colgrove testified that Owen Lattimore informed him that “Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were real democrats and that they were really agrarian reformers and had no connection with Soviet Russia.”

The aforementioned John Carter Vin-cent referred to Mao and his followers as “so-called Communists.”

Raymond Ludden, another in the State Department clique, reported that “the so-called Communists are agrarian reformers of a mild democratic stripe more than any-thing else.”

In 1943, T. A. Bisson wrote in Far East-

Fateful liaison: Roosevelt and Stalin confer at the 1945 Yalta Conference. Roosevelt’s concessions to the communist dictator had tragic consequences for China, Korea, and ultimately Vietnam.

AP

Imag

es



ern Survey: “By no stretch of the imagina-tion can this be termed ‘communism’; it is, in fact, the essence of bourgeois democracy applied mainly to agrarian conditions.”

The State Department’s John P. Davies told Washington: “The Communists are in China to stay. And China’s destiny is not Chiang’s but theirs.” An additional tactic: portraying Chiang Kai-shek and the Na-tionalists as “fascists,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.” General Wedemeyer conveyed this matter’s reality:

Although the Nationalist Govern-ment of China was frequently and derisively described as authoritarian or totalitarian, there was a basic dif-ference between it and its Commu-nist enemies, since the Kuomintang’s ultimate aim was the establishment of a constitutional republic, whereas the Communists want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship on the Soviet pattern. In my two years of close con-tact with Chiang Kai-shek, I had be-come convinced that he was person-ally a straightforward, selfless leader, keenly interested in the welfare of his people, and desirous of establishing a constitutional government.

While some corruption undoubtedly exist-ed in the Nationalist regime, Wedemeyer insightfully noted that corrup-tion existed in all governments, including ours. For China, a conspiracy on the U.S. side compounded this. Their gov-ernment offices displaced by Ja-pan’s invasion, the Nationalists had to rely on paper currency. Runaway inflation threatened China’s economy. To stabilize the situation, Chiang Kai-shek requested a loan of U.S. gold. President Roosevelt approved, but the gold shipments were delayed and withheld by As-sistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, long since proven to be a Soviet agent.

This collapsed China’s cur-rency. One can understand why some Chinese officials, forced to accept salaries paid in worthless money, turned to corruption.

Walter S. Robertson, As-sistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, informed the National Press Club in 1959: “We stood by and saw China drift into a state of complete economic collapse. The currency was worthless.... In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Com-munists in.”

As a final tactic, State Department left-ists demanded the Nationalists form a “coalition government” with the commu-nists. This was an old communist trick. By forcing the postwar governments of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia to form coalitions with communists, the Marxists seized control of those nations; Mao Tse-tung envisioned the same strat-egy for China. In his report “On Coalition Government,” made in April 1945 to the Seventh National Convention of the Chi-nese Communist Party, Mao predicted that a coalition would destroy both Chiang and “reactionary American imperialism.”

The State Department’s China clique echoed this call. John P. Davies wrote in 1944: “A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us.”

A more realistic assessment of coalition government — which meant combining constitutional freedom with totalitarian gangsterism — was provided by Douglas MacArthur, who said it would have “about as much chance of getting them together as that oil and water will mix.”

In fact, Chiang Kai-shek wanted a post-war government representing all Chinese parties. In November 1946, he convened a National Assembly that met for 40 days, with 2,045 delegates representing diverse views from all over China; it adopted a na-tional constitution. However, despite their

The decision to invite and equip Stalin into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

no agrarian reformer: Mao Tse-tung (dark jacket) with Chinese communist officers in 1949. Totalitarian darkness was about to engulf the entire nation. A

P Im

ages


clamoring for “coalition government,” Mao’s communists refused to participate: they knew that, lacking popular support in China, they could only take power by violence.

Marshall Mission At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians — both from American Lend-Lease and captured Japa-nese arsenals — began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Marshall had a remarkable penchant for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced him over dozens of senior officers to become U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In that capacity, on December 7, 1941, he absented himself from his office on a notoriously long “horseback ride,” while junior officers sought his permis-sion to warn Pearl Harbor of the im-pending attack. During the Korean War, he was conveniently named Secretary of Defense; as such he overruled Gen-eral MacArthur, saving the Yalu River’s bridges from destruction by the U.S. Air Force, and thus permitting Communist Chinese soldiers to invade Korea, which precluded victory by MacArthur, guar-anteeing the stalemate that ultimately occurred. Regardless of where Marshall served, his actions fortified communism and defeated American interests — a re-cord summarized by the wrongfully ma-ligned Senator Joseph McCarthy in his book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall.

Before leaving for China, Marshall re-vealed he already accepted the communist

propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”

When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the com-munists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and

were successfully driving them back. Marshall, how-ever, imposed a total of three truces — which the com-munists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault re-counted the impact of Mar-shall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of exter-mination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Com-munist troops were trapped by gov-ernment forces. The truce teams ef-fected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.

Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with ap-pointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Na-tionalists, while the communists continued

At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians, began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Vinegar Joe: Lieutenant General Joseph Stilwell (left) stands with British commander Louis Mountbatten during the Burma campaign. Stilwell’s hatred of Chiang Kai-shek and admiration for the Chinese communists was little-disguised.

AP

Imag

es



receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he dis-armed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.

The Media Role Critical to the China sellout was manipu-lation of U.S. public opinion. A plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were “dem-ocratic agrarian reformers,” even though, once in power, they established a totali-tarian communist dictatorship, executing tens of millions of Chinese, in an orgy of atrocities that reached its height during the bloody Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists were portrayed as “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.”

Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Mo-lotov outlined this strategy:

Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to prop-agandize them. What is our object? Who do we have to influence? We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Commu-nists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.

The most influential U.S. writers fulfill-ing this were probably Edgar Snow, au-thor of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, “There has never been any communism in China.” And he reported in the Saturday Evening Post that Chu Teh, Mao’s military com-mander, possessed the “kindliness of Rob-ert E. Lee, the tenacity of Grant and the humility of Lincoln.”

In his monumental book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias favoring Chinese communists. Be-tween 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Also, reported Flynn:

Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received

glowing approval in the literary re-views, I have named — that is, in the New York Times, the Herald-Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these same reviews.

One reason the pro-communist books re-ceived such favor: reviews were written by writers of other such books. Flynn docu-mented that 12 authors of the 22 pro-Red Chinese books wrote 43 complimentary reviews of the others’ books. This cozy “in-house” system guaranteed laudatory reviews. It left the American public — which generally knew little of Asian af-fairs — with indelible impressions. So severe was the bias, Flynn noted, that New York Times reviews were barely dis-tinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.

Overt Betrayal: The IPR Perhaps the most sinister influence on America’s Far East policy and opinion was the now-defunct Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The recipient of grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foun-

dations, the institute published hundreds of thousands of pamphlets on China for U.S. public schools and the military. These pamphlets extended the myth that the com-munists were “agrarian reformers” and the Nationalists “fascists.” The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually found IPR included 54 persons connected with the communist world conspiracy. Among them were such communists or pro-com-munists as Alger Hiss, Frederick Van-derbilt Field, Owen Lattimore, and John Stewart Service. Alexander Barmine, a brigadier general who defected from the Communist Army, testified IPR was “a cover shop for military intelligence work in the Pacific.”

The IPR organized a magazine, Amera-sia. In 1945, U.S. officials were shocked when Amerasia published an article re-printing — almost word-for-word — a top-secret government document. Agents of the OSS (the CIA’s forerunner) invaded Amerasia’s offices and discovered 1,800 documents stolen from the American gov-ernment, including papers detailing the disposition of Nationalist army units in China. The magazine had been a cover for Soviet spying.

Although the FBI arrested numerous

U.s. ambassador Patrick Hurley waves after arriving in Chungking in 1945. Beside him is surly dictator-to-be Mao Tse-tung. Hurley’s efforts in China were continuously undermined by pro-Mao elements in the State Department.

AP

Imag

es


Amerasia employees for espionage, all the cases were either completely dis-missed or dispensed with fines. John Stewart Service, despite arrest for giving stolen government documents to Amera-sia editor Philip Jaffe, was rewarded by Dean Acheson, who put Service in charge of State Department placements and promotions. This was not the only time powerful “hidden hands” have conspired against American interests.

“Aid” to China With Japan’s 1945 defeat, Lend-Lease aid, sitting in India and slated for the Na-tionalists, was either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. By 1948, due to Marshall’s weapons embargo, the Nationalist govern-ment faced nearly inevitable defeat by the communists, who continued receiving un-limited weapons from Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador William C. Bullitt testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1948:

The American government has not delivered to China a single combat plane or a single bomber since Gen-eral Marshall in August, 1946, by unilateral action, broke the promise of the American Government to the Chinese Government and suspended all deliveries of planes.... As a means of pressure to compel Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese Government, Gen-eral Marshall stopped all fulfillment of this program and dishonored the pledge of the United States.

Although Dean Acheson deceptively told Congress the Nationalists had received over $2 billion in U.S. aid, most was non-military or unusable. Colonel L. B. Moody, U.S. Army Ordnance Corps, clarified the realities:

1. The inevitable defeat of the Na-tionalist army was due to their deficit in items of infantry weapons and es-pecially ammunition, and the Com-munist superiority in these items.

2. Military aid to the Chinese meant infantry weapons and ammunition above all else and it is “precisely these items which the United States

has consistently denied, delayed or limited. Only passing reference will be made to the billions of mouldy cigarettes, blown-up guns, and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific Islands which have been totalled up with other real or alleged aid in various State Department, Communist and leftist statements to create the impression that we have furnished the Nationalist govern-ment with hundreds of millions or billions of useful fighting equip-ment.”

In April 1948, Congress, apprised of the desperate situation, granted $125 million in military assistance to save Chiang’s government. However, the first of this aid did not reach the Nationalists until seven months later (when China had become an issue in the 1948 elections). By contrast, after the British defeat at Dunkirk, U.S. ships needed only eight days to be loaded with munitions bound for Britain. Anthony Kubek describes the first shipload reach-ing the Nationalists in late 1948:

Of the total number, 480 of the ma-chine guns lacked spare parts, tripod mounts, etc. Thompson machine guns had no magazines or clips. There were no loading machines for the loading of ammunition belts. Only a thousand of the light machine guns had mounts, and there were

only a thousand clips for the 2,280 light machine guns.

China Collapses The embargo and subsequent sabotaging of congressionally mandated aid to the Nationalists spelled their doom. In 1949, the communists completed conquest of China. Chiang Kai-shek and approxi-mately two million followers escaped to Formosa (now called Taiwan), where they maintained the Republic of China’s gov-ernment, establishing the island as a bas-tion of freedom.

The propaganda myth that Mao Tse-tung was an “agrarian reformer” evaporat-ed as he formed a totalitarian communist regime, slaughtering millions. Acheson and the State Department clique still hoped to recognize Communist China, but after Mao’s thugs seized U.S. consular officers, imprisoned and even murdered our citi-zens, and poured their troops into Korea to kill American soldiers, this U.S. recog-nition of China ended up being deferred for many years.

The China disaster did not result from “blunders.” Congressman Walter Judd, an acknowledged Far East expert, said: “On the law of averages, a mere moron once in a while would make a decision that would be favorable to the United States. When policies are advocated by any group which consistently work out to the Com-munists’ advantage, that couldn’t be hap-penstance.” n

treason on trial: Before a Senate investigating committee, John Stewart Service (right), with his attorney Charles Rhetts, reviews documents seized by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case.

AP

Imag

es



Virtue • the moral excellence evident in my life as I consistently do what is right

Virtue is a choice.Make it a habit.

Putting Character First!®

Sponsored by

®

Allstate Plumbing Inc.

HoneSt CoMpany

tHe

T.R.F. INVESTMENT CO. INC.2100 N KOLB ROAD • TUCSON, AZ 85715

(520) 298-2391

FOR THE FINEST IN GROCERIES, MEATS, AND PRODUCE

HELP PREVENTAMERICA FROM GOING

DOWN THE DRAIN!

(818) 837-1310 453 Jessie Street

San Fernando, CA 91340www.neptuneplumbing.com

• Residential• Apartments• Commercial• Industrial

Fast Service:

Usually Within

60 Minutes!

★ Firm Quotes Gladly Given

Right Over The Phone

★ No Gimmicks

★ No Hidden Charges

Free eStiMateSFaMiLy OwneD

Serving the greater San Francisco Bay

area since 1993

Call Today! ☎ (800) 280-6594

Fully InsuredLicense # 694771

• Water Heaters• Faucets• Toilets• Garbage Disposals

• Re-pipes• Gas Lines• Replace Water Lines

PLuMBing rePairS

• Kitchen Sink Drains• Laundry Drains• Tub/Shower Drains• Main Sewer Drains

• Sink Drains• Roof Vents• Roof Drains

Sewer & Drain CLeaning

To Order(800) 727-8783

www.TheNewAmerican.com

• An effective educational tool to informothersaboutnationalandworldevents

• Recipientisremindedofyourgenerositythroughouttheyear

Just $39 per gift subscription

Give the gift of TRUTH

domestic RescueA broken family in Wichita Falls, Texas, has seen trouble. The 44-year-old mother, abandoned by her children’s father, made another poor choice in relationships that nearly cost the woman and her children their lives.

According to the June 10 Wichita Falls Times Record News, the woman’s boy-friend was heavily intoxicated late on June 8, and began abusing her.

According to a report issued by Wichita Falls Police Department public informa-tion officer Harold McClure, the argument began in a bedroom of the apartment. The woman’s daughter, age 24, lives next door. She heard the commotion and came to her mother’s aid.

The woman’s son, age 22, arrived at the same time as the daughter. Entering the apartment together, brother and sister were confronted by a raving Perrion Warrior, 44 years old, holding a knife to their mother’s throat. Police and Times Record News re-porters related that her children asked War-rior to relinquish the knife and leave. In a chilling response, Warrior told them that “they would all be dead before he left.”

At this point the son ran to retrieve a gun and shot Warrior in the leg. War-rior dropped the knife and released the woman.

two Heroes in one incidentBad guy Bassil Kamali, 21 years old, learned that a young father of several chil-dren in his Evansville, Indiana, neighbor-hood had sold a stereo system. Kamali suspected that the young man might still have some cash that he could steal at the point of a gun.

He easily gained entry to the home when the man’s children simply opened the door for him, reported the Courier Press. Armed, the man ran into the home intending to rob the father, as the children screamed in fear.

The father of the children arose from his nap and confronted the armed man and began wrestling with the crook. Somehow he gained partial control of the firearm and the gun went off. Kamali was shot in one hand.

At the same time, an unidentified pass-erby, upon hearing the children screaming, leaped over a fence and ran to help.

Sergeant Greg Motz of the Evansville Police Department related the action: “The guy jumped over the privacy fence when he heard the kids screaming, it was a he-roic act.”

The wounded Kamali, fleeing from the father, was tackled by the passerby, who succeeded in holding the thief for the authorities. Kamali faces charges of robbery with a firearm, armed burglary, intimidation with a weapon, and criminal recklessness.

tough teamQuoted in an account in the Houston Chronicle, Robert Hays described his feel-ings upon being robbed and assaulted at age 77: “It’s not an easy thing to pull a trigger on a human being, but, when that man stood over me and said, ‘Give me all your money,’ my blood just boiled.”

Early on June 1, in rural Galveston County, Texas, Hays, a veteran of the Ko-rean War, and his wife of 39 years, Sharon, were among a number of guests relaxing in the game room of a private club. The couple and others had stayed late, chatting and playing various games as midnight passed into Monday morning.

Two men, one of whom used his famil-iarity as a regular customer to gain entry, rushed into the club. Armed, they imme-diately assaulted several guests, includ-ing Hays. The two began systematically robbing the group, including the manager who had the business’ proceeds in his apron pockets.

Hays’ first indication of trouble was when he was propelled backward through the air and slammed down on his back on the floor. In his words, he “was peace-fully minding my own business” when the armed robbers attacked.

Caught in a bad position, Hays gave his wallet up to the thief, who rifled through it and threw it back at him. Hays watched the men rob one person after another as he quietly planned a counterattack with the legally registered concealed pistol he had under his shirt.

Hays told the Galveston County Daily News and Texas City Police Captain Brian Goetschius that he positioned himself strategically on the floor, determined to limit the directions the crooks could come toward him. When one approached, Hays pulled his gun and shot, hitting the thief.

The crook fell to the ground, dropping his gun and losing a shoe in the process. Mrs. Hays alertly grabbed the crook’s gun, prepared to defend herself as well. The two thieves fled.

Hays later indicated that he had shot the thief to protect himself and other victims but particularly his wife, adding proudly: “When that first man dropped his pistol and went down, she got up and grabbed (the gun) and was ready to back me up.’’

Police stated that Hays “was within his rights” when he shot the armed crook. Captain Goetschius also added, “He is truly a victim whose back was against the wall.” n

— AlAN scholl

Call 1-800-727-TRUE to subscribe today!

“... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” EXERCISING THE RIGHT

taxing Energy in the name of climate changeItem: The San Francisco Chronicle report-ed on June 25: “The climate-change legis-lation likely to win House approval Friday will produce ‘millions of jobs’ in renewable energy technologies while slowing down global warming, President Obama said Wednesday. ‘A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter,’ Obama said in an interview with Hearst Newspapers and five other news outlets.”

Obama “defended the cap-and-trade system he has endorsed, which would set caps on carbon emissions while allowing companies to trade or sell unused energy credits. ‘I think it’s the right thing to do,’ he said. ‘So this is a win-win-win-win-win proposition if we move forward in a bold, serious way.’”

Continued the Chronicle: “Acknowledg-ing that ‘there have been a lot of scary sce-narios about how costly this will be for the economy,’ the president accused critics of exaggerating the consumer costs of his plan and potential job losses in the oil industry. He said the energy legislation … would cost American families ‘maybe a postage stamp a day’ in higher utility bills.”Item: The president later praised the House for passing the “energy bill,” as-serting in a national radio address that the legislation “will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy.” Most im-portantly, he said, “it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs.”

Obama told the nation: “There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening.”

This legislation, he maintained, “has also been written carefully to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”CorreCtIon: One would like to believe that Barack Obama would tell the truth about the costs and other impacts of the energy-rationing plan he favors. And he actually did, at a past date, make a some-

what honest assessment of what would happen were a “cap-and-trade” system to be instituted.

He is not being candid now, of course, when it counts. Still, Obama did acknowl-edge to the San Francisco Chronicle in a January 2008 interview: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it.... What-ever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their op-erations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.’’

Those additional costs would run to well more than the price of a stamp, as the president and his minions now claim — unless there are some shocking jumps in postage headed our way. The paltry cost projections squeezed out of the Environ-mental Protection Agency and Congres-sional Budget Office (CBO) largely ignore that this is a massive energy tax that will drive up costs of electricity and gasoline, for example, and result in the shipping of American jobs overseas to escape the regulatory burden to be placed on industry here. (Worse, the legislation also threatens to start a trade war unless foreign nations adopt similar carbon limits. Communist China, one of the world’s worst polluters,

is assuredly not going to commit economic suicide in such a fashion.)

Let’s look at some of those additional costs planned for us. Numerous studies re-fute the administration’s low-balling. An analysis made by the Heritage Foundation, for instance, of the Waxman-Markey bill reported out of House Committee on En-ergy and Commerce took a more complete view than did those who are pushing the tax-and-regulation scheme.

Heritage’s points can be summarized as follows: unemployment would increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and would reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. The total loss in Gross National Product by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. Refuting the president’s claims, the analy-sis concludes that the national debt would blow up as the economy slowed, weighing down a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would suffer, the analysis shows, since the leg-islation would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.

Even some prominent supporters are not buying the administration’s line. Bil-lionaire Warren Buffet, an Obama enthu-siast, told CNBC that the bill was a “huge tax” and “fairly regressive” that will harm “an awful lot of people.” Indeed.

AP

Imag

es

cap and trade’s tradeoffs: President Barack Obama has stated that cap-and-trade legislation would produce “millions of jobs” in renewable energy technology. But in Europe, measures similar to Obama’s proposals led to job losses and higher energy prices.


You may have noticed that this legisla-tion was not pushed as a “global warming” bill. Other than the fact that there hasn’t been any measurable global warming for more than a decade, this is because the Democrats’ pollsters have found this to be a losing issue. A leaked memo from the public-relations firm of Greenberg Quin-lan Rosner Research advised that global warming should not be used as the “pri-mary frame.” Said the PR outfit, referring to the issue of global warming and their focus groups: “Almost no one in our groups expressed such concern; for most voters, global warming is not significant enough on its own to drive support for major en-ergy reform.” The PR folks also urged that the term “green” should be dropped: “ ‘Green’ is meaningless or confusing — the term ‘clean’ resonates with voters.” You will note that the president, as quoted above, is following his marching orders.

You will also note that the administra-tion does not come clean by admitting that this measure is really about taxing, ration-ing, eliminating consumer choices, and regulating. Remember the housing prob-lems that helped throw the nation into a recession? This measure would make it more difficult to buy and build homes (costs will rise with a mandated increase in building codes) and to sell (a new energy assessment rating is required that will pe-nalize you for owning an older home). You probably haven’t heard the White House

boast that the hydrocarbon tax bill is de-signed to make the entire country follow the rules of bankrupt California in terms of “energy efficiency.”

The bill’s 1,500 pages of economic central planning are bound to result in ra-tioned energy, loss of productive jobs, and higher costs and taxes — with all hydro-carbon use to be penalized because big-government eco-worshippers are willing to hamstring the economy based on com-puter extrapolations of what the weather might be in 50 or 100 years. (These same computer models cannot even replicate past temperature changes, let alone pre-dict future ones.) And what would we get after a national energy tax is imposed to produce centrally planned austerity?

Well, the EPA says that even if carbon-dioxide emissions were to be reduced by 60 percent by 2050 (extremely unlikely), the temperature of the planet would drop by an insignificant 0.1-0.2 degrees C by the year 2095.

The president laughably extolled the bill for being “carefully written.” In fact, the 1,200-page bill was rushed to the floor with little or no time for congress-men to read, with another 300 or so pages added literally at 3 a.m. on the day of the vote, with all manner of goodies larded on to placate special interests. Even the sympathetic New York Times conceded it had grown “fat with compromises, carve-out concessions and out-and-out

gifts intended to win the votes of waver-ing lawmakers and the support of power-ful industries.” If this measure were so marvelous, you wouldn’t have to bribe legislators to vote for it.

To cite just a couple of examples, in exchange for his vote, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) got $50 million for a hurricane research center in Orlando, while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) secured, as re-ported by the Washington Times, “a new federal power authority, similar to Wash-ington state’s Bonneville Power Admin-istration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money.” In short, as the Fi-nancial Times put it, the new tax measure “creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended conse-quences.”

The CBO was right — though not about the current estimate of costs touted by House Democrats. However, when Peter Orszag was the CBO head (he’s now the head of the White House’s Office of Man-agement and Budget), he admitted that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.” And Obama was correct — before he became president — when he acknowledged that “under my plan of a cap-and-trade sys-tem, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He told the San Francisco Chronicle that, under his plan, “If some-body wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them, be-cause they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Now we are supposed to believe that the planet is going to be saved for the price of a postage stamp. In the bovine world, that would be termed bull emission. n

— williAm P. hoAr

AP

Imag

es

Expensive mistake: The Congressional Budget Office claimed that cap-and-trade legislation would cost American families less than a dollar a day, but the CBO’s estimate has a fatal flaw. It assumes that new wind and solar power systems will replace conventional energy, but because these power sources are intermittent and energy is created on demand, they don’t replace conventional energy sources; they merely add to their costs.


In recent weeks, Barack Obama has traveled across the ocean more

than once and has been met everywhere not only as presi-dent of the United States but as a bigger-than-life Holly-wood-type icon.

Much of his rhetoric in stop after stop could be clas-sified as the customary plati-tudes one can expect in such circumstances. But many of his comments deserve careful analysis, for they bode ill for the world and for our nation. At Moscow’s New Econom-ic School on July 8, Obama made special note of the pres-ence in his audience of Mikhail Gorbachev. “We have President Mikhail Gorbachev here today, and I want everybody to give him a big round of applause,” said our nation’s chief executive.

Should a U.S. president lead the applause for Gorbachev? Isn’t he the man who served in the USSR’s Politburo beginning in 1980 and then rose to become the Soviet Union’s leader in 1985? Doesn’t he bear more responsibility than anyone for the 10-year rape of Afghanistan carried out by Soviet invaders? Dur-ing the decade beginning in 1979, more than a million Afghans perished; six million fled to refugee camps in neighboring na-tions; tens of thousands of teenagers were kidnapped and sent to the USSR for indoctrination; and Soviet aircraft and ground personnel spread booby-trapped toys in the streets and villages that maimed and killed unsuspecting children, who picked them up and had their faces blown away and their limbs destroyed.

In 1987, Gorbachev told fellow communists at the 70th-anniversary celebration of the Bolshevik Revolution, “We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism; we shall never turn off that road.” In 1989, he told another Moscow audi-ence, “I am a communist, a convinced communist.” While never retracting these statements, he managed — with an incredibly compliant media — to con many in the West into thinking he was something new and different. How different? He came to the United States and told a convocation at Missouri’s Westminster College that the United Nations should be “authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion” to deal with his claims about ecological matters. No difference!

The media have awarded Gorbachev the reputation of a praiseworthy environmental crusader because of his founding of the Gorbachev Foundation and the Green Cross. It was hardly surprising then when, at the U.S. president’s next stop in Eu-rope, he followed Gorbachev’s lead while addressing a gather-ing of the G-8 leaders in L’Aquila, Italy. He spoke ominously

about “the threat of climate change,” insisting that “the science is clear and conclu-sive” and it tells us that “ice sheets are melting; sea lev-els are rising; [and] oceans are becoming more acidic.” All of these global-warming weather patterns, he insisted, are affecting “our food and water sources, our health and our habitat.” To combat all of this, he and the other G-8 leaders pledged to reduce car-bon emissions by 80 percent before the year 2050.

Editorialists at Investor’s Business Daily responded that doing so would wreck the

world’s economy and lead to worldwide misery. In the United States, it would mean the loss of nearly a million jobs per year and a shrinking of U.S. productivity by $7.4 trillion in 25 years. And it’s all totally unnecessary, they insist, because the Earth has cooled over the past three years by .74 degrees F., the same amount that the pseudo-scientists at the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change claim the planet’s temperature had risen dur-ing the entire 20th century. Following Obama and the G-8’s lead would, assured IBD, amount to “economic suicide.”

In Ghana, Obama pledged substantial increases in U.S. aid to African nations, never explaining why so many Africans re-main incredibly poor and backward after decades of pouring U.S. taxpayers’ money into them. He was totally incorrect in claiming that “the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade.” The West, especially the United States, made it impossible for the govern-ment in the former Rhodesia to survive in the face of the terror-ism created by Robert Mugabe’s forces. The result? A nation that was a prosperous food exporter has been converted into a land of want and privation. Zimbabwe’s most pressing problem is runaway inflation, exactly what Obama’s policies will create in the United States if they are not reversed.

It was somewhat infuriating to learn of his praise in the Ghana speech for that country’s former leftist dictator, Kwame Nkru-mah, and for Kenya’s bloody-handed Mau Mau leader, Jomo Kenyatta. He made no mention of a real Black African leader, the admirable Moise Tshombe of Katanga. Back in the ’60s, the UN that Obama so highly regards made war on Tshombe’s produc-tive Katanga province because he insisted on going it alone.

Much more could be said of the president’s overseas perfor-mance. Summing up: his socialist and internationalist creden-tials were on display. His programs for our nation and the world must be blocked. n

Obama Abroad: Much to Worry about


tHE last WoRdBy JohN F. mcmANus

AP

Imag

es

Obama greets the audience after giving a speech at the National Economic School graduation in Moscow.

Tragedy and Hope(1997ed, 1,348pp, hb, $39.95) Tah

The Road to Socialism(2008ed, 144pp, pb, $9.95) bKRTs

The Life of John Birch(1960, 135pp, pb, $2.95) TlOJb

Philip Dru: Administrator(1998ed, 284pp, pb, $.25) PDa

The Secret File on John Birch(1995, 203pp, pb, $3.00) sFOJb

New AdditionThe Communist Manifesto

(2009ed, 60pp,pb, 1/$5.95ea, 10-24/$5.25ea, 25-99/$4.95ea, 100+/$4.25ea) COMMaN

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

(2005, 270pp, pb, $19.95) bKPIGs

Tornado in a Junkyard(2003ed, 321pp, pb, $16.95) TIJY

Proofs Of A Conspiracy(1967ed, 304pp, pb, $2.95) bKPC

Shadows of Power(2008ed, 272pp, pb, $10.95) sOP

Order subtotal$0-10.99

$11.00-19.99$20.00-49.99$50.00-99.99

$100.00-149.99$150.00+

standard shipping$4.95$7.75$9.95$13.75$15.95

call

Rush shipping$9.95$12.75$14.95$18.75$20.95

call

standard: 4-14 business days. Rush: 3-7 business days, no P.O. boxes, hI/aK add $10.00

For shipments outside the u.s., please call for rates.

SUBTOTAL TOTalWI REsIDENTs aDD 5% salEs Tax

shIPPING/haNDlING(sEE ChaRT bElOW)

090803

✁

Credit-card orders call toll-free now! 1-800-342-6491Order Online: www.shopjbs.org

Name ______________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________

City _____________________________ State __________ Zip ________________

Phone ____________________________ E-mail ______________________________

❑ Check ❑ ViSA ❑ Discover❑ Money Order ❑ MasterCard ❑ American Express

# _________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________

Signature ____________________________________________________

Make checks payable to: shopJbs

Mail completed form to:ShopJBS • P.O. BOX 8040

APPLETON, WI 54912

000 0000 000 000

0000 0000 0000 0000

0000

VISA/MC/DiscoverThree Digit V-Code

American ExpressFour Digit V-Code

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

QuAnTITy TITlE prICE ToTAl prICE

FeaturedProducts

Consultants and administratorsSpecializing in Tax Deductions for Dental Practices • Post Office Box 7007 • Porter Ranch, CA 91327

PRISM: Any medium that resolves a seemingly simple matter into its elements

Council On Foreign Relations - The New American Magazine - August 3 2009

Documents

Transcript of Council On Foreign Relations - The New American Magazine - August 3 2009