Evidencing The Soon Coming Catastrophy In America
Historic Evidence of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
War is on the Horizon in 2002 AD
Islam and Communism The True Enemies of Israel and the USA in 2002 AD
Communism - Not Islam-The Mafia's other Partners
Is Your Life Important To You The knowledge required is here
The end time prophecy
Was Mohammad a Terrorist? Over 1,000 years of Terrorism, Who was behind jihad?
FREE Terrorist Attack Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Survival Kit
Some Great Income Opportunities that we use ourself!
What you need to know to stay healthy in our society today!
Who and Where Osama bin Laden Is!
Lowest Prices on Electronics at buy.com
Illegal Aliens From Mideast Threaten U.S. Security - How many Terrorist live within our borders?
Sunday, Feb. 3, 2002 11:51 a.m. EST
O'Reilly: Bush Justice Dept. Hamstringing Pardongate Probers
Investigators with the office of the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District are being actively discouraged from pursuing evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the Clinton Pardongate scandal, with one insider charging that any prosecutor who tries to build a case against the former first family may actually hurt his career.
So says Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, who made the startling cover-up allegation in his column this weekend.
"Although the Justice Department continues to say the probe is 'on the front burner',
agents have told me there is little incentive to get things done," the Fox News commentator claimed. "In fact, one investigator said, if you push too hard on the case, you could find yourself in Fargo, N.D."
O'Reilly suggested that the Justice Department's go-slow regimen for probing the Clintons final White House scandal was likely instigated by the Bush White House.
"George W. Bush understands the way the game in Washington is played. You must make 'accommodations.'..... And what Bush may have given the Democrats is the assurance that he will not embarrass their party by aggressively pursuing the Marc Rich pardon investigation."
The first sign of Justice Department footdragging emerged last year, when New York attorney Ed Hayes, whose client Garland Lincecum had given prosecutors damaging evidence implicating former first brother Roger Clinton in Pardongate wrongdoing, expressed doubts about the probe.
In comments covered exclusively by NewsMax.com, Hayes told WABC radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander last June:
"The big issue now is does the government want to press the case. Because, for one thing, to really show whether or not there was a crime committed, you really have to question Bill Clinton. You really have to ask, 'Did Roger talk to his brother Bill about getting a pardon for Garland? Did Roger talk to anybody about getting a pardon for Garland?'"
Bill Clinton still has yet to testify. Even back then Hayes suggested that probers were being reined in on orders from Washington.
"You never know in these cases how dedicated they are to making the case. ... I think [lead Pardongate prober] Elliot Jacobson is a very conscientious prosecutor. But he does what he can do within the Justice Department."
Hayes hinted a political deal was already in the works: "You don't know whether [the Bush administration] is going to trade three federal judicial appointments in return for turning a blind eye to this." (See: Bush Justice Department Putting the Brakes on Pardongate Probe?)
O'Reilly now agrees, positing that Bush will reactivate the Clinton probe only if the GOP regains control of the Senate or if "things get rough."
"The Marc Rich pardon deal can always be used as a threat," he concluded.
Read Bill O'Reilly's full column on the Pardongate cover-up in NewsMax.com's magazine.
A product that might interest you:
Get Bill O`Reilly`s New Book Cheaper Than Amazon - Or Anywhere!
Shocking Details of Bill and Hillary`s "Final Days"
Thursday, Jan. 24, 2002
When Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge heads to Congress to sell his plan to batten down U.S. borders with a sweeping consolidation and reorganization of the Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization, Border Patrol and Coast Guard, he will be armed with new eye-opening statistics from the Census Bureau, highlighted by at least 58,000 Middle Eastern men (Israel excluded) illegally residing in the country. The figure is much greater than previously thought and, analysts say, shows America's vulnerability to terrorist infiltrators, according to the Washington Times.
Three of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackers were illegally in the U.S. from the Middle East.
"While the vast majority of illegals from the Middle East are not terrorists, the fact that tens of thousands of people from that region, and millions more from the rest of the world, can settle in the United States illegally means that terrorists who wish to do so face few obstacles,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the Times.
The new Census Bureau report, which for the first time spells out the native countries of nearly 9 million illegal aliens who resided here in 2000, indicated that the number of illegal residents more than doubled during the 1990s.
Almost 3.9 million of the swelled numbers are from Mexico. China is the source of 200,306 illegal aliens, said the report.
Since Sept. 11 the Justice Department has sought to deport thousands of illegal aliens from countries where the al-Qaeda terrorist network is known to operate. However, most of these targeted men are still in the U.S. Some, according to the Census report, are of "quasi-legal” status because they seek political asylum.
Despite the leaking borders, Ridge’s consolidation plans are seen as unpopular with independent agencies unwilling to give up power.
Although the homeland security chief’s controversial border security consolidation visions were not expected to be featured in President Bush’s Jan. 29 State of the Union address, the new census data may be an impetus to at least an honorable mention by his boss.
Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies for the Cato Institute, said the findings represent a wake-up call to law enforcement. "I am pro-immigration. But these numbers do show that weeding out terrorists is more complicated than we may have thought,” he told the Times.
"We need to do a better job tracking visitors to see they don’t overstay visas. If we did improve enforcement, we probably could expand legal immigration.”
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said: "By not enforcing time limits on visas, decreasing H1-B [temporary employment or training] visas, as well as allowing illegals to obtain driver's licenses with little difficulty - and, more importantly, by not deporting the 300,000 people who have been ordered deported - it is no surprise that millions of illegal immigrants will settle in the United States, including tens of thousands from the states that sponsor terrorism.”
The issue of post-9/11 immigration policy has more than Ridge’s potentially-targeted agencies in an uproar.
According to an Associated Press report, Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at National Council of La Raza, fears that advocates of restrictive immigration policy are using a national paranoia to advance their agenda.
"It is unreasonable to use this as an opportunity to stir up fear and division,” said Munoz, who like the pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum favors more benign security measures such as stricter rules for the way student and tourist visas are distributed.
As usual, the devil of how to react to revelations such as the latest Census report is in the details, a fact not lost on Ridge, who since early October has been grappling with such issues and arguments with the help of his staff of 80.
He has conceded that the present design for everything from intelligence gathering to weeding out dangerous aliens is "not necessarily the best fit for the 21st century.”
The bureau found that 5,312,990 illegal aliens were from North and Central America, including 336,717 Salvadorans and 238,977 Guatemalans.
The second-highest number of illegal aliens came from Asia, for the most part South and East Asia, which accounted for 1,248,601 of the continent’s 1,363,419 illegals.
Israel is the home of origin of 24,372 illegal aliens, the report said.
One good thing about the slumping economy: According to the AP, some of the 8.7 million illegal aliens in the U.S. have lost their jobs and gone home.
Information to get private copy of Federation of Earth Constitution with all original signatures of individuals and Countries that ratified. (Majority did!) New World Order Constitution, good for the elite but not the non-elite people. Soon to go into effect nulifying or desolving the original US and other World or Country Constitutions. No more in God we trust. Read this entire web site to understand. As they want it. "A collectors treasure in histroy." Don't wait, know the new rules and laws that you must obey in advance! Most freedoms will be gone! Even getting a copy of this will be imposible in the future. All info at bottom of this web site!
"A concentrated foreign policy must give way to a complex foreign policy, no longer focused on a single dramatic task such as the defense of the west. Instead we must engage ourselves on the distant and difficult goal of giving shape to a world that has suddenly become politically awakened and socially restless. A wider and more cooperative world system has to includealso that part of the world which is ruled by communists. One third of mankind now lives under communist systems and these states have to be assimilated into a wider fabric of global cooperation."
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZ1NSK1, National Security Council Advisor, Bonn, Germany
"The revolutionary movement of 1776 to the present day is therefore the work of a continuous conspiracy working for its own ends and against the interests of the people." World Revolution, p 291, by Nesta Webster Contrary to popular belief the origins of the Russian Revolution are deeply rooted in the French Revolution and even more ancient intrigues.
"The cabalistic roots of revolution," said Colonel Roberts in The Anatomy of a Revolution. "from the French Revolution of the eighteenth century to the pattern of rebellion wracking the American civilization today, lead to the formula for secret societies and subversive movements inspired by Adam Weishaupt. Professor Weishaupt (b. 1748) adapted the principles of nation-wrecking from more archaic conspiracies and formalized a system for world revolution. The aim of the intrigue was, and continues to be, the surreptitious imposition of a world government of self-annointed elite (of mattoids) over the people of every nation."
Concealed from the American people is the secret role of America's financial community in the Russian Revolution - and in subsequent expansion of international communism. Review of these contributions to Soviet Communism does much to explain the contradictions in American foreign policy.
Villains of the Russian agony were the international banking families who financed Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin. The gold was provided in large measure by Jacob Schiff and Solomon Loeb of Kuhn-Loeb and Company; William Rockefeller, National City Bank; John D. Rockefeller, Chase Bank; Paul Warburg, Manhattan Bank, and J.P. Morgan, Morgan
Guaranty.
Under the visible leadership of Lev Davidovich Bronstein (alias Leon Trotsky) three hundred trained assassins from the lower east side of New York were spirited into Russia to usurp the (Alexandre Feodorovich) Kerensky Bolshevik Revolution.
Owing allegiance only to their megabank masters these nihilists were ultimately responsible for the liquidation of 12,000,000 Russian citizens.
How the hapless Russian people, now America's designated enemy, were molded into a Soviet armed fist, will be shown later.
Ambivalence of Americai. Foreign policy concerning the Soviet connection was underlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, then National Security Council Advisor, during a talk at Bonn, West Germany. Said Mr. Brzezinski:
A concentrated foreign policy must give way to a complex foreign policy, no longer focused on a single dramatic task such as the defense of the west. Instead we must engage ourselves on the distant and difficult goal of giving shape to a world that has suddenly become politically awakened and socially restless. A wider and more cooperative world system has to include also that part of the world which is ruled by communists. One third of mankind now lives under communist systems and these states have to be assimilated into a wider fabric of global cooperation.
Soviet Communism, a creature of those who plot to surrender America, is an instrument to destroy the existing social order and establish a 'World Government' slave state upon the ruins of the Republic. "The Secret Government of Monetary Power" would then fully control America's resources and production facilities . . . as they do in Russia.
Interlocking subversion in government departments, brought into focus by Dodd, Brzezinski and Walt, is a clear and present danger. Chilling evidence of the manner in which megabankers and multinational industrialists armed a designated 'enemy' is revealed in, "America's Arms Race Against Itself." M. Stanton E vans' article, first published in American Legion Magazine, reveals that the Soviet military juggernaut is structured on American technology and financed by American tax dollars.
This force may be used to bring down the last bastion of freedom - the United States of America. AMERICA'S ARMS RACE AGAINST ITSELF
Incredibly and to a large extent, the United States is financing the Soviet Union's unprecedented military escalation.
By M. Stanton Evans*
In one of the most incredible stories in the annals of diplomacy, the United States for upwards of a decade has been conducting a lethal arms race against itself.
Evidence accumulated by Congressional investigators makes it increasingly plain that the *M. Stanton Evans is a former chairman of the American Conservative Union. This article, reprinted from Speak Up, P.O. Box 272, Sta B, Toronto, Ontario M5T, 2W2 Canada, originally appeared in American Legion Magazine, October 1981. Copyright (&1981, The American Legion Magazine, reprinted by permission.
Soviet Union's recent military build-up, seen as threatening our strategic deterrent and survival, has been powerfully aided by U.S. industry. Numerous elements needed to build the Soviet war machine have been obtained, it now appears, from American and other Western business firms—with the approval of our government.
Among the most vivid examples of this process was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. When Soviet troops rolled into Kabul to subjugate that hapless nation, they did so in vehicles produced at the enormous Kama River truck plant, built for the Kremlin with the help of 80 U.S. firms and an estimated $350 million worth of our technology.
When completed, Kama River will be the largest truck factory in the world, capable of producing 250,000 heavy-duty trucks annually(larger than the output of the entire U.S. truck industry), plus 100,000 diesel engines suitable for use in tanks. The plant is being built by free world firms as a result of "peaceful" trade between the East and West.
The Afghan invasion focused attention on something previously known to U.S. intelligence, but usually passed over in public debate: Kama River has been systematically used for military purposes. Six months prior to the invasion, it was known that a substantial part of the 50,000-a-year engine production was being installed in Soviet military trucks, armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles, and that Kama products were on line with Soviet military formations in Eastern Europe.
Kama River is one of dozens of examples of supposedly peaceful trade from U.S. and other Western firms being diverted to military purposes by the Soviets. Such diversion has a long history going back to the 1920s. In his monumental study. "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development." Anthony Sutton estimates that 90 percent of the advanced technology needed by the Soviets to pursue their military goals has come from the United States and its allies.
In the past decade, this process has vastly accelerated as U.S. administrations have pursued the notions of detente and bridge building with the Soviets. As a result, the United States and other Western nations have been systematically transferring to the Soviets the advanced technology that once provided the West its military "edge" essential to modern warfare.
Miles Costick. president of the Institute for Strategic Trade, which closely monitors such developments, sums up the process this way:
During the past decade the free world has been the source of much of the Soviet Union's electronic and computer technology and manufacturing 'know how.' Further. the West has supplied the Soviet industrial sector with over $50 billion worth of efficient machine tools, transfer lines. chemical plants, precise instruments and associated technologies . . . Seldom if ever has a country been able, as the Soviet Union has. to persuade the countries against whom most of us military build-up is directed to finance so much of such a build-up.
Among the items traded to Moscow in this span have been laser technology, high-speed computers, semi-conductors, jet-engine technology, advanced radar systems, inertia] guidance technology and numerous other items needed to construct a modern military force. Far from applying these to peaceful commercial purposes, the Soviets have systematically used them to build their warmaking potential—a situation that has set alarm bells ringing in Congress and caused Senators Jake Garn (R-UT), William Cohen (R-ME) and Henry Jackson (D-WA) to demand corrective action.
A foremost object of Congressional concern is the Soviets' gigantic SS-18 missile. According to U.S. intelligence, this missile comes equipped with 12 independently targetable warheads (MIRV). accurate enough to seek out and hit our fixed-base Minutemen. If true, this means the SS-18s can destroy a major component of our strategic arsenal.
Considering the fact that the Soviets have historically been backward in the technological areas needed for such weaponry, including computers and miniaturization, how could they have devised such an advanced system? The answer is that we provided it to them. Over the strenuous objections of the Pentagon, we permitted the sale of 164 percision ball-bearing grinders needed to manufacture gyros used in MIRVing—machinery capable of tolerances to a 25th millionth of an inch, far beyond the state of the art available to Moscow or anywhere else outside America. As a result, says Garn:
Not only have Soviet-MIRVed ICBMs reached accuracies previously undreamed of by U.S. strategic analysts, but all Soviet military systems and equipment requiring precision inertia] guidance have also reached a new level of accuracy and sophistication. According to official U.S. government sources, we can expect Soviet advances in other areas as a result of the end products of this ill-fated sale that could be most crucial to the strategic balance, including advances in Cruise missiles and ABM technology. . .
While the SS-18 is the most formidable of military devices apparently made available to the Soviets through technology transfer, there are many other developments in a similar vein injurious to our security interests. While many(larger than the output of the entire U.S. truck industry), plus 100,000 diesel engines suitable for use in tanks. The plant is being built by free world firms as a result of "peaceful" trade between the East and West.
The Afghan invasion focused attention on something previously known to U.S. intelligence, but usually passed over in public debate: Kama River has been systematically used for military purposes. Six months prior to the invasion, it was known that a substantial part of the 50,000-a-year engine production was being installed in Soviet military trucks, armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles, and that Kama products were on line with Soviet military formations in Eastern Europe.
Kama River is one of dozens of examples of supposedly peaceful trade from U.S. and other Western firms being diverted to military purposes by the Soviets. Such diversion has a long history going back to the 1920s. In his monumental study. "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development." Anthony Sutton estimates that 90 percent of the advanced technology needed by the Soviets to pursue their military goals has come from the United States and its allies.
In the past decade, this process has vastly accelerated as U.S. administrations have pursued the notions of detente and bridge building with the Soviets. As a result, the United States and other Western nations have been systematically transferring to the Soviets the advanced technology that once provided the West its military "edge" essential to modern warfare.
Miles Costick. president of the Institute for Strategic Trade, which closely monitors such developments, sums up the process this way:
During the past decade the free world has been the source of much of the Soviet Union's electronic and computer technology and manufacturing 'know how.' Further. the West has supplied the Soviet industrial sector with over $50 billion worth of efficient machine tools, transfer lines. chemical plants, precise instruments and associated technologies . . . Seldom if ever has a country been able, as the Soviet Union has. to persuade the countries against whom most of us military build-up is directed to finance so much of such a build-up.
Among the items traded to Moscow in this span have been laser technology, high-speed computers, semi-conductors, jet-engine technology, advanced radar systems, inertia] guidance technology and numerous other items needed to construct a modern military force. Far from applying these to peaceful commercial purposes, the Soviets have systematically used them to build their warmaking potential—a situation that has set alarm bells ringing in Congress and caused Senators Jake Garn (R-UT), William Cohen (R-ME) and Henry Jackson (D-WA) to demand corrective action.
A foremost object of Congressional concern is the Soviets' gigantic SS-18 missile. According to U.S. intelligence, this missile comes equipped with 12 independently targetable warheads (MIRV). accurate enough to seek out and hit our fixed-base Minutemen. If true, this means the SS-18s can destroy a major component of our strategic arsenal.
Considering the fact that the Soviets have historically been backward in the technological areas needed for such weaponry, including computers and miniaturization, how could they have devised such an advanced system? The answer is that we provided it to them. Over the strenuous objections of the Pentagon, we permitted the sale of 164 percision ball-bearing grinders needed to manufacture gyros used in MIRVing—machinery capable of tolerances to a 25th millionth of an inch, far beyond the state of the art available to Moscow or anywhere else outside America. As a result, says Garn:
Not only have Soviet-MIRVed ICBMs reached accuracies previously undreamed of by U.S. strategic analysts, but all Soviet military systems and equipment requiring precision inertia] guidance have also reached a new level of accuracy and sophistication. According to official U.S. government sources, we can expect Soviet advances in other areas as a result of the end products of this ill-fated sale that could be most crucial to the strategic balance, including advances in Cruise missiles and ABM technology. . .
While the SS-18 is the most formidable of military devices apparently made available to the Soviets through technology transfer, there are many other developments in a similar vein injurious to our security interests. While many(larger than the output of the entire U.S. truck industry), plus 100,000 diesel engines suitable for use in tanks. The plant is being built by free world firms as a result of "peaceful" trade between the East and West.
The Afghan invasion focused attention on something previously known to U.S. intelligence, but usually passed over in public debate: Kama River has been systematically used for military purposes. Six months prior to the invasion, it was known that a substantial part of the 50,000-a-year engine production was being installed in Soviet military trucks, armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles, and that Kama products were on line with Soviet military formations in Eastern Europe.
Kama River is one of dozens of examples of supposedly peaceful trade from U.S. and other Western firms being diverted to military purposes by the Soviets. Such diversion has a long history going back to the 1920s. In his monumental study. "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development." Anthony Sutton estimates that 90 percent of the advanced technology needed by the Soviets to pursue their military goals has come from the United States and its allies.
In the past decade, this process has vastly accelerated as U.S. administrations have pursued the notions of detente and bridge building with the Soviets. As a result, the United States and other Western nations have been systematically transferring to the Soviets the advanced technology that once provided the West its military "edge" essential to modern warfare.
Miles Costick. president of the Institute for Strategic Trade, which closely monitors such developments, sums up the process this way:
During the past decade the free world has been the source of much of the Soviet Union's electronic and computer technology and manufacturing 'know how.' Further. the West has supplied the Soviet industrial sector with over $50 billion worth of efficient machine tools, transfer lines. chemical plants, precise instruments and associated technologies . . . Seldom if ever has a country been able, as the Soviet Union has. to persuade the countries against whom most of us military build-up is directed to finance so much of such a build-up.
Among the items traded to Moscow in this span have been laser technology, high-speed computers, semi-conductors, jet-engine technology, advanced radar systems, inertia] guidance technology and numerous other items needed to construct a modern military force. Far from applying these to peaceful commercial purposes, the Soviets have systematically used them to build their warmaking potential—a situation that has set alarm bells ringing in Congress and caused Senators Jake Garn (R-UT), William Cohen (R-ME) and Henry Jackson (D-WA) to demand corrective action.
A foremost object of Congressional concern is the Soviets' gigantic SS-18 missile. According to U.S. intelligence, this missile comes equipped with 12 independently targetable warheads (MIRV). accurate enough to seek out and hit our fixed-base Minutemen. If true, this means the SS-18s can destroy a major component of our strategic arsenal.
Considering the fact that the Soviets have historically been backward in the technological areas needed for such weaponry, including computers and miniaturization, how could they have devised such an advanced system? The answer is that we provided it to them. Over the strenuous objections of the Pentagon, we permitted the sale of 164 percision ball-bearing grinders needed to manufacture gyros used in MIRVing—machinery capable of tolerances to a 25th millionth of an inch, far beyond the state of the art available to Moscow or anywhere else outside America. As a result, says Garn:
Not only have Soviet-MIRVed ICBMs reached accuracies previously undreamed of by U.S. strategic analysts, but all Soviet military systems and equipment requiring precision inertia] guidance have also reached a new level of accuracy and sophistication. According to official U.S. government sources, we can expect Soviet advances in other areas as a result of the end products of this ill-fated sale that could be most crucial to the strategic balance, including advances in Cruise missiles and ABM technology. . .
While the SS-18 is the most formidable of military devices apparently made available to the Soviets through technology transfer, there are many other developments in a similar vein injurious to our security interests. While manyaspects of this subject have been mantled in official secrecy, transactions that have come to public view include the following:
• A corporation in the Southwest has sold, either directly or through foreign subsidiaries, 36 array transform processor systems, needed for the development of advanced submarine detection. According to Costick. these systems are now being installed in Soviet ships used in anti-submarine missions and. along with other technologies provided by L.S. firms, are capable of threatening the Trident submarine—another key component of our strategic deterrent.
• Between 1975 and '79, on the estimate of defense specialist Sean Randolph, U.S. computer and electronics firms sold the Soviets $300 million worth of computer and related equipment. Computer technolog\ is essential to 1CBM guidance. ABM warfare and numerous other aspects of modern warfare. The Soviet "Ryad" system, used in its 1CBM and SLBM programs, is based on IBM 360 and 370 computers illegally diverted into the USSR in the early 1970s. The Kama River truck complex contains an IBM 370 computer. In 1976, Control Data sought lo sell the Soviets an even more advanced computer—a transaction halted by an outcry in Congress.
• In 1974. the U.S. government approved the sale to Poland by a French consortium of integrated circuits based on U.S.-licensed technology—miniaturized systems essential to 1CBM guidance. These circuits. Costick notes, are typical "dual-use technology." used in pocket calculators, digital watches and TV sets, but also in 1CBM guidance and aircraft fire control systems.
• In like fashion, our government approved the sale to Moscow by a Swedish Firm—again using U.S. technology—of the advanced air control system at Vnukovo airport in Moscow. This highly sophisticated system employing computer- guided radar can detect any kind of airborne object and calculate its future flight path with instantaneous accuracy.
• The Soviets also obtained the RB-211 engine used to power wide-bodied jets and well suited to long range bombers. This engine was developed with $300 million in research and development grants from the U.S. government.
• In 1980. the Carter administration approved the sale to Moscow of $144 million worth of technology for developing super-hardened drilling bits for deep oil well drilling, technology that not only could augment the energy potential of the USSR, but also could be transferred to such uses as making armored projectiles.
These data from a burgeoning record would seem to bear out the grim conclusion of Senator Garn that "what remains of our once-vaunted military superiority, on which our national security increasingly depends, is in part being whittled away through a wide variety of technology transfer mechanisms. . , History will show that it was during the so-called period of detente that the Soviet Union began to challenge Western interests on a global scale and mounted its drive for total military superiority over the U.S."
The alleged rationale for this transfer of technology is that it builds bridges of mutual dependence between the U.S. and the USSR, and that as such contacts grow the Soviets will become more reasonable.
In this frame of mind. Western policy makers have accepted assurances that Kama River, though capable of manufacturing military vehicles, would be used for essentially peaceful purposes. And that the advanced Cyber 76 computer, 40 times faster than the computers now being used by the Soviet military, would be applied to "weather analysis" and "earthquake studies."
Such an outlook has never conformed to the reality of Soviet behavior. That the Soviets would gladly divert "dual use" technologies to military purposes should be apparent to anyone familiar with the tenets and performance of Marxism- Leninism. As noted by defense intelligence specialist Jack Verona, the Soviets have the world's largest R&D force—an estimated 800,000 people—working overtime to make the USSR pre- eminent in military power, and bent on absorbing technology and information from the West.
"The Soviet Union," says Soviet historian Roy Medvedev, "is moving in one direction—toward the strengthening of our military might. . . We are going to overtake the United States, and that is inevitable—our country is a military machine. . . They don't realize that we put everything into rocketry,that the government does not care about whether or not anything is left over for the population."
The difference in mentality between American theorists of detente and their Soviet partners may be observed in another facet of the process, the exchange of "students" between the U.S. and USSR. Americans in Russia typically study social sciences, liberal arts or cultural subjects (sample topics: "The Heroine in the Russian Fairy Tale" and "Performance Practices in Russian Choral Music in the Late 19th and 20th Centuries"), Soviet "students"—whose average age is 35—come to America and study aircraft design, optics, laser technology and computers.
These "students" and other Soviet visitors to our shores, whose numbers have increased dramatically in the era of detente, show an inordinate interest in technical institutions such as MIT and Cal Tech, scientific laboratories, airplane factories, electronics labs and the like. In one memorable case, Soviet visitors to Lockheed, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas plants wore special shoes that picked up metal filings from the floor—helping them solve a nagging problem in manufacturing alloys.
"Reverse engineering" from American processes and designs is a classic Soviet technique in weapons manufacture. The famous "Strella" missile used by the Communists in Vietnam and employed by Marxist guerrillas around the world was reverse-engineered from the U.S. "Red Eye" missile, obtained by Moscow through a Scandinavian country. Airborne missiles used in Soviet MIGs were similarly reverse-engineered from the U.S. Sidewinder missile.
In addition to the technologies and processes they can obtain through purchase and "student" exchange visits, the Soviets also secure as much as they can through outright espionage and illegal purchases. Last year, the managers of a California optical firm were indicted for exporting sophisticated laser mirrors to the Soviets, technology now being used in the USSR's hunter- killer satellite program.
Such arrests and prosecutions occur because U.S. export law requires the Commerce Department to police—and prevent—the export of materials harmful to our national security interests. The U.S. government is thus in the schizoid position of taking punitive actions against the export of some strategic materials while strenuously encouraging the export of others.
The irony of the situation was aptly symbolized in 1972 when President Nixon announced the blockade of Haiphong Harbor and intensified bombing of North Vietnam to prevent the further influx of Communist men and material in South Vietnam. In support of this action, the Department of Defense released reconnaissance photos showing the Soviet cargo ship Michunn steaming toward Haiphong with dozens of Soviet Z1L trucks on deck, obviously intended for duty on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
What was not stated was that both the Michunn and the trucks were products of U.S. technology—built for Moscow courtesy of Western industry. We were stepping up our military pressure on the Communists to prevent the use of trucks supplied to them by us. While this was going on, we were simultaneously pressing forward with the Kama River deal to give them still more trucks, later used against Afghanistan.
Illustrating the mentality that has prevailed in some official circles was a 1977 proposal to approve the export of a computer to the ZIL plant. An interagency memo unearthed by this writer spelled out the differing altitudes toward this proposal among the four govenment agencies that participate in reviewing exports.
"Problem is," said the memo, "that a quarter of the 200,000 trucks Z1L produces annually goes to the military, including 100 missile launchers. State and Commerce support approval, on the grounds that U.S. government has licensed exports to it several times during the 1970s, that 100 missile launchers of a 200,000 vehicles annual production is small, and that the remaining trucks for the military are basically no different from heavy duty civilian trucks. Defense and ERDA support denial on grounds that ZIL's military contribution is unacceptably high, and past export approvals should not be dispositive of the instant case."
Also suggesting the outlook that has prevailedat Commerce in recent years was the official reaction to military use of products from the Kama River truck plant. In May 1979, Lawrence J. Brady, then acting director of the Office of Export Administration, testified that Kama River products were being used for military purposes and that further exports to the plant should be suspended.
Rather than acting on this recommendation, Brady's superiors argued that the Soviets had never actually promised to use Kama River trucks for exclusively civilian purposes and that military use was therefore not "diversion." Rather than cracking down on the Soviets, Commerce cracked down on Brady, relieving him of export duties and in effect forcing him out of the department.
Even in 1980, after a supposed tightening of export controls because of the Afghanistan invasion. Commerce approved the shipment of a diesel-engine assembly line that would have greatly enhanced the productivity of the Kama River plant. As with the Cyber 76, this was halted only by a vigorous protest in Congress. Nor did Commerce make any effort, in the aftermath of the invasion, to block shipments to Eastern Europe—where they could be easily diverted to the USSR.
A standard justification for such deals—above and beyond the supposed potencies of detente—is that if we don't sell advanced products and technologies to the Soviets, somebody else will. "Foreign availability," in fact, is the main argument used by Commerce to promote relaxed restrictions on exports to the East and push through disputed sales. If the Soviets can get it somewhere else, why shouldn't American firms reap the profits instead?
Such arguments ignore the fact that there is an international structure aimed at preventing strategic exports harmful to the interests of the West that could be utilized to reduce the "foreign availability" problem. This is the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls— Cocom for short—which includes the NATO allies and Japan, and which is supposed to screen technology transfers to the Eastern bloc.
Since the objection of a single Cocom member can halt a transaction, the United States obviously could use its veto power—not to mention other kinds of leverage—to prevent the flow of critical technologies from our allies to the Soviets. Rather than do this, however, we have done exactly the opposite, using our influence to break down the system of controls. Instead of trying to prevent our allies from seeking exceptions, we have led the way in seeking them ourselves; in recent years an estimated 50 percent of Cocom exemptions have been requested by our government.
With increasing Congressional sensitivity to this problem, there are signs that a change of policy is underway. In the new Commerce Department under President Reagan, Lawrence Brady has been brought back and currently is the Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration. White House national security adviser Richard Alien is known to take a tough-minded view of the issue. Senator Garn and others in Congress are pressing for a much tighter set of controls on strategic exports.
Such moves are all to the good. The evidence is overwhelming that our technology is now arrayed against us in the strategic arms race, posing a deadly threat to our security. That process must obviously be halted. By the same token, however, the fact that the Soviets are so dependent on the products of our industry provides us with potentially enormous leverage in the other direction: by denying them access to our technological advances, while continuing to make strides ourselves, we can go far toward correcting the military balance in our favor.
"The Soviets," Garn concludes, "have obtained too many of the national security sensitive technologies and commodities that have provided the U.S. with a margin of military safety over the Soviet Union. Only a dramatic change in our export policy, combined with the administrative capability to protect our national security will be sufficient to do the job."
Reprinted from The Congressional Record, 15 March, 1978, p E1327.
*Mr. Kelly. Mr. Speaker, Gen. Lewis W. Walt. one of the most respected marines of our time, whose career culminated in the four-star post of Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, has continued to serve his country vigorously since his retirement/row [he corps.
One of the most memorable covers of Life magazine was a picture of General Wall in the thick of the fighting in Vietnam, trying to win an awful war under impossible rules. If anyone could have done it, it would have been Lew Wall—a marine's marine, if there ever was one.
General Walt is no less concerned about what he regards as the challenges to America today. Always a popular speaker at public events. Lew Wait is wading into this battle with all the spirit and determination for which he is famous. He sees an America that needs to be alerted to the movement toward loyalties that transcend national boundaries. This movement would destroy our constitutional freedoms and our representative republican form of government. Implicit in this movement is also the likelihood that our standard of living and prosperity would be divided and reduced by the world government.
When a great leader speaks with earnest concern regarding our \alion s welfare we should at least listen. It is for this reason thai I submit for your consideration the recent speech by General Walt before a Chamber of Commerce audience in Florida:
*Hon. Richard Kelly of Florida in the House of Representatives.
Ladies and gentlemen. 1 am here today, not as a member of the Armed Forces but as a common citizen, an average Amenan. As one who is deeply and alarmingly concerned about the security of our freedoms.
1 am here today to speak to you because 1 feel it is my duty and my obligation to my country. More deeply, 1 feel an obligation to those Americans, whom 1 have seen sacrifice their lives on the field of battle to preserve our freedoms. 1 believe our freedoms are in greater jeopardy today than ever before in the history of our nation. We are joined now in a most critical battle to preserve our freedoms. To me it is a continuation of the battles in which our heroic Americans have sacrificed their lives. There are no booming of guns or dropping of bombs but the enemy is real, many faced, insidious and clever, and the results can be just as deadly to our freedoms.
In a democractic Republic, military leaders do not commit their countries to wars. Political leaders initiate the wars and order the military to fight them. The leaders who start the war are never active participants on the field of battle. Personally, on the battlefield as a Marine infantryman, 1 was always trying to kill my "designated" enemy, because he was trying to kill me. War is "Hell" only for those on the battlefield and for those who have had their loved ones mangled or killed on the field of battle. For those who maneuver us into war, a war is a game in which our young men are pitted against a "designated" enemy in deadly combat.
With the advent of jet aircraft, satellites, atomic powered ships and submarines, instant world-wide communications and nuclear weapons, the nature of war has changed! No longer are the Atlantic and Pacific oceans a shield behind which we can hide from our potential enemies. More important, no longer can the internationalist political leaders hope not to be personally involved in a major conflict because intercontinental nuclear weapons are boundless in death and destruction effects. For this reason, 1 do not believe international political leaders will ever allow a nuclear conflict. But, I also believe that these same boundless weapons of death and destruction will be used to blackmail nations into submission, submission to a new international order, a "one world" government where the Government will be the master and the people will be the slaves.
1 believe that our country, the United States of America, will be the first target. 1 believe that the stage is now being set for the blackmail action.How else can we explain:
Why we were not allowed to win the war in Korea or Vietnam— Why we have given the USSR money, food, materials, and technology to allow them to build up the greatest military power in the world in some respects— Why we are deserting our friends in Taiwan, South Korea, and South Africa, and at the same time, extending a friendly and helping hand to Cuba, Red China, and other Communist dominated countries— Why we are trying to give away the Panama Canal when its loss would divide our Naval Forces into two parts—and be a severe blow to the economy of our country— Why have we deliberately cut back the effectiveness and capability of our Armed Forces by denying them the B-l and other critically needed weapons systems without even requiring a reciprocal reduction of Russian Backfire Bombers— Why have we denied our nation an anti-aircraft defense, a ballistic missile defense, and a civil defense while the Soviet Union, in direct violation of the intent and spirit of SALT 1 agreement, has built a civil defense to protect its people and industries and an anti-aircraft and missile defense of enormous proportions.
The Soviet Union has six times more nuclear explosive power in their intercontinental missile warheads than we have. They have nearly four times the number of submarines and twice the number of combat surface ships than we have. For more than ten years, they have had, in their operating forces, several hundred cruise missiles of two hundred miles range which can be fired from both submarine and surface ships and against which we have no proven defense.
As a result of my military training, 1 have learned to consider only the enemy's capabilities and not his intentions. His intentions can change over night, his capabilities cannot.
Today, the Soviet Union has the capability to control the sea lanes and cut off, either on the sea or at their source, the vital raw materials which our nation must have for its economy and its military readiness. Of the 72 vital materials we need, a part of 66 of them have to be imported. By such a move, our potential enemies could strangle our country economically, close down our industries, throw millions of our people out of work, cause economic chaos in our country which (due to the weakness of our military reserves and national guard—result of no draft) would require a major effort on the part of our regular forces to maintain order. China with the Panama Canal will also cut us off.
This then could be a time for nuclear blackmail. With the Soviet Union "armored" (Civil, Anti-Air & Missile Defense) and our Nation naked for the lack of these defenses, the blackmail could force some political leaders to capitulate.
These national and international political leaders have made other preparations for the opportune hour. They have prepared a "Declaration of Interdependence" and a "New States of America" Constitution which would subordinate our Constitution, our Armed Forces and our economy to that of the "One World Government" (The United Nations). Our freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution would no longer exist. No longer would our people be the power and our Government the servant. The Government would be the master and our people would be the slaves.
Is our position hopeless?
No! Not if our people can be awakened to the military, economic and political threat facing us. However, time is running out! This year's congressional elections are the most critical of our Nation's history. The results will determine whether or not our freedoms will be maintained. 1 predict, that before too long, those who signed or endorsed the "Declaration of Interdependence," will be telling us that the only way we can save ourselves and other nations from a nuclear holocaust, is to form into a "New World Order" with a one world government. If the average American continues to be misinformed or uninformed or unaware of the blackmail maneuver and the majority of the members of our Congress refuse to stand up against such a threat then our case will be hopeless and the middle class, free enterprise and all other freedoms, we have mistakenly taken for granted, will be only memories.
"None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used to pay the United States contribution to any international organization which engages in the direct or indirect promotion of the principle of one-world government or one-world citizenship." —Public Law 495, Section 112, 82d Congress
At this point in our study we have, 1 believe, clearly defined the terrifying war-making functions of the United Nations Security Council. Now. let us learn something about the international sleight-of-hand which has transferred our soldiers to the United Nations army.
For this part of our search we must turn again to the military articles of the United Nations Charter. Under Article 43, Chapter VII is found the basic "treaty law" for establishing an "Armed United Nations."
"All members of the United Nations," states Article 43. "in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement, or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."'
The most cursory examination of Article 43 permits only one conclusion: It is the intent of this article to provide the United Nations with unlimited war-making powers.
Article 43 will wipe national boundaries off the map. It will create an irresistible international army. And it will chain the people of the world to the wheel of a military juggernaut.
We have now arrived at the concealed objective of the United Nations Charter.
Absolute, monolithic world military power is the concealed objective of the United Nations.
However, this monstrous goal cannot be achieved by raw force alone. Force must be;
*From Victory Denied by Col. Roberts, /966.
'United Nations Charter, Chapter VI I, 'Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, Article 43. preceded by "brainwashing," which will condition the population to accept a world military dictatorship. Therefore, the Planners employ Fabian2 Socialist techniques to accomplish their purpose.
The internationalists, by gradualism and indirection, have made collectivism an acceptable political philosophy. And, through the media of mass propaganda, they have conferred legal status upon illegal acts.
In illustration of this technique, we might recall that on September 1, 1961, the United States Government filed with the U.N. Secretary General a plan for the transfer of our entire military establishment to the United Nations.
Yet—there was no cry of outrage from the Amerian people.
The policy document for surrender is State Department Publication Number 7277, titled "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."3
In it, our State Department calls for ". . . progressive reduction of the war-making capability of the nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. . ." Which means, of course, the disarming of the United States and the establishment of a United Nations Army.
Our government now states that we must pluck the deterrent to Communist aggression from the control of American citizens and place our defense forces in the hands of the Communist-dominated "U.N. Security Council."
Allegedly acting in the name of the American people, and for the "nations of the world," the U.S. State Department set forth the objectives of their program of general and complete lFabian. . . In the manner of the Roman general Quintas Fabius Maximus, surnamed Cunclator (delayer) who avoided decisive contests against Hannibal: hence cautious, indirect activities. ^Exhibit—"Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," State Department Publication Number 7277, September, 1961.disarmament in a "Declaration on Disarmament" in a world where adjustment to change "takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations."
"The Nations of the world," says our State Department, "declare their goal to be the disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever, other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force."
"The Nations of the world," says our State Department, are determined to eliminate all armaments, including weapons of mass destruction, "other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force."
"The Nations of the world," says our State Department, will establish an effective International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations, "to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations."
"The Nations of the world," says our State Department will institute effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlements of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace, "in accordance with the principles of the United Nations."4
Under this plan, the United States will finance and man a totalitarian U.N. military complex. We, of course, will exercise no control over this international army.
The State Department proposes that the disarmament of the United States and the concurrent build-up of the United Nations army be accomplished in the following three stages:
Stage One: "The States shall develop arrangements in Stage One for the establishment in Stage Two of a U.N. Peace Force."
Stage Two: "During Stage Two, States shall develop further the peace-keeping process of the United Nations to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage Three deter or suppress any threat or use of force 41 'Freedom from War. . .," USS Department of State Publication 7277, page II. in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Stage Three: "In Stage Three, progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force."
And there you have it—neatly spelled out by the U.S. State Department: a totalitarian, one- world government—its edicts enforced by an international army.
To implement the U.N. take-over, of course, it is necessary to go through the motions of translating the policy of State Department Publication 7277 into so-called law and to assure brainwashed Americans that this "law" is in their own best interest.
This is the way it was worked.
In the same month that the State Department presented its "Freedom from War" plan to the U.N., the U.S. Congress was pressured into passing Public Law 87-297, "The Arms Control and Disarmament Act". .. This Public Law, dated September 26, 1961 established the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.5 Among the functions of this agency are the following:
"The preparation for and management of United States participation in international negotiations in the arms control and disarmament field.
"The dissemination and coordination of public information concerning arms control and disarmament."
And . . .
"The preparation for, operation of, or as appropriate, direction of United States participation in such control systems as may become part of United States control and disarmament activities."
Stripped of its deliberately confusing and evasive semantics, the "Arms Control and ^Exhibit—"The Arms Control and Disarmament Act," Public Law 87-297, 87th Congress. September 26, 1961.Disarmament Act" purports to confer upon socialistic bureaucrats the authority to destroy our sovereignty in secret international agreements; to propagandize the American people into accepting these felonious acts as being in the best interest of the United States, and to transfer the Armed Forces of America into the United Nations "Control System."
"The so-called Disarmament Act," stated Congressman James B. Utt. "sets up a super- agency with power greater than the power of C'ongress, which delegated it. The law was almost a duplication, word for word, of a disarmament proposal by the Kremlin in 1959, and so we find ourselves again advancing the Moscow policy. As an example of the power, Section 43 (of the Disarmament Act) provided that the President may, in advance, exempt actions of the Director (U.S. Disarmament Agency) from the provisions of law relating to contracts or expenditures of Government funds whenever he determines that such action is essential in the interest of United States arms control and disarmament and security policy.
"The Disarmament legislation," continued Congressman Utt, "was passed for the purpose of implementing the Department of Stale Publication 7277, entitled 'Freedom from War—The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.' This little gem from the State Department," he said, "laid out the program for complete disarmament on a three-stage basis, the purpose of which was to reduce the armaments of every nation to almost the zero point, including our own National Guard and to concurrently augment an international peace force under the benevolent guidance of the Communist- dominated United Nations, whose recent, murderous actions in Katanga should make every American shudder at the thought of the U.N. blue helmets enforcing the edicts of U Thant in this Republic. The idea was to reduce our military capability to zero with the exception of a small federal army trained in counterinsurgency to put down civil strife within this country.
"One of the first steps of the Arms Control Agency," said Mr. Utt, "was to recommend the repeal of the Connally Amendment and to make this country completely subservient to the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice is about as un-American as possible. It is true that the World Court is not supposed to act on domestic matters, but so does the U.N. Charter provide that the U.N. should not inject itself into domestic matters. Yet, the Congo is living proof that they have no intention of living by the Charter. There is every intention," said Congressman Utt in conclusion, "on the part of the Disarmament Agency to destroy the sovereignty of this nation and put us under the control of international tyranny, and they are moving rapidly in this direction."''
Significantly, the U.S. Arm Control and Disarmament Agency published an "Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World" which faithfully reflects State Department Publication 7277. Headlined, "Blueprint for the Peace Race," dated May, 1962, the newly formed Disarmament Agency declared that a United Nations "Peace Force" would be established which would be equipped with "agreed types of armaments" and would be supplied "agreed manpower."7
"Blueprint" was to become a major weapon in reorienting the allegiance of United States military personnel to the U.N. banner.
Six months after initial publication the Disarmament Agency "Blueprint" appeared, word for word, in a Department of Defense "Armed Forces Information and Education" publication titled. For Commanders—This Changing World.
For Commanders is designed to provide military leaders and their information staffs with "official" policy and is expected to influence officer and enlisted education programs within the armed forces.
"Stales," the Department of Defense told U.S. armed forces personnel, "should retain 'Washington Report, Congressman James B. Utt. February 14, 1963.
'Blueprint for the Peace Race, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, May. 1962, at their disposal only those minimum forces and non-nuclear armaments required for the maintenance of internal order and the protection of the personal security of citizens. While disarmament was being carried out (under the U.S. Control and Disarmament Agency), states should contribute agreed manpower and arms to a U.N. peace force to 'deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of the purposes of the United Nations'."
U.S. conformity with the provisions of Slate Department Publication 7277, and with Article 43, United Nations Charter, was thus "legalized" by the U.S. Congress and the Department of Defense.
The enormity of this subversion is nearly incomprehensible—as is the failure of the American people to protest the criminal abrogation of the United States Constitution.
As one American soldier 1 bitterly resent being turned over to an organization whose every precept and very existence contravenes the Constitution 1 have sworn to uphold.
1 reject the illegal agreements which would place me under a foreign flag and an enemy commander-in-chief.
And 1 deny the right of anybody in my government or anywhere else to enlist me in a United Nations army.
Redirecting the allegiance of American fighting men toward the United Nations banner and reshaping the role and mission of United States military forces for global responsibility in a one- world government is, of course, prerequisite to the success of the Planners. The importance of capturing U.S. military forces for enforcing the edicts of a one-world government is suggested by the thrust of the infamous Reulher Memorandum. authored by Victor Reuther.
It will be remembered that the brothers Reuther, Victor and Walter, wrote to friends in the U.S. from their factory jobs in Soviet Russia during the 1920's, urging unstinting efforts for the creation of a "Soviet America."
In the fall of 1961, Victor and Walter Reuther visited Attorney General Robert Kennedy to discuss their views on the so-called "right-wing" in America with particular attention given to "The Radical Right Inside The Armed Services." They had, they said, some specific suggestions that might be considered for a campaign to silence the growing voice of conservatism. These suggestions were put in written form at the suggestion of Mr. Kennedy and subsequently were sent to the Attorney General as a twenty-four page document on December 19, 1961."
"The problem of radical right influences inside the Armed Services," said Victor Reuther, "is an immediate one made all the more so by the up-coming hearings of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee (on military 'muzzling').
"It has been widely reported," the Reuther Memorandum continues, "that General Walker's (Major General Edwin A. Walker) radical right viewpoint is shared by a substantial number of his colleagues. One observer, Louis J. Nalle, has reported that Walker's position 'represents the publicly unexpressed but privately outspoken views of an important part of our American officer corps in all three services.'9 Drew Pearson has twice reported without contradiction that a Lieutenant General has leaked secret information to Senator Thurmond in support of the Walker position. The 'Americanism Seminars' espousing radical right wing doctrine and sponsored or co- sponsored by the Armed Services in various places could only have been accomplished by radical right officer personnel with the armed forces." said Messers Reuther.
"It also appears," continues this amazing report, "to have been widespread pressure from right-wing Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon which brought about the recall to duty of General Van Fleet... All that the recall has accomplished is to embarrass the Administration when Van Fleet irresponsibly attacked the Administration's Ambassador to the United Nations."
The brothers Reuther then exposed the real reason for their report to the Attorney General:
"The Reuther Memorandum, by Victor Reuther, Office of the Attorney General. Washington. D.C.
"New Republic, November 20. l%l.An alternative to getting Senator (Richard B.) Russell to broaden the hearings would be for Secretary McNamara to start his own investigation of radical right Generals and Admirals.
The report then states with gross impertinence:
This might have the effect of causing the resignation of some of these Generals and Admirals which would certainly be in the national interest. At any rate, political activity after such warnings would be grounds for dismissal from the service.
A major objective of the take-over crowd is, of course, the silencing of articulate anti-Communists within the military services. This one mission has, and continues to receive, high priority. The success of the Planners in imposing one-world government on the nations of the world is dependent upon eradication of resistance or possible resistance, by the United States military establishment.
It will be recalled that Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara immediately implemented a similarly motivated Fulbright Memorandum and precipitated a witch hunt in the American army in 1961. On July 31 of that year. Army News Service released a Pentagon Directive giving full responsibility to Mr. Arthur Sylvester. Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, for "providing policy guidance not only for all public affairs activities of the Department and its entities, but also for the conduct of any informational programs directed in whole or in part to the general public."'"
"Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara has ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise a directive that permits military men to instruct civilians in anti-communism." said the Chicago Sun-Times in an article covering the Secretary's action."
The importance of this anti-anti-Communist victory over conservatives in uniform is succinctly presented in an article by Gus Hall, General Secretary, Communist Party, U.S.A. Writing for "Release Number 47, Army News Service, July 13, 1961. ""Curb Military Ami-Red Crusaders," Chicago Sun-Times, July 13, i961.
The Worker three days following the McNamara crack-down on military anti-communists. Hall said:
In the opinion of the Communist Party there can be no question but that the threat from the extreme Right is serious . . . Another pronounced characteristic of this growing fascist movement is its spreading influence among the higher military personnel. The case of General Walker was only a symptom of a much deeper affliction. Even the Pentagon had to admit recently that it was 'worried' over the extent of Birchite and similar influences among the ranking officers of the military services.
Following the pattern of the now well- publicized Fulbright Memorandum, the Reuthers, in continuation of their recommendations to the Attorney General, state with ill-concealed hysteria:
"The strong posture against radical right Generals and Admirals suggested in this memorandum would go far to answer Soviet propaganda that American foreign policy is not in responsible hands and that there is a substantial 'preventative war' group in the Pentagon which may ultimately get the upper hand. This strong posture would not only reassure our own allies," says Reuther in the logic of the anti-anti-Communist, "but might give support to factions within the Soviet Union that strive for a more flexible position on the Soviet's part."
The validity of the Reuther rationale may be judged by the comments of Lieutenant Colonel 0. Aleksandrovsky who wrote in the July 18 edition of Red Star (official Soviet Army newspaper):
No matter what happens, this scandalous story of the business of General Walker and the Birch Society clearly shows that the Pentagon is teeming with generals and admirals who openly profess facism and are attempting to drag the country down the road to unleashing the Third World War."
""The Ultra-Right, Kennedy, and the Rise of the Progressives," by Gus Hall, The Worker, July 16, 1961. ""Reds make Hay out of Rebuke to General Walker," New York Journal American, Aug. 15, 1961
The intemperate charges placed against General Walker and his troop education program in the 24th Infantry Division by Reuther, Hall, Aleksandrovsky, and other like-minded individuals, were part of the witch hunt in the American army.
A top source for hard facts with which to confront these professional internationalists is found in United States Senate Report, "Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies," a Committee summary of the findings made by the Special Preparedness Subcommittee, Committee on Armed Services during the course of the 'Military Muzzling' hearings.
"It is well," states this Senate report, "to comment on the popular misconception that General Walker was disciplined because of his troop indoctrination activities in connection with the 'pro-Blue' program. This is incorrect. The army investigating officer specifically found that the division information and education program conducted by General Walker under the name of 'pro-Blue' was 'basically sound' and he consequently recommended that it 'continue to be implemented in the 24th Infantry Division'."
^Committee Print. USS. Committee on Armed Services Report, October 19, i962,
"While it is unfortunate that tradition forbids our military leaders from becoming politically oriented, there are many brilliant exceptions such as retired Maj. Arch E. Roberts, author of Victory Denied, who is still fighting for his country and people."
Somalia's persistent institutional weakness, coupled with known al-Qaeda connections to the country, makes it susceptible to 'hijacking' by al-Qaeda. It has been without a functioning central government since its dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991 after a brutal civil war. Armed from immense Cold War arsenals supplied by the Soviets and Americans, separate clans and subclans – extended genealogical networks – that had united against Siad Barre then assumed loose control over the regions to which they were indigenous. Despite the famine-prompted humanitarian intervention by the US in December 1992, the United Nations' attempt to rebuild the nation with Washington's assistance and several subsequent Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)-sponsored conventions establishing transitional governments, the clans remain unwilling to relinquish regional control.
Somalia is 98% Sunni Muslim. In the late 1980s, an indigenous radical Islamic organisation known as al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (the Islamic Union) was formed. Its main objective is to establish strict Islamic unity throughout the Horn, and it has also focused on efforts to establish independence and Islamic rule for the Ogaden region of eastern Ethiopia. First obtaining arms from indigenous sources in 1991, al-Itihaad has forged links with al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups in the region, and may also have obtained assistance from Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as al-Qaeda. Al-Itihaad's links with al-Qaeda are based on a combination of common theological leanings and mutual political and operational opportunism. The group has helped run al-Qaeda training camps in a number of locations. These camps have not operated simultaneously, but as a function of where al-Itihaad was best established at a given time.
In a 1997 interview with CNN, Osama bin Laden claimed that al-Qaeda had trained and organised Somali gunmen who in October 1993 ambushed US soldiers hunting for lieutenants of clan leader Mohamed Farah Aideed – killing 18 – and dragged a dead GI through the streets of Mogadishu. The incident led to American withdrawal from Somalia and the UN's resignation to political paralysis there. The US and several of its allies now consider Somalia a potential post-Afghanistan al-Qaeda host.
The northern third of Somalia seceded in May 1991, declaring itself the Republic of Somaliland. It has built its own basic institutional and economic capability. Other self-declared Somali statelets are 'Puntland' and the former provinces of Bay and Bakool. Governance in these areas is less successful than in Somaliland, but clan domination permits a degree of stability. Some cohesion has emerged from an umbrella organisation of southern factional leaders, formed in March 2001 in Addis Ababa and known as the Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council (SRRC). Members include Musa Suudi Yalahow, who controls strategic points in Mogadishu; Hasan Mohamed Nur 'Shurgudud' of the Rahanwein Resistance Army (RRA), which controls Bay and Bakool through a separate administration; and Mohamed Siad Hersi 'Morgan', military leader of forces seeking control of the southern port of Kismayu. Hussein Mohamed Aidid, son of the infamous warlord – who died in 1996 – is also an SRRC member, but controls only the former presidential palace in Mogadishu. Aidid and Shurgudud are co-presidents of the SRRC, while Morgan is its secretary of defence. Puntland, in the north-eastern part of the country, is divided between two warlords, Abdullahi Yusuf and Jama Ali Jama. Yusuf has accused Jama of being an Islamic fundamentalist, which Jama has denied.
In the latest attempt to lend order to an unruly polity, a 245-member transitional national government (TNG) was formed in Djibouti in August 2000 under the auspices of IGAD to govern the entire national territory. Whereas the TNG is intended to constitute central authority, the SRRC would preserve factional territorial control, presumably in a loose confederation. Thus, the two organisations are essentially competitive. SRRC leaders have accused the TNG of supporting al-Itihaad and al-Qaeda, and in late December 2001 called for an international force to help local militias destroy unspecified al-Qaeda bases. These positions, though not unfounded, should be treated with circumspection. The SRRC sees an opportunity for gaining American diplomatic and economic support against the TNG in casting itself as a zealous counter-terrorism partner. The TNG has also tried to burnish its counter-terrorism credentials, inviting the US to survey Somalia for signs of terrorist camps while insisting that there are no terrorists in Somalia. Those credentials appear dubious. Several senior TNG figures have been members of al-Itihaad or al-Islah (a more moderate Islamic movement). Some also have links to al-Barakaat, a hawala-style remittance firm used by indigenous Somalis and the Somali diaspora to transfer up to $700m annually to one another, and which is believed to help finance al-Qaeda.
The concerns of Somalia's neighbours, Ethiopia and Kenya, are for the most part consistent with US counter-terrorism priorities. Broadly speaking, Ethiopia wishes to establish sub-Saharan hegemony in the Horn against Egyptian influence and secure 'hydropolitical' command of the Upper Nile. More particularly, Addis Ababa wants to limit Somalia's use as a base for anti-government groups, and seeks to suppress radical Islamic organisations – including al-Itihaad, which took credit for several bomb attacks in Addis Ababa in 1996. Ethiopia supports the SRRC, and Ethiopian troops have made frequent covert incursions into Somali territory. Ethiopia has trained a large number of RRA militiamen, and in turn the RRA has expressly allowed up to 3,000 Ethiopian troops to deploy in Bay and Bakool. Ethiopian units have also intervened in Puntland in support of one of its warlords, and reportedly maintain a large base outside the city of Gaalkacyo. Kenya's key interest is in fostering Somalia's stability in order to stem refugee traffic and contain radical Islam. In mid-December, Nairobi consented to the use, by Washington and London, of Kenyan territory as a possible staging point for counter-terrorist operations in Somalia.
Although the TNG has been recognised by the UN, the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity, it has been unable to establish itself in Mogadishu or to assert effective national control over the past 15 months. While a conference in Nairobi in December 2001 yielded an agreement between SRRC and TNG representatives to form a national unity government, Somaliland's representatives and key southern faction leaders boycotted the meeting. No substantial bilateral links between the TNG and outside powers have been established, although it is also true that few external actors consider the SRRC politically legitimate. Nevertheless, the SRRC has military superiority, and its one strong supporter – Ethiopia – shares Washington's interest in suppressing radical Islam. The SRRC therefore appears to be the preferred counter-terrorist partner for now.
Following military action in Afghanistan, there have been unconfirmed reports of suspected terrorists arriving at Somali ports. However, bin Laden reportedly declined to relocate to Somalia in 1999 in the belief that its clans would be untrustworthy allies. There may be several extant Islamic terrorist camps in Somalia – most likely near the Puntland port of Boosaaso and along the Kenyan border, where al-Itihaad has taken over several mosques and recruited aggressively – but US intelligence efforts since 11 September have indicated no significant activity. A Puntland militia group and the RRA (with Ethiopian help), respectively, appeared to debilitate the group in these areas in raids between 1996 and 2000.
Although SRRC sources in December 2001 claimed that there were over 20,000 al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia, and Ethiopian intelligence reported heavy al-Qaeda penetration, this information is presumed by most regional experts to be seriously exaggerated. Somalia appears to contain few, if any, hard military targets. Al-Qaeda's political and operational presence there remains relatively unthreatening, and al-Itihaad does not appear to have the capability to conduct international terrorist operations.
The US-led 'war' on terrorism – which embraces diplomacy, financial controls, economic assistance, intelligence collection and law-enforcement as well as military force – has already come to Somalia. Major US military action there is unlikely, however. The deployment in early December of the headquarters and 20,000 troops of the US Third Army – the ground component of US Central Command, which is responsible for US military operations in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Central Asia – to Kuwait and Qatar mainly anticipates greater US ground activity in Afghanistan and possible military action in Iraq rather than a major move on Somalia. Substantial American military force – such as aerial bombing – could induce al-Qaeda members to hide their weapons and disperse across the porous borders with Ethiopia and Kenya. In addition, judging by the previous American experience in Somalia, bombing would probably create vast public resentment there and eventually could produce a climate even more favourable to extremist groups. Finally, the difficulty of obtaining reliable real-time intelligence on targets in Somalia makes surgical US infantry operations – involving little force protection – risky.
Present US policy towards Somalia is essentially preventive. On 24 September 2001, President Bush ordered al-Itihaad's assets frozen. In early November, the Treasury Department froze the assets of al-Barakaat. Despite company denials that it was a financing conduit for al-Qaeda, coalition partners and the UN quickly followed with similar action. Somalia's only Internet link – partly owned by al-Barakaat – was also shut down, although another company has now activated a new connection. The US and its allies have stepped up air and maritime surveillance to prevent al-Qaeda from further infiltrating Somalia and other countries. In early January, Oman-based US Navy P-3 surveillance aircraft stepped up flights over Somalia itself. This was followed by a report that the US was considering the use of Predator unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance missions, and was determining the operational requirements for the deployment of Central Intelligence Agency personnel and special forces.
Earlier, on 9 December, up to ten civilians from the US government visited western Somalia to consult local clan leaders, and reportedly some Ethiopian military officers. Their mission was to obtain intelligence on al-Qaeda's presence in Somalia and to determine how much help southern warlords would provide in detecting, monitoring and if necessary neutralising al-Qaeda cells or affiliates. If evidence of significant al-Qaeda activity in Somalia were to emerge, the US would probably try to enlist local Somali factions to neutralise them, perhaps with operational assistance from the Ethiopian military or from US Marines or special operations soldiers. American forces could be quickly deployed from seaborne 1,200-strong Marine Expeditionary Units, three of which were being deployed in the Arabian Sea as of January 2002. Otherwise, the US appears content to foster intelligence and enforcement cooperation with Ethiopia, Kenya and Somali militia leaders, to enlist Somali militias in suppressing Islamic extremism and to discreetly encourage Ethiopian support for that objective. Washington might also provide financing and technical assistance – and may already be doing so – for an SRRC anti-terrorist militia, which began forming in late December.
The counter-terrorism effort is a long-term programme of containment, and the US-led coalition has an abiding interest in inoculating failed or failing states against co-optation by al-Qaeda or its successors. Accordingly, 11 September has made heightened American engagement in Somalia and other troubled sub-Saharan African states more probable. The TNG's futility amplifies the need for such engagement, though prospects for the TNG's success remain dim. With foreign assistance and diplomatic support, Washington may choose to encourage the political and economic development of the self-declared Somali political entities as 'building blocks' for a more cohesive – but not necessarily nationally unified – polity that would allow more effective counter-terrorist cooperation in the future.
Run water4fuel and save the enviroment
Hon. John R. Rarick, M.C.
Congressional Record, November 8, 1967 H 14944 Maj. Roberts (now Lt. Col.) authored the 24th Inf. Div. "Pro-Blue" program in Germany.
(Collectors souvenir and keepsake gift)For hard copy of "Constitution for the Federation of Earth" (Constitution of the New World Order) which will soon overide the US Constitution) with original signature's and Countries of "participants that signed the original Bill for Ratification in June, 1977; "Send a certified bank check for $25.00 USD" and a postage paid or stamped self addressed size equal to legal size documents, secure envelope, weight of package equal to 60 pages; to Heritage Works Trust 200 Lakeland Drive Lakeside, Oregon 97449 USA
Tomorrow Enter Here and lets take a look at what tomorrow will bring.
