Discussion:
Premeditated Merger
(too old to reply)
d***@hotpop.com
2003-09-15 05:39:30 UTC
Permalink
http://www.jbs.org/visitor/focus/vietnam/above/merger.htm

Premeditated Merger
by John F. McManus
Why true Americans insist on sovereignty for this nation


Early in 1987, just after he had been named to the extremely important
post of Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Wright
of Texas made an official visit to the Soviet Union. While there, he
appeared on Soviet state-controlled television and offered viewers a lapel
pin displaying crossed U.S. and USSR flags. His offer was passed along to
Americans by U.S. media representatives. As a result, Speaker Wright began
receiving letters asking for pins. He responded by sending them out "as a
symbol of peace and friendship."

At the same time, the Soviet Union Was in the eighth year of its bloody
invasion of neighboring Afghanistan. Soviet troops were maintaining their
nation's 40-year domination of Central and Eastern Europe; Soviet supplies
and money were keeping Castro and Sandinista Communists afloat in Cuba and
Nicaragua; 100,000 American families were still grieving over sons,
husbands, fathers, and brothers killed by Soviet-supported Communist forces
in Korea and Vietnam; Soviet-backed terrorists and revolutionaries were
busily spreading unrest in Africa; and the tax bills of Americans included
$300 billion per year for defense against the Soviet threat.
Is Speaker Wright unaware of the consequences of ignoring the barbaric
record of the Soviet Union? Despite its many public relations ploys, the
USSR has not changed. Witness the final statement in Soviet leader
Gorbachev's three-hour speech in Moscow on November 2, 1987. Celebrating 70
years of Communist rule in Russia, he declared:
In October 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for
all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall
never turn off that road.
Mr. Wright's lapel pin showing the crossed U.S. and USSR flags spells
grave danger for America. But so, too, do many official policies of the U.S.
Government, especially those involving aid to and trade with Communist
tyrannies.
In 1969, the U.S. Government permitted France to sell America's silicon
microchip technology to Communist Poland, a totally dominated Soviet
satellite. Miniature integrated circuits produced in Poland were soon being
used in newer classes of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In 1972, largely as a result of the efforts of Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Government authorized the sale of 164 precision
ball-bearing grinders to the Soviet Union. These unique machines,
manufactured only in America, produce tiny ball bearings with the remarkably
precise specifications needed in space weaponry. Once in possession of this
vital technological capability, the Soviets were able to MIRV their
missiles, that is, place many independently targeted warheads atop a single
missile.
By 1978, the Soviet Union had obtained such advanced computers as the Cyber
73 from Control Data Corporation and the IBM 370. Specific exemptions to
existing controls had been granted by U.S. officials to allow delivery of
this strategically important equipment.

Acquisition of just these key items -- silicon microchips,
precision ball-bearing grinders, and advanced computers -- has given the
USSR both a first-strike capability for its nuclear weapons, and a missile
defense system capable of neutralizing our own weapons. Attempts to overcome
these Soviet advances have cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $20-30 billion
per year in defense spending and, if the Strategic Defense Initiative is
ever put in place, that figure will rise.

Not only has the U.S. Government cooperated strategically in arming a
menacing adversary; it has also allowed the Communists to obtain much of the
equipment and technology they could not get anywhere else on easy credit
terms.
As Senator William Armstrong of Colorado stated in an important speech
to the Senate on April 13, 1982:
It is hard to put a price tag on the additional burden heaped on
our taxpayers by our reckless trade policies with the Soviet Union. But if
it were not for these policies, we likely would not need the MX missile or
the B-1 bomber to counter Soviet weapons we helped the Russians build.
In the last 10 years alone, the United States and other Western nations have
sold to the Soviet Union and its satellites more than $50 billion worth of
sophisticated equipment the Communists could not produce themselves. This
equipment has been used to produce nuclear missiles, tanks and armored cars,
military command and control systems, spy satellites, and air defense
radars. In addition, the Soviets have been able to purchase entire
factories, designed and built by Western engineers and financed in large
part by American and Western European banks. Much of the production of these
factories is devoted to the manufacture of military transport, ammunition,
and other logistical items for the Soviet war machine.

Communism is total power. It is the seizure of the reins of government
by a few who then impose their will on the many with utter ruthlessness.
Because it is so contrary to all normal human aspirations, Communist power
can only be maintained through police-state terror, fortified borders,
destruction of religion, and suppression of all freedom.
In a 1971 report, the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
estimated that the Soviet Communists had murdered as many as 45 million of
their own people. In another report that year, the same Senate Subcommittee
estimated that Chinese Communists had killed as many as 64 million Chinese
between 1927 and 1971. More slaughter accompanied Communist takeovers in
Cuba, Algeria, Rhodesia, and Vietnam. Approximately three million of
Cambodia's seven million people were exterminated when Communists took
control of that nation in 1975.

Without provocation, the Soviets established a puppet government in
neighboring Afghanistan in 1979. Tens of thousands of Soviet troops were
sent across the border to sustain and consolidate Communist power. In the
incredibly cruel war they have waged against courageous native resistance,
over a million Afghans have died, another four million have fled to other
countries, and countless numbers have been maimed, many of them children
whose limbs and eyes have been blown away by Soviet booby-trapped toys.
The reality of Communism includes brutal seizures of power,
confiscation of property, enslavement of countless numbers of human beings,
mass killings, manufactured starvation, excruciating tortures, and a vast
network of prisons and slave labor camps. For sheer horror, Communists stand
second to none over the long course of mankind's history. Yet, America has
aided and continues to aid this monstrous force for evil.
Still another reality of Communism is its destruction of the
economic life of any nation it captures. Under the Communist-socialist
system, government regulates, controls, taxes, and constricts workers so
completely that the incentive to work is destroyed. Poor performance in
Communist nations does not spring from bad luck or an accumulation of
mistakes; it follows as night follows day, and it cannot be otherwise.
Left alone, Communism would fall of its own dead weight.

There are important questions about Communism, therefore, that must be
asked.
• How has its self-defeating socialist system successfully seized more than
two score of nations and a third of the world's people?
• How does an economic system that is a complete failure continue to grow
stronger and more menacing?
• How is Communism able to continue suppressing hundreds of millions who
despise it and would flee if they could?
• How can the Soviet Union afford a military force that occupies Central and
Eastern Europe, threatens Western Europe, invades Afghanistan, supplies and
trains armies in Cuba and Nicaragua, foments revolution in Africa, and even
boasts of a missile capability that is the equal of our own?

The single answer to all of these questions is that Communism receives help
in all of its treacherous endeavors from the non-Communist world, chiefly
from the government of the United States. Whatever else can be said about
this aid, there is an important, fundamental point that cannot be made too
often. It is that helping Communist regimes has always been -- and continues
to be -- morally wrong. Treating them with dignity cannot be justified.
Overlooking their treachery is wrong. Earning profits by supplying them with
equipment, technology, and credit only compounds the problem. And appeasing
them with fawning smiles and pleas for peace only strengthens their resolve
to continue ravaging the planet, to continue -- as Gorbachev has stated --
striving toward a "world of Communism."

The documented pattern of U.S. Government aid to Communism must be
broken. Begin with the critical diplomatic help given to top Communist
revolutionary Leon Trotsky by President Woodrow Wilson and his closest
advisor, Edward Mandell House, that enabled Trotsky to join with Lenin to
complete the Communist conquest of Russia. Add the 700,000 tons of U.S.
foodstuffs, given to a Soviet government that promptly used the food to
consolidate power in the 1920s; President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
extension of diplomatic recognition, legitimacy and credit that saved the
Communist regime in 1933; and $12 billion in U.S. Lend-Lease aid that saved
the Soviets from destruction in World War II and started them on the way to
world power.
Winning the War, Losing the Peace

The post-World War II years saw our own nation disarm and return to
peace-time pursuits. But those same years saw Communism conquer much of
Europe and the vast nation of China. Assistance to Communism in the form of
equipment and supplies was now being augmented by vital diplomatic help. No
less an authority than U.S. Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss Lane tried to
tell fellow Americans that Poland didn't so much fall in 1947 as she was
pushed into Communist hands by officials of the U.S. Government. His 1948
book, I Saw Poland Betrayed, detailed the incredible story. But his book was
smothered and created hardly a ripple. Additional revelations later showed
that the same pattern had been followed to push Czechoslovakia and
Yugoslavia into Communist hands.

The fall of China in 1949 demonstrated even more clearly that U.S.
diplomacy was being administered by individuals who favored Communism.
Against the expressed wishes of General Douglas MacArthur, Soviet Russia had
been welcomed into the war against Japan only a few weeks before the
Japanese surrendered. For that gesture, the Soviets were given occupation
rights over the Manchurian region of China, where the huge supplies of
Japanese war materiel were stored. All of that bonanza was quickly
transferred by the Soviets to the Chinese Communists, who used it to attack
our Nationalist Chinese allies led by Chiang Kai-shek.

As the civil war in China intensified, U.S. leaders demanded that Chiang
form a coalition government with the Communists, a move that he knew would
be suicidal. He refused, and immediately all American aid was terminated.
Chiang had tanks but no gasoline; he had troops and guns but no ammunition;
he had the will to resist Communism, but the ally he had relied upon, the
United States, had taken away his ability to fight. In desperation, he fled
with his government and the remnant of his forces to Taiwan, and the huge
nation of China fell into the hands of the bloodiest murderers the world has
ever known.
This immense tragedy prompted a young Massachusetts Congressman to denounce
U.S. policies regarding China. In 1949, John F. Kennedy was absolutely
correct when he stated:
Our policy in China has reaped the whirlwind. The continuing insistence that
aid would not be forthcoming unless a coalition government with the
Communists was formed was a crippling blow to the Nationalist government
.... This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to
preserve. What our young men have saved, our diplomats and our President
have frittered away.
One of the authors of U.S. policy that betrayed Chiang Kai-shek in the late
1940s was a State Department official named Dean Rusk. But in 1961,
President John Kennedy named that same Dean Rusk to be our nation's
Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it was Kennedy, not Rusk, who changed his
attitude.

Communist conquests in Europe and Asia, and a growing awareness of
the complicity of U.S. officials in those conquests caused the American
people to begin wondering about our own leaders. The conduct of the Korean
War from 1950 until 1953 raised more apprehensions about America's
leadership. There, for the first time, American troops found themselves
engaged in combat against Communist forces. But there was no declaration of
war, and victory was never the goal. The war that had been brilliantly won
by MacArthur's forces in its early days had been converted into a deadly
stalemate. Unprecedented restrictions on our own forces were ordered from on
high and MacArthur himself was removed from command -- for wanting victory.
Out of the Korean War, Red China emerged as the most powerful military force
in Asia, and U.S. influence in that region declined sharply.

Because the Communist progress we are detailing could not have been
accomplished without the vital help of U.S. diplomats, Congressional
investigatory bodies began probing evidence of loyalty and security lapses
by high government officials. The House Committee on Un-American Activities
exposed some of the treachery. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
concluded that there were four Communist cells operating within our
government, and that only two had been exposed.
Sad to say, the others have never been exposed. Wisconsin Senator
Joseph McCarthy publicly exposed more than 100 individuals who were working
for the U.S. Government and who also were helping the Communist cause.
Despite incredible propaganda to the contrary, in not one of those cases
were his actions ever shown to have been unjust. But, after McCarthy had
been hounded to his death, many of the persons who had resigned or been
removed from government positions because of his efforts were welcomed back
to their posts. The congressional committees were subsequently abolished and
our once formidable internal security apparatus was completely dismantled.

World Government the Goal
While the motive of those who aid Communists is to have them take control of
some nations, a related and more comprehensive goal is to have the threat of
Communism force the remaining free peoples to sacrifice their nation's
sovereignty to a world government. The not-so-hidden plan calls for
simultaneously taking all the steps toward world government, and then
creating a universal "new world order" under the framework of the United
Nations or some other all-powerful central governing body. That world
government would then rule the globe in much the same way that the masters
of the Kremlin rule the captive people in Soviet Russia today.
The very first change would require that the United States renounce, or at
least ignore, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Not
only would the "independence" portions of each have to be cast aside; the
references in the Declaration to man's "Creator," "Nature's God," and
"Divine Providence" would have to be suppressed. After all, Communist
governments reject such notions. They are not going to change. Nor is a
United Nations that also has no place for God.
Next, the limitations on government power that were so carefully written
down in the U.S. Constitution could no longer stand. It's true that many of
these constitutional reins have been broken. But under a world government,
no other government's rules could be allowed.

Then, the wealth of the American people would have to be
redistributed. It would not be enough to have other nations copy the
American free enterprise system that produced our wealth. The Communist
nations in the world government would never allow such a thing. Instead, we
would see government action to transfer equipment and money over seas, to
move jobs and industries from the United States to other lands, and in
general to bring the U.S. standard of living more in line with that of
Communist and Third World nations. America would end up with state-run
industries like those in socialist countries.
There would, of course, be some individuals who would be dissatisfied with
the political and economic consequences of world government. In order to
keep them from creating problems, there would have to be restrictions on
speaking out, publishing, conducting meetings, and even moving about from
place to place. Any orderly society should expect its citizens to have a
spirit of cooperation, so it would be hoped that none of those rules would
ever have to be enforced. But enforcement would take place if needed.

World government would also mean that the only military force of any
consequence would be the one possessed by the world government -- and it
would be used to enforce "peace." Of course, while this seemingly desirable
situation is developing, everyone will be asked to forget that a world
government possessing enough military power to enforce peace would also have
enough military power to enforce global tyranny.
Not only have millions been persuaded that a world government is necessary,
practically all of the specific steps to build one are being taken right
now. Just think: God is being driven out of any institution touched by
government; the Constitution's limitations on federal power are consistently
ignored; American wealth, jobs, and industries are being transferred
overseas; the average standard of living has either declined or wives and
mothers have to work to keep pace. Government at all levels takes so much in
taxes from the American people that the paycheck of one spouse is used to
satisfy growing tax bills. In the process, the family is the casualty, and
America's children in particular suffer. Isn't it time for Americans to take
stock of where we are being taken?

Alger Hiss the Pacifist
You may have heard of a man named Alger Hiss. A former top State
Department official, advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Yalta
Conference in 1945, architect of the United Nations, Hiss was publicly
exposed in 1948 as having been a Soviet spy for over a decade. At the time
he was exposed, he was serving as the President of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. This huge tax-exempt foundation was funding such
groups as the Institute of Pacific Relations that played such an important
role in undermining Chiang Kai-shek; the Council on Foreign Relations that
had been working for the goal of a one-world government since 1921; and
other organizations that were busily generating support for and enhancing
the power of the United Nations.

By 1952, many of the activities of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller
foundations, among others, had become so blatantly left-wing that Congress
decided to look beyond the government agencies it was investigating and
probe these private foundations as well. What the foundations were doing
included providing grants to domestic Communists and socialists, publishing
anti-free-enterprise books, pouring money into the hands of leftist groups
and individuals operating in this country, subverting the education of
America's young, and always promoting the concept of world government and
the importance of the United Nations.

The group created by Congress to investigate the foundations
became known as the Reece Committee after its chairman, Tennessee
Congressman Carroll Reece. One of its top staff members was Norman Dodd,
whose subsequent startling revelations have helped to explain why many
powerful individuals continue to aid Communism, and where such activity will
lead. During the preliminary stages of this investigation, Mr. Dodd went to
New York City to interview H. Rowan Gaither, the president of the very
powerful Ford Foundation. At that meeting, Rowan Gaither brazenly told
Norman Dodd that he and others who had worked for the State Department, the
United Nations, and other federal agencies, had for years ... operated under
directives issued by the White House, the substance of which was that we
should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make
possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.
Then he added, "We are continuing to be guided by just such directives."
When the thoroughly shocked Norman Dodd asked Rowan Gaither if he would
repeat that statement to the full House Committee so that the American
people would know exactly what he and his powerful associates were trying to
accomplish, he said, "This we would not think of doing."

Merge the United States with the Soviet Union? Do so under
directives emanating from the White House? Work to accomplish such a
horrendous goal with others from the State Department, the United Nations,
and numerous federal agencies? Such an incredible scheme could be
accomplished only if the United States were pushed toward socialism and the
Soviet Union were massively built up. There would also have to be a
remarkable propaganda effort in America to destroy the spirit of
independence and to overcome the strong anti-Communist and anti-socialist
sentiment of the people. In 1953, such a goal seemed completely
unattainable. And Norman Dodd must have created more doubts about himself
than about the head of the Ford Foundation when he tried to warn many
Americans about what he had been told.

It was during the Eisenhower years that the fiction of mellowing
Communism was begun. In 1955, our President sat at the table in Geneva with
Soviet dictator Khrushchev, and, in 1959, he welcomed the bloody-handed
"butcher of the Ukraine" to the United States. The start of what was called
"peaceful coexistence" accorded the leaders of the Soviet Union tremendous
legitimacy and paved the way for future moves that would build up the
Communists and tear down the United States -- so that a merger and eventual
world government could be accomplished.

In 1957, shortly after the Soviet Union brutally crushed the
Hungarian revolt, the Soviets startled the world by launching the first
man-made, orbiting satellite. It was called Sputnik. Suddenly, the American
people were told that the backward Soviets weren't so backward anymore. We
were assured that they had forged ahead of the United States, but furious
activity in the United States was spawned by Sputnik, much of it amounting
to huge federal intervention in the field of education. Anyone who cares to
do so can trace the tragic decline of American schooling to this period. As
more federal money and federal control have dominated the schools, the
quality of education has plummeted. The dismal performance of America's
schools has become obvious to virtually everyone.
The boost in prestige for the USSR supplied by Sputnik was enormous. And the
shock it produced supplied the excuse not only for a federal presence in
education, but for higher taxes, greatly expanded government spending,
unbalanced budgets, huge federal indebtedness, far more centralization of
power in Washington, and a striking increase in the willingness of the
American people to appease rather than oppose Communism.

Nine years later, however, it became known that our own government
had forbidden U.S. scientists to launch our own orbiting satellite prior to
the Soviet launch. General James M. Gavin had been the leader of the U.S.
Army's research and development programs. In a speech given in 1966 in
Boston, he told of his certainty that our space scientists at Huntsville,
Alabama's Redstone Arsenal could have orbited a satellite a full year before
the Soviets launched Sputnik. He stated that he "made several entreaties to
the Department of Defense seeking authority to launch a satellite, and
shortly thereafter I was given a written order forbidding me to do so." He
also stated that he knew of the Soviet capability to put a satellite in
space months before they succeeded in doing so. In other words, orders from
high U.S. officials made sure that the Soviets would be first. The benefits
derived from Sputnik for the Soviets and for those who wanted to merge the
United States and USSR should never be underestimated.
Building Bridges
During the 1960s, the slogan used to justify helping Communism was
"bridge-building." The overall plan to compromise U.S. sovereignty in favor
of world government continued, and Rowan Gaither's private admission was now
eclipsed by related pronouncements from those who would sit in the very
topmost seats of power in our nation.
In 1960, a man named Walt Rostow wrote a book entitled The United States in
the World Arena. In it, he stated:
It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all
nations -- including the United States -- the right to use substantial
military force to pursue their own interests. Since this residual right is
the root of national sovereignty ... it is therefore, an American interest
to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined.
A short time later, Mr. Rostow accepted President Kennedy's appointment as
the leader of the State Department's Policy Planning Division.
The 1960s, of course, also saw the United States get bogged down in
Vietnam in another undeclared war that numerous high-ranking military
officers openly and repeatedly insisted could have been won in a matter of
weeks. But more restrictions, even worse than those mandated in Korea,
totally contradicted all the lessons of military history and insured that an
American victory would not be achieved.
One of the architects of America's losing strategy in that war was
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. On February 26, 1966, while hundreds
of Americans were dying each week in the jungles and rice paddies of
Vietnam, Mr. McNamara testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Some Senators wanted to know why we weren't winning. So, too, did our
generals, admirals, and foot-soldiers. But here is McNamara's answer : To
declare war would add a new psychological element to the international
situation, since in this century declarations of war have come to imply
dedication to the total destruction of the enemy. It would increase the
danger of misunderstanding our true objectives....
Though he failed to state what those "true objectives" were, it is perfectly
obvious that his goal was not to defeat Communism, in Southeast Asia or
anywhere else. But, if his objectives included helping Communists to
dominate all of Southeast Asia, softening up the American people's will to
resist, and inducing them to believe that Communist power had grown while
American power had decreased, the way he and others forced our military to
conduct the war was a grand success.
Along with victory-denying restrictions on our military, President
Johnson, in October 1966, ordered increased aid to and special treatment for
the Soviet Union, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Mongolia,
Poland, and Romania. But they were the suppliers of North Vietnam, then
engaged in war against American troops. Hundreds of Americans were being
killed every week. And the aid flowing to North Vietnam from the USSR and
its European satellites was no secret. On October 27, 1966, the New York
Times reported: "The Soviet Union and its allies agreed at the conference of
their leaders in Moscow last week to grant North Vietnam assistance in
material and money amounting to about one billion dollars .... Poland's
contribution will be thirty million dollars, it was said...."
There was never any doubt about which nations were giving North Vietnam the
wherewithal to fight Americans in Vietnam. Yet, both the amount and variety
of help given to the Soviet Union and its satellites by our own government
increased as the war worsened. North Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong boasted
in 1965: "We shall defeat the Americans with Soviet weapons." He could just
as easily have Stated that the job would be accomplished because America had
supplied the money and the materials.
The Soviet Union was indeed North Vietnam's main supplier. In the
election year of 1968, the help given by the Kremlin to their Communist
allies became an issue. Candidate Richard Nixon addressed the annual
convention of the American Legion in New Orleans on September 12th, just
prior to the 1968 election. He declared that there should be no trade with
any nation, including the Soviet Union, "that aids the enemy in Vietnam."
His remarks were greeted with enthusiastic applause, and he won a close
election.
No sooner had he taken office in 1969, however, than President
Nixon announced plans to expand trade with the Soviet Union's satellites. As
the United States eased the Soviet Union's burden in keeping its satellite
nations afloat, the USSR itself was able to divert more of its resources to
North Vietnam. And it did so increasingly throughout the war.
By 1970, over 1.7 million Americans signed petitions to Congress to
stop U.S. assistance to Communist nations. Packages containing 20,000
signatures to a Congressman and 50,000 signatures to a Senator were
delivered to over 60 members of the Congress. But the effort expended was
not enough, and the aid to Communists grew larger. So did the casualty
reports from Vietnam.
By 1972, President Nixon had dropped all pretense of anti-Communism. On
October 18th, he signed an Official Determination that said : I hereby
determine that it is in the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of
the United States to guarantee, insure, extend credit and participate in the
extension of credit in connection with the purchase or lease of any product
or service by, for use in, or for sale or lease to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, in accordance with Section 2(b)(2) of the Export-Import
Bank Act of 1945, as amended.

Very few Americans ever saw this document. And Richard Nixon was
overwhelmingly reelected three weeks later, winning 49 of the 50 states. It
cannot be stressed too emphatically that the Export-Import Bank is a U.S.
Government agency totally funded with tax money taken from the American
people. It dispenses its funds to foreign governments to give them a
capability to purchase American goods. For decades, Communist nations have
benefitted from this incredible arrangement.

The war in Vietnam finally ended in 1973. The United States lost.
South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were quickly engulfed in Communist
savagery. The toll of death and misery in those three nations is
indescribable. But the Vietnam War brought many horrible consequences to the
United States as well:
• Over 50,000 Americans killed;
• Over 300,000 Americans wounded;
• Our military leadership converted from men who were winners to men who are
accommodators;
• More government (war always means more government);
• Moral decline, especially among the young;
• A huge increase in federal indebtedness;
• A sharp division of our people;
• A marked loss of patriotism among those who never realized that everything
about the Vietnam War was a perversion of the American system;
• And a spreading conviction that Communism cannot be beaten, must be
further appeased, and should even be merged with our own nation under some
supranational authority.
Aid to Communism Accelerates
In 1972, the U.S. Export-Import Bank financed 45 percent of the
cost of building the huge Kama River truck factory in the heart of the
Soviet Union. Another 45 percent was financed by David Rockefeller's Chase
Manhattan Bank in New York City. The Soviets themselves put up a mere 10
percent of the cost. The project, begun during the Nixon Administration, was
carried forward by President Ford's team and was completed during President
Carter's term in office.
In response to inquiries about this use of the American
people's money, officials in Washington insisted that Kama River trucks
would be used within the USSR for strictly commercial purposes and that
improving the lot of the Russian people would lessen the potential for war.
The Russian people, of course, posed no threat of war to anyone. It was the
Soviet government, for whom we were building the truck factory, that
threatened war. Those who tried to point out these obvious truths were
either ignored or told to trust the Soviets.
It was in 1979 when trucks began to roll off the Kama River
assembly lines. They had been built with American machine tools, diesel
engine technology, computers, electronics, and whatever else was needed to
make heavy-duty trucks. And the first of these trucks turned out to be
designed for military use and were used by the Soviet army to invade
Afghanistan. Industrial Research & Development magazine reported in July
1980 that some of the Kama River trucks had been outfitted for use as
missile launchers and had been exported from the USSR to Libya, Syria and
Iraq. In addition to trucks, the Kama River plant was also producing armored
personnel carriers and the engines for the Soviet T-72 battle tanks.

In 1979, President Carter presided over the betrayal of two of
America's best friends and closest allies. Aiming an incredibly stringent
human rights program at the Shah of Iran and President Anastasio Somoza of
Nicaragua -- but not at Soviet Russia, Red China, or any Communist nation --
the Carter Administration actually forced both nations into unfriendly
hands.
In Iran under the Shah, America had military bases that were also listening
posts tuned in to what was going on in the Soviet Union. Under the Ayatollah
Khomeini, Iran closed the bases and became a seat of anti-American
fanaticism and an enemy of other nations in the Middle East.
The campaign that led to Somoza's demise makes sense only if the overall
policy of the U.S. Government fits Rowan Gaither's description. Just as the
Truman Administration had cut off aid to Chiang Kai-shek and betrayed China
into Communist hands, and just as the Eisenhower Administration had
sabotaged Batista and betrayed Cuba into Communist hands, so too did the
Carter Administration cut off aid to the elected Somoza government and turn
that nation over to the Communist Sandinista movement.
It was the Carter Administration that pressured enough
Senators to turn over the American canal in Panama to the Marxist
dictatorship of Omar Torrijos, and to pay his government $400 million to
take it. A little publicized aspect of this incredible transaction is the
existence of two versions of the treaty. The one the United States signed
and ratified contained a provision giving the U.S. Government rights to
intervene militarily to keep the Canal open. But the treaty signed by
Panamanian officials did not contain such a provision. President Carter knew
of this incredible discrepancy, but he chose to keep it from the Senate.

The Carter Administration endorsed the SALT II agreement, a treaty so
flawed that even the Democratic-controlled Senate would not ratify it.
Undaunted, President Carter announced that he would abide by it anyway. The
Soviets promptly violated 11 separate provisions of the treaty. But
President Reagan also agreed to abide by SALT II.
In 1979, the Carter Administration, following the lead of the Nixon
and Ford teams before it, withdrew U.S. diplomatic recognition from our Free
Chinese ally on Taiwan and gave it to the Red Chinese regime in Peking, the
most brutal tyranny in the history of the world. As expected the flood of
propaganda telling Americans that the Chinese Communists have changed has
been followed by massive increases in shipments of technology, military
equipment, and credit, and by the importation of vast amounts of goods
produced by China's slave labor for the benefit of China's Communist regime.
Reagan to the Rescue?
To many, the arrival of President Ronald Reagan in the White House
offered hope that America would reverse decades of harmful foreign policy
and stop supplying the Communists. Only a few days after he took office in
1981, Mr. Reagan was asked at a news conference if he felt that detente was
still possible. He responded : Well, so far detente's been a one-way
street that the Soviet Union has used to pursue its own aims. I don't have
to think of an answer as to what I think their intentions are. They have
repeated it. I know of no leader of the Soviet Union since the revolution
and including the present leadership that has not more than once repeated in
various Communist congresses they hold, their determination that their goal
must be the promotion of world revolution and a one-world socialist or
Communist state, whichever word you want to use.
Now, as long as they do that and as long as they at the same time
have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is
what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the
right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that ... I
think when you do business with them, even as a detente, you keep that in
mind.

Yet, after only four months in office, the President personally
signed a document authorizing a $120 million loan from the U.S.
Export-Import Bank to Communist Romania for construction of a nuclear power
generating facility. Two weeks later, he signed a document reducing tariffs
and other trade barriers between the U.S. and the Communist nations of
Romania and Hungary. And a few weeks after that, in July 1981, he authorized
the spending of U.S. taxpayers' money for military education and training
for Communist Yugoslavia.

In February 1982, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng
conceded that the United States was paying Communist Poland's overdue debts
to U.S. banks. The predicament of Poland, which was about to default on
loans used to purchase American grain, threatened the economic viability of
the entire Communist bloc. But the loans supplied by American banks had been
co-signed by the Department of Agriculture. And even though the law required
the United States officially to declare Poland in default before the loans
could be paid, the Reagan Administration ignored the default issue and the
U.S. taxpayers were forced to absorb the $1.6 billion debt. The Communists
had won again.
This gift to Poland (ultimately to the USSR) came just after the
Polish armed forces, backed by Soviet troops at the border, crushed the
brief flirtation with freedom begun by Polish workers. The U.S. action saved
the Polish regime and extinguished the rekindled hopes of the long-oppressed
Polish people.

Communist governments will become less warlike and more friendly, we
are told, if we provide aid to them. We even send some of them military
hardware. How the Red Chinese will become less warlike when we supply them
with armaments is never explained. Nor does our assistance make the
recipients of our aid more friendly.
In March 1985, several U.S. banks and the Bank of Tokyo loaned over
$1 billion to Communist East Germany. The East Germans turned right around
and sent $20 million to the Communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the
same government the United States was supposed to be vigorously opposing.
Legislation to make such loans to Communist bloc nations illegal was
introduced in Congress by Senator Jake Garn of Utah. However, it died when
President Reagan expressed his opposition.

Another excuse for aid to Communist China is that it will break
the Peking regime away from Moscow. In 1981, President Reagan signed an
authorization to supply $57 million of Export-Import Bank money to the Red
Chinese for power generating equipment. In 1982, he signed an authorization
for $68 million to help them purchase a steel mill. This is American
taxpayers' money being given to a tyrannical Communist regime.
In 1985, the Administration allowed the sale of equipment to enable
the Red Chinese to build a factory to produce artillery shells. In 1986, we
sold them anti-submarine torpedoes and electronics equipment that enabled
them to modernize their jet fighter planes.
Did all of this break Red China away from the Soviets? Did it make the
Peking regime more friendly? The Red Chinese answered, but the
Administration refused to listen: In July 1985, the Red Chinese signed a $14
billion trade pact with the Soviet Union. In September 1986, they sent a $20
million interest-free loan to Communist Nicaragua.
In the single fiscal year of 1985, the United States gave over
$300 million to various Communist countries under direct foreign aid
programs. But during that same year, America helped finance Communist
regimes with an additional $6 billion channeled through the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund, two United Nations lending agencies. There
seems to be no end of ways for the U.S. Government to help Communist
regimes.
Far from merely tolerating deals with Communist nations, the
Reagan Administration has been an aggressive champion of such practices. In
December 1985, then Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige led a delegation
of 400 American corporate executives on a trade excursion to Moscow. The
businessmen represented nearly 200 American firms. News of this trade
mission prompted a writer for an Arizona newspaper to seek the names of
those individuals and the firms they represented. After two years of effort
and $20,000 of the newspaper's money for Freedom of Information Act requests
and court costs, Richard Lessner and the newspaper for which he labors
admitted defeat. The U.S. Government would not allow those names to be made
public. Our government knows who these Red-trading businessmen are, and the
Soviet Government knows who they are, so there's no national security reason
for this secrecy. We have reached a point where the U.S. Government finds it
necessary to withhold information from the American people, and the
beneficiaries of the secrecy are the Communists and their trading partners
here in the United States.

Organized Red Trading
In June 1973, President Nixon and Soviet General Secretary
Brezhnev signed an agreement that led to the formation of the U.S.-USSR
Trade and Economic Council (USTEC). Its purpose was to expand trade between
the two countries. Then Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz helped to
create the group. With 26 U.S. businessmen and 26 Soviet officials as its
Board of Directors, USTEC opened an office in New York City in 1973.
Hundreds of U.S. firms have been recruited, and the business of helping the
USSR is booming.

One of the founders and the eventual Co-Chairman of USTEC is C.
William Verity, named late in 1987 by President Reagan to be Secretary of
Commerce. During Senate hearings prior to the Verity confirmation, Senator
Jesse Helms of North Carolina described USTEC as "quite simply an arm of the
Soviet government under KGB control whose purpose is to subvert the U.S.
economy." Helms labelled Verity "a key agent of influence for Soviet trade."
While expressing his strong opposition to the nomination, Senator Helms
indicted Verity as one who seeks "an ultimate convergence, or merging, of
the United States and the Soviet Union, into a common culture, economy,
philosophy, and despotism." That merger, outlined by Rowan Gaither to Norman
Dodd over 30 years ago, is much closer to reality today.

Many Americans were shocked that President Reagan named a man with
Verity's pro-Soviet background to any cabinet position. But Mr. Reagan had
already applauded Verity's work as Co-Chairman of USTEC. In 1984, in a
letter to Verity, he stated: "I appreciate the opportunity to welcome Soviet
participants in the plenary session of the U.S.-USSR Trade and Economic
Council. It is encouraging that leading representatives of American industry
and their Soviet counterparts can meet to discuss trade and economic issues
of mutual interest."

Some of the firms known to be participating in USTEC include Allen
Bradley, Allis Chalmers, American Express, Archer Daniels Midland, Armco
Steel, Cargill, Caterpillar, Chase Manhattan, Coca-Cola, Deere and Company,
Dow Chemical, Dresser Industries, E.I. duPont, Ingersoll Rand, International
Harvester, Kodak, Monsanto, Occidental Pertroleum, PepsiCo, Union Carbide,
and Xerox. But we have good reason to believe that there are hundreds of
others engaging in Soviet trade.
Senator Helms also took the occasion during the Verity hearings to blast,
for their efforts with USTEC to merge the U.S. and USSR, David Rockefeller
(Chase Manhattan Bank), Dwayne Andreas (Archer Daniels Midland), Donald
Kendall (PepsiCo), and Armand Hammer (Occidental Petroleum). Labelling their
efforts "a cabal," the Senator included these men in his description of
those "who are willing to seek short-term profits ... while looking the
other way at the betrayal of our long-term national security interests."
Yes, they seek profits, but the Senator was even more on target when
he described these powerful individuals as working for "a merging of the
United States and the Soviet Union into a common culture, economy,
philosophy and despotism."
His mention of David Rockefeller is certainly appropriate. No one
has done more to help the Soviet Union than this billionaire banker and
political manipulator. In a revealing article Rockefeller wrote for the
October/November 1977 USTEC Journal, he boasted: "It is of interest to
recall that at The Chase Manhattan Bank we can look back to an unbroken
relationship with Russian financial institutions that straddles over 50
years .... The commercial banking relationship of our institution was never
interrupted even in the darkest days."
Those "darkest days" included Stalin's bloody purges, the brutal
conquest of Central and Eastern Europe, the creation of a vast network of
slave labor camps, and the murders of tens of millions. But through all its
criminal activities, the Kremlin has had a friend at Chase Manhattan. And it
still has a very good friend there today.
Disarmament
For years, the U.S. Government has committed our nation to various
U.S.-USSR disarmament treaties. Sold to the American people as a method of
forestalling nuclear war, these treaties have all been broken by the Soviet
Union while they have been honored by the United States. Each new treaty
amounts to a further exercise in unilateral disarmament. We disarm; they
cheat.
If disarmament were really our own government's goal, the United States
could put a stop to the flow of strategic goods, high-technology equipment,
and money that the Soviets need to build their weapons. But help to the
Kremlin is not only continued; it is increased. We can't stress this point
too heavily: Disarming the Soviets can be accomplished by stopping all aid
and trade. And the related and equally important point is that signing
disarmament treaties with the Soviets disarms only the United States,
because only our nation honors the various treaties. We are being reduced to
a position where the loss of our sovereignty and merger with Communist
nations in a one-world tyranny will be presented to Americans as the best
available alternative.

Foreign Affairs is a very prestigious publication. The journal of
the Establishment's pinnacle of power, the world government-promoting
Council on Foreign Relations, should never be ignored. Its pages carry
important elements of the strategy of the one-world merger maniacs. It is in
this quarterly magazine that tactics are suggested, and attitudes are
forged.

In April 1974, at a time when David Rockefeller served as Chairman
of the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs published a remarkably
frank proposal for doing away with U.S. sovereignty. Authored by Columbia
University professor and veteran State Department official Richard N.
Gardner, the article was entitled "The Hard Road to World Order." It began
with Gardner expressing his disappointment that like-minded
internationalists had failed to achieve what he termed "instant world
government." For a new and more effective route to the creation of an
all-powerful superstate, he offered:
In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom
up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming,
buzzing confusion," to use Williams James' famous description of reality,
but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will
accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
As a more efficient way to form the "house of world order," Gardner
suggested luring all nations into a variety of technological, economic, and
political entanglements. The first three of ten he listed were the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Membership of the various nations of the world
in these and other organizations would, according to this prominent
internationalist, facilitate the erosion of national sovereignty and speed
the development of his longed-for world government. In the process, of
course, it's good-bye to an independent United States of America. It cannot
be stated too emphatically: Anyone holding the Gardner views would not be
able honestly to swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Both the IMF and the World Bank were conceived at the famous
Bretton Woods Monetary Conference held in New Hampshire during July 1944.
The chief architect of each was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry
Dexter White, who was later shown to have been a Soviet spy.
Ostensibly, the World Bank was created to provide loans to member nations
for the purpose of reconstruction and development after World War II. The
IMF's stated purpose is to stimulate international trade and promote
stability in the realm of international currency exchange.
But the true effects of these two multinational financial institutions, both
United Nations agencies, were analyzed in 1963 by respected political
columnist Dan Smoot. Cutting through all the propaganda, Smoot said that the
two agencies would:
• "Strip the United States of its gold reserves;"
• "Build up the industrial capacities of other nations;"
• "Remove markets from American producers;"
• "Entwine America's affairs with those of other nations so that the U.S.
could no longer act independently."
In fiscal 1985, these two money spigots doled out the following amounts to
Communist nations: Red China $2.3 billion; Yugoslavia, $1.7 billion;
Hungary, $1.1 billion; Romania $768.3 million; Zimbabwe, $293.6 million;
Angola, $116.2 million; Vietnam, $11.08 million; Mozambique, $107.9 million;
and Nicaragua, $36.8 million.
As we mentioned, the Gardner proposal in Foreign Affairs magazine
also called for using the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to build
world government. Begun in 1948, GATT takes from its member nations their
own decision-making process in the vital areas of international trade
relations. Despite warnings that U.S. membership had the potential to affect
adversely the jobs and income of every worker and farmer in America,
Congress approved U.S. entry into the group at its birth. Many of the
problems facing individual Americans, even the problems of our nation's
commerce as a whole, can be traced to GATT, where we have only a single vote
among the 95 member nations.
Reagan's Reversal
Early in 1988, President Reagan completely reversed one of his long-standing
positions and announced support for the USSR's desire to gain membership in
the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT. Membership in the two banking
institutions will allow the Soviets to obtain vitally needed hard currency,
and also enhance the USSR's ability to acquire additional private credit.
Membership in GATT will help the Soviets to improve their trading position
in Western markets, especially to gain access to more high technology goods.

The Reagan reversal greatly adds to the power and prestige of
these international agencies, dramatically improves the lot of the
economically-strapped Soviet Union, and amounts to a significant leap
forward along Professor Gardner's "Hard Road to World Order." It also fits
exactly into the strategy of tearing the United States down, building the
Soviet Union and other nations up, and finally merging all into a neatly
arranged world tyranny.

A significant new development in the unconscionable drive to help
the Soviet Union is the joint venture program. American firms are being
pressured by the Commerce Department and USTEC to build factories in the
USSR. America's corporate giants would be permitted by the Soviets to own
only as much as 49 percent of each facility they erect, and it would be
presided over by a Soviet national. But the lure of great profits has
already attracted large American firms who have been USTEC's major
participants for years. The opportunity for the Soviets to gain access to
American technology and the fruits of free enterprise -- with little or no
investment on their part -- must have the Kremlin's tyrants raising their
vodka glasses to toast their good fortune.More toasts surely accompanied the
announcement that a team from Harvard University's prestigious Business
School had joined with a team of Soviet researchers to facilitate this joint
venture project. The announced purpose is to aid the USSR in modernizing its
economy with Western investments. Of particular interest to the Soviets are
joint ventures in the high technology area.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many Americans
continue to believe that so-called capitalists from the West are the
archenemies of Communists. Over and over, we hear confused citizens taking
solace in the belief that our own leaders -- in government and in
business -- would have so much to lose should America become a Communist or
socialist state. And yet, this is exactly what is happening right before
their eyes. The very leaders who supposedly would never do what they have
indeed been doing for decades do not believe in freedom for all, just
freedom for themselves and others at the top. Calling them capitalists is
not enough; they are monopoly capitalists. The logical extension of their
cooperation with Communism abroad and their promotion of Big Brother
government at home is the destruction of the free market system in America
and the creation of a socialist economy. Would these corporate socialists
lose anything? Not at all. They would end up with no more wants than
Gorbachev or any of the other elitists who sit atop the Soviet empire. In
fact, they would be better off, in their way of looking at things, for they
would no longer face any threat of competition. Their allies in government
would see to that.
This is the mentality of men like Commerce Secretary William Verity
and all of those who aid the Soviet Union through USTEC. This is the
mentality of the Harvard Business School. It is what Senator Helms meant on
October 14, 1987 when he condemned the
Rockefeller-Andreas-Hammer-Kendall-Verity school of thought that he said is
working for "a merging of the United States and the Soviet Union into a
common culture, economy, philosophy, and despotism."
Capitalists oppose Communism? Those who truly believe in freedom despise
Communism and want nothing to do with it. But there are others who have no
qualms whatsoever about cooperating with Communists, or using ruthless
means -- usually with the government's assistance -- to drive potential
competitors out of existence. These are the people who seek only what's good
for business, not what's good for the country, or what's just plain good.
Look at the prestigious Wall Street Journal. On August 24, 1987,
this seat of American "capitalism" published a nine-page advertising
supplement for the Soviet Union. Labelled USSR: New Opportunities for
Cooperation, the spread touts the advantages of trade with the Soviet Union.
A tear-out "Reader's Response Form" directs interested parties to send
inquires, not to Moscow, but to Journal offices around the globe. Obviously,
by becoming an agent for the USSR, the Wall Street Journal's leaders have
chosen to ignore the Soviet Union's unbroken record of lying, cheating,
enslaving and murdering that has earned it the distinction of being the most
powerful force for evil in the history of mankind. For $350,000 in
advertising revenue, these capitalists at the Wall Street Journal have
entered into a loose partnership with, and supplied a priceless amount of
dignity to, the world's premier criminal regime.

When the U.S. Government decides to act decisively, it makes things
happen. A lightning-quick invasion of the tiny island nation of Grenada
deposed a militant Communist regime in a matter of days. But Communism in
Cuba is never threatened and the Red regime in Nicaragua has actually
benefitted from years of half-hearted opposition -- even while we entertain
Nicaragua's ambassador in Washington and while the Soviet Union favors the
Ortega regime with billions of dollars worth of armaments.

When America turned on several heads of state who wanted to be
friends -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, and
others -- embargoes and sanctions were effectively employed. Today, the U.S.
Government imposes sanctions on South Africa and applies a variety of
pressures against Chile -- two nations that want to be friendly but receive
the back of our hand. These nations, whatever their problems, could never in
any way be compared with any Communist tyranny.
But for Communist nations, our demands are few and our relationships include
provision of subsidized grain sales, sophisticated equipment, technology
transfers, foreign aid, IMF and World Bank loans, Export-Import Bank
credits, and "most-favored nation" status -- all at the expense of U.S.
taxpayers, and all at the expense of human freedom.

At home, the American people are propagandized into favoring
interdependence instead of independence, globalism instead of the wonders of
our Constitutional Republic, government regulations and controls instead of
economic freedom, peace at any price instead of honorable defense of liberty
and property, and cohabitation with gangster regimes instead of refusal to
have anything to do with them.

At their summit meeting in Geneva in November 1985,
President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev signed a broad range of
cultural agreements that included, exchanging instructors and courses for
all levels of students even down to the primary grades. One of the
agreements, authored by educational experts from both nations, details plans
to use computer technology to "restructure the education of young children,
beginning in the third grade." This joint educational venture calls for the
United States to supply the computers while the Soviets write the courses.
Yes, you read correctly: Soviet educators are writing courses for American
school children.
It ought to be obvious to anyone that America is being changed. At the same
time, even with its new public relations face, the Soviet Union has not
deviated an inch from its evil goals.
What To Do
The picture we have been painting is one of a conspiracy. There is
a plan; it seeks to accomplish an evil end; its ultimate goals remain hidden
in the shadows; and there are certainly more than a few persons involved.
All of the ingredients of conspiracy are present, but the American people
have also been encouraged to classify any suggestion of conspiracy as a
complete absurdity. We are reminded of the very cogent observation that the
first job of a conspiracy is to convince the world it does not exist.

What then should be done? The answer is exposure. If enough Americans
can be made aware of what is being done to our own country, and what is
being done to other nations and other peoples by our own government, the
sinister plans of this conspiracy will collapse.
If more Americans will demand that our leaders cease providing aid, trade,
credits, technology and legitimacy to all Communist nations, the conspiracy
will be dealt a huge blow. Communism does not have to be fought; it merely
has to be isolated.
If more Americans will demand of our leaders that our nation withdraw from
the sovereignty-destroying United Nations and make independence, not
interdependence, their goal, the conspiracy will be dealt another huge blow.

If a great many Americans can be made to realize that the mass
media is at least deficient, and at worst deliberately misleading, then the
conspiracy that relies so heavily on the American people being given a daily
dose of misinformation will suffer another crippling blow. The tiny
percentage that wants to make America a single province in a Communist or
socialist world tyranny is winning -- mainly because the great majority of
Americans, who want to know what is happening and why, are misinformed and
ill-informed.

For several decades, the principles that have undergirded the greatness
of America have been subjected to a massive assault. Independence has been
portrayed as warmongering; limited government has been likened to
selfishness; the Constitution has been mocked as a relic of the past;
morality has been made to seem old-fashioned and stupid; traditional family
values, especially the roles of wives and mothers, have been scorned; the
fast buck and the fast life have been glorified; and, for too long, the way
to get ahead in politics has been to turn left, cut corners and play along.
Isn't it time for all of this to be reversed? Isn't it time for you to get
informed, and get involved?
Reprinted with permission from The New American, April 25, 1988




© Copyright 2003 The John Birch Society, Inc. - Privacy Policy
v***@earthlink.net
2003-09-15 14:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotpop.com
Early in 1987, just after he had been named to the extremely important
post of Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Wright
of Texas made an official visit to the Soviet Union. While there, he
appeared on Soviet state-controlled television and offered viewers a lapel
pin displaying crossed U.S. and USSR flags. His offer was passed along to
Americans by U.S. media representatives. As a result, Speaker Wright began
receiving letters asking for pins. He responded by sending them out "as a
symbol of peace and friendship."
That was before his trip to Central America where he tried to usurp
the role of the Department of State and drum up support for communist
guerrillas. And the publication of his famous book filled with empty
pages and sold by the box load to unions (allowing illegal union
contributions), and his loss of the position of Speaker of the House,
and his `retirement' to Fort Worth suggested by his own party. He is
the poster boy for what happened to the democrat party of Texas under
LBJ and his ilk - Fort Worthless Jim Wright.

Loading...