Freedom First Society

FFS logo
Menu
Menu

Articles

FFS Interview of Dr. Chartrand on Socialized Medicine

On August 6, 2009, Freedom First Society had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Max Stanley Chartrand, who has been a leader in the fight against socialized medicine since the late 1980s.

Q. The subject of socialized medicine has been of concern to you for many years. When did you first become involved in the effort to oppose it and why?

A. I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when I first became concerned about the push for socialized medicine. But one of my first recollections of being truly alarmed occurred in 1985 when, during the Reagan administration, there was a push to get hearing aids covered by Medicare. As a professional in the hearing industry and as a dispenser of hearing aid products, I recognized that such a move would be the death of dispensers like me and of the private market in general. When I spoke with my colleagues about the matter, I discovered that they were completely unconcerned about the danger. In fact, many of them thought that it would be a good idea if government got involved in covering the cost of hearing aids. So, even though I was initially told to sit down and shut up, I analyzed and researched the matter and vocalized my concerns. One of the most alarming facts that I discovered in my research is that it literally costs 4.25 times more money for the government to provide a service than what it would cost for the private sector to provide that same service. So when we talk about ObamaCare, it’s scary to consider the cost and waste that will surely result if it is passed. Later, in the late 1980s, NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, called upon industries everywhere to form the D.C.-based Healthcare Equity Action League (HEAL), with the purpose of analyzing and formulating healthcare reform proposals. My position opposing government involvement in healthcare was already well known because of my many articles and letters to Congress that had been published. So they asked me to join the national HEAL committee, where I served until 1996 as a representative of the hearing health professions. One of the widely distributed pieces that I wrote is entitled Public vs. Private: Which Serves the Hearing Impaired Market Best? I wrote this booklet at a time when we were trying to straighten out the Bush [elder] administration on the issue of healthcare. We sent a copy of this and a couple other items that I wrote, along with a very detailed cover letter, to every U.S. Senator and Representative. Soon, many members of Congress were calling me with inquiries about my concerns. In the end, the arguments that we provided pretty much neutralized any of the arguments put forth by the proponents of a single payer [socialist] system under the liberals’ “Pay or Play” at the time.

Q. What is socialized medicine?

A. This is a program often referred to as a “single payer” system, which, in reality, is nothing less than taking all resources from the private sector and placing it under one umbrella that is completely under the control of government. Its proponents try to make it sound simple, elegant and benign. But the reality is these bureaucratic systems are bloated, convoluted, and oppressive. The single payer system transfers people’s education, it transfers facilities, it transfers capability, it transfers progress, ingenuity, scientific discoveries, everything under one government-controlled umbrella. Essentially, we will find less of those things because only the private sector can create these resources. And they do only with solid incentives that reward working hard, using talent and ingenuity, and taking tremendous risks. My advice to a state committee that I recently sat on was that we know that government never produces new resources. It only knows how to use up existing resources, and government’s natural tendency is to grow and become a burden to the people. In this sense government is a negative force, which must be carefully monitored so that it cannot consume all our resources. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in two past studies, found that it costs the federal government between 72-74 cents to collect, administer, and spend one federal dollar. Logically, we, as Americans, should be doing everything in our power to keep government out of health care.

Q. Has socialized medicine worked in other countries?

A. In my profession I travel to a lot of foreign countries. And, of course, I work with medical professionals in those countries who understand very well how the healthcare systems in their respective countries function. In talking with them there is not a single socialized system out there that can stand on its own weight. All these countries end up implementing ever-higher taxes, inflation-taxes, rationing programs and closing hospital wings, ultimately forcing their already heavily taxed populations to spend money on private medical care. I have not seen socialized medicine work without these consequences in a single country. For example, Canada has a private healthcare program that sits right beside its socialized medicine system. And most Canadians who can afford it say: “Forget it. I am not using the national program!” They know that they’ll have to wait for months before they can receive medical care. Nobody wants to have a heart attack and then be told you’ll have to wait in line before you can see the doctor. Many of these socialist systems claim to take care of emergencies. Not so! In England, where they’re a little more honest about the situation, proponents of their system brag that taxpayers are saving money because of their long waiting lists. Why? Because people are dying while they are waiting for care. Can you believe that they consider that a cost savings?! In fact, they are considering trying to increase their savings by doings things such as increasing waiting times even more and raising the eligibility age from 55 to 65 for those in need of kidney dialysis and other lifesaving procedures. Of course, every one of these systems has a tiny fraction of the state-of-the-art equipment in comparison to the robust private clinics in the U.S. This alone should speak volumes to opponents of private care. The architects of these socialist systems have embraced the lifeboat theory, which is the idea that there are not enough resources to go around, so somebody must be sacrificed for the greater good. The most likely lifeboat scenario, of course, is to start by eliminating the elderly and the infirm. Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Rahm “dead fish in the mail” Emanuel, is the primary author of ObamaCare. His guiding philosophy on what he calls “the least productive in society” is well spelled out in his writings and translated into practical terms in Obama’s bill. Seniors should be very afraid of what the chief architect of the bill thinks of their worth to society.

Q. How is Obama being deceptive in his efforts to foist socialized medicine on America?

A. First of all, he is providing us with very few details. And when he does take some time to explain his plan he makes false statements, such as: “You won’t lose your present coverage. I promise you that you won’t lose your present coverage.” What people don’t understand is that he is lying to them. What he really means is that you won’t lose your coverage in the first five minutes or weeks or even months after his plan is enacted. But what he is not saying is that once you try to change your policy, try to switch carriers, or your private carrier succumbs to unfair competition from the government, THEN you will have to go to the government program, mandatorily. Even Obama himself has admitted when pressed on this issue that his plan is designed to eliminate private health care entirely. He claims that it will take 15 to 20 years for this to take place. But I think he is deceptively underestimating how long it will take. I think his new plan will create such havoc that private care will soon come crashing down. Corporations are salivating over the idea that they won’t have to cover their employees. The same is especially true of a lot of unionized companies. Another way he is deceiving us is by telling us that “everyone will be covered.” We know this is not true, because everybody has to apply to be accepted into the program. You won’t just automatically receive the card in the mail. I recently heard an estimate on the news that under ObamaCare only 5 million more Americans will receive coverage in addition to those already receiving it.

Q. You have stated in the past that “we can conservatively estimate that during the first year of enactment up to a third of hospitals will close and that millions of healthcare workers will be lined up for unemployment checks.” Why?

A. In reality, I think that the number of private hospitals forced to close under ObamaCare will be much higher than that. Hospitals are extremely hard-pressed to turn a profit now. Imagine what it will be like for them under ObamaCare. Built into his so-called savings is withholding payment of a half-trillion dollars in hospital payments from senior care. Private hospitals, without taxpayer dollars propping them up in the face of such underpayment, will simply fold. I predict that at least a third will fold in the second year of enactment of his plan, with more to come later until few will be left operating, except those needed for federal government employees, Congress, the President, and his favorite whipping boy “the rich.” These are the ones who have been in reality exempted from ObamaCare. Closing of private hospitals and clinics will displace and arbitrarily redistribute personnel so badly that millions will be out of work and/or forced to move if enacted.

Q. Why should older Americans (65 and older) be concerned about Obama’s use of the term “end of life”?

A. The term “end of life counseling” pops up so often in the bill that one would fully expect to see the words “euthanasia” when expounding upon limited resources and an exploding older population. Indeed, everyone 65 and older will be required to submit to “end of life counseling” every five years to remain eligible for a very down-scaled version of MediCare. Yes, I call it “down-scaled” because the bulk of the expected savings ObamaCare promises to provide come at the expense of reduced MediCare payments to hospitals, rationing, and the implementation of “end of life” (read passive euthanasia) policies.

Q. In terms of who will bear the tax burden of socialized medicine, how will America’s middle class be impacted?

A. Obama is deceptive in this regard. He will say with this bill, as he has said with others, that “I didn’t raise the taxes of hard-working Americans, I raised the taxes of fat corporations that are making tons of profits.” But what we don’t realize is that ultimately everyday Americans always end up footing the bill. Surely, with all the printing of funny money underway this very minute it is only a matter of time before the value of every dollar already in circulation is reduced accordingly. Inflation is a terrible tax that hits man, woman, and child. In addition to this, however, will come many tax increases already in the pipeline if the bill is passed. The reason his claim of strapping the backs of “greedy corporations” is a ruse is because corporations compensate by simply reducing the salaries of employees and increasing the costs of their products. Once they hit the bottom line, though, they enact massive layoffs, send jobs overseas, or close their doors. So we end up paying more for what we buy and living on less. My understanding is that Obama and Congress have already increased the total money supply by about 12% this year and that within a year or two that money will work its way back into real value. After things have settled we’ll see an increase in inflation of about 12%, which doesn’t even take into account the naturally occurring 5% annual increase in inflation already underway from the previous so-called conservative president. It amounts to a hidden tax on the American people, but the effects are as real as if they came right out and sent Roman Sentries door to door to collect the tax as in days of old. The third way, of course, is through openly raising taxes. I’m confident that taxes will go up in every bracket to pay for this massive program. They have to. The truth is that right now those making $133,000/year or more — roughly 5% of the population — are paying 61% of the taxes at all levels, including property taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, etc. They will pay no more—they will close their doors, go overseas, or work to stay under each threshold politicians set for economic punishment. So when Obama talks about the so-called rich, he’s not talking about very rich people. For the most part he’s talking about small business owners, who will suffer greatly if Obama’s bill goes through, as will their employees.

Q. A major component of Obama’s healthcare bill is the implementation of a national ID card. Why should this concern us?

A. Actually, the implementation of a national ID card should alarm us a great deal. Americans go to great lengths to make sure that their social security numbers and financial information remain private. Many Americans are unnerved that the government has created databases with a significant amount of personal information associated with that number. But this national ID card goes much further than our social security cards. It’s going to be tied into bank accounts and personal finances. The language in the bill infers that the government will have extremely invasive powers, totalitarian, if you will. For example, if for some reason you go to the hospital and require some very expensive tests and procedures that are not listed under the standard schedule of fees, the government could use your ID card to seize control of your assets and resources to pay what they consider is an “overrun.” A person who applies for ObamaCare will be giving the federal government total access to everything there is to know about that person. There will be absolutely no privacy. We will be living in a society very similar to that described by Aldous Huxley or George Orwell in their novels depicting oppressive, all-powerful governments. So it behooves all of us to get organized and fight this insidious push for socialized medicine. If we care about our freedoms and our constitutional form of government, we need to stop this effort. It’s not just about medical care. It’s not just about politics — that is the game. Instead, it’s about our freedoms and our children’s freedoms. Once we understand the problem, we need to educate others. I know a lot of Americans who don’t know much about health care, but they are instinctively upset about Obama’s plan. We can and should reach out to these Americans and involve them in our efforts. We need everyone to get behind the wheel of freedom and push with all their might. Then, and only then, will we and our children and our children’s children see the true dawning of America’s golden years.

The Dr. Max Stanley Chartrand story reads like a classic. Born at mid-century in Oregon timber country, he started life in a one room shack until he was 3, at which time a childhood illness left him severely hearing impaired and, by mid-adulthood, profoundly deaf. At age 10, he had already embraced the clarinet and went on to play first clarinet in the Denver All-City and Colorado All-State Band and Orchestras. By age 14 he had developed a reputation as a regional professional performer and during college played with several major symphony orchestras. For more than 30 years he conducted some of the finest choirs in church and community. In time, all of the saxophones and clarinets and other woodwinds were added to his repertoire, in jazz and popular bands, and orchestras. He was also recognized with myriad state and national composition awards, and taught music theory and form and analysis while still an undergraduate.

By early adulthood, advancing deafness prompted him to go back to change fields to the health professions, and since then has earned several advanced degrees, including a doctorate in Behavioral Medicine. He is currently an Associate Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Northcentral University, and owns and manages DigiCare Hearing Research & Rehabilitation with his wife Glenys Anne Denyer Chartrand. Together, they publish and lecture worldwide. In 1994, he was honored with the International Joel S. Wernick Excellence in Education Award and has authored numerous books, training manuals, and published papers. A lifelong hearing aid and assistive device user, he now utilizes a surgically implanted cochlear implant to assist him in auditory function. He is often asked how he has achieved what he has in a hearing world, to which he replies, “I guess because no one told me that I couldn’t.” He feels it a travesty to define a child by his handicaps, and feels handicaps can make individuals stronger when they reach past them to achieve their full potential. For many years Dr. Chartrand has been involved in conservative and constitutional causes. In August 2008, he and his wife, Glenys, became members of Freedom First Society. Spread The Word.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defends FY 2011 Budget Request

“FY 2011 Budget Press Conference Opening Remarks” (February 1, 2010)

FFS:  Sebelius ignores the constitutional limits on government.

Internationalist Support for the UN Is NOT Change

The December 9th Voice of America news clip announcing Susan Rice’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the UN promotes numerous myths about the president’s agenda and the UN. Those myths and misrepresentations threaten our liberties. We examine several here:

• Myth: Obama’s election was “a signal to the world that America is on the path to change.”

If one looks at President Obama’s appointments, he is clearly pursuing the same internationalist policies as his predecessors. The appointment of Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the UN and the elevation of her post to Cabinet level rank is just one example.

U.S. executive branch support for the UN is not change. Indeed, U.S. Insiders have supported the UN from its very beginning. Indeed, internationalists from the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Susan Rice is a member) were instrumental in designing and creating the UN. If there is any change, it will be in the level of audacity in promoting U.S. entanglement with the world body.

Susan Rice got her big break in government service during the Clinton administration, moving from the National Security Council staff to Special Assistant to the President and then to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Professor Carroll Quigley, the mentor of former President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, confirms that the internationalists do not want any real change in the White House. In his monumental 1966 treatise Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Professor Quigley wrote:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

When the electorate grows weary of one of the Establishment parties, wrote Professor Quigley, “it should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Professor Quigley also claimed first-hand knowledge of a secret international Anglophile network that had founded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a public “front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” This network, Quigley points out, was founded by the South African diamond and gold magnate Cecil Rhodes. Note: the will of Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes Scholarships, and both Bill Clinton and Susan Rice are Rhodes Scholars.

According to Quigley, this international network (we would call it a Conspiracy) had a far-reaching aim:

[N]othing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in feudal fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret meetings and conferences…. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

This is a very different goal from what the internationalists proclaim publicly they are trying to accomplish through the public institutions they privately control, such as the UN.

Through the secret “War and Peace Studies Project,” launched in 1939 prior to America’s entry into the war, the Council on Foreign Relations actually became an adjunct of the U.S. government for a time. The project was financed by the Rockefeller foundation and succeeded in giving American foreign policy an internationalist bent.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Theodore White wrote in his The Making of the President, 1964 that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington.” That pattern hasn’t changed in the ensuing decades. Ever since World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the chief supplier of executives for top posts in each administration — Republican or Democratic. Indeed, the 2008 Annual Report of the CFR boasted that 458 of its members held positions in government.

Following this all-too-familiar pattern President Obama also tapped CFR members for many of the top posts in his administration. We list here a few. In addition to Susan Rice, there is Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner. Obama chose CFR-member Lawrence H. Summers as his director of the National Economic Council. Summers served for two years as President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. And despite Obama’s pledge to bring change to Washington, he retained CFR-member Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates had been a trusted CFR member in government going back to the Reagan years. In the Bush senior administration, Gates was the deputy national security advisor under Brent Scowcroft. And he succeeded William Webster as Director of the CIA. Gates is clearly not going to rock the Establishment’s boat.

• Myth: The world needs the UN and U.S. leadership in negotiating international cooperation to prevent more Rwandas.

It is widely acknowledged that the UN failed to act to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In an orgy of mass murder lasting 103 days, more than 800,000 unarmed human beings were slaughtered by killing squads supported by the Hutu-dominated government. As the massacre was unfolding, the UN leadership refused to heed the warnings of the commander of its 3,000 man UNAMIR “peacekeeping” force on the ground, and its commander, Canadian Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, was ordered not to intervene.

In fact, Dallaire argued that the ineffectiveness of the UN mission in Rwanda abetted the genocide.

But the part of the story rarely told is the earlier role of the UN in disarming the civilian population, which set the stage for the genocide. UNAMIR [the UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda] was deployed in 1993 to administer a cease-fire between the Hutu-dominated government and the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front. In accordance with the peace accord administered by the UN and with UN doctrine, the population was to be disarmed. But militia units, under government control, were allowed to keep their arms, and they, along with paramilitary gangs, perpetrated the genocide.

In addition, the Rwandan government had been heavily subsidized by the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund.

The UN insists that only governments should be permitted to own arms and that civilian populations must trust their governments and the UN to protect them. But civilian disarmament (so-called gun control) carried out by “liberal” regimes in the name of public safety has too often served the murderous tyrants who came after them.

Nor, according to American principles, is it a matter for governments to decide what the people should be allowed. Instead the people decide what authority their government is granted. It is a fundamental right of the people to defend themselves, and, in the American tradition, governments are merely agents of the people not their masters.

• Old Myth reinforced: “The UN is mankind’s last, best hope for peace.”

In addition, the UN is not designed to promote the virtues that Americans honor. Nor was that ever the intention of the internationalists who designed the United Nations and then insisted that the world’s most criminal regimes be represented in an evolving world government.

U.S. policies under Republican and Democratic administrations built up the Soviet Union as a threat, then with the terrifying image thus created, our “leaders” insisted that the Soviets be represented at the UN and that we negotiate with the Soviets to achieve a peaceful world. (Since the “break-up” of the Soviet Union, Russia is now ostensibly our ally in that quest.) And U.S. Insiders have also succeeded in forging U.S. policies that have built up China as an international force. (No longer widely known, following World War II “internationalists” in our State Department actually helped the Reds to gain total control of mainland China — see, for example, May God Forgive Us by Robert Welch.)

Yet our State Department covers for the principal state sponsors of terrorism: the former Soviet Union and Communist China, while ostensibly seeking their cooperation in the fight against terrorism to reign in their surrogate state sponsors, such as Syria. Syria, on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, was invited to become a rotating member of the UN Security Council within weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

And the Bush administration did not even protest the arrangement, while insisting that the fight against terrorism must be waged through the United Nations. Yet among knowledgeable observers, the UN has earned the reputation of “Terrorists ‘R Us.”

Not advertised to the American public by the Establishment media, the world’s premier terrorist leaders are regularly honored at the UN. Between 1975 and 1979, the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot liquidated an estimated three million Cambodians, in what became known as the “Killing Fields.” Incredibly, in 1991 the UN brokered a “peace” agreement in Cambodia, which brought back the Khmer Rouge into a coalition government.

Even worse, the internationalists have planned for the United Nations to evolve into a world government from its very beginning (actually the Council on Foreign Relations was launched to change public attitudes toward international entanglements following the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations after the first world war).

That means that U.S. leaders in the internationalist Insider pocket would actually like the U.S. to scrap its independence and accept total UN authority. Incredibly, the disarmament goal you have heard about for years really means to disarm the U.S. and other nations, but arm the UN, even with nuclear weapons, as an all-powerful force in the world that no nation, including the U.S. could resist. An excellent presentation of this subversive plan is contained in the confidential study prepared for the Kennedy State Department entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.”

How often have we heard the internationalist chant in recent years: “Global problems require global solutions”?

Myth: Rice brings her own independent positive agenda to the position of UN ambassador.

According to a U.S. State Department web page: “Ambassador Rice believes that the United Nations has a vital role in advancing international peace and security and is committed to make the United Nations a more perfect forum to address the most pressing global challenges: to promote peace, to support development and democracy, and to strengthen respect for human rights. She has outlined four primary areas of focus: strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively; addressing climate change; preventing the spread or use of nuclear weapons and working to meet the goals of the Nonproliferation Treaty; and combating poverty, disease, violence, and genocide.”

Some of those goals sound appealing — unless you look a little deeper. For example, our founding fathers never envisioned that the federal government they were forming would combat poverty in foreign lands. Nor is any such authority included in the Constitution.

Other goals are phrased to obscure their real meaning. The words “strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively” are reminiscent of recurring proposals to give the UN immediate access to a standing army and military capability.

One of these drives, overlapping Susan Rice’s service in the Clinton administration, began in 1992. The drive was kicked off publicly with the release of An Agenda for Peace, a report by then-UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali. Ghali’s proposals were applauded in Establishment publications such as the New York Times and in Foreign Affairs — the journal of the CFR. And President Bill Clinton tried to implement the proposals through his classified Presidential Decision Directives (such as PDD-13), portions of which became public and generated great controversy.

We do not claim to know Ambassador Rice’s heart. But we can glean much of her likely agenda from her career, her alliances, and those who have placed their confidence in her.

Her Rhodes Scholarship to attend Oxford is one red flag, as suggested above. At Oxford, Rice’s classmates and professors “included advocates of the role of the United Nations and international law (Sir Adam Roberts, Benedict Kingsbury), of global economic governance and international economic cooperation (Ngaire Woods, Donald Markwell)….” Source: Wikipedia.

During her subsequent career she joined the “liberal” Brookings Institution as a Senior Fellow, became a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, a director with the Atlantic Council, and a member of the Trilateral Commission. All of these organizations promote the internationalist goal of world government, euphemistically referred to as global governance. To say she has been endorsed by the internationalist Establishment would be an understatement.

Most of Ambassador Rice’s public biographies on the Internet fail to mention her relatively recent membership in the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973. This is a very select group, as membership is limited to 120 for the North American group consisting of 20 Canadian members, 13 Mexican members and 87 U.S. members.

Accordingly, it is indicative of President Obama’s submission to the internationalists that he has appointed at least nine members of the Commission to key positions in his administration. (Note: Trilaterals resign their membership when they go into government service.) Obama’s Trilateralist appointees include: Susan Rice; Deputy National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon; and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

Indicative of the narrow circle among which the Obama transition team searched for candidates, we note that James Steinberg was also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (along with Susan Rice) and a member of the Aspen Strategy Group (along with Rice), Assistant Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell was Director of the Aspen Strategy Group (of which Susan Rice was a member) and that is just a sampling. Moreover, each of the above — Rice, Donilon, Steinberg, and Campbell — was also listed on the CFR’s 2008 membership roster.

• Myth: “Someone with an aggressive personality who is willing to really forcefully defend U.S. positions at the United Nations is necessary and vital.”

Necessary, vital? For what? As we have suggested, the debates at the UN amount to little more than professional wrestling matches. The real agendas of the players are not debated publicly at the UN. Moreover, the UN is, in reality, a trap designed to destroy American independence, overcome America’s constitutional constraints on government power, and ensnare her is an emerging world government ruled by elites.

Unfortunately, support for dangerous myths about the UN is not confined to those institutions with a “liberal” image, as we can see from the remarks of Brett Schaefer of the “conservative” Heritage Foundation think-tank.

Another “expert” presented in the Voice of America news clip was Princeton Lyman, identified merely as a former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria (during the Clinton Administration). Would you be surprised to learn that Lyman has been a long-time member of the CFR? Lyman also was a director of the Global Interdependence Initiative at the Aspen Institute. He graduated with a BA from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard.

What is Lyman’s “expert” advice for bringing peace to the Darfur region of the Sudan? Answer: Negotiate with Russia and China to limit their arms shipments to the Sudan — two nations whose regimes owe their ascendance and much of their capability for creating turmoil worldwide to policies of U.S. internationalists. If one realizes that revolutionaries determined to change the political order without public consent require conflict and deception to advance their goals, then what we see unfolding begins to make sense.

• • •

If you would like to learn more and assess the credibility of these claims, we urge you to obtain a copy of Organize for Victory! Organize for Victory! provides a comprehensive well-documented overview of the forces and agendas targeting America and, most importantly, a plan of action for putting America truly on the right course to greater freedom and prosperity.

Economic Insanity or Design?

In the following video clip, former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson makes clever use of satire to expose the folly of current economic proposals. [View Thompson video clip.] His insightful satire is right on the mark and worth sharing, IF it is supplemented with leadership regarding what to do about the problem (see below).

Thompson argues forcefully and correctly that the “medicine” being widely offered to get us out of our economic mess is the same “medicine” that got us in the mess. The president-elect, in particular, regularly avoids discussing what policies brought on our economic problems. Otherwise, his insistence that government spending is the cure would appear ridiculous.

As much as we admire the cleverness of the Thompson video clip, it suffers from two vital omissions: It doesn’t answer why politicians and economic “experts” behave the way they do, and it doesn’t suggest what must be done to fix that horrible situation. These two issues are critically important; otherwise we just laugh or cry or, worse yet, pursue ineffective solutions through partisan politics, as we continue toward disaster.

Why do we have this problem?

No short answer to that question would be credible, because the American people have been bombarded with so much misinformation.

Certainly, part of the driving force is supplied by politicians who seek more government spending as the route to their re-election. But the problem goes much deeper than that.

We are facing a dangerously incorrect illusion — that the driving force for expanding government spending and authority has the interests of the people at heart. In fact, that driving force has operated through deception and targets our middle class and even our liberties. Here are two nuggets hinting at the deeper problem:

• Government got the power to inflate the money supply (and control of the so-called currency printing press, referred to by Senator Thompson) through the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

In 1910, the members of the National Monetary Commission, established to address credit and banking problems of that day, held a secret meeting at the Jekyll Island Hunt Club owned by J.P. Morgan. One of the attendees, Frank Vanderlip, President of Kuhn-Loeb’s National City bank, admitted decades later (in a February 9, 1935 Saturday Evening Post article, “Farm Boy to Financier”):

“[T]here was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive — indeed as furtive — as any conspirator. I do not feel it any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System…. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen….”

• And in the April 1958 issue of American Opinion, the late great patriot Robert Welch discussed a subversive agenda being promoted under the pretext of fighting Communism. That agenda included:

“(1) Greatly expanded government spending … for every conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of American money as wastefully as possible….

“(3) An increasingly unbalanced budget, despite the higher taxes.

“(4) Increasing and ever more rapid inflation of our currency, leading … to its ultimate worthlessness and complete repudiation.”

What to do about it

We highly recommend reading Organize for Victory! Organize for Victory! opens with a more complete analysis of what ails us, providing many authoritative references. It then offers a solution. The two topics really depend on each other. Only if the agendas and influence of those who would destroy our Republic are understood, combined with an understanding of our inherited constitutional strengths, can one appreciate the type of organization and commitment necessary to preserve liberty.

 

Give Obama a Chance? Give Truth a Chance!

No More Government Power Grabs Thru Orchestrated Crises

On Wednesday, November 19, 2008, President-elect Barak Obama addressed the climate summit hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (please see 4-minute Obama video clip, below??).

In his short address, Obama clearly demonstrates that he has embraced the globalist agenda by promoting a massive power grab. Virtually all of the president-elect’s statements in this clip are false, deceptive, or misleading. We examine here a few of those statements (Note: FFS members see “Further requested action,” below):

Five Million New Green Jobs?
Should government fill the unemployment gap by creating five million “quality” jobs? Obama’s promise reminds us of the actions of rising Insider Harry Hopkins during the first FDR administration. In less than four months Mr. Hopkins had inaugurated an incredible 180,000 (!!) different make-work projects. The globalist Insiders in that day brought on the Great Depression and greatly prolonged it as a means and excuse for increasing the power and functions of government.

Certainly Obama’s promise must be appealing to many who are out of work, see their jobs threatened, or merely find their incomes slashed because of the recession. But jobs and increasing wages are created naturally by entrepreneurs eager for a profit who necessarily must compete in the labor market.

Unless, government gets in the way. How? By legislating minimum wages, expensive mandatory health-care benefits, extensive regulatory overhead and taxes and then subsidizing foreign competition. Insiders have also misused government to drive investment, manufacturing, and heavy industry, such as steel production, abroad.

The false notion that it’s government’s proper role to create jobs has been promoted to the public for decades. But it is a dangerous notion that reflects the interventionist public works policies of the 1930s. Such policies prolonged and deepened the great depression (see, for example, America’s Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard).

Americans may not realize government’s role in bringing on the current financial crisis, but they are instinctively concerned about the massive “bipartisan” steps being taken to “rescue” the economy. That understandable concern has been heightened by the latest announcement of a massive bailout of Citigroup (a fresh $20 billion injection, an earlier $25 billion, and now a pledge to backstop losses on $300 billion of assets).

Now everyone is coming to the trough. The auto manufacturers want their share, and Congress wants to promise help to everyone. But where does it end? How can government afford such sums? The answer is through monetary inflation. But inflation will rob many Americans of their savings and the value of fixed incomes.

The Science of Climate Change is Settled?
No, Dr. Obama, the science is not settled. Both you and your ally Al Gore undoubtedly know that very eminent scientists dispute your claims (see particularly our review of Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers).

Historically, revolutionaries have used the threat of crisis, real or imagined (such as rising sea levels, shrinking coastlines, and stronger hurricanes) to drive forward their power-grabbing agenda. And an orchestrated propaganda campaign to deceive the public that there is no credible scientific dissent regarding catastrophic manmade global warming serves such an agenda well.

Achieve Energy Independence?
Certainly, a worthwhile goal. But the Insiders who control the presidency (see “The Great American Swindle”) have worked hard to accomplish just the opposite — to make America INTERdependent, so she will have no choice but to submit to international controls. Were it not for the work of these Insiders, America would have maintained her energy independence during the past century and never experienced a government-created energy crisis.

Just as the above linked article predicts, Obama is not selecting new faces to staff his administration to institute genuine change. Rather he is recycling CFR Insiders just as his Republican and Democratic predecessors in the White House have done for decades.

Make Nuclear Power Safer?
Make nuclear power more safe? Give us a break. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us. Can anyone who recalls the anti-nuclear campaign of the seventies doubt that the nuclear power industry failed to do anything technically possible to make nuclear power more safe?

Nevertheless, under pressure from some of the same forces that have supported Obama, nuclear power plants were dismantled in this country (even though nuclear power had a sterling record of safety compared to alternative methods for large-scale power conversion). An insidiously orchestrated propaganda campaign created doubts and bolstered public fears about this American technology. While being dismantled at home, our technology was enthusiastically embraced and employed safely by other nations, such as France.

Recommendation: Check out the suggested links and verify the truth of these assertions for yourself. Obtain a copy of Organize for Victory! Learn about the high level support for an agenda to change America from a free and independent republic governed by a constitution into a mere province of a regional government run by unaccountable bureaucrats as with the EU. Rather, these bureaucrats would be accountable only to internationalist Insiders. Americans don’t need that kind of change!

Through Organize for Victory! you will also find out what you can do, and other Americans need to do, to prevent your inheritance of freedom, not to mention your prosperity, from being destroyed. The economic opportunity and freedom of future generations also hangs in the balance.

Further requested action for members and other concerned Americans: Share this message with others to introduce them to Freedom First Society programs and then follow up.

The Internationalist “Dream” is Not Dead!

An article by Robert Pastor in the July-August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs may well signal the next steps toward regional integration. In “The Future of North America — Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy” Pastor purportedly offers advice to the new president who will take office in January. But such articles in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs are often policy leads rather than suggestions. We should keep in mind that CFR members have staffed key positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades.

The summary for Pastor’s article states: “It’s time to integrate further with Canada and Mexico, not separate from them.” So it is difficult to understand how pro-sovereignty advocate Jerome Corsi could allow his very neutral review of Pastor’s article for World Net Daily to be titled: “North American Union: The dream ‘is dead.’” Pastor merely suggested that President Bush’s attempted incarnation of that dream — the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) — would likely be cast aside by the next administration.

There is simply no basis for suggesting that CFR elitists have altered their successfully deceptive strategy of building world government through the creation of supranational regional blocs. These regional blocs are designed to steadily subvert national sovereignty and be easily subordinated to a world government. If a new political thrust with the next administration is the best way to overcome mounting resistance to earlier steps in that direction, it is a mistake to interpret that change as a change in either the objective or the strategy. Let us learn from the long and continuing development of the European Union. While resistance to the deceptive intermediate steps in that development has risen from time-to-time, the internationalists continue to overcome the resistance by disguising the real intent of their power grab (e.g., with promises of increased prosperity).

Responding to the criticism of NAFTA, Pastor argues that it’s time to go beyond NAFTA bashing: “The new president must address the full gamut of North American issues not covered by NAFTA, as well as governance issues arising from the successful enlargement of the market.”

But Pastor is not offering a new vision, merely new finesse for a long-standing objective. NAFTA’s architects have always viewed that agreement as merely a steppingstone toward further integration. For decades the internationalists have talked in terms of “broadening and deepening” the NAFTA agreement. “Broadening” meant an increase in the number of participating countries while “deepening” referred to an expansion in the areas of federal, state, and personal activity in which a regional authority would claim a compelling regulatory interest.

When Congress approved NAFTA in 1993, the agreement represented a milestone for the internationalists. NAFTA established the precedent that areas of U.S. legislation could be subordinated to unelected regional authorities unaccountable to the people of these United States, in violation of our Constitution. The internationalists are not likely to retreat from that milestone, unless compelled by an informed and organized public to do so.

Pastor denies that a 2005 CFR task force, which he co-chaired, had proposed a North American Union, only a North American Community of sovereign nations working more closely together.

But this is typical world-government doublespeak. Pastor advocates steps clearly leading in the direction of political union as is happening in Europe. The internationalists are not stupid. They know that they cannot implement their schemes without disguising their intent. An open admission of the globalist contempt for public opinion and the constraints of the U.S. Constitution can be found in the 2002 “Special Davos [International] Edition” of Newsweek. In “Death of a Founding Myth,” CFR heavyeight Michael Hirsh wrote:

“[T]he internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.”

And so the internationalists often publicly deny, for example, that they are advocating world government, only world governance. Prominent internationalists, such as Zbigniev Brzezinski and Strobe Talbot, would nevertheless attack the concept of national sovereignty as a relic of the past.

Pastor calls for North America’s leaders to “deepen economic integration by negotiating a customs union.” And “[t]o educate a new generation of students to think North American,” Pastor advocates that “each country should begin by supporting a dozen centers for North American studies.”

Not surprisingly, Pastor’s entire essay reflects the collectivist attitude that progress must be driven by government (e.g., government must provide a safety net for those groups hurt in the short-term by “progressive” government policies). Understood, but not stated explicitly, is that international elites must develop and direct these progressive policies.

Reflecting the Insider mindset, Pastor brazenly boasts: “The genius of the Marshall Plan was that the United States used its leverage not for short-term gain but to encourage Europe to unite.” Of course, neither Congress nor the American public, let alone the people of Europe, were told that a united Europe was the object of the U.S. post-war aid.

While holding genuine public opinion in contempt, the internationalists love to claim that public opinion is on their side and that they are driven by that opinion. In that way they hope to undermine public resistance to their schemes. And to that end they cynically manipulate and misrepresent public opinion. Currently, they regularly imply that the Left’s propaganda of concern for the environment and labor standards stems from the people.

Following that pattern, Pastor refers to public opinion surveys in support of his recommendations: “Thirty-eight percent of the people in all three countries identify themselves as ‘North American’ and a majority of these publics would even be in favor of some form of unification if they thought it would improve their standard of living without harming the environment or diminishing their national identities…. A majority of the publics in all three countries would prefer ‘integrated North American policies’ rather than independent national policies on the environment and border security…. ” Really?

Pastor also tells his readers: “One [voice] is the strident and angry voice…. Another voice represents those who welcome integration and are willing to experiment with new forms of partnership. Public opinion surveys suggest that the latter voice represent the majority, even if few leaders speak for them today.”

Pastor’s Track Record

In judging Pastor’s latest essay it is helpful to recall his earlier essay in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs entitled “North America’s Second Decade.” Pastor argued that our security fears born of the 9-11 attacks should “serve as a catalyst for deeper integration. That would require new structures to assure mutual security, promote trade, and bring Mexico closer to the First World economies of its neighbors.”

In that earlier essay, Pastor even suggested that “the Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security — a shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation.” [Emphasis added.] Imagine including security personnel from the corrupt Mexican regime that historically has so admired Fidel Castro!

As President Carter’s National Security Advisor on Latin America, Pastor reportedly said to President Daniel Oduber of Costa Rica, “When are we going to get that son of a b**** to the north out of the presidency?” Pastor was referring to pro-Western Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza, soon to be replaced by the Sandinista Communists, creating a new security problem in the hemisphere. And prior to his post at the White House, Pastor (Robert McNamara’s son-in-law) had been a member of a working group on Latin America organized by exposed K.G.B. agent Orlando Letelier. So we should be slow to accept Pastor’s leadership regarding national security.

Pastor’s latest essay argues for moving beyond NAFTA rather than renegotiating it: “The alternative approach needs to start with a vision of a North American Community and some institutions — quite different from Europe’s — designed to pursue a bold agenda that includes a customs union, a North American commission, a North American investment fund, and a common team of customs and border guards to man the borders and the continental perimeter.”

Pastor supports Obama’s call for greater participation of “civil society” in the process of preparing plans for the North American continent. Pastor says such participation is needed to address issues such as health, environment, energy, and labor standards.

But the vocal NGOs among so-called “civil society” are funded by and serve the Establishment while providing a useful but phony illusion of an independent popular voice. Many of the issues Pastor claims are on everyone’s mind, such as the environment, are invented “topics of concern” depending wholly on Insider-orchestrated propaganda campaigns. So-called “civil society” can be counted on to feed back (i.e., supply pressure from below) exactly what the Insiders have programmed their “representatives” and the major media to say.

The Insiders continuously pursue this tactic of revolutionary parliamentarianism in response to problems that they have created or exacerbated: Unnoticed, they instigate pressure from below for collectivist solutions to those problems, and then they argue that we must respond to that pressure. In short, what we have here is a big scam.

To overcome that scam, America desperately needs the leadership of an organization with the proper focus, such as Freedom First Society.

William F. Buckley Jr.: Far Worse Than a Fraud

Note: The following article first appeared in the March 2008 Action Report of Freedom First Society.

It was July 1973 and for the previous 18 months I had been a Coordinator on the staff of The John Birch Society. La Rita Quinn and her husband Bill had moved to Colorado from Moline, Illinois, and we were holding our first ever “Rocky Mountain Rally” in Pueblo, Colorado. Not only did La Rita Quinn have the vision to get this annual event off the ground, she also had the influence with Robert Welch to persuade him and many other top speakers and writers to attend and participate in this great event year after year.

Included among the well recognized speakers that first year were the Honorable John G. Schmitz, former Congressman from California, and the venerable Father Francis E. Fenton — then a resident of Connecticut — and, of course, Robert Welch.

The name of William F. Buckley Jr. came up in a question and answer session at the close of a speech delivered by John Schmitz. Since it has been 35 years, I certainly can’t remember word for word what was said, but I can still remember vividly the essence of the question asked by an older gentleman in the audience, and the responses received to his question from both John Schmitz and Father Fenton.

The question to former Congressman Schmitz was, “It seems that The John Birch Society is constantly fighting fellow conservative William F. Buckley, rather than joining forces with him. Why is that?”

The answer offered by John Schmitz was, “I agree, we have greater enemies in common than Buckley, and we should work with all other conservatives to oppose them.”

Then came the definitive response from the back row in the hall. It was Father Fenton, already on his feet, and with his hand high in the air insisting on being recognized by the speaker, John Schmitz. “John,” proclaimed Father Fenton, “you would not want these people to leave this hall this afternoon believing for one moment that William F. Buckley Jr. isn’t an enemy to us all. By intentionally misleading conservatives and taking them down blind alleys, William F. Buckley has done more damage to the freedom movement than any other liberal or conservative whom I can think of!”

Father Francis Fenton knew what he was talking about. The Buckley family lived in the same area and attended the same parish. Father Fenton knew firsthand who, and what, Bill Buckley really was. And he always went out of his way to set that record straight.

In our new book, Organize for Victory!, we quote Dr. James P. Lucier who said: “The first job of conspiracy is to convince the world that conspiracy does not exist.” For those who have studied the life and accomplishments of William F. Buckley Jr., it would not be difficult to come to the conclusion that he may well have devoted his life to that Insider objective.

There are several reasons why one might reach that conclusion. Listed below are just a few points to consider:

• In his early years, Buckley was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency — not necessarily a pre-qualifier for leadership in the “conservative” movement. (Such credentials remind us of two other “conservatives” — Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan — both of whom had been dyed-in-the-wool Democrats before being elected Republican presidents of the United States. Convenient for the Insiders, but quite illogical.)

• Buckley took the lead in debunking “Conspiracy” among the ranks of all “respectable conservatives.” With the national stage as his platform (National Review magazine, Public Television, and a syndicated column just for starters), Buckley was able to broadcast his anti-Conspiracy theory far and wide.

• Because the truth was being told by Robert Welch and his fledgling John Birch Society, the Insiders obviously had to discredit Mr. Welch, the Society, and anyone else foolish enough to use the “Conspiracy” word. Bill Buckley clearly took on that assignment and devoted himself to the role of “dragon killer.”

William F. Buckley Jr. died a few days ago on February 27, 2008. So guess how he is remembered and eulogized? That’s right — in almost every news release, he has been credited as one who devoted his life to making the conservative ranks mainstream, and having purged those ranks, and all America for that matter, of anyone with any credibility at all who could claim to be to the right of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, or John McCain.

There is a Conspiracy. The proof is incontrovertible. Therefore, in order to downplay the very existence of Conspiracy, would not the Insiders who control it strive to put their own people at the top of every organization of importance? Would not a powerful Conspiracy do all in its power to have carefully placed, controllable agents (candidates) at the top of both the Republican as well as Democratic parties running for the office of president as well as for other significant elected posts? Would not the Insiders be certain to promote their own as prominent personalities for both the conservative as well as the liberal public voices in America? The answers are obvious — of course, they would!

William F. Buckley Jr. was far worse than simply a fraud on the American landscape. He was a man with a mission! He became both prominent and successful because of his devotion and dedication to that mission.

And while he will be remembered as the giant killer who purged the “C” word from the conservative vocabulary, his mission will not be abandoned. Anyone wanting to be assured that no organized evil is out there need only turn on his car radio, read the conservative columns in his newspaper, or read the plethora of mail coming from the “conservative” Washington, D.C. beltway groups demanding money.

News Release: Kickoff of Freedom First Society

Former John Birch Society Executives Launch New Organization

On the weekend of October 20-21, a small group of concerned men and women met in Colorado Springs to launch a new organization — the Freedom First Society.

CEO G. Vance Smith notes: “As our name indicates, our organization’s focus is on freedom first — the principles of freedom need to be considered before accepting either the collectivist planning of the State or the seductive promises of ambitious power-seekers.”

“We forget too easily an important lesson of history,” Mr. Smith emphasizes. “Freedom is hard won, but too easily lost.”

The leaders claim that today freedom is seriously threatened by a group of power-hungry internationalists seeking to ensnare the independent nations of the world, first in regional governments and then in a totalitarian world government.

Freedom First Society has been started for the immediate purpose of providing leadership to an organized body of patriotic Americans who will do everything in their power, moral and legal, to stop that conspiracy and preserve freedom.

The Freedom First Society will continue on the path laid down by the late Robert Welch, who founded The John Birch Society (JBS) in 1958. Vance Smith took the helm at The John Birch Society in mid-1991 and led the Society for 14 years. He became the Society’s longest serving CEO since Robert Welch relinquished the leadership in 1983.

Nevertheless, in October of 2005 G. Vance Smith and VP Tom Gow resigned from their leadership positions at The John Birch Society when they realized that the Society would fall victim to an imminent coup orchestrated from within. Three key members of the Executive Committee of the Society’s Council joined Smith and Gow in handing in their resignations.

Two years later, Vance Smith observes: “We all felt terrible about what happened at JBS. So many good people had contributed their energies into helping The John Birch Society provide busy Americans with some desperately needed principle-based leadership.”

“At the time [2005],” continued Smith, “we believed that those leading the coup were not committed to Mr. Welch’s solution of building a membership organization with members working together locally to expose the Conspiracy. Developments at JBS during the past two years have confirmed our fears.”

“Our mission with Freedom First Society,” notes Mr. Smith, “is to fill the vacuum that had arisen because The John Birch Society’s leadership is off track.”

Freedom First Society Vice President Tom Gow says “Freedom First Society will be far different from virtually every other organization concerned about the same problems we are. There are already thousands of organizations in existence that tell Americans in effect ‘just send us money and we’ll solve your problem for you.'”

“But that doesn’t work,” insists Mr. Gow.” The problem is simply too big for patriotic Americans to expect to be able to delegate their responsibilities as good citizens to an office staff somewhere in Washington.”

Mr. Gow quotes Edmund Burke, the 18th Century British statesman who stood up for the American colonists: “When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

“Freedom First Society,” says G. Vance Smith, “will be guided by the values and vision of America’s Founding Fathers and the great patriot Robert Welch.”

“In seeking to implement Robert Welch’s solution,” points out Mr. Smith, “Freedom First Society will nevertheless be using modern technology — particularly the internet — to reach out to and involve a younger age group.”

Smith continued: “Membership is open to individuals of good will, good conscience, and religious ideals who will apply dedication and integrity to the organization’s purposes, consistent with its principles. A list of our founding principles can be found on our website, www.freedomfirstsociety.org.”

Although Freedom First Society will be based in Colorado Springs, the leaders plan for the organization to reach nationwide. Beginning in January,  G. Vance Smith will be crisscrossing the nation with a “Reclaiming America Seminar,” looking for volunteers to help set up chapters.

Those who are interested in learning more about the Freedom First Society are invited to visit the organization’s website. Visitors can apply for membership online or just stay plugged in by adding their email address to an alert list.

* * *

For more information on this story, please contact G. Vance Smith at (719) 380-6962.

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds