Freedom First Society

Let’s Learn the Lessons of History!

“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” — President Donald Trump, Second State of the Union Address, 2-5-19

Unfortunately, uninformed resolve won’t stop the socialist revolution. The Newsweek cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now,” for its February 16, 2009 issue, published during the Obama administration, is once again timely and illuminating. During the subsequent 10 years the socialist revolution has continued to advance through a pattern of subversive deception.

“We Are All Socialists Now” is supported by a second article, “Big Government Is Back — Big Time.” We will comment on both.

In their cover story, the two Newsweek authors properly excoriate posturing “conservatives” for attaching the unpopular “Socialist” tag to Obama administration policies while ignoring the fact that Republican administrations had also supported socialism.

But these GOP “conservatives” are not hypocrites, as Newsweek seems to imply, but “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” For the Establishment weekly also took pains to portray the subversive socialist trend in big-government as a natural modern development (thus covering up the hidden orchestration) and something that should be embraced.

Not surprisingly, both authors of the cover story showed up on the 2008 and 2009 membership lists for the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

We list here a few of the article’s claims, followed by our (FFS) analysis:

Newsweek: “Whether we want to admit it or not — and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not — the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.”

FFS analysis: Newsweek deceptively ignores the fact that America is being pushed into socialism. Neither natural forces nor an informed public will are driving that revolution.

Newsweek continues: “We remain a center-right nation in many ways — particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the [2008 financial] crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism — but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.”

FFS analysis: Here Newsweek again covers up the orchestration behind our nation’s demise, by suggesting that our culture and “our instinct” are what drives Washington rather than merely serving as an obstacle for the Establishment to overcome. But even Newsweek admits that “our instinct” didn’t prevent “a conservative GOP administration” from enacting “the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years.” Nor does the Newsweek story give any attention to the orchestrated attack on our culture through government-controlled education or the push for massive unassimilated immigration, against the public will, from cultures that are far from center-right.

Newsweek: “If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world.”

FFS analysis: Here Newsweek tries once more to reinforce the pure illusion that some kind of “open debate” is actually deciding the direction of government. While the partisan winners and losers may not be “fixed,” the socialist direction of government is. In support of that fix, the Establishment-controlled media obscures political betrayal by entertaining the public with the equivalent of a professional wrestling match. And, of course, Newsweek never even suggests that there are any constitutional restraints on what government can or should do.

Newsweek: “Whether we like it or not … the [government spending] numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction…. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.” [Emphasis added.]

FFS analysis: Here again, Newsweek seeks to reinforce the illusion that political conversation and a public engaged with questions are what is driving our nation’s subversion.

Newsweek: “During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and “liberal” an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew.”

FFS analysis: President Reagan gave very conservative speeches, but, contrary to Establishment myth, his administration was anything but conservative. Indeed, President Reagan chose several stalwarts from the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, such as Secretary of State George Pratt Shultz and Vice President George H.W. Bush (a former CFR director) to run his administrations.

Newsweek: “Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending.” [Emphasis added.]

FFS analysis: Here Newsweek perpetuates the power-grabbing Establishment mantra that government must run a modern economy. But just perhaps, when consumers decide not to spend, they may have a good reason.

Newsweek: “Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can muster.”

FFS analysis: Here Newsweek further supports the same power-grabbing deception that has also been used to justify the Federal Reserve: namely, that only the “best and the brightest” intellectuals can be trusted to prevent a market economy from imploding.

Newsweek’s supporting article
Newsweek’s supporting article, authored this time by Michael Freedman, is titled: “Big Government Is Back — Big Time, U.S. policymakers reconsider the relationship between government and the private sector.”

Right off the bat, we would ask: “When was big government away?” But let’s look at some of what the article is promoting.

This article regularly compares what was happening in the U.S. (in 2008-2009) with what was happening in France under President Nicholas Sarkozy:

Newsweek: “When Obama called Wall Street ‘shameful’ and greedy, he was articulating what the French have always thought, and endorsing Sarkozy’s recent dismissal of the ‘crazy’ idea that markets are always right.”

FFS analysis: While markets may not always be right, they have the right to be wrong. This applies to what consumers spend their money on as well. The clever sophistry that government force should supervise such decisions is merely a pretext for a government power grab.

Newsweek: “At its most basic level, the nearly $1 trillion U.S. stimulus package now being dissected on Capitol Hill is a fight over how great a role the federal government will play in what had been, for decades, private economic life. And while it’s impossible to know just what the day after the crisis will look like, the broad contours of the new economic world are becoming visible.”

FFS analysis: The “new economic world” sounds ominously like “a new economic order.” “Building a new economic order” is a phrase used by Internationalists (e.g., Trilateralists and CFR types) to refer to the process of consolidating global control. And Newsweek is just helping to lay an intellectual smokescreen for a new step in government control of “private economic life.”

Newsweek: “One of the more lasting effects will be a steady drift toward what could be called a European model of governance, regulation and paternalism…. More specifically, in the absence of a robust private sector (or at least public confidence in business) the U.S. government will be forced to fill the gap, firmly directing businesses in all sorts of ways — regulating some industries (particularly banking and the automotive sector) with big-brother vigilance, favoring others like clean energy with grants and loans, and turning still others — health care, pensions — into virtual wards of the state.”

FFS analysis: Who forces government to fill an ostensible gap? Not the public. Instead, opportunistic socialists seek to fill any gap they can claim exists. And constitutional protections against government overreach be damned.

Newsweek: “So aside from expanding the social safety net, the government will have to take a greater role in guiding business toward ends the state deems healthy for the overall economy.” [Emphasis added.]

FFS analysis: This outrageous endorsement of more government power is a blatant rejection of the limited government authorized by our Constitution. America’s founders understood from the historical record that unrestrained government led to tyranny and that “the state” needed supervision, not the other way around. Newsweek doesn’t identify whom it sees as “the state.” But it’s obvious that its state consists of Establishment Insiders who seek to build an unaccountable police state.

Newsweek: “But sentiment is moving toward some form of universal health care and will only grow if unemployment remains high.”

FFS analysis: Whose sentiment?

Newsweek: “Another way government can take a larger role, particularly in easing the burden created by low stock-market returns, is by introducing programs that forgive some or all college-tuition debt in exchange for public service, something Obama promised to do on the campaign trail.

FFS analysis: Newsweek’s endorsement of “public service” seems reminiscent of President Clinton’s inauguration of “national service” via the National and Community Service Trust Act. That Act created the taxpayer-financed Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which would include the AmeriCorps and VISTA. The bureaucracy that must be set up to administer these programs is not only highly expensive, but the “service” is generally of marginal value to the taxpayer. And most ominously, the idea of an expanded volunteer army serving the State harkens comparisons to Mussolini’s programs for service to the Fascist State. One should also consider why college education has become so expensive now that the federal government is placing increasing demands on colleges to create bureaucracy to enforce political correctness.

Newsweek: “This crisis-driven debate on the proper role of government is not confined to America. At the recent World Economic Forum….”

FFS analysis: The notion that there is a high-level debate on the proper role of government is absurd. The only debate is over how government can best gain more power through deception and manufactured crises.

Newsweek: “Bailouts, protectionism, talk of bank nationalization and a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package are not a socialist conspiracy, as some right-wing U.S. pundits and talk-show hosts insist.”

FFS analysis: We think Newsweek doth protest too much, while seeking to demonize even phony opposition as “right-wing”!

Newsweek: “Nonetheless, it is clear that a ‘centrist rebalancing’ is taking place even in America, says Sunder Katwala, head of Britain’s center-left Fabian Society, and that a prolonged period of slow growth will force the United States to become something more like Europe.”

FFS analysis: Center-left? Britain’s Fabian Society is out-and-out socialist. Indeed, one of its leaders, published The Story of Fabian Socialism. From its inception, the Fabian Society embraced a strategy of deception, patient gradualism, and permeation of other organizations. The Fabians would permeate and control the British Labour Party and the Socialist International. They would also establish roots in this country.

“Fool Me Twice …”

Tens of thousands of high school students in cities nationwide plan to skip classes Friday [9-20-19] to attend Global Climate Strike marches calling for immediate action to end climate change. They will be part of a global joint protest aimed directly at the adults who they say are ignoring the destruction of the planet….

Students in more than 800 locations around the United States plan to go on strike from school for the day to attend protests. “It’s going to be a really, really powerful day, the launch of a new era of climate movement. This is just the beginning for us,” said Katie Eder, 19, who is the executive director of the Future Coalition, a youth-led non-profit helping the groups coordinate….

The protests are timed to begin a week of activism at the United Nations, including a Youth Climate Summit on Saturday and a UN Climate Action Summit on Monday. A second strike is planned for Friday, Sept. 27. — USA Today, 9-19-19

Media reports on the youth demonstrations conveniently ignore the revolutionary orchestration guiding the protesting students (e.g., the radical professors and/or outside adult revolutionaries — with subversive aims — motivating and guiding student action.) By themselves, high school kids clearly don’t have the connections, independent funding, and experience to organize nationwide, let alone global demonstrations. However, by ignoring the orchestration, the media helps create the illusion that the protesting students represent the genuine concerns of today’s responsible students.

And, of course, the reports completely ignore the subversive aims driving the “climate change” hysteria — unaccountable global power over you and me. That is the most important lesson for Americans to grasp.

More Americans also need to understand how they are being deceived. An old adage states: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” But how about “fool me a hundred times?” Then we have a real problem. The recent student demonstrations illustrate a shop-worn but proven revolutionary tactic for pushing totalitarian measures through a national legislature.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism
In a secret Communist strategy paper, Jan Kozak, official historian for the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, provided a thorough explanation of the tactic as it was used in the Communist takeover of Czechovakia following World War II. His original Czech paper was titled: “How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism and the Role of the Popular Masses.”

The uncovered paper with commentary has since been published several times in English as a book under the title And Not a Shot Is Fired. In his introduction to the American edition, John Howland Snow explained that the Kozak document is a blueprint for how a “representative government can be made authoritarian, legally, piece by piece. The form remains, an empty shell…. And not a shot is fired.” (The complete RWU press edition is available online at www.robertwelchuniversity.org)

Freedom First Society published this summary of Kozak’s “revolutionary parliamentarianism” in its booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle Class, (pp. 36, 37):

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism (a fancy name for the “pincers strategy”). This is a technique for driving change through a national legislature by applying “pressure from above and pressure from below.” Agents of the Conspiracy, using their influence with ostensibly independent grassroots organizations will stage protests and demonstrations demanding that the government take a particular revolutionary action. Other agents in government will introduce a measure claiming it is in response to popular demand. Their measure will be supported at the top by business leaders, think tanks, and scholars. The twin pressures are applied to other legislators making it difficult for them to say no.

The “Climate Change” Pretext
There are many fine books exposing the phony science and claims of the global-warming scaremongers as well as the serious consequences if they should have their way completely. However, most Americans don’t want to take a position on scientific disputes, phony or otherwise. And the most serious consequence, loss of American freedom, has nothing to do with the science of climate change, anyway.

Nevertheless, it still helps to know that many prominent scientists dispute the man-made global warming scare. (See, for example, Freedom First Society’s review of Steve Milloy’s 2009 exposé Green Hell, our 2018 post “UN Climate-Change Hysteria,” and our 2019 post “Repeat a Lie Often Enough …”.)

Unfortunately, many responsible Americans are neutralized by media casting the battle as a mere partisan dispute over science. And so these Americans never get to join the real battle. Yet they are desperately needed to help bypass the Establishment media and share the evidence, such as Masters of Deception, of high-level corruption in support of a subversive campaign that threatens our freedom. So please share this post widely.

Border Enforcement Duplicity

We’ve heard it from every quarter: our immigration system is “broken.” And the current border crisis seems to confirm this. But wherein does its “brokenness” lie?

No one disputes that incentives drive the “flood” of immigrants northward toward the U.S.: Specifically, such incentives comprise “push” factors (motivating the migrants to leave their former country of domicile) and “pull” factors (attractive features of the life they anticipate in the U.S.). And now almost everyone says the basic pull factor — or “magnet” — is the attraction of our government’s continuing practice of “catch and release” — though this term turns out to be imprecise, with no exact legal meaning:

There’s no hard and fast definition, but “catch and release” usually refers to U.S. immigration authorities’ practice of releasing unauthorized immigrants while they await immigration hearings, rather than keeping them in custody.

With some exceptions, only children and asylum-seekers are eligible for this kind of release. They often stay in the United States for months or years while their cases wind through the courts. Many of them do not show up for court dates and end up settling in the country without authorization. — Salvador Rizzo, President Trump’s claim that Democrats created ‘catch and release’ policies, April 4, 2018

There is no reason to deny such analysis regarding incentives. And clearly it implies that “catch and release” is a major cause of our system’s “brokenness.” But it is all the more remarkable, then, that this consensus as to one of our border problem’s major causes has led neither to any solution, nor to cessation of our government’s practice of “catch and release.” Could it be that some high-level group designed this border problem never to see a solution?

The Government’s Excuse

For its part, the government holds a ready explanation of the reason for its continuing practice of “catch and release.” Media-gurus, political pundits, and officials in the Executive branch have been telling us — for years — that “our immigration laws need fixing!” For that law is — they say — full of “loopholes”!

Former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s standard blame-deflection went like this:

Until these loopholes are closed by Congress, it is not possible, as a matter of law, to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the United States.

So, according to Nielsen, the immigration law itself is tying the hands of the government.

President Trump has similarly blamed our immigration laws. On April 3, 2018 he complained, “We have immigration laws that are laughed at by everybody…. We have to change our immigration laws.”

Former Atty. General Jeff Sessions intoned likewise that “as President Trump has warned, the need to fix these loopholes and weaknesses in our immigration system is critical and overdue.”

A recent version of this accusation says, more specifically, that a main “brokenness” in our immigration law is the part which deals with asylum. Media pundits, Executive Branch officials, and White House communications have all been decrying the “asylum loopholes” allegedly crippling our immigration system.

A White House “Fact Sheet” of April 29, 2019 entitled “President Donald J. Trump Is Working to Stop the Abuse of Our Asylum System and Address the Root Causes of the Border Crisis,” explained (red and italics ours):

THE ASYLUM LOOPHOLE: Migrants are flooding to our border to use asylum to gain entry into our country and remain here indefinitely.

Our immigration system has reached a breaking point as we continue to see an overwhelming surge of migrants, with more than 100,000 arriving at our border in March alone.

As a result of loopholes in United States immigration law, migrants claiming fear are often released into communities across the United States, where they often remain indefinitely.

In order to remain in the country, they often fail to show up to court hearings, fail to file an asylum application, or fail to comply with removal orders once their claims have been denied.

Trump echoed the lament on May 30, 2019:

Trump said on Thursday [May 30] that he would not be closing the border as he has threatened numerous times. “The asylum procedures are ridiculous,” he added. “No place in the world has what we have in terms of ridiculous immigration laws.”

Informed Rebuttals of the “Blame Congress and the Immigration Law” Explanation

The standard, “law-loopholes are preventing good border-enforcement” account of our border crisis has its skeptics, however. And most of these skeptics are not amateurs: Rather, they are professionals (including researchers, writers, and Border Patrol agents) who have made it their job to understand our immigration system — and its malfunctions.

For example, Daniel E. Horowitz — who has been explicating the legal and administrative aspects of immigration for years — wrote in a recent post:

How much longer are we going to allow lawless acts of past administrations and lower courts to flip immigration law on its head and act as if the laws themselves are the problems? Our immigration laws aren’t broken, it’s just that carefully selected lower courts violate those laws as well as Supreme Court precedent, plus the executive branch has refused to enforce many laws that haven’t even been tampered with yet by the judges. The American people never voted for the system in place to today. In fact, the people’s representatives voted for the opposite.…

There is this dangerous perception that somehow our laws declared open borders or at least granted endless rights to avoid deportation until and unless we muster the votes to change the laws. The reality is the opposite.

In a post earlier that month, Horowitz mentioned that this is the view also of Brandon Judd, head of the Border Patrol union (NBPC):

Brandon Judd, head of Border Patrol Union

‘Political pundits, talking heads, scholars and politicians have convinced the American public that only legislation can solve the problem. They say there are too many immigration and asylum loopholes preventing the government from deporting illegal border crossers in a timely manner. They are all wrong.’

Those were not the words of yours truly, but of Brandon Judd, the head of the Border Patrol union, in a Washington Times op-ed. He suggests we [should] actually just enforce the asylum laws [that are currently] in statute and have border agents at the front lines, not bureaucrats in other DHS agencies, take the lead on enforcement.

The talking point about the broken laws, in the media and even from the administration, have [sic] been so incessant and emphatic that most people probably think the laws require open borders unless Congress votes to change them. In fact, our laws are very clear that people who come to our border without proper documentation are all illegal aliens and must be deported. In 1996, Congress further updated those laws to preclude endless lawsuits.

Likewise, researchers and writers from the Center for Immigration Studies have rebutted much of this standard account of our border crisis.

Why It’s Untrue, that “Asylum Loopholes” in the Law Tie the Hands of the Executive Branch

The skeptics are correct — the ostensible loopholes are excuses without merit. In this section we will discuss the “asylum loophole,” which the above-cited White House Fact Sheet alleges. In a companion post, we discuss the other category of immigration-law loophole — those relating to minors and families — which the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) claims hinder the enforcement of our border.

There are at least four reasons why the narrative that “asylum loopholes have forced ‘catch and release’” does not hold water. Either of the first two demolishes the narrative all by itself. Let’s review all four, though — and make our point inescapable.

The President’s Unlimited Authority over Immigration

One thing that the media — who are helping push this false narrative — never tell the American people, is that the president has “plenary” (absolute, unrestricted) authority to exclude any and every alien he wishes — at any time. This is an authority that is subject to neither of the other branches of the federal government.

This plenary authority over immigration turns out to be both “inherent” and “delegated.” The president’s inherent authority is built into the very structure of our federal government. The president’s delegated authority over immigration is that which the immigration statutes attribute to the president explicitly.

The president’s inherent authority over immigration is a foundational, long-standing principle of U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, recognized and openly acknowledged by the courts for over 200 years. The authority stems primarily from the president’s constitutional authority over foreign relations. (Aliens are, after all, foreigners, not U.S. citizens.^[1])

One of the clearest judicial statements of this principle is in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.

However, to make sure everyone understands the president’s plenary authority to exclude aliens, our immigration law makes it explicit:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. — INA, §212(f); which is at Title 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)

Therefore, all the other immigration statutes, taken together, couldn’t “tie the president’s hands” if they tried! For this one provision implies that not only those whom the law excludes are to be excluded; but also, any and all whom the president excludes.

The Low Percentage of Arriving Aliens Claiming a “Credible Fear of Persecution”

The impression one tends to get from the media is that the immigration surges of 2018–19 are, to a large extent, people seeking asylum. According to our same White House Fact Sheet, President Trump has said that “The biggest loophole drawing illegal aliens to our borders is the use of fraudulent or meritless asylum claims to gain entry into our great country.”

But based on reliable reports — including some from the DHS — no more than about 10% at any time have actually been claiming a “credible fear of persecution” — far less a percentage than that of “families” and “UACs” (Un-accompanied children) coming across the southern border. (Issues surrounding “families” and “unaccompanied children,” we discuss in our companion post.)

A DHS release of April 4, 2018 noted: “Before 2013, approximately 1% of arriving aliens claimed credible fear (asylum). Now 1 out of 10 claim credible fear.” And Carl Landrum, Deputy Chief Border Patrol Agent in the Yuma Sector (our third-hardest-hit sector, behind the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors), stated in a Fox News interview on April 22, 2019 that in his area, “Only six percent of the people crossing the border are expressing a credible fear and requesting asylum.”

Daniel Horowitz finds that news disturbing: “This revelation means that our government has essentially vitiated the entire Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and has declared a de facto open border.… We are shredding every word of the INA and processing and releasing almost all of these people, even those who don’t express a credible fear, rather than immediately placing [and keeping] them in expedited deportation.”^[2]

The Extremely Low Percentage of Arriving Aliens Possibly Qualifying for Asylum

Another pivotal misconception which our media and Executive Branch have fostered is the notion that people fleeing violence or poverty in Central America are legitimate refugees. In fact, virtually none of them are. Rather, what they are is “economic refugees.” But the criterion which our law applies for refugee status (and thus asylum), is whether the alien has a “credible fear of persecution” — as that phrase is defined, very precisely, in our immigration law.

The crucial part of that definition to understand is the term “persecution”: Once you know the technical sense of that, you may understand why practically no one fleeing violence, poverty, disease, or what have you in Central America (or in Mexico) satisfies our law’s criterion for such a “credible fear.”

Here is our law’s criterion for a “refugee” — including what qualifies as “persecution,” in this context (emphasis in highlighted bold ours):

any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

That definition is in Title 8, §1101(a)(42)(A) — which section, and which definition of “refugee,” are then referred to in §1158, “Asylum.”

So, if that’s what a refugee is, what exact level of proof makes it “credible” (in this sense) that a person has a “well-founded fear” of such persecution? Title 8, §1225(b)(1)(B)(v) gives this definition (emphasis in highlighted bold ours):

[T]he term “credible fear of persecution” means that there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 1158 of this title.

What constitutes a “significant possibility” is undefined in the immigration law, and the standard has not yet been discussed in immigration case law. However, a USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) Basic Training Course for asylum officers has a helpful discussion of what constitutes that “standard of proof.”^[3] After reminding readers that the alien is “the party who bears the burden of proof,” and discussing a range of “different standards of proof [which] are relevant in the immigration context,” this training course says that the “significant possibility” standard requires the person bearing the burden of proof to “demonstrate a substantial and realistic possibility of succeeding” in establishing eligibility for asylum under section 1158. [Emphasis in original.]

Now, Central America countries — and Mexico, for that matter — are each made up of such a homogeneous mass of people, with regard to race, culture, and so forth, that these countries’ likelihood of having “persecution” for any of the above reasons is miniscule or non-existent. It is therefore (to use the USCIS training course’s terms) “a claim that has ‘no possibility of success,’ or only a ‘minimal or mere possibility of success,’ [and thus] would not meet the ‘significant possibility’ standard.”

Daniel Horowitz concurs:

This law was clearly written for a situation where a group is facing religious persecution, such as the Yazidis in Iraq. Nobody can say with a straight face that any of these people coming from the Central American triangle meet any of these five conditions [viz., persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion]. These are some of the most homogeneous countries in the world. There is no religious or ethnic persecution. And it is quite laughable to assume they are being persecuted for political opinions. Those teeming across our border are not a bunch of Madisonians railing against the lack of free markets in Honduras. — Daniel Horowitz, How Trump can protect the border without Congress

Jeff Sessions, former U.S. Atty. General

Thus, it’s clear that the legal standard of proof is being misapplied in credible-fear determinations — with disastrous results. Even Atty. General Jeff Sessions, speaking in October 2017, admitted that the credible-fear adjudication process was being “gamed”:

[T]he adjudication process is broken as well. DHS found a credible fear in 88 percent of claims adjudicated. That means an alien entering the United States illegally has an 88 percent chance to avoid expedited removal simply by claiming a fear of return.

But even more telling, half of those that pass that screening—the very people who say they came here seeking asylum—never even file an asylum application once they are in the United States. This suggests they knew their asylum claims lacked merit and that their claim of fear was simply a ruse to enter the country illegally.…

The system is being gamed. The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.…

Our asylum laws are meant to protect those who because of characteristics like their race, religion, nationality, or political opinions cannot find protection in their home countries. They were never intended to provide asylum to all those who fear generalized violence, crime, personal vendettas, or a lack of job prospects. Yet, vague, insubstantial, and subjective claims have swamped our system.…

… As one immigration judge recently told me about the credible fear process, “any adjudicatory system with a grant rate of nearly 90 percent is inherently flawed.” … We can elevate the threshold standard of proof in credible fear interviews.^[4]

OK; but if they can elevate it — why haven’t they done so? According to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, there have been “reports from whistleblowers at USCIS who say that [USCIS] asylum officers [currently the ones handling all fear-claim interviews] have been instructed by resistant career supervisors to ignore efforts by the Trump administration to return to deciding these cases according to the letter and intent of the law.”^[5]

The Necessity that Arriving Aliens Pass a “Credible Fear” Interview or Review

Yet another misconception which media and Executive Branch officials promote is the idea that any arriving alien can just claim a “credible fear,” and they will be released to await their asylum hearing. That is, the media never make clear that arriving aliens who cannot show valid documentation of legal immigration status are each put, immediately, into “Expedited Removal Proceedings” — and kept there until removal, unless that arriving alien instigates and passes a “credible fear interview,” (or an administrative review of that interview).

In short, as long as the alien is in Expedited Removal, they are held in mandatory detention. Thus, there is no question at all of some alien, having just arrived, being “caught and released” legally.

There is a lawful process which is, sometimes, informally classified as “catch and release” — but more properly called, “parole” — but one must argue that, administratively, in many cases it’s given too eagerly after a determination of “credible fear.”.^[6] But neither that legal procedure, nor any “asylum hearing,” is available legally to “arriving aliens” by their simply showing up and claiming a “credible fear” of persecution.

Rather, an “asylum officer” (who is from USCIS, as things are working currently,) conducts an “interview” regarding the alien’s credible-fear claim; and based on this interview, makes a determination regarding this claim. If that determination goes against the alien, and he or she wants to contest it, they can ask for an “administrative review” — which will be before an EOIR “immigration judge.” But all of that happens as part of what’s called “Expedited Removal Proceedings,” into which all “arriving aliens” (and some others) who have no documentation of legal immigrant status are placed automatically.^[7] (An important qualification: “Expedited Removal” is not the process which the law stipulates for “unaccompanied alien children,” or “UACs”; we discuss those in a separate, companion post.) And detention is mandatory all through those proceedings, according to the law.^[8]

In contrast, an “asylum hearing” does not happen for any such (adult) “arriving alien” unless the alien has been determined (during expedited removal) to have a “credible fear of persecution,” and been therefore removed from “expedited removal” proceedings and placed into “formal removal proceedings,” and allowed to make formal application for asylum. And only once they’ve made such application are they eligible for “parole.” And that is what so-called catch-and-release is, for “arriving aliens” — a “parole,” under Title 8 §1182(d)(5).

Legally, then, they cannot be paroled until they’ve been “determined” to have a “credible fear of persecution.” All of which implies that if they fail in that determination — and virtually all Central Americans would fail, were the determination conducted according to statute — then there’d be no question of our immigration authorities ever paroling them, legally, into our country. Ending the fraudulent determinations that these aliens have a “credible fear” would, therefore, end their “catch and release.”

Locating Our Immigration-System’s Real “Breakage”

Besides those related to asylum, there are other alleged “catch and release loopholes” which need addressing as well, such as those pertaining to “unaccompanied minors” — all of which we discuss in a companion post. Taking also those into account, we could summarize the “immigration loopholes” situation this way:

The DHS and DOJ are applying an inexcusably and illegally low standard of legal proof, in their credible-fear determinations. And this is the only reason that the vast majority of adult arriving aliens from Mexico or Central America are allowed out of Expedited Removal — with its mandatory detention — and (then) considered for parole (one kind of “catch and release”).
As we discuss in our companion post, the government is granting a thoroughly undeserved deference to the dubious features of Judge Gee’s 2015 ruling(s) on the FSA (Flores Settlement Agreement) — including a pivotal one that the Appeals Court overturned! And this is the only reason the government is saying that it must release minors within 20 days — and that it must release whole alien families that happen to include a minor.

Contrary to representations by the president, DHS administrators, and media, though, none of this is a matter of immigration law, or of the FSA (which has the force of law). Furthermore, even if the law did have an actual “loophole,” the president would not thereby be prevented from using his full, plenary authority to restrict — or even to shut down — immigration!

Thus, the loophole-skeptics are correct: there is no law-problem; there’s only an implementation-of-law problem, a lack-of-enforcement problem.^[9] In short, contrary to repeated claims by the Executive Branch and the media, the president has by no means required Congress to close alleged “loopholes,” in order to secure our border.

Of course, there are logistical challenges to stemming the current flood. But historically, the hope of catch-and-release has created most of the “magnet” attracting immigrants. And removing the main “pull” factor — that magnet — would have no less impact on the flow than had the mere anticipation of catch-and-release ending, which anticipation slowed immigration dramatically in the wake of Trump’s 2016 election. The logistical challenges could then be handled, as we have handled them in similar (if smaller) border crises time and time again.

Accounting for This Inversion of the Truth

The story of the immigration law’s culpability for our border crisis is so patently, undeniably false, that there is really only one way to account for its dominance in the media and Executive Branch statements: which is, orchestrated duplicity. More specifically: it is an agreed duplicity on the part of much — we’d estimate, most — of the media, and of many top administration officials, lower court federal judges — and even of many Congress-people, insofar as they remain silent in the face of this dangerous disinformation. But what could be motivating this orchestration of duplicity?

Well, if we recall that the Establishment — which controls most of the institutions spouting this story — wants open borders (as the FFS has often documented), then several plausible motives come to mind:

Laying the blame on Congress and immigration law diverts the public’s attention from, and tends to keep them ignorant of, those places in which the system is indeed broken (namely, poor enforcement of the law) — which diversion is crucial for continuing or growing the crisis.
Also, such misdirection has the potential — very appealing to the Establishment — of convincing the public (finally) that our immigration law needs a major overhaul — which overhaul, given Congress’s increasingly wishy-washy stance for strong borders, might well eviscerate our (heretofore basically sound) immigration law.
- Even if failing to find consensus for a major overhaul (a.k.a. “comprehensive immigration reform”), those seeking open borders may find enough consensus for one or more “amnesties” — which helps keep the crisis boiling.
Also, this crisis offers the ever-increasing possibility (again, appealing to the Establishment) of getting the public to accept an international “resolution” of the problem — which would make permanent of course, rather than repair, our loss of control of our border — through further bilateral agreements with Mexico and/or Central American countries, for example, or even reviving the development of a North American Union, and/or through inviting U.N. “Peacekeeping” troops in — “to help.” Any of those approaches to a “solution” would seriously sabotage our national sovereignty and independence.

There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that the current border crisis is intentional — created, not by Congress, but by conspiratorial elements controlling our media and Executive Branch (with supporting roles played by a few lower-court judges). And this lie about “immigration loopholes” is the main tactic keeping the public from realizing the true cause of the problem — which is intentionally inadequate enforcement by our government’s law-enforcement branch (the Executive).

What to Do

Clearly, the only way that this non-enforcement will be remedied, is for an informed, activated electorate to apply concerted pressure on the government to remedy it. But an electorate not informed, will certainly neither be activated. So, the widespread exposure of this fraudulent “loopholes” tactic is key. That is the most obvious mission we must undertake, therefore.

Less obvious is that we must also use such educational effort to grow — as rapidly as possible — the reach and level of understanding of the Internationalist, conspiratorial intrigue that is seeking to strangle our national sovereignty, independence, and freedom. Indeed, if we neglect this latter mission, then the public’s demand for border enforcement will continue to be betrayed, as it has been for decades.

Both of these are crucially important tasks. In pursuit of the first, if this article has been found enlightening and helpful, then it is certainly worthwhile to share it with friends and acquaintances.

Notes

1. And as such, they have no standing in courts mentioned in or created under the Constitution (in Article III). That is the basic reason the president is not subject to these courts’ rulings on immigration matters. However, note that the president does have a constitutional obligation to restrict immigration at least as much as the immigration law does — since he is responsible to enforce the laws. On the plenary authority of both “political” branches (i.e., the Legislative and Executive branches) over immigration, see the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report 44969, “Overview of the Federal Government’s Power to Exclude Aliens”; and, for a much fuller and absorbing treatment, see chapters 4–8 of Daniel Horowitz’s insightful 2016 book Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America, Washington, D.C.: WND Books.

2. It seems disingenuous, therefore, to imply that asylum-claims are “tying the hands of” the Border Patrol. What are actually tying their hands are: the taking care of immigrants who arrive sick or hurt themselves clambering over a barricade (an agent must also stay with the immigrant while he/she receives medical care); and also — believe it or not — the running a courier service, to bring in immigrants who are waiting on the other side of the wall! This astonishing DHS policy forced Mr. Horowitz to ask: “[I]f we actively bring in even the illegal immigrants standing outside the fence and believe it is our duty to do so, then what would change if we had more walls?”

3. The training course is cited, on this matter, by the CRS (Congressional Research Service) “Legal Sidebar” 10150, “An Overview of U.S. Immigration Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border.”

4. Andrew Arthur of CIS reported that “Credible fear is found in 75 to 90 percent of all cases reviewed by asylum officers.”

5. The quotation is via Daniel Horowitz. Ms. Vaughan suggests strongly, as a remedy for this perfidy, that Border Patrol agents, who are valid “immigration officers,” be trained therefore also as Asylum Officers — the kind of immigration officer which the law requires to conduct all credible-fear interviews — and then be allowed to handle such interviews, rather than being forced to hand over all credible-fear claimants to USCIS Asylum Officers. Brandon Judd, head of the Border Patrol union (NBPC) is strongly in favor of that as well — as is Daniel Horowitz.

6. The reasons for which the regulations and/or administration allow such a parole have traveled a long way from what the law stipulates: The law’s criterion for parole is that it must be for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit.” But the federal regulations (at 8 C.F.R. §212.5(b)(5)) make the nonsensical determination that this criterion for parole is satisfied for an alien “whose continued detention is not in the public interest.” (Why would it ever not be “in the public interest,” to detain until their removal aliens who have — according to our immigration law — no legal status or permission to be here?) Then, ICE Directive 11002.1 establishes that criterion as automagically satisfied for aliens found to have a “credible fear.” However, one weighty proviso in the regulations — carried over into the Directive — is also being cynically overlooked: the parole is to be awarded only “provided the aliens present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding.”

7. A helpful, brief summary of the various proceedings, rules, and laws pertinent to admission or exclusion of aliens is available in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) “Legal Sidebar” 10150 — although it exaggerates the power and significance of the FSA, and especially of Judge Gee’s 2015 ruling (on which, see our companion post). This author found even more useful a pictorial representation of the different legal statuses “arriving aliens” go through, related to “expedited removal proceedings”; and so, has diagrammed the various state-changes — and events causing them — in the form of a UML “state-machine” diagram, which one may download from our server. (For any shortcomings of this state-diagram, the author is of course responsible.)

8. Nor can any lengthy delay precede any “administrative review” of their credible-fear interview’s determination: On the contrary, according to the law, this review “shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination.”

9. However, something was put into law, so to speak, which was a sort of “loophole”; but it was not in immigration law, but in a short-term funding bill — and not until this year. That was the horrible stipulation, as to expenditure of the funds, in sec. 224(a) of the budget bill Trump signed on February 15. Thankfully, this toxic provision expires when the funding expires — at the end of September.

Groundless “Catch and Release” of Alien Minors

One principal explanation for our ongoing “catch and release” border policy — according to the Executive Branch and most of the major media — is that:

Legal loopholes are exploited by minors, family units, and human smugglers, and are a magnet for illegal immigration.… These loopholes create a pull factor that invites more illegal immigration and encourages parents to pay and entrust their children to criminal organizations that will smuggle them in — often while abusing and molesting those children along the way. — DHS Release, Unaccompanied Alien Children and Family Units Are Flooding the Border Because of Catch and Release Loopholes, Feb. 15, 2018

The two “legal loopholes” which this DHS (Department of Homeland Security) Release cites are the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), 1997, and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008. The Release claims that these mandate, effectively, the Executive Branch’s “catch and release” policies for “unaccompanied alien children” (UACs), and for “family units” as well.

However, a careful look at these alleged loopholes shows that blaming them for “catch and release” is a red herring. Let’s examine each of these “legal loopholes” — in chronological order of creation — and what the DHS claims about them.

The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA)

The DHS Release wails and gnashes its teeth about the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement — and, how it has spawned “multiple onerous court decisions that handicap the government’s ability to detain and promptly remove UACs.” More specifically, it alleges that the FSA handicaps such ability in two ways:

“Under the Flores Agreement, DHS can only detain UACs for 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.”

But the limit of “20 days” appears nowhere in the Flores Agreement; it says only that the government must release a minor “without unnecessary delay.” In fact, it was Judge Dolly Gee, of the Central California Federal District Court, who in her ruling of July 24, 2015 read into that phrase, arbitrarily, the “20 days” meaning.

Moreover, the FSA applies the “without unnecessary delay” stricture to the minor’s release, only when “the INS determines that the detention of the minor is not required either to secure his or her timely appearance before the INS or the immigration court, or to ensure the minor’s safety or that of others.” [Emphasis ours.] So, if DHS could realistically say that, as a general rule, these minors were not going to show up for their removal hearings, then detention would seem absolutely “necessary [in order] to secure his or her timely appearance before the INS or the immigration court”; and thus, the FSA would not be mandating their release from detention.

But the DHS can realistically say that these minors are not generally going to appear — and indeed, they and other experts have often so implied. In fact, in this very Release the DHS complains that “UACs frequently abscond and fail to appear for their removal hearings before an immigration judge — with 66% of all removal orders for UACs from FY15 to FY17 resulting from a UAC’s failure to appear for a hearing”! How, then, can they turn right around and claim that under the FSA, “DHS can only detain UACs for 20 days before releasing them”?

The second way DHS claims that FSA — or at least, “recent rulings in the Flores consent decree litigation” — have handicapped the government is that it requires the government to release (without unnecessary delay) not just minors, but also any “family units” that happen to contain a minor. According to the Release:

The 100,000+ UACs who were released [from FY16 to date] are in addition to the more than 167,000 family units (i.e. alien children who are accompanied by an adult claiming to be a relative or guardian) that were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection from FY16 to date.

Nearly all of these Family Units are released into the interior of the United States because of judicially-imposed constraints on ICE’s authority to detain the entire family units as a result of recent rulings in the Flores consent decree litigation. [Italics ours; bold in original.]

This claim that parents of minors must, in general, be released with their minor children is so duplicitous, it’s astonishing. Here again, the FSA said no such thing: this is another invention of Judge Dolly Gee’s 2015 ruling. But don’t take our word for it: on this we can cite the cogently-argued ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (to which the government appealed Judge Gee’s ruling) in this very same case (Flores v. Lynch).

A year after Judge Gee’s District Court ruling, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court overturned that ruling’s part which said the FSA gives minors’ parents a right to be released. Judge Andrew Hurwitz, writing the opinion for the Ninth Circuit Court, made it unequivocal that: “The district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to provide release rights to adults. The Settlement does not explicitly provide any rights to adults.…

The fact that the Settlement grants class members [of this lawsuit] a right to preferential release to a parent over others does not mean that the government must also make a parent available; it simply means that, if available, a parent is the first choice. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion on the ‘Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California,’ July 6, 2016, pg. 19

Thus, according to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in this case, the Flores Agreement has no requirement whatsoever that family units containing minors be released.^[1]

The 2008 “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act” (TVPRA; a.k.a. “The Wilberforce Act”)

The other “legal loophole” which the DHS Release cites is the 2008 TVPRA, or “Wilberforce Act.” The DHS Release suggests three distinct ways in which the TVPRA presents “catch and release loopholes.”

The Release’s arguments for changing these provisions of the TVPRA are all reasonable. But none of them is at all convincing as to why “catch and release” is continuing. For none of the three TVPRA provisions is at all capable of causing“catch and release.”^[2]

Thus, none of the “catch and release loopholes” which the DHS Release attributes to TVPRA seem genuine. On the other hand, the implementation of TVPRA has been disastrously mishandled — in ways that are tantamount to “catch and release” and do contribute greatly — and obviously — to this “magnet” that is causing recent border surges. It is worth taking a minute to see that these are not problems with our immigration law, but with how — and to what extent — the Executive Branch is enforcing it.

The serious problems in the way the government is implementing TVPRA are twofold:

they are ignoring TVPRA’s broad inapplicability to an immigration-inflow with few genuine UACs in it (“unaccompanied alien minors”).^[3] And,
they’re likewise ignoring the illegal immigrant-status of the vast majority of sponsors (including parents or legal guardians) the minors are being placed with.^[4]

Yet, again, this is all a matter of horrendous misapplication — rather than of bad law. Thus, as far as the TVPRA itself is concerned, it is hard to improve on CIS researcher Jessica Vaughan’s summary of its (non-)impact on the Executive Branch’s authority:

To be sure, the Wilberforce Act [i.e., TVPRA] could stand some tweaking. It complicates the processing of apprehended illegal-alien children from countries other than Mexico in ways that are easy for the immigration-advocacy industry to exploit, and it has proven to be very costly to administer.

But this law is not the main problem. Even if this Congress could agree on a fix, the effort would only distract from the larger issue of inadequate enforcement generally. It can be reasonably argued that most of the new illegal arrivals — including many of the children — are not even covered by the Wilberforce Act, since they were not victims of trafficking and are no longer unaccompanied after being reunited with their families…. Lawmakers should recognize that once again it is the president’s interpretation of the law that is the problem, not the law itself. — Jessica Vaughan Don’t Blame the Border Crisis on a “Bush-Era” Law

Conclusion

This and other DHS statements about the border crisis have claimed that both “legal loopholes” and “asylum loopholes” (as we discuss in a companion article) are “tying the hands” of the Executive Branch, such that:

… we are stuck with a system that sanctions catch and release. Due to legal loopholes and court backlogs, even apprehended illegal aliens are released and become part of the temporary, illegal population of people that we cannot remove. — DHS Release, Ibid., Feb. 15, 2008 [Emphasis ours.]

But it turns out this is just histrionics and hot air. The American people need to be aware of the falsehood of these claims. For they need to know where, precisely, and why our immigration system is breaking down.

And — even more importantly — they need to understand (as we discuss further in a companion article) that powerful, nefarious conspirators are trying to deceive us about it, hoping to leverage our misunderstanding so as to remove our control of our borders — on the way to destroying our limited-government system and our national sovereignty.

Notes

1. For another thing, even this imaginative construction in the 2015 ruling was crucially qualified — in a way the DHS Release neglects to mention: According to Judge Hurwitz (on pg. 4), the District Court ruling by Judge Gee “ordered the government to:

(1) make ‘prompt and continuous efforts toward family reunification,’
(2) release class members [of this lawsuit] without unnecessary delay,
(3) detain class members in appropriate facilities,
(4) release an accompanying parent when releasing a child unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention or poses a safety risk or a significant flight risk,
(5) monitor compliance with detention conditions, and
(6) provide class counsel with monthly statistical information” (emphasis ours).

Yet, arriving adult aliens are always subject to “Expedited Removal Proceedings” (unless and until determined to have a “credible fear of persecution”) — which do entail mandatory detention!

2. The three TVPRA provisions the Release cites are:

(1) “Under TVPRA, UACs [‘unaccompanied minors’] who are not from Mexico and Canada are exempt from prompt return to their home country [because, instead of being returned almost immediately, they must be put into “formal removal proceedings,” and transferred to the custody of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS)]. We must amend the TVPRA so that all UACs who are not victims of human trafficking, regardless of country of origin, can be safely and promptly returned to their home countries.”
The problem here is that “not returned immediately” does not logically imply, “caught and released.”
(2) “We must amend TVPRA to limit the period to file asylum claims for UACs to one year consistent with all other applicants for asylum and ensure that these asylum cases are heard only in immigration court (no second bite at the apple).”
(3) “We must end abuse of the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) visa to ensure the applicant proves reunification with both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that the applicant is a victim of trafficking. This is necessary as many UACs are able to obtain a Green Card through SIJ status even though they were smuggled here to reunify with one parent present in the United States.”
This is a reasonable suggestion. But to allege this visa-law’s causal connection with “catch and release” overlooks that going through the process of applying for, and (eventually) receiving, a residence visa is not a sort of thing which people refer to as “catch and release.”

3. The legal sense of “UAC” (Unaccompanied Child) entails that “there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody” (emphasis ours).
Given this legal sense of the term, the TVPRA appears to be inapplicable to a vast majority of the children coming in the current border surge. As Daniel Horowitz writes (for Conservative Review), “a vast majority are placed with parents or other relatives who are already in this country illegally.” Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) corroborated that in 2018: “In FY 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), most of the UACs who were released were placed with parents or legal guardians.” And CIS’s Jon Feere, in 2014, commented: “According to advocates and media reports, around 90 percent of non-Mexican and non-Canadian children coming across the border are placed with family or guardians in the United States.”

4. Joseph Kolb is one of few authors to have brought this second issue to light (emphasis in bold here ours):
“The TVPRA calls for the HHS secretary to have the [unaccompanied] children promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best physical and emotional interest. This is the loophole HHS uses to place children with designated sponsors [who are] illegally in the United States. The law only refers to checking the sponsors’ immigration status, not [to] acting upon it. The perception by ORR [Office of Refugee Resettlement, within HHS] is that regardless of immigration status, placing the children with a parent is the preferred solution. The AP report found that more than 50 percent of the children were placed with parents.”

The “Deep State” Deception

The Insiders of the Conspiracy for world domination have long sought to neutralize expected resistance, in part by disparaging Conspiracy “theory” as a refuge of the ignorant. A principle tactic has been to highlight irresponsible and unsubstantiated conjecture, à la the emanations of Alex Jones, as representative of all claims of conspiracy. Many thinking Americans, regularly bombarded by such media, are thus understandably reluctant to consider even the solid evidence of conspiracy.

Recently, however, the Insiders have allowed, and even encouraged, the notion of a “Deep State” conspiracy to become popular. The central “Deep State” idea is that government employees are opposing a duly elected president. But this popular view serves to obscure the very real Conspiracy for totalitarian power, while confusing and neutralizing resistance. It also reinforces the great media swindle that the direction of our nation is decided by choosing a president, one of either Party acceptable to the Conspiracy.

Counterfeit Leadership
At one time, The John Birch Society (JBS) was the most reliable source for responsible leadership in exposing the Conspiracy. That mission has obviously changed.

Now the JBS seeks to identify its Conspiracy message with the “Deep State” publicity of Fox News and the mainstream media, and to promote the Establishment-supported image of President Trump as an outsider threatening the Establishment. (Note: Fox News was created by media-mogul Rupert Murdoch, at the time a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations [CFR].)

In doing so, the JBS forfeits the leadership upon which so many have depended to expose a very serious threat. JBS Founder Robert Welch described the Conspiracy as the “most ruthless conspiracy in human history” — a far cry from a group of swamp creatures protecting their turf.

Even worse, the JBS and its publication, The New American, are now reinforcing the Establishment campaign to neutralize conservatives. It’s certainly worth asking why? Let’s look at some examples.

Twice so far this year, The New American has devoted an entire issue to reporting on the “Deep State.” We look here at the first, the January 8 issue. In the opening article, “Deep State: Pulling Strings from Behind the Scenes,” we read:

Whatever one may think about Trump and his policies, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the 45th president is under attack by the Deep State as well. Longtime establishment loyalist Newt Gingrich hinted at it on Fox News before the election. Commenting on why Trump had the establishment in a panic, Gingrich said he is “an outsider; he’s not part of the club; he’s uncontrollable; he hasn’t been through the initiation rites; he didn’t belong to the secret society.” [Emphasis added.]

The New American avoids drawing the obvious conclusion. If Trump were “uncontrollable” and “not part of the club” and “under attack by the Deep State,” then why would “longtime establishment loyalist Newt Gingrich” stump for Trump and Trump’s agenda? (See Gingrich’s 2017 book “Understanding Trump” endorsed by Trump apologist Sean Hannity.)

And why would President Trump appoint members of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to high positions, such as his appointment of CFR veteran John Bolton as his National Security Advisor? (See our post, “The John Bolton Charade.”) Something is very fishy! The Establishment wants us to think that President Trump is not its friend, and The New American reinforces that objective.

We are reminded that Jimmy Carter also campaigned as an outsider to gain the presidency. Later, it was revealed that Carter was very much a part of the Establishment. After Carter had become a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, Insider Zbigniew Brzezinski groomed Carter to become president. In return, Carter would choose Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor.

The next article, “Bureaucracy vs. Trump, America, Constitution,” reinforces the false leadership. We are given a very watered-down concept of conspiracy as a bunch of unelected bureaucrats worried about protecting their turf from a president who had briefly promised to drain the swamp. In fact, after the election, President Trump disavowed the concept, according to his Establishment-supporter Newt Gingrich.

Indeed, the article excuses Trump’s failure to drain the swamp as “getting bad advice,” while trivializing the real Insiders in the President’s circle:

He may very well be getting bad advice from ‘Deep State’ operatives….

In fact, some of the Deep State’s leading luminaries — such as fanatical “New World Order” advocate and population-control zealot Henry Kissinger … have even been embraced by Trump in recent months. On October 10, Kissinger visited the Oval Office and was showered with praise by the president. “Henry Kissinger has been a friend of mine. I’ve liked him, I’ve respected him,” Trump said of the man who practically embodies the Deep State swamp. “He’s a man I have great, great respect for.”

Consider: Donald Trump has criticized NAFTA as a bad deal for America and is seeking to renegotiate its terms. But NAFTA is designed as a steppingstone to regional government, à la the European Union. As such, it constitutes a very serious threat, ignored by the President. The U.S. needs to get out of NAFTA, not renegotiate it. Yet President Trump’s “friend” Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller were the primary champions of NAFTA.

In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system…. A Western Hemisphere-wide free-trade system — with NAFTA as the first step — would give the Americas a commanding role no matter what happens.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.”

Indeed, what needs to be exposed is the architecture of NAFTA and the role the globalists envision for it: a steppingstone to regional government following the path of the European Union, and then a merging of regional governments into an unelected world-government tyranny.

In short, the American people are being scammed by the idea of a Deep State. Donald Trump is no serious threat to the globalist agenda, and The New American’s focus on the popularized “Deep State” bureaucracy of self-serving bureaucrats obscures the real looming danger.

Elsewhere, the magazine speaks of a “Deep State behind the Deep State” and ties the concept to “the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg network, as well as the secret societies.” But that only compounds the damaging confusion.

In the issue’s closing article, “Exposing the Deep State,” Arthur R. Thompson, the current CEO of The John Birch Society, claims:

But it is also true that the Deep State views President Trump as an outsider [thereby echoing Insider Newt Gingrich]. The swamp creatures detest him and his message of “America First….”

If that is true, then why does Trump appoint CFR swamp creatures to high positions? Moreover, let’s see how the Internationalist Establishment — the very real force that directs most of our government — actually views the President’s “America First” message.

Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs is the magazine of the International Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations. The November/December 2016 issue of Foreign Affairs, published shortly before the election, addressed “The Power of Populism” and presidential candidate Donald Trump’s appeal to America First. Although the articles register some concern, the authors are definitely not alarmed.

Indeed, “Populism” and “America First” are portrayed as natural reactions that serve to restrain elites. In “Trump and American Populism — Old Whine, New Bottles,” Michael Kazin writes:

For his part, the Republican nominee vowed, in a major address last April: “American First” will be the major and overriding theme of my administration….

Trump is hardly the first politician to bash elites and champion the interests of ordinary people…. Adherents to the second American populist tradition — the one to which Trump belongs — also blame elites in big business and government for undermining the common folk’s economic interests and political liberties…. At its best, populism provides a language that can strengthen democracy, not imperil it…. Populism has had an unruly past…. But Americans have found no more powerful way to demand that their political elites live up to the ideals of equal opportunity and democratic rule to which they pay lip service during campaign seasons. Populism can be dangerous, but it may also be necessary.

The “Deep State” in Action
The New American also devoted its entire August 20, 2018 issue to a “special report” on the Deep State — “Deep State in Action.” In actuality, there is little in the issue about the popular concept of the “Deep State.” Instead, the issue describes the work of Internationalists in several areas and then invents a tie to the Deep State, referring to these Internationalists as “Deep State globalists.”

In the lead essay to the issue, “The Deep State and Its Subversive Designs,” editor Gary Benoit accepts media complaints about President Trump and stories about a Deep State conspiracy as unquestionably sincere:

Anyone who doubts the reality of the Deep State needs only to survey today’s major news stories to recognize both that the Deep State exists and that this unelected shadow government within the executive branch of the U.S. government hates President Trump and is working to undermine and even overthrow his presidency.

The misdirection here is mindboggling (see The Bottom Line, below). Certainly, the JBS leadership recognizes the advantage to the Insiders of hyping conflict, real or otherwise, as with the promotion of professional wrestling. Attacks from the Left serve to convince busy conservatives that they can sit back and depend on “their” president to do what can be done.

Indeed, the JBS “leadership,” is encouraging the Trump euphoria, supporting the Establishment swindle that the American system is all about choosing a king every four years, and even insisting that everyone knows about the Conspiracy now — more “counterfeit leadership.”

Indeed it’s hard to see the difference in what’s coming out of JBS and what we expect from the Establishment’s Rush Limbaugh (who also targets the “Deep State”) or its National Review (see, for example, “Trump the Outsider,” May 21, 2018).

And the JBS now claims to have been exposing the Deep State for 60 years — an outrageous fabrication!

Conservative Fundraising Pumps a “Deep State” Threat
Most beltway “conservative” organizations fail to organize or inspire any grassroots efforts. Their message is merely “just send us money and you can sit back and relax. We’ll do good things on your behalf and report back to you.” The popularized “Deep State” seems to be their latest fundraising hot button.

A recent fundraising letter from the Campaign for Liberty was titled: “Stop the Deep State Coup.” Although the letter was written over former Congressman Ron Paul’s signature as Chairman, we doubt that Ron wrote it or even plays much of a role in the organization to which he lends his name.

While in Congress, Ron Paul would never admit there was a Conspiracy (he preferred to treat the battle as purely ideological among mistaken, sincere people). So it’s interesting to see what kind of Conspiracy he (or his fundraisers) have suddenly discovered:

There’s a cabal of Washington, D.C. insiders plotting a Deep State Coup to send a message that’s as clear as it is chilling . . .

They think the American people’s ability to determine the direction of our own government is just too “dangerous” to be allowed to stand….

The truth is, this Deep State Coup isn’t a coup against any one president. It’s a coup against us. The American people. It’s about our ability to determine our own destiny.

After watching the establishment of BOTH parties fail so spectacularly over the past two decades, the American people chose a president without establishment pedigree to stick it to ‘The Swamp’ in 2016 in no uncertain terms.

But Deep State swamp dwellers were never going to go down without a fight….

The truth is, the unchecked growth of government over the past few decades has resulted in thousands upon thousands of ‘Deep State’ Washington, D.C. bureaucrats who believe they should be the ones in charge.

That’s about as watered-down a description of what is driving America’s decline as you can imagine. It does nothing to inform readers regarding the very real Conspiracy for power that threatens America. But it does exploit those who support President Trump in order to raise money.

Similarly, a fundraiser from the conservative Judicial Watch group states:

Right now, Judicial Watch is in federal court with over 30 separate lawsuits to get to the truth behind a serious threat to our constitutional republic.

These lawsuits can help expose the illicit Deep State conspiracy to abuse government powers to target the Trump presidency….

Please, I urge you to help us today with a special contribution to help us fight in federal court.

It is time to confront illegal secrecy in government.

The charge that a conspiracy of turf-protectors originated within government actually reverses the record, while hiding the very real Conspiracy for totalitarian power. That Conspiracy originated outside of government and has successfully enabled its adherents to be appointed to positions of trust in government. For example, Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception — The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations pointed to the real origin and nature of current State Department control:

Within two weeks of the outbreak of war in Europe, the Council on Foreign Relations seized the opportunity to gain a foothold within the U.S. State Department. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter Mallory, the CFR’s executive director, met in Washington with Assistant Secretary of State George Messersmith (CFR). Armstrong and Mallory offered the CFR’s help in developing wartime policy and postwar planning for the State Department. Out of their offer grew the War and Peace Studies project, with financing by the Rockefeller Foundation.

The group worked in secret. Keep in mind that this “study group” was formed a full two years before the United States was brought officially into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The CFR’s “temporary” project and personnel were gradually absorbed into the State Department, and their influence expanded into permanent domination.

The Bottom Line
The attacks on President Trump from the Left have the effect of driving many conservatives more firmly into the pro-Trump camp. Reports of a Deep State conspiracy opposed to President Trump have the same effect.

Although the motivations of the several sources may be different, they all distract responsible Americans from the solid evidence of a Conspiracy to build a totalitarian world order. And they help many Americans decide to sit back and watch the President fight their battles.

Even those who believe that President Trump has good intentions should recognize that a President doesn’t have the power to reverse course alone. Our Founding Fathers and the Constitution created the House of Representatives as the means to control and rein in our government. Yet Trump’s message seems to be “leave it up to me – I’ll do it for you.” Yet this should alarm his followers, as Trump won’t be president forever.

We also observe that Trump doesn’t promote the principles of freedom, such as the Constitution, so he is supporting no real agenda to undo the inroads of the Conspiracy and he is providing no useful legacy to the next administration.

This is no time to sit back and expect any president to solve our problems. The Conspiracy’s agenda is moving rapidly forward and can only be stopped when more and more Americans inform themselves (but not with Fox News) and become involved.

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned. For example, there is the collusion in Congress to ignore the Constitution and our national debt, resulting in the decline in middle class opportunity. There is the widespread extolling of “diversity” as a replacement for a culture that supports freedom. There is the attack on the traditional family. There is the drive to legitimize the pot culture, as though the human race was created to fill an opium den. And we could point to many more.

Lou Dobbs Pumps Trump

“Does it ever seem to you that President Trump has done more than any president in modern history in just 16 months? Yep, me too. He’s not only done more in that short time than any president since FDR, but he’s also rolled back almost all of his predecessor’s two-term, so-called legacy legislation, executive orders, and regulations. 16 months [of Trump] … and 8 years of Obama is just about gone.” — Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network video clip, June 1, 2018

What a stretch of the facts! But the problem here is not Dobb’s blatantly unjustified assessment. The problem is that Lou Dobbs betrays his conservative audience with his assurance that everything is moving nicely under the current president — so just sit back and watch the president perform.

Before we examine the betrayal issue, however, let’s take a look at Dobb’s claim. Among his examples of Obama administration rollbacks, Dobbs lists “executive orders and regulations.” He seems to be referring to the disapproval by Congress of several administrative rules issued by the outgoing Obama administration in its waning days — hardly a major roll back of eight years of Obama.

But how about other key areas? Let’s take a brief look at the lack of progress in three — the Culture War, energy independence, and “trade” — that contradicts Dobb’s claim.

The “Culture War”

Revolutionary forces have waged a Culture War in America for decades — a ubiquitous assault upon America’s moral, spiritual, and cultural underpinnings. They have drawn support from the writings of Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who argued that the road to power in the developed countries was “to capture the culture.” Gramsci focused particularly on undermining what George Washington regarded as necessary for the support of a free society — religion and morality. And President Obama certainly picked up the Gramscian torch:

“Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced an end to the military’s longstanding ban on openly transgender service members on Thursday, fulfilling a key piece of the Obama administration’s historic legacy on LGBT rights.” — NBC News. June 30, 2016

The Obama administration’s decision to force our military to cope with multiple aspired non-biological genders was a clear subversion of military effectiveness and morale. And so, President Trump’s March 2018 order was popular in conservative quarters:

“President Trump released an order Friday night banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under ‘limited circumstances,’ following up on his calls last year to ban transgender individuals from serving.” — CBS News, March 24, 2018

However, the President’s order was quickly blocked by several court challenges, and four federal courts quickly ruled against the ban. The matter is now working its way through the courts.

Indeed, much of the public perception regarding President Trump’s accomplishments is due to the Left’s reaction to his threats or orders (such as his order temporarily banning Syrian refugees). But Trump generally allowed his orders to be blocked by radical courts or neutered. We are reminded of Andrew Jackson’s famous alleged response to a 1832 decision of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

That’s the story, in a nutshell, of the ongoing Culture War. Although it was the Supreme Court, not the Obama administration, that legitimized same-sex marriage, President Obama and a sympathetic Establishment media supported an agenda that undermined public resistance to the decision. And President Trump has accepted the decision as okay.

The inroads of the Culture War are still in place, and the war is still raging unchallenged, with the public being hammered into submission. Indeed, that war will continue until the public is informed as to its real aim — to make freedom unsustainable — and the sponsors of the groups promoting the clever, but phony pretext of tolerance are exposed for their real agenda.

Energy Independence

As another example of lack of progress, where is the substance from Trump’s announced “intention” to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, which were signed by President Obama? The earliest the U.S. withdrawal might take place would be November 2020, (unless, as Trump demands, the U.S. could get more favorable terms)?

In the meantime, we have not seen any progress toward putting the U.S. on the road to energy independence. For example, where are the new nuclear power plants being built to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power (as of 2015, France generated 40 percent of its electricity with this American technology, now blocked from use in the U.S.)? Or when will American companies be allowed to tap our vast reserves of shale oil?

A more fundamental weakness is the failure of the Trump administration to enlighten the public, even with tweets, as to the agenda and fundamental deception of the environmental movement. In particular, the administration is not telling the public that high-level Insiders have promoted the fiction of catastrophic man-made climate change as a pretext for a power grab. And the battle for sufficient energy at an affordable cost cannot be won without the support of an informed public.

Trade

Or how about the misplaced focus in the president’s plan to renegotiate NAFTA to get a better deal? NAFTA is a deceptive Internationalist attack on the freedom and independence of the United States. It is designed to imitate the similar deception of the European Common Market, which led to the European Union. NAFTA is much more than a trade agreement. And the U.S. needs leadership to get us out of the trap. “Fair trade” is not the issue. (See our web post, “Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!”)

“This President Is a Marvel”

Much of President Trump’s real accomplishment has been to energize the Left while putting many conservatives to sleep. Both Lou Dobbs and Fox News are major forces helping to achieve the latter. They are promoting the great American swindle that a president is supposed to run our nation and that the job of a responsible public is merely to choose every four years between the GOP and Democratic contenders, as vetted by the Establishment.

In a portion of his three-minute video commentary, Dobbs “marvel[s] at President Trump’s abundant, even endless energy,” and lists the following examples:

Trump made two flights to give speeches;
he signed the “Right to Try Act”;
he pardoned the late Jack Johnson and Dinesh D’Souza;
he might soon pardon Martha Stewart.

“And now he’s slapping tariffs on Mexico and Canada because they won’t negotiate on NAFTA and the European Union because, well, just because they deserve it.

“Negotiating to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and undeterred by the massive odds against success, an unlikely success, admittedly, but one that would cause the world to catch its breath — just the kind of odds that President Trump has overcome in his extraordinary life.”

If we were seeking to pump Trump, we could easily list more credible actions. For example, we were surprised that Dobbs didn’t mention the tax cut or President Trump’s court appointees.

Instead, Dobbs mentions that Trump signed the “The Right to Try Act.” The Senate passed the Act last year by “unanimous consent” without a recorded vote. The Act changes the FDA procedures to allow critically ill patients to “try” experimental, potentially live-saving drugs. While this may deliver on one of Trump’s promises, the Dobbs and Fox focus camouflages the very real danger threating our nation (see below).

Dobbs concludes his endorsement with these words:

“And all the president is doing is leading, and as, he promised, winning. And, yes, he keeps tweeting as well.

“And if you’re confused about what he’s doing about the massive trade deficit with China, bringing 323 actions and 301s as well, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and the European Union tomorrow, well, just read the most succinct policy statement that a president has ever written. It reads, here’s his tweet: ‘Fair trade, explanation point.’

“Like I said, this president is a marvel.”

Covering Up the Real Threat

Lou Dobb’s endorsement will certainly gain him approval from Trump fans, and help keep them hooked on Fox. But Lou Dobbs is not a “watchman on the tower” blowing a trumpet to warn of impending danger.

Instead, Lou Dobbs and Fox are playing a flute to put their viewers to sleep.

Both the conservative and Leftist wings of the CFR-controlled media serve the Internationalist Conspiracy by covering up its existence, influence, and agenda, while entertaining their audiences with relatively minor conflicts (see, for example, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade”).

Indeed, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade,”also demonstrates how the Establishment media hype phony leaders to conservatives. John Bolton, President Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor and most recently a Fox News analyst, is no real foe of the UN. While both complain about the UN, they also accept the legitimacy of the UN. But the Internationalists created the UN through deception as a step to an unaccountable world order run by them (see our web post, “The UN — Freedom’s Enemy”).

And the most prominent front group for this cabal in the U.S. is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), of which John Bolton has been a veteran member since 2000. For many years, Rupert Murdoch, the founder and current CEO of Fox News, was also a member. So perhaps it is not surprising that Fox News and its voices do not expose this group and its subversive agenda.

Most viewers of Lou Dobbs would regard him as a “conservative,” although he describes himself as an “independent populist.” Independent? The notion that the major media conglomerates have no agenda other than making money is a myth. They do not just hire anyone whom they believe can deliver exceptional ratings, and then give them a free rein. And let’s be careful of the not so well understood term “populist.” Jimmy Carter also described himself as a “populist.”

Like so many of his popular “conservative” colleagues, Dobbs provides doses of commonsense based on a seriously deficient view of what is driving America’s problems.

Indeed, the accolades Lou Dobbs paid to President Trump say a lot more about Dobbs and Fox than they do about the president.

The John Bolton Charade

“‘Maybe one of the worst mistakes that President Trump has made since he’s been in office is his employment of John Bolton, who has been advocating a war with North Korea for a long time and even an attack on Iran, and who has been one of the leading figures on orchestrating the decision to invade Iraq,” [former President Jimmy Carter, CFR, Trilateralist] said. He called the appointment, announced last week, ‘a disaster for our country.’” —, USA Today, 3-26-18

“To [J.P.] Morgan all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps.” — Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time(New York: Macmillan, 1966), p, 950

Promotion 101 — Hype Conflict

Establishment strategists have long hyped conflict in which they pick, control, or influence both sides. In this, they follow the practice of the promoters of professional wrestling matches. Several purposes are served. Foremost is to direct conservative public attention into “safe” channels, thereby hampering the development of any serious opposition to the goal of an Insider Conspiracy — unaccountable world power.

Establishment strategists also use conflict and their dominance of the media of communications to promote “safe” leaders who will appeal to different public factions. For the conservative faction, they provide phony “conservative” leaders.

Opposition to Bolton

A clever way to convince conservatives to adopt an Establishment figure as one of theirs is to have that figure attacked by the Left. Leftist voices also need causes to maintain their loyal support. Opposing political figures who have a conservative image, even if it’s a phony image, helps fill that need.

This played out recently with the extensive criticism from the Left of President Trump’s selection of former UN ambassador John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, effective April 9, 2018.

Liberal attacks on Bolton started as far back as 2005. When President George W. Bush nominated Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Senate liberals attacked Bolton for being too conservative and anti-UN. In one Senate exchange, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Bolton: “You have nothing but disdain for the U.N.”

The attacks helped both Bush and Bolton shore up their images as conservatives. Following repeated Senate stalling in processing the nomination, President Bush made a recess appointment of Bolton, who served as UN ambassador for a little more than a year (August 2, 2005 – December 31, 2006).

Following the announcement of President Trump’s appointment of Bolton, much of the previous criticism from the Left was recycled.

Newsweek, now managed by a former editor of the liberal Huffington Post, published an opinion piece, “John Bolton is a Threat at Home and Abroad,” by Patrick Eddington:

“In Bolton, Trump will have a kindred spirit who sees enemies everywhere and who does not hesitate to attack them, at home or abroad.” — Newsweek, 4-8-18

Much of the Establishment media also highlighted criticism of Bolton:

“Bolton, probably the most divisive foreign policy expert ever to serve as U.N. ambassador, has served as a hawkish voice in Republican foreign policy circles for decades.” — AP (3-22-18)

Bolton Endorsements

But the media reaction was not all negative. The Trump White House was able to trumpet a bunch of favorable headlines and reactions from the national press. Here are several:

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: John Bolton for National Security

“President Trump has said he is at last assembling a Cabinet team to his liking, and late Thursday he announced that John Bolton will replace General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Adviser. It is a solid and experienced choice….”

[FFS: but note that the Wall Street Journal is now owned by Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.]

FORMER SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK) IN USA TODAY: Bolton Right Choice on National Security

“The president’s decision to appoint John Bolton as his national security adviser reflects an understanding of the critical lessons of history, and the Bolton designation will greatly reduce the grave risks now faced by America during today’s increasingly troubled times.”

[FFS: We don’t trust Tom Coburn. He has dedicated himself to the well financed effort to mislead state legislatures into calling for an uncontrollable constitutional convention. In March of 2015, he appeared on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News promoting a Convention of the States to eliminate “waste, fraud, or duplication.” Coburn repeated a clever deception of proponents: “It’s an Article V convention of states. It’s not a constitutional convention.” He also falsely claimed that the Founders wrote Article V so we could put limits on government. No, they gave us the Constitution to do that.]

NATIONAL REVIEW’S DAVID FRENCH: John Bolton isn’t Dangerous. The World is.

“He’s a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He’s on the board of trustees of the National Review Institute. He’s a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He’s a conservative hawk, yes, but he’s squarely in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought.”

[FFS: What National Review would have us believe is “mainstream” is an outrageous audacity. National Review has served as an Establishment tool to mislead and neutralize conservatives since the days of William F. Buckley, Jr.]

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ BRET STEPHENS: John Bolton is Right About the U.N.

“I agree with Bolton about some things and disagree about others. But on the U.N. he’s been right all along. If his presence in the White House helps to scare the organization into real reform, so much the better.”

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE’S MICHAEL RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Enough with the John Bolton Smears — He’ll be the Best National Security Adviser in a Generation

“But Bolton is a formidable intellect, a clear thinker, organized, and a team player. The purpose of the National Security Council is to coordinate the interagency process.”

HUGH HEWITT IN THE WASHINGTON POST: John Bolton is a Great Addition to the White House

“As the president’s top security aide, Bolton will be an honest broker and someone who can drive decisions through molasses-thick resistance. These qualities, plus his top-shelf intellect, make Bolton the best national security player to join Trump’s West Wing team so far.”

The Real John Bolton

John Bolton has solid Establishment credentials ignored by the media. Instead, media stories highlighted the fact that Trump was recruiting again from the “conservative” Fox News, where Bolton had most recently been serving as an analyst:

“President Donald Trump’s favorite TV network is increasingly serving as a West Wing casting call, as the president reshapes his administration with camera-ready personalities.

“Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, is a former U.N. ambassador, a White House veteran — and perhaps most importantly a Fox News channel talking head…. ‘He’s looking for people who are ready to be part of that television White House,’ said Kendall Phillips, a communication and rhetorical studies professor at Syracuse University. ‘This is the Fox television presidency all the way up and down.’” [Emphasis added.], AP, 3-25-18

The misleading superficial news reports did not mention Bolton’s Establishment credentials as a veteran member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or those of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch (CFR).

Indeed, Bolton was invited to join the CFR has far back as 2000. Bolton could even boast earlier articles in the Council’s magazine, Foreign Affairs. For the January/February 1999 issue he wrote: “The Global Prosecutors: Hunting War Criminals in the Name of Utopia.” The article spelled out Bolton’s criticism of the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) and why he objected to U.S. membership.

In its 2000 Annual Report, the Council on Foreign Relations revealed an even closer relationship:

“Through the National Program, the Council sponsored debates in key cities nationwide on the Council Policy Initiative ‘Toward an International Criminal Court?’ CPI authors Ruth Wedgwood, John R. Bolton, Anne-Marie Slaughter [a Clinton appointee and former CFR Director], and Kenneth Roth [Executive Director of the left-wing Human Rights Watch] examined whether the United States should endorse, reject, or revise the proposal to create an international criminal court.”

Bolton’s opposition to the ICC, while serving in the Bush State Department, helped establish his “conservative” credentials. However, in a November 14, 2002 speech to the Federalist Society, he explained that the Bush administration only objected to the ICC in is present form, but would like to see “ad hoc tribunals … overseen by the UN Security Council [and] under a UN Charter to which virtually all nations have agreed.”

John Bolton has associated with many organizations, particularly those that have a conservative image and are dominated by the Establishment. A noteworthy example is the CFR-dominated “Project for the New American Century” [PNAC]. PNAC was formed in 1997 by a team that included former CFR Director Dick Cheney and William Kristol, who became its chairman. Kristol had vehemently opposed the nomination of Donald Trump, now enthusiastically embraced by Fox News. Yet in 1995, Kristol had helped found and edit the neo-con Weekly Standard magazine financed by Rupert Murdoch (CFR), who would later found Fox News. Establishment strategists undoubtedly regard apparent conflict as necessary to gain a following and therefore useful, if kept within bounds.

John Bolton has attended the exclusive, invitation-only Bilderberg Conferences of high-level Insiders, such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Haass (the current President of the CFR).

On January 21, 2003, Bolton was invited to address the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House, the British counterpart to the CFR.

The Real Bolton and the UN

At a presidential press conference held on April 28, 2005, a journalist asked President George W. Bush about the controversy surrounding his nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. The president’s reply included this story:

“See, the U.N. needs reform. If you’re interested in reforming the U.N., like I’m interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who’s skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.

“Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office, I said, before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: do you think the United Nations is important? See, I didn’t want to send somebody up there who said, it’s not — it’s not worth a darn; I don’t think I need to go. He said, no, it’s important. But it needs to be reformed.”

What a charade! For many decades, calls to reform the UN have been used to shield the increasingly unpopular UN from demands to get the U.S. out! and thereby abolish it altogether. Indeed, U.S. withdrawal would be totally unacceptable to the Insiders at the CFR.

Recall that CFR Insiders saw World War II as an opportunity to overcome the U.S. Senate refusal to join the Internationalists’ League of Nations following World War I. Within two weeks of the outbreak of new war in Europe, and a full two-years before Pearl Harbor, trusted CFR members were allowed to take over postwar planning for the U.S. State Department. Absorbed into the State Department, they designed the UN and orchestrated the cry for U.S. membership in the UN as “mankind’s last best hope for peace.”

We don’t know what John Bolton might recommend re North Korea, but one thing we know for sure — he won’t push for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations. “Reform” sure. Criticize yes. But withdraw no.

Indeed, in hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in April 2005, John Bolton stated:

“Walking away from the United Nations is not an option…. The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy…. Now more than ever the UN must play a critical role, as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise….”

The Insiders of the Internationalist Conspiracy have done a good job in misleading busy conservatives by creating phony “conservative” media that promote media personalities and political leaders who posture as conservative but cooperate with the subversive agenda of the Internationalists.

In an April 2005 interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Condoleezza Rice (CFR), President Bush’s Secretary of State, echoed John Bolton’s commitment to strengthening the United Nations:

“There’s no doubt that this is an organization that needs updating and reforming in order to be effective…. And, we’re a founding member of the United Nations. We shouldn’t abandon it. We should make it a stronger instrument.”

Deception abounds! John Bolton has long played a part in advancing the CFR agenda.

Gun Grab Cover-up

“Gun control advocates and Democratic lawmakers are keeping the pressure on President Trump and Republicans to act on gun reform even as other controversies threaten to consume the spotlight nearly three weeks after a school shooting that left 17 people dead in South Florida.” — The Hill, 3-4-18

Much of the media and numerous politicians would have us believe that the easy availability of guns is responsible for the recent mass murder of 17 Florida high school students, i.e., the weapon caused the crime. The media would also have us believe that the survivors of the mass shooting are now unanimous advocates of more gun control as the solution. At the same time, the media covers up the revolutionary organization and totalitarian objectives driving the gun-control agenda, while retailing the fiction that the gun-control movement is only interested in promoting “gun safety.”

In her February 28th column, Ann Coulter gave us good reason to question the media-created impression that all the school’s shooting survivors are now passionate gun control advocates. Coulter pointed out how the perpetrator, Nicolas Cruz, had repeatedly and openly threatened to kill students, but that school and law enforcement officials had refused to act. The reason: an official Broward County policy on school discipline ostensibly intended to end the “school-to-prison pipeline”:

“If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other ‘red flags.’…

“At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., ‘I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,’ ‘I’m going to watch you bleed,’ ‘I am going to shoot you dead’ — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

“Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.”
Coulter concludes: “When it comes to spectacular crimes, it’s usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail.”

The Cover-up

Yet there is much more to this story and its fallout than intolerable law enforcement “failure.” Ann attributes the refusal of Broward County officials “to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students” to their “pursuit of a demented ideology.” With this focus, Coulter insulates her readers from a much more sinister, decades-long agenda — the drive for civilian disarmament as a precursor to totalitarian control.

Establishment Insiders have pursued this agenda, domestically and through the United Nations for decades, but a corrupted media ensures that the public has zero awareness of the supporting organization and its real objectives. It’s not “demented ideology” driving the disarmament agenda; it’s a deceptive, unscrupulous power grab.

And so Ann, along with most of her controlled-media colleagues, ignores the critical reason why the horrible Florida crime has been so extensively adopted as a new convenient emotional pretext to drive the civilian disarmament agenda.

Americans who listen only to the major channels of Establishment opinion regularly hear about the monsters that have targeted defenseless school children and civilians. But they are not told about another monster in the wings — uncontrolled government, which so animated our founding fathers long before Professor R. J. Rummel documented the totalitarian record of the 20th Century in his Death By Government. Nor are they reminded of the Rwanda genocide resulting from UN-supported civilian disarmament.

And naturally, Americans are not told of the organized forces behind the deadly gun-control deception. For example, in the their 1958 classic, World Peace Through World Law, Grenville Clark, head of the United World Federalists, and Louis P. Sohn, later a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, spelled out an agenda for a “world police force” and called for rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens.

A clever propaganda piece, “Jefferson’s ‘tree of liberty’ and the blood of schoolchildren,” published by a Senior Editor for Yahoo News (2-15-18) illustrates the media-created ignorance of the gun-control threat:

“The idea that Americans should arm themselves to fight ‘state overreach’ is a staple of gun-rights groups and politicians occupying the political terrain that runs rightward roughly from the NRA to the edge of the earth. It goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants.’

“And — call me naïve — but I would much sooner entrust my freedom to America’s justice system, which is also part of the Constitution, than to a bunch of middle-aged guys running around the woods in camo pants, no matter what kinds of guns they have.”

Of course, the preferred value of an armed citizenry is as one deterrent against a blatant assault on our liberties or form of government. Nobody should imagine that a minority of unsupported civilians could prevail in battle with the state. If the deterrent failed, universal support for action by an informed public, including even members of the military, would be necessary to reestablish “the tree of liberty.”

But many defenders of the Second Amendment make the mistake of relying solely on gun ownership for safety against tyranny. Would-be totalitarians do not depend on a single campaign such as gun-control to secure their aims — they seek to manipulate public opinion through control of the mass media, to create dependence on government for basic necessities, such as health care, and to create a submissive culture, among many other initiatives.

Other Ignored Factors

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams, while addressing the officers of the Militia of Massachusetts, explained: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We often find that Insider-controlled government is concocting a dangerous antidote to the poison it has itself created. In light of Adams’ admonition, consider the Federal government’s role in the culture war: the attack on the traditional family, the disrespect for religion, and the denigration of traditional moral standards.

Almost a century ago, Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, a prime strategist in the culture war, argued that in the developed Western democracies, the quick seizure of state power was doomed to failure. Instead, he insisted that for a revolution to be successful the supporting culture first had to be changed. The altered culture would then prepare the people, intellectually and morally, to accept the revolution.

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism

An internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper, discovered following the post-World War II takeover of Czechoslovakia, documented the deceptive practice known as “revolutionary parliamentarianism.” The tactic seeks to create the appearance of widespread popular pressure for revolutionary action.

Sympathizers in parliament (Congress) can then advance the revolutionary measure as though they were just responding to overwhelming public demand. Others congressmen, finding it difficult to stand up to the illusion, are pulled along.

Let’s look at several current examples of how the media, sympathetic politicians, and revolutionary organization create the illusion of genuine mass support for the gun-control agenda:

“Congress is under intense pressure to take action following the shooting, which reopened a national debate on guns.” [Emphasis added] — The Hill (2-27-18)

What debate? What the media calls a national debate is merely a media-orchestrated propaganda assault, masquerading as a debate. The voices put forth in the “debate” are carefully selected to keep the message within “acceptable” bounds and with an “acceptable” impact.

And how is the pressure organized, by whom, and for what purpose?

“Teenaged survivors of the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting have amassed huge followings on social media in the weeks since a gunman attacked their school, assembling powerful social media tools in the national debate over guns and mass shootings….

“The survivors’ emergence as pro-gun control voices on social media is a new development in the response to mass shootings.” — The Hill (3-3-18)

No one should doubt the initiative of teenagers to make use of social media and the new tools of technology. But somewhere the activists among them were mentored or encouraged by unmentioned adult forces. Nor should we accept that several hundred teenagers all have the same mind or speak with one voice.

Earlier, AP (2-20-18) reported:

“Students who survived the Florida school shooting began a journey Tuesday to the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to prevent another massacre….”

“Three buses carried 100 students who, in the aftermath of the attack that killed 17 people, want to revive the gun-control movement.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the teens organized this all by themselves? Consider this report in The Hill (2-20-18):

“Lawmakers say they are feeling more pressure than ever to act on gun control after the latest deadly mass shooting at a public high school.

“A large reason, aides and lawmakers alike say, is the emotional pleas from students who survived the shooting — and who have expressed horror at the idea that nothing will be done in response to the killings of their schoolmates.

“The grass-roots movement, dubbed ‘Never Again,’ has kept an extra layer of pressure on members to enact stricter gun laws and take other steps to prevent future massacres….

“Still, the public outcry that followed last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has fueled some hope among gun reformers that the political winds are shifting in their favor.

“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said the protests in recent days constitute ‘a new type of organic outcry,’ one even more prominent than the demonstrations that followed a similar shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“But after the latest deadly shooting rampage in Florida, high school students are taking the fight into their own hands — a powerful shift that appears to be having an impact on the national conversation surrounding the emotional and heated gun control debate….

“Young activists have been making impassioned pleas on national television, demanding action from their elected officials and organizing rallies, walkouts and marches — including one planned for Washington, D.C., on March 24.” [Emphasis added.]

The Hill and Democratic Representative Mike Thompson would have us believe that the teens planned this all by themselves. AFP (2-18-18) reveals more of the extensive planning:

“The ‘March for our Lives’ will take place on March 24, with sister marches planned across the country, a group of students told ABC News, vowing to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in America’s deadlocked debate on gun control.”

And Fox News (3-5-18) also reported the advertised planning, while cooperating with the revolutionaries to hide the “rest of the story” and keep the public in the dark:

“So along with 16-year-old Madeline Paterna, Giancola began to arrange for her school to participate in the National School Walkout, a protest led by students demanding action against gun violence, on March 14 – one month after the Parkland school shooting….

“For 17 minutes at 10 a.m. across each time zone on March 14, students, school faculty and supporters around the world will walk out of their schools to honor those killed in the massacre at the Parkland high school earlier this year and to protest gun violence.

“More than 185,000 students are expected to participate in the walkout, according to the latest numbers provided by a Women’s March spokesperson. And a map of participating schools on the event’s website shows the walkout has gone international – with schools in Ireland, Israel and Mexico participating.”

Fox News did point to a https://www.womensmarch.com/empower/coalition group calling itself Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, sporting a clenched fist in its website logo, as the organizers of the March 14 demonstration. But the Fox story supported the protest by pointing students to another website where students could find out if their school is participating and the story recited the group’s objective to “protest Congress’ inaction” at face value.

Good Morning America (2-27-18) reported on a Rhode Island executive order to “establish a new ‘red flag’ policy” to “help keep guns away from people who ‘could pose significant threats to public safety.’”

“‘The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort,” Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday. ‘We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence.’” [Emphasis added.]

And for “authoritative” input to the public “debate,” Good Morning America gave us this:

“‘Today is a major victory for Rhode Islanders and an encouraging sign for people throughout the country as they demand lawmakers take concrete action to prevent gun violence,’ Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.” [Emphasis added.]

Leadership Betrayal

As usual, we see political leaders in both parties eagerly supporting the orchestrated Insider media spin that what the Florida mass shootings demonstrate is the need for government to give us more “gun safety.” Here are a few examples:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

“Propose something, Mr. President. And I think Republicans have an obligation to work with Democrats to make it law if we can,” Graham said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” — The Hill (3-4-18)

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R):

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich commended young Americans for demanding that their elected officials take decisive actions to reduce gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla…..

“According to Kasich, their idealism may actually succeed in ushering in new gun measures to protect Americans.

“‘And the more they push, the better chance we have of getting something done — to have greater gun safety and better protection for everybody in our country,’ he said.” — Yahoo (3-4-18)

House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“‘Yesterday, we were encouraged by what President Trump had to say, our members who attended the meeting,’ Pelosi said.

“The minority leader was also encouraged by Trump pushing for legislation that would institute background checks for firearms purchased online or at gun shows. A bipartisan measure from Reps. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., that would do just that has reached 200 co-sponsors in the House.

“‘We’ve never had anything like 200 names on a gun safety bill. This is remarkable,’ Pelosi said. The King-Thompson bill is something Democrats have long pushed for in the wake of mass shootings like the one February 14 at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 dead….

“‘I know if the comprehensive bill on background checks came to the floor, it would win,’ Pelosi said.” — Roll Call (3-1-18)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

“Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach….

“‘For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,’ Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).” [Emphasis added.] — The Hill (3-1-18)

A Final Word: The Wisdom of James Madison

From his deep study of history, James Madison warned of the dangers of ignorance, deception, and betrayal:

“Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.

“But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.”

Please share this perspective widely!

Immigration Betrayal!

To solve the immigration problem, we must first understand why it exists. And that requires digging deeper than just blaming desperate foreigners for crossing our borders illegally in search of a better life. Indeed, the real reason why both illegal and legal immigration are out of control is because it serves an influential cabal targeting our freedom. And only Congress, under pressure from an informed electorate, can stop the betrayal.

The Intended Damage

Massive immigration that does not assimilate subverts our culture — the culture that supports freedom. This is not racism or xenophobia. It was the attitude of America’s founders.

In his report on immigration to the First Congress, James Madison urged that America “welcome every person of good fame [who] really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States.”

Alexander Hamilton argued that our goal should be “to render the people of this country as homogeneous as possible” as that “must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanency of their union and prosperity.”

Immigrants who do not assimilate create conflict in society (useful to would-be totalitarians), or in Hamilton’s words: “In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

With today’s massive government welfare extended to illegal immigrants, the economic strain undermines the middle class, another bulwark of freedom. The welfare magnet should not be underestimated. In the early part of the previous century, the absence of a welfare state made assimilation a necessity. Indeed, many immigrants returned to their native lands when they couldn’t make it here in the work force.

Then, of course, the criminal element, terrorists, and drugs coming across our porous southern border help to destabilize society. In particular, smuggled heroin fuels the opioid epidemic, which serves the goals of those seeking authoritarian government and a submissive population.

Organized Subversion

The Insiders of an organized Conspiracy have supported specific programs that have led to America’s immigration crisis. For example, politicians carrying out the Insiders’ agenda have encouraged illegal immigration by extending government welfare to illegals and promoting amnesty. They have also undermined border enforcement by refusing to adequately fund the border patrol or even repair fences.

These Insiders have supported socialism and conflict around the world, also encouraging illegal immigration. And wars and pogroms by totalitarian regimes, whose birth can be credited to the Insiders, create pressure on America (and European nations) to accept refugees. In addition to the sheer numbers of immigrants, several Establishment-promoted programs (see below) serve to discourage assimilation.

The “Open Borders” Movement

For decades, Robert L. Bartley, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), used his position as editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal to influence conservative readers, arguing that the nation-state was finished and that America should have open borders.

Insiders have promoted hemispheric integration via NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. In May 2005, just a few years after the 9-11 attacks, the CFR’s “Independent Task Force on the Future of North America” issued its report, “Building a North American Community.” The report proposed a North American Security Perimeter as a substitute for enforcing national borders.

The radical immigrants’ rights organizations also subvert border enforcement, in particular by challenging deportations in court. But these organizations didn’t just spring up by themselves, they had Establishment funding, most notably from the Ford Foundation.

The Ford Foundation

It is inexcusable today for any competent reporter to allow “advocacy groups” to posture as genuine grassroots defenders of Latino interests. By the mid-1990s resistance groups compiled several studies exposing the fraud. In 1994, for example, the American Immigration Control Foundation published Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda by William R. Hawkins, providing much of the background and history of MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund).

By examining the flow of funds, one quickly discovers that the Ford Foundation virtually created the radical Chicano movement, which seeks open borders, uncontrolled immigration from Mexico, and the de facto reconquest by Mexico of the Southwest portion of the United States (termed Atzlan by the radicals). (Note: Ford Foundation subversion was uncovered by the Reece Committee, going way back to the 1950s, but that story has long been forgotten.)

In 1995, syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship. Her book should have been a wake-up call, as it included admissions against interest by someone with both radical liberal and Establishment credentials. Georgie Ann Geyer was (and still is) a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an open disciple of the late Marxist and radical organizer Saul Alinsky. Let’s see what Geyer had to say.

Geyer’s book described how radicals were following the strategy of infiltration advocated by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to render impotent every tenet of our culture. Geyer claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Marxists have infected “American universities, unions, churches, bureaucracies, and corporations…. Three whole generations, often its best students and thinkers and even labor leaders, were formed with a Marxist component to their thoughts and actions, often without even knowing it.”

Americans No More didn’t just focus on the visible activists. Geyer documented how Insider tax-exempt foundations had helped to create ethnic grievance groups. She even provided personal testimony. In the early 1980s, Geyer met with “two representatives of one of the major and supposedly representative ‘Hispanic’ groups, the National Council of La Raza.” When Geyer asked, “How many members do you have?,” one of the representatives admitted, “Well, we don’t have members.”

An incredulous Geyer demanded to know how an organization without members could fund and support its activities. The representatives replied, almost in unison, “The Ford Foundation!” As Geyer tells the story: “The two smiled as though they did not have a care in the world, and, indeed, financially, they did not. To promote and push through their programs and policies, they needed no elections, no campaign strategies, and none of that bothersome business of fund-raising or member-seeking. At the same time, of course, they basically suffered accountability neither to disparate sources of funding nor to the fickle interests of individuals.” With such support, La Raza could boast 150 organizations in 36 states!

Legal aid organizations, immigrants’ rights groups, and radical churches have widely distributed “The Bill of Rights for the Undocumented Worker.” Article VII demands: “Every immigrant worker shall be guaranteed the same rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens, especially the right of access to free and adequate social and health services, child-care and other similar social benefits.” And Article VIII states: “Every immigrant worker shall have the right to quality public education in his or her native language….”

Note: When Trilateralist Jimmy Carter became president in 1977, he chose “immigrants’ rights” activist Leonel J. Castillo to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Castillo adopted the euphemism “undocumented workers” as the official INS term for illegal immigrants.

Establishment Foundations and the federal government have also aggressively promoted “multiculturalism” as the new American ethic. Students in schools everywhere are being hammered with the idea that all cultures, even the most primitive, are equally enriching for our nation and must be given equal treatment.

National Suicide

Three decades ago (1988), The New American magazine tried to sound the alarm:

“Invasion. That’s what we are witnessing: an ongoing invasion that has been escalating for over a decade. Each day, at hundreds of points along our southern border, thousands of people from countries all over the world are entering the United States illegally…. [Even with meager resources], for six years running the Border Patrol has apprehended well over one million illegal aliens per year…. A visible effect of our uncontrolled immigration is what is increasingly referred to as the ‘Third World colonization’ of the United States. Large sections of major U.S. cities now resemble Mexico City, San Salvador, Bombay, and Calcutta — with tens of thousands of people living in cardboard and tin shanties, or sleeping in the streets.”

By 1996, the Sacramento Bee reported: “Nearly one in four students in California’s public schools — more than 1.25 million kids — understands little or no English.”

Changing our Immigration Law

Legislation promoted by liberal politicians implementing the Insiders’ agenda inspired much of the invasion. Senators Robert F. and Edward Kennedy supported the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. The new priorities in our immigration law would emphasize “our obligation” to the rest of the world.

But the subversion didn’t stop there. When President Carter couldn’t get Congress to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants, he created a commission headed by Reverend Theodore Hesburgh (CFR and fellow Trilateralist) to study the problem and make recommendations. The recommendations were incorporated into the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

IRCA was sold to the public as a “solution” to our immigration problem, but it had the opposite effect. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens simply emboldened millions more to violate our borders in hopes of similar amnesties. And those who became citizens took advantage of the liberalization of the law re chain migration.

Steps to a Solution

The initial step must be to create recognition among a wider audience of why immigration is out of control and why Washington currently will frustrate any real solution. That requires exposing conspiratorial influence, objectives, and actions, along with highlighting the refusal of politicians and the controlled media to expose the domestic subversion. An expensive Southern wall provides no defense against the subversion from within.

At the same time, that understanding must be turned into effective action. What is needed is informed and organized public pressure on Congress — pressure to stop the betrayal and protect our heritage. In the face of conspiratorial inroads and influence today, these steps require the right organization and leadership — may we dare say, a much larger Freedom First Society?

UNESCO “Withdrawal” — Mere Posturing!

“The State Department announced Oct. 12 that the U.S. plans to withdraw from UNESCO, alleging a ‘need for fundamental reform’ and ‘anti-Israel bias.’” — The Washington Post, 10-12-17

In a follow-up Post report later that day, the State Department’s initially tough-sounding anti-UNESCO announcement quickly mellowed:

“In notifying UNESCO of the decision Thursday morning, the State Department said it would like to remain involved as a nonmember observer state. That will allow the United States to engage in debates and activities, though it will lose its right to vote on issues.

“The withdrawal follows long-standing issues the U.S. has had with UNESCO and does not necessarily foreshadow a further retrenchment of U.S. engagement with the United Nations, where the Trump administration has been pushing to bring about structural and financial reforms.”

This is not the first time that the U.S. has bowed out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization, a specialized UN agency based in Paris. In 1984, the Reagan Administration temporarily withdrew the U.S.

Then, as now, the justifications for withdrawing from UNESCO should have applied to its parent organization, the United Nations, as well. But just to assure everyone that the move didn’t seriously threaten globalist plans, Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Gregory Newell, stated:

“When UNESCO returns to its original purposes and principles, the United States would be in a position to return to UNESCO.” [Emphasis added.]

In 2002, President George W. Bush decided that the U.S. should rejoin UNESCO.

UNESCO’s “Original Purposes”

UNESCO’s first general conference was held at the end of 1946, a year after the UN began operations. The conference elected humanist leader Dr. Julian Huxley as UNESCO’s first Director-General. As one example of the revolutionary mindset permeating the UN and its agencies, in 1947 Dr. Huxley wrote in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic [controlled human breeding] policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [Emphasis added]

Here is how the Washington Post report summarized UNESCO’s public purposes:

“UNESCO was established to help promote global cooperation around the flow of ideas, culture and information. UNESCO’s mission includes programs to improve access to education, preserve cultural heritage, improve gender equality and promote scientific advances and freedom of expression.” [Emphasis added.]

However, let’s look at UNESCO’s real purposes, beginning with the parent body, the United Nations.

In 1945, a war-weary world acquiesced to the Internationalists’ propaganda campaign that their proposed UN was mankind’s “last best hope for peace.”

In normal times, that claim would have rung on deaf ears. For the UN would be comprised to a great extent of corrupt and tyrannical regimes, unrepresentative of their peoples. How could these regimes be expected to satisfactorily police the world? The participation of the Soviet Union as a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council (followed decades later by Communist China) should have confirmed the subversive nonsense. In fact, within a few decades, knowledgeable observers would refer to the UN as “Terrorists ‘R US.”

In reality, the Internationalists conceived these institutions as a means of gaining unaccountable world authority over previously sovereign nations. But more strategy and pretexts would be needed to provide the UN or its offspring with the authority (e.g., taxation and a UN army) necessary to compel the full submission of independent nations.

Three decades later, Foreign Affairs (the magazine of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations — CFR) advocated a strategy of gradual international entanglements as a workable means for bringing nations to submit to a world authority. “The Hard Road to World Order,” authored by Columbia University professor and State Department veteran Richard N. Gardner, spelled out a multi-point strategy of deceptive encroachment. In that April 1974 article, Gardner blatantly insisted:

“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 William 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.”

The above Post story quotes Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s current and tenth director-general, a Bulgarian politician, in defense of UNESCO: “The American poet, diplomat and Librarian of Congress, Archibald MacLeish, penned the lines that open UNESCO’s 1945 Constitution: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.’ This vision has never been more relevant.”

Not mentioned by the Post: Archibald MacLeish was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (from 1946–1949).

Now what role would UNESCO actually play in the UN scheme? From the beginning UNESCO sought to become the world’s school board, promoting world government. Its revolutionary activism soon became apparent. In 1948, UNESCO published a ten-volume series of pamphlets entitled Toward World Understanding. The pamphlets were designed to prepare schoolchildren for world citizenship.

In 1952 The Saturday Review candidly conceded this purpose in a pro-UNESCO editorial:

“If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the world’s peoples for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and denials. Let us face it: the job of UNESCO is to help create and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced with such a ‘charge,’ let us by all means affirm it from the housetops.”

The editor-in-chief for Saturday Review was Norman Cousins, an open advocate for world government, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the United World Federalists.

The Government’s Excuse

Informed Rebuttals of the “Blame Congress and the Immigration Law” Explanation

Why It’s Untrue, that “Asylum Loopholes” in the Law Tie the Hands of the Executive Branch

The President’s Unlimited Authority over Immigration

The Low Percentage of Arriving Aliens Claiming a “Credible Fear of Persecution”

The Extremely Low Percentage of Arriving Aliens Possibly Qualifying for Asylum

The Necessity that Arriving Aliens Pass a “Credible Fear” Interview or Review

Locating Our Immigration-System’s Real “Breakage”

Accounting for This Inversion of the Truth

What to Do

Notes

The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA)

The 2008 “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act” (TVPRA; a.k.a. “The Wilberforce Act”)

Conclusion

Notes

Default title

Receive Alerts