Freedom First Society


The “New NAFTA” Power Grab

Following an agreement with Canada, President Trump claimed victory in the negotiations to replace NAFTA:

The president said it fulfills his campaign pledge to replace NAFTA, which he called “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” and claimed it will transform the U.S. back into a “manufacturing powerhouse.”

“Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise,” he said during a news conference, calling it “truly historic news for our nation and indeed the world.”  — The Hill, 10-1-18

The reality, however, is greatly different. NAFTA was much more than a “trade deal.”  And so is its proposed replacement — “The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” (USMCA).

Progressive Regionalization
Both are merely disguised as “trade pacts.”  Their real purpose is to evolve into an Internationalist-controlled regional government, à la the European Union.  And eventually into an Internationalist-controlled world government, while hiding that objective from the American people.

In their excellent 2003 book, The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament) described how the British people were deceived into joining the European Union:

[Prime Minister Edward] Heath’s own bid to join the Common Market began what for the British people was to be the greatest deception of all….  Heath persistently misrepresented Britain’s membership of the Common Market as no more than a trading issue….

Only 30 years later would it come to light from the Foreign Office’s confidential papers just how conscious were its officials of the extent to which Britain was about to surrender its powers of self-government.  None of this was publicly admitted at the time, although the author of the FCO’s internal memorandum on “Sovereignty” justified the concealment by suggesting that the British people would not notice what was happening until the end of the century, by which time it would be too late to protest because the process would have become irreversible.

Edward Heath was not alone, even among British politicians, in perpetrating the deception.  “For 40 years,” says Booker, “British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity, which incidentally can help preserve the peace.”

Both the late David Rockefeller (former chairman of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger (whom President Trump now calls his “friend”) lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA. Both candidly supported NAFTA as a steppingstone to something larger.  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 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.”   (See our earlier post:  “Renegotiate NAFTA? — No Way! Get US out!”)

“Free Trade” Deception
As with NAFTA, the new agreement establishes a regional bureaucracy to “manage” trade in minute detail. The total number of pages for the treaty, its annexes, and side letters amounts to more than 1,800 pages.

At first, the proposal might seem more honest without “free trade” in the name — less doublespeak. Not so. Article 1.1 of the agreement, titled “Establishment of a Free Trade Area” states:

The Parties, consistent with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS, hereby establish a free trade area.

And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative website ( lists the USMCA as a Free Trade Agreement.

And so, the agreement still postures as something that “free trade conservatives” would support.  But there is little “free” in a regional bureaucracy that would manage trade.  And, as with the old NAFTA, the USMCA is an unconstitutional alienation of U.S. sovereignty.  Its Free Trade Commission, for example, can modify the agreement without the approval of Congress.

Internationalist Support for USMCA
Just as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller both championed NAFTA, so Richard N. Haass, the current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, endorses the proposed USMCA.  In an October 2 tweet, Haass stated:

USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.  Whatever…if @real Donald Trump and the Congress are now prepared to embrace a pro-trade agenda, it is all to the good.  Ideally, US participation in TPP by another name would be next; failing that, a US-Japan FTA would be second best.

And what else would we expect from an agreement negotiated by Robert Lighthizer? The U.S. Trade Representative (left) is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has long championed Internationalist-run world government.  When tapped by Trump, Lighthizer was a partner at a CFR corporate-member law firm.

The USMCA agreement clearly supports the Internationalist agenda.  The text demands compliance with rules of the World Trade Organization, the International Labor Organization (ILO) (now a specialized agency of the UN system), and other international agreements, some never ratified by the U.S., such as the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty.

As just one example of the Internationalist ties, Article 23.2 states: “The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).”  (See here for full text of the agreement.)

Trump supporters should ask themselves why Trump is supporting this subversion. Is he really being taken in by his advisors or has he been on board with the Insider agenda all along?

Before the USMCA can take effect, Congress must pass an implementing bill, which could be addressed in the Lame Duck session after the November midterm elections.  If Congress approves the USMCA, not only will the U.S. move another step toward totalitarian world government, but the approval will also neutralize much of the needed future opposition from conservatives and conservative lawmakers, as it will be regarded as the product of an “outsider,” conservative president.

Recommended action:  1) Urge your representative and senators to oppose implementation of the USMCA; 2) Alert others to this deceptive attack on our independence as a nation by sharing this post widely.


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.


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: 


“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 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!


North Korea — Internationalist Creation

“What is the central concern driving North Korea’s quest for nuclear weapons? Pyongyang claims it is a well-founded fear that the United States and South Korea plan aggression to overthrow the Kim regime.” Alton Frye, Foreign Policy Magazine, 11-28-17

An incredible piece of subversive nonsense recently appeared in the Establishment’s Foreign Policy magazine. The above referenced article suggested that the way to persuade Kim Jong Un to halt the North Korean nuclear weapon’s program was to convince him that China was an adequate deterrent to a U.S. invasion. To do so, the article recommended the deployment of Chinese forces on North Korean territory:

“A symmetrical policy of reassurance could involve possibly 30,000 Chinese military personnel stationed there, a total comparable to U.S. forces south of the 38th parallel.

“Yes, it seems counterintuitive to encourage China to strengthen military capabilities in the north. Some may find the notion antithetical to American interests. Shoring up a state with such vicious human rights abuses is a high price to pay for security. Yet the net effect should be to reduce the actual likelihood of war.”

We would not give much attention to such immoral sophistry were it not for the status of the article’s author — Alton Frye.   Frye is not only a member of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), since 1993 he has been a CFR director. He also served as a CFR vice president from 1987 to 1993 and then as a Senior VP until 1998.

UN Intervention

If one knows the history of how and why the UN was founded, it is a short step to realize that the Internationalist architects of a new world order run by them need crises to overcome normal public resistance to their intended radical realignment of power.

Recall the 1962 analysis, “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” by State Department veteran and CFR member Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Bloomfield argued that accelerated world government “may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks…. The transforming experience, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, must, to achieve the foundation of consensus requisite for community, be enough to reach and move great masses of people….”

Many of the problems around the world have been created or fomented by Internationalists for the primary purpose of gaining public acceptance for Internationalist institutions to address the problems.

So we find the following item buried in a December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day) Reuters news report re the North Korean missile tests significant:

“The rising tensions coincide with a rare visit to North Korea by United Nations political affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman, the highest-level U.N. official to visit North Korea since 2012.

“Some analysts and diplomats hope his visit could spark a U.N.-led effort to defuse tensions.”

Feltman heads up the UN’s Department of Political Affairs (DPA). Established under a 1992 restructuring of the UN Secretariat, the DPA absorbed the earlier Department of Political and Security Council Affairs.

In 1954, a year after the Korean armistice was signed, our Defense Department let it be known that that high-ranking Soviet officers had been in North Korea directing that side of the war. At the same time, the UN’s Military Staff Committee overseeing our side of the war worked under the UN undersecretary-general for political and security council affairs. This post had always been held by a communist by secret agreement at the UN’s founding. In short, Communists were working both sides of the war. And Internationalist Insiders ensured that General MacArthur was prevented from winning it.

Excerpt from Masters of Deception:

[F]ollowing MacArthur’s brilliant Inchon landing, U.S. and South Korean forces held the upper hand. Faced with the threat of massive Red Chinese intervention, MacArthur ordered the destruction of the bridges across the Yalu River. Within hours, General Marshall countermanded MacArthur’s order. MacArthur would later state:

“I realized for the first time that I had actually been denied the use of my full military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my army. To me, it clearly foreshadowed a future tragic situation in Korea, and left me with a sense of inexpressible shock.” 18

Foreshadowing the “rules of engagement” that strangled U.S. forces in the Viet Nam War, MacArthur was forbidden to attack Chinese supplies being amassed across the river or to follow Chinese MIGs retreating across the border into China. Although the reason given for such restrictions was ostensibly to avoid a wider war with China, the effect was just the opposite. General Lin Piao, commander of the Chinese forces, later said:

“I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.” 19

General Mark Clark, who signed the Korean armistice agreement in July 1953,   would echo MacArthur’s criticism. In his memoirs, Clark declared it was: “beyond my comprehension that we would countenance a situation in which Chinese soldiers killed American youth in organized, formal warfare and yet we would fail to use all the power at our command to protect those Americans.” 20

While men were still dying in the UN “police action,” Adlai Stevenson (the soon-to-be Democratic nominee for president and the future U.S. ambassador to the UN under Kennedy) authored an article for the April 1952 Foreign Affairs, entitled “Korea in Perspective.” In summarizing, Stevenson stated:

“The burden of my argument, then, based on the meaning of our experience in Korea as I see it, is that we have made historic progress toward the establishment of a viable system of collective security.” 21

The cost of that “progress” was enormous in South Korean and American dead.

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 UN — Freedom’s Enemy

“This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity….

“[W]e helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all….”
— President Donald Trump, addressing the UN General Assembly, 9-19-17


Correction, Please! No, the UN is not about protecting national sovereignty. It is the very enemy of sovereignty.

The UN was created under false pretexts as a tool of Internationalist Insiders to build a totalitarian world government run by them. That evolutionary agenda is alive and well today.

In the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), future Trilateralist Richard N. Gardner (CFR) openly admitted that world government was the objective of his fellow internationalists. But he endorsed the deception of the salami approach for destroying national sovereignty:

“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.”

Part of the Internationalists’ long-term goal is to disarm the nations of the world, while arming the UN as a new superpower.

A document boldly describing the long-range program was issued by the Dean Rusk (CFR) State Department as Department of State Publication 7277. It carried the title Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. President Kennedy presented it personally before the UN General Assembly on September 25th of that year (1961).

According to Freedom from War, the transfer of arms to the UN is to occur in three stages:

“In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament … would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.” [Emphasis added.]

When Stage III was fully implemented, the United States would be forced to comply with UN decisions, (i.e., decisions of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] oligarchy that designed the UN).

During that same period, the Kennedy State Department also contracted with the private Institute for Defense Analysis to prepare a classified study. In support of the study, a memorandum entitled A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations candidly discussed the best strategy for establishing world government. The complete text of that shocking memorandum, authored by MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), appears as a “reference” on our website. (See “References” in our main menu)

The memorandum’s author was MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR). The opening paragraph of the Bloomfield contribution reads:

“A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization…. [T]he present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

            Perhaps the most shocking is the claim in the memorandum is that the UN would need nuclear weapons to ensure world “peace”:

“The appropriate degree of relative force would, we conclude, involve total disarmament down to police and internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a significant conventional capability at the center backed by a marginally significant nuclear capability.” [Emphasis added.]

UN Architects Not Humanitarians

The argument of the UN founders that the UN would prevent wars and promote world peace is undermined by the fact that these Internationalists made sure that a cabal of criminal regimes, controlled by them, would dominate the UN Security Council and other UN institutions. So we have the “acceptable” criminals who are supposed to police the “rogue” criminals.

In addition, over many decades these Internationalist conspirators have persistently perverted U.S. power to undermine and betray regimes friendly to the U.S. and help totalitarians take over their nations.   China is a prime example, and we could list many others.

The Betrayal of China

At the end of July 1946, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, clamped an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition to our World War II ally Chiang Kai-shek. Marshall would boast: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions, now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” Stockpiles of arms on their way to Chiang were actually destroyed in India. Meanwhile, the Soviets equipped Communist Mao Tse-tung with vast stores of U.S. military supplies Truman had provided Stalin for the assault on Japan.

On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy, a young second-term congressman from Massachusetts, rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to protest the actions of his party’s president:

“Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.”

A few days later, he would summarize his protest in words that could be applied to the future handling of Vietnam: “What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.”

What Representative Kennedy may not have understood at the time was that the betrayal of China was orchestrated by the Establishment he would later serve as president.

Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii estimated the death toll from the resulting Chinese genocide conservatively at more than 35 million deaths — approximately one of every 20 Chinese.

The “unfortunate publicity” of Chinese troops mowing down student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre caused nary a blip in U.S.-Chinese relations.   Within a few weeks of that massacre, U.S. officials Lawrence Eagleburger (CFR, formerly of Kissinger Associates) and Brent Scowcroft (former chairman of the CFR’s membership committee) would travel to China to reassure the Chinese leaders of continued U.S.-Chinese relations.

Some More Inconvenient History

Following General MacArthur’s brilliant Inchon Landing during the Korean War, U.S. led forces momentarily held the upper hand. Then the Red Chinese invaded Korea to protect the North Korean regime. They dared do so only because the Truman administration had prevented General MacArthur from taking out the Yalu river bridges.

So U.S. soldiers fought (and died against) the Communist Chinese, while carrying out a “police action” ordered by the UN.   And later these Red Chinese invaders would be rewarded with a seat on the UN Security Council, whose mission ostensibly is to police the world.

And the Trump administration would ask the Communist Chinese dictators for help in restraining North Korea. Yet, in his September 19, 2017 UN speech, President Trump protested a socialist dictatorship in Venezuela. Something smells!


Multiculturalism Exposed

In 2015, following deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, congressmen floated several proposals to pause and even limit refugee immigration from Syria. More than half of the state governors said they would not accept Syrian refugees.

However, President Obama, supported by fellow liberals, objected that such action “is offensive and contrary to American values.” In doing so, he was defending the politically correct agenda of multiculturalism.

Gauging by the liberal reaction, it was no surprise that when President Trump took office in January 2017 and ordered a temporary halt on immigration from certain Middle East countries, organizations such as the ACLU would oppose any such restrictions in successful court challenges.

However, the claim that an American founding principle demands an open door policy toward mass immigration from diverse cultures is a recently contrived myth. In fact, it’s a subversive rewriting of history.

Reacting to the Obama claim, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin provided an excellent summary of the opinions of America’s Founding Fathers regarding immigration.   As she showed, they were opposed to importing cultural diversity and would have abhorred the goal of “multiculturalism.”

Our Founding Fathers wanted immigration to support a distinctly American culture, a culture that could be counted on to support the principles of freedom as derived from the lessons of Western history.

Indeed, as Malkin wrote: “Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily ‘incorporate himself into our society.’”

And she recounted an even more explicit statement by George Washington: “George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that ‘by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.’”

At the birth of the American experiment in freedom, our Founding Fathers knew from their study of history that cultural diversity in a nation is not a strength but a burden and often a source of major conflict.

We highly recommend reading Malkin’s entire article: “Immigration and Our Founding Fathers’ Values.” But then go a critical step further.

The Critical Lesson

Malkin offers only ideological arguments to oppose the multiculturalism assault in an ostensible battle with “No-limits liberals.”   But this “safe ideological approach,” the norm with most popular conservative writers, conceals an immense driving danger, thus failing to sound the clear trumpet called for in 1 Corinthians 14:8.

Indeed, further research shows that Internationalist Insiders and their foundations are the drivers of both “the open borders movement” and “multiculturalism.” Their clear objective with these programs is to gain unaccountable power. And the pathway to their ultimate success requires the destruction of the culture necessary to support republican (rule of law) government and the associated undermining of America’s ability to resist totalitarian world government.

We summarize the “open borders” part of that story in Chapter 7 “Immigration Reform” of our Media-Controlled Delusion booklet. As visitors will see, even the front-line drivers are not limited to liberals.

For example, the above Chapter 7 recounts the support given by the Wall Street Journal. The late Robert L. Bartley served as its editorial page editor for 30 years. While adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, in 1979 Bartley was invited to join the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations. In a 2001 editorial, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….

Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.

Origins of Multiculturalism

The public advocates of revolutionary change often wear the liberal cloak and offer ideological arguments to support their agenda. However, if we “follow the money” we can recognize the real drivers and their goals.

Historian Oswald Spengler in his classic Decline of the West astutely concluded:

There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

In a 1992 article, Father James Thornton observed: “Though wild-eyed it definitely is, multiculturalism has Establishment support through the lavishly financed programs of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and other tax-supported and tax-exempt organizations.”

And multiculturalism also follows the strategy advocated by Italian Communist theorist Antonio Gramsci for achieving “cultural hegemony” over a nation. The first phase in his strategy is to undermine all elements of traditional culture.

Gramsci’s thinking, perpetuated by his disciples, has had significant impact on revolutionary organizations in America today, as well as on their big-money sponsors. Rudi Dutschke, one of Gramsci’s disciples, described the strategy of culture war as conducting “the long march through the institutions.”

In short, our point is that one cannot oppose revolutionary programs effectively by getting caught up in merely debating their public proposals. Ignoring the driving conspiratorial agenda is simply a no-win strategy, a widespread practice that neutralizes conservatives. Instead, we need to help others recognize the pervasive cultural attack, how it’s organized, and its real totalitarian purpose.

Just One Example

A 2004 Department of Education publication, “ACHIEVING DIVERSITY: RACE-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES IN AMERICAN EDUCATION,” includes these introductory remarks:

The diversity question in America now is not “Whether?” but “How?” The Supreme Court’s decisions in the Michigan affirmative action litigation affirm that our shared commitment to diversity is both compelling and just when pursued within lawful parameters. In light of these decisions, President George W. Bush has challenged the education community to develop innovative ways to achieve diversity in our schools without falling back upon illegal quotas. Most educational leaders, particularly at the postsecondary level, agree with the importance of this goal. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, they do. The reason why America became saddled with an unconstitutional Department of Education was to mold public education to achieve revolutionary goals, using federal money as a carrot and stick.

Among the report’s introductory remarks, we see the George W. Bush administration’s stamp of approval:

President George W. Bush has said that diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths and has encouraged the development of race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity in educational institutions.

Using the federal hammer to promote commonsense racial opportunity no longer masks fed-gov’s primary diversity objective. Indeed, multiculturalist pressure disparages assimilation into America’s defining culture, while glorifying other cultures, including homosexuality — you name it.

But if Americans are asked to oppose such programs as merely misguided, who will prepare himself for the battle? Indeed, it is necessary to understand the big picture before there will be sufficient alarm to organize the needed resistance.

Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!

“Making good on a campaign promise, the Trump administration formally told Congress Thursday that it intends to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico….

“Last month, White House aides spread word that Trump was ready to pull out of NAFTA. Within hours, the president reversed course and said that he’d seek a better deal first.”
— “Trump administration announces plans to renegotiate NAFTA,” AP, 5-18-17

NAFTA has unquestionably exacerbated U.S. manufacturing and capital flight, with a corresponding decline in quality jobs and middle class opportunity.

However, “trade pacts” such as NAFTA involve much more than lowering tariff barriers to regional trade. They set up governing institutions, contrary to our Constitution. And improving prosperity through increased trade is never the objective.

Indeed, the discussion of NAFTA as a mere trade agreement acts as a smokescreen, obscuring the fact that NAFTA is an Internationalist-designed trap targeting our national independence and freedom.

The national press omits any mention of the real reason that Internationalists worked so hard to have the U.S. accept NAFTA. Although NAFTA was sold as a conservative “free trade” agreement, its real purpose was to erode the sovereignty of independent nations with an ultimate goal of capturing them under a totalitarian world government ruled by elites.   Recall that the precursor stages to the European Union (e.g., the Common Market) were misleading sold as just an economic arrangement.

Progressive Regionalization

Rather than trying to deceive the public into submitting to a world authority in one step, the Internationalists have promoted a “regionalism” strategy, modeled on the successful tactic use to ensnare nations in the European Union. The Fall 1991 issue of the CFR’s [Council on Foreign Relations] Foreign Affairs confirmed that the Internationalists saw NAFTA as following in the EU’s footsteps:

The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.

Both David Rockefeller (former CFR chairman) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA, candidly claiming that NAFTA was a steppingstone to something larger. 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 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.”

Submitting to WTO “Authority”

The World Trade Organization is another element of the elitist architecture for ruling the world. A recent news report illustrates how U.S. decision-making has been delegated to a body over which Americans have no control:

Mexico can impose annual trade sanctions worth $163.23 million against the United States after winning a dispute over trade in tuna fish, a World Trade Organization arbitrator ruled on Tuesday….

However, the ruling could be overturned later this year if a subsequent WTO decision finds the United States has stopped discriminating against tuna caught by its southern neighbor. —   “WTO lets Mexico slap trade sanctions on U.S. in tuna dispute,” Reuters, 4-25-17

The “Just Promoting Trade” Deception Continues

The Peterson Institute, a “think tank” named after Peter G. Peterson, Chairman Emeritus of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long been a driver of “progressive regionalization” under the cover of promoting trade. Indeed, the opening AP report cites comments from Gary Hufbauer, member of the CFR and former VP of the CFR, 1997-98, lending credence to the pretext that NAFTA is just an orderly way to promote regional trade:

Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, said the United States could seek modest “technocratic” changes, including provisions to update NAFTA to reflect technologies that have emerged since the original agreement was negotiated.

In 1994, Hufbauer had co-authored a study for the Institute, entitled “Western Hemisphere Economic Integration.”

For further explanation of the deceptive Internationalist strategy of “progressive regionalism,” of which NAFTA is a part, please see Chapter 6, “Free Trade Pacts” in our booklet Media-Controlled Delusion. Chapter 6 concludes:

[T]he so-called national debate over trade totally ignores the real purpose of post-World War II regional trade pacts — to create unaccountable regional authorities at the expense of the sovereignty of the nation-state. Our national survival requires that this agenda be exposed, understood, and defeated.

Renegotiating NAFTA is not the road to prosperity. Instead, validating NAFTA through renegotiation strengthens the Internationalist power grab targeting our survival as a free nation.

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds