Dan smoot report 1963 vol ix 446

THE

1983

TAB LE OF

CONTE NTS

VOLUME IX

1963

Issue

Title

Date

Page

The Fourteenth Amendment

Jan. 7

Free China_!

Jan. 14

Jan. 21

Jan. 28

Kefauver Medicine Urban Renewal And A Soviet America Part I Urban Renewal And A Soviet America

Feb. 4

Feb. 11

Alliance For Progress - - Part I

Feb. 18

Alliance For Progress - - Part II

Feb. 25

Mar. 4

Mar. 11

Kennedy's Tax Plan

Mar. 18

Repeal The T ax And Stop The Plunder

Mar. 25

Part II How To Lose Friends

Deficit Financing

Part I

Deficit Financing

Part II

Apr. 1

Apr. 8

105

Apr. 15

113

Wheat Referendum, 1963

Apr. 22

121

The Story Of Laos

Apr. 29

129

United Nations The Tragedy Of U. S. Membership In The United Nations United Nations In Africa

TABLE OF

Title

CO NT E NTS

Issue

Date

Page

Disar:rna:rnent

Part I

May 6

137

Disar:rna:rnent

Part II

May 13

145

Disar:rna:rnent

Part III

May 20

153

May 27

161

Jun. 3

169

Jun. 10

177

Political Action For 1964

Jun. 17

185

Washington: The Model City

Jun. 24

193

Civii Rights Act Of 1963

Jui. 1

201

Jui. 8

209

More Equal Than Equal

Jui. 15

217

The Edifice Of Liberty

Jui. 22

225

Confiscating The Land

Jui. 29

233

The Test Ban Treaty

Aug. 5

241

The Power Grid Sche:rne

Aug. 12

249

Aug. 19

257

Aug. 26

265

Stop Withholding

Sept. 2

273

Third Roll Calls. 1963

Sept. 9

281

First Roll Calls,

1963

Planned Dictatorship Truth Will Out

The A:rnerican Tragedy

A New Attack On The C onnally Reservation Second Roll Calls,

1963

TABLE OF

CONTE NTS

Title

Issue

Date

Page

Darkness Is Descending On The Land

Sept. 16

289

Reorganizing For Stalemate

Sept. 23

297

McNamara's Commissars

Sept. 30

305

Oct. 7

313

Oct. 14

321

Foreign Aid Is Killing America

Oct. 21

329

Lawless Government

Oct. 28

337

Mr. Stevenson Goes To Dallas

Nov. 4

345

Nov. 11

353

How Did Socialism Grow In The U. S. ?

Nov. 18

361

Socializing America

Nov. 25

369

Dec. 2

377

Dec. 9

385

The Hope Of The World

Dec. 16

393

The Idle Wind

Dec. 23

401

Dec. 30

409

Whistling Past The Graveyard Of Experience Trading With The Enemy

Does The U.S. Oppose Communist World Conquest?

The Assassination A Stranger In Their Midst

Fourth Roll Calls

THE

IJI/II Smoot/tepo,t Vol. 9, No. 1 ( Broadcast 386 )

January

1 963

Dall as,

Tex as DAN

SMOOT

THE FOURTEE NTH AMENDM ENT

T he Fourteenth

Amendment(ll to the Constitution of the United States ( proclaimed ratified in 1 8 6 8 ) was never legally adopted. Yet, this illegal appendage to our organic law is the basis for contemporary court decisions and governmental practices which are shatter ing the foundations of our free society. Congress should resubmit the Fourteenth Amendment for legal ratification, or rejection. I do not think we can restore the American constitutional Republic until the people compel their Congress to take such action. Hence, in this Report, I offer a brief review of the incredible history of the Fourteenth Amendment, with examples of dangerous doctrines and practices which have resulted.

B ut first, one needs to understand the legal methods of amending the Constitution. These methods are clearly specified in Article V of our original Constitution, as adopted in 1 7 8 9 . (2 ) The President and the federal courts have no role in the amendment process. Congress has only a ministerial role. Congress may propose an Amendment on its own initiative ( two-thirds of both houses desiring ) . Congress must call a convention for pro posing Amendments if two-thirds of all states demand such action. And Congress may select one of two constitutionally prescribed methods by which the people in the individual states can act on a proposed constitutional Amendment : Congress can require that the people act through their state legislatures ; or Congress can require that the people act through constitutional conventions. But Congress has no other authority in the Amendment process. The power to amend the Constitution resides, exclusively, in the people of states in the union who have an absolute right to reject, or accept, a proposed amendment, without any kind of coercion from any branch or agency of the federal government. -

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week b y The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates: $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1

It is important to keep these facts in mind while reviewing the history of the Fourteenth Amendment.

H istory of the 14th

Throughout

the War Between the States ( 1 8 6 1 - 1 8 6 5 ) , President Lincoln maintained that the American union was indivisible ; that the war was being fought, not to abolish slav ery, but to suppress rebellion which threatened to dismember the union ; and that, once the rebellion was suppressed, the union of all states would exist exactly as before the hostilities. On December 8 , 1 8. 6 3 , Lincoln formally emphasized this doctrine by issuing a procla mation, promising amnesty ( forgiveness ) to people in the confederate states who would swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitu tion and to the union, and promise to obey laws and proclamations abolishing slavery. At that time, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts ( radical leader in the Senate ) and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania ( radical leader in the House ) wanted Lincoln to consider the south ern states as territories or alien lands outside the union, so that they could be treated as conq uered provinces if the north won the war . (3 ) Lincoln carefully refused to do this. Inas much as the north won the war, Lincoln's point was proven : the southern states never did secede from the union : they merely tried to. The day hostilities ended, therefore, the southern states were constitutionally entitled to their full representations and rights in the national Congress. The federal government could not legally lay down conditions for "readmitting" the southern states, because, according to the doctrine of Lincoln and the decision of war, they had never left the union.

o n January 3 1 , 1 8 6 5 , Congress submitted, for approval of the states, a resolution propos ing the 1 3 th Amendment to abolish slavery. The proposal was submitted to four confed erate states which already had post-war gov-

ernments recognized by Lincoln : Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. On March 4, 1 8 6 5 , Congress adjourned without having recognized the Lincoln approved government of Louisiana. On April 9 , 1 8 6 5 , General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox. President Lincoln expressed gratitude that the "rebellion" had come to an end at a time when Congress was not in session to cause trouble, and said : ((If we are wise and discreet , we shall reanimate the states and get their govern ments in successful operation with order pre vailing and the Union reestablished before , Congress comes together in December. , ( 3)

O n April 14, 1 8 6 5 , Lincoln was assassi nated ; but, on May 2 9 , his successor Andrew Johnson - issued a proclamation of amnesty patterned on Lincoln's proclamation of December, 1 8 6 3 . On the same day, Johnson also issued a proclamation to carry out Lin coln's plan of reconstruction. Johnson's proc lamation set up a provisional government for North Carolina, appointing a governor to call a convention chosen by the people of the state for the purpose of establishing a permanent state government. The persons qualified to vote for delegates to this convention were those who had been qualified to vote prior to the Civil War - and who had taken the required oath of amnesty. (3) By July 1 3 , 1 8 6 5 , President Johnson had applied this "Lincoln formula" for reconstruc tion to all remaining states in the confederacy. Before Congress convened in December, 1 8 6 5 , all confederate states ( except Texas, which delayed until the spring of 1 8 6 6 ) had thus established legitimate governments. And, as states, all ( except Mississippi and Texas ) had ratified the 1 3 th Amendment, abolishing slavery. (4) When Congress convened in December, 1 8 6 5 , the radicals in control refused, however, to seat Representatives and Senators from the confederate states. Thus, the Congress which convened in

Page 2

:::

December, 1 8 6 5 , was an illegal Congress, because it denied representation from states constitutionally entitled to representation.

April 9 , 1 8 6 6 , the illegal Congress enacted the Civil Rights Bill ( over President Johnson's veto) . To place this measure beyond the danger of overthrow by the courts, or by a subsequent, legal Congress, the radical Con gress incorporated the essential provisions of the Civil Rights Bill in a Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. (5 ) The Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment passed the Senate on June 8 , 1 8 6 6, by a vote of 3 3 to 1 1 , with 5 Senators not voting. On June 1 3 , 1 8 66, the House took a final vote on the Resolution : 1 2 0 representa tives for the proposal, 3 2 opposed, and 3 2 not voting. This vote in the House did not meet the constitutional requirement that a Resolution proposing a constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both Houses. There were 1 8 4 Representatives in the illegal Congress on June 1 3 , 1 8 6 6. (6) Two-thirds of that number would have been 1 2 3 . Only 1 2 0 voted for the Resolution proposing the Four teenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the leadership of Congress arbitrarily declared the Resolution enacted. Congress submitted the Fourteenth Amend ment proposal to all states for ratification including the confederate states which had been denied representation.

Tennessee was the only confederate state which voluntarily ratified the Fourteenth Amendment . The other ten confederate states ( Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Loui siana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Caro lina, Texas, and Virginia ) rejected it. Four states outside the old confederacy also rejected the Amendment : California, Delaware, Ken tucky, and Maryland. Iowa did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment until April 3 , 1 8 6 8 ; and Massachusetts did not ratify until March 2 0, 1 8 67.

Thus, by the first of March, 1 8 67, only 2 1 of the then 3 7 states said to be in the union had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amend ment. (7) At least 2 8 states had to ratify, to meet the constitutional requirement that amend ments must be approved by three-fourths of all states.

So, on March 2 , 1 8 67, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, abolishing the govern ments in the ten confederate states which had rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act placed these ten states under military dictator ship, requiring the commanding generals to prepare the rolls of voters for conventions to formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Everyone who had served in the confederate armed forces was denied the right to vote or hold office - despite the presidential procla mation of amnesty. Virtually the only persons permitted to vote or to hold office were negroes, southern scalawags, and carpetbaggers from the north and from foreign countries. (3,4,6 ) The Reconstruction Act provided that when the legislatures of these "reconstruction" govern ments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the states would be admitted to the union although the Constitution clearly provides that only states already in the union can act on Amendments, and gives Congress no authority to coerce action on Amendments. ( 2 )

C ongress

denied the southern states any j udicial relief, by intimidating the Supreme Court into silence - threatening to abolish the Court's appellate jurisdiction, or to abolish the Court itself, by constitutional amendment. When Mississippi attempted to secure a court injunction to prevent the President from enforcing the unconstitutional Reconstruction Act ( and when Georgia asked for an injunc tion to keep Army officers from enforcing the Act ) the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said that even if the Court heard the cases and granted the injunctions, it could not enforce its decrees. (8)

Page 3

P resident Johnson

called the Reconstruc tion Act a «bill of attainder against nine mil lion people at once. ,,(8) During debates in the Senate, over passage of the Act, Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, condemning the radicals for what they were doing, said : HThe people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment [the 14th ] , and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until ,, they do adopt it. ( 8)

That is precisely what. happened : Army bayonets escorted illiterate negroes and white carpetbaggers to the polls, keeping most south ern whites away. In Louisiana, an Army gen eral even presided over the state legislature which «ratified" the Fourteenth Amendment.

B y July 2 0 , 1 8 6 8 , Iowa and Massachusetts had completed their ratifications of the Four teenth Amendment, and the legislatures of 6 "reconstructed" confederate states ( Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina ) had ratified. These 8 new rati fications, plus the 2 1 which had been com pleted before March, 1 8 67, made a total of 2 9 state ratifications by July 2 0 , 1 8 6 8 . But legis lators of 2 northern states had changed their minds. Their sense of decency outraged by the whole monstrous procedure, the legislators of New Jersey ( on March 24, 1 8 6 8 ) and of Ohio ( on January 1 5 , 1 8 6 8 ) withdrew their for mer ratifications, and rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, there were still not enough ratifica tions to adopt the Amendment. There had to be 2 8 . There were only 27. On July 20, 1 8 6 8 , Secretary of State Wil liam H. Seward proclaimed that three-fourths of the states had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment if the legislatures which rati fied in the six confederate states were authen tically organized, and if New Jersey and Ohio were not allowed to reject the Amendment. -

The radical Congress did not like Secretary Seward's equivocation about legality. On July 2 1 , 1 8 6 8 , Congress passed a j oint resolution declaring the Fourteenth Amend ment a valid part of the Constitution and directing Seward to proclaim it as such. On J ul y 2 8 , 1 8 6 8 , Secretary Seward certified, without reservation, that the Amendment was a part of the Constitution. (3,5)

Stretchi ng the Amendment

F reedom of the slave race was, ostensibly,

the exclusive purpose of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, as soon as the Amendment was declared adopted, efforts were made to use it as a weapon to destroy states rights. Groups and individuals, who did not like certain local or state laws, brought cases into the federal courts, claiming that the Four teenth Amendment gave the federal govern ment authority to supervise the activities of state and local governments. In 1 8 7 3 , the Supreme Court heard the first case testing this doctrine, and held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not authorize federal intervention in state and local affairs. The Court said that the real purpose of those who made a claim of such federal authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, "was to centralize in the hands of the federal govern ment powers hitherto exercised by the states."

foster such intentions , the Court declared, would be

(\ to constitute this Court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States with authority to nullify such as it did not approve ((The effect of so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Con gress, in the exercise of powers, heretofore universally conceded to them, of the most ordinary and fundamental character. HWe are convinced that no such results 'Were intended by the Congress, nor by the legislatures which ratified this Fourteenth Amendment. ,, (5)

Page 4

•

Those who wanted

to transform our fed eral system into a centralized system ( by trans ferring all rights of the states to the. central government in Washington) kept badgering the Supreme Court for a decision that the Fourteenth Amendment did authorize the federal government to regulate and supervise state laws. The position of the Court on this point began to weaken at the turn of the cen tury ; and, by the 1 9 3 0 's, the Court had begun to assume jurisdiction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to act as "censor upon . . . legis lation of the states. , , (9) But it was not until after Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice, that the Court began to assume power, under the Four teenth Amendment, to do anything desired by a majority of the nine justices.

I n the school segregation

decision (Brown versus Board of Education) which the \Varren Court handed down on May 1 7, 1 9 5 4 , Chief Justice Warren said the Court had tried to determine what the nation's legislators had in mind in 1 8 6 6- 1 8 6 8 when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and declared ratified - but had found the evidence inconelusive. Warren explained why the Court was on uncertain ground in using the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for a decision con cerning public schools . He said :

((An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools , is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold . . . . ((Even in the North , the conditions of pub lic education did not approximate those exist ing today . . . . compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. HAs a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of to its the Fourteenth Amendment relating ,, intended effect on public education. (1O )

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment did not have, and was not intended to have,

anything whatever to do with the question of public schools.

This means - if we have constitutional government-that neither the Supreme Court nor any other agency of the federal govern ment has a legal right to do anything about public schools. The meaning of constitutional government is that the government must be bound by the contract - the Constitution which created the government. If Supreme Court justices ( or any other public officials ) , who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, can change it at will by adding to its meaning, or by reinterpretation, then we have no Consti tution at all. It does not matter that the officials may have a good purpose in mind. It does not matter, even if an overwhelming majority of the peo ple may approve of what the officials are trying to accomplish by changing the Constitution. The Constitution is meaningless if the agents who are hired to implement it and who are solemnly bound to uphold, and stay within the limits of, all its provisions, can change it to suit themselves. If the people want the agents of government to do something which the contract of govern ment does not authorize, then the people should change the contract ( amend the Con stitution by due process) in order to give offi cialdom the additional power and responsibility which the people want it to have. To let officialdom change the contract, is to open the floodgates to unrestrained, unconsti tutional, tyrannical government. The Warren Court refused, however, to be bound by the Constitution. Chief Justice Warren said : ttIn approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 [when the Four teenth Amendment was proclaimed ratified] . . . . We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its pres ent place in American life throughout the Nation."

Warren concluded that segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a

Page 5

detrimental effect upon the colored children, saying the conclusion "is amply supported by modern authority. , , ( 10) In a footnote, Warren cited the modern authorities whom he was relying on. He did not cite any authorities on the Constitution, or legal experts, or court decisions, or judicial precedents. He cited books written by racial agitators : ( 1 ) K. B. Clark, a negro who was hired by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and whose evidence in the segregation cases was subse quently proven false ; ( 2 ) Theodore Brameld, whose record in the House Committee on Un-American Activities shows membership in at least 1 0 communist organizations ; ( 3 ) E. Franklin Frazier, who has 1 8 citations for con nection with communist causes ; ( 4 ) Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish socialist who has served the communist cause for many years and who ( in the very book that Warren cited ) has expressed utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States. ( l l )

has erected an edifice of illegal decisions an edifice which has become a legal Tower of Babel. The "law of the land" has become what ever a capricious Court claims it to be. We are at the mercy of a j udicial oligarchy which, today, can say that the Constitution and the laws mean one thing, but tomorrow can reverse itself and decide that they mean some thing else. Recent Court decisions ( if permitted to stand ) will shatter the foundations of our free society.

C onsider,

the old, false doctrine that the Four teenth Amendment authorized the federal courts to interfere with state and local laws, the Supreme Court, in the Brown versus Board of Education decision, added the doctrine that the Fourteenth Amendment empowered the Supreme Court to revise the Constitution itself - for any purpose and on any authority which the Court itself may proclaim. Admitting that the Fourteenth Amendment originally had no effect on the operation of public schools, and citing pro-communist agi tators as "authority" for concluding that the Amendment should now be interpreted to have such effect, Chief Justice Warren decided that segregation in public schools violates the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wrong Breeds Wrong

T he Court began immediately to use the Brown versus Board of Education decision as a precedent for other similar decisions. Upon the illegal decision of May 1 7, 1 9 5 4, the Court

for example, the James Monroe Case. James Monroe, a negro, claimed that Chicago police had violated his rights by searching his home without a warrant. Illinois law provides individuals with adequate oppor tunity for relief if their rights are so abused. But Monroe did not bring suit against Chicago police in state courts. He brought action directly in federal court. On February 2 0 , 1 9 6 1 , the Supreme Court, in the Monroe Case, held that the Fourteenth Amendment does give individuals the right thus to by-pass state laws and state courts. It was an 8 -to- 1 decision. The dissenter was Jus tice Frankfurter, who said the effect of the Monroe Decision was to convert the United States Constitution into a, ((law to regulate the quotidian [daily] busi ness of every traffic policeman , every regis trar of elections, every city inspector or inves tigator, every clerk in every municipal licens ing bureau in this country. ,, (12 )

In Baker versus Carr ( March 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 ) , the Supreme Court decided, in effect, that the Fourteenth Amendment gives federal courts jurisdiction to supervise the actions of state legislatures in the apportionment and district ing of states for purposes of state and local elections. The Baker versus Carr decision involved the apportionment and districting laws of the State of Tennessee ; but approxi mately 2 6 other states were involved in similar suits, or expected to be shortly. (13 ) The Constitution makes no grant of power to any branch of the federal government to

Page 6

interfere in any way with such matters. When the federal government can make decisions governing the composition and representation of state legislatures, state governments become branches and tools of the central authority. The American system - a constitutional fed eration of separate states - is destroyed.

O n June 2 5 , 1 9 6 2 , the Supreme Court handed down the New York School Prayer Case decision (Engel versus Vitale) , holding that classroom recitation of an official prayer violated the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, as "reinforced by provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." In effect, the Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to reverse the meaning of the First Amendment. Whereas, the First Amend ment prohibits the federal government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, the Supreme Court used the First Amendment ( as reinforced by the Fourteenth ) as authority to outlaw the free exercise of religion. (14) What Ca n We Do?

T he

destructive effect of these Supreme Court decisions ( and of other similar decisions handed down since May 1 7, 1 9 5 4 ) will grow and multiply. The Constitution ( Article 3 , Section 2 , Clause 2 ) gives Congress complete authority to limit, regulate, or even abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (14) Congress could, therefore, prohibit the Court from accepting appeals in cases involving matters which, by the clear terms of our Constitution, are beyond federal jurisdiction. (15) The public should strive to elect a Congress with the courage to take such action. But even if this were done, we would still have the legal chaos which illegal Supreme Court decisions have already caused. Eisenhower's invasion of Arkansas with military force in 1 9 5 7, and Kennedy's occupa tion of the city of Oxford, Mississippi, are fruits of the Supreme Court's decision of May 1 7, 1 9 5 4 . A frightful number of public school systems in the United States have already elim-

inated all recognition of God in the classrooms, as a result of the Supreme Court's New York Prayer Case Decision. The most fundamental of states rights the right of representative government free of outside interference and domination - has already been abrogated in Tennessee by the 1 9 62 Baker versus Carr decision, and is threat ened in 2 6 other states.

Misin terp r e t a tion

of the Fourteenth Amendment ( which is not a valid part of our Constitution ) has caused such legal confusion as to render our system of constitutional law almost meaningless - even if the courts were restrained from further misinterpretations. (16) Obviously, we need to eliminate the Four teenth Amendment and all the fruits of it : get rid of the Amendment and nullify all court decisions, executive actions, administrative regulations, and laws based on it. How ? Technically, Congress, by simple leg islative enactment, could proclaim the Amend ment invalid and could declare null and void all official acts and decisions based on it. But this would be dangerous procedure. It could set a precedent which Congress might try to use in eliminating a valid amendment to the Constitution - thus creating even greater confusion. Moreover, spurious constitutional doctrine, which the Fourteenth Amendment has already inspired, renders infeasible the remedy of sim ple legislative enactment. There is no possibil ity that the present Supreme Court - basing its usurpations of power on the Fourteenth Amendment - would uphold a congressional act abolishing the Amendment. Congress could enact a Resolution proposing repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment ; but this would be tacit recognition that the Amend ment is now legal. The only proper and feasible remedy appears to be a Resolution by Congress re-sub111itling the Fourteenth Amendment to all state legis latures for proper ratification or rejection.

I n other words, this vital question should be resolved not by some branch or agency of

Page 7

government, but by the people themselves, acting through their state legislatures by due constitutional process. If the people want the Fourteenth Amendment and all that it has pro duced, they could persuade three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify it legally. I believe, however, that the people would tell their state legislators to reject it. Large numbers of Americans are coming to realize that, unless the Fourteenth Amendment and all its progeny are abolished, we will not ( no matter what else we may do ) restore constitu tional government in the United States. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Here is the full text of the Fourteenth Amendment: SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized In the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immu nities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SECTION 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the mem bers of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabit ants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. SECTION 3 . N o person shall b e a Senator o r Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, Or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of tht: United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebeIlion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies t hereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions

WHO

a n d bounties for services i n suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred i n aid of insurrection Or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held iIlegal and void. SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appro pnate legislation, the provisions of this article. ( 2 ) Here is the current full text of Article V of the Constitution : The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shalI deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the se era States shaIl call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in eithe Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Con stitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ProVIded that [,.. "- *] no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's Suffrage in the Senate. ( 3 ) The E ncyclopaedia Britamlica, Fourteenth Edition, Vol. 2 2 , pp. 8 1 0 H. (4) And relll lohmoll: A Study III Courage, by Lloyd Paul Stryker, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1 929, Chapter XXVI ( 5 ) The COllstitution of the United States of America: A nalysis and

� i

Interpretation : AmlotatiollS of Cases Decided By The Sup reme Court Of The Ullited States To jutle 30, 1952, Legislative Reference Service

of the Library of Congress, Senate Document No. 1 7 0 ' Government Printing Office, 1 9 5 3 ,pp. 6 1 4- 5,749-59,966-78 ( 6 ) A Brochure 011 The 14th Amelldment, written and published by John B. Mason, 3 5 7 East Wood, Raymondville, Texas, 1 9 5 6 ( 7 ) The Fourteellth AmCl1dmellt To The COllstitutioll O f The U11ited States, A Study, written and published by Walter E. Long, P. O. Box 1, Austin, Texas, 1 960 ( 8 ) "The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment," by Walter J. Suthon, Jr., Tulalle Law ReView, Vol. XVIII' New Orleans, Louisiana, December, 1 9 5 3, pp. 2 2-44 ( 9 ) See Senate Document No. 1 70, cited in Note 5 , especialIy Pages 5 6 5 and 7 5 7. For brief history o f the "constitutional revolution" which has occurred in this century, see this Report, tt$upreme Court's Prayer Decision," Parts I, II, III, and IV, especialIy Part III, dated July 3 0, 1 962. ( 1 0 ) Segregatiol1 In The Public Schools: OpiniOll Of The Supreme Court Of The Ullited States, Senate Document No. 1 2 5 , Government Print ing Office, 1 9 5 4 ( 1 1 ) Senator James O. Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi ) , Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee and Internal Security Subcommittee, speeches in COl/gressiollal Record, May 2 6 , 1 9 5 5 , and September 26, 1 962 ( 1 2 ) Editorial in The D u rham Morllillg Herald, February 23, 1 9 6 1 ( 1 3 ) COllgressiollal Quarterly Weekly Report, March 3 0 , 1 962,pp. 496-9 ( 1 4 ) For a detailed discussion of the New York Prayer Case decision and of constitutional questions involved, see the four issues of this Report mentioned in Footnote 9. (15) David Lawrence, "How to Reverse Court's Segregation Decision," San Francisco Call-Bulletill, September 1 9, 1 9 5 7 ( 1 6 ) See also David Lawrence Editorials, U.S. NelliS is World Report, "Which 'Constitution'?", September 13, 1957, p. 128; "There Is No 'Fourteenth Amendment'!", September 27, 1 9 5 7 , pp. 1 39- 1 4 0 ; "Ille gality Breeds Illegality," October 4, 1 9 5 7, pp. 1 43 - 4 ; "Illegality Breeds Illegality," October 8, 1962,pp. 1 2 3 -4; "Lawlessness," October 22, 1 962, pp. 107 - 8

DAN

SMOOT ?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 8

THE

1)(/11 Smoot lIe,or' Vol. 9, No. 2

Broadcast 388

January 1 4, 1963

Dallas Texas

DAN

SMOOT

FREE CHINA! On October 1 6, 1 9 6 2 , a Chinese communist invasion force of at least 1 0 0, 0 0 0 soldiers struck at India's northeastern frontier. The Indians revealed themselves totally unprepared, despite the fact that the communists had been concentrating troops and making border raids in the high Himalayans for more than three years. Indian military equipment was old, inadequate, and in short supply ; and troop morale seemed non-existent. The communists met virtually no resistance as they poured through mountain passes along a 1 4 0 0 mile front, conquering thousands of square miles of Indian territory, moving,into position to threaten the heartland of Indian agricultural, mineral, and industrial production. On October 2 6, 1 9 6 2 , Nehru proclaimed a state of national emergency and asked for help. Nehru, an old friend of Khrushchev and an admirer of the Soviet Union, expected help from that quarter ; but the Soviet Union «announced that it lines up on the side of Red China. ,,( l) The United States, however - whom Nehru has consistently criticized and opposed on major international issues - responded immediately to Nehru's plea.

O n December

9, 1 96 2 , W. Averell Harriman ( Assistant Secretary of State) said ( on an ABC television program - «Issues and Answers" ) that the Chinese invasion of India is intensifying a growing split between communist Russia and communist China. When asked whether the United States could do anything in the Indian affair to widen the split Harriman said : ((I don't think we're clever enough to do that sort of thing."

And Harriman added that the United States would be foolish to say or do anything at this point, which might tend to drive Moscow and Peking closer together. ( 2 ) On December 1 0, 1 9 6 2 , an Associated Press story from Washington ( 3 ) said the United THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates: $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 9

States had already rushed 1 5 million dollars in emergency aid to India and was contemplat ing a one-billion-dollar military aid program, . could last for years. whIch

Sin ister Pa ra l lels

Why

are we giving this military aid to India ? Because India is a friend ? No. Ever since India became a nation in 1 947, her gov ernment has been far friendlier to the Soviet Union than to us - despite our continuous, massive economic aid to India. Because we feel that our aid will widen the alleged split between Soviet communists and Chinese communists ? Obviously not. Harri man's admission that the Kennedy Adminis tration is not clever enough for that kind of maneuver indicates that this is not the pur p o s e . Moreove r , "th e S o v i e t U n i o n h a s announced that it lines up on the side o f Red China" in the Indian affair. ( 1 ) Will not our aid to India, therefore, tend to close the alleged rift between the Soviet and Chinese commu nists ? How can we square this with the warn ing of Harriman, and other top officials, that the United States must not do or say anything which might tend to close the rift? Are we giving military aid to India, because we really think this is an effective way to fight communism in Asia ? If our aid to India is based on the expectation that India will make an effective effort against communism, the expec tation is quite ludicrous, as the whole history of the Indian nation proves. In a letter formally notifying the Indian Ambassador in Washington of our willingness to help, the State Department said that the United States "is prepared to furnish assistance to the Government of India for the purpose of defense against the outright Chinese aggres sion directed from Peking. , , (4 )

There, then, is the purpose of our military aid to India. Earlier in 1 9 6 2 , we forced the pro-western government of Laos to surrender

to communism. Now we rush aid to help the pro-communist government of India defend itself against communism. There is something odd here - and a great deal that is disturbingly reminiscent of the Korean si tuation in 1 9 5 O.

N either India nor any other Asian nation can be defended against communism, unless the source and center of communist power in Asia is destroyed, in China. In the Korean war, American bombing of enemy supply dumps and troop-concentration centers across the Yalu River would have de stroyed communist military power in Korea, with little or no loss in American lives. Our government would not permit our men thus to defend themselves ; (5) but it was willing to sacrifice the lives of some 5 3 ,0 0 0 Americans to fight communists in Korea. (6) With regard to India, our government appears to have the same attitude. The State Department's formal announcement of aid to India makes it clear that the Kennedy Admin istration entertains no thought of supporting any effort against the heart of the octopus, but will support ineffective efforts against ten tacles of the octopus. We will do nothing against the center of communist power in China; but we will help India defend itself against "outright Chinese aggression, " in India. This will give the Chinese communists fur ther training and experience in combatting American equipment and tactics, just as Korea d i d . A n d w h e n w e f a i l to a c h i e v e o u r announced objective in India - as we failed in Korea - the Chinese communists can again boast - as they did at the conclusion of the Korean tragedy - that America is a paper tiger which can roar but cannot fight.

Another sinister parallel is the Administra tion's apparent attitude toward Chiang Kai shek - who is, and has been for years, the key to destroying communist power in Asia. There

Page 1 0

is abundant evidence that Chiang is willing, ready, and able to end the communist threat to all of Asia - by launching an invasion of the mainland and touching off shattering revolt against the communists. But the Ameri can government will not permit him to do so. It was the same in Korea.

The Tragic Story

T he tragic story of China in the postwar period, 1 94 5 -49, has been documented and told many times. (7) Step by step, the American State Department ( forcing Chiang Kai-shek to stop fighting for " negotiations" when he had communists on the run) helped negotiate Chiang Kai-shek off the continent of Asia, and into retreat and disgrace at Formosa. Yet, even in the darkest hours, during the first year on Formosa, Chiang remained a seri ous menace to the communists. Occupying Formosa and all the offshore islands between Formosa and the mainland, Chiang practically controlled shipping in the Formosa Strait. Moreover, his presence on Formosa - just ninety miles from the mainland - kept vast numbers of communist soldiers tied down on the coast, awaiting a dreadfully-feared inva SIon.

General James A. Van Fleet tells a story about old Syngman Rhee, standing at the docks weeping as he watched the first boatload of American boys land in South Korea, in 1 9 5 0 . He said America should not send her sons to die in Asia's war. All that Syngman Rhee wanted was material help from America - to offset what the communists were getting from the Soviets. (5 ) Chiang Kai-shek also felt that Asians should fight Asia's war. Chiang had the best-trained and most experienced fighting force in Asia, and he volunteered to send it to help South Korea - either by fighting in Korea or by striking at the heart of the trouble on the Chinese mainland.

Truman refused Chiang's offer of troops. He also sent the American Seventh Fleet into Chinese waters to neutralize Formosa - to keep Chiang Kai-shek from trying to invade the Chinese mainland while the war was going on in Korea. (5) Of course, Truman also ordered the Seventh Fleet to keep the communists from invading Formosa ; but that was meaningless, because the reds had no navy. Chiang Kai-shek did have a navy of sorts - the one that got him to Formosa in the first place.

W ithin a matter of weeks after our Sev enth Fleet had thus neutralized the Formosa Strait, the communists pulled some 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 o f their best soldiers out o f defensive positions on the China coast and sent them into battle against Americans in Korea. In doing so, however, the communists were not daring to challenge American military might. Through their espionage coverage in the United Nations and in western capitals, the communists had been assured that the United Nations would not permit the United States to strike back at communist China. Our senior military commanders in Korea - Generals MacArthur, Clark, Stratemeyer, Van Fleet, Almond, Admiral Joy - have testi fied that we could have won the Korean war and destroyed communist power in Asia, with out precipitating a general war and with fewer casualties than it cost us to lose. (5 ) The com munists won , however, with the same weapon of "negotiation" which they had used against Chiang in China. Time and again in Korea, when American forces had sustained heavy losses to beat back a communist offensive and have the reds at the point of annihilation, we would stop our men in order to have truce talks - just as George Marshall had forced Chiang to do in China five years before. Each time, the communists would use the truce talks as a cover for bring ing up fresh forces and supplies for a surpnse

offensive.

Page 1 1

Republican politicians in the campaign of

1 9 5 2 promised to stop this betrayal of Ameri can fighting men and to conclude the Korean war honorably. As it turned out, the Eisen hower Republican's notion of honor was to accept armistice terms dictated by the com munists, (5 ) who have been openly violating their own armistice agreements since the day they were signed - in mid July, 1 9 5 3 . The Korean war inflated Chinese communist prestige throughout the world, and enabled the communists to give their armies combat training and build them into a menacing mili tary force.

I n the winter of 1 9 5 4, the reds opened a heavy artillery offensive against Chiang's off shore islands - threatening to take Formosa, the Pescadores ( a group of islands near For mosa ) and all other nationalist-held islands between Formosa and the mainland. In January, 1 9 5 5 , President Eisenhower, supported by a congressional resolution, prom ised to use armed force if necessary to defend Formosa ; but, at the same time, he put pressure on Chiang to abandon the Tachens group of offshore islands. There was abundant indica tion in 1 9 5 5 that the Eisenhower Administra tion was willing to make a deal with the com munists - to let them have Chiang's impor tant islands of Matsu and Quemoy, in return for a communist promise to leave Formosa and the Pescadores alone. (8) No such deal was consummated , however, and the Formosan crisis simmered and disappeared from world notice - with the communists havipg gained a few offshore islands in the Tachens group, but Chiang still holding the key islands. In the late summer of 1 9 5 8 , the crisis flared again. Communists heavily shelled the offshore islands and threatened to take Quemoy and Matsu Islands. This time, the Eisenhower Administration was openly eager for Chiang to abandon all offshore islands, in return for a communist promise to leave Formosa and the

Pescadores alone. Chiang flatly refused. The communists were unable to accomplish any thing by their own means ; and so, the For mosan crisis of 1 9 5 8 simmered down and trailed off again.

The Strong a nd the Weak

T he communists' inability to keep their boast about taking Quemoy and Matsu ; and the calm, gallant stand of Chiang's armed forces and people were a severe blow to the prestige and morale of the 'communists, a tre mendous boost for free China. In a speech to the National Assembly of the Republic of China, on February 2 0 , 1 9 60 , Chiang Kai-shek said : ��We have in our hands the assurance of victory. Once the hour strikes and once our armed forces and revolutionary uprisings' on the mainland come together in a giant pincer movement, we shall be able to win as naturally as flood waters flowing down hill form a big stream •

•

HThe Chinese communists are acting not only as the jackal of Soviet Russia in bringing harm to our people on the mainland, but are also the root of all troubles of the world today . . . . It has become clearer than ever that only after we have recovered the Chinese mainland . . . can communist totalitarianism be uprooted in the East. And only thus can world peace and the freedom . . . of mankind be re-established •

•

� � Howeve r , w e c a n n o t a sk a n y o f t h e friendly countries i n the free world t o pro vide us with military forces in our effort to recover our own territory I have always been of the view that the defeat of the Chinese communists and the deliverance of our main land compatriots are a responsibility which we alone should assume .

•

HThe hatred of people on the mainland for the communists, the factional struggle within the communist party, the severity of the . . . purges . . . . all these facts indicate that the Chinese communist regime has been shaken to its very foundation and is heading toward a total collapse . . . .

Page 1 2

((In terms of population and size of terri tory, our task of national recovery would seem to be that of the few against the many. But . . . in terms of the loyalty of the people and the morale of the armed forces, it is a case of the strong against the weak."(9)

hundred thousand well-equipped troops, with an air force, available to help India almost immediately. It would take years to build up such an outside force. And this force would be operating behind the lines of battle on the mainland and amidst the very vulnerable Chinese communists It would tend to nar row the conflict by pitting Chinese against Chinese. .

C hiang also warned the free world against

policies of fear and appeasement, saying :

((Some of the [ free -worl d ] n ations regard our holy mission of recovering the mainland . . . as an act that will touch off another world war. Their fear of the com munists and their appeasing policy will even tually plunge . . . mankind into the abyss of a disastrous war. Herein lies the greatest dan ,, ger for the free world today. (9) .

•

Present Situation

T he

November 1 9 , 1 9 6 2 , issue of U.S. News &- World Report published an article entitled «With Mao Attacking India - Time to Unleash Chiang ? " The article says Chiang Kai-shek feels that the time has come ; and he has his invasion force ready ; but the United States is dead set against his attacking the mainland.

a column published by The Wanderer, on November 2 9 , 1 9 62 , Dr. Robert Morris speculated that communist China's attack on India had an immediate two-fold purpose : ( 1 ) to dispel the growing image of red China as a power about to collapse because of internal economic troubles ; and ( 2 ) by this show of force, to manipulate the United States into a deal comparable to the one Kennedy made with Khrushchev concerning Cuba : that is, American acceptance of, and guarantee of protection for, communist conquests already made, in return for communist promises not to be aggressive any more. Dr. Morris recommended unleashing Chiang Kai-shek at once. He said : ((We should allow Chiang Kai-shek to com mence preparations to return to his homeland. This would. . . . be making an army of five

•

HIt is hard to believe the reasoning that aiding Indians will not run the risk of (esca lating' the world struggle whereas aiding Free Chinese ( with a claim of sovereignty to China) will. There is a good possibility that the Chinese people will welcome Chiang, whereas they could, only with difficulty, wel come Nehru and the Indians."

C hao Fu, a security officer in the Chinese communist Embassy at Stockholm, defected and sought American political asylum. He was brought to the United States in early Novem ber, 1 9 6 2 . On November 2 9 , 1 9 6 2 , Chao Fu testified ( through an interpreter ) before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Chao Fu told of a recent document, issued by com munist China's Foreign Minister, revealing that the Chinese communists fear an invasion by Chiang Kai-shek's forces. Chao Fu, a 27 -year old former peasant from northeastern China, said : ((Outstanding in my memory was the fear expressed that if Chiang Kai-shek's troops a ttacked at the same time as other enemies like India, the Chinese communists would be in a very critical situation . . . . ((I have left behind a wife and child who may be tortured and killed as a result of my escape. I have done this in the hope that I may be able to help my people by telling the world of the sufferings they endure under the communists. ((In my part of China, we seldom suffered famine or disaster. We were poor peasants, but were never hungry. Now, for 1 0 years, my family has not been able to kill a single pig. Conditions are even worse elsewhere. In the desolate areas, there are great labor camps, some of them with 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 prisoners in one camp alone, where the people live worse than animals. " ( lO)

Page 1 3

a new year's day speech ( January 1 , 1 9 6 3 ) , Chiang Kai-shek told the free Chinese to be "ready for actual combat duty at any moment." He urged the communist-enslaved Chinese on the mainland, tt . . . to give cover to underground move ments, to support uprisings, to take the lead in staging strikes on the farms, in factories and in classrooms, to wreck communist com munications lines, to set fire to communist military stockpiles, and to respond to any mili tary action against the communists whether it is in the air, at sea, or on the ground."

Warning the free world against the false hope that there is a split between communist Russia and communist China, Chiang said the conflict between Khrushchev and Mao Tse tung is merely a personal struggle for power : ttIt does not portend any schism between the Soviet Union and the Peiping regime, nor does it represent a split between the two Marxist-Leninist partners , who are still like Siamese twins. ttThis life-and-death struggle between Khrushchev and Mao will surely end in Mao's liquidation and surrender, for this is the jungle law of communism. . . . Khrushchev. . . . then will be able to use one quarter of the world's population as his unlimited capital to launch a global war. If the free world should regard the personal conflict between the two as a split in the communist bloc, and take comfort in the hope that it may weaken . . . international communism in its attempt to communize the world . . . this will be the most dangerous wishful thinking there is." .

•

Chiang explained that the Chinese commu n ist invasion of India is evidence not of s tr e n g t h but o f w e a kn e s s - o f "int e r n a l crises" goading the communists into "external aggression . " He said : ttThe Chinese communist regime . . . is the most ferocious and bellicose [of all communist regimes] a foe that the free world must destroy. Tactically, however, it is . . . rotten from the inside, the most isolated and the weakest." .

•

To all the people of China, free and com munist enslaved, Chiang Kai-shek said, on the first day of 1 9 6 3 :

ttWe cannot afford to let such a fateful opportunity slip from our grip . . . . Today Mao Tse-tung and his gang, beset with internal and external troubles, are doomed. Our people as a whole, soldiers and civilians alike, includ ing the ready-to-defect communist soldiers and cadres , already have moved into positions ready to close in on the communists from all sides. Now is the time for all of us to effect national recovery . . . . , , ( 1 1 )

The Ti me Is Now

D uring the Korean war, we had a

sturdy ally in Syngman Rhee's South Korea. Rhee is gone now - to the obvious delight of appeas ers in the American State" Department ; and now, though South Korea is still living on American aid, it is doubtful whether that country would be an asset to us, if we should get ourselves involved in another far eastern war with communism. Chiang Kai-shek is the only strong anti communist leader left in Asia. He has fought communists longer than any other man alive. Those who know him well say he is a devout Christian and a great leader - his life dedi cated to one purpose : rescuing his homeland from the communists. He was 7 5 , on October 3 1 , 1 9 6 2 . Although he is still vigorous, it is obvious that his time is running out. If he is held in check until it is too late for him to accomplish his great purpose, it may then be too late for China and all the rest of Asia.

The

free Chinese on Formosa have been living and building on the hope that they will be permitted to move against the mainland when the time is ripe. It is inconceivable that the time will ever be riper than now. Since Chiang retreated to Formosa, our aid to his government has averaged about 2 7 0 million dollars a year : 1 0 0 million in economic aid ( chiefly in the form of surplus agricultural commodities) ; and 1 70 million in military aid ( much of it equipment which United States Defense Department officials consider obsoles cent ) . (12)

Page 1 4

Does it make sense for us to go on support ing the free Chinese as American wards, while prohibiting them from fighting the enemy we are protecting them against ? Ultimately, inev itably, total war or total surrender will be the outcome of such a policy.

selves from involvement in the political and military affairs of the rest of the world, and look to our own national defense. Yet, our involvement with regard to China has been sealed by the blood of 5 3 ,0 0 0 Ameri cans who died at the hands of communists in Korea, and by the demands of our national honor. It is, at least, doubtful that China would ever have been enslaved by communism, or that the Korean war would ever have occurred, if it had not been for communist-appeasement policies which the American State Department has followed since Roosevelt's first wartime conference with Stalin.

S ome military authorities say that Formosa

is vital to our defenses. This is true if, by our defenses, we mean the defense of Asia. If we are going to continue shouldering the respon sibility of defending Asia, fighting her wars with our soldiers, we must anticipate that Asia will become a limitless graveyard for our sons. If that is the policy which we are determined to continue, we should hold on to every base and every piece of real estate we have anywhere in the Pacific, and acquIre some more - at whatever the cost.

The current affair in India gives us an excel lent - and, possibly our last - opportunity to disengage ourselves in Asia, with honor.

I f we would gather the military stores and

But why must we continue that policy? Neither the military security nor the economic prosperity of the American nation requires us to defend any part of Asia ; and our govern ment has no right to spend our money or the lives of our sons for such purpose. Bankruptcy and death await us if we do not disengage our-

civilian supplies which we are now scattering all over the far east ( to nations which will never use them to fight communism) and divert these supplies to Chiang Kai-shek, giv ing him our blessing to move with his own men in his own way to do the best he can to -

For prices on single and multiple copies of this Report, see bottom of the first page. How many people do you know who should read this Report? DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station Dallas 14, Texas Please enter my subscription for ( SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

Renewal

_ _ _ _ _ _

years )

(

New Subscription months ) to THE DAN

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) PRINT NAME

Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $1 2.50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 1 5

rescue his homeland, we most probably would start an explosive disintegration of communist power in Asia. What if Chiang failed ? One thing we can be sure of : if there are not enough Asians willing and able to fight for their own freedom, with us giving the where withal to fight, then Asia cannot be saved. We had better find that out now, before we blunder into another war that our sons will have to fight.

T he

one remaining strong, determined anti-communist leader in Asia says he wants to fight. Why not let him ? Or is our post-war program of "strengthen ing the free world to resist communism" a frightful lie, intended only to hobble America, and to destroy anti-communist countries like Katanga ?

in 1 9 6 2 ) will be available in late February. The limited number that can be printed will be sold on a first-come-first-paid basis. Volume VIn will be bound in maroon fab rikoid, with gold lettering, and will be exten sively indexed. Price : $ 1 0. 0 0 , postage prepaid, within the United States. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) U.S. News (j Y(lorld Report, November 1 2 , 1 9 62, p. 62 (2) UPI Column by Stewart Hensley, Dallas Ti1lles Herald, December 1 0, 1 962 ( 3 ) Dallas Times Herald, December- 1 0 , 1 9 62 ( 4 ) State Department Press Release No. 679, November 1 4, 1 9 62 ( 5 ) The Koreall W'ar alld Related Matters, Report, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Government Printing Office, 1 9 5 5 ( 6 ) Statistics on American casualties i n Korea are widely disputed. Even official U.S. Government figures are contradictory. The figure of 53 ,000 American deaths in Korea was supplied by the late Alfred Kohlberg. ( 7 ) America's Retreat from Victory, Joseph R . McCarthy, Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1 9 5 1 ; The Cbilla Story, Freda Utley, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1 9 5 1 ; ''(Iedemeyer Reports!, General Albert C. Wedemeyer, Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1 9 5 8 , pp. 2 4 8 If.

(8) Speeches of Senators Joseph R. McCarthy and William E. Jenner, United States Senate, May 9, 1 9 5 5

Bound Vol u me

( 9 ) Chinese News Service press release, February 2 0 , 1 9 60

W e have

sold all Bound Volumes of this Report for all years prior to 1 9 6 2 . Bound Vol ume VIn ( containing 5 3 Reports published

WHO

( 1 0 ) "Red China Said to Fear Invasion, Revolt," Chicago T ribulle Press Service story, Dallas Momill8 Nellis, November 3 0 , 1 9 62 ( 1 1 ) Chinese News Service press release, January 1, 1 9 63 ( 1 2 ) Article by Charles J. Murphy, Life, October 6 , 1 9 6 1

DAN

SMOOT ?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy i n the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Ddlas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own i ndependent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 1 6

THE

1)t111 SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 3 ( Broadcast 387 )

January 2 1 , 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

K E FA U V E R M E D I C I N E

T he June 4, 1 9 6 2 , issue of this Report - "King-Anderson Medicine" - reviewed the plan to socialize the practice of medicine in the United States. This issue reviews the plan to socialize the drug industry. Backg round

O n June 3 0, 1 9 0 6, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Pure Food and Drug Act - intended not to give the federal government authority to set standards for, and exercise control over the drug industry, but merely to eliminate from interstate commerce unwholesome foods and drugs. The Act established federal controls over the manufacture of foods and drugs, only in federal territories and districts. ( I ) In short, the men who wrote and sponsored the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1 9 0 6 recognized the constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government. The socialist upheaval symbolized by Franklin D. Roosevelt brought a different breed of men to the Congress of the United States. In 1 9 3 3 ( the first year of F. D. Roosevelt's Administration) , Senator Royal S. Copeland ( Democrat, New York ) introduced a Bill which ignored constitutional restraints and proposed to give an administrative agency of the federal government unconstitutional authority to establish and enforce standards of identity and quality for foods, drugs, and cosmetics produced anywhere in the United States. Congress rejected the Copeland Bill in 1 9 3 3 . ( 1 ) Within five years, however, New Deal socialists had gained control of Congress. On June 2 5 , 1 9 3 8 , Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act - which was virtually identical with the Copeland Bill rejected by Congress in 1 9 3 3 . THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25Â˘; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 17

On February 8 , 1 9 6 0 , Senator John Marshall Butler ( Republican, Maryland ) said :

Kefa uver's I nvestigation

November 1 7, 1 9 5 8 , the American Druggist ( a reputable professional j ournal ) warned that "a full scale inquiry into pricing practices of the pharmaceutical industry is planned in 1 9 5 9 by the Senate Antitrust Sub committee." In the September 5 , 1 9 5 9, issue of Saturday Review, John Lear ( Science Editor of the Review) demanded a congressional investiga tion of drug marketing, alleging that "rich and powerful corporations" are "suddenly pos sessed of the results of new scientific research discoveries but inexperienced in the delicate ethics of physician-patient relationships. " Mr. Lear recommended Medical Letter (a publica tion for doctors ) as a competent authority in the field of drug marketing. At that time ( Sep tember, 1 9 5 9 ) Arthur Kallett ( identified as a communist in 1 944 by the Special Com mittee on Un-American Activities(2» was Managing Director of Medical Letter.

O n December

7, 1 9 5 9 , The Senate Judi ciary Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee ( under the Chairmanship of Estes Kefauver Democrat, Tennessee ) began public hearings into the United States drug industry. When the Kefauver subcommittee hearings were televised ( December, 1 9 5 9 ) , the subcom mittee presented Dr. Louis Lasagna as a major witness against the drug industry. Dr. Lasagna was a member of the Advisory Board of the Medical Letter ( of which Arthur Kallett was Managing Director) . In 1 94 2 , Dr. Lasagna served as Special Medical Advisor for Con sumers Union, a communis t front ( until 1 9 5 4 (3» founded by Arthur Kallett. Dr. John M. Blair acted as chief economist of the Kefauver subcommittee staff. Dr. Blair is the author of Seeds of Destruction, a book published in 1 9 3 8 , which claimed that private capitalism is doomed, because it contains fun damental weaknesses which are the seeds of its own destruct ion. (4) Page

((In reviewin g all of the hearings and reports by the [ Kefauver] Subcommittee, I fail to find one iota of evidence that it has made any serious attempt to perfect the anti trust laws. Instead, its direction has been dom inated by the economic theories of its chief , economist, Dr. John M. Blair. )(4 )

Senator Butler quoted Dr. J. D. Glover ( of Harvard University) as saying that Dr. Blair's discussions were marked «by pettifoggery and efforts not to analyze the facts, but to handle the data in such a way as to <make a case' against big business. ,, (4 )

The Drug Industry Act

O n April 1 2 , 1 9 6 1 , Senator Kefauver introduced Senate Bill 1 5 5 2 which, he said, was designed to effect lower drug prices by infusing competition into the «monopolistic" drug industry. The Bill : - Required federal licensing of all drug manufacturers by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare ; to get a license, a comp any must show that its plant meets standards established by the Secretary ; - Required the Secretary of HEW to establish generic names for new drugs, and to change, at will, generic names of existing drugs ; - Required that the generic name of a drug be as prominently displayed as the trade name, in labeling and advertising ; - Empowered HEW's Food and D rug Administration to check drugs for efficacy as well as safety ; - Amended the patent laws to provide that only during the first three years of a 17 -year patent would the patent holder have exclu sive rights to manufacture and sell its dis covery. During the remaining 14 years, the patent holder would be required to sell its p atented discovery to other licensed drug firms ; - Amended the patent laws to provide that drug modifications would be patented only 18

if HEW determined the change significantly enhanced the therapeutic effect; - Made illegal the alloting and restricting of patents by private agreement amon g pri vate firms. ( 5)

July 5 , 1 9 6 1 , Dr. Hugh H. Hussey, Jr., of the American Medical Association, said that the medical and pharmaceutical profes sions were better qualified than government employees to determine generic names and effectiveness of drugs. On December 7 , 1 9 6 1 , Mr. Eugene N. Bees ley, Chairman of the Board of the Pharma ceutical Manufacturers Association; said the Kefauver Bill would virtually destroy the patent system, with respect to medicine. On December 8 , 1 9 6 1 , Dr. Vannevar Bush, Chairman of the Board of Merck and Com pany, Inc . , said the patent provisions would cause a reduction of drug research. Dr. Theodore Klumpp, President of Win throp Laboratories, said the Bill would cause drug companies to eliminate expensive original research, by encouraging them simply to copy the products of other firms.

O n April 1 0, 1 9 6 2 , President Kennedy urged favorable Senate action on the Kefauver Bill. (6) On July 1 9, 1 9 6 2 , the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the Kefauver Bill favor ably, having reduced its scope in only one major are a : the Judiciary Committee had removed provisions to amend the patent laws. (6)

T he

timing of the bureaucracy is often brilliant. Note that the general, stated purpose of the Kefauver Bill, when it was introduced in April, 1 9 6 1 , was to protect the pocketbooks of the people, not their health. But, in the summer of 1 9 6 2 - about the time the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the Kefauver Bill - the nation's newspapers and magazines were featuring stories about thalidomide, a Page

German-made tranquilizing drug which alleg edly had caused malformation of many Euro pean babies. The case of a pregnant Arizona woman, who had taken thalidomide which her hus band had bought in London, made front-page headlines for several days. On August 1 , 1 9 62 , President Kennedy, at his press conference, announced that, because of the thalidomide «disaster, " he was recom mending a 2 5 percent increase in the Food and Drug Administration staff. The President said : HIt is clear that to prevent even more ser ious disasters from occurring in this country in the future, additional legislative safeguards ,, are necessary. (7 )

For a pregnant woman to discover that she is bearing a malformed baby is, unquestion ably, regrettable ; but for the President of the United States to allude to it as a national dis aster is a bit extreme. Moreover, since the drug which caused the sad affair was made in Ger many and sold in England, it is difficult to see how an increase in the American bureaucracy can do anything about the situation.

August 2 3 , 1 9 6 2 , the Senate unani mousl y ( by a roll-call vote of 7 8 to 0 ) passed Kefauver's Drug Industry Act. (8) On September 2 7 , 1 9 6 2 , the House passed a version of the same Bill. Differences between Senate Bill and House Bill were resolved in conference ; and, on October 1 0 , 1 9 6 2 , Presi dent Kennedy signed the Act into law. (9)

Conseq uences

There is no grant of power in our Con stitution for the federal government to license drug manufacturers, to set standards of pro duction, or to dictate the naming of drugs. Yet the Drug Industry Act gives the Secretary , of Health, Education, and Welfare almost lim itless power to control the drug industry in 19

the United States. Under this law, the Secre tary and his agents can : - Invade the privacy of individuals and business firms, to seize and examine papers, records, and procedures, without warrants or any other due process of law - in violation of provisions of the Fourth Amendment ; - Write their own laws ( that is, promul gate regulations which have the force of law ) without even consulting or notifying the elected members of Congress who, under the Cons titution, have the exclusive power to make federal laws ; - Administer and enforce their own laws, investigate alleged violations, and prescribe punishmen t ; - Destroy any drug-manufacturing busi ness firm that the Secretary does not like ( under the pretense that the firm is not meet ing the standards which the Secretary sets ) ; - Reward private firms that the Secretary likes ( by giving their products the blessings of the Department ) ; - N am e n e w d ru g s, a n d r e - n a m e o l d ones. (9)

A ll

of this was done for the purpose of reducing drug prices. In the rigged and slanted Kefauver Drug Industry Hearings, and in all the propaganda which followed, there was no proof of any specific instance of harm to the health of the people resulting from the absence of the kind of governmental controls which the Drug Industry Act provides. Except for the President's ridiculous refer ence to the thalidomid e «disaster" in his August 1 press conferenc e, there was little effort to make a case for the Drug Industry Act as being necessary to protect the public from harmful drugs. The case for the Act rested on Kefauver's claim that the law was necessary to protect the public from high prices charged by the "monopol istic" drug industry. But note the following paragraph from an a rticle entitled «The Truth About Drug Prices," in the March 2 1 , 1 9 6 0 , issue of U.S. News &- World Report: Page

��The Kefauver Subcommittee made head lines , early in its investigation by noting that there were price markups of as much as 7 , 0 0 0 per cent between the cost of some drugs and the price the buyer paid at the retail store. These figures, however, were based on the cost of the raw materials and did not take into account the normal business expense of developing, manufacturing or marketing the products . . . . wholesale prices of d rugs as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics advanced 3 per cent between 1 94 8 and 1 9 5 8 at a time when wholesale prices of all indus � trial products went up 2 2 per cent."

T here is truth in Kefauver's contention that drug companies could charge less and still make a reasonable profit. But only competition in a free market - producers trying to sell, and consumers making free choice about what product they will buy - can sensibly set prices and profits. When government gets a monopo listic stranglehold on the drug industry, prices are more likely to go up than down. Quality and progress will inevitably decline. When a governmental agency can make or break a company ( by giving or withholding its blessing ) we will have drug companies directing their primary effort not toward research and development intended to outpace competitors, but toward currying favor with the all-powerful bureaucracy. We will have in the drug industry, the same situation we now have in the agricultural industry : waste, stupidity, graft, corruption - a vast breeding ground for promoters like Billie Sol Estes. Indeed, the behavior of some leaders in the drug industry in 1 9 6 2 indicate that they may have been anticipating deals with the ruling bureaucracy. How else can you account for the fact that many leaders of the drug industry in 1 9 62 kept a stony silence about the Drug Industry Act while it was being debated in Congress as if indifferent, or afraid to speak a word in defense of their own ? Kefauver said he wanted

to "infuse" com petition into the drug industry; but Kefauver's 20

Bill can eliminate most of the meaningful com petition that did exist. When the full effect of the Kefauver law is felt, the drug industry in the United States will be in the hands of a few major favorites of the Washington bureaucracy. None will be struggling to out pace the others, in research or in price-reduc tion - because all will be operating exactly alike, under "standards" set by the Secretary of HEW.

K efauver

is right in saying that advertis ing gives most of the drug business to the big firms, because only large firms can afford the expensive nationwide advertising and promo tion programs which create mass sales ; but there is nothing illegal or unethical or harmful about this condition. The national advertising by drug companies no doubt creates more market than it cap tures : that is, while advertising does make mas sive sales for drugs of specific brand names, it also creates wider demand for products of the same general type - thus bringing a gratui tous benefit to small producers who cannot advertise their own brands nationally. The fact that small companies do not sell as much as large companies, does not mean that the small companies are oppressed or illegally handicapped, or even damaged. Small com panies, in competition with a score of big com panies who get most of the national business, are much better off than they would be if all big drug companies were broken up into a multitude of little ones, because then there would be no big ones to pioneer in expensive research or to conduct great advertising pro grams which stimulate sales for products of the whole industry.

Kefauver is right in saying that the expen

sive advertising of the drug industry is added to the cost of drugs and is, thus, charged to consumers. That is true of all advertising. But Kefauver reveals profound ignorance of Amer ican business when he implies that advertising Page

unnecessarily inflates the cost of consumer goods. Communists and socialists generally regard advertising as a parasitic and wasteful activity which increases the cost of consumer goods without giving consumers commensurate bene fits. The fact is that advertising is one of the major reasons for the miracle of American production : by creating mass markets for a product, it makes the economy of mass pro duction possible, thus drastically reducing the cost of consumer goods. If, for example, there were no mass market for drugs ( which advertising has created ) , all drugs would be made in shops too small to use the money-saving techniques of mass pro duction. And the price of all drugs ( though not "burdened" with advertising costs ) would be much higher than now.

T he Drug Industry Act requires drug com panies, in advertising and labeling, to feature prominently the generic name of drugs. For example, Miltown ( produced by Wal lace Laboratories ) and Equanil (Wyety Lab oratories ) are the trade names of a tranquil izing drug whose generic name is meprobamate. There could be small companies making m ep r o ba mate u n d e r a t r a d e n a m e q u i te unknown to the general public. A general intent of the law is to encourage doctors to use the generic name instead of the trade name in prescribing such drugs. This would help small companies making drugs under little known trade names. But the end result could be considerable damage to the industry at large, and to the public. A company could spend millions of dollars on research to produce a new drug ; but, when it is ready to market, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare could assign the new drug a generic name which all com panies could use. If all doctors used the generic name in writing prescriptions, pharmacists could buy the new drug from the company 21

offering the best price. This could very well be a company which had no research costs at all in the drug. Thus, the company develop ing the new drug could suffer - and be dis couraged from investing in further costly research.

The "competent authorities" are, of course, bureaucrats in the D epartment of Health, Education, and Welfare.

T he

��To take advantage of modern vaccination achievements , I am proposing a mass immuni zation program, aimed at the virtual elimina tion of such ancient enemies of our children as polio, diphtheria, whooping cough and ,, tetanus. ( l O )

science of nutrition is still in its infancy. New discoveries may at any time expand the number of vitamins and nutrients considered necessary to good health. But, under this ukase of the Department of Health, Edu cation, and Welfare, no progress in the devel opment of health foods and vitamins is encouraged, except as authorized b y the fed eral bureaucrats. In fact, the new regulation is so vague and broad that the clerks in Wash ington could outlaw many health food prod ucts already on the market.

Congress obliged with an Act ( HR 1 0 5 4 1 , signed into law on October 2 3 , 1 96 2 ) , pro viding 3 6 million tax dollars for the U. S. Sur geon General to use in a massive program of vaccinating Americans ( with government purchased serums ) . The Constitution does not authorize agents of the federal government to practice medicine on the people.

Energetic enforcement of this regulation would halt progress in this field. There simply can be no progress when the creative and pro ductive efforts of men are controlled b y bureaucrats whose decisions can b e influenced by politics, by personal laziness, and by per sonal inclination to stay perpetually in well worn ruts that are safe and easy.

Ad mi nistrative Law and Hea Ith Foods

F'reedom versus Socia l ism

Mass I m m u n ization

O n January 1 1 , 1 9 6 2 , the President, in his State of the Union Message, said :

June 1 9 , 1 9 6 2 , the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare made one more dangerous addition to the unconstitu tional body of "administrative laws" - fed eral regulations which are not enacted as laws by our elected representatives but are merely proclaimed as laws by appointed bureaucrats. In essence, this HEW regulation prohibits the makers of products generally known as "health foods," "vitamins," and "dietary sup plements" from putting on their labels any nutrients not "recognized by competent authorities as essential and of significant die tary-supplement value in human nutrition." The regulation lists 1 2 vitamins and min erals which the "competent authorities" con (11) sider essential. Page

T here must be controls on an industry which vitally affects the health and welfare of the whole people ; but when government con trols, it makes matters worse, because it gives the power of decision to politicians and bureau crats who cannot have as keen a sense of per sonal responsibility as industry leaders must have. If the head of a drug firm makes a wrong decision about the production, labeling, or marketing of a drug, he could incur lawsuits, and loss of reputation that might bankrupt his firm and destroy something that he spent a lifetime in building. If a Washington bureau crat makes the same mistake, there is a good possibility that the whole bureaucracy will, in the interest of protecting itself, congeal and conspire to hide the error. If the mistake can22

not be hidden, the most that usually happens to the bureaucrat is an official reprimand which may delay his next pay raise. In extreme cases, he may be fired.

The

only safe and effective control over industry is the control of rigorous competition in an economic system free of governmental harassment and regulations. Competition for the dollars of the .buying public compels pri vate industry to strive relentlessly for better products and lower prices. Bureaucratic and political controls stifle initiative and remove incentive for progress - resulting, inevitably, in shoddy products and higher prices. Look at the record. Because it has been freer than the drug industry anywhere else in the world ( despite confiscatory taxation and the restrictions of the unconstitutional Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1 9 3 8 ) the American drug industry has produced more new drugs than the drug industries of all other ( 1 2) countries of the world put together. In the Soviet Union, the drug industry is in precisely the status that liberals are preparing for the American industry : it is totally con trolled by government. And the drug industry in the Soviet Union has not developed one new drug product of consequence in 4 3 years of total governmental control. ( 1 2 ) Approximately two-thirds of all new drugs prescribed by British doctors, since socialized medicine came to England, were developed by American drug companies. Prior to the "nationalization" of medical care in England, the English made outstanding contributions in the fields of biochemistry and physiology, generally, and in the development of "miracle drugs" particularly ( penicillin, for example) .

Drug Control a nd Fl uoridation

O ne danger of the drug-control laws is related to the senseless drive for fluoridation of public water systems. Page

Mental- control drugs h ave already been developed - drugs which increase the suscep tibility of the mind to suggestions ; drugs which pacify and make human beings tractable and amenable to discipline. (13) If power-hungry men who rule the nation politically have the power to determine what drugs the people should have, how those drugs shall be named and labeled, and how they shall be distributed and administered ; and can even have certain drugs administered to the whole population by force, through use of public water systems as a medium - who can fail to foresee the potential consequences ? A party or a clique could keep the public docile and main tain themselves in power perpetually - by ordering the right kind of dosage of the right kind of drugs.

Drugs and Dishonesty

N ews

accounts of the Cuban prisoner e x c h a n g e d e a l a t C h r i s t m a s t ime, 1 9 6 2 , revealed that it was Robert F . Kennedy, Attor ney General, who "persuaded" American drug companies to contribute the drugs, which con stituted a substantial portion of the 5 3 million dollars in ransom to Castro for release of pris oners whom President Kennedy had betrayed into Castro's hands at the Bay of Pigs in 1 9 6 1 ( Robert Kennedy referred to this betrayal as a "mistake" which his brother had made. ) . ( 14) Robert Kennedy's persuasion included assur ance that the drug companies would get tax deductions for the drugs they contributed to the cause of communism - deductions big enough, in many cases, to pay much of the cost of the drugs contributed. ( 1 5 ) Yet, President Kennedy and Robert F. Ken nedy emphatically deny that the U.S. govern ment had anything to do with the Cuban exchange deal. 23

What to Do

The Pure Food

and Drug Act of 1 9 0 6 went as far as the federal government can legally go «to regulate Commerce" in the food and drug industries ; and that Act is all that is necessary : it gives the public as much effective legal pro tection as possible against the movement of unwholesome food and drugs in interstate commerce. The public should put enough pressure on Congress to repeal the unconstitutional and harmful laws in this field - specifically the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1 9 3 8 ; the Drug Industry Act of 1 9 6 2 ; and the 1 9 62 law «authorizing" the President's Mass Immunization Program. But the only way to prevent such legisla tion from being enacted again, is to repeal the income tax amendment and thus deny Wash ington plunderers the unlimited tax revenues which finance the drive to socialize every seg ment of our economy.

T he quickest way for the public to effect repeal of the income tax is to support legisla-

WHO

tion ( like HR 1 1 4 9 2 , introduced last year by U. S. Representative Bruce Alger) to eliminate the withholding tax. Once withholding is eliminated, the Ameri can people will come to an abrupt realization of the crushing tax burden they are carrying. The income tax would be repealed shortly thereafter. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) The Encyclopedia America11a, Vol. XI, 1 96 1 , p. 82 ( 2 ) House Re.port 1 3 I I , Special Committee on U n·American Activities, United States House of Representatives, Government Printing Office, March 29, 1 944, p. 1 5 3 ( 3 ) Consumers Union was cited as a communist front i n 1 944 (see Footnote 2 ) . This communist front citation was removed in 1 9 5 4 by t h e House Committee on Un-American Activities after reorgan ization of Consumers Union; see Annual Report for 1 9 5 3 , House Committee on Un-American Activities, Government Printing Office, 1954. ( 4 ) U.S.A., April 8 , 1 960, pp. 1 If . ( 5 ) . Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1 9 6 1 , p. 291 (6) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, July 27, 1 962, pp. 1 2 5 7 if. ( 7 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 3 , 1962, p. 1 3 1 0 ( 8 ) Congressiollal Qnarterl" \'(feekly Report, August 24, 1 962, p. 1 39 5 (9) Congressional Quarterly 1 899 ff.

Weekly

Report,

October

12,

1 962, pp.

( 1 0 ) Congressional Quarterly WeeMy Report, January 1 2 , 1 962, p. 5 5 ( 1 1 ) Federal Register, June 2 0 , 1962, p. 5 8 1 7 ( 1 2 ) "Prescription Drug Industry Story," booklet, Baxter Laboratories, Inc., 1 9 6 1 ( 1 3 ) "Scientist Finds Drug T o Alter Substances Controlling Emotions; Swede Suggests Chemical Could be Used in Mental Illness Or to Control Minds of Men," article, Wall St reet Joumal, 1 960 ( 1 4 ) The Dallas MOTl/ing News, December 2 5 , 1 962, p. 1 ( 1 5 ) U.S. News &- World Report, December 3 1 , 1 962, p. 3 2

DAN

SMOOT ?

Page 24

THE

IJ(/II SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 4 ( Broadcast 389 )

January 28, 1 963

Dal l as , Texas DAN

SMOOT

U RBAN RENEWAL AN D A SOVI ET AMERICA PART I

1 9 3 2 , Toward Soviet America was published. {l) It was written by William Z. Foster, then national chairman of the communist party in the United States. In the book, Foster says : CCNaturally, American Socialist industry will be operated upon the basis of a planned economy cCA Socialist society without a planned economy is unthinkable, even as it is unthinkable that a capitalist society should work on the basis of scientific planning cCThe [American] Soviet government will initiate at once a vast housing program. All houses and other buildings will be socialized . . . . A great drive will be made to demolish the present collection of miserable shacks and tenements and build homes fit for the workers to live in. "(2) .

•

Since this book was written in 1 9 3 2 , the federal government has instituted many pro grams which are completing Foster's schemes for a Soviet America. Federally financed urban renewal is among the most vicious of these programs.

Authority for U rba n Renewa l

B asic «authority"

for the federal government to finance urban renewal is in Title I of the Housing Act of 1 949 ( approved July 1 5 , 1 949 ) , which provides for federal aid in slum clearance and redevelopment. The Housing Act of 1 9 5 4 ( approved August 2 , 1 9 5 4 ) broadened the provisions of Title I, to include not only slum clearance but slum prevention. The 1 9 5 4 Housing Act authorized federal aid for the rehabilitation of blighted and dete riorating areas, the apparent purpose being to rejuvenate deteriorating areas before they become slums. All federal housing laws and all federal laws providing federal financing for housing THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 25

( including the FHA ) are, of course, unconsti tutional, because our Constitution makes no grant of power for the federal government to engage in such activity. Even under the unconstitutional Housing Act, however, the urban renewal program, as we now know it, was not possible, because urban renewal involves not only activities of the federal government, but also elimination of private property rights, at state and local levels, in violation of the most ancient and important concepts of human freedom. About three months after the Housing Act of 1 9 5 4 became law, a Supreme Court decision opened the way for such elimination of private property rights - which was necessary before the urban renewal program could really get under way. The decision involved an urban renewal case in Washington, D. C.

ttWe are of opinion that the Congress, in legislating for the District of Columbia , has no power to authorize the seizure by eminent domain of property for the sole purpose of redeveloping the area according to its, or its agents', judgment of what a well-developed, well-balanced neighborhood would be . . . . ((The Government says that it has deter mined that project area B in the case at bar is an appropriate area for redevelopment, that slums exist in that area, and that therefore it may seize the title to all the land in the area and, having replanned it, sell it to private per sons for the building of row houses, apartment houses, commercial establishments, etc. In essence the claim is that if slums exist the Government may seize, redevelop, and sell all the property in any area it may select . . . . This amounts to a claim on the part of the author ities for unreviewable power to seize and sell whole sections of the city. HIt [project area B] covers about fifteen square city blocks. It lies within a census tract in which slum conditions are said to exist Its western boundary is an irregular line which runs around lots, encompasses some establishments along a street and excludes others on the same side of the same street . . . . It excludes certain properties, and under it, cer tain other properties would be sold back to the presen t owners or be retained by them. The key to the [urban renewal] plan . . . is the opinion of the Government authorities that residential neighborhoods should be (well balanced.' . . . HIn sum the purpose of the plan . . . is to create a pleasant neighborhood . . . . The Gov ernment is to determine what conditions are pleasant. . . . HOf course, the plan as pictured in the pro spectus is attractive It would be difficult to think of a village, town or city in the United States which a group of artists, architects and builders could not improve vastly if they could tear down the whole community and rebuild the whole of it. But as yet the courts have not come to call such pleasant accomplishments a public purpose which validates Government seizure of private property. The claim of Government power for such purposes runs squarely into the right of the individual to own property and to use it as he pleases. Absent impingemen t upon rights of others, and absent public use of compelling public necessity for the property, the individual's right is superior to all rights of the Government and is impreg•

Su preme Court Dictu m

Under

a 1 9 4 5 law providing for housing and redevelopment in the District of Colum bia, federal housing agencies selected an area of Southwest Washington for urban renewal. Some property in the area was run -down and over-crowded. Some consisted of small business establishments and modest, but respectable, homes. The federal agencies condemned all property, however, because even the clean and respectable places were not as pretty as the government officials wanted. Owners of a small department store brought suit in federal court to enjoin the condemna..: tion of their property. They contended that their property was not a slum and that it was not residential ; that their property was not being taken for public use but was being seized for resale to private purchasers for pri vate development; and that the Fifth Amend ment protected them from such seizure.

The case went to a three-judge Federal Dis trict Court, which said :

HWe have the problem of the area which is not a slum but which is out-of-date, called by the Government blighted or deteriorated . . . .

Page 26

•

nable to the efforts of Government to seize it. . . . One man's land cannot be seized by the Government and sold to another man merely in order that the purchaser may build upon it a better house or a house which better meets the government's idea of what is appropriate or well-designed."( 3)

The

involves elimination of private rights in real estate. With zoning laws, city governments can limit a man's freedom to use his property, but they cannot take his property away from him.

State Urba n Renewa l Laws

Supreme Court heard the case on appeal ; and, on November 2 2 , 1 9 5 4, the Court (William O. Douglas writing the opinion ) said, in essence, that Congress, in the District of Columbia, has unlimited authority to deter mine what the public good is and unlimited power to use any means whatever to achieve that good. The Court said that state legislatures have the same power over all communities in their states. (3) Urban renewal, as mass madness on a national scale, was about ready to begin - but not entirely ready.

The November 2 2 , 1 9 5 4 , Supreme Court decision said that state legislatures could seize private property at will, for any purpose which the legislators claimed to be good. So, another step was necessary in the removal of roadblocks to a really massive, national urban renewal program : state governments must pass on to city governments limitless power to confiscate private property. That is, each state legislature must pass an urban renewal law, "authorizing" city governments to seize private real estate in areas designated for urban renewal projects.

Zon i ng Laws

Eminent Doma i n

C ity governments, before they can get tax money from the federal treasury for urban renewal projects, need zoning laws(4) "with teeth in them" - that is, laws which give city officials power to control the use of private real estate : to determine which neighborhoods shall be residential, what kind of houses are permit ted, how they must be located on lots, how the yards may be fenced ; which neighborhoods may have churches and apartment houses, which ones may not ; which neighborhoods may have business establishments, and what kind. Unless city governments have zoning laws giving them such power over private property owners, they cannot design a "Workable Pro gram" for an urban renewal project. "W ork able Program" is a phrase of the Washington bureaucracy. It means, an urban renewal proj ect pleasing to federal housing officials.

I n any civilized society, there will arise occasions when an individual owns property that government needs for a public use that is necessary to the welfare of the whole people. Eminent Domain is the power of government to force individuals, on such occasions, to sell the property, at a fair price, to the govern ment, for the necessary public use. This is not a constitutionally granted power, but is, rather, a power implicit in the formation of government. In the American system, emi nent domain should be exercised only by state and local governments, except in time of actual, congressionally -declared war.

E ven such powerful zoning laws do not, however, give city governments all the power they need for participation in urban renewal, because, as stated before, urban renewal Page

I t is in the nature of human beings that men in governing positions try to govern : they try to use their power to make the governed people do what is considered good for them. When schemes for promoting general welfare fail to accomplish all that was promised, governing officials instinctively say the failure resulted from too little power in their hands : their pro grams would have succeeded if they had had 27

more power. So, they reach for the power they say they need for the successful promotion of general welfare. There always has been this conflict between government and the people who are governed - no matter what kind of government it is : all governments are always reaching for more power so that they can do to and for the people what government thinks good for the people. In a nation where people love freedom ; where they know the truth, that all govern ments will become tyrannical if permitted ; where they consider the rights of individuals as sacred ; and where they have the character to fight for the freedom they cherish - people will habitually resist every act of government that is an encroachment upon the sacred rights of individuals. They will resist so consistently and noisily that, in every instance, government will have to prove its case before violating citi zens' rights : government will have to prove that the «public need" is so great and self-evi dent that all reasonable men concede the neces sity, in this one instance, of sacrificing indi vidual rights for the good of the whole people.

W hen government reaches for more power in order to do things for the «public good," there are always special interests and individu als who stand to profit from the proposed gov ernmental activity. These join the politicians in propagandizing the «urgent public need" that is to be served. Their propaganda is rein forced by legions of dreamers who imagine that political and economic power concentrated in the hands of governmental officials can wipe out all human ugliness and create heaven on earth. This combination of forces is frequently powerful enough to make any individual resist ance of illegitimate governmental power look like the action of a crackpot or scoundrel. Since the beginning of our national life, therefore, there have been abuses of eminent domain. But, for many years, each abuse was an isolated case, which could not be used as a precedent, or «authority," for other abuses. Indeed, public resistance to governmental action which encroached upon individual Page

rights was, for a long time, so wholesomely habitual in the United States that state and local governments generally had extreme diffi culty in exercising eminent domain even when the public use to be served seemed obviously necessary. In short, America was a nation where the awesome power of eminent domain was held in reasonable check by a people who knew that the right to be secure in the ownership and use of private property is essential to the life of a free man ; who knew that, without the right to own and use property, a man has no means of providing the necessities of life, except as the governing power permits him - who knew that a government which can take your prop erty can take your life.

The Big Job to Do

F or

urban renewal, a city government seizes one man's property; uses tax money to enhance its value ; and then sells it to another man, for considerably less than was given to the man from whom it was confiscated. The buyer can then get tax money to develop the property for his own private, profitable use, provided only that he build something the offi cial planners like. The man from whom the property was seized may be grievously hurt ; the man who bought it a reduced price , to redevelop , with tax money, for his own use, profits greatly ; and his profits are made possible, in part, by taxes imposed on the man forced to sell in the first place. But no matter ; and no matter whether the finished project pleases the people who live and work in it - and whose taxes help pay for it : this is urban renewal.

I f it was traditionally difficult for city gov

ernments to seize an occasional piece of private property for necessary public use, even when the public need was obvious and urgent, how could Americans ever be led to accept urban renewal ? Urban renewal requires seizures of all private property in large areas ( at whatever the cost in tax money) and causes the uproot28

ing of entire commullltles of families and established businesses ( at whatever the cost in h e a r t b r e a k a n d f i n a nc i a l loss f o r t h o s e uprooted ) for no public need a t all - unless one considers it a public need to tear down and rebuild whole sections of a city in order to please public planning officials ! How could Americans be persuaded to toler ate such a program, and pay for it with their tax money ?

took a lot of doing. This was a propa ganda bombardment j ob which required the heaviest artillery. And that is what was used. The invisible government did the job with professional thoroughness.

The I nvisi ble Government

The

invisible government is a group of powerful, widely respected, and, for the most part, very wealthy individuals who support, work through, and control a bewildering net wor k of tax -exempt organiza tions. The primary sources of revenue for all the organizations are the big tax-exempt foundations - mainly Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford - though all are also financed, to some degree, by business firms which profit from the governmental pol icies which the network fosters. The controlling center of this network is the Council on Foreign Relations, whose key mem bers hold memberships in related and subsidiary organizations, and occupy influential positions in government, in foundations, in educational institutions, in the communications industry, in finance. These individuals form an elite group who set the policies of the federal government ; and, through a vast, interlocking combine of edu cational and opinion-forming agencies, they influence or control the propaganda which per suades Congress and the public to accept the policies.

T his is the team which undertook the job

of bombarding the nation with enough propa ganda to «sell" urban renewal.

Page

In the summer of 1 9 5 4, Congress enacted the necessary law ( Housing Act of 1 9 5 4 ) to provide tax money for urban renewal out of the national treasury. In November, 1 9 5 4 , the Supreme Court handed down a decision which would give all urban renewal laws and direc tives the odor of legal sanctity. The invisible government assumed the j ob of selling urban renewal to local and state gov ernments, and to the people.

City governments without strong zoning laws had to be persuaded to adopt them. This was relatively easy. A group of tax-exempt organizations had already been working on the zoning-law problem for a long time. The American Committee for International Munic ipal Cooperation ; the American Municipal Association ; the American Society for Public Administration ; the American Society of Plan ning Officials ; the International City Managers' Association ; the Municipal Finance Officers Association ; the National Association of Hous ing and Redevelopment Officials ; the Public Administration Service - all these organiza tions are housed at 1 3 1 3 East 6 0th Street, Chicago, in a Chicago University building financed with Rockefeller Foundation money. Most of them have the same sources of income that the Council on Foreign Relations has. Many of them have, among their boards of directors and trustees, men who occupy similar positions in the CFR or in related organizations. There are few city governments in the land which are not under strong influence from one or more of these organizations - virtually all of which are sympathetic to the idea that mod ern cities must have strong zoning laws. S tate

legislatures had to be persuaded to pass urban renewal laws, authorizing cities to seize private property for urban renewal proj ects. This could be done largely as a by-product of the big effort needed to convince the people that urban renewal is not only good and proper, but also necessary and inevitable.

I n May, 1 9 5 7, the Committee for Eco nomic Development ( one of the most influen29

tial tax-exempt organizations in the Council on Foreign Relations network ) set up its Area Redevelopment Committee - which quickly became both a fountainhead and control center for a mammoth nationwide propaganda drive for urban renewal. In 1 9 5 7, the CED had programs "to improve the teaching of economics in the public schools . . . operating in 3 9 states. " The CED's College Community Research Centers had "projects in progress" in 3 3 institutions of higher learning. Twenty institutions of higher learning were participating in the CED's "College Program," to develop training in economics for prospec t i ve t e a c h e rs. The CED w a s o p e r a t i n g "summer workshops" t o provide training in economics for thousands of school teachers throughout the nation. The CED was operat ing high school community projects in the teaching and understanding of modern eco nomics ; and it was operating a "Cooperating School Program," to demonstrate the teaching of economics, in 2 0 public school systems from California to Rhode Island. The Committee for Economic Development set up "CED Associates" - groups of young businessmen, under the guidance of college professors and of key CED or CFR members - in cities throughout the nation. The "CED Associates" were supposed to bring to their communities a better understanding of mod ern economics. They, like the school and col lege programs of CED, were excellent vehicles for the dissemination of "area redevelop ment" ( that is, urban renewal ) propaganda. Information in press handouts and pam phlets issued by the CED's Information Divi sion customarily reach ( according to CED's official boast) more than 1 9 million people.

These are j ust a few of the organized activ ities of one of the multitude of "private" agencies which went into high gear to sell urban renewal to the public in 1 9 5 7. ACTION - American Council to Improve Our Neighborhoods - was also set up, with national headquarters in New York City. This group sponsors neighborhood meetings where Page

city planning experts tell local CItIzens how they can take Action to prevent their cities from deteriorating and their neighborhoods from becoming slums ; and the organization distributes well-prepared pamphlets showing how Action has been, and can be, taken. The Action insistently emphasized is, of course, federally financed urban renewal. Of the 6 6 persons on the ACTION Board of Directors, a controlling majority are :

known members of the Council on Foreign Relations - such as Philip L. Graham and Stanley Marcus ; known members of important CFR affili ates - such as, Sidney Weinberg of the Busi ness Council ; union bosses like Harry C. Bates, Ben Fischer, Joseph D. Keenan, Jacob S. Potofsky, Walter Reuther ; bureaucrats in charge of various ((Housing Authorities," including Dr. Robert Weaver, Kennedy's present Housing Administrator whose appointment was challenged in the Sen ate because of Dr. Weaver's alleged commu nist front record ; ((liberal" politicians dedicated to the total socialist revolution - such as, Joseph S. Clark , Jr., U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania ; officials of construction and real estate firms which can make mammoth profits on urban renewal projects and who are also ((liberal" in their support of all governmental controls and subsidies, the tools for converting capitalism into socialism - such as, William Zeckendorf ; representatives of organizations also ((lib eral" in the sense indicated above - such as, Philip M. Klutznick of B'nai B'rith, and Mrs. Kathryn H. Stone of the League of Women Voters.

The Advertising Council, another tax exempt organization in the invisible govern ment network, features free "public service" announcements on radio and television net works, touting the work of ACTIONY)

Here is a partial list of business organiza tions particularly active in supporting urban renewal :

Allegheny Conference on Community Development ( Pittsburgh ) Allied Stores Corp. Aluminum Co. of America

Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Bessemer Securities Corp. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes ( Boston ) Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. Draper & Kramer, Inc . ( Chicago ) General Electric Co. Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Hartford National Bank Hecht Department Store ( Washington, D. C. ) Henry J. Kaiser Co. Hilton Hotels, Inc. Holiday Inns Hotel Corp. of America James W. Rouse & Co. J. C. Penney & Co. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. Julius Garfinckel Department Store (Washington, D. C. ) Macy's Department Store Marriott Motor Hotels Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. National Gypsum Co. New York Life Insurance Co. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. Portland Cement Association ( Chicago) Prudential Insurance Co. of America Public Service Electric & Gas Co. ( Newark) Raymoud Rebsamen ( Little Rock) Republic Steel Corp. Reynolds Aluminum Safeway Stores, Inc. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Sheraton Corp. of America Southern New England Telephone Co. Time, Inc. Travelers Insurance Cos. Turner Construction Co. ( New York ) Woodward & Lothrop Department Store ( Washington, D. C. ) ( 6)

And Then the Moon?

In May, 1 9 5 7, when the invisible govern ment's Committee for Economic Development created the Area Redevelopment Committee, urban renewal was in its infancy. By the end of the Eisenhower Administra tion, urban renewal had become a major national movement which was engaged in wholesale destruction of private property

rights, and opening rich veins of public money for graft, corruption, and political vote-buy ing. Houston, Texas, appeared to be the only major city left in the United States without zoning laws ; and only five states in the union - Idaho, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming - had refused to pass the nec essary laws "authorizing" confiscation of pri vate property for private use in urban renewal projects. (7) Yet, in his first "housing" message to Con gress (March 9, 1 9 6 1 ) , President Kennedy said the urban renewal program must be expanded. The Housing Act of 1 9 6 1 did expand urban renewal activities in the United States ; and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1 9 6 1 expanded them abroad. United States taxpay ers are now paying for urban renewal in for eign lands ; and ambitious schemes are afoot to provide urban renewal for the world. Toward Sovie·t America

To promote urban renewal from a state of infancy in 1 9 5 7, to what it is now, took, as I said earlier, a lot of doing. All the credit for this accomplishment cannot be given to the tax-exempt organizations and business firms and labor unions, interlocked with or manipu lated by the Council on Foreign Relations. Agencies of the federal government have also been busy, with tax money, pouring out tons of propaganda to sell urban renewal. One of the most attractive selling pieces for urban renewal was published in March, 1 9 5 8 , by the Housing and Home Finance Agency in Washington. It is an expensive looking 1 2-page pamphlet entitled "Aids to Your Community - Programs of the Hous ing and Home Finance Agency." The pamphlet is an advertising brochure, simply worded and simply illustrated ( for the unsophisticated officials in provincial cities, no doubt) , telling city fathers exactly how to go about getting federal money for urban

Page 3 1

renewal - from the initial cost of making sur veys to decide that a project is needed, to the final costs of providing public housing for per sons evicted from the project area and of lend ing money to the private real estate dealers who "develop" the area ( for their own profit) . F rom the pamphlet : ��Through its regional offices, the Housing and Home Finance Agency provides a sort of one-stop service station for communities to use these aids ��When city fathers work up to the state of transforming a rundown, blighted area through the process of urban renewal, a helping hand is available from the federal governmen t." .

•

Notice how much more effectively Ameri can bureaucrats can sell the socialist idea than communists can manage to do. Communist William Z. Foster demands, in harsh and bitter tone, that the building indus try be socialized so that the «miserable shacks" of capitalism can be torn down and replaced with public housing «fit for workers. , , (2 ) The Housing bureaucrats talk affectionately and gently about city fathers transforming

WHO

blighted areas. Yet communist Foster and the Housing bureaucrats are talking about the same thing: socializing the building industry in the United States, as one step toward the ultimate goal of a socialist America ( Foster called it a Soviet America, which means the same) . Part I I

Next week, I will present more about the plans for worldwide urban renewal, and look further into the rationale and activities of urban renewal in the United States. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Republished in 1 9 6 1 , with a Foreword by the Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and with chapter notes by Maurice Ries: Elgin Publications, Box 1 6 2 , Balboa Island, California, price $4.75

(2) Toward Soviet America, William Z. Foster (see Footnote 1 for details ) , pp. 2 90, 2 8 1 ( 3 ) Congressional Record, March 1 7, 1 9 5 9, pp. 3 907 If. ( 4 ) "HHFA Aids to Communities In Area Redevelopment," booklet by the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington 2 5 , D.C., August, 1 962, p. 7

( 5 ) For further details regarding the activities of the CED, ACTION, and other groups affiliated with the Council On Foreign Relations, see the book In visible Governm.ent by Dan Smoot.

( 6 ) Congressional Record, October 3, 1 96 2 , pp. 2 0 8 9 1 if. (7) Congressiollal Record, October 5 , 1 962, p. 2 1 2 3 2

DAN

SMOOT ?

In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effectiv e tools for those who want to think and talk and write On the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 32

THE

1)1111 SmootReport ..... Vol. 9, No.

5 ( Broadcast 390 )

February 4, 1963

Dallas,

Texas DAN SMOOT

URBAN REN EWAL AND A SOVIET AMERICA PART I I

U rban renewal is a federally financed program of city planning which requires city governments to seize homes and other private property ( not just slums, but all property in whole sections) . After the property is cleared of all buildings ( at taxpayers' expense) it is resold (at below the cost of acquisition) to private interests for developments that the city planners consider desirable. The whole program is, of course, unconstitutional, because the Tenth Amendment clearly prohibits the federal government from engaging in activities not authorized by the Con stitution. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to engage in housing activities, money-lending, slum clearance, or city planning. A n American's home is supposed to be his castle. A substantial portion of the Constitu

tion is devoted to the specific aim of protecting citizens in their right to own property and to be secure in the ownership and use of it. Urban Renewal ignores all of those constitutional protections. If you happen to live in a pleasant, well-kept residential neighborhood, which city planners think should be wiped out and rebuilt, the city government can condemn the whole neighborhood and convert it into a public park, or sell it to some out-of-town developer who promises to put up buildings which the official planners will like. How Urba n Renewa l Works

W hen city planners decide that they would like to tear down everything in a whole

section of the city and redesign it to suit their taste, they can get tax money out of the federal treasury for the scheme, but they must observe certain formalities. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1·2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates ; $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $l.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 33

First of all, the planners must present the federal Urban Renewal Administration plans for a Workable Program. This is a phrase of the Washington bureaucracy, meaning an urban renewal project which meets all specifi cations of the federal agencies, and is pleasing in the sight of the agency officials. This could be a big hurdle. How can lesser planners in back-country cities draw up some thing to satisfy the Great Planners in Wash ington ? Where will they get the money for working out their plans? The Urban Renewal Administration will advance funds to pay for surveys and planning work necessary to draw up the Workable Program. Some of the federal advances for this initial survey-and-planning job run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The advance is part of the gross amount that the city fathers can get for their project.

A fter the Workable Program has been pre sented to Washington officials and approved, the city government gets tax money from the federal treasury to buy all property in the project area. If any citizens refuse to sell, the city government condemns their property and forces them to sell. The wholesale evictions of people from an urban renewal area often leave many families without a place to live, and business firms with out a place of business. The city government can get, from the federal treasury, $ 1 00 . 0 0 to pay the moving expenses of each displaced person, and $ 2 5 0 0 . 0 0 for the moving expenses of each displaced business firm. If there is no housing available for persons evicted from an urban renewal area, the city can get tax money from the national treasury to build "low-rent" public housing. It is called "low-rent," because the persons living in it do not pay much rent. The federal government provides an annual subsidy to operate «low rent" public housing projects. The projects could accurately be called «very high rent" housing, if the rent which tenants pay were added to the «rent" which all taxpayers pay on each public housing project - in the form of federal subsidies to meet the cost of operation. Page

A business firm evicted from an urban renewal project can usually get loans through some federal agency to acquire new quarters elsewhere. Once human beings are removed from an urban renewal project, the city uses U. S. tax money to demolish and remove everything else - leaving the project area naked and ready for a fresh start. The city sells the entire project area to pri vate developers who promise to build in com pliance with specifications of the Workable Program. Often, the area is sold in one piece to one buyer. This generally means that only big real estate operators or syndicates can buy. It follows that many ( if not most) major urban renewal projects are developed by big firms or syndicates which specialize in buying and developing "urban renewed" land. The private firms which buy the cleared urban renewal project land can get U. S. tax money, from federal lending agencies, to do the developing. But the land and the develop ments are theirs to be used for their private profit, under certain provisos. Here are con trols imposed on private developers of urban renewal projects: -

( 1 ) They must build something that con forms with the planners' dreams as revealed in the Workable Programs. ( 2 ) They must abide by whatever federal requirements may be made under the terms of Section 1 0 6 ( c ) ( 7 ) of the Housing Act of 1 949, as Amended, which provides that the Urban Renewal Administrator: CCnotwith standing the provisions of any other law, may . . . include in any contract or instrument made pursuant to this title such other cove nants, conditions, or provisions . . . as he may deem necessary." ( 3 ) They must comply with Section 1 0 9 ( a ) o f the federal housing law, which con tains the Davis-Bacon Act provision that the Secretary of Labor has absolute power to set wage scales for all work connected with a fed erally-financed urban renewal project. This is a law which union bosses lobbied through Congress. Its purpose is to force private con tractors ( when using federal tax money) to 34

hire union labor, or, at least, to pay whatever wages union bosses want paid - regardless of local conditions and wage-scales. ( 4 ) P r i v a t e d e v e l o p e r s o f f e d e r a lly financed urban renewal projects must comply with President Kennedy's ukase about Hno racial discrimination." ( l )

Apart from these political restrictions, the private developers who buy land confiscated from other private owners in an urban renewal area, and develop the land with federal tax money, enjoy ownership of the development. U rba n Renewa l La nd Dea ls

The major burden to taxpayers, in an urban renewal project, is the net cost of acquiring and clearing the land. Urban renewal generally involves land close to downtown, where congestion and commer cial and industrial development have pushed real estate prices to great heights. The cost of acquiring such land - and of removing the structures on it - is said to be too great for private developers. This means that the project is economically unsound, and must be subsi dized by taxpayers. The federal government, therefore, bears most of the net cost of land acquisition and clearance ( usually, two-thirds ; bu� often more ) . Net cost is the amount the city government loses on urban renewal real estate deals. The city buys real estate at high prices; spends a great deal to have the land cleared ; and then sells the land to private developers for a low pnce. A few statistics will serve to indicate just how heavy a burden this urban renewal «net cost" is, on taxpayers : In Baltimore, land for urban renewal was acquired for $ 1 ,444, 1 5 5 . 0 0 . After it was cleared and ready for re-development, it was sold to private developers for $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a net loss to U. S. taxpayers of $ 1 , 1 44, 1 5 5 . 0 0 . In Jersey City, land acquired for urban renewal cost $ 3 ,9 6 6, 7 8 5 . 0 0 . After it was cleared, it was sold for $ 8 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - a net loss to U. S. taxpayers of $ 3 , 1 1 6,7 8 5 . 0 0 . I n New York City, land for 1 0 urban renewal projects, which cost $ 8 2 , 1 99 ,479 . 0 0 ,

was sold to private buyers for $ 2 5 , 6 5 2 , 1 0 7 . 0 0 - a net loss to U . S . taxpayers of $ 5 6 , 5 47,3 72 . 0 0. In Philadelphia, land for 2 urban renewal projects cost $ 1 , 5 1 4,994.00, but was resold for $ 2 7 6, 0 74.0 0 - a net loss of $ 1 , 2 3 8 , 9 2 0 . 0 0.

The net loss to taxpayers on urban renewal

land deals in these particular projects, in four cities, was 6 2 million, 47 thousand, 2 3 2 dol lars ( $ 6 2 , 047,2 3 2 . 0 0 ) . These statistics do not, by any means, reveal the total net loss to taxpayers on the land deals involved. The statistics do not include the enormous cost of clearing the land, before it was resold for redevelopment - or the cost of legal fees involved in condemnation proceed ings ; and so on. The statistics cited above are from a letter which the Urban Renewal Administration wrote to United States Representative Bruce Alger on May 1 , 1 9 5 6 ; hence, they reflect urban renewal activities during the infancy of the urban renewal program. J ust the Beg i n n i n g

U rban renewal with federal tax money

was p.rovided for in the National Housing Act of 1 949, and enlarged in scope by the Housing Act of 1 9 5 4. It was sanctioned by a Supreme Court decision in 1 9 5 4 ; but it did not become a vigorously promoted nationwide program until 1 9 5 7, when the invisible government network initiated an all-out propaganda drive to sell the urban renewal idea to the nation as discussed in this Report, last week.

By the time President Eisenhower left office, urban renewal had become a major national movement. But President Kennedy said the program had to be expanded. In his first hous ing message, March 9 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy said : ttUrban renewal programs to date have been too narrow to cope effectively with the basic problems facing older cities. We must do more than concern ourselves with bad housing - we must reshape our cities into

Page 35

effective nerve centers for expanding metro politan areas. Our urban renewal efforts must be substantially reoriented from slum clear ance and slum prevention into positive pro grams for economic and social regeneration . . . . ��This program, if it is to be truly effective, must help local communities go beyond the project-by-project approach. I have instructed the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to work with the local officials in every area to foster this broader approach, in which individual projects will be developed within the framework of an over-all com munity program, a program which clearly identifies the city's long term renewal needs an d opportunities and the changing shape of the city. . . . HLocal communities must be able to count on adequate and continuing support through a long-term Federal commitment. I therefore recommend to the Congress that new authori zations totaling $ 2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0, 0 0 0 . 0 0 over a 4-year period be made available for urban renewal programs . . . . , , (2 )

Congress gave the President more than he asked. The Housing Act of 1 9 6 1 (signed into law on June 3 0, 1 9 6 1 ) will cost U. S. taxpay ers more than 9 billion dollars. ( 3 ) U rba n Renewa l for the World

The 9-billion-dollar housing and urban renewal programs authorized in the Housing Act of 1 9 6 1 were for the United States only. In the Foreign Assistance Act of 1 9 6 1 , Con gress expanded our urban renewal and housing for foreign countries - to be paid for by United States taxpayers. But even bigger programs are being planned. On February 2 5 , 1 9 62, T-he New York Times reported : ��An international group of housing experts has advised governments to set up federal agencies for housing and urban affairs . . . . ��The ten [United Nations] specialists, who have spent the last two weeks appraising world housing needs proposed that in each country a central ministry should help formu late urban development. �� It was suggested that such an agency con cern itself with such problems as transporta tion, location of industry, water supply, land

use, health, and recreation. Appropriate local machinery also was recommended. ��The group said further that one way of aiding housing developments would be to establish a United Nations fund or pool of equipment and technical services. Member states under a General Assembly resolution would be invited to supply funds, equipment, materials and services for pilot projects in low cost housing. ��Another indirect help would be to have the United Nations increase the supply of international funds for housing and urban development. This would be done through a fund providing mortgage insurance for invest men t in housing in developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America . ��By 1 9 6 5 , it was estimated, 24, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 dwellings will be needed annually to house the rising population in the developing area . . . . "

The United Nations assesses the United States for almost one-third of all UN admin istrative costs. But UN aid programs (such as the proposed housing and urban renewal pro grams) are financed by voluntary contribu tions from member nations. Most of the volun tary contributions come from the United States. Most other UN members which con tribute to UN aid programs get more than enough direct aid from the United States to offset their UN contributions. So, whatever the UN may do, in the way of urban renewal and housing for the world, will be paid for, in large part, by U. S. taxpayers. The United States is also planning enlarged foreign urban renewal and housing programs, on its own. On October 4, 1 962, Senator John J. Sparkman ( Democrat, Alabama ) told Congress :

HI wan t to bring to the a tten tion of the Senate plans that the subcommittee . . . has to study our Governmen t's programs of assisting foreign underdeveloped countries in housing and urban development activities. Although we already have several programs started, I feel there is a great deal more that can be don'e . . . . ��In order to explore this more fully, during the recess period, papers will be solicited from specialists in the field of international housing and planning on a variety of subjects such as

Page 36

urban planning, development of new con struction materials, improved building tech niques, home financing, self-help housing techniques, cooperative housing, slum clear ance, and savings and loan and other thrift systems. , , (4 )

Metropol itan Government

I n his housing message to Congress, on

March 9, 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy complained that urban renewal programs had been too nar row. He meant narrow, not only in volume, but in purpose. The President said : ((The city and its suburbs are interdepend en t parts of a single community, bound together by the web of transportation and other public facilities and by common eco nomic interests. Bold programs in individual jurisdictions are no longer enough. Increas ingly, community development must be a cooperative venture toward the common goals of the metropolitan region as a whole. ((This requires the establishment of an effective and comprehensive planning process in each metropolitan area embracing all major activities, both public and private, which shape the community . . . . I recommend there fore the enactment of an extended and improved program of Federal aid to urban and metropolitan planning."(2 )

The President's dialectics are an argument

for the necessity of metropolitan government which would destroy the whole fabric of gov ernment and social organization in the United States. The planners have a vision of a new kind of America. The old federation of states, held together in union by a federal government of carefully limited powers, will be gradually changed into a nation governed by a central ized absolutism in Washington. For administrative purposes, this new Amer ica will be divided, geographically, into urban rural (or metropolitan) areas, which sprawl across forgotten and meaningless state bound ary lines. Each metropolitan area will be man aged by an appointed expert. In this new America, there will no longer be troublesome resistance to local taxes for local

improvements, because there will not be any such taxation. All taxes will be levied by the central government in Washington, and then distributed to the metropolitan managers. This method of taxation will give additional strength to the central government, because it will make the metropolitan governing bodies answerable, not to the local people governed, but to the supreme political power in Washington.

F ederally financed urban renewal is an

important (perhaps the most important) part of an overall drive for such metropolitan gov ernment in America. The Metropolitan Amer ica thus emerging is strikingly similar to the Soviet America which communist William Z. Foster predicted and demanded, in his book, Toward Soviet America, published in 1 9 3 2 . Com m u n ist Ma nifesto

F ederally financed urban renewal is also

helping to fulfill the demands of another com munist far more important than William Z. Foster. In 1 84 8 , Karl Marx wrote The Com munist Manifesto. He outlined a 1 0 -point program for eliminating capitalism and estab lishing communism. Here is Point 9 in the Manifesto: ((Combination of agriculture with manu facturing industries ; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable,, distribution of population over the country. (5)

C ompare this point in

The Communist

Manifesto with a proposal formally made by former United States Representative Thomas F. Johnson ( new frontier Democrat from Maryland, now under indictment for conspir acy and conflict of interest ) . Mr. Johnson is so enamored of urban renewal that he wants the federal government to undertake a pro gram of rural renewal. Here is how the Tulsa Tribune described a Bill, introduced by Rep resentative Johnson, to create a federal rural renewal commission :

Page 37

((This commission would be charged with

( 1 ) encouraging an (orderly diminution' in

the number of farmers ; ( 2 ) halting the exo dus of rural folks to the already-overcrowded cities ; ( 3 ) repairing, rebuilding or replacing homes, business buildings and other property which have deteriorated because of depressed rural conditions. ((Additionally, the commission would con sider requiring part of each defense contract to be undertaken in rural areas, so our defense plants wouldn't all be wiped out in a nuclear ,, attack. ( 6)

C rime and Del i nq uency

Many Americans think of urban renewal

as slum clearance. They believe that govern ment can eliminate slums, and that elimination of slums will virtually abolish crime and juve nile delinquency. Although most of them do not realize it, Americans who have this viewpoint have accepted a central proposition in the dialectical materialism of communism : namely, that peo ple are animals, shaped and controlled by their material environment. The truth is that siums do not breed crime and juvenile delinquency. It is the other way around. People make slums. Slums do not make people. If you tore down all old houses in America; replaced them with luxury homes and apartments; gave those luxury dwellings to criminals, juvenile delinquents, bums, and improvident, lazy ne'er-do-wells ; and provided the occupants with lavish pensions - the places would soon be slums. Billions of tax dollars have been spent on public housing and federal urban renewal in America. In support of every one of the thou sands of such projects, the same argument was used : eliminate the slums and you will elimi nate the causes of crime and juvenile delin quency. Put up something that looks good and the people will be good.

But the public housing projects of America have not eliminated any crime or juvenile delinquency. On the contrary, many have

become concentration centers for criminals and juvenile delinquents. The March 2 0, 1 9 5 4 , issue of The Provi dence CR. 1. ) Journal, quoted Judge Francis J. McCabe of the Rhode Island Juvenile Court as saymg :

((Slums don't make delinquency. Delin quent people make slums. Public housing projects don't wipe out juvenile and adult delinquency by eliminating slums. Delin quents are more plentiful in the projects, because they move into the projects from scattered areas and thereby become more concentrated."

I n recent years, magazines and newspapers

have featured many well-documented stories about expensive public-housing projects quickly becoming smelly tenements, with gar bage and human offal littering the grounds and hallways, and the ravages of vandalism and bestial behavior visible in broken windows, defaced walls, sagging stair rails, damaged fixtures. Government can make slum dwellers move elsewhere, but government cannot remake peo ple. Hence, no matter how much power it usurps or how much tax money it spends, gov ernment cannot eliminate slums. Leg a l Action Aga i nst II Slu msll

Under the guise of slum-clearance, our tax money is financing a frightful amount of snob bery which injures many people. I have person ally known low-income neighborhoods which were charming living areas. I knew one in par ticular that was occupied by colored people. Practically everyone in the neighborhood owned his own home. They were small, wooden-frame houses ; but they were clean and attractive. Their principal virtue was that the people who owned them and lived in them and cared for them, loved them. The people were proud of their neighbor hood, which produced relatively little crime or delinquency ; and they were astonished and hurt when the City Planning Commission, sup ported by federal housing authorities, declared their area «blighted." Their homes and busi-

Page 38

nesses were confiscated, and the neighborhood became a public housing project. The original home owners were not project-dwellers by nature. They went elsewhere. The project filled with tenants who quickly converted it into an eyesore and a concentration center for human flotsam and jetsam.

C ity governments have adequate, legal

power to do something effective about a slum, if, by slum, one means inhabited buildings which sanitation experts can prove to be inju rious to public health ; or which capable engi neers can prove to be dangerous to the general public. The city can order owners to make mini mum improvements necessary to public safety. If owners refuse, the city can have the work done and add the cost to the owners' tax bills. If the owners will not pay, the city can sell the places at public auction. One astonishing argument made for tax financed slum clearance and urban renewal is that wealthy people own much of the slum property; that they pay a very low tax on the property; and that city services which their slum properties require ( police and fire protec tion, principally ) are much greater than the services required on good properties in good neighborhoods, where tax rates must be higher in order to make up for the low tax on slums. DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station Dallas 14, Texas Please enter my subscription for < SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

_ _ _ _

If all of this is so, why give the owners of slum property the special privilege of low taxes ? If they get more city services than other property owners, why not make them pay more taxes ? People could not then afford to own rent property which is dangerous to the public. They would either improve the property to make it comply with minimum requirements of public safety, or they would sell it - to escape the high taxes. These legal procedures would not eliminate all buildings that liberal planners-of-other people's-lives do not like ; but they would elim inate most places that are a menace to public safety ; and they would leave Americans secure in their God-given right to own property. Greed a nd Cyn icism

Greed and cynicism have helped urban renewal to become a national disgrace. Many individuals support federally-financed urban renewal, knowing it is unconstitutional and wrong, because they think there is no way to stop it : If you cannot whiP them, join them. We cannot stop urban renewal, so why deny our city its share of federal money? Taxpayers in our city are helping pay for urban renewal in rival cities. Let's get some federal urban renewal money ourselves, so that taxpayers in those D

Renewal

years )

New Subscription

______

months ) to THE DAN

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $12.50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 39

other cities will have to help pay f01' somethi11 g we are getting. This is one way to get some of our federal tax money back.

It Can Be Stopped

Many Americans are, however, resIstmg

urban renewal ; and, in some communities they have managed to stop it. Their basic technique is simple : they use whatever means they can find to educate others in the real meaning and implications of urban renewal. I am pleased to say that this Report has played a part in successful fights against urban renewal. Individuals and organizations distrib ute, as widely as possible in their community, issues of the Report ( and of other publica tions ) dealing with urban renewal. They run newspaper ads and sponsor meetings and broad casts. In communities where this kind of edu cational job is adequately done, the people can stop federally-financed urban renewal. In some communities, such educated public interest has forced city governments, before requesting federal urban renewal funds, to put the question to voters, in a referendum. Among the cities where urban renewal has been defeated by referendum vote are E1 Dorado, Arkansas ; Fontana, Fresno, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Soledad, and Stockton in California ; Indianapolis, Indiana ; Des Moines, Iowa ; Kalamazoo, Michigan ; Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Amarillo and San Antonio in Texas. WHO

In some commullltIes, an aroused public interest causes city officials to stop plans for federal urban renewal projects without sub mitting the issue to voters. In Dallas, for exam ple, public opposition to urban renewal caused the city government to abandon plans for a project, after a federal grant for the initial survey had already been authorized. On October 5 , 1 9 6 2 , United States Repre sentative Bruce Alger (Republican, Texas ) inserted a thirty-eight page document in the Congressional Record, listing some of the cities where urban renewal has been defeated, and telling how the defeats were accomplished.

F ederally-financed urban renewal can be defeated at the local level, by hard-working citizens who care. But the only way to end the whole program ( and to make similar opera tions forever impossible ) is to repeal the income tax amendment. Take the surplus tax money away from the Washington plunderers : and most of the harmful programs of government would cease, because there would not be enough tax money to pay for them. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Executive Order 1 1 063 ; Equal Opportunity In Housing," Federal Register, November 24, 1 9 62, p. 1 1 5 27 ( 2 ) COllgressiollal Qllarteriy \'(Ieekl), Report, March 1 0 , 1 9 6 1 , p. 403 ( 3 ) COllgressiOllal Quarterly \'(Ieekiy Report, June 3 0 , 1 96 1 , p. 1 1 60

( 4 ) COllgressiollal Record, October 4, 1 9 6 2 , p. 20949 ( 5 ) COII/ II/ullist Mallifesto by Karl Marx, Gateway Edition, 1 9 5 4 , p. 37 ( 6 ) Huma" Events, September 29, 1962, p. 7 3 7

DAN

SMOOT ?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees

from that university in 1 938 and 1 940.

In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the indus:rial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in WashingtOn, as an Adm in istrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write 00 the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan -

Smoot Report.

Page 40

THE

1Jtlll SmootlIe,o,t Vol. 9, No.

( Broadcast 39 1 )

February 1 1 , 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

H OW T O L O S E F R I E N D S

I n a press conference on January 24,

1 96 3 ,

President Kennedy said :

((The Communist apparatus controls more than one billion people, and it daily con fronts Europe and the United States with hundreds of missiles, scores of divisions, and the purposes of domination . The reality of power is that the resources essential to defense against this danger are concentrated overwhelmingly in the nations of the Atlantic Alli ance. In unity, this Alliance has ample strength to hold back the expansion of Com munism Acting alone , neither the United States nor Europe could be certain of success and survival." .

•

Less than two weeks later, these stories were making headlines throughout the world: ((In a world that seems suddenly to be coming unglued, President Kennedy faces the prospect of having to make some agonizing decisions in the next few weeks . . . . Kennedy will very likely have to decide soon whether it is necessary to undertake measures of reprisal because of De Gaulle's open break with the allies over the future economic, polit ical, and military organization of the Atlantic Alliance" - John M. Hightower, Associated Press dispatch from Washington, February 4, 1 9 6 3 ; ((Almost everyone agrees that U. S. intervention in the Canadian nuclear debate not only created the most serious rift between the two countries in modern times, but vir tually assured that anti-Americanism would become a prime issue in the next general election" - Max Harrelson, Associated Press dispatch from Ottawa, February 3 , 1 9 6 3 . ( 1 )

H ere, once again, is dramatic proof of the tragic stupidity of American foreign policy.

Since the end of World War II, the political leaders of America have assumed that America has enough strength to carry the world on her back, but that she does not have enough strength to stand alone. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person, Add -

2% sales tax on a l l orders originating i n Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 4 1

Assuming that we can no longer defend our own nation, our leaders have spent staggering sums of tax money to build a "free world alli ance" which is, and always will be, as weak as the weakest member in the alliance. The secur ity of the American nation is dependent on the whims, ambitions, and greed of foreign politicians who, far from being answerable to American taxpayers, increase their own power by denouncing the United States.

their own people and to strengthen themselves against their neighbors, who are also accepting our military aid as members of our "free world a 11'lance. " Our military aid to foreign nations not only puts us in the ridiculous position of engaging in an armaments race with ourselves : it puts all of our " allies" into an armaments race with each other, with us financing both sides.

F urthermore, our efforts to aid other

Nations stand with regard to Portuguese Angola in Africa ; and we have alienated South Africa by backing the United Nations Reso lution condemning South African policy on the race question. The dastardly United N ations rape o f Katanga - which we have financed and sup ported without stint - has not only elimi nated Katanga as a friend of America but must have caused hatred of us throughout Africa. United Nations forces bombed hospitals, homes, industrial plants, a n d s chools i n Katanga. United N a tions t roops ( wh i c h included uncivilized Ghurkas from India and savage tribesmen from Ethiopia) committed indescribable atrocities against women, chil dren, missionaries, doctors, and other civilians in Katanga. Meanwhile, Congolese troops drawing their pay at the expense of American taxpayers - roamed the country in lawless, drunken bands, raping, killing, and pillaging. ( 2 ) One aspect of our "United Nations policy" in the Congo, not reported in the American press, has been revealed by South African newspapers. The January 6, 1 9 6 3 , edition of the Johan nesburg Sunday Times printed an interview with Mr. E. M. Schollij, a South African who served for a year in the Katangese military intelligence before he was captured and later released by United Nations troops. Schollij reported that the United Nations forces in the Congo - officers, troops and offi cials - are taking part in large-scale rack eteering and blackmarketing in everything from Katangese gold to the flour sent over by UNESCO.

nations and to make them strong members of our "free world alliance" have caused almost universal hatred and resentment of America even among nations which were traditionally our best and closest friends : witness, Canada. We alienated the Netherlands by forcing them to surrender their East Indian posses sions - which became the pro-communist ( if not outright communist) nation of Indonesia. More recently ( 1 9 62 ) , we deepened the injury by our part in forcing the Netherlands to sur render New Guinea to Indonesia. Australia is disturbed and angry at us because of this New Guinea deal. Our State Department has primary respon sibility for converting Cuba from a friendly nation into an enemy nation. In forcing the downfall of Trujillo in the Dominican Repub lic, we eliminated the last strong friend we had in the Caribbean area. The alienation of France now seems com plete ; and, in West Germany, the growing resentment of American intervention in inter nal affairs threatens to eliminate that nation from the ranks of nations "friendly" to the United States. Cambodia resents us because of the arms we give to Thailand ; and Thailand resents us because of arms we give to Cambodia. Pakistan resents us because of the aid we give to India ; and India resents us because of the aid we give to Pakistan. I t is the same all over the world. Foreign governments accept our military aid, not to help "defend the free world against commu nism" but to support their own tyranny over

Page 42

We have alienated Portugal by our United

Of the 1 ,2 0 0 tons of flour sent by UNESCO fortnightly for the starving Congolese, nearly all is sold by United Nations officials to Indian traders, Schollij stated ; and he added that even United Nations doctors participated in the racketeering, selling medical supplies sent from abroad to combat the wide-spread disease in the Congo. At a Goma airfield ( in the Kivu province ) , Mr. Schollij saw a cargo of stolen Katangese gold which was flown in by Air Congo. He said : ((The new (owners' of the gold were four Indian officers of the United Nations forces, a captain of the Malayan contingent and his ser geant-major."

Peru

I n Peru, there is hurt and bewilderment on

the part of intelligent, middle-class Peruvians at our failure to give full recognition to the new anti-communist dictatorship which has seized power there. I was in Lima in the middle of January, 1 9 6 3 . I talked to prominent Peru vian professional and businessmen, and others. Uniformly, they expressed fear about the social and political conditions there. The heavy population of indigent and igno rant indians and mixed-breeds hangs like an albatross upon the neck of the nation. They will not work, although there is plenty of work available. Squatting in slums, in a land richly endowed with fertile soil and fabulous natural resources, they seem impervious to education or even to acceptance of rudimentary infor mation about sanitation and decent living. Yet, they have the vote and are easily inflamed by the agitation of communists and venal politicians who go among them in elec tion years denouncing American capitalists and exploiters, while giving them handouts of food and drink, often purchased with Ameri can aid money.

The educated middle-class people I talked to in Lima welcomed the anti-communist dic tatorship which put more than 8 0 0 commu nist agitators in j ail and suspended the farcical

«elections. " They frankly admit that Peru is not yet ready for the kind of democratic society we have in the United States. They say that a strong, beneficent dictatorship is neces sary for stability and safety in their nation and will be for many years to come. They know that we Americans despise dic tatorships of all kinds. They admire us for that ; and they envy us because we have already reached the level of social and political devel opment which enables us to maintain a free society; but it bewilders them because we can not understand that their problems are differ ent. And our inconsistency hurts them. They see us give full recognition, and aid, to com munist dictatorships, and cannot understand why we scorn their dictatorship which is pro American and anti-communist. These people do not really want aid from us. They want friendship and tolerant under standing of their efforts to work out their unique national problems in their own way. We give the aid, which obviously does more harm than good ; and, with our diplomacy, we insist on meddling in their dangerously explo sive domestic affairs.

Argenti na

D uring the week of January 24, 1 9 6 3 , the

Foreign Minister of Argentina was in the United States. Asked to comment on Argen tina-United States relations, President Ken nedy, during his January 24 press conference, said :

((The relationship has been good . . . . There is an International Monetary Fund group down there in Argentina now considering the A r g e n t i n e ' s e c o n omic p r o b le m s. We a r e watching that very closely, and we are ana lyzing when that study is completed what we can most usefully do to be of assistance to the Argentine."

J ust

five days before President Kennedy made that evaluation, I interviewed an official of the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires. After letting me know that he would deny anything I said if I identified him or quoted him directly, he said that Argentina is pres-

Page 43

ently making gestures of friendship toward America "because the Argentines are greedy. " He said the Argentines will play up to anyone whom they think they can get something from ; and, at present, they think their best prospect of getting something for nothing is by a show of friendship for the United States.

I arrived in Buenos Aires by airplane from Santiago, Chile. Shortly after take-off in San tiago, we crossed the crest of the mighty Andes ; and for two hours after that, traveling at jet speed, I stared down at the magnificent Argentine pampas - the vast treeless plains that stretch from the Andes to the River Plate. Viewed from an airplane 3 0, 0 0 0 feet high, the pampas look very much like the plains country of West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. But our plains country is arid, and the topsoil thin. In the Argentine pampas, the rich topsoil is eight feet thick, and rainfall is abundant. And we are giving them aid ! Why ? Buenos Aires is at the mouth of the River Plate. The marvelous delta complex of that river includes literally thousands of islands, so rich in alluvial soil, so abundantly watered by nature, and so bathed with tropical sun shine that they ( alone - without the great pampas ) could produce enough food to feed not only all of Buenos Aires, but all of Argen tina. And we are giving them aid ! Why ? I asked the U.S. embassy official in Buenos Aires why. I asked the same question of resi dent American businessmen, of American mis sionaries, of Argentine businessmen, and of miscellaneous Argentines whom I was able to interview. From all, I got the same story : the Argentines do not want to work. They seem to have no patriotism. They are, for the most part, a well-educated, sophisticated, very cos mopolitan people of European ext raction ( mostly Spanish and Italian ) who look upon the Argentine as a splendid place for pleasure and plunder. Labor unions - set up by Peron, with spe cial l aws and governmental favoritism that put

union bosses above the law ( even more dan gerously than our own federal laws put the Page

Walter Reuthers and the James Hoffas above the law ) - dominate the economy of Argen tina. The labor union rationale - that the objec tive of life is to get the most that you can with the least amount of effort - seems to have become the attitude of the nation. And this attitude keeps the Argentine from getting pre cisely what it needs - an influx of private, foreign capital to develop the rich natural resources.

The

Kaiser Corporation does have a tre mendous industrial operation in Argentina, made possible by American law designed to encourage the investment of American capital in foreign lands - largely at the expense of American taxpayers and American produc tivity. And what is the Argentine attitude toward Kaiser? Here is a story, distributed by Copley News Service from Buenos Aires, and published by The Dallas Morning News on February 4, 1963 :

HThe confiscation of the Kaiser automobile f a c t o r y by v e n g e f u l w o r k e r s h a s d e a l t a crushing setback to Argentina's hopes for increased private investments from the United States. cCThe workers, led by accused communists, took over the Kaiser plant at Cordoba this mon th a fter the company h a d announced plans to close the production line for 1 2 days because of declining sales. Ten thousand workers would have been laid off. cCThe workers took 3 0 0 company officials as hostages , forced them to keep assembly lines operating, then put them in a paint shed and threatened to set it afire if Kaiser's top execu tives did not cancel the shutdown. cc CWith all those lives at stake, we had to do what the workers asked,' said a Kaiser execu tive. CCSince the seizure, which police made little effort to block, Kaiser officials have been nego tiating with workers' representatives. An easing in the workers' demands is reported and a shutdown may be permitted to give Kaiser time to sell a backlog of 3 , 0 0 0 cars. cCDespite the talks, the damage has been done. U. S. firms are alarmed about their 7 5 0million-dollar investment here and potential investors are steering away."

my way home from South America, I traveled part of the way with the represent ative of another major American corporation which had been doing business in Argentina. The company had shut down its operations, closed its warehouses, and ordered key Ameri can personnel back to the states - because of the impossibility of doing business in the Argentine. The corporation's representative said to me :

cCThere is a great need and a great demand for our products ; but the Argentines whom we sell to don't want to pay for what they get ; and the Argentines whom we hire don't want to work - even though we provide bet ter working conditions and give much better wages than they can get from any Argentine firm."

S ince 1 946, the United States has given Argentina approximately 1 billion, 2 7 million, 3 0 0 thousand dollars in economic, military, and nonmutual security aid. ( 3 ) H ere

Brazi l

is an article from the October 1 9 , 1 9 6 2 , issue of The World, a weekly newsmaga zine published in Washington, D. C. :

cCThe U n i t e d S t a t e s E m b a s s y in Rio de Janeiro had hardly announced Brazil's receipt of more than half a billion dollars in grants and loans under the Alliance [for Progress] program than President Kennedy was sub jected to a hostile blast from communist and nationalist organs . . . . cCSince May, 1 9 6 1 , the U.S. Embassy in Rio noted, $ 6 3 6. 5 million in grants and loans have been made to Brazil under the Alliance for Progress program, with another $ 5 8 . 3 million made available by the Inter-American Devel o p m e n t B a n k . A m o n g t h e c om m i t m e n t s recently was a $ 4 3 million wheat agreement. CCOne of the developments causing unfa vorable reaction to the Alliance program is the expropriation of the International Telephone a n d T e l e g r a p h Corpo r a t ion p l a n t i n Rio Grande Do SuI, Brazil."

Leonel

Brizola ( the Governor of Rio Grande Do Sui ) , who seized these American properties, is openly pro-communist. Many well-informed persons believe him to be a com munist. The telephone properties he seized

were valued at eight million dollars ( in an appraisal made jointly in 1 9 60 by Brizola him self and by agents of the company) . When seizing the properties, Brizola offered the com pany an indemnity of four hundred thousand dollars. This caused a furore in Washington. Con gress tacked a rider on the 1 9 6 2 foreign aid bill, prohibiting aid to any country which expropriates United States property without just and prompt indemnity. This meant that no more foreign aid money could go to Brazil until a settlement was made. In elections held in late 1 9 6 2 , Brizola's party was defeated in Rio Grande Do SuI ; and the federal Brazilian government moved in to set tle the dispute with IT&T - so that Brazil could continue to get aid from the United States.

O n January 9 , 1 9 6 3 , the State Department announced that the United States was making a special "loan" of 3 0 million dollars to the government of Brazil. It was obvious that this "loan" was made so that the Brazilian gov ernment could settle with IT&T - and have some left over. On January 1 9 , 1 9 6 3 , the Brazilian Foreign Ministry in Rio announced the "settlement" with International Telephone and Telegraph Company. Under the agreement, the govern ment bank of Brazil will make a two million, 7 0 0 thousand dollar loan to the IT&T manu facturing subsidiary in Brazil - Standard Electrica Sociedade Anonima, pending final state court valuation of the seized properties. When the evaluation is decided, the loan will become partial, or total, indemnification. The IT&T cannot take the money out of Brazil, however. Its Brazilian subsidiary must invest the money in Brazil, for the development of an electronic industry. F ive

days after this deal was announced, I arrived in Brazil for an eight-day visit. Bra zilians whom I talked to about it were cyni cally amused. Confiscation of private American property in Brazil is now good business, with enormous

Page 45

profits guaranteed. The Brazilian government can seize American property. The American government will then give the Brazilian gov ernment ( the gift disguised as a "loan") more than three times as much as it needs to make compensation. When compensation is made, the American firm cannot bring its money back to the States, but must reinvest it in Brazil - where it can be confiscated again. One well-informed Brazilian told me that Brazilian politicians were deeply disturbed when the U.S . Congress cut off aid to Brazil, pending settlement of the IT&T deal. I asked him why. He said : ��Brazilian politicians use your Alliance for Progress money for their own �progress.' They go into the squatters camps and put on big barbecues and parties with your money, and then make speeches denouncing the United States. That's the way they get the votes to keep themselves in power, so that they can get more of your money. I know you are happy to hear how your tax money is being used in Brazil."

United States aid to Brazil since 1 94 6 totals

approximately 3 billion, 1 9 3 million, 4 0 0 thousand dollars. (3)

C u ba

I n his January 24, 1 9 6 3 , press conference, President Kennedy was asked whether there was "any truth" to the reports of a "Soviet military buildup in Cuba. " The President replied :

��No, we have been conducting continued surveillance. The best information we have is that one ship has arrived since the October crisis, which may have arms on it . . . . But there has not been a military buildup There is no evidence that the ship carried any offensive weapons . . . . ��There is no influx of military equipment, other than the ship ; and , as I say, our scrutiny of Cuba is daily." .

•

I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the day the Pres

ident made that reassuring statement about Cuba. The next day, my guide - a Brazilian of Italian extraction, an ebullient, voluble lit · tle man who seemed to like Americans a great deal - showed me the news story, and trans lated portions of it from the Portuguese. He

watched me with dismay, as I registered no reaction. "You Americans are hard to understand," he said. "Why ?" I asked him. "Why do you think Khrushchev has re moved all those missiles from Cuba? " he asked. "He promised our President," I explained. "Have your people actually seen any of the missiles Khrushchev says he removed ?" he asked. "No," I explained. "Our blockade of Cuba was very polite. We did not board any ships or inspect any cargo. We just took the commu nists' word for what they hauled in and out of Cuba. " "Have the communists ever told you the truth ? " he asked. "N 0, " I sal'd . He shrugged helplessly, and we rejoined our group for a gay ride to Santos.

The first newspaper I read, upon my return

to the States, had a front-page headline saying : ((Cuba Buildup Danger Cited."

The story was a United Press International dispatch from Washington, published in the February 4, 1 9 6 3 , issue of The Dallas Times Herald. One paragraph in the story said :

��Edwin M. Martin, assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, said Sunday n i gh t it is p o s s i b l e t h a t S o v i e t m i l i t a r y strength i n Cuba is 1 0 times what it was before the missile crisis last October."

The Dallas Morning News of February 4 , 1 9 6 3 , had a story b y Robert E. Baskin, who said :

��The full story is not yet in on Cuba. But enough information has been disclosed in the past few days to awaken real alarm over Rus sian intentions on the island ��There is no question that a sizeable force o f R u s s i a n t r oops a r e i n Cu b a. [Sen a t o r Strom] Thurmond describes this force as the equivalent of a Soviet air army, with full army, navy, and air force complements ��The State Department estimates the Rus sian force at half of the Thurmond figure about division strength, the department says. ((This is enough of an admission to cause a reappraisal of our Cuban policy. One division, wi th supporting arms, is a poten t military force.

Page 46

•

��The Russian troop presence virtually fore closes any future American or American sponsored invasion of Cuba, since invasion opponents could well argue that Soviet involvement would be inevitable in the mili tary action and could trigger all-out war. Hit would seem that Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev has again won a round of one upmanship over the United States."

I f only 5 % of the money which we have spent on aid to, and defense of, foreign nations, had been spent on genuine national defense, we would today be impregnable against any possible assaults - military or economic from any power or combination of powers on earth.

T he UPI dispatch from Washington, pub

Cong ression a l Fund by Mabeth E . Smoot

lished February 4, 1 9 6 3 , also said :

��The Administration was expected to issue an order today or Tuesday barring U. S. Gov ernment cargoes to shipowners whose vessels have traded with Cuba since January 1 . . Britain, Norway, and Greece are among coun tries whose ships have sailed to Cuba." .

view of the fact that we have shipped tons of medical supplies and other strategic items to Cuba by air, in ransom for the Cubans whom we betrayed into Cuban prisons by our Bay of Pigs operation in 1 9 6 1 , our allies may wonder at our "cracking down" on their ship ping ; but they are probably already as bewil dered by our government's behavior and offi cial statements as my Sao Paulo guide is.

What Shou ld We Do?

A merica is surely headed for disaster if we

do not reverse our foreign policy : stop all for eign aid programs, stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, and concentrate on building our own national defenses and re-establishing a free economy in the United States. If we had not given one penny in foreign aid to any nation since the end of W orId War II, America would today still be the most admired, respected, and beloved nation on earth. If the staggering quantities of money, which have been confiscated from Americans for aid to other nations, had been left in the hands of the Americans who earned the money, our economy today would be so strong - so free of inflation and of the crushing burdens of federal debt and federal taxation - that there could be no question about our survival and continued growth as the most prosperous and productive nation in history.

Recently,

a valued friend and customer took us to task for our «inept" advertising methods : he said we do hot know the first thing about «selling" the Report. He cited our stiff-necked attitude about free enterprise. While expressing admiration for our spirit of independence, he maintained that we lose badly needed support because we never ask for it - thus leaving the impression that our organization is financed from some unknown source not available to others. To embellish his point, our critic mentioned a prosperous patriot who, each year, sends sub stantial contributions to a number of patriotic organizations and publications. When we admitted that we have never been among the recipients, he was almost jubilant. «You see ! " he said, «I happen to know that he admires your work more than that of others ; but he is a busy man ; and when he finally remembers your possible need, he has already made his annual contributions to the others who are not too proud to ask ! " We reminded our friend : a theme often repeated in this Report is an expression of the Editor's conviction that government serves the people best when it leaves them alone to the greatest degree possible. This was the theme of the Declaration of Independence. This «leave us alone" theme was more than a con viction expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights : it was a direct order ! Dedication to this principle of freedom has influenced the Report beyond its editorial pol icy : it is an important principle in our busi ness policy as well. Since we believe in free enterprise, it follows that we should practice it. We want customers, not patrons. It is im-

Page 47

portant to us that our product for its value.

purchased

B ut our friend made a poin t : where, indeed, should we draw the line between pro fessional advertising and soliciting ? In our pre occupation with independence, have we closed the door to those who would like to give us business in their own way? While one customer can hardly read eleven copies of each Report, he might like to make ten subscriptions avail able, for us to distribute, to students, schools, libraries. Have we, as our friend implies, left the impression that we consider such contribu tions unacceptable ? Should we also have labored the need for dis tribution of important books ( such as our annual Bound Volume, The Hope of the World, The Invisible Govermnent, and Amer ica's Promise) to students and schools? Possibly we have failed to repeat the obvi

ous : the future of our country will remain in jeopardy until the fundamentals of freedom have been learned again by an active majority of the American people. The job of helping to restore our constitu tional Republic is enormous and exhausting, and victory is uncertain. But the fight for free dom has always been costly. Once, in our then backward land, fifty-six men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty . Today, are there fifty -six among us who would do as much?

Self-sacrifice is not a virtue we claim, and this Report is not published in martyrdom. It WHO

is published because its Editor thinks it needs to be published, and because he enjoys the job. We do badly need your continued voluntary support, and we shall probably continue doing an inept job of telling you so. But once each year, we do remind you of a responsibility and financial load which we originally assumed because many of you thought it was impor tant : that is, the expense of keeping all national Representatives and Senators on our perma nent subscription list. Some of you make annual contributions to our Congressional Fund ( not tax-exempt, by the way) which was established so that you, who think all Representatives and Senators should receive this Report, can help bear the cost.

Again this year we will welcome your con

tribution to this Fund. But we wish to reassure those of you ( and we know there are many ) who are already doing as much as you can with limited funds : the weekly mailing of each Report will be made, during 1 9 6 3 , to every member of the national Congress, because we know that this service is important. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) On January 3 0, 1 96 3 , while the Canadian Parliament was engaged in heated debate over the question of nuclear weapons for Canadian defense, our State Department issued a statement denouncing the position taken by John G. Dicfenbaker, head of the Conservative Party and Prime M inister of Canada (State Department Press Release Num ber 5 9 ) . Dicfenbaker is opposed to accepting American nuclear weapons for Canadian military forces. Canadians were stunned at this arrogant intervention, by the United States, in a domestic Canadian poiitical debat •. ( 2 ) "The Congo Crisis and the Need for Conciliation," speech by Senator Thomas J. Dodd, COllgressiollal Record, August 3, 1 9 62, pp. 1 4 5 2 8 1 4 546 ( 3 ) COllgressiollal Record, August 6, 1 962, pp. A5998, A 5 999

DAN

SMOOT ?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1 940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1 955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues.

If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 48

THE

1)t111 SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 7

( Broadcast 392 )

February 1 8, 1 96 3

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

A L L I A N C E F O R P R O G R E S S - PA R T I

A lliance for Progress - the current program of United States aid to Latin American nations - was initiated by Eisenhower ; but it has become the major feature of President Kennedy's foreign policy. The President claims that Alliance for Progress is intended to save Latin America from communism. Actually, the program is using American tax money to finance, and force upon Latin American countries, a communist-socialist revolution. Kennedy has never given any precise estimate of what he expects to spend on Alliance for Progress ; but general estimates are that the program will cost United States taxpayers 2 Â° billion dollars in the first ten years. ( 1 )

Orig i ns

T he ongms of the Alliance for Progress p r o g r a m a r e a l m o s t a s u n s a v o r y as i t s consequences. On July 1 3 , 1 9 6 0 , Fernando Berckemeyer ( Peruvian Ambassador to the United States ) and Roy R. Rubottom , Jr. ( then Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs ) discussed in Washington a suggestion by the Peruvian government that foreign ministers of all 2 1 American republics meet to discuss the Soviet threat in the Americas. A committee composed of representatives from seven Central and South American nations went to work on the Peruvian suggestion. The committee's biggest job was deciding upon an agenda and a meeting place that would be acceptable to Castro of Cuba ! On July 2 6 , 1 96 0 , the committee announced it had solved this major problem : the foreign ministers' conference of the Organization of American States could meet at San Jose, Costa Rica ; and it would consider as its first order of business, not communist control of Cuba or THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates ; $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25Â˘; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $1 0.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 49

communist infiltration of Latin America, but charges against General Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The government of Venezuela had accused Trujillo of plotting to assassinate Romulo Betancourt, President of Venezuela.

August 1 6, 1 9 60, foreign ministers representing 2 1 American nations, began their conference at San Jose. Christian Herter, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, took the lead in getting the Organiza tion of American States to take action against the Dominican Republic. On August 2 0, 1 9 6 0 , t h e C o n f e r e n c e adopted a formal resolution recommending that all other American nations break diplo matic relations with the Dominican Republic and impose severe economic sanctions against her.

August 2 2, 1 9 60, Christian Herter initiated the second stage of the OAS meeting at San Jose, Costa Rica, by presenting a United States bill of particulars against Cuba. On August 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 , Julio Cesar Turbay Ayala ( Colombian foreign minister ) answered Herter's charges against Castro. Turbay reaf firmed his faith in the principles of Castro's "revolution" and denied that Castro was actu ally a communist. ' Turbay reviewed, "with interest," Castro's charges against the United States - and deplored the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' "sugar restrictions" against Cuba ( that is, our cutting off the sugar subsidy) . On August 2 9 , 1 9 60, the foreign ministers proclaimed the "Declaration of San Jose," written by Turbay of Colombia, in which the members of the Organization of American States pledged themselves to "democratic prin ciples" ; to the rejection of totalitarian regimes of "the right or left " ; to non-intervention in each others' affairs ; and to support of the Organization of American States. The declara tion did not even mention Cuba. Thus the San Jose Conference of the Organ ization of American States - originally pro posed by Peru for the purpose of discussing

the Soviet threat in C u b a - achieved the destruction of Trujillo, America's only strong anti-communist friend in the Caribbean area ; but did not even scold Castro. Christian Herter came home from San Jose, boasting that the United States had achieved a great diplomatic triumph !

The "first stage" of the OAS Conference of 1 9 6 0 was completed at San Jose on August 2 0, when the delegates voted to isolate Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The "second stage" was completed on August 2 9 , when the Declaration of San JOS€ was adopted. The "third stage" of the Conference was conducted not at San Jose, Costa Rica, but at Bogota, Colombia. The "third stage," begin ning on September 6, 1 9 6 0 , was a meeting of the "economic" ministers of the American republics. This Bogota stage of the OAS Con ference was, simply, our State Department's pay-off to the Central and South American republics for what they had done at San Jose. Douglas Dillon

( then Eisenhower's Under Secretary of State ) went to the Bogota Con ference with an Eisenhower promise of 5 0 0 million dollars of American tax money to be given Latin American nations. Dillon began his speech to the Conference by paying tribute to the role which Turbay of Colombia had played at the San Jose Con ference. Remember, Turbay wrote the Decla ration of San Jose, which turned out to be a victory for international communism. Turbay had praised the principles of Castro's revolu tion; he had viewed, "with interest," Castro's charges against the United States ; and he had denounced the United States' "sugar restric tions" against Castro. Before Dillon went to Bogota, the whole world knew that Eisenhower was sending him with a promise of 5 0 0 million dollars in aid to Latin America. But there had been grum bling throughout Latin America that this was not enough. Castro was demanding that the United States inaugurate a 3 ° billion dollar aid program to Latin America. Brazil, and

Page 50

most other Latin American nations, were sup porting the general tenor of Castro's demands, though the figures they named were somewhat less extravagant. It looked as if our Latin American friends might not graciously accept Eisenhower's offer of 5 00 million dollars.

/ I I / Revol utionary Purpose

March 1 3 , 1 9 6 1 , speaking to Latin American diplomats, and members of the U. S. Congress, President Kennedy said :

��I have called on all the people of the Hemisphere to join in a new Alliance for Progress I have this evening signed a request to the Congress for $ 5 0 0 million as a first step in fulfilling the Act of Bogota. This is the first large-scale inter-American effort - instituted by my predecessor, President Eisenhower - to attack the social barriers which block economic progress . . . . ((This political freedom must be accom panied by social change. For unless necessary social reforms, including land and tax reforms, are freely made . . . then our alliance, our revolution, our dream, and our freedom will fail . " (2 ) .

Douglas Dillon was prepared.

He made it clear that the 5 0 0 million dollars which he had come to offer was a mere drop in the bucket - just a beginning. All of this was to be used only for "social development. " He promised bigger and more respectable United States aid to all of Latin America to continue "economic development" in that region. "Social development," apparently, means schools, housing, h o s p i t a l s - t h a t s o r t o f thing - to be built with money taken away from U n i t e d S t a te s taxpayers. «Economic development" seems to mean the continuation of building, with United States tax money, roads, harbors, industrial plants ( to compete with our own, of course ) , public buildings, and so on.

Douglas Dillon won another smashing "diplomatic victory" for the United States at Bogota : the Latin American republics agreed to accept our offer of 5 0 0 million dollars for "social development," and our promise of bil lions for "economic development" ! On September 1 3 , 1 9 6 0 , the economic min isters of the American republics signed the "Act of Bogota," " authorizing" a massive pro gram of United States aid to Latin American countries. I n his first inaugural address

( January 2 0 , 1 9 6 1 ) President Kennedy gave this new aid to-Latin-America program its current name : Alliance for Progress. President Kennedy said :

��To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge - to convert our good words in to good deeds - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty." Page

•

I n his formal message to Congress ( March 14, 1 9 6 1 ) asking for the 5 0 0 million dollars to initiate the "Alliance for Progress" ( as "auth orized" by the Act of Bogota) President Ken nedy again stressed the revolutionary purpose of this program. Acknowledging that "revo lutionary new social institutions and patterns cannot be designed overnight," President Ken nedy implied that we must nonetheless begin at once a crash program to overturn the existing way of life in Latin America - giving our aid not on the basis of need, but "on the dem onstrated readiness of each government to make the institutional improvements" which we reqUlre. This theme of total revolution in Latin America, financed and enforced by United States tax money under the label of "Alliance for Progress," was re-emphasized at a Special Meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council ( held at Punta del Este, Uru guay) on August 1 6, 1 9 6 1 . In the formal declaration issued by the delegates at this meet ing, the Latin American nations receiving American aid pledged themselves : ��To encourage . . . programs of integral agrarian reform. . . . ((To assure to workers fair wages and satis factory working conditions ; 51

establish effective systems of labor t t T0 m �� agement relations and procedures . . . . To reform tax laws, demanding more fro� those who have most, punishing tax evasIOn severely, and redistributing the national income . . . . " (3)

The Revol ution ists

O n November 6 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy announced appointment of Teodoro Moscoso as Regional Administrator for Latin America in the new Agency For International Develop ment - that is, as head of ' the Alliance for Progress program. Moscoso is a Puerto Rican socialist, an early protege of Rexford Guy Tugwell, the "braintruster" whom Franklin D. Roosevelt made Governor of Puerto Rico. Moscoso is also an intimate friend of Romulo Betancourt, President of Venezuela, who is a communist. To understand the grim truth - that Alli ance for Progress is a crash program with American tax money to tear Latin America apart and then reorganize it according to the communist plan for a "marxist" land - one needs a little background information on some of the principal actors in this revolutionary drama. At present, two of the principals are Teodoro Moscoso, Kennedy's Chief of the Alli ance for Progress program ; and Romulo Bet ancourt, communist President of Venezuela. Former United States Representative John Rousselot ( Republican, California ) did a great deal of research on Betancourt, and put the results of his labors into the Congressional Record : September 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 9 6 74 fr. ; February 2 6 , 1 9 62 , pp. 2 7 0 3 fr. ; July 1 1 , 1 96 2 , pp. 1 22 8 8 fr. U. S. Representative William C. Cramer ( Republican, Florida) put into the Congres sional Record of October 1 3 , 1 9 6 2 ( pp. A77 0 2 - 3 ) , and February 7, 1 9 6 3 ( pp. 1 8 7 0 fr. ) , more revealing information about Betan court. Here, in brief, is the Betancourt story : As a young man, Betancourt worked openly as a functionary of the communist interna-

tional in Venezuela. For this communist activ ity, he was exiled from his homeland in 1 9 2 8 . During exile, Betancourt went to Costa Rica where, with Manuel Mora, he founded the communist party of Costa Rica and was, for five y�ars ( 1 9 3 0- 1 9 3 5 ) head of that party. Workmg openly for a communist revolution throughout Latin America, Betancourt dis covered that communism could not thus be sold to the people. It would have to be imposed upon them by deception. Betancourt devised � hoax. He would "renounce" his membership m the communist party and return to Vene � uela as an "anti-communist," and work to I�pose communism on his homeland by calling hIS program "anti-communist. " He did return to Venezuela, gathered his old communist c r onies a r o u n d h i m , a n d launch ed his new communist program of . deceptIOn. He had made the mistake, however, of explaining his scheme in letters to commu nist friends. These letters fell into the hands of Venezuelan authorities ; and Betancourt was again ordered into exile. He evaded this ban ishment and went underground. For 9 years he remained in hiding. During that time, he organized a powerful communist front dis guised as a political party, which he called Accion Democratica ( "Democratic Action") .

I n 1 94 5 , a military j unta overthrew the legal government of Venezuela, and turned to Betancourt for leadership. B e t an c o u r t became president o f the junta. Using the estab lished political machinery of Accion Demo cratica, and appointing communist henchmen to key posts in government, Betancourt ruled Venezuela for three years. His rule was so corrupt and tyrannical that, on November 24, 1 94 8 , an uprising of military officers, led by Marcos Perez Jimenez, over threw Betancourt and his stooges ; and Betan court again went into exile. For over nine

years, Betancourt remained in exile. He spent much of that time in New York City, where he became the darling of the ultra-liberal, anti-anti-communist crowd

Page 5 2

of socialist intellectuals - a hero to the lead ing liberals of the Eisenhower, and later of the Kenned y, administration. In 1 9 5 6, Betancourt's communist connec tions became so obj ectionable that he was arrested in New York City ( on information supplied by the FBI ) , was expelled from the United States, and denied readmittance. He was, however, permitted to live in Puerto Rico. Here, he became an intimate of Munoz-Marin, socialist governor of Puerto Rico, and of T eo doro Moscoso. (4)

Le ftist groups in Venezuela ( widely believed to have been directed and encouraged by Betancourt's new friends in the American State Department ) overthrew Marcos Perez Jimenez in January, 1 9 5 8 . About June, 1 9 5 8 , Betancourt returned to Venezuela, revived his Accion Democratica, and ran for President. Again with the undercover support of the American State Department ( which included widely circulated rumors, in Venezuela, that if Betancourt's party won the election, Vene zuela would receive mammoth amounts of aid from the United States ) , Betancourt was elected. Jimenez ( who had given Venezuela the best government and had brought the nation to the highest level of prosperity in its history) was exiled. He sought asylum in the United States. Betancourt wants him returned to Ven ezuela so that he can be executed. He has filed outrageous charges against Jimenez, who is now in a Miami jail awaiting extradition. The American State Department and the powerful leftwing propaganda forces in the United States ( including, for example, such «respec ted" organs as The Christian Science Monitor) have for months been conducting a massive hate - campaign against Jimenez, preparing public opinion for denying him asylum so that he can be turned over to Betancourt for liqui dation. In 1 9 6 1 , the law firm of Dean Acheson ( who is a Special Adviser to President Ken nedy) received $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 from Betancourt's government as a fee for representing Vene-

zuela in the extradition proceedings against Jimenez. (4)

A l l iance Showpiece

Meanwhile, Betancourt's regime in Vene zuela has become a cesspool of corruption and tyranny. Despite Venezuela's enormous nat ural riches ( and despite the hundreds of mil lions of dollars which Betancourt has obtained from the United States ) , grinding poverty, economic chaos, and wild disorder reign in Venezuela. The reported "communist" sabotage in Ven ezuela, and Betancourt's alleged "crack-down" on communists, are merely part of a hoax to justify Betancourt's seizure of absolute power, and to help the Kennedy Administra tion j ustify more aid. Communist Betancourt's Venezuela is the land which the Kennedy Administration points to as the "showpiece of the Alliance for Prog ress. " (5) Shortly after Kennedy was

inaugurated in January, 1 9 6 1 , he appointed Teodoro Moscoso ( Betancourt's old friend ) to be Ambassador to Venezuela. In November, 1 9 6 1 , Kennedy promoted Moscoso to the post of Chief of the Alliance for Progress. In December, 1 9 6 1 , when it became apparent that Betancourt, despite his support from Washington, was in deep trouble in Venezuela, President and Mrs. Kennedy made a hastily planned visit to him, to help shore up his sagging regime. Here is an account of this disgraceful episode in Ameri can history, in the words of U. S. Representa tive John Rousselot (Congressional Record, February 2 6, 1 9 6 2 , p. 2 7 0 3 ) :

« President Kennedy's trip to Venezuela was what was needed to bolster Betancourt's sinking Accion Democratica government. To the eternal humiliation of the American peo ple , President Kennedy permitted himself to be used in this desperate Betancourt personal political maneuver. He permitted himself to be paraded through the streets of Caracas to impress upon the discontented Venezuelan populace that the United States is backing Betancourt. Before he departed , he was per-

Page 5 3

suaded to deliver a sertes of speeches, obvi ously prepared for him by his collectivist aides, hailing the alleged progress of Vene zuela under Betancourt and pledging gener ous American loans."

M r.

Rousselot's words do not adequately portray the shameful behavior of the American President while visiting communist Betan court. President and Mrs. Kennedy arrived in Venezuela on December 1 6, 1 9 6 1 . In his wel coming speech, Betancourt ( while praising Kennedy personally) insulted the United States with open arrogance. Betancourt praised Kennedy as a «United States President who is rectifying a long period of ignorance and lack of comprehension [in the United States] . " Betancourt denounced the «arrogant belief [in the United States] that the friendship . . . [of Latin America] was guaranteed to the United States by the self-appointed rulers and their courts of small oligarchies." Betancourt criticized the «bad habits of bureaucratic rou tine" in the United States, which had slowed down the flow of United States aid to Latin America, and demanded speed in «satisfying" the economic, social and cultural under-devel opment of Latin America. President Kennedy answered these insults to the United States by saying : ( (Your distinguished President Romulo Betancourt, is demon strating the capacity of free men to realize their aspirations without sacrificing liberty or dignity. ((He has re-established democratic govern ment after a decade of dictatorship - and he has carried forward a solid and responsible program of economic progress . . . . ((I come [ to Venezuela] to take counsel with your leaders . . . to witness the magnifi cent example of vital democracy which is being carried forward in Venezuela . . . . "

In another speech at La Morita, on Decem ber 1 7, President Kennedy said : ((Here in Venezuela the meaning of the new Alianza para el Progreso is being demon strated, for you have made a tradition and transition from depressive dictatorship into a free life for the people of this country to progressive democratic rule under the grant

of the great democratic statesman of the Western Hemisphere - your distinguished President Romulo Betancourt . . . . ((Today eighty-six families will receive their titles to their own homes under a pro gram which has already settled 3 8 , 0 0 0 fam ilies on 3 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 acres of land. ((This is your program - the program of your progressive far-seeing Government and the people of my country will share in this program by making available more loans to build rural homes and more credits to finance your crops. ((This program is at,, the heart of the Alianza para el Progreso. (6)

Ag ra rian Reforms

I t is rumored in Venezuela that farmers who

want to get a piece of land under Betancourt's «agrarian reform" must kick back 1 0 % of the value to Betancourt's political party ( Accion Democratica) . But even if we ignore the graft ( at our expense) what do we find, on close examination, in the «agrarian reform" which President Kennedy praises extrava gantly, and which he says is the heart of our Alliance for Progress program for all of Latin America ? Here is what U. S. Representative Rousselot found :

((The United States is the greatest example that could be cited of a nation which has enriched itself through a constructive agra rian program. Our program was inaugurated with the Homestead Act after the Civil War. ((Through this Act, vast stretches of rich virgin land in the West were brought into cultivation. The Act did not propose to take over the productive farms already in opera tion in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vir ginia, and cut them up into small uneconomic holdings. . . . Instead, it directed the new farmers to uncultivated land on the frontier, which increased rather than decreased the Nation's crop production. ((Does Betancourt propose to do this in Venezuela with the aid of the agrarian reform millions which President Kennedy promised him? No indeed. Venezuela has enormous stretches of uncultivated and good govern ment-owned land in the provinces of Sucre, Monaga, Ansoategui, and Bolivar. They are served by convenient transportation facilities.

Page 54

For the more distant future, it has the empire sweep of the vast area beyond the Orinoco. ��Did Betancourt propose an agrarian plan, like that of the United States, which would open up this abundant government-owned land through an orderly, wealth-producing program? He did not. ��Instead, he launched a program to buy up land already in successful cultivation and cut it up into small, uneconomic plots. These plots were mostly near Caracas where they could be used as showcase exhibits for credulous visitors. President Kennedy was taken to one of these cut-up farms and induced to make a speech enthusiastically hailing the Betancourt land program, and promising far-reaching aid."(7 )

The "agrarian" and other "social" reforms which our socialist planners are devising, and financing with our money, throughout Latin America, have sinister aspects. A Mexican businessman, deeply disturbed about our Alliance for Progress program, sent me the following account of what is hap pemng :

��In many Latin American countries the vast majority of the land areas taken away from the large land owners is reportedly divided up among peons or poor rural peas ants. This sounds lovely to the people who read it and especially attractive to the Ameri can people who through their government

DAN

SMOOT,

P. O. Box 95 38, Dallas 1 4, Texas

Lakewood Station

Please enter my subscription for SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $.

(

and government banks finance with loans and grants these so-called agrarian reforms which appear to give the land to the peasants. HHowever almost the exact reverse is the case. Most of the land taken away from the large land owners is not given to the peons or peasants , but the ownership is kept by the governmen ts and only assigned year by year to the peons. Thereby the former landowner is replaced by a much bigger landowner whose local representative is a political appointee who is able to assign a small piece of land each year to each peon or refuse it to him or change him to another piece as he ( the political appointee ) sees fit. HThe result is, in practice, that the peon has lost his old patron, who in many cases was a humane sort of person, and generally lived on the property at least a part of the year, and whose ear could be reached by the peon, as those who have lived in Latin America in the past can testify. In exchange he has a new patron who is a �faceless, cold, impersonal' government office represented by a frequently changing political appointee who has no direct interest in the productivity of the soil and frequently is principally interested in enrich ing himself while he holds on to his insecure job. ��The peon does not own any land, he has no feeling of ownership, does not know how long he may be permitted to work the same plot and hence can have no interest in improv ing the land, and does feel totally dependent

D Renewal

_______

years )

D New Subscription

_______

months ) to

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) PRINT NAME

Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $12. 50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 5 5

THE

DAN

on the whim of the politicians, which is just what the communists desire and in this way attain. All the land belongs to the govern ment. ((The same is true of most of the govern ment housing schemes. The houses are not sold to the people but are ren ted to them. All the houses belong to the government and this added to the government control of transpor tation, telegraphs, movies and the press, is perfect preparation for the establishment of the totalitarian state or Communism. Gov ernment intervention is creeping forward all the time, and the money which the Alliance for Progress gives to these leftist governments only speeds up the march down to Socialism and eventually Communism. ((American citizens should give as much importance to stopping the socialistic policies of the Alliance for Progress as they do to impeding socialistic legislation in their own country. United States tax-payers have already spent many hundreds of millions of dollars on the Alliance for Progress, in pro moting policies which are absolutely against the best interests of the Latin American coun tries concerned, against their economic and political freedom, and against the best inter ests of the United States into the bargain."

Pa rt I I Next week, we will gIve more details on Alliance for Progress.

Bound Vol u me

The first, and only, printing of Bound Vol ume VIn of this Report ( containing the 5 3 issues for 1 9 6 2 , with table of contents and extensive index) is off the press. All pre-pub lication orders have been filled ; and we can now fill all orders within three days after receipt - as long as the limited supply lasts. Price : $ 1 0. 0 0 , postage prepaid within the United States, on a first-come, first-paid basis. We regret to announce that this is the last Bound Volume which we will be able to offer at this price. Bound Volume IX ( for 1 9 6 3 , to be available early in 1 9 64 ) will cost $ 1 3 . 0 0 . We have sold out o f all Bound Volumes for the years 1 9 5 5 through 1 9 6 1 j but we still have a few copies of the 1 9 6 1 index ( for those who keep their Reports in binders ) : price, $ 1 . 5 O. We also have a separate index for the 1 9 62 Reports, at the same price $ 1 . 5 O. -

FOOTNOTES

( I ) The New York Times Magazille, Decemher 1 7, 1 9 6 1 ( 2 ) "President Kennedy Speaks On The Alliance For Progress," a booklet published recently by the Agency for International Development, U. S. Dept. of State ( 3 ) Department of State Publication No. 5 7 2 , August 1 6, 1 9 6 1 (4) Congressional Record, February 7, 1 9 6 3 , p . 1 8 7 1 , remarks o f William C. Cramer ( 5 ) Congressiollal Record, Octoher 1 3 , 1 962, pp. A7702-3 , remarks of William C. Cramer ( 6 ) The New York Times, Decemher 1 7 , 1 9 6 1 , p. 37 ( 7 ) CongressiOll al Record, February 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 , pp. 2706 if.

WHO IS D AN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1 9 5 5 , he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 56

THE

1)1/11 SmootRe,ort Vol. 9, No. 8

( Broadcast 393 )

February 2 5 , 1963

Dallas ,

Texas DAN

SMOOT

A L L I A N C E F O R P R O G R E S S - PA R T I I

1 9 5 0, an American dollar was worth 1 8 . 3 Brazilian cruzeiros. By January, 1 9 6 2 ( despite inflation o f U. S . currency) , the dollar would buy 3 5 0 cruzeiros. In January, 1 9 6 3 ( shortly after the United States had granted Brazil another "special" loan of 3 0 million dollars to "help stabilize the currency" ) , I visited Brazil. The night I arrived, an American dollar would buy 6 0 0 cruzeiros. My guide advised me not to exchange any money that night, however, because, he said, I would probably get a better rate of exchange the next day. I did. The next morning, I bought 6 5 0 cruzeiros for one American dollar. When I left Brazil eight days later, the rate was fluctuating between 7 5 0 and 8 00 cruzeiros to one American dollar. During my stay in Brazil, I interviewed numerous people ( middle-class Brazilians, resident Americans, an official of the United States Information Agency, and so on ) . All of them cited the building of Brasilia as the primary reason for the inflation.

Govern ment Extravaga nce

B rasilia is the new capital of Brazil, located in the wilds of Goias, on the Brazilian high lands, about 6 0 0 miles inland from Rio de Ja neiro, the former capital. Construction on the city was begun in 1 9 5 7, during the administration of President Juscelino Kubitschek. There were no inhabitants in the region and no roads to it. Construction steel and most of the heavy machinery were brought in from the United States. Highways were built through hundreds of miles of uninhabited country to the major coastal cities of Brazil. And Brasilia was dedicated as the new national capital in 1 9 6 0 . I examined the city o f Brasilia, closely and carefully, in January, 1 9 6 3 , when i t was less than six years old. Decay and dilapidation have already set in. It is probably the world's fore most contemporary monument to the folly of a politically motivated, socialistically planned economy. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 1 4, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2 303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2. 5 0 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add -

2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 57

O scar

Niemeyer - B razilian architect who helped design the United Nations build ing in New York - designed all buildings in Brasilia. Photographed from a distance, they make striking postcards and fine illustrations for an article in National Geograp hic; but, examined at close range, as places where people are supposed to live and work, they are ugly. Niemeyer himself apparently shares my opin ion. He does not live among the modernistic oddities which he designed for other people to occupy : he built for himself an old-fashioned Brazilian colonial outside the city. The futur istic buildings, of spectacular design, reveal inferior construction. Most are still empty and unfinished. Some apartment houses that are occupied, already show signs of becoming slums. Most of the people in the federal district of Brasilia still live in the construction-camp slums that formed when workers were first brought in six years ago. The costly highways running to the coastal cities are, like the wide avenues of Brasilia, empty of traffic.

President Kubitschek, a leftwing socialist,

practically bankrupted his nation to build this preposterous monument to himself. The politi cal argument for his folly was that, by placing the national capital inland, the government would spur migration from the c rowded coastal cities to the vacant interior, where the climate is good, and fertile soil is abundant. The scheme has failed miserably. Brasilia is a modernistic ghost town, where no one wants to live. Brazilians prefer the fleshpots of Rio. Without exception, every Brazilian I talked to about Brasilia called it a white elephant. Yet the nation is now stuck with it. Although there is a vast quantity of unfinished construction in the city, there is little construction work presently being done. I doubt that it will ever be finished ; and the cost of maintaining it as is, for a national capital, is quite enough to overburden the Brazilian economy.

I t is impossible to say how much Brazilian

tax money and how much American tax

money went into the construction of Brasilia. During the six years of its existence, we have given the Brazilian government more than enough to pay for the whole thing ; but it is obvious that all of our foreign aid money was not diverted into this gigantic fiasco. Our money has been spread around a bit, to under write the activities of other leftwing Brazilian politicians, to line their pockets, and to encourage harmful extravagances on the part of government, and reckless spending on the part of the people.

Private Extravaga nce

Aided and encouraged by a foreign govern ment to spend money it does not have, the Brazilian government feeds the fire of inflation which is consuming the nation. Some of the consequences are obvious, despite thick layers of propaganda, which misrepresent them to the world. Look, for example, at Sao Paulo, largest city in Brazil, generally called the Chi cago of South America, and frequently rhap sodized as a place which "inspires awe," a "very model of modern municipal grandeur, a ,, vision of the 2 1 st century. ( l ) In fact, Sao Paulo is a grim, and dangerous, monument to reckless economic activity arti ficially stimulated by a socialistic government. From the downtown hotel room I occupied in Sao Paulo, I could count upward of 5 0 unfin ished skyscrapers. A casual glance at such evi dence of boom and bustle does inspire awe. But a closer look inspires something else. Work has obviously been abandoned on most of these unfinished buildings. Some of them have been "under construction" for more than ten years ; and shabby masonry is already crumbling in many buildings which may never be finished and used. No structural steel is used in any of these new skyscrapers. They are built of reinforced concrete columns. The walls are made of a soft, cheap-looking locally-made brick, poorly laid by unskilled hands. The brick is covered with plaster, and the whole building ( those, that is, which have

Page 58

reached this stage of «completion" ) is faced over with a brilliant Brazilian tile which gives an appearance of solidity and beauty. No one knows whether such buildings could stand a moderate earth-tremor, or even a wind of hurricane proportions. An American engi neer, who works in Sao Paulo, expressed to me the fear that one good shock would leave Sao Paulo a vast heap of broken concrete and shat tered masonry. As to that, no one can defi nitely say ; but the economic, social, and politi cal consequences of such construction activity - throwing up, in reckless profusion, costly buildings which are abandoned, to decay and r u i n b e f o r e t h e y a r e e v e r fi n ished - a re obvious.

S ome of the unfinished buildings of Sao Paulo were built with «government money" - that is, American tax money, given to the Brazilian government as foreign aid, and then lent to private speculators. But, apparently, most of the buildings were privately financed. Why would individuals put their money into such construction, much of which is never finished ? Having lost confidence in their cur rency, they were trying to put it into real estate, something of permanent value. They could get enough money to start a building, from private syndicates which charged inter est rates ranging as high as 4 8 % per year. But often, before completion, interest and further currency-depreciation had consumed all work ing capital - and no more was available.

As Brazi I Goes . . .

O ccupying about half of the land area of South America, Brazil dominates the conti nent. As Brazil goes, so may go the rest of Latin America. And Brazil, in the hands of pro-communist politicians, whose policies are being financed by Americ an tax money through Alliance for Progress, is headed straight for communism. A look at recent Brazilian political history should make this clear.

F rom

1 9 3 4 to 1 94 5 , Getulio Vargas ruled Brazil as a dictator, his administrative system patterned after the corporate state system of fascist Italy. During his reign, he set up the Brazilian Labor Party, which continued to dominate Brazilian politics even after Vargas was overthrown by the Army in 1 94 5 . Vargas returned to the Presidency in 1 9 5 0, having won in the elections by an overwhelm i n g m a j o r i t y . I n t h e n a me o f e c on o m i c nationalism, he socialized the Brazilian petro leum industry and extended government con trol over all other industries - even to the extent of limiting the amount of profit which foreign corporations could withdraw from Brazil. Nonetheless, the United States Government set up, with Vargas, a joint commission for economic development in Brazil, and sup ported his schemes. Fear that Vargas ( with United States aid ) was restoring his dictator ship, caused criticism which grew until, in August, 1 9 5 4 , Vargas' palace guard attempted to assassinate him. Vargas committed suicide on August 24, 1 9 5 4.

Elections for a new President were held the following year, 1 9 5 5 . Two of Vargas' fol lowers - Juscelino Kubitschek and Joao Goulart ( who had been Secretary of Labor under Vargas) won the offices of President and Vice President. Kubitschek and Goulart were inaugurated in January, 1 9 5 6. During the elections of 1 9 5 5 , they had been formally supported by communists. After their inauguration, they "repudiated" the communists, and announced a policy of friendly co-operation with the United States. (2) This, of course, opened the sluice gates for a flood of American tax-dollars which enabled Kubitschek to start the building of Brasilia - and to initiate other policies which sped the chaotic depreciation of Bra zilian currency. U nder the Brazilian Constitution, Kubits

chek could not succeed himself as President. In the elections of 1 9 6 0 , J anio Quadros was

Page 59

elected President. Joao Goulart was re-elected Vice President. They were inaugurated in January, 1 9 6 1 . Quadros proclaimed a neutralist foreign policy. He resumed diplomatic relations with the communist regimes of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania ; he expressed support for the «original aspirations" of the Cuban revo lution of Castro ; he exchanged trade missions with communist China and the Soviet Union - and sent financial envoys to the United States. Quadros stirred up a storm of protest in Brazil by publicly decorating «Che" Guevara, Castro's communist minister of finance. The storm never died ; and on August 2 5 , 1 9 6 1 having been in office less than seven months President Quadros abruptly resigned and left the country.

The office of President fell to Vice Presi dent Goulart, who was on his way back to Brazil from a visit to communist China. Goulart's record of leftwing activities of working with and through communists and their sympathizers - aroused the fears o f many Brazilians, including the military, who opposed his succession to the Presidency. Before Goulart was permitted to become President, the Brazilian Congress adopted a constitutional amendment which set up a par liamentary form of government, transferring principal executive authority from the Presi dent to a Council of Ministers. (3 ) When finally inaugurated as President, Goulart surrounded himself with pro-com munist assistants, proclaimed his devotion to the «neutralist" foreign policy of Quadros and then made a state visit to the United States. In Washington, he spoke to a joint ses sion of Congress, scolding the American legis lators for giving so little money to Brazil, and demanding a new and immediate gift of another 5 0 0 million dollars. (4 )

Returning to Brazil with almost groveling assurances, from the Kennedy Administration,

of increased Alliance for Progress aid, Presi dent Goulart, thus elevated in prestige, took immediate steps toward eliminating the parlia mentary system so that he could become a virtual dictator. His communist and pro-communist under lings, working through the Brazilian Labor Party and the unions, incited a series of riots and strikes throughout the nation. ( 5 ) The r e s u l t i n g c h a o s a n d e c o n o m i c s t ag n a tion created a demand ( planted and nourished, of course, by Goulart's henchmen) for elimina tion of the cumbersome parliamentary system, and for restoration of a «strong presidency" which could «do something" in the crisis. The Brazilian congress resisted, but eventu ally decided that the issue must be put to the people in a national plebiscite, to be held on January 6 , 1 9 6 3 . Goulart played his trump card j ust a short time before the voting occurred. In December, 1 9 62 , he proclaimed a «law" ordering all busi ness firms operating in Brazil to pay an extra month's salary to all workers. This fine bonus, for which Goulart got credit, did the job it was supposed to do : Goulart won by a five-to-one margin in the national plebiscite of January 6, 1 9 6 3 . All obstacles against Goulart becoming an elected pro-communist dictator - with promises of American Alliance for Progress tax dollars to back him - are now removed.

I talked to responsible Brazilians, and to resident American businessmen, about the December bonus which Goulart ordered all business firms to pay. How could the firms stand such a blow? Simple ! American firms ( many of which are operating under guaran tees-against-loss from the American govern ment ) paid the bonus and took the loss, which would in due course be passed on to American taxpayers. Brazilian firms which could not stand to pa y the bonus were permitted to go urider

if their management was not friendly to the Goulart regime, or if the administration

Page 60

wanted to gain control of their properties. Brazilian firms friendly to the Goulart admin istration were given federal tax rebates large enough to cover the enforced bonus payments. The resultant loss to the Brazilian national treasury was covered by Alliance for Progress money from the United States, and by more worthless printing-press Brazilian currency.

A l l ia nce for Politicians

American

aid money enabled Kubitschek to build Brasilia, for the purpose of spurring Brazilians to migrate inland ; and American aid money has helped guarantee the failure of the migration scheme. With American aid money, Brazilian poli ticians periodically feed and entertain the lazy and illiterate thousands who crowd into the squatters camps of Rio and other large coastal cities. If they moved to the interior, they would have to work - and they would miss all the free fun. With American aid money, the Brazilian government also caters to the urban vote by subsidizing certain food costs for certain groups of city voters. Some low-rent Alliance for Progress housing ( owned and controlled by the Brazilian government ) has already been completed in the big coastal cities ; and vast quantities more are promised. Why should easy-going Brazilians give up the reality and prospects of such easy, American-subsidized living, to face the rigors of work and self support in the undeveloped interior? An article entitled «U.S. Betting on Mexico - But There's Trouble Ahead," in the Febru ary 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , issue of U.S. News f5 World Report, reveals that the same sort of thing is happening in Mexico. Indeed, it is happening all over Latin America.

leftwingers - socialists and pro-communists. Note, for example, this significant item from the front page of the December 1 7, 1 9 6 2 , issue of The Nnus, an English-language newspaper published in Mexico City : !!President Jorge Alessandri of Chile today wound up a week-long visit to the United States, which he is confident helped dispel impressions that his government is too con servative to lead in the drive to bring eco nomic and social reform to Latin America. !!Chile and Colombia have been singled out by the Kennedy Administration for large scale aid under the Alliance for Progress."

T hese

leftwing politicians use American money to create socialistic enterprises, thus destroying private enterprise. Note, for exam ple, these passages from the U. S. News f5 World Report article on Mexico, mentioned above : «Mexican businessmen and foreign inves tors are concerned . . . over steady and increas ing inroads by the Government into industry and manufacturing . . . . a gradual expansion of Government ownership of a vast network of businesses . . . . [ range s ] from railroads, electric power, petroleum and natural gas, steel mills, and airlines to automobile produc tion and drug manufacture. !!As a result , a new class of public officials has developed in Mexico. These are the direc tors and administrators of the Government run industries. They have all the prestige and power of business ownership, plus the power of Government - all without risk of their own money. !!T 0 this new type of managers and admin istrators, it seems perfectly normal that the Government continues to expand its partici pation in the economy and to regulate that which it does not own. The result has been a marked increase in Government control of business through legislation, decrees, import controls, and licenses."

A merican tax money is financing this com

Only Leftwingers

T he only L atin American politicians which

the Kennedy Administratio n will support with our Alliance for Progress tax dollars are the

munizing of Mexico - and an even greater program is being planned. Note these passages from the same U. S . News f5 Worid Report article :

Page 6 1

��Mexico, it now appears, is to be built up as a show place of the Alliance for Progress in Latin America. ��Plans for injections of huge sums - up to 3 billion dollars - into the Mexican economy are under study here by officials of the U.S. sponsored Alliance and the World Bank . . . . "

Resu lts

And what are the results of these injections of huge amounts of American tax money, through the hands of leftwing politicians, into the economy of Mexico? From the U.S. News f5 World Report article on Mexico : ( (Private businessmen , alarmed by this trend [toward government ownership and control of business] have reacted by spurning new investments in Mexico and turning to less vulnerable investments abroad. F light of capital from Mexico in 1 9 6 1 , mainly due to concern over this factor, is conservatively estimated at 1 5 0 millions."

P rivate capital in Latin America is the only hope for gradual transformation of agrarian, semi-feudalistic societies ( through an orderly process of growth ) to the point where the people can understand, sustain, and perpetuate modern industrialism. Our Alliance for Progress money is rapidly driving out all of the private capital and encouraging governments to spend money they do not have. As we pour our tax money in, private investors pull theirs out and stash it away in Swiss banks, or invest it in European industry. At the same time, our aid money is financing the destruction of governmental systems and social arrangements which are the only protection against wild disorder and bloody violence. And when blood runs in the streets, we will get the blame, because we are so closely identi fied with the policies producing the disorder. One by one, the Latin American nations ( with Brazil, perhaps, in the vanguard ) ITlay turn to

outright communist dictatorships as the only way to restore "1 aw and or der. "

They Know What They Are Doing

I t cannot accurately be said that our gov ernmental leaders do not understand what is happening in Latin America. In the latter part of 1 9 6 1 , Senator Mike Mansfield ( New Fron tier Democrat from Montana, who is Senate Majority Leader) spent a few days in Brazil as a member of a Senate Study Mission. On Janu ary 2 2 , 1 9 62 , he reported his observations on Brazil to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Here are extracts from Senator Mansfield's report : (6) ��Inflation . . . discourages personal savings and impairs long-term investment in produc tive enterprise. It has pushed interest rates up to 3 and 4 percent a month. A great deal of capital has been diverted into speculative, if spectacular, real estate construc tion and other enterprises with low social value . . . . Hit is impossible to form an estimate of the amount of indigenous capital that has fled the country and is now held in Europe and the United States. Nevertheless, in informed cir cles in Brazil, the belief is general that the amount is very great. At the same time, foreign capital is showing hesitancy in flow ing into Brazil. . . . It is not unreasonable to suppose that the hesitancy is likely to grow if financial chaos continues to threaten in Brazil and if the recent indications of political hos tility to foreign business persist . . . . Within Brazil, moreover, credit has flowed very loosely, encouraging speculation and profit eering. At the same time, there have been large deficits in the Government budgets, year after year .

•

HFor the most part, the . . . poor have poured into and around the cities from rural areas, in the hope of finding living conditions which might be superior to those in the impov erished countryside .

•

��The northeast contains 2 5 million inhabi tants, more than a third of Brazil's popula tion. It is a region of immense stretches of empty lands, forests, and a few vast agricul tural estates, and innumerable subsistence farms . . . . The region has characteristics which are similar to those in impoverished agricultural sectors of the Mediterranean coun tries . . . and in some underdeveloped regions of Asia. Per capita income is in the

Page 62

neighborhood of $ 1 0 0 a year . . . . Infant mortality rates are high and average life expectancies short. Illiteracy is wide-spread. There is very limited availability of modern medical care and other social services. ((The planning agency for the development of the northeast . . . is known in Brazil as Sudene. . . . The Sudene concept. . . . will involve vast outlays of funds, Brazilian and foreign ( (Neither technical shortcomings nor financing, however, may be the major ques tion mark as to the feasibility of the Sudene plan. The more fundamental difficulty may lie in Brazilian society. " .

•

T here,

Senator Mansfield puts his finger on one fatal flaw in all of our aid programs to underdeveloped countries. A nation of people who are incapable of producing a complex, modern industrial society are quite incapable of maintaining one. They have had enough contact with modern society to yearn for its material benefits ; but, in this yearning, they are like small children who wish for a high powered automobile to do with as they please. Outside efforts ( such as we are making ) to give the underdeveloped peoples an industrial economy ( before they have gone through generations of slow self-development that is necessary to produce one) will be harmful to

DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station Dallas 1 4, Texas Please enter my subscription for ( SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

_ _ _ _

them and to others, just as giving the child an automobile would be.

Senator Mansfield

touches on some of the dangers involved in our aid programs to Brazil ( and, similarly, to other Latin American coun tries ) . He says : ((This nation's policies with respect to Brazil tread a very delicate line, particularly as they pertain to the Alliance for Progress. What is not yet clear is whether aid can, in fact, contribute to evolutionary change. On the contrary, there is a strong presump tion in present circumstances that significant assistance will not do much more than pro long and intensify the present unsatisfactory situation. •

((Moreover, such assistance will link us very closely with that situation, and if it then col lapses, all of our interests are likely to be more adversely affected than would otherwise have been the case."

Yet, Senator Mansfield continues among the foremost in supporting Kennedy's massive Alliance for Progress aid program.

What Sho u ld Be Done?

do not know - and, obviously, no one else knows - how to solve these critical prob-

Renewal

years ) (

New Subscription �months ) to THE DAN

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $1 2.50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

PRINT NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 63

lems in South America. Our government has no constitutional right to try to solve them. We should, therefore, compel the Congress of the United States to stop the Alliance for Progress program abruptly .

Statistics

Direct u.s. aid to Alliance for Progress countries from 1 94 6 to August, 1 9 6 2 , is as follows : (7) Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru San Salvador Uruguay Venezuela TOTAL

Would not all the Latin American nations then turn to communism? Perhaps. But now we are speeding their march toward com munism with our aid.

I f we pauperized the United States by giv ing all of our wealth to the cause of promoting a prosperous, stable Latin America, we would still fail ; and, by our effort, we would hurt the people of Latin America more than we would help them. Even if the Latin American people were capable of absorbing and using constructively the help we give them, there is not enough wealth in the United States to raise a nation like Brazil to the level of educational, scien tific , cultural, commercial, and industrial development that prevailed in Czechoslovakia in 1 94 8 . But even if our aid could uplift Brazil to that extent - would that keep the com munists from taking over, as they took over the advanced and highly developed nation of Czechoslovakia ?

The fact is that the disease of communism does not breed in the bellies of men.

$ 1 , 0 2 7, 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 8 6,4 0 0 , 0 0 0 3 , 1 9 3 ,400,0 0 0 9 04,7 0 0, 0 0 0 5 7 6, 1 0 0, 0 0 0 1 3 6,700,000 9 ,4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 3 9,000,000 2 0 7,9 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 7,70 0,0 0 0 5 4, 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 ,246, 5 0 0, 0 0 0 9 8 ,40 0,0 0 0 1 2 1 , 1 00,000 6 8 , 6 0 0, 0 0 0 6 3 0,600,000 2 3 ,400,0 0 0 1 2 0,4 0 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 3 , 6 0 0, 0 0 0 $9,3 05,5 00,000

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "Giant Brazil," National Geographic, September, 1 9 62, p. 3 0 6 ( 2 ) Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 4, p . 4 5 1 c ( 3 ) This Changin.g World: For Commanders: Armed Forces 11,/or1ll ation alld Education, published by the Department of Defense, Vol. I , No. 8 , 1 November 1 9 6 1 ( 4 ) Newsletter of United States Representative Richard H. Poff (Republi can, Virginia ) , dated April 1 6 , 1 962 (5) "Toward a Soviet Brazil," by Robert Morris, T h e WI",derer, January 1 7, 1 96 3 ( 6 ) Brazil and United States Policies : Report 0 / Smator Mike Mansfield to the Foreign RelatiollS Committee, United States Senate, U. S. Govern ment Printing Office, February, 1 962 ( 7 ) "Our Crazy Foreign Giveaway Program; Extension of Remarks of Hon. Alvin E. O'Konski of Wisconsin," Congressi01.al Record, August 6, 1 962, pp. A 5 9 9 8 , A 5 999

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1 938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 64

THE

1)1111 SmootlIeport Vol. 9, No. 9

( Broadcast 394 )

March 4, 1963

Dallas, Tex as DAN

SMOOT

D E F I C I T F I N A N C I N G - PA R T I

O n January 1 7, 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy submitted his budget message, saying that he was recommending spending increases only i n defense, space exploration, and interest on the national debt - but that he was reducing all other programs. Yet his message recom mended enormous increases in the programs he said he was reducing. In his " Tax Reduction and Reform" message of January 24, 1 9 6 3 , the President ham mered the theme that the reductions and the reforms were inescapably tied together - that Congress must not approve reductions, without also approving reforms. But on February 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , the President revealed that he is interested only in politically popular tax-reduction. He said : HWhatever is necessary to get that bill, I would support."

I t is easy to see these obvious departures

from truth in the President's budget-and-tax proposals. It is easy to see that quality of being a spoiled child, which is Kennedy's hall mark : he will do anything to get what he wants. But we need some background to understand the "new principle" contained in the President's 1 9 6 4 budget message - the principle of the planned deficit.

O n July 3 0,

Roosevelt Yea rs 1 9 3 2 , Franklin D. Roosevelt said :

HRevenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poor house." ( 1)

I n every year of Roosevelt's administration, the federal government spent a great deal more than it collected in taxes. Here are the federal deficits for the 9 peacetime fiscal years of Franklin D. Roosevelt : THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 65

1933 1 9 34 193 5 1936 1937 1938 1939 1 940 1 94 1 Total

$ 2,602,000,000 3,63 0,000,000 2 ,79 1 , 0 0 0, 0 0 0 4,42 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2,777, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 1 77, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 3 , 8 62,000,000 3 ,9 1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 1 5 9, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 , 3 4 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 (2 )

N one o f R o o s e v e l t ' s d e f i c i t s w e r e "planned," however. Throughout, he main t a i n e d t h e p r e t e n s e t h a t he e x p e c t e d , or wanted, a balanced budget. Roosevel t ' s peacetime deficit spending proved that government cannot spend a nation into prosperity. The spending ( with the consequent governmental controls and med dling in the economy, and governmental favor itism to certain groups at the expense of other groups) was ostensibly intended to get the nation out of depression ( which had been caused by governmental spending, meddling, and favoritism during and following World War I) . Yet, the depression did not abate until our war economy began at the end of the 1 9 3 0 's. American liberals have ignored this obvious lesson. Every President since Roosevelt has increased the federal deb t , spending more money than the government had, borrowing from future generations, on the presumption that government spending would make the nation prosper.

Into the foreign aid arguments there came the theme that giving aid was no drain on our economy - it was a stimulant which was good for our economy. Moreover, it was saving us money on defense, because it is cheaper to subsidize foreign armies to defend the world than it would be to defend the world with our own troops ! This argument ignores the consti tutional truth that the American government has no right or responsibility to defend the rest of the world, either with American troops or with subsidized foreign troops. It ignores the fact that our aid to build the defenses of the free world actually weakens those defenses, because recipient nations, instead of looking to their own defenses, tend to put their money into civilian spending, letting us carry most of the load for world-wide defense.

T he American public could not forever be

persuaded to accept this "defense" argument for foreign aid. Hence, there was another subtle alteration of argument : we are giving aid to other nations to make them prosperous enough to be good customers ; we cannot remain prosperous if they do not buy from us ; and they cannot buy from us unless we help them become prosperous. This is like saying that a neighborhood groceryman must give away money so that people in the neighbor hood will have money to buy his groceries. The argument also ignores the fact that the real prosperity of America never was dependent on foreign trade, but resulted primarily from our great domestic market.

Post Wa r Yea rs

F ollowing

World War II, President Tru man ( unable to spend as much as he desired on domestic programs ) initiated the program of giving our wealth away to foreign nations, under the pretext of fighting communism. The more foreign aid we gave to fight com munism, the faster communism grew - feed ing on the aid we were giving. This fact became so apparent that liberal leaders ( while never admitting the fac t ) began to alter the pretext for foreign aid.

T his foreign aid argument also wore thin.

The European nations ( given aid so that they could recover and become prosperous cus tomers) did recover. E uropean ( an d J apanese) industries are largely free of the crushing weight of taxation imposed on American industries. They are free of the excessive labor costs which the favor tism of federal law and policy help monopo listic unions in the United States to impose on American industry. European ( and Japanese ) industries can obtain American raw materials

Page 66

( cotton, for example ) at prices considerably below what American industries have to pay, because the American government subsidizes the cost for the foreign industries, and taxes Americans to help pay for the subsidy. European ( and Japanese ) industries have new plants and facilities, built with tax money taken , in part, from American industries which cannot afford to modernize their own plants ; and foreign industries have been given, without charge, techniques and special knowl edge which American industry had developed at great cost, by trial and error, through the years.

W ith such advantages, Western European nations receiving our aid did indeed become prosperous ; but they did not, as promised in the foreign aid arguments, become better cus tomers for American goods. They found that they could buy goods cheaper elsewhere, because American goods were so burdened with tax-and-Iabor costs that they were priced above the world market. So, the nations which we helped to prosperity ( and are still helping, despite their prosperity) increased their trade with each other, and started capturing not only America's traditional foreign markets, but also started making serious inroads into the American domestic market. T his condition became so apparent and so

appalling that another alteration in the foreign aid argument became necessary. We are still aiding the advanced and prosperous nations, disguising the aid, for the most part, as "defense" or "mutual security" spending. We are still paying for much of the military defense of the prosperous nations ; but we have de-emphasized "economic" aid to them. Now, we are emphasizing economic aid to underdeveloped countries. The primary argu ments for our aid to the underdeveloped nations are ( 1 ) that our aid helps to secure foreign sources of critical materials which America needs not only for prosperity but for survival ; and ( 2 ) that our aid will help the

underdeveloped nations to economic, political, and social stability and thus forestall their turning to communism. These arguments ignore the fact that the United States could- produce, within conti nental boundaries, the materials necessary in modern industry ; and they ignore the fact that our aid, far from creating stability in the underdeveloped lands, is creating economic, political, and social chaos - and is actually financing the growth of socialism, which is a prerequisite preparation for communist con quest in the underdeveloped countries.

American Prosperity

T hus, the program of deficit spending to make the country prosperous has grown and developed since Roosevelt initiated the pro gram as national policy in 1 9 3 3 We did not become prosperous during the first eight years of the program. .

For about one year prior to our entry into World War II, we did enjoy national pros perity, which resulted not so much because of spending by our own government, but because of artificial stimulation of American trade abroad. There was enormous economic activity in the United States during the four years of our participation in World War II, but it is not accurate to say that we were nationally pros perous during that period. A civilian popula tion unable to obtain luxury goods and severely restricted in its consumption of essential goods can hardly be called prosperous, regardless of how busy it is or of how much money is circulating.

O ur

real national prosperity began in 1 946, after World War II. This prosperity, however, did not result from the spending of our federal government : it developed in spite of governmental spending. In spite of governmental harassment and excessive taxation, American industry and American working men ( with incredible inge-

Page 67

nuity and vigor) moved, after World War II, to supply the stored up demands of the Ameri can domestic market. The population expan sion which followed World War II expanded the domestic market. The American economy, despite everything the socialist planners in Washington could contrive to do, had ten years of fabulous growth.

F l ig h t of Gold

Decline Sets I n

A nd then the reckoning ! I n the latter 1 9 5 0 's, our economic growth began to slow down. Even the American economy could not continue running at great speed, while carry ing the enormous, ever-increasing burdens imposed on it by government. The marvelous American economy began to stagger under the load. What staggered it most was the penetration, by American subsidized foreign industries, of our domestic market - the source of, and the key to, American prosperity. Foreign producers, using production facili ties and skills which our government had given them, began underselling Americans not only in world markets, but in the American market. For the first time in modern history, foreign producers of basic commodities like coal could undersell American producers in the American market . Ceramics plants and pottery factories in West Virginia went bankrupt because of foreign competition. Carpetmaking factories and textile mills in New England either went bankrupt or moved to southern states where right-to-work laws give workers and employ ers some protection against union bosses. Americans were even importing barbed wire ( a commodity invented by Americans and, for a long time, produced almost exclusively in America) . By

compensate the people and the areas thus harmed by giving them handouts from the federal treasury - handouts for urban renewal, public works, unemployment com pensation, manpower retraining, school build ing, road construction, and so on.

1 9 5 8 , conditions had become so bad that politicians ( whose programs had caused the conditions) grew shrill in demanding that something be done ; but not one of them sug gested stopping the governmental programs doing the damage. They suggested that we accelerate the harmful programs, but that we

significant result o f this relative decline in the American economy ( decline, that is, in comparison with the growth of competing foreign economies ) is the flight of our gold reserve to foreign nations - and the deprecia tion of American currency throughout the world. This is another condition which Roose velt laid the basis for in the 1 9 3 0 's. In May, 1 9 3 3 , Congress passed the Agricul tural Adjustment Act, authorizing the Presi dent, among other things, to reduce the weight of the gold dollar which contained 2 5 . 8 grains of gold. The announced purpose was to raise prices. If government could reduce the gold content, it could issue more dollars - which would not be worth as much as the old dollars. Hence, a merchant who had been charging $ 2 . 0 0 for a pair of shoes would have to charge more, because the dollars he accepted in exchange for the shoes had less purchasing power. The prices of all other commodities, and of labor, would have to go up accordingly and for the same reason. This would require the circulation of more money.

N ew

Deal economists said this increased circulation of money would stimulate our economy. Yet, they knew that people would not willingly accept the cheapened currency ; so they used the force of law. In the Agricul tural Adjustment Act of 1 9 3 3 , which author ized the President to cheapen the dollar, there was a provision that all coins and currencies of the United States had to be accepted as legal tender, «dollar for dollar." This meant that, if someone owed you 5 0 dollars, each of which had the value of 2 5 . 8 grains of gold, and he offered to pay you back

Page 68

with dollars that were not worth that much you had to accept.

B ut government was still tied to the gold

standard. There still had to be some fixed relation between the amount of gold reserve the government had and the amount of cur rency it could issue.

On January 3 0, 1 9 3 4 , Congress abolished gold coinage and our standard gold dollar. It became illegal for Americans even to possess gold coins, much less try to use them. The President promptly reduced the weight of the gold dollar from 2 5 . 8 grains to 1 5 . 24 grains a reduction of 4 0 per cent in our standard of value.

Reserve currency. At present, this means that the law requires approximately 1 2 billion dollars to be held in our gold reserve as backing for our currency.

F or

many years, the special privilege of foreigners - to exchange their dollar holdings for gold - seemed to make little difference. Our economy was the strongest in the world. The American dollar was considered as good as gold, everywhere. Foreigners who got Ameri can dollars did not care to exchange them for gold, because, aware of the great strength of the American economy, they had as much confidence in American dollars as they had in gold.

This meant that Roosevelt, by one stroke, had confiscated 4 0 % of the savings and invest ments of every person in the land. A man who had struggled and saved and denied himself for thirty years to lay aside $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 for his old-age retirement found that those dollars - in terms of what they would now buy for him - were worth only $ 6 0 0 0.

But when foreigners begin to lose confidence in the American economy, they begin to lose confidence in our dollar. At that point, they are careful not to accumulate many American dollars. They present their American paper currency to the U.S. Treasury and demand gold in exchange.

Government could do this to its own citi zens, because it could put them in prison if they resisted. But it could not do it to foreigners. So, ever since 1 9 3 4 , the United States government pays its obligations to its own citizens in what ever kind of currency it wants to issue, but foreigners can demand gold in exchange for the American dollars they hold.

do foreigners get American cur rency in the first place ? From our govern ment's aid and spending and lending programs abroad ; from private American purchases overseas ; from domestic American purchasing of foreign goods ; and from American capital investments abroad.

Where

A good history of this operation can be found in Inflation in the United States, a little book written by Paul Bakewell, Jr. , and pub lished in 1 9 5 8 by The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho. Price : $ 1 . 0 0 .

By these means, we have been pouring vast quantities of American currency into foreign hands for many years. American spending abroad is, of course, offset by American selling abroad. Foreigners buy American goods, and spend their money in America.

Government took possession o f the nation's gold and stored it at Fort Knox, and fixed its price at 3 5 dollars an ounce. The government sells the gold to industrial and medical users. It exchanges it for American currency which foreigners hold, when they demand exchange. And the government is required by l aw to keep in this gold reserve an amount equal in value ( at $ 3 5 . 0 0 an ounce) to 2 5 % of issued Federal

The difference between this two-way flow of money is called our international balance of payments. If we spend more abroad than we sell, we have an unfavorable balance of pay ments situation : foreigners build up a surplus of American dollars, which they can exchange for the gold in our gold reserve. When such a condition persists for any length of time, we have a flight of our gold reserve to foreign lands.

Page

If foreigners can get enough surplus Ameri can currency to demand all of the gold in our reserve, and do demand it, America will then have a worthless currency, because it will have no backing. Foreigners will no longer accept American money because there will be no gold behind it. Wild inflation, with all its terrible consequences, will begin at that point.

B y the mid- 1 9 5 0 's, astute foreign investors noticed the relative decline in the overbur dened American economy. Foreign industries were overtaking American industries in pro ductivity and sales. The difference between the strained American economy and the economies of nations we were aiding began to level off fast. Other nations were outpacing us in eco nomic growth ; some were on the verge of sur passing us in actual economic strength. The foreign investors ( previously content to keep their American dollars and their holdings of other American securities ) began selling them, and taking gold out of the U.S. reserve. By 1 9 5 8 , this flight of the American gold reserve had become so alarming and conspic uous that mention of it began to appear in financial columns of the nation's press though governmental officials never acknowl edged the condition. On September 2 3 , 1 9 5 8 , Sam Dawson, financial columnist for the Associated Press, mentioned the sharp drop in Amrecia's gold reserve ; but he expressed optimism. He said the flight of our gold had stopped and that we still had a 2 1 billion dollar reserve which, he said, was enough to meet all foreign claims and to back our currency. Mr. Dawson was a bad prophet. Since 1 9 5 8 , an additional 6 billion, 8 0 2 million, 4 8 4 thousand, 8 79 dollars ( $ 6,8 0 2 ,4 84,8 79 . 0 0 ) worth of our gold reserve has passed into for eign hands. On January 9, 1 9 6 3 , our total gold reserve was 1 5 billion, 9 7 8 million, 1 1 3 thousand, 6 8 5 dollars ( $ 1 5 ,9 7 8 , 1 1 3 ,6 8 5 . 0 0 ) . Law requires that 1 2 billion of the gold reserve be kept as backing for American cur-

rency. This left, on January 9 , 1 9 6 3 , approxi mately 4 billion dollars in our gold reserve to meet all foreign claims. On that date, estimated foreign claims on our gold reserve ( which could be presented as demands at any moment ) t o t a l e d 2 1 b i l l i on, 6 0 0 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ( $ 2 1 ,6 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0. 0 0 ) . ( 3 )

I n other words, America, at the beginning of 1 9 6 3 , was already at the mercy of foreign investors and foreign governments. We did not actually own any of the gold reserve at Fort Knox. Foreigners had more than 2 1 billion dollars worth of claims against the 4 billion dollars of reserve which we held to meet their claims ; and their claims against our gold were increasing at the rate of 9 0 0 million dollars a year. If these foreigners should suddenly sell the'i r American holdings and demand payment in gold ( as a result of some development which caused them to lose faith completely in the American economy) we would be bankrupt. The resulting panic would be more terrible than anything the world has ever seen. With the great, colorful bubble of "pros perity" punctured, America, almost overnight, could become an impoverished land of closed factories, unemployment, and worthless cur rency ; and it lies within the power of foreigners to do the puncturing. T hat

was the precarious condition of the economy of the United States on January 1 7, 1 9 6 3 , when President Kennedy submitted the most stupefying budget in the history of the world - a budget which, if adopted, could precipitate the final rush on our gold reserve.

Kh rushchev Is Wa iting

O n January 1 7, 1 9 6 3 , U. S. Representative

Clarence Cannon, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, stood in the House to comment on President Kennedy's budget message. Representative Cannon, a Democrat from Missouri, is a new-fair dealer with an old and earned reputation as a liberal spender of public money, a man who on many occasions

Page 70

has extended himself to defend the legend of the late great spender Franklin D. Roosevelt ; a man who says he has the "highest affection and the warmest regard" for President Ken nedy. Yet Cannon dramatically revealed that Kennedy was distorting fact when alleging, in his budget message, that non-defense spending is being held back. Cannon said : ttl have listened to messages from Presidents here in the House for 40 years, but in all that time I have never seen or heard a budget mes sage like this one, and neither have you ; nor has anyone else . ttThis budget is the recordbreaker . . . . It proposes to spend $ 9 8 , 8 0 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . That tops the peak of World War II spending by $ 5 0 0,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 when the sky was the limit and sur vival the sole object. uOnly once before - in fiscal 1 9 5 9 - has the budget in peacetime ex c e e d e d the $ 1 1 ,9 0 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 deficit shown in this budget. And impressions to the contrary, more than $ 6, 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 of that tentative deficit figure cannot be ascribed to loss through tax cuts or revIsIons or n a t ion a 1 defense spending increases. Nor will rising space and interest expenditures account for it. Nondefense spending beyond available revenues is heavily involved uThe deficit estimate of $ 1 1 ,9 0 2 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 for 1 9 64, following as i t does a n $ 8 , 8 1 1 , 0 0 0,000 deficit in the current year, and a $ 6, 3 7 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 deficit i n fiscal 1 9 6 2 , would add to the staggering sum of $ 2 7 , 0 9 1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 of .

•

DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station Dallas 1 4, Texas Please enter my subscription for < SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

red-ink spending in 3 years. And that follows deficits of $ 2 1 ,9 5 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 in the previous 8 years for the shocking total of $49 , 044, 0 0 0,0 0 0 since the war ended in Korea. uAh, but you say we have had to defend the country . . . . Let me cite a few figures taken from the budgets. uThis 1 9 64 budget proposes spending of $4,49 1 million above 1 9 6 3 - and $ 2 , 0 6 2 million o f the increase is for other than national defense, a 5 -percent increase. ttThis 1 9 64 budget proposes spending of $ 1 7, 2 8 7 million above 1 9 6 1 - and $ 9 , 3 4 8 million o f the increase i s for other than national defense, a 2 7 -percent increase. ttThis 1 9 64 budget proposes spending of $ 3 1 , 2 6 5 million above the year following Korea, fiscal year 1 9 5 4 - and $ 2 2 , 8 1 8 million of the increase is for other than national defense, an increase of I l l -percent for non defense, as contrasted with 1 8 -percent increase for national defense items ult is beyond dispute that we have been spending more and more and more for non defense things and loading the cost onto future generations. . . . ttWith these ever-increasing deficits and debts and decline in the value of the dollar, who is to say that European bankers, holding more claims against our shrunken and dwindl ing gold supply, will not resume their demands of the last 5 years when $ 6 , 8 0 2 , 0 0 0,000 in gold left Fort Knox? Since we convened here on the floor a year ago, our gold supply has dropped $ 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . .

_ _ _ _ _ _

Renewal

years ) <

PRINT NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Page 7 1

•

months ) to THE DAN

___. ____

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery)

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada

New Subscription

_ _ _ _ _ _

Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $1 2.50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

((Since we convened here a year ago, the purchasing power of the dollar fell to a new low . Savings , pensions, life insurance, bonds will buy less. ((Since we convened here a year ago, the cost-of-living price index hit a new high 6 times ((Khrushchev is waiting . . . . ((Our Government - any government . . . cannot spend and continue to spend more than they take in without inviting disaster . . . . ((It is the ever-rising nondefense items that have unbalanced the budgets of the last 1 0 years ((And in the budget today, with its hun dreds of requests for increased appropriations - at a cost beyond what they can expect to take in - there are no reassuring signs of any disposition to reverse the trend . . . . ((And no provision for unforseen national emergencies ((How long will foreign bankers defer cash ing in more of our dollars for gold as they watch us pile up more and more debt? . . . ((I include pertinent data on our dwindling gold supply. We have lost nearly $ 7, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0,0 0 0 of our reserves since January 1 9 5 8 . HOur supply is now just below $ 1 6,0 00,0 00,000. . ((All but $4,2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 is earmarked as backing for our money supply on a 2 5 -percent basis. HThere are possible foreign claims out standing of $ 2 1 , 6 0 0, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . ((That leaves a potential shortage . . . of $ 1 7,40 0,0 0 0, 0 0 0 after allowing for the 2 5 percent backing. .

•

((If we insist on further cheapening our dol lar it would, manifestly, be absurd to delude ourselves into thinking foreign nations would sit idly by holding our dollars and securities when all they have to do is demand gold cCUndoubtedly the people would demand that we practice some restraint if they were but harshly aware of what they are paying Uncle Sam each week or each month in income taxes. The withholding tax system was devised to accelerate and facilitate collection of revenues to help finance World War II. And while it undoubtedly still serves to facilitate collections it sedates the people. It is painless. It mitigates the consciousness of tax burden. It caters to the illusion that money in Wash ington is free for the asking. That the Treas ury is a bottomless resource with a boundless supply of dollars. I am not so certain but that revision of the system would be decidedly .in the public interest. The people would demand an accounting if they were fully and pain fully conscious of the tax bite, if periodically they had to draw a check or money order in f a v o r of U n c l e S am a n d m a i l it t o Washington. ,, (3 ) .

•

Next Week We will discuss the "new principle" involved in the President's Planned Deficit. FOOTNOTES

( I ) A merican Sla11l(ard, October, 1 9 62 ( 2 ) "Summary of Federal Fiscal Operations," Facts and Figures on C o vent",ent Finance ( Copyright: Tax Foundation, Inc., I 96 I ) , 1 9 601 9 6 1 edition, p. 75 (3) "The President's Budget and Message," speech by U.S. Representative Clarence Cannon ( Democrat, Missouri) , Congressional Record, January 1 7, 1 9 63, pp. 5 0 8 if.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1 938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own i ndependent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 72

IHE

I)t/II SmootlIe,o,t Vol. 9, No. 10

( Broadcast 395 )

March 1 1 , 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

D E F I C I T F I N A N C I N G - PA R T I I

A s pointed out last week, the American economy enjoyed a decade of prosperity, beginning in 1 94 6 , not because of governmental policies, but in spite of them. Through the corrupt and inequitable income tax, the federal government piled an enor mous burden on our economy, draining off our production and the money of our workers for gifts to foreign governments and for spending programs at home - programs intended to buy public support for the politicians in power and to place the federal government in control of all economic activity.

O ur overburdened economy could not forever carry the load. Confiscatory federal taxes

and the costly harassments of federal controls, plus federal favoritism to monopolistic unionism, added such excessive costs to business operations in the United States, that Amer ican industry could not compete with foreign industries. Moreover, money taken away from Americans was given to foreigners to build their industries, reduce their taxes, and pay for their defense. By the mid- 1 9 5 0 's, our economy had begun to stagger under the load. Foreign competi tors, enriched and subsidized at our expense, were capturing our markets, both domestic and foreign. European nations began to outpace us in economic growth, and many were on the verge of surpassing us in actual strength. Foreign governments and bankers, losing confidence in our money and our economy, started liquidating their American holdings, taking, in exchange, the gold from our monetary reserve. Many American industries ( unable to operate profitably in the United States ) were closing and moving abroad, encouraged to do so by the policies of our own government. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 73

Forwa rd to Disast er

the end of the 1 9 5 0 's, America was already at the mercy of foreign governments and bankers. They held claims on more than all the gold we had in our monetar y reserve. We were on the edge of becoming a nation of worthless currency, closed factories, and mass unemployment. But, instead of retrenching, our govern �ent kept increasing the reckless spending. EIsenhower proposed the biggest peacetime budgets on record and ( in 1 9 5 9 ) ran the big gest peacetime deficit in history.

I� foreign policy, our government kept pourmg out our wealth to other nations while engaging in an international begging operation that should have brought shame to every American. Eisenhower's emissaries went to the nations of western Europe, which had grown prosperous on our money, begging them to help us carry the burden of their own national defense ; begging them to help us carry the burden of aid to underdeveloped nations ; begging them to buy more American goods ; begging them to stop exchanging their American holdings for the gold in our mone ta"y reserve. For the most part, the European nations responded by lecturing us on how to handle our affairs. W ith the inauguration of Kennedy, mat

ters grew much worse. Kennedy enlarged all the disastrous spending programs. But before Kennedy had been in office six months, governmental officials had to face the grim truth that the monstrous income tax system of the United States had already passed the point of diminishing returns. Kennedy insisted on spending more money, but realized that he could not get the money through additional taxation. The federal income tax had become a heavy penalty on those who worked hard and effi ciently. More brains and energy were going into tax-avoidance activities than into efforts

at production and expansion. With the federal government taking more of the profits of busi ness than employees, management, and stock holders could keep, there was little possibility for accumulation of private capital for expan sion and creation of new jobs - and little incentive.

I n Sea rch of Someth i ng New

D etermined

to increase spending, but unable to get additional revenues through tax ation, the Kennedy administration sought for a way to take money away from Americans without their realizing that it was being taken. Deficit financing was the answer : borrow from future generations in order to provide benefits for the present, voting generation. A few may worry about the fate of their nation. A few may feel ashamed that they are getting some thing that their children's children will have to pay for ; but not many. Besides, the public does not understand economics anyway. If too many people reveal scruples about stealing from their grandchildren, Keynesian econo mists in the administration and in the univer sities and in the newspaper world ( reinforced by learned economists from abroad ) can explain that we need not worry about a national debt, because we merely owe it to ourselves - can prove in fact that a big national debt is good for our economy ! Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower all spent more than they had to spend. All, consistently, ran huge deficits and piled up the national debt. In fact, federal spending has been kept within the limits of income only six years out of the past 3 3 years. But neither Roosevelt, Truman, nor Eisen hower revealed quite the cynical contempt for the American people that Kennedy has revealed. Deficit financing actually became national policy in the first administration of Franklin D . Roosevelt, but it was never pre sented or admitted as such. Roosevelt, T ru man, and Eisenhower always pretended that

Page 74

they believed in, wanted, and were striving for a balanced budget. For political advantage, Kennedy himself has pretended respect for the idea that gov ernment must live within its means. Yet, while paying lip service to the traditional American respect for sound fiscal operations - and dis honestl y concealing from the people the true state of affairs - Kennedy and his advisers and supporters gradually spread the propaganda that deficit financing is good for the country. The propaganda was sweetened with repeated promises of tax reduction.

N ote a few salient facts. In June, 1 9 6 1 , Douglas Dillon, Kennedy's Secretary of the Treasury, speaking to the National Press Club, said that the $ 3 .7 billion deficit forecast for the 1 9 6 1 - 6 2 fiscal year was not only "inevitable," but " appropriate," and that it raised no threat of "classic inflation. ,, (1) In October, 1 9 6 1 , when the regular "mid year" review of the federal government's fiscal operations was released to the press, it became generally known that the government would run a deficit of 6 billion, 3 00 million dollars in budgeted expenditures ( spend that much more than it collected in taxes ) during Ken nedy's first full fiscal year - which began July 1 , 1 9 6 1 . In his January, 1 �6 2 , budget message to Congress, President Kennedy said there would be a budget surplus of 4 6 3 million dollars for the next fiscal year ( beginning J ul y 1 , 1 9 62 ) . During the 1 9 6 2 elections, New Frontier political candidates acknowledged the deficit in Kennedy's first fiscal year, with implications that the deficit was a kind of carryover of conditions from the Eisenhower administra tion. They talked about the 1 2 billion, 8 00 million dollar deficit which the Eisenhower administra tion ran in the 1 9 5 9 fiscal year. And they pointed to the promised surplus of 4 6 3 million dollars in Kennedy's second fiscal year - all of this being their proof that the New Frontier was leading the nation to solvency. The regular "midyear" review of the gov ernment's fiscal operations was not released to Page

the public in the late summer or early fall of 1 9 6 2 ( as is established custom ) . The review was not released until after the elections in November - because the review revealed that Kennedy's promised «surplus" of 4 6 3 million dollars was a fiction and that the government was actually running another deficit - 7 bil lion, 8 0 0 million dollars for Kennedy's second fiscal year ( which began July 1 , 1 9 6 2 ) . (2 )

Kennedy/s Mythology

T hus, during the

1 9 6 2 election year, Ken nedy concealed from the public the facts about the huge deficit he was running, while New Frontier politicians sought votes by promising balanced budgets and sound fiscal operations. At the same time, however, propaganda for deficit financing as accepted national policy was cleverly seeping into the public consciousness. In a report released on June 7, 1 9 6 2 , the Bank for International Settlements, Basle, Switzerland, said "the United States will risk continuing to have a rate of growth well below that of Europe, East and West," unless the United States government stimulates the American economy by increasing federal spending, or by reducing taxes. The bank recommended both measures - that is, it urged the U. S. government to enlarge its annual budget deficits. The bank report recognized that increased deficit financing would also stimulate the flight of America's gold reserve to foreign lands. It suggested a raising of interest rates in the United States as a means of encour aging foreigners to keep their United States investments. ( 3) On June 1 1 , 1 9 6 2 , President Kennedy made a commencement speech at Yale, saying : ((T 00 often we hold fast to cliches of our forebears . . . . Mythology distracts us everywhere . . . . ((The myth persists that Federal deficits create inflation, and budget surpluses prevent it . . . . But honest assessment plainly requires a more sophisticated view . . . . ((There are myths also about our public debt. It is widely supposed that this debt is 75

growing at a dangerously rapid rate [But] debts [public and private] are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Borrowing can lead to overextension and collapse - but it can also lead to expansion and strength . . . . {{Last week. . . . the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland repre senting the central bankers of Europe, sug gested that the United States should follow a flexible budget policy as in Europe, with deficits when the economy is down, and a high monetary policy on interest rates, as in Europe, in order to control inflation and pro tect gold uThe example of Western Europe shows that . . . government . . . can coordinate the elements of a national economy and bring ,, about growth and prosperity. (4)

AFL-CIO Outlines the Plan

. . . •

•

Speaking at the Loeb Award Luncheon in New York, at about the same time President Kennedy spoke at Yale, David E. Bell, Ken nedy's Director of the Budget, said : HThere is a real danger that the attempt to achieve a budget balance too soon may itself contribute to bringing the recovery to a halt below full employment. . . . {{There are positive benefits from a federal deficit in a recession." (5)

I n a front-page article of the business sec

tion of The New York Times of July 9 , 1 9 6 2 , Edwin L . Dale, Jr. , reported from Paris that practically all European treasury officials and officials of European central banks were urging the United States to stimulate the American economy by more deficit spending. From the December 1 9, 1 96 2 , issue of EEC ( The European Common Market Newsletter) : {�The 2 0 -nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development sharply criti cized the U. S. in a report for not having purposely enlarged its budget deficit in recent years . . . . ��The report listed the slow process of budget formation in the U. S. , the lack of power of the Executive branch to take action on taxes or spending by itself, and fears that expansionary budget action might worsen the deficit in the U. S. balance of international payments."

H aving been told by foreign bankers

and international organizations what to do, the «economists" who set policy for the Kennedy administration made final preparations. The January, 1 96 3 , issue of The American Fed erationist ( official monthly magazine of the AFL-CIO) presented an article entitled «The Positive Role of Fiscal Policy. " This article ( which was actually published in December, 1 9 6 2 ) outlined in detail the planned deficit and tax reduction that Kennedy would pro pose in his special messages to Congress in January, 1 9 6 3 . From The American Federa tionis t article : ��Other countries use their fiscal policies the combined effects of government taxing and spending - as a means of maintaining rapid economic growth. Unfortunately, fiscal policy in the United States has not been used in a rational and flexible manner as a key element in the Nation's economic policies."

The AFL-CIO economist failed to point out that those «other countries" have been receiv ing aid from the United States for more than 1 5 years. He also failed to point out that the one foreign country which has made the most miraculous recovery and has the most vigorous economy - West Germany - has rejected deficit financing. Here, for example, is an item from the December 1 2, 1 9 6 2 , issue of EEC ( The European Common Market Newsletter ) which the AFL-CIO economist ignored : �{Rejection of deficit spending by the Ger man government as a means of spurring eco nomic growth was voiced by Dr. Hermann Abs, managing director of the Deutsche Bank of Frankfurt. In direct contradiction of the advice given by the Organization for Eco nomic Co-operation and Development, Dr. Abs said that in Germany, �Deficit spending, if applied during the period from 1 9 5 0 to 1 9 6 0, would have prevented the economy from growing as it did.' He asserted that there have usually been Federal surpluses in the last decade [when German economy enjoyed Hphenomenal" growth] . . . . HHe cited a brief period of more liberal policies when the government lowered inter est rates, revalued the mark, and sharply

Page 76

increased government spending. The result, he said, was a slowing of the growth rate."

T he article in the AFL-CIO magazine ( outlining tax and budget proposals which President Kennedy made a month later) said :

��Too many Americans still think of Federal taxing and spending in terms of the America of the 1 8 0 0 's . . . . That America, which required a minimum of Federal action, has disappeared along with the buffalo."

That America, to which the union econo mist refers, was an under-developed, thinly populated, agrarian society spread along the Atlantic Coast. The people of That America, and their heirs early in the next century, per formed the stupendous task of conquering, settling, and developing the American wilder ness, «with a minimum of federal action. " Today, AFL-CIO economists are among the foremost in wailing that Americans ( now in a vast country that is settled, developed, popu lous, industrialized and prosperous) cannot even build a schoolhouse without federal aid. Despite the federal billions spent every year on federal aid programs, the AFL-CIO econo mist says : ((The pressing needs of a growing, urban population for direct Federal programs as well as Federal grants-in-aid to the States and local governments - for such programs as education, health, housing, urban rede velopment, and improved transportation facilities in metropolitan areas - require additional federal expenditures for civilian purposes. "

The AFL-CIO economist

repeats the oft repeated argument that we should not fret about the national debt because we owe it to ourselves - and then explains why a federal deficit is good : ((Deficits in the federal government's fiscal operations have an expansionary impact on the economy - they add to sales, production and employment. ((The economy's needs for a rapid rise in effective demand for goods and services should be met in 1 9 6 3 by a decisive change in fiscal policy. . . . But to rely on increased govern ment expenditures to boost economic activities

in 1 9 6 3 would be impractical , since federal outlays would not be raised sufficiently and rapidly enough. The practical alternative, therefore, is a substantial and immediate tax cut of about $ 1 0 billion while federal expen ditures continue to increase . . . . ��A tax reduction of that size would add as much as $ 2 0 billion to $ 2 5 billion to national production as the increased funds spread through the economy. It could create over 1 million jobs (�Low and middle-income families spend all or almost all their incomes . They spend addi tional incomes rapidly. There would be a fast and substantial boost of consumer sales from such a tax cut." .

•

The Blueprint for Su icide

his Budget proposal on January 1 7, 1 9 6 3 , and in his tax proposals on January 24, 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy presented the fiscal program which had been outlined by the AFL CIO : a net tax reduction of 1 0 billion dollars, and a planned deficit of 1 1 . 9 billion dollars. This was the first formally "planned deficit" in American history. . Yet, the President's political effort to dis guise the significance of his radical proposal led him into the most dishonest and patently ridiculous budget presentation ever made. Presenting the most extravagant budget in the history of the world ( larger, by far, than the biggest budget proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt even during the dark days of World War II, when there was absolutely no limit to expenditures) , President Kennedy said :

((This budget presents a financial plan for the efficient and frugal conduct of the public business. "

The

administrative budget operations of the federal government for fiscal 1 9 64, as out lined in the President's budget message, would require tax collections totalling 8 6 billion, 9 0 0 million dollars ; expenditures, totalling 9 8 bil lion, 8 0 0 million dollars. The cash operations of the government, as outlined by the Presi dent, would require tax collections totalling 1 1 2 billion, 2 0 0 million dollars ; expenditures, totalling 1 2 2 billion, 5 00 million dollars.

Page 77

What do such figures mean ? The total tax collections of the federal gov ernment for the first 1 5 1 years of its existence ( that is, from 1 78 9 through 1 940, a period which included the cost of our War for Inde pendence, the War of 1 8 1 2 , the Mexican War, the Civil War, innumerable Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, \Vorld War I, and eight years of F. D. Roosevelt spending during the Great Depression) were 1 2 1 billion, 3 8 7 million dollars. (6) In one peacetime year, Ken nedy proposes to take away from the people ( in direct taxes and in borrowing) more than was taken in 1 5 1 years by all Presidents from George Washington through the second administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And Kennedy called his proposals "frugal" and "efficient. "

P retending

respect for economy in the handling of tax money, President Kennedy, in his budget message, said : ((I have felt obliged to limit severely my 1 9 6 4 expenditure proposals. In national defense and space programs . . . I have pro posed expenditure increases. Fixed interest charges on the debt will also rise. But total 1 9 64 expenditures for all other programs in the administrative budget . . . have been . . . reduced."

United States Representative Clarence Can non ( Democrat from Missouri, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, a liberal spender himself and an admirer of President Kennedy, as pointed out in this Report last week ) made an angry speech to the House, revealing that the President's statement about reducing non-defense expenditures was a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Indeed, as Cannon showed, more than half of Ken nedy's planned deficit results from non-essen tial, non-defense spending.

Kennedy proposed increases in practically

all the programs he said he was reducing, and he urged initiation of new unconstitutional, unnecessary spending programs. United States Representative Richard L . Roudebush ( Republican, Indiana ) , in a report

to constituents dated January 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , listed a few of the new and increased expenditures recommended in a budget message which said that such expenditures were being reduced : a 1 billion dollar increase in foreign aid ; a 5 0 0 million dollar increase in federal welfare programs ; a 3 9 1 million dollar increase in federal spending on highways ; a 1 6 5 million dollar increase in federal aid to education ; a 43 million dollar increase for the Depart men t of Justice ; a 54 million dollar increase for the Department of State ; a 5 7 million dol lar increase for the Department of Interior ; 7 0 million dollars for Cuban refugees ; 6 0 million dollars to establish a domestic ((peace corps" ; and a request for 3 6,49 2 new federal employees - in addition to the 1 5 0, 0 0 0 new employees already added to the federal pay tolls by the New Frontier.

I n his budget message, President Kennedy said that the government had run deficits totalling 24 billion, 3 0 0 million dollars during the past 5 fiscal years when officialdom had estimated surpluses totalling 8 billion dol lars. The President conceded that he and his predecessor, in five years, had spent 3 2 billion, 3 0 0 million dollars more than they had officially estimated in their budgets ; yet he expressed confidence that his "planned deficit" of 1 1 . 9 billion for 1 9 64 is a firm figure which will not be exceeded. United States Representative August E. Johansen ( Republican, Michigan ) calculates that if President Kennedy's budget estimate for 1 9 64 is as far wrong as his 1 9 6 2 and 1 9 6 3 budget estimates were, we will have a deficit of 2 0 billion dollars for 1 9 64.(7) In

his special message on Tax Reduction and Reform, January 24, 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy said : ((Our present income tax rate structure now holds back consumer demand, initiative, and investment . . . . The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of Federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive . . . . Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy

Page 78

too large a share of personal and business pur chasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort . . . . The present tax code contains . . . provisions . . . which . . . artificially distort the use of resources, inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which under mine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions . . . . ��Tax reduction is urgently needed to spur the growth of our economy."

Williams called them, "the height of political hypocrisy. " They are, as Senator Frank J. Lausche called them, "a boatload of dyna mite," threatening "disaster" to the country . They constitute, as Senator Hugh Scott said, a "misleading, superintellectual, scramble-egg head theory" of governmental finance. They reflect, as U. S. Representative O. Clark Fisher said, "a basic lack of faith in the American system. " And they are, as U. S. Representative Bruce Alger called them, a blueprint for the fiscal suicide of the United States.

H aving thus said things about our vicious income tax system, which people like me have been saying for years, President Kennedy urged a program which would make matters worse. Kennedy's specific tax proposals would do the opposite of what he promised. They would further discourage private investment and expansion ; and they would c reate more demand for federal spending "a nd meddling in every facet of American life. Taken together, Kennedy's budget and tax proposals for the 1 9 64 fiscal year strike hard at the great American middle class, which is the backbone of our society. They complicate the evils of our income tax system, rather than relieve them ; they are, as Senator John ].

N ext week, we will examine, in further detail, the President's tax proposals - and make a tax proposal of our own.

DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station Dallas 1 4, Texas Please enter my subscription for ( SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

_ _ _ _

Dan Smoot TV Film Now Ava i la ble to Genera l Public

E ach week, this Report is abbreviated for a news-analysis type television program, which is offered for commercial sponsorship through out the United States. At present, the program has 24 different commercial sponsors and is broadcast on 44 stations, in 1 3 states. The broadcast is produced on 1 6 mm sound film. The playing time of each is 1 2 minutes - leaving three minutes for sponsor's com-

Renewal

years )

(

New Subscription

___ ____

months ) to THE DAN

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $12.50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

PRINT NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZON E AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 79

mercials in a fifteen minute time-slot on television. Multiple prints of each film are made. After broadcast each week, the prints are returned to this office where they serve various purposes. This program has been in operation without interruption ( every week ) since the spring of 1 9 5 7. Hence, we have a supply of 1 2 -minute 1 6 mm sound film, covering all subjects which have been presented in this Report during the past 6 years.

S ince the beginning, there has been strong

demand for this used film. Program chairmen of service clubs ( Lions, Exchange, Rotary and so on) want it for their club luncheon meet ings. They feel it would evoke member par ticipation in their regular meetings if, instead of having a speaker each time, they would periodically show a 1 2-minute Dan Smoot Report film, dealing with a controversial sub ject of immense importance - and then let the members have a free-for-all discussion of the subject. Freedom Information Centers have asked for the Dan Smoot TV film for use in their educational work. Bookstores featuring con stitutionalist and anti-communist literature want to buy the film - so that they can rent it to small groups locally, in their effort to create wider interest in freedom books and periodicals.

Requests for the Dan Smoot TV film have come from neighborhood discussion groups, church fellowship clubs, college and high school study groups, patriotic organizations, business firms, libraries, and from individuals.

We now have facilities to handle the tech

nical problems, and work load, involved in selling and distributing the film ; so, we are offering it for sale to the general public for $ 2 5 . 0 0 per print - which is considerably below the cost of production. We have prepared a catalogue which con tains not only a listing and description of all film available, but also an extensive index which will enable purchasers to select film dealing with particular subjects.

We will send the Catalogue, free of charge,

to anyone interested in buying Dan Smoot television film. Just write Dan Smoot, P. O. Box 9 5 3 8 , Dallas 1 4, Texas, and ask for the Film Catalogue. FOOTNOTES

( I ) "Dillon's Treasury: His Tolerance of Deficit Spending Surprises The Financial Community," by Arthur Krock, The New York Times, June 2 5 , 1 9 6 1 ( 2 ) "Politics N o Doubt: Why the Delay o n Notice o f Big Budget Defi cit ? " by David Lawrence, syndicated by New York Herald Tribune, Inc. ( 3 ) "U. S. Urged To Rely On Deficit Budget: International Bank Advises To Add Jobs - Asks Rise In Interest," by Edwin L. Dale, Jr., The New York Times, June 8, 1 96 2 ( 4 ) The Ne,,, York. Times, June 1 2 , 1 9 62 ( 5 ) Editorial, Shreveport /o1tY1lal, June 2 1 , 1 9 62 (6) 1 9 62 Federal Budget In B rief, Bureau of the Budget, Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 1 , p. 5 4 ( 7 ) U . S . Representative August E . Johansen ( Republican, Michigan) press release, January 1 8 , 1 9 6 3

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 80

THE

I)tlil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 1 1

( Broadcast 396 )

March 1 8, 1963

Dallas , Tex as DAN

SMOOT

K E N N E DY ' S TA X P L A N

O n January 24,

1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy delivered to Congress his Special Message on Tax Reduction and Reform, proposing tax reductions totaling 1 3 . 6 billion dollars. He pro posed «reforms" which would, in effect, raise taxes by about 3 . 3 billion dollars - leaving a net recommended tax reduction of about 1 0. 3 billion dollars. The stated purpose of the tax reductions is to stimulate our economy by spurring consumer buying, which would result in business expansion, and the creation of new jobs. Yet, the primary tax reduction recommended would do relatively little to cause business expansion and creation of new jobs. Of the 1 3 . 6 billion total tax reductions, 1 1 billion would go to individuals, mostly in low income brackets. People in low income brackets spend their money on consumer goods, investing relatively little in business enterprise. Corporations and individuals with above-average incomes are the ones who invest capital in business and industry.

La bor U n ion Log ic

A s pointed out in this Report last week , the President's

tax and budget proposals were virtually identical with proposals made a month before in the AFL-CIO magazine, The American Federationist. The AFL-CIO theory is that business fails to expand because consumers do not have enough money to buy, and that the way to stimulate business expansion is to see that consumers have more money to spend. If you give tax reductions for upper-middle and high income taxpayers, they may refuse to spend the tax savings thus given them. But if you give tax reductions to "low and middle-income" taxpayers, they will quickly spend their total tax savings - which will mean an immediate increase in consumer purchasing. The THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 1 0.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 8 1

AFL-CIO economist estimates that a 1 0 bil lion dollar tax reduction given to "low and middle-income" taxpayers would add 2 0 or 2 5 billion dollars to national production.

this theory were followed to its logical conclusion, it would lead to abolition of all income tax on "low and middle-income" tax payers. If we assume that "low and middle income" taxpayers are those who earn $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 a year or less, we find that this group ( based on official estimates ) ( I ) pays 5 1 % of all federal income taxes on individuals. In the 1 9 6 2 - 1 9 6 3 fiscal year, these "low and middle-income" Americans paid about 2 5 billion, 1 4 3 million dollars(2) in federal income tax ( in addition to the estimated 6 bil lion dollars taken out of their paychecks for social security(3» ) . If a tax reduction of 1 0 billion dollars for this "low and middle-income" group would create at least 2 0 billion dollars more produc tion, then a tax reduction of 2 5 billion, 1 4 3 million dollars should create a t least 5 0 billion, 2 8 6 million dollars more production.

T he

AFL-CIO economists do not, how ever, follow the logic of their own theory ; and neither does the President, whose tax and budget proposals merely parrot the labor union theorists. For some reason which seems mystic ( since no effort has been made to explain it ) , a tax reduction of ten billion dollars ( no more, no less ) is the magic formula for stimulating business expansion. Another flaw in the logic of the Kennedy AFL-CIO ten-billion dollar tax-reduction proposal is that its beneficial results would be largely offset by increased payroll taxes for social security, which the Kennedy-AFL-CIO medical care proposals would require.

The Trickle U p Theory

The Kennedy-labor union "trickle-up" theory concerning business expansion is inter-

esting. The President would give ttlow and middle-income" taxpayers a reduction of about 1 0 billion dollars ( that is, if we ignore the fact that he will take away much of this tax reduction by increasing their payroll taxes for social security ) for the purpose of increas ing consumer buying. The purpose of increas ing consumer buying is to increase business profits. The purpose of increasing business profits is to give businessmen more money for investment in business expansion. To logical persons, this seems devious and complicated. If you want businessmen to have more money for investment in expansion, why not relieve them, directly, of confiscatory tax ation which has been piled on them as an . . " emergency, war-tIme " tax ever SInce 1 9 5 0 ';).

P resident Kennedy and his AFL-CIO econ omists prefer the complicated approach. The AFL-CIO economist ( in The American Feder ationist article, outlining tax proposals which President Kennedy made a month later ) says : ��Tax cuts for . . . corporations would have much smaller and much slower results. Business is holding back from a considerable increase in outlays for new plants and machines, not because of a lack of funds but due to the considerable amount of idle pro ductive capacity that already exists."

one businessman, I ( whose labor pro duces more revenue for the federal government than it produces for me ) would like to explain to the AFL-CIO economist, and to President Kennedy, that neither I nor any other busi nessman I have ever known has ever held back on spending money to expand or improve our production facilities because other business men had idle facilities. I hold back on spending money to enlarge the operations of my Dan Smoot Report publishing business, because government takes so much money away from me in taxes that I do not have the money to spend.

Page 82

Corporate Taxes

T aking

5 2 % of a corporation's profits, the United States government harasses and hamstrings business considerably more than the fascist ( which means socialist, just as communist does - fascism and communism being somewhat different approaches toward the total socialist state) regimes of Mussolini and Hitler ever did. The highest tax that Mussolini ever levied on corporations was 4 0 % . The highest that Hitler levied was 44% . (4) As pointed out in this Report last week, President Kennedy's plan to reduce taxes while increasing spending in order to have a «planned deficit" was actually conceived by Euro pean economists and bankers ( the details worked out by AFL-CIO economists in the United States, and the plan finally presented to Congress by the President) . But the Pres ident and his advisers ignored the experience of West Germany - which has enjoyed the most phenomenal business and industrial growth in modern history. The West Germans attribute much of their spectacular growth to American foreign aid - but a great deal of it is attributable to their own governmental policies : of rejecting deficit financing ; of keep ing governmental expenditures to a minimum ; of reducing governmental controls over busi ness and industry ; of substantial tax reduc tions and concessions to industries in order to leave them enough of their earned profits for re-investment in expansion. (5) President Kennedy himself ( in his State of the Union Message on January 1 4 , 1 9 6 3 ) said that the corporate tax rate of 5 2 % , H gives the Government today a majority ,, interest in profits. (6) •

•

In his Special Message on Tax Reduction and Reform, on January 24, 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy referred to the 5 2 % corporate tax as giving the federal government (( . . . the role business profits." (7) .

•

as a senior partner in

his tax proposals, the President does recommend a reduction of about 2 . 6 billion dollars in corporate taxes ( reducing taxes on corporation profits from 5 2 % to the pre Korean level of 47 % ) . Note that the Presi dent says he wants tax-reduction for imme diate stimulation of business expansion. Yet, his proposed reduction on corporate taxes would not go into effect until 1 9 6 5 .(7) More over, the President recommends an immediate speed-up in the payment of corporation taxes - which would require a doubling up in corporate tax payments in such a way that it would be five years before corporations would have as much left for expansion, after federal income taxes, as they now have. (8)

The Reco u ping Reforms

T he reason

for the «speed-up" in corpo rate tax payments is to regain a portion of the income the government would lose by the proposed 1 3 . 6 billion dollars in total tax re ductions - in order to get net tax reduction down to the magic ten billion dollar figure. Another portion of income lost through tax reduction would be regained by the Presi dent's proposal to eliminate «credit and exclu sion" provisions with regard to income from dividends.

D ividend income

( income which individ uals get from their investment in stocks of business firms ) is subject to double taxation. A corporation pays the federal government a 5 2 % tax on profits. After that tax is paid, some of the remaining profits ( if any) are distributed to people who own the business - that is, to stockholders. Stockholders then pay a personal income tax on their share of the corporation profits. To give partial ( and minor ) relief from this double-taxation, the income tax laws now exclude from taxation the first $ 5 0 . 0 0 that a stockholder gets in dividend income. In addi tion to excluding from federal taxation the

Page 83

first $ 5 0 . 0 0 in dividend income, present law allows a credit against federal taxes of 4 % o f dividend income above $ 5 0 . 0 0 . The Presi dent's plan would eliminate these dividend exclusions and credits ; and this, of course, would further discourage private investment in business expansion - thus doing the oppo site of what the President claims he wants to accomplish with his tax proposals.

One

of the President's proposed tax reforms would be a major blow to the Ameri can oil industry, and would directly support a sinister operation of the Soviet Union. As is widely known, the Soviet Union has been using oil as a political-economic weapon throughout the world. Oil exploration and production are , of course, governmental oper ations in Russia. So, not controlled by the inexorable law of profit and loss that controls private operations, the Soviets have been dumping oil on the world market - selling it below cost, in order to capture American foreign oil markets and to make oil-importing nations dependent on Soviet supply. The effect of one Kennedy tax proposal would dovetail with this Soviet oil operation, by virtually eliminating many American oil companies from foreign operations.

A t present, American business firms oper

ating both in the United States and in foreign lands can take their foreign losses, if any, from their domestic profits, if any, thus reduc ing their tax payments to the United States government. This is one indirect means by which our tax laws encourage, if not subsi dize, American private investments in foreign countries. The effect is, no doubt, detrimental to the United States, at a time when we need growth of American industry in America not in foreign lands. President Kennedy does not, however, pro pose to change this situation with regard to any industry except oil. He proposes to limit the "tax-offset" which oil companies can take Page

when they have losses in their foreign opera tions. The President's discrimination against the oil industry is even more emphatic in another of his tax proposals which would com pletely eliminate "tax-offset" which American oil companies take on their foreign develop ment operations. This provision would not seriously affect one or two American major oil companies which already have developed foreign oil properties ; but it would practically prohibit new American oil firms from engag ing in foreign oil development activities. The alleged reason for this "tax reform" with regard to foreign operations of American oil firms is ( like the «speed-up" in corporate tax payments ) to regain a portion of tax revenue to be lost by tax reductions.

The major tax increase to offset loss from

tax reductions, however, is to be achieved by restricting individual deductions for local and state taxes, interest payments, and charitable contributions. Although presented as "tax reform," this proposal, according to Douglas Dillon (Kennedy's Secretary of the Treasury ) is not a «reform" at all, but a tax increase ( a «revenue raiser" ) , necessary if tax reductions in other areas are to be made. (9) As mentioned before, the President pro posed tax reductions totaling 1 3 . 6 billion dol lars , but proposed tax increases ( which he called "reforms" ) to recoup 3 . 3 billion dollars - in order to bring net tax reduction close to 1 0 billion dollars. The deduction limitation would raise 2 . 3 billion of the 3 . 3 billion to be "recouped. " This is the most sinister portion of the President's tax plan.

The

President's proposed tax-rate reduc tion would give some benefits to the great American middle class and to upper-income taxpayers ; but his deductions-limitation pro posal would eliminate most of the benefits. And it would do far more than that : it would strike a severe blow at America's middle-class economic and social system. 84

American homeowners are subjected to heavy taxation not imposed on citizens who own no real estate. It is real estate owners who generally pay most city and county taxes that finance schools, police, fire departments , street building and maintenance, and so on. Moreover, homeowners ( with the deepest roots and heaviest investments in their com munity) are the ones who, with their gifts, support churches, charities, and other local programs of public benefaction.

Under present law, individuals can deduct

from their income, for federal tax purposes, the state and local taxes they pay, the legiti mate contributions they make, and the interest they pay on their home mortgages and on other mortgages and loans. Kennedy's tax proposal would limit such itemized deductions to 5 % of adjusted gross income - and also place further limitations on the amount an individual can deduct for med ical expenses. The proposal would discourage home own ership and private support of churches and of charitable and educational institutions. It would thus create a demand for more federal public housing, more federal welfare programs, more federal aid to education. The penalties against persons who pay their own medical bills would, probably, increase public support for Kennedy's plans for socialized medicine.

There

are other Kennedy tax proposals which seem designed specifically to penalize private efforts to provide financial security for individuals, and, thus, to stimulate demand for governmental programs. One example : At present, employees pay no income tax on the value of, or benefits from, group term life insurance which is given to them by em ployers. Kennedy proposes to make them pay tax on such insurance, as if it were income. Space prohibits an item-by-item analysis of all objectionable proposals in the President's tax plan. I have mentioned only a few.

H eads He Wi ns, Tai ls We Lose

I n his Tax Reduction and Reform Message,

the President emphasized that "the entire tax revision program should be promptly enacted as a single comprehensive bill," that "Tax reduction and structural reform should be considered and enacted as a single integrated program. " As United States Representative Frank J. Becker said, the President sent his tax proposals to Congress, (( . . . with a flat warning that he must have an all-or-nothing package of tax cuts and ,, tax reforms. (4)

On February 6 , 1 9 6 3 , Douglas Dillon (Ken nedy's Secretary of the Treasury ) , testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee on Kennedy's tax proposals, said that unless the tax-cut tax-reform proposal was adopted in a package, he would recommend a Presi dential veto. (4) On February 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , the President told the American Bankers Association he would be satisfied with a tax cut alone. There have been many guesses about the President's change of mind. My guess is that he did not change his mind.

K ennedy's

record indicates that his edu cation at the feet of the British socialist leader, Harold Laski, went deep - convinced him of the virtue of socialism. Hence, Kennedy wants to finish the conversion of America into a total socialist state. To achieve this, he must eliminate ( or cripple ) the great American middle class, which is the backbone of our system of private capitalism. There are many ways �o do this : increase governmental business and industrial opera tions in competition with ' private citizens ; harass private business with controls and regu lations ; burden it with taxation ; support monopolistic unionism's stranglehold on pri vate business ; and so on. A more subtle way to eliminate the Ameri can middle class, and thus destroy our system of private capitalism, is to subvert our money

Page 8 5

economy. This can be done by deficit financing ( the government spending more than it takes in) , with consequent inflation and flight of our monetary reserve to foreign nations, until our money is worthless. At that point, the last remnant of America as a free-enterprise, cap italistic nation will be gone.

Kennedy's tax plan in 1 9 6 3 will take us in the direction Kennedy desires - with or without ,his proposed reforms. If Congress approves the reforms, it will weaken the great American middle class through tax har assment and discrimination. If Congress ap proves the reductions without the reforms, it will increase the deficit - which means fur ther speed toward elimination of the middle class by destruction of our money economy. By presenting his tax plan as he did ( giving Congress repeated warnings against tampering with it) , Kennedy leaves himself an alibi if disastrous consequences become too readily apparent : Congress is at fault for not doing exactly what he originally asked. If, on the other hand, Congress should give the President exactly what he asked, he would have what he wants : a double-edged attack on the Ameri can middle class - harassing them with tax discrimination, while, at the same time, inflat ing their currency toward the goal of worth lessness. The only way for Kennedy to lose is for Congress to reject his entire tax plan and to enact one of its own. A Proposa l

C ongress

should take steps to abolish the federal income tax system. That is the tax proposal I would make. Next week, I shall give details.

Beta ncou rt, Jimenez, Drew Pea rson, a nd the Mon itor

I n the February 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , issue of this Report - «Alliance For Progress - Part I "

- I gave a brief of information which shows that Romulo Betancourt, President of Vene zuela, is a communist, and that his present "anti-communist" posture is a hoax. On February 1 9 , 1 9 6 3 , Betancourt arrived in the United States for a visit. President Ken nedy heaped public praise on him as a great statesman, and the liberal press of America ( generally, the same publications which were idolizing Castro four years ago) hailed Betan court as a foe of communism, and a great good friend of the United States. Anyone interested in the truth about Betan court should examine the evidence which five United States Representatives have put in the Congressional Record. ( 1 0) These men give detailed, documented infor mation about Betancourt's communism, and about his corrupt and tyrannical regime. On the other hand, liberal adulation of Bet ancourt presents broad generalities. A great deal of it is patently dishonest.

F or example, Drew Pearson,

in his syndi cated column ( published in Detroit Free Press, and elsewhere, February 2 3 , 1 9 6 3 ) took up the cudgels for Betancourt - denouncing the few of us who criticized Betancourt as "John Birchites" and "Dan Smoot right-wingers. " Pearson said : (( [Betancourt] wants continued exports of Venezuelan oil to the United States. This may be one fact behind Dan Smoot's bitter attacks against Betancourt, for Smoot, who operates from Dallas, receives financial contributions from the Texas oil crowd."

D rew Pearson is a liar. The purpose of his

lie, in this instance, is to discredit what I said about Betancourt, by implying that I am a , hired propagandist for Texas oil men. I receive no financial contributions from Texas oil men. The only people who support me are my customers - individuals who buy my publication, and business firms which commercially sponsor my broadcasts for advertising purposes. I have no oil company sponsors - although I wish I did have some.

Page 86

Inasmuch as The Dan Smoot Report has sub� scribers in all 5 0 states and in a dozen or more foreign countries , it is likely that a few oil men do subscribe - in the same way that they subscrib e to the papers which carry Drew Pearson's column. If so, I wish they would help me get subscriptions from other oil men, because I welcome all I can get.

I n my Report of February 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , I also commented on Marcos Perez Jimenez, who led a military uprising against Betan court's first regime in Venezuela, in 1 94 8 , and who ruled Venezuela until Betancourt 's return to power in 1 9 5 8 . I said : ((Jimenez (who had given Venezuela the best government and had brought the n ation to the highest level of prosperity in its history ) was exiled. He sought asylum in the United States. Betancourt wants him returned to Venezuela so that he can be executed. He has filed outrageous charges against Jimenez, who is now in a Miami jail awaiting extradition. The American State Department and the powerful leftwing propaganda forces in the United States ( including, for example, such (respected' organs as The Christian Science Monitor) have for months been conducting a massive hate-campaign against Jimenez , pre paring public opinion for denying him asylum so that he can be turned over to, Betancourt for liquidation. ((In 1 9 6 1 , the law firm of Dean Acheson ( who is a Special Adviser to President Ken nedy) received $ 1 8 0, 0 0 0 from Betancourt's government as a fee for representing Vene zuela in the extradition proceedings against Jimenez. ((Meanwhile, Betancourt's regime in Vene zuela has become a cesspool of corruption and tyranny. Despite Venezuela's enormous nat ural riches ( and despite the hundreds of mil lions of dollars which Betancourt has obtained from the United States ) , grinding poverty, economic chaos, and wild disorder reign In Venezuela. ((The reported (communist' s abotage in Venezuela, and Betancourt's alleged (crack down' on communists , are merely part of a

hoax-to justify Betancourt's seizure of abso

lute power, and to help the Kennedy Admin istration justify more aid."

Page

As a result of my mention of The Christian Science Monitor, I received a letter from Mr. Erwin D. Canham, Editor of the Monitor, saymg : ((The n ame of Perez Jimenez has only appeared in our columns once between May 2 , 1 9 6 0 and the date o f your report, and then it was in the account of a press conference held in Venezuela. The May 2 , 1 9 6 0 mention was in a piece of Associated Press copy from Venezuela in which one reference to Mr. Jimenez was incidental, and the other favor able to him. ((We would appreciate a correction in the (Dan Smoot Report.' "

My specific mention of the Monitor ( in my Report of February 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 ) was prompted by a letter, dated January 24, 1 9 6 3 , on the letterhead of The Christian Science Monitor, written by Erwin D. Canham, in his capacity as editor. In this letter Mr. Canham said : ((Let me add a word further about your observation that Betancourt is a (communist sympathizer.' I had the opportunity yesterday in New York to talk with a top ranking businessman who is thoroughly informed about Central American affairs. He recounted to me in detail the ways in which the com munists attack Betancourt and are trying to destroy him. Indeed, in this business leader's view there are (few more fierce opponents of communism in Latin America than President Betancourt. ' HI happen to know on additional unim peachable authority that the communists are doing their utmost to destroy Betancourt. He is certainly not one of our (communist enemies.' ((I t seems to me we make a tragic mistake when we equate communism with the many more liberal leaders in Latin America who have virtually the only chance of stemming communist tides or in defending corrupt lead ers guilty of such crimes as Perez Jimenez."

N ote

that Mr. Canham's evidence con cerning Betancourt's being an opponent of communism is unspecified, and it comes from an unnamed New York businessman. His evidence that communists dislike Betancourt 87

•

is also unspecified and also comes from this unnamed source and from one other unnamed «unimpeachable authority." Mr. Canham's conclusion that Betancourt is certainly not one of our communist enemies apparently is based on this unspecified infor mation from two unnamed sources.

P erez Jimenez is still in a Miami jail

( and is being denied a writ of habeas corpus, in violation of the Constitution of the United States ) . He has never been brought to trial for the crimes which communist Betancourt alleges against him. Note, however, that Mr. Canham of The Christian Science Monitor asserts ( without even mentioning evidence) that Jimenez is "guilty of such crimes." In this connection, it is interesting to note that, in 1 9 5 4, President Eisenhower welcomed Perez Jimenez to this country as a visitor of state. On November 1 2 , 1 9 5 4, President Eisenhower decorated Jimenez with the Order of Merit, acclaiming Jimenez as a ruler who

had shown «an outstanding spint of mutual aid and friendship for the United States." FOOTNOTES

( I ) "Preliminary Report on Individual Income Tax Returns for 1 9 5 6," press release of the Internal Revenue Service, August 2 8 , 1 9 5 8 ( 2 ) Estimates based o n "Text o f President Kennedy's Jan. 1 8 Budget Message," Congressiollal Quarterly Weekly Report, January 1 9 , 1 9 6 2 , p. 7 4 ( 3 ) Estimates based on article i n U.S. News &- World Report, January 29, 1 9 6 2 , p. 3 6 (4) Congressional Record, March 4 , 1 9 6 3 , remarks of U.S. Representative Frank J. Becker (Republican, New York) , pp. 3 2 1 3 ff. ( 5 ) EEC, The European Common Market Newsletter, December 1 2 , 1 9 6 2 , p. 2 4 6 ; and Congressional Record, March 4 , 1 9 6 3 , remarks of U.S. Representative Thomas B. Curtis ( Republican, Missouri) , pp. A I 1 3 0 ff. ( 6 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 1 8 , 1 96 3 , p. 5 9 ( 7 ) Cottgressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 2 5 , 1 96 3 , p . 9 2 ( 8 ) COttgressional Record, January 2 8 , 1 96 3 , remarks o f U . S . Repre sentative J. Arthur Younger (Republican, California) , p. A3 1 1 ( 9 ) "Administration Tax Proposal Hearings Open," Congressional Quar terly Weekly Report, February 1 5 , 1 9 6 3 , p. 1 9 7 ( 1 0 ) Remarks of former United States Representative John Rousselot ( Republican, California) in the Cottgressional Record of September 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 (pp. 1 9 674 If.) , February 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 (pp. 2703 If. ) , and July 1 1 , 1 962 (pp. 1 2 2 8 8 If.) ; the remarks of United States Repre sentative William C. Cramer ( Republican, Florida) in the Cottgres siollal Record of October 1 3 , 1 9 6 2 (pp. A7702 If. ) , and February 7, 1 96 3 (pp. 1870 If.) ; the remarks of United States Representative Henry C. Schadeberg (Republican, Wisconsin) in the Congressiottal Record of February 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 (pp. 2 3 3 5 If.) ; the remarks of United States Representative John M. Ashbrook (Republican, Ohio) in the COtt gressiottal Record of February 2 1 , 1 9 63 (pp. 2 5 4 8 If.) ; and the remarks of United States Representative R. Walter Riehlman ( Repub lican, New York) in the COttgressiOttal Record of February 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 (pp. 2 8 1 0 ff.)

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL S UBJECTS D ISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS N OW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO

I S D AN SMOOT ?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed i n the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum mOvement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 88

THE

I)flil SmootReport.Dlmtt Vol. 9, No. 1 2

( Broadcast 397 )

March 2 5 , 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

R E P E A L T H E TA X A N D S T O P T H E P L U N D E R A current, growing rebellion against the federal income tax system reflects something deeper than mere resentment against paying taxes. A deepening mood of despair, which could become rage, is settling upon Americans who know and care - and who watch helplessly while Washington officialdom plundl'l'S the people to finance programs that are destroying the great Republic.

P resident Kennedy's tax and budget proposals for fiscal year 1 9 64 evoked sharp criticism in Congress, even among liberal Democrats who admire the President. ( 1 ) Conservatives bluntly called the proposals a plan for disaster. O n March

4, 1 9 6 3 , United States Representative Frank J. Becker ( Republican, New York ) made a speech in the House, condemning the President's budget and tax proposals as "unprincipled" and "immoral. " He was challenged by United States Representative Byron G. Rogers ( Democrat, Colorado) to specify what to cut out of the President's budget. Mr. Becker said : HOh , I would cut out a lot of foreign aid. I would cut out a lot of agriculture. I would cut out this $ 5 billion for federal aid to education. I would cut out a lot of things the people do not want and which they could get along better without."

Rogers asked whether Becker would eliminate subsidies to airlines. Becker dodged the question ; and the debate sank into a meaningless exchange about Eisenhower spending versus Kennedy spending.

U nited

States Representative James

Haley ( De�ocrat, Florida) suggested :

��You can cut the budget which has been submitted to this Congress by 2 0 percent , and you will not interrupt any essential function of government , if we will get the govern ment out of the people's hair and let them get back to doing the things that made this country a great nation . . . and we will not have the Congress messing into these things about which it does not know anything. The people will take care of them. ,, (2 )

Thus encouraged, Representative Becker said : ��If we would . . . get out of local affairs such as urban affairs and this mass trans portation business , and let the localities do it, we would cut our Federal spending by THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10 . 00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00 ; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 89

$ 1 0 billion . . . . There are billions - $ 1 0 , $ 1 5 , $ 2 0 billion by which this budget can be cut.' , ( 3)

United States Representative Roman C. Pucinski ( D e m o c r a t , I l l inois ) challenged Becker to specify where he would cut 2 0 bil lion dollars from the budget. (3) Again, the debate sank to a partisan discus sion on the respective merits of Republicans and Democrats.

ment of Agriculture safari of two and a half years into the Kingdom of Nepal, in search of ornamental plants ; of the Peace Corps spend ing one million dollars to finance some Peace Corps men making an evaluation of other Peace Corps men. Representative Snyder told Congress that negro men in Kenya, Africa, are using Ameri can foreign aid money to buy more wives for themselves. (4)

U nited States Representative M. G. Snyder ( Republican, Kentucky) elevated the con troversy by listing typical expenditures which have appeared in federal budgets and which, he suggested, the people could do without. Mr. Snyder mentioned projects conducted by the National Institutes of Health, with tax money appropriated by Congress, such as :

E verything Mr. Snyder listed, however, would not total 1 billion dollars. The President recommended expenditures, for the 1 9 64 fiscal year, totaling 9 8 billion, 8 0 0 million, estimat ing revenues at 8 6 billion, 9 0 0 million, leaving an estimated deficit of 1 1 billion, 9 0 0 million. Where could we make significant reductions in that budget without harming the country ?

((Studies of Silent Thinking," which cost $25,565; ((Behavior and physiological concomitants of dreaming," $ 2 0 , 7 0 0 ; ((The social role of aging wild ungulate," $ 8, 2 0 5 ; ((The on togeny of English phrase struc ture," $ 2 , 1 0 0 ; ((A stereotactic atlas of the beagle brain ," $ 9, 7 7 5 ; ((Emergent leadership among the New Guinea Tolai," $ 1 , 2 5 1 ; n A s u i c i d a l r e f e r r a l d e m o n s t r a tion , " $ 1 0 0 ,2 1 5 ; ((Longitudinal growth studies on anomalies of the head," $ 2 3 ,7 1 2 ; ((Appointment b r e a k i n g i n a p e d i a t r i c clinic," $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 ; ((Initiation and support of a colony of ba boons," $ 6 1 , 9 8 5 .

M r. Snyder listed enough such projects to

total 6 5 6 thousand, 4 2 9 dollars. He also mentioned a grant of 1 million, 2 5 0 thousand dollars of tax money for a six year study of the affectional relationship of an infant monkey and its mother. He told about a National Science Foundation grant of 7 8 thousand dollars for a study o f turtles ; o f a National Aeronautics and Space Administra tion contract for 8 0 thousand, 7 0 0 dollars to finance research on dolphin talk ; of a DepartPage

National Defense

F or the

1 9 64 fiscal year, the President rec ommended expenditures for National Defense totaling 5 5 billion, 4 3 3 million dollars. How can this «irreducible" item be reduced ? No one knows what is in the federal budget, because no one ever really reads it. The budget is compiled by thousands of employees, repre senting hundreds of agencies. Each agency requests the maximum it would like to spend, and generally adds an across-the-board per centage increase to that - anticipating across the-board reduction by Congress. This practice enables Representatives and Senators to vote for «drastic reductions" in the budget ( thus making for themselves a record as careful guardians of public money) . The wide publicity about how Congress «slashed" the budget gives the public a com fortable feeling that Congress is still in con trol, guaranteeing frugal use of tax revenues. And the bureaucrats get all they expected anyway.

I t sounds like a wicked system ;

but, actu ally, no other system is possible, in the handling of a budget that hovers around 1 0 0 billion dol90

lars a year and provides for everything imagin able in every corner of the earth-from study ing monkeys in Africa to shooting at the moon from Florida. The total budget looks like the telephone directory of a major American city. It is over a thousand large-pages long ( in fine print ) and weighs upward of five pounds. No one does ( or could ) read and comprehend the whole thing. Bureaucrats who compile the budget are familiar with their particular section. They spend a whole year on charts, figures, and statements, designed to convince congressional committees that all mankind would suffer from any reduction in their requests. The most that any member of Congress can do, in approving appropriations to implement the budget, is to select some particular pro gram of special interest to him. For the rest, he must guess, take budget requests at face value, or trade with other members of Con gress who have other special interests : you vote with me on foreign aid, and I'll vote with you on the farm program; and so on.

T his explanation of the obvious about the

budget system is by way of saying that no one person ( not even in the Defense Department and the Budget Bureau ) knows what is buried in the President's request of 5 5 billion, 43 3 million dollars for National Defense. All we know for sure is that any member of Congress who votes to reduce the President's request for National Defense can be branded by ad ministration propaganda as a demagogue who endangers the security of his nation. In searching for ways to reduce defense expenditures, therefore, we cannot examine every item in the budget ; but we can use the inexorable logic of facts.

March, 1 9 5 0, General Omar Bradley ( then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said to a Senate committee : ((Yes, thirteen billion dollars a year is suf ficient to provide for the security of the United States. If I recommended as much as

thirty billion a year for the Armed Forces, I ought to be dismissed as Chief of Staff." ( 5 )

If 1 3 billion dollars for national defense was enough in 1 9 5 0, why is 5 5 billion, 4 3 3 mil lion necessary now ? Has our enemy ( interna tional communism ) gained so much strength that it now costs more than four times as much to defend the country as it cost 1 3 years ago ? During those 1 3 years, we have given away in foreign aid approximately 1 0 5 billion dollars. (6) The argument for foreign aid undergoes periodic alterations. (7) Yet, the unrelenting refrain in all arguments for American foreign aid is that it is vital to the defense of the United States, because ( in one way or another ) it weakens international communism. Since 1 9 5 0, we have "strengthened" our "national defense" and "weakened" commu nism by giving away 1 0 5 billion dollars in for eign aid ; yet, the President now claims that defense costs more than four times as much as before that 1 0 5 billion was given away. Our foreign aid programs have done great damage to our national defense - and should be stopped abruptly.

T he President's 5 5 billion, 4 3 3 million dol

lar defense budget is not really for national defense ; it is for defense of the entire world outside the communist empire ( the so-called "free world" ) . Our government has no con stitutional authority to defend the world. Moreover, the quadrupling of our defense bud get in 1 3 years indicates a fundamental fallacy. In spending for "free world" defenses we actually weaken those defenses, because we thus encourage other nations to neglect their own defense and depend on us - and we, of course, cannot finance adequate defense for the whole «free world. "

The only military threat which the United States need fear is aggressive action with super weapons from some communist nation. We have not adequately prepared ourselves against this danger.

Page 9 1

We cannot defend the world for 1 3 billion dollars a year ; but, despite inflation of our money since 1 9 5 0, we could defend our home land for that much - which Omar Bradley specified in 1 9 5 0 as adequate for defense ( which, even then, included defense of most of the world ) .

should, therefore, reduce the Presi dent's National Defense budget to no more than 1 3 billion - a reduction of 42 billion, 4 3 3 million. If the President should then fail to spend our tax money on real defense of the American nation, he should be impeached and removed from office.

Vetera ns

A nother budget item considered "irreduci ble" is the 5 billion, 4 8 4 million dollars which the President requested for "Veterans Bene fits and Services. " Our government has an obligation to de pendent families of persons killed in the service of the country, and to those whose injuries in capacitated them for productive lives. But does the government have an obligation to every dependent of every man who ever got into the armed forces or who served overseas in time of war ? Everyone's life is interrupted and dis turbed in time of war. Must we, therefore, put the whole nation on free medical care and pensions? We are headed toward a disastrous condi tion prevalent in ancient Rome during the lat ter days of its decline : when soldiers and vet erans became such powerful groups that they could empty the public treasury with their demands for bonuses and benefits. Today, there are so many "non-service" connected disability veterans making demands on veterans hospitals that many war-service veterans who deserve hospitalization say they cannot get it. We have given veterans benefits to thousands of boys in college who were never in battle - or even in the armed forces during time of war. We have provided dependents' medical care for Page

thousands of families of ex-soldiers whose ser vice does not justify such benefits.

We could decrease the President's request

for Veterans Benefits by at least 3 billion dol lars, while increasing benefits for the genuinely deserving - if we would stop benefits to mil lions of people now receiving what they should not get.

Science a n d Research

Another

"irreducible" item in the Presi dent's budget is 4 billion, 2 0 0 million dollars for "Space Research and Technology. " Con gress and the public do not know what is involved here, and cannot find out. Government expenditures for " research" and "science" are scattered throughout the budget. Wherever found, they represent great danger to the freedom and welfare of our natIOn.

1 94 6 , the Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research were estab lished. In 1 9 5 0, the National Science Founda tion was created, as the first "general purpose" federal science agency. In 1 9 5 2 , the Army set up a Chief of Research and Development. The Air Force has a Deputy Chief of Staff for Development. President Eisenhower created the office of Special Assistant for Science. He also formed a Science Advisory Committee. In 1 9 5 9 , a Federal Council on Science and Tech nology was organized. By June 3 0, 1 9 6 1 , the federal government was financing, and controlling, 6 0 per cent of all basic scientific research and development in the United States. (8)

C ommenting

o n t h i s s i t u a ti o n , B as i l O'Connor, President o f The National Founda tion ( a privately endowed organization) , in a speech to an international symposium of medical scientists at La Jolla, California, on January 1 6, 1 96 3 , said : ttGovernment-supported science has become a fiscal giant that surpasses even our agricul-

tural price supports. This has been accom panied by a relative decline in the contri butions from other, private sources. . . . ((Scientists find themselves harassed and frustrated by developments which actually inhibit scientific progress. This has led many scientists to see real dangers in the fact that they can no longer rely for support on a vari ety of private institutions , and must turn more and more to the dominant federal agen cies. For science has traditionally maintained its independence by relying on diverse sources of support. But current trends clearly point to heavier and heavier dependence on one source : the Federal Government . . . . ((The Federal Government's role in medical research and training has grown prodigiously in recent years . . . . In 1 947, the Federal Gov ernment paid for about one-third of the nation's medical research. Today, it pays for one-half ; tomorrow, it will pay for two thirds, if current trends continue. ((The National Institutes of Health are among the few federal agencies which regu larly receive more than the Administration has asked for on their behalf from Congress. ((Since 1 9 5 3 , Congressional appropriations for NIH have averaged about 2 5 percent above Administration requests, and 3 3 percent above the previous year's figure. For fiscal 1 9 6 2 , for example, President Kennedy asked for 5 8 3 million dollars for NIH, which was 3 4 million dollars more than the previous year's appropriation. The House upped this to 641 million dollars, the Senate topped that with 8 3 5 million dollars, and the compromise finally adopted was 7 3 8 million dollars . . . . ((The result of this (force-feeding' . . . is that the National Institutes of Health receive more money for medical research than can be used soundly. I do not believe that the colleges and universities can profitably spend the amounts being awarded to them by NIH in the life sciences . . . . ((Indeed . . . the National Institutes of Health have more than once had to (beat the bushes' to find researchers willing to accept huge amounts, so that the money would not revert to general funds at the end of the fiscal year. . . . ((In . . . American science in generaL . . . the plethora of funds actually constitutes a positive threat to excellence . . . . In the past

. . . both thought and money were hard to come by. Now money is plentiful, but thought

is still scarce. The result is a tendency to

spend rather than think . . . .

((As a result of massive research grants, the universities are becoming financially de pendent on the Federal Government . . . . I think you would be hard put to find a first rate graduate department of physics or chem istry in our entire system of higher education which could maintain its present standing, personnel , facilities, and even student body, without federal income and federal stipends. ((What university could maintain its free dom of action if the Federal Government threatened to withdraw support of such mag nitude? Can the representatives of such an institution be expected to take a detached view of the advisability of federal support , of research ? , ( 9)

T hus,

as Mr. O'Connor indicates in that last sentence, too much federal money encour ages a bad situation to perpetuate itself. Mr. O'Connor's anxiety about federal dom ination of scientific research is summed up in these words :

((The danger here is more serious than a waste of money . . . . I can see the gradual extension of political control over research. There are signs of this already . . . . ((I dread the prospect of reaching a point when the vast majority of scientists will be indebted to the Federal Government for their education and for their opportunities for research, when our universities will be so dependent on government subvention that they will have lost their autonomy, and when the forced-feeding of excessive research funds will have seriously weakened the scientific professions by encouraging waste . . . and a misguided emphasis on quantity instead of quality."

Nonetheless, Mr. O'Connor says :

((The problems I have described cannot be solved by a rollback of federal support of sci entific research - that is out of the question ."

T hat is the question. Whereas Mr. O'Con nor recommends nothing more than improved handling of federal subsidies to science and research, I recommend cutting them out : they pose a grim threat to our free society. A 1 3 billion dollar national defense budget would provide all funds needed for national defense research.

Page 93

Tota l Expenditure Red uctions

Total expenditures in the President's bud

get are lumped together as 1 3 separate items, such as "National Defense," "Natural Resour. ces, " "C ommerce and T ransportatlOn, " "General Government," and so on. The names given these items, and the breakdowns shown, do not disclose many unconstitutional subsidy programs that are, doubtless, included. A review of this sketchy budget presenta tion discloses, however, the following amounts which could be deducted from the President's recommended expenditures ( it being probable that many other deductions could be made ) : $42,4 3 3 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 National Defense Veterans Benefits 3 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Space Research and Technology 4,2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Military Assistance foreign aid 1 ,4 5 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Economic Assistance foreign aid 2 , 1 1 7,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Foreign information and exchange 2 3 7,0 0 0 , 0 0 0. 0 0 Farm subsidies , and related programs 5 , 2 8 1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Land & Water resources 1 ,7 5 0,000,000.00 Mineral resources 1 0 7,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 8 8 5 ,0 0 0, 0 0 0 . 0 0 Aviation subsidy Water Transportation subsidy 677,000,000.00 6 1 7 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0 Advancement of business 5 2 1 ,000,000.00 Area redevelopment 94,0 0 0 , 0 0 0. 0 0 Regulation of Business Housing & Community 2 7 6, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0. 0 0 Development 5 , 5 9 7,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Health , Labor & Welfare 1 , 5 3 7, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 Education $ 7 0 , 7 79 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0. 0 0 TOTAL

C utting 7 0 billion, 779 million dollars from the President's proposed Administrative Budget of 9 8 billion, 8 0 0 million would leave a budget of 2 8 billion, 0 2 1 million dollars which could be further reduced if all remain ing unconstitutional, and harmful, spending were cut out. It would, moreover, be auto matically reduced by elimination of all pro grams I have suggested eliminating, because much of the overhead involved in running

those programs is buried in the "General Gov ernment" item of the budget, and elsewhere. But, in order to deal with round figures, let us assume a peacetime budget, for fiscal 1 9 64, of 3 0 billion dollars ( which is more than three times as large as the largest peacetime budget of Franklin D. Roosevelt) yO) A thirty billion dollar budget for next year would be more than adequate to finance all constitutional functions of the Federal Government - and could provide better government and better national defense than Kennedy's 9 8 . 8 billion dollar budget would provide.

Tax Red uctions President Kennedy originally estimated bud geted receipts of the federal government for the present fiscal year ( ending June 3 0, 1 9 6 3 ) at, roughly, 9 3 billion dollars, to come from the following sources.

personal income taxes 49 billion, 3 0 0 million dollars ; corpora tion income taxes 2 6 billion , 6 0 0 million ; federal sales taxes 1 0 billion ; federal gift and death taxes 2 billion, 3 0 0 million ; customs payments on foreign goods 1 billion, 3 0 0 million ; miscellaneous revenues 4 billion, 2 0 0 million. ( 1 1 ) -

If, in the 1 9 64 fiscal year, we had 93 billion dollars of revenue, and a thirty billion dollar budget, we would have a 6 3 billion dollar surplus. So, we should reduce taxes, from present rates, by 6 0 billion dollars - leaving a surplus of 3 billion dollars in fiscal 1 9 64 to be applied on the national debt. The President and his AFL-CIO economists say that a tax reduction of 1 0 billion dollars would increase national production by at least 2 0 billion dollarsY2 ) A tax reduction of 6 0 billion should, then, increase national produc tion by at least 1 2 0 billion dollars. How about that, for stimulating our economy?

Where

should

reduction be made ?

Page 94

the 6 0

billion

dollar tax

We should abolish all federal income tax on corporations because this is a hidden tax on the total population - the most vicious kind of taxation. A portion of the cost of cor poration taxes must be passed on to customers in the sales price of products. Hence, corpora tion taxes place the heaviest burden on low income people - who do most of the consumer buying and can least afford the tax-padded pnces. Until, and unless, we adopt an equitable fed eral sales tax, we should abolish all budgeted federal sales taxes ( that is, "excise" taxes on telephone bills, airplane tickets, automobiles, and so on ) . Present federal sales taxes are dis criminatory - levied on some commodities and services, not on others. (13) We should abolish federal gift and death taxes, and reduce federal tax on personal incomes by 2 1 billion, 1 0 0 million dollars ( a reduction of more than 4 0 % from present rates ) . Finally, Congress should repeal the with holding law, which ( in violation of the Con-

stitution) compels employers to work for nothing, collecting and remitting income taxes imposed on employees. The withholding law shifts resentment of taxes away from gov ernment and on to employers, and it conceals from the people the burden of taxation. (13)

Abo l ish The Whole System

A 4 0 % reduction in personal income tax rates, combined with abolition of federal sales taxes and of all federal income tax on corpora tions, would stimulate the American economy to fabulous production. By the end of 1 9 64, individuals ( even with a 40% reduction in tax rates ) would probably be paying more federal income taxes than now, because of increased incomes. Then, without a withholding system to conceal their tax burden, the people would demand outright repeal of the Sixteenth ( Income Tax) Amendment. Imagine how our economy would soar if, instead of reducing personal income taxes 40 % , we eliminated them altogether. Remem-

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL S UBJECTS D ISCUS SED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station Dallas 1 4, Texas Please enter my subscription for ( SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

_ _ _

Renewal

years )

(

New Subscription

______

months ) to THE

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) Rates : $ 1 8 for 2 years $ 1 0 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $ 1 2. 50, first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

PRINT NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 9 5

DAN

ber that we had better national defense during the 1 24 years before we had a federal income tax system than we have ever had since. Cus toms duties and a small federal excise tax equit ably distributed ( on all commodities and ser vices alike ) would produce all revenue needed to run the government, and pay off the national debt. ( 13) The income tax system is too rotten, too corrupt, too inequitable ever to be reformed. It must be abolished.

T he

present Congress will not adopt the kind of tax and budget program I recommend ; but if the public could persuade Congress to do nothing more than repeal the withholding law, an irresistible demand for repeal of the Income Tax Amendment would soon follow. The people would not carry the crushing bur den, if they realized what they are paying and understood how their tax money is being used for purposes harmful to their country. In 1 9 6 2 , United States Representative Bruce Alger ( Republican, Texas ) introduced a Bill to repeal the withholding law. ( 1 3) The Bill died with the 8 7th Congress, because it did not receive enough public support. Mr. Alger re introduced the Bill, as HR 7 3 9 , in the present session. It deserves massive public support. We will never effect repeal of the Income Tax Amendmen t until we have first aroused and

educated the total population, by repealing the withholding law.

What Can I Do?

You can do your best to spread the word,

until there are enough concerned Americans to elect the kind of Congress we need. Specifi cally, you can help create public and congres sional support for Bruce Alger's Bill ( HR 7 3 9 ) to repeal the withholding law. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Kh rushchev is \'V'aiting," remarks of U. S. Representative Clarence Cannon ( Democrat, Missouri ) , published in this Reporl, March 4, 1 96 3 , pp. 70 ft. ( 2 ) Congressional Record, March 4, 1 96 3 , p. 3 2 1 9 ( 3 ) COllgressiollal Record, March 4 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 3 2 20, 3 2 2 1 ( 4 ) Remarks o f U . S . Representative M . G. Snyder (Republican, Ken tucky) , COllg ressiollal Record, March 4, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 3 2 3 7 ft. ( 5 ) Tbe People's Pollage, by Garet Garrett, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, 1 9 5 3 , p. 1 4 3 ( 6 ) Estimated from information in Extension o f Remarks b y U. S. Representative Alvin E. O'Konski ( Republican, Wisconsin) , COllgres siol1al R eco rd, August 6, 1 9 62, pp. A 5 99 8 ff. ; and, Historical Statistics of the United Stales, Colouial Times to 1 9 5 7, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1 9 5 7 , pp. 7 1 9, 72 5 ( 7 ) "Post \'V'ar Years," this Report, March 4, 1 96 3 , p. 6 6 ( 8 ) Review o f Dala 0" Research alld Development, National Science Foundation, August, 1 9 6 0 ; and IIIl 'eslillg III Scil'lllific Progress, 1 9 6 1 1 9 7 0 , National Science Foundation, 1 96 / ( 9 ) Scimce alld Goverll 1llent ; the Perilous Partnership, b y Basil O'Connor, January, 1 9 6 3 , dist ributed by The at ional Foundation, 800 Second Avenue, New Yo k 1 7, New York ( 1 0 ) Hislorical Sialislics of Ibe V ll il d Siales, Colollial Tillles 10 1 9 5 7 , U . S . Department o f Commerce, Bureau o f the Census, 1 9 5 7, p . 7 1 1 ( I I ) COllgressional Q1Iarterly W'eekly Report, January 1 9, 1 9 62, pp. 7 4 ff. ( 1 2 ) "Labor Union Logic," this Report, March 1 8 , 1 96 3 , pp. 81 ff. ( 1 3 ) "Withholding Tax," a four- p art series in this Report, April 3 0 , 1 962, to May 2 1 , 1 9 6 2 ; also " K hrushchev is Waiting," remarks of U. S. Representative Clarence Cannon (Democrat, Missouri) , published in this Report, March 4, 1 9 6 3 , p. 72

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. 111 1 942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 96

THE

I)flil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 1 3

( Broadcast 398 )

April 1, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

U N I T E D N AT I O N S UNSF

1 9 5 3 , the United Nations General Assembly voted to create a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development ( SUNFED ) ; but the proposal lagged, without much action or publicity , until 1 9 5 6 and 1 9 5 7 , when the American public learned that SUNFED supporters were urging a program that would cost 5 billion dollars a year, with the United States paying 7 0 ro of the total. Hans W. Singer, a Briton, who made the prospectus for SUNFED said : ccIt will be a heavy burden on American taxpayers, but you will just have to manage ,, that. You'll get accustomed to paying the taxes. ( l )

Public and congressional reaction in the United States forced the State Department to oppose the SUNFED scheme. Paul G. Hoffman was a member of the U.S. delegation which, as Mr. Hoffman says, ÂŤhad the burden of discouraging the creation of SUNFED. , , (2 ) But Mr. Hoffman ( a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who, in the past, was instrumental in creating some of the most effective affiliates of the Council, such as the Committee for Economic Development ) took the initiative ( on behalf of the United States government) in proposing a substitute for SUNFED. The substitute was called United Nations Special Fund ( UNSF ) .

Whereas SUNFED would have made loans, UNSF makes outright gifts. Mr. Hoffman

says :

CCSUNFED . . . [would have been] a capital lending organization. The Special Fund . . . is an entirely different kind of organization. Instead of making loans, it makes grants to low-income countries to undertake projects aimed at making development investment ,, in those countries either feasible or more effective. ( 2 ) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2 . 5 0 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 Â˘ ; 6 for $ 1.00 ; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 97

The General Assembly o f the United Nations approved Paul Hoffman's idea. UNSF - United Nations Special Fund - was cre ated, and began operations on January 1 , 1 9 5 9 . Paul G. Hoffman is Managing Director. The governing body of UN SF is called "Governing Council of the Special Fund . " It is composed of representatives from 1 8 nations - 9 from "economically less developed" nations ; 9 from "more industrial nations. , , ( 3)

The

Special Fund is financed by "volun tary" contributions from member nations of the United Nations. The United States annu ally contributes 40 % of the grand total. Gov ernments in the receiving countries must raise a portion of the total cost of the projects. During the first four years of operations (January, 1 9 5 9 to January, 1 9 6 3 ) , the Special Fund approved 2 8 6 projects in 74 countries and territories. The total estimated cost of all 2 8 6 projects was 5 8 8 million, 784 thousand, 7 1 6 dollars ( $ 5 8 8 ,7 8 4,7 1 6. 0 0 ) . Of that total amount, the nations receiving the aid had pledged to spend 3 3 8 million, 1 5 8 thousand, 9 1 6 dollars ( $ 3 3 8 , 1 5 8 ,9 1 6. 0 0 ) to help them selves. The UN Special Fund had pledged the remainder, 2 5 0 million, 6 2 5 thousand, 8 0 0 dollars ( $ 2 5 0 , 6 2 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 ) o f which , the United States pledged 1 0 0 million, 4 0 0 thou sand dollars ( $ 1 0 0,4 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) . Practically all nations which have pledged contributions to the UN Special Fund, and practically all receiving nations which have pledged to match the UN Fund grants, have received more than enough direct aid from the United States to meet their pledges. Thus, if we consider our direct contri butions to the Special Fund, and our aid to practically all other nations giving to, and receiving from, the Fund, we find that we are financing the Special Fund almost 1 0 0 ro .

D uring the four-year period when the United States made, to the United Nations Special Fund, direct contributions totaling 1 0 0 million, 4 0 0 thousand dollars, all commuPage

nist countries ( including, of course, the Soviet Union) pledged a total of 8 million, 2 2 8 thou sand, 2 2 5 dollars ( $ 8 ,2 2 8 ,2 2 5 . 0 0 ) . During that four-year period, communist nations received from the United Nations Special Fund contributions totaling $ 1 0, 8 4 6, 5 0 0 . 0 0 ( 1 0 million, 8 4 6 thousand, 5 00 dollars ) . (4 ) In Yugoslavia, one project being financed by the UN Special Fund is for a nuclear research and training center ( supposedly restricted to research concerning agricultural matters) . (5) Among the 74 nations receiving aid from the UN Special Fund there are, in addition to communist countries, many which cannot yet be characterized as communist nations but which are in the grip of communists, or pro communists , or socialists who detest the American constitutional system. For example, Burma has received $4, 1 9 3 , 0 0 0. 0 0 ; Brazil, $4,9 6 5 , 2 0 0. 0 0 ; India, $ 1 7, 3 9 1 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ; Indo nesia, $ 1 , 5 4 8 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 ; Laos, $ 5 8 3 ,9 0 0 . 0 0 ; Venezuela, $4,7 8 0 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 . Israel, which is providing training for th� armed forces of the communist dictator of Ghana, has received $ 2 , 64 3 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 from the UN Special Fund. (6 )

I n short, the United Nations Special Fund is another means by which American taxpay ers are being forced to subsidize socialist and communist dictators all over the world. The situation was not brought to public attention in the United States, however, until the early part of 1 9 6 3 , when the press reported that the Special Fund had approved an aid gral!t to Cuba. I n May,

1 9 6 1 , Paul Hoffman and the Gov erning Council of the United Nations Special Fund approved a grant to finance expansion of the Central Agricultural Experimental Station in Santiago de las Vegas, Cuba. The total cost of the project was estimated at 3 million dol lars - 1 million, 1 5 7 thousand, 6 0 0 dollars to be given by the Special Fund, the remainder 98

to be raised by Castro's government. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organ ization ( FAO) was chosen as the "administermg " agency. I reported on this UN grant to Castro in the May 1 5 , 1 9 6 1 , issue of this Report and in my book The Invisible Government, which was published in June, 1 9 6 2 although, in both, I inaccurately called the UN Special Fund S UNFED. It was late in 1 9 6 2 ( after our "blockade" of Cuba ) before Castro would let representa tives of the UN "administering" agency ( FAO ) enter Cuba to sign agreements that were necessary before the aid could be given. In January, 1 9 6 3 , United States representa tives in the United Nations formally objected to the Special Fund grant to Cuba, pointing out that 40 510 of it would come from United States taxpayers. (7) On February 1 3 , 1 9 6 3 , Paul G. Hoffman announced that the United Nations Special Fund was going ahead with the gift to Castro, despite vigorous objections from the United States. Saying he had been under pressure not to make the grant to Castro, Hoffman said he would resign before yielding to such pressure. Hoffman promised, however, that the UN Special Fund would spend no American money on the Cuban project ! (B ) He did not explain how this miracle would be accomplished, since 40 % of every dollar the Fund spends, any where for any purpose, is contributed directly by the United States. The United Nations Special Fund is by no means the only UN organization giving our tax money to communist countries. During the 1 9 6 1 - 6 2 fiscal year, the United Nations Expanded Program of Technical Assistance gave Cuba $44 5 ,8 8 3 for 1 ° projects. The United States pays for 4 0 510 of this UN out fit's expenditures. (9) In November, 1 9 6 2 , the UN Technical Assistance Committee of the Economic and Social Council approved 1 1 projects for Cuba for the 1 9 6 3 -64 fiscal year. Nine of these 1 1 projects will cost $ 1 , 0 3 3 ,0 8 0 . 0 0 . Cost of the .

. d . (10) ' other 2 projects has not yet been estImate The UN initiated the Volta River project in communist Ghana. The United States has promised to pay 5 2 70 of the total cost. This project alone will take more than 3 60 million . (11) Amencan tax d0 11 ars.

U n ited Nations Fish Story

C ongress and the American press generally

ignored the UN Special Fund grant to Castro in 1 9 6 1 , when the grant was first approved ; but in 1 9 6 3 , Cuba was a sore subject. The thought that money, taken away from Amer ican taxpayers, was being given to Castro, rankled. Urged on by outraged constituents, many United States Representatives and Senators began to question the wisdom of our member ship in United Nations Organizations which can use our tax money to subsidize our sworn enemies, in open defiance of our protests.

During

February and March, 1 9 6 3 , United States Representative Durward G. Hall ( Republican, Missouri) made a searching investigation into the costs and operations of the United Nations Special Fund. In one speech to the House, Mr. Hall pointed out that, although the United States pays most of the Fund's bills, the United States is one country which never receives a penny from the outfit. Thereupon, various United Nations officials assured Mr. Hall that the United States has received aid from the United Nations. Mr. Hall asked for details. He was told that the UN had sent a Chinese expert to teach Ameri can rice farmers how to grow fish in rice paddies. The sum of the Chinese expert's advice to American farmers, as best Mr. Hall could determine, is the following :

HIn their wild state, they ( the fish in the rice paddies ) only spawn when they are happy. Our problem is how to make them happy in captivity. We might have to feed them special vitamins, make sure they get their calories and even give them hormone injections to make them more peppy."

Page 99

Mr.

Hall could not, however, find out where, or when, this UN Special Fund aid project to the United States was conducted. The UN Information Center in Washington told him the rice-fish project was in Kansas which has no rice paddies. The New York Office of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization told him the project was in Arkansas. Mr. Hall found in a book written by Paul G. Hoffman a statement that the rice fish project was in Louisiana. Mr. Hall wrote Hoffman to find out where in Louisiana, and to get other details. In reply, Mr. Hoffman merely admitted that he had made a "regret table mistake" in his book. But he did not tell Mr. Hall what the mistake was, or where the rice-fish project was. From remarks by officials of the American government and from odds and ends of infor mation supplied by various UN officials, Mr. Hall concluded that some Chinese expert had come to the United States to tell our rice farm ers to keep their fish happy and that the United States Government had paid for the expert's services directly ; but Mr. Hall never deter mined when the Chinaman came, where he went, whom he advised, or how much we paid " (12) h 1m.

U N ESCO/s Soviet Propaga nda

On February 1 4, 1 9 6 3 , American news papers which carried stories about the UN Special Fund's gift of American tax money to Castro, also carried stories about a booklet published by UNESCO ( United Nations Edu cational, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza tion ) almost a year before. The 1 0 6-page booklet is entitled Equa lity of Rights Between Races and Nationalities in the USSR. It was written by two Soviet nationals ( 1. P. Tsamarian and S. L. Ronin ) . It was published by UNESCO in March, 1 9 6 2 . The book i s pure Soviet propaganda, denounc ing "race discrimination" in the United States and "colonialist oppression" in the western world generally, while praising Soviet " race Page

relations" as one of the major social triumphs of the twentieth century. It speaks of the "immense progress . . . in all economic and cul tural fields" in communist China, since China "freed itself from colonial domination, over threw the reactionary regime, and established the rule of the people. "

H ere are a few other quotations from the

UNESCO booklet :

HOnly the revolution of October 1 9 1 7, which . . . instituted the Soviet system, ena bled the peoples of Russia to achieve genuine equality of rights and freedom of develop ment . . . . It was the Communist Party which showed the peoples of Russia the true way to free themselves from social and national oppression . . . . ((The Soviet Union is a brotherhood of free and equal peoples , comprising 1 5 sovereign Soviet Republics in voluntary association on a footing of complete equality. Under the Constitution of the U.S.S.R., each of these Republics retains the right to secede from the union. Each of them embodies the collective will of its people and can decide its own future in entire freedom. ,, ( 1 3 )

The United States paid 3 2 . 0 2 70 of the total cost of publishing this UNESCO pam phlet and giving it world-wide distribution a great deal more than the Soviet Union paid. The fact that American taxpayers are pay ing for United Nations publications to dis tribute such infamous lies in support of world communism - coming to public attention simultaneously with facts about the United Nations giving our tax money to Cuba aroused considerable ire. Members of Congress and representatives of the press demanded a statement from our State Department. An official of the State Department said that, on April 2 5 , 1 9 6 2 , the Department had "pro tested vigorously" ( with viggah? ) .04 ) U N Lies About the Congo

On March 2 1 ,

1 9 6 3 , United Nations offi cials in the Congo admitted that the United Nations had been lying about its operations in 100

the Congo. While decent people all over the earth were appalled at the United Nations war to subject the province of J(atanga to the rule of the communist-co ntrolled Congolese government, not very many were aware that other prov inces of the former Belgian Congo were also trying to exercise self-determination, in order to escape domination by the central govern ment. One such province was South J(asai.

C ongolese and United Nations armies used the same savage tactics to suppress South J(asai that they used in J(atanga. Mission stations and hospitals were ransacked and pillaged. Eye witnesses told of United Nations-supported Congolese troops pouring gasoline on huts, set ting them afire, and shooting down all who tried to escape. Whole villages and towns were destroyed. More than 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 South J(asaians, who escaped the guns and bayonets of United Nations and Congolese troops, fled into the brush, to suffer famine. ( 15) Thus, United States tax money was used by the United Nations to suppress rebellion in the province of South J(asai in the Congo. For two months, while this frightful opera tion was afoot, United Nations officials denied that any unusual action was taking place in South J(asai. Then, on March 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , United Press International dispatched a news story from Leopoldville, with the following opening paragraph :

HThe United Nations, after constantly denying it for two months, finally admitted Thursday it had crushed an active rebellion government in South against the Congolese ,, Kasai province. (15)

Dange·rs of Our UN Mem bersh i p

T he

"bad" publicity which the United N ations received in America during the months of February and March, 1 9 6 3 , pro vided no new information for Americans who have studied UN operations from the begin ning. These Americans who know and care have realized since 1 94 5 that American memPage

bership in the United Nations would not only bring disgrace upon our nation but would eventually lead to the destruction of our free and independent Republic. Our membership in the United Nations became official on J ul y 2 8 , 1 94 5 , when the United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter. Only two Senators voted against ratification : William Langer of North Dakota, and Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota. Senator Hiram Johnson of California was on his death bed and could not vote against ratifi cation, but he went on record against it.

L anger

is now dead ; but the American people should read again the words that he spoke on July 2 8 , 1 94 5 , when he voted against ratification of the United Nations Charter. Senator Langer said :

��Practically all members of this body have indicated that they will vote for the charter. Under my oath . . . and under my conscience, I cannot so vote. If I did I would feel that I was betraying the hundreds of thousands who have died in this war for the United States, and the hundreds of thousands who have sac rificed their loved ones and their treasure. . . . I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the charter - and, make sure, we are going to implement it - will mean perpetuating war. I feel that it will mean the enslavement of millions of people from Poland to India, from Korea to Java, as well as people in many other places on this earth. HMr. President, I feel that the adoption of the charter will be one step more toward com pulsory and military conscription, and all that which goes with war. ��In my opinion, the charter is not at all similar to the Constitution of the United States which was adopted by the Original Colonies. . . . ��I believe it is fraught with danger to the American people, and to American in stitutions. . . . ��I cannot, I will not, God helping me, vote for a measure which I believe to be unlawful under our Constitution, a measure which, in my opinion, betrays the very people who sent ,, us to the Senate as their representatives. (16)

S enator

Langer spoke broadly about the dangers of our membership in the United 101

Nations. One specific danger is that the United Nations provides the cover of diplomatic immunity for communist spies, saboteurs, and secret police agents sent into the United States. Communist agents, attached to UN delega tions from communist countries, enter and leave the United States at will. They serve as couriers for the communist world-wide espi onage network. They bring in tons of propa ganda material. They direct espionage and sabotage activities in the United States.

The case of 2 1 Russian seamen in 1 9 5 6 proved that the Soviet secret police, under cover of UN diplomatic representation, actu ally operate inside the United States, terroriz ing refugees who have sought asylum here, contemptuously defying American laws and American law-enforcement agencies. A group of Russian seamen who had been given asylum in America were working and living in New York and New Jersey. Soviet secret police, with UN credentials, went into their homes, beat them into submission, kid napped them, and forced them to return to Russia. American law enforcement agencies knew what was happening. In fact, they stood by and watched but did nothing, because the Soviet secret police would not permit them to do anything - in New York City, mind you. ( 1 7) U N Peace Record

S ince the UN was established to «save suc

ceeding generations from the scourge of war," and to guarantee self-determination for all people, one of the bloodiest wars in history has been fought. Communists have conquered China, Tibet, Laos, Cuba, Ghana, British Guiana, and a whole tier of Eastern European states from the Baltic to the Adriatic - not to mention Indo nesia and a score of new African nations con trolled by communist sympathizers - and have murdered millions of people in the process.

The United Nations has not even protested against these communist conquests.

idolators still talk about the Korean war as a UN police action which stopped the spread of communism. Actually, the UN police action in Korea did more for the spread of communism than anything else has ever done. American and South Korean soldiers did virtually all the fighting, and the United States bore practically 1 0 0 % of the cost. The UN acted merely to hamstring American opera tions so that our soldiers sent into battle to die, could not use their best weapons to destroy the enemy. The Korean war was the worst disaster in American history : it cost us the lives of over 5 0, 0 0 0 American soldiers ; it built Red China into a menacing military power ; it lost us the respect of all of Asia ; and it ended, on enemy terms, as the first war America ever lost primarily because of the United Nations.

U N II ldea I II

I n some quarters, it does no good to recite

the UN's failures. UN supporters will say, «Well, you can't expect perfection. The UN means well, and we must keep trying." As long as we keep trying to do anything in the United Nations, we are headed for ruin because the UN is an international socialist conspiracy whose aim is to produce a socialist one-world. The best way to prove this is to examine the United Nations «Bill of Rights."

On June 2 1 , 1 946, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations estab lished a UN Commission on Human Rights. The task of this Commission was to write the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - to elaborate upon the ideals and objectives broadly outlined in Chapter IX of the UN Charter. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, America's repre sentative on the Commission, was the first chairman. One of Mrs. Roosevelt's successors as chairman of the UN Human Rights Com-

Page 102

Constitution of the Soviet Union : Citizens of

mission was an internationally famous social ist , Dr. Charles Malik , of Lebanon. Writing later of his experience in the UN Human Rights Commission , Dr. Malik can didly admitted that the activities of that Com mission "responded for the most part more to Soviet than to Western promptings. " The Human Rights Commission completed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1 94 8 ; and on December 1 0, 1 94 8 , the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Declaration as a statement of United Nations ideals.

the USSR are insured the right to unite . . . in trade unions.

Article 24 of the United Nations Declara tion of Human Rights : Everyone has the right to rest and leisure. Article 1 1 9, Constitution of the Soviet Union : Citizens of the USSR

have the right to rest and leisure.

Article 2 2 of UN Declaration: Everyone . . . has the right to social security. Article 1 2 0 of the Constitution of the USSR has the same

provision.

Article 2 6 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to education. Article 1 2 0 of the Soviet Constitu tion: Citizens of the USSR have the right to

These same ideals can be found in the Con

education.

stitution of the Soviet Union :

Article 2 3 of the United Nations Declara tion of Human Rights: Everyone has the right

to work . . . and to equal pay for equal work.

Article 1 1 8 of the Constitution of the Soviet Union: Citizens of the USSR have the right to

work . . . and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.

Article 2 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights : Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions. Article 1 2 6,

Article 2 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights : Motherhood and childhood

are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 1 2 2 of the Soviet Constitution has a similar provision.

T he United Nations-Soviet ideal

( that all powerful government should provide rights and benefits for the people ) is the exact oppo-

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D IS CUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station Dallas 14, Texas Please enter my subscription for < SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

_ _ _ _

Renewal

years )

New Subscription

____

months ) to THE DAN

_ _ _ _ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES (Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery) Rates : $18 for 2 years $10 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $ 1 2.50, first class mai l for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year

PRINT NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada Page 103

site of the American ideal that men get their rights from God, not from government ; that government can give the people nothing it has not first taken away ; that man, if he is to be free, must restrict government to a very lim ited and negative role.

What To Do

cannot restore the eternal principles and ideals of government which made the United States the envy of the earth, as long as we stay in the United Nations and subscribe to its totalitarian principles. On October 7, 1 9 6 1 , the People's World ( West Coast newspaper of the communist party) published an editorial entitled «Save the UN," saying : ((The UN commands a great reservoir of support in our country. This support should now be made vocal. ((People should write President Kennedy, telling him ((Do not withdraw from UN. ((Restore UN to the Grand Design of Franklin Roosevelt - the design for peaceful coexistence. "

American

Surely, the events so widely publicized in February and March, 1 9 6 3 , will lead the American people to support the efforts of two of the best men in the United States Congress : Representatives Bruce Alger and James B. Utt, both of whom introduced Bills on January 9, 1 9 6 3 , to get the United States out of the United Nations ( Alger Bill, HR 2 6 3 ; Utt Bill, HR 4 2 7 ) . ( 1 8) FOOTNOTES

( I ) Chicago Daily Tribune, (2) (3)

1 -20

Statistical tables on costs and operations of the United Nations Special Fund in the COllgressiollal Record, February 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 2 5 5 3 If. ; February 2 8 , 1 96 3 , pp. 3 07 2 If. ; March 1 9, 1 96 3 , pp. 4 3 2 4 If. ( 5 ) Remarks of U. S. Representative Durward G. Hall ( Republican, Missouri ) , COllgressiollal Record, February 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 2 8 0 8 If. (4)

( 6 ) "New Helpmate for New Nations," b y Albert Q. Maisel, The Rotariall, November, 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 6 0 If. ; "Israel Builds Friendship in Africa," by Robert Hewett, Miulleapolis Star, September I, 1 9 60 ( 7 ) "U.S. Fights U.N. Grant For Castro," Dallas Times Herald, January 9 , 1 96 3 , p. 1 4-A ( 8 ) "U.S. Protest Fails To Deter U.N. Aid Project For Cubans," The Dallas Morning News, February 1 4 , 1 9 6 3 , Section I, p. 2 ( 9 ) Remarks of U.S. Representative Durward G. Hall, COllgressiollal Record, February 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 2 5 5 2 If. ( 1 0 ) Remarks of U.S. Representative Durward G. Hall, COllgressiollal Record, March 6, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 3 3 5 7 If. ( I I ) The Dallas Mornillg News, March 9, 1 9 6 3 , Section I, p. 6 ( 1 2 ) "A (13)

( 1 4)

withdrawal from the United Nations would be a severe blow to the world wide communist movement, and a tremendous boost to the cause of freedom.

October 29, 1 9 5 6, p.

Letter of P a u l G. Halfman to D a n Smoot, November 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 The P riorities 0 / P rogress: The Ulli/ed Natiolls SPecial Fltlld 1 9 6 1 , published b y the United Nations, New York

(15) ( 1 6) ( 17)

( I S)

U n ited

Nations

Fish

Story,"

remarks

U.S.

Representative

Durward G. Hall, COllgressiollll1 Record, March 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 4 1 7 8 If. "Communists Use United Nations To Promote Their Cause," Exten sion of Remarks of U.S. Representative John M . Ashbrook ( Repub lican, Ohio) , COlIg ressi01lal Record, March 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , p. A I 6 0 4 "U.N. Booklet Hails Red 'Brotherhood,' '' T h e Dallas Moming News, February 1 4 , 1 96 3 , Section I, p. 2 "U.N. Admits Halting Rebellion In Congo," The Dallas Momill/( News, March 2 2 , 1 96 3 , Section I, p. 3 Remarks of U.S. Senator William Langer, COllgressiollal Record, July 2 S , 1 9 5 8 , p. 1 3 94 6 Chicago Daily Trib7llle, May 4, 1 9 5 6, p p . 1 , 1 0 Congr.ssiollal Quarterly Weekly Report, March 2 2 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 3 5 9 If.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree . of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 1 04

THE

I)flil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 14

( Broadcast 399 )

April 8, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

TH E TRAGEDY OF u. S. MEMBERSHIP I N TH E U N ITED NATIONS

Well-informed constitutionalist Americans know that the United Nations Charter is a

multi-nation treaty which, if obeyed by all parties to it, would require member nations to cooperate in socializing their national economies and then to merge into a unified world-wide socialist system. ( 1 ) Creation of a world socialist system is the objective of communism. Thus, as created, the United Nations and all its specialized agencies are designed to serve the cause of communism. In many specific ways, the United Nations has promoted the interests of the Soviet Union. The United Nations and its specialized agencies provide diplomatic immunity to, and a cover for, Soviet secret police, spies, saboteurs, and propagandists to enter, and travel in, the United States. (2 )

B ut the UN's primary service to the Soviet Union and its primary disservice to the United States have resulted from the weakness and folly ( and/or treachery ) of our own leaders. Having been brainwashed with the notion that, in the interests of world peace, all nations must be controlled by decisions of an international congress, United States officialdom has slavishly subjected itself to the designs of the United Nations, although no other government in the world does so. The result is that we, the greatest nation on earth, have no national policy. We try to handle the foreign affairs of our nation through United Nations agencies whose bills we pay, but in which we have one lone vote - a vote on a par with that of any little African nation of semi-savages or of a Soviet puppet state like Outer Mongolia. Sh ift in the Ba la nce of Power

The United States directly pays 3 2 . 0 2 % of administrative costs of the United Nations and of all its specialized agencies. Our share of the cost of United Nations special activities THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 1 4, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1Âˇ2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates: $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 Â˘ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 1 0.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 0 5

( the UN war in the Congo, for example) amounts to more than half of the total ; and our voluntary contributions toward financing t�e pr�grams of the specialized agencies ( for eIgn aId programs of the United Nations Special Fund, for example ) range upward of 4 0 % of the total. If we consider that practically all nations ( except the Soviet Union) which contribute anything at all to financing UN operations get more than enough direct aid from the United States to offset their contributions it is accurate to say that upward of 9 0 % of all United Nations costs come, eventually, out of the paychecks of American taxpayers. Yet, a primitive African nation, containing fewer people than the smallest American state, has the same voting strength in the UN that we have.

I t was during the Eisenhower administra tion ( when 4 1 new nations were added to UN membership ) that the balance of power in the UN shifted to African-Asian-neutralist nations - most of which have displayed deep animosity toward the United States, sympathy for the Soviet Union. A few events in recent years will illustrate. I n December, 1 9 5 8 , the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution to criticize the Soviet Union for brutal suppres sion of freedom in Hungary. Yugoslavia voted with nine other communist nations against the resolution. Fifteen nations - some considered as our «western allies," and all on the receiving end of American foreign aid - refused to vote, thus refusing to support the United States and refusing to criticize the Soviet Union. The fifteen : Afghanistan, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Finland, Ghana, Greece, India, Indo nesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Republic. (3) In a press conference one week before this UN vote, President Eisenhower had said that our foreign aid is in our own interest because it produces a s trong union b e tween

nations receiving it.

and the

December 4, 1 9 5 8 , Dr. Charles H. Malik, of Lebanon, then President of the United Nations General Assembly, in a public speech at the Waldorf-Astori a Hotel, New York City, said that the number of countries voting against the United States proposals in the UN is increasing - and that the nations opposing us are scattered all over the world. (4) Carlos P. Romulo, Philippine Ambassador to the United States, on the same occasion, said the « underdeveloped" nations are losing respect for the West, particularly for the United States. He said that the «uncom mitted " people of Asia and Africa are impressed by the fact that after only fifteen years of world leadership, the United States is losing to the Soviet Union. (4)

The

Security Council of the United Nations is composed of five permanent mem bers ( United States, Soviet Union, Nationalist China, England, France) and six non-perma nent members. The non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms by the UN General Assembly. The UN Charter says that, in electing these non-permanent members, «due regard" should be «specially paid, in the first instance, to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace. " The biggest war which the United Nations has fought, allegedly in the interest of «peace," was in Korea. The only UN member which gave the United States and South Korea any appreciable help in that tragedy was Turkey. All communist nations were, in effect if not formally, at war with the UN during the Korean conflict. In 1 9 5 9, the UN General Assembly had the job of electing a non-permanent member to the Security Council, as a replacement for Japan whose two-year term ended that year. The United States proposed and supported Turkey, because of Turkey's "record in the United

Nations. "

The

«Afro-Asian"

bloc,

supported by Latin American nations, joined

Page 106

communist nations to support communist Poland instead of Turkey; and the nomination of Turkey was defeated. Here the UN General Assembly rejected the nation which had supported a UN war, and supported a communist nation which had been the enemy in that war ! The "explanation" was rather well summed up in a New York Times news article, October 1 3 , 1 9 5 9 : ( (Many delegates believe that Premier Khrushchev's talks with President Eisenhower have reduced international tension and are therefore unwilling to take action that the Soviet Union would interpret as a resumption of the cold war." In September, 1 9 6 1 , 22 of the Afro-Asian nations and 2 communist nations ( Cuba and

Yugoslavia) met in a "neutralist" conference at Belgrade. They expressed approval of Soviet foreign policy and condemned United States policies. They even blamed the United States because the Soviets had resumed testing of nuclear weapons. (5 ) Those 24 nations had, at that time, received more than 6 billion dollars in aid from the United States, practically noth ing from the Soviet Union ; and they have received great quantities of American aid since September, 1 9 6 1 . (6)

Liberal I nsa nity

O n July

2 6 , 1 9 6 1 , Sir Abubakar Tafawa

Balewa, Prime Minister of Nigeria, spoke in Washington to the United States House of Representatives . Balewa demanded that the United Nations be strengthened « to make it impossible for any n ation to ignore its ,, authority. (7 ) Balewa's speech to a bored House of Repre sentatives was treated as an unimportant event ; but, in a way, it was among the most important public pronouncements made dur ing the year 1 9 6 1 . The prime minister of one of the backward African nations which now control United Nations policies, told our Con gress that his United Nations should now be given the power to enforce its decisions on us. It would not be a welcome or pleasant sight - but would at least be understandable - if

the underdeveloped nations of Africa played the toady to us, fawning and wheedling to get our money and support. But the incredible fact is that we, the great est nation in history, play the toady to them. Any representative from any new African nation ( whose population may consist of a few hundred thousand cannibals and stone-age tribal groups, whose economy has been sup ported by our aid, and whose culture consists largely of decorations carved or burned on the faces of children) can threaten the United States and make demands on us ; and we fear fully comply, lest the dark people of the earth think ill of us.

The liberal leaders of America have become quite insane about the question of race. They appear to have a sense of shame about being white people. At home, they will tear up the Constitution and undermine the liberties of the whole nation in order to support some cause sponsored by a pro-communist negro organization. Abroad, they will take any insult, and sacrifice the most vital interests of their own country, to serve the «under developed colored people." The only nation in Africa which we con sistently vote against in the United Nations is the only white Christian n ation on that unhappy continent - the Republic of South Africa , an outpost of white civilization hemmed in by about 1 5 million blacks, most of them living in a state of semi-savagery. We insult and condemn the white South Africans, and support the blacks. Aware of this psychosis - this suicidal tendency - on the part of our «liberal" polit ical leaders, let's take a look at the present balance of power in the United Nations. The United Nations now has 1 1 0 members. They are listed below in the broad categories gener ally used to designate basic political a 1·Ignment : " western bloc '" natIOns ; « communist bloc ; " "Afro-Asian bloc ; " "Latin American bloc . " The year of admission to UN membership is indicated in parentheses.

Page 107

Western Bloc Nations (2 5 in number) ( 1 94 5 ) Austria ( 1 9 5 5 ) Belgium ( 1 94 5 ) Canada ( 1 945 ) Australia

China ( Nationalist) Denmark ( 1 94 5 ) Finland ( 1 9 5 5 ) France ( 1 945 ) Greece ( 1 94 5 ) Iceland ( 1 946 ) Ireland ( 1 9 5 5 ) Israel ( 1 949 ) Italy ( 1 9 5 5 )

( 1 945 )

Japan ( 1 9 5 6 ) Luxembourg ( 1 945 ) Netherlands ( 1 945 ) New Zealand ( 1 94 5 ) Norway ( 1 94 5 ) Portugal ( 1 9 5 5 ) Repu blic of Sou th Africa

( 1 945 ) ( 19 5 5 ) Sweden ( 1 946 ) Turkey ( 1 94 5 ) Spain

United Kingdom ( 1 94 5 ) United States ( 1 945 )

Communist Bloc Nations (1 2 in number) Albania ( 1 9 5 5 ) Bulgaria ( 1 9 5 5 ) Byelorussian S.S.R. ( 1 94 5 ) Cuba ( 1 945 ) Czechoslovakia ( 1 945 ) Hungary ( 1 9 5 5 )

Outer Mongolia ( 1 9 6 1 ) Poland ( 1 94 5 ) Romania ( 1 9 5 5 ) Ukrainian S.S.R. ( 1 945 ) U.S.S.R. ( 1 945 ) Yugoslavia ( 1 945 )

Afro-Asian Bloc Nations ( 5 2 in number) Afghanistan ( 1 946 ) Algeria ( 1 9 6 2 ) Burma ( 1 94 8 ) Burundi ( 1 9 6 2 ) Cambodia ( 1 9 5 5 ) Cameroun ( 1 9 6 0 ) Central African Republic

( 1960) Ceylon ( 1 9 5 5 ) Chad ( 1 9 6 0 ) Congo ( Brazzaville)

( 1 960)

(1955) ( 1957) Mali ( 1 9 6 0 ) Mauritania ( 1 96 1 ) Morocco ( 1 9 5 6 ) Nepal ( 1 9 5 5 ) Niger l( 1 9 6 0 ) Nigeria ( 1 9 6 0 ) Pakistan ( 1 947) Philippines ( 1 945 )

Libya

Malaya

Republic of Malagasy

Congo ( Leopoldville )

( 1960) Cyprus ( 1 9 6 0 ) Dahomey ( 1 9 6 0 ) Ethiopia ( 1 94 5 ) Gabon ( 1 9 6 0 ) Ghana ( 1 9 5 7 ) Guinea ( 1 9 5 8 ) India ( 1 945 ) Indonesia ( 1 9 5 0 ) Iran ( 1 94 5 ) Iraq ( 1 945 ) Ivory Coast ( 1 96 0 ) Jordan ( 1 9 5 5 ) Laos ( 1 9 5 5 ) Lebanon ( 1 94 5 ) Liberia ( 1 94 5 )

( 1960) Rwanda ( 1 96 2 ) Saudi Arabia ( 1 945 ) Senegal ( 1 96 0 ) Sierra Leone ( 1 9 6 1 ) Somali Republic ( 1 9 6 0 ) Sudan ( 1 9 5 6 ) Syria ( 1 94 5 ) Tanganyika ( 1 9 6 1 ) Thailand ( 1 946) Togo ( 1 9 6 0 ) Tunisia ( 1 9 5 6 ) Uganda ( 1 9 6 2 ) United Arab Republic

( 1 94 5 ) Upper Volta ( 1 9 6 0 ) Yemen ( 1 947 )

Latin American Bloc Nations ( 2 1 in number) Argentina ( 1 945 ) Bolivia ( 1 945 ) Brazil ( 1 94 5 ) Chile ( 1 945 ) Colombia ( 1 945 ) Costa Rica ( 1 94 5 ) Dominican Republic

( 1 94 5 )

Ecuador ( 1 945 ) El Salvador ( 1 945 ) Guatemala

( 1 945 )

Haiti ( 1 94 5 ) Honduras ( 1 945 ) Jamaica ( 1 962 ) Mexico ( 1 945 ) Nicaragua ( 1 945 ) Panama ( 1 94 5 ) Paraguay ( 1 945 ) Peru ( 1 945 ) Trinidad-Tobago ( 1 9 6 2 ) Uruguay ( 1 945 ) Venezuela ( 1 94 5 )

Even

this broad and inadequate grouping reveals a disastrous balance of power in the United Nations : Afro-Asian Bloc nations Western Bloc n ations Latin American Bloc Communist Bloc nations

52 25 21 12

The "communist bloc" is truly a "bloc" controlled by the Soviet Union ( with an occa sional straying by Yugoslavia, to keep alive the fiction of Yugoslavian independence and, thus, to keep American money flowing to this communist satellite) . The communist bloc alone can outvote us 1 2 to 1 . The Afro-Asian Bloc is not so totally con trolled as the communist bloc ; but it sticks together as a unit on most significant issues and it generally supports the Soviet Union. The Afro-Asian nations are seldom, if ever, on the side of the United States in an issue of major importance - unless the United States and the Soviet Union are on the same side. Of the 5 2 nations in the Afro-Asian bloc, at least 5 can correctly be called communist nations, since they are controlled by com munists or by men like Sukarno of Indonesia who is, for all practical purposes, a communist : Algeria, Congo ( Leopoldville) , Ghana, Indo nesia, L aos. All Afro-Asian nations are, like Burma and India, socialist nations whose political ideolo gies are basically inimical to America� consti tutional ideals ; and most of them have revealed a deep hostility toward the United States. Of the 2 1 Latin American nations, at least five are in the hands of communists or pro communists : Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela. Kennedy's Alliance for Prqgress program is preparing all of Latin America for communism.

Look particularly at the 2 5 "western bloc" nations. These are our "staunch allies" in the United Nations : Australia is offended by our part in forcing

the Netherlands to surrender New Guinea to Page 108

Indonesia. Belgians are offended by our part in forcing them out of the Congo and in con demning them when they tried to return to restore order. Canada is offended by recent State Department meddling in Canadian domestic politics. Finland is under the thumb of the Soviet Union. France is deeply offended by our support of communist movements which have dismembered the French empire. Greece, for years, has been moving toward the position of communism in international disputes, and supports the Soviet Union as often as she supports the United States in United Nations decisions. Iceland is pro communist, strongly anti-United States. Israel, a socialist nation which has received vast sums of money from the United States, is providing training for the armies of the communist dictator of Ghana. Italy contains the biggest communist party outside the Soviet Union and is currently engaged in a program of nationalizing ( that is, communiz ing) major industries. The Netherlands has been grievously hurt by United States stands in the United Nations, forcing her to give up East Indian possessions - which became the pro-communist nation of Indonesia ; and by our part in forcing her to surrender New Guinea to Indonesia. Portugal is deeply offended by our support of communist terror ist campaigns against Portuguese possessions in Africa. South Africans are offended by our consistent United Nations stand against their n ation.

O f our 24 "staunch allies" in the "western bloc" of the United Nations, how many would support us on any critically dangerous issue ? I doubt that more than three would, and I would be reluctant to guess which ones might be among the three. On the other hand, the communist bloc and the Afro-Asian bloc con stitute a positive voting majority in the United Nations. They can, and will, outvote us on any issue of real importance - if we should take a position harmful to communism. U N Racism

The United Nations - a "peace" organi zation - is propagating race wars and race hatreds. Its a c tivities are fostering the racist concept of colored supremacy, inflaming prim itive colored peoples to savage hatred of white Page

men, encouraging and supporting them in atrocities which are not merely indescribable, but loathsome to contemplate. Communists supply the leadership for hor rible uprisings and mass carnage in Africa, and the Soviets support the leaders as native patriots. The United Nations praises and aids the butchery under the pretense that it is a wholesome expression of yearning for national i n d e p e n d e n c e . U n i t e d S t a t e s o ffi c i a l d o m finances the UN -communist operation with our money and gives it the moral support of our nation.

Touching on this condition, United States

Senator John Tower ( Republican, Texas ) in a speech to the Senate on February 6, 1 9 6 3 , said : ((Nowadays, the Afro-Asian bloc, which controls the world organization, suffers from color blindness. The UN , whose prestige is falling steadily, sees only the things the Afro ,, Asian bloc wants it to see. ( 8)

Dr. Max Yergan ( prominent American negro scholar ) touched on the same condition in an article published in The Reader's Digest, November, 1 9 6 1 . Dr. Yergan said : ((In its anxiety to outbid every communist show of (anti-colonial' zeal - as applied to colonies of other than the communist brand - the United States has tied itself in a fan tastic policy knot. ((An gola today is in d anger of being engulfed in a chaos worse than the Congo's with communists even better situated to exploit such a calamity for their own colonial purposes. Yet, unwittingly, as if in a sleep w a l k i n g t r a n c e , the U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s followed-the-Ieader behind the Soviet Union in promoting the tragedy . . . . ((That the United States . . . [follows] the Soviet lead defies ordinary understandin g. It can be regarded only as a thoughtless reflex action, conditioned by eagerness to prove that America is as (anticolonial' as the next nation. The purpose, our spokesmen explain . . . [is] to improve the image of America among 'etnerging nations' an d -w-in their friendship.

((Washington cannot even pretend that it has put principle above expediency ; its actions

109

have been too transparently bids for Afro Asian popularity ��As an American and a Negro, my sympa thies have always been with African aspira tions for freedom. But I am increasingly appalled by the kind of demagoguery, largely manipulated by Moscow and Peiping, that delivers African populations to chaos and c ommun i s m in the n a me of n a t i o n a l sovereign ty. ��The United States, in siding almost auto matically with the extremists, has made itself the captive of Red propaganda . . . . ��America . . . . has avoided pressing for liberation of captive countries from Soviet imperialism, while trotting behind Moscow in demands for instant liberation of Western holdings in Africa . . . . This strange policy, far from curbing communist infiltration in Africa, has merely speeded up the opera tion . . . . ��The United States . . . . has aligned itself with communists, anti-white racists, witch doctors, and the reversion to cannibalism." .

•

What To Do

D r. Yergan was writing specifically about

African Angola, where conditions are even more horrible than in the Congo - worse, even, than conditions in Kenya a few years ago during the Mau Mau reign of terror. In Angola, the United States ( through the United Nations ) is supporting, with money and influence, cannibalistic savagery almost beyond the comprehension of civilized men. Our honor as a nation has already been so deeply stained by Kennedy-supported United Nations policies in Angola that the blot will remain forever. Next week, I will give details on this situa tion. Suffice it here to say that our only hope for a return to decency with regard to policy in Africa is by withdrawing the United States from membership in the United Nations.

E ven if we had an administration in Wash

to pu rsue a sane and honor able policy, it would fail. The Afro-Asian and communist blocs in the United Nations are

ing ton detennined

Page

inflexibly fixed on the present course ; and they can outvote us 64 to 1 , even while we pay the bills. By getting out of the UN and refusing to pay its bills, we would render a great service to Africa : neither the communists nor the Afro-Asian nations would, or could, pay for the UN operations now dragging Africa backward to cannibalism, under communist control.

The Water Moccasin Bites Reprinted by permission from The Richmond News Leader

of March

7, 1 9 6 3 .

Venom spreads slowly. The Federal Govern ment should not be surprised at the public's uneasy reaction to the Army's war games at Savannah . . . conducted under the code name of Water Moccasin III. The Administration's openly cynical manipulation of the Cuban crisis was but a small prick ; the truly frighten ing effect . . . is a massive loss of confidence in our national leaders. In the past week, thou sands of Americans have been half-convinced of a treacherous betrayal of the citizens of Georgia. In a strangely unreported story, many Southern Congressmen have been swamped with outraged inquiries about Exercise Water Moccasin IlL . . Were UN psychological warfare specialists and anti-guerrilla troops really whetting their weapons on American guinea pigs ? .

The facts, it has finally developed ; are these : U. S. Army graduates of the Ft. Bragg Special Warfare School are finishing their training with a grand maneuver in an eight-county area near Ft. Stewart, Georgia. The official version is that the civilians in the area are being asked to lease land rights to the Army and to participate in the realism by hiding guerrillas in their homes, organizing escape routes, and transporting them past ambush. Senators Russell, Stennis, and Thurmond, all of the Armed Services Committee, have been satisfied that the maneuvers are routine. 1 10

But that having been said, it must also be admitted that the alarming hypothesis of the concerned citizens had much to recommend it. As reports spread like the flu bug, there were many distortions ; but even the barest picture was j ustly alarming : 1 ) Georgia's geography. Next to Florida, Georgia is the closest State to Cuba on the Atlantic coast. Now, UN Secretary General U Thant has proposed neutralist control posts in the Caribbean and in the U. S. to guard Cuba against American invasion. We have already proved in the Congo that we will sacrifice our own interests to maintain the fiction of UN peacemaking ; was a secret deal for a base in Georgia to be the solution of the Cuban impasse ? The stories of Afro-Asian personnel in Cuban training schools, and the announcement that "Soviet" troops were leav ing Cuba were simultaneous with the projected arrival of student guerrillas in Georgia. Who was the U.S. training, anyway ? Wild thoughts, these ; not wild to those who had seen troops dig up lawns in Oxford, Mississippi. 2 ) The mishandling of the announcement. The Defense Department allotted only a fort night or so to explain this complex maneuver to the public. "Foreigners May Observe War Maneuvers in March," said a matter-of-fact announcement in the Savannah Evening Press of February 1 3 . A couple of days later it was "foreign Allied nations" participating as stu dents. Were these the UN troops ? The first Army news release said 3 ,0 00 men ; later it was 1 ,0 0 0 , then 6 0 0 ; similar maneuvers in June are reported to involve 7 , 0 0 0 . Secretary McN amara denied that African troops would participate ; the latest official dispatch lists 1 6 NATO, CENTO, and SEA TO n a tions, including Liberia. It also lists the unreassuring presence of officers from Indonesia. When Army representatives moved into the area, they did little to quiet the growing storm. Farmers were accosted with vague permits granting "the Government the right to enter as often as desired" during the maneuver period. The signer also agreed that "the Gov ernment shall have the right to patrol and Page

police the lands." Some residents have sworn out affidavits that they were threatened into signing ; some who stood fast and did not sign have erected "No Trespassing" signs in five languages. 3 ) The past history of rrwar games." When civilians, as well as their property, are "volun tarily" comandeered as grist for the training mill, not all goes according to the announced plan. Out of the files come newspaper accounts of similar maneuvers in which troops decided to play for keeps when local public officials did not choose to go along with the "mock" war. Culver City, California, 1 9 5 1 ; Des Moines, Iowa, 1 9 5 6 ; Lampasas, Texas, 1 9 5 8 ; Danville, Virginia, 1 9 5 9 . Exercise Long Horn, Opera tion Bilko and such dramatic code names can �ot mask the indignities suffered by sheriffs and mayors «dragged off kicking, to a stockade for uncooperative c itizens" ( said United Press ) , or the smirking Marine sergeant who shut down radio, TV, waterworks, power plant, and telephone company "without tell ing the generals, feeling they wouldn't have let us go ahead" ( said Associated Press ) . Some times the city fathers submitted by design ; but the kicking was not always part of the scenano. Just why American civilians should be taught how to surrender their cities is not explained. The Savannah operation will use the local radio stations to encourage civilians to take sides in the maneuvers, so as "to make Water Moccasin III a realistic copy of present day Communist wars of liberation." Thus the point of the training seems twofold : to defeat the enemy and to capture the population psychologically . No wonder eyebrows are raised : Here is the Special Warfare School's Counterinsurg ency Department at work training foreign nationals - and they are trying out their new techniques on Americans. If the Americans don't respond properly, per haps more effective techniques can be devised. Well, yesterday and today the students have been paratrooping into the Georgia swamps and infiltrating the coast ; the " betrayal " feared by the jittery natives is no more than 111

another blunder by military strategists who think of civilians as a tolerable nuisance. The truly frightening thing is that various decep tions of the Kennedy Administration have made such a disturbing betrayal hypothesis perfectly reasonable. Cuba, the Congo, the roughshod Polaris policy, the Common Market, the suicidal test ban treaty, have all been decided with international interests para mount. The Administration has forfeited the people's trust and that poison seeps down through the body politic.

Corrections On Page 8 5 of the March 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , issue of this Report, I said : ((Kennedy's tax proposal would limit . . . itemized deductions to 5 <}'o of adjusted gross income." That was an error : the typesetter omitted a phrase. The sentence should have said, (( . . . limit . . . itemized deductions to every thing above 5 0/0 of adjusted gross income." In the March 4, 1 9 6 3 , issue of this Report, I said : ( (Foreign producers, using production facilities and skills which our government had given them, began underselling Americans

not only in world markets, but in the Ameri can market." That statement is , in every way, correct ; and i t is the central theme of the article in which it appeared. Following that statement, however, I mentioned coal as a commodity which foreign producers can sell in the United States at prices below those of American pro ducers. I was wrong about coal. Because of efficiency of operations and mechanization, American bituminous coal producers despite high wages, heavy federal taxes, and American subsidies to foreign coal-producing nations - can still undersell most foreign producers in the United States and in most foreign markets as well. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "United Nations," this Report, April 1, 1963

( 2 ) "The Episode of the Russian Seamen," Report of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Committee, May 24, 1956

Subcommittee

the

Judiciary

( 3 ) "UN. Attacks Russia Again Over Hungary, But Censure

Vote Is Reduced," by William Fulton, Chicago Daily Tri bune, December 1 3, 1958, pp. 1, 2

( 4 ) " Leaders Say U.S. Is Losing Prestige," by Homar Bigart, The New York Times, December 5, 1958, pp. 1 , 6 ( 5 ) "Text of Declaration of Belgrade," The New York Times, September 7, 196 1, p. 8 ( 6 ) "When 'Neutrals' Get Together," U.s. News & World Report, September 1 1 , 1961, pp. 74 fl. ( 7 ) Congressional Record, July 26, 1 96 1 , pp. 12488 fl. ( 8 ) Remarks of U.S. Senator John G. Tower ( Republican' Texas ) , Congressional Record, February 6, 1963, p. 1 8 1 4

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D ISCUS SED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan S.moot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 1 1 2

THE

1Jt/1l Smootlieport Vol. 9, No. 1 5

( Broadcast 400 )

April 1 5 , 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

UNITED NATIONS I N AFRICA

C ommunist activity in Africa is largely propagandistic, since Africans have little ex perience with organizational work or with political parties. Some trained communists operate in target territories ; and some communist front organizations are used ; but there are few communist parties as such. Those that exist reach only a limited number of intel lectuals. The first objective of communism in Africa is to inflame Africans with hatred of Europeans until all Europeans are exterminated or driven out. Out of the ensuing chaos and bloody disorder, communists will attempt to gain control with puppet dictators who are African natives.

Race H atreds a nd Stra nge Motives

T he communist campaign of race hatred in Africa (which really began in the late 1 9 5 0 's ) has been supported by the United States and by the United Nations. It is easy to understand UN support for this communist program, because, since the late 1 9 5 0 's, the UN has been controlled by the Afro-Asian and communist blocs. American motives, however, are hard to define. There is a plausible theory that hidden communists are still in the State Department ( possibly, men who came in years ago with Alger Hiss, or were brought in by him ) . A more generally accepted theory is the one discussed in this Report last week : namely, that our liberal leaders have developed a psychopathic sensitivity about the questions of "race" and "colonialism. " In an effort to show that the United States is not "anti-colored," and that it is opposed to "colonialism," our liberal political leaders have followed a sense less policy of supporting any colored agitator who announces himself a leader for national THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 1 4, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 ·2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 1 3

independence in Africa. Despite the horrible consequences for the mass of Africans them selves , we support African extremists and murderers, at the expense of European colonial powers which are supposed to be our major allies.

Much

of the European colonialism which our State Department joins the com munists in condemning intemperately - has done a great deal of good for Africa. European colonialism eliminated the age-old practice of slavery in Africa ; and slavery is returning, as Europeans withdraw. ( 1 ) European colonialism opened Africa to Christian missionary work. European colonialism brought the first and only light of civilization to most of Dark Afric a ; and it was preparing African popula tions - with all the speed humanly possible for genuine independence as orderly nations of civilized people. On the other hand, Soviet colonialism in Asia (even more extensive than European colonialism in Africa) has been characterized by mass murder - planned elimination of whole races, ethnic groups, and economic cl asses. In some of the Soviet-c onquered nations of Asia, the mass murder o f native populations was supplemented by mass banish ment - n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s moved o u t t o Siberia or scattered elsewhere throughout the Soviet empire, being replaced by Russian nationals, forced to move into the conquered lands. ( 1 ) It is, to say the least, strange that our liberal policy makers, who violently condemn the relatively benign European colonialism, never say a word about barbaric Soviet colonialism. ( 1 )

W hatever the motives, it seems apparent

that American State Department policy with regard to Africa has been profoundly influ enced, if not formulated, by the invisible government. The invisible government is a group of powerfu l , repu t ab le and. for the most part, wealthy individuals who work through a bewildering network of tax-exempt organiza.

Page

tions - the controlling center of which is the Council on Foreign Relations. ( 2 ) The Council on Foreign Relations «affiliate" which seems most deeply involved in the Afri can tragedy is the American Committee on Africa ( 8 0 1 Second Avenue, New York 1 7, New York ) . Like most other organizations in the great cabal which I call the invisible gov ernment, the American Committee on Africa has no direct, or formal, connection with the Council on Foreign Relations. Its "affiliation" with the CFR can be shown by interlocking directorship : key officials of the ACOA are also members or officials in the Council on Foreign Relations or in other organizations interlocked with the Council. John Gunther ( Honorary Chairman of the ACOA ) is a member of the CFR. The Rev erend Donald Harrington ( Chairman of the Executive Board of ACOA ) is a member of the United World Federalists. Bishop James A. Pike is Vice Chairman of ACOA. The follow ing members of the CFR were listed ( on a 1 9 6 1 letterhead of the ACOA ) as members of the ACOA National Committee : D r . Henry Seidel Canby ( now deceased ) , Gardner Cowles, Lewis S. Gannett, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Dr. Robert L. Johnson, Dr. Rein hold Niebuhr, Dr. Frederick D. Patterson, Dr. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. , Edwin F. Stanton, Dr. William E. Stevenson.

F und-raising letters ( in my file ) of the American Committee on Africa present the exact Soviet line with regard to butchery and carnage in Africa : excusing Africans who committed the atrocities, putting blame on whites. One communist leader in Africa ( who ordered the butchery of innocent people and later boasted about it ) openly claims support from the American Committee on Africa. (3) Pla n n i ng The Ki l l

I t is interesting to note that the American

Committee on Africa was organized just be/ore the Soviets formally initiated their campaign of race-hatred in Africa. In 1 9 5 4 , the Soviets sent Daniel Semenovich Solod ( a 1 14

D e p u t y H e a d o f t h e S ovie t Minis t r y f o r Foreign Affairs) a s Ambassador t o Egypt, with the job of establishing the Soviet Embassy in Cairo as the center for communist agitation in the Middle East and North Africa. (1) Ameri can Committee on Africa, Inc. was set up in New York just a few months before Solod arrived in Cairo. . In 1 9 5 4, H o l d e n R o b e r t o ( c ommunist leader of African terrorists who boasts of support from the American Committee on Africa) was sent to Leopoldville, in the then Belgian Congo, to organize a communist front known as Union of the Peoples of Angola ( UPA ) . Roberto's mission was to help create unrest in the African territories of Portugal. Born in Portuguese Angola, Roberto was educated at a mission school in the Belgian Congo. He joined the Belgian communist party in the Congo. Later, he left Africa, and worked closely with communists in Europe, particularly in France and England.(4 ) In December, 1 9 5 8 , at Accra, in Ghana, communists held a conference on Africa. Soviet Russian and communist Chinese dele gations were in control ; but groups from India, the United States, and other non African countries also attended. The violence ( which later drenched vast portions of Africa in blood ) was planned at this Accra Con ference. ( 5) In 1 9 5 9 , Clemente da Cruz and Pinto de Andrade ( two Angola Africans who, like Roberto, had received extensive training in European communist circles and in the Soviet Union ) were sent back to Africa to help organize the communist campaigns against Portuguese territories. Da Cruz and de And rade made their headquarters in Conakry, Guinea. Early in 1 9 6 0 , Daniel Semenovich Solod ( who had established the Soviet embassy in Cairo as a center for African agitation ) was sent to Conakry to concentrate communist activity on West and Central Africa. Working through Roberto in Leopoldville and da Cruz an d de Andrade in Conakr y , Salad effected the organization of several cells of militant comPage

munists among African Angolans living Guinea, the Congo, and elsewhere.

III

September, 1 9 6 0 , Chinese communist radio stations, and communist stations in Czechoslovakia and Rumania, began beaming inflammatory radio broadcasts to Portuguese territories in Africa. In October, 1 9 6 0 , a band of terrorist guer rillas went into training, under communist instructors and propagandists, at Thysville in the Congo - about halfway between Leo poldville and the Angola border. The terrorists were called an "Army of Liberation. " Their mission was to rape, murder, and pillage in Portuguese Angola until all white people and their African friends were exterminated. Holden Roberto was commander of this <tArmy. ,, (6)

meeting of communist leaders from all over the world was held in Moscow in N ovem ber, 1 9 6 0 , ending December 1 . The commu nists decided, among other things, that the next stage of their offensive in Africa was to be the «liberation" of Angola and Guinea from Portuguese rule. On December 3 , 1 9 6 0 , Holden Roberto's UPA issued, from Leopoldville, a message for Portuguese Angola, which read in part : ((Long live U.P.A. Long live Nikita Khrush chev. Long live Angola Prepare your arms. We are about to open fire. We have no fear. Russia will provide weapons and Lumumba will help us. Let us kill the whites. ,, Lumumba has given the authority. ( 6) .

•

U N Supports The Com mun ists

December, 1 9 6 0 , the United Nations adopted a resolution urging "immediate steps" to grant full independence to all African colonial areas, "without any conditions or res ervations. " This UN demand for instant with drawal of European colonial powers from African territories ( where, in most cases, the remaining Africans would be totally unable to maintain law and order ) was, simply, a dell1and for ill1plell1entation of the COll1ll1unist

scheme for chaos and carnage. The United 115

States abstained from voting on this UN reso lution. (5 ) On February 4 , 1 9 6 1 , several hundred per sons, calling themselves Angola nationalists, attacked a Portuguese police station in Luanda, capital city of Angola. Losses were heavy on both sides. During funeral services for some of the victims, violence flared again. Communist propaganda throughout the world denounced the incident as Portuguese brutality against innocent natives who merely wanted independence. The propaganda was echoed in United Nations councils in New York. On February 1 5 , 1 9 6 1 , the UN representa tive from Liberia ( supported by the USSR, Egypt, and Ceylon) referred to the violence in Angola and demanded that the UN do something. On February 2 0 , 1 9 6 1 , Liberia formally moved that the UN Security Council take action in Angola. The Portuguese repre sentative pointed out that Angola has been Portuguese territory for more than 4 0 0 years and is now a part of metropolitan Portugal and that, therefore, the UN, under its own charter, has no authority to intervene in such an internal affair of a member nation. (7) As a result of the Liberian motion, a UN subcommittee was set up to "study" condi tions in Angola.

The Ki l l

O n March 1 0 , 1 9 6 1 , Holden Roberto's UPA ordered a general strike in Northern Angola, to begin on March 1 5 . Roberto also moved his army of terrorists to the Congolese border, and scattered it along a 4 0 0-mile front, in position to invade Angola on March 1 5 . The general strike and invasion were timed to coincide with action by the United Nations Security Council in New York, which had scheduled, for March 1 5 , a vote on a resolu tion criticizing Portugal for her policy in Angola. All went according to the communist plan. The general strike hit Portuguese Angola on March 1 5 . That night, the UN Security Coun cil in New York voted on the resolution. The Page

United States joined the USSR in supporting the resolution - which failed, however, to carry. Almost simultaneously with this UN action, Roberto sent his terrorists across the frontier into Angola, where they raped and pillaged, murdering Africans and Portuguese, men, women, and children, indiscriminately. (6 )

C ommenting on the reign of terror which began March 1 5 , 1 9 6 1 , American Brigadier General Frank L. Howley ( after a visit to the area ) said : (8)

CCIt all adds up to a picture of primitive, hideous terror . . . a picture replete with gruesome episodes of fetishist body-chopping, ritual cannibalism, and tribal hatred by men often under the excitement of drugs or incited by witch doctors. cCThe savagery then unleashed is still rag ing today. Though its primary targets are whites and mulattoes, the vast majority of the murdered and maimed have been black Africans. �cAbroad, the violence has been portrayed as a Cnationalist revolt' - the aim, cinde pendence from Portugal.' On the very day the terrorists , directed by absentee organizers, began to swarm across the Congo frontier and out of the bush, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, at the United Nations, was quoting Thomas Jefferson on clife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' in behalf of the crebels.' HBut, having visited the areas of worst vio lence, having talked with eyewitnesses of all colors, I want to attest that the bloodletting billed by propaganda as a nationalist uprising is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is an explo sion of tribalism and fetishism among people who have no inkling of what independence, nationhood, and the other concepts advanced in their name, mean."

G eneral Howley told of seeing a nine-year old colored girl in a hospital at Luanda, weeks after the incident, still in wordless shock : the child had been forced to join in eating the flesh of her murdered mother on the day that Roberto's terrorists struck her village. He told of a 2 8 -year-old white man who heard his wife scream in the kitchen. Rushing to her aid, the husband found her already dead with black savages chopping off her arms and legs and head. 1 16

The general told about an incident in the l i t t l e v i l l a g e o f D am b a , where v i l l ag e r s ( mostly black, but a few whites and mixed bloods ) fled to a Catholic church for protec tion when Roberto's savages arrived. Carrying a crucifix, the priest went outside, speaking kindly to the attackers, trying to calm them. The savages cut him down and chopped his body into small pieces "so that even God couldn't put him together again" - and then broke into the church to slaughter every man, woman, and child. As grim souvenirs of his investigation in Angola, General Howley brought home some of the clubs used in such raids on defenseless villages. Scratched on the clubs in crude let ters are the words "Kill, Kill" and "UP A," for Holden Roberto's communist front outfit in Leopoldville.

E yewitnesses in Angola told General How

ley how the raids ( still going on ) are generally organized. In a typical operation, a few heavily armed bandits, accompanied by witch doctors, burst into a village far back in the bush, and line up all villagers at gun point. They demand that the village men accompany them on raids of white towns and plantations, promising them women to rape and rich loot. If such promises do not bring enough recruits, the witch doctors go to work, casting spells, administering nar cotics, promising eternal life for the spirits of all who go on the raids. If this fails, the bandits shoot a few men, women, and children to intimidate the rest into submission and par ticipation.

T hese are the "liberation activities" in Portuguese Angola which were planned by communist intellectuals from all over the world at Accra, Ghana, in 1 9 5 8 ; which have been defended by the American Committee on Africa ; which have been upheld by the Uni ted Nations as a , na tionalist uprising ; and which Adlai Stevenson has spoken of, sym pathetically, as the actions of idealistic "rebels, " seeking independence for their Page

country so that they can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On The Morn ing of March l S

A bout 2 0 0 Europeans and 3 0 0 innocent Africans were slaughtered in Portuguese Angola on March 1 5 , 1 9 6 1 . Here are incidents related in a booklet issued by the Portuguese American Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2 0 Pemberton Square, Boston, Massachusetts : ��On the morning of March 1 5 the Pri mavera plantation near Sao Salvador was attacked and all the European personnel were slaughtered. The only survivor was Snra. Reis, the wife of the owner who, after being repeatedly raped, was left for dead. Four white women and five children from the nearby village of Mabinda managed to escape to the woods where they huddled together in a group whilst two of their menfolk went to Sao Salvador for help. When they returned they found that the tiny group had been dis covered by the terrorists, the women had been violated and hideously mutilated and the children had been hacked to pieces and their remains hung from the branches of trees. Some of the bodies were found with their stomachs cut open and their abdominal cavi ties stuffed with grass and bits of wood, which had been set alight. ��On the morning of March 1 5 the small village of Buela . . . was attacked and the local administrator and his wife were tied to boards, then sliced methodically into pieces. All the other members of the village, except the wife of the guard, were also slaughtered, including a businessman Snr. Fernandes, who had first to watch his wife, a negress, being raped and then obscenely mutilated despite her advanced state of pregnancy. Her stom ach had been cut open and the unborn child pulled out and beheaded. ��On the morning of March 1 5 a group of some 4 0 0 terrorists attacked the experimental farm at M'Bridge . . . . [An] African boy, Joao, ran to . . . get some ammunition, but he was caught . . . and beheaded and castrated . . . . ��The white, mulatto and negro women were dragged out of their houses together with their children. In front of the mothers, the terrorists then proceeded to cut off the legs and arms of the children and then started to 1 17

play a grotesque game of football with the twitching bodies. The women and girls were then led away, stripped, raped and cut up. Many of them were killed by stuffing large branches of trees into their vaginas .

•

��On the morning of March 1 5 the town of Quitexe was attacked and 2 5 Europeans and many Africans were savagely killed. The men were castrated. . . . Most of the children appear to have died from hemorrhages due to the fact that their eyes had been gouged out. ��On the morning of March 1 5 in the village of Luvo near the Congolese frontier. . . . the owner of the local saw mill, together with his wife, two small sons, and several others, met their death in a particularly horrible way. They were tied to planks of wood and then fed into the saw. �We sawed them lengthwise,' one of the terrorists admitted to a journalist from Le Monde afterwards . . . . HOn the morning of March 1 5 nearly all the farms in the Nambuagango area were attacked. Mario Albuquerque, the owner of one of them, relates the following story. �It was before sunrise and I was still in bed whilst my wife was in the kitchen preparing breakfast. I suddenly heard her scream and fall and then a band of armed terrorists entered the bedroom, overpowered me and tied me to the bed. They then caught hold of my 3 year old son, cut off his legs and arms in front of me, and placed them over my face as I lay helpless. They then set fire to the house. I was rescued by my 1 2 year old godchild, a little African boy, who helped me to hide in the woods nearby. He himself was caught by the terrorists, and I can still hear him scream ing to me to run away, as he was cut down.' "

P ortuguese authorities reacted with maxi

mum force to suppress the bestiality brought into Angola by alien invaders. Communist and African delegates in the United Nations accused Portugal of brutality and mass murder. On April 1 0, 1 9 6 1 , the UN General A s s e m b l y ad opted the r e s o l u t ion ( which had failed of passage in the Security Council on March 1 5 ) demanding that Port ugal grant immediate independence to her African territories. Again, the United States voted with the USSR in support of this resolu

tion. (7)

Page

o � June 9 , 1 9 6 1 , the UN Security Council

adopted a resolution, introduced by Afro Asian bloc nations, demanding that Portugal «desist forthwith from repressive measures" in Angola. The United States voted with the USSR in support of this resolution. (7) Dr. Max Yergan, American negro scholar, made an extensive trip through Angola to investigate the situation. Commenting on the June 9 UN resolution, Dr. Yergan said : (S)

HThe extraordinary fact about the June 9 resolution was its conspicuous failure to summon the other party to the violence the supposed Angolan nationalists - likewise t o d e s i s t . The o v e r s i g h t w a s e s p e c i a l l y remarkable, because they, not the Portuguese, had initiated the conflict. HFurthermore, a UN subcommittee, set up to investigate conditions in Angola, had not yet reported. The censure of Portugal, there fore, amounted to a verdict of guilty, without trial- . . . a form of lynch law. ��What might have been a calming UN move for peace was thus transformed into a one-sided condemnation of Portugal and, by inference, approval of the savage anti-Portu guese violence. In effect, the victim was being reproved for defending itself and asked to cease interfering with the terror directed against its citizens and their property."

U N Guns a nd Ca n n i ba l Spears

W hen issuing his first general instructions for the invasion of Angola, to "kill the whites," Holden Roberto promised that Russia would provide weapons for the terrorists. (6) The Russians did not keep their promise. The terrorist army that Roberto sent into Angola was equipped with spears, home-made knives, clubs, and old flintlocks. Some of the groups had modern guns and field radios which they had obtained, not from Russia, but from United Nations troops in the Congo and from Congolese Army troops. Since the UN operation in the Congo, and the Congolese Army, were ( and are ) financed largely by the United States, American taxpayers should think about what our membership in the United Nations means : it means that we 1 18

financed the communist directed bestia1ity in Portuguese Angola.

R oberto complained to his communist masters about their failure to furnish guns ; and he got results. By early May, Soviet and Polish ships were bringing guns and other sup plies to the port of T akoradi in Ghana, whence they were transported overland through Ghana, Dahomey, Cameroun, and into the Congo, Roberto's base of operation. Since the latter part o f May, 1 9 6 1 , Roberto's savages in Angola have been well equipped with modern automatic weapons and two-way radios, mostly of Czechoslovakian make. U N Friendsh i p For The Butchers

the end of summer, 1 9 6 1 , the com munist operation in Angola had settled down to a protracted war of terror and attrition ; and the leaders could be detached for occa sional duties elsewhere. For example, the communist hierarchy sent Holden Roberto to the conference of "neu tralist" nations which convened at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, on September 1 , 1 96 1 . The pur pose of the conference was to give public sup. · 0 f the S OVlet Umono ' (9) port to th e po1·ICles Roberto was flown to the Belgrade con ference in a United Nations plane, made avail able by UN officials in the Congo. (6 ) From Belgrade, Roberto went to London for visits with old friends. Since then, both he and Pinto de Andrade have visited the United S t a te s . (6) Our S t a te D ep a rt me n t , w h i c h approved the visits o f these two communist mass-murderers, would not permit a visit by Moise Tshombe, Christian, anti-communist President of Katanga.

The Horror To Come

P ortuguese Angola is on the West

( Atlan tic ) coast of Africa, just south of the Congo. Portuguese Mozambique is on the East ( Indian Ocean) Coast of Africa - directly east of Page

Angola. Between these two Portuguese terri tories, are North and South Rhodesia British dependencies which are already in tur moil because of prolonged agitation of the «colonial" and «race" questions. Southern Rhodesia contains a substantial number of white Europeans ; and it adjoins, on the south, the Republic of South Africa, the only «white" nation on the continent. The communist program is obvious. Agita tion and terrorism in Portuguese territories will continue until the United Nations can be induced to move in, with American money, and drive the Portuguese out. If the UN takes over the communists' war for them, the com munists will instantly start denouncing the war, as they have been doing in the Congo. The purpose of this curious communist tech nique is two-fold : ( 1 ) to help the United States government justify, to the American people, support of the UN operation as being «anti-communist" ; and ( 2 ) to inflame the local population against the UN -supported pro-communist regime so that, when the UN mission is accomplished and the UN -supported regime takes over, the Soviets can then throw it out and replace it with new puppets. This is classic Soviet operational technique. The Soviets generally liquidate native traitors who help them conquer a nation. They sup port native communists, pro-communists and "liberals" in taking over a country. Once the take-over is complete, the native stooges are eliminated - the Soviets' machiavellian rea soning being that, if the Soviets were able to subvert the former loyalty of the native stooges, someone else may later subvert their loyalty to the Soviets.

With the Portuguese eliminated, and Angola and Mozambique firmly in communist hands, the Rhodesias will fall almost auto matically. The Republic of South Africa, the last remaining outpost of civilization and the richest looting prize of all, will be the final goal in Africa. Three million whites in the Republic of South Africa will be cut off and surrounded 1 19

by communist-dominated territories, where millions of blacks will be under constant incitement to bestial lust and savage hate.

What To Do

P ortuguese territories are the key to con trol of all of central and south Africa not already in the hands of bandits and commu nists. The United States has no business sup porting a war in Africa for Portugal, or any other colonial power. Neither do we have any business financing the present communist United Nations operations against Portugal, as we are doing. We should , however, give moral and diplomatic support to the Portuguese in their efforts to defend their people and their terri tories.

W e cannot change UN policies. As long as we stay in the UN, we will be supporting bestiality in Africa. UN operations would col lapse without our support ; and communists

could hot finance their African operations as well as they are now being financed with our tax-money through the UN. It follows that we could best help ourselves, and Africa, by getting out of the UN and refusing to pay its bills. Legislation introduced by Representatives James B. Utt and Bruce Alger, calling for American withdrawal from the UN, now pending in the House, deserves vigorous sup port. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Africa's Red Harvest, by Pieter Lessing, The John Day Co., New York, 1 96 2 ( 2 ) The Invisible Govemment, b y Dan Smoot, The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., Dallas, Texas, June. 1 9 62 ( 3 ) Africa's Red Harvest, pp. 17, 23 ( 4 ) Africa's Red Harvest, pp. 1 5 - 1 6 ( 5 ) "The Strange American Policy," by Dr. Max Yergan, The Reader's DIgest, November, 1 96 1 , pp. I J 5 tf. ( 6 ) Africa's Red Harvest, pp. 1 1 -2 4 ( 7 ) U. S. Participation in the UN: Report o f the President to the Con g ress for the Year 1 9 6 1 , State Department Publication 74 1 3 , August 2, 1 962, pp. 47 if. ( 8 ) "Behind the Terror in African Angola: Reversion to Savagery," by Bng. Gen. Frank L. Howley, The Reader's Digest, November, 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 3 0 if. ( 9 ) "Text of the Declaration of Belgrade," The New York. Times, September 7. 1 9 6 1 , p. 8 ; "When 'Neutrals' get Together," U. S. News f§ World Report, September I I , 1 9 6 1 , pp. 74 if.

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D I S CU SSED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM I S NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

W H O I S DAN S M O O T ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 1 20

THE

1JI/ll 1mootReport Vol. 9, No. 1 6

( Broadcast 4 0 1 )

April 22, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

W H E AT R E F E R E N D U M , 1 9 6 3

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1 9 3 8

( as amended ) provides for referendum voting among farmers. The Department of Agriculture proposes a crop control program, and farmers with an established record of producing that crop vote to accept or reject. If two thirds of those voting "approve," the program goes into effect; and all farmers are bound by it, under heavy penalties for violations of the administrative regulations. This referendum principle violates a basic premise of American constitutional government - namely, that the rule of the majority is limited by inalienable rights of individuals. The farmers who vote no in a referendum are not left alone to till their own land in their own way. The full force of the federal government ( backed by the guns of federal police agents ) compels them to surrender their constitutional rights in compliance with the "will" of the voting majority. Thus, a "democracy" works. America was founded as a Republic. In a Republic, law and the Constitution prevail, not the current whim of a majority. The referendum provisiorr - on its face - is discriminatory, class legislation, alien to American principles of law. A Department of Agriculture referendum gives one class of Americans ( farmers ) the privilege of voting, for themselves, subsidies that are to be paid by all taxpayers. Truckdrivers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, elevator operato rs - the majority of American taxpayers who live in cities - do not have a vote in a referendum which determines whether their tax money shall be taken to pay subsidies for certain groups of farmers.

Department of Agriculture referendum is by no means a free election, even among farmers� The Department, with thousands of employees, and with billions of tax dollars to dispense, uses its vast resources and limitless power to campaign for the kind of vote officialdom

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6. 00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 . 50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 2 1

wants, threatening farmers with disaster if they vote wrong ; promising rich rewards if they vote right. The Department has absolute power to set the dates of a referendum, deter mine all rules, decide who is eligible to vote, officiate at the elections, and count the votes. Any complaint about the conduct of the ref erendum is handled by the officials who con ducted it. A Department of Agriculture referendum is a Soviet-style «election" in another impor tant sense : the farmers who vote can merely register a yes or a no. The yes generally means higher federal subsidies and tighter controls. The no means lower subsidies and looser con trols. No Department of Agriculture referen dum has ever given a farmer a chance to make a choice between free agriculture and social ized agriculture.

Compu lso ry Wheat Controls

P rior to 1 9 5 4, Department of Agriculture

regulations did, however, leave American wheat farmers an important freedom of choice : a wheat farmer who did not vote in a wheat referendum, or otherwise participate in the government's wheat program, could raise and dispose of wheat as he pleased. The only penalty for not participating in the gov ernment's wheat program was that, if he did not accept government controls, he did not get government handouts. By rejecting controls and handouts for themselves, farmers could remain free to man age their wheat farms in their own way, even though they were taxed to pay for federal handouts to their competitors who wanted controls and handouts. This relatively free system was abandoned in 1 9 54. Why ? Because a majority of Ameri can wheat farmers were refusing to partici pate in the government's «wheat program" !

S ince

1 9 5 4 , government has used its police power to make farmers abide by wheat acre age controls whether they choose to accept the handouts or not. Enforcement of the wheat regulations has eliminated a wheat farmer's Page

Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures ; abolished his right to trial by jury ; and abrogated his Fifth Amend ment privilege against being forced to testify against himself. If you are a farmer, federal agents can tres pass upon your property, without search war rants or other legal authorization, to see whether you are growing wheat. If they find that you are growing wheat, they can tramp around your place and measure your fields to see whether you are growing too much. If the agents think you are growing too much wheat, they can order you to fill out a questionnaire admitting your «guilt. " If you refuse, they can get a court order and force you to comply - or to be jailed, without trial, for contempt. The federal agents, who arbi trarily determine that you are growing too much wheat, can arbitrarily assess penalties. If you do not pay the penalties, the agents can seize your bank account, your personal prop erty, and your farm. If you resist, you can be jailed, without trial. ( 1 )

W e are supposed to have constitutional governmen t - which means that constitu tional guarantees against tyranny cannot be set aside in compliance with majority opinion, referendums, or elections. A constitutional guarantee is supposed to be absolute - regard less of what the courts, the Congress, the Pres ident, or the people themselves may want. If the people do not like some provision of the Constitution ( or want government to do something which the Constitution does not authorize ) the people cannot eliminate the provision, or revise the Constitution, by ref erendums or popular elections. The people must amend the Constitution by due constitu tional process. In 1 9 5 4, however, the constitutional rights of American wheat farmers were set aside on the authorization of a wheat referendum in which two-thirds of the farmers voting indi cated approval of compulsory wheat acreage allotments. Who voted in that referendum ? Relatively few individuals, and many of them were not

122

farmers in the sense that they were men who live, and work, on farms. The Department of Agriculture's arbitrary rules about eligibility excluded from the vote all wheat farmers ( a majority of the total ) who had been refusing to participate. Small, independent family-size wheat pro ducers were not allowed to vote. A minority of large wheat growers - many of which are big-city syndicates, tax-exempt co-opera tives, or absentee-owned company farms had a preponderance of voting strength in the referendum which «authorized" compulsory controls on all wheat farmers, beginning III 1 9 54.

pluses" which the CCC holds in storage. Thus, the federal government destroys the free mar ket for agricultural commodities. This, plus the t y r a n n i c a l c o n t r o l s imposed by the Department of Agriculture, makes it impos sible for small farmers to operate their farms profitably as free men. The maximum which small farmers can get in federal handouts is not enough to sustain them. So, the small farmers are moving to the cities, turning their farms over to the big syndicates and promoters, who are prospering, not on the land, but on tax money.

Fa rmers Who Love Freedom Are Treated as Criminals

Hel ping the "Little" Ma n

T he

compulsory wheat control program was instituted, according to official propa ganda, to help our farmers - particularly the «little man." Indeed, the political argument which has induced Congress to «authorize," and the public to pay for, all federal agricul tural programs ( since they were first initiated by communists in the Henry Wallace Depart ment of Agriculture during the first Admin istration of Franklin D. Roosevelt ) (2) was the necessity of saving the small family-size farms of America. But the federal farm programs are destroy ing the small, independent American farmer. In 1 9 3 8 , when the population of the United States was 1 2 9 million, there were 7 million farms furnishing employment for 1 3 million Americans. In 1 9 6 3 , when the population is 1 8 5 m i l l ion, there are 3 1;2 m i l l ion farms, f u r n i s h i n g e m p l o y m e n t f o r 7 m i l lion Americans. (3 )

F ederal

subsidies enrich the operators of big farming syndicates ; wealthy promoters ; land speculators ; and others who reside and work in cities but buy farms for entertain ment, subsidies, and tax advantages ; and dis honest operators like Billie Sol Estes. Under the guise of advancing price-support loans, the Commodity Credit Corporation sub sidizes big operators in the production of «sur-

Most of the small farmers who have thus

been d r iven off their own land have gone quietly, in the silent desperation of men who feel it is foolhardy to «fight the government." But a significant number have the stiff-necked courage of pioneers who conquered the great West. They have not placidly surrendered their heritage of freedom. They have fought the "wheat police," and have suffered - as the cases of John Donaldson, Loren R. Gajew ski, and Evetts Haley, Jr. ( mentioned below ) illustrate. In contemporary America, any farmer who tries to live and work as a proud, free citizen of the Republic is treated, by his own government , as a criminal. This is particularly true of wheat farmers since compulsory acre age controls went into effect in 1 9 5 4. In 1 9 5 5 alone ( the first year after compul sory wheat acreage allotments began ) , the federal government fined 1 4, 0 0 0 American farmers more than 8 and a half million dollars for growing too much wheat on their own farms. Most of them were small farmers, grow ing wheat to feed their own livestock - ask ing no subsidies or any other favors from gov ernment.

T he John Donaldson case is fairly typical.

Donaldson's 3 8 9-acre farm ( near New Lon don, Ohio) has been in his family since the American Revolution. He has farmed the place

Page 1 2 3

since 1 9 3 7 ( except for 4 Y2 years during World War II when he served with the 3 7th Division in the Pacific ) . In 1 9 5 7, the local Agricultural Stabiliza tion C o m m i t t e e c h a rged Donaldson with planting 2 3 acres of wheat 8 acres more than he was permitted. Donaldson hired a cer tified surveyor to survey his wheat crop. The surveyor's report showed 1 4 acres in wheat. Donaldson took the case to court. The federal court refused to permit the surveyor's report in evidence, and refused to permit a jury trial. In early April, 1 9 5 9, the Federal Judge threw the case out of court, thus leaving Donaldson no recourse against the fine w h i c h had been l e vied upon him «administratively. ,, (4) -

O ne

of the most outrageous of all the "wheat penalty" c ases in v o l ves Loren R. Gajewski, Alexander, North Dakota. The case began in 1 9 5 4. On Api'iI 7, 1 9 6 0, the Department of Agri culture assessed a fine of 5 thousand dollars against Gajewski and his brother for over planting wheat each year since 1 9 5 4. Gaj ewski resisted until his case became rather celebrated in his area. Other farmers were taking courage from his example. In 1 9 6 2 , Gajewski was brought to trial on criminal charges - charges of conspiracy "to obviate" the Agricultural Act ! He was con victed and given a two-year sentence in fed eral prison. He is presently out on bond, pend ing an appeal which will be heard in Federal Circuit Court at St. Louis on May 1 5 , 1 9 6 3 . Gajewski's crime is that he planted wheat on his family farm.

One Great J u rist

T he attitude

of most federal courts, with regard to wheat farmers who presume to fight for their own freedom, was indicated by Fed eral Judge Frank L. Kloeb at Toledo, Ohio. In 1 9 5 6, Judge Kloeb ( irritated because so Inany wheat farIners were cOInin g in to his court trying to test the constitutiona lity of the Agricultural Adjustment Act ) said that Page

such efforts were "preposterous" and that he was going to start "handing out stiff sentences" to farmers trying to test the validity of the law. The Judge said that the Agricultural Adjustment Act is the law of the land and that he would refuse "absolutely to go into the question of constitutionality." One of the greatest jurists of our time, how ever, reflected an opposite attitude. Whereas other Federal Courts have consistently dis missed farmers' wheat penalty < : ases, throw ing the farmers back on the tender mercies of the bureaucrats who assessed the penalties, Federal Judge T. Whitfield D avidson, in Dallas, gave Evetts Haley, Jr. his day in court.

H aley

had been fined $ 5 0 6. 1 1 for over planting wheat on his farm in Oklahoma. The case came under the j urisdiction of Judge Davidson's court, because the bureaucrats had harassed Haley so much that he had to leave his farm and move to Dallas for a job ( with this Report ) to support his family. Haley's case went to trial in Judge David son's Court on September 6, 1 9 5 8 . Entering a judgment in favor of Haley, Judge David son said that the federal farm program is unlawful and unconstitutional and that it is destroying the Christian concept of freedom which our C o n s t i t u t ion was d e s igned to protect. (5) Government attorneys appealed directly to the Supreme Court, by-passing the normal, legal procedure of appealing to the Circuit Court. On February 24, 1 9 5 9 , the Supreme Court ( without giving Haley a hearing or his lawyers a chance to make arguments ; without even notifying Haley or his lawyers of impending action ) summarily reversed Judge Davidson's deCISlon. (6) On February 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 , Judge Davidson declared the Supreme Court reversal void, on the grounds that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, since the case had not been prop erly appealed to the Circuit Court. (7) On October 1 5 , 1 9 6 2 , the U. S. Supreme Court granted the government's request for .

124

an order forcing Judge Davidson to accept t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and to review the Haley case.

�� Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ? ' . . . U �The husbandman that laboreth must be the first partaker of the fruits.' most comprehensive and valued U �The right of man is to be let alone.' uThese were the views of Evetts Haley. . . . He was charged in court with violating the Marketing Act. ��He had sold nothing. He had injected nothing into the channels of commerce . . . . He had produced some wheat which he fed to his cows. A producer is not a marketer uProduce is not commerce. True it may so become and so may an honest man become a thief. He is not j ailed until he does. ( �The Wickard and Haley decisions are far reaching. They virtually abolish all distinc tion between domestic and interstate com merce. No lawyer in the light of these two decisions can safely tell his client the distinc tion between intrastate and interstate com merce. ��The Constitution nowhere confers the reg ulation of agriculture upon the Congress or the U. S. government. It does enumerate the powers granted in some 1 8 to 2 0 items, no one of which mentions agriculture or even pro duction. And the Bill of Rights expressly for bids it. Thomas Jefferson was in France as our Ambassador there for some four years, re turning to America while the adoption of the new constitution was a matter of much discussion and debate. He urged a Bill of Rights which was speedily adopted, his words being : ( ( (A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth and what no government should refuse.' uThis Bill of Rights became the crowning finish of our constitutional efforts. It pro vides : �� Article 1 0 . The powers not delegated to

(�Haley is not being let alone though for 6 0 generations it has been instilled into the minds of our people that we have a right to do as we will with our own and to be let alone in doing it. That which has abided so long can n ot be abandoned in a day nor in one genera . tIon. ��Referring to ourselves, the trial court, as treated in the recent Haley decision by the United States Supreme Court, we do not con cede that we were or are within that realm of procedure where that unusual and drastic remedy of mandamus is applied. No ruling of the higher court was disobeyed. Let the record speak : The defendant Evetts Haley had produced wheat and fed it to his own stock on his own premises. He was charged with violation of the Marketing Act. He had marketed nothing and was acquitted. (�In the Wickard case, 3 1 7 U. S. 1 1 1 the constitutionality of a law was at issue. I� the Haley case the guilt or innocence of a man was the test. uThe Wickard case was decided in the depth of depression when the �Blue Eagle' wa's soaring. The Haley case was up in a much later era of abundance when government warehouses were bursting with surplus wheat. (�Again, the marketing law had now been in use long enough for its effects to become manifest, particularly upon the small inde pendent farmer. He had abandoned his farm and sought work in the industries. Populous farming communities have vanished. We find here and there a large farm operated by mechanized equipment. The small farmer is gone. Many counties in the agricultural belt have lost from 1 0 to 1 2 thousand population. It is obvious that the small farmer can no longer buy and own a home with the proceeds of his own l abor. Oliver Goldsmith well declared : bold yeomanry, a country's pride, U (A when once destroyed can never be supplied.' ((It appears that we did not render the judgment expected or desired by the Agricul ture Department, but it must be remembered that the Supreme Court wrote no instruction and handed down no opinion as our guide. If we, in the judgment of the Court, were in error, and the only end was to make the law more certain, then a simple and considerate

states, are reserved to the states or to the people.'

be reversed with the direction that judgment be entered for plaintiff without hanging on

January 3 1 , 1 9 6 3 , Judge Davidson r e I u e t a n t l y entered an order assessing the $ 5 0 6. 1 1 wheat penalty against Evetts Haley, Jr. , but filed with the order his "respectful dissent," saying :

•

the United States nor prohibited by it to the

course W'ould have suggested that the case

Page 1 2 5

a drastic threat of mandamus. And too every judge higher or lower takes an oath to �phold an d defend the Constitution and administer justice, which must be done as he sees it. ��We now enter the judgment for plaintiff not because we can conscientiously feel it to be just, but in obedience to the mandate. To refuse would be to invite judicial chaos which every judge and every lawyer must avoid. ��The Court may tell us what to do, but it may not tell us what to think or believe. With all deference to the Court, we respectfully dissent."

Supply-Ma nagement

T he numerous, ugly injustices resulting from compulsory wheat acreage allotments, that went into effect in 1 9 5 4, caused so much bad publicity for the whole agricultural pro gram that Congress modified the law to give some relief to small wheat farmers who raise wheat for their own use. On August 2 8 , 1 9 5 7, President Eisenhower signed into law a Bill ( which had been urged by Ezra Taft Benson ) allowing small farmers to grow up to 3 0 acres of wheat for their own use. This v e s t i g e of f r e e d o m has now been eliminated. In

his farm message of March 1 6, 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy urged Congress to approve a program devised principally by Dr. Willard W. Cochrane, a Minnesota e c onomis t . The Kenned y - Co c h r ane s c he m e prescribed a «supply-management" system in which Com mittees of Farmers, u n d e r c o n t r o l of the Secretary of Agriculture , would regulate the production and income of American farmers. The system is basically the same as the fascist system in Italy during the days of Mussolini, and not greatly different from the collective farm system of communist countries. Congress f a i l e d to act on the Kennedy Cochrane p r o p o s a l in 1 9 6 1 . In 1 9 6 2 , the Kennedy farm program retained the commu nist-fascist «supply-management" feature for certain major commodities , but abandoned the Farmers' Committees proposal of 1 9 6 1 . (8) The Senate approved the Kennedy farm bill Page

for 1 9 6 2 ; but the House, by a narrow margin, defeated it. (9) Farm legislation eventually enacted by Con gress in 1 9 6 2 expanded existing programs, and laid foundations for instituting the fascist communist system proposed by Dr. Cochrane a n d President Kennedy in 1 9 6 1 . Congress repealed all e x i s t in g e x e m p t io n s of small growers from the compulsory wheat control program and authorized the Secretary of Agri culture to conduct a wheat referendum in 1 9 6 3 to determine whether the «supply-man agement" system should go into effect for 1 9 64.

E ven

after the compulsory wheat control program went into effect in 1 9 5 4 , farmers who raised only 1 5 acres, or less, of wheat were exempt from some c o n t r ols. Such farmers could not market their wheat and they got no price supports for it ; but they could raise up to 1 5 acres ( if they had previous records of planting that much) for their own use. The 1 9 5 7 law raised their exemption for home use to 3 0 acres. The 1 9 6 2 law abolished these exemptions. Henceforth, a small farmer will be permitted to plant only as much wheat as the average of his annual plantings during the 1 9 5 9- 1 9 6 1 crop years. This means that there can be no new wheat farmers in the future. Wheat farm ing is frozen, limited to those already in the business. Small farmers who ( for any reason ) , during the 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 1 base years planted only two or three acres of wheat will be forever barred from planting more than two or three acres. Big operators who were planting hun dreds of thousands of acres under federal sub sidies during 1 9 5 9- 1 9 6 1 , can continue plant ing that much. This program - deliberately giving a wheat -producing monopoly to big planters who thrive on government subsidies and thus support government programs - will become even worse if the wheat referendum ( on May 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 ) approves the supply-management scheme. 126

The Current Fig ht: David and Gol iath

previous years, fewer than 1 0 % of America's wheat farmers voted in a wheat referendum. Small farmers ( who had nothing to gain from the subsidy and control programs and who could retain a measure of freedom by not participating ) ignored the referen dums. Hence, the only farmers who voted, generally, were those in favor of the govern ment's programs-less than 1 0 % of the total. This year, however, self-interest compe ls small farmers to vote. If two-thirds of the farmers voting in the wheat referendum this year approve the "supply - management" system, all wheat farmers will be totally controlled.

F or

the first time in history, small inde pendent wheat farmers, who believe in free dom, are working desperately to get out the vote in a wheat referendum. Farmers For Freedom ( P. O. Box 1 4 27, Telephone 2 3 4-9 5 64, Fargo, North Dakota ) is one of the most active of all organizations formed by small wheat farmers to fight for the freedom to farm. To the t o t a l l i m i t o f t h e ir t i m e a n d resources, the farmers who formed, and who run, this organization are working to get wheat farmers out to vote in the May 2 1 referendum and to educate them to the sig nificance of their vote.

T he Farmers For Freedom, however, have

very limited resources. The Department of Agriculture has mobilized the resources of the Federal Government to offset the farmers' influence. The thousands of employees in the Department are being used, wherever possible, as political campaigners ( in violation of fed eral law ) for a yes vote in the forthcoming whe a t r e f e r en d u m . E v e r y a g e n c y o f the Department ; every local agency that receives any kind of federal «assistance" ; even the land-grant colleges ( which receive federal money) , are being used as political - propa ganda centers to influence a yes vote.

Tons of expensive materials ( produced at taxpayers' expense and d elivered free of charge by the Post Office Department ) are going out over the land. High officials of government are using the prestige of their office to get radio-television time and newspaper space, for interviews and statements supporting a yes vote in the wheat referendum.

Moreover, officialdom does not hesitate to

use threats and intimidation. Small farmers who want to vote in the wheat referendum are obliged to sign a statement of intent to par ticipate, receiving stern warnings of harsh penalties if they vote and then do not comply with all wheat-control regulations. The Com modity Credit Corporation holds hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of «surplus" wheat accumulated under subsidy programs of pre vious years. Officialdom is threatening to dump this wheat so that there would be no free market for new wheat - and to lower price supports so that new wheat could not be sold to the government at a profit - all this, if wheat farmers vote no on the referendum. On the other hand, farmers are promised high prices and guaranteed incomes if they vote yes.

A Cause for A l l Americans

the wheat referendum of May 2 1 approves the «supply - management" system for wheat, the same system will, inevitably, be extended to other basic commodities . When we have the supply-management system for all basic agricultural commodities, we will have a communized agricultural system in the United States. With this basic industry com munized, what can save all the rest ? Every American who cares ( city dweller or farmer ) should give maximum support to the farmers who are trying to turn out a n o vote in the wheat referendum on May 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 .

Specific Things That You Can Do

I f you know any farmers anywhere in the United States, send each one a copy of this

Page 1 27

Report with a personal note asking him to vote no in the wheat referendum. Ask your friends to get extra copies of this Report for distribution to their friends. If you can afford it, offer to provide them with copies of this Report for distribution. Urge every organization, in which you have influence, to distribute copies of this Report, and offer whatever help you can afford. If you wish to do more, get in touch with Farmers For Freedom ( P. O. Box 1 427, Tele phone 2 3 4-9 5 64, Fargo, North Dakota ) and ask how you can help. For our part, we will give away as many thousands of copies of this Report as we can afford.

Fina l ly

R egardless of how the May 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , wheat referendum comes out, every American who cares should use this Report ( or comparable material) to help support the Adair Bill. For the past several years, United States Representative E. Ross Adair ( Republican, Indiana ) has introduced a Bill to repeal the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1 9 3 8 . Nothing else will solve the «farm problem" in the United States. The Adair Bill would leave farmers free-

dom to farm. It would eliminate the vast cess pool of corruption which government subsi dies and controls have created ( as illustrated by the Billie Sol Estes case, and by the rice allotment scandals, and by innumerable corn scandals ) . ( 1 0 ) It would save American taxpay ers more than 5 billion dollars a year.

T he current Adair Bill ( HR 5 1 5 7 ) , intro duced on March 2 8 , 1 9 6 3 , is presently in the House Committee on Agriculture. ( l l ) The Chairman of this Committee is Harold D. Cooley ( Democrat, North Carolina) . FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) See this Report, "A Yank Named Yankus," August 1 1 , 1 9 5 8 ; and "A Strange Story About Wheat," August 1 5 , 1 9 5 8 ( 2 ) Interlocking Subversion I n Govermnent Departments, Report of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com mittee, July 3 0, 1 9 5 3 , p. 44 ( 3 ) Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1 9 57, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1 96 0 ; and Chicago Daily Trib1me editorial reprinted in Human Events, June 9, 1 96 2 (4) New Lond01' (Ohio) Record editorial reprinted in the Detroit Times, April 14, 1 9 5 9 , p. 1 4 ( 5 ) "God Bless This Honorable Court," The Dan Smoot Report, Sep tember 2 2 , 1 9 5 8 ( 6 ) "Decision Reversed - A Study i n Tyranny," The Dan Smoot Report, March 1 6, 1 9 5 9 ( 7 ) The Dallas Morning News, April 6, 1 962, p . 4 ; The Dallas Times Herald, October 1 5 , 1 9 62 (8) "Communizing and Corrupting Agriculture," The Dan Smoot Report, June l , 1 962 l in both House and Senate, see "Congress or Dictator's (9) For voting Assembly?," The Dan Smoot Report, July 9, 1 9 6 2 ( 1 0 ) Remarks by U.S. Senator John J. Williams ( Republican, Delaware) , Congressional Record, February 24, 1 96 1 , pp. 2473 ff.; "Farmers Panic over Rice Partnerships and Allotment Purchases: 'It's bigger than Billie Sol,' '' Farm and Ranch, December 1 962, p. 1 1 ( 1 1 ) Congressional Record, March 2 8 , 1 96 3 , p. 473 3

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D I S CU SSED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO I S D AN SMOOT ?

Page 1 28

THE

1)1/11 Smootlieport Vol. 9, No. 1 7

( Broadcas t 40 2 )

April 29, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E STO RY O F LAOS

T he story of Laos reveals the major fallacies of American foreign policy since World War II - a policy which has consistently used the resources of the United States to build up communist power and prestige all over the world, while weakening us militarily and economically and making us an object of contempt in the eyes of friend and foe alike. In

Backg round

July, 1 9 5 3 - after approximately 5 3 , 0 0 0 Americans had lost their lives(l ) - Presi dent Eisenhower accepted a Korean armistice on terms which were proposed by «neutralist" India , but which had been virtually dictated by the communists. Trying to restore shattered American prestige, the Eisenhower Administration claimed that we had stopped the communists in Korea , asserting that communists now realized they could conquer no more territory in Asia. The Administration was especially firm in its pronouncements about guaranteeing the integrity of French Indochina.

I ndochina is a huge peninsula , projecting southward

from the Asian mainland, into the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. It comprises Burma , Malaya , Singapore , Thailand , Cambodia , Laos , and Vietnam. Those parts of the region which were French colonial pos sessions were known as French Indochina. French Indochina included Vietnam, Cambodia , and Laos. Sporadic and indecisive guerrilla warfare had been going on between the French and communist groups for years ; and we had supported the French with millions of dollars of aid. Conditions changed explosively after the Korean armistice was concluded. The Korean war had given an incalculable boost to the morale , the prestige , and the military strength of communists in Asia. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5 .50; 1 00 for $1 0.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 29

Challenging the Eisenhower Administra tion to keep its pledge about guaranteeing the integrity of French Indochina, communists converted scattered guerrilla action into total war against the French. We kept sending aid to the French ; but on May 7, 1 9 5 4, the gallant resistance of a small band of French Foreign Legionnaires was broken ; and Dienbienphu, the last French stronghold in northern Viet nam, fell under the pounding of Chinese com munist artillery. The aid we had given France was wasted, and the communists had done what we had loudly pledged ourselves never to let them do.

S hortly after the fall of Dienbienphu in May, 1 9 5 4 , the Soviet Union and Great Britain suggested an international conference to end the war and settle disputes in Indochina. At the Geneva Conference in the late sum mer of 1 9 5 4 ( which the United States "sup ported" but did not attend ) , the old French U n i o n w a s d iv i d e d i n t o f o u r « n a t ions " : neutral Cambodia, neutral Laos, neutral South Vietnam, and communist North Vietnam. An International Control Commission composed of representatives from Canada, India, and communist Poland - was created and given the j ob of supervising the truce agreements. Communists had guerrilla bands throughout the area. Having been given all of North Vietnam, they were supposed to disperse their rebel groups in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam and then to respect the « n e u t r a l i t y " of those three i n d e p e n d e n t nations. They never did disperse their guerrilla bands or stop their warfare against the three nations ; and the International Control Commission ignored, or tacitly approved, communist viola tions. U nwilling

to act alone to keep its pledge to protect Laos, the Eisenhower Administra tion took the lead in setting up SEATO Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. SEATO was created at Manila in September, 1 9 5 4 , by a treaty of eight nations : the United States,

Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zea land, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand. In t h e « t r e a t y a r e a " ( wh i c h these 8 "SEA TO nations" pledged themselves to pro tect against communist aggression) , were the three "neutral" nations carved from the old French Union - Cambodia, South Vietnam, and Laos.

What Is Laos?

L aos

is a landlocked, p ri m i t i v e , jungle kingdom of about two million people, practi cally all of whom are illiterate. It is not a nation, or even a national community ; and the people have no national spirit. Laos is a collection of warring families, existing as a "nation" only because of United States aid and support. (2) The entire Laotian economy went on the American dole, in 1 9 5 5 . We trained, equipped, clothed, housed, fed, and paid the salaries of the Laotian army and of all Laotian police forces ; and we directly financed more than 8 0% of the total civilian budget of the govern ment of Laos. By 1 9 5 8 , the evidence that our aid to Laos was doing harm instead of good was so con spicuous that the Committee on Government Operations of the U. S. House of Representa tives decided to investigate. The Committee found criminal corruption on the part of American foreign aid officials in Laos. It found inefficiency, waste , extrava gance, stupidity, and dishonesty on the part of American foreign aid officialdom generally ; and it found that United States aid, extrava gantly poured into Laos, had hurt that country economically, politically, and militarily, and had made the United States an object of con tempt and hatred. (3)

July, 1 9 5 9, communists from North Vietnam sent reinforcements to c o m m u n i s t rebels in Laos , and opened a n all-out attack on the royal government forces. The govern ment of Laos eventually appealed to the Un it ed Nations for help. The UN sent a Secur ity Council team to Laos to look around. The

Page 1 3 0

UN team determined that there was no out side intervention. On August 9 , 1 9 6 0 , Captain Kong Le seized military power in Vientiane , the capital of Laos. Kong Le was an officer in the King's Army which the United States had built. He had been trained , by Americans, in the Philip pines. (4) When Kong Le defected and seized power on August 9 , 1 9 6 0 , he gained effective control, although the King's g o v e r n m e n t remained technically in power for several months.

O n December

1 , 1 9 6 0, the United States temporarily suspended aid to the anti-com munists , while the Soviets increased their air lift of supplies to the communists. The royal government collapsed. The premier and his cabinet fled the country , but parliament remained loyal and stayed in Vientiane with the King. The King appointed Prince Boun Oum ( anti-communist ) as provisional premier of a new government ; (5) and the bloody battle for control of the capital of Laos began. On December 1 5 , 1 9 6 0 , a State Department spo k e s m a n in Washington said the United States would do everything in its power to help the new government of Prince Boun Oum overcome the threat of external aggression. (6) Ultimately, the new government of Boun Oum prevailed to the extent that Captain Kong Le's communist forces were driven from the capital. On December 1 9 , 1 9 6 0 , the State Depart ment announced the resumption of full mili tary and economic aid to Laos , saying that the triumph of the new non-communist govern ment over Soviet-supported forces provided grounds for considerable satisfaction. (7)

An America n About-Face

O n December 2 3 , 1 9 60, the Soviets pro posed that the old International Control Com mission for Indochina be revived ; and that another Geneva Conference be called to settle the trouble in Laos. (8) Page

Premier Boun Oum ( supported fully by the United States) rejected the proposal. On March 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 , the British Govern ment formally made a proposal that was vir tually identical with the one the Soviets had made on December 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 that is, for a cease-fire ; a revival of the Indian-Canadian Polish International Control Commission ; and an international conference. (9) At a press conference on March 2 3 , Presi dent Kennedy said : -

��we strongly support the present British proposal. . . . "

A story buried on page 1 2 of the Washing ton Post, March 24, 1 9 6 1 , said : ��In essence, the United States has accepted both the kind of internation al commission and the kind of conference which the Soviet Union wanted. "

T hus , while vowing that it would never do any such thing, the United States Govern ment in three months did an about-face : from, supporting the pro-Western government of Laos in its rejection of the Soviet proposal made December 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 ; to , strongly sup porting the Soviet proposal ( now called the "British proposal " ) on March 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 . We Enforce Peace o n Com mun ist Terms

O n March 2 6 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy told members of Congress that the United States, Britain, and France were in complete agreement not to let Laos fall into communist control. ( 10 ) On March 2 8 , 1 9 6 1 , SEATO powers , meet ing at Bangkok, agreed on a compromise reso lution which said that members of SEATO would take "appropriate" action if the British proposal for a cease-fire and for negotiations failed , and if communist military attempts to control Laos continued. Americans had suggested a "tougher" reso lution, but the French feared to antagonize the Soviets. ( 1 1 ) 131

Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and Pakistan were dismayed at United States vacil lation ; but New Zealand and Great Britain agreed with France on conciliation and compromlse. ( 1 2 ) •

On March 3 1 , 1 9 6 1 , arriving in Washington from the SEA TO meeting, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said he was "much encouraged" by the "free world unity" displayed at the conference ! Mr. Rusk also indicated that the United States would accept an "unofficial cease-fire" in Laos, as evidence of good faith by the Kremlin. We had previously demanded a formal truce agreement as a necessary con dition to our consent to an international con ference on Laos. ( 1 3 )

o n April

1 6, 1 9 6 1 , Rusk said the Soviets wanted to start negotiations on Laos before fighting stopped, but that the United States rejected such timing as a communist device for stalling. ( 1 4 ) On April 2 1 , 1 9 6 1 , the Soviet Union and Great Britain completed their agreement to call a cease-fire in Laos. The agreement did not specify that the Laos truce must be veri fied before an international conference would be called. ( 1 5 ) On April 2 9 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy and his top advisers met in a crisis session to decide whether to ask for military intervention in Laos, because the communists had refused to stop fighting. The President said the time for appeals and warnings to the communists had run out - that the time for action to back up the warnings had come ; but that America must not act alone. ( 1 6) On May 1 6, 1 9 6 1 , the International Con ference on Laos ( arranged by the Soviets and the British ) began at Geneva. It was boycotted by the pro-Western g o v e r n m e n t of Laos because communist rebel factions were given a seat at the conference on an equal basis with the legal government. ( 1 7 ) The United States government had repeat edly asserted it would not go to the Geneva conference while fighting was still going on Page

in Laos ; but it went, and stayed there for months, while the communists kept fighting and gaining ground.

T he principal communist demand at the Geneva conference was for a coalition gov ernment in Laos. The anti-communist Boun Oum government of Laos would not discuss the demand, because Boun Oum knew ( as everyone else knows ) that a coalition govern ment with communists means a communist controlled government. On May 27, 1 9 6 1 , an Associated Press dis patch from Geneva said : HThe United States today accused the com munist-led Pathet Lao rebels of repeatedly and wilfully violating the cease-fire in Laos, an d demanded a halt ��The U. S. delegation is not prepared to sit in Geneva indefinitely while Pathet Lao artillery and rebel infantry units whittle away at territory held by the pro-Western ,, Royal Laotian government. (1 8) .

•

But there our delegates sat, at a conference which we had vowed never to attend unless fighting had first stopped ; and as we sat and negotiated, the communists continued their conquests in Laos.

B y the end of 1 9 6 1 , the Kennedy Admin istration had decided to force the anti-com munist government of Laos to accept "peace" on communist terms. On January 2, 1 9 6 2 , Winthrop G. Brown, United States Ambassador to Laos, "virtually had to force an audience" with representatives of the anti-communist Boun Oum government in Vientiane «to present Washington's point of view." Washington's viewpoint was that B o u n Oum m u s t a c c e p t t h e c o mm u n i s t demand for a coalition government. ( 1 9 ) To enforce its viewpo i n t , W as h i n g t o n t h r e a tened t o stop all aid t o Boun Oum. Despite his total dependence on American aid, Boun Oum refused to surrender to the Ameri can-backed communist demand. ( 19) We stopped our aid to Laos on January 3 , 1 9 6 2 ;(20) but restored it on January 1 2, 1 9 6 2 , after Prince Boun Oum had finally promised 132

to go to Geneva for a conference with com munists. ( 2 1 ) In February, 1 9 6 2 , we again stopped aid to Laos because Boun Oum had not yet accepted a c o a l i t ion g o v e r n m e n t on c o m m u n i s t terms. ( 22 )

O n March 2 5 , 1 9 6 2 , W. Averell Harriman

( then Assistant Secretary of State for Far East Affairs ) warned "right-wing" Laotian leaders in Vientiane that they would lose all American aid if they did not accept the c o m m u n i s t demand for a coalition g o v e rnmen t . This threat brought the anti-communists into dis , cussions with communists and "neutralists. , ( 2 3 )

On May 2 , 1 9 62 , W. Averell Harriman, in a discussion of Laos, before a small American a udience, said, among other things : ��It doesn't matter much to us, one way or ,, the other, what happens in Laos. (24)

O n May 5 , 1 9 6 2 , A m e r i c a n m i l i t a r y a ut h o r i ti e s i n Laos confirmed rumors that communist Chinese had i n v a d e d n o r thern Laos. ( 2 5 ) On May 6, 1 9 6 2 , pro-communist forces in Laos, supported by communist troops from China, launched a major attack on Nam Tha, capital city of a northwestern province of Laos. Washington officialdom criticized the anti communist forces for "provoking" the attack. Washington regarded the attack and conquest of new territory for communists as « no major catastrophe," saying that it "could not be interpreted as a sign of bad faith by the pro-Communists ; and that it should not jeop ardize negotiations" to c r e a t e a c o al i t io n government. ( 26) On May 1 1 , 1 9 6 2 , Max Frankel, in a special report to The New York Times from Wash ington, said pro-communists had routed the anti-communist army in northwestern Laos ; that the Kennedy Administration had written off the anti-communist army as useless ; and that Kennedy would threaten to "disavow" all "right-wing" political leaders unless they Page

accepted a coalition government. Frankel said Kennedy would make a "show of strength" by sending American troops into the area near Laos. ( 2 7 ) On May 1 6, 1 9 6 2 , Kennedy's "show of strength" started when 5 , 0 0 0 American troops landed in Thailand. In Washington, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the Soviet Ambassador had a conference and agreed to call for a "cease-fire" in Laos. (28) On May 1 8 , 1 9 6 2 , W. Averell Harriman spoke to the Laotian Ambassador in Washing ton, sharply rebuking "right-wing" political leaders in Laos for resisting the coalition gov ernment. Harriman, in effect, blamed the anti communists for the communist invasion and conquest of the n o r t h w e s t e r n province of Laos. (29)

O n June

1 1 , 1 9 6 2 , the three rival princes in Laos met and agreed on a coalition govern ment. The t h r e e : Souvanna Phouma, pro communist "neutralist" ; Prince Souphanou vong, c o mmun i s t ; and Prince Boun Oum, anti-communist. It was agreed that pro-com munist Phouma would be premier ; that com munist S o u p h a n o u v o n g w o u l d be deputy premier ; and that Boun Oum, the anti-com munist, would retire. (30) The person who eventually replaced Boun Oum as "rightist" deputy premier in the coali tion government was Phoumi Nosavana - a man with no known record of fighting com munIsm. On June 1 3 , 1 9 6 2 , P r e s i d e n t Kennedy echoed Khrushchev in welcoming Laos' new · government. ( 3 1 ) coa1 ItIOn The coalition g o v e r n m e n t was formally installed on June 2 3 , 1 9 6 2 . The next day, Pre mier Phouma left the country for a visit in Europe, leaving the reins of government in t h e h a n d s of his communist half- brother, Souphanouvong. The first official act of the coalition government, under Souphanouvong, on June 24, 1 9 6 2 , was a bitter denunciation of the United States for h a ving t r o o p s in Thailand. (32) .

133

O n July 2 3 ,

1 9 6 2 , the 1 4 nations meeting at Geneva signed documents guaranteeing the neutrality and territorial integrity of Laos. (33) The Geneva a g reement g a ve the three na tion con t r 0 I commission ( Canada, India, communist Poland ) the task of supervising the functioning of the coalition government in Laos. The United States agreed t o p a y 1 7. 6% o f the a n n u a l c o s t o f the c o n t ro l commission. (34 ) The Geneva agreement was never submitted to the U. S. Senate for advice and consent as a treaty. Questioned about this, W. Averell Harriman, in August, 1 9 6 2 , said : ((The Geneva agreements were concluded by the United States as an executive agree ment. The Pt'esident has adequate authority under the Constitution, by virtue of his power to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and as Commander-in-Chief, to enter into an executive agreement of this kind." (35)

B y October 1 , 1 9 6 2 , the United States had moved its "show of strength" troops out of Thailand and was rapidly removing military advisers from Laos ; but only 1 5 of communist North Vietnam's 1 0 , 0 0 0 t r oops h a d l e f t Laos. (36 ) The G e n e v a a greement r e q u i r e d the removal of all foreign troops by October 7, 1 9 6 2 . The United States complied with this requirement ; the communists never even made a gesture toward compliance. Nonetheless, the three-nation control c o m m i s s i o n formally reported "no-evidence" of foreign communist troops in Laos. (37) On January 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 , U. S. aid to Laos suspended for nearly a year - was resumed. (38 ) And Now

H aving

eliminated anti-communist mili tary forces and political leaders, and having effected the withdrawal of all United States f o r c e s , c o m m u n i s t s in Laos turned their attacks on the "neutralists" with whom they were in « coali tion. "

By mid-April, 1 9 6 3 , the American press was headlining stories about how the neutral ists were retreating before the c o m m u n i s t forces ; about President Kennedy's "deep con cern," and about his "firm intent" not to let the communists take over Laos. On April 2 2 , 1 9 6 3 , United Press Interna tional reported from Washington that Presi dent Kennedy was about to make another "show of strength" in Southeast Asia - that the U. S. 7th Fleet was steaming into waters near Laos and that the President was contem plating sending troops back into Thailand. And W. Averell Harriman was again dash ing around the world, holding hugger-mugger conferences to arrange something or other for Laos. (39)

T here, in bare outline, is the story of Laos. Placed against this backdrop, Kennedy's cur rent show of concern is obviously hypocritical ; but why is he doing it ? Is he merely trying to draw attention away from Cuba ? It is impos sible to know. What Shou ld We Do?

I t was a mistake in

1 9 5 4 when Eisenhower ( hoping to restore prestige lost by communist conquests elsewhere in Asia ) pledged never to permit communist conquest in Laos. We could not prevent communist harassment of Laos without involving ourselves in a land war in the jungles of that primitive land. If we made the mistake of getting into such a war, we could bleed ourselves white in a conflict which would actually help the Soviets. A w a r between c om m u n i s t - c o n t r o l l e d Asians and the United States in Laos would provide, as Korea did, valuable training for communist troops. The communists would be killing Americans, but we would not be kill ing Soviet soldiers. We would be killing Asians, thus intensifying Asian hatred for us and sup porting the communist fiction that the Soviet Union is the friend of Asia ; America, the enemy.

Page 134

If we did not permit ourselves to be goaded into such a war, we would lose face through out the world.

S o,

by our actions and our proclamations with regard to Laos, we set up a situation in which the Soviets were bound to win and we were bound to lose. If we went to war to keep our pledge, the consequences for us would be disastrous even if we achieved military victory. If we did not go to war, we would be disgraced. In e it h e r eve n t , t h e S o v i e t s would profit mightily. As it turns out, we have actually helped the communists conquer Laos, pretending all the time that we would never permit com munist conquest.

What Shou ld We Do Now?

We should get out

of all the far corners o f t h e e a r t h w h e r e we n o w s t a n d as s e l f appointed - and, gener a l l y , unwelcome guardians, and uplifters, and moralizers, and subsidizers of people who would rather be left alone. The government of the United States has no constitutional right to use the resources of the American p e o p l e to s u p p o r t f o r e i g n nations. Moreover, i t is i m possi b l e f o r t h e United States ( containing 6 per cent o f the world's population ) to support and defend the remaining 94 per cent of the people on earth.

spent m i l l ions of d o l l a r s to help Chinese nationalists resist communism; but in the end, it was the operation of our policies the giving and withholding of aid at critical junctures to enforce p o l i t i c a l and military decisions on the nationalists - that helped the communists capture China. And when they captured China, they captured American mili tary and civilian goods which they used in other parts of Asia. We spent 5 3 ,0 0 0 American lives to resist communist conquest in Korea ; but the Korean Page

war made the communists a menacmg force in Asia. We gave the French millions of dollars to resist communism in Indochina ; but, in the end, c o mm u n i s t s destroyed French power, took over a key portion of Indochina, and cap tured a new s u p p ly of American m i l i t a r y equipment for continued warfare against the remainder of Southeast Asia.

C ould Laos and other such nations defend

themselves against communism if we got out and withdrew all aid ? It seems obvious that they could do at least as well without our help as they have done with it, since our efforts monotonously result, at last, in helping com munists. It also seems obvious that military and industrial equipment which we give to small nations increase their attractiveness as prizes for communist conquest. Communists might not extend themselves to take primitive countries like Laos, if it were not for the lure of American goods to be captured.

I f we stopped all foreign aid and reversed the foreign policy of the United States letting the world see that, henceforward, the incalculable strength of the United States will be used to defend the American homeland we would gain such strength and prestige that we w o u l d no l o n g e r n e e d t o f e a r w a r o r national bankruptcy. Congress could and should stop all foreign aid and foreign meddling, and spend American tax money for defense of the American nation. A majority of Senators and Representatives would take such a stand if what they heard from their constituents convinced them that they could never be re-elected unless they did. The Deta i led Story

1 9 62 , we devoted two issues of this Report to Laos « (Laos - Part I," and «Laos - Part II," April 9 and 1 6 , 1 9 62 ) . Most of the background material in this present Report is taken from the two 1 9 6 2 Reports; but those who want a detailed, step135

by-step account of the Laotian story should read the two Reports of last year, in connecÂ tion with this present one. Reprints of "Laos - Part I" and "Laos Part II," published in April, 1 96 2 , are still available. They may be ordered separately at our regular reprint prices, or in a set of three with the present Report - fifty cents for all three. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Statistics on American casualties in Korea are widely disputed. Even official U.S. Government figures are contradictory. The figure of 5 3 ,000 American deaths in Korea was supplied by the late Alfred Kohlberg. ( 2 ) Statement by Peter Kalischer, CBS Far East Correspondent, The Dallas Morning News, January 3, 1 96 1 ; AP dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, The Dallas Morning News, March 24, 1 96 1 ; AP article from Vientiane, Laos, by Roy Essoyan, The Dallas Times Herald, February 1 5 , 1961 ( 3 ) U.S. Aid Operations i n Laos, Seventh Report b y The Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, June 1 5 , 1 9 5 9 ( 4 ) "Is Laos Lost? Communists Deal From Strength," AP dispatch, The Dallas Morning News, May 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 ( 5 ) Chronology o f Kong Le's coup and formation o f the new governÂ ment is from "Statement on Laos," State Department Press Release No. 9, January 7, 1 9 6 1 ( 6 ) "U.S. Will SuppOrt New Laos Regime," The Dallas Morning News, December 1 6, 1 960 (7) "With Red Defeat, U.S. Resumes Aid to Laos," AP dispatch, The Dallas Times Herald, December 2 0 , 1 96 0 . ( S ) AP dispatch from London, The New York Times, December 2 4 , 1 9 60, p. 3 ( 9 ) Washington Report, by Rear Admiral Chester Ward, American Security Council, March 27, 1 9 6 1 ( 1 0 ) A P dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, March 26, 1 9 6 1 ( 1 1 ) A P dispatch from Bangkok, Thailand, Shreveport Journal, March 29, 1 9 6 1 ( 1 2 ) "Laos Situation Reaches Crisis," b y Editorial Research Reports, The Dallas Mornitlg Ne1l1s, March 2 S , 1 9 6 1

( 1 3 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas MOf1lillg News, April I , 1961 ( 1 4 ) A P dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, April 1 7 , 1961 ( 1 5 ) UPI dispatch from Moscow, The Dallas MOT1ling News, April 22, 1961 ( 1 6 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, April 29, 1961 ( 1 7 ) A P dispatch from Geneva, Shreveport JOlmlal, May 1 6, 1 9 6 1 ( I S ) A P dispatch from Geneva, Shreveport Times, May 2 S , 1 9 6 1 ( 1 9 ) Special to the Times from Vientiane, Laos, The New York Times, January 3 , 1 9 62, pp. 1 , 2 ( 2 0 ) "Pressure on Laos by U.S. Reported," by Jacques Nevard, The New York Times, January 5 , 1 9 62, pp. 1 , 2 ( 2 1 ) AP dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, The Dallas Morning News, January 1 3 , 1 9 62 ( 2 2 ) AP dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, The Dallas Moming News, March 5, 1 9 62 ( 2 3 ) UPI dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, T h e N e w York Times, March 26, 1 962, p. S ( 2 4 ) "Capital Circus," by Ted Lewis, New York Daily News, May 1 5 , 1 962 ; and "For Your Information - Doesn't It Matter ?", by Alice Widener, Shreveport Journal, May 2 1 , 1 962 ( 2 5 ) AP dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, The Dallas Morning News, May 6, 1 9 62, p. S ( 2 6 ) Special to the Times from Vientiane, Laos, The New York Times, May 7, 1 9 6 2 , pp. 1 , 1 3 ; and Special to the Times by Max Frankel, The New York Times, May 7 , 1 962, p. 1 3 ( 2 7 ) The New York Times, May 1 2 , 1 962, p . 1 ( 2 S ) UPI story by Eugene McLaughlin, The Dallas Times Herald, May 1 6 , 1 9 62, pp. I , S ( 2 9 ) Special to the Times, The New York Times, May 2 5 , 1 962, p. 3 ( 3 0 ) AP dispatch from Khang Khay, Laos, The Dallas Morning News, June 1 2 , 1 962, p. 1 ( 3 1 ) "President Urges Soviet To Extend Laos Peace Move," by Max Frankel, The New York Times, June 14, 1 9 62, pp. I, 6 ( 3 2 ) AP dispatch from Vientiane, Laos, The New York Times, June 2 5 , 1 9 62, pp. I , 3 ( 3 3 ) "Laos - M ilestone in Peace Efforts," Foreign Policy Briefs, State Department, August 6 , 1 9 62 (34) "Laos," Foreign Policy Briefs, State Department, October I, 1 962 ( 3 5 ) Remarks of U. S. Representative Melvin R. Laird (Republcian, Wisconsin) , Congressional Record, August 1 3 , 1 962, p. 1 5 2 4 5 ( 3 6 ) U.S. News (j \Vorld Report, October I , 1 962, p. 67 ( 3 7 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, Shreveport Times, March 1 7, 1 963 ( 3 S ) U . S . News (j V?orld Report, February 4, 1 96 3 , p. 1 6 ( 3 9 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Momillg News, April 2 3 , 1 96 3 , p. 1

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D I S CU S SED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ?

in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees Dan Smoot was from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed i n the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU

Smoot Report.

Page 1 36

THE

1Jf/1l Smootliepolt Vol. 9, No. 1 8 ( Broadcast 403 )

May 6, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

D I S A R M A M E N T - PA R T I A Para ble ��Last week, top law enforcement officials o f Chicago and New York held another meeting with criminal leaders of those two cities. This was the latest of a lengthy series of such meetings , called , in response to pleas made by the criminals, for the purpose of elimin ating the costly struggle between organized society and the criminal underworld. ��The criminals have for many years insisted that huge police forces, equipped with weapons and in command of jails and other places of detention, have necessitated a cor responding expenditure of effort and money on their part to protect their own interests. They have made repeated offers to disarm every criminal in Chicago and New York and to disband every criminal organization, if the law enforcement agencies will also disarm and disband. ��The law enforcement officials are also eager to eliminate crime and to save the taxpayers of Chicago and New York the enormous expense of maintaining police forces. They have offered to disband the police forces of both cities, except for skeleton crews of unarmed men to handle traffic problems. ��The only point of disagreement involves the question of effective inspection to guarantee that both sides keep the disarmament agreements. Law enforcement officials feel it would be dangerous to disband police forces and leave Chicago and New York totally helpless if the criminals should break their promise and launch a sudden, all-out attack on the citizens of those two cities. ��Law enforcement officials want a firm agreement which would authorize them to send neutral inspectors into criminal haunts of Chicago and New York to investigate any report of criminal activity. The agreement would, similarly, authorize neutral inspectors to investigate any suspicion or complaint on the part of criminals that the police were rearm ing and hiring new personnel. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 137

((In the more than 1 0 0 0 previous meetings with law enforcement officials, criminal lead ers of Chicago and New York have flatly refused this inspection system demanded by law enforcement. They accuse law enforce ment officials of bad faith in making such demands, claiming that the officials are merely trying to set up a stool-pigeon system to spy on criminals and violate their private rights. ((On the eve of the latest meeting which began last week, however, spokesmen for law enforcement officials expressed cheerful opti mism. They claimed that criminal leaders , displaying a genuine interest in peace, now seem willing to make significant concessions to law enforcement demands. Although they gave no details, law enforcement spokesmen said the criminals have (considerably modi fied' their previously firm stand against in spections, and have offered to permit a limited number of annual inspections, by neutral observers, in specified criminal hangouts in Chicago and New York."

That

fictional news story has never been written, and never will be, because no such ludicrous thing will ever happen. The story is not nearly so ludicrous, how ever, as the news stories which were making headlines throughout the world in April and May, 1 9 6 3 - concerning determined and hopeful efforts of Western leaders to negotiate a peace-and-disarmament pact with inter national criminals who control the com munist slave empire.

Com m u n ist I ntent

C ommunists consider anything «good" which promotes the cause of socialism ( that is, communism ) : war, mass murder, the extermination of whole races through en forced starvation, torture of human beings, rape, pillage, betrayal of friends and family, theft, vandalism - all are «good" if they help communism. On the other hand, any thing is «bad" which hurts communism : love of God and country, kindness, charity, hon esty, thrift, hard work - all are «bad" if they in any way interfere with the com munist drive for world conquest. Page

«World peace," to communists, means communist conquest of the world. All non communists are regarded as enemies of com munism, who will destroy communists if given a chance. Hence, there can be no peace on earth until all non-communists are elimi nated. Until such time arrives, strategy re quires periods of "peaceful co-existence" between communists and non-communists. To a normal mind, «peaceful co-existence" means living side by side, leaving each other alone. To the communist mind, «peaceful co-existence" means a cessation of all hostility and opposition on the part of non-com munists ( and cessation of preparation for possible hostility) , while communists gather strength and make plans for renewed assaults on non-communists.

W eapons in the hands of communists are considered benign tools for achieving world peace; weapons in the hands of non communists are considered horrible instru ments for oppression and conquest. Communists do dream of a time in the distant future when they themselves can be relieved of the burden of producing and maintaining armaments ; but that is to come only after communist conquest of the world is complete. Communists regard it as treason to their own cause even to think of disarm ing communists before all non-communists have been disarmed and destroyed. Communists have been advocating "total disarmament in a peaceful world" since 1 9 1 6 . Their program is simple and openly stated by communist leaders : to disarm all non communists so that they can be destroyed. The objective of every disarmament discus sion is to disarm non-communist nations ( specifically, the United States ) while in creasing the armaments of the Soviet Union.

T hese

facts being known, it is ludicrous and dangerous for our political leaders even to discuss disarmament with Soviet leaders. These facts have been known since 1 9 1 6. 138

Below are a few quotations from com munist leaders to prove the point. Readers not familiar with communist dialectics may need a glossary. In the communist language quoted below : proletariat, revolutionary proletariat, peo ples, forces struggling for socialism, the working class, the masses - all mean com munists; revolutionary wars - means wars fought in the interest of communism; proletarian revolution, national liberation movement, class struggle, struggle for peace, struggle against imperialism, struggle for national independence - all mean efforts of communists to seize power; imperialists, bourgeoisie -mean, non-com munists.

In 1 9 1 6, Lenin said : HOnly after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without be traying its world historical mission , to throw all armaments on the scrap heap. ,, ( l )

In 1 9 1 7, Lenin said : HWe are no pacifists . . . we have always declared that it would be stupid if the revo lutionary proletariat promised not to wage revolutionary wars which might become indispensable in the interest of socialism. ,, (l)

A policy statement adopted at the Sixth World Congress Of The Communist Inter national, in 1 9 2 8 , says : ((The aim of the Soviet proposals is . . . to propagate the fundamental Marxian postu lates that disarmament and the abolition of war are possible only with the fall of capitalism. ,, ( l )

In 1 9 5 4, V. Cherpakov ( Representa.tive of the Soviet Ministry of Defense) said : HCommunists link the cause of peace with the cause of victory of the proletarian revolution. ,, ( l)

An editorial in the February, 1 9 5 5 , issue of National Affairs Monthly ( official com munist publication) said : ((The idea that peaceful co-existence must include the maintenance of the status quo is imperialist propaganda. ,, ( l ) Page

On October 2 0, 1 9 6 0 , Khrushchev told communists of the world about the need to « force" the capitalist countries to come to an agreement on disarmament. (1 ) In December, 1 9 6 0 , at a Moscow meeting of representatives from 8 1 communist parties throughout the world, communist leaders laid down a directive that «an active, determined struggle" must be waged to « force the im perialists into an agreement on general ,, disarmament. (1 ) Here are excerpts from a speech which Khrushchev made on January 6 , 1 9 6 1 : (( [ Peaceful co-existence] helps . . . the forces struggling for socialism, and in capi talist countries it facilitates the activities of Communist parties . . . it helps the national liberation movement to gain successes." (( [Peaceful co-existence] implies intensifi cation of the struggle of the working class , of all the Communist parties , for the tri umph of Socialist ideas . . . [It is] a form of intense economic , political , and ideological struggle of the proletariat against the aggres sive forces of imperialism in the international arena." ((Peaceful co-existence of states does not imply renunciation of the class struggle . . . the co-existence of states with different social systems is a form of class struggle between socialism and capitalism." ((The policy of peaceful co-existence is a policy of mobilizing the masses and launch ing vigorous action against the enemies of peace." ((The slogan of the struggle for peace does not contradict the slogan of the struggle for communism." ((The struggle for disarmament . . . is an effective struggle against imperialism for restricting its military potentialities. ,, ( 1 ) .

•

In his January 6 , 1 9 6 1 speech, Khrushchev quoted Lenin to the effect that, in promoting their program of disarming non-communists, communists must establish " contacts with those circles of the bourgeoisie who gravitate

,, toward pacifism. (1 ) 1 39

On July 1 0, 1 9 6 2 , speaking to the World Congress on General Disarmament and Peace, Khrushchev said : ((The struggle for general disarmament facilitates the struggle for national inde pendence. For their part the successes of the nation al liberation movements strengthen the cause of peace, contribute to strengthening the struggle for disarmament. Disarmament means disarmament of the forces of war, the liquidation of militarism." ( l )

An editorial in the October, 1 96 2 , issue of W orid Marxist Review said : H general disarmament does not mean disarming the peoples fighting for national liberation . On the contrary, it would deprive the imperialists of the means to halt progress and crush the struggle for independence . . . disarmed, the imperialists would be power less to prevent the people from attaining freedom. Disarmament primarily means dis mantling the gigantic war machines of the highly developed countries." ( l ) •

•

In a public statement at Berlin on January 1 6, 1 9 6 3 , Khrushchev said : ((The duty of Communists at the helm of state power is to do everything possible to ,, insure that our strength will grow. (l )

Com m u n ist Performance

U nless our political leaders profess abys mal ignorance, they can find no excuse for not knowing the intent of communist dis armament discussions. How about the per formance of communists in keeping their treaty commitments ? In 1 9 5 5 , when President Eisenhower was planning a summit meeting with communist leaders at Geneva, the Senate Internal Secu rity Subcommittee ( by way of showing Eisenhower that any kind of negotiation with Soviet leaders is not only fruitless but dan gerous ) released to the press a staff study of the Soviet treaty record. Here are passages from the foreword to that staff study, later ( 1 9 5 6 ) published as Senate Document No. 125: Page

(\ the Subcommittee on Internal Secu rity authorized a staff study of the Soviet trea ty record from 1 9 1 7, when a handful of Bolsheviks seized power over 1 5 0 million non-Communists in Russia, to the present , when 8 0 0 million people on two continents suffer under Red despotism. The project was part of the subcommittee's examination of The Strategy and Tactics of World Commu nism. It contemplated a scrutiny of treaties an d agreements involving peace, accord and fraternity, collaboration, friendship and neutrality, diplomatic recognition, frontier disputes, nonaggression pacts, conferences of conciliation, mutual aid, renunciation of war, and international promises to the peoples of the entire world - such as the Atlantic Charter. .

•

((The staff studied nearly a thous and treaties and agreemen ts of the kin ds described above, both bilateral and multi lateral, which the Soviets have entered into not only with the United States, but with countries all over the world. The staff found that in the 3 8 short years since the Soviet Union came into existence, its Government had broken its word to virtually every coun try to which it ever gave a signed promise. It signed treaties of non aggression with neighboring states and then absorbed those states. It signed promises to refrain from revolution ary activity inside the countries with which it sought (friendship,' and then cynically broke those promises. It was vio lating the first agreement it ever signed with the United States at the very moment the Soviet envoy, Litvinov, was putting his sig nature to that agreement, and it is still violating the same agreement in 1 9 5 5 It keeps no international promises at all unless doing so is clearly advantageous to the Soviet I Union. ((I seriously doubt whether during the whole history of civilization any great nation has ever made as perfidious a record as this in so short a time. ((On the basis of the record, this question inevitably arises : Is the Soviet record merely a series of individual and unrelated misdeeds, or has treaty breaking been an instrument of national policy since the U.S.S.R. itself , came into existence ? ; (2) •

1 40

•

Com munist Techn iques

T he

staff of the Internal Security Sub committee concluded that treaty breaking is, provably, an instrument of Soviet national policy. When the Soviets engage United States leaders in negotiation for some agreement, they make proposals which could not, in sanity, be accepted ; but their propaganda machines in the United Nations, in Moscow, and in Soviet embassies throughout the world ( aided and abetted by the pro-communist and communist-following liberal forces in the United States ) attempt to conceal the fact that the Soviets have made unreasonable demands. The propaganda berates the United States for being unyielding, accusing us of acting in bad faith because we will not truly engage in the "give and take" necessary in such negotiations. Most thoughtful people see through the Soviet propaganda and say so ; but the Soviets, caring not a fig for "world opinion," keep hammering away. Large numbers of fools, fatheads, pacifists, and brainwashed liberals are, however, deceived. They join the com munist chorus, criticizing the United States for refusing to "negotiate in good faith." American leaders ( sensitive, to the point of nausea, to "world opinion" ) begin to wince and apologize - and to make concessions.

A fter

milking all possible propaganda benefit out of the situation, the Soviets may decide to enter into an agreement. If so, they generally capture whatever is to be gained from the approval of « world opinion" by making some meaningless concession which our own officials help to puff up as something important, in order to convince American voters that our leaders have "driven a hard bargain" with communists. Once the U.S.-U.S.S.R. agreement is made ( either through formal treaty process, or by the informal means of verbal acknowledgePage

ment as in the case of the three-year ban on nuclear testing which began in October, 1 9 5 8 ) , we are, of course, bound by the terms of it. The Soviets do not consider themselves bound at all. As a matter of policy, they violate the terms of the agreement they have made sometimes openly, to show arrogant contempt for us, as in their immediate and continuous violations of the Korean armistice agreement made in July, 1 9 5 3 ; sometimes surrepti tiously, as in their violations of the nuclear test ban agreement of October, 1 9 5 8 .

E ven

if we should, eventually, repudiate the agreement because of Soviet violations, we have been ( during the period of our com pliance ) hobbled by it, while the Soviets feel free to do whatever the agreement was in tended to keep them from doing. The Soviet technique of negotiating and propagandizing United States leaders into sur rendering the vital interests of our country have been particularly harmful in the area of disarmament. Indeed, the record proves that unless the American people can some how manage, through their Congress, to reverse present, settled trends, we are headed toward total surrender of the United States to a communist-controlled world super-state system.

A Brief C h ronology

December, 1 94 5 , the foreign mlmster of Great Britain and the U.S. Secretary of State met with the Soviet foreign minister in Moscow to discuss disarmament. They agreed to sponsor, at the first session of the UN General Assembly, a resolution creating an international Atomic Energy Commission. (3 ) The resolution was introduced - and was adopted by the first session of the UN General Assembly, meeting in London, on January 24, 1 94 6 . The Atomic Energy Commission was empowered to make proposals concerning the 141

elimination, or control, of atomic weapons - and to make recommendations concerning international exchange of scientific informa tion. Bernard M. Baruch was the first United States Representative on the international Atomic Energy Commission. (3) On March 2 8 , 1 94 6 , Dean G. Acheson and David Lilienthal submitted a report, out lining United States proposals for the interna tional control and sharing of atomic energy knowledge and materials. Baruch was given some leeway to revise the proposals before formally submitting them, on behalf of the United States government, to the United Nations.

O n June 1 4 , 1 946, Baruch submitted to the Atomic Energy Commission the United States proposals - which came to be known as the «Baruch Plan" and the «Baruch-Lilien thal Plan." The Baruch plan proposed the creation of a new International Atomic Development Authority, which, operating under the broad control of the United Nations General As sembly, would have absolute "control, or ownership, of all atomic-energy activities potentially dangerous to world security" ; and would have the "power to control, inspect, and license all other atomic activities. " The new Authority could seize and dispose of all existing atomic bombs, prohibit further man ufacture of bombs, and prescribe "serious" penalties against any nation for violating regulations issued by the Authority. The Baruch plan also suggested total dis armament ( elimination not only of atomic weapons, but of all conventional weapons and military forces ) - to be achieved in stages. (3) On July 1 9 , 1 94 6 , Andrei A. Gromyko presented the proposal of the Soviet Union. The Soviet plan ignored the Baruch proposal for total disarmament ; but, insofar as it con cerned atomic disarmament, the Soviet plan was virtually identical with the Baruch plan. There was, however, one essential difference Page

in approach. Whereas the Baruch plan called for a new International Atomic Energy Au thority to operate under the control of the UN General Assembly, the Soviets wanted the old Atomic Energy Commission to handle atomic energy affairs, under control of the UN Security Council. (4)

T he

Soviets were short sighted. They wanted a UN agency which could strip the United States of its atomic weapons, since they were years behind us at that time and knew that the agency would not limit their own plans for research and development. They did not foresee, however, the day ( now arrived ) when they and their "neutralist" friends could control the UN General As sembly. They wanted control of atomic energy centered in the UN Security Council where they had a veto, fearing that the UN General Assembly might make a decision they did not like. It seems more than likely that the United States would have modified the Baruch plan enough to meet all objections offered by the Soviets. This was never done, however, largely because Congress ( despite the large and pow erful ,peace claque of liberals which it con tained ) reflected the deeper instincts of the nation : namely that the Baruch plan, modi fied or not, was a blueprint for the surrender of our national independence.

time marched on, the Soviets became less interested in the Baruch plan, because they had begun to catch up with us in atomic research and development - thanks to our voluntary de-emphasis of activity in this field ; to the atom spies who delivered our major secrets to the Soviets ; and to German scientists whom we had permitted the Soviets to kidnap and take to Russia. On January 1 1 , 1 9 5 2 , the UN General Assembly, at the urging of the United States, created a Disarmament Commission to study and supervise the p roblem of general dis armament ; but the propaganda for «inter142

national control" of atomic energy subtly changed. There was less and less emphasis on controlling atomic energy, more emphasis on the "have" nations sharing their atomic energy knowledge and materials with the . (4) «h ave-not " natIOns. By the middle of President Eisenhower's first year in office ( 1 9 5 3 ) , "diversion of nuclear materials from military use to peace ful purposes" had become the cardinal theme of nuclear disarmament propaganda. Com munists emphasized this theme, of course, because, in communist dialectics, it meant giving United States' nuclear materials away abroad so that the United States could not use them for military purposes, while the Soviets could concentrate on military use for their nuclear materials. In December, 1 9 5 3 , President Eisenhower ( with his «atoms for peace" plan) gave a great boost to this "diversion of nuclear ma terials" scheme.

an "Atoms For Peace" speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Decem ber 8 , 1 9 5 3 , President Eisenhower recom mended that the UN create an International Atomic Energy Agency, to which all govern ments producing atomic energy could make contributions of normal uranium and fission able materials. The UN agency would store the materials and allocate them around the world ( to na tions not producing such materials ) for peace fu I uses. (4 ) Almost three years later - on October 2 3 , 1 9 5 6 - the General Assembly of the UN approved a charter for the atomic energy agency which Eisenhower had recommended. Three days later - October 2 6, 1 9 5 6, before any nation had had opportunity to ratify the charter - President Eisenhower pledged the United States to give the new agency, im mediately, 5 , 0 0 0 kilograms ( 1 1 , 000 pounds ) of Uranium 2 3 5 ; and, after that, to match combined contributions of all other nations on earth. Page

At the time, the estimated production cost of 1 1 ,0 0 0 pounds of uranium 2 3 5 was 1 1 0 million dollars. (5) Without consulting Con gress ( indeed, before the International Atomic Energy Agency charter had even been submitted to the Senate for approval o f American membership) President Eisenhower promised to start the international atom bank off with a gift of 1 1 0 million dollars worth of Uranium 2 3 5 , and promised that United States' gifts would stay at least that far ahead of the gifts of all other nations put together.

T he late Senator Joseph McCarthy fought hard against Senate ratification of the IAEA charter, predicting that communists would take the thing over and use it against us. The Senate Atomic Energy committee held hearings - receiving abundant and repeated assurances from the State Department and from the Atomic Energy Commission that there was no possibility of communists taking over the new agency. The parade of witnesses from the executive branch of government virtually guaranteed that the International Atomic Energy Agency, being an American idea, would always be run the way the United States wanted. Internationalist supporters of the IAEA were scornful of McCarthyites for suggesting that the President and the State Department and the Atomic Energy Commission would recommend anything dangerous for America. The Senate ratified the IAEA charter on June 1 8 , 1 9 5 7, by a vote of 67 to 1 9 . The agency came into being on July 2 9 , 1 9 5 7, when 1 8 nations had ratified the charter. By the end of October, 1 9 5 7, communist-bloc nations had gained control of the Interna tional Atomic Energy Agency, and the United States State Department was profess. mg to be ' " m d'Ignant " an d "perturbe d . , , (6)

A lmost simultaneously with the capture of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Soviets ( October, 1 9 5 7 ) , launched the 143

first man-made earth satellite, thus dazzling the world with their achievements in nuclear, and related, research. Since then, frightful events have taken the United States to the very brink of national surrender. We are on that brink now. The Kennedy Administration, under the guise of promoting world peace, has already planned the surrender. Administration spokesmen insist that no international agreement concerning disarma ment will be made without specific approval of the United States Senate. But past be havior, developed plans, and known attitude of the Kennedy Administration indicate otherwise. The machinery is already established for Kennedy ( if and when he finds just the right

«crisis" ) to surrender the armed forces ( and, therefore, the national independence ) of the United States to a communist-dominated world organization.

N ext

week : details. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) The Test Ba,,: AlI Americall Strategy 0/ Gradual Self-Mutilation, by Stefan T. Possony, Congressiollal Record, March 2 1 , 1 96 3 , pp. 4 3 5 8-70 (2 ) "Foreword," by U.S. Senator James O. Eastland (Democrat, Missis sippi) , to Soviet Political Agreemellts and Results, a Staff Study, Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, May 2 1 , 1 9 5 6 , p. VIII ( 3 ) The United States and the United Notiom: Report by the P resident to the Congress for the Year 1 946. Department of State publication No. 273 5 , February 5, 1 947, pp. 44- 5 3 ; 1 69-94 ( 4 ) Review of the United Nations Charter, A Coliection of Documents, Subcommittee on the United Nations Charter of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 7, 1 9 5 4, pp. 4 3 6-42 ; 4 5 0- 5 9 ; 474- 8 0 ( 5 ) U.S. News 15 World Report, December 3 , 1 9 5 4

( 6 ) "Reds Grab Key Jobs In World Atom Agency," by Robert S. Allen, Tbe Tablet, Brooklyn, New York, November 2, 1 9 5 7

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL S UBJECTS D ISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM I S NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO IS D AN SMOOT ? Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard. He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover. After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues. In July, 195 5, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side - the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues. If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 144

THE

IJtlll SmootReport Vol. 9 , No. 19

( Broadcast 404 )

May 1 3 , 1963

Dal las , Tex as DAN

SMOOT

D I S A R M A M E N T - PA R T I I

I f the United States had an effective defense

against enemy missiles , communists could not blackmail us with threats of nuclear destruction. We would not need to engage in an armaments race, or bankrupt ourselves with defense expenditures. We could maintain a small professional establishment of conventionally armed military forces - as was once American tradition - and thus defend our nation without converting it into a police state, through taxation and controls, and compulsory peacetime conscription. But an effective anti-missile missile - the most desperately needed weapon in this century - is the weapon we do not have. Officialdom says American prospects of developing such a weapon are virtually non-existent - but admits that the Soviets may be on the point of developing one, if they do not already have it. ( 1 )

Our Suicide Strategy

There is evidence that American officialdom does not want the United States to have an

effective defense against missiles. Such evidence can be found in the State Department disarmament plan ( presented to the United Nations in September, 1 9 6 1 ) which stresses the outlawing of anti-missile weapons, and th e outlawing of research and testing intended to produce such weapons. (2 ) In a treatise entitled The Test Ban: An American Strategy of Gradual 5,elf-Mutilation, Dr. Stefan T. Possony ( of the Hoover Institute ) also presented evidence that American officialdom does not want this nation to possess an adequate defense against missiles. Dr. Possony said : ��Mr. [William C.] Foster's statement . . . discloses the true attitude of the administration to antimissile defense : they just don't want it."(3 ) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 145

Foster ( a member of the Council on For eign Relations ) is head of the Disarmament Agency. In a broadcast on The Manion Forum, United States Senator Strom Thurmond said the Defense Department has already made a decision : HT0 postpone the production and deploy ment of an anti-missile defense system until 1 9 7 0 or later, if, indeed, we are ever per mitted to deploy an anti-missile system. ,, (4 )

E Ktensive

testing of nuclear weapons especially in the atmosphere - is necessary for research to develop a defense against missiles. (3) Yet, in the interest of negotiating with the Soviets, the Eisenhower and Kennedy Admin istrations forfeited the security interests of their own country and, for more than four years, gave the Soviets unchallenged monop oly in the field of nuclear testing.

This

was done with full knowledge that there is no possibility of developing an inspec tion system to detect and identify "illegal" t e s t i n g o f n u c l e a r w e a p o n s , even i f t h e Soviets should agree t o outlaw testing and should accept an international inspection system which w e specified. (3 ) Suppose that a «ban" on nuclear testing were in effect, with an international inspec tion system operating ; and suppose the system detected a major high-altitude nuclear explo sion somewhere above the Pacific Ocean. At best, it would take several days for the system to correlate all data and determine the exact latitude and longitude of the explosion. By the time international inspectors reached the scene, what would they find ? Nothing ! Sub marines which fired the tests would be gone. Communist propaganda would accuse the United States of making the shot. Our officials would make denials. There would be charges and counter-charges in the United Nations. The wrangle would be protracted for weeks, while the Soviets prepared for another sneak shot somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. Page

Aware of all this - and aware also of the unassailable proof that it is folly to negotiate with the Soviets at all, because treaty-break ing is a matter of policy and strategy with them(5) - Eisenhower and Kennedy, during a critical period, prohibited the nuclear test ing which might have developed a defensive weapon to save this country. The only official reason for the prohibition was that we must show ttgood faith" during negotiations with the Soviets !

The Eisen hower Record

On March 3 1 , 1 9 5 8 , Andrei Gromyko, Soviet Foreign Minister, announced that the Soviet Union was halting all testing of nuclear weapons ; and he called upon other nations, possessing such weapons, also to stop testing, in the interest of "peace and security for all ,, peoples. (6 ) Why ? The Soviets had just finished a series of tests ; it would take them a year or more to correlate and evaluate all information thus produced ; and in the interim they could not profitably do any more testing. Gromyko's announcement, in other words, was a trick designed either to stop United States nuclear testing or to give the Soviets some propaganda fodder against us if we did not stop. Officials of the Eisenhower State Depart ment correctly called the Soviet plea a fraud, but challenged the Soviets to approach the subject in "an orderly way," through negoti ations to work out a supervised suspension of nuclear testing. (7) F or

y e a rs , t h e c o m m u n i s t « pe a c e " offensive h a d prepared for this situation. Organizations of nuclear scientists, controlled by communist fronters ; and "peace" organi zations composed of preachers, teacherst and professional liberals of all kinds, had been drenching the American public with horror stories about the dangers of fall-out from nuclear testing. Gromyko's announcement on March 3 1,

1 9 5 8 , put the «peace" organizations into high 146

gear. For seven months, leftwing thunder for "banning the bomb" was deafening - until October 3 1 , 1 9 5 8 , when the United States and the Soviet Union met for "test ban talks," and agreed to suspend all testing of nuclear weapons, without inspections, while the talks c o n t i n u e d . Eisenhower o r d e r e d a h a l t to United States testing, accepting Khrushchev's u n s u pp o r t e d p r om i s e t h a t h e w o u l d d o likewise. (8) Week after week, month after month, year after year, the «test ban talks" continued, fruitlessly. The Soviets, busy assimilating information already produced by tests, did not need to make any nuclear shots in the atmosphere ; but - as the whole world was aware - they went right ahead with under ground shots and any other testing they pleased, ignoring their agreement to halt all tests for the duration of the negotiations. Eisenhower kept the agreement, however, permitting no more American testing during the remainder of his administration. Dreary communiques from Geneva about another non-productive session of the ((test ban talks" often seemed timed, with sardonic humor, to coincide with other events which underscored the absurdity of the talks. For example, on August 3 , 1 9 5 9 , a report from Geneva revealed that the 1 1 8 th "test ban" meeting between representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain was deadlocked. On that same day, the White H o u s e a n n o u n c e d t h a t Eisenhower h a d agreed to a personal exchange of visits with Khrushchev. (9)

Khrushchev was in the United States on September 1 7 , 1 9 5 9 , when Selwyn Lloyd, British Foreign Secretary, spoke to the UN General Assembly urging total disarmament in three stages :

( 1 ) an international agreement fixing a date for disarmament and size and quality of national forces that would be left after disarmament, and deciding on the quantity and

kind

of -w-eapons

for

an international

army ; ( 2 ) progressive steps in disarming nations and in arming the international army ; Page

( 3 ) final national disarmament, with re arming outlawed, and a fully established international army to enforce the peace, con trol nation al military budgets, space explo ration, and so on. ( 1 0 )

Selwyn Lloyd demanded «effective inspec tion to insure compliance" at every stage in the plan ; yet he proposed that inspection con trol would be established after disarmament. So, in effect, Selwyn Lloyd recommended total disarmament without inspection. ( 1 0) The next day - September 1 8 , 1 9 5 9 Khruschev also spoke to the UN General Assembly, and recommended total disarma ment without inspection. ( 1 1 ) One month later - October 1 8 , 1 9 5 9 Francis O. Wilcox, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs ( and member of the Council on Foreign Relations ) , speaking to the Greater Miami Association for the United Nations, said that the problem of determining which should come first, disarmament or controls, is as baf fling as the old riddle about which came first, the chicken or the egg. ( 1 2 )

On March

1 5 , 1 9 6 0 , five Western powers and five Soviet bloc powers met at Geneva for general disarmament talks. These were in addition to the "nuclear test ban talks" which had been going on at Geneva since October, 1 9 5 8 . ( 13) On May 1 2 , 1 9 6 0 , United States Senator Thomas J. Dodd ( Democrat, Connecticut) made a speech to the United States Senate saymg :

((Before it is too late, we must call off the [nuclear test] ban. At stake is the preserva tion of peace and the survival of our nation and of freedom on this earth. Our guileless approach to the moratorium places us in mortal peril, for it rests on blind trust in the honesty of the Kremlin, a dictatorship with a shocking record of violations of its pledges. (tSome American experts are convinced that the Soviets are already testing secretly. No one can seriously doubt that they will ,, do so whenever it suits them. ( 14)

In June, 1 9 6 0, the Soviets walked out of 147

the Geneva "test ban talks," and stayed away for several months. (1 3) On September 2 2 , 1 9 6 0 , in a speech to the UN General Assembly, President Eisenhower gently reproved the Soviets for not entering into disarmament agreements, and rebuked them for walking out of the "test ban talks," pleading with them to come back for more. (1 3 ) Eisenhower's plea set the stage for the Soviets who, the next day ( September 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 ) , presented to the Uni ted Nations their plan for total, world-wide disarmament ( the same plan which Khrushchev had presented to the UN a year before ) . (1 3 )

The Kennedy Record

K ennedy, inaugurated President in 1 9 6 1 , continued the ban on American nuclear test ing ; and he appointed Paul Nitze to be Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Walt W. Rostow to be Deputy Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. It later became known that these two high officials of the Kennedy Administration ( together with others from the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members occupy key positions in the Kennedy Administration) had lectured , almost a year before, to a National Strategy Seminar at Asilomar Con ference Grounds on the Monterey Peninsula, in California. The general argument of lectures which Rostow and Nitze, and the others, gave at the Strategy Seminar was that the United States cannot win a nuclear war; that con tinued attempts to produce nuclear superi ority will spur the Soviets to do likewise and thus increase the danger of a holocaust ; that we should, therefore, de-emphasize nuclear weapons on the theory that the Soviets will follow our lead ; that we should build up our c o n ven t i o n a l m i l i t a r y p o w e r in o r d e r t o increase our capacity to fight in limited wars ; and that we should work toward some form of world government strong enough to eliminate wars a1 togeth er. ( 1 5 ) Page

P aul Nitze told the Strategy Seminar that

the United States should begin disarmament w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g d is a rm a m e n t o f o t h e r nations, i n the hope that our action would "produce reciprocal action on the part of our allies and also on the part of our enemies. " Nitze said we should stop all efforts to build a Class A nuclear capability, which could strike first or take offensive action : and that we should build purely retaliatory defense systems, and then surrender command of those systems to international authority. He pro posed that we make this surrender by giving NATO command of our Strategic Air Com mand, and by notifying the United Nations that NATO will turn over to the UN the ultimate power of decision on the use of reta l'la tory systems. (1 5 ) · A mencan After Nitze became Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Defense, and the public found out what his real "defense policy" is, alarmed c it i z e n s w r o t e W a s h i n g t o n o ffi c i a l d o m demanding explanation. Official explanations from Washington included :

( 1 ) flat denials that Nitze had ever made such a proposal ; ( 2 ) assertions that Nitze did not really mean that he wanted SAC to be made a NATO command ; ( 3 ) explana tions that in making such a proposal, Nitze was really suggesting that such a thing should not be done - that he was merely throwing it out as a ugrand fallacy" ; ( 4 ) explanations that Nitze's proposal had no official standing, because Nitze was not a member of the Administration when the pro posal was made.

Dr. Lawrence G. Osborne, Santa Barbara, California, got replies from two Washington officials : one from Timothy W. Stanley ( Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs ) saying that a proposal to turn SAC over to NATO was not under consideration by the Kennedy Administration ; another from Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, saying :

��The proposal that the Strategic Air Com mand be placed under the over-all adminis tration and command of NATO is one which is being given a great deal of thought and deliberation. "

148

March 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 , a "briefing" session on disarmament was held at the State Depart ment. About 7 5 persons attended, represent ing such organizations as the United World Federalists, Americans for Democratic Action, Women's International League for Peace, American Association for the United Nations, Federation of American Scientists, Twentieth Century Fund, UAW-CIO, and the General Federation of Women's Groups. Mr. E. A. Gullion, Deputy Director of the Disarmament Administration ( and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ) presided. He urged the groups to propagandize for the establishment of a permanent Disarmament Agency under the control of the State Depart ment, and not answerable to Congress. An agency free of congressional controls would have more latitude for doing what it felt necessary in the field of disarmament, Mr. Gullion explained, pointing out that it is "difficult to work under . the 1 8th century Constitution." On March 2 8 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy sent to Congress a defense message modeled on a confidential memorandum submitted to h i m by h i s D e p u t y A s s i s t an t , W a l t W . Rostow, who had had a private meeting in Moscow with Vasily V. Kuznetsov. Rostow told President Kennedy that the Soviets do not think Americans really want disarma ment, because we continue to build a "first strike" capability against the Soviet Union. Rostow recommended that we allay Soviet suspicions by de-emphasizing offensive weap ons and by emphasizing defensive weapons. On March 3 0, 1 9 6 1 , the Chicago Sun-Times published a story headlined : Inside Story Of A Big Switch: Kennedy's Defense Strategy Tailored To Ease Red Fears. The story was written in Washington by Thomas B. Ross, who commented on the relationship between Kennedy's defense program and the Rostow memorandum, saying :

HThe similarities in the statements of Ros tow and Mr. Kennedy were no coincidence. It is known that large sections of the Presi dent's defense message were written explicitly Page

for the consumption of top Russian officials. � � Moreover , on the recommendation of Charles E. Bohlen , the State Department's leading expert on Russia , certain communist phraseology was inserted in the message . . . . HThat much of the defense message was directed to the Soviet leaders is evident in the fact that Llewellyn E. Thompson , Jr. , Ambassador to Russia , was given a special briefing on it The message will now be forwarded to him in Moscow so he can reas sure Soviet officials that the United States is taking care not to produce a �first-strike capability. ' ��Emphasis on a �second-strike' capability ran through all the White House meetings on the message. Most of the sessions were directed by Mr. Kennedy's chief aide , Theo dore Sorensen , who repeatedly made it clear that the President wanted to avoid provoc ative , offensive weapons." .

•

Charles Bohlen, who recommended «com munist phraseology" in Kennedy's defense message, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Another key figure in Kennedy's defense-disarmament planning is Dr. Jerome Bert Wiesner, also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here is information about Wiesner, from The New York Times Magazine:

��Dr. Jerome Bert Wiesner, a former pro f e s s o r a t the M a s s a c h u s e t t s In s t i t u t e o f Technology. . . . is the top planner , arbitrator and counselor of scientific policy within the Government , and , thus , throughout the scientific community at l arge . . . . Wiesner oversees the operations of all scientifically oriented agencies , such as the Defense Depart m e n t , A tomic E n e rg y Commission a n d National Science Foundation . . . . H[He] operates behind a wall of White House secrecy, somewhat to the dismay of Congress which would like to be privy to his scientific policy advice . . . . �(Before joining the Administration , Wiesner made no secret of his belief that the United States at times had been almost as much to blame as the Soviet Union for blocking agree ment on arms-control measures . . . . ��One of the principal obstacles standing in the way of disarmament , in Wiesner's opinion, is a �communications block' between the two sides . . . .

149

« It was largely because of his desire to break down the (communications block' that Wiesner last fall took the potentially impolitic step of going to Moscow to attend a non governmental conference of East-West scien ,, tists on disarmament. (1 6 )

On May

2 5 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy, in a special message to Congress , asked for estab lishment of a disarmament agency. ( 17) This was the first formal step toward the agency which the March 2 3 , 1 96 1 , State Department "briefing" of leftwing leaders had prepared the propaganda campaign for. On June 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 , John J. McCloy, Special Adviser to the President on D isarmament ( and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ) , sent to the President a draft of a bill to create the new agency. In his letter of transmittal to the Presiden t , McCloy revealed that the fundamental purpose of the Disarmament Agency is to work for world government. (17) On June 2 9 , 1 9 6 1 , President Kennedy sent McCloy's proposed Bill to the Congress. In his letter of transmittal, the President also revealed that the purpose of the Bill was not only to work toward elimination of national arma ments , but to "strengthen international insti tutions" into world government. (17) On August 1 5 , 1 9 6 1 , four former high officials in the Eisenhower Administration Christian A. Herter, Thomas S. Gates, Gen eral Alfred M. Gruenther, and Henry Cabot Lodge ( all members of the Council on Foreign Relations ) - testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee in support of Presi dent Kennedy's Disarmament Agency. Lodge urged that the Western powers also set up a "unified diplomatic command" so that our "decision - making machinery" will not be cumbersome. (1 8 ) Former President Eisenhower wrote a letter strongly endorsing the proposed agency. (1 8 )

August 3 0, 1 9 6 1 , the Soviet Union resume massive testing of nuclear weapons. (17) The moratorium which the Soviets had asked for abruptly announced that it would

Page

in 1 9 5 8 was at last to end : they had com pleted their analyses of the 1 9 5 8 tests and were ready for another series. One i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t o f t h e S o v i e t announcement is that i t came on the eve of a meeting of 24 "neutral" nations at Belgrade , Yugoslavia. Ostensibly , a major purpose of the meeting was to underscore the neutral nations' oft-repeated plea for major powers to stop testing nuclear weapons. The oddly timed Soviet announcement looked like a deliberate affront. The liberal press of Amer ica predicted that this arrogant act would outrage the neutralist leaders gathering at Belgrade and would, thus, backfire on the Soviets. But when the neutralist leaders gathered , they expressed sympathy for the Soviet Union , and blamed the United States for causing the Soviets to resume nuclear testing. (19) The 24 neutral nations , whose leaders took this action , had all received ( and are still receiving ) great quantities of aid from the United States , little or nothing from the Soviet Union. (19)

T he announced Soviet plan to resume nuclear testing did not slow down the Amer ican drive for disarmament. On September 2 3 , 1 9 6 1 , the House o f Representatives authorized a final version of The Arms Con trol and Disarmament Act of 1 9 6 1 ( HR 9 1 1 8 , Public Law 8 7- 2 97 ) , to establish an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Just as E. A. Gullion had demanded at the State Department briefing six months before, the Agency was set up free of congressional controls. The Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1 9 6 1 confers upon the Director of the new Disarmament Agency broad authority ( under the general supervision of the President and the Secretary of State) to do j ust about any thing the Director may claim to be in the interest of peace and arms control. The Direc tor can formulate United States disarmament policies, conduct negotiations with foreign powers and international organizations , com1 50

mand the services of other federal agencies, obtain restricted information from the Atomic Energy Commission- and enjoy specific ex emptions from laws written by Congress. For example, Section 4 3 of Title IV of the Act says :

��The President may, in advance, exempt actions of the Director from the provisions of law relating to contracts or expenditures of Government funds whenever he determines that such action is essential in the interest of United States arms control and disarmament and security policy."

Only in Section 3 3 of Title III of Public Law 87-297 did Congress insert a provision indicating an intent to retain, in Congress, some control over policies and programs de vised by the Director of the Disarmament Agency. A clause in Section 3 3 provides :

��That no action shall be taken under this or any other law that will obligate the United States to disarm or to reduce or to limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States, except pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitu tion, or unless authorized by further affirm ative legislation by the Congress of the United States."

This provision is meaningless, because mod ern ( and incorrect) Supreme Court interpre tations o f the Constitution hold that the « treaty making power of the President" includes the power to enter into executive agreements with foreign nations - without the advice and consent , or even the knowl edge, of the United States Senate. (20)

September 2 5 , 1 9 6 1 -two days after the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1 9 6 1 was passed in the House - Adlai Ste venson presented, to the 1 6th General Assem bly of the United Nations, the American plan for total world-wide disarmament. This Amer ican plan ( almost identical with the plan which the Soviet Union had submitted to the UN on September 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 ) ( 2 1 ) would transfer control o f United States nuclear weapons to the United Nations, restrict the American military esablishment to the size and kind needed for control of the American Page

population, and prohibit us from possessing or even trying to develop a defense against weap ons of mass destruction. (2.2 1 ) Senator Strom Thurmond ( Democrat, South Carolina) made several speeches in the latter part of 1 9 6 1 , sharply criticizing the State Department plan to surrender American nuclear weapons to the UN. Although the plan had been formally presented to the UN and the text published in an official State Department pamphlet, Washington officials, when receiving inquiries from the public , flatly denied that the plan existed. Here are passages from a typical official letter of denial - this one written by John E. Carland , Director of Special Activities, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, to Mrs. W. M. Walters in Spokane, Washington : ((This is in reference to your recent com munication relative to reports that the United States is considering turning over nuclear weapons or information about such weapons to the United Nations. ��The Department of Defense has received other similar letters, apparently stemming from erroneous articles that have appeared in some newspapers. The Defense Department has no such plans and we know of no govern ment proposal which would involve turning nuclear weapons or information about them over to the United Nations."

the end of 1 9 6 1 , plans for disarming the United States ( and, thus, surrendering her sovereignty ) were formulated and an nounced. In 1 9 6 2 , as will be shown in this Report next week, came further development of the plans - chiefly in the form of con cessions to entice Soviet agreement. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Article by Fred Farris, New York Herald Tribune News Service, dateline Washington, in T he San Francisco Examiner, March 1 2 , 1 9 62 ( 2 ) The American plan for total disarmament was published in Septem ber, 1 9 6 1 , by the Government Printing Office as State Department Publication 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The Ullited 'Sta tes P rogram for General a11d Complete Disarmament i1l a Peacef"l World.

Here are passages from the official text: "The Nations of the world. . . . set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament . . . ctThe elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, includ ing all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order; . . .

151

"As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened . . . . "STAGE I . . . . "An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations . . . . "Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels . . . . The reduction shall be accomplished . . . by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO . . . . "Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited. "Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted . . . . "STAGE I I . . . . "Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out . . . . "During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations . . . . The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strength ened . . . . "STAGE III . . . . "In Stage III, progressive controlled disarmament . . . would pro ceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force. . . . HStates would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U. N. Peace Force. "The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning. "The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order . . . . " ( 3 ) The Test Ban: An American Strategy of Gradual Sel/-Mutilation, by Stefan T. Possony, Congressiollal Record, March 2 1 , 1 9 6 3 pp. 4 3 5 8-70 ( 4 ) "Are We Trying To Lose The Cold War?" by U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond ( Democrat, South Carolina) , Weekly Broadcast No. 447, The Manion Forum, South Bend, Indiana, April 2 1 , 1 9 63 ( 5 ) Soviet Political Agreemell/s and ReS1tlts, a Staff Study, Internal Security Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, May 2 1 , 1 9 5 6 ( 6 ) "Text of Gromyko Announcement of the Soviet Decision to Suspend Nuclear Tests," Reuters dispatch from London, The New York Times, April 1 , 1 9 5 8 , pp. 1 4- 1 5

(7) "U.S. Statement on the Soviet Decision," AP dispatch from Washing ton, The New York Times, April 1, 1 9 5 8 , p. 1 5 ( 8 ) Special to the Times, The New York Times, October 3 1 , 1 9 5 8 , p. 1 ; and Special to the Times from Geneva by Drew Middleton, The New York Times, November 1 , 1 9 5 8 , pp. 1, 3 ( 9 ) "Khrushchev Coming to U.S. Next Month," Special to the Times from Washington by Felix Belair, Jr., The New York Times, August 4, 1 9 5 9 , pp. 1, 3 ; and "Nuclear Talks Proceed: 3 Powers Reiterate Stands on Controls in Geneva," Special to the Times from Geneva, The New York Times, August 4, 1 9 5 9 , p. 3 ( 1 0 ) "Lloyd Remarks," Special to the Times from the UN, The New York Times, September 1 8 , 1 9 5 9 , pp. 4-5 ( 1 1 ) "Text of Premier Khrushchev's Address to the United Nations General Assembly," and "Text of Soviet Government Declaration Proposing Complete Disarmament," The New York Times, September 1 9, 1 9 5 9 , pp. 8 - 9 , 1 2 ( 1 2 ) "U.S. Said Willing To Equal Soviet Disarmament Steps," UPI dispatch from Miami Beach, Dnrham (North Carolilla) Morning Herald, October 1 9, 1 95 9 ( 1 3 ) Docnmellts o n Disarmamellt, 1 9 60, State Department Publication No. 7 1 72, July, 1 9 6 1 , pp. xii, 66, 1 3 1 , 2 2 5 -9, 2 2 9-48 ( 1 4) "The Summit and the Test Ban Fallacy," speech by U.S. Senator Thomas J. Dodd (Democrat, Connecticut ) , Congressional Record, May 1 2 , 1 960, pp. 94 1 2- 2 3 ( 1 5 ) Proceedings of the Asilomar National St"J/egy Semillar, prepared b y Stanford Research Institute, sponsored b y Sixth U.S. Army, Western Sea Frontier, Fourth Air Force, April, 1 9 6 0 ; and "Idea Promoted : Defeatism Big Danger," by Edith Kermit Roosevelt, The Dallas MOYlling News, September 17, 1 9 6 1 ( 1 6 ) "Top Scientist O n The New Frontier," b y John W . Finney, The New York Times MagaZine, September 3 , 1 9 6 1 , pp. 8 H. ( 1 7 ) Docummts On Disarmament, 1 9 6 1 , United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 5 , August, 1 962, pp. 1 5 1 -61 , 1 9 6-9, 2 1 4-27, 3 1 7 - 5 0 ( 1 8 ) Letter, U.S. Representative Walter Rogers (Democrat, Texas) in support of Disarmament Agency, February 2, 1 963 ( 1 9 ) "Text of the Declaration of Belgrade," The New York Times, Septem ber 7, 1 9 6 1 , p. 8 ; "When 'Neutrals' get Together," U.S. News <5 World Report, September I I , 1 96 1 , pp. 74 ff. ( 2 0 ) Discussion of the Executive Agreement and its binding powers, various Supreme Court decisions, contained in The COIIS/Untion 0/ the United States 0/ America, Allalysis alld Interpretali()1I, prepared by the Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, Edward S. Corwin, Editor, U.S. Senate Document No. 1 70 , 82d Congress, 2d Session, 1 9 5 3 , pp. 434-45 ( 2 1 ) "This Time, Russians Really Did It First," Ama.rillo (Texas) Daily New"" February 1 6 , 1 96 3 , p. 4 - setting out, side by side, the Soviet disarmament proposals of September 2 3 , 1 9 6 0 ; and the American disarmament proposals of September 2 5 , 1 9 6 1

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCU SSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE. WHO

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FB I Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar� ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 152

THE

1)1111 SmootlIe,ort Vol. 9, No. 20

( Broadcast 405 )

May 20, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

D I S A R M A M E N T - PA R T I I I

early as 1 9 1 7, international communists began to use world-wide disarmament propaganda as a means of attack against non -communist nations, particularly the United States. To communists, world-wide disarmament does not mean elimination from the world of all weapons of war. It means taking all weapons away from non-communists so that they can offer no resistance to communism. Lenin said, and Khrushchev has repeated, that communists are contemptuous of pacifism, but can effectively use pacifists in non-communist nations.

)

Pacifists believe that war is horrible ; and every decent and sane person on earth agrees with them. Pacifists, however, are not willing to accept reality. Reality is that wars are inevitable until human beings are better than they have ever been since Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Human beings cannot be improved through legislation or disarmament pacts. They certainly cannot be improved by having their weapons taken away from them. Suppose non-communist nations could mlke an agreement with communist dictators which resulted in the actual world-wide elimination of all modern weapons of war. What would then prevent the hordes of Asia and Africa from overrunning the civilized world with butcher knives ? To avoid such a catastrophe, why not disarm all nations, but at the same time arm an international authority to keep the peace? This would be worse than total disarmament without an armed authority to enforce order. Any agency with enough authority to police the world, and with a monopoly of weapons, will enslave and oppress the world. That fact also derives from the nature of man. Civilized people stripped of weapons THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25Â˘; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 53

would, at least, have a better chance to defend themselves against lawless and ravaging hordes than to defend themselves against an inter national authority armed with modern weap ons, and in control of the world. Men will become «good" enough to refrain from warring on each other only when, and if, all men accept for themselves the saving grace that God offers. Meanwhile, it behooves all nations ( most especially civilized Western nations whose culture is founded on faith in God) to maintain whatever weaponry is nec essary to protect their civilization against all threats, within or without.

B efore the councils of the world, there are, at present, two basic proposals for so-called world-wide disarmament : the Soviet. govern ment's proposal and the American govern ment's proposal. The Soviet government pretends to want world-wide disarmament without a strong international authority to keep the peace. Even if the communist proposal were honest ( which it most certainly is not ) , it would eventuate in the catastrophe of a defenseless civilized world being overrun by hordes of barbarians. The American government wants total dis armament of all nations, with an international authority armed and empowered to enforce the peace - a plan which would eventuate in a universal, all-powerful dictatorship even more horrible than anarchy.

H ow we arrived at the point where the nations of the world are seriously considering these two alternatives for disaster is an amaz ing story - parts of which are sketched in the two previous issues of this Report. A Review

T he testing of nuclear explosions - in the air, under ground, under water, and in space - is necessary for research to develop Page

nuclear weapons, particularly defensive weap ons : anti-missile missiles, for example. Each nuclear explosion produces a mass of new information which is useless until it has been studied, evaluated, and correlated with other technical information. Yet, the time and cost of preparing for a nuclear shot make one-shot nuclear testing impractical. The practical way is to arrange a series of nuclear explosions, and then to sus pend all testing until the whole mass of infor mation produced has been assimilated. The work of assimilation may take years. During that time, it is not sensible to do any major testing.

the spring of 1 9 5 8 , the Soviets, hav ing concluded a major series of nuclear tests, asked for a moratorium on testing. Peace propagandists raised a clamor in support of the Soviet proposal. On October 3 1 , 1 9 5 8 , Eisenhower halted all plans for American nuclear testing, accepting Khrushchev's un supported promise that he would do likewise. Kennedy continued the ban on American testing, though it was universally known that the Soviets had never kept their word. The men whom Kennedy placed in charge of defense and disarmament policies were on rec ord as wanting American disarmament, with or without Soviet disarmament ; they devised a defense program admittedly intended to please the Soviets ; they rammed through Congress an Act creatmg a D Isarmament O A gency ( 1 ) with a Director empowered to do anything ( including violations of federal law ) which he might claim to be in the interest of peace and disarmament ; and they submitted to the UN a proposed treaty which would disarm the United S tates and surrender her nuclear weapons. °

By the end of 1 9 6 1 , military men were expressing grave fear that the Kennedy defense and disarmament programs would leave the United States virtually helpless against the Soviets. ( 2) 1 54

1962

On March 2 , 1 9 6 2 , President Kennedy said the Soviets, in their nuclear tests, were pressing hard toward the goal of developing the most desperately needed weapon of our time - a means of destroying attacking enemy rockets before they explode on target. The President said the Soviet tests of 1 9 6 1 "reflected . . . the trial of novel designs and techniques, and some substantial gains in weaponry. " Mentioning the powerful "nuclear attack and defense capability" which the Soviets are developing, the President warned that further Soviet tests would put the free world in grave danger. He said that the United States "cannot make sim ilar strides without testing in the atmosphere as well as underground, " and that «in many areas of nuclear weapons research we have reached the point where our progress is stifled without . . . expenments In every enVIronment. , , (3 ) Concerning the possibility of negotiating some effective ban on Soviet testing, the Presi dent said : ��The basic lesson of some 3 years and 3 5 3 negotiating sessions at Geneva is this - that the Soviets will not agree to an effective ban as long . . . as a new uninspected mora torium or a new agreement without controls, would enable them once again to prevent the West from testing while they prepare in secret." ( 3 ) .

•

On March 1 1 , 1 9 6 2 , Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, said the United States has «no reasonable prospect" of developing a successful defense against missiles. At the same time, American officialdom generally was reflecting the expressed conviction of the Presi dent that the Soviets may be on the point of developing such a defensive weapon. In view of all this, it was reasonable to assume that the President would order imme diate preparations for massive American test ing of nuclear weapons. He did not. He ordered a new series of atmospheric tests to be held in the Pacific beginning in late April, 1 96 2 - but promised that the tests would not Page

be conducted if the Soviets would SIgn nuclear test ban by mid April. (4 )

On March

1 4, 1 9 6 2 , when the Eighteen nation Disarmament Committee began an other series of disarmament conferences at Geneva, the United States and Great Britain proposed the outlawing o f underground nuclear tests, suggesting an international inspection system to detect and investigate suspicious earth tremors - that is, earth tremors which seismic instruments could not positively identify as earthquakes. The Soviets held out for an unpoliced moratorium on underground tests, pending the development of a control system for general and complete disarmament. (4) On April 9 , 1 9 6 2 , President Kennedy and Prime Minister MacMillan personally appealed to Khrushchev to reconsider the Soviet posi tion, pointing out that scientific instrumenta tion is not fully capable of distinguishing earth quakes from underground explosions. (5) On April 1 2 , 1 9 6 2 , Khrushchev replied by saying Kennedy and MacMillan wanted inspec tion as a means of "choosing the moment to attack the Soviet Union. , , (5 ) On April 1 2 , 1 9 6 2 , various members of the 1 8 -nation Committee appealed to the Soviet Union and the United States to enter another unpoliced moratorium on testing for the dura tion of the Conference. The Soviet Union agreed to this proposal. (4) On April 1 6, 1 9 6 2 , eight small-nation mem bers of the Eighteen-nation Disarmament Committee suggested a compromise solution, which was, in effect, that existing national con trol and detection systems be used instead of the international inspection system demanded by the United States. An impartial Interna tional Commission would process data pro duced by the various national detection sys tems. If the International Commission noticed data which might indicate an illegal nuclear test somewhere, it would notify the nation on whose territory that event occurred. The sus155

pected nation would then co-operate with the Inte�national Commission in determining the preCIse nature of the explosion in question. ( 5 ) The United States and the United Kingdom accepted this eight-nation proposal as a basis for neg?tiation. The Soviets also accepted it, . saymg It was practically identical with their own proposal. (4)

O n April

1 8 , 1 9 6 2 , United States Ambas sador Arthur H. Dean presented to the Eighteen-nation Disarmament Committee an "Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." This plan, developed by the U. S. Disarmament Agency, has been officially characterized as «the most comprehensive blueprint for peace through multilateral inter national disarmament that the United States or any other country has ever undertaken. ,, (4 ) William C. Foster, Director of the Disarma ment Agency, sums up his 1 9 6 2 general dis armament proposals in these words : HThe United States proposes to achieve the goal of general and complete disarmament in three stages. In each stage all major arma ments, including nuclear delivery vehicles, would be reduced by one-third .

•

« Stage I of the U. S. plan contains essential measures to meet the nuclear threat, espe cially by a cutoff of the production of fission able materials for nuclear weapons purposes. Further measures to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons remaining in national arsenals would be carried out in stages II and III of the U. S. Program after the completion of international expert ,, studies. (4)

The American disarmament proposal which Foster thus describes, and which was formally presented at Geneva on April 1 8 , 1 96 2 , is basically the same as the treaty which Adlai Stevenson submitted to the United Nations in September, 1 9 6 1 - proposing to strip the United States of nuclear, and other modern weapons, by turning them over to the United Nations. The 1 9 62 proposal, however, went into detail about how the reduction in national Page

armaments would be carried out in a three stage plan. Nations would reduce their arma ments by one-third each year for three years. Combat aircraft and ships and missiles of all kinds, anti-missile missile systems, tanks, �rmored cars, and so on - all would be placed m a depot under supervision of an Interna tional Disarmament Organization. The IDO would have power to destroy them, order them converted for «peaceful" purposes, or order them turned over to a United Nations military force to strengthen the UN peace-keeping m achinery. The Soviets rejected the American proposal. No agreement having been reached at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, President Kennedy ordered a resumption of American testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. The series began on April 2 6, 1 9 6 2 . But the testing was timid and halting, hobbled by politics and propaganda. Kennedy permitted only a few tests in the atmosphere before again suspending them. ·

The

first session of the Eighteen-nation Disarmament Conference at Geneva ended, with no accomplishments, on June 1 4 , 1 9 62 . (5 ) When the second session opened on July 1 6, 1 9 6 2 , American representatives startled the world by reversing the American stand on the question of inspection and control. Consist ently, American officials had insisted that dis armament would not work unless there was an international inspection and control system. Khrushchev had consistently insisted that existing national inspection and control sys tems would be adequate - since these systems could report to an international commission on any suspicious activity which they detected. In April, 1 9 6 2 , President Kennedy had rejected Khrushchev's proposal for an unpoliced mora torium on underground nuclear testing for the specific reason that there is no positive means of telling whether an earth tremor is caused by earthquake or by underground explosion. (4.5) On August 1 , 1 96 2 , President Kennedy announced that, whereas in April he had not 156

believed that there was adequate seismic instru mentation for identifying earth tremors, he now believed there was such equipment and that he was, therefore, willing to abandon the previous American demand for an interna tional inspection and control system. The Pres ident said he is now willing to accept the pro posal (perennially made by Khrushchev ) for a national system under international super vision. (4,5 ) The President laid down one proviso : the Soviets must accept the American principle of on-site inspections of unidentified seismic events. This means that if detection equipment records and locates an earth tremor which can not be identified as an 'earthquake, interna tional inspectors should be permitted to go to the locale of that tremor ( within the Soviet Union or elsewhere) and make an on-the-spot ( on-site) inspection. As usual, the Soviets rejected the on-site inspection proposal.

T he United States tried again.

On August 2 7 , 1 9 62, the United States and the United Kingdom introduced at the Geneva Confer ence two new treaties which the U.S. Disarma ment Agency had drawn up. One provided for a total ban on all kinds of nuclear testing, the ban to be policed by a nationally manned detec tion system under international supervision. The other Disarmament Agency proposal of August 2 7 , provided for a limited ban on nuclear testing - without any international verification machinery. (4,5) The "Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weap ons Tests In All Environments," which the United States and the United Kingdom pro posed on August 2 7 , 1 9 62 , would place an International Scientific Commission in charge of all arrangements and agreements. This Com mission would be composed of representatives of 1 5 nations. The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain would each be a permanent mem ber. Of the remaining 1 2 members, the Soviet Page

Union would nominate 3 ; the United States would nominate 1 ; Great Britain would nom inate 1 ; and all three powers together would nominate 7Y ) The Soviet Union rejected both of the American August 2 7 proposals and demanded an uninspected moratorium on nuclear testing to begin January 1 , 1 9 6 3 . The Soviets were near completion of their 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 2 tests and wanted to call time-out in 1 9 6 3 for the nec essary period of study and evaluation. President Kennedy replied that the United States was willing to ban all nuclear tests beginning Jan uary 1 , 1 9 6 3 , if an effective agreement could be reached by then.

T he 1 0th Pugwash Conference, held at London in September, 1 9 6 2 , proposed that detection of nuclear explosions be achieved by unmanned nuclear detection stations ( little black boxes) . Pugwash Conference refers to meetings of Soviet and Western scientists which have been held at intervals since July, 1 9 5 7 - when the first such conference was held in Pugwash, Nova Scotia,(4 ) at the home of Cyrus Eaton, an American industrialist whose sympathy with the Soviet Union is notorious. No unmanned detection stations, of the kind suggested by the pro-Soviets at the Pug wash Conference, have yet been developed. If developed, they would be small, portable, sealed boxes, containing seismic equipment. A specified number of them would be placed in specified locations throughout the world. If other detection equipment recorded an un identifiable earth tremor located, say, on Soviet soil, the United States ( or any other nation ) could request that international inspectors examine the seismic boxes located in the Soviet Union to see what they had recorded. The Soviets would then fly the boxes to some designated place and let international inspectors examine them. That is the «little black boxes" scheme, devised by Cyrus Eaton's pro-Soviet Pugwash Conference at London in September, 1 9 6 2 . 157

On December 1 0, 1 9 6 2 , the Soviets for mally adopted the Pugwash proposal as their own, suggesting a nuclear test ban to be moni tored by the little boxes. The Soviets said they were willing to have two or three such boxes placed in Soviet territory. They even promised to permit international inspectors to enter the Soviet Union periodically to collect readings from the little boxes - provided the inspectors were under tight Soviet escort and security screening while on Soviet territory. United States officialdom welcomed this Soviet proposal as a heartening sign and as a hopeful forerunner · of things to come, although admitting that the Soviet proposal did not provide the foolproof inspection and control which the United States wanted.

December 1 2 , 1 9 6 2 , the fourth "treaty" or set of arms-control proposals devised by the U.S. Disarmament Agency, was submitted to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Made "in the wake of the Cuban crisis," this December 1 2 proposal included six measures designed to reduce the risk of war through accident, miscalculation or the failure of communication. Those six measures : CCFirst, the exchange of military missions among nations. We currently exchange mili tary attaches with the Soviet Union : this pro posal would be a broadening of this precedent. cCSecond, advance notification to all coun tries of military maneuvers. HThird, the improvement of communica tions between major governments. This would include the so-called Chot line' or cpurple tele phone' between President Kennedy and Chair man Khruschev but would also take in lower echelon communications as well. cCFourth, observation posts established at major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and river crossings. CCFifth, an international committee to study other methods to reduce the risk of war through miscalculation. HSixth, addition al observation procedures - not specified."(6) Page

O n December 1 9, 1 96 2 , Khrushchev wrote President Kennedy that the Soviet Union would accept two to three on-site inspections per year on Soviet territory, and would permit three unmanned seismic stations in the Soviet Union. (6) On December 2 8 , 1 9 6 2 , Kennedy wrote Khrushchev saying he was encouraged that the Soviet Union could "accept the principle of on-site inspections," but said that three un manned seismic stations were not enough and that the locations suggested by Khrushchev might not do. (6) 1963

On January 7 , 1 9 6 3 , Khrushchev wrote Kennedy again, making it clear that his accept ance of the principle of on-site inspections means that any inspectors entering the Soviet Union will enter only on the invitation of the Soviet government ; that they will be under careful guard and escort by the Soviets while there ; and that the Soviets reserve the right to keep the inspectors from seeing anything which . may not want them to see. ( 3 ) the SoVlets This seemed to satisfy President Kennedy. On January 2 0 , 1 9 6 3 , he again stopped all American nuclear testing ( even underground ) - at a time when the Soviets had finished all the testing they wanted and needed leisure to digest the information. On January 3 1 , 1 9 6 3 , the Soviets ( having reached their objective of stopping American nuclear testing ) abruptly ended the disarmament conference. The next day, February 1 , 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy ordered preparations for new nuclear tests in Nevada. On March 1 1 , 1 9 6 3 , William C. Foster, Director of the Arms Control and Disarma ment Agency, testified before the Joint Atomic Energy Commission of Congress, saying he is confident that the Soviets will not cheat on a nuclear test ban, once they accept a treaty. A s to further concessions which the United

States may make in the interest of negotiating 158

a test ban treaty, Mr. Foster said we now demand seven annual inspections of specified installations on Soviet soil, and that we will not reduce that number "until there is some move ment away from the Soviet position. " (7) When the nuclear test ban negotiations first began in 1 9 5 8 , the Uni ted S ta tes was demand ing an elaborate international inspection and control system , implemented by twenty annual, unconditional, on-site inspections. By March, 1 9 6 3 , U. S. officials had abandoned the international inspection and control system, and were willing to accept only seven on-site inspections. On April 2 4 , 1 9 6 3 , Western leaders made another appeal to Khrushchev, this time indicating willingness to make further con cessions in the matter of on-site inspections. They asked Khrushchev to quit thinking about the number of annual on-site inspections, and

to please concentrate on modifying his require ments about how the inspections will be con ducted.(8 )

C omplicated

programs of nuclear testing cannot be turned on and off like water taps. Preparations for a series of nuclear tests in Nevada ( which Kennedy ordered on February 1 , 1 9 6 3 , after ordering suspension of prepara tions on January 2 0 ) cost taxpayers a lot of money but produced nothing. On May 1 3 , 1 9 6 3 , the Atomic Energy Com mission announced cancellation of the planned series of tests in Nevada - giving no reason and no date for resumption of the plans. (9)

WHAT TO DO

T he danger we face - of having the armaments and the sovereignty of our nation

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS N OW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

For prices on single and multiple copies of this Report, see bottom of the first page. How many people do you know who should read this Report? DAN SMOOT, P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station Dallas 14, Texas Please enter my subscription for SMOOT REPORT. I enclose $

D Renewal ____

years ) <

New Subscription

_months )

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

SUBSCRIPTION RATES ( Add 2% Sales tax if ordered in Texas for Texas delivery ) PRINT

Rates : $18 for 2 years $ 1 0 for 1 year $ 6 for six months $1 2.50. first class mail for 1 year $14.50, air mail for 1 year Inquire for foreign mailing including Canada

NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ZONE AND STATE

Page 1 59

to THE DAN

surrendered by bureaucrats who man the Dis armament Agency - is grave. The most immediate need for action is strong public support for HR 3 6 1 3 , a Bill introduced by U. S. Representative James B. Utt ( Repub lican, California) , to abolish the Disarmament Agency and repeal the Arms Control and Dis armament Act of 1 9 6 1 . On February 7 , 1 9 6 3 , U. S. Representative Omar Burleson ( Democrat, Texas ) introduced in the House H. Con. Res. 8 3 ; and on Feb ruary 2 0, 1 9 6 3 , Senator Carl T. Curtis ( Republican, Nebraska) introduced the same Resolution in the Senate as S. Con. Res. 2 1 . This Curtis-Burleson Resolution attempts to guarantee congressional supervision of Disarm ament Agency proposals and to guarantee that any disarmament agreements that may be negotiated must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) The list below gives the names of all United States Senators and Representatives who took a stand, in roll call votes, against the Dis armament Agency Act in 1 9 6 1 . I f your Senator or Representative was in Congress at that time and is not listed below, he was ii, favor of the Disarmament Agency. The votes are taken from the Congres sional Quarterly Weekly Report of September 1 5 , p. 1 602 ; September 2 2 , pp. 1 640 - 1 ; and September 2 9 , pp. 1 6 8 6 - 7 ; all 1 96 1 . SENATE: Arizona - Goldwater ( R ) ; Arkallsas - McClellan (D) ; Florida - Smathers (D) ; Georgia - Russell (D ) , Talmadge (D) ; Kallsas - Schoeppel ( R ) ; Louisiana - Ellender (D) ; MississiPPi Eastland (D) , Stennis (D) ; Nebraska - Curtis (R) , Hruska ( R ) ; South Carolilla - Thurmond (D) ; South Dakota - Mundt ( R ) ; Texas - Tower ( R ) ; Virgillia - Byrd ( D ) HOUSE : A rizolla - Rhodes ( R ) ; Arkansas - Alford (D) , Gath ings (D) , Norrell ( D ) ; Califomia - Bell ( R ) , Hiestand ( R ) , Lipscomb ( R ) , McDonough ( R ) , Rousselot ( R ) , Sheppard (D) , Smith ( R ) , Un (R) ; Colorado - Dominick ( R ) ; Florida - Haley (D) ; Georgia - James C. Davis (D) ; Iliillois - Anderson ( R ) Findley ( R ) , Hoffman ( R ) ; I lldiana - Bruce ( R ) , Roudebush ( R ) Wilson ( R ) ; Iowa - Hoeven ( R ) , Gross ( R ) , Jensen ( R ) ; Kansas Dole ( R ) , McVey ( R ) ; LOllisiana - Hebert (D) ; Michigall - Ben nett ( R ) , Harvey ( R ) , Hoffman (R) , Johansen (R) , Meader ( R ) ; MississiPPi -- Williams (D) ; Winstead (D) ; Missouri - Hall ( R ) ; Montalla - Battin (R) ; Nebra.,ka - Beerman ( R ) , Cunningham ( R ) ; New /ersey - Auchincloss ( R ) ; New York - De unian (R) , Kil burn ( R ) , King (R) , Pillion ( R ) , Ray ( R ) , St. George (R) , Taber ( R ) ; North Dakota - Short ( R ) ; Ohio - Ashbrook ( R ) , Devine (R) , Scherer (R) ; Pennsylvallia - Gavin ( R ) , Goodling (R) , Saylor (R) ; South Carolilla - Ashmore (D) , Dorn (D) , Riley (D) , Rivers (D) ; Texas - Alger ( R ) , Burleson (D) , Casey (D) , Dowdy ( D ) , Rutherford (D) , Teague (D) ; Virginia - Abbitt (D) , Tuck ( D ) ; WiscolISin - Laird ( R ) , O'Konski (R) , Schadeberg (R) , Van Pelt ( R ) ( 2 ) For a complete discussion o f t h e background o f disarmament, includ ing documentation, see this Report, HDisarmament - Part I," May 6, 1 96 3 ; and "Disarmament - Part II," May 1 3 , 1 96 3 .

I n my opinion,

the Curtis-Burleson Reso lution is not enough. It may be comforting to some to know that committees of Congress will be looking over the shoulders of men negotiat ing the surrender of the United States and that the Senate must approve the surrender. But it does not comfort me. I think we should stop the negotiating. A major step in that direction would be adoption of Utt's Bill to abolish the Disarmament Agency. *

( 3 ) The TfSt Ba1l: All Americall St rategy 0 / G radual Self-Mutilation, by Stefan T. Possony, Congressional Record, pp. 43 5 8-70 (4) Second Anll1lal Report 10 COil gress, 'alluary 1 , 1962 - December 3 1 , 1962, U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 1 4, February, 1 963 ( 5 ) 11lterllational Negotiations 011 Ellditlg Nue/ear Weapol1 Tesls, Septem ber 1961 - September 1962. U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 9, October, 1 9 62 ( 6 ) Remarks of U. S. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minne sota) , COllgressional Record, February 1 1 , 1 96 3 , pp. 2 0 2 3 ff. ( 7 ) "Foster Expects No Cheating If Reds Accept Test Ban," The Wash illgtOl1 B l 'elling Slar, March 1 2 , 1 9 63

( 8 ) The New Y o r k Times, April 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 , 4 ( 9 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Mortling News, May 14, 1 96 3 , p. 1

THIS REPORT AN D THE PREVIOUS TWO ON DISARMAMENT AVAILABLE AS A SET OF 3 FOR 50c *

WHO

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 160

THE o

1Jtlll SmootRepo,t Vol. 9, No. 2 1

( Broadcast 40 6 )

May 27, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

FI RST R O L L C A L L S, 1 9 6 3

Roll call tabulations in this Report are unique in that we try to select only those votes which reflect a stand for or against constitutional principles.

We consider a 1 -billion-dollar foreign aid program as bad in principle as a 4-billion dollar foreign aid program ; a 1 -billion-dollar urban renewal program, as unconstitutional as a 1 O-billion-dollar urban renewal program. We are not interested in «economy-minded" legislators. If they vote to spend any tax money at all on programs which are not clearly authorized by some grant of power in the Constitution, they are voting liberal, which means against constitutional principles. We do not believe in reducing unconstitutional programs ; we believe in abolishing them. We never select for tabulation a roll call vote after first looking to see which legislators voted which way. We are not concerned with «building a record" for or against any Sena tor or Representative. Letting the chips fall where they may, we are, however, eager to see a growing number of legislators build for themselves a record of voting consistently for constitutional principles.

A ll of this being understood, it will encourage constitutional conservatives to notice that, on the basis of roll calls tabulated in this Report, the 8 8 th Congress is, so far, the best Congress we have had in a very long time. In the roll calls tabulated below, 2 3 United States Senators made constitutionalist ratings of 8 0% or better - 8 of them making 1 0 0% ratings. The House looks even better. In the tabulations below, 1 2 0 United States Representatives made constitutionalist ratings of 8 0% or better - 5 0 of them making 1 0 0% ratings.

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 161

For detailed comparison between the voting of the 8 7th Congress in 1 9 62 and of the 8 8 th Congress to the middle of May, 1 9 6 3 , exam ine the votes tabulated below, and then refer to this Report dated October 1 , 1 9 6 2, entitled «Voting Records, 1 9 6 2 . " O n May 1 7, 1 9 6 3 - 1 8 weeks after the 8 8 th Congress convened - Congres� had approved only 1 of 2 5 major pieces of legis lation desired by President Kennedy : the Feed Grains Bill.

T his congressional resistance to the Ken nedy program in 1 9 6 3 reflects the dedicated, yet often frustrating, efforts of American constitutional conservatives who keep Con gress informed on how they feel. A surprising number of constitutional con servatives, in all parts of the country, spend a great deal of time, energy, and money in sup port of constitutional principles. They write their elected representatives ; and they distrib ute conservative materials to friends, urging them to write. Many eventually write me, in tones of despair, saying their efforts do no good, because Congress ignores their view point. The roll call votes tabulated below show otherwise. By the end of March, 1 9 6 3 , it was widely reported that Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General, had prepared a list of conservative Democrats whom the Kennedy Administration plans to «purge" from Congress in 1 9 64, because of their opposition to Kennedy pro grams. Robert F. Kennedy has denied the reports. But The Washington Star has pub lished details on meetings held by COPE ( political action arm of the AF � -CIO ) at which the «purge" program was dlscussed . meetings attended by officials of the natIOnal Democrat Party. The people should meet this challenge head -on : they should purge liberals from Congress in 1 9 64. F i l i buster

February 7, 1 9 6 3 , the Senate, by a stand of 5 6 to 44, rejected Administration Page

attempts to limit debate in the Senate. The vote is shown below in Column 1 under Senate - C indicating a vote to continue the ancient principle of unlimited debate.

U rban Mass Tra nsportation

April 4, 1 9 6 3 , by a stand of 5 4 to 4 5 , the Senate passed the Mass Transportation Act of 1 9 6 3 ( S 6 ) . The vote is shown below in Column 2 under Senate - C indicating a vote against. The bill has cleared committees in the House but has not yet been voted on. The Bill would provide 3 7 5 million federal tax dollars as matching grants to states and cities for buying out private public trans portation firms, or improving existing facili ties, either under private or public ownership. This program is, as Senator Frank J. Lausche ( Democrat, Ohio ) says, a "vote-buying device" which would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Existing subsidy programs ( to air lines and railroads) already have us on the road toward nationalization ( government owner ship ) of all transportation facilities. The Urban Mass Transportation Bill would be another giant stride down that road.

Wi lderness Bi l l

O n April 9 , 1 9 6 3 , the Senate, by a stand of 8 5 to 1 5 , passed the National Wilderness Preservation System Act ( S 4 ) . The vote is shown below in Column 3 under Senate C indicating a vote against. Hearings on this Bill have not yet been scheduled in the House. This Bill would place 6 5 .4 million acres of land in a «Wilderness System, " under tight control of presidential appointees who could permit or prohibit commercial activity ; who could prohibit private capital from develop ing hydro-electric power facilities, but permit government-owned power facilities ; who could permit or prohibit the grazing of live stock ; who could permit or prohibit the building of roads ; who could permit or pro hibit mining and prospecting - all in accord ance with the wishes of the President. 162

Youth Conservation Corps

O n April 1 0, 1 9 6 3 , the Senate, by a stand of 5 7 to 4 2 , passed the Youth Employment Act of 1 9 6 3 ( S 1 ) The vote is shown below in Column 4 under Senate C indicating a vote against. The measure has cleared com mittees in the House but has not yet come to a vote. The Bill could create an American counter-part of government youth organiza tions which are essential tools of dictatorship in all communist countries, as they were in nazi Germany and in fascist Italy before WorId War II. .

hibited by the American Bill of Rights. This Senate vote is shown below in Column 6 under Senate C indicating a vote against the additional funds. The House never con sidered this effort to hire more IRS enforcers. -

Accelerated Public Works

I n 1 9 6 2 , Congress passed the Public Works

Acceleration Act, authorizing 9 0 0 million dollars for public works projects ( which are vote-buying spending programs generally placed in key districts where politicians wish to reward political supporters ) . Congress appropriated 4 0 0 million for the program in 1 9 6 2 . On April 1 0 , 1 9 6 3 , the House, by a stand of 2 3 3 to 1 8 9 , authorized another 4 5 0 million dollar appropriation : see Column 3 below under House - C indicating a vote against the new 4 5 0 million dollar appropria tion. On May 1 , 1 9 6 3 , the Senate, by a stand of 6 8 to 3 0 , approved the House action : see Column 5 below under Senate.

I n come Tax Enforcers

O n November 2 8 , 1 9 6 2 , Mortimer M. Caplin, Commissioner of the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, announced :

((President Kennedy approved Public Law 8 7- 8 6 3 , which authorizes Special Agents, Intelligence, and Internal Security Investi gators to execute and serve search and arrest warrants, to seize property, to serve subpoenas and summonses, an d to make arrests without warrants under certain circumstances."

On May 8, 1 9 6 3 , the Senate, by a stand of 60 to 3 0, refused to grant 2 0 million, 8 00 thousand dollars to add 1 1 8 4 more enforce ment agents to the current IRS staff of 2 5 ,6 1 8 enforcers, who exercise powers proPage

Ru les Comm ittee

January 9 , 1 9 6 3 , the House, by a stand of 2 3 5 to 1 9 6, approved permanent enlargement of the House Rules Committee. The sole purpose was to give totalitarian lib erals a majority, thus handicapping conserva tive opposition to Administration proposals. This vote is shown below in Column 1 under House - C indicating a vote against enlarge ment of the Rules Committee.

Com mod ity C red it Corporation

February 27, 1 9 6 3 , the House, by a stand of 2 5 8 to 1 5 8 , authorized a supple mental appropriation of 5 0 8 million, 1 72 thousand dollars ( $ 5 0 8 , 1 72 , 0 0 0 ) to the Com modity Credit Corporation for the remainder of fiscal 1 9 6 3 ( through June 3 0 ) . The vote is shown below in Column 2 under House C indicating a vote against. The Senate approved the supplemental appropriation by voice vote on March 4. The Commodity Credit Corporation - which dispenses tax money for the government's farm price support programs - has cost taxpayers 2 0 billion dollars since 1 9 3 4 ; and, with that money, has financed corruption ( like the Billie Sol Estes operation ) and is driving small farmers off their land, which is being taken over by big syndicates and promoters.

Si lver Leg islation

April 1 0, 1 9 6 3 , the House, by a stand of 2 5 2 to 1 2 3 , passed a Bill ( HR 5 3 8 9 ) which, among other things, eliminates the silver backing for I -dollar bills, replacing them with Federal Reserve notes which are supposed to have fractional gold backing. But the national gold reserve for monetary backing is already more than totally mort gaged to foreigners. This Bill to demonetize 163

of the livestock industry. The Bill passed the Senate on May 1 6, 1 9 6 3 . The Senate roll call will be recorded in a subsequent Report.

silver certificates would create greater drain on our gold reserve, and speed arrival of the day when foreigners may decide to wreck our entire economy by foreclosing on the gold in our monetary reserve. The House vote on this «Silver Bill" is shown below in Column 4 C indicating a vote against. under House Hearings on the Bill have not yet been sched uled in the Senate.

I nternational Peace Corps

October, 1 9 62 , representatives from various nations met in San Juan, Puerto Rico and decided that, in addition to the American Peace Corps, there ought to be an Interna ional Peace Corps. Kennedy's representative promised $ 1 5 0, 0 0 0 to finance the new inter national outfit «during the trial period. " Congress was told nothing about this com mitment to spend tax money. In May, 1 9 6 3 , the House ( which is supposed to initiate all money bills ) was asked to approve a Senate Amendment to the Supplemental Appropria tions Bill authorizing $ 6 5 ,0 0 0 as the American contribution to the International Peace Corps. By a stand of 2 1 9 to 2 0 2 , on May 8 , the House refused. See Column 7 below under House C indicating a vote against the appropriation.

Federa l ized Med ica l Training

On April 24, 1 9 6 3 , the House, b y a stand of 2 9 2 to 1 2 6, passed the Heal th Pro fessions Educational Assistance Act of 1 9 6 3 , authorizing 1 7 5 million dollars in aid to all kinds of medical schools, and thirty million, 700 thousand dollars ( $ 3 0,700,00 0 ) for loans to all kinds of medical students. Hearings on this Bill have not yet been scheduled in the Senate. The House vote is shown below in C indicating a Column 5 under House vote against. -

Feed Gra i ns, 1 963

O n April 2 5 , 1 9 6 3 , the House, by a stand of 2 1 9 to 2 0 6 , passed HR 4997, a Bill to extend Kennedy's Feed Grains program for two more years. The vote is shown below C indicating a in Column 6 under House vote against. This program gives the govern ment control of the feed grains industry, and is a backdoor approach to government control

WHAT TO DO

C onservatives

should congratulate Repre sentatives and Senators who ( as shown in the following tabulations ) have decent constitu tionalist voting records - many of them, for the first time since they have been in Congress.

WHO

DAN

SMOOT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist i nvestigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Repo1·t and broadcasts. Page 164

A l i e " indicates a cons ervative stand.

C olumn # 1

- - Filibuster cloture move,

ROLL

C ALL

An l I L I ! indicates a liberal stand.

S Res 9 ; #2

VOTES

An " 0 1 1 indicates that the legislator did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E

- M a s s T ransportation Act of 1 9 6 3 , S 6 ;

# 3 - - National Wilderness P r e s e rvation

System, S 4; #4 - - Y outh Employment A c t , S 1 ; #5 - - Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal 1 96 3 , accelerated public works funds , HR 5 5 1 7 ; #6

Treasury-Post Office Appropriations for fiscal 1 9 64 , IRS enforcement agents funds , H R 5 5 1 7

MONTANA

Hill, Lister

(D)

Sparkman, John J.

(D)

Mansfield, Michael J.

Metcalf, Lee

(D)

NE BRASKA

ALASKA Bartlett,

ALABAMA

(D)

Gruening, Ernest

(R)

Bible, Alan

Cannon, Howard W .

Hruska, Roman

(R )

NEVADA

A R I Z ONA Goldwat e r ,

Curti s , Carl T .

(D)

Barry

Hayden, Carl

(D)

ARKANSAS Fulbright, J. William McC lellan, John L.

(D)

C ALIFORNIA Engle, Clair

(D)

N E W HAMPSHIRE (R)

C otton, Norris

M c Intyr e , Thomas J.

(D) (R)

Case,

William s , Harrison A . , J r .

Clifford P.

(R) (D)

N E W MEXICO

COLORADO A llott, Gor don

(R)

Dominick, Peter H.

(R)

Anderson, C linton P .

Mechem, Edwin L .

C ONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J .

(D)

Ribicoff, Abraham A.

(D)

(R)

N E W YORK Javits , Jacob K.

(R)

Keating, Kenneth B .

(R)

NORTH C AROLINA

DELAWARE Boggs , J . Caleb

(R)

Williams , John J.

(R)

E rvin, Sam J . ,

Jordan,

Jr.

(D)

B . Everett

(D)

N O R T H DAKOTA

FLORIDA Holland, Spes sard L.

(D)

Burdick, Quentin N .

Smathe r s , George A.

(D)

Young, Milton R.

(D)

(R)

OHIO

GEORGIA Rus s e l l , Richard B .

(D)

Talmadge, Herman E.

(D)

-r:aus c h e , F r ank J .

(D)

Young, Stephen M.

(D)

OKLAHOMA

HAWAII �, Hiram L.

(R)

Inouy e , Daniel K.

(D)

Edmondson, J . Howard

Monroney, A . S . ( M i k e )

(D) (D)

OREGON

IDAHO """Chur c h , Frank

(D)

Jordan, Len B.

(R)

M o r s e , Wayne

Neube rger , Maurine B.

(D) (D)

PENNSYLVANIA

ILLINOIS Dirksen, Everett M . Douglas , Paul H .

(R)

(D)

Clark, Joseph S . ,

Scott, Hugh

Pastore , John O .

Pell, C laiborne

Jr .

(D)

(R)

RHODE ISLAND

INDIANA (D)

Hartke, R . Vance

(D)

(D) (D)

SOUTH C A ROLINA

IOWA �ckenloop e r , Bourke B. Mill e r , Jack

(D)

NEW JERSEY

Kuchel, Thomas H .

Bayh , Birch

(D)

(R)

(R )

Johnston , Olin D .

(D)

Thurmond, Strom

(D)

L L

SOUTH DAKOTA

KANSAS ---carrs on, Frank

(R)

Pearson, James B.

(R)

Gore , Albert

Kefauv e r , Estes

C L

Morton, Thruston B.

(R) (R)

(D)

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY C oope r , John Sherman

M c Gover n , George M undt , Karl E . (R)

(D) (D)

T E X AS

LOUISIANA Ellend e r , Allen J. (D) L ong, Russell B. (D) �ki e , Edmund S.

---rOw e r , John

(R)

Yarborough, Ralph W .

(D)

Smith, Margaret Chase

(R)

�nett, Wallace F. M os s , F r ank E.

(R)

(D)

Aiken, George D .

(D)

P r outy, Winston L.

Kennedy, Edward M .

(D)

Byrd, Harry Flood

Saltonstall, Leverett

(R)

Robertson, A. Willis

(R)

VERMONT

MARYLAND B r e w s t e r , Daniel B .

(D)

UTAH

MAINE

Beall, J. Glenn

(R) (R)

VIRGINIA

MASSACHUSETTS

MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A .

(D)

McNamara, Pat

(D)

(D) (D)

WASHINGTON Jackson, Henry M.

(D)

Magnus on, Warren G .

(D)

WEST VIRGINIA

M I NNESOTA

(D)

L L

L C

L L

(D)

Humphrey, Hubert H.

(D)

Byrd, Robert G.

McC arthy, Eugene J.

(D)

Randolph, Jennings WISCONSIN

MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O. Stennio J J OM (0)

(D)

C c

C C

L L

C C

Nelson, Gaylord A. Proxtni rc . Willia.m

(D)

W YOMING

MISSOURI Long, Edward V .

(D)

M c Ge e , Gale W.

Symington, Stuart

(D)

Simpson, Milward L .

Page

165

(D) (R)

H O US E Column # 1 - - Permanent enlargement of Rules Committe e , H Res 5 ; #2 - - Supplemental Appropriations for Commodity C re dit C orporation, H J Res 284; #3 - - Supplemental Appropriations for 1 96 3 , accelerated public works funds , HR 5 5 1 7 ; #4 - - Repeal of 1 9 3 4 Silver Purchase Act and Silver-backed Dollar s , HR 5 3 8 9 ; #5 -- Health Profe s s ions Educational As sistance Act of 1 9 6 3 , HR 1 2 ; # 6 - - Feed Grains Act, HR 4 9 9 7 ; #7 - - Supplemental Appropriations for 1 96 3 , Inte rnational Peace C orps Secretariate Funds , HR 55 1 7 2

A LABAMA Andr ews, George W . (D) Elliott. Carl (D) Grant, George M. (D) Huddleston, George , Jr. (D) Jone s , Robert E. (D) Rain s , Albert (D) Robert s , Kenneth A . (D) Selden, Armistead 1 . , Jr. (D) A LASKA Rive r s , Ralph J. (D) ARIZ ONA Rhode s , John J. (R) Senner, George F . , Jr. (D) Udall, Morris K . (D) ARKANSAS Gathings , E . C. (D) Harris , Oren (D) Mills , Wilbur O. (0) T rimbl e , James W. (D) C ALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F . , Jr . (R) Bell, Alphonzo E . • Jr . (R) Brown, George E . , Jr . (D) Burkhalt e r , Everett G. (D) C ameron, Ronald B. (0) C lausen, Don H . (R) C ohelan, Jeffery (0) C orman, James C. (D) Edwards , W. Donlon (D) Gubs e r , Charles S. (R) Hagen, Harlan (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins . Augustus F. (D) Holifield, Chet (D) Hosmer, C raig (R) Johnson, Harold T. (D) King , C ecil R . (0) Leggett, Robert L. (D) Lipscomb, Glenard P. (R) Mailliard, William S . (R) Martin, Minor C. (R) McFall, John J . (0) Mille r , George P . (D) Mos s , John E . (D) Roosevelt, James (0) Roybal, Edward R. (D) Shelley, John F , (D) Sheppard, Harry R . (D) Sisk, B . F . (D) Smith, H . Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L . (R) T eague. Charles M. (R) Utt, James B. (R ) Van Deerlin, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson. Charles H . (D) Younge r , J. Arthur (R) COLORADO A s pinall, Wayne N. (D) B r otzman, Donald G. (R) Chenoweth. J. Edgar (R ) Rogers , Byron G. (D) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q. (D) Giaimo, Robert N . (D) Grabowski, Bernard P. (D) Monagan, John S. (D) St . Onge . William (D) Sibal, Abner W. (R) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , J r . (D) FLORIDA BennetL, Cha�'les E . (D) C rame r . William C . (R ) Fascell. Dante B. (D) Fuqua. Don (D)

L L

C L L L L

C L L L L L

C L L L L

L L L L L L L L

L L

L L L L L

C L L L L L L L

C L C C L L L C

C L L

L 'L L

C L C

L L L

C L L

C L L L

L L L L

L C L L L

C C L L L C L L L C L L

C C L

L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L C L C L L L

C C L C L L

C C L L L C L L L C L L L L C C L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

C C L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L

C C L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

L C C L

C C C

L L C L

L C C L

L L L L L L

L L L L L C

L L L L C

L L L L L

L L L L L L

L L L C L C

L L L L L C

C L C

L L

C L L

L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

L C L L L C C C L L L L L L

L C C C C L C

C C L

L C C

0 0

L L C L L C 0

C L L L

L L L L C L 0

C L C

L L C

L L

L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

Page

FLORIDA (cont'd) Gibbons , Sam M. (D) Gurney, Edward J. (R) Haley, James A . (D) Herlong, A. Sydney, Jr. (D) Matthews . D . R . (D) Pepp e r , Claude (D ) Roger s , Paul G. (D) Sike s , Robert L . F. (D) GEORGIA Davis , John W . (D) Flynt, John J . , Jr. (D) Forreste r , E. L . (D) Hagan, G. Elliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Pilc h e r , J. L. (D) Stephens , Robert G . , J r . (D) Tuten, J. Rus s ell (D) Vinson, C ar l (D) Weltne r , Charles L. (D) HAWAII ----cITl,' Thomas P. (D) Matsunaga, Spark M. (D) IDAHO �ding , Ralph R. (D) White, C ompton 1 . , J r . (D) ILLINOIS Ande rson, John B. (R) Arends , Leslie C . (R) C olli e r , Harold R . (R) Dawson, William L. (D) Derwinski, Edward J . (R ) Findley, Paul (R ) Finnegan, Edward R . (D) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Hoffman, Elmer J. (R) Kluczynski, John C . (D) Libonati. Roland V . (D) McC lory, Robert (R) McLoskey, Robert T. (R ) Michel. Robert H. (R ) Murphy, William T . (D) O ' Brien, Thomas J. (D) O ' Har a , Barratt (D) Pric e , M e lvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C . (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Rostenkowski, Daniel (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) Shipley, George E. (D) Spring e r , William L. (R) INDIANA Adai r , E. Ross (R) Brademas , John (D) Bray, William G . (R) Bruc e , Donald C. (R) Denton, Winfield K. (D) Halleck, Charles A. (R) Harvey, Ralph (R) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Rous h , J . Edward (D) Wilson, Earl (R) IOWA �omwell, James E . (R) Gros s , H. R. (R) Hoeven, Charles B. (R) Jens en, Ben F. (R) Kyl, John H . (R) Schwengel, Fred (R) Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS Avery, Wi lliam H . (R) Dol e ,

Bob

(R)

Ellsworth, Robert F . (R) Shriver , Garner E. (R) Skubitz, Joe (R)

166

C C C C L L C L

C C C C L L L C

L L C L L L L

L C C C L L C L

C C C C L L C L

L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L

L C

L L

L L L L L

L L L L L L C

L L

C C

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C L C L C

L C C L C C L L C L L C C C L

C C C L C C L L C L L C C

L L C L C C L L C

C L C C L C C L C L C

C C C C C C L

L C C C C L C L L

C L C C

L L L C L C L L

L L L L L C L C L C

o o

L C L L

L C C L L

L C C C L L L

C C C L C C L L C L

C C C L L

L L L C L

L L C L

C L C

C L L L L L L L

C L C C L C L C

C L C C L C C L C L C

L L L L L L L

C C C C C C L

L C C C C L L

C C C C C C L

L C C L L

C C C C C

L C L

C C C C C

L C L C L

L L

L L L L

C L C C L C C L C L C

C L L C L C C L C L C

L L L L

L C L C L C

C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C L C L C

C C C C C L C C C C C

KENTUCKY Chelf, Frank (D) Natch e r , William H. (D) P e rkins , Carl D . (D) Siler, Eugene (R ) Snyder , M . G. (R) Stubbl e fi e l d , Frank A . (D) Watt s , J ohn C . (D) LOUISIANA Bogg s , Hale (D) Hebert, F. Edward (D) Long, Gillis W. (D) Morrison, James H. (D) Passman, Otto E. (D) Thompson, T. Ashton (D) Waggonner, Joe D . , Jr. (D) Willis , Edwin E. (D) MAINE �ntir e , Clifford G. (R ) Tupper , Stanley R . (R ) MARYLAND Fallon, George H. (D) Friedel, Samuel N . (D) Garmatz, Edward A . (D) Lankford, Richard E. (D) Long , C larence D . (D) Mathias , Charles M cC . , Jr. (R) Morton, Rogers C. B. (R ) Sickl e s , Carlton R . (D) MASSAC HUSE TTS Bates , William H. (R) Boland, Edward P. (D) Burke , James A. (D) C onte , Silvio O . (R) Donohu e , Harold D. (D) Keith, Hastings (R) Macdonald, Torbert H . (D) McC ormack, J ohn W. (D) Martin, Jos eph W . , J r . (R) M o r s e , F. Bradford (R) O 'Neill , Thomas P . , J r . (D) Philbin, Philip J. (D) MICHIGAN Bennett, John B . (R) Broomfield, William S . (R) C e derberg, Elford A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E. (R) Diggs , Charles C . , J r . (D) Dinge l l , John D . (D) Ford, Gerald R . , J r . (R) Griffin, Robert P. (R) Griffiths , Martha W. (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Johans en, August E. (R) Knox, Victor A. (R) Lesinski , John (D) Meade r , George (R ) Nedzi , Lucien N. (D) O'Hara, James G. (D) Ryan, Harold M. (D) Staeble r , Neil (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik, J ohn A . (D) Fras e r , Donald M. (D) Karth, Jos eph E. (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGrego r , Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G. (D) Qui e , Albert H . (R ) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) C olme r , William M . (D) Whitten, Jamie L. (D) Williams , John Bell (D) Winstead, Arthur (D) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D)

C �nnon. C l::!. T"ence (D)

Curti s , Thomas B. (R) Hall, Durward G . (R) Hull, W. R . , Jr. (D) Ichord, Richard (D)

L L L C C L L

L L L L C L L

L L L C C L L

L C L L C L C L

L L L L L L C L

L C L L C L C L

L O L L L L C L

L L L L C L C L

L L L L L L C L

L L L L C L C L

C L

L C

C L

L L

C C

L L L

L L L L L

L L L L L L C L

L L L L C C C L

L L L L L C C L

L L L L L L L

L L L L L L

C L L C L C

C L L C L C L

L L C L L

L L C L L C L C o

C L L C L C L

L L L L

C C L L

C L L L

L L L L

C C L L

L L L L C L

C C C C L L C C L C C C C L C L L L L

C C C C L L C C L C C C C L C L

L L

L L C L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L

L L L L L

L L L C C C L C

L L L C C C C C

L L L C C L L C

L L L C C C L C

C C C C C

L L L L L

C C C C C

C C

C C C C C

L L L C L

C C C C C

L C C C L

C C L

C C C

C C C L

L L C C L L

L L C C L L C C L C C C C L C L L L L

C C C C L L C C C C C C C L

L C C C L L C C L C C C

C L L L L

L L

L L L C C C L C

C L

L o

L L L o

L L C L L C C C

o o

C C L L

L L

Page

MISSOURI (cont ' d ) Jones , Paui C . (D) Karsten, Frank M. (D) Randall, William J. (D) Sullivan, Leonor K. (D) MONTANA Battin. James F . (R ) Olsen, Arnold (D) NEBRASKA Be ermann, Ralph F . (R ) Cunningham, Glenn (R ) Martin, Dave (R ) NEVADA Baring, Walter S . (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE C leveland, James C . (R) Wyman, Louis C. (R) NEW JERSEY Auchinclos s , James C. (R) C ahill, William T . (R ) Daniels , Dominick V . (D) Dwye r , Florence P . (R) F relinghuy s e n , Pet e r , Jr. (R) Gallagh e r , C ornelius E. (D) Glenn, Milton W. (R) J oelson, Charles S. (D) Minish, Jos eph G . (D) Osme r s , Frank C . , Jr. (R) Patten, Edward J . , J r . (D) Rodino, Peter W . , Jr . (D) Thompson, Frank, Jr. (D) Wallhaus e r , George M. (R) Widnall, William B . (R) NEW MEXICO M ontoya, Jos eph M. (D) Morris , Thomas G . (D) NEW YORK Addabbo, Jos eph P . (D) Barry, Robert R. (R) Becke r , Frank J. (R) Buckley, Charles A. (D) C arey, Hugh L. (D) C elle r , Emanuel (D) Delaney, James J. (D) De rounian, Stephen B. (R) Dulski, Thaddeus J . (D) Farbstein, Leonard (D) Fino , Paul A . (R) Gilbert, Jacob H. (D) Goodell, Charles E. (R) Grover , James R . , J r . (R) Halpern, Seymour (R) Healey, James C . (D) Horton, Frank J . (R) K e lly, Edna F . (D) Keogh , Eugene J . (D) Kilburn, C larence E. (R) King, Carleton J . (R) Lindsay, J ohn V. (R) Mill e r , William E . (R) Mult e r , Abraham J. (D) Murphy, J ohn M. (D) O ' Brien, Leo W. (D) Ostertag, Harold C. (R) Pike , Otis G . (D) Pillion, John R. (R) Pirni e , Alexander (R ) Powe l l , Adam C . (D) Reid, Ogden R. (R) Riehlman, R. Walter (R) Robison, Howard W. (R) Roone y , John J. (D) Ros enthal, Benjamin S. (D) Ryan, William Fitts (D) St . George , Katharine (R) Stratton, Samuel S . (D) Wharton, J. E rnest (R ) Wydl e r , J ohn W . (R) NOR TH CAROLINA Bonne r . Herbert C. (D) Broyhill, James T. (R) C ooley, Harold D. (D) Fountain, L . H . (D) Henderson, David N. (D)

167

C L L L

L L L L

C L

L L L

L L

L L L L

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C C C

C C L

C C C

C C

L o

C C

C L L L C L L L L L L L

C C L C C L C C L C L L

C L L C C

O L L L L

C C L C C L C L L C L L L C C

L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L C

C C

L L L C L L L C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L L

L C C

L C C L L L L C L L

L L L

L L C L L L L C L L L L C L L

L C C L L L L C L L C L C C C L C L L C C C C L L L C C C C L C C C L L L C L C C

L C C L L L L C L L C L C C C

L C L L L

L C L C C

L L L C L L C L C C C

L 0

L C L 0

L C C C

L C C L

L C C L C L L L C L C C L L C C L L L C L C C

C C L C C C C L L L C C C L L C C C L L L C L C C

0 0 0

L L L C C L C L L L L L C L L L L C L L L C L L L

L C L C L

L C L L L

L C C C C L L L C L C C

C L C L L L L L C L

C C C L L L C L L C

L L C L C L L L C L

L C L L

L L L L

L C 0

L C C C C L L L C L C C L C C C L L L C L C C

NORTH CAROLINA (cont'd) Jona s , Charles Raper (R) Kornegay, Horace R. (D) L ennon, Alton (D) Scott, Ralph J. (D) Taylor, Roy A. (D) Whitener, Basil L. (D) NORTH DAKOTA Nygaard, Hjalmar C . (R) Short, Don L. (R) OHIO �ele , Homer E. (R) A shbrook, John M . (R) Ashley, Thomas L . (D) Ayres , W illiam H . (R) Bett s , Jackson E. (R) Bolton, Frances P. (R) Bolton, Oliver P. (R) Bow, Frank T . (R) Brown, C larence J. (R) C lancy, Donald D . (R) Devine , Samuel L. (R ) Feighan, Michael A . (D) Harsha, William H . , Jr. (R) Hays , Wayne L . (D) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta, Delbert L . (R) McCulloch, William M. (R) Minshall, William E . (R) Mosher, Charles A . (R) Rich, Carl W . (R) Schenck, Paul F. (R) Secrest, Robert T. (D) Taft, Robert, Jr. (R) Vanik, Charles A . (D) OKLAHOMA Albert, Carl (D) Belcher, Page (R) E dmonds on , Ed (D) Jarman, John (D) Steed, Tom (D) W ickersham, Victor (D) OREGON Duncan, Robert B. (D) Green, Edith (D) Norblad, Walter (R) Ullman, Al (D) PENNSY LVANIA Barrett, William A . (D) Byrne, James A. (D) Clark, Frank M. (D) C orbett, Robert J. (R ) Curtin, Willard S . (R) Dague, Paul B. (R) Dent, John H. (D) Flood, Daniel J. ( D ) Fulton, J a m e s G . ( R ) Gavin, Leon H . (R) Goodling, George A. (R) Green, W i lliam J . . Jr. (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D) Kunkel, John C. (R) M c Dade, Jos eph M. (R) Milliken, William H . , Jr. (R) Moorehead, William S. (D) Morgan, Thomas E . (D) Nix, Robert N . C . (D) Rhode s , George M . (D) Saylor, John P . (R) Schneebeli, Herman T. (R) Schweiker, Richard S. (R ) T oll, He rman (D) W a lter, Francis E. (D) W eaver, James O. (R) Whalley, J . Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty, John E. (D) S t . Germain, Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROLINA A s hmore , Robert T . (D) Dorn, W . J. Bryan (D) Hemphill, Robert W . (D) McMillan, John L . (D)

L L C C C C C L C C C L L C C C L L L C C C C L L C C

L L L C C C L L C C C L L C C

C L

L L L L L C L L L C C L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L

L L

C C

L L

L C

W Y OMING Harrison, William Henry (R)

C C C

L L C

L L L

C C

L L

C C

L C

C C

C C L C C L C

C C

C L

C C C C C C L C C C C C C C C L

C C L C C C C C C C C L C L L C C C C C C L C L

C C C C C C C C C C

C C L C C C C C C C C L C L L C C C C C C L C L

L L L L L L

L C L C L L

C C C C C L L C C C C C C C L C L L C C C C C C L C L L C L C L L L L C L

L L C L

C L L

L L C L

L L L C L L L L o

C L C C

C L C L

L C C C

L C L L C L

L C L L L L

o o

C o

C L

L L

L C

L C C C C

L L

L C C C L L C L C L L L L L C C L L C C

C L L L

C C

L L L L C C L

L C L L

L L L

L L L C C C L L C C C L L C C C L L L L C C C L

C C C C C C C

C L

L L L L L C L L L L C L L C L C L L L L L C L L L L L

L L L L C C

C L

L C

L C o

L L L L L C L L L L C L L L o

L L C L

L L

L L C L

L L

L C

C L

C C

L L L

C L C

L L L L C

L L L C C

C L C L L L L C C

C L L C C C C C L C L L L C L C C C L L L L L

C L

L C C L L L L L

C C L C C C C C L C L L L C L L L C L L L L L

C L L C C C C C L C L L L C L C C C L L L L L

C L

C C

L L L L L L L L

C C C C e L C C C C

L L L L L C L O L

C C L L L L C C L C

L C L L L L C C L L

C C C

L C C C C C C

L L L C C C C

L C C C C C C

L C C L C O C

L C L C C L C

L C C C C C C

L L C L L

L L L L L

L L C L C

C L L

C L L C L L C C C

C L L L L L C L C

L C C L C L

SOUTH CAROLINA (cont ' d ) Rive r s , L . M endel (D) W atson, Albert W. (D) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E . Y . (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Baker, Howard H . (R) Bas s , Ros s (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Davi s , Clifford (D) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evin s , Joe L. (D) Fulton, Richard (D) Murray, Tom (D) Quillen, James H. (R) TEXAS � r , Bruce (R) Beckworth, Lindley (D) Brooks , Jack (D) Burleson, Omar (D) Casey, Bob (D) Dowdy, John (0) Fisher, O. Clark (D) Foreman, Ed (R) Gonzalez, Henry B. (D) Kilgore , Joe M. (D) Mahon, George H. (D) Patman, Wright (D) Poage, William R . (0) Pool , Joe (D) Purc ell, Graham (0) Robe rts , Ray (D) Rogers , Walter (D) Teague , Olin E . (D) Thoma s , Albert (D) Thompson, C lark W . (D) Thornberry, Homer (0) Wright, James C . (D) Young, John (0) UTAH �rton, Laurence J . (R) Lloyd, She r man P. (R) VERMONT S taffor d , Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joei T . (R) Downing , Thomas N . (D) Gary, J. Vaughan (D) Hardy, Port e r , Jr. (0) Jennings , W . Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 . , Jr. (0) Poff, Richard H. (R) Smith, Howard W . (D) Tuck, William M . (D) WASHINGTON Hans en, Julia B. (D) Horan, Walt (R) May, C athe rine (R) Pelly, Thomas M . (R) Stinson, K. William (R) Tollefson, Thor C. (R) W e stland, Jack (R) WEST VIRGINIA Hechle r , Ken (0) K e e , Elizabeth (D) Moor e , Arch A. , Jr. (R) Slack, John M . , J r . (D) Staggers , Harley O. (D) WISCONSIN Byrne s , John W. (R) Johnson, Lester R. (D) Kastenmeier, Robert W . (D) Laird, M e lvin R. (R) O 'Konski, Alvin E. (R) Reus s , Henry S. ( D ) Schadeberg, Henry C . (R ) Thomson, Ve rnon W . (R) Van Pelt, William K. (R)

C L L L C C

C C C C

L C L L o

L L L C L

L L L L C C C L L C C

Page

Zablocki, C l elTlent J.

168

(D)

C C

L L

L C

C C

L L

C C

C L C C C L L

C L C L L L L L C

L L C L L L L C C

C C L C C C C C L C L L L L L L C L L L L L L

C L L L C L L C L L L L L C L L L L L L L L

C L L C C L C C L C C L L C L L L L L L L L L

C C

C C C C C L C C C C

C L C 0

C C L L C L

L L C C C C L

C C C C C C L

C L L

L L L

C L L C L L C C C

L L L C C L C

C L L C L L C C

C L L C C L C C

C L L C L L C C C

0 L

THE

IJI/II SmootlIepo,t Vol. 9, No. 22

( Broadcast 407 )

June 3, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

P L A N N E D D I C TAT O R S H I P "The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, dis tributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the National government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State government with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm and affairs by himself; . . . that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rigbts of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate." -Thomas Jefferson

June, 1 9 5 5 , the Federal Civil Defense Administration staged Operation Alert, a nation-wide rehearsal of what civil defense would do in the event of a nuclear bombing raid on the United States which killed around 1 0 million people. Operation Alert revealed that sudden disaster could c ause drastic confusion in the civil defense system. It also revealed that absolute dictatorship would emerge before the casualties could be counted. After receiving reports of the mock casualties in the mock nuclear air raid, in con nection with Operation Alert, President Eisenhower, on June 1 6, 1 9 5 5 ( without wait ing for reports to see whether normal civil authorities could maintain order) used his Executive Power to issue a mock declaration of martial law for the whole nation. Comments in the press and in Congress were, generally, unfavorable. To some, it was chilling to see how readily a President of the United States would proclaim a military dictatorship in time of emergency and disaster. To others, Eisenhower's haste to issue a mock declaration of martial law revealed only that the Administration had no adequate plan of action - that Eisenhower reached for the weapon of martial law because he did not know what else to do. ( 1 ) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2 303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates: $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 169

Hence, the Operation Alert exercise of 1 9 5 5 helped create demand for a better plan of national action to be followed if the United States were suddenly struck a devastating blow.

1 9 5 8 , President Eisenhower reorganized the civil defense system. He merged the Civil Defense Administration with the old Office of Defense Mobilization, creating a new agency called the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization. President Kennedy scrapped the Eisen hower system and established something entirely new. Kennedy says that civil defense should not be handled by a separate agency of government, but that the multiple activities of civil defense should be handled by the reg ular departments and agencies of government - all of their activities to be planned and co ordinated by a small presidential staff.

Kennedy/s Executive Orders

July 2 0, 1 9 6 1 , Kennedy ( by Execu tive Order No. 1 09 5 2 ) abolished the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, immedi ately transferring most civil defense func tions to the Department of Defense. On August 1 , 1 9 6 1 , Secretary of Defense McNa mara put Adam Yarmolinsky temporarily in charge of all civil defense activities in the Department of Defense. Yarmolinsky ( whose parents are notorious communist-fronters ) has a record of participating in communist activities since his undergraduate days at Harvard. ( 2 ) Since the Kennedy Administra tion apparently considers Yarmolinsky indis pensable for other duties in the Defense Department, Yarmolinsky was soon replaced as head of civil defense activities. The present Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil Defense is Steuart L. Pittman. On August 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 , Kennedy issued Executive Order No. 1 09 5 8 , giving the Sec retary of Health, Education, and Welfare the

civil defense responsibility of stockpiling medical supplies ; giving to the Secretary of Agriculture the civil defense responsibility of stockpiling food. On February 1 6, 1 9 6 2 , Kennedy issued ten Executive Orders ( 1 099 5 and 1 09 9 7 through 1 1 0 0 5 ) delegating other civil defense responsibilities to heads of other departments and agencies - Interior Department, Com merce Department, Labor Department, Post Office Department, Federal Aviation Agency, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Inter state Commerce Commission, and so on.

T he small presidential staff, which has the

responsibility of planning and co-ordinating the civil defense activities of the regular agencies and departments of government, is called the Office of Emergency Planning. Oddly enough, President Kennedy did not issue an Executive Order "creating" the Office of Emergency Planning and outlining its duties until September, 1 9 6 2 - more than a year after the OEP had been actively in existence. On September 2 7 , 1 9 6 2 , Kennedy issued Executive Order 1 1 0 5 1 , "Prescribing Respon sibilities of the Office of Emergency Planning in the Executive Office of the President. " The most notable thing about this Executive Order, however, is that it amended 1 5 pre vious Executive Orders ( 5 issued by Truman ; 8 , by Eisenhower ; 2 , by Kennedy himself ) by deleting references to "Civil and Defense Mobilization" and replacing those references with "Office of Emergency Planning." The significance of this change in language is subtle. In November, 1 9 6 2 , the Eighth NATO Parliamentarians' Conference met in Paris, attended by delegates from the parlia ments of the 1 5 countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thir teen United States Senators ( under the chair manship of J. William Fulbright, extreme leftwing Democrat from Arkansas ) ; and eight United States Representatives ( under

Page 170

the chairmanship of Wayne L. Hays, extreme leftwing Democrat from Ohio) made up the delegation from the American "parliament" to the Eighth NATO Parliamentarians' Con ference. Senator Fulbright's official report to the Senate on the Eighth NATO Parliamentar ians' Conference contains a brief section on Civil Defense, from which the following is quoted : ((Civil emergency planning is much wider in its implications than civil defense. ((Whereas civil defense can be considered as a purely national responsibility, civil emergency planning requires close coopera tion between the NATO Allies . . . . ((Although civil emergency planning does not directly encroach on the responsibilities of national authorities, nevertheless on a number of points the organization of the latter will have to take account of the ,, former's planning and preparations. (3 )

Here appears to be a reason for changing "civil defense" and "defense mobilization" to "emergency planning. " It takes our civil defense preparations out of the "purely national" realm, and makes them part of an over-all international plan. On February 2 6 , 1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy issued nine more Executive Orders ( 1 1 0 8 7 through 1 1 0 9 5 ) delegating "emergency planning" activities t o heads o f governmental agencies not mentioned in previous Executive Orders on the subject : Federal Communica tions Commission, Civil Service Commission, Atomic Energy Commission, General Services Administration, Federal Reserve System, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Power Commission, National Science Foundation, and so on.

all, Kennedy has issued 2 3 Executive Orders, dealing with emergency planning, which prescribe the lines of authority for a total dictatorship to be controlled and co ordinated at the top by a small group of

emergency planners in the executive office of the President. The national police state thus planned would be a tighter, more complete dictator ship than any which has ever existed in modern times, in communist countries or elsewhere. Kennedy's executive orders outline a plan, not for protecting the American people from suffering and death in the event of disaster, but for seizing absolute control of every aspect of human life in the United States. The Executive Orders, which formally pro claimed the plan, have been published in the Federal Register. This is the modern way of giving executive proclamations the force of law. In the formulation of such "executive law," Congress does not deliberate and legis late, in response to the desires of the people and in conformity with grants of power in the Constitution. Indeed, Congress has no role at all. The President proclaims a law, then gives it statutory force by merely publishing it in the Federal Register. Thus, President Kennedy, by Executive Orders which bypass Congress, has already created a body of "laws" to transform our Republic into a dictatorship - at the dis cretion of the President. The extraordinary principle ( that the President can do anything he pleases in time of dire emergency, and that the President alone can determine what is a dire emergency ) was proclaimed by Frank lin D. Roosevelt in November, 1 9 3 3 , and reaffirmed by the Attorney General - and has never been challenged by the Courts or the Congress of the United States. (4)

Ca n We Trust Ou r Leaders?

is a dangerous delusion to feel that we can trust our President to tell us the truth ; trust him not to exercise auhority unneces sarily ; trust him to act only in the best interest of the American nation.

Page 1 7 1

Let us not forget what happened on Octo ber 2 9 , 1 9 6 2 . On that day, Arthur Sylvester ( Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs ) admitted that the Ken nedy Administration was giving the public false information about Cuba. Sylvester defended official falsification of the news as proper « management " and " contro1 , " saying that the "generation of news" by official dom is "part of the weaponry that a President has" in the "solution of political prob lems" - and that the end of creating, in the minds of the people, the correct attitude about governmental programs, justifies the means.(5 )

Let us remember also President Kennedy's statement on May 1 2 , 1 9 6 3 , concerning the dispatch of Federal troops to Alabama. The President said : UThis Government will do whatever must be done to uphold the law of the land . . . . The Birmingham agreement was and is a fair and just accord . . . . The Federal Govern ment will not permit it to be sabotaged by a few extremists on either side who think they can defy both the law and the wishes of responsible citizens by inciting or inviting violence. ,, (6) •

Unless there is obvious and significant violation of legitimate federal authority, the President ( under the Constitution ) has no right to send troops into a state to maintain order, except on invitation of the government of that state. In Alabama, the Governor had asked the President not to send troops. No federal authority was being violated. The "law of the land" which the President men tioned was a figment of his own mind because no federal law, or even federal court order, was involved. The «Birmingham agree ment" which the President said he would enforce with federal troops, was a private agreement between whites and negroes, deal ing, primarily, with the question of job opportunities for negroes.

As to "inciting or inviting violence" in Alabama, the President himself was guilty of that, by continual agitation of the delicate situation, specifically by calling Mrs. Martin Luther King to express concern when her husband ( a professional agitator, with a com munist front and j ail record ) was behind bars for inciting civil disturbance. As to the need for federal troops to sup press violence : the total of human suffering which the race riots have caused in Birming ham is hardly worthy of notice in comparison with the continual savage depradations upon white people, by negro hoodlums, in the city of Washington, D. C. In the Alabama affair, the President proves that he does misrepresent facts to the people and does use illegal and unnecessary power to serve his own political ends.

A s to whether the President can be trusted to act only in the best interests of the nation - note two cases which indicate otherwise : El Chamizal and Panama. EL CHAMIZAL - The Treaty of Guada lupe, February 2 , 1 8 4 8 , established the Rio Grande River as the boundary between Texas and Mexico. Between 1 8 64 and 1 8 6 8 , the Rio Grande eroded a large portion of the high Mexican south bank and formed an alluvial deposit ( about 6 3 0 acres in size ) on the United States side of the river. This occurred just south of El Paso, then a small border town. As El Paso grew, it took in the great alluvial deposit which came to be called El Chamizal. In 1 8 9 5 , the Mexican government made a formal claim to El Chamizal. The American government maintained, in effect, that the middle of the River was the boun dary line, and that all soil north of that boundary line was American soil, regardless of how it got there. On June 24, 1 9 1 0, the Mexican and United States governments agreed to let an Arbitra tion Commission ( composed of one Mexican,

Page 172

one American, one Canadian) decide whether EI Chamizal belonged to the United States or to Mexico. The Arbitration Commission refused to decide the question. Instead, the Commission decided, on June 1 5 , 1 9 1 1 , that EI Chamizal should be divided between Mex ico and the United States. The United States government would not accept that decision, which the Arbitration Commission had not been empowered to make. The issue became dormant for more than fifty years, except for an occasional political speech by some Mexican demagogue who whipped up hatred for the United States and gathered votes for himself by denouncing the EI Chamizal "land grab." President Kennedy reopened the old EI Chamizal sore. Trying to win Mexican sup port for his Alliance for Progress, Kennedy quietly opened negotiations with the Mexican government, to work out a means of giving Mexico the 6 3 0 acres of United States ter ritory, which, meanwhile, had become part of the downtown section of modern El Paso. Kennedy got support from the city govern ment of El Paso and from certain business interests there, by promising tremendous out lays of taxpayers' money to "compensate" the city for the loss of territory. (7) An article in The Dallas Morning News, May 2 8 , 1 9 6 3 , reported information, from "authoritative sources, " that the United States and Mexico would announce within the next few days a settlement of the El Chamizal dispute.

PANAMA Many events and circum stances ( too numerous to review at this time ) indicate that Kennedy is also planning to surrender American control of the Panama Canal, either to the government of Panama or to a United Nations agency. Following the example set by Eisenhower, Kennedy has already weakened the American position by

Zone, thus showing a Panamanian "titular" sovereignty over our territory.

A s to the question ( if there be a question) of whether the Kennedy Administration wants a socialist dictatorship in the United States - we need only to read one publica tion of the U. S. Arms Control and Disarma ment Agency. United Nations officials - realizing that the massive outpouring of American tax dol lars ( in the United States and abroad ) is rapidly building a one-world socialist system ; realizing that most of that spending is done under the guise of arming to resist com munism; and realizing that the Kennedy Administration is determined to disarm the United States - grew concerned about the reduction of American governmental spend ing which disarmament might bring. On September 2 2 , 1 9 6 1 , the UN Secre tariat requested that the United States furnish information on "the economic and social con sequences of disarmament in the U.S. " Ken nedy's U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency prepared a report to reassure the United Nations officials. The report, published in July, 1 9 6 2 , says, in essence, that disarma ment will not substantially reduce the spend ing of American tax dollars, but will deflect those dollars into such programs as social security, federal aid to education, urban re newal, financing mass transit systems, expand ing public health and mental health activities, and increasing foreign aid channelled through United Nations agencies. (8)

perITlitting

the fl ying

the

PanaITla

flag

alongside the Stars and Stripes in the Canal

On Iy An Emergency Is Needed

A ny

thoughtful person who has watched the arrogant and lawless behavior of the Ken ned y Administration ; its studied efforts to deceive the people and the Congress ; its habit of appeasing foreign powers ( particularly com.ITlunist and pro-coITlITlunist powers )

sacrificing American national interests ; and

Page 173

its relentless drive toward the total socialist state - reasonably fears that Kennedy might take advantage of some emergency to make himself a dictator, in accordance with the plan which his Executive Orders have already outlined. The May, 1 9 6 3 , Wheat Referendum ( when farmers repudiated Kennedy's farm program, in the face of Kennedy's threats and promises ) is only one of many indications of a growing political revolt against the Kennedy Adminis tration. Kennedy has enough cunning to see this. If his prestige and influence continue to sink, what will he do in 1 9 64 if he feels he cannot win re-election ? Will he accept the verdict of elections and surrender the power so dear to him ? Or will he make himself a dictator, by creating an «emergency" ?

W hat kind of emergency could he create ?

Since the temperament and disposition of the President became apparent, in the first months of his Administration, there has been anxiety that he might arrange a war for the United States in 1 9 64, if he felt that neces sary for his own re-election. This anxiety is by no means unfounded. It deepened in late 1 9 6 2 when Kennedy made war-like gestures about Cuba for the purpose of getting New Frontier supporters elected to Congress. There is another possible emergency already building up under the senseless and ceaseless prodding of the President and his brother, the Attorney General : an emergency involving racial conflict in the United States. Note this grim paragraph from the May, 1 9 6 3 , issue of H. du B. Reports, a newsletter written in Paris, France, by the extremely well-informed Hilaire du Berrier : HThe governments of Western Europe are receiving alarming reports which touch on America's internal stability. Their inform ants put it bluntly : A development has taken place within the past few weeks which can shake America, and a crisis in America can endanger the West. The NAACP has conPage

sistently expressed embarrassment at the violence and anti-White declarations of another group, the Black Muslims, who preach a distorted mohammedanism under the leadership of a former factory hand, Elijah Poole, now known as Elijah Muham mad. The NAACP's moderate leaders have acquired both sympathy and support by repudiatin g Black Muslim advocacy of ter rorism and black supremacy. However, ac cording to reliable reports reaching govern ments around the world ( though not the American public ) , the NAACP and Elijah Muhammad's followers have formed a com mon front, which means that the more vio lent leaders have assumed direction. The focal points for a sudden, brutal outbreak are now New York, Detroit and Chicago, Black Muslim strongholds where for five years Elijah Muhammad's lieuten ants have been organizing an elite militia and stock ing arms."

T he Black Muslims want negro suprem acy, and openly advocate murder of white people until all whites in the United States are either exterminated or reduced to bond age. The NAACP has made an elaborate pre tense of «repudiating" the Black Muslims movement, but there are many indications that the NAACP and the Black Muslims are working hand-in-glove : the NAACP warn ing that if their particular brand of violence is not fully supported, the bloodier violence of the Black Muslims is inevitable. United States Representative Adam Clay ton Powell ( Democrat, New York) , negro Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, is a life-member of the NAACP. Yet he has openly associated himself with the Black Muslims movement. He recently spoke gloatingly on a national television program about how the negro "has the white man . runnIng scared . , , (9 ) The head of the NAACP in Washington, D. C. ( where negro criminal violence against white people is creating something akin to a reign of terror )

said ,

011.

a national tele

vision program in early May, 1 9 6 3 , that negro 174

violence is coming and that the NAACP will promote the violence if whites do not immedi ately give the negro what he demands. What does he demand ? Absolute legal equality with whites ? Not at all ! The most explosive racial situation in America is not in the South, but in New York City - where the white man's right to own and dispose of private property and his right to choose his own associates have been violated to grant negroes so-called "anti-discrimination" laws. In New York, negroes have no trouble exer cising their voting rights. There are no legal barriers to school integration. Housing laws make it illegal for private realtors to refuse rental or sale on racial grounds. And "fair employment" laws make it illegal for private employers to refuse employment to negroes because of race. Yet, the negroes of New York City, prod-

ded by Black Muslim and NAACP leaders and by men like Adam Clayton Powell, are more restless than ever before. Now they are demanding enforced social and economic equality with white people - which means nothing less than confiscation of the property and earnings of white people ( whose superior abilities give them superior earning power) in order to give negroes what they lack innate ability to earn.

I n New Rochelle, New York ;

in Berkeley, California ; in Englewood, New Jersey ; in Nashville, Tennessee ; in Baltimore, Maryland ; in Birmingham, Alabama ; in Detroit, Michi gan ; in Greenwood, Mississippi ; in Chicago, Illinois ; in Washington, D . C. - all across the land, racial tensions are growing every day. Everywhere, they are being prodded by the whole pack of liberal politicians, both

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCAS T S ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL S UBJECTS D I S C U S SED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS N OW AVAILABLE T O THE PUBLIC. WRI TE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHAT YOU CAN DO Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. But what can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by spea.k�rs, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The InvtStble Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback

6 months 1 year

$ 6.00 $10.00 - $ 10.00

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00

STREET ADDRESS

The Hope Of The World

- $ 2.00

America's Promise

Reprint List

- Free

Filtn Catalogue

.50

- Free

CITY

ZONE

( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas ) Page 175

STATE

ment. The corrupt, oppressive income tax system feeds all the plans for socialist dictator ship in the United States. Cut off the excess tax money, and the evil plans will wither and die.

Republican and Democrat, who are jockey ing for the organized negro vote in 1 9 64. This situation could become the "emer gency" which projects John F. Kennedy into absolute dictatorship.

The public could demand that Congress enact a law providing that all appropriations will be withheld from any agency of govern ment trying to initiate any program which has not been authorized by Congress through formal, constitutional, legislative process.

What To Do

may very well be that President Ken nedy will never try to make himself a dic tator, or involve the nation in war just to get himself re-elected. Despite the blueprint for dictatorship already prepared by Kennedy's Executive Orders j and despite abundant indi cations that Kennedy is capable of creating a pretext for seizing power if he fears defeat at the polls in 1 9 64, it is quite likely that none of this will happen. But the very possibility - however remote - should be removed. Congress could remove it, and probably would, if there were sufficient public demand. Congress should abolish ( by withholding funds, if necessary ) the whole federal civil defense, and "emergency planning," setup. In time of emergency or disaster, individuals and communities would be infinitely better off in looking after themselves, than in waiting for direction and dictation from federal bureau crats. Beyond that, Congress should submit an amendment to repeal the income tax amend*

WHO

A Congress which would do that would go further, and reverse the settled trend toward dictatorship in the United States. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) The Powers 0/ the President as Commander ill Chief 0/ the Army and Navy of the United Slates, House Document No. 4 4 3 , 84th Congress, June 1 4 , 1 9 5 6, pp. 1 4 , 1 3 7-45 (2) Military Cold War Education and SPeech Review Policies, Hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1 9 62, Part IV, pp. 1 4 9 1 -2 ( 3 ) Eighth NATO ParliamCll t aria1lS' COllferellce, Report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 8, 1 9 63 , p. 2 3 ( 4 ) "Between the Lines - Emergency Planners," b y Edith Kermit Roose vele, The Shreveport Journal, November 1 7, 1 962, p. 2 ( 5 ) "Free Press Maintains Confidence of Public," AP story by J. M. Roberts, The Dallas MOTlling News, November 1 , 1 9 62, Section 1 , p. 8 ( 6 ) COllgressiol1al Q1Iarterly Weekly Report, May 1 7, 1 96 3 , p. 7 8 3 ( 7 ) "Mexico Seems Sure t o Win 'Chamizal'," b y Walter B . Moore, The Dallas M OTllil1g Ne lliS, March 9, 1 9 6 3 , Section 4, p. 2 ; " 3 5 Million Indemnity For 'Chamizal' Seen ," UPI dispatch from EI Paso, Texas, The Dallas Times Herald, July 1 8 , 1 9 62, p. A-6 ; COl1gressional Record, January 29, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 2 4 3 If.; UPI dispatch from Laredo. Texas. The Dallas MOTl1i1lg News, February 24. 1 9 6 3 . Section 1 . p. 1 6 ( 8 ) The EC0110'lll ic and Social COl1sequel1ces of Disarmamel1t. U.S. Arms Concrol and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 6 . July. 1 9 6 2 ; "Would Disarmament Mean a Depression"? b y Emile Benoit. The New York Times Magazitle. April 2 8 . 1 96 3 . pp. 1 6 If. . ( 9 ) "Two Ways: Black Muslim and N.A.A.C.P ... by Gertrude Samuels. The New York Tim!'s Magazil1e. May 1 2 . 1 9 6 3 . pp. 26 If.

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If YOIl think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 176

THE )

1)1111 Imootlle,o" Vol. 9, No. 23

( Broadcast 408 )

June 1 0, 1963

Dallas , Texas DAN

SMOOT

TRU TH WI L L O U T "Am

therefore become your enemy, because

tell

Y01£

the truth?" Galatians

4: 1 6

O n May

2 , 1 9 6 3 , Senator Thomas H . Kuchel ( Republican, California ) spoke in the Senate about "fright peddlers," or "right-wing extremists," who, according to Kuchel, are doing much more harm than communists are doing. In one of the coherent paragraphs of his speech, Senator Kuchel rather well identifies the people he is condemning. They are Americans who, as the Senator phrases it, want to : CCGet the United States out of the U.N. Stop all foreign aid. Repeal the income tax. Abandon NATO an d bring our troops home from Europe."

)

Senator Kuchel estimates that he gets 6 , 0 0 0 letters a month from people advocating such policies. Since American constitutionalists advocate these policies, it seems to me that Senator Kuchel is not getting as much mail as he should ; but the volume he does get troubles him. He complains about the intemperate and abusive language which the "right-wing extremists" put in their letters to him, congratulating himself on his calm and reasoned replies. The quality of Senator Kuchel's calm and reason can be found in his speech. He calls "right-wing extremists" crackpots for paranoia and profit, self-appointed saviors, ap ostles of hate and fear, racists, swindlers, dupes, simpletons, liars, paranoiacs, witch-hunters, evil, loony, unpatriotic, un-American, lunatic, wretched, hysterical, idiotic. Senator Kuchel feels that the policies of government should be debated by "reasonable, rational and realistic people" ; but "right-wing extremists" who disagree with the policies apparently have no right to participate in this debate. Saying he has noth ing but seething contempt for right-wing ex tremists who criticize him, Senator Kuchel brands their arguments as queer and puzzling dogmas, contemptible slime, irrational fren zy, frantic, unadulterated venom, infantile, ugly, zany claims, outright falsehoods. All of this in one rather short speech by a Senator expressing outrage at the intemperate language in letters from his constituents ! THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 1 77

S enator

Kuchel is upset because some of his constituents do not believe everything he tells them. For example, Senator Kuchel says he has told his frightened constituents that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has no authority to do anything except conduct research and report to the President ; but his constituents will not believe him. If Senator Kuchel could read and understand the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1 9 6 1 ( which he supports with all his vehement calm and sputtering reason ) , he might see why his con stituents cannot accept his every word as Gos pel truth. The Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1 9 6 1 confers upon the Director of the Disarmament Agency broad authority to do just about anything the Director may claim to be in the interest of peace and arms control. The Director can formulate United States dis armament policies, conduct negotiations with foreign powers and international organiza tions, command the services of other federal agencies, obtain restricted information from the Atomic Energy Commission - and enjoy specific exemptions from laws enacted by Congress.

fense ) and Walt W. Rostow ( head of the Policy Planning Council in the State Depart ment ) have been on record for years as believ ing that America should unilaterally disarm herself of nuclear weapons which make the Soviets nervous - in the hope that once we are thus disarmed, the Soviets, able to relax, will follow our example. Many of Mr. Kuchel's frightened constituents also know that Presi dent Kennedy's first Defense message to Con gress ( March 2 8 , 1 9 6 1 ) , based on Rostow's recommendation, was written to please and appease the Soviets and that it initiated a formal policy of limited, unilateral American disarmament - that is, de-emphasizing all nu clear weapons which the Soviets do not want us to have.

On May 2 , 1 9 6 3 , Senator Kuchel com plained that his frightened constituents will not believe him when he tells them that « no responsible public official believes in unilateral disarmament or disarmament without an effective means of inspection. " On May 2 7 , 1 9 6 3 , the Associated Press, i n a story with a Washington dateline, reported that 3 4 United States Senators endorsed a resolution demand ing an agreement to end all underwater and atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and demanding that the United States unilaterally end its own testing, if it cannot reach an agree ment with the Soviets. Senator Kuchel was not, incidentally, one of the 3 4 Senators.

That was the general reaction, across the land in the leftwing press, to Kuchel's speech.

It may be that if Senator Kuchel knew as much about what is going on as his constituents know, he would be frightened too. Many of Mr. Kuchel's frightened constituents know that Paul Nitze ( Assistant Secretary of DePage

May 6, 1 9 6 3 , The San Francisco Chronicle had a lead editorial which began : ((Senator Kuchel's magnificently strong speech in the Senate last week denouncing and exposing the (fright peddlers' of the extreme right should be remembered in the history of our country as one of the alarm bells of American liberty."

Oddly enough, one of the most sensible commentaries on Kuchel's May 2 speech also appeared in The San Francisco Chronicle - in Lucius Beebe's «This Wild West" column, May 1 3 , 1 9 6 3 . Mr. Beebe said : ((The Senator's strategy of denunciation is one long recognized and approved by profes sional demagogues from Moscow to Macon and from Leningrad to Little Compton. He merges all the opposition with its least repu table elements . . . . ((It's all right and a hallmark of civic responsibility to write your Senator or Rep resentative in Washington so long as your sentiments are those of radiant approval of his statesmanship and high moral caliber, but negative sentiments constitute (fright , and doubts of his chances of re-election III ail emanate, of course, from people to be chattily described as (slime.' 178

��Mr. Kuchel makes no mention of the vast volume of calculated and often identical and subsidized mail from pressure groups such as the AFL-CIO and the maggot bin of the American Civil Liberties Union. These in spired blizzards of coercion an d , often enough, explicit subversion do not, in the Senator's book, rank as �queer and puzzling dogmas. ' "

I t is easy to laugh at, or ignore, Kuchel ; but

his silly tirade of May 2 initiated an attack on American constitutionalists which, by the end of May, was being couched in tones that were sinister. During the last week of May, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, speaking to a group of New Frontier lawyers in Washing ton, accused right-wingers of irresponsibility, saymg : �� we cannot afford paralysis, and paralysis is what this irresponsibility will bring if it is not checked. ��I do not accept the counsel of those who continue to say that irresponsibility should be left to run its own course. By definition , ir responsibility has no self-limiting capacity. There is no point at which irresponsibility will voluntarily stop and responsibility assess ,, the consequences of its course. (1)

Johnson's threat to silence critics of govern mental policies is obvious, even if non-specific.

We Told You So

N ot long ago, Lyndon Johnson's line was

that American constitutionalists were super patriotic nuts, who, although annoying, were unworthy of much attention. Now Johnson is grim. What has happened ? The relentless march of events is proving that the "super patriots" have been telling the truth for years, and that liberal officialdom has been answering that truth with falsehood or evasion. Note some recent examples.

Senator Joseph McCarthy alleged that large numbers of American soldiers were 1953,

prisoners of Chinese communists and that the Eisenhower Administration was doing nothing about it. Spokesmen for the Eisenhower Ad ministration denied the allegations, denounced McCarthy for rabble-rousing dishonesty, and released statistics to show that practically all Americans captured by communists in Korea were either known to be dead or had been released. On May 1 4, 1 9 6 3 , Senator Everett McKin ley Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) presented to the Senate information of considerable weight, indicating that 3 8 9 Americans are still alive in communist j ails. Senator McCarthy met his Waterloo while investigating subversion and espionage in the Army. McCarthy learned that 3 5 people had been fired at Ft. Monmouth for communist activi ties. Thirty-three of these were reinstated and given back pay, when their cases reached the Army Loyalty review board in the Pentagon. McCarthy wanted the names of the 2 0 civilians who were on that review board. Later, McCarthy began demandmg the names of officials who promoted Major Irving Peress - who was promoted in the Army despite evidence already in his file that he was a communist, and was given an honorable dis charge after McCarthy had begun to question Army officials about him. If McCarthy had been able to trace the lines of authority all the way to the top - to find persons in the Department of Defense with enough authority to promote and protect known communists - McCarthy might have exposed treachery in very high places : an exposure possibly more significant than the exposure of Alger Hiss. When McCarthy got on the line of question ing which ultimately would have led him to such key personnel, the enormous power and prestige of the Eisenhower Administration was suddenly concentrated on the objective of dis crediting McCarthy and stopping his investi-

Page 179

gation. The Army-McCarthy hearings in 1 9 5 4 put an end to McCarthy's effective fight against communism. And the subject of com munists in the Army was generally dismissed as another McCarthy witch-hunt, grounded in falsehood. In May, 1 9 6 3 , information, which the De fense Department had suppressed in 1 9 5 4, was finally made public : information to the effect that at least one company of American soldiers had been surrendered to communists in North Korea - by an American Captain who had long been suspected of being a com munist. (2 )

this Report dated August 2 6 , 1 9 5 5 , I reported briefly on the activities of Jay Love stone, former head of the American communist party who, after being forced out because of an intra-party fight, became Executive Secre tary of the Free Trade Union Committee of the American Federation of Labor. At the time of my reporting in 1 9 5 5 , Lovestone was in Europe, on a mission being financed with American tax money through the Central Intelligence Agency. The mission was to "fight communism" by instructing Europeans in the techniques and philosophy of American trade unionism. I expressed anxiety that Jay Love stone might use our tax money to help com munists rather than hurt them, and I was severely castigated for suggesting such a thing. In 1 9 6 2 , it came out that Jay Lovestone, working among African delegates to the United Nations ( apparently in league with the United States State Department ) helped bring the full economic and psychological support of American organized labor behind pro communist Ben Bella and his revolution in Algeria. Ben Bella's success in Algeria was an opening wedge which led to the United Nations' rape of Katanga. Out of this, and the communist-inspired, U.S. promoted chaos elsewhere in Africa, may come the communist conquest of the entire Dark Continent. ( 3) Page

this Report dated September 3 0, 1 9 5 5 ( "UNESCO") , I reviewed UNESCO publica tions designed to influence the teaching of American children. One such publication, urg ing inculcation of "world-mindedness" instead of patriotism in children, recommended that elementary school children should no longer be taught geography in the conventional way of first exposing them to facts about their own homeland. UNESCO said that children should be taught about other lands first, so that they would not develop an exaggerated idea about the importance of their own nation. I was roundly denounced by liberals for even suggesting that UNESCO ever could or ever would influence the teaching of American <;:hildren, or that there was even a movement afoot to alter the teaching of geography for the purpose of de-emphasizing patriotism. Today, I invite any parent of any child in the fourth grade of a public school to examine the geography book his child uses in what is generally called "social studies." I estimate that at least eight out of ten who make this investigation will find that his fourth-grade child is being exposed to the geography of al most every nation on earth except the United States.

I n the April 2 9 , 1 9 5 7, issue of this Report I said : ttWe have already crossed the line which marks bankruptcy for the social security sys tem : the government is already paying out more in social security benefits than it is tak ing in - and is quietly, secretly, making up the deficit from the general fund . . . . ttThe money taken from you and your employer is earmarked as a contribution to social security. This is supposed to build up a trust fund that will provide the benefits when it comes time for you to collect them. ttBut this is a fictitious paper operation. There is no trust fund, really. The govern ment doesn't lay your money aside so that it can pay you back later with your own money. . . . [ but] spends [it] on gifts for communist 180

governments abroad, and so on . The only thing that goes into the social security trust fund is the government's IOU . . . . ��This bankrupt condition will become speedily worse in the years immediately ahead and will, eventually, become apparent to the public."

I do not believe I ever wrote anything that brought me harsher criticism : from United States Representatives and Senators, from officials of the Social Security Administration, from everywhere. Liberal officialdom generally denounced me as a liar, claiming that the social security operation was actuarially sound, sol vent, and efficient, and in no danger of ever becoming what I claimed it was. On May 2 9 , 1 9 6 3 , United States Represent ative Wilbur D. Mills ( Democrat, Arkan sas) , Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urged Congress to increase social security taxes, because social security is paying out more than it takes in, and the " trust fund" is " threatened" by "long-range deficits. ,, (4)

I n the January 7, 1 9 5 7, issue of this Report, I discussed the significant subject of govern mental censorship by suppression and falsifica tion of the news, saying: HBureaucrats . . . . do not give the public unvarnished facts about the conduct of gov ernment. They hand out only what they want the public to have. However disastrous the policies of our elected and appointed officials may be, we the people can never really come to grips with the follies, or criminal conduct, or treasonable behavior of our officials, be cause we can never get the facts about what happened. ��Instead of a clean-up, we get a cover-up . . . . [This condition] poses the question of whether we have a republican form of gov ernment, or whether we have a bureaucratic oligarchy in which the bureaucrats are responsible to no one except themselves. HThis is a question which the public should thrust before the new Congress [the 8 5 th] and demand some specific answers for." Page

Large numbers of "the public" tried, but they were lashed with slander by Senators, Representatives, Administration spokesmen, liberal newspaper editors, and liberal commen tators - as McCarthyite lunatic-fringers who did not know what they were doing, or who, for unsavory reasons, were deliberately trying to undermine confidence in "our chosen leaders. " So, matters grew worse until October 2 9 , 1 9 6 2 , when an official spokesman for the Ken nedy Adminstration (Arthur Sylvester, Assist ant Secretary of Defense) admitted that the Administration makes a policy of giving the public false information in order to create public support for Administration policies. ( 5 ) In several issues of this Report in 1 9 5 6 and early 1 9 5 7, I discussed the Eisenhower Admin istration's false show of sympathy for Hun garian patriots brutally suppressed by the Soviets in 1 9 5 6. I pointed out that Eisenhower was irritated with the Hungarian patriots for causing a disturbance and that what Eisen hower did, in contrast to what he publicly said, helped the Soviets rather than the rebel ling patriots. Anticipating that the American government would formally recognize, and give aid to, the new communist regime in Hungary as soon as American public opinion would permit, I pointed out, on February 4, 1 9 5 7, that Eisenhower was already sending up trial balloons to test public reaction. In May, 1 9 6 3 , the State Department released a paper which whitewashes the Soviets' puppet government in Hungary, and lay.s the groundwork for "normalizing" Amencan Hungarian relations. Senator Frank J. Lausche ( Democrat, Ohio) says this is the result of a deal between the Soviets and the Kennedy Administration - the Soviets promising to vote for U Thant as permanent UN Secretary General, in return for a Kennedy promise to close out the old issue of

UN resolution con-

. the SoVlets ' a b out H ungary. (6) demnmg

181

A s early as June,

1 9 5 6, I began warning, in this Report, that American foreign aid pro grams were giving foreign bankers and inves tors claims on the American monetary reserve which could ultimately destroy our money and : wreck our entire economy. I continued writing about the shrinking American gold reserve, presenting in 1 9 6 0 a series of Repar ts on this grave problem. In the September 1 2 , 1 9 6 0 , issue of this Report, I said : ((Foreign claims against America's mone tary gold reserve have been growing by bil lions of dollars a year. If foreigners always demanded payment in gold from the United States Treasury, for every American dollar they acquired, as soon as they acquired it, the wild spending and wasting and foreign give away of our federal government would have stopped years ago, because America would have run out of gold. ((Up to now, with our money backed by our government's promise to redeem in gold, most foreigners have chosen to keep their Ameri can dollars or invest them in America and elsewhere rather than cash them in. All of this has mushroomed into the most dangerous situ ation that America - or any other great n ation - was ever in. Day by day, America ( with all outward appearance of a strong and growing economy) is sinking into the posi tion of being quite at the mercy of foreign governments and international bankers."

Between June, 1 9 5 6, and September, 1 9 6 0, every time I mentioned our shrinking gold reserve, there would shortly appear a rash of statements by high government officials ( and columns by "economists" who consistently support official policies ) to the effect that all talk about our gold reserve being in danger was dishonest nonsense. Shortly after my Sep tember 1 2 , 1 9 60, Report on the flight of gold, however, the gold crisis broke wide open. The flight of our gold reserve became an issue in the campaign between Nixon and Kennedy both promising to make rna tters worse by con

Officialdom released reams of statistics and soothing statements about the condi tion of our economy and about effective steps being taken to correct the balance-of-pay ments drain on our reserve - until, finally, the public seemed to forget about the gold CrISIS. But today, seven years after I first began to discuss the subject, Treasury officials are admitting exactly what I have been saying all along. An Associated Press Dispatch from Washington, published in The Dallas Morning News., May 3 1 , 1 9 6 3 , reports : ((If all the potential claims against U.S. gold were suddenly presented for payment the supply wouldn't go around. Treasury officials Thursday estimated the total of (dol lar assets' held in countries around the world at about $ 2 0, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . The U.S. monetary gold fund is about $ 1 5 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . . . . ((The heavy holding of dollar assets around the world is tied in with the balance-of-pay ments deficit which Daane, Deputy Under secretary of the Treasury for monetary af fairs, describes as serious . . . . Last year the deficit amounted to $ 2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 and in the first quarter of 1 9 6 3 it was $ 8 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . "

perennial argument for public housing and urban renewal is that they eliminate slums, and that this helps cure crime and juvenile delinquency, because slums are "breeding places" of crime and delinquency. The argu ment is patently false ; and I have been saying so in this Report for many years. In a Report on Urban Renewal, October 6, 1 9 5 8 , I said : ((Slums do not breed crime and juvenile delinquency. It's the other way around. If you tore down every slum and old house in America; replaced them with luxury homes and apartments ; gave those luxury dwellings to criminals, juvenile delinquen ts, bums, and improvident, lazy ne'er-do-wells ; and pro vided the occupants with lavish pensions the places would soon be slums again.

tinuing the policies which caused the flight of

gold.

((People

people." Page 182

ntake

slunts.

Slunts

don't

ntake

I contended that public housing projects often become centers of crime and delin quency. Events have so abundantly proved the truth of these statements that Urban Renewal officials are now saying substantially the same thing. Their suggested remedy, however, is to have more public housing and Urban Renewal - and then to follow up with more social workers and bigger welfare programs to handle the resulting increase in crime and delin quency.(7 )

I n the May

1 8 , 1 9 5 9, issue of this Report, I pointed out that Castro was building a com munist dictatorship in Cuba. Washington officialdom continued to deny the obvious for many months. On January 3 , 1 9 6 1 , the Eisen hower Administration finally admitted what the world had known for years - and severed diplomatic relations with Castro's government.

A primary argument for Kennedy's Trade

Expansion Act ( approved by Congress in September, 1 9 6 2 ) was that, by giving the President authority to negotiate across-the board reductions in American tariffs ( instead of item-by-item reductions which the old Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act required ) , the law would enable the President to get better tariff concessions from foreign coun tries. In various issues of this Report throughout 1 9 6 2 I warned that the limitless authority con ferred on the President to make across-the board changes in American tariffs would help foreign industries, not American. On March 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , United States Repre sentative John H. Dent ( Republican, Pennsyl vania) , presented a series of documents by the U.S. Department of Labor, Department of

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D I S CU SSED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHAT YOU CAN DO Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. But what can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you: Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by spe�k�rs, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books The InVHtble -

Government, The Hope OJ The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback

The Hope OJ The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00

STREET ADDRESS

- $ 2.00 - $ .50 Free - Free

CITY

ZONE

( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas ) Page 183

STATE

port of government. Truth can stand by itself. "

Commerce, and others, showing that since the enactment of the Trade Expansion Act, U.S. business is being hurt by foreign competi tion. (8 )

Contemporary events prove the accuracy of that Jeffersonian statement. We American constitutionalists have truth on our side, and truth is bound to prevail. Let us keep on doing what we have been doing, but multiply our efforts. When there are enough aroused and informed patroits to guarantee that national legislators like Kuchel get 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 letters a month, instead of 6 , 0 0 0, from constituents whom Kuchel calls «right-wing extremists" ( because they want to repeal the income tax, stop foreign aid, and get out of the UN ) , we can restore the Republic.

I n the October 1 , 1 9 6 2 , issue of this Report,

I mentioned unverified, but plausible, informa tion about the presence of 2 0 0 0 French-speak ing colored troops from Ghana, training in Cuba for infiltration and guerrilla warfare In Haiti. The State Department ridiculed me for reporting such unfounded information. In the May 2 3 , 1 9 6 3 , issue of The Reporter, Adolf A. Berle ( until recently, Kennedy's advisor on Latin America ) said :

FOOTNOTES

((I am informed that several months ago a wave of French-speaking Africans . . . began to arrive in Havana. As to their numbers , the minimum estimate is 2 5 0 0 ; the maximum , 1 0 , 0 0 0 . . . . The general assumption was that their destination was Haiti."

( 1 ) Special to the News from Washington, Tbe Dallas Morning News, June 3. 1 96 3 , Section 1, p. J 8 ( 2 ) "Forgotten Page: General Tells of Subversion," by Ralph de Toledano in Tbe Indianapolis News, reprinted in the Congressional Record, May 1 4, 1 96 3 , p. A3 007 ( 3 ) Labor's I n te rnational Network, by Hilaire du Berrier, 1 9 62 ( 4 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, T h e Dallas MOYlling News, May 3 1 , 1 96 3 , Section 1 , p. 3 ( 5 ) "Free Press Maintains Confidence of Public," AP story by J. M. Roberts, Tbe Dallas Morning News, November 1, 1 9 62, Section 1 , p. 8

Keep On Keepi ng On

( 6 ) Remarks of U.S. Senator Frank ]. Lausche, Congressional Record, May 1 5 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 8 1 5 3 -4 ( 7 ) "Urban Renewal's Social Problems," Tbe San F rancisco Chronicle, May 1 6, 1 9 63

1 7 8 2 , Thomas Jefferson said :

( 8 ) "Tariff Relief a Hoax," remarks of U.S. Representative John H . Dent, COllgressional Record, March 1 8 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 4 1 92 - 8

((It is error alone which needs the sup*

WHO

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 184

THE o

IJtlll SmootlIe,ort Vol. 9, No. 24

( Broadcast 409 )

June 1 7, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

P O L I T I C A L AC T I O N F O R 1 96 4

The frenzied and threatening attack on ttright-wingers" ; the farmers' vote in the 1 9 6 3 Wheat Referendum ; the fact that much o f President Kennedy's major legislative program is still being delayed, if not stopped, in Congress ; the fact that ( so far, at least) the present Congress is voting more nearly in compliance with constitutional principles than any previous Congress has voted for years ; the fact that many Americans, previously apathetic about governmental policies, are now gravely concerned about the direction of affairs in Washington ; the fact that even Americans who have always supported the policies of totalitarian liberalism are now outraged by the gangster-like behavior of the Kennedy Administration - these are a few of the signs that a prolonged educational effort by constitutional conservatives has begun to have profound effect. o

If the educational work is continued, and supplemented by intelligent political action from now until election day, 1 9 64, we can turn the tide against totalitarian liberalism.

Independent E lectors

T he American

Founding Fathers realized that voters on the frontiers and in remote areas of the Republic in the 1 8 th Century could not get enough information about national candidates to make an informed choice at the polls. Hence, they devised the Electoral College system. Voters in each state would elect a group of respected local men ( equal in number to the state's total delegation in Congress ) , to serve as Presidential Electors. At a fixed time, the elected Presidential Electors from all states would meet, as an Electoral College, to choose a President and Vice President of the United States. The Electors were to be independent, as . individuals, to cast their votes in the Electoral College, as they saw fit. If members of the Electoral College could not muster a majority vote for one man as President, the presiTHE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add copy for 25Â˘; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 185

dential election would be deadlocked ; and the House of Representatives ( each State having one vote) would elect a President. This arrangement is still in existence. As the party system came to dominate American poli tics, however, the intent and functioning of the Electoral College system were violated by the so-called "party pledge" which was pre sumed to be binding upon Presidential Elec tors ; and by the custom of "bloc voting" in the Electoral College. As the system now works, Democrats and Republicans each select, in every state, a slate of Presidential Electors to appear on the bal lot in the general election. Voters seldom know the names of the Presidential Electors. Most voters do not seem to realize they are voting for electors : they think they are voting for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. But, in reality, as vo.ters choose between Re publican and Democrat nominees, they are actually voting, not for the nominees, but for Republican or Democrat electors in their State. The party electors, who get a majority of the popular vote, cast the state's entire electoral vote for party nominees.

T oday, there is more practical need for the

pure, constitutional Electoral College System of selecting a President than there was in the 1 8 th Century. Today, the techniques of mass propaganda and mass thought-control make it even more impossible for the average voter to get credible information about a national personality running for President. Present election practices enable political parties to stampede the public into making a choice between two presidential candidates who stand for the same thing - leaving voters no opportunity to register a preference for a philosophy of government, but permitting them only to choose between men whose real philosophies and personalities have been ob scured by the bitterness and dishonesty of party rivalry and by the thunder of political propaganda. Page

T he remarkable group of statesmen now known as the Founding Fathers, who wrote our Constitution in 1 7 8 7, believed that the Electoral College System - affording the peo ple some insulation against the heat and pas sions of a national election, and providing a checkmate against the popular tendency to follow blindly the most flamboyant or extrav agantly financed candidate - would have a better chance to put great men into the Presi dency than any system of direct elections could possibly have. I agree with this view. The present system produces Presidents who promise one thing and then, after election, move in the opposite direction - claiming some emergency as the reason : in 1 9 3 2 , Roosevelt promised the people economy and adherence to constitutional principles, but gave them extravagance and contempt for the Constitution from 1 9 3 3 on ward ; in 1 940, Roosevelt promised the people peace, while arranging a war ; in 1 9 5 2 , Eisen hower condemned such dangerous programs as federal aid to education and promised to clean up the mess in Washington, but, after election, recommended more federal aid to education than any previous President and made the Washington mess messier ; in 1 9 6 0 , Kennedy promised a firm policy with regard to Cuba, but in 1 9 6 1 made the weak Eisenhower policy even weaker. Obviously, a President chosen by the Elec toral College in the true spirit of the Constitu tion might also betray his campaign promises ; but the constitutional way of electing Presi dents and Vice Presidents of the United States is, at least, the best known way for this solemn responsibility to be discharged. Certainly, as long as it is the constitutionally prescribed method, it is the one that should be used. Independent Electors Movement now very strong in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi is an effort to re-establish the brilliantly-con ceived Electoral College System of selecting

T he

186

Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States.

nedy Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans in the South than elsewhere, and believe that, if constitutional conservatives can control the 1 2 8 electoral votes of the South, they can con trol the presidential election in 1 9 64 or, at least, deny victory to either Kennedy or Rockefeller.

But political habits generations old have tainted, to some degree, operation of the Inde pendent Electors Movement. In 1 9 6 0 , for ex ample, voters in six southern states did "free" their electors : they elected men, on Democrat tickets, who were not pledged to support Ken nedy. It was known that those who supported the Independent Electors Movement in these six states expected their Electors not to vote for Kennedy, under any circumstance. When the Electoral College met, however, only the Independent Electors of Mississippi, and half of those of Alabama refused to vote for Ken nedy. Electors of four southern states, and half the Alabama electors, though put on the bal lots and elected as "independents," voted for Kennedy in the Electoral College.

Independent Voters will try to get third party electors for presidential and vice-presi dential candidates on the ballot in all southern states. Some, or all, of the 1 1 southern states may agree on the same third party and the same candidates ; or, each state may have an independent third party, running its own can didates for President and Vice President. In some southern states, where a respectable third party already exists, constitutionalists may support its efforts to get on the ballot with elec tors who will vote only for constitutionalist candidates. In other states, constitutionalists may organize a new party.

Independent Voters of the USA

addition to the Independent Electors Movement, and various third-party efforts in several states, two intelligent plans for politi cal action have originated in Dallas, Texas : Walter Reed's Independent Voters of the USA, and Frank McGehee's Political Coordinating Committee. The essence of Walter Reed's plan is a pledge, which all members of Independent Voters of the USA, are asked to sign : ��In the election of 1 9 64, I pledge to sup port only those candidates for President and Vice-President . . . who have shown by past actions that they will follow closely the Con stitution of the United States. If n either major party nominates such candidates, I shall support any third party candidates who I know will follow closely the Constitution. HI pledge not to support, in any way Mr. John F. Kennedy, Mr. Robert Kennedy, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, or other men of their viewpoin t." .

•

Independent Voters will concentrate on re cruiting members in 1 1 southern states. They

feel there is broader public opposition to Ken-

Page

The idea is to get on the ballot, in every southern state, with presidential and vice-pres idential electors who are constitutionalists. Once organized and on the ballot with some kind of constitutionalist third party in 1 1 southern states, the Independent Voters will go to leaders of both major parties and say : If, in your 1 9 64 national convention, you nominate genuine, proven, constitution alist conservatives for President and Vice Presi dent, we will disband our third-party move ments in the southern states and give you maximum support. If you do not select candi dates whom constitutionalists like, we will re double our efforts and guarantee that your candidates will lose the 1 2 8 electoral votes of the South ; and without those southern elec toral votes, your candidates cannot win.

I f - as is most likely - both Democrats and Republicans spurn constitutional con servatives in 1 9 64 and select Kennedy and Rockefeller ( or others like them ) , the people of the South, with good third-party candidates alread y on the ballot,

will

have a chance to

keep either the Republican or the Democrat 1 87

from getting the 1 2 8 southern Electoral Col lege votes. This would throw the presidential election into the House of Representatives. If conservatives in the 3 9 states outside the South support this movement to the extent of elect ing constitutionalists to the House of Repre sentatives, the House would elect a constitu tionalist to be President. The Independent Voters plan, to get third party electors on the ballots even in the five southern states where the Independent Elec tors Movement is already strong, is intended to give voters some protection against a repeti tion of what happened in 1 9 6 0 . The Inde pendent Voters can have direct interviews with every Independent Elector who may be on the ballot in 1 9 64, explaining to the elector his right, if elected, to vote in the Electoral College as he pleases, but pinning him down to a specific promise that he will vote only for constitution alist candidates, regardless of party label. If the Independent Electors in any state refuse to give clear and unequivocal promise, the conserva tives can reject the Independent Electors in that state and vote for the third-party electors who are constitutionalists.

T he

Independent Voters plan is sound. Every constitutional conservative ( not just in 1 1 southern states, but in all 5 0 states ) who really wants to do something to obviate the disaster of a Rockefeller-versus-Kennedy pres idential election in 1 9 64 - and who is not already in touch with a movement which looks better to him than the Independent Voters plan - should write immediately, for full in formation, to Walter Reed, Independent Vot ers of the USA, P. O. Box 9 6 9 1 , Dallas 14, Texas.

Pol itica l Coord inati ng Com mittee

F rank

McGehee organized the National Indignation Convention in 1 9 6 1 . For the past several months, he has been working, with considerable progress, on a plan for political Page

action in 1 9 64. His objective is the same as that of Walter Reed. McGehee's Political Coordinating Commit tee is working nation-wide, and exclusively within the framework of the Republican and Democrat parties - on the presumption that there are enough well-informed constitutional conservatives to capture control of one or both major political parties, if the conservatives will go to work now, recruiting and organizing for political activity, in both parties, at all levels, from neighborhood precincts to the national conventions of 1 9 64. If their activities were properly organized and directed, constitutional conservatives could win control of a majority of the political precincts of both parties, in a majority of the counties, in most states of the Union. If this were done, conservatives would control county political conventions which elect delegates to state conventions. At the state conventions, conservative delegates, having a majority, would select conservatives as delegates to the national conventions - and would also select the slates of Presidential Electors to appear on ballots in the 1 964 general elections. These Presidential Electors, selected because they are constitutionalists, would vote only for a con stitutionalist as President, regardless of party label.

I f the Political Coordinating Committee's plan of action at precinct, county, and state levels works successfully in both parties and in most states, then both Republicans and Demo crats in 1 964 will have national conventions controlled by conservatives and will therefore select conservatives as their presidential and vice-presidential candidates ; and voters, at the polls, can make their choice on the basis of personal or party preference. If the plan works successfully in only one major party ( Republican, let us say ) , then the Republican National Convention of 1 9 64 will nominate constitutional conservatives and the Democrats will nominate Kennedy and John son, or some other pair of totalitarian liberals. 188

This would give voters a clearcut choice between freedom and socialism. If the plan works successfully in only a few states, then, obviously, the conservative dele gates which those states send to the Republican and Democrat national conventions of 1 9 64 will be outvoted ; and both conventions will do as they have been doing every presidential election year for more than a quarter of a century : they will write socialist platforms ( while paying lip service to freedom and con stitutional government ) ; and they will nomi nate totalitarian liberals who pretend reverence for the Constitution which they obviously despise. In this event, however, the Political Coordi nating Committee's plan of action would still have on the ballot, in the few states where it worked successfully, Presidential Electors, known to be constitutionalists, who would not vote for their party nominees. If this happened in enough states to deny the presidential elec tion to either Democrats or Republicans, it would have the same effect that the Indepen dent Voters plan and the Independent Electors Movement would have - it would throw the presidential election into the House of Rep resentatives, where conservatives would have a chance to make their voices heard.

I ndividuals

interested in the Political Co ordinating Committee plan of action, within the Democrat and Republican parties, should write to Frank McGehee, 3 7 3 7 Van Ness Lane, Dallas 20, Texas. Though the Independent Voters plan and the Political Coordinating Committee plan are different, and though they are rivals in the sense that individuals may make a choice between supporting one or the other, they are not in conflict. Indeed, they complement each other well. Walter Reed and Frank McGehee are young, relatively unknown, and, as organizers of political action, relatively inexperienced. But

the "old hands" have done nothing effective Page

for the past three decades, and have produced nothing new or promising for 1 9 64. It is time for conservatives to support young men with enough dedication and energy to try some thing sensible which shows promise - unless they can effectively organize something better.

Goldwater

N either of the political-action plans,

dis cussed above, conflicts with plans of other con servatives to promote such men as Senator Barry Goldwater ( Republican, Arizona) as presidential candidates in 1 9 64. Goldwater has a good voting record in the Senate, and has made numerous stands and statements in support of constitutional prin ciples. He does have what is called "political glamor," and is a better conservative than any other Republican who is equally well known throughout the nation.

O n the other hand : - In the 1 9 5 0 's, Goldwater joined the Na tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People and contributed $ 4 0 0 to that hate-inciting organization, which supports every major federal program to undermine the American constitutional system. ( 1) - Goldwater has praised Governor Nelson ,, Rockefeller as a «beacon of courage (2 ) and has made numerous statements to the effect that there "are only very slight policy differ ences" between him and Rockefeller. (3) - On April 1 4, 1 9 6 1 , Goldwater, in a speech to the Senate, said he was in favor of Kennedy's Peace Corps idea. (4) - On August 9, 1 9 6 1 , Goldwater said that Republicans should not waste their time op posing the re-election of Senator J. William Fulbright in Arkansas. Goldwater remarked that «We [meaning Republicans] don't have ,, anything against BiI1. ( 5) - On March 3 1 , 1 9 6 2 , Goldwater praised

Robert F. Kennedy as a "hard-hitting salesman 189

of American ideals" and expressed a wish that Kennedy could become a «full-time, roving ambassador" for the United States. Goldwater was referring to Robert F. Kennedy's trip through the Far East, Europe, and elsewhere. One of Robert F. Kennedy's most widely pub licized statements on this trip was an apology to the world for American behavior in the Mexican War of the 1 9th Century - the war which brought California and Texas, and a portion of Arizona, into the American Union. Goldwater said he had ((a great regard for , Bobby. ,( 6)

S enator Goldwater's greatest disservice to the conservative movement occurred in 1 9 6 0 . Many conservative leaders started as early as 1 9 5 8 , spending their time and money promot ing Barry Goldwater as a candidate for Presi dent. Some who liked Goldwater feared, how ever, that he lacked the forceful qualities of leadership necessary if conservatives were to have any influence on the platform or nomi nations of the 1 9 6 0 Republican National Con vention ; and that Goldwater, being, above all, a Republican party man, would throw his support behind anyone whom the Republicans might nominate in 1 9 6 0 . Throughout 1 9 5 8 , 1 9 5 9 , and early 1 9 6 0 , many conservatives were worried about the drive to pin all hope on Goldwater. They felt it was all right to support Goldwater, but believed that some time and money should be put in an effort ( then being made without adequate financing or leadership) to get Inde pendent Electors or third-party candidates on the ballots in 1 9 6 0 - so that, if Goldwater weakened and threw his support to someone like Nixon or Rockefeller in 1 9 6 0 , conserva tives would still have a chance to accomplish something. Others were convinced that, if conservatives could show real strength at the 1 9 6 0 Republi can National Convention, Goldwater would fight for his own nomination, and would bolt the Convention and lead a protest movement Page

if the Convention nominated Nixon or Rocke feller or anyone like them. The counsel of caution was ignored. Impor tant conservative leaders put all their effort behind Goldwater ; and they made a tremen dous show of strength for him at the 1 9 6 0 Republican National Convention. Even left wing commentators covering the Convention ( Edward R. Murrow and Eric Sevareid, for example) observed, during the opening days of that gathering, that it was a Goldwater Convention, emphatically. Goldwater gave the conservatives no leader ship whatever. He spurned their pleas for lead ership. At a critical moment, he folded and gave his support to Nixon. Thus, in 1 9 6 0 , Goldwater, in effect, played the role o f a Judas goat, leading the conservative political move ment up a blind alley where it was blackj acked.

Conservatives now booming Goldwater for

President in 1 9 64 should take the precaution they failed to take prior to 1 9 6 0 . They should continue to support Goldwater if they think this a good means of building conservative strength in the Republican Party ; but, for the sake of our Republic, they should not devote all of their political effort to Goldwater. They should give some of their time and money to efforts which will put constitutionalists on the ballots as Presidential Electors in 1 9 64, so that, if Goldwater again fails the cause, all con stitutional conservatives will have some place to go, and some genuine choice to make, on election day.

Thurmon d a nd Others

S enator

Strom Thurmond ( Democrat, South Carolina) is, in my opinion, the best conservative in the Senate. There is consider able support for Thurmond as a presidential candidate in 1 9 64 - among various third party groups, and also within the Democrat Party. 190

Do not believe the political cliche that a southerner could not be elected President. The people of the nation would elect as President a real constitutional conservative, regardless of what section he comes from, if they had a chance. It does seem obvious, however, that a southerner has little chance to be nominated for PresideI{t, by either major political party.

only way to guarantee that conservatives will have a chance to act politically, in the interest of saving our Republic, if Republicans and Democrats give us the tweedle-dee, tweedle dum choice of Kennedy versus Rockefeller or a choice equally dismal, and harmful to the cause of liberty.

My advice to Thurmond supporters, there fore, is essentially the same as my advice to Goldwater supporters - and to supporters of other known conservatives, such as Senator John Tower ( Republican, Texas ) : support your favorite conservative if you feel that this helps build conservative strength in one of the two major parties, or if it helps strengthen some intelligent third-party movement in your state ; but, beyond that, work to get constitu tional conservatives on the ballot in all states, as Presidential Electors, in 1 9 64. This is the

Reports On Disa rmament

T he imminent possibility of a Kennedy dis armament decision, which could surrender American independence and leave our nation helpless, troubles every well-informed patriot. This subject was discussed in three recent is sues of this Report - Disarmament - Parts I, II and III, dated May 6, May 1 3 , and May 2 0 , 1 9 6 3 . Background material on the subject is in three older Reports, which are still avail able : "Disarmament - Surrender to World

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL S UBJECTS D I S CU SSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

W HAT

YOU

CAN

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. But what can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you: Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by spe�k�rs, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books The Invts�ble -

Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise ?

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year $10.00 - $10.00 -

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 3.00 - $ 5 .00

STREET

The Hope Of The World

- $ 2.00

America's Promise

Reprint List

- Free

Film Catalogue

.50

- Free

Page 191

CITY

ADDRESS

ZONE

( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

STATE

Government," dated March 2 8 , 1 96 0 ; " Stra tegic Surrender," dated December 1 1 , 1 9 6 1 ; and "Defense or Surrender? " dated March 2 6, 1 962.

tives and civilian employees abroad could not be court-martialed for capital crimes. uThe spokesman said the plan envisions the creation of a (military support corps' for soldiers' and airmen 's dependents over 1 8 .

These three old issues and the recent three part series on disarmament are available as a set of 6 for $ 1 . 0 0 .

((No one would be required to join either corps, but no one who refused to do so would be sent abroad by the armed forces, the spokes man said.

Have You Seen This?

UThe Overseas Family, a private publica tion, published an interview with Kuhfeld saying that members of the proposed corps also would be required to sign a statement waiving the right to civilian trial before being sent overseas."

A United Press International dispatch with

a Frankfurt, Germany, dateline, published in the May 3 0, 1 9 6 3 , issue of The Los Angeles Times:

((Official u.s. sources indicated Wednesday that overseas civilian employees of the Penta gon and wives and older children of American servicemen stationed abroad soon may be required to wear uniforms, making them sub ject to military trial.

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "People," The Section 1 , p . 3

(3)

WHO

A P dispatch from Washington, 1 7, 1 9 6 1

The Dallas Morning

News, April

( 4 ) Remarks of u.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Record, April 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 , p. 5 5 6 9

Congressional

( 5 ) " Goldwater Sees No GOP Effort on Fulbright," AP story from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, August 9 , 1 9 6 1 , p. A-2 6

((The Kuhfeld plan was intended to solve the problem created by the u.s. Supreme Court's 1 9 5 7 ruling that servicemen's rela*

March 27, 1 9 6 3 ,

( 2 ) "Judd Says G.O.P. Lost By Frauds," by Wayne Phillips, The New York Times, January 2 9 , 1 9 6 1

((An Air Force spokesman said the Army and Air Force were considering a plan along these lines devised by Maj. Gen . Albert M. Kuhfeld, judge advocate of the Air Force.

Dallas Morning News,

( 6 ) "Bob Kennedy Ideal Envoy, Admiring Goldwater Says," UPI dispatch from New York City, The Dallas Times Herald, April 1 , 1 9 6 2 , p. A-2

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest ; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped s tart Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving bot h sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business fi rms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 192

THE )

1)1111 SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 25

( Broadcast 4 1 0 )

June 24, 1963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

WA S H I N G T O N : T H E M O D E L C I T Y

O n January 1 8 ,

1 9 6 3 , President Kennedy said of Washington, D . C. :

((Let us make it a city of which the nation may be proud - an example and a show place for the rest of the world."

The remark was strangely reminiscent of one made by President Eisenhower nine years before. When the Supreme Court handed down its school desegregation decision in May, 1 9 5 4, President Eisenhower, praising the Court, urged Washington, D. C., officials to hasten integration of public schools, in order to make the capital city a model for the nation. District school officials complied immediately. At the time of integration, the District of Columbia school system was rated among the best in the nation. Twenty-nine months later - in September, 1 9 5 6 - a Congres sional subcommittee began an investigation to find out how racial integration of public schools was working out. United States Representative James C. Davis ( Democrat, Georgia ) was Chairman of the subcommitte e. Mr. William Gerber served as counsel. The following are excerpts from the subco mmittee's transcript of hearings on September 1 9 , 1 9 5 6. TESTIMONY OF MR. C. MELVIN SHARPE, PRESIDENT OF THE DIS TRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF EDUCATION :

MR. GERBER : Mr. Sharpe, prior to September of 1 9 5 4 under what system were the District of Columbia schools operated? MR. SHARPE : They were operated on what we call the dual system of schools. We had Division 1 , which was to designate the white schools, and Division No. 2 , designated for colored. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5 .50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 193

MR. GERBER : . . . did the two school sys terns . . . have access to the same curriculum ? MR. SHARPE : They did. MR. GERBER : Did they have access to the same textbooks ? MR. SHARPE : . . . I had every reason to believe that there had been no discrimination whatsoever in the textbooks, the schools, build ings, teachers and whatnot. We had a very emine:lt man in charge of Division 2 . . . a colored man . . . . I thought he did an admirable job. MR. GERBER : How long after . . . [the Supreme Court decision of May 1 7, 1 9 5 4 ] was handed down did the Board of Educa tion vote to integrate the District of Columbia schools ? MR. SHARPE : . . . within two weeks. MR. GERBER : Mr. Sharpe, do you find that, after the schools were integrated, a great many white children . . . withdrew from the public schools ? MR. SHARPE : I did. MR. GERBER : Where did they go ? . . . MR. SHARPE : . . . to Virginia and Maryland, and . . . private schools . . . . MR. GERBER : . . . Was it the contention of the proponents of integration . . . that in tegration would reduce the cost of operation of the schools ? MR. SHARPE : Yes, sir ; that was the profes sional advice we received. MR. GERBER : That professional advice, you found, was all wrong ? MR. SHARPE : That is right. DEPOSITION OF MR. JOHN PAUL COLLINS WHO WAS TOO ILL TO AP PEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE :

My name is John Paul Collins. After 3 4 years in the District of Columbia school sys tem, I retired last year as a result of ill health directly attributable to the conditions that developed in Eastern High School after the integration of the District Schools. During my

tenure in the District school system I served as principal at Anacostia High School and Eastern High School. After integration of the schools in 1 9 5 4 , . . . the problem o f discipline was tremen dous . . . . At times, I heard colored girls at the school use language that was far worse than I have ever heard, even in the Marine Corps. White children manifested a spirit of co operation to help the colored children become acclimated, but these efforts were not particu larly successful. Fighting, including several knifings, went on continuously . . . . There have been more thefts at Eastern in the last two years than I had known in all my 3 0-odd years in the school system. A teacher, still active at Eastern, told me recently that stealing is now so rife at the school that it is no longer practical to attempt to report all stealing incidents. There were many sex problems during the year following integration . . . . I overhead two colored boys making obscene remarks about white girls who were passing in the hall. I promptly suspended the boys, until such time as I could get satisfactory assurances from their parents that they would discontinue such con duct. My authority to do this was questioned by the administration, but I stuck to my guns. White girls complained of being touched by colored boys in a suggestive manner when pass ing them in the halls. One white girl left school one afternoon and was surrounded by a group of colored boys and girls. One of the colored boys put a knife at her back, marched her down an alley and backed her up against a wall. While the group debated as to whether they should make her take her clothes off, she broke away and ran home . . . . On another occasion a colored girl com plained to me that a colored boy had exposed himself to her in the classroom. I got hold of the boy and found him to have a record of sex offenses, and recommended that he be re-

Page 194

moved from Eastern. This recommendation was accepted. Never in all of my experience have I ob served such filthy and revolting habits in the lavatories. Some of the urinals were completely torn away from the walls. Nothing like this had ever occurred prior to integration . . . . Colored children have been known to forge names at the school bank. There were a dozen or more colored girls who became pregnant during my last year at Eastern. Pregnancy among white girls was very rare, and had occurred only in isolated instances. Superintendent Corning ordered all school records to be kept without regard to race. This order was repeated several times during the school year. The colored students dominated the failing groups, which were much larger than any year before integration. . . . The average colored student cannot keep up with the average white students academ ically . . . . I can say from experience that integration has brought about a lowering of public-school standards and student academic achievement in the District public schools. It has created problems of discipline that have disrupted edu cational processes. It has created grave social problems that cannot be solved under existing circumstances . . . . TES TIMONY OF MR. HUGH STEWART SMITH, WHO HAD BEEN PRINCIPAL OF JEFFERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D. C., FOR 2 6 YEARS :

MR. GERBER : Prior to integration, was this an all-white school ? MR. SMITH : Yes. MR. GERBER : Mr. Smith, what was the percentage of white and colored in your school last year ? MR. SMITH : About 5 5 per cent Negro ;

4 5 per cent white . . . .

MR. GERBER : Mr. Smith, after the in tegration of the school systems here in the District of Columbia, did you encounter any unusual disciplinary problems ? MR. SMITH : . . . you get many of these [colored] children who thought that you got what you wanted by fighting. We had a great deal of attempting to get, let us say, small bits of money from children at lunchtime . . . . I think we had threats for the first time, to both the person and property of teachers . . . . MR. GERBER : Does the disciplinary prob lem . . . have any effect on the teachers' being able to teach ? MR. SMITH : Any time you have discipline problems, that happens. That is one of the areas that I think we have been unable to en tirely cope with in our public schools. We have no way to put these children who are vicious out of the school, for any reason at all. The law says they are to be in school until they are 1 6 years old. MR. GERBER : Mr. Smith, did you find that the Negro pupils that came to your junior high school from the colored schools were proper I y graded ? MR. SMITH : I can't tell how they were graded in the elementary school, but the chil dren who came to me were very much retarded, far more than our white children had been. Also, many of them had been passed when they hadn't gone to school. . . . We had a few children who were in our top group, but had I gone completely on the records of achievement, even those few colored children in that top group would probably not have been able to be there . . . . MR. GERBER : Mr. Smith, has there been a difference in the LQ. of the students that you had previous to integration, and what you have got now ? MR. SMITH : Yes, sir ; that has fallen every year. I think that I would like to have you realize that I am in a part of our city which has alwa ys been a low economic area. It has always been that. But 1 0 years ago we had an

Page 195

average LQ. for the school of 9 6 , and this year it has dropped down to 8 5 . With the incoming seventh grade, the average is 8 2, so it is still going down. MR. GERBER: . . . Don't you think that the . . . upper-grade students have suffered educationally as a result of being mixed with these lower-achievement students ? MR. SMITH : Not in the junior high school. We . . . group children according to their achievements. In the top group, even when we began integration, we had frankly only a few Negro children who achieved what the white children were achieving, and they went into the group, but the bottom groups were almost entirely Negro children . . . . CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS : Do you nO,t ice a difference in white children's rate of achievement coming from those same neigh borhoods, with the same economic status as their colored neighbors ? MR. SMITH : Yes. CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS : Then, on the basis of that, could you say that environ ment and economic status are not the sole con tributing factors to that condition? MR. SMITH : Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF MRS. HELEN R. MAGUIRE, PRINCIPAL OF DAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WASHING TON, D. C. :

MR. GERBER : Mrs. Maguire . . . what [is] your school population ? MRS. MAGUIRE : . . . about 77 5 . . . . It is about 9 0 [per cent] colored and 1 0 per cent white . . . . And two years ago it was a white neighborhood. MR. GERBER: What is it now ? MRS. MAGUIRE : Well, it is mostly a colored neighborhood. And it will be, as soon as the people can sell their houses. They are all for sale. All the white people's houses . . . . MR. GERBER : Mrs. Maguire, did you have any trouble about the demotion of a child in your school last year? Page

MRS. MAGUIRE : Not last year, but the first year I had one little boy who was a dis turbance. He was an emotional problem. He did absolutely nothing in the classroom but upset the classroom. And I put him from a first grade to a kindergarten, simply to study him. I didn't know what to do with him. He upset everybody in the classroom. And I said to the kindergarten teacher, «Let's put him here and let him come three hours a day, and maybe we can find the best place for him." MR. GERBER: And what happened about that ? Did you get a call from anybody about it? MRS. MAGUIRE : I got a call from the mother first, asking me about it, and I wrote her a note and explained why we were doing it. And at 3 o'clock in the afternoon , after school was dismissed, I got a call from a Dr. Knox, I think it is, from Howard University. And he was head of the - he told me that he was head of the educational committee for the NAACP and that he wanted to know why I had put this child back. And the mother had called him, he said, and he was very adamant as to why I had put the child back to the kindergarten. The child was old enough to be in the first grade, and «that is where he should be . " And I said, «Well, " - I tried to explain to him the conditions. But I said, «Dr. Knox, I have been in the school system 3 5 years, and you are the first person from any organization that has ever questioned what we do to children when we are trying to do the best we can." And so he talked on, and he said, "Still, that child should be in the first grade. He is old enough to be in the first grade, so you put him there. " He said, « I will give you three days, and then you will hear from me again." Well, you can imagine the condition I was in . . . . It was the first time anything like that had ever happened to me, and I really was very upset. I didn't do it. I studied the child. And 196

when I made my study, I put him where he should be . . . . And I didn't hear any more of it. CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS : Mrs. Ma guire, would you . . . venture an opinion as to whether the level of school achievement, on the average, is as good today among the stu dents as it was two years ago ? MRS. MAGUIRE : Oh, no. It isn't. It is way down: And the teachers are saying to me, "We have Just got to lower everything we do. " And the spark is gone . . . . TESTIMONY OF MRS. KATHERINE REID, TEACHER AT TYLER SCHOOL , WASHINGTON, D. C. :

MR. GERBER : Do you remember approxi mately how many children you had to teach last year ? MRS. REID : I had 4 1 children, 3 1 colored. MR. GERBER : And 1 0 white? MRS. REID : Yes. MR. GERBER : Mrs. Reid, did you find any disciplinary problem in your class and in your school, after the schools were integrated, that you didn't have prior to integration ? MRS. REID : I found it very difficult. White teachers are not supposed to use corporal punishment, and I found it very hard to make the colored children do what I told them. And one day I was talking to a little colored girl, and one of the colored boys said, "Miss Reid, why don't you stop talking to her and bat her over the head, the way her last teacher did ? " . . . I did find them hard to control. MR. GERBER : Did you have any sex prob lems in your third and fourth grades in that elementary school ? . . . MRS. REID : Well, I had a colored boy who was very fresh with a little white girl. And I spoke to the little white girl and told her to go back to her seat and told the colored boy to take his seat, and he said, "Don't you want us to be friends ? " And I said, "Yes, I want you to be friends, but ri gh t now I want you to work and do your school work, and Page

this has nothing to do with what you have been doing." And then I had a colored boy who exposed . hImself to a white girl. He did it several times. Finally, in exasperation, I said to the white girl, "Just don't look. " CONGRESSMAN DAVIS : Is that a con stant thing, then, this sex situation ? . . . MRS. REID : Well, I wouldn't say it was constant . . . . I had these two incidents which stand out in my mind. There were plenty of others in the bathrooms, in the lavatories. I mean, teachers were" constantly on guard. But I wouldn't want to use the word "constant." CONGRESSMAN DAVIS : Was last year the first year those conditions had existed ? MRS. REID : Well, last year was the first year I had colored children. I don't remem ber any particular ones with white children, of that particular kind. MR. GERBER : Did you have any destruc tion of property there in the school that you didn't have prior to integration ? MRS. REID : Yes. Books, pencils ; the books were terrible. I mean, their misuse of books. MR. GERBER : You mean the students would steal books ? MRS. REID : I mean they would bat each other over the heads with the books. TESTIMONY OF MR. ARTHUR STOREY, PRINCIPAL OF THE Mc FARLAND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D. C. :

MR. GERBER : Mr. Storey, what was the school population at McFarland last year, do you recall ? MR. STOREY : Our maximum enrollment last year was about 1 , 3 0 0 . . I would esti mate it is between 6 0 and 7 0 per cent [ colored] . . . . .

MR. GERBER : Mr. Storey, can you tell us about som.e of the disciplinary problem.s

you had last year ? 197

MR. STOREY: Yes. They would be such things as stealing, boys feeling girls . . . dis obedience in the class room, failure to obey teachers, carrying knives, and that type of thing. MR. GERBER : I will ask you if during last year it was necessary for you to have the police at the school ? MR. STOREY : Oh, yes . . . . CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS : Did you find it necessary during your entire tenure as principal to request poJice assistance . . . to keep order, pnor to . . . integrating the schools ? MR. STOREY : No, sir. CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS : Could you tell us from . . . memory how many times in 1 9 5 5 . . . you found it necessary to request police assistance ? MR. STOREY : . . . I imagine around 5 0 times. ( 1 )

The Horror Spreads

T he

and arraigned unless the suspect agrees. If he is arrested, he cannot be questioned at all, with out his consent. (2)

When

police are prohibited from ques tioning suspects - particularly in such crimes as rape, where material evidence of guilt is often non-existent or extremely difficult to obtain - police are almost helpless to afford society adequate protection. Since the Mallory case decision, hideous incidents have become commonplace in our nation's capital. A congressional secretary was stabbed and robbed by a negro while she knelt to pray in St. Peter's Catholic Church on Capitol Hill. The wife of a general was attacked in her bath tub, by a negro who had broken into her home. Two negroes broke into an apartment at mid day and attacked the granddaughter of a Washington official. A retired minister's wife was criminally assaulted in her own home. Mrs. Brooks Hays, wife of a Special Assistant to the President, was robbed and injured by a 1 7-year-old negro who forced his way into her bedroom.

Supreme Court's Mallory Case deci sion in 1 9 5 7 made matters even worse. Andrew R. Mallory, a 1 9 -year-old-neg ro, confessed to raping a woman in the cellar of her apartment house (where he caught her while she was do ing the family washing ) . Mallory was tried and convicted in a Washington District Court. His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Frankfurte r, who referred to the con fessed rapist as a " 1 9-year-old lad." The Su preme Court did not suggest that there was any doubt about Mallory's guilt. There was no question of police brutality or third-degre e treatment. The Supreme Court caused Mal lory to be set free and go unpunished for his crime, merely because the police had ques tioned him before his formal arraignment. The

A 79 -year-old colored Baptist preacher, living in retirement in Washington, took a stroll in his neighborhood one Saturday eve ning after dinner. Four young negroes robbed him and beat him to death. The killers got $ 1 . 29 - which they spent on cakes and soft drinks immediately after leaving the old man dying on the street. There were several wit nesses to the murder, but none offered the old man any help, and none would offer the police any help in identifying the murderers. Whether the witnesses were afraid or in different, no one really knows. ( 3) These are typical of recent incidents which came to public attention.

question a suspect before he is formally arrested

and Eastern High School ( practically all-

decision means that Washington police cannot

Page

O n Thanksgiving Day last year, 48 , 0 0 0 spectators attended a high school champion ship football game at District of Columbia Stadium. The rival teams were from St. John's Catholic High School ( practically all-white )

198

colored) . The huge crowd was approximately 9 0% negro. The white team won the game ; and thou sands of negro spectators swarmed through the stadium, parking lots and surrounding neigh borhood, clubbing, stabbing, beating, pelting every white person ( man, woman, or child ) whom they could reach. Police were over whelmed, unable to maintain order - which was restored only after the violence had burned itself out and the white victims had escaped the area.

On March

1 2 , 1 9 6 3 , a 2 1 -year-old negro ( with a police record of arrests, convictions, and paroles dating back to 1 9 5 3 ) snatched the handbag of a young white woman ( a clerk in the Navy Bureau of Weapons) who was six months pregnant. She chased the man for several blocks, calling for help. No one at tempted to help in any way - until two policemen heard her cries and saw the man she was following. They cornered the negro, who fought and broke away. One policeman ( a rookie ) pulled his gun and ordered the negro to halt. The negro kept running. The policeman fired one shot and killed the man. A District Coroner's Jury found that the policeman had acted properly in line of duty. The Metropolitan Washington Citizens' Crime Commission commended the officer for «prompt and courageous . . . assistance to a victim of a crime." But the Washington Chapter of CORE ( Congress of Racial Equality) protested this incident as evidence of «police brutality," say ing the policeman had "murdered" the negro. The Washington branch of the NAACP ( Na tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and the Urban League also protested. (4 )

The Showp lace

E isenhower and Kennedy said integration should convert Washington into a model and showplace, and that has happened. Washington Page

has become a showplace - as the sick capital of the American Republic. In 1 9 5 0, the total population of Washing ton was 8 0 2 , 1 7 8 . Of that total, 5 1 8 ,2 07 were whites ; 2 8 3 ,9 7 1 were negroes. In 1 9 6 0 , the total population was 7 6 3 ,9 5 6. Of that total, 3 4 3 , 3 0 8 were whites ; 4 2 0,64 8 were negroes. The white population decreased 1 74 , 8 9 9 . The negro population increased 1 3 6 , 677. Between 1 9 5 0 and 1 9 6 0 , the white popula tion of Washington decreased 3 3 % ; the negro population increased 4 8 % - resulting in a net population decrease of 5 %, during a ten year period when most other major American cities were growing enormously. As the negroes continue to pour in, the whites continue to flee ; and the social blight spreads. In 1 9 6 0 , negroes constituted 5 4 . 8 % of the total population of the nation's capital. They commit 8 4. 6% of all reported crimes. ( 5 ) Major churches in Washington bar their doors against all visitors who cannot identify themselves ; and women staff workers are warned to admit no one on church properties if there are not enough male staff members present to offer the women protection. (6) Sex crimes have become so numerous in the nation's capital that police have instituted an escort service for women workers going to and from work at certain times and in certain sections of the city. Some of the sections where this escort service is necessary are around Capitol Hill. Indeed, the Supreme Court has issued an official bulletin, warning women em ployees to take full advantage of the police escort serVIce. It is impossible for police to guard and pro tect all the women of Washington, so many must look to their own protection. Washing ton stores now sell small tear-gas pens and pocket-size sirens which women can carry in their purses. ( In 1 9 6 2 , the American Embassy in Leopoldville ordered some of these devices for the protection of white women in that Congo city, after two of the embassy women had been assaulted on the streets ) . 199

A negro arrested for robbing liquor stores in daylight explained he prefers daytime opera tions because he is afraid to carry money on the streets at night. ( 6) Venereal disease is reaching epidemic pro portions among Washington teenagers. Prac tically all of those infected are negroes. One out of every 5 children born in the nation's capital is illegitimate : 9 2% of the illegitimates are negroes. In 1 9 6 1 , Washington's crime rate was up 4 1% over the 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 60 average ; the national increase for that period was 1 4%.(5)

or send their children to private schools, or elsewhere. Apologists for the situation claim that the negroes behave as they do, because they have been mistreated in the South and have never had a chance ; but the truth is that policies of the federal government - in the hands of politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who degrade the whole nation by bidding for negro votes - have created the ugly sore in Washington, D. C. And the sore is rapidly spreading, through cities all across the land with the President of the United States him self encouraging a lawless minority to insur rection and civil disturbance which threaten to become bloody revolution.

N egroes

constitute 8 5 % of the public school population in Washington. Hence almost total segregation is again in effect, nine years after Eisenhower ordered immediate, compulsory integration as a means of making the Washington school system a model for the nation. Schools that were all white are now all negro. A few predominantly-white schools remain - in expensive neighborhoods where high-salaried governmental officials and wealthy persons live. The few white children who remain in predominantly-negro schools belong to families who cannot afford to move

NEXT WEEK : More on the racial problem.

(I)

(2) (3) (4)

FOOTNOTES

"Congress Hears - How Mixed Schools Are Working I n Washington," U. S. News &- W'orld Report, September 2 8 , 1 9 5 6, pp. 9 8 - 1 07 Statement by U. S. Senator William E. Jenner ( Republican, Indiana) to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, August 7, 1 9 5 7 Th, E Ve/lillg Star, Washington, D . c., April 1 9 , 1 96 3 Remarks of U. S. Representative William B. Widnall ( Republican, New Jersey ) , COllgressiollal Record, March 1 8 , 1 96 3 , pp. 420 9- 1 1

( 5 ) "The Blight in the Nation's Capital," U. S. News &- \'(Iorld Report, February 1 8 . 1 96 3 , pp. 3 7-9 ( 6 ) "Washington, D. C. - Portrait of a Sick City," by Fletcher Knebel, Look Magazille. June 4, 1 96 3

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE F ILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE. *

WHO

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the Uniced Scaces. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 200

IHE

IJflll SmootRepor' Vol. 9, No. 26

(Broadcast 41 1 )

July 1 , 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

C I V I L R I G H TS AC T O F 1 9 6 3

O n February 28, rights which would :

1963, President Kennedy asked Congress for legislation in the field of civil

( I ) provide federal referees to supervise voting in areas where any colored person had brought suit claiming he had -been denied the right to vote;

(2) require such suits to be given preferential treatment in the federal courts; (3) prohibit, in elections involving federal offices, the application of different tests and standards to different voter applicants;

�

(4) eliminate state literacy qualifications for voting, by providing that completion of the sixth grade must be taken as presumption of li teracy; (5) expand the authority of the Civil Rights Commission and extend its life beyond No vember 30, 1 963, when, under present law, i t is due to go out of existence; (6) give special federal technical and financial assistance to school districts in the process of desegregation. ( 1 )

O ne

of the most important powers of state governments is that of setting voter qualifi cations. No subject was more thoroughly debated during the Constitutional Convention of 1 787Y) When an illiterate, shiftless, propertyless, irresponsible individual (of any race) has as much voice in selecting national rulers and in changing the organic law of the nation (amending the Constitution) as an industrious, thrify, productive individual, what is to prevent the dregs and drones of society from plundering hard-working and productive citizens ? Politicians can fan THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5 . 50; 100 for $1O.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 201

hatred in low-income groups for middle and up per-income groups, telling the "masses" they are poor because they are oppressed ; making them be lieve that everyone who has something somehow acquired it by evil means ; promising to soak the well-to-do with taxes for "benefits" to the poor in order to redistribute the national wealth and guarantee that everyone has his "fair share." The Founding Fathers were aware of this danger in "democracy. " They had studied the record of how it had destroyed ancient civiliza tions - just as anyone today can see how a similar situation creates poverty, wild disorder, and tyranny in many Latin American nations where unscrupulous politicians go into the squat ters' slums, buying votes with promises to pull down the high and mighty and to provide free and easy living for the masses. The Founding Fathers wanted a constitutional system in which all - high and low, rich and poor, good and bad, lazy and hard-working, thrifty and proRigate, weak and strong, educated and illiterate, stupid and intelligent - all would be equal before the law ; all equally free to lead their own kind of life, as long as they did not infringe on the rights of others ; all enjoying the same guarantees against tyrannical oppression by their own government. But the Founding Fathers felt that the vote - which, in final analysis, is the power to set the policies and direct the affairs of the nation - should be restricted to mature in dividuals who could understand, and have some vested interest in, the necessity of maintaining a constitutional system of government. Hence, there was demand in the Constitutional Convention of 1 787 that the right to vote be some how restricted to responsible citizens. There were proposals that the federal government be assigned the role of establishing voter qualifications throughout the union. All such proposals were based on the fear that individual states might grant the voting right to people not quailfied to exercise it. (2)

The proposals were defeated, however, because

of a greater fear that pervaded the thinking of the Founding Fathers : fear of creating a federal government so strong that it could destroy state governments and eliminate God-given rights of individuals. Admitting the need for voter quali fications which would keep the power of the ballot out of the hands of irresponsible people, the Founding Fathers felt that there was a greater need to leave this basic attribute of sovereignty in the individual states. They rejected all pro · posals for constitutional provisions which would give the federal government any authority in this field.

H ence,

the President's proposals for federal intervention in elections violate the intent, the spirit, and the provisions of the Constitution. As to the need for action to guarantee quali· fied negroes the right to vote - there is no need. Throughout the South, voter qualifications (whether they be poll tax or literacy requirements ) apply equally to whites and negroes. The President's proposal for a law requiring that civil rights "voting" suits be given prefer ential treatment in the federal courts nullifies the constitutional concept of equality-before-the-Iaw. Why should litigation by one class or color of citizens be given preference over litigation by other citizens ? The President's proposal for special federal financial aid to school districts "in the process of desegregation" is unconstitutional in the sense that all federal aid to education is : namely, there is no delegation of power in the Constitution to the federal government for any kind of educa tional activity ; and the Tenth Amendment speci fically prohibits the federal government from en gaging in activity for which there is no consti tutional grant of power. Beyond that, the Presi dent's proposal would authorize the very kind of discrimination and unequal treatment which he says violates the Constitution : disbursement of federal funds which all taxpayers pay, not to all

Page 202

alike, but to arbitrarily selected groups or com munities.

The Civil Rights Commission was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1 957. It was to go out of existence in three years ; but Congress, in 1 960, extended its life for another three years. It is now scheduled to go out of existence in Novem ber, 1 963 ; and President Kennedy wants Congress to extend it again. In the six years of its existence, the Civil Rights Commission has recommended one constitutional amendment to institute what virtually amounts to universal suffrage. This would eliminate the old constitutional provisions which leave the establishment of voter qualifi cations as one of the reserved rights of states. The Commission has made a large number of widely publicized proposals which have had the effect of further agitating and inflaming the already in flammatory racial situation in the United States. (�)

The Omnibus Bil l

O n June 19, 1 963, President Kennedy sub mitted to Congress a message proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1963. This Act would incorporate all the proposals of his February 28 message, dis cussed above, plus new proposals which the Presi dent groups under five general headings : ( 1 ) Equal Accommodations in Public Facilities, ( 2 ) Desegregation of Schools, ( 3 ) Fair and Full Em ployment, (4) Community Relations Service, and ( 5 ) Federal Programs. ( 1 ) In one proposal under "Federal Programs," the President asks for authority to withhold fed eral funds, at his discretion, where racial discrim ination exists. This has been widely interpreted as a reversal of the stand he took on April 24, when he rejected a Civil Rights Commission pro posal that federal funds be withheld from states and communities where discrimination exists. Ap-

parently, the President did not like the Civil Rights Commission proposal because it might have required him to withhold all federal aid to "offending" states or communities. The Presi dent wants a free hand, and absolute authority, to grant or withhold aid as he pleases - whether racial discrimination is practiced or not; and that is the broad authority he demands in his Civil Rights Act of 1 963.

U nder

the Community Relations Service of his civil rights message, President Kennedy asks Congress to authorize a federal board or commis sion ( in addition to the Civil Rights Commis sion) which will be formally organized and authorized to do what he and Robert F. Kennedy have been doing for months - that is, to meet with local and state officials, businessmen, leading individuals, and private organizations, explain ing to them the kind of action the administration wants and putting pressure on them to comply with official policies before conflict erupts into public view. In his civil rights message, the President boasts that officials of his administration have already been doing what he now asks Congress to author ize; and he announces that, pending congression.al action, he will go ahead and create, by Executive Order, the very organization he is asking legisla tion for.

U nder the Fair and Full Employment section of his civil rights message, the President proposes nothing really new. Rather, he uses the racial crisis as an excuse for urging passage of New Frontier legislation, and for demanding enlarge ment of programs already in existence. MANPOWER D E V E L O P M E NT A N D TRAINING PROGRAM : Early in 1 962, Con gress passed the Manpower Development and Training Act, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to determine the number of Americans who should be working in any specific industry at

Page 203

any given time and place; and authorizing allo cation of tax money for training American youth in fields which the Secretary of Labor thinks they should be trained in. In his civil rights message of June 1 9, 1 963, President Kennedy urges over all expansion of this program. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM : On April 10, 1 963, the Senate passed Kennedy's Youth Employment Act of 1 963. This Act could create an American counterpart of government youth organizations which are essential tools of dictatorship in all communist countries, as they were in nazi Germany and in fascist Italy before World War II. There are strong indications that the House of Representatives will kill this Youth Employment Act. In his civil rights message, Kennedy argues that enlargement and passage of the Act would help relieve racial tensions. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION: A program of federal aid for vocational education in high schools has been in existence since 1917, and has been enlarged and expanded many times, partic ularly in recent years. In his civil rights message, Kennedy asks for federal funds to provide part time employment for students in federally-sup ported vocational education schools. ADULT EDUCATION: Among Kennedy's federal-aid-to-education proposals for 1 963 (not yet acted on by Congress) is a request for an elab orate adult education program. In his civil r ights message, the President requests that his adult education program be enacted and enlarged be yond his original proposals. PUBLIC WELFARE WORK-REL IEF: In his civil rights message, the President requests addi tional federal aid to states for the employment of welfare recipients on local public works projects. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LAW: In his civil rights message, the President renews his request for a federal Fair Employment Prac tices Act, applicable to both employers and unions, which would outlaw racial discrimina-

tion in private employment and in union mem bership. In making this proposal, the President admits that two-thirds of the nation's labor force is al ready covered by federal, state, and local fair em ployment practices measures of the very kind he requests. Such measures have done nothing to re lieve racial tensions or solve racial problems. In deed, the racial problem is at its worst in areas that already have fair employment practices laws - Washington, D.C., and New York City, for example. Yet the President would violate the Constitution to impose upon the entire nation a type of legislation which will do infinite harm, and no good at all.

I n the Desegregation of Schools section of his

civil rights proposal, President Kennedy asks con gressional authority for the Attorney General to initiate, in federal district courts, legal proceed ings against school boards and tax-supported col leges - or to intervene in existing cases - when ever the Attorney General receives a written com plaint from any parent or student who says he is being denied "equal protection of the laws" be cause of segregation. What could be more "unequal" and "discrim inatory" than to give one particular class of citi zen the special privilege of by-passing the normal channels of j ustice which ordinary citizens must follow ? An agitator or trouble-maker or crank who happens to be a negro can bring public school and college officials into federal court, by merely writing a letter to the Attorney General ; and the agitator will be represented, at no cost to himself, by officials and attorneys of the fed eral government.

T he

Equal Accommodations in Public Fa cilities section of the President's proposed Civil Rights Act of 1 963 is the most dangerous of all. Here, in the President's language, is the essence

Page 204

of this section: "I am today proposing, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1 963, a provision to guarantee all citizens equal access to the services and fa cilities of hotels, restaurants, places of amuse ment, and retail establishments . . . . The proposal could give the persons aggrieved the right to obtain a court order against the offend ing establishment or persons. "Upon receiving a complaint in a case suffi ciently important to warrant his conclusion that a suit would materially further the purposes of the act, the Attorney General (if he finds that the aggrieved party is unable to undertake or otherwise arrange for a suit on his own, for lack of financial means or effective representation, or for fear of economic or other injury) will first refer the case for voluntary settlement to the community relations service . . . give the establishent involved time to correct its practices, permit state and local equal access laws (if any) to operate first, and then, and only then, initate a suit for compliance."(l )

The President is not clear about the authority for such legislation. He hints that the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution gives the federal government authority to eliminate the right of a private businesssman to select his own customers. At another point, the President sug gests that the Fourteenth Amendment may pro vide the constitutional authority. But here is the President's key sentence concerning the "author ity" for federal officialdom to eliminate the pri vate property rights of businessmen: "The arguement that such measures consti tute an unconstitutional interference with prop erty rights has consistently been rejected by the courts in upholding laws . . . designed to make certain that the use of private property is con sistent with the public interest."

I n Kennedy's view, an American citizen has no right to own and use private property, unless he uses it in a way that officialdom considers to be consistent with the public interest. Today, it is the demands of racial-agitation

groups which fix official notions of what is con sistent with the public interest. Tomorrow, it could be something else. President Kennedy re cently announced that we must adopt a friendlier attitude toward the Soviet Union and other com munist countries. It would show a friendly na tional attitude toward communists if all private merchants in the United States were compelled to sell merchandise imported from communist countries. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 would give the President ample authority to order such a thing if he should decide that any merchant who refuses to handle communist goods is not using his private property in a way that is consistent with the public interest. (4)

Under authority which he requests in the pro posed Civil Rights Act of 1963, the President could order all private employers to hire com munists, if the President should decide that this would promote his program of proving to the Soviets that America has no ill will for commu nists. The President could order employers to hire, or not hire, Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, athe ists, b l ack muslims , Buddhists : the President could compel private businessmen to do anything the President wants, on the simple pretext that he is requiring the use of private property in a way that is "consistent with the public interest."

Why Now?

The

President used almost 7,000 words to present the five-point Civil Rights Mess�ge which is summarized and discussed above. It 1S a badly composed, hastily written, ill-at-ease docu�e�t replete with inaccurate statements ; contradlCtlons; . repetitions; flimsy arguments ; demagogiC appeals to the emotions of hate, fear, and shame. Why the haste ? Some feel that the President, after playing a major role in stirring race feel ing to the danger point, cynically used the dan-

Page 205

ger as a pretext for throwing Congress a civil rights bill which he knew Congress would not pass - but which would monopolize the atten tion of Congress and thus give the President an excuse for the failure of his legislative program in 1963. Of 2 5 Bills listed by Congressional Quar terly as major legislation, Congress, by June 2 1 , had passed only 3 : extension of the draft law ; ex tension of the "emergency" feed grains bill ; and raising of the national debt limit. The latter two major bills passed in the House by very close votes, and only after extreme pressures had been exerted by the administration.

A nother theory is that Kennedy'S proposal of the civil rights legislation in mid-June, 1963, was part of a calculated effort to keep the public so preoccupied with a dangerous domestic issue that it would pay little attention to foreign policy de cisions which might, otherwise, cause a storm of protest. In early 1962, President Kennedy and his Sec retary of Defense made public statements to the effect that the American moratorium on nuclear testing (from 1958 through 1961 ) had left us behind the Soviets in weapons research and de velopment. The President said that nuclear test ing was essential to research, vital to our defenses, and that self-interest would compel us to resume and continue nuclear testing until, or unless, we could negotiate with the Soviets a safe, guaran teed test ban, binding on both sides. Throughout 1 962 and the first half of 1963, Kennedy officials engaged the Soviets in fruitless negotiations for a test ban treaty. And then, on June l O, 1963, the President announced that he had ordered a halt to American nuclear tests in the atmosphere, with out any agreement or commitment at all from the Soviets. (5)

(4)

This announcement - involving a life-or-death matter for the nation - made little impression on the public: the media of mass communication were preoccupied with news about the racial CrISIS.

K ennedy could not have been elected in 1 960 without the negro vote, which was promised and delivered by leaders of racial agitation organiza tions. The President now knows that he has no chance of re-election without the support of these same agitators. Hence, a plausible explanation for the President's sudden decision in mid-June to de mand a civil rights bill is that negro leaders vir tually ordered him to do so. Note Adam Clayton Powell's boast that he wrote major portions of Kennedy's June 19 civil rights message. Speaking in Long Beach, Cali fornia, on June 2 1 , 1963, Powell said: "The President had no intention of including many of the points that he did in his message. I rewrote half of his speech for him the night before it was delivered before Congress."(S)

In all of American history, it would be hard to find anything more shameful than this. Adam Clayton Powell has been associated with many communist front organizations ; he has been crim inally indicted for income tax frauds ; his tours of foreign nightclubs with his "secretaries," at taxpayers expense, have scandalized the nation; and his hatred for the white man has been openly expressed and broadcast to the nation. This is the man who says he told Kennedy what to put in his civil rights message of June 1 9, 1 963.

T he

Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the National Association for the Advance ment of Colored People (NAACP ) are both heavily infiltrated, at the top, with communist

Page 206

fronters. ( 7 ) Directorates of the two organizations are interlocked (officials of one organization be ing officials in the other ) ; and they are inter locked with the directorate of the National Urban League and with the directorate of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - the agitation group of Martin Luther King, who also has a record of pro-communist activities. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee is another organization militantly active in racial agitation.

and it is Powell who is bringing the policies of all the negro racial agitation groups into line with the policies of the black muslims - a group which advocates black supremacy and violence against whites. (8)

(7)

John F. Kennedy, catering to this crowd, is sowing the seeds of hate and violence: the na tion will reap a bloody harvest.

I t is obvious that President Kennedy's June 1 9

These outfits ( indirectly interlocked with the Council on Foreign Relations) have learned that racial agitation is a profitable activity. Appealing for funds to support their "struggle for racial equality," they raise huge sums of money. Hence, they have developed an intense intra-family ri valry - each one trying to demonstrate, by mili tant activity, that it is more effective and more deserving of financial support than others.

civil rights proposal was an act of kowtowing to radical negro leaders; but astute observers think there was a deeper motive behind the proposal. President Kennedy, under the pretext of pre paring the nation for civil defense in time of emergency, has already, by executive orders, es tablished a plan for total dictatorship. The racial crisis could become the necessary emergency. (9)

Adam Clayton Powell appears to be striving for the role of over-all leader and spokesman;

After a series of public statements which were

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS D I S CUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE. *

WHO I S

D A N

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he j oined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and j oined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FB'I headquar ters staff in Washington ; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a f�ee enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sal es : sales of The I?an Smoot . �eport, a weeklx . magaz� ne; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radIO and teleVISIOn as an advertlsmg vehicle. The Report and the broadcast gives only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Repo1't and broadcasts. Page 207

bound to encourage mob action and violence on the part of negro groups, the President suddenly proposed a civil rights program which Congress (if it has any regard at all for the Republic) cannot pass ; and then the President, in effect (not directly, but in an oblique way) , told the negro agitators not to engage in any more vio lence unless Congress fails to pass the civil rights legislation.

Civil Rights Act of 1 963 be rejected, This Bill must be defeated.

Could there be a more effective means of fan ning what Kennedy himself calls the "fires of frustration" into a raging inferno ?

( 2 ) "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as Reported by James Madi· son , " Documents 1II1atrative 01 The Formatioll 01 The Unioll 01 The Americall Statn, published as House Document No, 398. 69th Congr.. s, Government Printing Office, 1 92 7

entirety.

NEXT WEEK : More on the racial problem.

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Text of President Kennedy' s Civil Rights Message, AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas TimfJ Hera/d, June 19, 1963. pp, 23·4 B

(3)

"Civi l·Rights Report o n Schools , , , Voting News & World Report, September 2 1 , 1959, p .

, , 123

Housing."

( 4 ) President Kennedy's June 1 0 address On World Peace , " Quarterly Weekly Report, June 1 4 , 1963, pp. 976·8

Con8rnsional

( 5 ) The Test Ban: An American Strategy of G'ddudl Sell-Mutildtioll, by Stefan T. Possony, COn8reJIiolla/ Record, March 2 1 . 1963. pp. 4358·70 (6)

What To Do

Americans who value liberty - however they may feel about the racial problem - should storm the Congress with demands that the President's W H A T

Y O U

"Credit For Rights Message Rewrite Claimed By Powe l l . " UPI dispatch from Long Beach. California. The Dallds TimfJ Herd/d, June 2 3 . 1963, p. 1 7 A

( 7 ) "Activities i n t h e Southern States, " speech b y U . S . Senator James O . Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi ) . containing official records from the House Committee on Un-Ame.rican Activities, and Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. CongrfJIional Record, May 2 5 . 196 1 . pp. 8349·63 (8) Activities of "The N"tion of lS/dm" or the Mus/im C"lt of Islam, ill LOllisiana, Report No. 3 . The Joint Legislative Committee on Un·American Activities, State of Louisiana, JaA-Uary 9, 1963 (9) See this discussion

Report, "Planned Dictatorship." June 3. 1963. for a complete of the Executive Orders issued by President Kennedy.

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of soci alism. But what can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, poliGical action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bri nging you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1 962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

Film Catalogue

- Free

Reprint List

- Free Page 208

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

ZONE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

STATE

THE )

I)flil SmootlIeport Vol. 9, No. 27

(Broadcast 412)

July 8, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E AM E R I C A N T RAG E DY Tbe past is prologue; and, tlnless we know tbe prologue, we cannot understand the drama unfolding before us.

In January,

1 861, Fernando Wood, Mayor of New York City, proposed to the Common Coun cil that Long Island, Staten Island, and Manhattan secede from the American Union and establish themselves as a free city to be named Tri-Insula. The Council approved ;(l) but this attempt at northern secession was never completed. On April 1 2, 1 861 , southern guns opened fire on Fort Sumter, a federal military post in the harbor at Charleston, South Carolina, initiating open hostilities which came to be known as the American Civil War. Northern secessionists joined with northern abolitionists to put down the effort at southern secession. At first, there were gay enthusiasm and reasonable unity in the North. In population, the North outnumbered the South more than three to one; and shiploads of European immigrants were pouring into the Port of New York almost daily. In natural resources and in industries to produce implements of war, the North was infinitely stronger than the South. The war against southern secessionists looked like nothing more than a colorful summer campaign. Volunteers from northern states quickly responded to President Lincoln's first call to arms. But by the summer of 1 863, there was a general feeling of despair in the North, particularly in New York City which, itself, had considered secession three months before Fort Sumter. Northern armies, though better fed and better equipped and vastly superior in numbers, had not been doing well. General McClellan's great Army of the Potomac, departing from the First Battle of Bull Run in haste and disorder, had set what seemed to be a pattern. Even north of the Mason-Dixon Line, McClellan had not done well. Lincoln replaced McClellan with Burn side; but, the next month, General Burnside lost the battle of Fredericksburg. Burnside was reTHE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates: $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $ l .00; 50 for $5 . 50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 209

placed by Fighting Joe Hooker, but General Fighting Joe promptly lost the battle of Chancel lorsville. Grant had won signal victories in the West; and Lee had spent himself at Gettysburg; but the lustre of these events was not bright enough to obscure a widespread feeling of rebellion and desire for secession that still prevailed in the North. Northern volunteers no longer responded in sufficient numbers to Lincoln's repeated call for more soldiers. The national Congress had en acted a Draft Law, exempting from military serv ice in the Union Armies every man who could pay $300 for personal exemption. This laid an especially heavy burden on the poor men of the North - particularly on the thousands of newly arriving immigrants, many of whom were con scripted and sent south to fight almost as soon as they arrived from Europe.

In mid-July, 1 863, the people of New York gave bloody expression to their resentment of what they regarded as a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight." In five days of rioting, the "poor people" of New York City revealed their attitude toward being forced to fight for freedom of the negro, while many who claimed zeal for that cause were buying their exemption from military service and staying at home to grow rich in a war-stimulated economy. Here is an account of the New York race riots, taken from Lloyd Paul Stryker'S biography of Andrew Johnson: "In fact, finally on that Monday morning [ July 1 3, 1 863 ] , the poor people of the city took arms against their 'sea of troubles,' and used them somewhat effectively throughout five days and nights. When they had finished their work, the limp forms of nearly one thousand negroes were found hanging to the lamp posts or were left crumpled in beaten heaps upon the side walks. More than fifty buildings were burned and sacked. The police, as always, battled brave ly, but they were too few, and it was not until ten thousand troops marched into town that order was restored . . "( 2 ) .

This terrible episode in American history has been rather well buried by historians. Even at the time, it was treated as minor news by the northern press, in comparison with the screaming denun ciation by the press of "southern barbarism" when Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest at tacked Fort Pillow and, in the process of reducing that Fort, killed 200 negro troops who had been inducted into the Union Army.

President Lincoln was disturbed by the bloody New York riots of mid-July, 1 863, primarily be cause they revealed a misunderstanding of his purpose in the war. Time and again, Lincoln had explained that the North was not fighting for freedom of the negro, but was fighting solely to preserve the Union. Lincoln had said repeatedly that if he could maintain the Union by preserving the institution of slavery, he would do so ; if he could maintain the Union by freeing some negroes while leaving some in slavery, he would do so ; or if he could maintain the Union by freeing all slaves, he would do so. Lincoln explained his Emancipation Proclamation as a military neces sity for the North, not as part of a crusade to free the slaves. In a political speech at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1 858, Lincoln had expressed him self on the "negro question." He had repeated the same views at Quincy, Illinois, on October 1 3 , 1 858, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates - in these words: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality . . . . but I hold that, notwith standing all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Inde pendence - the right to life, liberty, and the pur suit of happiness."

After he became President, and throughout the war, Lincoln repeated this view

question in the United States.

Page 210

the racial

Yet, northern abolitionists (apparently trying to forget that it was northern men who had bought black men in Africa, and sold them into slavery in the Western Hemisphere) fanned the flames of hatred for southern whites until no peaceful or sensible solution of the slave problem was pos sible before the war; and no reasonable solution of the racial problem was possible after the war.

At the close of the Civil War, according to Carl Sandburg, foremost biographer of Lincoln : "Lincoln had his choice of going with those who, to win a complete and abstract justice for the Negro, would not hesitate about making the South a vast graveyard of slaughtered whites, with Negro State governments established and upheld by Northern white bayonets." (�)

Charles Sumner (Republican Senator from Massachusetts ) , Ben Wade (Republican Senator from Ohio) and Thaddeus Stevens (Republican Representative from Pennsylvania) were congres sional leaders who had made hatred of the south ern whites a burning political passion and who were determined to establish it as a guiding light of national policy. Lincoln rejected their counsel of hate and, ac cording to Carl Sandburg, so did the two fore most northern Generals, Grant and Sherman: "The supreme devastators, Grant and Sherman, were not politically joined to those, like Sumner, demanding a justice which would consist of Southern Negro state governments made and up held by Northern white bayonets. The caldron of war hate still boiled . . . . The passions of Sumner and Wade had become a habit. They rose to passion chiefly on the race question. As born haters, they had difficulty adjusting them selves to the ways of Lincoln . . . . [ whose counsel about placing blame for slavery and the Civil War �onsisted of ] the repeated and mournful 'Judge not, that ye be not judged.' " ( 3 )

The

Confederacy died and the Civil War

ended when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appo

mattox on April 9, 1865. Lincoln was assassinated Page

5 days later. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, tried faithfully to carry out Lincoln's policies of reconciliation and reconstruction without malice; but, lacking the prestige which Presidency during war had given Lincoln, and being a southerner, Johnson himself became a primary target of the abolitionist haters ; and hatred of southern whites did, indeed, become a guiding light of national policy for more than ten years. Here are passages from Lloyd Paul Stryker's biography of President Johnson: "In Memphis, during April [ 1 866 ] , the third United States colored artillery were quartered. Their mere presence was provocative enough, but when presently their lack of discipline re vealed itself in acts of open insolence, the col lisions against which Grant had warned were sure to follow. The police of Memphis . . . were Irish. The jostling of Irish policemen never has been deemed an act of prudence, yet on the afternoon of April 30th this extra hazardous pastime was engaged in by the black artillery men. Trouble disproportionate to this origin was not slow in following. It followed on the next day when the municipal officers of the law, with the ready aid of white civilians, made an attack upon the entire negro population of the city. This retaliation resulted in a riot that lasted for two days. When it was over, forty six negroes had been killed and more were in jured . . . . The echoes of this trouble were not slow in reaching Washington, from which sounding-board they reverberated through the land. A golden opportunity was here offered for the enemies of the South to proclaim her 'un regeneracy' . . . . "The material for defamation furnished by the Memphis riot, however, was as nothing com pared to what transpired at New Orleans on July 30th [ 1 866 ] . . . . [ when ] a procession of negroes, partly armed, marched through the streets of New Orleans. There was some hoot ing and jeering from the sidewalks, when sud denly a shot rang out; it had been fired by one of the colored paraders. Other shots soon fol lowed, and the crowd then chased the marchers . . . . The police appeared presently on the scene. All the materials for a riot were now present, and a very shocking one ensued . . . . Before it was over nearly two hundred persons had been 211

killed or injured, most of whom were negroes. Soldiers did not reach the scene until the trouble was all over. "Without a shred of proof to substantiate the charge, the Radicals proclaimed that the riot was the result of the President's delinquency, and heralded this accusation in every form of utterance. His [ Johnson's ] exculpation was in the power of Stanton [ Secretary of War ] , but Stanton held his peace, except to exclaim against the Attorney-General of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans as 'pardoned rebels who had instigated the murder of the people in the streets of the city.' The Congressional Commit tee appointed by Congress would hear nothing from the President, and presently filed their report charging him as an accomplice in the cnme . . . . "No one seems to have mentioned that the com bined deaths in Memphis and in New Orleans numbered less than half the negroes who were murdered in the draft riots of New York three years before! Such facts would not well have har monized with the Radical contention that it was only in the South that the race problem gave rise to turbulence!" ( 2 )

But the truth was recorded quietly, in the diary of Gideon Welles, who had served throughout Lincoln's term of office as Secretary of the Navy and was still serving in that capacity under John son, when the race riots occurred in New Orleans on July 30, 1 866. Gideon Welles said : "There is little doubt that the New Orleans riots had their origin with the Radical Members of Congress in Washington. It is part of a de liberate conspiracy and was to be the commence ment of a series of bloody affrays through the States lately in rebellion . . . . There is a deter mination to involve the country in civil war, if necessary, to secure negro suffrage in the States and Radical ascendancy in the General Govern ment." (4 )

was evil and doomed to die; but it had become so woven into the fabric of American life that time was needed to remove it. It could have been removed without the sea of blood that was poured out during and following the Civil War. Leaders in the North (among them, Abraham Lincoln) and in the South (among them, owners of slaves) were groping toward a means of sending negroes back to Africa and of aiding them there to devel op their own independent nation and to lead their own way of life. But the insensate hatred of northern abolitionists for southern whites pro voked a defensive, equally senseless reaction on the part of some southern leaders who tried to defend slavery as a noble institution. The North did not go to war to free the slaves, and the South did not fight to preserve slavery. The official purpose of the northern government was to preserve the American Union. The official purpose of the southern government was to estab lish the right of the South to be left alone, to lead its own life in its own way. But it was hatred, fanned to white-heat, both North and South, that made possible the awful inferno of the Civil War. Northern slave-traders brought negroes to the United States against their will, the only race of people ever forced to come here. Southern plan tation owners bought the negroes and used them as slaves. Southerners were not above engaging in the slave trade, and northerners were not above owning and working slaves. The economics of the time assigned the North and South their re spective roles. ( r. )

Slavery was, in short, a national sin. But in stead of growing maudlin about our great nation al sin, we ought to look at it in proper perspec tive.

The National Sin

As early as

N egroes,

1 787, responsible men - the men who wrote our Constitution - knew that slavery

whom New England and British

slave traders brought to the new world, were not

a civilized people captured and sold into bondage.

Page 212

They were barbarians , most of whom had been slaves in Africa, sold to white slave traders by other negroes . Their bondage to the white man in America was, physically speaking, an actual im provement upon the life they had endured in Africa. The slaves set free by the American Civil War were of a race which had never developed a civi lization of its own. These negroes had no racial pride or racial traditions of self-government. Their forebears had never known anything but slavery, either in the Western Hemisphere or in their African homeland. These were the people, illiterate and property les� , who, in one violent step, were declared equal heirs of a civilization which it had taken the white man thousands of years to develop. The southern whites (upon whom fell the main task of helping the negroes assimilate an ancient and alien culture) were themselves pauperized, de moralized, and embittered by war - a people whose own way of life had been shattered by mili tary action. And during the first ten years when the southern whites were trying to carry this bur den, they were living under the heel of a national government in the hands of men whose ruling passions were greed and hate. Guns and bayonets of northern occupation armies forced southern whites to accept state governments run by illiter ate negroes and white carpetbaggers - govern ments which, under the cover of "law," despoiled southerners of their homes and other property. Yet, somehow, the monumental burden was shouldered.

N eg ro Progress

Any

American who has a sense of shame

ma � in the United States - even including the penod of slavery - should look at the history of the b � ack man elsewhere. Look, for example, at the history of Haiti.

H aiti

was a French colonial possession from 1697 to 1804. It was the most prosperous Euro pean colony in the Western Hemisphere. In 1789 (the year when George Washington became the first President of the United States) , free mulat toes of Haiti (who were property owners, many of them wealthy) were given political rights. The whites obj ected to this, and fierce racial struggles ensued. On January 1 , 1 804, Haiti became an independ ent nation, under the rule of Jean Jacques Des salines, a negro, who crowned himself Emperor. He began his reign by massacring all whites in Haiti, thus making it an all-negro nation. In 1844, the eastern half of the island revolted and declared its independence (now known as the Dominican Republic ) . ( C, )

Haiti has been an all-negro nation since 1 804. The civilization which the negroes took over from the whites in 1 804 was as advanced as any in the Western Hemisphere. Yet, since the negroes gained national independence, Haiti has been a land of brutal violence, bloody anarchy, tyranny, and poverty - except for one 19-year period when it was under the supervision of U . S. occu pation forces. Following a period of wild an archy, in which foreign embassies were looted and their personnel murdered, the United States, on July 28, 1 9 1 5 , sent a detachment of Marines into Haiti to restore order. U. S. forces remained until 1934. During those years of white super vision, the negro Republic of Haiti enjoyed the only prosperity and the only period of law and order, since the whites were exterminated in 1804.

apologetic feeling about the history of the black Page 213

Shortly after Franklin D. Roosevelt ended the

U. S. occupation of Haiti, bloody turmoil and grinding poverty returned to that hapless land. Today, the all-negro Republic of Haiti is the most illiterate and depressed area in the Western Hemisphere. (6. 7 )

With marvelous speed, the American negroes - thanks to the understanding and sympathetic aid of southern whites - were becoming a proud and distinctive part of the total American popu lation.

ConSider

the history of the black man in Australia. The first British settlement in Australia was established in 1788. In that land, the black man is a native, never having been brought there as a slave, or otherwise oppressed by whites. Australians forbade the migration of foreign ne groes to their country, but adopted a beneficent policy toward native blacks - giving them free dom to share the white man's civilization, or to remain apart, and lead their own way of life. Practically all of them have chosen to remain apart; and they are still a stone-age people, having made few advances in the 1 7 5 years since white civilization first came to their homeland. (8)

O n the other hand, look at the history of the American negro in the United States. Between 1 865 and 1 928, the American negro made more progress than the black man had ever made any where else in the entire history of the human race. During that period, American negroes made a miraculous advance toward full integration into the white man's ancient culture - not integra tion in the contemporary sense of losing their racial identity by full amalgamation with the white race, but integration in the sense that they began to develop a pride in their own race and, with the white man's help, began to build their own cultural and educational institutions, estab lish their own businesses, build their own homes,

own their own land.

Racial Agitation

As early as 191 3, Lenin had urged communists to use the "negro problem" as a means of creating disorder and strife in the United States. But the communist program of racial agitation was not formally launched until 1 928. Hence, 1 928 is a significant turning point in the history of race relations in the United States. When the communists launched their program of racial agitation, they were spurred by a sense of urgency, because they knew that the "negro problem" was vanishing in the United States. For proof of this, examine the words of John Pepper, the man chosen by Moscow to initiate the pro gram. John Pepper wrote a 1 6-page pamphlet intended as a handbook for communist racial agitation activity. Entitled American Negro Prob lems) it was published ( 1928 ) by the Workers Library Publishers, 3 5 East 1 2 5th Street, New York (official publishing company of the com mpnist party) . Note these passages : "The Negroes of the United States are the most advanced section of the Negro population of the world and can play a decisive role in help ing and leading the liberation movement of the Negro colonies . . . .

"The industrialization of the agrarian south of the United States, the concentration of a new Negro working-class population in the big cities of the east and north, and the entrance of the Negroes into the basic industries on a Inass scale,

have been changing, in the last few years, the Page 214

whole social composition of the Negro race America . . . .

III

"A sharp class differentiation has taken place in the Negro population in recent years. For merly the Negro was in the main the cotton farmer in the south and the domestic help in the north . . . . [ But now ] in the big cities and in dustrial centres of the north there is concentrated to a growing degree a Negro working-class popu lation . . . . At the same time there is a rapid de velopment of a Negro petit-bourgeoisie, a Negro intelligentsia, and even a Negro bourgeoisie. The very fact of segregation of the Negro masses creates the basis for the development of a stra tum of small merchants, lawyers, physicians, preachers, brokers, who try to attract the Negro workers and farmers as consumers . . . . "It would be a major mistake to overlook the existence of class differences among the Negroes, especially the crystallization of a Negro bourgeoi sie. There were in 1 924, 73 Negro banks, carrying an annual volume of business of over 1 00,000,000 dollars. There are 25 Negro insurance companies;

1 4 of these have assets totalling 6,000,000 dollars and during 1 926 alone paid over 3,000,000 dol lars in claims. This Negro bourgeoisie is closely tied up with the white bourgeoisie; is often the agent of the white capitalists. Economically the Negro banks are often part of the Federal Re serve System of banking. "Politically the Negro bourgeoisie is partICI pating, to a growing degree, in the so-called 'com missions for inter-racial cooperation.' These com mittees exist in eight hundred counties of the south and are spreading all through the black belt."

Note that the communists were particularly dis turbed because the "negro bourgeoisie" was par ticipating with southern whites in voluntary com missions for inter-racial cooperation.

N egro

progress in the United States was so fast and so solid - and harmonious relations be tween black and white races were being so effec-

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HA VE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

WHO

I S

D AN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and j oined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative . assist�nt to J. Edgar Hoov�r on FB'I headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases 10 vanous parts of the natton. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a f�ee enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sal es : sales of The I?an Smoot �eport, a weekl.Y . magaz� ne; . and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radlO and te1evlsl�n as an ad�erttslOg veht�le. The Report and the broadcast gives only one side in presenting documented truth about tmportant Issues - the SIde that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 215

tively developed - that communists alone could not have done serious harm. The race problem did not become a major American tragedy until the Democrat Party, un der the leadership of Roosevelt and Truman, for political reasons, adopted a program of racial agi tation. The problem did not become a major na tional disaster - transforming peaceful communi ties into caldrons of violence - until modern Republicans, under the leadership of Eisenhower and Nixon, launched an all-out political struggle to win organized negro support away from the Democrats.

T he Kennedy administration, in its search for political support, has cynically prodded and ma nipulated the delicate racial problem - until, to day, it is entirely conceivable that places like New York City could be on the verge of a horrible experience comparable to that of mid-July, 1 863.

W H A T

Y O U

NEXT WEEK: More on this problem. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Abraham Lincoln, by John T. Morse, Jr., American Statesmen Series, 1893; and The Ellcyclopaedia BrilclIlllica, 1 1 th Edition, 1 9 10, Volume 1 9, p . 623 ( 2 ) Andrew /ohl1!ol1, A Siudy ill COl/rage, by Lloyd Paul Stryker, The Macmtl lan Company, 1 929, pp. 1 2 6- 7 ; pp. 3 1 6-19 ( 3 ) Abraham Lincoln: The Jr/ar Year!, by Carl Sandburg, Harcourt, Brace & Company, 19 36, Volume IV, p. 2 1 7 ; p. 2 1 8 ( 4 ) Diary of Gideon WelleJ, edited by Howard K . Beale, W . W. Norton & Company, 1960, Volume I I , pp. 569-70 ( 5 ) The Census of 1 860 listed 1 1 4,995 slaves in northern states: HiJtorical StaliJticJ of the United SlateJ: Colollial TimeJ to 1 95 7, Bureau of the Census, 1960, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 ( 6 ) The Encyclopaedia B" itanl1ica, 14th Edition, 1 932, Volume 1 1, pp. 82-3 ( 7 ) The Encyclopedia Am � ricalla, 1961 Edition, Volume XIII, pp. 628d-628h; Information PleaJe Almallac tor 1 963, Simon and Schuster, 1962, pp. 7 0 1 - 2 ( 8 ) The Ellcyclopedia Americana, 567-69

C A N

1961 Edition, Volume I I , pp.

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of soci alism. But what can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Vo lume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books The Invisible -

Govert�ment, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $1 0.00 - $ 10.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World A merica's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free

- Free Page 216

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

ZONE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

STATE

THE

IJ(JII SmootlIeport Vol. 9, No. 28

(Broadcast 4 1 3)

July 1 5, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

MORE EQUAL THAN EQUAL

Here

is the civil rights platform announced by the communist party in 1928, when com munists formally launched their program to create social disorder in the United States by agi tating the racial situation: " 1 . Abolition of the whole system of race discrimination. Full racial, political, and social equality for the Negro race. "2. Abolition of all laws which result in segregation of Negroes. Abolition of all Jim Crow laws. The law shall forbid all discrimination against Negroes in selling or renting houses. "3. Abolition of all laws which disfranchise the Negroes.

"4. Abolition of laws forbidding intermarriage of persons of different races. "5. Abolition of all laws and public administration measures which prohibit, or in practice prevent, Negro children or youth from attending general public schools or universities. "6. Full and equal admittance of Negroes to all railway station waiting rooms, restaurants, hotels, and theatres. "7. Federal law against lynching and the protection of the Negro masses in their right of self defense. Ab?lition of discriminatory practices in courts against Negroes. No discrimination in . "8. Jury serVIce. "9. Abolition of the convict lease system and of the chain-gang. " 1 0. Abolition of all Jim Crow distinction in the army, navy, and civil service. "1 1 . Immediate removal of all restrictions in all trade unions against the membership of Negro workers. " 1 2. Equal opportunity for employment, wages, hours, and working conditions for Negro and white workers. Equal pay for equal work for N egro and white workers."(l) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week b y The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas, 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2 303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10. 00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 2 1 7

1 946, President Truman created a Presi dent's Committee on Civil Rights. In October, 1947, this Committee published a report, recom mending federal legislation to outlaw all dis crimination and segregation based on race, color, creed, or national origin. In February, 1948, Presi dent Truman requested of Congress civil rights legislation based on the 1947 Report. Congress refused. The Democrat Party put strong civil rights provisions in its political platform for the 1 948 elections, and so did the Republican PartyY)

money. Private builders who get FHA, or other, loans must not permit any racial discrimination in their own employment practices or in the em ployment practices of their contractors. They must sell, rent, or lease their real estate without regard to race. Federal agencies must eliminate all kinds of racial discrimination or segregation; and any state or private agencies receiving federal funds, and any private firm contracting, or subcontract ing, work for the federal government, must do the same.

Thus, twenty years after communists initiated their program to create racial strife, the two major political parties made the race question a primary issue in a presidential election. Kennedy's civil rights proposals in 1 963 go beyond the original communist program.

The fact is, of course, that the federal govern

(3)

Enforcing Equality

August 1 3 , 1953, President Eisenhower issued an Executive Order creating the Govern ment Contract Committee (with Vice President Nixon as chairman) . This Committee had the responsibility of seeing that business firms with government contracts did not permit racial dis crimination in their employment practices. On January 1 8, 195 5 , President Eisenhower is sued an Executive Order creating the Committee on Government Employment Policy, to guarantee that all considerations of race be eliminated in the hiring of persons to work for the federal gov ernment. On March 6, 1 96 1 , President Kennedy issued an Executive Order abolishing the two Eisen hower committees, and substituting for them the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, with Vice President Johnson as chairman. The responsibility of this Committee is to eliminate racial discrimination in every ac

tivity that has any connection, direct or indirect, with the spending or lending of federal tax

ment has no constitutional authority to lend money or guarantee private loans, through FHA or otherwise, to individuals or business firms. It has no constitutional authority to give tax money to state governments for schools, welfare, unem ployment compensation, employment activities, and so on. Individuals and state governments - in the South and elsewhere - who take illegal federal handouts and then complain about illegal federal controls have no logic to support their position. The way to end this particular aspect of federal domination of private and state affairs is to elim inate the federal subsidies which give some color of justification for the domination. It is in teresting to note, in this connection, that advo cates of all federal aid programs ( particularly federal aid to education) incessantly repeat the tired old argument that federal help does not mean federal control, although every one knows better, and can see in the record of current events that a primary reason for federal aid is to create a pretext for federal control.

Federal

requirements against discrimination in the employment practices of private business firms working on contracts or subcontracts for the government have no basis in the spirit or pro visions of American constitutional law. When the government buys goods from private indi viduals, or contracts with them to produce goods, it has a right and responsibility to require honest

Page 218

and efficient contract fulfillment. It has no right to force on the private contractors the social or political ideology of reigning Washington official dom. Yet, from 1 9 5 3 to 1 96 1 , Eisenhower and Nixon (through Eisenhower's Government Con tract Committee) ; and since 1 96 1 , Kennedy and Johnson (through Kennedy's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity ) have used govern ment contracts as a club to promote their own political ends. It is a big club. Federal government spending amounts to more than 200/0 of the Gross National Product of the United States. (4)

State and Loca l Action

In addition to federal efforts, at least 20 states ( and many municipalities ) have laws against racial discrimination in private employment, in public employment, in housing, in schools, and in the use of public facilities. (5)

Most state laws against racial discrimination go to extraordinary extremes. The California Fair Employment Practice Act, for example, makes it illegal for a private employer to ask a job applicant whether he is a citizen of the United States - or even to ask him how long he has been a resident in this country.

he was a negro. The FEPC, ignoring the facts supplied by the railroad ( facts strongly buttressed by the circumstances that the company has a large number of negro employees who have been pro moted on merit and who have not been fired ) , ruled that the company had discriminated against Andrews. The FEPC ordered Santa Fe to rein state Andrews in his old job, to give him 10 months' back pay, and to promote him at the first opportunity. ( 6 ) Another typical California FEPC case involved Clarence B. Ramsey. In January, 1 96 1 , Ramsey, a negro, applied for a job as shipping clerk with the T. H. Wilson Company, a photographic supply firm in San Francisco. The company, considering him unqualified, refused to hire him. Ramsey complained to the FEPC - which ruled that re fusal to hire Ramsey was an act of racial discrim ination. In August, 1 96 1 , the FEPC ordered the company to give Ramsey $2 1 7 5 . 5 0 - which repre sented the amount of money Ramsey would have earned in wages from January to August, 1961, if he had been hired. (7)

These two California cases are typical of out rageous inj ustices and violations of individual rights which are commonplace, not only in Cali fornia, but in all states which have "FEPC" laws.

Conseq uences

E xisting

Since the California Fair Employment Practices Commission was created in 1959, over 425 cases against private employers have been handled. One typical case involved Lennie L. Andrews, a negro, employed as a coach cleaner in the Barstow, Cali fornia, yards of the Santa Fe Railroad Company. Andrews did not like the job of cleaning coaches. He asked for promotion to the job of carman. The railroad refused to promote him because he had no aptitude for the job he wanted. Shortly thereafter ( in March, 1 960 ) , Andrews was found asleep during working hours in a coach he was supposed to be cleaning. He was fired. He com

civil rights programs (of federal, state, and local governments ) already cover at least two-thirds of the total population in the United States, according to statements which Presi dent Kennedy made in his civil rights message of June 19, 1963. The ostensible purpose of the programs is to eliminate racial tensions by abolish ing racial discrimination. Yet, racial tensions are infinitely worse now than before any of the pro grams were initiated. The odd distortions of "liberal" reason on the race question have had incredible consequences.

denied the promotion and had been fired because

hower sent a Division of airborne troops to Little

plained to the California FEPC that he had been

Page 219

September

24,

1957,

President

Eisen

Rock, because, he said, "disorderly mobs" in that city were "defying the law." No law was involved, however. The "disorderly mobs" consisted of about 200 housewives and workers, congregated on th� la,,:,n a� Central High School, j eering, or standmg m sllent protest against a Supreme Court order that nine negro children should be enrolled in Central High (even though a more modern and commodious public high school was available to the children in their own neighbor hood ) . President Eisenhower interrupted a va cation in Rhode Island and returned to Washing ton for a radio-television speech to the nation about the Little Rock affair which, because of his action, was emblazoned in banner headlines all over the world. About midnight on September 2 3 , 1 9 5 7 (just a few hours before Eisenhower's military action against the "disorderly mobs" in Little Rock ) some real mob violence erupted in Lone Star, Texas. Approximately 1 000 strikers (United Steel Workers-CIO ) jammed entrance gates at the Lone Star Steel Company, preventing em ployees who wanted to work from entering the plant. They threw rocks at cars and non-strikers, and shouted insults and obscenities at workers who approached the gates. It was an "illegal" strike - in the sense that the union had not authorized it, and management was not certain what it was all about. The company obtained a court injunction against mass picketing, but the strike continued anyway. Company cars were stoned, windows were broken. One company truckdriver said he was followed by two carloads of strikers who fired on him, puncturing a tire on his truck. The wife of one non-striker said the lives of her children were endangered . A sales representative said one hundred strikers mobbed his car, trying to turn it over. 200 housewives In Little Rock, Arkansas and workers milling around Central High School ; in Lone Star, Texas, 1 000 CIO strikers armed with rocks, clubs, and guns doing violence to the life, liberty, and property of innocent citizens! -

President Eisenhower did nothing, said noth ing, about the Lone Star, Texas, affair.

P . resident Kennedy has displayed the same bIas. Washington, D. c., has become a place where people are not safe on the streets at night, or even in church or in their own homes unless care�ull� guarded. Last Thanksgiving Day : � small mmonty of white people in a predom mantly negro crowd at a high school football game were savagely mauled by negro spectators after the 'white football team had defeated th � ne�ro te�m . Poli ce were powerless to protect the . . whIte mlnonty, J ust as police in Washington are ge�erally unable to give the minority white popu lation adequate protection against negro hood lums. The President could, with constitutional authority, us� federal �roops to protect the peo ple of Washington agamst lawless violence, since the city is in a federal district ; but the President has never done it. (81

In �ay, 1963, however, President Kennedy as :-r qUICk to send federal troops to protect riot mg negroes in Birmingham - where authorities had the situation well in hand and were impar tially enforcing the law ; where no federal law or federal court order had been violated or even threatened ; where there was no constitutional authority for federal intervention.

It is safe to say that less damage to the persons and property of innocent people has occurred in all racial strife in the State of Alabama during the past ten years, than occurred in thirty minutes on Thanksgiving Day, 1 962, at Washington, D. C.

O n June 1 2 ,

Medgar Evers, negro field National Association for the representative for the Advancement of Colored People in Missis sippi, was murdered in Jackson. The FBI investi gated the crime as a federal case. FBI agents identified a suspect and arrested him under au thority of federal civil rights laws, later turning him over to state authorities for prosecution on a murder charge. 1 96 3 ,

On June 1 2 , 1 96 3 , a white man was killed by a negro during a race riot in Lexington, North Carolina. Federal authorities showed no interest in this case.

Page 220

On June 12, 1 963, two white men were in j ured by shotgun blasts fired into their private places of business, during a race riot at Cam bridge, Maryland. Federal authorities showed no interest in this case. On the night of June 1 2, 1 963, 6 negroes stabbed an 1 8-year-old white boy and raped his 1 5-year-old companion in Cleveland, Ohio. Fed eral authorities showed no interest in this case. On June 1 9, 1963, Medgar Evers, the slain NAACP leader (an ex-serviceman) was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, with all the solemn ceremony customary at the burial of a national hero. On June 19, 1 963, three white soldiers were dragged out of their car in Washington, D. C , and beaten by a gang of negroes. One of the white soldiers - Edward Betcher - was killed. The negroes ran over his body with their car, as they were leaving the scene. The FBI did not enter this case; and the funeral of Betcher, a mur dered white soldier, was not even reported in the press. (9)

On June 1 9, 1 963, a homemade bomb, thrown or placed by unknown assailants, damaged a ne gro church near Gillett, Arkansas. Newspaper accounts indicate that the FBI did enter this case.(lO) On the night of June 26, 1 963, dynamite bombs blasted the homes of two white police officers in Minneapolis. Prior to the bombings, both white men had received numerous threatening telephone calls from negroes. Federal authorities did not enter this case.

O n June 5, 1 963, the Dallas Post Office an nounced the promotion of 3 negroes to super visory positions. On the basis of merit, 5 3 white men ranked higher than the highest ranking negro on the promotion list. On July 5, 1 963, a San Antonio Evening News columnist quoted local federal officials as saying

they had been told to "fill vacancies with nothing but Negroes." The order was given verbally. On July 6, various regional federal officials de nied the San Antonio story, by saying that the San Antonio officials had "exaggerated what we've asked them to do." (12) (11)

Concerning negroes in government service, United States Representative Bruce Alger (Re publican, Texas ) says : "While the negroes comprise only 1 0 percent of the population . . . they already hold jobs, especially in government, far beyond this per· centage. In Washington, in such agencies as the Post Office Department, General Services Ad· ministration, etc., employment for negroes runs as high as 40 to 50 percent."(13)

In sum :

civil rights for negroes, in the eyes of politicians hungry for negro votes, means that harming a negro is a national disaster which re quires federal action even when such action vio lates the Constitution ; but negro violence against whites is a routine matter beneath the notice of federal authorities. Civil rights for negroes in federal employment means that they must be pro moted above white men who outrank them on the basis of personal merit, and must be given preference as applicants for employment, even though they already hold a disproportionate share of all government jobs. ( 14)

Overt Demands For Preference

Agitators

of the racial problem have long contended that they merely want to abolish dis crimination against negroes - to eliminate racial consciousness so that negroes will be treated as individuals, without regard to their race. Now, however, these same agitators are frankly de manding that negroes be given preferential treat ment because of their race. In northern cities, taxpayers are burdened with the expense of transportation services to haul

Page 221

negro children miles from their neighborhoods so that they can be enrolled in schools with white children. On June 30, 1 963, Martin Luther King (no torious negro agitator ) demanded "discrimina tion in reverse." That is, he wants preferential treatment of negroes in the form of financial aid from the federal government to provide negroes special advantages in employment, education, housing, and so on. On July 1 , 1 963, Lincoln Lynch, an official of The Congress of Racial Equality, went one step further in demanding that negroes be given preferential treatment, not only by government but by private organiza tions. ( I f, )

( 16)

These negro agitators threaten the nation with violence if they do not get the preferential treat ment they demand.

N egro leaders are now saying that the absence

of white children from all-negro schools "means a shortage of ambitious, education-minded models for negro children to copy." ( l;) This does coin cide with the findings of scientific research. Dr. Audrey M. Shuey, Chairman of the De partment of Psychology at Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Lynchburg, Virginia, wrote a book, The Testing of Negro Intelligence ( 1958) . Dr. Shuey reviewed all extensive psychological testing of negroes done in the United States dur ing this century. Her conclusion is that, on the whole, negroes have lower IQ's than whites, re gardless of environmental factors, and that there are definite intelligence differences between white and negro races. Dr. Henry E. Garrett, former President of the American Psychological Association and Profes sor Emeritus of Psychology at Columbia Uni versity, says in the introduction to Dr. Shuey'S book : "Dr. Shuey concludes that the regularity and consistency of the results strongly imply a racial basis for these differences. I believe that the weight of evidence supports her conclusion."

Impartial foreign observers have corne to the

same conclusion. Peregrine Worsthorne, an edi tor of the London Sunday Telegraph, says : "To be brutally frank, the most serious and ineradicable obstacle to a genuine multi-racial society in the United States may be less the Southern white man's privileges than the North ern black man's inadequacies."(8)

O nly God can evaluate the worth of human i� dividuals or races. It is quite beyond the pro vince of man to know whether any individual or race is "superior" to another. Only God knows whether negroes have contributed more or less than whites to fulfillment of God's plan for humanity. Only God knows whether "civiliza tion," as we know it, is better or worse than the primitive society of negroes in the jungles of Africa. In evaluating human accomplishments, the best we can do is to use standards known to us. All of us who are heirs of Western civilization ( which includes negroes among us) use such 'words as "progress" and "accomplishment" in conformity with the standards of our civilization - even when "we acknowledge that God's con cept of "progress" and "accomplishment" may differ from ours. In this context, certain things are obvious. It is obvious that Western civilization was produced by whites. For primitive living under harsh physical conditions, the black man is ob viously better adapted than whites ; but for living in the white man's civilization, whites are ob viously better adapted than negroes. When left alone, the negro has never advanced beyond a primitive culture. When left alone after taking over an advanced white civilization (as in Haiti ) , the negro has retrograded rather Nowhere else on earth has than progressed. the negro made such substantial progress as In the United States, where he has received extra ordinary assistance from whites. ( I !I )

demanding enforced racial mIXing so that negroes will benefit from association with whites, negro leaders inadvertently admit negro inferior-

Page 222

ity ; but to j ustify their demands for preferential treatment, they claim that negroes are now en titled to preference because they always before have been oppressed ; they claim that negroes are backward in our civilization because they have never been given a chance.

like children. But, generally, since the end of the Civil War, the negro has been treated on the basis of individual merit. Those who have the ability to rise in our society have risen, many to great heights, where they enjoy all the advantages of wealth, fame, and public acclaim that whites with comparable accomplishments enjoy.

This simply is not so.

T he arrogance of contemporary negro leaders ;

Before negro agitation became a major issue in American politics, whites ( in southern states, especially) voluntarily gave negroes preferential treatment of the kind that was most beneficial to negroes. The prevailing attitude in the South was that whites had a responsibility to help negroes. White employers would put up with laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsibility on the part of negro employees that they would not for a mo ment tolerate in whites. White families volun tarily assumed a responsibility for negroes that they would never assume for other whites. Whites would take financial risks to help a negro which they would not think of taking to help a white man with comparable resources and credit rating. This is why there are more independent, pros perous negro businesses in the southern part of the United States than in any other part of the world : white men, understanding the negro and feeling responsibility for him, gave him special help that was not available to anyone else.

the wide-spread violence against whites and mass defiance of local laws by negroes who are sup ported, encouraged, and defended by Washing ton officials so greedy for power that they are willing to destroy the Constitution and abolish the most fundamental rights of all the people in order to get the votes of organized negroes in key northern cities ; the preferential treatment of negroes in government employment, and the gov ernmentally-enforced, preferential treatment of negro job applicants in private industry, in a time of unemployment - these are creating a general resentment of whites against negroes that did not exist before. The negro in America will soon realize that liberal politicians and agitators have led him into disaster. The whole nation will suffer.

What To Do

It is true that for generations following the Civil War, great numbers of southern negroes were treated like children, because they behaved WHO

The most obvious thing that we ought

to do

D A N S MOOT ?

in 1938 and SMU in Dallas getting BA and MA degrees Born in Missouri , reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went a doctorate for work te gradua doing , lish En In 11 F 1940. In 1 941, he j oined the faculty at Harvard as a Teac 109 e ow in American Civilization. . . . and a half years on commumst three for d worke he t e n A I , FB an As FBI. d the and J Oine In 1942 he left Harvard . . � on FBI headquar Edgar Hoover . . . I west· two years as an administrative assls tan t to J . ' In the IndustnaI M·d i nvestigations . nation the cases in various parts of ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on genera 1 FBI . . . Forum radio and teI eVISlOn he FBI and hel ed start Facts Forum. On Facts " ' �'ue,. e"i.! conttov ! udience, giving oth ,id .. of . k t p,og m . . . . and broadcasting buslOess - a free10d ependent P ublish ing present his started and resigned he 1955, , In July y magazine; . sal es : sa Ies 0f Th e Dan Smoot Report a weekl. . enterprise operation fi nanced entireIy by profits from . g ve h·IC1e. d vertlsm a an as ion televis and adio fo and sales of a weekly news-analys s broadcast, to. bus.lOess fi rm � the side issues ted truth about important The Report and the broadca�t �pve only one �Ide I p sent � asts are broadc the and ; iption subscr by s available that uses the American Constitution as a yardstlc . T e et: tates. Vnlt the In e anywher available for commercial sponsorship, s fighting socialism and commumsm, you can ' If you think Dan Sm�t is 'providing effective tooISf for A and broadcasts. his help immensely - by help 109 him get more customers o r

�<?

!= ;��:;'.!';';� ': �: ! :�:': :

�

� ��: :f ; n;:;��

Page 223

about the race problem is to demand that the federal government quit meddling with it. Con gress should reject President Kennedy's civil rights program enti rely ; and it should repeal all existing civil rights legislation in order to return to the ideal of equality-before-the-Iaw for all persons in our nation. If this could be done ; and if all the federal gov ernment's unconstitutional programs of aiding and meddling in state and local affairs could be stopped, we would return to a free and volun tary society in which each community or state could handle its o\vn race problem, if any , in its own way. This is a slow and long-range approach ; but it is the only approach that offers any hope of solution for the most dangerous domestic prob lem in the United States since the outbreak of the Civil War. Whites, outnumbering negroes by about 1 0 to 1 , could vote out of office every politician who is ruining the country by bidding for negro votes with civil rights proposals. If whites continue submitting to the dictation of the radical leaders of a small minority, they will deserve what they get. W H A T

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Americall Negro Problem.f, by John Pepper, Workers Library Publishers, New York City, 1 928 ( 2 ) "Perspective: Time for Statesmanship," by Raymond Moley, NeU'.rtl"eek, March 1 5, 1 948; "Perspective: Toward a Civil Rights Solution," by Raymond Moley, NeU'su'eek, November 2 2 , 1 948 ( 3 ) For additional information on President Kennedy's 1 96 3 Civil Rights proposals, see this RelJort, "Civil Rights Act of 1 963," July I , 1 963. ( 4 ) The Budgel ill Brief /0" 1 964 Fiscal Year, Bureau of the Budget, January 1 7 , 1963, pp. 1 7-20 ( 5 ) The Book of Ihe Slates, 1 960- 1 96 1 , Voltlme XllI, The Coun. ci i of State Governments, 1 960, p. 458 ( 6 ) " FEPC Orders Rail Worker's Reinstatement," The Los A ngeles Times, March 1 . 1961 ( 7 ) AP dispatch from San Francisco, The Los Angeles Times, August 24. 196 1 ( 8 ) For a discussion o f conditions i n Washington, D.C., see this Report, "Washington: The Model City," June 24, 1 963. ( 9 ) " Five Negroes Held In Soldier's Death," AP story from Washington, The Dallas Moming News, June 20, 1 963, Sec· tion I, p. 3 ( 1 0 ) UPI dispatch from Gil lett, Arkansas, The New York Times, June 20, 1 963, p. 1 9 ( 1 1 ) "Hire Negroes Only, Reported U.S. Order," The Dallas Times Herald, July 6. 1 963, p. 1 ( 1 2 ) "Official Denies SS Units Told to Hire Only Negroes," by Carl Harris, The Dalla.r Momi}]g Netlls, July 7, 1 963, Section I, p. 2 1 ( 1 3 ) "Washington Report," by u.s. Representative Bruce Alger ( Republican, Texas ) , June 2 2, 1 963 ( 14 ) "What New Turn I n Negro Drive Means," U.s. News & World Report, June 1 7 , 1 963, pp. 40-7 ( 1 5 ) "Dr. King Urges Negro 'GJ. Bi l l ' : Calls for 'Preferential' Plan to Meet Education Needs," The New York Times, July I , 1 963, p. 2 1 ( 1 6 ) "CORE t o Intensify Militancy O n L.t," b y Ronald Mairoana, The New YOI·k TI1Jles, July 2, 1963, p. 1 4 ( 1 7 ) "Should All Northern Schools B e Integrated ?" Time, Septem ber 7, 1 962 p. 3 3 ( 1 8 ) " 'Black And White Reality' - A British Observer's View " by Peregrine Worsthorne, U.S. Neu's & If/orld Report, July 'I , 1 963, pp. 62-3 ( 19 ) For a discussion of Haiti, see this Report, "The American Tragedy," July 8, 1 963, pp. 2 1 3-4.

Y O U

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bri nging you to the point of asking what you can do about Have you urged others to saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : shown them a subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you use by speake rs, for Report Smoot Dan The of lume Vo Bound a suggested ever you Dan Smoot film? Have books The Invisible debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot -

Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's promise

Film Cacalogue Reprint List

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00 - $ 3_00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free

- Free Page 224

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

ZIP CODE

THE

1)IIIIImootlIe,ort Vol. 9, No. 29

(Broadcast 41 4)

July 22, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E E D I F I C E O F L I B E RTY "But who shall reconstmct the fabric of demolished Government ? Who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns ot c011Slltutwnal lzbel'ty � Who shall frame together the skillful architecture which unites national sovereignty with State , nghts, md1V1dttal sewnty, and p"bhc prosperity ? No, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again, Like the Colosseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality, Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were e1Jer shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the l'emnants of a more gl01'l0tts edlflce than Gl'eece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional American liberty,

Daniel

Webster

1832

O n June 23, 1963, a "special feature" edition of The Worker (official newspaper of the communist party in the United States ) presented a policy statement called "United People's Action For Peace, Democracy and Social Progress. " The statement was written by Gus Hall, head of the U. S_ communist party. Hall praised both the foreign and domestic policies of President Kennedy. He also had a word of praise for the Eisenhower-Kuchel wing of the Republican Party, but said "ultra-right" in fluences in the Republican Party are "riding roughshod" over the moderating influence of such a Republican as former President Eisenhower. He said that Senator Thomas Kuchel's fight against the ultra-right deserves the support of communists, but concluded that, despite the efforts of men like Kuchel, the ultra conservatives had pushed the Republican Party to the right. Ex plaining that, on the other hand, "most of the broad people's movements are in the orbit of the Democratic Party," Hall urged all leftwing forces in the United States to unify and coordinate their activities toward the goal of electing Kennedy Democrats and defeating Republicans in 1 964 - and for the task of exerting continuous leftwing pressures on Kennedy and Congress, to offset conservative pressures. Hall praised the ADA (Americans For Democratic Action) for its role as coordinator of leftwing groups, but said the ADA can no longer perform that service effectively, because the ADA is so closely identified with the Kennedy administration. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, In� " mailing address P. 0, Box 95 38, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 7 5 2 1 4 ; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) , Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two ye � rs. '!?or first , of speCific issues : 1 class mail $ 1 2. 5 0 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14. 5 0 a year. Repnnts each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 1 0.00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963 . Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 225

Benjamin Davis (negro, second highest official of the communsit party in the United States ) is sued a supplement to Gus Hall's policy state ment. ( 1 ) Davis outlined the communist party's cur rent civil rights program, which is basically the same as President Kennedy's proposed Civil Rights Act of 1963, except for one proposal : the commu nists want the federal government to declare state governments in the South illegal, and then to hold "free elections . . . guaranteed by the federal power." One fascinating aspect of Gus Hall's political policy statement was a bitter attack on New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Hall castigated Rockefeller for his "close chumminess" with Sen ator Barry Goldwater, and for his "alliance" with " fanatical ultra-right" forces in the Republican Party. Rockefeller's reaction to this communist criticism is also fascinating. On July 14, 1963, Rockefeller denounced Barry Goldwater and the "ultra-right" forces in the Republican Party, say ing that these forces are ruining the Party. (2)

T he communist

program of supporting Ken nedy and opposing Republicans ; of coordinating leftwing forces for attack on rightwingers and for pressures on Washington officialdom ; of sup porting a civil rights program to intensify raci �l tensions and spread chaos - these are strategic maneuvers by which communists hope to achieve their long-range objective : destruction of the American constitutional svstem. Gus Hall states the objective in these terms : J

"The doctrine of states rights . . . . is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up the evils of special rights for privilege �r�ups. It has b � come an instrument for nullIfymg the Consti tution in large sections of the country, and a sanctuary for the bigoted Dixiecrats and the ultra-right elements. "States rights is an instrument of the anti labor monopolies. There are now twenty s� ates that have passed right-to-work laws. Stat�s nghts provides dozens of havens for tax-dodgmg mo nopolies and financial manipulators . . . .

"What is needed is a new Federal charter and a new addition to the Bill of Rights. What is needed is a system of basic federal laws that will unify and revitalize all of our democratic insti tutions, laws that will apply and supersede all state laws in these areas . . . . "

Hall says the "new federal charter" (that is, Constitution) should contain provisions eliminat ing all state and local authority to legislate or operate in the fields of taxation, voter registra tion, voting practices, apportionment of electoral districts. The communists want a national con stitution which will authorize uniform federal traffic, marriage, and divorce laws ; create a na tional school system; limit the power of local and state police to act against mob action "whether on a picket line or a demonstration."

Abolishing States Rights

As long as the power of the federal govern ment was limited to constitutional specifications, and that limited power divided among three rival branches of government; and as long as the primary powers of government were dis persed among competing state governments, there was no one great center of power for socialist communist (or other) conspirators to seize. Hence, abolishing the American federal system in favor of a centralized absolutism has been an essential feature of the communist plan for many years. To that end, communists have supported every program of federal aid and intervention in state affairs, and all federal subsidies and con trols in private activities, because all such pro grams (while stretching the Constitution until it has no meaning) centralize, in Washington, power and responsibility which have been taken away from state and local governments. There is nothing new about a communist de mand, in 1963, that the American governmental system be transformed into dictatorship like that of the Soviet Union. The significant thing is that American political leaders who have great

Page 226

power and influence in the federal government are now demanding the same.

Compare

Gus Hall's denunciation of states rights, quoted above, with the following passages from a statement by Joseph S. Clark (Democrat) , United States Senator from Pennsylvania : "We have inherited from our forefathers a governmental structure which so divides power that effective dealing with economic problems is cumbersome. Local, state, and national govern ments each have their responsibility in housing and urban renewal, in the appropriate uses of water, in transportation, labor-management re lations, and education. "At each level, responsibility for appropriate action is divided between the executive and the legislative, with the judiciary prepared to step in at a moment's notice to declare unconstitu tional whatever action the other two may decide upon. Under the circumstances, it is extraor dinary how much we accomplish under forms of government heavily weighted against any kind of action "Of course, inaction is what the Founding Fathers intended - inaction until such time as an overwhelming consensus was prepared for action . . . . They were right in their day. But they are wrong in ours . . . .

"State government is the weakest link chain . . . .

III

the

"Whether we look at city councils, the state legislatures, or the Congress of the United States, we react to what we see with scarcely concealed contempt . . . . This is where . . . political lag keeps needed action a generation behind the times, where the nineteenth century still reigns supreme in committees, where ignorance is often at a premium and wisdom at a discount . . . .

"I have no hesitation in stating my deep con viction that the legislatures of America, local, state, and national, are presently the greatest menace to the successful operation of the demo cratic process . . . . The executive should be strengthened at the expense of the legislature."(3)

Senator Clark displays a considerable amount of that ignorance which he deplores in the legis-

lative branch. Farmers are harassed and jailed for trying to farm their own land as free men ; businessmen are forced to serve as unpaid tax collectors for the federal government; schools and colleges are forced to do the will of Washington officialdom - yet, Senator Clark says he does not know of one example of the "heavy hand of the federal government reaching out into our private lives." He concludes, therefore, that "federal con trol" which haunts conservatives is nothing but "an hallucination," and that "we need not fear executive tyranny in this country merely because the legislature is more responsive to executive recommendations. ' , Though displaying an ignorance typical of all totalitarian liberals, Senator Clark does speak with more candor than most. Whereas other totalitarians pretend to be liberals of the Jefferso nian kind, Senator Clark admits that his "liberal ism" is diametrically opposed to the classic liber alism of Thomas Jefferson. Senator Clark says : "Surely we have reached the point where we can say . . . that Jefferson was wrong: that gov ernment is not best which governs least . . . . The fallacy in Jefferson's argument is the assumption that the expansion of government leads to the curtailment of individual freedoms. This is j ust not true."

S enator Clark is right in saying that the Con

stitution was designed to produce inaction in the federal government - inaction in all fields where there is no grant of power for federal action; and inaction even within the limits of constitutionally granted power, unless there be real need and general desire for action. It is interesting to note Thomas Jefferson's own atti tude about strengthening the federal government so that it can "act." In his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801, President Jefferson said : "I know, indeed, that some honest men fear . . . that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of

successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the

Page '227

theoretic and visionary fear that this govern ment, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not . . . . Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? . . . Let history answer this question."

Dictatorship of The Elite

S enator

Clark's statements above, are taken from a paper he prepared for a two-day convoca tion in New York, during January, 1963, under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Demo cratic Institutions, an agency of the Fund for the Republic. Speakers at the convocation discussed the topic : "The Electorate and the Elite - Is Government by the People Possible ? " ( � ) ,

Senator J. William Fulbright (Democrat, Ar kansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was the principal speaker at the convocation. Fulbright said : "The question before us can be answered simply: government by the people is possible but highly improbable . . . . The case for government by elites is irrefutable insofar as it rests on the need for expert and specialized knowledge."

Fulbright makes it clear that he considers him self among the elite qualified to govern. He re peats the main theme of a speech he made to the Cubberly Conference at Stanford University on July 28, 1961, when he said that the "President is hobbled . . . by the restrictions of power im posed on him by a constitutional system designed for an 1 8th Century agrarian society." (4) Since, according to Fulbright, the people are incapable of knowing what is good for them, and since the President is hobbled by the Constitution, Ful bright feels that we should change our Constitu tion so that the President can do as he pleases, especially in all matters relating to foreign policy.

Fulbright concedes that Congress is capable of shaping policy in domestic matters, but he shares Senator Clark's contempt for the effective-

ness of Congress says :

1ll

foreign affairs. Fulbright

"Presidential authority is incommensurate with Pr�sidential responsibility as a result of the dif f �sIOn of power between executive and legisla tIve branches, and within the latter. "The f�rei�n policy powers of Congress under the ConstitutIOn . . . . are widely dispersed within Congress among autonomous committees each �nder a chairm �� who .owes little if an thing m the way of polItIcal oblIgation to the President.

�

"The defects of Congress as an institution re flect the defects of classical democratic thought . . . . The frequency of elections and the local orientation of party organizations . . . do not encourage serious and sustained study of inter nati ?nal relations. Congressmen are acutely sus ceptible to local and regional pressures and to the waves of fear and emotion that sometimes sweep over public opinion . . . . Public opinion must be educated and led if it is to bolster a wis� and effective forei� po�icy. This is pre emmently a t �sk f�r PreSIdentIal leadership, be cause the PresldentIal office is the only one under . . our constitutional system that constitutes a forum for moral and political leadership on a national scale. Accordingly, I think that we must contem plate the further enhancement of Presidential authority in foreign affairs." ( 3 )

T.he . President's role of moral leadership is n.ot, lllCldentaliy, assigned by the spirit or provi SlOns of our Constitution or by the laws of our land. When did our nation, under God, become dependent upon its leading politician for moral guidance ? Fulbright says that the people should, in some unspecified way, set the "basic goals" and make the ' :fundamental moral j udgments" that "shape the hfe of our society" ; and the people should elect a President, and some legislators who will do what the President demands. There the power and responsibility of the people should end. The President (with the help of other experts, both elected and appointed ) should have unlimited and unsupervised authority to do anything the President deems necessary to achieve the "basic

Page 228

goals" and implement the "moral j udgments" of the people. At intervals, the people ( if dissatis fied with the President they have) could elect another one. The desire thus to change Presi dents, in the Fulbright system, would probably never arise, however, because, according to Ful bright, the President, while in office, would have absolute control of all the resources of society to educate and lead the people in deciding what their basic goals are, and in providing moral leadership to help the people make their moral j udgments.

The plans of both Senator Fulbright and Sen ator Clark would abolish the national Congress as a genuine legislative body, letting it remain as a perfunctory symbol of representative govern ment. State and local governments would also be abolished as meaningful political entities. They would exist merely as symbolic, or admin istrative, sub-agencies of the presidential estab lishment. The dictatorship of an expert elite, which Sen ators Clark and Fulbright desire for the United States, is, in essence, identical with the govern mental system envisioned by communist Gus Hall's platform for a "new federal charter" identical with what is called, in the Soviet Union, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Amendment by Usurpation

Senators

Clark and Fulbright recognize the American Constitution as an obstacle to all-power ful government. Thus, they imply that the people must change the Constitution (presumably by due constitutional process ) before a dictatorship of the elite can be established. President Kennedy (who also wants a dictator ship of the expert elite ) , believes, however, that the meaning of our Constitution can be stretched and twisted, by governmental officials, to "author ize" whatever action officialdom pleases.

On August 28, 1961, President Kennedy spoke at the White House to students who were work ing for the government in Washington during summer vacation. The President said: "There i s some feeling, I know, b y a good many Americans, that the American Constitu tion . . . guides our way, and that all we have to do is follow the very clear precepts it lays down for us. "Well, the American Constitution is an extraordinary document . . . but it has required men to make it work . . . . After all, the Constitution was written for an entirely different period in our nation's history. It was written under entirely different conditions. It was written during a period of isolation. It was written at a time when there were thirteen different units which had to be joined together and which, of course, were extremely desirous of limiting the central power of government. "That Constitution has served us extremely well, but . . . it has to be made to work today in an entirely different world from the day in which it was written." (5)

Robert F. Kennedy (Attorney General) has echoed the President's attitude - namely, that the Constitution, a great thing in its time, is now to be revered as a relic of the past, being presently useful only as "an inspiration and a guide" for the "common sense" decisions that must be made concerning the "moral issues" of our time. In a speech at Independence Hall on June 2 1 , 1 963, commemorating the 17Sth Anniversary of the Ratification of the Constitution, Robert Ken nedy wrenched out of context some Washington and Jefferson quotes to show that even the Found ing Fathers regarded the Constitution as an im perfect document intended only as a broad state ment of general principles, and not as a binding contract of government. (6)

The Kennedys are either deceiving themselves, or trying to deceive others. President George Washington warned the nation that it would be tray its own destiny if it did not abide by the specific precepts and provisions of the Constitu tion as written. Washington anticipated that por-

Page 229

tions of the Constitution might, in time, become unsuitable or inadequate, but counseled the peo ple never, for any reason, to permit alteration of the Constitution by reinterpretation or usurpation. If the Constitution needs to be changed, the change must be made by the people, through due constitutional process, and not by any governmen tal officials whose sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution. Madison, principal author of the Constitution, and Jefferson, author of the Declaration of In dependence, also held that the Constitution must be regarded as a binding contract of government, to be obeyed strictly in all its parts. The agents of government (whether elected or appointed ; whether holding the office of Presi dent or the j ob of clerk) are hired by the elec torate to implement and administer the provisions of the Constitution, not to reinterpret or change them. If the Constitution can be changed, through interpretation or usurpation, by the agents of gov ernment, we do not have constitutional govern ment. We have government at the whim of those in power - which is dictatorship. In a private letter, written on August 1 3, 1 800, Thomas Jefferson explained the genius of our federal system : "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and over look all the details necessary for the good gov ernment of the citizens, and the same circum stance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. "And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the General Government at once of all the powers of the State governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth . . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-build-

ing and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government! "The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independ ent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be dis entangled from those of all other nations, ex cept as to commerce which the merchants will manage the better, and more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Gov ernment may be reduced to a very simple or ganization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."

Where We Are

T he "true theory of our Constitution" is an eternal truth, as applicable today as it was in the 18th Century. The "corruption, plunder, and waste" which our "public agents" have brought about by centralizing unconstitutional power in the hands of Washington officialdom are the re sults which Jefferson anticipated - but on a more stupendous scale than Jefferson ever imagined. Who among the early patriots - or among any generation of Americans prior to the present could have imagined that American governmental officials would ever plunder the people for cor rupt and wasteful programs of aiding foreign dic tators who are enemies of our nation ?

S omething

else that earlier American patriots a treacherous cowardice, anticipate: fully not did or sickness, so prevalent among the intellectual and political leaders of America that they want to abandon the national independence which our forefathers won with blood and valorous devo tion to high ideals! Note the President of the United States on Independence Day, 1962, saying that we must now abandon the ideal of national independence for the ideal of interdependence with other na-

Page 230

tions. Note the President repeating that idea in a speech at Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, on June 2 5, 1 963, telling Europeans that Americans will risk destruction of their own cities to defend Europe, because America cannot survive without European help. (7)

Note Walt Whitman Rostow (now Chairman of �he State Department Policy Planning Board) saymg: "It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end of nationhood as it has been historically defined."(S)

Note Walter Millis (in a formal study which cost American taxpayers $20,000 and which was prepared for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarma ment Agency) arguing for the necessity of a world so "completely policed" by an international army that such uprisings as the American Revolu tion of 1 776 would be suppressed, "as was the Hungarian Revolution, with all the global forces of law and order cooperating." Millis said : "One cannot resist the conclusion that there must be a supranational autonomous police power, with veto-free sources of revenue . . . solely responsible to a supranational political authority."(S)

matters little whether the plan was con ceived by our own leaders for well-intentioned, WHO

I S

but mistaken, reasons ; or whether someone is de liberately manipulating decisions to follow a com munist plan. The fact is that our nation is follow ing a plan which has been in the communist blue print for world conquest for almost half a cen tury: first, overthrow of the American constitu tional system and establishment of some form of American dictatorship; then, subordination of the American dictatorship to a world-wide dictator ship. We are very near to what Daniel Webster re ferred to as demolition of the glorious edifice of constitutional American liberty.

Hope

N ext year, we shall have one more opportunity for peaceful solution at the polls : We should vote out of office every politician who supports ANY major portion of the Kennedy Administration's policies, either domestic or foreign.

Have You Seen This?

1912, Israel Cohen, a leading communist in England, outlined what he called "A Racial Pro gram For The 20th Century." Cohen said :

DAN

SMOO T ?

in American Civilization.

In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist i nvestigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington ; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. I n July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the Uni.ted States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 231

"We must realize that our party's most power ful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Com munist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploita tion of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and enter tainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."(9)

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "A United People's Action Program for Freedom Now I " by Benjamin J. Davis, Tbe !/Yorker, June 2 3, 1 963, pp. 3, 1 1 ( 2 ) "Rockefeller Criticizes Goldwater Strategy," AP dispatch from Albany, N. Y., The Dallas Momilll!, News, July 1 5, 1963, Sec tion 1 , p. 2 ( 3 ) The Elite alld the Eleclorclle, by Joseph S. Clark, ]. William Fulbright, Pierre Mendes-France, Robert C. Weaver, and others; The Fund for the Republic, Inc., 1963

( 4 ) Excerpts from Cubberly Conference speeches in Stall/m'd TodaJ', Stanford University, Autumn, 1 9 6 1

( 5 ) "President's Talk to the Student Internes," The New York Times, August 29, 1962, p. 1 4

( 6 ) Text o f speech by Robert Kennedy a t Independence Hall , De partment of Justice Press Release, June 2 1 , 1 963 ( 7 ) "Kennedy Strongly Gives Case for Europe Unity," by Robert E. Baskin, The Dcdlcls Mominl!, News, June 2 6, 1963, Section 1, p. 1

( 8 ) "Red Collapse A 'Catastrophe,' '' by Edith Kermit Roosevelt, ExtenSIOn of Remarks of U. S. Senator Strom Thurmond ( Demo crat, South Carolina ) , Congressional Record, June 6, 1963, pp. A3662-3 ( 9 ) Congressiollal Record, June 7, 1957, p . 7633

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HA VE 1 6 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

W H A T

Y O U

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope OJ The World, America's Promise?

Subscription :

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year $10.00 - $10.00 -

1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Paperback Clothback The Hope OJ The World America's Promise Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free

- Free

Page 232

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas)

ZIP CODE

IHE

1)(/11 Smootlieport Vol. 9, No. 30

(Broadcast 4 1 5 )

July 29, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

C O N F I S C AT I N G T H E LA N D

111

"The establi.rhment of an American Soviet government , , , , will involve the early confiscation of the large landed estates town and country . . . and also the whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, " ivers, etc. " ( 1 ) William Z. Foster, -

former head of the American communist party

When American Independence was declared, several of the original 1 3 states claimed juris diction over unsettled western lands, and many of the claims overlapped. This potential breeder of war and disunion was eliminated when the states ceded their claimed western territories to the federal government. The federal government, in turn, was pledged to use the ceded terri tories for the good of all the states and ( in due time and under proper conditions) to admit western territories as states of the union having equal rights and privileges with the original states. In 1 78 1 , New York was the first state to cede its western territories. Other states followed, and soon our young federal government gained title to more than 236 million acres, which were placed within its "public domain," an area which included almost all of the unsettled wilderness north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi Rivers. In 1785, the Continental Congress passed a land ordinance making survey and sale of these public lands to individuals a legitimate activity of the federal government in raising funds for the national treasury - a major source of income for the new republic. On July 1 3 , 1 787, the Continental Congress passed the Northwest Territory Ordinance, estab lishing federal territorial government over these lands, prohibiting slavery, proclaiming reli gious freedom, and providing that, once a given territory acquired a population of 60,000, it could be organized as a state and admitted to the union. In 1 802, Ohio, the first public land State, was admitted. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Page 233

A Slow, Subtle Reversal of Policy

The ceding of lands by the original states in the union ; the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon in 1 80 3 ; and, in subsequent years, purchase agree ments and treaties with England, Spain, Mexico, Texas, Russia, and Hawaii, brought into the "pub lic domain" of the United States a vast empire of more than one and a half billion acres of land. It was not intended that the United States Gov ernment would retain ownership of these lands but would, rather, administer them until they could be disposed of to individuals and to the new state governments being organized as people acquired the land and settled it. Originally, land in the public domain was dis posed of by sale, to provide revenue for the fed eral government. Beginning in the 1 8 30's, how ever, the federal government began to give away the public lands, to serve various economic and social purposes. Special grants of land from the Public domain were made for schools , seminaries , deaf-mute asylums, charitable institutions, wagon road construction, canal digging, levee building, swamp draining. Between 1850 and 1870, nearly 95 million acres of public lands were given to some 70 railroad systems. Between 1 862 and 1 957, nearly 248 million acres of public lands were given to individuals who settled the West under terms of the Homestead Act.

Another change in the administration of pub lic lands became apparent in the late 1 920's and early 1 930's. Instead of disposing of the public land, so that it could be developed by private individuals under the political authority of state and local governments, the federal bureaucracy began holding on to the vast public domain, con verting it into a mammoth land-management sys tem, administered and policed from Washington. Great tracts of public land were withdrawn and dedicated as national parks, national forests, national monuments, and wild-life sanctuaries. Land not thus withdrawn was retained under gov-

ernment ownership, its use subject to tight federal controls. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, for example (ostensibly intended to regulate the use of undeveloped public land for the grazing of livestock ) gave the Secretary of the Interior au thority to supervise virtually all activity through out a gigantic portion of the public domain even authorizing the Secretary to acquire by lease, and to supervise, privately owned and state-owned grazing lands adjacent to federal grazing dis tricts.

1946, the Department of the Interior was reorganized. The General Land Office and the new Grazing Service were combined into the Bureau of Land Management. This marked the beginning of a new policy. The original policy was to dispose of the public lands in an orderly and sensible way, to private purchasers and to state and local governments for public use. In the 1920's, the bureaucracy began holding, rather than disposing of, the public lands. Since the 1940's, the policy has been to accumulate and hoard land in the public domain, building a vast and ever-growing empire, administered by the Washington bureaucracy. Today, the 3642 employees of the Bureau of Land Management administer , under government ownership, 477 million acres, while other hun dreds of millions of acres are owned and con trolled by other federal agencies. In all, the fed eral government owns and controls a domain of almost a billion acres. This is more than the combined land area of England, Ireland, Scot land, Wales, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Poland, Austria, Czechoslova kia, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.

Parks and Wi l d Life

T ypical land grab operations of the federal bureaucracy can be illustrated by a few recent cases.

Page 234

SPLUNGE BIRD REFUGE - During Febru ary, 1962, the Interior Department, through its bureau of sport fisheries and wildlife, by secret negotiations with an Indiana congressional dele gation, attempted to seize 1 0,000 acres of prop erty near Terre Haute , Indiana, for a federal bird refuge. This would have forced 86 farm families to move, and vacate some of Indiana's richest farm land. Landowners organized and resisted, arguing that there was no necessity for the ref uge ; that its establishment would cause a loss of 1 million dollars a year in agricultural production, together with a loss of significant trade and local tax revenues dependent upon the agricultural production - and that the wild birds, attracted to Splunge from other available and adequate places of refuge, would be a danger to jet aircraft using Hulman Air National Guard and civilian airports, 10 miles from the planned refuge. Government officials said : "We need some place for the birds to get to gether with the people." ( 2)

PADRE ISLAND - Padre Island is a sandy spit of land, 1 1 7 miles long, 3 miles wide, in the Gulf of Mexico, j ust off the coast of Texas at Corpus Christi. Portions of it, under private de velopment, have yielded 1 2 million dollars in oil and gas tax revenue, for Texas public schools. The commercial mineral potential of the island is estimated at 1 billion dollars. (3)

On September 28, 1962, President Kennedv signed Public Law 87-7 1 2 , to establish an 8 1 -mil� long National Park on Padre. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to pay out 5 million dollars for private lands that must be seized for the park. Land that was producing tax revenue for state and local governments, will now con sume tax money from the federal treasury - and swell the dominions of public lands controlled and administered by the federal bureaucracy. SLEEPING BEAR - In 1959, residents of Lee lanau and Benzie counties, Northwest M ichigan,

learned, through a U. S. Department of the In-

terior publication, that 30,000 acres of their land ( bordering upper Lake Michigan) had been cited as "of possible national significance." (4)

On January 4, 196 1 , U. S. Representative John D: Din�ell (Democrat, Michigan) introduced a Bl11 callmg for federal government seizure of an area "not to exceed 26,000 acres" to create a "Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area." On June 27, 196 1 , Senators Philip A. Hart and Pat McNamara ( Democrats, Michigan) intro duced a Bill (reintroduced in the present Con gress on February 14, 1963, as S 792 ) which would take at least 77 ,000 acres of state and privately owned land for the proposed park. A short time after the Hart-McNamara Bill was proposed, Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, said he wants 92,000 acres. (5)

A local citizens committee analyzes the Sleep ing Bear proposal as follows : "The Hart-McNamara bill provides that per sons may continue to reside within the 77,000 acre tract after it becomes a national recreation area - if they do not violate any of the zoning by-laws. If a zoning regulation is violated, the Secretary of the Interior would have power to seize the property of the offender through con demnation. "While the National Park Service refers to the proposed by-laws as 'zoning standards,' a na tionally recognized authority on zoning refers to them as 'deed restrictions,' pointing out that they go far beyond accepted standards of zoning. "The proposed restrictions would: "(a) Allow present businesses to continue only by permit. "(b) Forbid many homeowners to move, re pair, alter, and in some cases even change the c?lor of, any buildings, without federal permis SIOn. They also could not remove trees, topsoil, sand or gravel, or take off stones more than 1 8 i ?ches in diameter without first securing a 'cer tificate of appropriateness' from the National Park Service. " (c) Prohibit farmers from clearing any more land wi �hout f�deral approval and keep them . from raIsmg pIgS, cattle or chickens.

Page 235

"Who would approve zoning restrictions? The Secretary of the Interior. "Who would decide if a restriction had been violated? The Secretary of the Interior. "Who would therefore decide that the offend· er's property could be condemned for public use? The Secretary of the Interior. "Who would set the fair market value of this property to be seized? The Secretary of the Interior. "Isn't this too much power for any federally. appointed official?" ( ·1 )

There are already in Michigan five national forests containing over 2,543,000 acres - an area larger than Yellowstone National Park. More than half of the total land area in Michigan's 36 northern counties is in state and federal owner ship. Michigan boasts enough state and federal forests ( 6,305,464 acres ) for every family in the United States to camp within their limits at one time. There are 47 3 lakes covering 46,241 acres with 308 miles of publicly-owned shoreline with in this area. There are 67 state parks, 2 3 state forests, 61 state game areas and 785 public fishing sites. Ninety percent of the local citizens are opposed to the Sleeping Bear scheme. If the park is cre ated, more than 7 5 percent of local school tax revenues will be lost ; but that is, really, one of the least objectionable aspects of the scheme. The sinister aspect, important to all Americans, is in dicated by comments of United States Senator Milward Simpson (Republican, Wyoming ) . Sen ator Simpson ( formerly, Governor of Wyomi�g) was on hand to witness, a few years ago, creahon of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Commenting on the Sleeping Bear scheme, Sen ator Simpson said :

L ust

for power and empire building does, indeed, appear to be the primary motive of bu reaucrats whose appetite for land is insatiable. Commenting on local fears in Michigan about federal controls over private land in national parks, Conrad Wirth, head of the National Park Services, said : "Our policy inholdings."u,)

eventually to eliminate all

Inholdings is bureaucratese meaning lands pri vately owned inside a National Park. Mr. Wirth seems to be saying that citizens need not worry about federal controls over private property with in national parks, because the private property will soon be gone. He put it more bluntly in an article in The National Geographic, saying: "Another thing I'd like to see accomplished is the elimination of private ownership inside park boundaries." ( · )

T he

National Wilderness Preservation Sys tem Act ( the Wilderness Bill, approved by the Senate on April 9, 1963, ( 6) but still pending in the House) would magnify and accelerate the government's land-grabbing activities. The pend ing Wilderness Bill ( S 4 ) would place 65 .4 mil lion acres of land in a Wilderness System, under tight control of presidential appointees who could permit or prohibit commercial activity ; who could prohibit private capital from developing hydro electric power facilities, but permit government owned power facilities ; who could permit or pro hibit livestock grazing, road building, mining, and prospecting - all in accordance with the wishes of the President.

�

"They built a Coney Island i the ,world's most beautiful country . . . . They 11 do It here. The power.hungry bureaucrats in this depart. ment have no great love for Mother Nature. They want only one thing: more and more prop· erty - your property and mine - and they don't care how they get it."(S)

Mil itary Land Gra bs

L and-grabbing by the military services has al

so become a serious threat to the property r ights of citizens. An article in the July, 1958, Reader's

Page 236

Digest presented a summary of the situation at that time - and the situation has grown worse Since :

- In 1958 , the military services already possessed 29 million acres of land, and were demanding 6 million acres more - although , at the time , the services were holding 6, 500,000 acres which they admitted they no longer needed ; and they were spending 2 1 million dollars a year to maintain installations which were no longer in use, or needed, but which covered a million acres of land. Air Force officials, admitting that 40 per cent of their bombing and gunnery ranges were "in excess of current and long-range require ments," were still clamoring for more land. - At one time, the Navy asked permission to share an Air Force bombing range ( 1 3 5 miles long and 50 miles wide) near Las Vegas, Neva da. The Air Force claimed the range was not big enough for both Navy and Air Force. A con gressional committee asked for proof that the Air Force needed the bombing range all by it self. After investigation, Air Force officials con cluded that they could let the Navy have two thirds of the Las Vegas bombing range. But Navy officials declined, because they were, by then, busy trying to carve out a vast empire all their own in northern Nevada, where there were millions of dollars' worth of operating mining and ranching properties. Nevada citizens fought the Navy land grab for three years, finally effecting a compro mise: the Navy got only 700,000 acres of north ern Nevada for a bombing range it did not need. - In New Mexico, where the military services already held a missile range 1 00 miles long and 30 miles wide ( 3 million acres) , the Army took over an additional tract of 470,000 acres, which contained some of the lushest grazing land in the state. In 1957, the Army decided that 2 1 ranching properties, adjacent to the 470,000 acres

which the Army already had, were also needed. The Army offered the ranchers what Army offi cials thought the ranchers ought to have, and ordered them to close their businesses, abandon their homes, and get out within 90 days. - In 1956, the Navy seized 4337 acres of culti vated farm land near New Iberia, Louisiana, and let construction contracts totaling nearly 30 mil lion dollars to build facilities on the confiscated farm land for the training of j et pilots - al though there was already in existence, j ust a few miles away, an unused Navy air base. In 1957, the Navy decided that the new jet base was al most useless unless it was supplemented with a target practice area. Without even consulting Louisiana officials, the Navy mapped out, for a target practice site, an area 40 miles long and 20 miles wide, along the Gulf of Mexico. Seizure of this tract of land would have eliminated three wild-life sanctuaries, eight oil and gas fields, sev en communities, three valuable fishing grounds, thousands of acres of rice and trapping lands, miles of new trunk highways - and would have necessitated relocating and re-digging the Intra Coastal Canal. But the seizure never occurred. A few minutes before the beginning of hearings to establish necessary airspace restrictions, the Navy announced that it was abandoning the jet train ing program at New Iberia, Louisiana, because the program was unnecessary. - In 1 9 5 5 , the Army decided to create a huge new missile training center about 80 miles southwest of Oklahoma City - in the heart of Oklahoma's farm belt and oil fields. More than 20,000 acres of private property were condemned and seized, Army officials assuring a House appropriations subcommittee that this much land would fulfill Army needs "for the foreseeable future." With in two years, however, the Army was demanding an additional 281 ,500 acres of private land.

Page 237

I m proving Our I mage

E mpire building

by civilian and military bu reaucrats had nothing to do with President Ken nedy's recent land grab in El Paso. Between 1 864 and 1 868, the Rio Grande River eroded soil from the Mexican south bank and formed an alluvial deposit on the United States side. Mexico claimed title to the deposit (known as El Chamizal) m the 1 890's, but the controversy died in 1 9 1 1 . El Chamizal eventually became a part of down town El Paso. President Kennedy reopened the Chamizal question, made a new controversy of it, and negotiated a deal to give Mexico 437 acres to be taken away from El Paso - the city and citizens to be paid compensation (about 20 mil lion dollars ) from the United States Treasury. This land grab (which, doubtless, violates the Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Texas and the United States ) was intended to ease tensions with Mexico, and improve our image abroad. Mexican politicians were quick to offer us other opportunities to improve our image. On June 1 2 , 1963 (before settlement of the Chamizal matter was formally announced ) , Mexican nationalists opened a drive for return to Mexico of nine United States islands off the California coast: San ta Catalina, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, San Clemente, Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, Ana capa, and Farallon. These islands (some of which are under the jurisdiction of the Navy) are cur rently valued at more than 30 billion dollars. (7)

Preservin g The Wilderness

Senator Milward Simpson said, the land hunger of federal bureaucrats does not arise from love of Mother Nature. The propaganda about

preserving the magnificence of unspoiled nature for future generations is appealing, but false. When an area of natural beauty is set aside as a National Park and then made accessible to motor ized millions, with handy water fountains, ready made camping sites, and other modern conven iences installed, the place quickly loses much of the beauty and grandeur (and all of the soul-re storing solitude ) of the wilderness - and often becomes, as Senator Simpson said, another Coney Island. Parts of man-made Disneyland have more of the appearance of unspoiled beauty than some of the famous spots of natural grandeur which are trampled, buffeted, scratched and strewn by a floodtide of tourists who feel no obligation to take care of something that belongs to nobody, but is the property of everybody. On the other hand, if you set aside wilderness areas that are accessible only to a favored few who can afford expensive safaris into them what becomes of your argument that you are pre serving these beauty spots "for the people" ?

W hat

will the government do with all the lands it is acquiring by purchase, pressure, and outright seizure ? There is an inkling of an answer in a United Press International news story from Washington, published in the July 9, 1 961, issue of The Dallas Times Herald: "Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall is concerned that federal lands may be blocking growth and industrialization of metropolitan areas. "He has sent Congress proposed legislation which would, among other things, allow the In terior Department to lay out and subdivide fed eral lands in the path of expanding areas.

Page 238

What Should Be Done

"These lands would be made available for direct sale or lease as individual sites or lots . . . . "In all cases, lands to be developed would be governed by a comprehensive land use plan to be worked out in close cooperation with state and local government agencies. Non-conforming and substandard land uses would not be per mitted. Performance bonds might be required in some cases."

T here

are the language and the thinking of the zoners and planners of other people's lives. If the government can acquire the land and then permit it to be developed only within conformity to the taste and specifications of the Washington bureaucracy, we can have stark, monolithic ugli ness, standardized by governmental planning on a national scale. What is more important : this could be a sly, backdoor approach to metropoli tan government in the United States - a social ist plan to divide the nation into a score of met ropolitan regions which sprawl across forgotten state boundary lines, and which would be gov erned by appointed experts answerable, not to local citizens, but to the supreme political power in Washington. (8) WHO

Abolishing

the federal income tax would stop most of the government's land-grabbing ac tivities; but there is much that Congress could do, short of this. Congress should, first of all, refuse to pass the National Wilderness Preser vation System Act ( S 4, already approved by the Senate, but still pending in the House ) . The Congress should get a careful audit of all gov ernment land holdings to determine which lands are necessary for public use by civilian and mili tary agencies of the federal government. The Bureau of Land Management should be abolished. In its place, should be something comparable to the old General Land Office, which was created in 1 8 1 2 , as a bureau of the Treasury Department. Public land that is not absolutely necessary for legitimate use by federal agencies, should be sold, to private purchasers and to local and state gov ernments, at prevailing land prices. This would provide needed revenue for the federal govern ment, and it would permit more private owner ship of land, thus contributing to a more stable society and a more vigorous economy.

DAN

SMOO T ?

in American Civilization.

In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J . Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere i n the Un i ted States.

If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts.

Page 239

S ome

FOOTNOTES

of the most effective work in preserva tion of historical sites and scenes of natural beauty has been accomplished by private effort. It is hardly conceivable that governmental action would ever be necessary for such preservation; but, if it ever should be, the responsibility should rest with state and local governments. There is no valid reason why bureaucrats in Washington should plan and control parks and other recreational areas for the people. There are many reasons why federal agencies should not have such power - the most important reason be ing that concentration of power in Washington is a prerequisite step toward destruction of our constitutional free-enterprise system.

( 1 ) Toward Soviet America, by William Z. Foster, Elgin Publica· tions, 1961, pp. 276-8 ( 2 ) "Bird Refuge Plan Praised and Assailed," article by Frank Hughes, The Chicaf!,o Tribune, April 18, 1962 ( 3 ) "Sadler Calls Padre Plan 'Give-Away'," dispatch from Corpus Christi, The Fo/·t JIY orth Star-Telef!,ram, October 24, 1961 (4) "But the People Are Awake I " pamphlet by The Citizens' Coun cil of the Sleeping Bear Dunes Area, January 1 5 , 1962 ( 5 ) "Udall Plans Land-Grab in Michigan," article by William Schulz, HU1ll t1l1 Ellen/s, June 1 5 , 1 963, pp. 1 68-9 ( 6) For a listing of Senate roll call stands on passage of the Wilderness Bill, see this Report, "First Rol l Calls, 1 963," May 27, 1963. ( 7 ) "9 Isles Off US Asked By Mexicans," UPI dispatch from Mexico City, The A ustin American, June 1 3, 1963 ( 8 ) For an explanation and history of metropolitan government, see this Report, "Metropolitan Government-Part One," and "Metropolitan Government-Part Two," April 1 3 and 20, 1959; reprints still available.

THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 16 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.

W H A T

Y O U

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bri nging you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, The Invisible debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise? -

Subscription :

6 months - $ 6.00 $10.00 1 year - $1 0.00 -

1962 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

Page 240

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas)

ZIP

CODE

THE )

.flil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 3 1

(Broadcast 4 1 6 )

August 5, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E TEST B A N T R EATY "A diplomat's words must have no relation to action - othet'Wise what kind of diplomacy is it ? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a mask for the concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or iron wood." - Stalin, 1 9 1 3 ( 1)

"It is ridiculous not to know . . . that a treaty is the means of gaining strength."

- Lenin,

1 9 1 8 ( 2)

"There is a glaring contradiction between the imperialists' policy of piling up armaments and their hypocritical talk about peace. There is no SIIch contradiction, however, between the So viet government's preparations for defense and for revolution ary War and a consistent peace policy . . . . "The disarmament policy of the So viet government must b e utilized for purposes of agitation . . . . fot' recruiting sym pathizers for the Soviet Union - the champion of peace and Socialism." - Sixth World Congress of the Communist Interna tional, 1928 ( 3 )

)

In March,

1917, the Tsar of all the Russias was forced from his throne and taken into pro tective custody by revolutionists under the leadership of Aleksandr Feodorovich Kerenski. In No vember, 1917, the Bolsheviks, a small group of ruthless political gangsters, seized power from Kerenski, murdered the Tsar, and instituted in Russia a blood bath which horrified the civilized world. Nikolai Lenin and Leon Trotski led this orgy of human butchery.

In June, 1918, having terrorized the opposition into silence, Lenin and Trotski attempted to establish formal diplomatic relations with the United States. Their overtures were rejected. On October 27, 1 919, Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, explained to Con gress why it was the policy of the Wilson administration not to recognize the Bolsheviks in Russia: "The purpose of the Bolsheviks is to subvert the existing principles of government and society the world over, including those countries in which democratic institutions are already estab lished. They have built up a political machine which, by the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the ruthlessness of its methods, suggests the Asiatic despotism of the early Tsars."(·)

)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 241

On August 10, 1920, Bainbridge Colby, an other Secretary of State under Wilson, explained again our reasons for not recognizing the Soviets : "We cannot recognize, hold official relations with, or give friendly reception to the agents of a government which is determined and bound to conspire against our institutions; whose diplo mats will be the agitators of dangerous revolt; whose spokesmen say that they sign agreements with no intention of keeping them . . . . "The existing regime in Russia is based upon the negation of every principle of honor and good faith, and every usage and convention underly ing the whole structure of international law; the negation, in short, of every principle upon which it is possible to base harmonious and trust ful relations, whether of nations or of indi viduals."(5)

On March 3, 1933, Herbert Hoover's last day in office, Hoover's Under-Secretary of State said: "This Government has taken the position that it would be unwise for it to enter into relations with the Soviet regime so long as the present rulers of Russia persist in aims and practices in the field of international relations which are in consistent with international friendship . . . . This Government has been of the opinion . . . that any real or lasting benefit to the people of the United States would not be attained by the establishment of relations with Russia until the present rulers of that country have given evi dence that they are prepared to carry out in good faith . . . [their] international obliga tions."(6)

The next day - March 4, 1 9 3 3 Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated President. -

On September 2 1 , 1933, Secretary of State Cor dell Hull, in a memorandum to President Roose velt, said: "As you know, recogmtIon o f the present regIme III Russia has been withheld by the Government of the United States, on account of the failure of the Soviet government to carry out certain international obligations which are considered essential to the maintenance of friend ly and mutually advantageous relations between the United States and Russia. The Soviet gov ernment, for instance, has repudiated Russian

obligations held by the United States Govern ment and by American citizens, and has con-

fiscated the property of American citizens Ill vested in Russia . . . .

"I am convinced, from the experience of other countries, that, unless we utilize every available means of exerting pressure on the Soviet govern ment in order to obtain a settlement of outstand ing problems, there is little likelihood that such problems can be satisfactorily solved."(6)

Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower N egotiations

R ejecting the lessons of history and the ad vice of his own State Department, President Roosevelt invited a Soviet representative to Wash ington. On November 16, 1933 (after six days and six nights of secret, unrecorded negotiations in the White House with Maxim Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs ) , Roosevelt ex tended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. Roosevelt's State Department began trying to negotiate outstanding differences between the So viet Union and the United States. Among the differences were American claims totaling 628 million dollars against the Soviet Union for con fiscation of American property. In February, 1 934, our State Department offered to accept the equivalent of 90 million dollars in settlement of the 628 million dollar Soviet debts. Litvinov re j ected the offer, angrily and with expressions of contempt. During more than a year of negotiations, Lit vinov made only one concrete proposal. He said the Soviet Union would pay 1 00 million of the 628 million dollar indebtedness, if the United States would give the Soviets an unconditional, no-interest loan of 200 million. On January 3 1 , 1935, Cordell Hull wrote the final words on our hopeless efforts to settle the debt question: "In an effort to arrive at an agreement with the Soviet Government with respect to debts,

claims and credits for trade, negotiations were

begun more than a year ago in Moscow and con tinued in Washington . . .

Page 242

"The Government of the United States indi cated its willingness to accept . . . a greatly re duced sum, to be paid over a long period of years . . . . To facilitate the placing of orders in the United States by the Soviet Government on a long-term credit basis, the Government of the United States was prepared to make . . . loans to a very large percentage of the credit granted . . . . "We hoped confidently that this proposal would prove entirely acceptable to the Soviet Government and are deeply disappointed at its rejection . . . . The negotiations which seemed so promising at the start must now be regarded as having come to an end."(6)

We never collected a penny. Yet, during and after Wodd War II, we gave the Soviets direct aid totaling $ 1 1 ,464, 109,000.00. ( 7)

President

Roosevelt's wartime conferences with Stalin (Tehran in 1943, and Yalta in 1944 ) , and President Truman's conference with Stalin at Potsdam in 1 945, gave further proof that it is disastrous for our leaders to make agreements with communists. As a result of our being bound by agreements which Roosevelt and Truman made at these three wartime conferences - and with the Soviets violating agreements which interfered with their plans - the communists, since 1 945, have enslaved approximately 800 million people in Europe and Asia. The communist trick of negotiating agreements which communists ignore but which handicap the other side, was a principal weapon in their con quest of China during the 1 945-1949 period. We permitted the communists to use the same trick against us in Korea. Time and again in Korea, when American forces could have destroyed the communists, we would stop our men and engage in truce talks - j ust as our State Department had forced Chiang Kai-shek to do in China five years before. Each time, the communists would use the truce talks as a cover for bringing up fresh forces and supplies for a "surprise" offen Slve. In 195 3, when we negotiated the final Korean armistice, we knew the communists had no in tention of keeping their pledges, because they had

already broken their promise to return all Ameri can pnsoners.

I n 1955, when President Eisenhower was plan ning a summit meeting with communist leaders at Geneva, the Senate Internal Security Subcom mittee released to the press a staff study which re vealed that treaty breaking is an instrument of Soviet national policy : "The staff studied nearly a thousand treaties and agreements . . . both bilateral and multi lateral, which the Soviets have entered into not only with the United States, but with countries all over the world. The staff found that in the 38 short years since the Soviet Union came into existence, its Government had broken its word to virtually every country to which it ever gave a signed promise. It signed treaties of nonaggres sion with neighboring states and then absorbed those states. It signed promises to refrain from revolutionary activity inside the countries with which" it sought 'friendship,' and then cynically broke those promises. It was violating the first agreement it ever signed with the United States at the very moment the Soviet envoy, Litvinov, was putting his signature to that agreement, and it is still violating the same agreement in 1 955 . . . It keeps no international promises at all unless doing so is clearly advantageous to the Soviet Union."(S) .

On October 3 1 , 1 958, representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union met for "test ban talks," and agreed to suspend all testing of nuclear weapons, without inspections, while the talks continued. Eisenhower ordered a halt to United States testing, accepting Khrushchev's un supported promise that he would do likewise. (9)

Week after week, month after month, year after year, the "test ban talks" continued, fruitlessly. The Soviets, busy assimilating information already produced by tests, did not need to make any nu clear shots in the atmosphere ; but they went right ahead with underground shots and any other test ing they pleased, ignoring their agreement to halt all tests for the duration of the negotiations. Se cretly, they made preparations for another series of atmospheric tests, to be conducted when they were ready.

Page 243

Eisenhower kept the agreement, however, per mitting no American testing or preparation for tests, during the remainder of his administration. Kennedy continued the ban on nuclear testing.

tests would not be conducted if the Soviets would sign a nuclear test ban by mid-April. ( 12) The Soviets signed no agreements, and a series of American nuclear tests in the atmosphere began on April 26, 1962 the first such tests since 1958. But the testing was timid and halting, hobbled by politics and propaganda. ( 1 0) Kennedy permitted only a few tests in the atmosphere before again suspending them. -

Kennedy and the N uclear Ban

On August 30, 1 96 1 , the Soviets (having com pleted analyses of their latest series of major at mospheric tests conducted in 1958, j ust before the "moratorium" began) abruptly announced that they would resume unrestricted testing. On March 2 , 1 962, President Kennedy said the Soviets, in their nuclear tests, were pressing hard toward the goal of developing the most desper ately needed weapon of our time - a means of destroying attacking enemy rockets before they explode on target. The President said the Soviet tests of 1961 "reflected . . . the trial of novel designs and techniques, and some substantial gains in weaponry." Mentioning the powerful "nuclear attack arid defense capability" which the Soviets are developing, the President warned that further Soviets tests would put the free world in grave danger. He said that the United States "cannot make similar strides without testing in the at mosphere as well as underground," and that "in many areas of nuclear weapons researc,h we have reached the point where our progress is stifled without experiments in every environment." ( 10)

On March 1 1, 1 962, Robert S. McNamara, Sec retary of Defense, said the United States has "no reasonable prospect" of developing a successful defense against missiles. At the same time, Ameri can officialdom generally was reflecting the ex pressed conviction of the President that the Soviets may be on the point of developing such a de fensive weapon. ( 1 1 )

In view of all this, it was reasonable to assume

that the President would order immediate prep arations for massive American testing of nuclear weapons. He did not. He ordered a ne,: series .of atmospheric tests to be held in the �acdic begm ning in late April, 1 962 but promIsed that the -

While continuing their testing and developing of nuclear weapons, the Soviets kept pretending that they really wanted to negotiate a test ban agreement. When the Soviet position would "harden," President Kennedy would order prep arations for new American nuclear testing ; but before any testing occurred, the Soviet position would "soften," and President Kennedy would suspend American testing. ( 1 3) This ludicrous situ ation continued until June, 1 963, when President Kennedy suspended all plans for American test ing, indefinitely.

July 2 5, 1 963, W. Averell Harriman signed, in Moscow, a nuclear test ban treaty which he had negotiated with Khrushchev and with Lord Hailsham, Science Minister of Great Britain. The treaty ( 14) prohibits nuclear testing in the atmos phere, under water, and in outer space, but per mits underground nuclear testing. Thus, the treaty is made to order to serve the interests of the Soviet Union. Testing in the at mosphere is necessary for development of a de fensive weapon against missiles. The Soviets do not presently need to conduct any more atmos pheric tests. Having already done incalculably more atmospheric testing than we have done, the Soviets now claim to have a satisfactory missile killer, and American military authorities gener ally believe their claim. The United States has no such weapon and no hope of developing one without additional, extensive atmospheric testing. The Soviets need, however, to continue under ground nuclear testing to develop tactical weapons in which the United States presently has superior ity.

Page 244

(15)

Kennedy's

disarmament experts do not want us to have a defense against Soviet missiles. Such a weapon in American hands, they claim, would cause the Soviets to intensify the arms race. Kennedy has begun a program to disarm the United States of "provocative" weapons (long range bombers with first-strike capability, and so on) to keep from offending the Soviets and pro voking them to further weapons development. This puts our nation in grave danger. The So viets can threaten us with missiles against which we have no defense, but can protect themselves against our missiles. When Kennedy completes the reduction of our manned-aircraft systems of defense and offense, we will be at the mercy of the Soviets. Is this a deliberate program to force the schemes of Kennedy 's advisers on the nation ? If they can make our nation helpless - render us incapable of making an offensive move or of defending ourselves - we can no longer maintain our national independence. We will be forced to continue foreign aid in the vain and frantic hope of thus buying help from foreign powers. We will be forced to accept disarmament and surrender of our national sovereignty to a world authority. We will be forced to continue the socialization of our economy so that it can be integrated into the economy of a one-world so cialist system. (15)

(15)

see grim proof of the folly of trusting the Ken nedy administration to act in the best interests of the United States, or to tell the people the truth about what is going on. When Kennedy betrayed Cuban freedom fight ers at the Bay of Pigs in April, 1961, it was al ready known that the Soviets were converting Cuba into a missile and submarine base for use against the United States and other nations in the Western Hemisphere. Kennedy, however, claimed to know nothing about this until j ust before the congressional elections of 1962. On October 22, 1962 - pretending that he had just learned about Soviet missile bases in Cuba - Kennedy ordered what he called a "quar antine" of the island. The quarantine consisted of a request that Khrushchev remove his missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev promised to do so. Ken nedy did not permit the boarding and searching of any communist ships, or allow any other sen sible steps, to determine whether Khrushchev was keeping the promise. He accepted the word of Khru�hchev and of Castro and of communist ship captaIns that Soviet missiles were being taken ? ut of Cuba an� that no more were being brought In. Kennedy ignored intelligence information from the Cuban underground (which has been remarkably �etailed and consistently accurate) tha� the SOViets were increasing the strength of their armed forces and offensive weaponry in Cuba. Caves along the Cuban coast have been con verted into bases for submarines which can fire rockets into American cities. Soviet missiles' once visibl: to our reconnaissance photographers from the air, have been stored underground in the Cuban hills. (17)

Kennedy and Cuba

On July 24,

1963 ( one day before the test ban treaty was signed in Moscow) Cuban refugees confirmed persistent reports that the Soviets have taken over the Isle of Pines and are converting it into a submarine base. ( 16) The Isle of Pines is a 40-square-mile island in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Cuba. It was under American j urisdiction from the end of the Spanish-Ameri can War until 1934, when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a treaty which had the effect of recogniz ing the island as Cuban territory. In Cuba, we see once again grim proof of the folly of negotiating with communists. We also

W hile

all of this was going on, President Kennedy was negotiating a test ban treaty with . the SOViets - and deceiving the American people about what was happening. For exampl e: On Jan uary 24, 1963, President Kennedy (asked at a press conference whether there was any truth to the reports of a Soviet militar y buildu p in Cuba) said:

Page 245

"No, we have been conducting continued sur veillance . . . . there has not been a military buildup . . . . There is no influx of military equipment . . . . our scrutiny of Cuba is daily."

Ten days later - February 3, 1963 - Edwin M. Martin, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter American Affairs, said "it is possible that Soviet military strength in Cuba is ten times what it was before the missile crisis last October." (18)

The Propaganda Push

T he Kennedy administration has organized a propaganda drive to create enough public pressure on the Senate to force ratification of the test ban treaty. The theme of this propaganda is signif icant. It does not claim that the treaty will do much good, but, rather, assures the people that it will do no harm. In a joint television interview with W. Averell Harriman, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, on July 28 , 1963, said of the treaty : "It does not do a great deal . . . . It does not reduce nuclear stockpiles. It does not eliminate nuclear war or the threat of nuclear war. It does not prevent an arms race. But, nevertheless, it helps to impose some limitations and some ceil ing upon the arms race . . . . And it may be the turning point . . . in which other questions , could be taken up for further exploration. , ( 19)

In permitting the kind of testing which the Soviets need to conduct, while prohibiting the kind the United States desperately needs, the treaty does "do a great deal." And there is a great deal more to it than that. Since the days of Lenin, the Soviets have never considered their treaty promises as binding on themselves; They make treaties for the purpose of hobbling the other side, leaving themselves free to do as they please. As Lenin said : "It is ridiculous not to know . . . that a treaty is the means of gaining strength." It takes many months to prepare for substantial nuclear testing in the atmosphere. While the treaty is in effect, we will, of course, refrain from making such preparations. Whenever the Soviets

anticipate need for further atmospheric testing, they will make preparations. When they are ready, they will either test openly, in arrogant defiance of the treaty; or they will perform their tests in com munist China and disclaim responsibility for them.

Here, we may see a reason for the widely pub licized "rift" between communist China and the Soviet Union. Khrushchev and Mao Tse-Tung have made a tremendous effort to convince the West that the communist empire is breaking up, because Khrushchev is mild and reasonable in his attitude toward the West, while Mao is mili" tant and unyielding. All of this could be, and probably is, a hoax to trap western liberals into open support of Khrushchev, who (when not en gaged in playing the role of hero in the farce which features Mao as villain) pushes forward relentlessly with his program to bury the West. The farce has already caused gullible western liberals to feel that we can trust Khrushchev and that we ought to please and appease him, to keep him on our side and, thus, widen the split between the Soviet Union and communist China. Note, for example, W. Averell Harriman repeating Khrushchev's assurance that communist China is not likely to do any nuclear testing because she does not have the capability and is getting no help from the Soviets. Harriman reported these Khrushchev remarks as if they had come from an honorable man whom the West can believe and trust. (20)

Storm The Senate To Reiect The Treaty

S ecretary Rusk was accurate in saying that the

test ban treaty "may be the turning point," open ing the way for further negotiations and agree ments. This is the main reason why the Senate should not ratify the treaty. If the treaty is ratified, there will be no con sequences perceptible to the public. But there will be a violent rash of propaganda about the "break in the cold war," and the wisdom and hopefulness of further agreements to eliminate

Page 246

the danger and crushing burden of the armaments race. Step by step, communist overlords will ne gotiate us into a state of total helplessness, and then force us into total surrender. If the program were attempted all at once, the people of America might perceive, and would rebel. But if the program is begun through the innocuous-looking test ban treaty, and continued by steps which seem like nothing more than efforts at international understanding, we will have passed the point of no return before the American public realizes it.

The time to act is now. Every American should

( 1 0 ) The Test Ban: An American Strategy of Gradual Self-Mlltila tion, by Stefan T. Possony, Conf(ressional Rum'd, March 2 1 , 1 963, pp. 4358-70 ( 1 1 ) Article by Fred Farris, New York Herald Tribune News Service, The Sail Francisco Examiner, March 1 2 , 1 962 ( 1 2 ) Second Annllal Report to Conf(ress, January 1, I962-December 3 1 , 1 962, U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Pubhcation No. 1 4, February, 1 963 ( 1 3 ) For a detailed description of this tragic game, see this Report, "Disarmament-Part I," "Disarmament-Part II," and "Dis armament-Part III," May 6, 1 3 and 20, 1963; reprints avail able. ( 14 ) FULL TEXT OF TEST BAN TREATY: "The governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the 'original parties,' "Proclaiming as their principal aim the speediest possible achieve ment of an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations which would put an end to the armaments race and eliminate the incentive to the production and testing of all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons,

wire his United States Senators and urge his friends to do the same. The public should storm the Senate with demands that it reject the test ban treaty.

"Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time, determined to continue negotiations to this end, and desiring to put an end to the contamination of man's environment by radioactive substances,

Senate refusal to ratify the treaty would save us from this particular trap, and would be a stun ning repudiation of what Senator Strom Thur mond calls the Kennedy administration's no-wm policy.

1 . Each of the parties to this treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test . expl ,?sion, or any other nuclear explosion at any place under Its JUflsdlctlOn or control :

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) " Elections in Petersburg," ( January 1 2 , 19 1 3 ) Gospolitizdat, Moscow, 1 946, Vol. II, p. 277

Sochineniya,

( 2 ) "Reply on Debate on War and Peace," ( 19 1 8 ) , Selected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VII, p. 309 ( 3 ) "Theses Resolutions of the VIth World Congress of the Com· munist International," Inte1'11atiolzal P" ess Correspondence, Vol. 8, No. 84, November 28, 1 928, pp. 1 590, 1 596-7 ( 4 ) "Letter From The Secretary Of State Transmitting To The Sen ate Committee On Foreign Relations, A Memorandum On Cer tain Aspects Of The Bolshevist Movement In Russia," ( October 27, 1 9 1 9 ) Bolshevist Movement in Russia, Senate Documents, Vol. 4, Doc. No. 1 7 2 , 66th Congress, 2nd Session, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 1920, p. 3 ( 5 ) "The Secretary of State to the Italian Ambassador ( Avezzana ) " August 1 0, 1 920, Pape1'S Relatinf( To The Foreif(n Relations 0/ The United States, 1920, Vol. 3, Department of State, Govern ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 1936, pp. 468, 466 ( 6 ) Foreif(1l Relatio11S of the United States: Diplomatic Papers: The Soviet Union, United States Government Printing Office, Wash mgton, D. C, 1 9 5 2 , pp. 4, 1 2 - 1 3, 172-3 ( 7 ) U. S. Foreign Aid: Its Purposes, Scope, Administration, and Related In/ormation, legislative Reference Service of the library of Congress, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, June 1 1 , 1959 ( 8 ) " Foreword," by U. S. Senator James O. Eastland ( Democrat, Mississippi ) , to Soviet Political Af(reements and Reslllts, A Staff Study, Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C, May 2 1 , 1956, p. VIII ( 9 ) Special to the Times, The New York Times, October 3 1 1958 p. 1; and Special to the Times from Geneva, by Drew Middle: ton, The New Yo,·k Times, November I, 1958, pp. 1, 3

"Have agreed as follows: "Article I

"A. I n the atmosphere, beyond its limits, including outer space, or under water, inel uding territorial waters or high seas; or "B. In any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose j urisdiction or control such explosion is conducted. It is under stood in this connection that the provisions of this subparagraph are without prejudice to the conclusion of a treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosions, including all such explosions underground the conclusions of which, as the parties have stated in the preamble to this treaty, they seek to achieve. "2. Each of the parties to this treaty undertakes furthermore to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which would take place in any of the environments described, or have the effect referred to in para graph 1 of this article. "Article II

" 1 . Any party may propose amendments to this treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the depositary government which shall circulate it to all parties to this treaty. There after, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the parties, the depositary governments shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite all the parties, to consider such amendment. " 2 . Any amendment to this treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the parties to this treaty, including the votes of all the original parties. The amendment shall enter into force for all parties upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by a majority of the parties, including the instruments of ratification of all of the original parties. "Article III

" 1 . This treaty shall be open to all states for signature. Any state which does not sign this treaty before its entry into force in accord ance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time. " 2 . This treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory states. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the governments of the original parties-the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-which are here by designated the depositary governments.

Page 247

" 3 . This treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by all the original parties and the deposit of their instruments of ratifica足 tion. "4. For states whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. " 5 . The depositary governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding states of the date of each signature. the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification of and accession to this treaty, the date of its entry into force and the date of receipt of any requests for conferences or other notices. "6. This treaty shall be registered by the depositary governments pursuant to article 1 02 of the charter of the United Nations. "Artide IV

"This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. "Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other parties to the treaty three months in advance.

WHO

I S

"Artide V

"This treaty of which the English and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the depositary govern足 ments. Duly ceritified copies of this treaty shall be transmitted by the depOSItary governments to the governments of the signatory and accedmg states. "In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized, have signed this treaty." ( 1 5 ) "Is U. S. Giving Up In The Arms Race ?" article, U. S. New! & l/Yorld Report, August 5, 1963, pp. 37-42

( 16 ) "Group Says Isle of Pines Under Control of Russians," article by Robert E. Baskin, Washington, The Dallas Moming News, July 2 5, 1 963, p. 1 ( 1 7 ) For a detailed account of Kennedy's handling of the Cuban situation, see this Report, "War And Politics," October 29, 1962 ; reprints still available. ( 18 ) "Cuba Buildup Danger Cited," UPI dispatch from Washington ' The Dallas Times Herald, February 4, 1963, p. 1 ( 19 ) "Pact 'Doesn't Do Much,' Says Rusk," UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Mominf!. News, July 29, 1963, p. 1 ( 20 ) "Red Said Doubtful Of China A-Power," UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times He"ald, July 29, 1963, p. 1

DAN

SMOOT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940_ In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate

in American Civilization.

In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar足 ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free足 enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere i n the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Rep01-t and broadcasts.

Subscription :

1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- Free

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 248

ZIP CODE

THE

IJflll SmootlIepo,t Vol. 9, No. 32

(Broadcast 4 1 7 )

August 1 2, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E POW E R G R I D S C H EM E " We are here to learn as much as we can, and see as milch as we can. We have so much to leam from your Soviet specialists in this field." Remarks of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, upon arrival in Moscow for his 1 96 2

tour o f the Soviet Union to stud y communist electric power installations ( ! )

T he

1 960 platform of the Democrat Party advocated the "development of efficient regional giant power systems from all sources, including water, tidal, and nuclear power, to supply low cost electricity to all retail electric systems, public, private, and co-operative." (2l To implement the promise of his party's platform, President Kennedy appointed Stewart L. Udall as Secretary of the Interior. Udall's plans to place the power industry under tight con trol, and eventual ownership, of the federal government, include expansion of TVA facilities, expansion of Rural Electrification Administration activities in financing co-operative power pro ducing plants, the building of new multi-purpose dams in all parts of the nation, and a nation wide power grid, owned and controlled by the federal government. The power grid, when completed, will involve long-distance, high-voltage transmlSSlOn lines connecting all power-producing facilities in the continental United States, so that electric power, produced in any region, can be delivered to any other region, over facilities owned by the fed eral government. Privately owned, long-distance transmission lines will be forced out of business by federal monopoly, or harassed out of business by federal regulations and controls.

P resently

known plans for the power grid do not include the whole nation. First, the Pacific Northwest will be linked with Southern California in a West Coast system. This system will then be tied in with the Parker-Davis-Hoover Dam system in southern Nevada ; with the Rio Grande project in New Mexico ; with the Upper Colorado River Storage Project complex of

)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 7 5 2 1 4 ; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2. 5 0 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5 . 50; 1 00 for $ 1 0. 00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted.

Page 249

power dams now being constructed in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico ; with the Missouri River Basin system which spreads through several states in the upper midwest; and with the Southwestern Power Administration sys tem in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. ( 2)

No one seriously doubts that when the great western intertie systems are completed, the grid will be extended to the Tennessee Valley and to the Southeastern Power Administration facilities. The final stage will probably be transmission lines running up the East Coast from Florida to the northern tip of Maine where President Kennedy is presently asking for a 1 -billion-dollar power proj ect in Passamaquoddy Bay (a fantastic scheme to build 7 miles of ocean dams for developing electrical power from high tides - a scheme which Franklin D. Roosevelt wasted 7 mill ion dollars on in 1935-36, before Congress refused to authorize more funds ) . (3)

W ithin three months after inauguration in 1 96 1 , President Kennedy appointed a five-man task force to study and report on the feasibility of installing 1 000 miles of high-voltage lines to carry power from the Bonneville Dam in Oregon to Southern California. The task force reported on December 1 9, 196 1 , proposing three alternate plans for this West Coast system - which would range in estimated cost from 1 36 million to 342 million dollars. (41

Selecting the West Coast system to be the first stage in the nation-"wide power grid system was, among other things, an effort to hide the dismal failures of Bonneville Power Administration the great socialized power proj ect of the Pacific Northwest. ('". 1

Despite the fact that taxpayers in all parts of the nation have poured billions of dollars into the Bonneville scheme to subsidize electric power at below-cost for Bonneville customers, Bonneville could not adequately supply the region with power. Private enterprise (though taxed to help subsidize Bonneville ) came in to supply the power deficiency. Now, Bonneville (during peaks of production) has a surplus of power that it

cannot sell, even at below-cost rates which were fixed during the depression years. The 1 000 miles of high-voltage lines for carry ing Bonneville power to Southern California will not only be a first step toward the nation-wide power grid, but will also enable Bonneville to sell its surplus power in the big California market. Bonneville also wants transmission lines to in vade the Idaho market.

The Kennedy task force which, on December 19, 1961, formally recommended the Bonneville to-Los Angeles transmission lines, urged speed, but said the lines should not be built until Con gress had first enacted legislation to guarantee each region priority to its own power. (4)

This is an interesting development in the drive to socialize the power industry in the United States. Early in the drive, the bureaucrats re quested and Congress authorized ( in the Flood Control Act of 1 944 ) a policy of giving publicly owned power facilities and non-profit, tax-favored, power organizations (REA financed co-opera tives ) preference as customers for below-cost fed eral power. If there was not enough power to go around, tax-paying consumers could go without or get their power somewhere else : the non-tax paying co-operatives and municipally-owned fa cilities got first choice at buying the federal power. Federal power bureaucrats have treated this preference policy like something sacred. Now, they find themselves trapped by it. If they build transmission lines from Bonneville to other re gions, preference customers in those other regions (especially, big co-operatives and publicly-owned utilities in California ) can take most of Bonne ville's below-cost power. This will create a prob lem for politicians in the Pacific Northwest who have kept themselves in office by supporting tax subsidized power for voters in that region. So, the nation-wide power grid scheme is stalled until politicians of the Pacific Northwest are ap peased by legislation to guarantee that all users in their region be treated as preference customers for the socialized power before any of it can be sold elsewhere. Such legislation was introduced

Page 250

in Congress in 1962 and passed by the Senate, but died in the house. On April 23, 1963, the Senate again passed such legislation (S 1007 ) ; but the House has not yet acted on the Bill. Until and unless the House acts favorably, the nation-wide power grid scheme appears to be stalemated.

Bureaucratic Rival ry

R ivalry between federal agencies (specifically, between the Federal Power Commission and the Department of the Interior ) has also caused a stalemate in the power grid system. In 1962, the Federal Power Commission ap proved the plans of several private power com panies to construct a big inter-regional power transmission complex which would link the pri vate power facilities of Idaho, Oregon, Washing ton, and California. The Department of the In terior, wanting to install its own power grid on the West Coast, blocked the FPC-approved pri vate plan. On December 29, 1962, the Depart ment of the Interior and the Department of Ag riculture published, in the Federal Register, a new regulation prohibiting private power lines from crossing federal lands unless approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Since federal agencies own about half of a11 land in the western states, this new regulation (which went into effect March 24, 1963 ) means that the Secretary of the Interior has assumed authority to prohibit expansion of private power facilities in the West, and, thus, to guarantee a socialistic monopoly by governmental agencies. (C)

Contemporary

squabbles among bureaucrats reveal many things. They show how the public lands policies of the federal government are used to concentrate tyrannical control in the hands of Washington officialdom, and they reveal the cynical dishonesty of propaganda for socialized power in the United States. A central theme of the propaganda is that the government must build big electricity plants for (7)

the people, because private industry cannot or wi11 not build them. The fact, now clearly revealed, is that private enterprise is wi11ing and able to do an infinitely better job of electric power produc tion and distribution than the federal government can do.

N ote some comments of Senator Barry Gold water, concerning the High Mountain Sheep Dam which the Department of the Interior wants to build on the Snake River in Idaho : "A Federal Power Commission Examiner last October 8 [ 1 962 ] recommended the granting of a license to an investor-owned utility, the Pacific Northwest Power Co., for construction of this project. The brief by the Department of Interior takes exception to this action by the Federal Power Commission Examiner, on the grounds that this project should be reserved for Federal construction . . . . "Let me give you a few quotes from this brief . . . : " 'In the past the Federal Columbia River power system has been the basic wholesaler of power in the region . . . . Now in the present case it is proposed that additional wholesalers be brought into the region . . . . These whole salers propose to sell to customers presently buy ing Federal power. It is inconceivable that either one of the new wholesale power agencies could be licensed without further reducing the gross and net revenues of B onneville Power Admin istration. " 'If B onneville Power Administration deficits continue, the Federal system will find it increas ingly difficult to fulfill its distinctive role of pro viding an ample power supply at lowest cost and with widespread availability . . . . .

" ' The cardinal principle which governs the operation of an electric power system is that all interconnected generating plants should be op erated as if one utility owned the entire system . . . . If all the plants 'in the system belong to the United States, they can be operated to meet a common objective' . . . .

"I never thought that the Interior Department would be so bold as to openly state what many of us have known for a long time - that is , their objective is expansion of Federal power to the exclusion of investor-owned development. But

Page 25 1

here the Interior Department has come out in the open by publicly stating what it has long in tended, but publicly denied, and that is that the Government and only the Government should be permitted to expand power production in the Pacific Northwest . . . . "The High Mountain Sheep development would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a power project, pure and simple - a power project that investor-owned electric companies are ready to build at no cost to the Federal Gov ernment. Construction by the investor-owned companies would provide every advantage to the area that Government construction would pro vide."(5)

If built by private enterprise, the High Moun tain Sheep development would pay taxes, thus helping other taxpayers carry the heavy load. If built by the government, the development will ( like Bonneville and all other government power facilities ) consume taxes, adding to the tax bur den that is already crushing our economy.

Note Senator Strom Thurmond's comments on

a proposed government power dam across the Savannah River at Trotters Shoals in Abbeville County, South Carolina : "First, Duke Power Company [ a private enter

prise, investor-owned utility ] has offered to build the world's largest steam generating plant in Anderson County near the Trotters Shoals site, but the company has indicated it would not do so if the Federal Government builds the Trotters Shoals hydro-electric power dam . . . . The gov ernment dam would cost $78.7 million to con struct, and it would be so high that it would flood 24,000 acres of land, including some of the best industrial sites in this country. The Duke plant would provide 25 times the electric power . . . and at a cheaper rate than could the govern ment dam . . . . In addition to this, the Duke plant would pay $7.4 million annually in taxes to the Federal Government and $6 million an nually in State and local taxes. The government dam, of course, would pay no taxes, only cost tax dollars. "Second, the Mead Pulp and Paper Corpora

it plans to build a $40-50 Savannah River in Abbe the on plant million the company has stated However, ville County. plant if the Trotters this that it could not erect tion has announced

Shoals government dam is approved, because the government dam would flood its site. The paper mill would provide employment for 675 persons with an average annual payroll of $5 million . . . . An additional 650 persons would be given em ployment in the woods, and an annual pulpwood market of $9% million would be created . . . . The tax gains for all levels of government would be $4 million annually. Over a 50-year period, taxes from Duke and Mead, not to mention other potential industries, would total about $ 1 billion. "Third, if the government dam is constructed, not only would the Duke and Mead sites be de stroyed, but other sites for industries already making plans to build along the remaining 29 miles of free-flowing water on the Savannah River . . . would be destroyed. This would leave this area a virtual industrial desert . . . .

"Proponents of the government dam have not cited any major advantages to accrue to the area from construction of the dam (such as flood control, increased navigation, etc.) except for recreation. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall has testified that the government dam could be used as a great recreation area for the teeming popula tions of the East . . . . "We don't particularly need government-con trolled recreation areas in South Carolina, as we have a plentiful supply of good local recreation areas now, but we do need more jobs for our people, increased payrolls, more tax receipts, better prices for our pulpwood, and cheaper electric power for our people."(S)

A Fal lacy

One tragic fallacy of the bureaucratic craze for spectacular high-level hydro-electric dams is pointed up in Senator Thurmond's remarks : the fallacy that damming up rivers is the best way to produce electric power. In many cases, this is the most expensive way to produce electric power ; and in all cases, the big high-level dams destroy fine, irreplaceable timber or agricultural lands. They upset natural water tables, and often elimi nate vast panoramas of natural beauty. Consider what the Tennessee Valley Authority has done.

Before TVA was started, army engineers had estimated a probable annual flood damage in the

Page 252

Tennessee Valley of approximately a million and a half dollars. TVA claims to have spent some $200,000,000 on flood control. The annual inter est on that much money, even at low government rates, costs taxpayers approximately $7,000,000. In other words, we are paying out each year, in interest alone, about seven million dollars to pre vent a million and a half dollars' worth of flood damage in the Tennessee River Valley. Before TVA, the army engineers had estimated that a flood which would cover 666,000 acres of land in the Tennessee Valley would occur only once in 500 years. That, in fact, was considered the maximum flood that could occur in the Ten nessee Valley. In order to protect 666,000 acres from being flooded once every 500 years , the Ten nessee Valley Authority has permanently sub merged almost a million acres under TVA man made lakes or emergency reservoirs. In other words, every 500 years the Tennessee River might have flooded two-thirds as much land in the Ten nessee Valley as the TVA has permanently flooded or set aside in its flood control program. And the land which TVA has thus destroyed was among the most fertile in the world. Before TVA, floods in the Tennessee Valley did a million and a half dollars damage annually. Today, crop loss alone, due to TVA flooding of rich bottom lands, is well over $27,000,000 a year.

The Beginning

D iscussing

the origin and purpose of TVA, United States Representative Ben F. Jensen (Re publican, Iowa ) on May 4, 1959, explained that socialization of power was the first step toward the goal of eliminating the profit-motivated free enterprise system of private capitalism in the Socialists ran their own candi United States. date for President in the political campaign of 1928, openly advocating socialized power, be cause they knew that control of electric power means ultimate control of all industry. But the people of the United States would not vote for socialism when it was honestly called by its right name. The socialists quickly learned that they must lie to the people - that they must advocate ( 10)

socialism under other labels. This they did. In droves, they infiltrated the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and drenched the nation with socialist propaganda which never mentioned socialism, but which promised A New Era For The Common Man, A Government With A Heart, A New Deal To Promote The General Welfare Of The People.

T he first major legislative victory for socialists and communists was the Tennessee Valley Au thority Act of 1 9 3 3 . TVA was not sold to the people as a means of producing electricity. It was sold as a flood-control and river-navigation project. The idea was to build one dam at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, to help control floods in the Tennessee River Valley and to improve water navigation on the river. All of this was to cost about $ 1 50,000,000. As soon as the Authority was formed, however, developing electric power be came the major objective. The "$ 1 50,000,000 project" has grown into a two billion dollars plus colossus. Today, TVA has not one but thirty major dams - plus more than a dozen steam-operated gener ating-plants and 9,000 miles of transmission lines, distributing electricity through a marketing area of 80,000 square miles.

W hen the first TVA dam was built at Muscle

Shoals, the public (and most congressmen ) as sumed that electricity developed there, as a by product, woul-d be sold to private industry for distribution. But TV A planners intended TV A to become government business. They used the "yardstick" argument, saying that private power companies were greedy monopolies, grinding the faces of the poor and overcharging on electric rates ; government ought to set up one power busi ness of its own, to have some means of measuring the true cost of producing electricity. The government yardstick became a club. Ever since the first hydro-electric dam was built in the Tennessee Valley, the government has been sell ing electric power in that region at rates lower than the average of private power rates anywhere ill the nation. The socialist planners have used

Page 253

this fact to prove that only the government can provide cheap, abundant electricity for the people.

B ut TVA accomplishments are a bookkeeping, rather than a production, miracle. A privately owned power company has to charge enough for its power to pay all costs of operation, plus local, state, and federal taxes, plus interest on its capital investment, plus whatever is re-invested for ex pansion and improvement. TVA does not have to bear these burdens. TVA gets what it needs from taxpayers - some of whom are private power companies that TVA is underselling. TVA has created a 650-mile-Iong "free" water way in the Tennessee Valley. It is free to shippers who use it; but it costs taxpayers over $8,000,000 a year in maintenance. If people who ship freight on the government's "free" waterway in the Ten nessee Valley were charged freight rates just high enough to pay for the cost of operating that waterway, the rates would be considerably higher than those which private railroads charge in the same neighborhood. As Congressman James B. Utt has pointed out, if all freight carried on the Tennessee River since the beginning of TVA had been shipped by rail, and paid for at prevailing railroad rates, it would have cost less than 3 00/0 of what taxpayers have paid for navigation on the government's "free" waterway. (9)

The same, of course, can be said for electricity produced in the Tennessee Valley. If users of that power had to pay rates high enough to meet the cost of production and distribution, power rates in the Tennessee Valley would be the highest in the nation, for the simple reason that govern ment, not being controlled by the stern law of profit and loss, cannot operate a business as effi ciently as private individuals can. The necessity of paying bills and showing a profit tends to correct errors which private businesses make. When a government agency makes mistakes, it gets more money from the treasury ; and for poli t ical reasons, it must continue to make the same mistakes in order to justify past errors.

The Governm ent Showcase

Considering

what TVA has destroyed, and what private effort might have built, it seems ob vious that TVA has not helped the Tennessee Valley, but has done great harm. One of the shallowest arguments of govern mental planners today is that government should ' be given credit for all technological, scientific, and economic improvements in this country since 1 9 3 3 . The fact is that advances have occurred in spite of government. No one knows how much material progress the American people would have made in the past 30 years if government had not embroiled them in wars, shackled them with regulations, and strangled them with taxes. If government ownershi p and control and spending could produce real prosperity, the Ten nessee Valley would be a paradise, because here the tax billions that have been spent were not even raised in the region that "benefitted." Gov ernment can give the people nothing that it has not first taken away from them - and the amount which government gives back is always much less than what it takes. In the Tennessee Valley, the government has spent billions that it took away from taxpayers in other regions. Yet, the TVA area has not kept up with the economic progress of the rest of the nation. Despite the "free" water way transportation and the "low-cost" electric power and the millions of tax dollars spent on ad vertising and the building of governmental indus trial plants to use TVA power - the area has had a slower industrial growth than neighboring re gions. ( 1 0)

T he

great power plants, the mammoth dams and the man-made lakes in the Tennessee Valley, have become a government showcase, a favorite place of pilgrimage for school teachers, econo mists, and visiting dignitaries from abroad. It all makes a magnificent spectacle. You can ride around the Tennessee Valley and see what two billion dollars built. You cannot see the fertile lands and great forests that TVA destroyed. You cannot see what two billion dollars would have

Page 254

built elsewhere in all parts of the nation if it had been left in the hands of people who earned it and had not been seized in taxes to be spent on gov ernment's grandiose projects in this one valley.

Purpose

And

the tourists seldom discern the sinister purpose beneath it all. Congressman Ben Jensen relates a personal ex perience of a man who is now a United States Senator. In the 1930's, the man attended a com munist cell meeting in a large city. A communist speaker hung on the wall a map of the United States. The map was divided into nine sections - each section centering around a major river valley. The communist said : "Since river valleys are no respecters of state lines, and since America can never be commu nized so long as there are 48 sovereign states, we must create 9 river valley authorities, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, where 3 men who are not elected by the people, but who are simply appointed by the president, are in full control. "When this is accomplished, then 27 all-pow erful men will be in complete control of the United States - then all city, county, and state governments will be forced to surrender their sovereign powers; and we will be in complete con trol, because we communists will see to it that the right 27 men are appointed."(lO)

WHO

I S

I nteresting

evidence that Roosevelt knew the real purpose of TVA can be found in the Yalta papers, published by the State Department. Dur ing a conversation with Joseph Stalin at Yalta on February 7, 1945, President Roosevelt - accord ing to official notes made by Charles Bohlen "mentioned that in the Soviet Union and its various republics, consideration had been given to the problem of a country as a whole, and in the United States the TVA had the same idea. He mentioned that in the region of the TVA, electric current was sold at the same price throughout the area."

T VA was j ust a beginning. The Rural Electrification Administration fol lowed next. Created in 1935 to stimulate activity which would relieve unemployment and bring electricity to farms, REA today is building its own electric generating plants where private power is already available. It is financing tax-favored co operatives in the production and distribution of electric power, and in providing telephone service, in direct competition ,vith taxpaying enterprises - not j ust in rural, but in urban areas, where REA was never supposed to intrude. Today, more than half of all REA electricity is sold to city users, and four-fifths of its new customers are in non farm areas.

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to ]. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 255

T he

empire of socialized power has now spread until the bureaucrats, fighting among them selves for control, are candidly revealing their real purpose of eliminating American private enter prise. In addition to the nation-wide power grid scheme; in addition to Kennedy'S multi-billion dollar Passamaquoddy proposal on the border of Maine and Canada ; and in addition to the Trot ters Shoals project in South Carolina, the Ken nedy administration is presently urging federal expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars for construction of seven huge power facilities ( in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Vir ginia) which private companies want to build.

This would stop the socialization of a key American industry. It would save taxpayers bil lions of dollars which the operating losses of federal power plants now cost; and proceeds from sale of the big government installations could be used to make a substantial reduction in the na tional debt. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Public Power Lobby Gets Tips from Moscow," Human Ellentsl November 3, 1 962, pp. 839-40 ( 2 ) "US Moves to Federal ize Power," article, Nation's Business September, 196 1 . reprinted in Human Events September 29 : 1 9 6 1 , p. 642 ( 3 ) U. S. News & World Report, July 29, 1 963, p. 10 (4) The Los A ngeles Examin er, December 20, 1 9 6 1

The Way Out

( 5 ) Congressional Record, April 1 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 4963-4

C ongress should reject all pending legislation and proposals for expanding the electric power empire of the federal bureaucracy. It should re fuse to make further appropriations for existing government facilities, and should compel the fed eral government to sell all of the facilities (TVA, Bonneville, Hoover, Upper Colorado all of them) to the people, to be run as private enter-

W H A T _

prises which would pay, rather than waste, taxes.

Y O U

( 6 ) "Interior, FPC Struggle Over Transmission Line Control," article, COJlg,·essional Quarterly 111'eekly Report, May 1 7, 1963, pp. 769-72 ( 7 ) For a detailed account of federal land grab policies see this Report, "Confiscating The Land," July 29, 1 963 . ( 8 ) " Big Dam Foolishness," SIr01l1 Thurlllond Reports To The People, May 1 3. 1 963 ( 9 ) Washingtoll Report, by V . s. Congressman James B. Vtt, ( Republ ican, Cal i forn ia ) . May 2 1 , 1959 ( 1 0 ) "Socialism Or Freedom For America-I Took The Oath " speech by U. S. Representative Ben F. Jensen, daily COllgr ;s S10llal Record, May 4, 1 9 59, pp. 662 5-32

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it?

You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription :

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year $10.00 - $1 0.00 -

1962 Bound Volume

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 256

ZIP

CODE

THE o

IJflll SmootReportlfifiiiA Vol. 9, No. 33

(Broadcast 4 1 8 )

August 1 9, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

A N EW ATTAC K ON TH E CON NALLY RESERVATION

the international conference in San Francisco (June, 1 945 ) when the United Nations Charter was written, there was strong sentiment for a UN World Court which would have compulsory jurisdiction over member nations, but opposition to such a proposal was also strong. The compromise was a provision in Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter establishing the International Court of Justice (generally called World Court) as a principal organ of the UN, to function in accordance with a so-called "Statute," annexed to the Charter and considered part of it.

The Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that all UN members automatically become members of the World Court, though none is required to accept its jurisdiction. Nations which do not accept jurisdiction have equal rights and powers with regard to the Court as nations which do accept its j urisdiction. ( 1 )

The Court

T he World Court consists of 1 5 judges, all elected, for nine-year terms, by a majority vote in the UN Security Council and by a majority vote in the UN General Assembly. The candidates are nominated by the UN Secretary General, from names submitted by national groups in the Per manent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. No particular qualifications are specified. No nation (except the Soviet Union) can have more than one of its nationals on the World Court. The Soviets can have three j udges on the court at one time, because of an agreement which President Franklin D. Roosevelt made w ith Stalin at Yalta in 1 945 - recognizing the Soviet provinces of Byelorussia and the Ukraine as independent nations, entitled to full repre sentation in all UN agencies. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 14; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 . 00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Page 257

Nine j udges constitute a quorum for the World Court to do business, and a majority of the nine can render j udgments. This means that five j udges, on a court of 1 5 , can make decisions. If the court fails to reach a decision, because it is evenly divided, the President of the court can cast an extra vote to break the tie. The President (who is elected by the court itself) has other broad powers : he controls hearings, directs administra tive business, and appoints arbitrators and um pires. No j udge can be removed from the court, except by unanimous decision of the other 14 judges. The court establishes its own rules, and, in cases where there is dispute, establishes its own jurisdiction. There is no appeal from a de cision of the court.

T hus, the World Court is the most extraordi nary j udicial body in history. It is the only court (certainly in the history of western nations ) ever empowered to determine not only its own rules and procedures but its jurisdiction. In the United States, Congress has absolute authority to deter mine ( limit, enlarge, or abolish ) the appellate jurisdiction of all federal courts ( including the Supreme Court ) . Only the World Court is empowered to make decisions from which there is no relief. In the United States, decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be appealed, but their ef fect can be set aside or nullified by Congress. The Wodd Court is unique in that a minority of one third of its members can render a decision. It is unique in that no outside authority can remove one of its judges, regardless of what he does. In the United States, Congress can impeach and re move from office any federal judge ( including a Supreme Court justice) for bad behavior. No matter how bad the behavior of a World Court judge, he cannot be removed except by unani mous vote of the other 14 j udges. The World Court is unique in that one of its judges has a double vote in cases so controversial that they divide the court evenly. (2)

The most astonishing thing about the Wodd Court, however, is that it can be staffed and con trolled by nations which spurn its jurisdiction.

Connal ly's Reservation

T he United Nations Charter

(with the Statute of the International Court appended as an in tegral part ) was signed at San Francisco on June 26, 194 5 . On July 28, 1945, the U. S. Senate ( by ratifying the UN Charter as if it were a treaty) formally authorized United States membership in the UN. On October 24, 1945, the Soviet Union ratified the UN Charter (last of the five major powers to do so ) , and the United Nations for mally came into being. By joining the UN, the United States automati cally became a member of the World Court. We were not, however, bound to accept its jurisdic tion, unless our government filed a formal declara tion of acceptance. The Truman administration demanded that this be done. Indeed, the drive to subject this nation to World Court j urisdiction began six months before the court came into ex istence. The court was formally organized May 6, 1946. Six months before ( in November, 1 945 ) , Senator Wayne Morse, from Oregon, introduced a resolution giving Senate consent to United States acceptance of compulsory j urisdiction of the World Court. On December 17, 1 945 , Christian Herter (then a United States Representative, later Eisenhower's Secretary of State ) introduced in the House a similar resolution. On July 24, 1946, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by unanimous vote, reported Morse's resolution to the Senate for favorable action. The resolution resolved that, " . . . the Senate . . . consent to the deposit by the President of the United States with the Sec retary General of the United Nations of a decla ration . . . recognizing as compulsory . . . the ju risdiction of the International Court of Justice in all legal disputes hereafter arising concern mg " (a) the interpretation of a treaty; " (b) Any question of international law; " (c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an in ternational obligation;

Page 258

" (d) The nature or extent of the repara-

tion to be made for the breach of an international obligation. "Provided, That such declaration shall not ap

ply to -

"(a) disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future; "(b) disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic Juris diction of the United States . . . . " ( 3 )

W hen the resolution came before the Senate for a vote - August 1 , 1946 conservatives raised a vital question : who will determine wheth er a matter is essentially within our national juris diction ? What if the Soviets should bring charges against the United States for not admitting com munist spies and saboteurs as immigrants ? The United States might claim in vain that our im migration laws are exclusively our business. The World Court (on which we could never have more than one judge, while communists could have a majority) could decide that our immigra tion laws are international affairs. What if Pana ma should sue for ownership and control of our Panama Canal ? The Wodd Court could accept jurisdiction on the grounds that the matter affects all nations, and it could decide to give the Canal to Panama. What if we tried to decrease or terminate our aid to some foreign nation, and that nation sued us in the World Court, claiming that Ameri can foreign aid affects all nations and that all na tions therefore must have a voice in determining our foreign aid policies ? -

The Morse-Herter crowd argued that we could trust the Wodd Court. Conservatives were un willing to place our national independence in the hands of 14 foreigners, all, or a majority, of whom might be communists.

S enator Tom Connally (Democrat, Texas ) was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was eager for the UnIted States to accept jurisdiction of the World Court. To allay conservative fears that the court might med dle in America's domestic affairs, Tom Connally

proposed an amendment, or reservation, to the Morse World Court resolution. The Connally Res ervation consisted of six words : "as determined by the United States.JJ On August 2, 1946, the Senate, by a vote of 62 to 2, approved the Morse World Court resolu tion, as amended by the Connally Reservation. Thus, as finally enacted, our formal declaration of acceptance of Wodd Court jurisdiction pro vides that the United States will not accept com pulsory jurisdiction of the court in "matters which are essentially within the domestic j urisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States."

Efforts To Repeal

Internationalists

in the American Bar Associa tion immediately began a propaganda campaign against the Connally Reservation, trying to per suade the public and the Senate to accept the idea that the reservation must be repealed. In Febru ary, 1947, the American Bar Association, by a close vote, recommended repeal. But massive and concerted propaganda efforts for repeal of the Connally Reservation did not be gin until 1 1 years later. The first great wave of rhetoric broke around May 1 , 1958 (the first "Law Day, U.S.A." ) , with a sudden spate of propaganda about "Wodd Peace Through Wodd Law." The propaganda continued with ever-ris ing volume for almost two years - all of it thun dering the theme that the first step toward peace on earth must be repeal of the Connally Reserva tion. In his State of the Union Message on January 9, 1959, President Eisenhower said he wanted a "re-examination of our own relation to the Inter national Court of Justice." On March 24, 1959, Senator Hubert H . Humphrey (Democrat, Minne sota ) joined by Senator Jacob K. Javits (Republi� can, New York) introduced a resolution to re peal the Connally Reservation. On April 1 3, 1959, Vice President Richard M. Nixon publicly recom mended modification of the Connally Reservation.

Page 259

On October 1 1 , 1959, the American Bar Associa tion released a special committee report recom mending repeal of the Connally Reservation. The 86th Congress adjourned in 1959 without acting on the Humphrey resolution to repeal the Connally Reservation ; but on November 1 7, 1 959, President Eisenhower ( in a letter to Senator Hum phrey ) endorsed the Humphrey proposal. Eisen however said he hoped repeal of the Connally Res ervation would give the world a more effective means "to prevent such brutal uses o� force" �s communists used in Hungary and Ttbet. Thts Eisenhower remark (clearly implying that the Connally Reservation was partly responsible for communist bestiality in Hungary and Tibet) was applauded and repeated endle�sly by inter?ation alist liberals, none of whom trted to explam how the surrender of American independence to the World Court could influence the communist pro gram of conquest by terror and mass murder.

I n his State of the Union Message January 7 , 1 960, President Eisenhower again endorsed rep eal . of the Connally Reservation. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (under the chairmanship of J. William Fulbright) scheduled he�rings, obvi ously intending to hear only those � itnesses who favored repeal. It seemed cut and drted : the com mittee would favorably report, and the Senate perfunctorily pass, the Humphrey resolution; and . the Connally ReservatlOn would be repealed be fore a brainwashed public realized what the res ervation was. But internationalists underrated the people. When word got out, the public was quick to real ize that repeal of the Connally Reservation meant unconditional surrender to the World Court. Washington politicians were deluged wit� wires, letters, petitions and resolutions demandmg that the Connally Reservation be retained. On March 30, 1960, Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee tabled the Humphrey proposal to repeal the Con nally Reservation - afraid to let it go to the Sen ate for a vote. In 1 961, another resolution was introduced in the Senate, asking for repea � of the

Connally Reservation, but this resolution did not even progress to the point of hearings.

Senator Long's Scheme

Propaganda for repeal of the Connally Reser vation died down considerably after March, 1 960 (when the Humphrey resolutio? � ie� in commi � tee) ; but efforts to surrender J. urts� 1Ctton of Amert can affairs to the World Court did not abate. For example, in May, 1960, the State Depart ment sent to the Senate, for its advice and consent, four UN Conventions ( international agreements by UN members ) concerning the Law of the Sea. It also sent a protocol agreement which would bind all signatory nations to accept compulsory j urisdiction of the World Court in all disputes arising from the Law of the Sea agreements. At the last moment, the Senate recognized this protocol agreement as a backstairs effort to circumvent and undermine the Connally Reserva tion. The protocol was defeated. But since that time , treaties between the United States and other countries often contain clauses giving the Wodd Court jurisdiction over all disputes arising from such treaties. In time, if enough such treaties are made, the Connally Reservation will become meaningless, without formal repeal. (4)

M eanwhile,

internationalists have devised a faster method of surrendering the independence and sovereignty of the United States, through un reserved acceptance of World Court j urisdic�ion over our national affairs. On June 20, 1963, Umted States Senator Russell B. Long (Democrat, Loui siana ) introduced Senate Resolutio� 1 66 as�ing the President to sponsor in the Umted NatlOns a plan to reconstitute the Wodd Court. The plan would : ( 1 ) Give the World Court com�ulsory j�ris diction over all members of the Umted NatIOns; (2) Give the Court itself power to overrule (by a vote of 1 0 of its 15 judges) the plea of any na tion that a matter referred to the Court is purely a domestic affair of that nation; (3) Eliminate the national citizenship of all judges and their families, ma�ing �he� super citizens of all UN member natIons ( UnIted Na tions citizens"), with diplomatic immunity every where;

Page 260

(4) Provide for the election of World Court judges for life, making their salaries tax free; (5) Provide that future elections of judges would be held only to replace vacancies and that they be elected by a plurality of votes in the Se curity Council and the General Assembly rather than by a majority as is now the rule. ( 5 )

The Long plan was devised by Eberhard P. Deutsch, an internationalist lawyer from New Or leans who has been in the forefront of American Bar Association propagandists for repeal of the Co�nally Reservation. Mr. Deutsch is presently chauman of the ABA's Standing Committee on Peace and Law through the United Nations. While the American Bar Association takes the lead in sponsoring this latest attempt to surrender our nation t� the World Court, the Independent . Bar AssoClabon leads opposition to the plan. Th � Independent Bar Association was recently orgalllzed by a group of distinguished lawyers who feel that the American Bar Association no longer gives a respectful hearing to their views. Members of the Independent Bar want to keep the Connally Reservation as protection against World Court interference in the domestic affairs of our nation. They do not support Supreme Court interpretations which are converting the federal government into a centralized absolutism. They resent the use of American Bar Association funds, facilities, and prestige to support foreign aid schemes for land reform in Latin America. I commend to all thoughtful Americans ( lawyers and non-lawyers alike) the World Court Issue (Summer, 1 963, price $ 1 .00 ) of Law Today, offi cial journal of the Independent Bar Association ( 5 50 Fifth Avenue, New York 36, New York) . (5)

The Silly and The Sinister

Internationalist

arguments for repeal of the Connally Reservation range from the ludicrous to the outright lie. What could be more ludicrous than the internationalist argument that repeal of the Connally Reservation is necessary "to assure other nations of our sincerity in calling for exten sion of law in world affairs" ? (4) This adolescent at titude, that our great nation must do something not

because it is intrinsically right but because it will make others like us, is stupid. After all the blood and tre�sure �mericans have poured out to help people m forelgn lands ! If anyone retains doubt abo� t us, he probably doubts our sanity in sub. 11l1ttmg to the rule of liberal internationalists who are willing to slaughter our youth, give away our wealth, and surrender our national independence for no apparent reason except to win a world wide popularity contest - in which we are the only contestant.

On October

1959, the Special Committee on International Law of the American Bar Asso ciation released its report entitled "Self-Judging Aspect of the United States' Domestic Jurisdiction Reservation with Respect to the International Court of Justice." In June, 1 960, The Reader's Digest published an article by William Hard, en titled "The United States Is Impeding World La:v ." On July 1 1 , 1960, Life published an edi tonal entitled "Vital Step Toward World Law." ll,

All three of these pieces urged repeal of the Connally Reservation, so that the World Court can determine its own j urisdiction over any case involving the United States, by making its own determination of whether the case does or does not involve a purely domestic matter. All dishonestly implied that the Connally Reservation puts the United States in a dishonorable role of "self-judg ing" its own disputes with other nations - puts our nation in the category with a man who insists on sitting as judge to try his own case. The truth is, it would violate fundamental principles of the American Constitution and of American jurispru dence to permit any court to determine its own j urisdiction. Neither a nation nor an individual is being a "judge in his own case" when he questions the j urisdiction of a court to hear the case. Chal lenging the j urisdiction of a court, and getting cases thrown out of a court which does not have valid j urisdiction, are honored and ancient prac tices in American law.

his Reader's Digest article (June, 1960) , arguing that the United States is impeding world law by retaining the Connally Reservation, Wi!-

Page 261

liam Hard makes a comparison between nations which fearlessly submit their disputes to the World Court and the United States, which goes into the court, if at all, with hands "considerably soiled," because it has resorted to a "subterfuge" in adopting the Connally Reservation. Hard docu ments this invidious comparison by saying : "According to the Secretary of State Herter there are now only six countries which, having gone through the form of accepti�g the C?urt's compulsory jurisdiction , have nulhfied theIr ac ceptance by reservations. These countries are: the United States, Mexico, Liberia, the Sudan, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan."

World Court j urisdiction than our Connally Res ervation. Two of the 1 3 (South Africa and Su dan ) have restrictions practically the same as our Connally Reservation. Israel's adherence to World Court j urisdiction is so restrictive that it enables Israel to accept or deny j urisdiction, as Israel pleases. Cambodia's adherence to World Court jurisdic tion will be cancelable on notice by Cambodia after September 9, 1 967.

That statement, attributed to a Secretary of State, is not true.

O nly 3S of the 1 10 UN members of the World Court accept the j urisdiction of the court to any degree whatever. No communist nation ac cepts it. Of the 3 S nations which do accept, the acceptances of the following 1 1 ar: not real : Ca nada' Colombia, Dominican Repubhc, El Salvador, Haiti, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uraguay. Before the present Worid Court was formed, these 1 1 nations ac cepted j urisdiction of the old League of Nations Permanent Court of International Justice. The old acceptances, presumed to apply to the present court, were filed without termination date - and can be canceled, by the nations themselves, at a moment's notice. In other words, these 1 1 na tions can accept or reject World Court j urisdic tion, as they please. Of the 24 United Nations members which have specifically accepted jurisdiction of the present World Court, the following 1 3 nations also have reservations which enable them, by canceling at will, to accept or rej ect World Court jurisdiction as they please: Australia, Belgium, F.rance, G.r:at Britain, Honduras, India, Japan, Pakistan, Phlhp pines, Portugal, South Africa, Sudan, Turkey. Of these 1 3 nations whose acceptances of World Court jurisdiction are virtually meaningless �e cause they are cancelable on notice, 5 ( Australla, France, India, Portugal, Great Britain ) also have specified reservations far more restrictive on

The Netherland's adherence to World Court j urisdiction reserves to The Netherlands the right to exclude from the court's j urisdiction any dis putes which The Netherlands may wish to settle by means other than by referral to the court. Liberia and Mexico, in adhering to Worid Court j urisdiction, made reservations equivalent to our Connally Reservation.

T hus, of the 3S nations which have "accepted" World Court j urisdiction, 27 filed acceptances which enable them to accept or rej ect the court's jurisdiction as they please. This means that only 8 nations have accepted World Court j urisdiction as compulsory upon them in the settlement of in ternational disputes. Those 8 nations are Free China, Denmark, Finland, Liberia, Mexico, Nor 'way, Sweden, United States. Of these 8, three reserve the right to deny the court jurisdiction in cases that are strictly domestic affairs of those na tions, and reserve the right to determine them selves what is a domestic affair: Liberia, Mexico, and the United States. Liberia, Mexico, and the United States promise to accept World Court j urisdiction until six months after they give notice of cancellation. Den mark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden may cancel their adherences to World Court j urisdiction by giving notice six months before a specified date. Thus, these four Scandinavian nations can escape from the compulsory j urisdiction of the World Court more easily than the United States, Liberia, and Mexico can. Free China is the only nation which adheres to World Court j urisdiction more completely (with

Page 262

The Court We Can Trust

less reservation) than the United States. In presenting these evaluations of World Court j urisdiction over nations of the world, I am not stating my opinions. I am giving an exact analysis of the declarations of acceptance which those na tions filed, and which are published in the 19581959 Yearbook of the International Court of Jus tice, pages 205-227. A few details of my analysis are based on an article in the Summer, 1 963, issue of Law Today, pages 36-39.

sum it up : internationalists who want to repeal the Connally Reservation and permit the World Court to assume unlimited jurisdiction over American affairs, dishonestly state that there are only six nations in the world which make re strictive reservations in their adherence to World Court j urisdiction, and that the United States is one of the six. The truth is, of the 1 10 United Nations members of the World Court, only 8 na tions (the United States and 7 others) have ac cepted World Court jurisdiction as compulsory upon them. Of those 8, four can escape from compulsory jurisdiction more easily than the United States can ; and 2 have accepted World Court j urisdiction on terms virtually identical with ours.

WHO

I S

One

dishonest argument of internationalists who want repeal of the Connally Reservation is that the World Court can be trusted not to assume j urisdiction wrongly or otherwise do anything harmful to the United States. Look at the present World Court. Its 1 5 judges are from Argentina, Australia, Free China, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Pan ama, Peru, Poland, Soviet Union, United Arab Republic, United States. Of the 1 5 nations represented on the court, 7 do not even make a pretense of accepting the court's j urisdiction, to any degree, in any type of case, or under any circumstances : Argentina, Greece, Italy, Peru, Poland , Soviet Union, United Arab Republic. Of the other 8 j udges on the World Court, 5 are from nations which reserve the right to reject or accept the court's j urisdiction as they please : Australia, France, Great Britain, Japan, Panama. Of the 1 5 judges on the present World Court, 2 are from communist countries : Poland and the Soviet Union. The communist from Poland is

DAN

SMO O T ?

in American Civilization.

In 1 942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to ] . Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington ; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 1 95 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts.

Page 263

President of the court, entitled to a double vote in cases when the court is evenly divided, and he is endowed with other exceptional powers. The United States national on the Wodd Court is Dr. Philip C. Jessup (nominated by President Eisenhower in November, 1960) . In the past, Dr. Jessup had official connections with at least 8 no torious communist front organizations, including the most notorious of all, the Institute of Pacific Relations; and Dr. Jessup was closely associated with such known communist agents as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, and Lauchlin Currie. Jessup's record is , in fact, so bad that the Senate, in 1 95 1 , refused to confirm his nomination ( by President Truman ) as Ambas sador to the UN.

acceptance and get us out. It is unlikely that the public will exert enough pressure on the present Senate to accomplish this ; but surely the public will storm the Senate with demands that it defeat the Long Resolution (Senate Resolution 166) in troduced on June 20, 1963, asking for reorganiza tion of the Wodd Court. Until we get out of the court altogether, we should retain the protection of the Connally Res ervation and block all efforts to circumvent it. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) For extensive discussion of the history and meaning of the

World Court, by prominent legal scholars, see the World Court Issue of L.1W Today ( Summer, 1963 ) , official Journal of the Independent Bar Association, 550 Fifth Avenue, New York 36, N. Y . ; also three issues of this Report on "World Court and World law," July and August, 1960.

( 2 ) Article m, Section 2 , Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States says, in part: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

What To Do

It is a pity that the political leadership of the United States has betrayed us into having any thing whatever to do with the Wodd Court. The Senate should repeal the 1946 Morse resolution of W H A T

( 3 ) Rel1iew of the United Nati01lS Chartet·,' A Collection of Docu ments, Senate Document No. 87, January 7, 1954, pp. 1 08-9 ( 4 ) Law Today, Summer, 1963, p. 6, p. 2 1 , p. 1 5 ( 5 ) Speech of U. S . Senator Russell B . long, Congt'essiol1al Record ( daily ) , June 20, 1963, pp. 1 0624-33.

Y O U

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the qu icksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Repm·t was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1 962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue

Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

( Add 2% Sales Tax Page 264

ZIP CODE

STATE in

Texas )

THE )

IJI/II SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 34

(Broadcast 4 1 9)

August 26, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

S ECO N D RO LL CALLS, 1 9 6 3 "I have said I do nol dread industrial corp01'atiom as imtmments of power 10 deslroy Ihis cOllnlry, because Ihere are a thot/sand agencies which can regulate, resu'ain and control them; btll Ihere is a corporation we may all well dread. That corporation is Ihe federal government. "From the aggressions of Ihis corporation, Ihere can be no safely if il is allowed 10 go beyond Ihe well-defined limils Of its power. "I dread nothing so much as Ihe exercise of tmgranled and dOllblftll powers by this go vemmenl. It is, in my opinion, the danger of dangers to the futtlre of Ihis c011111ry. "Let 1tJ be s1lYe to keep it always within its lill7i1s. If Ihis great, ambitious, ever-growing corporalion become oppressive, who shall check it ? If it become wa),ward, who shall control ;I ? If il become unjust, who shall Imst it? "As sentinels 011 Ihe cONntry's walchtower, Senalors, I beseech y01l, watch and guard wilh sleepless dread Ihat corporation which can make all property and righls, all slales and people, and al/ liberl)' and hope its playlhings in an h01.lr, and its victims forever." u . s . Senator Ben j amin Harvey H i l l of Georgi a March 27, 1 878

Herein

are tabulated the second group of roll call votes for the First Session of the 88th Congress : 7 roll calls in the Senate ; 5, in the House. In the May 27, 1 963, Report ( "First Roll Calls, 1963" ) , we tabulated 6 roll calls in the Senate; 7, in the House. Computing percentages on all roll calls tabulated to date ( 1 3 in the Senate; 1 2 in the House) , we find that, in this First Session of the 88th Congress, no United States Senator has a 1 00ro constitutionalist voting score. Only 1 ( Barry Goldwater ) has 90ro or better. Only 1 5 Senators have a constitutionalist voting score of 70ro or better (of these 1 5 , 1 0 are Republicans ) . In the House, 29 Representatives have voted 1 00ro constitutionalist (27 of them Republican) ; 1 62 have 70ro or better (of these 162, 141 are Republicans ) . In a column published July 7, 1 963, Walter Lippmann complained that the 88th Congress, after six months, had not enacted any major legislation ; that the Congress seems "sick," paralyzed, unÂ able to act ; that if the stalemate continues, something must be done about it.

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2. 50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 Â˘ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Page 265

Lippmann (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ) is an idol, high priest, and spokes man of leftwing intellectuals who want a dicta torship of the elite in this country. ( l ) In failing to approve the Kennedy legislative program, the Congress has, thus far, slowed down our ad vance toward such a dictatorship. Thus, constitutional conservatives can reJolce over the condition that causes Walter Lippmann concern. The present Congress ( though the Sen ate voting record is worse than when we reported the "First Roll Calls, 1963" - May 27 ) is slow ing down the socialist revolution. It is still the best Congress we have had for a long time.

Feed Grains, 1 963

April 2 5 , 1963, the House passed HR 4997, extending Kennedy's Feed Grains program for 2 more years. The Senate passed the Bill on May 16, 1963, by a stand of 59 to 4 1 . President Kennedy signed it as PL 88-26, on May 20. This program, giving government control of the feed grains industry, is a backdoor approach to gov ernment control of the livestock industry. The House vote on the Feed Grains program was tabulated in the May 27, 1963, issue of this Re port, "First Roll Calls , 1 963." The Senate vote is recorded below in Column 7, under Senate a C indicating a conservative stand against. -

Silver Legislation

The House vote on this "Silver Bill" was tabu lated in the May 27, 1963, issue of this Report. The Senate vote is shown below in Column 8, under Senate C indicating a conservative vote against. -

Mental Facil ities Act

On May

27, 1963, the Senate, by a stand of 97 to 1 , passed S 1 576 (Kennedy's Mental Facil ities Act of 1963 ) authorizing $848.5 million for a l O-year program of grants to private, state, and public institutions for : ( 1 ) construction of centers connected with uni versities and hospitals for research into the causes of mental retardation, and treatment of such cases ; ( 2 ) construction of community centers for care and treatment of mental patients ; ( 3 ) part of the staffing costs of community mental health centers ; and (4) training of teachers of mentally retarded, mentally ill, and mentally handicapped children. The grants would be on a "matching" basis, with the federal government paying 750/0 in most instances. The lone dissenter was Republican Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska. Senators John G. Tower (Republican, Texas ) and Harry Flood Byrd (Democrat, Virginia ) , did not take a public stand on the bill. The Senate stand is tabulated below in Column 9 under Senate C indicating a conservative vote against. The Bill is still in Committee in the House. -

April 1 0, 1963, the House passed HR 5 389. The Senate passed it on May 2 3, by a stand of 84 to 1 3 ; and the President signed it into law as PL 88-36 on June 4. This Act (eliminating silver backing for 1 and 2-dollar bills, replacing them with Federal Re serve notes which are supposed to have a frac tional gold backing) will cause a heavier drain on our monetary gold l"eserve, already more than totally mortgaged to foreigners.

The Tenth Amendment prohibits the Federal government from exercising powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. The Constitution dele gates no power to the federal government to fi nance mental facilities for private, state, or public institutions. Hence, the Bill ( if ever approved by the Ho s and signed into law ) will violate the Constitution.

Page 266

u e

1 1 under Senate - C indicating a conservative stand against. The Bill is pending in the House.

National Debt Increase

On May

1 5, 1963, the House, by a stand of 2 1 7 to 208, passed HR 6009, authorizing the President to raise the national debt limit, "tem porarily," to 309 billion dollars. The Senate passed the Bill on May 28, by a stand of 7 1 to 28. President Kennedy signed it on May 29 as PL 88-30. The Senate roll call on this measure is tabulated below in Column 1 0, under Senate; the House roll call, in Column 9, under House. C indicates a conservative stand against raising the debt limit. There is growing resistance to this kind of fiscal irresponsibility, and growing resentment of Kennedy administration pressure techniques. The close vote in the House on May 1 5 indicates that the House may refuse another "temporary" rais ing of the debt limit this year.

D isarmament Agency Funds

On June 1 7 , 1963, the Senate, by a stand of 79 to 17, passed S 777, authorizing a $20 million appropriation for the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. This is a 1 00 per cent increase in the Agency's funds. Senator Frank J. Lausche (Democrat, Ohio) , forced an amendment to the Bill to assure that legislation requiring only a majority vote of the Congress could not bind the United States to a disarmament agreement, and further, that any disarmament agreement must be submitted to the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. Even Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright presented an amendment (adopted ) which pre vents the Disarmament Agency from propagan dizing for legislation. Fulbright hinted that this was the result of a "highly organized campaign" urging his Foreign Relations Committee to . ap prove S 777 without amendments. Fulbnght added that "no other legislation or treaty has provoked quite such activity." The Senate stand is recorded below in Column

Export-I mport Bank

On May

1, 1963, the House passed HR 3872 by voice vote. On June 24, the Senate passed a different version of the Bill by a stand of 87 to 1 - Senator Strom Thurmond (Democrat, South Carolina ) , the lone dissenter. The Senate vote is recorded below in Column 1 2 under Senate. If House and Senate cannot eliminate differ ences betvveen their two versions, the Bill cannot become law ; and the Export-Import Bank (which officially expired June 30, 1963 ) will go out of existence. This would close at least one gaping hole through which our tax money pours for unconstitutional purposes. Both Senate and House versions of HR 3872 would extend the Export-Import Bank for an other five years. The House version, however, would end "backdoor" financing of the Bank. Heretofore ( for 28 years ) , the Bank has been authorized to borrow up to 6 billion dollars from the United States Treasury, without any Act of Appropriation by Congress, although the Con stitution ( Article I , Section 9, Clause 7 ) provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. " The Senate version of HR 3872 would extend the authorization for unconstitutional "backdoor" financing of the Export-Import Bank, and raise the limit to 8 billion dollars. On July 9, 1963, the House (by standing vote) unanimously adopted a Resolution instructing House Conferees to insist on the House version of HR 3872 . Hence, outcome of the Bill is uncertain.

Area Redevelopment

On July 12, 1963, the House, by a stand of 2 14 to 209, defeated HR 4996, a Bill to authorize 45 5 . 5 million dollars for extension and expansion of the Area Redevelopment Administration - an

Page 267

unconstitutional program (of federal aid to states and communi ties) initiated by Kennedy in 1961. On June 26, the Senate, by a stand of 69 to 30, approved S 1 1 63 , which is substantially the same as HR 4996. The House has not yet acted on the Senate Bill, and the outcome of Area Rede velopment legislation is uncertain. The Senate vote is recorded below in Column 13, under Sen ate; the House vote, in Column 1 2, under House. C indicates a conservative vote against.

Supplemental Appropriations

On May

14, 1963, the House, by a stand of 2 54 to 143, passed HR 5 5 17, appropriating $1 ,467,430,49 1.00 to pay, for various federal agencies, expenditures during fiscal 1963 in ex cess of what was budgeted and appropriated for those agencies. The Senate passed HR 5 5 17 by voice vote on May 1 5 , and the President signed it as Public Law 88-25 on May 1 7. The House vote is tabulated below in Column 8 , under Hottse C indicating a conservative vote against. -

When federal agencies can spend more than authorized and then get supplemental appropria tions to meet their illegal deficits, "budget-cut ting" and "congressional control of spending" be come farcical. The need for some of the expenditures involved can be illustrated by a Terrell, Texas, story. The Terrell school system wanted federal money for a new auditorium. U. S. Representative Ray Rob erts (Democrat ) talked to U. S. Labor Depart ment officials, who conducted an employment sur vey and declared Terrell a "depressed area," en titled to Accelerated Public Works funds. The Accelerated Public Works program is among those requiring supplemental appropriations be cause more was spent than authorized in 1963. Terrell is enjoying booming prosperity. Its citi zens were outraged at having it declared a "de pressed area." Meanwhile, school officials had de cided they did not want federal money for an auditorium. But once the wheels of bureaucracy start moving, they cannot be stopped. Apparently, the Labor Department cannot unclassify Terrell

as a depressed area, unless Terrell takes Acceler ated Public Works funds.

Powel l 's I LO Trip

A dam

Clayton Powell is a U. S. Representa ti ve from New York (Democrat) and also pastor �f the largest negro church in the world (Bap tIst) . Powell is notorious for his associations with more than 100 communist and communist front activities, and for his tours of foreign nightclubs, at taxpayers' expense, with his "secretaries."

�n May 14, 1963, the House refused to appro pnate money to send Powell (and others) to a conference of the International Labor Organiza tion in Geneva. The State Department thereupon announced that it would use its tax money to send Powell to Geneva. Not to be outdone , the House, on May 29 ( by a stand of 277 to 5 2 ) . authonzed money for Powell's trip. This House vote is tabulated below in Column 10 , under House C indicating a conservative vote against. -

Reorganization Plans

June 4, 1963, the House, by a stand of 2 3 3 to 1 82, amended the Reorganization Act of 1949 , to prohibit the President from creating new executive departments by merely "reorganizing" the executive establishment. By this means Eisenhower created the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 195 3 ; by this same means Kennedy has been trying to create a new Department of Urban Affairs. The House vote is tabulated below in Column 1 1 , under House C indicating a conservative stand for the adopted amendment to the Reorgan ization Act. This measure is pending in the Sen ate, its outcome uncertain. -

FOOTNOTE ( 1 ) The Elite and the Elertorate-Is GOtlemmellt by the People Possible? by U. S. Senators Joseph S. Clark ( Democrat, Penn· s� lvania ) and J. Will iam Fulbright ( Democrat, Arkansas ) ; PIerre Mendes·France, Robert C. Weaver, and others. The Fund for the Republ ic. Inc.. 1963. For a discussion of this publica· tion, the American communist party's May, 1963, policy state· ment, and other materials on this subject, see this Report, "The Edifice of liberty," July 22, 1963.

Page 268

"G i l

ROLL indicates a conservative stand.

C ALL

An ilL" indicates a liberal stand.

VOTES An

II 011

indicates that the legis lator did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E

Column #7 - - Feed Grains Act, HR 4 9 9 7 ; #8 - - Repeal of 1 9 34 Silver Purchase Act and Silver-backed Dollar s , HR 5 3 8 9 ; #9 - - Mental Facilities Act, S 1 57 6 ; # 1 0 - - National Debt Increa s e , HR 6 0 0 9 ; # 1 1 - - Disarmament Agency Funds , S 7 7 7 ; # 1 2 -- Export-Import Bank extension and funds , HR 3 8 7 2 ; # 1 3 - - Area Redevelopment Act, S 1 1 6 3 8

A LA BAMA Hill, Lister (D) Sparkman, John J . (D) A LASKA Bartlett, E . L. (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) ARIZONA Goldwat e r , Barry (R) Hayden, C arl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J: William (D) McClellan, John L. (D) CALIFORNIA Engle, Clair (D) Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) C OLORADO Allott, Gordon (R) Dominick, Peter H. (R) C ONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J. (D) Ribicoff, Abraham A. (D) DELAWARE Boggs , J. Caleb (R) Wi lliams , John J. (R) FLORIDA Holland, Spes sard L. (D) Smathers , George A. (D) GEORGIA Russ ell, Richard B . (D) Talmadg e , Herman E. (D) HAWAII Fong , Hiram L. (R ) Inouy e , Daniel K . (D) IDAHO �rch, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B. (R) ILLIN OIS Dirksen, Everett M . (R) Douglas , Paul H. (D) INDIANA Bayh, Birch (D) Hartke , R. Vance (D) IOWA -r:IT'c kenlooper, Bourke B. (R) Miller , Jack (R) KANSAS -carTs on , Frank (R ) Pearson , James B . (R ) KENTUCKY Cooper, John Sherman (R ) Morton, Thruston B . (R) LOUISIANA Ellende r , Allen J . (D) Long, Rus s ell B. (D) MAINE �ki e , E dmund S. (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Beall, J. Glenn (R) Brewster, Daniel B . (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M . (D) Saltonstall , Lever ett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A . (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA Humphrey , Hubert H . (D) McCarthy, Eugene J. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eas tland, James O. (D) Stennis , John (D) MISSOURI Long, Edward V . (D) Symington, Stuart (D)

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

L C

C C

L L

L C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

o o o

C L

MONTANA Mansfield, Michael J. (D) Metcalf, Lee (D) NE BRASKA Curti s , Carl T. (R) Hruska, Roman L. (R) NEVADA Bibl e , Alan (D) Cannon, Howard W . (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE C otton, Norris (R) McIntyre, Thomas J . (D) NEW JERS E Y Cas e , Clifford P . (R) Williams , Harrison A . , Jr. (D) N E W MEXICO Anderson, Clinton P. (D) Mechem, Edwin L. (R) NEW YORK Javits , Jacob K. (R) Keating, Kenneth B . (R) NORTH CAROLINA Ervin, Sam J . , J r . (D) Jordan, B. Everett (D) NORTH DAKOTA Burdick, Quentin N . (D) Young, Milton R. (R) OHIO ---r:a u sche , Frank J. (D) Y oung, Stephen M. (D) OKLAHOMA Edmondson, J. Howard (D) Monroney, A. S. (Mike) (D) OREGON Mor s e , Wayne (D) Neuberger , Maurine B. (D) PENNSYLVANIA C lark, Jos eph S . , J r . (D) Scott , Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastore , John O. (D) Pell, C laiborne (D) SOUTH CA ROLINA Johnston, Olin D. (D) Thurmond, Strom (D) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern, George (D) Mundt , Karl E. (R) TENNESSEE Gor e , Albert (D) Kefauver, Estes (D) TEXAS ---:rowe r , John (R) Yarborough, Ralph W. (D) UTAH �nnett , Wallace F. (R) Mos s , Frank E. (D) VERMONT Aiken, George D. (R) Prouty, Winston L. (R) VIRGINIA Byrd, Harry Flood (D) Robertson, A . Willis (D) WASHINGTON Jackson, Henry M . (D) Magnuson, Warren G. (D) WEST VIRGINIA Byrd , Robert C . (D) Randolph, Jennings (D) WISCONSIN Nelson, Gaylord A. (D) Proxmir e , William (D) W YOMING McGee, Gale W. (D) Simpson, Milward L . (R)

Page 269

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C O

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

HOUS E Column H8 - - Supplemental Appropriations for 1 9 6 3 , HR 5 5 1 7 ; #9 - - National Debt Inc r e as e , HR 6 0 0 9 ; # 1 0 - - L L . O . trip funds for Adam Clayton Powell, H Res 3 6 8 ; # 1 1 - - Reor ganization Plans, executive department ban, HR 349 6 ; # 1 2 - - Area Redevelopment Act, HR 4 9 9 6 8

ALABAMA Andrews , George W . (D) Elliott, Carl (D) Grant, George M. (D) Huddleston, George, J r . (D) Jone s , Robert E . (D) Rains , Albert (D) Roberts , Kenneth A. (D) Selden, Armistead 1 . , J r . (D) A LASKA Rivers , Ralph J . (D) ARIZONA Rhodes , John J. (R) Senn e r , George F . , J r . (D) Udall, Morris K. (D) ARKANSAS Gathings , E. C . (D) Harri s , Oren (D) Mill s , Wilbur D. (D) Trimble , James W . (D) CALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F . , J r . (R) Bell, Alphonzo E . , J r . (R) Brown, George E . , J r . (D) Burkhalt e r , Everett G. (D) Cameron, Ronald B. (D) C laus en , Don H . (R) Cohelan, Jeffery (D) Corman, James C. (D) Edwards , W. Donlon (D) Gubs e r , Charles S. (R) Hagen, Harlan (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins , Augustus F. (D) Holifield, Chet (D) Hosmer , C raig (R) Johnson, Harold T. (D) King , C ecil R. (D) Leggett , Robert L. (D) Lipscomb, Glenard P. (R) Mailliard, William S. (R) Martin, Minor C . (R) McFall, John J. (D) Mill e r , George P. (D) Mos s , John E. (D) Roosevelt , James (D) Roybal, Edward R. (D) Shelley, John F. (D) Sheppard, Harry R. (D) Sisk, B. F. (D) Smith, H. Allen (R) Talc ott , Burt L . (R) Teague , Charles M . (R) Utt, James B. (R) Van Deerlin, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson, Charles H. (D) Young e r , J . Arthur (R) C OLORADO Aspinall, Wayne N . (D) Brotzman, Donald G. (R ) Chenoweth, J. Edgar (R) Roge r s , Byron G . (D) C ONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q. (D) Giaimo, Robert N. (D) Grabowski, Bernard P . (D) Monagan, John S . (D) St . Ong e , William (D) Sibal, Abner W . (R) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , Jr . (D) FLORIDA Renne.tt . Charles E . (D) Cramer , William C. (R) Fascell, Dante B . (D) Fuqua, Don (D)

L L L L L

C L

C L C C

L L

C L L L L

C L C C L L L C

C L L

L L

C L L

L L L L

C L L L

C C C L

C L L L

L C L L L L L L

C C L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

L L L

C C L L L

L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C L C

C C L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L .L C C C C L C L C L C C L

C L

L L C L L L C L C L L L L L L

L C C L C L C L C

L C C L

o o

L L L L L L L

L L L L

L L L C L L L L L o

L L L L L L o

o o o

L L L

L C C L

L L L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L L C

L C L

L C L L

C C L L

L C L C

C C L C

L C

FLORIDA (cont 'd) Gibbons , Sam M. (D) Gurney, Edward J. (R) Haley, James A. (D) Herlong , A. Sydney, Jr. (D) Matthews , D . R. (D) Pepper , Claude (D) Roge rs , Paul G. (D) Sike s , Robert L. F. (D) GEORGIA Davis , John W . (D) Flynt , John J . , Jr. (D) Forrester , E . L . (D) Hagan, G . Elliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Pilcher , J. L. (D) Stephen s , Robert G . , J r . (D) Tuten, J. Rus s ell (D) Vinson, Carl (D) W e ltne r , Charles L. (D) HAWAII ----c;rrr,- Thomas P. (D) Matsunaga, Spark M. (D) IDAHO ï¿½ding , Ralph R. (D) Whit e , Compton 1 . , Jr . (D) I L LINOIS Anderson, John B. (R) A r ends , Leslie C . (R) Collier , Harold R. (R) Dawson, William L. (D) De rwinski , Edward J. (R) Findley, Paul (R) Finnegan, Edward R. (D) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Hoffman, Elmer J. (R) Kluczynski, John C. (D) Libonat i , Roland V. (D) McC lor y , Robert (R) McLoskey, Robert T. (R) Miche l , Robert H. (R) Murphy, William T . (D) O ' Brien, Thomas J. (D) O 'Hara , Barratt (D) Pric e , Melvin (D) Pucinski , Roman C. (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Rostenkowski , Dani el (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) Shipley, George E . (D) Springer, William L. (R) INDIANA Adai r , E. Ross (R) Bradema s , John (D) Bray, William G. (R) Bruc e , Donald C . (R) Denton, Winfield K . (D) Halleck, Charles A . (R) Harvey, Ralph (R) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) Wilson, Earl (R) IOWA --"Bromwell, James E . (R) Gros s , H. R . (R) Hoeven, Charles B . (R) Jensen, Ben F . (R) Kyl, John H . (R ) Schweng el , F r ed (R) Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS Avery, William H. (R) Dol e , Robert (R ) Ellsworth, Robert F . (K) Shriver , Garner E . (R) Skubitz, Joe (R)

Page 270

L C C C L L L L

L C C L L L C L

L C C L L

L L

o o

C L o o o

L C C C C L C C

C C C C C L L L

C C

L L C L C L L L L

L L L L

L L L C L L L

L L L

C C C C C L L

L L

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C L C L C

L L

C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C L C

o o

o o o

L o

L L L

o o o

o o

L L L L L L L L

o L

C L L C L C C L C L L

C C C

C C L

C C C C C C L

C C L L L L L

C C

C C L C C L C L C

L L C

L L L L L L

L L

C L C

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C L C L C

C L C C L C C L C L C

C L L C L C C L C L C

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C

C L

C C C C C C L

L C

C C

L L

C C

c c c

KENTUCKY Chelf, Frank (D) Natcher, William H. (D) Perkin s , Carl D . (D) Siler , Eugene (R) Snyder, M. G . (R) Stubblefi eld, Frank A. (D) Watts , John C. (D) LOUISIANA Boggs , Hale (D) Hebert, F. Edward (D) Long , Gillis W. (D) Morrison, Jame s H. (D) P a s s man, Otto E . (D) Thompson, T. A s hton (D) W aggonner , Joe D. , J r . (D) Willi s , Edwin E . (D) MAINE McIntire, Clifford G . (R) Tupp e r , Stanley R . (R) MARYLAND Fallon, George H . (D) Friedel, Samuel N . (D) Garmatz, Edward A. (D) Lankford, Richard E . (D) Long, Clarence D. (D) Mathia s , Charles McC . , Jr . (R) Morton, Rogers C . B . (R) Sickle s , Car lton R. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Bat e s , William H. (R) Boland, Edward P. (D) Burke , James A . (D) C onte , Silvio O. (R) Donohue, Harold D. (D) Keith , Hastings (R) Macdonald, Torbert H. (D) McC ormack , John W . (D) Martin, Jos eph W . , J r . (R) M o rs e , F . Bradford (R) O ' Neill, Thomas P . , J r . (D) Philbin, Philip J . (D) MICHIGAN Bennett, John B. (R) Broomfield, William S . (R) C ederberg, Elford A . (R) Chamberlain, Charles E . (R) Diggs , Charles C . , J r . (D) Dingell, John D. (D) Ford, Gerald R . , J r . ( R ) Griffin, Robert P . (R) Griffiths, Martha W . (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Johansen, August E . (R) Knox, Victor A . (R) Lesinski , John (D) Meader , George (R) Nedzi, Lucien N . (D) O 'Hara, James G. (D) Ryan, Harold M . (D) Staebler, Neil (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik, John A. (D) Fras e r , Donald M . (D) Karth, Joseph E . (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor , Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G . (D) Qui e , Albert H . (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colme r , William M . (D) Whitten, Jamie L . (D) Williams, John Bell (D) Winstead, Arthur (D) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D) Cannon, C larenc e (D) Curtis , Thomas B . (R) Hal l , Durward G. (R) Hull, W . R . , J r . (D) Ichord, Richard (D)

L L L L C L L

L L L C C L L

L L L L L L

L L L L C o

C L

C C

L L L

L L C L

L C C L

L L L L L

L C

C L

L L L o o

L L o

L L o o o

L C L C C L L L

L L L L C L L

C C L C C C C

L C L L C L C L

C C

C L

L L L L L C

L L

L L L L L C L L

C L L C L C L

L L L L

C L L L L C L

C L L C L C L

L L

L C L L

C C L L

C L L

C C C C

L L L L

o L

o o

L L

C C L C C C C L C L L L L

C C C C L L C C L C C C C L C L L L L

L C C C L L C C L C C C C L C L L L L

L L L C C C L C

L L

C C C C C

C C C C

C C C C C

L C C C L L

L L C C C L

L C C C C L

L L

L C C C L L C C

L C C C

L L L L L

C C L L C C L L

L L o

L o

C o o

L o o a

L a

L L C L o

L L

L L C L o

MISSOURI (cont'd) Jone s , Paul C. (D) Karsten, Frank M. (D) Randall, William J . (D) Sullivan, Leonor K. (D) MONTANA Battin, James F. (R) Olsen, Arnold (D) NEBRASKA Beermann, Ralph F . (R) Cunningham, Glenn ( R ) Martin, Dave (R) NEVADA Baring, Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE C leveland, James C . (R) Wyman, Louis C. ( R ) NEW JERSEY Auchinclos s , James C . (R) Cahill , William T. (R) Daniels , Dominick V. (D) Dwyer , Florence P. (R) Frelinghuys en, Peter, J r . (R) Gallagh e r , Cornelius E . (D) Glenn, Milton W. (R) Joelson, Charles S. (D) Mini s h , Jos eph G . (D) Osmers , Frank C . , J r . (R) Patten, Edward J . , Jr . (D) Rodino, Peter W . , J r . (D) Thompson, Frank, Jr . (D) Wallhaus e r , George M . (R) Widnall, William B. (R) NEW MEXICO Montoya , Jos eph M. (D) Morris , Thomas G . (D) NEW YORK Addabbo, Jos eph P . (D) Barry, Robert R. (R) Becke r , Frank J. (R) Buckley, Charles A. (D) C a r e y , Hugh L . (D) C eller , Emanuel (D) Delaney, James J. (D) Derounian, Stephen B. (R) Dulski, Thaddeus J. (D) Farbstein, Leonard (D) Fino , Paul A . (R) Gilbert, Jacob H. (D) Goodell, Charles E. (R) Grover, James R . , Jr. (R) Halpern, Seymour (R) Healey, James C . (D) Horton, Frank J. (R) Kelly, Edna F . (D) Keogh, Eugene J. (D) Kilburn, C larence E . (R) King, Carleton J. (R) Lindsay, John V. (R) Mill e r , William E. (R) Mult e r , Abraham J. (D) Murphy, John M. (D) O ' Brien, Leo W. (D) Ostertag, Harold C. (R) Pike , Otis G . (D) Pillion, John R . (R) Pirnie , Alexander (R) Powell, Adam C . (D) Reid, Ogden R. (R) Riehlman, R . Walter (R) Robi s o n , Howard W . (R) Rooney, John J . (D) Rosenthal, Benjamin S. (D) Ryan, William Fitts (D) S t . George , Katharine (R) Stratton, Samuel S. (D) Wharton, J. Ernest (R) Wydl e r , John W. (R) NOR TH CAROLINA Bonn e r , Herbert C. (D) Broyhil l , James T. (R) Cooley, Harold D . (D) Fountain, L. H. (D) Henderson, David N. (D)

Page 271

I I

L L

L L L

C L L L

C L

C C C

C L

C C C

L C

C C

C L L L L L L L L C L L L L L

C L C C L C L L C L L L C C

C C L C C L L L C L L L C C

C C L C C L L L L C L L L C C

L L

L C C L L L L C L L L L C C L

L C C L L L L C L L C L C C C L C L L C C C C L L L C L C C L C C C L L L C L C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L

L C C L L L L C L L C L C C L L C L L C C L C L L L C L C C L C C C L L L

L C C L L L L C L L L L C C L L C L L C C C

C L L C C L C L L a c

L C C a c

C C L L L C L C C L C o

L L

L C L L L

o o

L o

L L L o

L L L L o

L L L L L L L o

L L L L L o

L o

L a

L o

L L L L L L o

L L L L C o

L L L C C C C L C C C L

L C C

L L C L C C

L C C C C

L C C C L

NORTH CAROLINA (con 't) Jona s , Charles Raper (R) Kornegay, Horace R. (D) Lennon, Alton (D) Scott, Ralph J. (D) Taylo r , Roy A. (D) Whitene r , Basil L . (D) NORTH DAKOTA Nygaard, Hjalmar C . ( R ) Short, Don L . ( R ) OHIO --;;:be l e , Horner E . (R) A s hbrook, John M. (R) A shle y , Thomas L. (D) A yr e s , William H. (R) Betts , Jackson E. (R) Bolton, Frances P. (R) Bolton, Oliver P. (R) Bow, Frank T. (R) Brown, C larence J . (R) C lancy, Donald D . (R) Devine, Samuel L . (R) Feighan, Michael A. (D) Harsha, William H . , Jr. ( R ) Hays , Wayne L . (D) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta, Delbert L. (R) McCulloch, W illiam M. (R) Minshall, William E . (R) Mosher , Charles A. (R) Rich, Carl W. (R) Schenck, Paul F. (R) Secrest, Robert T. (D) Taft, Robert, Jr. (R) Vanik, Charles A. (D) OKLAHOMA A lbert, Carl (D) Belche r , Page (R) Edmondson, E d (D) Jarman, John (D) Steed, Torn (D) Wickersham, Victor (D) OREGON Duncan, Robert B . (D) Green, Edith (D) Norblad, Walter (R) Ullman, Al (D) PENNSY LVANIA Barr ett , William A . (D) Byrne , James A . (D) C lark, Frank M . (D) C orbett, Robert J. (R) Curtin, Willard S. (R) Dague, Paul B. (R) Dent, John H. (D) Flood, Daniel J. (D) Fulton, James G . (R) Gavin, Leon H. (R) Goodling, George A . (R) Green, William J . , Jr. (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D) Kunkel, John C . (R) M c Dade , Jos eph M. (R) Milliken, William H . , Jr . (R) Moorehead, William S. (D) Morgan , Thomas E . (D) Nix, Robert N. C. (D) Rhod e s , George M. (D) Saylor, John P. (R) Schneebeli, Herman T. (R) Schweiker, Richard S. (R) Toll, Herman (D) W eave r , James D . (R) Whalley, J . Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty, John E . (D) St. Germain, Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROLINA A s hmore, Rul.H:: r t T. (D) Dorn, W . J. B r yan (D) Hemphill, Robert W. (D) McMillan, John L. (D)

C L C

L C C

C C C

C C

L C

C C

C C L C C C C L C C C L C L L C C C C C C L C L

C C L C C C C C C C C L C L L C C C C C C C C L

C C L L L L L

C C L C C C C C C C C L C L L C C C C C C L C L

C C L

C C L C L

L C

L C L L L L

L L

L C L C L L

C L L

o o

L L L L L C L o

C L L

L C L L

L C L L L L L C L L L L L L

o o

L L L o

C L

o L

C L

L L

L L L

C C C C C C C L L L L C C C

L L C L

L L L L

L L C L

L L L C C C L L C C C L L C C C L L L L C C C L C C

L L L L C C L

L L L C C C L L C C C L L C C C L L L L C C C L C C

L L L L C C L L L C C L L C L C L L L L L C C L C L

L L

C C L C

L L L L L

L L L C C L

C L

C L L

o o

SOUTH CAROLINA (cont 'd) Rive r s , L. M endel (D) Watson, Albert W. (D) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E . Y . (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Bake r , Howard H. (R) Bas s , Ross (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Davi s , Clifford (D) Ever ett , Robert A. (D) Evins , Joe L. (D) Fulton, Richard (D) Murray , Torn (D) Quillen, James H. (R) TEXAS �r , Bruce (R) Beckworth, Lindley (D) Brooks , Jack (D) Bur l e s on , Omar (D) C a s e y , Robert R. (D) Dowdy, John (D) Fishe r , O . Clark (D) Foreman, E d (R) Gonzale z , Henry B. (D) Kilgor e , Joe M. (D) Mahon, George H. (D) Patman, W right (D) Poage , William R . (D) Pool, Joe (D) Purcell , Graham (D) Roberts , Ray (D) Roge r s , Walter (D) Teague , Olin E. (D) Thoma s , Albert (D) Thompson, C lark W . (D) Thornberry, Homer (D) W right, James C . (D) Young, John (D) UTAH �rton, Laurence J. (R) Lloyd, She rman P . (R) VERMONT Stafford, Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt , Watkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joel T. (R) Downing, Thomas N. (D) Gar y, J. Vaughan (D) Hardy. Porter, Jr. (D) J enning s , W. Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 . , Jr. (D) Poff, Richard H . (R) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck , William M. (D) WASHINGTON Hans en, Julia B. (D) Horan, Walt (R) May, Catherine (R) Pelly, Thomas M. (R) Stinson, K. W illiam (R) Tollefson, Thor C. (R) W e stland, Jack (R) WEST VIRGINIA Hechle r , Ken (D) K e e , Elizabeth (D) Moor e , Arch A . , J r . (R) Slack, John M . , Jr. (D) Stagger s , Harley O . (D) WISCONSIN Byrne s , John W . (R) Johnson, Lester R. (D) Kastenm e i e r , Robert W. (D) Laird, Me lvin R. (R) O 'Konski, Alvin E. ( R ) Reus s , H e n r y S . ( D ) Schadeberg, Henry C . ( R ) Thomson, Vernon W . ( R ) V a n Pelt , William K . (R) Z ablocki , Clement J. (D) W YOMING Harrison, William Henry (R)

Page 272

L L

L C

C C

L L C L L L L L C

C L C L L L L L C

L L L

L L C C L L L C C

C L L L L L C C L L L L L C L L L L L

C L L L L

C C L C

L L L

C C L C C C C C L C L L L C L L L L L L L L L

C C C L C C L C C C C C C L L L C

L C

C C

C C C L L L L L C

o o

C C

C L C L L C C

C L L C C C C C L C C L C C C C C L L L L L L

C C

C C L L L L C C C C

C C L L L L L L L C

C C C L L

C C C C C C C C C C

L C C C C

L L L

L C C C C

L L C L L

C L L C L L

C L L C

L C C

o C

C o

L C C C C C L

L L L

L C L L L L L C

o o

L L L L L L L

L L L

o L

C C

L C C C C C C

L L C C L

L L C

C L L C L L C C

L o C

THE )

IJtlll SmootRepoft Vol. 9, No. 35

(Broadcast 420)

September 2, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

STO P W I T H H O L D I N G

O n March 3,

1910, the Virginia Legislature debated the pending sixteenth constitutional amend ment - which would allow the federal government to lay an unrestricted direct tax on the people. A resolution had been passed by the Sixty-first Congress (on July 12, 1 909 ) to submit the Sixteenth Amendment to the states for ratification. Richard E. Byrd (Speaker of the Virginia House of Dele gates, and father of the present Senator Harry F. Byrd ) predicted that a federal income tax would become the destroyer of liberty and constitutional government. He said : "The 1 6th Amendment means that the state must give up legitimate and long established sources of revenue and yield it to the Federal Government.

"It means that the state actually invites the Federal Government to invade its territory . . . and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights . . . . A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business . . . . "Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. "An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand, the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor. "When the Federal government gets a strangle hold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commercial life of the states."( l )

Virginia refused to ratify the Amendment; but three-fourths of the states did ; and, on February 2 5 , 1 9 1 3, the Sixteenth Amendment was formally proclaimed a part of the Constitution. The American constitutional system was thereby radically altered. The federal government was no longer a limited government : it now had limitle ss access to the wealth of the people. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 14; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 644 1 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

Page 273

The Roosevelt Years

N ot until 20 years after the Income Tax Amendment was adopted did collectivists fully realize that they had acquired the means of con verting the federal government into an all-power ful dictatorship. They needed a leader who could win support by convincing the people that collec tivist policies would promote the general welfare. Franklin D. Roosevelt was such a leader. The New Deal was not one year old, however, before the people began to realize that they themselves, and not "someone else," were being taxed for benefits which sounded good in a Fireside Chat but seemed a doubtful bargain when received. Roosevelt was quick to realize that if you im pose too much tax on the people to pay for the "benefits" promised, they tend to complain about the tax and forget the "benefits." In an effort to safeguard the government's abil ity to offer more benefits without increased taxa tion, Roosevelt took two bold steps. He repudi ated the government's pledge to redeem its own currency in gold, and made the people turn in their gold for a cheapened paper currency (vast quantities of which were pumped into the bank ing system ) ; and he instituted an expedient sys tem of deficit financing - borrowing from future generations to pay for handouts to present voters. Deficit financing causes inflation. When it starts, inflation often seems to help the economy. Money is cheaper and more abundant ; hence, peo ple spend it more freely, thus stimulating eco nomic activity. But, before long, older people living on pensions or fixed incomes and people living on salaries which were formerly adequate - all begin to suffer, because their incomes will not buy as much as before. Their dollars have been cheapened by inflation. When this happened, New Deal politicians be gan to lose popularity they had bought by deficit financing to give the people benefits which were supposed to be paid for by someone else. Politi cians, trying to appease voters, enacted minimum-

wage laws, forcing some employers to pay wages above the free-market level. They gave interna tional unions the sanction of law to force industry wide wage raises. Such measures did give tem porary relief to some voters who had been hurt by inflation. The relief vanished, however, and conditions grew worse when prices rose (as they had to do ) to keep pace with wages which gov ernment was forcing upward.

T he squandering of public

funds, which def icit financing had, for a while, made painless, began to hurt worse than taxes. Politicians were forced to impose heavier taxes. Soon, people be gan to realize that free benefits from government were very expensive indeed, because federal taxes were costing more than food, clothing, or other essentials of life. How can you keep taxpayers from rebelling when taxes hit so hard ? One way is to take their money away from them a little at a time, before they ever get their hands on it. Never having possessed or even seen the money, many taxpayers never realize that it actually is taken away from them. In 1 941, the late Beardsley Ruml (a New Deal economist) devised such a plan - the withhold ing tax, a pay-as-you-go system which forces the employer to collect income tax before the em ployee gets his salary check. ( 2 ) President Roosevelt and his Secretary of the Treasury ( Henry Morgenthau) were delighted with the Ruml plan. It seemed a perfect way to eliminate popular complaints against high and rising taxes : make tax-paying so painless that tax payers would not realize their taxes were high and rising. There was a flaw in the scheme : it is uncon stitutional. The Thirteenth Amendment says : "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ex cept as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist with in the United States . . . . "

Slavet·y and involuntary servitude mean, essen tially, forcing someone, against his will, to work or serve.

Page 274

When an employer is forced to serve as tax col lector and bookkeeper for the government - with out payment for his time and expense, and under threat of severe penalty for error in observing com plicated and profuse administrative rules and re quirements - most certainly involuntary servitude has been imposed on him by his own government.

cent Victory Tax on gross incomes - to be with held from salaries. The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 (June 9, 1 943 ) absorbed the temporary withholding provision for the Victory Tax, making it per manent and applicable to all federal tax on per sonal incomes. (3)

The Fifth Amendment says : ". . . nor shall any person be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . "

If you compel employers to deduct money from employees' pay checks for taxes that are not due when the deductions are made; and if (as is the case with more than half of all wage earners ) you compel the deduction of more money than the employee will owe when his taxes are due - you certainly are depriving those employees of their property (money) , without due process of law. Roosevelt, Morgenthau , and Ruml - anticipat ing that Congress might reject a taxing scheme which did such violence to our Constitution appointed a group of experts (76 learned econo mists ) to prepare a study which would show the men of Congress that a withholding tax is neces sary in the modern world, regardless of what the Constitution provides. New Deal economists presented such a study in the spring of 194 1 , but the House Ways and Means Committee rejected the withholding tax plan anyway. In November, 1 94 1 , Secretary Morgenthau made a direct plea to the Ways and Means Com mittee for a 'withholding tax. Again the Com mittee refused ; but in December, 1 94 1 , the United States went to war ; and President Roosevelt had an "emergency" with which to intimidate Congress. Early in 1942, Morgenthau again asked Con gress for a withholding law. This time, he asked only for a "war emergency" measure - not a permanent withholding tax system. He called it a "Victory Tax," a temporary sys tem to help the war effort. Th is approach was successful . The Revenue Act of 1942 (October 2 1 , 1942 ) authorized a five per-

The Hand from Washington

November, 1959 , the House Ways and Means Committee (tax-writing committee of Con gress ) began formal hearings on the problem of revising our federal taxing system. Witnesses from labor unions, universities, businesses and govern mental agencies generally agreed that the system is an appalling mess of complicated inequities ; that it stifles initiative, wastes human energy and resources, distorts the national economy, and has a corrupting and debasing effect on taxpayers. As the great Virginian anticipated in 1910 , that Hand from Washington now reaches deep into every pocket in the nation. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives has descended up on the states to pre-empt their legitimate sources of revenue, to menace and blackmail some tax payers, grant favors to others, and dictate forms of �ookkeeping. Through the corrupt and despoiling mcome tax system, the federal government, as was predicted 5 3 years ago, has a strangle hold on the economy. Yet, all efforts at reform fail, or mis carry. This is inevitable, because the tug of spe cial interests makes reform impossible.

R emember

the books which Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower wrote ? Other people pay ordinary income tax on the proceeds of what they write. Sometimes a writer struggles for years, los ing money on every book, eating up his savings ; and then, one year, a book succeeds and earns $ 1 00,000.00. The government takes most of it for income tax : no allowance for years of loss be hind, or for lean years ahead. When Truman and Eisenhower wrote books that earned hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Internal Revenue Service gave special dispensation.

Page 275

Eisenhower and Truman were permitted to report earnings on their books not as ordinary income but as capital gains. The legal pretext ? Internal Revenue ruled that Truman and Eisenhower were not professional writers : they were amateurs. In 1 959, the Internal Revenue Service made a deal which enabled Walter Reuther to settle a thirty-one thousand dollar federal tax claim for six hundred and fifteen dollars - and enabled 526 other officers of the UAW-CIO to settle more than three million dollars in federal tax claims for less than one hundred thousand dollars. (4) Such favoritism for special taxpayers obviously places a heavier burden on all other taxpayers. Yet, there was hardly a ripple of protest about the cases involving Truman, Eisenhower, and Wal ter Reuther. Such cases merely stimulate more ac tivity by other special persons and special interest groups to get special consideration for themselves. Thus , powerful and influential people and groups in our society develop a vested interest in the corrupt and inequitable system: if they can get special favors, they will be all right - and the tax collectors can get what they demand from others. Why do the others put up with it ? Most of the federal income tax is collected through withholding. Hence most federal taxpayers are relatively indifferent about taxes. Withholding conceals the fact that they are paying for favorit ism, extravagance, waste, corruption, and subsidies to foreign dictators.

Withhold ing is the Keystone

T hough

clearly unconstitutional and though originally adopted as a temporary �merge�cy measure during World War II, the wlthholdmg law has remained a permanent, and essential, fea ture of the federal income tax system. It is the key stone which keeps the system from collapsing. It is the perfect means of keeping taxpayers com placent and indifferent about taxes. A man does not need to save and manage so that, at the end of the year, he can give govern ment 2 50/0 or 400/0 or 5 00/0 of his earnings for the

whole year. All of that has been done by the em ployer, at the employer'S expense. The average worker pays little attention to tax deductions from his paycheck. He adjusts himself to his take-home pay. If that sum is insufficient, he and his family resent the employer, not government. They do not demand lower taxes : they demand higher wages. Not only the expense, but the stigma, of tax collecting is placed on employers, rather than on government. The withholding tax system can, indeed, make taxes pleasant. Internal Revenue Service schedules require employers to deduct ( more often than not ) more taxes than the employee owes. At the end of the year, government sends the employee a rebate - a bonus, bigger, in millions of cases, than any bonus the employer can give. Thus, beneficent government gives back to workers a portion of the money which employers take away from them.

T hroughout the United States, employers have, for years, tried to find some means of showing employees how they are being robbed by federal taxes. Some employers distribute special notices with all pay checks, calling specific attention to how much the federal government has compelled the employer to take away from the employees, and enumerating some of the preposterous and harm ful federal programs that the employees' money is paying for. Some employers pay employees their full wages at one window, requiring them to go to another window and pay back the amount which the fed eral tax collectors demand as their share of every man's wages. A. G. Heinsohn, Jr., owner and manager of Cherokee Textile Mills in Sevierville, Tennessee, recently used a novel means of dra�atizing the tax load which his employees are carrymg. On one pay day at Cherokee, each employee was given a plastic bag containing, in silver dollars, the amount taken out of his check that day for federal taxes. The employee could take the money home and spend it, but had to pay it back next pay day.

Page 276

All such efforts do some good, but not enough. When all wage earners are allowed to collect their full wages throughout the year and are then re quired, at the end of the year, to pay their own federal income tax in one sum - then, and only then, will all wage earners fully realize what the federal tax collectors are doing to them. A man who makes $5000.00 a year and has two deductions for dependents can adjust himself to $1 2.80 withheld for federal income tax each week. But let him take all of his earnings home each week; and then, at the end of the year, let him face the problem of raising $665 .60 to pay his federal income tax. This would create chaos for the tax collectors and produce more tax delin quencies than the collectors could count. It would create widespread rebellion against oppressive federal taxes, and put the American people on the road to recapturing control of their own gov ernment.

O n April

30, 1962, United States Representa tive Bruce Alger (Republican, Texas ) introduced a bill to eliminate the withholding of income tax from wages and salaries. Mr. Alger said: "We have lost all control over spending in this country . . . . Since the great burden of taxes is borne by the so-called little or modest-income folks, I think it is high time that they found out how much taxes they are paying. In order to do that, I think we ought to let them pay their own . . . . It seems to me timely and sensible that the American citizens demand a halt to the con tinuation of the tax-tax, spend-spend, elect-elect policy. This repeal of the withholding tax will be the means of beginning the necessary and agonizing reappraisal."

Alger's bill died in committee, because there was not enough public interest.

Current Efforts

R epresentative

Bruce Alger reintroduced, in the present Congress, his bill to eliminate the with holding of income tax from wages and salaries.

Pending in committee, as HR 739, it merits mas sive public support. Failure of Congress to repeal the withholding tax, so that all taxpayers will become conscious of federal taxes, has stimulated private efforts to ac complish the same purpose. Mr. Norman L. Cotton, a businessman in San Francisco, California , and the New York Com mittee for Economic Freedom in Syracuse, New York, contemplated efforts at persuading all em ployers to go on strike against serving as unpaid tax collectors for the federal government. The basic idea was that if enough employers through out the nation would refuse to withhold federal taxes from employees' wages, the withholding sys tem would collapse. The federal government could prosecute every employer who thus refused to obey the unconstitutional withholding law and the rules and regulations of the Internal Revenue Service ; but if enough employers stood firm and acted in unison, the federal government, unable to prosecute all, might not prosecute any; and the withholding law would be unenforceable. This idea was abandoned because of the extreme diffi culty of getting enough businessmen to take the risk. Meanwhile, another, immediately effective plan is already in operation.

Federal

regulations require employers to de posit in a designated bank the total of all federal taxes withheld from wages. The deposit must be made once a month, for all withholdings during the month. Employers habitually prorate the monthly tax withholding so that the same amount is taken out each pay day, and employees never fully realize what it would be like to get full pay checks. In 1962, one employer in Parkersburg, West Virginia (Mr. A. K. Summers, President of Pre mier Photo Service) , started collecting federal taxes (social security and withholding) only once a month. Mr. Summers says :

Page 277

"Mrs. A - whose salary is $ 1 25 a week - under the system of weekly deductions, would draw $99.29 a week, and she just took it for granted that was what she was making. Now, under our system of collection, she draws $ 1 25 the first three weeks of the month; and the last week, $22.68. Three weeks she went to the bank and actually received $ 1 25. She had it in her hands and was able to spend it. 'Now she realizes she pays in taxes almost a full week's pay out of a month."

Some employees pay more than one full week's pay out of each month. Mr. Summers says that one of his 70-dollar-a-week employees gets no check at all the fourth week of each month - and still owes the federal government $4.75 for the month. Once-a-month-only withholding makes the biggest impression on employees who get a pay check each week ; but it has considerable im pact on those who are paid only twice a month. I know, because I use the plan for employees of The Dan Smoot Report. In the middle of the month, each employee on my small staff receives a full salary check-- nothing taken out. At the end of the month , he gets a dismally shrunken check - thanks to federal withholding. I agree emphatically with Mr. Summers : " . . . our employees now realize that this wild federal spending is coming out of their pockets."

national organization has been formed to promote the Summers once-a-month-only with holding plan. The organization is called S.W.A.T. - Stop Withholding All Taxes. The top officials are Mr. Laurence C. Smith, 1 24 Headson Drive, Syracuse 14, New York ; Mr. A. K. Summers, President of Premier Photo Service, Inc., 5 1 5 33rd Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia ; Mr. A. J. Porth, P. O. Box 7083, Wichita, Kansas ; and Mr. Arnold Bayley, Sea Spray Inn, East Hampton, L. 1., Ne\-" York. National headquarters of S.W.A.T. is at Parkersburg, West Virginia (P. O. Box 1707 ) .

Organized as "A Civil Rights Program For Em ployers," S.W.A.T. will try to persuade employers (of all sizes, in all kinds of business, in all parts of the nation ) to adopt the once-a-month-with holding plan for all employees. Initial response encourages officials of S.W . A.T. to predict that 1 00,000 employers will have adopted once-a month-withholding by January 1 , 1 964. S.W.A.T. will co-ordinate its once-a-month withholding work with organized efforts for out right repeal of the Sixteenth ( income tax ) Amend ment.

What To Do

T he

federal income tax takes our money to nourish forces which are sapping our freedom and destroying our Republic, but there is no way to reform the tax system. It must be abolished. Abolishing the federal income tax system would solve most of the major political and economic problems of our nation. If we get the federal tax collectors' hands out of our pockets so that Wash ington spenders cannot get enough of our money to pay for destructive, unconstitutional programs, we can save the Republic. United States Representative James B. Utt (Re publican, California ) has proposed a constitution al amendment which woud repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and require the government to stop competing in business with its own citizens. There is tremendous public support for such a repeal amendment and a considerable amount of organized effort behind it; and the movement is growing; but the arrogance and illegal power of government are growing faster. Constitutionalists could win this race for time and create an over powering demand for repeal of the income tax amendment before it is too late, if they could persuade Congress to repeal the law which author izes withholding of income tax from wages and salaries.

Page 278

While working for congressional action, con stitutionalists can accomplish a very great deal by supporting such efforts as the once-a-month-with holding plan of S.W.A.T. Here are specific things that individuals can do : - If you are an employer, adopt the once-a month-withholding plan for all of your employees. Communicate with S.W.A.T. officials, P. O. Box 1 707 , Parkersburg, West Virginia, to let them know you are participating in the plan, and to get additional details on what other employers are doing. Consider deeply the advisability of joining with others to give the strength of numbers and organization to tax-repeal efforts. - If you are not an employer, use this Report (or other available material ) to arouse active interest in acquaintances who are employers. If you cannot do this, write to S.W.A.T. , giving names of employers who you think will be in terested. - Write to your United States Representative urging his support for Bruce Alger's Bill (HR 7 39 ) to eliminate the withholding of income tax from wages and salaries. Use this Report (or other material ) to persuade friends, acquaint ances, business associates, and organizations to do the same with their United States Representatives. WHO

I S

Where You r Tax Money Will Go

The

following column by Kingsbury Smith (syndicated by Hearst, with a Paris dateline, Aug ust 6, 1 963 ) indicates where some of your money may go, if we do not manage somehow to repeal the income tax amendment: "Diplomatic sources in Paris said today that President Kennedy has held out to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev the implied hope of Ameri can economic aid to Russia if the Soviet Union abandons the Cold War and agrees to a general European settlement. "This effort to encourage Khrushchev to turn away from Red China and swing Russia towards the West was made before the conclusion of the nuclear test ban agreement. "It was not a commitment, nor even a definite promise. Nor was it made in any formal diplo matic communication. "Nevertheless, the diplomatic sources said the President let Khrushchev know that the United States might be willing to help Russia with eco nomic aid to hasten an improved standard of liv ing for the Russian people if a satisfactory settle ment in Europe was achieved. "Khrushchev was reminded that under the Truman Administration, the United States had offered to include Russia in the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of war torn Europe. He

DAN

SMOO T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 279

was also reminded that at the time, General Mar shall, then Secretary of State, had described his concept of Europe as all the territories 'west of Asia.' "It was clearly indicated to Khrushchev that the Kennedy Administration feels the same way the Truman Administration did at that time, and that while Stalin rejected the offer, now might be the time for Khrushchev to reconsider link ing Russia with Europe instead of Asia. "This would not mean that Russia would have to renounce the Communist system. President Kennedy has assured Khrushchev that the United States is not hostile to any people or system, pro vided they do not interfere with the freedoms of others.

munist control of East Germany in the near future. He has said he will never give it up. "However, it is thought that in view of the bitter break between Khrushchev and the Chi nese Communist leadership, the time may be opportune to indicate to Russia the long-range advantage of becoming part of a prosperous Europe. "Communism has proved a failure economic ally in Eastern Europe. Khrushchev is known to be deeply concerned about the failure of the ag ricultural policy in the Soviet Union, and the high cost of the arms race."

"Khrushchev knows, however, that the Presi dent's conception of a satisfactory European settlement does not mean the recognition of the existing status quo. "1£ Khrushchev wants American economic aid for Russia, the European settlement, to which he agrees must include the unification of Ger many based on free elections.

"It would be folly to think, and the President certainly does not, that Khrushchev is likely to agree, or could if he would, to give up Com-

W H A T

Y O U

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "What a Prophet-Richard E. Byrd," article by George Peck, The A lIlel'lcan Sit/iesman, March 1 5, 1961 , p. 4 ( 2 ) Beardsley Ruml was a member of the Council on Foreign Re lations, a director of Macy's, Muzak, Bulova Watch Co. and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and member of the Commis sion on Money and Credit which formed the basis for President Kennedy's major legislative proposals in 1962 . Also see "Ruml's Effect on Our Way of Life," The San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 1 960, p. 30. ( 3 ) Special study on the general history of the withholding tax system-from the study. of the 76 economists presented to the House Ways and Means Committee in the spring of 194 1 , to enactment of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1 943-prepared for former United States Representative Gordon Scherer ( Re publican, Ohio ) by the Library of Congress, September, 1 959 ( 4 ) Associated Press dispatch from Detroit, October 6, 1959

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools .of waste and corruption and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it?

You can help educate and arouse the people who elect me� �espons�ble for harmful programs .of g?vernment. When enough other Americans know and care as you d o, political action to restore our Repubbc Will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by spea�� rs, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The InVIsIble Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

F ilm Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 280

ZIP

CODE

THE o

1)1111 SmootRe,ort Vol. 9, No. 36

(Broadcast 42 1 )

September 9, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

TH I R D R O L L C A L LS, 1 9 6 3

I n this issue, we tabulate 7

roll call votes in the U. S. Senate, 7 in the House of Representatives - making a total of 20 in the Senate, 1 9 in the House, tabulated this year during the First Session of the 88th Congress. Senators Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) and Strom Thurmond (Democrat, South Carolina) continue to have the best voting records in the Senate. U. S. Representatives Ralph F. Beermann (Republican, Nebraska ) and August E. Johansen (Re publican, Michigan ) have the best records in the House. Representative Johansen is the only member of Congress who has a perfect constitutionalist rating for three straight years : 1 96 1 , 1962, and 1 963 to date.

For the most part, the present Senate has acted as a rubber stamp for the Kennedy administra tion - only occasionally stopping some Kennedy maneuver or approving something Kennedy does not want. The present House, however, has stopped many Kennedy bills, and removed dangerous provisions from others. Thus, on the whole, the 88th Congress, First Session, continues to be one of the best in years.

N ike-Zeus Anti-Missile Program B y a stand of 73 to 20, the Senate, April 1 1 , 1963, complied with Kennedy administration de mands that the Nike-Zeus anti-missile program be scrapped - despite the fact that Senator Strom Thurmond (supported by Senator Barry Goldwater ) presented classified testimony from Armed Forces officials proving that the Nike-Zeus program is necessary for national defense. The vote is recorded below in Column 18 under Senate, "C" indicating a stand for the Nike-Zeus program. Killing Nike-Zeus research and development wastes billions already spent on this effort at na tional defense, and sanctions Kennedy's suicidal policy of prohibiting the United States from de veloping an effective defense against Soviet missiles, at a time when the Soviets are believed to have an effective defense against our missiles. Facts on this extraordinary situation were pub lished in this Report during May, 1 963, in a three-part series on Disarmament. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 281

Marking of I m ports

Public Power

1 960, both Houses of Congress passed a bill requiring that most imported goods be marked with the name of the country of origin. The purpose was to make it possible for American consumers to refuse, if they wished, to buy goods imported from communist countries. President Eisenhower vetoed the bill on September 6, 1960. In 1 963, a similar Bill (HR 2 5 1 3 ) was again passed, by voice vote, in both Houses of Congress - despite strong opposition from administration forces and a threat of veto by President Kennedy. On July 1 8, 1963, administration forces in the Senate demanded a roll call on a motion to kill (recommit) HR 2 5 1 3. This liberal effort to kal the measure was defeated by a stand of 78 to 1 5, which is recorded below in Column 14 under Sen ate) "C' indicating a vote for marking imports from communist countries.

On July 30,

1963, conservatives in the Senate demanded a roll call on a motion to kill (recom mit) HR 6016 (already passed by voice votes in Senate and House ) , authorizing 609 million 547 thousand dollars for water resources and electric power projects. This conservative effort was de feated by a stand of 7 1 to 28, which is recorded below in Column 16 under Senate) "C" indicating a stand against the projects. The Bill is presently in conference because of minor differences be tween House and Senate versions. Two of the proj ects authorized in HR 6016 (Knowles Re servoir in Montana and Trotters Shoals in South Carolina) were opposed by governors of the states involved. For detailed discussion of the "public power" threat to freedom, see "The Power Grid Scheme," this Report) August 1 2, 1 963.

Manpower Development

The Bill, though now approved by both Houses of Congress, has not yet been sent to the Presi dent, because of minor differences between House and Senate versions.

Fisheries Research

O n July

22, 1963, the Senate, by voice vote, passed S 627, providing 28 million, 250 thousan� dollars for aid to states in promoting commercial fishery projects. Conservatives demanded a roll call on a motion to kill (recommit) the Bill. This effort was defeated by a stand of 66 to 25, which is recorded below in Column 1 5 under Senate) "C" indicating a stand against the Fisheries Re search Bill. Imports from foreign nations (Japan, princi pally ) , whose fishing industries have been mod ernized and subsidized by American foreign aid, have hurt the American industry. S 627 is a "lib eral" effort to compound a problem which "lib eral" policies have created. The Bill is still in committee in the House.

and Training

B y a stand of 56 to 38, the Senate, August 7, 1 963, refused to increase funds for the unconsti tutional Manpower Development and Training program, which Kennedy initiated in 1 962. The vote is recorded below in Column 1 7 under Sen ate) "C" indicating a stand against increasing the funds.

N ational Service Corps

B y a stand of 5 1 to 48, the Senate, August 14, 1963, passed S 1 3 2 1 , creating the National Service Corps (also known as Kennedy'S domestic peace corps ) . The vote is recorded below in Column 19 under Senate) "C" indicating a stand against. The Bill is still in committee in the House, and may die there, because conservatives are said to have damaging information about "pilot projects" of the domestic peace corps, already in operation without congressional authorization.

Page 282

N ational Debt 8 "temporary" national debt increase ( 309 billion dollars ) from August 3 1 to November 30, 1963. The votes are recorded below in Column 20 under Senate} and Column 17 under House} " C ' in dicating a conservative stand against the extension.

and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Federa l Aid To Ed ucation

Clean Air Act

VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS : By a stand of 377 to 2 1 , the House, August 6, 1963, passed HR 495 5 , authorizing 688 million dollars for ex tension and expansion of federal aid to public vocational schools during the next 4 fiscal years. The vote is recorded below in Column 1 6 under House} "C" showing a stand against. The Senate has not yet passed the Bill. COLLEGES : By a stand of 296 to 1 2 1 , the House, August 14, 1 963, passed HR 6143 author izing 1 billion, 195 million dollars for the first three years of a five-year program of federal con struction grants and loans to universities, colleges, and j unior colleges. The vote is recorded below in Column 1 8 under House} "C" indicating a stand against. The Senate has not yet passed the Bill.

B y a stand of 274 to 1 04, the House (July 24, 1 963 ) passed the Clean Air Act of 1963 (HR 6 5 1 8 ) , giving the Secretary of Health, Education,

By roll call votes, House and Senate (August and 20, 1963 ) passed HR 7824, extending the

The

Tenth Amendment prohibits federal ac tivities for which there is no constitutional author ization, and there is no such authorization for aid to education. James Madison (principal author of the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and later Presi dent of the United States) was a Representative in the First Congress. He led the opposition to proposals, made in that First Congress, which would have put the U. S. government in the role of "promoting the general welfare." Representa tive Madison said : "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county

and Welfare 5 million dollars a year for air pollu tion research ; giving him 70 million dollars to spend as he sees fit ; authorizing him to help es tablish local, state, and regional air pollution con trol agencies ; and authorizing him to seek court orders to prohibit interstate air pollution. The vote is recorded below in Column 1 3 under House} "C" indicating a conservative stand against the Act - which is pending in the Senate.

Presidential Transition

On July

25, 1 963, the House, by voice vote, passed the Presidential Transition Act (HR 4638 ) . Conservatives demanded a roll call on a motion to recommit. This conservative effort to kill the measure was defeated by a stand of 343 to 29, which is recorded below in Column 14 under House} "C" indicating a stand against HR 4638 which is pending in the Senate. One of the 29 conservatives voting against the Bill, Representative August E. Johansen (Republican, Michigan) said : -

"While I have no objection to payment of certain specified, limited expenses incurred by the President-elect and Vice President-elect costs heretofore borne by the Republican or Democratic National Committees or the indi viduals I strongly oppose two features of this bill.

Page 283

�

"O�� is t e provision giving General Services Ad� mlstratIOn authority to designate who is the �resldent-elect and Vice President-elect follow mg the general e ect on -:- authority properly �est.e by th� ConstItutIOn m Congress, meeting In JOInt seSSIOn.

capitaL The Bill also nullifies the 1954 Durham Case dec� sion of the U. S. Circuit Court of Ap p�al � whlch made virtually impossible successful cnmmal pros�cution of anyone who pleads mo . mentary msantty or mental incompetence.

" y second objection is to a $ 1 ,300,000 ex pendIture authorization for expenses - some two or t lfee times the amount actually spent by PresIdents elect Eisenhower or Kennedy . . . . "

Liberals, who led opposition to this Bill, sup ported the Durha� C�s� rule with the astonishing argument that an mdlvldual who may intellectu ally know that he is committing a crime, but who lacks emotional capacity to refrain from commit ting it, is not really guilty of crime.

�

� �

Export-Import Bank

B y a stand of 379 to 1 1, the House (July 30, 1963 ) refused to approve further backdoor financ ing for the Export-Import Bank (HR 3872 : see "Second Roll Calls, 1963," this Report} August 26, 1963 ) . The vote is recorded below in Column 1 5 under House} "C" indicating a stand against backdoor financing for the Bank - that is, the unconstitutional practice of borrowing from the U. S. Treasury without specific authorization by Congress. The Bank was scheduled to go out of existence on June 30, 1963. On August 1 5 , House and Sen ate conferees agreed on a bill to prolong the life of the Bank (which already has enough money to operate for another 18 months) , without speci fying how the Bank will get additional funds in the future. Washing ton, D . C . , C rime Laws

August 1 2 , 1963, the House (by voice vote) passed the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime Bill (HR 7 5 2 5 ) . Kennedy administration forces (much opposed to the Bill) demanded a roll call on a motion to recommit. This adminis tration effort to kill HR 7 5 2 5 was defeated by a stand of 2 5 5 to 147 , which is recorded below in Column 19 under House} "C" indicating a stand for the Bill. This Bill nullifies the 1957 Supreme Court Mal lory Case decision (see " Washington: The Model City," this Report} June 24, 1963 ) which has handicapped law enforcement in the nation's

What To Do? . E very time we publish roll call votes liberals m Congress denounce us for presuming to determine whether their votes are for or against con stitutional principles. They assert that they and the Supreme Court and the President know more about the Constitution than we do. '

The Constitution is not hard to understand and it means what it says. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Congress, nor the President has any author ity to stretch its meaning. They do stretch it, of course. The federal government spends billions of tax dollars every year on programs for which there is no grant of power in the Constitution. How can we stop such violations of the Constitu tion, by officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution ? ,

We should relentlessly bombard Congress with mail, encouraging those members whose votes in dicate that they regard the Constitution as a mean ingful contract of government, letting the others know that they will be opposed by intelligent and determined voters at the next election. If enough individuals would do this, Congress would obey and defend the Constitution. Stable conservative power is growing in the House of Representatives, because it has received encourage - all that ment from back home. It needs all of us can give it.

Page 284

nG"

indicates a conservative stand.

ROLL

C ALL

An ' IL I I indicates a liberal stand.

VOTES An

1 1011

indicates that the legi s lator did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E Column # 1 4 - - Imported Goods Labels , HR 2 5 1 3 ; # 1 5 - - State Fisheries Funds , S 62 7 ; # 1 6 - - Water Projects and Public Powe r , HR 6 0 1 6 ; Manpower and Training Funds Inc.. r eas e . H R 5888 ; # 1 8 - - Nike - Z eus Authorization; # 1 9 - - National Service C orps , S 1 32 1 ; # 2 0 _ _ National Debt Extension, HR 7824 #17

ALABAMA Hill, Lister (D) Sparkman, John J. (D) ALASKA Bartlett, E . L. (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) ARIZONA Goldwater , Barry (R) Hayden, Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J. William (D) McClellan , John L. (D) CALIFORNIA Engle , Clair (D) Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) COLORADO Allott, Gor don (R) Dominick, Peter H. (R) C ONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J. (D) Ribicoff, Abraham A. (D) DELAWARE Boggs , J. Caleb (R) Williams , John J. (R) F L ORIDA Holland, Spes s ard L. (D) Smather s , George A. (D) GEORGIA Rus sell, Richard B . (D) Talmadge, Herman E . (D) HAWAII Fong, Hiram L . (R) Inouye, Dani el K. (D) IDAHO �rch, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B . (R) ILLINOIS Dirksen, Ever ett M . (R ) Douglas , Paul H. (D) INDIANA Bayh, Birch (D) Hartk e , R. Vance (D) IOWA �ckenloope r , Bourke B. (R) Miller, Jack (R) KANSAS --carrson, Frank (R) Pearson , James B. (R) KENTUCKY Cooper, John Sherman (R) Morton, Thruston B. (R) LOUISIANA Ellender , Allen J. (D) Long, Rus s el l B. (D) MAINE �ki e , Edmund S. (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Beall, J. Glenn (R) B r ewster, Daniel B. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M. (D) Saltonstall , Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A. (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA Humphrey, Hubert H. (D) McC arthy, Eugene J. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O. (D) Stennis , John (D) MISSOURI Long, Edward V. (D) Symington, Stuart (D)

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C o

C L

C C

C L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L C

C L

L L

C o

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

L C

C o

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

MONTANA Mansfield, Michael J. (D) Metcalf, Lee (D) NEBRASKA Curtis , Carl T. (R) Hruska, Roman L . (R) NEVADA Bible, Alan (D) Cannon, Howard W . (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cotton, Norris (R) McIntyr e , Thomas J. (D) NEW JERS E Y C a s e , C lifford P . (R) William s , Harrison A . , Jr. (D) NEW MEXICO Anderson, C linton P. (D) Mechem, E dwin L. (R) NEW YORK Javits , Jacob K. (R) Keating, Kenneth B. (R) NOR TH CAROLINA Erwin, Sam J . , J r . (D) Jordan, B . Everett (D) NOR TH DAKOTA Burdick, Quentin N. (D) Young, Milton R . (R) OHIO --r:;a:us che , F rank J . (D) Young, Stephen M. (D) OKLAHOMA Edmondson, J. Howard (D) Monroney, A. S. (Mike) (D) OREGON M or s e , Wayne (D) Neuberge r , Maurine B . (D) PENNSYLVANIA C lark, Joseph S . , J r . (D) Scott, Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastor e , John O. (D) Pell, Claiborne (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Johnston, Olin D. (D) Thurmond, Strom (D) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern, George (D) Mundt, Karl E. (R) TENNESSEE Gore , Albert (D) TEXAS ----row e r , John (R) Yarborough, Ralph W . (D) UTAH �nnett, Wallace F. (R) M os s , Frank E. (D) VERMONT Aiken, George D. (R) Prouty, Winston L. (R) VIRGINIA Byrd, Harry Flood (D) Robertson, A. Willis (D) WASHINGTON Jackson, Henry M. (D) Magnuson, Warren G . (D) WEST VIRGINIA Byrd, Robert C . (D) Randolph, Jennings (D) WISCONSIN Nelson, Gaylord A. (D) Proxmir e . William (D) W YOMING M c G e e , Gale W . (D) Simpson, Milward L. (R)

Page 285

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L o

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L C

C C

L C

L L

C C

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

C L

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L C

C C

L C

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

C L

C C

C L

C C

L C

L o

L L

C C

L C

C C

L o

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

L L

HOUSE Column # 1 3 - - C l ean Air Act, HR 6 5 1 8 ; # 1 4 - - Presidential Transition, H R 4 6 3 8 ; # 1 5 - - Export-Import Bank Funds , H R 3 8 7 2 ; # 1 6 - Vocational E ducation Fund s , H R 4 9 5 5 ; # 1 7 - - National Debt Extension, H R 7 82 4 ; # 1 8 - - Higher Education Funds , H R 6 1 4 3 ; # 1 9 - - D . C . Crime Laws , HR 7 2 2 5 13

A LABAMA Andrews , George W. (D) Elliott, Carl (D) Grant, George M. (D) Huddleston, George, Jr. (D) Jon e s , Robert E. (D) Rain e s , Albert (D) Robert s , Kenneth A. (D) Selden, Armistead 1 . , J r . (D) ALASKA Rive rs , Ralph J. (D) ARIZONA Rhodes , John J. (R) Senner, George F . , Jr. (D) Udall, Morris K . (D) ARKANSAS Gathings , E . C . (D) Harris , Oren (D) Mills , Wilbur D. (D) Trimble, James W . (D) CALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F . , Jr. (R) Bell, Alphonzo E . , J r . (R) Brown, George E . , Jr. (D) Burkhalter, Everett G. (D) Cameron, Ronald B. (D) Clausen, Don H . (R) Clawson, Del (R) Cohelan, Jeffery (D) Corman, James C. (D) Edwards , W. Donlon (D) Gub s e r , Charles S. (R) Hagen, Harlan (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins , Augustus F. (D) Holifield, Chet (D) Hosmer, C raig (R) Johnson, Harold T . (D) King, Cecil R. (D) Leggett, Robert L . (D) Lipscomb, Glenard P. (R) Mailliard, William S. (R) Martin, Minor C . (R) McFall , John J . (D) Miller, George P . (D) M os s , John E. (D) Roosevelt, James (D) Roybal , Edward R. (D) Shelley, John F . (D) Sheppard, Harry R. (D) Sisk, B. F. (D) Smith, H . Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L . (R) T eague, Charles M . (R) Utt, James B . (R) Van Deerlin, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson, Charles H. (D) Younger , J. Arthur (R) COLORADO Aspinall, Wayne N. (D) Brotzman, Donald G. (R) Chenoweth, J . Edgar (R) Roge r s , Byron G. (D) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q. (D) Giaimo, Robert N. (D) Grabowski , Bernard P . (D) Monagan, John S . (D) S t . Onge , William (D) Sibal, Abner W. (R) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , Jr. (D) FLORIDA Bennett, Charles E . (D) C ramer , William C . (R) Fascell, Dante B. (D)

L L L L L

C L C C L

L L

C C C C C C

C L L L L L L L

C L L C L L L L

C L C C L C C C

C C C C C C C C

C L L

L L L

C L L

L L L

C L L

L L L

C L C

C L L L

L L L L L C L L L L

C C C C C

C C C C C C C C L C C C

L C L L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L L L

L L L C C C L L

L L

L C C C C C C

L L L L L C L L

C L L L L C L L L C C C L L L L L L L L C C C C L C

L L L L L C C L L L L L L L L L L L L C L C L L L L L L L L C C C C L L L L

L L L L

C C C C

L L L L

L C C L

L L L

L L

L L L L L L

L L L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L

L L o

L L C L

C C C C C C C C C C C C o

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L o

C C L L L C C L L L

C C L C L C C L L L C C L L L C C L L C C C L L L L L L C L C C C C L C L C C C C L L

L L L

C C C C C C

C L

C C

C L

L L

FLORIDA (cont 'd) Fuqua, Don (D) Gibbons , Sam M . (D) Gurney, Edward J. (R) Haley, James A . (D) Herlong, A. Sydney, Jr. (D) Matthews , D . R, (D) Pepper, C laude (D) Rogers , Paul G. (D) Sike s , Robert L . F. (D) GEORGIA Davi s , John W . (D) Flynt, John J . , Jr. (D) Forreste r , E. L . (D) Hagan, G . E lliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Pilche r , J. L. (D) Stephens , Robert G . , J r . , (D) Tuten, J. Rus sell (D) Vinson, Carl (D) W eltne r , Charles L. (D) HAWAII ----cmr;- Thomas P. (D) Matsunaga, Spark M . (D) IDAHO �ding, Ralph R. (D) White, Compton 1 . , Jr . (D) I LLINOIS Anderson, John B. (R) Arends , L eslie C , (R) C ollie r , Harold R . (R) Dawson, William L. (D) Derwinski, Edward J. ( R ) Findley, Paul (R) Finnegan, Edward R. (D) Gray, Kenneth J . (D) Hoffman, Elmer J. (R) Kluczynski, John C. (D) Libonati, R oland V. (D) McClory, Robert (R) McLoskey, Robert T . (R) Michel, Robert H. (R) Murphy, William T . (D) o 'Brien, Thomas J. (D) O 'Hara , Barratt (D) Pric e , M elvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C . (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Rostenkowski, Daniel (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) Shipley, George E. (D) Springer , William L. (R) INDIANA Adai r , E. Ross (R) Bradema s , John (D) Bray , William G. (R) Bruc e , Donald C . (R) Denton, Winfield K. (D) Halleck, Charles A. (R) Harvey, Ralph (R) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) Wilson, Earl (R) IOWA �omwell, James E. (R) Gros s , H. R. (R) Hoeven, Charles B. (R) Jens en, Ben F . (R) Kyl, John H . (R) Schwengel, Fred (R) Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS --p;:;:;ery , William H. (R) Dol e . Robert (R) Ellsworth, Robert F. (R) Shrive r , Garner E. (R) Skubitz, Joe (R)

Page 286

L L C L

L L L L L L

L C L L L L L

L C C

L L

C C C C C C C C C

L L L L

L L L L L L L L

C L C C C C

L C L

L L

C C C C C C L C C

L L C L L

C C C C L

L L L

L C L C

C C C C C C C C C C

L C

L L

C C

L L

L L L L

C C C L C C L L C L L C C C L

C L C L L C L L C L L C C C L

C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C C C C C C C C

L L C L C L C

L L L C L C L L

L L L L L L L

L L C C L L

C C C C C C C

L L

C C L L C o

L C C o

C C C C C C

L L L L L L L L L L

L L L C L C L L

L L L L L L

C C C C C C

L L L L L L L L

C L C C

L L L L L L L

L C

C o

C C C o

C o

L L L C L L L L L L L

C L C C L C C L C L C

L L L C L

C C C C C C L

L C C C L L L

C C C C C

L C L L C

C L L

L L C

C C C C

C C C C C L L

L C L L L L

C C C C C C

L L L L L L L

C C C C

L L L L

C C C C C

L L L L L

L L L L C

L C C L C C L L C C 0

L L L L L C L C L C C L C C L C C L C L C 0

C C C 0

L L C C

C C

KENTUCKY Chelf, Frank (D) Natcher , William H. (D) Perkins , Carl D . (D) Sile r , Eug � ne (R) Snyder, M. G. (R) Stubblefield, Frank A. (D) Watts , John C . (D) LOUISIANA Boggs , Hale (D) Hebert , F . Edward (D) Long, Gillis W . (D) Morrison , James H. (D) Passman, Otto E. (D) Thompson, T. Ashton (D) Waggonner, Joe D . , Jr. (D ) Willi s , Edwin E . (D) MAINE �ntir e , C lifford G . (R) Tupper , Stanley R . (R) MARYLAND Fallon, George H. (D) Friedel, Samuel N. (D) Garmatz, Edward A. (D) Lankford, Richard E. (D) Long, Clarence D . (D) Mathia s , Charles McC . , Jr. (R) Morton, Rogers C . B. (R) Sickl e s , Carlton R . (D) MASSACHUSE TTS Bates , William H. (R) Boland, Edward P . (D) Burk e , James A. (D) Cont e , Silvio O . (R) Donohue , Harold D . (D) Keith, Hastings (R) Macdonald, Torbert H. (D) McC ormack, John W . (D) Martin, Joseph W . , J r . (R) Mor s e , F . Bradford (R) O ' Neill, Thomas P . , Jr. (D) Philbin, Philip J. (D) MICHIGAN Bennett, John B. (R) Broomfield, William S . (R) C ederberg, Elford A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E. (R) Digg s , Charles C . , Jr. (D) Dingell, John D. (D) Ford, Gerald R . , Jr. (R) Griffin, Robert P. (R) Griffith s , Martha W . (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Johansen, August E . (R) Knox, Victor A. (R) L e s inski , John (D) Meade r , George (R) Nedzi , Lucien N. (D) O 'Hara, James G . (D) Ryan, Harold M. (D) Staebler , Neil (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik, John A. (D) Fras e r , Donald M. (D) Karth, Jos eph E. (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGrego r , C lark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G . (D) Qui e , Albert H . (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colmer , William M . (D) Whitten, Jamie L. (D) William s , John Bell (D) Winstead, Arthur (D) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D) Cannon, Cla,.ence

(D)

Curti s , Thomas B. (R) Hall , Durward G. (R) Hull, W . R . , J r . (D) Ichord, Richard (D)

C L L

L L L C L L L

C C C C C C C

L L L L C L L

L L L C C L L

C C C C C C C

L L L C

L L L

L L L L L L L L

L L L L C

C C C C

L L C L L L C L

C L

C C C C C C C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L L o

L L L L L L L L

C C C C C C C C

L L L L L L L L

L L L L L C C L

L L L

L L L L L L L

L L L

C C C C C C

L L L L L L

L L L L L L L

C L L L L C L

o o

C L L C L C L 0

L L L

L L

C C C

L L L

C L L

L L L L

C C C C C L C

L L L L L L L

C C C C L L C

C C C C C

L L L o

L C C C

L o

L L L C L

C L C C

L L L

C C C C L

L L L L

L L L L L L L

L C C C C C C

L L L L L L L

L L L C C C L C

L L L L L L L L

L C L L C C C C L C L L L L 0

L L C L L L C o

L L

C C C C

C L L C C L L

L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L C C L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L C C L L L L L L

L L C L 0

C C

L C C C C C

o o

L L L L L L

C C C C C L C C C L L

C C C C C L C

C L C L L L 0

L L L L C

L L L C L C L C

C L L C C 0 0

C C C C 0

L L L L

C C C C C L

C C L

C C C

MISSOURI (cont ' d ) Jone s , Paul C . (D) Kar sten, Frank M. (D) Randall, William J. (D) Sullivan, Leonor K. (D) MONTANA Battin, James F. (R) Olsen, Arnold (D) NEBRASKA B e ermann, Ralph F. (R) C unningham, Glenn (R) Martin, Dave (R) NEVADA Baring, Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland, James C . (R) Wyman, Louis C . (R) NEW JERSEY Auchinclo s s , James C . (R) Cahill, William T. (R ) Dani els , Dominick V . (D) Dwy e r , Florence P . (R) F r elinghuysen, Peter , Jr . (R) Gallagher , C ornelius E . (D) Glenn, Milton W. (R) Joelson, Charles S. (D) Minish, Jos eph G. (D) Osmers , Frank C . , Jr. (R) Patten, Edward J . , Jr . (D) Rodino, Peter W . , Jr. (D) Thompson, Frank, Jr . (D) Wallhaus e r , George M. (R) Widnall, William B. (R) NEW MEXICO Montoya, Jos eph M . (D) Morri s , Thomas G. (D) NEW YORK A ddabbo , Jos eph P. (D) Barry, Robert R . (R) Becke r , Frank J. (R) Buckley, Charles A. (D) Carey, Hugh L . (D) C eller, Emanuel (D) Delaney, James J. (D) Derounian, Stephen B. (R) Dulski, Thaddeus J. (D) Farbstein, Leonard (D) Fino, Paul A. (R) Gilbert, Jacob H . (D) Goodell, Charles E. (R) Grover, James R . , J r . (R) Halpern, Seymour (R) Heale y , James C. (D) Horton, Frank J. (R) Kelly, Edna F . (D) Keogh, Eugene J . (D) Kilburn, C larence E. (R) King, Carleton J. (R) Lindsay, John V. (R) Mill e r , W i lliam E. (R) Mult e r , Abraham J. (D) Murphy, John M. (D) O ' Brien, Leo W. (D) Ostertag, Harold C . (R ) Pike , Otis G. (D) Pillion, John R. (R ) Pirnie, Alexander (R) Powel l , Adam C. (D) Reid, Ogden R. (R) Riehlman, R. Walter (R) Robi son, Howard W . (R) Rooney, John J. (D) Ros enthal, Benjamin S. (D) Ryan, William Fitts (D) St. George , Katharine (R) Stratton, Samuel S . (D) Wharton, J. Ernest (R) Wydler, John W . (R) NOR TH CAROLINA Bonn e r . Herbert C . (D) Broyhill, James T. (R) C ooley, Harold D . (D) Fountain, L . H . (D) Henderson, David N. (D)

Page 287

L L L L

C C C C

C L

L L

C C

C C C

C C o

C C C

C C

L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L

L C L L L L L L L L

L L L

C L L L

C L

C L L

C C C

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C C C C C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C C L C C L C L L C L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C C o

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L L o

L L L

C C C

L L L

o o

C C C C C C C C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L C C L L L L C L L C

L L o

C L L L L C L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L o o

C C C C C C C C

L L

C C C L C L L C C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L

o L

C L

L L

o o

L L

L L L C L L L L L L L L C L C L

C C C C C C C C C C

L L C

L L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L

L L L C L C C L C C C L L L C L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L L

L L L L L

L L L L C

L o

C L L L L L L L L o

C C L C C C C C C o

C C

L L L L L

C L L L

L C C C C

L o

C L C L L C L L L o

C C C L C C L L L L o

C L L L o

C o

L C L L C C L C L L C C L C C L L C C L L L o

L o

C C C C C C

NORTH CAROLINA (cont 'd) Jona s , Charles Raper (R) Kornegay, Horace R. (D) Lennon, Alton (D) Scott, Ralph J. (D) Taylor, Roy A. (D) Whitener , Ba sil L. (D) NORTH DAKOTA Short, Don L. (R) OHIO �el e , Horner E . (R) Ashbrook, John M. (R) Ashley, Thomas L. (D) Ayre s , William H. (R) Bett s , Jackson E. (R) Bolton, Frances P . (R ) Bolton, Oliver P. (R) Bow, Frank T. (R) Brown, Clarence J. (R) Clancy, Donald D . (R) Devine, Samuel L. (R) Feighan, Michael A. (D) Harsha, William H . , J r . (R) Hays , Wayne L . (D) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta, Delbert L. (R) McCulloch, William M. (R) Minshall, William E . . (R) Mosher , Charles A. (R) Rich, Carl W . (R) Schenck, Paul F. (R) Secrest, Robert T. (D) Taft, Robert, Jr. (R) Vanik, Charles A. (D) OKLAHOMA Albert, Carl (D) Belcher, Page (R) Edmondson, Ed (D) Jarman, John (D) Steed, Tom (D) Wickersham, Victor (D) OREGON Duncan, Robert B . (D) Green, Edith (D) Norblad, Walter (R) Ullman, Al (D) PENNSYLVANIA Barrett, William A . (D) Byrn e , James A. (D) Clark, Frank M. (D) Corbett, Robert J. (R ) Curtin, Willard S . (R) Dague, Paul B. (R) Dent , John H. (D) Flood , Daniel J. (D) Fulton, James G. (R) Gavin, Leon H. (R) Goodling, George A. (R) Green, William J . , Jr. (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D ) Kunk e l , John C . (R) McDade , Jos eph M. (R) Milliken, William H . , J r . (R) Moorehead, William S. (D) Morgan, Thomas E . (D) Nix, Robert N. C . (D) Rhod e s , George M. (D) Rooney, F r ed B . (D) Saylor, John P . (R) Schneebeli, Herman T. (R) Schweiker , Richard S. (R) Toll , Herman (D) W eaver , James D . (R) Whalley, J. Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty, John E. (D) St. Germain, Fernand J . (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Ashmor e , Robert T. (D)

Darn ,

W . J.

Bryan (D)

Hemphill, Robert W . (D) McMillan, John L. (D)

C L L o L L

L L C o L L

C C C C C C

L L L L L L

C L L L L L

C C C C C C

C C o o C L L C C C C L C L L C C L C C L L C L

C L o L L L L o L L L L L L o L o o L C L L L L

C C o C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

L C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L o L L L L L L

C C L L C C C C C C C L C L

C C L L C L L L L C C L L L L L C C L L o o L L

C C L C C C C C C C C L C L L C

L o L L o L

L o

L o L L L L

L C L L L L

L o L

L L L

C C o C C C

L L

C o C C C C

L L C L

o L L L

C C C C

L L L L

L L C L

o L L L C L o L

L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L

o L L L L L

C C C o C C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L L L C C C L L C C C L L C C C L L L L L

L L L L L C L

L L C o o C L L L L L L

C C C C C C C C C C o C C C C C C C C C

C C L C C

C C L L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L

L L L C C C L C C C C L L C L C L L L L L o C C L C C

o L

C C

L L

C L L L

C C L C

C C C C

C C

C C C C C C C C L

L L

C L L C C o L

SOUTH CAROLINA (cont 'd) Rive r s , L. Mendel (D) Watson, Albert W. (D) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E . Y . (R ) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Baker , Howard H . (R) Bas s , Ross (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Davi s , Clifford (D) Everett, Robert A . (D) Evins , Joe L. (D) Fulton, Richard (D) Murray, Tom (D) Quillen, James H . (R) TEXAS �er , Bruce (R) Beckworth, Lindley (D) Brooks , Jack (D) Burleson, Omar (D) Casey, Robert R. (D) Dowdy, John (D) Fish e r , O . Clark (D) Foreman, Ed (R) Gonzalez, Henry B. (D) Kilgor e , Joe M. (D) Mahon, George H. (D) Patman , W right (D) Poage, William R. (D) Pool, Joe (D) Purcell, Graham (D) Roberts , Ray (D) Rogers , Walter (D) Teague , Olin E. (D) Thomas , Albert (D) Thompson, C lark W . (D) Thornberry, Horner (D) Wright, James C. (D) Young, John (D) UTAH �rton, Laurence J . (R) Lloyd, Sherman P . (R) VERMONT Stafford, Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt , W atkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joel T . (R) Downin g , Thomas N . (D) Gary, J. Vaughan (D) Hardy, Porte r , J r . (D) Jennings , W. Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 . , Jr. (D) Poff, Richard H . (R) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck, William M. (D) WASHINGTON Hans en, Julia B. (D) Horan, Walt (R) May, Catherine (R) Pelly , Thomas M. (R) Stinson, K. William (R) Tollefs on, Thor C . (R) W e stland, Jack (R) WEST VIRGINIA Hechler, Ken (D) K e e , Elizabeth (D) Moor e , Arch A . , J r . (R) Slack, John M . , Jr. (D) Staggers , Harley O . (D) WISCONSIN Byrne s , J ohn W . (R) Johnson, Lester R. (D) Kastenmei e r , Robert W. (D) Laird, M elvin R . (R) O 'Konski, Alvin E . (R ) Reus s , Henry S . (D) Schadeberg, Henry C. (R) Thomson, Vernon W . (R) Van Pelt , William K. (R) Z ablocki, C lement J. (D) W YOMING Harrison, William Henry (R)

Page 288

L o

C C

L C

e C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

o o C L L L L L C

L L L

C C C

L L L L L o L L L

L L e L L L L L C

L L o

C C

C L L C L L L C L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L

L L L C C

C C C C C C

C C L L C C C C L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L

C L L C C C C C L C e L C C e C C e

C C L C C C C C L C e C C C e C L e

L L L L

C L L L

L L

C C

L C

C C

C C C C

L L L L L L L L L L

L C L L L L L C L

C L C C L L C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C

L L L L L L L

L C C C C C C

L L L L C L L

L C C C C C C

L L L

L C C C C

L L L L L

L L C L L

L L L L L

L L C L L

L L L L L L C L C

L L L L C L L L

L L

C C C C C C C C

L L L L L L o

C L L C C L e C C

L L L C L L e L L

C C L C C L C C C

L L L L C

C L L L C C C C L L L o L C o L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L C

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

C C

L L

C C

L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L

L C C C C C C

L L L L L L

L o L L L

L L L L L L L L

L L

0 L

C C C

C C 0

C C C C C C C C C C

0 C

L L

THE o

1)(/11 SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 37

(Broadcast 422)

September 1 6, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

DARKN ESS IS DESCENDING ON TH E LAN D In the beginning, we do not see many overt acts of tyranny. Only occasionally, and under confused circum stances, does a midnight pounding on the doOt' rout from bed some citizen whose sole crime is criticism of all-powerful government. Only occasionally, when a man's fight fOt' justice can be calumnied as a selfish stand against progress, is a citizen jailed without trial, and held as an example to intimidate othen. Only occasionally is a military hero of the Republic stigmatized as mentally ill and incarcerated without formal process or permission to make bond, because the 1'uling tyranny, in momentary rage or panic, hated the man as a symbol of resistance. In the beginning, tyranny is subtle, its actions explained as necessary steps against enemies of the public good, its iron fist hidden in a velvet glove, its death's-head grin masked as a smile of paternal benefi

cence. By the time the naked power of the police state is unsheathed and brandished boldly for all to see and cringe befOt'e, it is often too late for an intimidated populace to take action .

At the outset of the Kennedy administration, the President and other New Frontier spokes men called upon the American people to shake off their apathy and to develop an informed and active interest in the great political problems of our time. The President stressed this theme in his first inaugural address and again in his first State of the Union Message. In his State of the Union Message (January 30, 1 961 ) , the President said : "Let it be clear that this administration recognizes the value of daring and dissent-that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change." (!)

By dissent) the President did not mean dissent from any act or idea of his : before the end of his first year in office, Kennedy was calling his critics irresponsible fanatics, discordant voices of extremism, and counselors of fear and suspicion. By the end of 1961, the President's counselors were demanding that conservative critics of the administration be silenced) and the President was moving fast to implement their demands. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 14; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 289

Reuther's Recommendations

O n December

19, 1961 , Walter Reuther pre sented to Attorney General Robert Kennedy a memorandum ( which had been prepared by Wal ter's brother, Victor ) on "The Radical Right in America Today." (2) Reuther congratulated the Kennedy adminis tration for saying harsh things about the "radical right," but demanded action instead of words. Here are passages from the Reuther memorandum on the "radical right" : "President Kennedy's addresses in Seattle and Los Angeles on November 1 6 and 1 8 [ 1 961 ] evi denced both a deep concern with, and a pro found understanding of, the serious problems injected into American life by the growing strength of the radical right . . . . "If the Administration truly recognizes this as a serious problem, as it certainly appears to do, it is most important that President Kennedy's addresses in Seattle and Los Angeles be imple mented . . . . "The radical right or extreme right-wing, or however it may be designated includes an un known number of millions of Americans of view points bounded on the left by Senator Goldwater and on the right by Robert Welch . . . . "The radical right moves the national political spectrum away from the Administration's pro posed liberal programs at home and abroad . . . . "What are needed are deliberate Administra· tion policies and programs to contain the radical right from further expansion and in the long run to reduce it to its historic role of the impotent lunatic fringe . . . .

"The radical right poses a far greater danger to . . . this country . . . than does the domestic communist movement."(3)

R euther suggested that "radical right" organ izations be placed on the Attorney General's sub versive list, aloqg with the communist party, and that their ranks be infiltrated by the FBI. This would be a political purge of major proportions. Note that "radical right" includes Senator Gold water and every other American as conservative

as, or more conservative than, the Senator. Reuther admits that the number is in the millions, and growtng. The patriots of America are to be branded sub versive, and outlawed. It can happen here. Indeed , the police-state purge of patriots has already begun. At present, there are no visible signs, no tangible evidence, that Kennedy plans to follow Reuther's recom mendation about branding and outlawing the millions of Americans who are as conservative as Barry Goldwater - Americans whom Reuther labels as "radical right." But two other Reuther recommendations ( of equal, if not deeper, im port ) are in the process of implementation by the Kennedy administration - were, indeed, already being implemented, in part, as Kennedy policy before Reuther submitted his memorandum. One involves the military : silence all Ilradical right" expression by military officers, and use military establishments as pressure groups to support ad ministration policies. The other involves broad casting : banish any IIradical right" expression from radio and television, and convert these media into propaganda agencies for governmental pro grams.

The Mil itary

T he Reuther memorandum to Robert Kennedy recommended muzzling of all military officers who think communism is a threat within the United States and who disagree with Kennedy administration policies of accommodating and appeasing the Soviets abroad. Anti-communist officers who cannot be silenced should be re moved, by one means or another, from the Armed Forces. All of this, according to Reuther, is to be done under the pretext of separating military personnel from partisan politics. At the same time, those military officers who agree with Ken nedy are to be encouraged, even ordered, to speak and act officially in support of Kennedy'S political programs. This is what Reuther recommends. This is what Kennedy is doing.

Page 290

The muzzling of anti -communist officers in the Armed Forces was a major controversy during the first year of Kennedy's administration. By the beginning of 1 963, anti-communists had been si lenced or forced out of the services. This was done, exactly as Reuther had recommended, under the pretext of keeping military personnel out of controversial political matters. In July, 1963, how ever, the administration ordered military person nel to intervene aggressively in the most contro versial political matter of all time, in support of the President's racial program.

"Segregation and other forms of discrimination in facilities in a given locality, detrimental to the morale of Negro personnel at a neighboring mili tary base, must cease. The commander should, of course, attempt by means available to him community committees, persuasion, emphasis of th e ?ase's importance to the local economy-to . elImmate such practices. In situations in which these efforts are unsuccessful, the commander should develop a plan under which military per sonnel of all races would be permitted to patron ize only those facilities which receive his express approval ." ( 6 ) .

O n July 26,

1963, Robert S. McNamara, Sec retary of Defense, issued a directive, "Equal Op portunity in the Armed Forces," ordering all mili tary commanders to take action in and against civilian communities around military bases, when ever those communities do not wholly support the President's racial program. (4)

The author of this directive is Adam Yarmolin sky, whose parents are notorious communist fronters and who has a record of participation in communist activities since his undergraduate days at Harvard. The purpose of the Yarmolinsky directive is to implement the program of the President's Com mittee On Egual Opportunity In The Armed Forces, appointed in June of 1 962. On June 1 3, 1 963, the committee outlined its scheme for racial equality in a 93-page report en titled "Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States," popularly referred to as the Gesell Report, after the name of a Washington, D. C , lawyer, Gerhard A. Gesell, who is chairman of the President's committee. The Gesell Report was written by a Sacramento, California, negro attorney, Nathaniel S. Colley, said to be an official of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Here is one passage from the 93-page Gesell Re port, now implemented as binding instructions on the Armed Forces, by the Yarmolinsky directive, issued on July 26, 1963, in the name of the Sec retary of Defense : (0)

(6)

Broadcasting

T he Reuther memorandum to Robert Kennedy is, among other things, a tissue of false insinua tions which amount to outright lies about the "radical right." Reuther insinuates that conserva tives are organized into clandestine, undercover organizations lavishly financed by means which violate the nation's tax laws, and that they domi nate radio and television broadcasting, to the ex clusion of liberal commentary. Without being specific, Reuther darkly hints that the Federal Communications Commission must do something to banish the "radical right" from radio and tele ViSion. In truth, most constitutional conservatives are not prone to join organizations. Those who belong to the John Birch Society and similar groups are outspoken about it, proud of their stand for con stitutional principles, trying always to educate others in those principles. They have very little money, and no access to national television. I probably have wider television coverage than any other constitutional conservative news com mentator. I have one fifteen-minute television program once a week. It is a condensation of this published Report. It has been on 3 3 television sta tions in a 9-state west coast area, under the spon sorship of Dr. Ross Pet Food Company of Los Angeles, since early 1957. More recently, I have acquired sponsorship on 8 television stations, in 4 states outside the Dr. Ross Company's marketing area.

Page 291

My broadcast is presented commercially by the firms which sponsor it. In all cases, the stations sell time to my sponsors, at their regular rates, and on the same basis that they sell time to other sponsors who advertise with other news-commen tary programs.

I n 1962, the Subcommittee on Tax Administra tion, of the California Legislature, under the chairmanship of Charles · H. Wilson, a Democrat, investigated the advertising program of D. B. Lewis, President of the Dr. Ross Pet Food Com pany, to determine, among other things, whether Mr. Lewis was violating or abusing California tax laws in the sponsorship of my broadcasts. On October 1 , 1962, Mr. Wilson's subcommit tee submitted its report. Here are pertinent ex cerpts : "The Lewis Food Company of Los Angeles, a California corporation, producer of 'Dr. Ross Dog and Cat Food,' sponsors the news commen tator Dan Smoot, whose views on national and international questions may be described as con servative. "The sponsorship of this program extends to 32 television and 52 radio stations in eleven western states. "The committee can find no abuse of the de ductibility privilege in this sponsorship . . . . Mr. Lewis is getting value out of his advertising dol· lar. We find no abuse of the intent of the law in the sponsorship of news and public affairs com mentators, notwithstanding the fact that they might reasonably be classified as 'extremists.' Dan Smoot's weekly commentary differs only in con tent, not in kind, from that of Howard K. Smith, Chet Huntley, or David Brinkley."

T his has been the experience of my broadcast in all areas. Nowhere, has my broadcast caused legal action against me, my sponsors, or the sta tions. An overwhelming majority of the listening audience responds favorably to my once-a-week news commentary on television. Why ? Because there is a vast, tinsatisfied public hunger for tele vision programs analyzing the news from the view poin! o f a wnstitutional co nsel·vative. A maj ority of Americans are conservative - despite the fact that totalitarian liberals control the government

and all its multi-billion-dollar tax-financed propa ganda agencies, and control and dominate most of the major newspapers and magazines, all of the television networks, and most major radio and television stations in the nation.

C onservatives have more access to radio than to television. My own radio broadcast is com mercially sponsored on 7 1 stations in 20 states. There are, perhaps, a half dozen other conservative radio programs distributed nationally and reach ing a large audience, and there are local conserva tive radio commentators. On television, there is also an unknown number of local conservative commentators ; but there is not one television commentator, with national coverage, who expresses the viewpoint of consti tutional conservatives. None of the television networks will sell time to respected, legitimate sponsors who want to ad vertise with my broadcast. And in some cities, my sponsors have been unable to buy time on any television station. Houston, New Orleans, Kansas City, Boston, New York-these are specific major cities where respected business organizations which wanted to sponsor my television broadcast were unable to buy time on any television station. In all cases, time was available if my sponsor would present an "approved" or " liberal" com mentator. In many cities where my television broadcast is on the air, the stations running it do not like it. They run it, because my sponsor is a good customer who insists, and because the pub lic response is overwhelmingly favorable.

The

Reuther memorandum ( developing its false insinuation that "radical right" programs receive favored treatment by broadcasting sta tions) mentioned one place where a radio station (WLW, in Cincinnati ) sold time for a conserva tive broadcast but would not sell time for the UAW program called "Eye Opener." Reuther said action against WLW, for this 'conduct,' was pending before the FCC. In this connection, I offer an interesting contrast. The sponsor who wanted to buy time for my television broadcast in Kansas City was told by

Page 292

all three stations in that city (WDAF, KMBC, and KCMO) that time was available - until they discovered that he wanted to sponsor me. All sta tions then found that time was not available for my program. My potential sponsor wrote to the FCC to see whether he had any redress through the FCC to force the stations to sell time for my broadcast. The FCC, by letter dated June 20, 1963, informed my sponsor that "there is no statute or Commission Rule" which would give him redress.

T his

is the situation in national television : totalitarian liberals have a virtual monopoly and have had since the beginning. There are scores of national network television news programs (most of them daily) , of the Howard K. Smith and Huntley-Brinkley and Walter Cronkite type, whose reporting of the news sometimes is offen sive to well-informed conservatives. In addition to that, the President and officials in the executive establishment have instant access to all mass media communication, with free time, to advocate the programs of totalitarian l iberalism. Not o n e con servative organization has a voice on national tele vision, and not one constitutional conservative commentator has a national television coverage. Yet the Reuther brothers in December, 1961, advised Robert Kennedy to have the Federal Com munications Commission do something about get ting the "radical right" off the air. The FCC has now done something which will eventually ( if something is not done) banish me and every other conservative commentator from every radio and television station in the nation, and limit all broadcasting stations to the role of communications media in the Soviet Union - the role of presenting nothing but programs govern mentally approved.

to controversial issue programming." Here is the full text: "Several recent incidents suggest t h e desirability of calli'ng the attention of broadcast licensees to the necessity for observance of the fairness doctrine stated by the Commission in its opinion of June 1, 1949 in Docket No. 8516. The Commission adheres to the views expressed in that opinion and continues to apply that policy, namely, that the licensee has an affirmative obligation to afford reasonable op portunity for the presentation of contrasting view points on any controversial issue which he chooses to cover. "The Commission has undertaken a study to con sider what actions, perhaps in the form of a primer or rules, might be appropriate better to define cer tain of the licensee's responsibilities in this area. Without undertaking at the present time to specify all, or the most important, applications of the policy, it is appropriate to call attention to the Commis sion's view of its application in three currently im portant situations : " ( a) When a controversial program involves a personal attack upon an individual or organiza tion, the licensee must transmit the text of the broadcast to the person or group attacked, wher ever located, either prior to or at the time of the broadcast, with a specific offer of his station's facilities for an adequate response ( Clayton W. Mapoles, 23 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 586, 591 ; Billings Broadcasting Company, 23 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 951, 953 ) . " ( b ) When a licensee permits the use of his facil ities by a commentator or any person other than a candidate to take a partisan position on the issues involved in a contest for political office or to attack one candidate or support another by di rect or indirect identification, he must immedi ately send a transcript of the pertinent continuity in each such program to each candidate concerned and offer a comparable opportunity for an ap propriate spokesman to answer the broadcast (Times-Mirror Broadcasting Co., 24 Pike & Fisch er, R.R. 404, 405 ) .

The Two-Edged Sword

July 26, 1963, the Federal Communica tions Commission sent a Public Notice to all ra dio and television stations, advising them of their "Responsibilities under the Fairness Doctrine as Page 293

" ( c ) When a licensee permits the use of his facil ities for the presentation of views regarding an issue of current importance such as racial segre gation, integration, or discrimination, or any other issue of public importance, he must offer spokesmen for other responsible groups within the community similar opportunities for the ex pression of the contrasting viewpoints of their respective groups. In particular, the views of the leaders of the Negro and other community groups as to the issue of racial segregation, integration, or discrimination, and of the leaders of appropriate groups in the community as to other issues of public importance, must obviously be considered and reflected, in order to insure that fairness is achieved with respect to programming dealing with such controversial issues ( Editorializing Re-

port, 1 ( Part three ) Pike & Fischer, R.R. 201, 204-206 ; cf. WBNX Bctg. Co., Inc., 4 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 242, 248 ) .

"In determining compliance with the fairness doc trine the Commission looks to substance rather than to label or form. It is immaterial whether a par ticular program or viewpoint is presented under the label of 'Americanism,' 'anti-communism' or 'states' rights' or whether it is a paid announce ment, official speech, editorial or religious broad cast. Regardless of label or form, if one viewpoint of a controversial issue of public importance is pre sented, the licensee is obligated to make a reasonable effort to present the other opposing viewpoint or viewpoints. "The Commission does not seek to prevent the expression of any viewpoint by any licensee on any issue. It does seek to prevent the suppression of other contrasting viewpoints by any licensee on any issue when licensed broadcast facilities have been used for the presentation of one view of the issue. This is required by the public interest standard of the law."

N ote carefully paragraph ( c ) . It is particular ly concerned with broadcasts on the racial ques tion, but includes all issues "of public impor tance." Practically every radio and television station in the country has interpreted the FCC notice as a discriminatory policy against conservative broad casts : liberals ( " In particular . . . leaders of the Negro . . . groups" ) can demand time to answer conservative broadcasts, but conservatives may not demand time to answer liberal broadcasts. Such discrimination does seem to be the intent of the FCC Notice, but the FCC does not specifi cally say so, because the FCC has no legal right to order such bias. Hence, this FCC Notice could be a two-edged sword. There are pitifully few conservative broad casts on radio and television. Liberals can harass stations and sponsors into canceling all of them by demanding free time for rebuttal. What if mil lions of American conservatives demanded equal time to answer liberal broadcasts ? Practically all television "documentaries" and news-analyses, and "studies in depth" are slanted toward liberal ism. If conservatives, in the millions, relentlessly demanded equal time to answer all liberal broad-

casts, the radio and television stations ( particular ly television ) would have time for little else.

H ow can broadcast stations protect them selves ? As a group, they should demand, and keep on demanding ( by private means and through their public facilities ) that Congress enact a law nullifying the FCC Fairness Doctrine and all other FCC rules and directives not abso lutely necessary for technical regulation of broad casting. Meanwhile-until Congress acts-broad cast stations could protect themselves by literal interpretation of a key phrase in the FCC Fair ness Doctrine Notice, as it presently stands. In paragraph ( c ) , FCC says that a station which allows a broadcast expressing a view on an issue of public importance, must offer similar 0 ppor tunities for the opposing viewpoint. Many sta tions have interpreted this to mean that they must donate equal time for liberals to answer a con servative broadcast, even though time for the conservative broadcast was sold at regular rates. By such misdirected interpretation, the stations are cutting their own throats. If someone wants to answer one of my broadcasts by getting a com mercial sponsor to buy time for him, equal to the time that was bought for me, permitting him to do so would be offering him similar opportunity to express his view. To give him time ( when my sponsors had to pay for my time ) will, in the end, either bankrupt the station or force cancellation of my broadcasts. Station KATU-TV in Portland, Oregon, has already notified my sponsor ( Dr. Ross ) that my broadcast will be banished from the station, be cause the station anticipates expense and trouble in offering free time to answer. Station WOAI-TV in San Antonio, Texas, now runs an announcement after each of my broad casts, saying: "This station voluntarily solicits responsible dissenting viewpoints to controversial matters discussed in the preceding program." My sponsor in San Antonio ( Mr. Louis Mich ael, President of Travis Savings & Loan Associa-

Page 294

broadcast on the treaty. I do not know how many stations refused to run Dean Manion's broadcast on the treaty.

tion) pays the station a substantial sum for my broadcast time because conservatism is good adver tising for his business-and because he is a dedi cated patriot who believes in constitutional govern ment. Mr. Michael complained vehemently about the tag which labels my broadcast "controversial" and offers time to answer it. To no avai l ! WOAI ran a three-hour NBC "documentary" slanted against conservatives who have a states' rights view on the racial question. Huntley and Brinkley, with thirty minutes a day on WOAI-TV, sometimes slant the news and edito rialize in favor of liberalism. There is a union commentator on WOAI-TV who not only edito rializes but tries to incite his audience to lobbying and boycotting activities. A woman commentator on WOAI-TV has lauded the United Nations and harshly condemned its critics. The station considers none of these "controversial" in the sense that time should be offered for con servative rebuttal-even though WOAI person nel admit that when they ran the 3-hour NBC documentary on the race question, the station received 349 telephone calls, 346 of them from irate citizens who resented the presentation. Practically every radio and television station in the nation gave many hours of coverage to the negro march on Washington, August 28. Bayard Rustin (negro who was second in command of the march ) had free time on television networks (and on radio) to present demands as to what the Congress and people of America must do. Bayard Rustin has a disgusting police record as a moral degenerate. No conservative has been given network time to answer hate-inciting comments made by per verts and communist fronters, who spoke to the nation on television, free of charge, on August 28.

L ast month, I had a broadcast criticizing the Test Ban Treaty recently negotiated in Moscow. Dean Manion had a broadcast on the same sub ject. Several television stations refused to run my

•

An article in the September 2, 1963, issue of Broadcasting reveals, however, that the Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty de manded free and equal time from 300 broadcast ing stations ( most Iy radio ) which had run the Manion broadcast criticizing the test ban treaty. The demands were mailed on August 23. By August 2 9, the Committee had received replies from about 1 50 stations, most of them offering the Committee free time to answer the Manion Forum broadcast, although time for the Manion broadcasts had been sold. Some stations wrote the FCC, asking whether they must give time to answer conservative broad casts whose time had been purchased at regular rates. An FCC official said the commission "couldn't answer the question, since the commis sion had never settled the issue."(7)

What Can Be Done

conservative commentary is banished from the airways, the cause of constitutional govern ment is doomed. What can you, an individual, do about it? Paragraph (a) of the FCC Fairness Doctrine Notice says : "When a controversial program involves a personal attack upon an individual or organiza tion, the licensee [ the station ] must transmit the text of the broadcast to the person or group attacked, wherever located, either prior to or at the time of the broadcast, with a specific offer of his station's facilities for an adequate re sponse . . . . "

Any factual, conservative comment about the UN, organized labor, or any governmental pro gram can be considered a "personal attack" which demands "adequate response" from the "attacked." But when liberal commentators de

nounce all conservatives as right-wing crackpots

Page 295

I will lend my television film, free of charge, for such rebuttal purpose. Since early 1957, every is sue of my Report has been summarized for tele vision and radio broadcasting. A fairly adequate supply of these transcribed broadcasts has been preserved. They cover a wide range of subjects which "liberals" discuss in ways offensive to con servatives.

and praise programs and organizations which conservatives know to be harmful to their country, will the FCC's provision for "adequate response" apply ? Conservatives could really convert this provi sion into something effective for our side.

I n every city throughout the country, conserva-

•

tives could form a local "Organization for the Protection of Conservative Opinion in Broad casting" ; officers could be elected ; letter-heads printed. Each organization could send notices to its local broadcasting stations, listing subjects within the organization's scope of interest (the national budget, foreign aid , foreign policy, the UN, organized labor, education, states right, and so on) . The conservative group could request tran scripts of all proposed broadcasts dealing with such subjects, in accordance with the Federal Com munications Commission's Public Notice, sub paragraph (a) , issued on July 26, 1963. If the station does not cooperate, the conserva tive group could write the FCC in Washington, making a formal complaint, sending copies of the letter to the local station. Every time a "liberal" broadcast is made on a local station, touching on any subject of interest to the local "Organization for the Protection of Conservative Opinion in Broadcasting," the Or ganization could demand free and equal time to answer. Individuals who cannot form an organ ization for this purpose, can, and should, act as in dividuals.

If any responsible conservative should demand and get equal time to answer a liberal broadcast, and then feel that he lacks time or facilities to prepare a proper presentation of his own views,

the FCC really wants the "opposing" view to have free opportunity for expression, and if stations really want to give away broadcast time for that purpose, we conservatives should help them out. We should challenge every liberal broadcast and demand time for our own view, on every radio and television station in America. If a left wing committee, urging ratification of a test ban treaty which could prove disastrous for our country, can get free rebuttal time from hun dreds of broadcast stations, why can't we ? We can - if we will. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "The State of the Union-Address of the President of the United States," Conf,l'eJSiona/ Rec01·d, January 30, 1961, pp. 1 360-4 ( daily ) , pp. 1 427- 3 1 ( bound ) ( 2 ) The Pal' Ri/!,ht, by Donald Janson and Bernard Eisemann, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963, pp. 227-32

( 3 ) "The Radical Right in America Today," by Victor G. and

Walter P. Reuther, The Ch" istian Beacon, August 1 5 , 1 963, pp. 4-5

(4) "The Gesell Report and Perversion of the Mission of the Military," speech by United States Senators John Stennis ( Demo crat, Mississippi ) , Barry Goldwater ( Republican, Arizona) , and others, Conf,I'eJSioIlCl! Recol'd, July 3 1 , 1963, pp, 1 3005-14 ( daily ) ( 4 ) Militm'Y Cold IVaI' Education alld SPeech Reliiew Policies, Hear

ings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1 962, Part IV, pp. 1 49 1 -2

( 6 ) "Gesell Report," speech by United States Representatives L. Mendel Rivers ( Democrat, South Carolina ) , Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. ( Democrat, Louisiana ) , Louis C. Wyman ( Republican, New Hampsh i re ) , and others, COIlf,I'eJS;ona! Record, August 7, 1963, pp. 1 3 548-99 ( daily ) ( 7 ) "Equal time requests follow Manion show," Broadcast;nf" Sep tember 2, 1963, pp. 6 1 - 2

DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF T H I S REPORT AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. WE CONSER VATIVES MUST ACT NOW. Page 296

THE o

IJflll SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 38

(Broadcast 423)

September 23, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

REORGAN IZI N G FOR STALEMATE

O n March 6, 1 963, United States Representative Paul Findley (Republican, Illinois ) , re minding his associates that the Constitution places upon Congress the responsibility of raising and maintaining armed forces for the United States, placed in the Congressional Record ( pages A 1 1 65-7 ) an article written for The Saturday Evening Post by Hanson W. Baldwin, military an alyst for The New York Times. Here are passages from the Baldwin article: "The unification of the armed services sponsored by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McN a mara poses some subtle and insidious dangers . . . . almost as great a threat to a secure and free nation as the attempted military coup . . . .

"For the kind of unification being practiced and preached today has ominous overtones. It is dangerous to the Nation's political system of checks and balances, dangerous to the contin ued development of sound military advice and effective military leadership, dangerous to man agerial and administrative efficiency. "Mr. McNamara is, first and foremost, trying to make the armed services speak with one voice and attempting to reduce greatly or eliminate altogether interservice competition . . . . "Objections or dissent, even to Congress, are discouraged, muted or, when possible, stifled. Mr. McNamara has pressured the joint Chiefs of Staff to sign written statements testifying to Congress that the administration's defense budget is adequate. He has censored, deleted and altered statements to Congress by the Chiefs of the services and their secretaries. He has down graded, ignored, bypassed or overruled the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . . . "For 175 years of our history, separate Army and Navy Departments (and then an Air Force) provided a natural interservice system of checks and balances. The services did not speak with one voice, and politically this was a desirable safeguard. They balanced each other, and their Secretaries provided contrasting viewpoints at Cabinet level. Now only the Secretary of Defense is a Cabinet officer . . . . THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10. 00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Co pyri g ht by Dan Sttloot, 1963. Second class mail

privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 297

"The latest reorganization of the State-con trolled National Guard, still opposed by some Governors, may ultimately extend Washington's power over the Guard. Such developments rep resent dangerous weakening of our traditional military checks and balances. "Equally threatening to the Nation's future is the concentration of politico-military power, not merely in Washington but in one depart ment . . . . The dollar volumes of military con tracts amount to more than $20 billion annually, with billions more in backlog orders outstand ing. The individual services no longer have the final power to contract. The rewarding or can cellation of contracts - which may make or break companies and affect thousands of workers - is now ultimately controlled by a very few men in the top echelons of the Defense Department. "Perhaps the greatest military danger in this centralization and unification is that it overrides the voice of professional experience and substi tutes a military party line, a single strategic concept . . . . "The 'one voice' unification trend in the Pen tagon presents another potential danger: the de velopment of future generations of officers who will be essentially military yes-men and conform ists . . . . without the moral courage or leader ship qualifications required by the battlefield . . . . "Technical competition between the services is being discouraged despite the lessons of the past. The air-cooled and liquid-cooled aircraft engines which ultimately gave us air supremacy in World War II were a direct result of differ ing Army and Navy technical concepts and in terser vice competition . . . . "Finally, what about administrative efficiency; what has Mr. McNamara's brand of unification done to the Pentagon? . . . Contracting, budget ing, progress on weapons systems - even lawn cutting - is programed and controlled in detail from various echelons of the Secretary's office. "The reporting and analytical system required has resulted in a tremendous burgeoning of paperwork and great increase in numbers and rank of both civilian and military personnel assigned to echelons above the fighting services in the Department of Defense . . . .

"This topheavy system has obvious built-in delay factors, and, as the record of the Mc Namara administration shows, it is far harder

to start a new project or weapons system than it is to cancel or curtail an old one. In the first 1 8 months of the McNamara regime, no major new weapons system was started . . . . the Defense Department . . . has curtailed, eliminated or held back such important development projects as a future manned-bomber system ( the RS-70), the Skybolt air-to-ground missile and the Nike Zeus anti-ball is tic-missile system . . . . "Concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of Defense has been hastened by the loosening of congressional control over the Pen tagon. The power to raise and maintain armies and navies, conveyed to the legislative branch by the Constitution, has been watered down as a result of the sheer immensity and size of the Defense Department, the tremendous increase in Executive power, and the weaknesses and mis takes of Congress itself . . . . Congress, by loose legislation, conferred upon the President and the Secretary of Defense such immense power to reorganize the Pentagon that it has, in the view of some legislators, virtually abandoned its former power to check, control, and approve every detail of defense policy and organiza tion . . . . "If the Pentagon ever does speak with one voice, if the Nation's Armed Forces do come, as the trend now indicates, to represent a mono lithic military-political point of view, both free dom and security will be in jeopardy through the slow erosion of democracy into a garrison state and the stagnant conformity that leads to combat ineffectiveness."

On May 4, 1963, The Saturday Evening Post published an article by General Thomas D. White ( former Air Force Chief of Staff, now retired ) who said that "academic theorists" ( "de fense intellectuals" ) , now in charge of our de fense, lack understanding of war and of the enemy whom we may have to fight. General White said : "I am profoundly apprehensive of the pipe smoking, tree-full-of-owls type of so-called pro fessional 'defense intellectuals' who have been brought into this nation's capital. I don't believe a lot of these often overconfident, sometimes ar rogant young professors, mathematicians and other theorists have sufficient worldliness or mo tivation to stand up to the kind of enemy we face . . . .

Page 298

"Our military officers . . . . will have to carry out the military aspects of our national strategy. They will have to fight under the plans and orders and with the weapons which have evolved under the influence of those, often far junior in age and experience, who come into Government, for a few years at most, from colleges and founda tions . . . . "

General White says the civilian "defense intel lectuals" call their own jobs "thinking about the unthinkable," which in itself is a "weightless dreamland." These strategy makers refuse to ac cept lessons of military history, and the experi ence of combat veterans. The aspect of the McNamara regime, most dis turbing to General White, is that ruling "intel lectuals" b a s e everything - strategy, weapons systems, personnel acquisition - on the political ideal of compromise, not on the military ideal of victory: a military establishment which does not plan to win is not likely to win; and is more likely to accept defeat than to achieve acceptable compromIse. General White shows that "thinking about the unthinkable," by defense intellectuals, is sup ported by McNamara and is, evidently, his own philosophy as well. Specifically, General White notes that McNamara's appearances before Con gressional committees during 1 963 indicate that stalemate between America and the Soviet Un ion is our highest aim. General White says : "For example, attainment by the Soviet Union of a second-strike capability would mean, in simple terms, a very considerable net increase in our enemy's military strength and nuclear power. Yet Mr. McNamara is quoted . . . as saying that the Soviets will achieve a 'sure second-strike ca pability.' . . . [ and ] 'the sooner . . . the better.' I am dead certain the majority of military men flatly disagree with the concept that a major increase in enemy strength is helpful . . . ."

O n September 4, 1963, Admiral George W. Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations until "re tired" by President Kennedy in August, 1 963, delivered an angry address to the National Press Club in Washington, D. c . , repeating, essentially,

the arguments of General White. Here are ex cerpts from Admiral Anderson's speech : "There is . . . alarming peril to obscuring the role of the military, found in a modern fallacy that theories, or computers, or economics, or numbers of weapons win wars. Alone, they do not! Man is the key to success or failure . . . . "There are some tendencies which give me great concern, a concern shared by many in uni form today and by many who have previously served their country in military and civilian posi , tions. , ( J )

Admiral Anderson called attention to six spe cific developments which worry him : 1 . Downgrading military recommendations on weapons and reversal of military recommenda tions, such as in the TFX contract; 2. Lack of "confidence and trust between the military and civilian echelons"; 3. Subordination of military experience to academic theory; 4. Overcentralization in the Defense structure which can "kill imagination, stultify initiative and completely eliminate the effectiveness of those . . . who have gained wisdom and expe. nence" ; 5. "A tendency to draw conclusions before all the evidence has been examined"; 6. Failure to maintain naval strength while "the Soviets are moving forward rapidly on the high seas." (l)

Background

T he Billy Mitchell dispute of the 1920's was an early harbinger of the present controversy over reorganization of American military estab lishments, and the public does not yet know the truth about the Billy Mitchell affair. Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, U. S. Army, has been popularized as a patriot who sacrificed self to break through the wall of stuffy ignorance and arrogance which kept our Armed Forces from accepting new - ideas. Billy Mitchell, the legend goes, was the real Founding Father of American aIr power.

Page 299

Billy Mitchell did foresee more clearly than some the importance of air power. He wanted the Air Corps ( then merely a section of the Army Signal Corps) elevated to a Department, on a par with the Army and the Navy. A significant part of the Mitchell objective has been ignored, however, in dramatizations of his case : Mitchell wanted an Air Force Department to have not only a monopoly of all military aviation, but also autocratic cont-rol of commercial aviation and of private aircraft building. (2)

President Coolidge appointed an Advisory Commission, headed by Dwight Morrow, to in vestigate. The Dwight Morrow investigation and rec ommendations eventuated in a reorganization which separated the Air Corps from the Signal Corps , making it a separate branch of the Army. The office of Assistant Secretary for Air was es tablished in the War Department ( the Depart ment of the Army then being known as the De partment of War ) . An Assistant Secretary for Air was also established in the Navy Department. (2 ) This remained, essentially, the organizational ar rangement of American Armed Forces until after World War II.

Marsha l l ' s Plan

D uring

the heaviest fighting of World War II, General George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, found time to propose a general reorgani zation. The Marshall Plan ( rather informally, and sketchily, presented as a memorandum circu lated to high officials in September, 1 943 ) be came the basis and the outline of a grand design which is now realizing fulfillment under Mc Namara and Kennedy. Marshall wanted the Air Corps separated from the Army and established as a military organiza tion on a par with the Army and the Navy, but he did not suggest elevating the Air Force to Department level. Rather, he wanted the old Departments of War and Navy abolished, their status as Departments with Cabinet representa tion eliminated. In their place would be one De-

partment of War (or Department of Defense) whose secretary would be a member of the Presi dent's Cabinet, to speak ("with one voice" ) for all the Armed Forces. The three main branches of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air) would be on a par with each other but would not have individual Cabinet representation. Not only would they be under a single civilian head (the Secretary of War, or Secretary of Defense ) but they would also be under a single military head - one chief of staff in charge of all branches of the Armed Forces, answerable to the one Secre tary of Defense and to the President. (3)

Arguments

for such a monolithic structure in our Armed Forces have some theoretical plausi bility : elimination of inter-service rivalry, better co-ordination of all forces, elimination of dupli cation and waste. But the theory ignores the lessons of history and the combat experience of American fighting men. Inter-service "rivalry" has been, in large part, responsible for the superior morale and esprit de corps which distinguish Americans in combat which can be, and in many critical times have been, more important than weapons, supplies, or organization. Temporary arrangements for unified battle ac tion by separate (and "rival" ) branches of American military forces have produced brilliant successes-often because the arrangements neces sarily left a great deal of leeway for improvisa tion, ingenuity, and individual initiative on the part of lower echelon commanders. A massive military operation, which spreads across thou sands of miles and involves millions of men with all types of equipment under a multitude of un predictable conditions, can be choked to death by unification and tight control by one desk man at the top. As to waste and duplication : these are peren nial evils of bureaucracy, military and civilian. There seems to be a law of proportion which should counsel us to keep the military and the civilian b ureaucracy divided and fragmented into the smallest ( "rival" ) units possible. Waste,

Page 300

duplication, and inefficiency of a governmental unit, agency, or department (military or civilian) seem to multipIy in geometric proportions as the size of the unit increases which means that a governmental unit large enough to have a 2 bil lion dollar budget is generally about four times as wasteful and inefficient as one large enough to have a 1 billion dollar budget. -

T he George Marshall clique in the Pentagon (which included Eisenhower in Europe) pushed hard for the unification plan of having a single Chief of Staff and a single Secretary of Defense; but the thin plausibility of their arguments did not carry enough weight. They resorted to skill ful maneuver and intrigue. In 1 946, the Army's Historical Division (study ing operations in the European Theatre during the late war) asked three former chiefs of staff of the German Army to tell what happened on their side during the war and to give their views on reorganization of our Armed Forces. The three were : General Franz Halder ( German Army Chief of Staff 1938-1 942 ) , General Kurt Zeitzler (Chief of Staff 1 942-1944) , and General Heinz Guderian ( 1944 to 1 945 ) . Of the three, Guderian was belligerent and uncooperative. Halder and Zeitzler avoided making specific rec ommendations, but did prepare a historical study reflecting opposition to the kind of centralized power being proposed for the American mili tary. Halder and Zeitzler ( like a great majority of German generals) felt that the single Chief of Staff arrangement (with tight concentration and unification of power in one man) was a pri mary reason for Germany's defeat : it produced rigidity in times of crisis, prohibiting command ers from altering plans to meet unforeseen de velopments, holding German forces to a precon ceived plan of action which battle-field develop ments rendered ineffective, even suicidal. (3) These German generals seemed in sympathy with Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz ( Hitler's suc cessor as " fuehrer" ) who rejects the fascist-com munist ideal of concentrated political power, and advocates a governmental system based on old American constitutional principles. (4)

The George Marshall clique of political man agers who dominated Pentagon planning in the postwar period, disliked the ideas of such Ger mans as Halder, Zeitzler, and Doenitz. They turned to the bellicose Guderian for a recom mendation. Guderian is one of very few German generals who advocates the totalitarian state (and who has been active in totalitarian politics since World War II ) Y)

The Guderian Plan

In 1947, Congress enacted a law authorizing partial reorganization of the Armed Forces along the lines of the Marshall Plan. The Navy De partment was reduced from Cabinet level. The War Department was changed to Department of the Army and also reduced from Cabinet level ; and a new Department of the Air Force was created. The three services were called 'The Na tional Military Establishment," and were under one civilian head, the new Secretary of Defense. Militarily, however, the three services were di rected by a Joint Chiefs of Staff (a committee of Chiefs of Staff representing the three branches) : Congress, after bitter controversy, had rejected the single Chief of Staff arrangement. James For restal (last Secretary of the old Department of the Navy ) was named the first Secretary of De fense - an irony of fate (or a display of Tru manism) , because Forrestal was the foremost foe of Armed Forces unification. The 1 947 reorganization was a compromise, pushed through Congress amidst a fury of con fused and confusing conflict. It produced a cum bersome system which could not work ; (6) but in 1948, German General Guderian completed his plan for reorganization of the American Armed Forces. (6)

The Guderian Plan would create an all-power ful military dictatorship with the President as its totalitarian head - or its tool. Guderian would not only establish the old German unified com mand system, but would also put the military high command in tight control of civilian avia tion, civilian -transportation, and civilian commu-

Page 301

nications ( communications including radio, tele vision, and press ; and telegraph and telephone services) . The Guderian Plan has become a blueprint for all U. S. military reorganization plans made or attempted since 1 948. The total Plan, not yet in effect, is being achieved a step at a time. Con gress has permitted these dangerous developments by abdicating ( in the Reorganization Act of 1 949 ) its own constitutional powers and respon sibilities. (3)

T he

Constitution gives to Congress, exclu sively, the power to legislate , and to the President the negative role of approving or vetoing what Congress does. Even the negative veto power is limited : Congress can legislate in defiance of presidential veto, if two-thirds of both houses desire. The Reorganization Act of 1 949 reverses this process, with regard to certain vital matters , per mitting the President to legislate, reducing Con gress to the role of vetoing what the President does. Specifically, the Reorganization Act of 1 949 permits the President to reorganize the executive establishment (abolish agencies or departments created by Congress ; create agencies or depart ments not authorized by Congress ; transfer re sponsibilities from an agency where Congress had assigned them, to another agency where Con gress had not intended the responsibilities to rest ) . The President merely sends his Reorganization Plans ( i.e., "presidential legislation" ) to Con gress. If Congress does not veto the Plans within 60 days, they become law. The unconstitutional "authority" conferred on the President by the Reorganization Act of 1 949 was first used, for steps toward military centrali zation, in 1953. President Eisenhower appointed Nelson A. Rockefeller (member of the Council on Foreign Relations) as head of a commission to make a study and proposal for military re organization. The Rockefeller Report, recom mending more centralization of power, became the basis of an Eisenhower Reorganization Plan (sent to Congress on April 30, 1953, and not vetoed ) which concentrated more power than

theretofore in the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ( 6 )

Step By Step

I t seemed a timid step. More propaganda work on the Congress and the public was needed be fore bolder measures could be taken without arousing the nation. The Council on Foreign Relations undertook the propaganda job - subtly and unobtrusively, of course. J. Robert Oppenheimer (notorious former as sociate of communist espionage agents and mem ber of the Council on Foreign Relations ) wrote an article for the July, 1953, issue of Foreign Affairs ( principal publication of the CFR) , ad vocating de-emphasis, and eventual elimination, of nuclear weapons from American Armed Forces, arguing for conventional forces and arm aments which might (as General Thomas White now phrases it) produce stalemate with, rather than victory over, communist forces. (7) In 1954, the CFR organized "discussion groups" to "study" foreign policy and defense in the nuclear age. All the emphasis was on preventing American preparation for a nuclear war. Good sense and logic seemed to have more influence on public thought than CFR efforts had. It was obvious that America could not match the communist slave empire in manpower for the kind of "conventional" forces that Oppenheimer and others urged us to depend on. We could, however, with our superior technology and in dustrial capacity, outstrip the Soviets in produc tion of nuclear and other new types of weapons. It was obvious that the next war would be fought with the new weapons ; that it would be short and violent; and that it would probably be over before massive land armies and other "conven tional" forces and weapons were ever brought into action. International political events also made it obvious that American dependence on foreign bases left us at the mercy of foreign nations who, even in times of peace, when they were on the American dole, often seemed friend lier to the Soviets than to us. Dependence on such

Page 302

(8)

nations for use of bases on their soil , in times of war when they would be under blackmail threats by the Soviet Union, could be disastrous. A growing public comprehension of such ob vious conditions led to revival of the traditional, and sound, Fortress America concept of national defense : the concept that we must defend our homeland, because we have neither the respon sibility nor the capability of defending and po licing the world. Leading military men, with combat experience - like Admiral Arthur W. Radford - publicly supported the idea of de-emphasizing foreign bases and foreign military entanglements, argu ing for a reduction of spending on "conventional" forces so that our resources could be devoted to production of such super-weapons as missiles and intercontinental, supersonic bombers, which would deter enemy aggression by threatening enemy destruction in the event of war.

Mc Namara and Kennedy

W ith

the groundwork prepared, Kennedy and McNamara have taken giant strides toward converting the American Armed Forces into a mammoth political-economic complex w h o s e spending dominates the national economy, and whose primary purpose (as dictated by "intellec tuals" at the top) appears to be, not defense of the nation against foreign enemies, but defense of the administration's political objectives against the American people. In short, Kennedy and McNamara are placing in charge of our defenses, not experienced mili tary officers, but political commissars to promote programs of the administration. Next week : "McNamara's Commissars."

Bound Volume VI I I

The

Council on Foreign Relations intensified its propaganda efforts. Some of the results were Dr. Henry A. Kissinger's book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, published in 1957 ;(8) and, in 1958, a Rockefeller Brothers Fund "study," the Gaither Committee Report,OO) and a Rand Corporation book for the Air Force on how American military forces could strategically sur render to avoid bloodshed. In essence, all of these "studies" supported the thesis that control of our military establish ments should be tightly concentrated at the top, and that emphasis in weapons-development, strat egy, troop indoctrination, and general policy , should be on stalemate and compromise with the enemy rather than victory. (9)

(11)

Authorized by a specific law of Congress in 1958 (Defense Reorganization Act) , Eisenhower took another step toward implementing the Gu derian Plan - further concentrating power in the Secretary of Defense and in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shifting responsibility for military planning away from officers with combat experience, putting it in the hands of desk officers and civilians.

T he

year 1964 may b e the most important election year in the history of the United States. From now until election day in November, 1 964, voters must have facts about what is going on. Getting hard facts about the policies and pro grams of government is becoming increasingly difficult. The noose of censorship is tightening : conservative news commentary is being choked off radio and · television ; major magazines and newspapers are becoming mere outlets for gov ernmental propaganda handouts. This condition re-emphasizes the importance of such publications as this ReP01't - which pre sent unvarnished truth, using the Constitution of the United States as the touchstone for evaluation. Few such publications are still in existence, and the number is shrinking. Of special importance are the extensively in dexed bound volumes of the Repo1't, The only one still available is Volume VIII (containing all Repo1'ts published in 1962 ) . This volume is especially useful, not only for students, teachers, writers, and sp eakers, but for all who want facts

for enlightened understanding of the great issues

Page 303

of our time. It contains a wealth of documented information not available anywhere else in one package, such as :

FOOTNOTES

- voting records of members of the national Congress who will stand for re-election in 1 964 ;

( 1 ) "Ex-Naval Chief Blasts Pentagon," AP dispatch from Wash ington, The Dallas Times Herald, September 5, 1 963, p. 4A; "How Much is our Security 'Jeopardized' ?" U. S. News & l/Yodd Report, September 1 6, 1963, p. 24

- an account of socialist control in Washing ton;

( 2 ) Potl'e,' Polilics ill N(ltioll(ll Sec1lrity, by Eugene E. Wilson and A. Winfield Chapin, The Barre Gazette Press, Barre, Massachusetts, 1961

- details on federal welfare programs ; - the story of our No-Win Policy, and of steps toward surrender of national sovereignty ; - a series on the Supreme Court's Prayer De cision and recommended action for curbing the Court; - the full text of the U. S. Constitution and all Amendments, fully indexed, with commen tary relating this fundamental law to contem porary problems.

B e informed ; use the Bound Volume for con stant reference and study; know the background of current issues ; learn to j udge your representa tive and senators by their records - so that you can vote "constitutionalist" in 1 964. A limited supply of Bound Volume VIII still in stock. Price : $1 0.00 delivered.

WHO

I S

( 3 ) "Our Growing 'Prussian' Staff," speech by U . S. Representa tive Thomas H. Werdel ( Republican, California ) , Congres SiOI/(// Recol'd, Apri l 3, 195 1 , pp. 3 2 24-44 ( bound )

( 4 ) Memoirs, by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, World Publishing Company, New York City, 1959, pp. 477-8 ( 5 ) Germany's New Nazis, 195 2 , p. 46

Anglo-Jewish

Association,

London,

( 6 ) Ullited Stales De/ense Policies Since TVorld TVaI' II, by Charles H . Donnelly, House Document No . 1 00 , 85th Con gress, 1 9 57, pp. 17 ff. ( 7 ) "Atomic Weapons and American Policy," by J. Robert Op penheimer, Foreign A/fain, Volume 3 1 , No. 4, July, 1 9 5 3 , P l' · 5 2 5-35

( 8 ) " Introduction," Nuclear lVeapons and Foreign Policy by Henry

A. Kissinger, published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Brothers, 1957

(9) "Report II, International Security; The Military Aspect," Prospect for America: The Rockefeller P(lnel Reports, Double day and Company, 196 1 , Pl'. 93- 1 5 5 ( 1 0 ) Bllsiness l/Yeek, January 1 1 , 1958, p. 2 6 ( 1 1 ) "Review o f the Book 'Strategic Surrender,' '' by Constantine Brown, Congressiollal Record, September 1 1 , 1959, p. 1 7549

( daily)

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization, In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to ]. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues, In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 304

and communism, you can

THE o

IJI/II SmootRepo,t (Broadcast 424)

Vol. 9, No. 39

September 30, 1963

Dallas, Texas , DAN

SMOOT

McNAMARA'S COMMISSARS

July 26, 1 963, Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, issued a directive, "Equal Op portunity in the Armed Forces," ordering all military commanders to take action in and against civilian communities around military bases, whenever those communities do not wholly support the President's racial program. The author of this directive is Adam Yarmolinsky, whose parents are notorious communist fronters and who has a record of participation in communist activities since his undergraduate days at Harvard. (1)

(2)

The Yarmolinsky directive implements recommendations of the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces. Appointed in June of 1 962 , this Committee had seven members : three of whom were negroes, the other four being connected, in one way or another, with the Americans for Democratic Action, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Urban League. (I)

On June 1 3, 1963, the Committee submitted a 93-page report, popularly known as the Gesell Report, after the name of a Washington, D. C. lawyer, Gerhard A. Gesell, Committee chairman. The Gesell Report was written by a Sacramento, California, negro attorney, Nathaniel S. Col ley, an NAACP official. ( ")

U nited

States Representative Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (Democrat, Louisiana) first brought the Gesell Report to public attention. In his July, 1 963, newsletter, Representative Waggonner outlined some of the Report's major provisions : - More recruiting should be directed toward Negroes, to get more into the services and to increase the number of Negro officers. - Negroes should be located in jobs throughout the services regardless of their individual preferences in order to have a few everywhere and in all positions. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

305

-Promotion Boards should have more Negro officers, fewer Whites. -Special Officers should be appointed on every base to handle all complaints of Negroes, and such complaints should be "encouraged." -More Negro girls are to be brought on bases for social functions and fewer girls who believe in segregation. -Negro hostesses should be considered rather than White. -Military Police patrols used in neighboring communities should be integrated. -Segregated busses should be boycotted. -Base Commanders should appoint bi-racial committees in the communities to break down segregation practices. -Civic clubs should not be joined if they are segregated. -The past policy of complying with local segregation policies should be terminated. -The practice of Negroes gravitating to one base service club and Whites to another should not be permitted, even though this might be of their own choosing. -Methods are suggested for getting around local segregated housing by leasing homes in the name of the government and moving Negroes in. -ROTC units should be cancelled in segre gated schools. -The traditional function of the Base Com mander and Senior Officer to run a military establishment and maintain good community re lations by staying out of local controversies is misguided and should be stopped. They should be encouraged to lead the way to full integration. -Military personnel should be allowed to pa tronize only those local establishments which are integrated and have the "express approval" of the Base Commander. All others should be placed off-limits. Approved stores should display plac ards or decals on their windows and doors to show they have been approved by the military. This gives the Base Commander life-or-death control of the economic life of the community and the right to subject to military discipline all servicemen, their wives and children who shop at other stores of their own choosing.

-Should all these efforts fail to bring about integration, the Services must consider curtail ing or terminating activities at these installations.

According to the Gesell Report, military offi cers are no longer to be rated for professional excellence, devotion to duty, or superior perform ance. Their careers will depend on their zeal in promoting the President's political obj ective of enforcing total integration, not just in the Armed Forces, but on the civilian population of the nation. To guarantee zealous and ideologically cor rect behavior on the part of military commanders, the Gesell Report recommends assignment of special "complaint officers" whose role is virtu ally identical with that of political commissars whom communists attach to every military com mand in the Soviet Union. The Gesell Report also provides for an informer system inside each mili tary command - similar to the informer system in communist armies - enabling informers about ra cial matters to by-pass the normal chain of com mand, and shielding the informers from the necessity of identifying themselves and facing the persons they accuse. Examine these passages from the Gesell Report : "Complaints, involving matters relating to a single person, such as failing to be promoted, cannot ordinarily be investigated without dis closing the identity of the aggrieved individual. This is not true, however, where the complaint discloses a discriminatory condition on base, such as a segregated NCO [ Non-Commissioned Of ficers' ] club. Such conditions can be investigated and eliminated without the need for identifying a particular complainant . . . . "In order to improve the processing of com plaints at the base level, procedures must be established which will encourage Negro person nel to present complaints of discrimination while eliminating the risk that they will be subject to criticism or reprisal for so doing. In order to ac complish this, an officer should be designated at each base to receive such complaints. This of ficer must have free access to the base com mander or his deputy for the purpose of com municating and discussing complaints of dis crimination. Commanders at bases must, of course, be held personally responsible for the

Page 306

effectiveness of the system and for conditions on the base. Discriminatory conditions may exist even where few complaints are made, and the commander should be held accountable to dis cover and remedy such conditions . . . . "In view of his role as a confidential coun selor, consideration should be given to the desig nation of the local legal assistance officer as the officer to receive such complaints, but the base commander should be free to designate the officer best qualified for such duties, regardless of the officer's other duties. However, the officer so chosen must not be so burdened with other duties that he cannot effectively deal with complaints presented to him; he should be so situated that servicemen can contact and consult him in privacy; and he should be independent and free from intimidation by any person in the per formance of his duties. "Under this system, all base personnel should be repeatedly and periodically advised of the identity of the complaint officer, and further advised of their right to present complaints. Service regulations should forbid attempts to dis courage the presentation of such complaints or reprisals against complainants, and all person nel should be advised that such attempts, in vio lation of these regulations, will subject them to disciplinary action. "Such day-to-day efforts to discover and elimi nate examples of discrimination at the base level should be checked and supplemented by periodic field visits from personnel from the Department of Defense who are skilled and sensitive in han dling problems of discrimination and whose full time energies are devoted to such problems. In this way, commanders' efforts can be measured "(1)

Now, you spend over $52 billion a year on the military. This destroys it . . . . We have Armed Forces for one reason and one reason alone, for the defense of the United States of America . . . . But . . . this highly inflammatory, vicious, and extremely prejudiced report . . . . takes the mili tary out of the role of providing for the national security and plunges them into the role of social reformers . . . . REPRESENTATIVE F. EDWARD HEBERT (Democrat, Louisiana) : I want to read this shock ing statement from the report . . . : It should be made clear that officers, for show ing initiative and achievement in this area [ the area of integrating local communities] will en hance their .performance ratings and obtain fa vorable consideration for promotion and career advancement . . . .

REPRESENTATIVE R I V E R S: Anything short of this will automatically identify this com mander as uncooperative . . . . If we live by this and the directives emanat ing from it, what good is West Point, what good is Annapolis, what good is the Air Force Acad emy, what good is the science of warfare, com bat efficiency, combat readiness? . . . The directive means only those who are will ing to accept integration completely and without reservation as a way of life will henceforth be able to make a career of the Armed Forces of the United States. REPRESENT ATIVE H. R. GROSS (Repub lican, Iowa) : After setting up what will become a commissar on each base, an officer to hear complaints, the report reads as follows: All personnel, officers and enlisted men, should be free to contact the officer designated to re ceive complaints at any time without the con sent, knowledge or approval in the chain of com mand.

"Infamous . . . Shocking . . . Ominous" August 7, 1963, United States Represent ative L. Mendel Rivers (Democrat, South Caro lina) led a discussion, in the House, of the Gesell Report. Here are extracts from that discussion :

Communications between servicemen and this commissar [ sic ] should be privileged and service regulations should prohibit the disclosure of such communications, or the identity of the com plainant without the serviceman's consent.

REPRESENT A TIVE RIVERS: We will have a number of contributors to this discussion . . of [ one of ] the most infamous documents ever devised by human hand, known as the Gesell report . . . .

This will create . . . the biggest army of snoopers and informers that the military has ever heard of. This is an outrage. REPRESENTA TIVE RIVERS: It could be the beginning of SS troops in America . .

(I)

Page

307

REPRESENTATIVE DURWARD G. HALL (Republican, Missouri ) : God forbid that we have an OGPU or an SS in our military. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentle man from South Carolina. I have serious doubts about the military or the legal qualifications of this study . . . . REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE W. AN DREWS (Democrat, Alabama) : I would like to ask . . . if this committee report recommends a spy system to be called a monitor, with an es pecially sympathetic monitor through the range of troop levels in order to check on commanders as to how they carry out this function . . . . Is it not true that the Communists have such a spy system and have had it since the beginning of the Russian Revolution in 1 9 1 7 ? . . . I can tell you . . . there is such a spy system and it is directed by a man known as a political commissar, whose business it is to watch all mili tary commanders and to report to another agency on the manner of the performance of that duty. Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, if this committee report is implemented, and certain implementing orders have been issued . . . we are well on the way to dictatorship in this country . . . . N ever has our Nation faced such a threat. Never have we been faced with such devastat ing implications. The President is playing with an ominous toy. He would make the military a political puppet controlled by strings pulled only by the Executive. REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE L. WHITTEN (Democrat, Mississippi) : One other thing that has led to the destruction of so many nations is the fact that instead of trying to have their de fense establishment strong as can be, for the de fense of their country, they have had mercenary soldiers using their funds in foreign lands to get someone else to do the defending of their coun try . . . . We do this today . . . . We have about let military spending be the dominant voice in everything that goes on around us . . . . We are spending something like 60 percent of our entire national budget for what is called defense, much of it not real defense at all . . . . Economic power is the instrument of dictatorship just as much as troops or marshals . . . . The [ Gesell ] report culminates a series of steps whereby the powers that be - and here it happens to be the Secretary of Defense-use Page

the power of the purse, the power of the draft, the power of the military in the name of the Commander in Chief, use these things that are said to be needed to defend our country, in real ity to destroy everything which we claim Russia would destroy . . . . Mr. Speaker, we destroy ourselves at home. We do to ourselves what it is charged Russia would do to us. We see our leaders using troops, economic pressure, the courts, the marshals, and all the rest, all, in the final analysis, being steps to a complete dictatorship . . . . REPRESENT ATIVE LOUIS C. WYMAN (Republican, New Hampshire) : It is clear from Mr. McNamara's letter to the President [ Me Namara's letter of July 24, 1 963, informing the President that a directive implementing the Gesell Report was being issued ] that he is do ing so on orders from the White House . . . . REPRESENTATIVE HEBERT: Adam Yar molinsky . . . is the author of the new directive issued by the Secretary of Defense . . . . Mr. Yarmolinsky has one objective in mind with an almost satanic . . . zeal - the forced in tegration of every facet of the American way of life, using the full power of the Department of Defense to bring about this change . . . . I want to tell you something about Mr. Yar molinsky . . . . He was down in Florida [ during the Cuban crisis] and he ordered the troops in tegrated in certain hotels that the military had rented. He was informed that the Negroes did not want to be integrated. He said he did not give a damn whether they wanted to be in tegrated or not, that they would be inte grated . . . . REPRESENT A TIVE MELVIN R. LAIRD (Republican, Wisconsin ) : I have served on the Board of Advisors of the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, and the U. S. Military Academy at West Point . . . . It was just 2 years ago that Adam Yarmolinsky made a recommendation to the Chief of the Bureau of Naval Personnel that the procedures for admittance to the service Academies, particularly Annapolis, be changed so that the college board exams and the other reo quired examinations for admittance . . . be set aside

that

special

examinations

could

given in order to afford preferential entrance treatment . . . .

308

REPRESENTATIVE HEBERT: I am not as concerned about integration and segregation as I am concerned about the paramount prin ciple involved in what we are talking about to day . . . . It is the principle of using the military might and power of this country to enforce a political philosophy of an administration that is in power at the moment . . . . What General Walker . . . [ was accused of doing] . . . . is [ now ] being ordered to be done by this Execu tive order . . . . The Defense Department is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand they are using the military to enforce these [ integra tion ] orders . . . . [ but] a little segregation is being practiced [ as a matter of policy ] . . . . Right now on the desk of somebody in the De partment of Defense are orders to all com manders not to send Negroes to Iceland . . . . In that same office are orders to commanders not to send Jews to Egypt and Saudi Arabia . . . . REPRESENTATIVE LAIRD: Within the last month in my State of Wisconsin, the De partment of Defense has gone beyond its scope and its responsibility in the awarding of Gov ernment contracts on a competitive basis. The clear intent of the Department was to bring about economic and sociological change through abuse of its power to review and award con tracts. In this case . . . . the low bidder happened to be a concern in Wisconsin. The award of the bid was delayed because in answer to a De partment of Defense questionnaire, this corpo ration showed that they had no Negroes on their payroll . . . . In the community involved, there could not be any Negroes on the payroll as there are none in the area, and if this were required by the Department of Defense, it would ne cessitate the importation of individuals to work in this community . . . . It seems to me, this whole operation of the Department of Defense in the economic and in sociological areas must be brought under close examination by the Committee on Armed Serv Ices . . . . REPRESENTATIVE HEBERT: The distin guished Senator from Arizona [ Barry Gold water ] made the statement on the floor of the other body

that

the Defense

Department

h ad

in its possession the income tax returns of in dividuals. A denial was quickly and heatedly

issued from the Pentagon . . . . I make this un equivocal statement here, that the Defense De partment has in its possession right now dossiers, little black books, if you please, on leading citi zens of the State of Mississippi, and I challenge them to deny it, because if they do I will release the names and what has been said about them. I further say to you that the Defense Department has in its files economic reports on military bases in segregated areas and communities. REPRESENT A TIVE GROSS: . . . . I will say this, as I have said before, that after reading the report and reading it thoroughly, if the report and its recommendations are fully implemented, and apparently it is going to be made completely effective by the Secretary of Defense, if I were a base commander . . . I would get my affairs in order and resign immediately. I would not want to be the commander of a single military base in the United States and be compelled to sub mit to this kind of a directive and the political dictatorship recommended in the Gesell re port . . . . REPRESENTATIVE WYMAN : For the life of me I cannot understand what appears to be a deliberate and intentional scuttling of morale and efficiency in the Armed Forces in this way . . . . REPRESENTATIVE OTTO E . PASSMAN (Democrat, Louisiana): This is . . . a radical at tempt to take over our Defense Establishment; and, in the national interest, it must not be al lowed to proceed. Upon sober reflection the Sec retary of Defense must surely recognize that it is his duty to rescind this unjustified and un justifiable order and, then, promptly to act ac cordingly . . . . REPRESENT ATIVE WYMAN: The Con gress can rescind this Executive order by legisla tion right now. We ought to do this because while it is patently a violation of the constitu tional enjoinder that legislation is for Congress . . . I fear it will be a long day in Siberia before the U. S. Supreme Court, as presently consti tuted, . . . decrees [ it illegal ] . . for the mili tary to legislate in this fashion . . . .

On September 17, 1963, Representative Carl Vinson (a liberal Georgia Democrat who, in most matters, supports the Kennedy administration) introduced HR 8460-which was written with the help of Representatives Joe D. Waggonner, Jr.,

Page 309

F. Edward Hebert, and 1. Mendel Rivers. HR 8460 would prevent the implementation of the Gesell Report, and make it a courtmartial offense for any member of the Armed Forces to use the powers given them by the various McNamara directives. Representative Waggonner said there is strong support for the Bill. If public support is strong enough, it will pass.

Long Chain of Abuses

is especially infuriating to recall that Ken nedy and McNamara, now using the military as a club against the civilian population in con nection with the most delicate and dangerous political issue of our time, muzzled the military with regard to criticizing communism-prohibit ing military officers from making speeches telling the truth about communism. The Pentagon-State Department policy of si lencing anti-communists in the military services became apparent in 1960 during the Eisenhower administration ; but it did not become a conspicu ous and arrogant affront to the intelligence and patriotism of the public until Kennedy came to power. It was in January, 1961, after Kennedy's inaug uration, that Admiral Arleigh A. Burke was pro hibited from saying in a public speech that the Soviets are untrustworthy. It was in April, 1 961 , that Kennedy removed Major General Edwin A. Walker from command in Germany because Walker had created an anti-communist troop indoctrination program built on the positive ideals of Love of God and Love of Country. It was in June, 1 961, that Senator J. William Ful 'bright submitted his infamous memorandum to the Defense Department, arguing that the people should be kept in ignorance of issues in the Cold War so that they will blindly support whatever policies the President proposes and �hat, there . fore, all anti-communists and other cnbcs of administration policies should be silenc�d or r� . moved from the Armed Forces ; and It was m December, 1 961, that Walter Reuther submitted

to Attorney General Robert Kennedy a memo randum recommending the same policy with re gard to the military.

The

drive to transform American Armed Forces into a centralized absolutism, in defiance of the lessons of history and the combat experi ence of American fighting men , began in 1 943 during the Roosevelt administration. A major step in that direction \-vas taken in 1947 when Congress authorized Truman to create the De partment of Defense, to "speak with one voice" for all the military services. In 1953 and 1958, Eisenhower took further steps to'ward monolithic unification and began shifting responsibility for military planning away from officers with com bat experience, putting it in the hands of desk officers and civilians. Nonetheless, strong-willed military men with combat experience, who understand the realities of war and the nature of the communist enemy, were still in control of the military services when Kennedy became President and appointed Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense. Kennedy and McNamara have gradually squeezed such men out-such men, for example, as Admiral George W. Anderson, Jr., removed as Chief of Naval Operations in the summer of 1 963-allegedly because of his opposition to De fense Department policies and to the Te�t B�n Treaty ; Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, who rebred I� August, 1 961, allegedly because of his strong anb communist views and his opposition to defense policies of building conventional forc�s at the �x pense of genuine national defense wrth supenor naval air and nuclear power ; General Thomas D. White : who retired as Air Force Chief of Staff in July, 1961 , allegedly because he was c�itical of defense policies which would not p�rmit t?e United States to develop a defense agamst mIS siles, or to use her industrial potential to produce the kind of air power and weaponry that w�uld give us unquestioned superiority over the SOVIets.

genuine mil itary men were purged from high place, McNamara and Kennedy moved into

Page 310

policy-making pos1bons, the eggheads-men like Paul F. Nitze, Roswell L. Gilpatric, and Charles J. Hitch of the Council on Foreign Relations ; Alain Enthoven and Henry S. Rowen from the Rand Corporation (notorious for its book in 1958 on how American Armed Forces could surrender strategically) ; and worse-than-eggheads - men like Adam Yarmolinsky. As General Thomas D. White puts it, the de fense policies of the United States are now being formulated by " pipe-smoking, tree-full-of-owls . . . professional . . . intellectuals, . . . overconfident, sometimes arrogant young professors, mathemati cians and other theorists." (4)

I n May, 1 963, after General Curtis LeMay (Air Force Chief of Staff) had testified that he opposed the TFX fighter plane contract award to General Dynamics but was overruled by civilian advisors, Kennedy announced that LeMay would be removed next year. In the summer of 1 963, when the Senate was trying to get honest military testimony concerning the test ban treaty, it was obvious that General LeMay had been told how to testify. Senator Goldwater maneuvered Gener al LeMay into admitting that McNamara had never talked to the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the

WHO

I S

treaty. LeMay conceded that he would be against the treaty if it had not already been negotiated. (" ) It is reliably reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in secret testimony before a congressional body, opposed the test ban treaty and enumerated its dangers to the United States. In public testi mony, the same individuals took a different line. An influential segment of the public itself is also forced to support key administration policies such as foreign aid, foreign trade, racial integra tion, and appeasement of communism. This is achieved by economic pressures from the Defense Department (and other big spending agencies ) : threats to cancel spending and remove installa tions, or promises of more spending and bigger installations. (6)

short: forcing military men into contro versial politics, through implementation of the Gesell Report (which was written by a group of left-wing racial agitators ) is merely the most re cent evidence that McNamara and Kennedy are transforming our Armed Forces into a military political-economic pressure complex whose pri mary mission is not defense of the nation, but en forcement of the political program of Washing ton officialdom.

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization . In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative . assist�nt to J. Edgar Hoov:r on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases In vanous parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On . Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial lssues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a f;ee enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The f!an Smoot �eportJ a weekly magaz�ne; . . and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radlO and televlS1 � n as an ad�ertlslUg vehl�le. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about lmportant lssues - the Slde that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Repo1·t and broadcasts. Page 3 1 1

What To Do ( 1 ) Immediate! y and specifically, the public should urge Congress to enact the Vinson Bill ( HR 8460 ) which would prohibit implementa tion of the Gesell Report. ( 2 ) For the long run , the people should study the voting records of Representatives and Sena tors to determine which ones sho'w understanding and respect for the Constitution. All who do not, should be voted out of office. The Constitution places upon Congress the power and responsi bility of providing national defense. A congress composed of men with enough brains and integ rity to uphold the Constitution, would scrap our present no-win, no-defense policies and initiate a program, infinitely less expensive than the present one, which would defend the United States against foreign enemies. ( 3 ) Most important of all : every one who knows ';;vhat is happening should make maxi mum effort to inform others so that there will be enough aroused and informed Americans to compel proper action in Washington. W H A T

Y O U

(4) To the limit of your ability, distribute to others such information as contained in this Report} in the Report of last week entitled "Re organizing For Stalemate," and in the Report of June 3, 1 963, entitled "Planned Dictatorship." We offer these three Reports as a set for 50¢. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Gesell Report," discussion by 30 United States Representa. tives led by Democrat Representatives L Mendel Rivers ( South Carolina) and Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. ( louisiana ) ; Republican Representatives H. R. Gross ( Iowa) and louis C. Wyman ( New Hampshire ) , including complete text of Gesell Report. Congressional Record ( daily ) , August 7, 1963, pp. 1 3 548-99

( 2 ) Military Cold War Education alld Speech Re1'iew Policies, Hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1962, Part IV, pp. 1491-2 ( 3 ) letter from Nathaniel S. Colley to The Dan Smoot Report, September 1 0 , 1963 ( 4 ) "Strategy and the Defense Intellectuals," by General Thomas D. White, The Satll1'day E11ellillg Post, May 4, 1963, pp. 1 0, 1 2 ( 5 ) A P dispatch from Washington, The Dalias M01'l1illg News, Aug ust 20, 1963, p. 1 ( 6 ) "�rashington Whispers," U.S. News & World Report, August 26, 1 963, p. 28

CAN

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what )IOU can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government} The Hope Of The W01'ld} America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 -

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World Americtls Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- Free - Free

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 312

ZIP CODE

THE o

1Jt/lllmootRep" t Vol. 9, No. 40

(Broadcast 425)

October 7, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

WHISTLI NG PAST TH E GRAVEYARD OF EXPERIENCE " Whistling past the graveyard oj experience," as Barry Goldwate,' phrased it, Senators voted t o ratijy the Test Ban Tfeaty - knowing that it Cfeates gfeat dangef jor OUf country, yet yielding conscience and logic to something they vaguely called hope: hope that all will tum out well. Pefhaps it will: although the intent oj the treaty is to begin the process oj Amefican surrender, the consequence oj .its " atijication may put Ba1"1"y Goldwatef in the White House.

A s soon as the Test Ban Treaty was signed in

Moscow, State Department officials urged im mediate hearings before Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee, to forestall effective hear ings by the Stennis Committee. J. William Fulbright (extremist left-winger, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) could be depended on to subpoena "favorable" wit nesses. The "Stennis Committee" is the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, under the Chairmanship of John L. Stennis (Democrat, Mississippi ) . The two best conservatives in the Senate (Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurmond ) are on the Stennis Committee. Stennis himself has an above-average conservative voting record. The State Department knew the Stennis Committee would subpoena outstanding authorities who would evaluate the Treaty solely on the basis of its effect on the security and safety of the United States. (1)

The Stennis Committee would not be silenced. It held hearings and filed a report (September 9, 1 963 ) which was put in the Record and called to the attention of every United States Senator before a vote on ratifying the Test Ban Treaty was taken. ( 2 ) The Stennis Committee urged the Senate not to ratify the Test Ban Treaty, saying: "From the extensive evidence presented to us, we have come to the conclusion that the pro posed treaty banning nuclear testing in the atmosphere, underwater, and in space will affect

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5 . 50; 100 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 313

adversely the future quality of this Nation's arms, and that it will result in serious, and per haps formidable, military and technical disad vantages . . . . At the same time, we are not con vinced that comparable military disadvantages will accrue to the nuclear weapon programs of the U.S.S.R."(2)

The Stennis Committee obtained its informa tion from such men as Admiral Arleigh A. Burke ( former Chief of Naval Operations ) , Admiral Arthur W. Radford ( former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ) , General Nathan F. Twin ing ( former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) - men who, now free of political pres sures, strongly denounced the Test Ban Treaty as harmful to the military security of the United States. General Thomas S. Power testified that the Test Ban Treaty would tie our hands and keep us from developing a missile system to defend the nation. General Power is in charge of strategic bombers which, until now, have been the greatest deter rent to the start of nuclear war, but which are already being phased out, for eventual elimina tion. General Bernard A. Schriever, head of the mis sile development program of the Air Force, gave the same kind of testimony.

Studying atmospheric and high altitude radar blackout phenomena; Studying communications blackout phenom ena which result from high-yield nuclear ex plosions; Making full-scale operational tests of anti-bal listic systems; Developing high-yield warheads equal to what the Soviets already have; Testing the effects of high-yield nuclear weap ons; Testing underwater nuclear weapons for im proved anti-submarine defense; Making full-scale performance and reliability tests of our Minuteman and Titan missile sys tems (the keystones of our present early warning and continental defense, whose operational ef fectiveness is unknown because it has never been fully tested) ; Testing the yield and effectiveness o f our largest stockpiled weapons; Conducting troop training tactical exercises in the use of nuclear weapons.

T his critically necessary research has not been

"A test ban treaty with the Soviet Union would prevent vital improvements of our atomic ex plosives as well as foreclose the development of antimissiles and systems like Nike-Zeus and Nike X. It would not keep the Russians from cheat ing. Such a treaty, in sum, would endanger our security and help the Soviet Union in its plan to conquer the world." ( 3 )

done heretofore, because the United States has done no testing of high-yield nuclear weapons (those above 1 5 megatons) since 1 954. The So viets, ignoring their own promises, have had a continuous, aggressive program of testing high yield weapons. Their latest series of high-yield tests ( 1961-1962 ) are believed to have produced all the research information the Soviets will need for several years. We have none of this information. With the Test Ban Treaty, we renounce our right to de velop it. Without it, we could be at the mercy of the Soviets.

Specifically, the Stennis Committee learned that ratification of the Test Ban Treaty would prevent the United States from :

Why?

Dr. Edward Teller (known as father of the Hydrogen Bomb ) said :

Testing the vulnerability of our missile-launch ing systems to high-yield nuclear explosions; Testing the vulnerability of tnissile warheads

and nose cones to nuclear explosions during at mospheric re-entry;

With all these facts before them,

81 United

States Senators approved ratification of the Test Ban Treaty . Why ?

Page 314

Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., extremist liberal

Democrat from Pennsylvania, stated the reason bluntly : liberals welcomed the Treaty as a step toward total renunciation of American independ ence' for the ideal of a one-world superstate, policed by a United Nations international army. Here is the way Clark put it:

might feel had a good chance of escapmg de tection . . . .

"Personally, I hope that the next step will be . . . . negotiation . . . of a treaty of general and complete disarmament under enforceable world law as advocated by President Kennedy and, before him, by President Eisenhower . . . .

Senator Humphrey voted in favor of the Treaty.

(4)

"This would require the elimination of mili tary establishments all over the world, including our own . . . . "That this is the fixed long-range policy of the United States was made clear by our President . . . on September 25, 1 96 1 , in an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations . . . . "This treaty is a very small step in that direc tion. . . " ( 4 )

That is what the Senate did when it ratified the Test Ban Treaty : it took a step toward Ken nedy'S objective of destroying the United States as a free and independent nation. But not many Senators who voted for the Treaty seemed to know what they were doing - if one can judge from what they said. U. S. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota) said : "It is possible that the Soviets might test sub kiloton devices or weapons in the atmosphere and not be caught . . . . "The risk of secret preparations for tests in the atmosphere and surprise abrogation of the nuclear test ban by the Soviet Union is one of the risks which we will assume when we enter into the treaty . . . . "The Soviets could prepare in secret for an extensive series of tests in the atmosphere and then suddenly abrogate the treaty. Or they could attempt a program of clandestine tests in the atmosphere or in space. A third course would be for them to secretly prepare for a large-scale series of atInospheric tests while at the saDle tiDle

conducting very small clandestine tests with limited objectives in the atmosphere which they

"The risks to our security from a sudden abro gation of the treaty by the Soviets are derived primarily from the lead-time the Soviets would gain over our own testing . . . . " ( 5 )

U. S. Senator Hugh Scott (Republican, Penn sylvania ) said: "Let u s never forget that when the Soviet leaders signed, the mere affixing of a signature changed nothing in their attitude toward the United States or their determination to destroy freedom wherever they could lay oppressive hands upon it . . . . "We cannot trust the Soviet Union. Their word today is a broken promise of tomorrow . . . . This treaty should be based on our hopes for the future, our knowledge of the past, our awareness that one of the signatories must be constantly under surveillance for planned viola tions. The security and the prestige of the United States could hardly be more urgently involved. "It is the desire of each of us to support the President of the United States, to support the foreign policy of the United States. It is my hope that I can . . . . " ( 6)

Senator Scott voted in favor of the Treaty. U. S. Senator William Proxmire (Democrat, Wisconsin) said : "I understand . . . that there are three possi ble ways under this treaty in which the Soviet Union, allegedly, could test, in the atmosphere without being detected. These illegal tests might give the Soviet Union an opportunity to advance its art, to advance its knowledge, and advance its military capability, as compared to ours. "First, they could test our subkiloton explos ions and antimissile systems to the extent of de termining how a nuclear explosion, even a sub kiloton explosion, might distort our capability to determine the path of incoming missiles. It was asserted that we have not conducted those tests to the extent that we would have liked . . . . "Dr. Edward Teller . . . raised several pro hear ings. One of the questions he raised relates to what tests we had planned that we now will

found and disturbing questions . . . in the

Page 315

cancel in view of the proposed agreement. As I understand, the tests which he said we had planned included tests which would develop our skill in detecting incoming missiles and permit us to develop a better antimissile system . . . . "The danger of nuclear war might be greatly enhanced if one side could obtain a sharp, de cisive advantage, particularly in the area of an antiballistic missile system so that that side would be able virtually to eliminate the retaliatory power of the other side . . . . "The question may be raised, 'Are we going to act the part of the hare and go to sleep by not testing ourselves, thus giving the Soviet Union the advantage of testing in the atmosphere in violation of the treaty?' "They may thus be enabled to develop a per fect antiballistic mis�ile defense system which would give them a supreme advantage and the opportunity to achieve victory . . .

"We would not violate the treaty by testing subkiloton bombs in the atmosphere. The Rus sians could. If they did, they could do so with out being detected . . . . "Russia could be in a position to test during a period of a very few days, and then find that their system worked, and then initiate a war in which they would be fairly certain to impose on us far, far more destruction than we would impose on them . . . . "(7)

Senator Proxmire voted in favor of the Treaty. U. S. Senator J. Glenn Beall (Republican, Mary land) said : "I firmly believe that the Soviets will not hesi tate to break this treaty when it serves their pur pose to do so. We are fully aware of Russia's record of broken agreements . . . . "I am mindful of the fact that the Prepared ness Investigating Subcommittee has filed a re port stating that the treaty will adversely affect the future quality of the nation's arms and that it will result in serious military disadvantages

"After much deliberation . . . I have decided to vote to approve the test ban treaty. This is the most difficult decision I have had to make since coming to the Senate 9 years ago. "Candor compels the confession that I shall cast my vote for approval without great en thusiasm . . . . "Despite these assurances [ from the President and others ] , I would vote without hesitation to reject the proposed test ban treaty if my judg ment permitted me to base my decision solely upon military considerations. The tragic truth is that this particular test ban agreement should never have been negotiated . . . . "When a Senator votes . . . . in favor of ap proval, he will vote for approval of an agreement which imposes upon his country military dis advantages. If he votes in favor of rejection, he will vote to cast cold water upon the hopes of mankind . . . . "The men of the Kremlin have not changed their hearts or their purpose . . . . They still hold fast to their dream of world conquest . . . " ( 9 ) .

Senator Ervin voted for the Treaty. U. S. Senator Jack Miller (Republican, Iowa) said : "A massive series of atmospheric tests was made by the Soviet Union in 1 96 1 . From them, they could have obtained information - and we have had testimony on this point - which might have an impact on the security of the United States . . . . "There has also been the Cuban confronta tion, in which the Soviet Union had covertly put intermediate range ballistic missiles into Cuba; and on that point Gromyko lied in his teeth to the President of the United States. Khrushchev said he would take the Soviet troops out of Cuba, but he reneged on that. Khrushchev also agreed to on-site inspections in Cuba, but he also re neged on that . . "I believe we should evaluate the treaty in line with these [ events ] . . . . " ( 1 0 ) .

"Let us place our trust in the path of strength "(8)

Senator Miller voted in favor of the Treaty.

Senator Beall voted in favor of the Treaty.

During debate on September 1 3, 1963, Senator A. Willis Robertson ( Democrat, Virginia) said :

U. S. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat, North Carolina) said :

"I happen to know, from all the testimony and also inside confidential advice, that not a single

Page

316

military expert has recommended the treaty to us from a military standpoint. Is that correct?" ( 1 1 )

Senator Henry M. Jackson ( Democrat, Wash ington ) answered Robertson's question: "From a military standpoint, that is correct. There is no doubt that there are military dis advantages to the proposed treaty."( 1t )

Jackson voted for the Treaty. Robertson was one of 1 9 who voted against it. U. S. Senator Roman L. Hruska (Republican, �ebraska) said: " I t is in the spirit o f hope . . . that I will cast my vote in favor of ratifying this limited test ban treaty . . . . "Never, in my years of public service, has such an outpouring of thoughtful, reasoned letters reached my desk as those relating to the issue before us . . . . "Many of those speaking . . . have pointed out that we cannot trust the Soviet Union to abide by its terms. This Senator is in full agreement with that view . . . . "1£ this treaty were dependent upon Soviet good faith, then I would vigorously oppose it . . . . But after careful and lengthy consideration I am persuaded that the treaty does not depend upon trusting the Russians. This is so because of the safeguards provided in the President's letters . . " ( 1 2 ) .

Senator Hruska voted to ratify. U. S. Senator Everett M. Dirksen (Republican, Illinois ) said : "Think of the propaganda weapon that we would give N ikita Khrushchev if we failed to stand up and ratify the treaty. He could go into all the areas of the world and say to their leaders, 'Did I not tell you for many years that they are imperialists, capitalists, and warmongers? Here is the proof. They refused to subscribe to a ces sation of testing of the hideous weapons that can snuff out so much life.' . . . "The treaty will not necessarily stop war. We hope it will. We hope it is in the direction of peace. What else can we do except hope? But is there assurance? None . . . . " ( 13 )

Senator Dirksen voted for the Treaty.

Senators,

who acknowledged that the Treaty is dangerous, approved it for the asinine reason that the United States must show itself devoted to peace! A great nation whose sick leadership renounces national strength and national pride invites war and eliminates the possibility of peace. Senators, who have consistently voted during the past 1 5 years to plunder the taxpayers of this nation for lavish support of practically every other nation on earth, supported the Test Ban Treaty for the reason that the United States must do something to win approval of world opinion and to show that we are well-intentioned! Senators who know that it is a dangerous delu sion to risk the life of a nation on the integrity and good sense of one man, and who know specifically that it is folly to assume that President Kennedy can always be trusted to do what is good for the United States, voted for the Test Ban Treaty because Kennedy gave "assurances." They voted for the treaty to keep Khrushchev from criticizing us, knowing that nothing but death can stop Khrushchev's lies. They voted for it because of its "political advantages," but no one explained what the political advantages might be. They voted for it because 80 or more nations had already ratified, knowing that the ratifications are meaningless because of all the nations which ratified, only 3 (the U. S., the U.S.S.R., and Great Britain) are capable of the activity which the Treaty prohibits.

Goldwater

B ut most of the

Senators seemed to vote for the treaty, merely because they hoped. Barry Goldwater discussed that hopefulness. Of the 19 Senators(H) who stood against the Test Ban Treaty, Barry Goldwater stood tallest of all. He said : "In favor of it [ test ban treaty ] , after all is said and done, is a hope, usually described as a faint glimmer, that this may be the first step toward easing tension in the world. It is difficult, if not impossible, to argue with a hope. It is an

Page 317

emotional thing; and in its soft and gentle glow, arguments appear harsh. The more fragile an illusion, the more rude must seem the attempts to shatter it. "I have warned, and will continue to warn, that nuclear weapons are not the cause of ten sion in this world; that if all were to disappear magically overnight, the tension would remain, so long as world communism remains dedicated to aggression and obsessed by its irrational vision of man as a mere cog in the machine of history. "But hope heeds only itself. How does one remind hope that, hitherto, on-site inspection has been the qualification of our trust of any arms control scheme? How does one remind hope that the technology of remote detection still has not developed fully to a point where it can re place such inspection? Or how does one tell hope, sprung from fear, that fallout is less a present threat than smog and fumes of everyday life? If we say these things, hope - revulsed shrinks from our harsh words. One who says these things stands alone, a sad, somber, and un welcome guest in a house of celebrants. "We are, apparently, well past arguing with hope. The future will shatter the hope and will sober the celebrants. But we must wait. "For my part, and the part of the other few who must heed other voices in their conscience, there is only the time now to say why we will vote, as we must, to oppose approval of this treaty. I perceive two reasons, basically; and I have based my decisions upon one. "First, there is the reason that this treaty is a political ambush, baited by the necessity of the Soviet to ease the many pressures upon its tyran ny . . . Why [ is ] freedom . . . aided by putting salve on the wounds of tyranny? . . . "I see no change in the future until or unless !he objectives of communism . . . change. And not even hope has spoken to us so far of a change in those objectives. Rather, all say that the ob jectives remain unchanged. But hope, it seems, can hear that truth and still proceed, whistling past the graveyard of experience . . . . "But assurances are not facts, promises are not performances; and I do not feel that free dom's strength, in a time of freedom's peril, can be armored by either. Such strength is a matter

of here and now, not of 'if and when.' Real hope must be founded upon real strength . . . . "Now the Senate must pardon me for speaking of real weapons in the real world. As I have said, the words sound harsh in the glow of hope. Truth often does . . . . "Ask the men who must man the missiles [ about nuclear explosions distorting electronic circuitry and electronic missile triggers ] and they say tests are needed. Ask if the Soviets have not already tested in this area and we find that we do not know - but there is ample evi dence upon which to presume that they have. "Ask the man upon whose command rests 90 percent of the strategic striking power of this Nation: Ask General Power the impact of this treaty upon the strength about which he knows as much as any man. We have all heard his answer. This treaty is not in the national in terest. "Ask the man whose job it has been to work with the most advanced weapons system: ask General Schriever the impact of this treaty. We all have heard his answer. He felt he could protect his country better without the treaty. "And what of the Joint Chiefs of Staff alto gether? Remember now, if you will, only that they finally supported the treaty because of many safeguards, many promises, and political advan tages of which others had spoken. But remember every other day of your life, every day that the time bomb of communist treachery ticks closer to detonation, that they spoke and spoke clearly of military disadvantages under this treaty. "Pray God that we do not have to remember that under attack, weakened and unprepared. "Remember also their warning that a state of euphoria would be the most deadly conse quence of the treaty. Remember that as we now officially study increased trade with the Soviets. Remember it when the next steps are taken, the pacts proposed, the agreements signed. It is not too late to remember those things now, but other, more popular tunes seem to dance in the air . . . . "I will vote against this treaty because it will erode our military strength. I will vote against this treaty because it preserves the enemy's ad vances in high-yield weaponry while freeing them to overtake our lead in low-yield research. We pay a price; they do not.

Page 318

"I do not vote against the hope of peace, but only against the illusion of it. I do not vote for war, but for the strength to prevent it. "I have been told, as have others, I am sure, that to vote against this treaty is to commit political suicide. "I will vote against this treaty because in my heart, mind, soul and conscience, I feel it detri mental to the strength of my country. "If it means political suicide to vote for my country and against this treaty, then I commit it gladly. It is not my future that concerns me. It is my country - and what my conscience tells me is how best I may serve i t."(15 )

do not agree with Barry Goldwater's stand on some issues. (16) I feel that conservative effort should be made, between now and the political conventions of 1964, to lay groundwork for In dependent Electors or Third Party political action in case Goldwater is not nominated. But my most earnest prayer is that the Republi can Convention of 1 964 will nominate Goldwater for President. If he is nominated, the people will elect him. I was convinced of this in 1960. I am even more convinced of it now.

WHO

I S

Goldwater's speech about the Test Ban Treaty, and President Kennedy's reaction, have cleared the political atmosphere in the United States. Goldwater spoke on September 19. On September 26, Kennedy, at Salt Lake City, launched the 1 964 political campaign against Goldwater. The issue is now clear : in 1964, the people of the United States will decide : ( 1 ) to continue the Kennedy program of dismantling the United States and making it a helpless province in a one-world so cialist system; or ( 2 ) to elect Barry Gold water and begin the process of re-establishing the United States as a free and independent constitutional Republic.

I f Kennedy stays in power ( or if some liberal Republican is elected to succeed him ) , the drive toward world government will quicken disas trously. The ultimate solution to the question of how we shall reverse the policies of the federal gov ernment, so that the United States can survive in peace as a free nation, will be found when the people elect enough constitutionalists to control Congress. But the nation may not last long enough to find that solution, unless something is done

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 319

1ll

1964 to halt the Kennedy program. Barry Goldwater as President could halt it. For 30 years, the prestige, propaganda, and pa tronage of the White House have been exerted in the cause of totalitarian liberialism. Under this influence, millions of Americans have quite for gotten, and more millions have grown up in ig norance of, the meaning of American constitu tional principles. The few who have clung to principles ( consistently criticizing the unconstitu tional programs of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisen hower, and Kennedy ) have been treated as out casts, crackpots, extremists, and troublemakers. Clinging to principle, however, the few have had influence on public thought : and, in recent years, they have multiplied in number. The enormous job of re-educating the American people to un derstand and respect the principles of their own society is under way. Barry Goldwater as Presi dent could complete the job in time to restore the Republic. W H A T

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Congrwiona/ Record ( daily ) , September 1 6, 1963, pp. 1 6 1 76-7 ( 2 ) Complete text of Stennis Committee Report COllg" essiona/ Record, ( daily ) , September 1 3, 1 963, pp. 1 6072-5 ( 3 ) COllgressional Record ( daily ) , September 1 6, 1963, p. 1 62 19 ( 4 ) COllg" essional Reco"d ( daily ) , September 1 6, 1 963, p. 1 62 1 0-3

( 5 ) Congressional RecO"d ( daily ) , September 1 0, 1963, pp. 1 57 5 5, 1 5763-4 ( 6 ) Cong" essiollal Rec01·d ( daily ) , September 1 0, 1963, p. 1 5738 ( 7 ) Congl'es.riollal Record ( daily ) , September 1 0, 1963, pp. 1 57 5 3-6 ( 8 ) Congressional Record ( daily ) , September 1 1 , 1963, pp. 1 5906.7 ( 9 ) Congressional Record ( daily ) , September 1 7, 1963, pp. 1 6242-3 ( 1 0 ) Congressional Record ( daily ) , September 10, 1963, p. 1 57 5 0 ( 1 1 ) Congressional Record ( daily ) , September 1 3, 1 9 6 3 , p. 1 608 1 ( 1 2 ) Cong" wional Rec01·d ( daily ) , September 19, 1963, pp. 1 6646-8 ( 1 3 ) Congressiollal Record ( daily ) , September 1 1 , 1963, pp. 1 59 1 2-6

( 1 4 ) Here are the 19 U. S. Senators ( 1 1 Democrats, 8 Republicans) who voted against the Test Ban Treaty: Barry Goldwater ( Republican, Arizona ) , John L. McClellan ( Democrat, Arkan sas ) , RIchard B. Russell and Herman E. Talmadge ( Democrats, Georgia ) , Len B. Jordan ( Republican, Idaho ) , Russell B. Long ( Democrat, Louisiana ) , Margaret Chase Smith ( Republi can, Maine ) , James O. Eastland and John L. Stennis ( Demo crats, Mississippi ) Carl T. Curtis ( Republican, Nebraska ) , Edwin L. Mechem ( Republican, New Mexico ) , Frank J. Lausche ( Democrat, Ohio ) , Strom Thurmond (Democrat, South Carolina ) , John G. Tower ( Republican, Texas) , Wal lace F. Bennett ( Republican, Utah ) , Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis Robertson ( Democrats, V i rginia) , Robert C. Byrd ( Democrat, West Virginia ) , Milward L. Simpson ( Republican, Wyoming )

Y O U

( 1 5 ) COll?,feJsional Reco"d ( daily ) , September 19, 1963, pp. 1 6654-6 ( 1 6 ) See "Political Action For 1964," this Report, June 17, 1963, pp. 1 89-90

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism, What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speake rs, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 - $10. 00 1 year - $1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 320

ZIP CODE

THE o

IJtlll SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 41

(Broadcast 426)

October 1 4, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

TRADI NG WITH TH E EN EMY

On August 5 , 1 963, United States, British, and Soviet officials signed the test ban treaty in Moscow. Shortly thereafter, the Soviets sold 1 billion dollars' worth of gold on the London bul lion market. For this gold, the Soviets obtained western money ( British and Australian pounds, American and Canadian dollars, or any other currencies desired ) . (1) With the western money, the Soviets can buy goods anywhere in the world. On September 9, 1963, U. S. Senate discussions about ratifying the test ban treaty began. One week later (September 1 6 ) , the Soviets concluded a deal to buy 5 00 million dollars' worth of wheat from Canada, 1 00 million dollars' worth from Australia.

Discussion of the wheat deal was immediately injected into the Senate treaty debates. Liberals in favor of the test ban saw, in the wheat deal, proof of Soviet softening. They envisioned a new era of good feeling which will open profitable markets for western goods behind a melting iron curtain. They mentioned the surplus of American wheat, the dwindling American gold reserves, and our unfavorable balance of payments : We should sell wheat for Soviet gold, thus ridding ourselves of something we have too much of, getting in exchange something we badly need. Refusal to ratify the test ban treaty would close the door to this golden future for American trade! The Senate ratified the test ban treaty by a stand of 8 1 to 19 on September 24.

W hat

are our prospects for profitable trade with the Soviets ? They are exactly what they were in 1 933 when, rejecting the lessons of history and the advice of his own State Department, Franklin D. Roosevelt extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, to win acceptance of his deal, also promised profitable American-Soviet trade. The trade never materi alized. The Soviets did not want trade. They wanted American recognition, because nothing else THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 1O.oo - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 321

could save the Soviet tyranny from collapse at the time. American diplomatic recognition gave the despised Soviets respectability in the world, saved them from attack by Japan, fastened their slavery on the Russian people, and preserved their oppressive regime as a threat to world peace. Once they had what they wanted in 1933, the Soviets cynically refused to make any agreement concerning their debts to the United States (which are still unpaid ) , and rej ected all efforts to pro mote commerce between the two nations. On March 9, 1 939, Alexander C. Kirk, Ameri can Charge d' Affaires in Moscow, in a confidential report to the Secretary of State, said : "The Soviet authorities still profess the theory that . . . the world's economy [ is divided ] into two irreconcilable systems-one socialist and the other capitalist, between which there is a con stant struggle. This struggle is carried on by the Soviet Union mainly by means of its foreign trade monopoly, which is one of the principal weapons utilized by the Soviet Union in its en deavor fully to industrialize the country and to liberate itself entirely from the necessity of pur chasing any merchandise in capitalist coun tries . . . . "The foreign-trade policy of the Soviet Union is still unalterably opposed in theory, as well as in practice, to the foreign commercial policy of the United States . . . . any deviation from the Soviet policy which may be detected or surmised from time to time must still be regarded as iso lated exceptions to the general policy, which are practiced for special reasons or purposes."( 2 )

u. S. News & World Report on October 7, 1963, reported this item, as coming "from one of the West's best-informed intelligence analysts" : "The U. S. has just about spent Russia out of the arms race. High cost of space-age arms is turning out to be too much for Khrushchev. He

cannot keep up the pace and still feed his people, produce the consumer goods they want or buy both food and consumer goods elsewhere. He is desperate for a deal. . .

"Khrushchev is on the ropes. He wants the U. S. and its allies to help him up. Before we do that we had better be sure he will not slug us again as soon as he has his second wind."(3)

The Wheat Deal - and Why

K hrushchev has admitted that there is a criti cal shortage of wheat in the Soviet Union. If he buys wheat from us, he will buy on his own terms, not at free market prices, but from the United States Government, at prices below what Ameri can consumers must pay for American wheat. And his cut-rate price will be subsidized by American taxpayers. Every bushel of wheat that the Soviets buy from us will cost our taxpayers at least sixty cents. It will be a good deal for the Soviet Union, but how will the United States profit ?

T here is persistent rumor,

Khrushchev has made this fact abundantly clear. Indeed, on the occasion of the signing of the test ban treaty in August, 1963, Khrushchev bluntly told U. S. Ambassador Averell Harriman that negotiation of this treaty reflected no change in the policy or attitude of the Soviet Union.

in Washington and other western capitals, that President Kennedy is striving for something to hide the disastrous fail ures of New Frontier policies, until after the election of 1964. Kennedy fears that his handling of the Cuban problem may cause his defeat in 1964. Hence, it is believed that he has offered Khrushchev a loan of up to 10 billion dollars, if Khrushchev will get all Russian troops out of Cuba before election time next year.

What "special reasons or purposes" prompt the current Soviet maneuvers in foreign trade ? Ob viously, the Soviets wanted the test ban treaty because it imposes dangerous military disadvan tages on the United States. They also wanted it to relieve the strain on their own economy. The

It is also believed that Kennedy fears a severe economic depression, or even collapse, in the United States, because of the deficits in our na tional budgets and in our balance of payments. The government continuously spends more than it takes in; and the nation as a whole continues

T here has been no change in this Soviet policy.

(4)

Page 322

to spend and give away abroad more than it takes in from sales to foreign customers. Consequently, our gold reserve has been shrinking at an alarm ing rate. With our gold reserve already more than totally mortgaged to foreign bankers, eco nomic chaos could come to the United States at any moment. A mammoth trade deal with the Soviets might temporarily shore up foreign con fidence in the American economy, and hold off, at least until after election day, 1 964, the inevit able consequences of our government's reckless follies. Many Americans find it impossible to believe that the President of the United States would jeopardize the vital interests of his country, for his own political gain. The State Department has, in fact, flatly denied that the Kennedy administra tion has made any secret deals with the Soviets. The official State Department reason for want ing more trade with communist countries is that the "contacts between East and West which flow from trade in peaceful goods" will enable the United States to "exert influence on develop ments" in communist countries and to "take ad vantage of any favorable and liberalizing trends" in the communist bloc.

Soviet police system to keep law and order over the 200-million odd Russians and the many ad ditional millions in the satellite states. The break-up of the Russian Communist empire to day would doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good deal more catastrophic for world order than was the break-up of the Austro Hungarian Empire in 1 9 1 8 " ( 6) .

we cannot believe that Kennedy'S strange policy toward the Soviets is motivated by the simple desire to save Kennedy politically ; and if we cannot believe the official reasons for that policy, what are the reasons ? Certain facts lead inexorably to one conclusion: the American gov ernment is determined to save the Soviet Union from collapse. Note the following paragraph : "Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we

benefit enormously from the capability of the

That paragraph is from an article written by Walter Millis. The article was prepared and pub lished ( April, 1963 ) by the Peace Research In stitute. It was financed with a grant of tax money made by the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. ( 6 ) For the October, 1 963, issue of Foreign Affairs, Walt Whitman Rostow, Chairman of the State Department's Policy Planning Committee, wrote an article called "The Third Round. " Among other things, Rostow recommends that the United States take a slow course of action to help com munist nations have "a place of dignity" among other nations of the world. Rostow says that the United States and the Soviet Union actually dis agree "only over a very narrow range of issues."(7)

(a)

Such reasoning is idiotic. Surely we have had enough togetherness with communists to know that more togetherness will do nothing but pro mote their program of world conquest. No one, with any knowledge of history and any sense of reality, can believe the official Kennedy adminis tration reason for the softening attitude toward the Soviet Union.

Saving The Soviet Union

T he grim fact is that since the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the United States Government has consistently followed a policy of rushing aid to the Soviet Union in times of crisis. Roosevelt saved the Soviets from collapse, and from attack by Japan, when he extended diplo matic recognition in November, 1933.(2) Eight years later, Japan attacked the United States. When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, the mili tary genius of General Douglas MacArthur saw clearly that Japan had recklessly over-extended herself and was in mortal fear of attack from Rus sian bases. Three days after Pearl Harbor, General MacArthur, in a message to the Pentagon, urged an immediate attack on Japan from the north. Such a blow -would have saved four years of savage fighting in the Pacific and the loss of thousands of American lives. The Soviets would

Page 323

not cooperate. They would not let us use their bases, even for refueling, in aggressive action against Japan. We responded by rushing aid to the Soviet Union. When American territory and American soldiers were already in the hands of Japanese; when the American homeland itself was exposed to attack - we did not send our main force to fight where we were in danger. We first crossed the Atlantic to save the Soviet Union from Ger many. The Soviets maintained their treaty of peace and friendship with Japan until six days before the end. Then, Soviet armies - equipped with American supplies at American expense - moved in and annexed the Chinese province of Man churia. Following that, the Soviets armed Chinese communists with American guns and material to make war on our friend and ally, Chiang Kai shek.

E qually

incredible things happened on the other side of the world, in the closing days of the great war. The American Ninth Army was rolling toward Berlin, meeting little resistance, slowed down only by German civilians clogging the highways, flee ing from the Russians. German sound trucks cir culated in the Berlin area, counseling stray troops to stop resistance and surrender to the Americans. Some twenty or thirty miles east of Berlin, the German nation had concentrated its dying strength and was fighting savagely against the Russians. Our Ninth Army could have been in Berlin within a few hours, probably without shedding another drop of blood ; but General Dwight D. Eisenhower suddenly halted our Army. (8) He kept it sitting idly outside Berlin for ten days while the Russians slugged their way in, killing, raping, pillaging. We gave the Russians control of the eastern portion of Berlin - and of all the terri tory surrounding the city. To the south, General Patton's forces were plowing into Czechoslovakia. When Patton was thirty miles from Prague, the capital , Eisenhower ordered him to stop - ordered him not to accept

surrender of German soldiers but to hold them at bay until the Russians could move up and ac cept surrender. As soon as the Russians were thus established as the conquerors of Czechoslovakia Eisenhower ordered Patton to evacuate. (8) Unit� o � Czechoslovakian patriots had been fighting :VIth Western armies since 1 943. We had prom Ised that they could participate in the liberation of their own homeland ; but we did not let them move into Czechoslovakia until after the Russians had taken over. Czechoslovakian and American troops had to ask Soviet permission to come into Prague for a victory celebration - after the Rus sians had been permitted to conquer the country. (8)

At Yalta, Roosevelt recognized Russia's lead ership in Central Europe-agreed that all nations along Russia's border should have governments friendly to the Soviet Union. Hence, in all nations of Central Europe - from Estonia on the Baltic Sea, to Yugoslavia on the Adriatic - as German control disintegrated, the Soviets came in and set up communist govern ments, with our approval and with our financial and military assistance. That is how we helped deliver more than 1 20 million central Europeans into the grasp of Soviet tyranny during the closing days of World War II. At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchill promised Stalin that all Soviet citizens found in Europe would be repatriated to Russia. To civilized peo ple, such an agreement would mean that Soviet citizens in Europe would be permitted to return to Russia, if they wanted to. To Stalin, it meant an opportunity to capture and murder the millions who had fled from communist barbarians - to hang up their corpses, so to speak, as a warning to all who might in the future dream of fleeing. Allied armies, under Eisenhower's command, herded anti-communist refugees into boxcars and shipped them to Russia where they were sent to slave camps or were murdered - an estimated five million of them. In this Operation Keelhaul, we even arrested and returned to Russia some anti-communist refugees who had fought with American armies against the Germans.

Page 324

When we pulled our armies out of Eastern Germany in 1 945 to let communists take over, the Soviets expelled nine million Germans from their homes. It was a time of horror, old men starving on the roads, young girls raped in broad daylight on the streets and in boxcars by gangs of Soviet soldiers. We gave the Soviets money, supplies, and equipment for the "liberation" of Austria where, in Vienna alone, communist soldiers raped more than one hundred thousand women, many of them girls not yet in their teens.

the close of World War II, the United States Government gave away billions of Ameri can tax dollars through UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) to help war-ravaged countries of Europe. It was American UNRRA money which en abled communist Tito to destroy anti-communist Mikhailovitch in Yugoslavia. It was American money " lent" to the commu nist government of Poland which bought uniforms and guns and supplies for the communist secret police and which was instrumental in forcing the starving Polish people to submit to communism. American tax money supplied the new Ameri can Chevrolet and Studebaker trucks that the Soviets used for transporting one million captured Lithuanians and other anti-communists to Siberian slave labor camps.

It would have taken generations for the Soviets to build industries capable of equipping their mili tary forces with the complex weapons of the post war period. They could not produce necessary materials fast enough to compete with America. The only way they could have them was to get them from us. This they did. American tax money dumped millions of dol lars' worth of machine tools ( with other critical materials and equipment needed for war indus tries) into Austria and other Soviet-occupied zones of Europe. These machines and materials were funneled into the Soviet Union where they

were used to build up the Soviets' war-making potential against America.

Foreign aid as a permanent policy was initi ated by Truman in 1947 as an "anti-commu nist" program. In 1 947, Truman started the Greek-Turkey aid program, to help those nations resist communism. Since then, our foreign aid ( under a variety of names) has increased and spread until it covers the globe. In damage to the American economy and to the American con stitutional system, and in financing the growth of socialism all over the earth, American foreign aid programs ( all sold to the American people as anti-communist) have done more for commu nism than anything else our government has ever done - with the possible exception of getting into World War II. In the Economic Cooperation Act of 1 948 ( Foreign Aid Bill ) , Congress tried to prohibit European nations receiving our aid from shipping strategic goods to the Soviet bloc. In 1949, Con gress enacted an Export Control Act to prohibit shipment of strategic goods from the United States to communist nations. All to no avail : materials the Soviets needed for creating modern war industries were produced in the United States at taxpayers' expense and shipped as gifts to our allies - who in turn traded them to the Soviets for gold and raw ma terials that the Soviets had in surplus. The Tru man administration ignored, belittled, or misrep resented the facts ; and Congress kept on appro priating money for more foreign aid. When passing the Foreign Aid Bill in 1 95 1 , Congress added a provision known as the Battle Act (after the name of Representative Laure C. Battle) declaring that no aid could be given to any nation that sent strategic goods to communist countries. The Battle Act did not end, but did slow down, the flow of critical goods to the So viets. In 1 9 5 3 three months after Eisenhower's first inauguraton - Joseph Stalin died. The most mon strous dictatorship in history, suddenly without -

(9)

dictator, began to fall apart at the seams. Re

volts erupted throughout the Soviet slave empire

Page 325

- from the slave camps in the Arctic Circle to East Germany. The new Soviet rulers revived the hoax of "peaceful coexistence" in order to buy time for themselves at home. The Soviets needed relief from the strictures of the Battle Act so that they could get more war materials and industrial goods from the West. Eisenhower gave it to them. In 1954, he sent Harold Stassen (then foreign aid director) to Paris and London to negotiate a se cret deal enabling our allies to circumvent the Battle Act. Stassen (in violation of the intent and provisions of the law) agreed to remove some two hundred items from the list of strategic goods which our allies were prohibited from shipping to communists. Eisenhower's summit conference with Khrush chev and Bulganin in July, 1 9 5 5 , helped enor mously to allay the growing spirit of revolt in the communist empire, just as his gifts of food to East Germany had helped to allay it in 1953. In 1 956, when revolt erupted in Poland and Hun gary, the Eisenhower administration exerted every possible effort ( short of open intervention on the Soviet side) to help keep the conflagration from spreading - so that the Soviets could contain and extinguish it. Eisenhower's Cultural Ex change agreement with the Soviets in January, 1958; and his moratorium on nuclear testing from October, 1 958, to the end of his administration, conferred further benefits, of incalculable value, on the Soviet tyranny.

The Kennedy Program

Kennedy's

policy of appeasing and helping the Soviets has been even more apparent. For example, the Departments of State and Commerce have requested private American business firms to import and sell merchandise from communist countries. In a speech to the House on April 2, 1963 , United States Representative Louis C. Wy man (Republican, New Hampshire) commented on this situation, saying: "I say it is unpatriotic and anti-American for American stores to stock in trade goods that are the product of Communist slave labor . . . .

"The State Department and the Commerce Department should know better than to make such a request. Once again we see evidence of the dismal fact that the Kennedy administration just does not realize that communism is the mortal enemy of the United States and seeks to destroy us. Trading with communism only helps communism to be stronger. It only spreads wider our international reputation for being suckers. Once again, it is the responsibility of this Con gress, acting through proper committees, to find out who is responsible in the Department of State and in the Department of Commerce for requesting America's private business to trade with Communists. "Such governmental policies are not only in credibly stupid; they are tainted with yellow. In the President's message to Congress today he re quests amendment to the Trade Expansion Act in favor of imports from Communist satellites Poland and Yugoslavia. This is just more of the same stupidity. Congress, for America, should deny this request."(lO)

Congress has not yet acted on Kennedy's re quest that the Trade Expansion Act be amended to favor Poland and Yugoslavia; but, apparently, that does not matter. The Kennedy administra tion has been violating the law, in order to give Poland and Yugoslavia "most favored nations" treatment.

C oncerning the present trend in American Soviet relations, Senator Barry Goldwater, on October 3, 1963, said : "Since the end of World War II, we've spent billions of dollars beefing up our security so that Khrushchev couldn't bury us, only to discover that in the past few weeks what the Kennedys are really working for is a Soviet-American mutual aid society. "In less than a month, the New Frontier has offered to pick up the check for half the cost for a joint shot to the moon, stopped testing nuclear weapons in the air and, finally, bailed out the highly vaunted Soviet farm collective with a lot of what I'm willing to bet will be tons of free American wheat . . "There seems to be a sort of quasi-official feel ing that we are engaging in a love feast with the Soviets that only we can disrupt . . . . Nothing must be done to ruffle Mr. Khrushchev's feelings." ( 1 1 )

Page 326

1 964, voters can send constitutionalists to Washington, to reverse the policies which are dragging our nation toward ruin. Americans who know what is going on, and can identify the good �e� . available for election in 1964, have a respon sIbIlIty to help arouse and inform those who do not know.

a ,:orking plan to socialize the economy of the Umted States �n� reduce this Republic to depend ency as a umt m a one-world socialist system. We suggest that you put this book on your Christ mas gift �ist - not only for your friends , but for yourself, If you do not already have a copy. This year, for the first time, we offer as a Christmas item one of the Bound Annuals of The Dan Smoot Report Bound Volume VIn con t� ining all Reports published in 1 962. Thi� par �Icular Bound Volume, carefully indexed, is an mvaluable reference book. It contains back ground information on the great controversies of our time - together with voting records of United States Representatives and Senators, and the full text of the U. S. Constitution and all Amendments. Also for the first time, we are offering a set of �he six. best recent issues of TheDan Smoot Report, mcludmg a copy of the traditional Christmas is sue, "The Hope of the World. " This gives our subscribers an inexpensive means of introducing new friends to the literature of freedom. To those whom you want to remember with a gift, for which they will thank you each week of the year, give a subscription to The Dan Smoot Report. -

Christmas Giving

T his

year, you can give Christmas gifts that will not only please your friends, but will also enrich their lives and make an important contri bution to the great task of re-educating Ameri cans in the principles of liberty. The Dan Smoot Report offers a variety of gifts, from 45¢ up, with all packaging and mailing handled, postage prepaid to your gift list, with an appropriate gift card.

For the youngsters on your list, give a copy of America's Promise, a classic on Americanism. Teenagers and their parents, alike, will enjoy the little book, The Hope of the World, which combines a simple, eloquent understanding of Christian Faith, with a valued expression of Americanism. The Invisible Government, one of the most as tonishing and important books of our time, proves with unimpeachable documentation, that there is WHO

I S

The year 1964 may be the most important elec tion year in the history of the United States. From now until the fateful day in November,

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teach ing Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and j oined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 1951, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 327

1964, when voters choose a new President and Congress, they must have facts about what is go ing on. Getting hard facts about the policies and programs of government is becoming increasingly difficult. The noose of censorship is tightening: conservative news commentary is being choked off radio and television; major magazines and newspapers are becoming mere outlets for govern mental propaganda handouts. The Dan Smoot Report will continue its un compromising policy of presenting unvarnished truth, using the Constitution as the touchstone for evaluation ; and it will continue to publish voting records of the national Congress.

W atch

for our Christmas Gift Order Blanks (which should reach you about November 1 ) and take advantage of our special Christmas prices on all items. Send your lists to us early so that your gifts will be in the hands of friends and loved ones before Christmas. This year, make your Christmas givmg count for something in the cause of liberty. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Com1ll odities, newsletter of Shearson, Hammill & Co., 14 Wall Street, New York City, September 20, 1 963

W H A T

( 2 ) Foreif!, n Relations of the United States: The Soviet Union 1 933-39, Department of State Publication 45 39, 1952, pp. 8 1 1 , 1 -62

( 3 ) "Worldgram," U. S. News & 117odd Report, October 7, 1 963, p. 1 1 3

( 4 ) "Washington Whispers," U. S. News & World Report, Sep tember 9, 1 963, p. 2 6 ( 5 ) Letter from Assistant Secretary o f State Frederick G. Dutton to U. S. Representative Durward G. Hall ( Republican, Mis souri.) , Conf!,ressiolJal Record ( daily ) , March 14, 1 963, p. A1418

( 6 ) "The Political Control o f a n International Police Force," by Walter Millis, Quis Cllstodiet ?: ConHol/inf!, the Police in a Disarmed lJVorld, publ ished by the Peace Research Institute, Inc., April, 1 963, under Disarmament Agency Grant ACDA/ IR-8, Volume II. p. A- 1 4 ( 7 ) "The Third Round," b y Walt W. Rostow, Foreif!,n Affairs, Vol . 42, No. 1 , October, 1963, pp. 1 - 1 0 ( 8 ) Information o n the U . S . Ninth Army and happenings a t the close of World War II in Europe can be found in United Stales Army ill Ir/odd IVa.' II: The Em'opean Theater of Operations - The Slipreme Command, by Forrest C. Pogue, Department of the Army, 1 954, 607 pages. ( 9 ) "The Battle Act and Foreign Aid," Congressional Quartedy Almanac for 1962, pp. 296-8 ( 10 ) COIl[!,I'essiollal Record ( daily ) , April 2 , 1 963, pp. 5 1 30- 1 ( 1 1 ) UPI dispatch from Coronado, California, The Dallas Times Herald, Final Edition, October 4, 1963, p. A-23 STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCU LATION, as required by the Act of October 23, 1962 ; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code. FOR THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, INC., published weekly at Dallas, Texas, as of October 1 , 1 963. OFFICE AND HEADQUARTERS ADDRESS: 6441 Gaston Ave nue. Dallas, Texas 7 5 2 1 4 ; PUBLISHER: The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., 6441 Gaston Avenue; EDITOR AND MANAGER: Dan Smoot, 644 1 Gaston Avenue; OWNER: The Dan Smoot Report, Inc.; STOCKHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION: Dan Smoot, Mabeth E. Smoot, and Virginia C. Erwin, 6441 Gaston Avenue, Dallas; BONDHOLDERS, MORTGAGEES, AND OTHER SECURITY HOLDERS: None; PAID CIRCULATION : 28, 5 3 5 ; FREE DISTRI BUTION : None; CERTIFIED BY: Dan Smoot.

Y O U

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free Page 328

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas)

ZIP CODE

THE o

IJI/II Smootliepolt Vol. 9, No. 42

(Broadcast 427)

October 2 1 , 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

FOREIGN AI D IS KI LLI NG AMERICA

I n the summer

of 1 963, four European nations ( Germany, Italy, France, and Switzerland ) , de manded payment in gold from the United States Treasury for 654 million American dollars held by banking institutions in those nations. Fearing that that much gold taken out of our shrunken gold reserve would create an economic crisis in the United States, the Kennedy administration asked the European nations to accept short-term notes which will be payable in gold - most of them after the elections of 1 964. (1) Concerning this deal, United States Representative Jack West land (Republican, Washington) said : "This is the first time in living memory that we've had to borrow money from foreign gov ernments. The American people are certainly unaware of this gimmick, which merely postpones the day when our fiscal chickens come home to roost."(l)

Representative Westland asked a high official of the Federal Reserve Board how long we can postpone the day of reckoning by giving our IOU's to foreigners who have claims on our gold reserve. The official said : "We are getting close to the end of the line right now."

Early in November, 1963, representatives of the ten most powerful industrial nations will meet at Paris to discuss international finance. The subject of primary importance wil'l be the continuing deficits in United States balance of payments. (2) U. S. deficits threaten to wreck the economy of the world.

America a deficit nation, which has to borrow from others, on a day-to-day basis, to postpone collapse ? How did this happen ? It was planned at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22, 1 944. Harry Dexter White was head of the American delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference. In 1 944, the United States held 600/0 of the world's known gold reserve, and was the dominant economic and financial power. Hence, Harry Dexter White, officially designated as principal spokesman for the

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5 .50; 1 00 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 329

United States, controlled the Bretton Woods Conference. White, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was an undercover Soviet es pionage agent. Officially, he was Assistant Secre tary of the United States Treasury; but he actually ran the Treasury Department. Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, was a mere figurehead who endorsed the plans which White created, and gave White full authority to imple ment them. ( 3 ) Harry Dexter White's Bretton Woods Confer ence of 1944 set the basic policies which our gov ernment has followed since the end of Wodd War II. Those policies were intended to accom plish four major objectives : ( 1 ) Strip the United States of the great gold reserve (which had made our dollar the dominant currency on earth) by giving the gold away to other nations;

(�) Build up the industrial capacity of other natIons, at our expense, to eliminate American productive superiority; (3) Take world markets (and much of the American domestic market) away from American producers until capitalistic America would no longer dominate world trade; (4) Entwine American affairs - economic, po litical, cultural, social, educational, and even religious - with those of other nations, until the United States could no longer have an independ ent policy, either domestic or foreign, but would become an interdependent link in a world-wide socialist chain.

Any who doubt that this four-point plan was deliberately initiated at the Bretton Woods Con ference should study the speech which President Kennedy made in September, 1 963, to an Inter national Monetary Fund gathering at Washington. The International Monetary Fund was planned by Harry Dexter White at the 1 944 Bretton Woods Conference, and White became the Fund's first director. Speaking to finance ministers and bank ing representatives of 1 02 nations now involved in the IMF, President Kennedy, on September 30, 1 963, said : "Twenty years ago, when the architects of these institutions [ the international monetary

organizations] met to design an international banking structure, the economic life of the world was polarized in overwhelming, and even alarm ing measure on the United States. So were the world's monetary reserves. The United States had the only open capital in the world apart from that of Switzerland. Sixty per cent of the gold reserves of the world were here in the United States . . . . There was a need for redistri bution of the financial resources of the world . . . . "This has come about. It did not come about by chance but by conscious and deliberate and responsible planning. Under the Marshall Plan and its successors, liberal assistance was given to the more advanced nations to help restore their i �dustrial plant, and development loans were gIven to less developed countries . . . . "We are now entering upon a new era of eco nomic and financial interdependence . . . . "I think the last 20 years have provided im pressive proof of benefits of international finan cial cooperation. We are linked so closely to gether; our economies are tied so intimately . . . . "The men who gathered at Bretton Woods 20 years ago were criticized by both those who said that no institutions were needed and those who said nothing useful could be done. Their effort and the success which crowned it are a warning both against pessimism and excessive self-satis faction."(4)

T he

postwar policies designed by communist Harry Dexter White have given our resources away until we are now at the mercy of nations we have been subsidizing. Foreigners who hold the wealth that we have given them can now force us into national bankruptcy by merely de manding gold for their excess American dollars. Any who doubt this, should study figures released by United States Representative Otto E. Passman ( Democrat, Louisiana ) on April 5, 1 963. The Passman figures give an official picture of what happened in one ten-year period : January 1, 1953, through December 3 1 , 1 962. On January 1 , 1953, U. S. gold holdings totaled $23,252,000,000.00. All foreign claims (in the free world ) against our gold totaled $10,546,1 00,000.00. In other words, on January 1, 1953, we could have paid off all foreign claims against

Page 330

our gold holdings, and still would have had $ 1 2 ,705,900,000.00 in our gold reserve to back our own currency. Ten years later - December 3 1 , 1 962 U. S. gold holdings had shrunk to $ 1 6,057,000,000.00. All foreign claims ( in the free world ) against our gold had grown to $24,984,000,000.00. In other words, on December 3 1 , 1 962, if all foreign ers in the free world who held American dollars or negotiable American securities had presented their holdings to the United States Treasury, de manding gold in exchange, we would have lacked $8,927,000,000.00 having enough to meet foreign claims, and there would have been not one ounce of gold left to back our own currency. -

If that had happened at the beginning of 1 963, the resulting panic in the United States would have been horrible. It lay wholly within the power of foreign bankers to puncture the great bubble of American prosperity and reduce this nation, over night, to an impoverished land of closed factories, unemployment, and a worthless currency. That power is still in the hands of foreigners, and the situation is worse now than it was at the first of the year. On October 1 2, 1963, The New York Times reported that the U. S. gold reserve had shrunk to $ 1 5,582,000,000.00. Foreign claims against it had grown to $27,300,000,000.00(5) a deficit of 1 1 billion, 7 1 8 million dollars on Oc tober 1 2 , 1 963, as compared with a reported deficit of 8 billion, 927 million on January 1 , 1 963. On January 1, 1953, the gold holdings of all other free world countries (exclusive of the U. S. ) totaled $ 1 3,028,000,000.00. Ten years later December 3 1 , 1 962 - their gold holdings had grown to $24,658,000,000.00. (6 ) In the ten-year period when our gold hold�ngs had dwindled to the point where we were, technically, already a bankrupt nation, the gold holdings of other free world nations had almost doubled. This shifting of gold holdings reflects the in ternational balance-of-payments situation.

Gold and Intern ational Payments

understand balance of payments, and its effect on our currency, we need to understand the Gold Reserve Act of 1 934 (January 30, 1934 ) , which took us off the gold standard ( domesti cally ) , abolishing our standard gold dollar, pro hibiting further coinage of gold, and making it illegal for Americans to use gold as currency. Before 1934, the American dollar was redeem able. Anyone who held a paper dollar could de mand, and get, payment in gold ( 2 5.8 grains of gold, before Roosevelt devalued the dollar) . The Gold Reserve Act made a drastic change. Look at any piece of American paper money bigger than a dollar bill. It says : "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars" (or ten, or twenty, or whatever the denomination) .

And i n small print i t says : "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank."

What is lawful money? It is whatever the gov ernment says it is. Thus your paper money is re deemable in paper money - which means that it is an irredeemable currency - if you are a citizen of the United States. If you are not a citizen, government cannot force you to take its note as legal tender.

I n other words,

the Gold Reserve Act of 1 934 did not take us off the gold standard internation ally. If the American government had told the world in 1 934 that it would no longer redeem its own currency in gold, then foreigners - who could not be forced to accept American paper money - would not have accepted it. The Ameri can dollar would have become a soft and virtually worthless currency on the world market. Our international trade would have stopped - except on a cumbersome barter basis - and wild infla tion would have ruined our economy almost over night.

Page 331

So, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 provided that foreign governments, institutions , and central banking systems can redeem their American dol lars in gold, at a price fixed by the United States Treasury ( $ 35 .00 an ounce ) . This means that every American dollar spent abroad and every American dollar spent in America to purchase foreign-made goods create claims against our gold reserve. The total of all such claims is, of course, reduced by the amount of foreign money spent in the United States, or spent in foreign lands to buy American-made goods. The difference between what we as a nation spend and give away abroad, and what we sell abroad, is called the balance of payments. When we send more money into foreign lands than for eigners send us, we run a balance-of-payments deficit. Foreigners thus accumulate more Ameri can dollars than they want to keep. They present their excess dollars to our Treasury and demand gold in exchange. Since Harry Dexter White's Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 ( when the United States held 60910 of all gold in the world ) , foreigners have acquired so much of our gold, and so many of our dollars that they can exchange for our gold, that we literally have no gold at all that we can call our own. Indeed, on October 1 2 , 1963, we owed foreigners $1 1 ,7 18,000,000.00 more than the total of all gold we held.

The Giveaway

T he official

public debt of the United States represents money already spent} in excess of re venue. It does not include contingent liabilities ( literally trillions of dollars which the govern ment has committed itself to spend in future years ) . On December 3 1 , 1962, the official pub lic debt of the United States was $303,470,080,489.00 - which was 24 billion dollars more than the total indebtedness of all other nations on earth. ( 6 ) Yet, President Kennedy demands another four

and-a-half billion dollar foreign aid bill. Why ? Foreign aid has been the means of implementing

the 1944 Bretton \Voods scheme to g1ve away our wealth until America is reduced to the status of a weak and dependent unit in an interdepend ent one-world socialist system .

F rom

July 1, 1946, to June 30, 1 963, the United States gave away abroad $148,456,333000.00. The following tabulation, showing where the money went, does not include great sums of money and goods, in private giving, which have flowed from America to foreign lands. It does not include billions in aid which Ameri can industries have provided by building plants and making other investments abroad. A heavy percentage of the private American investments abroad has been artificially stimulated by our government through guarantees against loss, un derwritten by tax money, for the specific purpose of aiding the foreign nations. The following tab ulation does not include billions of dollars' worth of agricultural goods which we have sold to for eign nations at subsidized prices, with American citizens paying the subsidies. The tabulation does not include all agricultural surpluses which we have "sold" to communist nations like Poland and Yugoslavia and to neutralist nations like India, for local currencies. In such "sales," we accept payment in the currency of the nation which re ceives our goods. We can use a small amount of such local currency to pay operating expenses of missions and embassies, and to offset dollar accumulations, in those countries. Most of the local currency, however, is worthless to us and is spent on aid projects in the countries involved. (7)

U. S. AID TO WESTERN BLOC NATIONS ( 1946-1962) Austria Belgium- Luxembourg China (Nationalist) Denmark France French Territories Germany Germany - Berlin Greece Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Netherlands

Page 332

$ 1,618,300,000 2,166,700,000 4,789,600,000 887,400,000 1 1,397,300,000 6,000,000 7,576,900,000 143,900,000 3,943,200,000 78,800,000 146,200,000 1,21 1,400,000 7,466,800,000 6,146,800,000 2,687,400,000

Norway Portugal Portuguese Overseas Provinces Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United Kingdom Territories Europe, General TOTAL

1,1 59,700,000 436,800,000 25,300,000 2,195,600,000 1 10,000,000 3,741,400,000 12,528,300,000 1 , 1 1 0,000 2,641,500,000 $73,106,410,000

U. S. AID TO COMMUNIST BLOC NATIONS ( 1 946-1962 ) Cuba Ghana Poland U.S.S.R. Yugoslavia TOTAL

90,500,000 28,700,000 967,900,000 500,000,000 3,290,300,000 $4,877,400,000

U. S. AID TO LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS ( 1946-1962 ) Argentina Bolivia Brazil British Guiana British Honduras Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Surinam (Dutch Guiana) Uruguay Venezuela West Indies Federation Latin America, General TOTAL

$1,027,300,000 286,400,000 3,1 93,400,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 904,700,000 576,100,000 136,700,000 9,400,000 139,000,000 23,400,000 207,900,000 127,700,000 54,300,000 1 1,200,000 1,246,500,000 98,400,000 121,100,000 68,600,000 630,600,000 3,400,000 1 20,400,000 333,600,000 12,600,000 240,500,000 $9,578,400,000

U. S. AID TO AFRO-ASIAN BLOC NATIONS ( 1946-1962) Afghanistan Burma Cambodia Cameroon Ceylon Chad Congo ( Brazzaville) Congo ( Leopoldville) Cyprus Dahomey Ethiopia French Indochina

275,600,000 138,900,000 298,000,000 2,400,000 124,100,000 100,000 1 00,000 24,100,000 19,000,000 4,200,000 228,400,000 1,535,200,000

Gabon Guinea India Indonesia Iraq Iran Ivory Coast Jordan Kenya Korea Laos Lebanon Liberia Libya Malagasy Malaya Mali Mauretania Morocco Nepal Niger Nigeria Pakistan Philippines Rhodesia-Nyasaland Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan Syria Tang'anyika Thailand Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Republic Upper Volta Vietnam Yemen Africa, General Asia, Far East Asia, South TOTAL

100,000 5,700,000 5,208,300,000 976,100,000 69,900,000 1,340,700,000 2,100,000 349,500,000 9,500,000 6,143,000,000 372,700,000 1 1 0,500,000 199,200,000 243,600,000 500,000 24,400,000 3,100,000 1,700,000 395,500,000 64,800,000 2,000,000 19,800,000 1,982,100,000 2,683,700,000 55,700,000 65,800,000 3,600,000 1,300,000 13,400,000 51,200,000 1 00,000,000 6,300,000 676,800,000 2,700,000 372,000,000 1,200,000 684,300,000 2,000,000 2,214,200,000 25,900,000 22,300,000 427,800,000 773,500,000 $28,358,600,000

U. S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO WORLD ORG ANIZATIONS ( 1946-1962) CENTO 25,000,000 ( Central Treaty Organization) $ 7,000,000,000 Export-Import Bank International Bank for Reconstruction 635,000,000 and Development 4,125,000,000 International Monetary Fund 35,1 68,000 International Finance Corporation 320,300,000 International Development Fund 450,000,000 Inter-American Development Bank Inter-American Social 394,000,000 Progress Fund United Nations ; UN specialized agencies, 1,717,093,000 special programs and funds UNRRA ( United Nations Relief and 3,400,000,000 Rehabilitation Administration) $18,101,561,000 TOTAL

Page 333

A nd none can show that our foreign aid pro grams have done any good for the United States. Ostensibly, the primary purpose of our foreign aid is . to fight communism. It has done the op posite.

FOREIGN AID APPROPRIATED BUT UNSPENT AS OF June 30, 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,000,000,000 FOREIGN AID APPROPRIATED FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1963 (BREAKDOWNS NOT YET AVAILABLE) . . . . . . $ 6,433,962,000 GRAND TOTAL U.S. AID TO ALL NATIONS AND WORLD ORGANIZATIONS, July 1, 1946 Through June 30, 1963 $148,456,333,00 0 ( 7 ) .

•

What Our Aid Has Done

T he

148.5 billion dollars which our govern ment has taken from taxpayers and given away abroad since 1 946 is 46.7 billion dollars more than the total assessed valuation of all property ( including land) in the 50 largest cities of the United States. (8)

Foreign aid since 1 946 has cost individual taxpayers an average of $ 1 5 37 each, and has cost corporation taxpayers an average of $2 5,828 each. Since all corporation taxes must necessarily be passed on to consumers in price of goods, the total burden of our government's foreign give away actually falls on individual Americans. (9)

None can deny the harsh fact that this give away has brought us to the edge of economic ruin, saddling our citizens and their posterity with a debt exceeding the combined indebtedness of all other nations on earth, and putting us at the mercy of the very nations which have received our boun ty. None can deny that American tax money has built foreign industries which now undersell our own - and that the American industries are still being taxed to subsidize foreign competitors. None can deny that American foreign aid and American foreign-investment guarantees have caused American industries to expand abroad, thus curtailing industrial expansion at home. None can deny that many American industries have already been grievously hurt by foreign com petition which American tax money subsidizes abroad - and that thousands of American workers have thus lost jobs.

Look at the list of nations receivmg our aid and determine which, if any, are now stauncher friends of America, or sterner foes of communism, than before our aid began. You will not find one on the list. We alienated the Netherlands by forcing them to surrender their East Indian possessions-which became the pro-communist nation of Indonesia. In 1 962, we deepened the injury by our part in forcing the Netherlands to surrender New Guinea to Indonesia. Australia (which owes us no money) is dis turbed and angry because of this New Guinea deal. Indonesia and the Philippines now berate us for supporting the new nation, Malaysia. Our State Department is responsible for con verting Cuba into an enemy nation. In forcing the downfall of Truj illo in the Dominican Republic, we eliminated the last strong friend we had in the Caribbean area. We helped establish the pro communist government of Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic. This month, we refused to recognize the anti-communist group which over threw Bosch. The alienation of France now seems complete. West Germany is outraged about our wheat deal with the Soviets. Cambodia resents us because of arms we give to Thailand. Thailand resents us because of arms we give to Cambodia. Pakistan resents us because of aid we give to India. India resents us because of aid we give to Pakistan. We alienated Portugal by our United Nations stand regarding Portuguese Angola in Africa; and we alienated South Africa (which owes us no money ) by criticizing her internal policies. The dastardly United Nations rape of Katanga - which we financed and supported without stint - not only eliminated Katanga as a friend

Page 334

of America but apparently caused hatred of us throughout Africa. United Nations forces bombed hospitals, homes, industrial plants, and schools. United Nation troops (which included uncivil ized Ghurkas from India and savage tribesmen from Ethiopia) committed atrocities against wom en, children, missionaries, doctors, and other ci vilians. Meanwhile, Congolese troops - draw ing their pay at the expense of American tax payers - roamed the country in lawless, drunken bands, raping, killing, and pillaging. In Peru, there are hurt and bewilderment on the part of intelligent, middle-class Peruvians at our failure to give full recognition to the anti communist group which seized power there. Brazil ( largest recipient of our aid in South America ) is in the hands of communists or pro communists, and so are Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Argentina, second largest beneficiary of our aid in South America, is so wildly unstable that a communist coup is possible at any time. Indeed, Kennedy's foreign aid program for Latin America ( Alliance for Progress ) is preparing that whole region for communism. Iceland is pro-communist, strongly anti-United States. Israel, a socialist nation which has received vast sums of American money, is training armies for the communist dictator of Ghana. Italy con tains the second biggest communist party outside the communist bloc and is currently nationalizing (which means communizing) major industries. Of the 5 2 Afro-Asian bloc nations which re ceive our aid, at least 5 can correctly be called communist nations, since they are controlled by communists or by men like Sukarno of Indonesia who is, for all practical purposes, a communist: Algeria, Congo ( Leopoldville) , Guinea, Indo nesia, Laos. All Afro-Asian nations are, like Burma and India, socialist nations with political ideologies basically inimical to American constitutional ideals ; and most of them have revealed a deep hostility toward the United States. Yet, the Euro pean nations which were once colonial powers

in Africa and Asia, resent us for the aid we gave to help destroy their empires.

A ll over the world, nations take our economic aid, not to develop free-enterprise economies compatible with American constitutional prin ciples, but to finance socialist systems patterned after the Soviet Union. All over the world, na tions accept our military aid, not to help "defend the free world against communism," but to sup port their own tyranny over their own people and to strengthen themselves against their neighbors, who are also accepting our military aid as mem bers of our "free world alliance." Our military aid to foreign nations puts all of our "allies" into an armaments race with one an other. We finance both sides, and both sides resent us.

Those Who Owe Us Most

H ow much freedom for the world, or friend

ship for ourselves, have we bought with 4.8 bil lion dollars in aid to communist nations since J uly, 1946 ? The 500 million dollars shown in the above tabulation for the Soviet Union is for World War II lend lease delivered after July 1 , 1946. Prior to 1946, we gave the Soviets ( in lend lease during World War II ) 1 1 . 1 billion dollars in aid. In this connection, it is instructive to look at the total picture of American foreign aid. The figures tabulated above are for the period since July 1 , 1946. Prior to that, we had already given away 58.9 billion dollars in aid to foreign nations. The net amount of foreign aid which the United States has given to foreign nations since our involvement in the first World War is $207,434,2 34,867.00. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa are - as far as I have been able to determine - the only nations on earth who do not owe money to the United States. Here are the 1 5 nations which have received the most from us (the figures include unpaid World War I debts, net amounts of lend lease received

Page 335

(7)

during WorId War II, and net amounts of for eign aid received from July 1 , 1 946 through June 30, 1962 ) : NATION

AMOUNT

United Kingdom

$45,003,414,301 19,998,967,994 12,351,952,530 9,673,447,659

France U.S.S.R. Italy Germa'ny Japan Korea China ( Nationalist ) India Greece Turkey Brazil Yugoslavia Netherlands Philippines TOTAL

that issue. If American voters next year reject every political candidate who refuses to stand for elimination of foreign aid, we will take a giant step toward saving our Republic.

7,576,900,000 6,146,800,000 6,143,000,000 6,125,232,000 5,208,300,000 4,064,320,815 3,741,400,000 3,512,894,000 3,366,329,843 2,865,464,000 2,683,700,000 $137,462,123,142 ( 1 )

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "IOUs Hide Gold Drain Crisis," by Ruth Montgomery, The New YOl"k Journal-American, September 4, 1963, p. 8 ( 2 ) " 10 Nations Agree on a World Study of Money System," by Edwin 1. Dale, Jr., The New YOI·k Times, October 3, 1963, pp. 1 , 1 5 ( 3 ) Gold Swindle: The Story oj OUI" Dwindling Gold, by Major George Racey Jordan, The Bookmailer, 1959; The Harry Dexter ljV hite Pape/'s, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, August 30, 1 9 5 5, p. viii ( 4 ) "Kennedy Pledges U . S. Help If Gold Runs Low Abroad," by Edwin 1. Dale, Jr., The New York TimeJ, October 1 , 1963, pp. 1, 1 6 ( 5 ) Citizens Foreign Aid Committee newsletter, Volume IV, No. 30, August 19, 1963 ( 6 ) Letter from U. S. Representative Otto E. Passman dated April 5 , 1963 ( 7 ) The statistical data was compiled from "Our Crazy Foreign Giveaway Program," by U. S. Representative Alvin E. O'Konski ( Republican, Wisconsin ) , Congressional Recol·d ( daily ) , August 6, 1962, pp. A 5998-9; The Encyclopedia Americana, 1961 edi tion, Volume XVII, pp. 2 62-3 and Volume XXIX, p. 5 60 ; The World Almanac cwd Book of Facts for 1 963, 1 963, p . 737.

What to Do

W e cannot restore our national independence,

we cannot save the United States from economic collapse, unless we stop all f01'eign aid programs. More than this is needed, but this must be done. If voters want to select only one issue as their guide to voting in 1964, foreign aid should be

WHO

I S

(8) According to the Information Please Almanac fo1' 1 963, pp. 387, 4 1 0 - 1 8, the total assessed valuation of America's 50 largest cities ( enumerated by population ) is $ 1 0 1 ,744,766,000. ( 9 ) The 1 00th AIII/ltcd Repol·t; Commissioner of Inte1'llal Revenue; For Fiscal Year Elided June 30, 1962, reported 6 1 , 5 66,000 in dividual tax returns of $63,3 57,765,000 and 1,2 3 1 ,000 corporate tax returns of $ 2 1 .295,7 1 1 ,000 of a total Government revenue of $99,440,839,000. The percentages derived therefrom were utilized in computing the individual and corporate taxpayers' shares.

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA arid MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J . Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington ; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Repm·t and broadcasts. Page 336

THE o

Dflil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 43

(Broadcast 428)

October 28, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

LAW L E S S G OV E R N M E N T

How

much tyranny and lawless behavior on the part of their own government will the American people tolerate ? Well, let us see. Let us suppose that tomorrow morning two well-dressed men ring your doorbell and identify themselves as agents of the federal government. They politely explain that President Kennedy has decided to give one of your beds to the government of India and they have come to pick it up. You Â perhaps a typical American housewife - say : "Wait a minute! The beds in this house are mine, and I need them ! "

The young men courteously reply:

"No, we have already checked into that. We learned that you have a family of five, and that you have six beds. You can spare one. President Kennedy wants to give your spare bed to Mr. Nehru in India, so that Mr. Nehru can give it to a big family of Indians who don't have any bed at all - who obviously need the bed worse than you do."

You say : "Now look here! What I do with my furniture happens to be my business. Mr. Kennedy has no right to send you in here to take my bed away from me! "

The young men, still quite polite, reply: "Oh yes, Lady, he does. Congress has authorized the President to pursue this program in the enlightened self-interest of the nation. "You see, it promotes the general welfare and strengthens the defense of the United States for Mr. Kennedy to take your bed away from you and send it overseas as a gift, because that helps to check the spread of communism; and, of course, communism is the great enemy of this nation."

You certainly agree that communism is a monstrous evil and you want to help fight it; but you still do not understand how taking your bed away from you can achieve that end. The young federal agents, still very patient and perhaps with only a trace of condescension in their manner, explain it to you : THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $l2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 Â˘ ; 6 for $ 1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2 % sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 337

"You see, Lady, there are millions of people in India who do not have any bed at all, while you have one bed more than you need. Now, every time those Indians hear about this situa tion, they are filled with envy and hatred of all Americans. "There are all those Indians, sleeping in the streets or on straw or standing up (or however they sleep), and here are you with a bed that you are not even using. "The communists keep telling the Indians about this situation; Mr. Nehru himself tells them about it; the Voice of America tells them about it; and every time they hear about it, more and more Indians become communists. As more of them become communists, communism grows stronger. And as communism grows stronger, the United States is in more danger. "But by taking your bed away from you and sending it over to India, Mr. Kennedy is fighting all of this. "When that big family in India gets your bed, they will realize that Americans are nicer people than communists are, because the communists have not given them any beds."

If, as we have supposed, you are a typical American housewife, you will probably at this point get out of your chair and say: "Look! This is my house, and you get out of it! "

Up to now, the pleasant young federal agents have been scrupulously polite and patient. But now they can no longer be polite. They are now obliged to reveal the naked power of the police state and say to you : "Lady, stand aside. We have come to take one of your beds; and we are going to take it; and if you resist, we will put you in j ail."

T hat

would be horrible ! If something like that happened to you tomorrow, would you be lieve that freedom is still alive in the United States ? Would the American people put up with it ? For many years, the American people have been putting up with a worse condition than this. The government has been seizing your money ( a part of your salary, the product of your labor

- taking it out of your paycheck before you ever see it, or adding hidden tax costs to the price of food you buy ) ; and with your money, the gov ernment has been buying beds and butter and wheat and guns and everything else imaginable, and has been sending those things as gifts to foreign governments. What is the difference between the govern ment's taking $75 .00 out of your paycheck to buy a bed for India, and the government's actually coming into your home and seizing your $75 .00 bed for India ? The difference is that you would be better off if the government took your bed. If the government would limit itself to taking the shirt off your back, or seizing articles of your household furniture, to send abroad as gifts, the government would do far less damage to you, to the nation, to the cause of freedom in the world, than it does in seizing your money to send any and everything abroad as gifts. Why ? Because the government, in many cases, gives away abroad materials that may someday be used by your most implacable enemy to destroy you. Billions of dollars' worth of American military hardware and other goods are going to the com munist dictator of Yugoslavia. Your government has given nearly a billion dollars in aid to com munist Poland and has helped build such things as a steel galvanizing line in a plant at Nowa Huta, Poland. Your government is presently considering normal relations with the bloody gov ernment of communist Hungary. At this mo ment, your government is considering feeding communist Czechoslovakia, communist Hungary, and the Soviet Union with subsidized American wheat. While the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to outlaw recognition of God in the public schools of the United States, our tax money builds Roman Catholic-controlled church schools in Latin Amer ica. The President calls this Alliance for Prog ress. ( 3 ) (J)

(2)

T he worst aspect of foreign aid - the aspect most damaging to American principles of free dom - is that the program is illegal and uncon stitutional. Nothing in the Constitution author-

Page 338

izes our government to plunder the people for handouts to foreigners, or anyone else. Yet, since 1 946, the federal government has robbed us of 1 48 billion, 456 million dollars for foreign aid. (4)

The National Council of Churches ( which claims to speak for some 1 37 million American Protestants ) joins with other advocates of totali tarian liberalism to demand more and bigger for eign aid programs. Do they understand that every dollar thus given away must first be taken away from American taxpayers, against their will ? Do they realize that, when government confiscates the earnings of its own citizens for purposes which have nothing to do with the constitutional func tions of government, the people thus robbed (to the degree that they are robbed ) become slaves of their own government ? We have so long permitted government to operate lawlessly - to do things not authorized by the Constitution - that the leaders of our so ciety seem to have no understanding of, or respect for, the principles of liberty. To serve some pur pose which they imagine to be desirable, anywhere on earth, they brazenly advocate programs which have no constitutional authorization, and which can be financed only by the tyrannical practice of robbing Americans of the fruits of their own labor. Lawless government has become so com monplace that the nation seems to have forgotten the meaning of constitutional government. We have sunk to the level where political rulers scorn all legal restraints upon their actions. They do anything, to serve their own ends, that they can get away with. It would take several volumes to outline all tyrannical practices that our political rulers are getting away with, but a few specifics may be helpfully indicative.

Aiding Communist Countries

to foreign governments, under the pretext of sell ing them for local currencies. The program is disguised foreign aid. Recog nizing this, Congress provided that the program is available only to " friendly nations" - to pro hibit the President from giving American agri cultural goods to communist countries. ( ,; ) President Eisenhower violated the intent of Public Law 480 by declaring communist Yugo slavia and communist Poland friendly nations ; and an endless stream of aid, disguised as agri cultural sales, has gone to those communist na tions. In passing President Kennedy's foreign aid bill in 1961, Congress designated 19 communist na tions ( including Poland and Yugoslavia) which should not receive any kind of American aid unless the President found such aid "vital to the security of the United States. " Kennedy, ruling that aid to communist nations is vital to our se curity, kept sending agricultural goods to Poland and Yugoslavia. (G)

In passing Kennedy's Agricultural Act in 1 961, Congress expressed disapproval of agricultural trade with communist countries. Kennedy ignored this portion of the law. (G)

1 962, Congress, responding to lawless pres sures exerted by the Kennedy administration, en acted the Trade Agreements Act. Congress thus abdicated its constitutional responsibility to regu late tariffs and foreign trade, giving the President almost unlimited power to manage the foreign trade of this nation to suit himself. Congress did write into the Trade Agreements Act, however, a provision that the President could not give "most-favored-nations" treatment to communist countries. Most-favored-nations treatment means placing our lowest tariff rates against the goods of a nation which applies its lowest tariff rates to our goods. (7)

1954, Congress enacted Public Law 480, known as the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act. This law "authorized" the President to dispose of surplus agricultural goods

Communist governments use foreign trade as a political weapon. Communist goods are pro duced by slave labor (or, at best, under condi tions of enforced servitude) . Hence, it is absurd

Page 339

to assume that there can ever be legitimate, free trade between communist nations and the United States. In adding the above-mentioned most-fa vored-nations provision to the Trade Agreements Act of 1 962, Congress was recognizing these facts, and was officially telling the President that he could not use the power granted him in this Act to make trading deals with communist countries. In its deals with communist Yugoslavia and communist Poland, the Kennedy administration continuously violates the Trade Agreements Act of 1 962 - and also the Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1 954, the Agricultural Act of 1 961, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1 961. The wheat deal with the Soviet Union will incur even more arrogant violation of all these laws. United States Senator Frank J. Lausche ( Demo crat, Ohio ) says that the Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 designates the Soviet Un ion as "not a friendly nation," and thus, specifi cally prohibits such deals as Kennedy's wheat sale to the Soviets. Senator Lausche says the wheat deal will open the door for similar aid to com munist China and communist Cuba. (5)

R epresentative Charles

A. Halleck (Republi can, Indiana, House Minority Leader) says that Congress, when enacting foreign aid appropria tions for fiscal year 1 963, flatly prohibited military aid to 1 9 enumerated communist nations. Halleck said the purpose of this prohibition was to stop military aid to communist Yugoslavia - one of the communist nations specifically enumerated. (G)

On May 14, 1 963, President Kennedy made a secret ruling that Yugoslavia is "not controlled by the international' communist conspiracy," and is, therefore, eligible for military and economic aid. Having thus overridden the j udgment of Congress, the President set aside the law. He signed an executive order ( on May 14, 1 963 ) permitting the sale of 2 million dollars in military supplies to Yugoslavia. The State Department classified the order "secret." (6) Congress knew nothing about the ruling or the executive order un til the Passman Committee uncovered the facts. (8)

The Ind ian Steel Mill

R epresentative Halleck, though concerned pri marily with the Kennedy administration's illegal aid to communist countries, mentioned another instance of the administration's defiance of law : "The House of Representatives has stricken authorization in the foreign aid bill for a steel mill in India, but Ambassador Chester Bowles is already publicly assuring India the lack of Con gressional authorization will be circumvented and the mill will be built. . . . " ( 6 )

Mr. Halleck posed a question: "Can this country long continue as a constitu tional government if the acts of Congress can be ignored or circumvented by the Executive Branch?" (6)

Gold Reserve

The

American gold reserve is divided into two "piles" : the "free pile," and the "anchor pile." The "free pile" of gold is the gold in our reserve which the Treasury Department can sell, or use to redeem foreign-held American dollars. The "anchor pile" of gold is the gold which our government must keep in storage and not use in any way. It is held to fulfill the requirement that 2 5<70 of outstanding Federal Reserve notes and liabilities be backed by gold. Citizens cannot turn in their paper money and get any gold from the "anchor pile" ; but, as long as it is there, it gives some stability to our internal currency, because citizens feel that their money is not worthless : a specified amount of gold (which has permanent, universal value, regardless of wars, revolutions, depressions ) is behind every paper dollar they own. In May, 1 96 1 , four months after Kennedy'S inauguration, the American gold reserve totaled 17.3 billion dollars. Of that amount, 1 2 billion dollars was in the "anchor pile" as backing for our internal currency. This left 5 . 3 billion dollars 1ll the "free pile" of gold which the Treasury

Page 340

Department could use for redeeming foreign claims. (9) At that time, foreign claims against our gold reserve totaled approximately 23 billion dol lars. (4)

The Kennedy

administration proposed a law to eliminate the requirement that gold be held to back our internal currency. This would not stop the flight of our gold to foreign lands or eliminate the deficits in our balance of payments, but it would release 1 2 billion dollars' worth of gold for the government to pour out to foreign ers - until all of our gold reserve is gone. On May 9, 1961, United States Representative Abraham Multer ( Democrat, New York) intro duced a Bill to eliminate the "anchor pile" of gold. Mr. Multer said the intent of his Bill was to make, " . . . perfectly clear by statute that our entire gold stock . . . is available to meet liquid dollar holdings of foreign countries . . . ."(9)

The 87th Congress refused to pass the Multer Bill. On January 9, 1963, Multer re-submitted his Bill (now designated HR 642 ) . But the Kennedy administration does not plan to wait for Con gress to act. In testimony before the Senate Joint Economic Committee, in 1963, Kennedy's Secre tary of the Treasury ( Douglas Dillon) said: "While our laws require a 2 5 percent cover for our currency in Federal Reserve deposits, our laws also provide that the Federal Reserve System in time of emergency has the right, on its own recognizance, to waive that requirement and to allow the sale of gold to continue. "The chairman of the Federal Reserve has stated that if the situation should arise, it would be his intention to make use of this authority."(10)

In other words, the Kennedy administration, while asking Congress for a law to authorize elimination of the "anchor pile" of gold, serves notice that it has already reinterpreted existing law to "authorize" what it wants to do, when it wants to do it.

Peac e Corps

March 1, 1 961, President Kennedy, by executive order, established the Peace Corps. He did not ask Congress to create the Peace Corps legally until May 30, 1961. Congress did not enact a bill to create the Peace Corps until Sep tember 2 1 , 1961. By that time, Kennedy'S Peace Corps ( under the direction of his brother-in-law ) was already in full swing - hiring applicants by the thousands, making commitments to foreign nations all over the globe. (11)

In his State of the Union Message on January 14, 1963, President Kennedy proposed a Domes tic Peace Corps - National Service Corps. Bills to create a National Service Corps were not intro duced in Congress until March 1 1 , 1963. The Senate Bill has been passed, but the House Bill is still in Committee. There is considerable doubt that this session of Congress will ever authorize Kennedy's Domestic Peace Corps. But the outfit has been in operation since late last year, illegally using tax money appropriated for other purposes ; and pilot peace corps projects are springing up all over the country. (12)

On February 6, 1963, United States Senator Frank J. Lausche revealed that Associated Com munities Team, Inc. (ACT ) , of Harlem, New York, was operating as a pilot project of the National Service Corps ( before Bills to author ize the Corps had ever been submitted to Con gress ) . According to Senator Lausche, Adam Clayton Powell ( Democrat Representative from Harlem, who has many communist front connec tions) was on the board of directors of Associ ated Communities Team, Inc. ; that Powell had obtained $250,000 of federal tax money {'or ACT (taken from funds which had been appropriated to fight juvenile delinquency ) ; and that ACT w as using property and buildings owned by one of Powell's businesses. (12)

Posse Comitatus Act

T he Constitution ( Article 4, Section 4 ) clearly

prohibits the President from sending military, or

Page 341

other forces, into a State to act against domestic violence unless he is specifically requested to do so by the government of that State. This consti tutional prohibition is reinforced by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1 878, which makes it a criminal offense (punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence of 2 years ) for anyone to use any part of the Armed Forces to execute the laws in any State, unless such use is expressly autho rized by the Constitution or by an Act of Con gress. ( 13 ) President Eisenhower in sending troops to Lit tle Rock in 1957, and President Kennedy in send ing troops to Oxford in 1962, violated both the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. (")

And So On

H ere are a few more well-known instances of lawless behavior by agencies of the federal gov ernment: -In the spring of 1963, the Kennedy adminis tration violated the Hatch Act flagrantly by order ing officials and employees of the Agriculture Department ( and of other agencies as well ) to participate in political and lobbying activities in the controversial Wheat Referendum. Great sums of tax money were spent ( unsuccessfully ) to per suade, and intimidate, wheat farmers into voting for continued federal controls. Federal officials even put illegal pressure on broadcasting stations, to get free time for programs in support of wheat controls, and to discourage broadcasts which criti cized the administration's proposed program by reminding station owners that their FCC li censes were good for only three years. (H)

to be flown alongside the Stars and Stripes over the United States Administration Building in the Canal Zone. ( 1 5)

-In September, 1962, Edwin A. Walker was a�reste� without process in Oxford, Mississippi, stigmatized as mentally ill, incarcerated without process in a federal mental hospital, and held temporarily under conditions which made it im possible for him to post bond. He was guilty of nothing, and was of sound mind and above average intelligence, as the government-appointed psychiatrists determined. His offense was that he stood as a symbol of resitance against the ruling tyranny in Washington. (6)

-As discussed in some detail in this Report dated September 30, 1 963 ( "McNamara's Com missars' ) , the Kennedy administration is pres ently usmg the Armed Forces as a political gestapo to enforce controversial administration policies upon the civilian population of the nation. -The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is responsible for determining whether the security laws enacted by Congress are being properly en forced by the agencies of government. In March, 1 963, Mr. Otto F. Otepka ( Chief of the Evalu ation Division of the Security Office of the State De�artment) , in response to an official subpoena, testified before the Senate Subcommittee. Otepka revealed that, of 168 State Department employees appointed since Dean Rusk became Secretary of State, 1 50 were not given security checks required by law. Instead of complying with the law of Congress, Dean Rusk hired the 1 50 by issuing "waivers" to ignore the law. Dean Rusk fired Otepka (effective October 23, 1 963 ) for giving this information to the Internal Security Subcom mittee. on

-In the appropriations act for the Commerce Department in 1960, Congress specifically pro hibited display of the Panamanian flag in the United States' Panama Canal Zone. Eisenhower violated this law on September 17, 1960, when he ordered the flag of Panama to be flown in our

All of the above is a matter of public record. Not yet verified and made a part of the record is a report, widespread in Washington and eman ating from usually reliable sources, that Otepka revealed damaging information about one or more of Dean Rusk's top assistants. It is also widely

lated the law by ordering the Panamanian flag

ment "made its case" against Otepka by tactics

Canal Zone. On October 2 9 , 1 962, Kennedy vio

reported in Washington that the State Depart

Page 342

which would send a police officer to jail for entrapment and invasion of privacy.

1 0, N. Y. (price 35 cents) . Paul H. Nitze's direct, formal recommendations for surrender of Ameri can Armed Forces can be found in his lecture to the Asilomar National Strategy Seminar in April, 1 960. (18)

Kennedy's Appointments

President Kennedy's appointments to high of fice also reveal his disregard for the law, and for the will of Congress, which is supposed to be the policy-making branch of government. For want of space, two recent appointments must suffice as examples. Congress has appropriated billions of tax dol lars to make the United States Navy the greatest naval force in history. The mission of the U. S. Navy is, of course, to defend the United States against any and all foreign powers. On October 1 5 , 1 963, President Kennedy appointed Paul H. Nitze Secretary of Navy. Nitze wants to disarm the United States as a major nuclear power. He wants to dismantle national defense and surrender control of United States Armed Forces to the United Nations. Anyone who doubts this should read "The Power Struggle and Security in a Nuclear-Space Age," which was a report of one Section of the Fifth World Order Study Confer ence, convened in Cleveland, Ohio, November 18-21, 1958, by the National Council of Churches. Paul H. Nitze was Chairman of the Section which issued this particular report. The report recom mends total disarmament of the United States, surrender of our Armed Forces to the United Nations, recognition of red China, increased trade and cultural exchanges with all communist coun tries, and increased American foreign aid - in cluding aid to communist countries. This report, issued under the chairmanship of Paul H. Nitze, Kennedy's appointee for Secretary of the Navy, can be found in Christian Responsibility On A Changing Planet (pages 29-39 ) , published in February, 1959, by The National Council of the Churches of Christ, 297 Fourth Avenue, New York

September 6, 1 963, President Kennedy announced the appointment of George Clifton Edwards, Jr., as Judge of the Sixth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with j urisdiction over Michi gan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Edwards is the son of a one-time socialist can didate for Governor of Texas. Shortly after his graduation from Southern Methodist University, he became a field representative for the League for Industrial Democracy, formerly called the In tercollegiate Socialist Society. During the mid-30's he was arrested in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and in Detroit, Michigan, for participation in various strikes. In Detroit, he was convicted of contempt of court, fined $250 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. In 1939, Joseph P. Lash testified before the Dies Committee ( House Committee on Un-Amer ican Activities) that Edwards had been national chairman of American Student Union, a commu nist front. More recently, Edwards was an organizer for Walter Reuther's United Automobile Workers Union in Michigan. Edwards has no known quali fication for the high office to which Kennedy has appointed him ; but it is obvious that Reuther's support is enough to make him a darling of the Kennedy family. (19)

W'h at To Do?

The

Senate has not yet confirmed Kennedy's appointments of Nitze and Edwards. The public should demand that the Senate reject the nomina tions.

Page 343

For the long run, the public can end lawless government, and restore our constitutional sys tem, by electing constitutionalists to Congress and to the Presidency.

FOOTNOTES

(1)

New YOt·k Times News Service story from Nowa Huta, Poland, The Dallas Moming News, July 1 3, 1961, Section 2, p. 10

(2)

Remarks of U. S. Senator Frank J. Lausche ( Democrat, Ohio ) in Congressional Record ( daily ) , May 1 5, 1963, pp. 8 1 5 3-4 and May 20, 1963, pp. 8 529-4 5 ; remarks of U. S. Representa tive Louis C. Wyman ( Republican, New Hampshire ) , COI1g" essional Record ( daily ) , June 19, 1 963, pp. 1 0596-7

(3)

"Religion and Foreign Aid in Colombia," by James E. Goff, The Cnnent Challenge to Cburch-State Separatio/I, published by POAU, 1 962, pp. 27-34

(4)

For detailed information on foreign aid, including complete statistical data, see this Report, " Foreign Aid is Killing Ameri ca," October 2 1 , 1963.

(8)

AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Moming News, October 7. 1963, Section I, p. 1 2

(9 )

"Gold Reserve Legislation," speech by U . S . Representative Abraham J. Multer, COllgressional Record, May 9, 1 9 6 1 , p. 7 1 59 ( daily ) . p. 7669 ( bound )

( 10 )

"Federal Reserve Board to Suspend Minimum If Gold Re serves Slip Below Requirement," by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, The Las Vegas Sun, September 10, 1963, p. 6

(11)

Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1961, p. 66

( 12 )

Cong" essional Reco"d ( daily ) , February 6, 1 963, pp. 1 772-4; and March I , 196 �, p. A 1086

( 1 3 ) "The little Rock Case-Authority Of The President To Use Federal Troops In A State Of The Union," by W. Scott Wilkin son, Congressional Record ( da i ly ) , September 2 6, 1 962, pp. 19654-9 ( 14 ) "Arm Twisting on the Wheat Vote," by Richard Wilson, The Wasbillgto/I Evening Star, June 19, 1963

(15)

"Congress Must Save The Panama Canal," speech by U. S. Represen�ative Daniel J. Flood ( Democrat, Pennsylvania ) , C01Igressronal Record ( daily ) , April 9, 1963, pp. 5743-57

(16)

For details on the Walker story, see this Report, "The Wages of Socialism," October 1 5, 1962, pp. 3 33-6.

( 17)

"Spotlight Of Probers I s On Rusk," by Edith Kermit Roose velt, The San Diego UnioJl, October 20, 1963, p. c2

(5)

Newsletter of U . S. Representative Richard 1. Roudebush ( Republican, Indiana ) , October 7, 1 963

( 18)

(6)

Text of press conference by U . S. Representative Charles A. Halleck ( Republican, Indiana ) , October 1 0, 1963

For a complete d iscussion of the Asilomar Seminar' see this Report, "Defense or Surrender ?", March 2 6, 1962 .

( 19)

(7 )

COllgressional Reco,·d ( daily ) , February 2 6, 1963, pp. 2865-6

"]FK's Choice: The Issue: Jurist With A Record ?", by Bob Hollingsworth, The Dallas Times Herald, October 17, 1 963, pp. lA, 19A

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere i n the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 344

THE )

IJI/II SmootRepo,t Vol. 9, No. 44

(Broadcast 429)

November 4, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

MR. STEVENSON GOES TO DALLAS S andy Buckman was an idiot. He and I worked together as itinerant farm hands for about six weeks one summer. I was a boy of 1 5 , and Sandy was a man in his middle forties. Hence, I always paid him the respect that a man was due from a boy - in those backward, isolationist, non-progressive days between the two great wars. But a few of the other field hands made fun of Sandy. There was a great deal of cruelty in some of the practical jokes they played on him.

)

It is still painful to recall the last time I saw Sandy : walking down the road, with no place to go, carrying all his worldly goods in a worn and torn cardboard suitcase, crying like. a child. This was the end result of the last practical joke at Sandy's expense. Sandy stood in awe and terror of the foreman. A couple of the boys, pretending friendly conconcern, told him how to get on the good side of the boss: put in a little free time now and then, doing work he wasn't told to do. This would show the boss he was interested, and it would make a good impression. Sandy was willing, but he couldn't think of anything to do. The boys helped him out: "Go down to the gear room next Sunday and fix up all the broken harness. That'll make a hit with the boss." Sandy went, but he couldn't find any broken harness. The boys helped him again. "Break some," they advised him, "so's you'll have some to fix." Sandy did. He ripped open a dozen expensive mule collars, cut up a bunch of hame straps, and mutilated several pairs of lines - and then set to work trying to mend them. The boss caught him and fired him. Sandy packed up and left, homeless and jobless, and, as I said, crying like a child. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

)

�------�

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 345

/1 1

try to keep Sandy out of my memory. The thought of him, after more than thirty years, still puts a lump in my throat. Yet he comes inexorably to mind every time I hear someone like Adlai E. Stevenson talk about the United Nations. I don't reckon there's any real similarity be tween Adlai E. Stevenson and Sandy Buckman. I never heard anyone call Sandy a wit, and I've never heard anyone call Stevenson a half-wit. Yet in every Stevenson speech about the UN, there is something that reminds me of Sandy. Mr. Stevenson says that if we did not have a UN, we would have to invent one, because the UN is indispensable to world peace. Mr. Steven son and others like him used to concentrate on Palestine when talking about peace-making ac complishments of the UN. Every time there was an upsurge of criticism of the UN, the Councils on World Affairs, the American Association for the United Nations, and other semi-official affili ates of the Council on Foreign Relations would stage meetings throughout the nation, featuring prominent personalities talking about how the UN stopped a war in Palestine and thus averted a world catastrophe. That's the same line of thinking that got poor old Sandy Buckman fired. There wasn't any brok en harness to fix, but Sandy cut up a few pieces so that he'd have some to fix. There wasn't any Palestine war to stop, but UN statesmen made one when they carved the modern state of Israel out of the heart of the Arab homeland. This has given them a peace-making j ob to work on per petually. Any time they need another UN peace making accomplishment, some UN official can make an expensive New York-Israeli round trip. Press releases are issued. Resolutions are intro duced in the General Assembly. And another war is stopped by what Mr. Stevenson calls a dialogue in the UN.

recent months, UN spokesmen have been

holding the ever-ready Palestine problem in re serve for needy times. Nowadays, they talk prin-

cipally about the UN peace-making accomplish ment in the Belgian Congo. That's what Mr. Stevenson stressed in Dallas. The Con�o is another Sandy Buckman type op . eration. ThIngs were going as well in the Belgian Congo as mortal men had any right to expect. UN pressures forced the Belgians to get out and leave the country in the hands of people not yet ready to gov�rn themselves. The resulting bloody . mess wlll glve UN peace-makers something to . . meddle In untIl the last American dollar is squan dered. The UN officials said they wanted self-determi nation i ? the Congo. But when pro-western Ka tanga tned to Rreserve law and order by asserting . self-determInatton, the UN peace-makers ravaged the country with bestial violence. When the UN crea�es � problem, it doesn't want anyone else solVIng �t. If folks are permitted to solve prob lems whICh the UN creates for them, there might not be enough unsolved problems for UN officials to intervene in and have dialogues about.

Sandy Buckman would understand

that - all except the dialogue part. When people with dif fering views talked about something, Sandy used to say they were arguing. Mr. Stevenson says ' they are having a dialogue. But that's a minor point that Sandy could get around, or live with. As I said, I don't like to think about Sandy Buckman ; but he has been much on my mind since Mr. Stevenson came to Dallas last week. I wish I knew where Sandy is. The United Na tions could use him.

The Dreadful Affai r

On October 2 3 , 1963, the United States Day Committee held a meeting in the Dallas Memorial Auditorium Theater. Edwin A. Walker spoke, criticizing the United Nations, advocating resto ration of a free and independent American Repub lic. None of the news-reporting media gave the meeting advance publicity. By word of mouth

Page 346

and distribution of handbills, the Committee reached enough people to get an audience of about 1 200. The meeting was not broadcast. Press coverage was perfunctory. The next night Adlai Stevenson made a United Nations Day speech in the same place, to an audience of about 1 7 00 people, under the auspices of the Dallas United Nations Association and the Dallas League of Women Voters. Whereas the U. S. Day Committee had paid all its own bills, we can be sure that Mr. Stevenson traveled from New York and stayed in Dallas, at taxpayers' expense. His visit was given an enormous amount of advance publicity by news-reporting media. His speech was televised live at prime early eve ning time (pre-empting the Perry Mason pro gram) . The local CBS affiliate ( KRLD) donated a full hour of time to broadcast Stevenson's speech.

Not all of the 1 7 00 people who came to hear

Mr. Stevenson were jubilant about him and his message. Inside the theater there were people who have a dim view of Mr. Stevenson and the United Nations. Outside, a crowd of such people had gathered, carrying placards, to let Mr. Steven son know their sentiments. There was also a crowd of pro-Stevenson pickets, jeering and in sulting the anti-Stevenson people. The Dallas police, aware that the crowd was excited, gave Stevenson a planned and adequate escort to his car, when the meeting was over ; but Stevenson

suddenly left his escort and strode toward a picket ing group, saying, "Let's see what's wrong with these people." He walked directly toward a lady carrying an anti-Stevenson placard. Someone in the crowd yelled, "Put down the signs!" The lady obediently lowered hers, just in time to bump Stevenson on the head. (1)

F our

days later, the affair was still making banner headlines on the front pages of both Dal las newspapers, and the civic leaders of Dallas were still groveling extravagantly. They had sent wires

of apology to Mr. Stevenson and to

President Kennedy. The City Council was delib-

erating the solemn question of sending formal, official apologies. Mayor Earl Cabell had made several pronouncements about the extremists who had done this thing - saying they were the same group of "radicals" who had voted in the last election to reject the Mayor's proposed public housing scheme. Cabell even hinted darkly that there ought to be a law against people who dis like public housing and the United Nations, say mg: "Good behavior is not enough. This cancer on the body politic must be removed." ( 2)

Rumor was rife. There was persistent rumor that the Kennedy crowd in Washington was glee fully putting intense pressure on civic leaders of Dallas, telling them they had better take advan tage of this occasion to squelch and silence all Dallas " reactionaries" (especially United States Representative Bruce Alger) if Dallasites want to keep their hands in the great federal pork bar rel of tax money for government contracts, gov ernment buildings, urban renewal, public hous ing, and so on. There was rumor about plans for a bond issue to erect a statue to Stevenson in Dallas. The most engaging rumor of all had to do with a big multi-million dollar "federal cen ter" which downtown real estate promoters and civic leaders have been wanting for some time. The rumor is that if city leaders can grovel enough to get Kennedy approval of the federal center, they will promise not to call it a federal center : they will name it the Adlai Stevenson Center. For days after the Adlai Stevenson affair, the tone of all official comment in Dallas gave the impression that a miasma of disgrace hung over the city - that all decent folks were about to

migrate in search of a community where Ambas sadors are not habitually clubbed on the head with SIgns. I have not seen anyone packing up to move. The crows and j aybirds out in my end of town caw and scold every morning as if they are still glad to be alive in Dallas. The people I see on the street seem.quite unaware of the cloud which darkens the sky for the Mayor,

and the "civic leaders."

Page 347

the

City Council,

Old Man G rippin

O ne thing

is obvious : the liberals of Dallas are determined to make such clamor that the fear of being branded hate-mongers and crackpots will forever silence all who would criticize the United Nations or any other cause or institution that is a sacred cow of liberalism. By doing this, our liberal leaders are compounding the grievance which caused the demonstration against Steven son in the first place. The people who picketed Stevenson were not wild-eyed ignoramuses. The ignoramuses were inside applauding what Stevenson said. I say this in kindness. I am too kind to believe that there are more than 100 people in Dallas who would applaud Adlai Stevenson if they were not igno rant of what the man has done, what he proposes to do, what he symbolizes. Adlai Stevenson is most frequently singled out as the man primarily responsible for the betrayal of American honor, and of American security interests, in connection with the Bay of Pigs tragedy in the spring of 1961 . (3) Adlai Stevenson publicly advocates surrender of American sover eignty to the United Nations. ( 4) He boasts about the UN Congo operation ( 4) which was financed with money confiscated from American wage earners and which brings a feeling of hot shame to every American patriot who knows the truth about what the UN did with our money in the Congo. Stevenson is a foremost symbol of the totalitarian liberalism which plunders the Ameri can people of the fruits of their own labor, for causes and programs that are destroying our Re public. With it all, he has built a reputation as a wit by making fun of well-informed Americans who know what he is and what he stands for.

who scorn or ignore prominent persons of op posite views. They resented the fact that men like Stevenson roam the country at taxpayers' ex pense to advocate policies which are ruinous to our nation. Most of all, they resented the fact that men like Stevenson are freely given all the best facilities of radio, television, and the press to express their views, while the great body of educated and reputable citizens of opposing views are denied the means of telling the truth. The way to counter the harm that a man like Stevenson does is not to wave signs at him, but to reach others with facts which will expose the fallacy of his views. But how can this be done, when those who know, and who care enough about their country to exert themselves in the cause of public enlight ment, are denied means of public expression even remotely comparable to the means universally and perpetually available to Stevenson ? The number of Americans who know the ugly truth about the United Nations, and who care enough to do something about it, is already in the millions, and is growing fast. They will not be silenced. Somehow, they will find a means to express themselves - j ust as Old Man Grippin did.

Old Man Grippin was a farmer in the south west corner of Kentucky. At about the end of Wodd War I, he lost his entire family in a flu epidemic. From the time of that disaster to the end of his life, he lived alone on his 100-acre farm, wanting nothing but to be left alone in solitude, beholden unto no man until the Lord called him Home to be with his kin.

Most of the people who picketed Stevenson know the truth about the man. They resented his speech, and the fact that he made it in a building erected as a memorial to Dallasites who fought

I knew him as a kind and tender old man, be cause I lived in his house and worked for him about a week, helping him mend fences. But no one else around there seemed to know him. Being eccentric, alone and independent, he be came an object of suspicion and ridicule in the community; and it was always open season on Old

and died for their country. They resented the

Man Grippin's place for wild young rowdies.

worshipful treatment given him by civic leaders

They plundered his corn field for roasting ears

Page 348

bottom of the first page of each issue of the Report ) . If you are not familiar with 'Hope' and would like to see whether it would suit your needs for Christmas mailings, you can order a sample copy now for 2 5 cents.

How Can I Help?

The

following extract from a recent letter is typical of comments which I receive, by the hundreds, from all over the United States : "I agree that something must be done to re store liberty under constitutional government; and I agree with most of your proposals, Mr. Smoot; but what can I do?"

If ten million thoughtful American adults had that attitude, the question would answer itself: we would find and elect to public office, at all levels, men with enough courage, integrity, and understanding to restore the crumbling pillars of our marvelous constitutional Republic. It follows that our first, and biggest, job is to get ten million Americans in the right frame of mind. Each of us must do the most he can, with the resources he has. We who are publishing and broadcasting can reach more people than you individuals in other kinds of work. Our effort may, therefore, appear to be more satisfying than any which seems avail able to you. Yet your effort is actually more im portant than ours, because ours depends on you. My work, for example, is conducted as a free enterprise publishing and broadcasting business. Firms which advertise with my weekly broadcasts (like Dr. Ross Pet Food Company) pay me a fee, but my total broadcasting revenue is small. The income that keeps me going is from sales of my published materials : books, bound volumes, and my weekly Report; and from sales of my edu cational films. Hence, my supporters are my customers ; and I am totally dependent upon them. Some, who think my work effective, help a great deal by giv-

ing subscriptions of my Report to others, sending reprints of certain issues to friends urging them to subscribe, giving my books and bound volumes to libraries, students and so on. A few of my subscribers send me money at intervals, asking that I use it to distribute my publications where they will do the most good. Some send contribu tions to be used in our educational fund for gift subscriptions to schools , students, teachers and ministers who want the Report, but lack funds. Some contribute to our Congressional Fund, to help defray our expense in sending the Report regularly to all members of the National Congress. Such contributions for my material are not tax exempt ; but business firms can distribute my pub lications as gifts, and charge the cost to advertis ing, j ust as they give other publications as ad vertising. If facts and ideas which you have read in my Reports and heard on my broadcasts have made you want to do something, it is probable that those same facts and ideas would have similar effect on people whom you know, in your work, your home, your neighborhood, your church. Often you are the only person in the world who can expose these people to the facts. We must not wait until darkness has descended on the land. If we are to save our Republic, action must be taken noUJ. We have reached the point where we must reverse the disastrous policies of government, or become a socialist dictatorship. It is up to you.

Soviet Plans in Latin America ( by Constantine Brown ) (5J

MUNICH. - At a place "somewhere in Ger many" where important Communist defectors are screened before being given permanent resi dence here, I met through German friends a Czech who had held a position of responsibility in the Prague hierarchy. He was a man in his late fifties, erudite and keen-minded. He had given up everything because "I could no longer stand the intrigues, the double-crossings and the lies of the regime which I had j oined whole-

Page 350

in the spring. They stole his watermelons in sum mer. They let their hunting hounds loose to raid his chicken house. They tore down his fences to let in stray cattle.

Mr. Grippin did not like what he had done. He did not rejoice in his own methods. But, driven to desperation, he had resorted to the only means of expression left to him.

Taciturn by nature and unaccustomed to much ?uman contact, Old Man Grippin was not a talk mg man ; and, besides, he stuttered ; but he tried. He went around to his neighbors and tried to explain to the boys and their parents that they must leave his property alone because they were ruining him. But when speech failed him, he often lapsed into profanity. That further alien ated the women folks and enlarged the false legend about his evil ways. His stammering ef forts to lecture the boys became favorite topics for raucous comment by local wits - and spurred further depredations against his private property.

P icketing and demonstrating are poor means of expression. I, for one, have never approved of such activities. But such activities will con tinue. They will grow in frequency, and become increasingly unmanageable. And there will be head bumpings that are not accidental , until Americans who believe in the traditions and prin ciples of their society are allowed some better means of expression. Newspapers and broadcast ing stations which bemoan angry public demon strations against the UN and people like Steven son could eliminate them, if they would dis charge their own responsibility to report news events fairly and impartially, giving both sides equal opportunity to participate in what Steven son calls the conflict in the minds of men.

Unable to solve his problem by having dia logues, Old Man Grippin hid in his melon patch one night, and shot a teenage boy in the posterior with a load of birdshot. The birdshot didn't do much more than sprinkle the boy's backside, but it scared him so badly that he broke his neck trying to jump a fence - and died three days later. The boy was the son of a prominent family thereabouts, and the community was outraged. They talked about how disgraceful it was to have such a person as Old Man Grippin in their midst. They did not say (as Mayor Earl Cabell of Dallas more recently said ) that this cancer on the body politic had to be removed ; but they did talk about a tar and feather party to drive Mr. Grippin out of the County. Some of the boon companions of the deceased even thought about rowing the old man out to the middle of the Mississippi River and dumping him, with instructions that, if he could swim, he had better swim to the Missouri side and never come back. None of these plans was ever executed, how ever, because no one wanted to be the first to walk into the muzzle of Old Man Grippin's gun. The affair left another scar on the old man's deep ly scarred soul ; and it cost a human life; but there were no more raids on the Grippin farm.

The Hope of the World

Every

December, I devote one issue of this Report to a reaffirmation of my faith in the prin ciples of our society - a restatement of my con viction that our organic documents of govern ment ( the Declaration of Independence, the Con stitution, and the Bill of Rights) were the out growth of Christian ideals. I call this Christmas issue "The Hope of the World." Every year, subscribers say they would have mailed "The Hope of the World" to friends in lieu of Christmas greeting cards, if it had been published early enough. This year, we anticipate that demand. "The Hope of the World" issue will be mailed to subscribers under the date of December 1 6, 1963 ; but it has already been printed, and is now available. If you are already familiar with "The Hope of the World" and would like to order extra copies for distribution during the Christmas sea son, you can do so now, at our regular reprint prices ( which are quoted in the block at the

Page 349

heartedly. But," he added wistfully "I am afraid I have now joined the losing side." His explanation for this pessimistic viewpoint about the "losing side" (the West) was simple. The new generation of political men, particularly in the United States and Britain, does not want to believe the U.S.S.R. is planning for the con quest of the world. Premier Khrushchev has confused and fright ened the political men by his tactics of hot and cold showers, frowns and smiles, rattling of mis siles and "deep concern for humanity." He is now certain, if his life span lasts for another 1 0 years, that he can hand over to his successor the socialist world promised by Lenin. The signing of the Moscow pact and the sub sequent steps are only a beginning. Mr. Khrush chev's aims go further, to the Western Hemis phere. The Czech defector, who my German friends told me is trustworthy, emphasized the plan for a gigantic U .S.R.L.A. When asked what this means, he explained, "the United Socialist Re publics of Latin America." During the 37 -day visit of Fidel Castro to the Soviet Union, the blueprint of such an organiza tion of states was discussed in all details by Mr. Khrushchev, the Cuban dictator and a number of top Soviet officials. Mr. Khrushchev was confident that there will be no more than token opposition from the United States. Cuba will be, of course, the key point where all the propaganda and subversive moves will start. The anxiety of the Western Powers, and par ticularly of the United States and Britain, for accommodation is to be exploited intensively all over Latin America, together with the power element of the U.S.S.R. The first component group of the USRLA would be composed of Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Chile, and Brazil, as well as the former British Guiana and possibly Hispaniola after the Duvalier regime in Haiti has been liquidated. The target date is 1 968. According to my informant, Mr. Khrushchev has instructed Mr. Castro to take his time and lay the groundwork without haste. It is essential,

he is reported to have said, that the chances of reelection of the present Washington administra tion, sympathetic to socialism and dedicated to a relaxation of tensions, should not be endan gered. It is also important that the British Labor Party, headed by Harold Wilson - and described by Mr. Khrushchev as a man of great intelligence and insight toward world trends - should re place the wobbly, uncertain, and tired Con servatives. Hence, there must be no hasty or rash moves by Fidel and his associates throughout Latin America. Quite the contrary, Mr. Castro must accept with good grace any indications for rec onciliation with the United States - even at the price of some concessions regarding the con fiscation of American properties. The Czech defector added that there are al ready in course such negotiations which may lead to a resumption of diplomatic relations with Washington. But he expects nothing concrete before next year. The pot will be kept simmering until the American elections. After November 1 964, however, the work of creating a USRLA will be started in earnest. Asked about Europe's reaction to the gigantic Soviet plans, the answer was that Europe has relied too much on the United States to be able (5) to successfully resist the trend FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Cora Beckworth Fredrickson is the lady who accidentally bumped Adlai Stevenson with a placard. She is a cousin of United States Representative Lindley Beckworth ( liberal Texas Democrat ) . Until recently, Mrs. Fredrickson regarded herself as a liberal. In 1 9 5 2 , she was a supporter of Adlai Stevenson and met him during his political campaign that year. Education has changed her views. She now regards Stevenson as a symbol of the totalitarian liberalism which is destroying her nation. Before Stevenson's UN speech in Dallas, she had never participated in any picketing, or similar, activity. That night, she impulsively picked up an anti-Stevenson placard, because she felt outraged by Stevenson's speech. ( 2 ) "Cabell Appeals for Sanity," by Earl Cabell, The Dallas Morn ing News, October 27, 1 963, Section 1, p. 2 1 ( 3 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, May 30, 196 1 ; UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morn ing News, June 1 5, 1 9 6 1 , Section 1, p. 1 ( 4 ) "Stevenson Foresees Loss Of United States Sovereignty," by Saul Pett of the Associated Press, The El Paso Times, February 24, 1963, p. 1-B ( 5 ) The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., August 3 1 , 1963, re printed in the Congressional Re.ord ( daily ) , September 24, 1�63, p. A601 0

Page 351

T H E G R OWT H O F �

ISM

COM

8": til

("') ::;1>' '"' ,.....

� 1000 � 1 BILLION i POPULATION

�

""0 ....__A... .----. ..._

i in' MILLI O N S

0�

� '"'

"'0 !l) IJq �

�

C1 �

800

�

WORLD POPULATION 3 81 lION

� ("')

::;1>' '"'

0'r

�

600 "

c;J '"' 1>'

("') ('t)

�

b::;-

� pr ::J

('t)

� j:J

400

200 1

n 1>'

:::-: ....... o '"'

::J

j;;; '

HUNGARY POLAND NORTH KOREA

1900

EAST GERM NY 'I ALBANIA BULGARIA RUMANIA YUGOSLAVIA

\--

RUSSIA INCLUDING :

BYELORUSSIA AZERBAIJAN GEORGIA ARMENIA UKRAINE ---' TURKESTAN

1910

1920

1930

YEARS

1940

1950

1 960

1970

THE o

IJ(JII SmootRepolt Vol. 9, No. 45

(Broadcast 430)

November 1 1 , 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

Does The / ./

u.s.

SMOOT

Oppose Communist World Conquest?

L ast

week, we reprinted from the Congressional Record an article by Constantine Brown, about Soviet plans in Latin America. ( 1 ) Mr. Brown got his information in West Germany from a man who was recently a high official in the communist government of Czechoslovakia. Though he defected from communism because he could no longer endure the lies and intrigues and treach eries of communists, the Czech feels that he joined the losing side when he fled to the West. Com munism will win, he said, because Western leaders ( particularly in the United States ) do not want to believe that the Soviets are planning to conquer the world. Khrushchev knows that the United States will offer only token opposition to the Soviet plan of conquest in Latin America, particular ly if Kennedy remains in power. Indeed, Khrushchev expects help from the Kennedy adminis tration ( resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba, which would decrease opposition to com munism in all Latin American nations) . Hence, though Soviet plans for Latin American conquest have already been made, and discussed with Castro, Khrushchev has ordered Castro to do nothing rash until after the American elections of 1964. (1) If Kennedy is re-elected, Khrushchev expects to complete the communist conquest of Latin America by 1 968. (1)

(1)

These assertions and predictions will surprise no one who has studied the record. It is easy, by relating the facts of recent history, to show that the American government, under both Eisenhower and Kennedy (but most outrageously under Kennedy) , has consistently aided the cause of com munism, and opposed anti-communists. But why ? That is difficult to answer to the satisfaction of the American public. I first encountered this baffling question in 1943 when, as an FBI Agent, I was given the job of investigating communist activities in northern Ohio. Before then, I knew nothing about communism. What I found out was a shattering experience for me.

One of my FBI cases involved a well-known communist, formerly of Cleveland, Ohio, who was then holding an administrative job in a sensitive war agency in Washington. Six weeks after I had THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10. 00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 353

written an exhausive report detailing the man's provable communist activities over a period of years, the communist received an important pro motion in government service. There were other, similar cases. I developed air-tight perjury cases against important communist union officials in Cleveland. A few months after my FBI reports on them were sent to the Department of Justice, the FBI received terse notices from the Department saying that prosecution of the individuals was not deemed to be in the national interest at that time. They never were prosecuted. On the other hand, I noticed that persons who spoke out strongly and plainly against com munism were bludgeoned with public slander in tended to discredit and destroy them. Slander against anti-communists emanated from the White House, from offices of Cabinet members, from the halls of Congress - and was repeated and ampli fied from pulpits, speakers' platforms, editorial pages, and radio microphones all over the country. More than that, I noticed in 1943 that the same intellectual and political leaders who seemed to favor communism and had an obvious, implacable hatred of anti-communists, were also contemptu ous of the American constitutional system. For po litical or strategic reasons, they publicly praised our glorious heritage ; but their hostility toward Americans who really believed in our constitution al system was far greater than any hostility which they ever displayed toward communism. I was bewildered by all this until I realized why. Roosevelt New Dealers in 1943 - like Truman Fair Dealers, Eisenhower Modern Republicans, and Kennedy New Frontiersmen later - were sensitive about any fundamental criticism of com munism, because the liberalism which has domi nated the intellectual and political life of America since 1 933 has the same goal as the announced goal of communism: the establishment of social ism. Whereas the Founding Fathers who created our constitutional system in 1 787 distrusted gov

ernment and feared political power, modern lib erals, who have held governmental power smce

1933, worship government and want it to have unlimited power to do anything which govern ment officials claim to be good.

Our Constitutional System

The Founding Fathers

were confronted with a great dilemma. They knew that an inexorable law of human nature causes men to abuse politi cal power. They knew that all governments will, if permitted, waste the substance of the people and ultimately enslave the people, always under the pretense of helping the people. Years later, Thomas Jefferson summed up their attitude when, in essence, he said : In questions of political power, do not talk about confidence in men; do not trust anyone with political power ; bind all government officials down from mischief with the chains of a Constitution so that they cannot harm the people. Yet, it was impractical to write a Constitution listing in detail all powers which government should have for all times and all occasions. At any given moment in history, it may be unnecessary, and dangerous, for a governmental agency to en gage in activity which may become, at a later time, a proper and needed function of govern ment. In a complex and growing society, some governmental power must be flexible, broad, and general. If such flexible power were left with state gov ernments, it could be, and would be, abused by state officials; but if the states were bound together in a union, so that their citizens all had common citizenship in a national system, there would be some restraining and corrective force. If a state government abused its power, it would lose good and productive citizens and private organizations to other states. Experience and competition among the states would eventually force correction of the worst evils flowing from abuse of power by state officials, and would enable the people to find, by trial and error, some reasonable answer to the question of how much governmental intervention in the private affairs of citizens is necessary.

Page 354

If the federal government were given flexible powers to use at the discretion of federal officials, the federal government would inevitably become a dictatorship : a political and economic colossus usurping powers and revenue of the states under the pretext of giving them aid; robbing and en slaving the people, under the pretext of taking care of them. There would be no competitive force (as among the states ) to restrain or correct the tyranny and follies of the federal government, because they would be imposed on the whole nation, uniformly ; and there would be no way for citizens to escape.

O ur

Founding Fathers solved the complex problem by writing a binding contract of govern ment - the Constitution - listing in detail, all the powers of the federal government, limiting it to the exercise of those specified powers, leaving all flexible, general powers of government to the states. This was the political system which left the American people so free of harassment by their own government and, thus, released so much hu man energy and ingenuity, that Americans quickly converted their portion of the backward, under developed North American Continent into the most powerful and prosperous nation in history. Yet, by 1943, the liberal leaders of America had rejected the system and were branding its advocates crackpots and trouble makers. By 1961 , the Attorney General of the United States was considering a recommendation, made by one of the nation's foremost socialists , that advocates of the old constitutional system be formally branded "radical right-wing extremists" and placed on the Attorney General's list of subversives. (2)

The Totalitarians

America's totalitarian liberals do not, for

the most part, admit to being socialists, because the general American public thinks it is opposed to socialism. For years, socialists participated m

American elections openly but never received more than token support at the polls. Eventually con vinced that Americans would not wittingly accept socialism, the socialists changed tactics. They in filtrated the major political parties and presented their old ideas under deceptive, new labels. In stead of demanding a centralized government with absolute power to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of the people, they clamored for "govern ment with a heart," "government with power to act in the interests of the whole people," "indus trial democracy," "social reform," a "welfare state." They abandoned the marxist slogan, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs," and advocated a more steeply graduated income tax, to take from those who can afford to pay for benefits to those in need.

T he change in slogans and language made no change in ultimate goal : the aim of socialists and of our modern liberals (whether New Deal ers, Fair Dealers, Modern Republicans, or New Frontiersmen) is an all-powerful federal govern ment which can confiscate the earnings and savings of the people; control their business operations with taxes and regulations until the federal gov ernment becomes the dominant partner who takes more than half the profit of the most produc tive business organizations; take so much money from the taxpayers of each state that state govern ments, left without adequate revenue , turn to the all-powerful federal government for "grants in aid" which are always accompanied by dictation from the federal bureaucracy. Socialists believe that a central government must have absolute power to confiscate from the people whatever officialdom claims it needs, to arrange and provide for the people whatever officialdom claims to be in the interest of the general welfare. Our modern liberals, though denying they are socialists, believe in the same thing. Modern liberals and socialists deny that there is any similarity between their program and com-

Page 355

munism ; but the objective of communism (in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in communist China, in Yugoslavia and in all other communist nations ) is identical with that of modern Ameri can liberals and of socialists. The obj ective is total elimination of the system of profit-motivated pri vate capitalism, in favor of a system wherein every individual will work not for "profit" but for "use," which means that the whole of society will operate like the collective farms of communism : all people labor under the control of society ; the production of all goes into a common pile; the officials representing society distribute part of the total production to the people who produced it, not on the basis of how much each contributed to the total production, nor on the basis of how much each thinks he needs, but on the basis of official determination of what each should have. Part of the total production of society is not dis tributed to those who produced it, but is used by officialdom for other purposes which officials deem beneficial for the general welfare. Fascism (which flourished in Germany and Italy before World War II ) was merely another name for socialism. Its ultimate goal was identical with that of communists, socialists, and American lib erals: a totalitarian state which directs and con trols the people for purposes which officialdom claims to be good for the people.

T hough socialism, communism, and fascism have always had the same objective, there has been bitter enmity between people who identified themselves as either socialists, communists, or fas cists. Part of the enmity resulted from rivalry for power - a rivalry as elemental and as easy to understand as the rivalry among three dogs fight ing for the same bone. Yet, part of the enmity between the three major branches of socialism arose from differences in methods used to accom plish the common objective. Historically, socialists believed that a majority of people could be persuaded that socialism is good and could, therefore, be led to vote for es tab l i shment of socialism by legislative process. Socialists were not honest in their claim of want-

ing thus to institute socialism in the United States by legal means. If they had been honest, they would have started by advocating amendment of the Constitution, through due constitutional proc ess, to give the central government absolute power to do anything the President and a majority of both Houses of Congress want to do. As our Constitution stands, the federal government does not have enough power to institute socialist pro grams IegallYJ even if the entire population should want socialism. Constitutional prohibitions against an all-powerful socialist government are usually ignored, however ; and socialists are, generally, regarded as wanting to institute socialism by legal means. Historically, communists believed that socialism must be instituted by illegal means. Karl Marx believed (and all subsequent communists pretend to believe) that the people can never be led to institute socialism by legal, legislative process. Marx thought the people are controlled by the propaganda, the wealth, and the entrenched social and political power of capitalists. Therefore , com munists traditionally advocate seizure of power, through violent means, by a small elite of com munists who will then govern as a dictatorship of the proletariat until the last remnant of capital ism, and all capitalists, are eliminated and until the people have been trained to live and work in a pure socialist society. Then the dictatorship will be dissolved and people will live and work under the benevolent controls of society. The marx ian fear of capitalistic resistance to the establishment of socialism made communism an international movement. Marx believed that even if a communist elite could seize power in one nation and institute a socialist dictatorship, capitalists of other nations would combine to make war on the socialist state and destroy it. Marx was convinced, therefore, that socialism would not be safe (and that the dictatorship of the pro letariat could not be dissolved in any socialist nation) until all nations of the world were under a socialist dictatorship. This is why communists are dedicated to a program of world conquest.

Page 356

Fascists also believed that the people could never be openly persuaded to approve institution of the totalitarian socialist state; but the fascist method of conquest was less direct than the com munist method which Marx prescribed. Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy created what can best b � descri ?ed as "corporate states." Ownership of major busmess, financial, commercial, and in dustrial organizations was left in private hands ; but government imposed such controls over the organizations that they became branches of gov ernment. The net result was the same as in com munist nations : total governmental control of all major means of production. The fascist technique for gaining control was more astute than the communist technique. The fascists acquired power with the eager assistance of wealthy capitalists who became helpless tools of the power they had financed. Whereas Karl Marx believed that wealthy cap italists would fight to the death to preserve their own way of life, the fascists knew better. They learned early what Lenin discovered , and what most communists in later years have found out, that wealthy businessmen generally lack the sense or courage to fight for their own. Big businessmen of America compromised with the New Deal, and eventually supported it, because they thought it more profitable to go along with governmental programs than to oppose them. Similarly, big businessmen of Germany and Italy supported Hit ler and Mussolini. They made immediate profits by doing so, but, in the end, they financed their own destruction. The fascist contempt for capitalists resulted in another basic difference between the over-all program of the fascist brand of socialism and the communist brand. The fascists (knowing that the great capitalists of one nation would not lift a finger to help fellow capitalists in other nations ) believed that their socialist nations could exist safely in a world where other nations retained capitalistic systems. Hence, fascists did not feel the absolute compulsion, that communists felt, for world conquest. Fascists were devoted to what Hitler called national socialism (Nazi being a

New-Deal type abbreviation meaning national so cialism) . The communists are devoted to inter national socialism.

The Li beral Technique

T otalitarian liberals in the United States, hav ing the same ultimate goal as fascists, socialists, and communists, have used methods adapted from all three groups. For the most part, American liberals have pre sented their socialist programs under false labels palatable to the people. In some instances, how ever, liberals have used the old direct socialist approach : brainwashing a majority of the Con gress and a substantial portion of the public into accepting (in defiance of constitutional limita tions ) an experiment in pure socialism : govern ment ownership and operation of electric power facilities, for example. American liberals share with fascists a contempt for capitalism; but their manipulation of capital ists has not been as cynically obvious, or as com plete, as that of the fascists. Under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, a system closely similar to the corporate states of fascist Italy and nazi Germany has been erected. Today there are hundreds of huge federal corporations operating in competition with , and controlling, private corporations. But, in the United States, the big private corporations have not yet lost all con trol over their own operations, as they eventually did in Germany and Italy. During Mussolini's and Hitler's rise to power, big corporations in Italy and Germany enjoyed a honeymoon period of cooperating with government, in order to get profitable business from government, and to avoid trouble. In the United States, big corporations are still in that honeymoon period. They support ex travagant spending programs of the federal gov ernment, because the spending provides lush con· tracts. Many big corporations, which do not profit directly from government contracts, profit indi rectly from the economic stimulation of govern ment lending and spending and giveaways in

Page 357

their communities. In any event, cooperating with big government provides some insurance against harassment by the Internal Revenue Service, and other federal agencies. Going along to get along has become a settled attitude of many American businessmen who neither profit from nor approve the governmental programs which they tolerate. It was the same in fascist Italy and nazi Germany. In some instances, American political liberals use the communist technique of doing what they please, in defiance not only of the Constitution, but of Congress, and without waiting to brain wash the public - hoping to make it all "legal" and acceptable later on. Kennedy has done a great deal of this - instituting, by Executive Order, programs which Congress has not authorized, fi nancing his illegal programs with money appro priated for other purposes, until Congress can be manipulated into "authorizing" what has already been done. (3)

Methods Are Now The Same

D uring

the first year of Franklin D. Roose velt's administration, totalitarian liberals, who want socialism but dishonestly call it by other names, acquired major political power in the United States. As late as 1 948, however, socialists had a political party, and were still running their own candidates in national elections . They were not yet totally satisfied with liberal progress to ward the socialist state. In the presidential elec tion year of 1952, Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party and perennial socialist candidate for President, was asked by the press in Dallas why he was not a candidate that year. Thomas said there was no longer any need for him to run, because, he explained whimsically, the major par ties had stolen his platform. Except for a few small groups of disgruntled dogmatics, socialists in the United States no longer try to operate as a separate political party in com petition with Republicans and Democrats. As in dicated before, they have infiltrated the old par ties ; but their primary influence is now exerted,

on both major parties and on public opmlOn, through the great web of organizations known as the invisible government - the Council on For eign Relations and related groups, such as the Americans for Democratic Action, the League for Industrial Democracy, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, and big labor umons.

The success of America's totalitarian

liberals, in directing the socialist revolution in the United States, has not only put American socialists out of business as a distinct political group, but has also had profound influence on communist tactics throughout the world. In 1 957, communists for the first time in history - gained control of governmental power , not by force of arms or by subversion, but by persuading a majority of voters to vote for known communist candidates. This happened in Kerala, a state in the southern part of India, in February, 1957. Later in 1957, the communists acquired political power in three other nations, through elections : in Java, in Okinawa, and in British Guiana. Commenting on these po litical phenomena of 1957, U. S. News & World Report (September 6, 1 95 7 ) said: "The Reds, who for years avoided free elec tions in favor of subversion and armed aggres sion, are turning to American-style political cam paigning . . . . The communists in Kerala ran openly on a Communist Party ticket, but they . . . . made no references to Marxism, Moscow, and revolution of the working class. Instead, they promised something for almost everyone. Jobs were promised to workers in an area where unemployment is large and growing . . . . Tax relief and land of their own were promised to the peasants . . . . More and better schooling . . . was pledged by the Communists to disgruntled students."(4)

In the United States, communists have adopted, in toto, the techniques of our totalitarian liberals. Communists no longer openly advocate commu nism in the United States : they advocate the pro grams of liberalism, and use liberal labels for them - knowing that completion of liberal pro grams means completion of the socialist revolu-

Page 358

tion. The United States will then be ready for integration into a world-wide union of socialist states - which is the ultimate goal of communism. In the presidential election year, 1 960, the com munist party of the United States (23 West 26th Street, New York 10, New York) distributed nationally a four-page statement of the party's political objectives for that year. The statement advocated the same major programs that were supported in the platforms of Democrat and Re publican parties of 1 960 : increased foreign aid to underdeveloped nations ; strengthening the United Nations as the keystone of American for eign policy ; increased social security benefits for the aged ; federally-enforced racial integration in all areas of American life, public and private; a new and bigger farm subsidy program ; increased giveaway of American agricultural goods abroad ; federal aid to economically distressed areas in the United States ( called Area Redevelopment by Democrats and Republicans) ; enlarged federal programs of slum clearance, urban renewal, and public housing; and so on. For the presidential election year, 1 964, the of ficial communist program has already been an nounced. On June 23, 1 963, a "special feature"

WHO

edition of The Worker (official newspaper of the communist party in the United States ) presented a policy statement written by Gus Hall, head of the U. S. communist party. Hall praised both the foreign and domestic policies of President Kennedy. He also had a word of praise for the Eisenhower-Kuchel wing of the Republican Party, but said "ultra-right" influ ences were too strong in the Republican Party generally. On the other hand, he said, "most of the broad people's movements are in the orbit of the Democratic Party. " Hall therefore urged all leftwing forces in the United States to unify and coordinate their activities toward the goal of elect ing Kennedy Democrats and defeating Republi cans in 1964-and for exerting continuous left wing pressures on Kennedy and Congress, to off set conservative pressures.

F rom

the beginning, American totalitarian liberals (which means New Dealers, Fair Dealers, Modern Republicans, and New Frontiersmen) have had the same goal that communists have : converting the United States into a socialist nation. In recent years, they have used identical tactics to reach that goal.

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to ]. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 1 95 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1 95 5 , he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 359

Once this is understood, the why presented at the outset of this Report is not so baffling after all. Why is the Kennedy administration consis tently tolerant and helpful toward communists, but relentless in its hatred of anti-communists ? The answer should be obvious.

If you have lost or used your Christmas Order Forms and would like more, please let us know as soon as possible. Our special Christmas rates are effective until December 26, 1 963. We will make every possible effort to handle your Christmas gift orders before Christmas Day, regardless of how late in the season we receive them. But the sooner you send them, the more certain we can be that they will be handled exactly as you wish.

In a subsequent Report, we will document the history of the socialist revolution in the United States. *

FOOTNOTES (1)

Christmas Orders

"Soviet Plans in Latin America," by Constantine Brown, The Ellening Star, Washington, D. c., August 3 1 , 1963, reprinted in the Congressional Record ( daily ) , September 24, 1963, p . A60 1 0

(2)

Last month, we mailed our Christmas Order Forms to all subscribers. We wish to thank all who have decided to give this Report, and other Dan Smoot publications, as Christmas gifts-and have already sent in orders.

W H A T

Y O U

'The

Radical

Right

America

Today,"

(3)

Victor

Walter P. Reuther, The Chris/ian Beacon, August 1 5 , 4-5

1963,

and

pp.

For a discussion of various lawless actions by the Kennedy ad ministration, see this RejJort, "Lawless Government," October 28, 1 9 6 3 .

(4) "Communists Are Risking Free Elections-And Winning," U. S. News & World RejJort, September 6, 1957, pp. 5 5-6

C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bri nging you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, Ameri�a's Promise?

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 - $ 1 0.00 1 year - $1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World Ameri�a's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14

Page 360

TAYLOR 1 -2303

ZIP CODE

THE o

.flil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 46

(Broadcast 43 1 )

November 1 8, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

HOW DID SOCIALISM G ROW IN TH E U . S.?

On September 24, 1 864, Karl Marx formed, at st. James' Hall in London, the International Workingmen's Association-an organization intended to foster the world-wide socialist revolution which Marx and Engels had urged in their Communist Manifesto ( published in 1 848 ) . Being the first international organization created for such purpose, the IWA is generally known, in the his tory of socialism, as the First Socialist International. (1) In January, 1 868, the Socialist Party was founded in New York City, and headquarters of the First International was transferred from Lon don to New York. (1 ) This was the formal beginning of the socialist movement in the United States (though there had previously been several unsuccessful experiments in communal living, socialistic communities, and so on) . The Socialist Party was unable to accomplish anything in elections. It was reformed as Labor Union No. 5 of New York; but the various factions and individuals in the socialist movement, although they all had a common goal, could not agree on method. The First Socialist International was dissolved at Philadelphia on February 1 5 , 1 876, and went out of existence. (1) The Second Socialist International was organized at Paris on July 14, 1 889, by 400 delegates from twenty countries. Whereas Marx's First Socialist International had been formed on the assumption that "workers of the world" would unite to "throw off the chains of capitalism," the Second Social ist International recognized that "workers" must be organized and manipulated into supporting socialism. The Second Socialist International intended to accomplish world revolution by organ izing and controlling labor unions. Hence, it is often called the Labor International. The Second International still exists as a small splinter group of the over-all communist-socialist movement. It is represented in the United States by the old Socialist Labor Party, which was actually organized before the Second Socialist International itself was formed. In accomplishment, however, the Sec ond International failed as completely as the first. (1) By the end of the 1 9th century, most socialists, everywhere, had come to realize that socialism could be imposed on the world only through violence, treachery, and deception. The Third Social ist International (often called Red International and Moscow International ) was formed at MosTHE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10. 00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 361

cow, March 2-6, 1919, under the leadership of bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia. The Third International converted Russia into an enor mous power base for the international socialist movement and spawned communist parties all over the world; but the techniques of the Third International would not work in the United States. (1)

The policy of hiding behind the skirts of re spectability did not, however , deter the fabians from consorting with and helping their more violent brethren in the socialist movement. In fact, the fabians aided and abetted Russian bol sheviks long before the revolution in 1917.

F abians, like all other socialists, claim to repre sent a progressive society ; but, like communists, they are devoted to totalitarian dictatorship. George Bernard Shaw put it rather bluntly:

Fabians

T he British fabians devised the techniques that worked in the United States. A small group of socialists formed the Fabian Society at London in 1 883, for the announced purpose of converting the British economy from capitalism to socialism. The name and tactics of the Fabian Society were inspired by Quintus Fabius Maximus, a general of ancient Rome, who, after disastrous defeats 10 open battle, developed a successful strategy of delay, deception, and infiltration.

"I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well."(2 )

(1)

George Bernard Shaw, a leading member of the Fabian Society, said the Society made it pos sible for respectable citizens to support socialism without any suspicion of lawless desire to over turn the existing order. The fabian artifice of feigning respectability while subverting society for revolutionary purposes, gave socialists easy entry into government, banks, stock exchanges, universities, and all other respected centers of power and influence. ( I , 2)

The fabians were more realistic than other so cialists. They understood that it is much easier to subvert sons, daughters and wives of the prom inent and well-to-do than it is to impress the labor ing classes. They also understood that socialist movements spring from the middle and upper classes - and not from the proletariat.

A fundamental principle of fabianism is that a select brain trust should plan for, and direct, all of society. This concept of an elite attracted people from the old English nobility, who began to join the Fabian Society, reflecting unconscious, sometimes conscious, attempts to regain their lost power. ( 2 )

LID

On September 12, 1905, a small group of so cialists ( under the leadership of Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and Clarence S. Darrow ) met at Pecks Restaurant in New York City. Out of this meeting came the Intercollegiate Socialist Society - although the fabians of England had urged that the word socialist be kept out of view. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society was founded for the stated purpose of "promoting an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and wom en . . . and the encouragement of all legitimate endeavors to awaken an interest in socialism among the educated men and women of the coun try." ( 1 , 3) The Rand School of Social Science, formed by fabian socialists, became the New York head quarters of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Harvard was selected as the primary center for nourishing and spreading the virus of socialism. By 1915, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society had chapters on 60 college campuses. (1 ) The bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, in 1917, stimulated a ferment of activity among so-

Page 362

cialists in the United States. Some, like John Reed ( Harvard, 1 9 1 0 ) , joined the bolshevik movement outright. While many American fabian socialists retained their cover of respectability and secretly sympathized with the bolsheviks, many others abandoned the deceptive cover and helped form the communist party of the United States. The socialist bloodbath in Russia, and the activ ities of American socialists, caused such resent ment and angry reaction in the United States that American fabians tardily took the advice of their British friends - to push the word socialist into the background. In 192 1 , the Intercollegiate So cialist Society became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID ) ; but its purpose did not change. LID remains the oldest, and perhaps still the most important, socialist organization in the United States - a parent group for most of the other fronts which have been set up since, to spread the poison of socialism until the thought streams of the entire nation have been badly con taminated. (3)

B elow

are names of a few prominent indi viduals who are, or were, influential in LID. CPR after a name indicates that the person is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ; ADA means membership in Americans for Demo cratic Action : (1, 2, 0)

Roger N. Baldwin-founder and head of American Civil Liberties Union Charles A. Beard-historian Daniel Bell-labor editor, Fortune John K. Benedict-professor, Union Theological Seminary John C. Bennett-Dean, Union Theological Semi nary ( CFR) Andrew J. Biemiller-former U. S. Representa tive, founding member of ADA, now AFL-CIO offi cial Carroll Binder-editor of the Minneapolis Tribune Ella Reeves ( "mother" ) Bloor-communist party official Ralph J. Bunche-UN Under Secretary General, NAACP official ( CFR) James B. Carey-Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO, ADA founder Everett R. Clinchy-first President, National Conference of Christians and Jews, now head of Conference on World Tensions ( World Brotherhood, Inc. ) ( CFR)

George S. Counts-author, educator Babette Deutch-writer, mother of Adam Yar molinsky John Dewey-"father" of progressive education Paul H. Douglas-Democrat Senator from Illinois, former professor at University of Chicago, ADA founder David Dubinsky-head of Garment Workers Union, head of New York Liberal Party, ADA founder, ( CFR) W. E. B. DuBois-communist party member, of ficial of NAACP, author George Clifton Edwards, Jr.-Kennedy nominee for federal judgeship, ADA founder Morris Ernst-chief attorney for American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP official, ADA founder Samuel A. Eliot, Jr.-author, educator James Farmer-head of the Congress on Racial Equality ( CORE ) Felix Frankfurter-former Harvard professor, Supreme Court Justice, ( CFR) Lewis S. Gannett-author, editor of New York Herald-Tribune, N AACP official, ( CFR) Reverend Donald Harrington--official of United World Federalists Albert J. Hayes-International President, Inter national Association of Machinists Union, ADA founder Sidney Hook-author, educator Quincy Howe-author, radio commentator Hubert H. Humphrey-Democrat Senator from Minnesota, founding member of ADA ( CFR) Jacob K. Javits-Republican Senator from New York, ADA member Nicholas KelJey-retired vice president, Chrysler Corporation ( CFR) William H. Kilpatrick-educator Freda Kirchwey-publisher of The Nation Corliss Lamont-President Roosevelt's secretary, communist Joseph P. Lash-UN correspondent for the New York Post, former intimate of the late Eleanor Roosevelt, ADA founder Harold J. Laski-professor, Harvard University and London School of Economics Owen Lattimore-author, educator, alleged com munist ( CFR) Herbert H. Lehman-retired investment banker, former Democrat Governor of New York and for mer Senator, ADA founder, N AACP official, ( CFR) Max Lerner-writer Alfred Baker Lewis-Preside'nt, Union Casualty Company, NAACP official Walter Lippmann-author, columnist ( CFR) Robert Morss Lovett-author, educator Jay Lovestone-founder of U.S. communist party, now International Representative for AFL-CIO George Meany-President, AFL-CIO Wayne Morse-Democrat Senator from Oregon, ADA official

Page 363

Will Maslow-Director, Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish Congress Lewis Mumford-author ( CFR ) A. J. Muste-official of National Council of Churches Reinhold Niebuhr-Vice President of Union The ological Seminary, ADA founder ( CFR) Harry A. Overstreet-author, educator, official of United World Federalists Victor G. Reuther-assistant to Walter Reuther Walter P. Reuther-President, United Auto Work ers, Vice President of AFL-CIO, ADA founder, of ficial of United World Federalists Will Rogers, Jr.-ADA founder, actor, official of United World Federalists Eleanor Roosevelt Harold O. Rugg-author, educator Stanley Ruttenberg-Director of Research and Education, AFL-CIO William L. Shirer-author, radio commentator ( CFR) George Soule-educator Monroe Sweetland-editor, Oregon Democrat, ADA founder Norman Thomas-long-time head of socialist party Alexander Trachtenberg-communist party offi cial Rexford G. Tugwell-Roosevelt "brain-truster" Harry F. Ward-former president of Union The ological Seminary James Wechsler-editor, New York Post, ADA founder Charles Zimmerman-Vice President of Garment Workers Union, N AACP official

ACLU

H aving found that Americans could be led to support socialist causes only if socialism were falsely called something else, American socialists created many fronts which appealed to some par ticular emotion or prejudice of factional groups in the population. Leadership and tactics of so cialist fronts came largely from the parent group, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (known as League for Industrial Democracy since 1 92 1 ) . For example, Roger N. Baldwin, prominent in the ISS, was one of the initial founders of a socialist front which ultimately became the Ameri can Civil Liberties Union. In an advisory letter to a socialist agitator, Baldwin said : "Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise . . . . We want also to look

[ like ] patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."( 1)

Formed in the spring of 1 9 1 7, the Roger Bald win group was first called American Union Against Militarism. It pretended to be a pacifist organization, devoted to defense of all who ob jected to the draft during World War I ,' but, in reality, it was a legal wing of the socialist party. Jane Addams, Adolf A. Bede, Max Eastman, Norman Thomas, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise were among the prominent socialists who joined Roger Baldwin in founding American Union Against Militarism. On November 1 , 1917, the organization became the National Civil Liberties Bureau. It had enormous influence during World War I, because : ( 1 ) it received the support of individuals powerful in the Wilson administra tion, such as, Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfur ter, Frederick Keppel, and Colonel Edward Man del House; and ( 2 ) it received money from the Carnegies. ( 1 ) On January 12, 1 920, the National Civil Liber ties Bureau was reorganized as American Civil Liberties Union, under the guidance of Roger N. Baldwin, Felix Frankfurter, Louis F. Budenz, William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Jane Addams, Arthur Garfield Hays, Robert Morss Lovett, A. J. Muste, Norman Thomas, Harold J. Laski, and others. Budenz, Foster, and Flynn were prominent officials of the American com munist party. (1)

NAACP

T he

National Association for the Advance ment of Colored People was organized in New York City, in 1 909. As early as 1920, a Joint Legislative Committee of the New York State Legislature reported that NAACP, while pretend ing to work for the advancement of colored peo ple, was a front to promote socialism among negroes and among whites who either wanted to

Page 364

exploit, or were emotional about, what they con sidered the "plight" of negroes in the United States. W. E. B. DuBois was principal founder of NAACP. (1) DuBois, a member of the Intercol legiate Socialist Society, had a long career as a communist leader, not only in the United States but elsewhere. He died in Africa in 1963, a hero of the world-wide communist movement.

Brotherhood Among the Leftists

T he League for Industrial Democracy

(LID ) , the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) , and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ) are the most im portant socialist fronts created in the United States during the first quarter of this century. The rec ord of their formation reveals how closely "so cialists" and "communists" worked together for their common objective. The togetherness of the leftist factions resulted from the fact that all of them, including avowed communists, adopted the fabian technique of deception. Since the end of World War I, communists and all other socialists have worked harmoniously to gether for their common cause - by setting up fronts with names and stated purposes which ap peal to the crusading, uplifting, helping-thy neighbor spirit of large numbers of Americans. The deception not only enabled socialists to draw respected American names into socialist fronts, but also created a tremendous lobby for federal programs which violate the Constitution and, thus, eliminate constitutional guarantees against a total itarian central government. Socialists and com munists consistently support all federal programs which require taxing and spending by the federal government, in defiance of constitutional limita tions. This gives communists and socialists appeal as advocators of welfare for the downtrodden, and it does something far more important than that for the cause of socialism: it concentrates economic and political power in the central gov ernment, to the detriment of state governments. As our federal system thus crumbles, the Wash ington bureaucracy becomes so colossal in power

and function that our constitutional legislative system becomes inadequate. Unable to operate efficiently in its constitutional role as formulator of national policy, the Congress surrenders its responsibility to the President, setting up gigantic bureaus and corporations which are managed by an elite of appointed experts, who make and en force "administrative law" in defiance of consti tutional provisions. Thus, the socialists and com munists, by supporting federal welfare, and other spending programs, gradually transform the fed eral government into a totalitarian bureaucracy ad ministered by a select group of brain trusters, dedicated to the marxian ideal of erecting social ism on the ashes of the capitalistic system.

E ventually,

brotherhood with communists be came an embarrassment to "respectable" Ameri can socialists. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, for example, many American socialists winced at being publicly associated with communists wno supported the bungling but bloody Soviet tyranny. They were further embar rassed when the Soviets signed a treaty of friend ship and non-aggression with the nazis. When the United States entered World War II as an ally of the Soviets, American communists enjoyed another period of open fraternization and cooperation with most other socialist groups in the United States. But by 1946, the American public had come to the sickening realization that our Soviet socialist ally was a more monstrous tyranny and a far greater threat to our own peace and security than the socialist enemy which we had been fighting. The administration in Washington, and prac tically all foundations and institutions devoted to the subtle approach toward socialism, had been infiltrated by communists and were losing the respect and support of the public. If liberalism - which really means fabian socialism - were to survive and flourish , it had to rid itself of the taint of communism.

L iberals

did not change their tactics or ob jectives ; neither did communists. They all con tinued to work for the totalitarian state, while

Page 365

pretending to work for welfarism, uplift, indus trial democracy, and government with a heart; but liberals became outspoken anti-communists. CIO unions, which were known to be controlled by communists, were expelled from the CIO. The CIO itself, and the unions which were expelled, continued to work the same as before, for the same objective; but now they called each other dirty names. The CIO, formed by socialists and communists and dedicated to the totalitarian so cialist state, loudly proclaimed itself a staunch foe of communism. Similar things happened to other leading, "respectable" leftist organizations : the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Liberal organizations claiming to be anti-com munist, clung to fabian tactics and goals that communists had adopted ; and they had something else in common with communists : they were all virulent anti-anti-communists. Communists and socialists and totalitarian liberals may fight among themselves about tactics and strategy ; but there seems to be a code of the political underworld which unites them in a tight bond to fight anti communists, their common enemy.

ADA

Th e

A m e r i c a n s f o r D emocr atic Action (ADA) was the most spectacular, and important, product of the early postwar period when Ameri can totalitarian liberals acted to purge themselves of the taint of communism. The ADA was founded in January, 1947. One of the principal founders was Francis Biddle (who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's Attorney General) . Biddle said the ADA was created "to split from the liberal movement in America those elements of communism and fellow travelers which . . . did great harm to the liberal move ment." (4) Biddle was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here are some of the other prominent founders of the ADA ( CFR after a name indicating membership in the Council on Foreign Relations) : ( " . 0)

Joseph Alsop Stewart Alsop Barry Bingham ( CFR) Chester Bowles ( CFR) James B. Carey Marquis Childs ( CFR) David Dubinsky ( CFR) Morris Ernst J. Kenneth Galbraith ( CFR) A. J. Hayes Joseph P. Lash Reinhold Niebuhr ( CFR) Walter P. Reuther Eleanor Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ( CFR) James Wechsler Paul H. Douglas Herbert H. Lehman ( CFR) Hubert H. Humphrey ( CFR )

T 0 get some inkling of the power which the ADA has exerted in American life, one needs only to look at the Kennedy administration. Though President Kennedy is not known to be a member of the ADA, he was a special pupil of British socialist leader Harold J. Laski at the Lon don School of Economics ; (6) and he has placed ADA members at the helm of power in Washing ton. Here is a partial list of ADA members in the Kennedy administration{4· ( CFR after a name indicating membership in the Council on Foreign Relations) : 0)

Theodore C. Sorensen-Special Counsel to the President Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.-Special Assistant to the President ( CFR) Harris L. Wofford-Special Assistant to the Pres ident Archibald Cox-Solicitor General of the United States Arthur J. Goldberg-Associate Justice of the Su preme Court ( CFR) G. Mennen Williams-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Philip H. Coombs-Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs ( CFR ) Chester Bowles-Ambassador to India ( CFR) Orville L. Freeman-Secretary of Agriculture Charles S. Murphy-Under Secretary of Agri· culture Robert C. Weaver-Administrator, Federal Hous ing and Home Finance Agency Thomas K. Finletter-Permanent Representative to NATO ( CFR) All ADA members o f Congress are, o f course,

strong supporters of the Kennedy administration.

Page 366

Here are United States Senators known to the members of the ADA ( all Democrats except Javits ) : ( 4 , 5)

Joseph S. Clark, Jr. ( Pa.) Paul H. Douglas ( Ill.) Hubert H. Humphrey ( Minn., CFR) Jacob K. Javits (N.Y., CFR) Eugene J. McCarthy ( Minn.) Wayne Morse ( Ore.) Maurine B. Neuberger ( Ore. ) Harrison B. Williams ( N.J.)

The following United States Representatives (all Democrats) are ADA members : (5)

Henry B. Gonzales ( Tex.) Robert Kastenmeier ( Wis. ) James Roosevelt ( Calif.) William Fitts Ryan ( N.Y.)

U nited

States Representative Bruce Alger (Republican, Texas) has given a terse, and cor rect, summary of ADA beliefs, in these words : "That it is possible for a police state to be obe dient to the popular will; that the apparatus of such a state can be so affected by benevolence that it can produce-through such coercive mea sures as compulsory union membership, enforced fraternization, a compulsory share-the-wealth tax system and a strong centralized bureaucracy-a guaranteed annual tax wage for everybody, com plete freedom from fear, want and anxiety for all, and total economic welfare from the cradle to the grave for the entire populace."( 7 )

A rthur Schlesinger, Jr, ( advisor, special as sistant, and speech writer for the President) , is considered the philosopher of the ADA - and of the Kennedy administration. United States Repre sentative Richard H. Poff (Republican, Virginia ) quotes Schlesinger as saying: "Official liberalism was the product of the en lightenment, cross-fertilized with such things as science, bourgeois complacency, and a belief in progress. It dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history. Tolerance, free inquiry, and technology, op erating in the fralIle

work of human perfectibility, would in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much

more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven."(8)

In 1947, Schlesinger made a statement on "The Future of Socialism." The ADA has endorsed the statement; and Schlesinger recently said that he still believes what he wrote in 1947. (7) Here are extracts from Schlesinger's statement: "1£ socialism (i. e., the ownership by the state of all significant means of production) is to pre serve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend. That is, the tran sition must be piece-meal; it must be parliamen tary; it must respect civil liberties and due proc ess of law. Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hard-eyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion, but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently that it might be possible.

"The classical argument against gradualism was that the capitalist ruling class would resort to violence rather than surrender its preroga tives. Here, as elsewhere, the Marxists enorm ously overestimated the political courage and will of the capitalists. In fact, in the countries where capitalism really triumphed, it has yielded with far better grace (that is, displayed far more cowardice) than the Marxist scheme predicted. The British experience is illuminating in this respect, and the American experience not unin structive. There is no sign in either nation that the capitalists are putting up a really determined fight . . . . the bourgeois fears more than any thing else - violence . . . . "There seems no inherent obstacle to the grad ual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of new deals . . . . "Government ownership and control can take many forms. The independent public corpora tion, in the manner of TVA, is one; State and municipal ownership can exist alongside Federal ownership; the techniques of the cooperatives can be expanded; even the resources of regula tion have not been fully tapped . . . . "That doyen of American capitalists, Joseph Kennedy, recently argued that the United States should not seek to resist the spread of com P.

lIlunislIl. Indeed, it should 'perlIlit cOlIllIlunislIl

to have its trial outside the Soviet Union if that shall be the fate or will of certain peoples . .'

Page 367

•

"Can the United States conceive and initiate so subtle a [ foreign ] policy? Though the secret has been kept pretty much from the readers of the liberal press, the State Department has been proceeding for some time somewhat along these lines . . . . to be firm without being rancorous, to check Soviet expansion without making un· limited commitments to an anti·Soviet crusade . . . to encourage the growth of the democratic left . . . . Men like Ben Cohen, Dean Acheson, Charles Bohlen [ all members of the CFR ] have tried to work out details and whip up support for this admittedly risky program . . . ."(7 )

L ast

week, we commented on a column by Constantine Brown, setting out information from a former official of the Czechoslovakian com munist government - to the effect that the United States, far from offering real opposition to com munist world conquest, is expected to help the communists, particularly if Kennedy is re-elected. Every American should reflect on this assertion, in the light of what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., philos opher of the New Frontier, said in his statement about the future of socialism.

More In a subsequent Report, we will give details on socialist "accomplishments" in the United States. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Revolutionary RadicaliJm: Part One - Subversive Movemellts, Report of the Joint Legislative Committee of the State of New York I nvestigating Seditious Activities, Albany, 1920, Two Volumes, pp. 4 1 ·86; 505·9, 4 1 3·93; 1 45·86; 1 1 19·20, 1 247·50; 1 280. 629·30; 1 088; 1 10 1 , 1979·89; 1 5 1 8·20 ( 2 ) KeYlles at Harvard: Ecollomic Deception as a Political C" edo, Veritas Foundation, P. O. Box 340, New York, 1 0005, 1 14pp. ( 3 ) The L.I.D. - Fifty Yean of Democratic Education, 1 905· 1 95 5 , b y Mina Weisenberg, League for Industrial Democracy, 1 1 2 East 19th Street, New York, New York, 10003 ( 4 ) Americalls For Democratic Actioll - Its 0l'igin, Aims, and Character, and Its Desiglls Upon the Demon'atic Pm'ty, Staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, April 1 9, 1 9 5 5 ( 5 ) "The ADA: I t s Impact on the New Frontier," series o f articles by Robert T. Hartmann, The Los Angeles Times, September 3-8, 10, 196 1 ( 6 ) "Kennedy as President," by Selig S. Harrison, The New Republic, June 27, 1960, p. 1 0 ( 7 ) Speech b y U . S . Representative Bruce Alger, C011g1'essional Recol'd ( daily ) , May 28, 1963, pp. 9086-98 ( 8 ) Newsletter of U. S. Representative Richard H. Poff, November 4, 1963

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an ad ministrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 368

IHE o

/)(JII SmootReport yol. 9, No. 47

(Broadcast 432)

November 25, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

S O C I A L I Z I N G AM E R I C A In 1957, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress submitted a report entitled, "Adverse Effects Of The Expanding Activities Of The National Government On The Private Economy And The Federal System: The Case For Free Enterprise And Local Government."(l) The report is 386 pages long, in 9 sections. The 9 articles following are condensations of all 9 sec tions.(2) ADVERSE EFFECTS OF HIGH TAXES(2)

From 1952-5 5 , taxes took more than 290/0 of national income. The federal tax-take is growing almost 6 times as fast as national income. Between 1 929 and 195 5 , national income quadrupled; but federal taxes increased 23-fold. Such tax rates have dangerously decreased the individual's in centive to work, save, and invest. Our economy will not survive if we continue to pile ever heavier tax burdens on people who work hardest to achieve something. In our growing population, new jobs for an additional one million people are needed every year. For every new job created, someone must invest from $10,000 to $20,000 in plants , tools, equipment, buildings, and so on. Where can private industry get this necessary 10 to 20 billion dollars a year for expansion to meet the new demand ? 1 . From the savings of individuals? High taxes discourage individual savings. If a man works hard and efficiently to make more than a modest living, progressive tax rates penalize him. For example, in 1 9 1 3 - 1 5 a couple earning $ 10,000 a year paid only $60 in federal taxes. They could accumulate considerable savings to invest in their own business, to lend to banks, or to invest in stocks and bonds of other businesses. In 1956, a couple earning $10,000 paid $ 1 ,590 in federal income tax - not to mention a multitude of other federal, state, and local taxes. Their dollars, left after taxes, buy less than half as much as a comparable amount in 1913-1 5 , because high taxes and inflation have cheapened the dollar. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 369

Moreover, the 1956 couple would have little incentive to economize on comforts and luxuries in order to save, because inflation every year de creases the value of dollars in savings. If a taxpayer does get into the upper brackets, high progressive taxes (up to 9 1 0/0 ) discourage him from putting his money into expansion of business and industry. High taxes encourage him to put his money into tax-exempt state and munic ipal bonds - a kind of investment which does little to provide new tools, plants, and equip ment needed for a million new jobs a year. 2. Can private industry accumulate from its own projits enough capital to meet its needs jor expansion? High taxes make this impossible, too. In 1955, corporations could keep less than half their profits for re-investment and for the pay ment of dividends to stockholders. Federal taxes took more than half their profits. 3 . Why can} t business borrow the money needed for growth? Giant corporations usually can. Small and new companies do not have the credit. Hence, high taxes discourage the growth of small, independent businesses and favor mam moth corporations. We are doing what Karl Marx predicted in 1848 - destroying private capitalism by destroying the middle class.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING(2)

Public housing began, with PWA, for the pur pose of helping the construction industry. The purpose changed. Now, public housing aims to clear slums and provide low-cost housing for low income families ; but public housing projects do not really eliminate slums : they merely spread slum conditions to other parts of a city; and the projects themselves frequently become slums. Segregating low-income families in public housing projects perpetuates indolence, crime, illegitimacy, and filthy living habits, because, for one thing, it removes the incentive of families to get out of these conditions. Wives quit work and husbands refrain from efforts to earn more money, because, if their earnings go up, they will be mak-

ing more than some bureaucrat says they can make if they stay in the "project." A vast and costly federal bureaucracy has grown up to administer the 490,000 low-rent public dwelling units now in existence. Each housing project is a separate pocket of government, domi nated by federal rules and regulations, paying no taxes to the local community, and beyond the con trol of local governments. Yet, local taxpayers must provide all community services - police, fire protection, sewage, schools - that they provide for private housing which pays its share of local taxes. Public housing never pays for itself. In fact, tenants in public housing do not even pay enough rent to maintain and operate the projects. Local property owners and income taxpayers foot the bill not only for building the projects, but for operating them. All taxpayers become, in part, slaves ( since the meaning of slavery is to be compelled to work for someone else without pay ) to subsidize housing for selected families. Many of these families are hand-picked, not for their needs, but for their votes. Public housing tenants become part slaves, because bureaucrats who run public housing have great power over tenants. Thus, public housing frequently becomes an autocratic, socialistic system in which a few polit ical bureaucrats decide what kind of housing certain groups of people should have - at the expense of all taxpayers in the nation. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATIO N ( 2 )

The Constitution makes no mention of educa tion. The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Hence, federal activity in the field of education is uncon stitutional. Nevertheless, the federal government has already assumed a great number of respon sibilities in this field.

Page 370

States and communities that could finance their educational problems sometimes do little or noth ing, because they want money from the federal government. Thus, federal activity retards the development of educational facilities. Federal aid to education has helped alter fun damental American attitudes, not only in educa tion, but in all fields - has decreased the self reliance of people and destroyed the legitimate power and importance of local and state govern ments.

grants to help local authorities build public hous ing projects. Urban Renewal Administration lends to mu nicipalities for slum clearance. In some cases, URA also guarantees temporary private loans. Community Facilities Administration lends to colleges, for student and faculty housing and other educational facilities ; and it lends to state and local governments, for public works.

Federal aid to public schools has encouraged demands for federal aid to private schools. This endangers the principle of separation of church and state.

Rural Electrification Administration makes loans ( about 200 million dollars a year ) , chiefly to cooperatives, for constructing electrical power facilities, and for the construction and improve ment of telephone systems.

Despite arguments and claims to the contrary, the federal government does exercise control when it gives aid. This is destroying states rights and there is no provable need for it.

Farmers Home Administration, duplicating some of the activities of Commodity Credit Cor poration, makes loans to farmers, presumably un able to obtain credit elsewhere.

DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF FEDERAL CREDIT AGENCIES( 2 )

Today, the federal government directly lends $1 for every $5 lent by private banks. Pressure on the government to go deeper into the banking business is great and growing.

Farm Credit Administration supervises various governmental lending agencies: Federal Land Banks, Banks for Cooperatives, Federal Interme diate Credit Banks, Production Credit Corpora tions. These agencies make loans on farm real estate, and loans to farm cooperatives and numer ous private farm credit associations.

The Federal National Mortgage Association, chartered February 1 0 , 1938, does not make hous ing loans directly, except in Alaska. It buys FHA insured and Veterans Administration-guaranteed mortgages. On June 30, 1956, FNMA held out standing mortgages totaling $2.5 billion.

Maritime Administration insures private con struction loans and mortgages on most types of cargo and passenger vessels.

FHA - Federal Housing Administration - in sures private mortgages, thus relieving private lenders of major risk.

The Export-Import Bank of Washington, es tablished in 1934, makes loans to foreigners to enable them to buy American goods.

Veterans Administration guarantees housing loans, business-loans, and farm-loans which pri vate lenders make to World War II and Korean veterans. It also makes direct home-loans in areas where its guarantees will not stimulate enough private loans.

International Bank for Reconstruction and De velopment is an international agency. The United States government is a major stockholder. It makes loans all over the world for various busi ness, trade, industrial, and public works purposes.

Public Housing Administration, although not

Bureau of Indian Affairs makes loans to start

primarily a lending agency, does make loans and

Small Business Administration makes business loans and disaster-loans to small businesses.

Indians in agriculture.

Page 371

T here are several other

federal lending agen cies. What are some effects of all this federal activity in the banking business ? Government lending agencies, not controlled by need for profit, generally make loans for the purpose of politics or favoritism. Conferring special help or favors upon a particular group or industry or region is, in fact, the official purpose of government lend ing. Malpractice, corruption, and waste are bound to result. Government lending stimulated a housing boom after World War II. By the fall of 1955, total home mortgage debt was approximately 86 billion dollars - about 37% underwritten by government. This government-made boom caused skyrocketing costs and prices. Government-fi nanced suburban developments decreased values of �rban prope�ty, thus causing neglect and poor mamtenance WIth the consequent spreading of slums - together with more demand for federal help to clear the new slums. Rigid federal regulations, with artificial prop . up of ancient building practices, retard tech pmg nological improvements in the housing industry, prevent rapid development of more efficient tech niques, and keep housing costs unreasonably high. Many federal agencies lend at much lower in terest rates than private bankers can afford. Many make unsound loans that private bankers could not touch. This kind of lending is a socialistic subsidy which all taxpayers are forced to pay. Government lending agencies, tax-free and with tax-supported administrative costs and loss-re serves, compete with private lending agencies which must pay high taxes to support their costly competitors, the government agencies. Like all other federal assistance, federal lending destroys the sovereignty of the states and the self reliance of the people. For example, Community Facilities Administration's tax-subsidized interest rates on loans to colleges for housing have vir tually eliminated private investors from this field. This is a backdoor approach to federal control of higher education.

DANGERS OF FEDERAL ELECTRIC POWER( 2 )

In 2 3 years, the federal government has mul t�plied its power-generating capacity about 76 tImes - from 232,000 kilowatts in 1933 to about 1 7 million in 1956. Federal electric power is socialism. All tax p �yers in the nation are forced to provide elec trIcal power, at less than cost, for regions like the Tennessee Valley and the Pacific Northwest which are dominated by federal power. Socialized power in these regions tends to attract industry away from other regions. Yet, the loss of in dividual initiative and resourcefulness (which federal paternalism has caused in areas dominated by governmen�-owned power) has actually re tarde� growt? m those areas, despite the fact that some mdustnes have been drawn there by social ized power rates. Compared to the rest of the S �uth, for example, the TVA area is having rel atIvely slow industrial growth. The public generally - through buying of stocks and bonds, and investments in banks and insuran�e - owns and controls private power companIes. Federal power companies are owned, not by the public, but by government; and they are run by appointed officials virtually beyond the reach of citizens and taxpayers. THE CASE AGAINST FEDERAL RECLAMATION (2)

It was officially estimated that land reclamation in the Columbia Basin Project would cost about $600 an acre; more than $600 an acre in the Upper Colorado River Storage Project; and up to $ 1 1 66 an acre in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Since government estimates are frequently less than half the final costs, it is easy to see that the public is being forced to pay for grandiose, im practical, socialistic schemes of bureaucrats. We are reclaiming land that we do not need, since our farmers already produce more than we consume. Some of the land is unsuitable for crops even

after it is "reclaimed" with irrigation. Practically

Page 372

all of it costs as much to reclaim as good farm land is worth. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF GRANTS·IN·AID ON THE FEDERAL SYSTEM( 2 )

The granting of federal money to state and local governments has increased alarmingly since World War II. Power accompanies money. As federal money goes into states, so does federal power - under mining the constitutional authority of state and local governments and taking control of the des tinies of people. The federal government takes money away from states, then sends back what it thinks states should have. Thus, the federal government becomes the arbiter of who gets what. The movement of taxing power from state and local governments to Washington is comparatively recent. In 1932, three-fourths of all taxes in America were paid to state and local governments. By 1954, three-fourths of all tax dollars were going to the national government. This sending of our money on a round trip to Washington is absurd, unnecessary, wasteful, and inefficient and it is building the federal government into a central tyranny that can enslave us. Federal aid to states is wrong and dangerous in principle, wasteful and inefficient in practice. If we do not stop it, we will destroy our federal system. If this happens, American constitutional government will be dead - and so will freedom. FOREIGN AID AS A SUBSIDY TO NATIONALIZATION (2)

Foreign governments have used American tax money to pay for socialism. Governments which have refused to permit private American capital in their countries have taken huge amounts of American governmental aid. European countries have decreased public debts and taxes - with American foreign aid which increases our national debt and tax burden. Foreign governments have buil t huge, social

istic hydro-electric projects, railroad stations,

roads, and other elaborate facilities, with no con sideration for practicality, because the total cost was borne by American taxpayers. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF BUREAUCRACY ON AGRICULTURE(2)

The American farmers' basic problems result from farm policies of the federal government which, by 1957, had cost taxpayers at least 9 bil lion dollars. The government's farm programs have reduced the initiative of farmers, pushing them even fur ther toward the condition of peasantry. The pro grams have destroyed markets for farm goods and have depressed prices for farm products. They have taken away the farmers' freedom and have saddled a heavy burden on the whole population. If we do not return to freedom and individual ism in agriculture, the federal government will lead us to disaster.

Since 1 957

T he Library of Congress report (condensed in the 9 articles immediately preceding) shows clearly that freedom shrivels as the central gov ernment grows, and that we are on the communist charted course toward total destruction of the traditional American free-enterprise system. The report says : "We are proceeding in the direction which Karl Marx in 1 848 predicted would be the road to destruction of capitalism, that is, destruction of the middle class with the aid of a highly progressive tax."

That was in 1957. Since then, the government's annual spending has increased 430/0; our national debt, 170/0' (3 )

Communist Manifesto

The

Communist Manifesto,

written by Karl

Marx and Frederick Engels and published in

Page 373

1 848, set out a 10-point plan by which capitalistic economies could be destroyed and replaced with socialism. (4)

The first point in the Communist Manifesto : Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Today, the federal government owns 772 million acres of land - more than one-third of all land in the Continental United States and in Alaska and Hawaii ; and the Kennedy administration is spend ing vast sums of tax money to enlarge the federal land hoard. What will the government do with the land ? There is an inkling of an answer in a United Press International news-story from Washington, published in the July 9, 1 96 1 , issue of The Dallas Times Herald: "Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall is concerned that federal lands may be blocking growth and industrialization of metropolitan areas. "He has sent Congress proposed legislation which would, among other things, allow the In terior Department to lay out and subdivide fed eral lands in he path of expanding areas. "These lands would be made available for direct sale or lease as individual sites or lots . . . . "In all cases, lands to be developed would be governed by a comprehensive land use plan to be worked out in close cooperation with state and local government agencies. Nonconforming all:d substandard land uses would not be per � Itted. Performance bonds might be required In some cases."

There are the language and the thinking of the zoners and planners of other people's lives. If the government can acquire the land and then permit it to be developed only within conformity to the taste and specifications of the Washington bureaucracy, we can have the stark, monolithic ugliness of standardized governmental planning on a national scale. This is a sly, backdoor approach to metro politan government in the United States - a socialist plan to divide the nation into a score of Page

metropolitan regions which sprawl across for gotten state boundary lines, and which would be governed by appointed experts answerable, not to local citizens, but to the supreme political power in Washington. Where did such a socialist plan originate ? Read point nine in the Communist Manifesto : Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable dis tribution of population over the country.

U rban Renewal, public housing, and the fed eral highway program are effectively promoting the plan to dispossess private individuals of their land holdings, transferring ownership either to some agency of government, or to other private individuals who will use the land in conformity with the specifications and controls of officialdom. Agriculture and manufacturing will be combined, the federal government controlling all segments of labor, distributing workers according to a pat tern determined by Washington experts. This month, the President's Appalachian Re gional Commission formally proposed that the federal government coordinate economic planning for areas of 10 states in the Appalachian region ; that it create local development groups and acquire land for them by use of eminent domain, if necessary, and guarantee their bonds ; that it purchase half interest in local cooperatives to acquire private timber lands and consolidate them into large timber-producing and product-manu facturing co-ops ; that it relocate rural families into urban centers; that it transform the economy of the whole region through grants and controls. In the light of this Appalachian scheme, and the land - use plan outlined by Secretary of the Interior Udall (quoted above) , re-read Point 9 of the Communist Manifesto (quoted above) , and al so read Points 7 and 8 of the Manifesto. Point 7 : Extension of factofies and instruments of produc tion owned by the State, the bringing into cultiva tion of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil genefally in accofdance with a common plan; Point 8 : Equal liability of all to labor. Establish(G)

374

ment of industrial armies, especially for agricul ture.

P oint 2 of the Communist Manifesto : A heavy progressive or graduate income tax. Re read "Adverse Effects of High Taxes," beginning on Page 369 of this Report. Point 3 of the Communist Manifesto : Aboli tion of all right of inheritance. Consider the death taxes imposed by the federal government - and by some state governments. Point 5 of the Communist Manifesto : Central ization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an ex clusive monopoly. Re-read "Detrimental Effects of Federal Credit Agencies," beginning on Page 37 1 of this Report. Point 6 of the Communist Manifesto : Central ization of the means of communication and trans port in the hands of the State. Today, three major means of transport - shipping, railroads, and air lines - are under such heavy subsidies and con trols by federal agencies ( and so dominated by unions enjoying special favoritism of federal laws ) that they must eventually become mere branches of the federal government. The Rural Electrification Administration's activities in fi nancing telephone cooperatives, and the Federal Communications Commission's activities in all fields of communications, are making the com munications industry a tool of the federal bureauc racy.

P oint 4 of the Communist Manifesto : Con fiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Point 1 0 : Free education for all children in public schools . . . .

(4)

to the effect that Khrushchev, in pushing the com munist program of world conquest , expects help, not opposition, from the United States Govern ment. In the November 1 1 and 1 8 issues, we reported information to show that communism and socialism are the same, and to explain why there is close affinity between socialism and liber alism in the United States. In the present Report, we have tried to indicate how far we have already moved toward a socialist society. The question remains : do liberal leaders who foster federal programs that are socializing our nation fully realize what they are doing ? Some of them may. During a conversation with Joseph Stalin at Yalta on February 7, 1 945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt - according to official notes made by Charles Bohlen : " . . . mentioned that in the Soviet Union and its various republics consideration had been given to the problem of a country as a whole, and in the United States the TVA had the same idea. He mentioned that in the region of the TVA electric current was sold at the same price throughout the area . . . ."

What To Do

We can never stop our elected and ap pointed federal officials from plundering us and destroying our Republic until we repeal the in come tax amendment and take the excess money away from them. Before this can be done, we must elect a Congress dedicated to constitutional government. Christmas Orders

T his year, we have offered a special Christmas

price on Bound Volume VIII. This Volume con tains all Reports published in 1 962 not 1963. The 1963 annual will be Bound Volume IX, available in February, 1 964, and not subject to our Christmas discount. -

Do They Know?

I n the November 4 issue of this Report, we reprinted an article by Constantine Brown, setting out information from a former communist official

Again, thanks to all who have already done their Christmas shopping with us. If you need more Christmas order forms, please let us know.

Page 375

while foreign trade, taxation and agriculture are treated less extensively than reclamation, power development and govern mental lending activities and housing.

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Dr. Ernest S. Griffith, Director of the Legislative Reference Service, wrote a preface to the Library of Congress report, saying: "In these chapters the Legislative Reference Service has responded to the specific request made originally by Congressman Ralph W. Gwinn, who was later joined by sixteen other Congressmen, to bring together available data, along with the opinions and arguments of authorities and commentators, as to the adverse effects of Governmental activity on the operation of the private enterprise economy and the Federal system . . . . "The chapters deal with a key problem in the development of our country-the numerous examples of governmental cen tralized activity in an increasing number of spheres and areas of our economic and social life. They marshal evidence as to hazards and pitfalls of such activities; their threats to traditional and beneficial American ways; the restrictions upon and the narrowing of, the sphere of individual freedom.

"This report does not expressly or by implication present the of the Legislative Reference Service as to the merits or demerits of the legislation underlying the questions asked."

opinions

( 2 ) The condensations herein presented are briefs of a 3 5,000word condensation of the Library of Congress Report, published in September, 1957, by Natioll's Business, 1 6 1 5 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006 ( 3 ) In the 1957 fiscal year, the budgeted expenditures of the federal government totaled 68 billion, 966 million dollars; and our official national debt was 270 billion, 5 27 million dollars. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, the budgeted expenditures of the federal government will total 98 billion, 802 million dollars; and our national debt will be 3 1 5 billion, 604 m illion dollars. The Budget in Brief, 1 964 Fiscal Yem', Bureau of the Budget, January 1 7 , 1963. p . 62

"It is important also to state clearly what this study is not. It does not deal with the reasons-alleged or historical-which have given rise to more and more numerous and more and more intimate forms of governmental activity in the American economy. It does not deal specifically with the germinal or accessory effects of war and the large-scale defense efforts of our time. It is not a report covering all the aspects of governmental impact on the economy. While every precaution was taken to assure the accuracy of the data included, no claim is made that these data are complete or that they may not be countered by arguments presented from other points of view.

( 4 ) Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, with " Introduction" by Stefan F. Possony, Gateway Edition, Henry Regnery Company, 14 East Jackson Blvd., Chicago 4, I llinois, price 65c, pp. 36-7

"The extent of treatment and the focus of attention of the various chapters were determined not by us but by the specific questions raised by the inquirers. As a result, labor economics, labor relations and social security are not dealt with at all,

F. Janssen, The Jr/all Street /oumal, November 1 3, 1963, p. 1 0

WHO

( 5 ) For details of federal land acquisition, see this Repoft, "Con fiscating The Land," July 29, 1 9 6 3 ; "Value of Federal Property

Exceeds Amount of U. S. Debt, Report Says," by Kim Willen son, The Washington Post, January 1 6, 1963 (6) "Appalachian Area Agency That Could Sell Bond Issues, Back

Development Units Discussed by Federal Officials," by Richard

( 7 ) "Mr. Bohlen's Minutes o f Meetings at Yalta," U. S , News &

DAN

World Report, March 2 5, 1 9 5 5 , p. 1 46

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teach ing Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum_ On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 376

THE o

IJtlll SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 48

(Broadcast 433)

December 2, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

T H E A S S A S S I N AT I O N On November 2 1 ,

1 963, President and Mrs. Kennedy and Vice President and Mrs. Johnson, accompanied by Governor and Mrs. Connally and other Texas political figures, aides, and mem bers of the press, began a tour of Texas. Governor Connally had opposed the Texas tour, thinking it politically unwise. The Demo crat Party in Texas was in great turmoil, torn by internal dissension. A recent special election had revealed astonishing Republican Party strength in Dallas. Factions and personalities of the Democrat Party, jockeying for position and prestige, were blaming each other because Texans generally seemed to be in a mood to repudiate new frontierism at the polls in the next elections. (1)

Neither the growing strength of conservatism nor the factional strife among liberals in the Democrat Party created any special danger for the President in Texas. There was no extraordi nary anxiety about his safety, but Governor Connally did feel that a Kennedy visit at this time would create more and deeper cleavages in the ranks of the Democrat Party. ( 1 ) President Kennedy, however, decided to come to Texas as a "peacemaker" for his own politi cal partyY) The tour began in San Antonio. The crowds were large, friendly and orderly. It was the same in Houston and in Fort Worth. The presidenital entourage arrived at Love Field, Dallas, at 1 1 : 37 a.m., Friday, November 2 2, greeted by a large, friendly gathering of Dallasites. The President and the Governor, and their wives, got into an open limousine for a parade through Dallas. The Presi dent and Mrs. Kennedy sat in the rear seat, the President on the right side. On j ump seats in front of them were Governor and Mrs. Connally, the Governor directly in front of the President. The motorcade formed with the presidential car immediately behind the lead car, the Vice President and other dignitaries and members of the press following. It made a 1 2 -mile drive in to and through downtown Dallas, along a route which had been widely publicized for days THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1.00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 377

by stories and maps published in both major news papers. The route was lined by cheering, friendly people.

A fter passing through downtown Dallas, the motorcade made a left turn from Houston Street on to Elm Street. The Texas School Book De pository Building is at that corner, to the right of the passing motorcade. An assassin waited at an open window on the sixth floor of that seven story building. He was armed with a 6.5 mm., old model, Italian-made, bolt-action rifle, a 4· power scope-sight mounted on the receiver. Pre sumably, at that second, he was looking directly down on the President, but did not fire. The presi dential car moved about 1 00 yards down Elm Street away from the building. Mrs. Connally turned in her seat and said : "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you!" ( � )

A split-second later 1 2 : 30 p.m. - the as sassin fired three shots in quick succession. The first shot apparently hit President Kennedy in the neck. He clutched himself and partially rose, as the second shot struck him in the head, inflict ing the mortal wound. -

As Governor Connally turned to see what had happened, the third shot from the assassin's gun struck him in the back, traversed the chest area without entering the body cavity, splintered a rib, emerged, struck the Governor's right wrist, ricocheted, and lodged in the Governor's left thigh. Had the Governor not turned, the bullet would probably have pierced his heart. The motorcade momentarily slowed down, al most to a halt, before a Secret Service agent in the President's car gave orders over the car radio to proceed to the nearest hospital. The lead car lunged forward at high speed, swung onto Stem mons Freeway a few yards ahead, and rushed to City-County Hospital, known as Parkland Mem orial, the President's car following close, the reo mainder of the motorcade trailing. On the way, they passed the Trade Mart, where a crowd was

waiting to hear the President make a luncheon speech. The President's car arrived at the hospital at 1 2 : 35, five minutes after the shooting. The Gov ernor, still conscious, helped move himself to a stretcher. He was taken to one emergency room, the President to another. Two priests, who had been watching the parade on television, rushed to Parkland and were admitted shortly after the President's arrival. They administered the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church. At 1 : 30 p.m., it was officially announced that the President was dead. Vice President Johnson left almost immediately for the airport. At 2 : OS p.m., Mrs. Kennedy fol lowed in a hearse bearing the body of the Presi dent. The body, in a bronze casket, was put on the presidential plane at Love Field. On the plane, before take-off, Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes administered the presidential oath of office to Lyndon B. Johnson. At 2 : 47 p.m., Air Force 1 left Love Field for Andrews Air Force Base near Washington. Air Force 1 is the special presidential plane, a big silver-blue-and -white jet. At Parkland Hospital, Governor Connally re mained on the critical list while undergoing sur gery for four hours. He responded well and was expected to be released from the hospital within 14 days, without significant residual effects from his wounds.

the scene of the crime several spectators had looked up in time to see the murder weapon projecting from a window. The building was quickly surrounded by armed officers. Others, with guns drawn, searched inside. Employees of the Texas School Book Depository were on their lunch hour, most of them outside watching the parade. One of the police officers who searched inside the building was accompanied by R. S. Truly, a supervisor of the book depository firm. They encountered Lee Harvey Oswald, walking toward an entrance, to leave the building. The officer asked who he was. Mr. Truly said Oswald

Page 378

worked there. He was permitted to leave.

(4)

On the sixth floor, at an open window over looking Elm Street, police officers found the sniper's nest: concealed from the rest of the large storage room by cartons of books. An im provised gun-rest was at the window sill. On the floor were three empty rifle cartridges, the re mains of a packaged fried-chicken lunch, and a soft-drink bottle. Near the door leading into a stairwell on the sixth floor, across the large room from the sniper's window, officers found a rifle, stuffed under some boxes. (4)

Normally, only employees would have access to the sixth floor of this building, or would know readily how to reach it. The whole floor is used as dead storage, and even employees infrequently go there. These circumstances led police to conclude that all employees on duty that day should be exam ined immediately. All were soon located, except Lee Harvey Oswald. A description and arrest order were broadcast. At 1 : 00 p.m., Mrs. Earlene Roberts, house keeper of a rooming house at 1 026 N. Beckley Avenue, saw Lee Harvey Oswald dash through the living room , into his own room, then leave the house in great haste, having changed j ackets in his room. Oswald ( using the alias, O. H. Lee) had lived alone in a small room at this rooming house for two months. The place is in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, less than a mile west of the scene of the assassination. At 1 : 1 5 p.m., Officer J. D. Tippit, cruising in a police car near Oswald's Beckley Avenue room ing house, on the lookout for an assassin suspect whose description had been broadcast, saw Os wald. Mrs. Helen Markham, an eyewitness, said that Officer Tippit pulled his car to the curb. Oswald walked to the car and leaned in the window. Officer Tippit got out and walked around behind the car. Just as he stepped on the sidewalk facing Oswald, Tippit stopped. At that instant, Oswald fired three shots from a hand gun, at pointblank range, killing Officer Tippit instantly.

At 1 : 1 8 p.m., a passerby used the police radio in Tippit's squad car to notify police headquarters that an officer was lying there dead and that the assailant had run away. Squad cars converged on the place. Meanwhile, police were receiving nu merous calls that a man was running wildly through the section (reloading his gun as he ran) , cutting through parking lots, darting in and out of stores. With such leads, police followed the trail to the Texas Theatre on West J efferson Avenue, where the cashier reported that a man had run in a few moments before and was still inside. On a poster ad at the theatre entrance was this motto : "There are some things that only the people that do them understand."

Inside, an old film, War Is Hell} was on the screen. The theatre was almost deserted. Oswald s�t alone, near the back. Officers converged on h1m. When one was in reach, Oswald leaped up, screaming, "This is it! It's all over now ! " (") With one hand, he hit the officer in the face. With the other, he drew his gun and pulled the trigger. The firing pin fell on a loaded cartridge, but the gun did not fire. The officer wrenched the gun from Oswald's hand. Oswald fought violently, and suffered minor face bruises before he was subdued. At 2 : 00 p.m., Oswald , under arrest, defiantly claiming innocence, and protesting "police bru tality," arrived at Dallas police headquarters where he was later charged with the murder of Officer Tippit.

J ust

before midnight on Friday, November 2 2 , Lee Harvey Oswald was formally charged with the murder of President Kennedy. The cir cumstantial and positive evidence against him available at the time of this writing: ( 1 ) On March 20, 1 96 3 , Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias A. Hidell, and a Dallas Post Office box number for an address, ordered a rifle ( for $12.78) from a mail order house in Chicago. FBI experts identified the handwriting on the gun

Page 379

order as the handwriting of Oswald. The gun was later identified as the weapon which police found in the book warehouse.

( 7 ) Oswald's palm prints were found on boxes under the sixth-floor window from which the shots were fired.

( 2 ) Ballistic examinations identified the gun found in the warehouse as the rifle which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Con nally.

( 8) A bus driver identified Oswald as a man who boarded his bus near the warehouse, saying the President had been shot, and laughing about it. Oswald rode one block. When he left the bus, he hailed a cab. A cab driver identified Oswald as a man he picked up a block from the assassination scene, a few minutes after the event, and drove to Beckley Avenue.

( 3 ) Oswald's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. ( 4) Pictures found in Oswald's effects showed him holding a rifle which looks exactly like the assassin's weapon, and wearing in his belt a hand gun which looks like the one in his posses sion at the time of arrest. In the photographs Oswald is holding papers on which are visible the words "Be Militant" and "The Worker." ( 5 ) A paraffin test revealed gun powder flecks on Oswald's cheek, which is presumptive evi dence that he had recently fired a rifle. The powder flecks were identical in kind with powder flecks in the empty cartridges and gun found in the book warehouse. ( 6 ) Since September 24, 1 963, Oswald's wife (Marina Nicholaevna Proosakova ) has been liv ing at Irving, Texas, in the home of Mrs. Ruth Paine, a former Russian language teacher. Os wald lived in Dallas, visiting his wife and two children at Irving on weekends. He got his job as a stock clerk at the Texas School Book Depository on October 1 5, 1963. Mrs. Oswald admitted that Oswald owned a gun that looked like the one found in the school book warehouse. He kept it in the garage at Mrs. Paine's home in Irving where Mrs. Oswald lived. Mrs. Paine was not aware of the gun. Oswald spent Thursday night, November 2 1 , with his wife in Irving ( although he usually visited her there only on weekends ) . When Oswald went to work in Dallas on Friday morn ing, Wesley B. Frazier (a neighbor of Mrs. Paine) gave him a ride. Oswald was carrying a long, thin package ( about the size of a rifle) wrapped in brown paper. He told Frazier it was a package of window shades.

( 9 ) Among Oswald's effects, police found a map of the President's parade route through Dallas. Various intersections on the route were marked, among them the intersection at Elm and Houston where the school book warehouse stands. Lines drawn on the map at this point appeared to be estimates of bullet traj ectory from an upper window in the building to the spot on Elm Street where the President was actually hit.

For almost 48 hours after his arrest, Oswald maintained his sneering, sometimes grinning, pos ture of innocence - claiming that his civil rights were being violated, demanding that he be per mitted to communicate with lawyer John J. Abt in New York City ( a notorious defender of com munists) clamoring to be defended by the American Civil Liberties Union of which he claimed to be a member. In short, Oswald be haved exactly like the communist that he admitted being. He told the police nothing of value. , (4 )

(4)

Among police officers questioning Oswald were some of the finest law officers in the world, but they were working under severe handicaps. Literally thousands of people were milling around, hundreds of them with access to virtually all parts of the j ail : Secret Service agents, FBI men, State officers, newspaper reporters, radio and television commentators and cameramen. The Dallas city j ail is not equipped for efficient han dling and interrogation of such a prisoner as Os wald, under such conditions. Police could not move the prisoner from one room to another without forcing their way

Page 380

through clamoring crowds in the corridors. The police, trying to handle the most difficult and important case of all time, had to work with the entire world looking over their shoulders, know ing every step they took, every step they planned, every development in the accumulation of evi dence.

O f all the people who hung around the police department to watch and listen, the man who had the most burning thirst to hear and see was Jack Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, a local police charac ter who came to Dallas from Chicago 1 5 years ago and who operates the Carousel, a strip-tease night-club beer joint in downtown Dallas. With in thirty minutes after Oswald was first brought to police headquarters, Jack Rubenstein was there, asking questions, picking up every fragment of information about the evidence against Oswald, about what he had told police. Rubenstein crashed press conferences which only accredited reporters were supposed to at tend. He seemed forever underfoot. Numerous local reporters and police officers who know the man noticed him and wondered why he was there. Everyone seemed to assume that someone else had authorized Rubenstein's presence, with out time to reflect on the absurdity of such an assumption. Oswald was scheduled for transfer from city jail to county jail on Sunday, November 24. The precise time of the transfer had been announced at a press conference more than 1 2 hours before (one of the press conferences which Rubenstein crashed) . In the removal of Oswald from the city jail, police were, again, handicapped by their physical facilities. It is impossible to back an armored car to the door of the elevator which connects the city hall basement garage with the jail upstairs. The armored car, intended to trans port Oswald to county jail, was placed at an en trance to the basement garage. That left an in terval of several yards, between the elevator and the car. Police would have to walk Oswald across that space. Broadcast and newspaper cameramen from all over the world jammed the basement area just before noon on Sunday, waiting to

get pictures. Only accredited reporters and police were supposed to be there. Somehow, Jack Rubenstein wormed his way into the crowd. At 1 1 : 2 1 a.m., the elevator door opened and several officers emerged, two of them holding Lee Harvey Oswald, handcuffed, between them. Rubenstein darted forward, stuck a small hand gun almost against Oswald's stomach, and fired one shot. Rubenstein tried desparately to shoot again, obviously determined to kill Oswald on the spot, but police got his gun before he could fire another shot. Oswald was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hos pital. He died at 1 : 07 p.m., near the spot where President Kennedy had died 48 hours before.

C ircumstances raise a strong presumption that there was a connection between Oswald and Rub enstein and that Rubenstein killed the assassin to silence him : ( 1 ) In the final hours of Oswald' s stay in Dallas city jail, he had begun to show signs of breaking, as he was confronted with evidence piling up against him. Experienced persons at city hall felt certain he would confess and tell what he knew, after he was transferred to county jail, where better facilities would enable officers to work with the prisoner and the evidence, under less harassment. Rubenstein unquestionably knew about this anticipated development in the case. Rubenstein was familiar with physical facilities in the city jail: he knew where police must walk the prisoner from elevator to armored car. What ever Rubenstein's motive may have been, he cer tainly knew that his only chance to kill Oswald would occur in that brief passage in the basement of city hall. If Rubenstein's motive was to silence Oswald, he had to do it before Oswald reached the armored car. After that, Oswald would have been in maximum security confinement at county jail where he was expected to start talking. ( 2 ) Presuming that the motive was to silence Oswald before he could talk, why would Ruben stein openly commit a murder to avoid the pos sibility of being implicated in another murder ?

Page 381

Rubenstein would know that anyone found guilty of involvement in the death of a President would die, in disgrace. If he killed the assassin and then offered the defense that he acted irrationally through an excess of grief about the President's murder and the President's bereaved family, he stood a good chance to get a light sentence which might soon be followed by pardon - or, even, to get no prison sentence at all. ( 3 ) One television picture of the shooting of Oswald has been re-run, in staggered slow motion, possibly on all networks, several times. The pic ture clearly reveals that, in the split-second before Rubenstein pulled the trigger, Oswald turned and looked at his approaching assailant. Many who have studied that remarkable picture are certain there was a flash of recognition on Oswald's face when he saw Rubenstein. (4) Jack Ruby's Carousel Club in Dallas was closed indefinitely on Friday, after the President's assassination. Bill Crowe of Evansville, Indiana (a nightclub entertainer whose stage name is Bill DeMar) , had j ust completed two weeks of a five week engagement at Ruby's Carousel. DeMar's act at the Carousel displayed a feat of memory. He would ask 20 customers in the place to name various objects, in rapid order. Then, at random, DeMar would tell each one what object he had named. DeMar, a memory specialist, is positive that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the patrons who named an object for DeMar during his act at Ruby's Carousel in Dallas, a few days before the assassination of President Kennedy.

Motives

The first official comment from communist Russia, about the assassination of President Ken nedy, came from Tass, official news agency of the Soviet Union. Tass said the assassination was the work of "racists, the Ku Klux Klan, and Birch ists." In a second article, Tass said the assassina tion was a "new link in the chain of crimes com mitted by southern racists and extremists. " (G) About the same time on the day of the assassina tion, Chief Justice Earl Warren said the Presi-

dent was assassinated "as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots."P) The people whom Earl Warren generally calls "haters" and "bigots" are American constitutional conservatives. Practically every liberal in the United States, who was quoted during the first hour or two after the President's assassination, joined Soviet officials and Chief Justice Earl Warren in assuming that American conservatives (which liberals usually call "right-wing extremists," "right-wing fanat ics," or "ultra-rightists" ) were guilty.

A fter it became known that the assassin was a communist, the tone changed a bit. Some liberals veered to the position which conservatives had taken at the outset-namely, that the assassination was a horrible, meaningless act of violence by some madman, an act which could occur any where at any time, and which should not be taken as reflecting any political mood or condition in Dallas or elsewhere. Other liberals, no longer in position to accuse conservatives of killing the President, kept in sinuating that conservatives were responsible for creating an atmosphere of hate and distrust an atmosphere which nourishes violence. This was the line that Earl Warren took, after it became known that the assassin was not a "right-wing bigot," but a communist. The communist line in the United States and in the Soviet Union veered to the position that "right-wing elements" had somehow arranged the assassination in order to discredit communists. The East German communist government said that "ultra-reactionary circles" instigated the mur der of President Kennedy because "they did not like his policy toward the Soviet Union and his attitude toward racialists." (S) C oncerning the atmosphere of political tur moil prevalent in Texas at the time of the assas sination: it was mentioned at the outset of this Report, and should be re-emphasized, that Texas conservatives ( the so-called ultra-rightists) had nothing to do with creating that atmosphere. It

Page 382

was created by bitterness and hatreds within the ranks of the Democrat Party - chiefly, among liberal elements of the Party. It should also be re-emphasized that this political bitterness in Texas, engendered by liberals, had nothing to do with the murder of the President. Even after it became known that the assassin was a communist, many thoughtful conservatives felt that the assassination might be nothing more than an isolated act by a fanatic, operating alone and without reason. The Rubenstein sequel puts a different complexion on the matter. It raises the presumption that there was a plot, in which Os wald and Rubenstein were cheap, expendable tools at the command of others. If the assassination was that kind of plot, who is the most likely suspect ? The forces of inter national communism ? That seems unlikely. As indicated by the quotation ( above) from the East German communist government ( and from nu merous other statements by communists, set out in this Report during recent months ) , communists felt they could get along better with President Kennedy than with any other American who might become President. There is, however, spec ulation that the international communist con spiracy instigated the assassination of President Kennedy, not because communists disliked him, but to make a martyr of him, calculating that the ensuing turmoil would halt the rising tide of conWHO

servahsm and silence crItiCS of new frontier policies which communists are clearly on record as approving. We will discuss this extraordinary theory in a subsequent Report.

In a subsequent Report}

we will also give de tails on the life of the late assassin - including such interesting items as the report that the State Department lent him American tax money to re turn to the United States from Russia, after he had defected to the Soviet Union and renounced his American citizenship ; and the fact that the pro-Castro Fair Play For Cuba front which Os wald represented was originally financed in New York City by Cuban delegates to the United Nations.

The Interim

W hile the nation is in emotional turmoil over the assassination, two dangers are imminent: ( 1 ) that conservatives, wincing over efforts to blame them for the President's death and thus reluctant to associate themselves with anything that even smacks of criticism of the now-martyred President, may lose heart and slacken their efforts ; ( 2 ) that Congress, in a sentimental stampede to make a gesture to the memory of President Ken nedy, may approve new frontier legislation which

DAN

SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1 94 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1 942, he left Harvard and j oined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the Un ited States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Repo1"t and broadcasts. Page 383

heretofore had little chance of passing. In this connection, the people should urge Congress to adjourn until a new Congress convenes next Janu ary. Under present conditions, with this Congress in no position to legislate sensibly, no additional legislation is advisable. *

other efforts were initiated In Dallas to raIse money for the Tippit family. I mention these details, because I have had calls from persons who want to send checks to me for the Tippit family. Checks should be made to the J. D. Tippit Fund and sent directly to the Dallas Police Department.

Officer Tippit

FOO'fNOTES

few hours after the assassination of Presi dent Kennedy, J. Evetts Haley, Sr., noted Texas historian, visited me. He noticed, what I had ob served, that, while the world sympathized with the Kennedy family, no one, at that moment, seemed to think of Officer J. D. Tippit, slain in line of duty, by the same assassin. Officer Tippit, age 39, left a wife and three children who will need help. Mr. Haley wrote a check to the J. D. Tippit Fund, and mailed it to Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, saying he wanted to do this not only to help the Tippit family, but also as a tribute to the brave law officers of Texas. Simultaneously, W H A T

YOU

( 1 ) "Connall y Wanted President To Call Off Trip to Texas," by Al len Duckworth, The DallaJ Morning NewJ, November 2 3 , 1 9 6 3 , Section 4 , p. 5 ( 2 ) "Politics That Brought Kennedy to Texas," by Margaret Mayer, The DallaJ TimeJ Herald, November 24, 1 963, p. I DA ( 3 ) "Mrs. Connally Says Husband Past Peril," by Wick Fowler, The DallaJ Momillg NewJ, November 2 5 , 1 963, Section 4, p. 1

( 4 ) The DallaJ MOfllil1g NewJ, November 2 3 , 1 963, Section 1 , pp. 1 , 2 ; Section 4, p . 1

( 5 ) "Oswald Linked to Mail-Order Rifle," by George Carter, The Dalla.r TimeJ Herald, November 24, 1 963, pp. lA, 3A ( 6 ) UPI dispatch from Moscow, The DallaJ Morning NewJ, Novem ber 2 3 , 1 963, Section 1 , p. 1 ( 7 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The DallaJ Morning NewJ, No vember 23, 1963, Section 1, p. 6 ( 8 ) AP dispatch from Moscow, The DallaJ Moming N eWJ, Novem ber 2 5, 1 963, Section 1, p. 5

C A N

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope OJ The World, America's Promise?

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $ 10.00 - $1 0.00 -

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

The Hope Of The World America's Promise

- $ 3.00 - $ 5 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

Film Catalogue

- Free

Paperback Clothback

Reprint List

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

- Free

( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS,

Page 384

TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4

TAYLOR 1 -2303

ZIP CODE

THE o

I)tlil SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 49

(Broadcast 434)

December 9, 1 963

Dallas, Texas , DAN

SMOOT

A STRANGER IN THEIR MI DST P resident John F. Kennedy was murdered by a communist in Dallas. Dallasites, both lib eral and conservative, were more completely thunderstruck by the crime than any other people in the world, because many were actual eyewitnesses ; all had a feeling of closeness to the deed. Yet, all over the world, Dallasites were accused of hate-mongering fanaticism, of having molded the twisted mind of Lee Harvey Oswald, a stranger in their midst. L ee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, October

before he was born. His mother works as a practical nurse. ( 1 )

18, 1 939. His father died

A part of his boyhood was spent in Fort Worth, Texas, where he went to public schools. In 1953, he and his mother moved to New York� Oswald attended a j unior high school in the Bronx for a few weeks. He was arrested for truancy and given a psychiatric examination. Psychiatrists recommended that he be committed, saying he was a potentially dangerous schizophrenic. He was not committed. He and his mother also lived briefly in North Dakota. Oswald said he became interested in marxism when he was 1 5 , after reading a pamphlet about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ( American communists, executed as spies ) . In 1 956, at the age of 17, Oswald enrolled as a freshman in Arlington Heights High School, Fort Worth. He dropped out after 2 3 days, and joined the Marine Corps. In boot camp, he qualified as sharpshooter on the rifle range; but he never adjusted to life in the Marines, as he never adjusted to life anywhere else. He was forever in trouble. He served in the Philippines and in Japan as a radar operator, with the rank of Private First Class. He was twice court-martialed while in Japan: the first time for carrying an unregistered pistol ; the second time, for swearing at a non-commissioned officer. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1-2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted.

Page 385

Claiming that his mother was ill and needed his help, he applied for, and received, a hardship discharge from the Marines in September, 1 959, and was assigned to the Marine Corps inactive Reserve; but instead of going home to his mother, he boarded a ship for the Soviet Union, with $1600 he had somehow acquired. This was a move he had been preparing for during his last two years in the Marines. He arrived in Moscow on October 1 5 , 1959, and told American reporters there that it was like getting out of prison. Soon after his arrival, he petitioned the Supreme Soviet for Soviet citizenship.

to his successor, Fred Korth ; and no action was taken.

Although Russian officials warned him that Soviet citizenship was not easy to obtain, Oswald referred to the Soviet government as "my govern ment" and said "even if I am not accepted, on no account will I go back to the United States." (2)

In February, 1 962, Oswald wrote the U. S. Embassy in Moscow, asking for a passport to return to the United States : Russian authorities had not accepted his request for citizenship, and Oswald refused to stay in the Soviet Union as a resident alien.

On October 30, 1 959, he went to the American Embassy in Moscow to renounce his American citizenship. He told officials he was a marxist. ( 1 ) On November 2, 1959, Oswald formally asked the U. S. Government to revoke his citizenship. He signed an affidavit stating: "I affirm that my allegiance Socialist Republic."(3)

to the Soviet

Oswald was bitter because the United States Consul in Moscow suggested that he "think over" his decision to take an oath renouncing American citizenship. He turned in his passport to Embassy officials and left, saying he would let the Soviet government handle legal details when, and if, he became a citizen of the Soviet Union. Upon hearing of Oswald's defection, the Ma rine Corps gave him an undesirable discharge from the Marine Reserve. When word of this reached Oswald in Russia, he wrote a letter to John Connally, Secretary of the Navy, saying:

In April, 1961, Oswald met Marina Nicholaev na Proosakova, a hospital worker in Minsk. After six weeks, they were married in a state ceremony. In January, 1962, Oswald, still in Minsk, wrote Senator John G. Tower ( Republican, Texas) , claiming that he, a United States citizen, was being held in Russia against his will, and asking Tower to intercede. Tower did not intercede. He merely sent Oswald's letter to the State Depart ment.

F or reasons not yet made public, the U. S. Embassy in Moscow ( acting on orders from the State Department) on May 24, 1 962, renewed Oswald's passport, and amended it to include an infant daughter (born in February of that year) ; gave Oswald's Russian wife a non-quota visa to enter the United States ; and advanced Oswald $435 .7 1 for travel expenses back to America. (5)

Oswald and his family arrived in the United States at the Port of New York on June 1 3 , 1 962.(0) During the late summer o f 1 962, h e alleg edly was in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, calling on non-communist refugees, seeking their help in finding employment. None would have anything to do with him, because they feared him as a dedicated communist. They feared that Oswald was trying to get information about them for the Soviet secret police - which is known to operate in the United States, under United Nations cover. (6)

"I shall employ all means to right this gross mistake or injustice to a bonafide U. S. citizen and ex-serviceman." ( 4 )

Early in 1963, Oswald was in New Orleans, where he became active ( under the name of A. J. Hidell) in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.

Connally, who had j ust resigned to run for

This organization was founded in New York in

Governor of Texas, turned Oswald's letter over

1 960 to support Fidel Castro. According to the

Page 386

Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, formation of the organization was financed by money from the Cuban mission to the United Nations. (7) During this period (early 1 963 ) , Oswald wrote the State Department applying for another pass port, saying he wanted to visit England, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Poland, and Russia. The new passport was issued to Oswald at New Orleans on June 2 5 , 1 963.(1) Carlos Bringuier, a Cuban anti-Castro patriot, told Associated Press reporters that Oswald had attempted to infiltrate a Cuban anti-Castro or ganization, by offering himself (as a former Ma rine) to train Cubans for an invasion of the island. Bringuier said : "I was suspicious of him from the start . Then a few days later, I encountered him on Canal Street distributing 'Viva Castro' literature. We took all his propaganda away from him. Then the police came and arrested a lot of us . . . . The charges against all of us but Oswald were dismissed."< l )

Oswald was fined $10 for disturbing the peace, and released. (1)

On August 2 1 , 1 963 (shortly after his arrest in the street fight) Oswald appeared as a, guest on a New Orleans radio program - known as "Con versation Carte Blanche," station WDSU. Dur ing the broadcast, Oswald identified himself as a marxist. The Cuban Student Directorate in Miami re ports that Oswald was President of the New Orleans Fair Play For Cuba Committee, and that the national organization transferred him from New Orleans to Dallas, late in August, 1 963, fol lowing his interview on the radio program. (1) The exact time of Oswald's move from New Orleans to Dallas is not generally known. Mrs. Ruth Paine, of Irving, Texas ( who had met the Oswalds in Dallas ) , somehow heard that Mrs. Oswald was destitute in New Orleans, with one small child, expecting another. Mrs. Paine says that, while driving back to Dallas after a vacation

in the East, she stopped off in New Orleans to see Mrs. Oswald. On September 23, 1 963, she brought Oswald's wife and child to her home in Irving. Mrs. Paine, formerly a Russian language teacher, said she thought she and Mrs. Oswald could help each other.

O n September 26,

1 963, The Dallas Morning News published an article on William J. Lowery, a Dallas salesman who had been operating as an undercover informant for the FBI on communist activities. Lowery said the communist party, con centrating recruiting efforts on college students, minority groups, and labor unions, has had a great deal of success and is growing in Texas. On September 26, 1 963, Dallas newspapers also publicized President Kennedy's scheduled visit to Dallas in November. On that same day, Oswald crossed the border into Mexico at Nuevo Laredo. On September 27, he talked with the Cuban consul at Mexico City, requesting a visa for travel to the Soviet Union, via Cuba. When told that he must wait about three weeks for clearance from the Cuban foreign ministry, Os wald left in anger. On September 28, he visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City requesting the visa, identifying himself as "a militant commu nist, married with a Soviet citizen," and saying that he had resided three years in the Soviet Union. When told that he must wait for clearance from the Soviet foreign ministry, Oswald left agam m anger.

Oswald arrived in Dallas from Mexico on Oc tober 4, and stayed at the YMCA. On October 1 4, 1 963, in the middle of the night ( using the alias, o. H. Lee) , he rented a room at 1 026 North Beckley Avenue, for $8.00 a week. This rooming house is less than a mile west of the Texas School Book Depository firm (Elm and Houston Streets, on the edge of downtown Dallas) where Oswald got a job, as stock clerk, on October 1 5 , 1963. The fact that Oswald, on October 1 5 , got a job in a building that was on President Kennedy's

Page 387

parade route six weeks later has given rise to much speculation ; but it may have been an acci dent of fate. The public did not know that the presidential parade would pass the corner of Elm and Houston until November 16, 1963. An exact map of the route was published on Novem ber 2 1 , the day before the visit.

During the 48-hour period between Oswald's arrest on November 22 and his murder on Novem ber 24, he not only admitted, but arrogantly boasted to police, that he was a "marxist."

The Haters

R. S. Truly, superintendent of the book de pository firm, later said of Oswald : "He was a pretty quiet individual. His work was fine and I had no reason to believe . . . no idea the man had ever been in Russia."

There have been persistent reports that the FBI knew all about Lee Harvey Oswald's back ground, knew where his wife resided in Irving, and knew where he worked in Dallas. In this regard, the only thing which the public knows as a certainty is that the Dallas police did not know of communist Oswald's employment in a build ing on the presidential parade route - or even of his presence in Dallas. According to reports, the police did have, however, a list of persons branded as "extreme rightists," who were to be kept under surveillance during the President's visit.

A fter

Oswald's arrest, police and sheriff's deputies found among his effects five or six metal files containing notes and correspondence. They also found $ 1 5 0.00, although Oswald earned only $1.25 an hour at the book depository. The Os wald files were all given to the FBI, and the pub lic does not know what they contained. Police surmise, however, that they contained a wealth of information about the man's communist activities - and possibly about his contacts, and the source of his money. Assistant District Attorney William F. Alex ander has revealed that some of the correspond ence found in Oswald's effects consisted of let ters from leaders of the communist party of the United States, thanking Oswald for his activities. Other letters were from the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, . thanking Oswald for past services, giving him suggestions about organizing chapters of that organization.

M ost

of the information about Oswald's communist activities (summarized above ) was publicized within a few hours after his arrest; but this did not seem to matter to liberals and self-styled "moderates" ( in Dallas and else where ) , who, for many days, poured out an in credible volume of hate, not against communists, but against constitutional conservatives - call ing them "right-wing extremists," "bigots," "right-wing fanatics." Immediately after the President's assassination, the Voice of America (U.S. Government over seas broadcasting agency ) notified the world that the President had been killed in Dallas, "center of the extreme right-wing movement." This of ficial broadcast of the U.S. Government was taken overseas, of course, to mean that American anti communist conservatives are anarchists and as sassins, that Dallas is a hotbed of such people, and that the U.S. Government presumed them guilty of murdering the President. (8) As soon as Oswald was arrested and identified, VOA deleted, from its overseas broadcast, ref erence to right-wing extremists in Dallas, but was careful not to mention that the arrested as sassin was an admitted communist. It was ap proximately 1 2 hours after Oswald's arrest be fore VOA told the world that the man was a "marxist." (8)

When asked to explain, Mr. Henry Loomis, Director of Voice of America, defended the original branding of Dallas as a "center of the extreme right-wing movement" by saying: "It was a fact. Tass [ Soviet news agency ] knew this beforehand . . . . Things were running in

circles." (8)

Page 388

Concerning VOA's 1 2-hour delay in broad casting the known fact that the assassin was an admitted communist, Mr. Loomis said : "We bend over backward to be carefu1."(S)

United States Representative Harry R. Shep pard (Democrat, California) described his first reaction to the news of the President's assassina tion: "The first impression I had - a hasty one at that - was that I had never liked the tenor of the so-called Dan Smoot writings of that area. He's an extremist whose writings are not only flamboyant, but are inclined to be of a violent nature and inclined toward character assassina tion. "Further, in that general area you have a con siderable grouping of a so·called Welch crowd. It has been apparent that it is a very inflammable area . . . . Be it right or wrong, that was my first basic thinking . . ." ( 9 ) .

On November 24, 1963, The Daily Sentinel} Grand Junction, Colorado, editorialized on the assassination, without mentioning the name of the assassin or even hinting that he was a com munist. The Daily Sentinel put all the blame on Dallas conservatives : "It is not surprising that the assassination took place in a city where . . . . the heat of hatred and vilification has run so high that special security precautions were necessary."

Others vaguely included communists in their denunciation of Dallas by saying that both the "extreme left" and the "extreme right" were re sponsible ; but they concentrated their hatred on the "extreme right" - seeming to equate criti cism of the fallen President with treason and homicidal tendencies.

Perhaps

the most regrettable remarks were made by the Reverend William A. Holmes, pas tor of the Northaven Methodist Church in Dal las. Mr. Holmes spoke on a national CBS tele vision program on November 26, 1963, alleging that children in Dallas schools cheered when they heard of the President's assassination. Mr. Holmes' point was that these children were from the families of political conservatives who had

taught their youngsters to hate the leaders of our nation. Many persons who watched the broadcast felt that Mr. Holmes himself oozed hatred while denouncing the alleged "rightist" haters of Dal las. In one Dallas suburban grade school, the principal was so shaken by the news of the Presi dent's assassination, that he sent children home without telling them why. A few children left, shouting gleefully, "We are free ! " But no Dallas school children cheered the death of President Kennedy. There was no accuracy in Mr. Holmes' story. Nonetheless, Methodist preachers of Dal las, at a hastily-convened conference on Novem ber 29, formally adopted a resolution expressing "whole-heartedly our defense of our brother Wil liam A. Holmes' right and every other minister's right to the freedom of the pulpit to declare the mind and spirit of Christ in every area of human life." ( 10)

As if anyone had even hinted that a preacher should be denied freedom to declare the mind and spirit of Christ! Mr. Holmes might have expressed sorrow over the fact that public school officials could not, in the hour of national shock and sorrow, call chil dren together for prayer, because the Supreme Court has outlawed such prayer in our public schools. Mr. Holmes did not do that. He, and many others like him, chose, rather, to deliver tirades about political conservatives. Following the murder of Oswald, K. W. Cornell, Associated Press staff writer, wrote an article for The Dallas Times Herald (Monday, November 25, 1 963 ) based on interviews with numerous clergymen. Here is a sentence from the lead paragraph : "But the nation's moral leaders said this killing, like the assassination of the President, reflected a blight in the temper of the people."

Oswald was a psychotic misanthrope. He mir rored the hate and lawless violence characteris

tic of communism ; but it is an insult to the United

States to say that he in any way, or to any degree, reflected the "temper of the people. "

Page 389

Constitutional Conservatives

D allas conservatism does not represent any special group. It is a product of individual taste and breeding. It is a way of life, a spirit, a faith. It is a conviction which neither springs from bigotry nor produces it. It is the progeny of American heritage. The strength of conservative conviction in Dallas is nourished by roots planted in the Texas frontier. In that sense, w� are unique; but in a larger sense, constitutional conservatives of Dallas are like constitutional conservatives everywhere else in America: they revere the Founding Fathers of this nation and want to re establish the constitutional system which they created.

The War for American Independence ( which the Founding Fathers led to a successful con clusion ) was unlike any other so-called revo lution in history. The French Revolution of the 1 8th Century was conceived in hate and executed in violence. Its purpose was the same as that of the bolshevik revolution in 20th-century Russia: to overturn and destroy the existing order of things and to murder the existing leaders of so ciety. The American Revolution was not tinged with such purpose. The Founding Fathers, in re belling against England, were resisting political tyranny to preJerve and improve the existing order. -

They feared concentration of political power, and they feared anarchy. Out of their wisdom and their fears, their experience and their great learning, they created the most marvelous govern mental system ever conceived in the minds of men. Believing in government by law, and not government by the whims of men, they wrote the Constitution which was a, bind ing contract - not only upon government but upon the people as well. By restricting gov ernment to the exercise of specifically-granted powers, the Constitution was intended to prohibit government officials from usurping power and thus becoming lawless tyrants, under pretext of helping the people. Ultimate power to change the organic structure of government was left in

the hands of the people; but the means of making such change ( amending the Constitution ) was carefully prescribed to militate against hasty, un wise decisions by the people. This system, unique in history, was designed to prevent both tyranny by government, and reckless rebellion by the peo ple.

F or 30 years, American liberals have sup ported lawleSJ government government not bound by the specific terms of the Constitution, but usurping power to do anything which official dom claims will promote the general welfare. Constitutional conservatives resist lawless gov ernment, because they know it produces a lawless society. The end is either wild anarchy or oppres sive dictatorship. The fervor and dedication of constitutional conservatives stems not from hate, but from a sense of urgency : they want to restore lawful constitutional government, by lawful means, before it is too late. -

The H arvest?

The current furor of liberal hatred for con servatives may conceal a sense of guilt. The warped mind of Lee Harvey Oswald was first attracted to communism by communist propaganda leaflets. Conservatives abhor governmental censorship ( even of communist propaganda ) which violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Conservatives also ab hor the distribution of communist propaganda in the United States at taxpayers' expense. Liberal ism, however, decrees that commuI1ist propaganda must be distributed in the United States, without restriction, at the expense of the American peo ple. (1 1 )

Constitutional conservatives do not believe in violating the constitutional rights of anyone, not even of communists ; but they have for years con tended that communists should not be given pref erential treatment. Conservatives have been par ticularly concerned about State Department soft ness toward communism. What else, but this lib eral attitude of special friendliness toward com-

Page 390

munists, could have prompted the State , Depart ment to renew Oswald's passport and pay his way back to the United States, after he had renounced American citizenship - and then, a year later, grant him another passport to go to the Soviet Union ?

D uring the last three years, virtually all liberal spokesmen in the United States berate "extreme rightists" for asserting that communism is dan gerous in the United States. The liberal line is that communists are not dangerous - that, in deed, "right-wing extremists" are far more harm ful than communists. Could that explain why Dallas police had a list of so-called "rightists" to watch but were not told that a known communist, an expert rifleman, worked in a building on the presidential parade route ? As pointed out before, the public does not know what the FBI knew, or had done, about Oswald. Oswald loudly proclaimed his hatred of the United States, and boasted of his communist ac tivities. Hence, if the FBI did not know where he lived and worked from October 1 5 to November 22, this fact alone must reflect the attitude of Robert Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States. Note a United Press Interm,tional dispatch from Washington, published March 7, 1 962, un der the headline "U. S. Reds Harmless Says Bob Kennedy." Here are passages from the article: "Attorney General Robert F . Kennedy said yesterday the U. S. Communist party is a 'wind mill' virtually powerless to hurt the government. He criticized 'hysteria' about the party's activities. 'They can't do anything to us' . . . the President's brother said."

All FBI reports go to the Attorney General, who is

bove the

FBI Director, in the chain of com

mand. If the FBI did report that communist Os-

wald was working in a building overlooking the presidential parade route in Dallas, why did At torney General Robert Kennedy not do something about it? Because only "right-wing extremists" are considered dangerous ? One sentence in a letter from a subscriber to this Report sums up a lot: "If our leaders had fought communism instead of McCarthyism, there would have been no Castro in Cuba, and no castroite Oswald in the United States to murder President Kennedy."

Cover U p?

November 26, 1963, President Johnson ordered the FBI to take charge of all evidence and to make a thorough investigation of the as sassination, and of the subsequent murder of the assassin. He promised that FBI reports would be made public immediately. On the same day-November 26-The Worker ( communist party newspaper) , in a long editorial praising the policies of the late President Ken nedy and placing blame for his death on the "ultra-right," recommended that President John son appoint a special commission, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, to conduct the investigation Three days later-November 29-President Johnson appointed a special 7-man commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, to investi gate the assassination and the murder of Oswald. The other six men on the commission : Allen W. Dulles, former President of the Council on Foreign Relations and a director of the CFR since 1 927; Representative Hale Boggs (liberal Democrat, Louisiana); Representative Gerald R. Ford (liberal Republican, Michigan) ; Senator John Sherman Cooper (liberal Repub lican" Kentucky) ; John J. McCloy, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1 953, former Disarmament

Page 391

Agency head; Senator Richard B. Russell (Demo crat, Georgia), the only one of the group with perceptible conservative tendencies.

On December 2, 1963, a story in The Dallas Morning News revealed that the FBI reports will not be made public, as President Johnson had first promised. All investigative reports will be turned over to Warren's commission-which will "evaluate and report to the public. "

W ill the public ever get the full, true story ? Motives

reported last week, circumstances gave rise to the presumption that Jack Rubenstein and Oswald were involved together, with others un known, in a plot to assassinate President Ken nedy, and that Rubenstein murdered Oswald to silence him. Indications now are that this pre sumption may never be proved. History may re cord that the assassination and the murder were isolated acts of psychotics, with no calculated motives or purpose.

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) The Dallas Morning News, November 2 3, 1963, Section 1 , p. 6 ( 2 ) The Dallas 1I10ming News, November 24, 1963, Section 1 , p. 3 ( 3 ) The Dallas Times Hel'ald, November 2 3, 1 963, p. 6A ( 4 ) Time, Vol. ' 82, No. 22, November 29, 1 963, p. 27 ( 5 ) UPI story from Moscow, The Dallas Morning News, Decem· ber 2, 1 963, Section 1, p. 5 ( 6 ) "A Variety of Red Spy Networks Cover U.S.," by Henry J. Taylor, The Los Angeles Times, October 1 2, 1962 ; The Epi sode of the Russian Seamen, Report of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, May 1 2, 1 95 6, 2 1 pp. ( 7 ) Fail' Play For Ctlba Committee, Hearings before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, February 27, 1961, 128 pp. ( 8 ) "In the Nation: The Modem Miracle and the Ancient Curse," by Arthur Krock, The New York Times, November 26, 1963, p. 36; "Broadcast to World: Voice of America Explains 'Far Right' Tag," by John Mashek, The Dallas Morning News, November 28, 1963, Section 1 , p. 5 ( 9 ) "Rep. Sheppard Shocked At Death of President," The San Bernardino Daily Stln, November 23, 1963, p. A-2 ( 1 0 ) "Methodists Back ' Freedom of Pulpit,' '' The Dallas Morning New.r, November 30, 1963, Section 1 , p. 6 ( 1 1 ) For a detailed discussion of communist propaganda distribu tion through American mail, see this Report, "We Pay For Communist Propaganda," May 28, 1 962.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FB I Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years on FBI headquarters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 1951, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum_ On Facts Forum radio and television pro grams, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising ve hicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 392

THE

1)(111 SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 50

(Christmas Broadcast) December 1 6, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

THE HOPE OF THE WORLD

SMOOT

In this published Report and in my broadcasts every week, I try to use fundamental American

constitutional principles as the yardstick for measuring the political and social and economic prob lems of our time. Hence, it is important to me that I set aside one Report each year in which-instead of criticizing the people and policies which violate those principles - I reaffirm my faith in the principles : restate my own conclusions about the origins of the great American ideal.

Chr.istmas is an appropriate season for this positive reaffirmation, because, as I see it, the begin ning of the United States of America was the most dramatic and significant episode in a long pilgrimage - the pilgrimage of the Christian idea of law, liberty, and self-government. Christian ity is the master principle of our organic documents of government - the Declaration of Inde pendence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

he act of infinite love and mercy which sent Jesus into the world to save men from sin im planted in the minds of men the idea that individual man is a creature of infinite importance. The life and teachings of Jesus, and the work and example of His Disciples, magnify the importance of the human individual, minimize the importance of human masses and human society and human government. When Jesus selected his disciples, he did not go to the great universities, to the centers of in tellectualism. He did not try to create a sudden mass movement by picking a large number of out standing people. He chose a dozen obscure men, mostly fishermen, who lived by heavy labor. After the Crucifixion, when Peter stood up among them, to conduct the business of choosing a disciple to replace the traitor Judas, the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty. What could this small group of people do in a world that was pagan, where Christians were, in a sense, outlaws, hated and persecuted ? They remade the world, uprooting ancient and power ful civilizations, planting the seeds of new ones. Nowhere in the annals of mankind can there be found more thrilling proof of the power, importance, and unlimited possibilities of the human individual who is fired by faith. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 'months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10. 00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 393

N either Paul nor any of the other early Chris

tians had any particular interest in social reform or political revolution. Their dedication was spirit ual ; yet, at the core of Christian faith is the most revolutionary idea ever conceived : the idea that individual man, regardless of who he is, is infi nitely important. Many Christian denominations and sects be lieve, of course, in original sin : that man is born in sin - an unworthy, corrupt being who can be saved only by the Grace of God, through Jesus Christ. All Christians who cling to fundamental truth believe that man is imperfect, hopeless, and lost, without the Saving Grace of Jesus. Yet it was Christianity which gave birth to individualism belief in the sacred importance of the human individual. How ? -

I ndividual

man is imperfect, yet God created him and so loved him that He sent His only begotten Son to save him from sin. That is the basic Christian idea. After such an idea had worked for centuries in the finite minds of men, it led to an obvious conclusion: individual man, the object of such infinite grace and mercy, must be important, the most important creature on earth. This is the origin of the basic American political ideal : that man gets all his rights and powers from God, the Creator ; that government is a weaker and less important creature than man, because government was created by man. It was created, in fact, as a mere tool to serve the simple and limited purpose of securing for man the God given blessings that were already his.

M an, with all his corruption and imperfections, can become a son of God, by the simple act of being born again in faith. There is another profound Christian truth : God's promise of salvation is conditional- that is, it depends on man doing something. Man must voluntarily accept God's grace: God does not force it upon him; and man must, as a responsible in dividual, to the limit of his ability, consciously understand what he is doing when he accepts

Grace through faith. That is the Christian idea of individual respon sibility, which is inseparable from individual im portance and individual freedom. This Christian concept (bearing overtones of the three-in-one, or trinity, idea of God ) came to be known as individ ualism; and Christian individualism was the bed rock on which the American nation was founded. *

AMERICA: Culmination of the Christian Ideal T he beginnings of America were Christian. Most organic documents of government in America - the Mayflower Compact of 1620 ; the Declaration of Independence of 1776; the Con stitution of 1787 - give recognition to God .

While the Mayflower rode at anchor in Prov incetown Harbor, near Christmastime, 1 620, the Pilgrims aboard decided to form a government before going ashore in the new world. Hence, they wrote and signed the Mayflower Compact. They dated it "Anno Domini, 1 620." That phrase, freely translated to give the full meaning intended, says, "in the sixteen-hundred-and-twentieth year of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

H ere is how the Mayflower Compact begins : "In the name of God, amen, we whose names are underwritten . . . having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves to gether into a civil body politic."

hen the Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia in 1 787, the delegates could reach no agreement on the kind of national government needed - a kind which would bind the individ ual states tog ether in a union for protection against foreign powers and for preventing wars among

Page 394

themselves, but which would, at the same time, preserve the sovereignty of the individual states, leaving to the people their God-given rights to govern themselves in their own states, without interference from the national government.

T he Constitutional Convention was on the point

of breaking up. Benjamin Franklin pulled the thing together. Addressing the Convention on June 28, 1787, Franklin said : "How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understand ings? . . . "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth; that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground with out His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "I . . . believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

In the bequest that established Harvard Col lege, old John Harvard laid down certain rules and precepts that were to be observed. One of them read : "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main ends of his life and studies; to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all knowledge and learning and see the Lord only giveth wisdom. Let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek Christ as Lord and Master."

We hear a lot of talk about Americanism. If

you want to know what it really is, read the Decla ration of Independence. There is the essence of Americanism; and the essence of the Declaration is a Christian assumption: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

There were no arguments or committee meet

ings or panel discussions about it: Simply, we proclaim these things as truth because we know them to be truth ! Here, in paraphrase, are the truths which they proclaimed : Government derives its just powers from us, the governed. We want it clearly understood, moreover, that the grant of power which we make to government is very limited. Even though we must delegate to government enough power to protect all of us from one another, and from possible foreign enemies, we have certain rights which we are not willing to surrender or modify for any purpose whatever. We call these rights unalienable because God, our Creator, endowed us with them: we consider them sacred. Each one of us as an individual, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, has certain rights that God has given him and that no power on earth can take away, neither government, nor an organized group, nor an overwhelming majority of the people them selves. Among these sacred rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Initially, we said Life, Liberty, and Property; but we changed Property to Pursuit of Happiness to enlarge the area of rights which we consider sacred.

A fter winning the independence they had de clared, and after writing a Constitution to make the necessary grant of limited power to a central government, the Founding Fathers worried about that matter of their sacred and unalienable rights. In the first section of their Constitution, where they granted power to the new government, they started off by saying, ''The powers herein granted." They meant that the government should have no powers except those specifically listed in the Constitution. But was that sufficiently clear and emphatic ? Perhaps not. The Founding Fathers decided to make certainty doubly certain. They wrote a Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to their Constitution) , not asking the government for any rights, but specifically listing certain God given rights and telling government that it must not, could not, tamper with them.

Page 3 95

Congress shall make no law abridging these

specific, sacred rights of ours.

T hat is the meaning of the American Constitu

tion and Bill of Rights. Where did such notions of government come from ? They were sent into the world at Bethle hem, on a night that was silent and holy, on the first day of the first year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

he Christian concept of equality (also written into the Declaration of Independence : All men are created equal ) is not tainted with materialism. Jesus rather impatiently said that the poor are always with us. His concept of equality had nothing to do with man's physical attributes and possessions, or with the general distribution of woddy goods. The teachings of Jesus did not imply mass organization and standardization of people, or world-wide uniformity, or a universal leveling of mankind. They implied the opposite. Jesus taught that the creatures of God are equal before God, regardless of their status on earth. The Christian concept of equality is spiritual. It has nothing to do with my income or my health or my environment. It simply gives me - a little, imperfect man, born in sin - an individual, per sonal relationship with God : a relationship equal to that of any other man on earth. In short,. Christianity exalts individualism, stressing the im portance and the exclusive dependence on God and self of the human individual.

These Christian ideas

of the sacredness and personality had to lie human the of worth infinite germinating in the minds of men for eighteen centuries - long enough to form fundamental thought patterns - before they found expression in a charter of government for a great nation: America. *

THE IRREPR ESSIBLE CONFLICT The strength and culture of America, built on

faith in Jesus Christ, will start degenerating when Americans no longer hold aloft the central tenet in Christian faith - namely, that the human individ ual (not the masses or societ)" but the individual ) is a divinely important being, because God sent His only begotten Son into the world to make a blood atonement for the sins of individuals. The strength and culture of communism-social ism-fascism, built on faith in the almighty state, or government, would die if heavily infiltrated with Christian individualism, because the central tenet of communist-socialist-fascist faith is that the individual is nothing ; the State (or society, or the masses, or government) is everything.

H itler and his henchmen said it bluntly a thousand times : "Der einzelner ist nichts; das volk ist alles; Heil Hitler!"

In a thousand different ways and on a thousand different occasions, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev said the same thing. To communists socialists - fascists no treatment of an individual is considered abuse, if meted out to serve the social istic cause : murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, blackmail, treason - all are j ustified if commit ted in the interests of the materialistic faith that the individual is nothing, society is everything.

Thus, the current conflict between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States is not merely a rivalry between two nations. It is a clash of two opposite ideologies, of two irrec oncilable faith s , one of which is doomed to de struction. Socialism can neither be appeased nor contained, because it is built on the notion that it must conquer all or die. All communist talk about wanting peaceful coexistence with the west is a lie intended to disarm and confuse. Commu nists not only do not want peaceful coexistence: they don't even think it possible. They are probably right. Socialism could not survive, in an intellectual climate where Christian

ideals prevail, because socialism is fundamentally

Page 396

atheistic: it is a belief in all-powerful government rather than in all-powerful God. America, on the other hand, could not survive if the Christian base of her institutions were destroyed, because the foundation of Americanism is Christian.

The

great battle for freedom is primarily a battle for the minds and souls of men. It can be won only if free men are aflame with a faith greater than tha,t of their enemies. Could the horrible socialist concept of man as an unimportant unit in a soulless something called the masses, win converts among free men ? Could materialistic faith in socialism ever have a stronger appeal to free men than Christian faith in the divine importance of individuals ? It has.

T he

blossoming of socialism occurred in the modern world almost simultaneously with explo sively sudden, world-wide developments in the physical sciences. In the new enthusiasm for sci ence, a monkey-like amazement at his own inven tive cleverness replaced man's ancient awe for things spiritual. In the twentieth century, the easy material promises of socialism presented them selves as a new faith and captured some of the most cultivated minds in the Christian world. *

SOCIALIZING THE GOSPEL

They could convert sanctuaries into soldiers' bar racks, and taverns, and dance halls - and they did. They could imprison, torture, and murder clergymen - and they did. But they could not force Christian faith out of the hearts and minds and souls of men. Hence, Lenin ordered a change of tactics : infil trate the churches so that their destruction could be performed gradually, from within, by church people themselves. Reinterpret the Scriptures in such a way as to /emove the diety of Christ and convert Him into' a socialist. Distort Biblical ser mons on charity to prove that government should take over all property and divide it up to achieve economic equality for all.

In short,

if you will strain all spiritual content out of Scripture, you can break religion's hold upon the people : God is changed from an all powerful, all-knowing, and very personal heavenly Father - into some kind of vague, undefined uni versal force. Jesus is no longer a Deity - God Himself. Jesus becomes merely a great man, a teacher, a philosopher, a social reformer. A church establishment built on such notions as these is not an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the socialist revolution. On the contrary, it can become a very useful instrument for pro moting socialism.

Y ou could fill a room full of reliable statistics

We will find our most fertile field for infiltra tion of Marxism within the field of religion, be cause religious people are the most gullible and will accept almost anything if it is couched in religious terminology.

Lenin made this prediction to the students of revolution in Moscow after the bolsheviks had found it impossible to destroy the churches from without. They could seize the church buildings and dis perse the congregations and make men afraid to attend public worship service - and they did.

to show that thousands of church people have supported hundreds of communist causes. But it wouldn't do any good. No one would pay any attention to you except some top officials of great church organizations like the National Council of Churches ; and they would merely howl you down as a fool and trouble maker. In a way, church officials are correct in belittling the importance of the communist fronts.

T he

important question is whether Christian

preachers have rej ected or corrupted the funda-

Page 397

mental doctrines of their faith. The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that imperfect man can be saved only by the grace of Jesus Christ. The fundamental doctrine of socialism is that all of man's sins - all evils on earth - result from man's physical environment. Consequently, gov ernment can create paradise by taking total con trol of the lives of all the people ; all the evils on earth can be legislated away if government has enough power to create the right environment - enough power to regulate and control and re distribute until everyone has an equal share of everything! It is at this point that preachers who regard them selves as Christian socialists begin to substitute government for God. It is at this point that the social gospel becomes socialism.

T he social gospel originated in the belief that Christians must be known by their works. It's not enough for a man to believe in Jesus. He must also behave like a believer - must carry out Jesus' instructions to all believers : treat others as you would like them to treat you ; love your neigh bor as yourself ; share your blessings with people less fortunate than yourself. Hence, the typical old-fashioned social-gospel preacher was one who exhorted his congregation to lead better lives. But as the years rolled by and people kept on sinning, the newer crop of social gospel preachers seemed to lose faith in exhorting and praying. Many modern liberal clergymen turn to government, and not to God, to correct evils in the society around them. Many modern liberal ministers seem to have lost confidence in God. They react to problems around them by exerting pressure, in the name of Christian churches, for federal laws which will impose their notions of equality and morality on the entire nation. They do not believe in volun tary, individual Christian giving - except to their own churches. They believe in organized political pressures for legislation which will force other

people to give.

Great numbers of modern clergymen appar

ently have come to regard their job as being, not ministers of the Gospel of Jesus, but formulators of public opinion on the economic and social prob lems of our times. They have become class-con scious political robinhoods : perpetually petition ing government to take money away from one group of citizens for distribution to another group. One odd thing about the advanced theological education which has taught America's modern clergymen to despise America's profit-motive eco nomic system: it has failed to tell them what they are going to do for church buildings, and church printing presses, and church equipment, and church salaries after they have eliminated the American system of profit-motivated capitalism. Every church property and every preacher's sal ary in the United States are produced by indivi dual people working for a profit.

Well-informed investigators and scholars in the

security field are gravely concerned about what is going on in the religious field. They are not wor ried about the 25,000 identifiable members of the Communist Party, USA. They are not gravely worried about the clergymen who have had some connection with communist activities. Most of these latter are loyal to God and coun try. Many of them got into communist fronts be cause they couldn't tell them from respectable organizations.

T here

is the danger : the language of modern liberalism is so similar to the language of com munism ·, the root ideas of socialism are so closely akin to contemporary doctrines of the social gospel - that many cannot tell the difference. *

HOPE Christian leaders are concerned about contem-

Page 398

porary attacks on the Christian churches. I share that concern. Carping and unjustified criticism of our churches provides fodder for the propaganda mills of the enemy. Yet, if Christian congregations of America do not become critically conscious of the basic issues involved in the struggle of our times, and do not exert every effort to correct grave errors on the part of the professional and lay leader ship of the churches, the great Christian institu tions will, at best, be nothing better than pleasant social organizations. At worst, they can become dangerous propaganda centers for socialism.

- many of our Christian leaders seem never to have learned, or to have forgotten, that the Gos pel of Jesus is spiritual. They think it is merely a moral message to help men solve the material problem of human relations. Hence, they easily identify the teachings of Jesus with the socialistic ideal of enforced materialistic equality for the human race. They show more zeal for "brother hood" and "togetherness" than for the saving grace of our Lord Jesus.

The great struggle of our time is a war to the

death between the Christian forces of freedom and the atheistic forces of slavery. It is, therefore, dangerously significant that American Christians will tolerate any gesture on the part of their own church organizations to announce neutrality in this great struggle, or tolerate any friendly fraterniz ing with the known agents of communism, or tolerate a "brotherhood" brainwash which results in the outlawing of Christian instruction for their children. Having been reared and educated in the in tellectual atmosphere of the twentieth century an atmosphere laden with the virus of socialism W H A T

Y O U

This withering of spirituality and growth of materialism are primary characteristics of the twentieth century.

How late is the hour in the night of our history ?

Not too late. The hope of our times - the hope of mankind for all future ages - is that Christians ( in Ameri ca, at least) have at long last begun to return to the Faith of their fathers. Americans are beginning to hunger for spiritual sustenance. Intelligent men are realizing that sci ence is a mighty tool which God provided. In stead of arrogantly rejecting God, because they now have science, they are growing more humble because it took the human race so long to develop something that God made possible when He cre ated the human mind. C A N

D O

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government. When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope OJ The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ( Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas )

Page 399

ZIP

CODE

Instead

of accepting the socialistic credo that man with science and with "scientific political organization" no longer needs God but can lift himself by his bootstraps, intelligent Ameri cans are beginning to realize that a worship of "Science" and of "Scientific political organiza tion" will create a Frankenstein monster capable of destroying the human race. Is it not obvious that every major "miraculous" break-through in scientific discovery, though it may solve a multitude of material problems for men, creates more fearful dangers for the human race than the most unenlightened savage could ever imagine in the dark fog of his superstitions ?

It came upon the midnight clear. As the white flocks lay sleeping along the hills of Galilee, Christ was born. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, 10, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them: "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

T hat is the hope of the world. *

Is not the world today a more frightened, dis traught, frenzied, and "insecure" place than ever before in the long, tragic history of man's struggle for enlightenment ? People who have for a long time - out of ignorance, or indifference, or something - fol lowed the leadership of misguided men, into a deadend of frustration and doubt and fear, are now beginning to search for the unsearchable riches of Christ. WHO

I S

THIS ISSUE This issue of the Report is taken from Dan Smoot's first book, The Hope of The World. Price: $2.00, postpaid by mail from the office of The Dan Smoot Report

DAN SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American Civilization. In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 195 1 , Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription ; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 400

THE o

IJ(JII SmootReport Vol. 9, No. 5 1

(Broadcast 435 )

December 23, 1 963

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

TH E I D L E W I N D There is no terror in your threats . . . for I am armed so stmng in honesty that they - Shakes p eare pass by me as the idle wind, which 1 respect not.

Top

leaders of the Kennedy administration felt that strict constitutional limitations rendered the federal government incapable of meeting the needs of the nation, and of the world, in this century. They often scorned the old American federal system (which left state governments with sovereign rights and, thus, prohibited concentration of power in the central government) be cause they did not believe that such fragmentation of political power was adequate for the needs of society in the modern world. Programs of the Republican administration of former President Eisenhower reflected the same convictions ; but Eisenhower spokesmen were less forthright about their convictions: they generally gave more lip service to American constitutional principles than new frontier leaders did. During the Eisenhower regime, therefore, political apathy and confusion were widespread, be cause it was hard to come to grips with Eisenhower. If you were "conservative" (without real un derstanding of the term) you could find comfort in public pronouncements of "conservative" busi nessmen on the Eisenhower team. Or, if you were "liberal," you could find comfort in Eisenhower programs which ignored constitutional limitations and put the federal government in the role of a totalitarian welfare state. The relative candor of new frontiersmen, in advocating the same kinds of programs which Eisenhower had advocated, created sharp controversies which the Eisenhower vagueness never aroused. Consequently, new frontier programs, though not different in kind from those of the previous administration, evoked more opposition. Whereas programs of totalitarian liberalism met little determined resistance during eight Eisenhower years, the same, or similar, programs were approaching stalemate after less than three years of his successor. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 � office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $ 14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $10.00 each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 401

The Congressional Quarterly, November 22, 1 963, reveals that, of 25 major pieces of legisla tion supported by the administration, 7 were en acted into law. There was little likelihood that the First Session of the 88th Congress would ap prove one more than one-third of the Kennedy ad ministration's legislative program. The main opposition to t�e late President's programs was not partisan - in the superficial sense of Republicans opposing measures proposed by Democrats. For the most part, conservative Republicans in Congress who opposed new fron tier measures had the same motives as Democrats who joined them : they considered the measures harmful, unconstitutional. Public opposition to the new frontier was, com pletely divorced from partisan politics. Constitu tional conservatives are not primarily interested in the welfare of political parties. They cling to the fundamental principles of government written in to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They sup port politicians who uphold those principles, be cause they think a great nation should cherish the foundations of its greatness.

W ith President Kennedy in the White House, the great political issues were becoming widely understood. Before the assassination, there was a growing sense of optimism, almost of jubilation, among American conservatives. The prospect was bright that the presidential election of 1964 would offer the people of America, for the first time in this generation, a clear choice between totalitarian liberalism and constitutional conserv atism. Constitutional conservatives were elated by this prospect, because they believe that voters, if given a clear choice, will vote for candidates who stand firmly on the Constitution. The same prospect seemed to fill liberals with bitterness, possibly because liberals also realize that their political philosophy will be rejected, if put to a fair contest at the polls. One indication that lib eral leaders are coming to such realization may be found in the Fulbright Memorandum of 1961 in which Senator J. William Fulbright ( Demo crat, Arkansas) admitted that the people, if giv-

en a choice, would reject such liberal programs as foreign aid. (1)

T hough President Kennedy was the arch polit ical foe of constitutional conservatism, conserv atives were sincerely shocked and saddened by the assassination. Liberals, who idolized the Pres ident, expressed little resentment for the mur derer but heaped venom on conservatives. The Reverend J. Claude Evans, Chaplain of Southern Methodist University, Dallas, delivered a memorial sermon for President Kennedy, saymg: "The word of President Kennedy's assassina tion came to me while I was . . . in Chicago . . . . Could it be true that Dallas who had spit on a vice-presidential candidate, clobbered with a picket sign the country's Ambassador to the United Nations, had now killed the President of the United States? The reality of the fact lent unreality to the moment. "I hastened to the airport hoping to catch an early plane back to Dallas . . . . An airport limousine driver preached a short sermon to those of us on his bus. 'Jesus Christ, what's wrong with people who would do something like that?' . . . . I did not tell him I was from Dallas . "How long will it take for us in D allas to see that we participate in the crucifixion of Jesus by a cultural climate so . conc�rne.d about self that it unleashes a demomc radIcahsm that ends in the murder of the President? The cross of Jesus is nailed up afresh by the radical rightists who use freedom to deny freedom to alternate views . . . . "It is ironic that a mani ac of the radical left perpetrated the actua l assassinatio n of Presi�ent Kennedy. But this is no argument. fo� the rIght ness of the right . . . . The radIc,,;hsm .of �he extreme leftis t of the forties, the radIc al rIghtIsts of today are blood brothers . . . . .

"Whatever else President Kennedy stood for, he did stand for the free discussion of issues in a free and open society. And this s what we are in danger of losing . . . . We are bemg th�eate.ned by those who operate in the dark, who slmk mto deserted buildings with high-powered guns and ammunition, who write anonymous letters at tacking professors at Southern Methodist Uni versity and circulate them among the student

Page 402

�

body and potential contributors. We are in dan ger of being frightened into silence by being labelled 'socialists' or 'do gooders' or communist influenced . . . ." (2)

Dr. Evans, praising "free discussion of issues in a free and open society," seems outraged that conservatives have freedom to discuss anything. This one-dimensional viewpoint typifies "liberal ism" in our time. The Sacramento [ California] Bee said: "He came t o the Presidency, did Kennedy, in an hour of rising extremism and in an hour when the preachers of hate were spreading their gospels of Fascism across the land and because this is a free land they were permitted to speak. Now Kennedy is dead and a piece of America died with him."(3 )

The Bee uses fascism as a label for constitution al conservatives. Rabbi Meir Lasker, of Temple Judea Congre gation in Philadelphia, said : (4)

"For in our hearts, we know, that we cannot throw the entire guilt upon the head of the young assassin, nor even upon the shoulders of the white council groups - who undoubtedly influenced, by their corrupt standards, this irrational act. For in truth we are all somewhat responsible . . . permitting such conditions to develop - that lawlessness was bound to raise its ugly head."(5)

Note that Rabbi Lasker did not call the Presi dent's murderer a communist. He called him a "young assassin." The Rabbi expressed a senti ment that was virtually universal in the pro nouncements of liberals: namely, that the whole nation must share the blame for creating an at mosphere which encouraged a maniac to kill. This is nonsense, and a gratuitous insult to the people of America. The heat engendered by po litical conflict between liberals and conservatives had nothing to do with the fact that a communist shot the President. If there is any connection between a national attitude and the murder of President Kennedy, those involved in that connection are liberals. For years, liberals have maintained that commu nists in the United States are not dangerous, and have sneered at what they called conservative

"hysteria" about the dangers of communism. At torney General Robert F. Kennedy has been bluntly vocal in this regard. In the fall of 1 96 1 , Attorney General Kennedy invited Walter Reu ther to submit recommendations about control ling and silencing the "radical right." The Reu ther memorandum to Robert Kennedy (submit ted December 19, 1 961 ) , recommended, among other things, that "radical rightists" be placed on the Attorney General's subversive list. According to Reuther, a "basic fallacy of the radical right" - a main reason why conservatives are danger ous and should be declared subversive - is their over-emphasis on the dangers of "domestic com munism." (G) Concerning the general liberal allegation that Dallas environment somehow caused a commu nist to murder the President: it is noteworthy that Dallas homes which Lee Harvey Oswald is re ported to have visited were homes of liberal in tellectuals. The only meeting that Oswald is known to have attended in Dallas was a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union, at South ern Methodist University, on the night of Octo ber 2 5 , 1963. The ACLU meeting that night fea tured a film portraying the evil of "right-wing" extremism in the State of Washington, where, in 1 962, a state representative was defeated for re-election because right-wingers disclosed the fact that the representative's wife had once been a member of the communist party.(7)

Making The Most Of It

I f the President had been murdered by a mani

ac who claimed to be a John Bircher or a racial segregationist, the vigilantes of liberalism would really be stalking the land. But the President was murdered by a communist. Though this fact seems particularly disconcerting to liberals, it has not kept them from capitalizing on the event. On November 29, 1 963, United States Repre sentative Richard Bolling ( liberal Democrat from Missouri) demanded that "seniority privi leges" on committees be denied Democrats who

Page 403

refuse to support all policies and candidates of the national Democrat Party. Bolling called southern conservative Democrats "subversives and quislings of the Democratic Party." ( 8) United States Representative Harry R. Shep pard ( liberal Democrat from California) pre dicted that a "chastened Congress , sobered by the assassination of the President, will probably pass the Kennedy civil rights and tax-cut pro posals before the end of the year."(9) This was the appeal that President Johnson made, in his speech to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1 963. President Johnson urged Congress to honor the late President by passing his civil rights and tax bills. While pleading for harmony and national unity, and the elimination of hate and bitterness, the President urged pre cipitate action on legislation which many regard as divisive and hate-inciting.

E ight days before the assassination, the Senate voted approval of Senator Karl Mundt's amendment to the Foreign Aid Act - prohibi ting the Export-Import Bank from guaranteeing credit to communist nations for purchases -in the United States. Later, Senator Mundt (Republi can, South Dakota) , in response to administra tion pleas, withdrew his amendment and resub mitted it as a separate bill. The Mundt proposal was not intended to prohibit sales to communist nations, but merely to require cash payments from them. Four days after the assassination, the Mundt Bill (whose basic provisions the Senate had al ready approved ) came to a vote. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield read to the Senate a letter from the deceased President urging defeat of the Bill. It was defeated by a vote of 57 to 3 5 . ( 10)

I n January, 1961, United States Representa tive Victor L. Anfuso (liberal Democrat, New York) introduced a bill requiring American citizens to register their handguns with the Fed eral Bureau of Investigation. The bill lay pend ing in the House Judiciary Committee for more

than a year. In March, 1962 (when there were indications of effort to have the bill reported out of committee) , an issue of this Report dealt with the subject, "Right To Keep And Bear Arms." The Second Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal government from infringing upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Federal firearms control clearly violates this constitutional protection for law-abiding cit izens, but does not to any degree reduce crimes of violence by preventing criminals from acquir ing deadly weapons. Indeed, crimes of violence generally increase when law-abiding citizens are denied means of self defense. Publicity about the Anfuso Bill precipitated massive public protest. The Bill died in commit tee when the 87th Congress adjourned in 1962. Drew Pearson, in a syndicated column dated December 3, 1963 ( headlined, by some papers which printed it, as "Hate Groups' Role in Ken nedy'S Death") , said: " 1 £ hate groups had not pressured Congress against passage of an arms registration act, Pres ident Kennedy might still be alive today. Early in 1 962, Representative Victor Anfuso, the Brooklyn Democrat, introduced a bill requiring individuals to register firearms with the FBI . . . . There was a storm of criticism from the right wing and a flood of letters to Congress. It's sig nificant that part of the opposition came from Dallas where Dan Smoot . . . conducts a right wing radio program and sends a newsletter to gullible readers . . . .

"What motive, ulterior or otherwise, the pro fascists had in opposing the registering of fire arms is not known. At any rate, the pressure was so great the bill did not pass . . . ."

The Pearson column is part of a leftwing effort to use the President's assassination as propa ganda for legislation which violat�s a f.u ndamen tal right of the people and whlCh, m calmer times, the people and the Congress steadfastly opposed.

In the political arena,

also, liberals are trying

to capitalize on the murder of President Kennedy.

Page 404

The most distressing example, to date, is in Lou isiana. Before the assassination, the governor's race in Louisiana (first primary of the Democrat Party) was already intense. No candidate was expressing "hatred" of President Kennedy; but the Kennedy administration was the predomi nant issue. Astute observers felt that an anti Kennedy candidate was bound to win, because, among the people of Louisiana, there was tremen dous opposition to practically all new frontier programs. Following the assassination, liberals allegedly converted the Louisiana political race into a hate campaign. According to reports, supporters of liberal candidates ran ads in newspapers, saying that a vote for an anti-Kennedy candidate would be "an endorsement of the Dallas tragedy and a condemnation of the lawful processes of govern ment." (ll} On December 5 , 1963, The Shreveport Times said, editorially : "During the final few days of the state primary campaigns, a revolting effort is being made in some parts of the state actually to capitalize on the horrible and tragic assassination of a presi dent of the United States. "This is being done in an obvious effort to create hate in the hearts of voters for two specific candidates who are described falsely and with out one iota of documentation as 'haters' of John Fitzgerald Kennedy . . . "Every individual who voted for Mr. Kennon or Mr. McKeithen [ anti-Kennedy candidates] is damned as 'endorsing' the assassination of a prest'd ent . . . ." .

There were seven major candidates in the Lou isiana gubernatorial primary, held on December 7, 1 963. DeLesseps Morrison ( pro-Kennedy can didate) finished first; John J. McKeithen ( anti Kennedy candidate) finished second. There will be a second, or run-off, primary election between these two, next January.

President Johnson I n his first major speech as President, Mr. John son, with practiced artistry, played upon the over-

wrought emotions of Congress and the people asking approval of controversial legislation as a "tribute" to the fallen President. Will the Presi dent continue in this vein ? Will he, too, in 1964, try to make political capital of the assassination ? Mr. Johnson's record indicates that he will. In the spring of 1956, the primary elections in Texas were a contest, between the liberal forces of Lyndon B. Johnson and the conservative for ces of Allan Shivers, for control of the Democrat Party. The Johnson forces won. In a speech to a B'nai B'rith convention in Washington ( May 8, 1956) , Johnson said that the victory of his liberal forces was a rejection of "the vicious attempt to inject racial hatred" into Texas politics. (12) But conservatives had not raised the racial issue! It was Johnson's liberals who talked about raci;1 ' hatred. More recently, in the Presidential campaign of 1 960, Mr. Johnson repeatedly insinuated that anyone opposed to him and Mr. Kennedy was anti-Catholic. Johnson relentlessly used the "re ligious issue" in 1 960, while accusing Republi cans of raising it, though Republicans carefully avoided the issue throughout the campaign. (13)

Is President Johnson more conservative than President Kennedy was ? He is not. Insofar as their voting records in the Senate can be com pared, the records reveal that Senator John F. Kennedy voted more conservatively than Senator Johnson. A tabulation of 43 key votes which Johnson cast in the Senate during 1959 and 1 960 (when he was majority leader) reveals that he voted with conservatives 3 times, with liberals 40 times - which gave him a conservative rat ing of 7%. His three conservative votes: ( I ) for retaining anti-communist loyalty oaths required by the National Defense Education Act; (2) for retaining cloture rules which permit "filibuster" in the Senate; (3) against increasing appropriations for the United States Informa tion Agency.

Johnson's 40 liberal votes in the Senate during 1959 and 1 960 :

Page 405

( 1 ) 10 votes for foreign aid; (2) 4 votes for public housing; ( 3 ) 7 votes for subsidies to pri vate industry; (4) 1 vote for subsidies to local governments; (5) 1 vote for liberal labor legisla tion; (6) I vote for federal aid to education; (7) 7 votes for social legislation - such as, federal aid to depressed areas, Youth Conservation Corps, the food stamp program, federal aid for sewage plants and other public works, extensions of Social Security benefits; (8) 2 votes for aid to communist nations; (9) 2 votes for civil rights measures; ( 1 0) I vote for federal hydro-electric power dams; ( 1 1 ) 1 vote for federal control of . elections; ( 1 2) 3 votes for measures promotmg the cause of world government.

J ohnson is a skillful moderator and compro

miser. Will he, therefore, be more tolerant of criticism than the late President was, thus mak ing possible forthright discussion of basic issues, with less bitterness than has prevailed in recent years ? President Johnson is not a tolerant man. It is interesting to compare his attitude toward con stitutional conservatives (whom he calls right wing extremists) with that of President Ken nedy. The late President did speak harshly, and often, in denunciation of "right-wing extremists." In fact, the speech he had scheduled for Dallas on the day of his assassination was on that sub ject; but President Kennedy never . �ublicly threatened to silence his "right-wing" cnt1cs. On the other hand, note some remarks by Mr. John son, in May, 1963, during a speech to a group of new frontier lawyers at Washington, D. C. Mr. Johnson accused "right-wingers" of irre sponsibility, saying: "But we cannot afford paralysis, and paralysis is what this irresponsibility will bring if it is not checked. I do not accept the counsel of those who continue to say that irresponsibility .shou!d be left to run its own course. By defimtIon, Ir responsibility has �o s�lf-limiti�g .c�paci�y. There is no point at whIch Irre�ponsIbIhty wIll volun tarily stop. and responsIbly assess the consequences 0f ItS course. " ( 14)

Is that not a threat to muzzle critics whom Mr. Johnson regards as "irresponsible ?"

doubtful. On July 1 3, 1963, Mr. Johnson spoke in Cheyenne, Wyoming, defending Senator Gale McGee ( liberal Democrat, Wyoming) . Senator McGee is in political trouble in Wyoming, be cause of the growing strength of constitutional conservatives. Mr. Johnson called conservatives "peddlers of doubt" and denounced their views as "reactionary. " He said: "The West will not flourish a s the 20th Cen tury's land of prosperity if it is turned backward into an 1 8th Century desert of political un ,, reality. (l5 )

The 1 8th Century produced the American con stitutional system. No other country, in any o::her period of recorded history, was blessed with as much political "reality," genius, wisdom, and learning as the 1 3 American States which sent the Founding Fathers to a Constitutional Con vention at Philadelphia in May, 1787.

T he

nation has cause for grave concern be cause of Johnson's attitude toward unions and the negro vote. President Kennedy catered to union bosses and negro leaders, but not to the degree that Johnson does. President Kennedy, in delibly identified as an eastern liberal, had the foregone support of union bosses and negro leaders almost in the same way that the Democrat Party for a long time had a political brass collar on the Solid South. Johnson, being a Texan, identified with oil and cattle, still feels a need to prove himself with negro and union leaders despite his consistent support of all major pro grams advocated by negro organizations and un ions. It is significant that one of the first tele phone calls Mr. Johnson made as President was to David Dubinsky, head of the Ladies Garment Workers Union, a powerful political figure in extreme leftwing labor circles. Martin Luther King and Roy Wilkins - extremist leftwing ne gro leaders - were among the first non-govern mental persons whom President Johnson invited to the White House for conference.

Does President Johnson have more respect for the American constitutional system than his immediate predecessors in the presidency ? It is Page 406

The Road Ahead

In less than three years, opposition to the Ken-

nedy administration aroused and mobilized con servative forces. If President Kennedy had lived, and if conservatives had found ( in Senator Gold water or someone else) a candidate to stand squarely on constitutional grounds and directly oppose every major policy of the Kennedy admin istration, elections in 1964 could have been a magnificent example of the American "democratic process." Well-informed conservatives had no doubt about the outcome of such an election: voters would have rejected the new frontier. Pub lic opposition to the late President's policies had already reached the proportions of a major politi cal revolt - and was growing fast. The late President had become the primary symbol of the forthcoming political struggle: on the one hand, the foremost leader of liberalism ; on the other, the arch political foe of conserva tism. With the symbol now become a martyr, and with the forces of liberalism using the martyrdom for political gain, the picture is confusing. The confusion will be compounded by President John son, who, despite his record, has already con vinced many that he is a moderate conservative. This has prompted liberal Republicans to in tensify their campaign against Senator Goldwater - in favor of some "moderate," like Richard M. Nixon. If Republicans wish to win against President Johnson in 1964, they had better nominate a con-

stitutional conservative. Johnson will make any other kind of Republican opponent look foolish.

It may be that liberal Republicans would rather lose the presidential election next year than win with a real conservative; but one thing is certain: a 1964 election in which voters again have to choose between two candidates standing for identical policies would be damaging to the cause of liberty. Constitutional conservatives can obviate such development. The murder of a President has em phatically proved the correctness of a basic con servative stand - namely, that communists are dangerous in the United States and should be made to obey the laws of the land. The current frenzy of liberals proves that the educational work of constitutional conservatives is changing the climate of public opinion. Constitutional conservatives should intensify their educational work. Those who support cam paigns to get independent ballot positions for conservatives next year, should redouble their ef forts. Those who support Goldwater should press the Senator to make a clear and emphatic de cision soon. It is time to end the moratorium on discussions of vital issues.

in American Civilization.

In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years on FBI headquarters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation. In 1951, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television pro grams, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business - a free enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales : sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine; and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising ve hicle. The Report and the broadcast give only one side in presenting documented truth about important issues - the side that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States. If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can help immensely - by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts. Page 407

Conservatives have nothing to be defensive or apologetic about. What an advantage this gives them ! *

:::

( 4 ) For a comprehensive discussion of fascism, nazism, commu nism, socialism, and socialism in America, see the Reports "Does The U. S. Oppose Communist World Conquest?", November 1 1 , 1963; "How Did Socialism Grow In The U. S . ? " , Novem ber 1 8 , 1 963; and "Socializing America," November 2 5 , 1963; set of three for 50c. ( 5 ) Remarks of U. S. Representative Herman Toll ( Democrat, Pennsylvania ) , Congressional Record, December 2, 1963 ( daily) , pp. A7346

For The Record George Soule, mentioned on Page 364 of the November 1 8, 1 963, issue of this Report ( as a member of the League for Industrial Democ racy ) , is George Harry Soule, ]r., a former pro fessor at Bennington College and long-time edi tor of The New Republic. He is not the same as George Soule, President of Soule College, New Orleans, Louisiana.

( 6 ) "The Radical Right In America Today," by Victor G . and Walter P. Reuther, The Christian Beacon, August 1 5 , 1963, pp. 4-5 ( 7 ) "Civil Liberties Union: Oswald Attended Group's Meeting," by George Carter, The Dallas Times Herald, December 1 1 , 1 963, p. 39A; "JFK Making Rights Progress, Oswald Said to Ac quaintance," by Kent Biffle, The Dallas Morning News, De cember 1 2, 1963, Section 4, p. 5 ( 8 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, November 29, 1 963, p. 4A ( 9 ) "Sees Passage Of Kennedy's Major Plans," The Sun-Telegram, San Bernardino, California, November 24, 1 963, p. 2 ( 10 ) Congressional Quafterly Weekly Report, November 29, 1963, p. 2 100 ( 1 1 ) " Hate Issue Arises In Louisiana Race," by Fred Pass, The Dallas Morning News, December 6, 1963, Section 1 , p. 7

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Memorandum: Propaganda Activities Of Military Personnel Directed At.The Public," by U. S. Senator ]. William Fulbright, Congressional Record, August 2, 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 4433-6 (bound ) , pp. 1 3436-9 ( daily ) ( 2 ) "God's Word to Man In The Cross," by Rev. J. Claude Evans, The South Carolina Methodist Advocate, Columbia, South Carolina, Vol. 1 27, No. 47, November 28, 1963, pp. 5, 8-9 ( 3 ) "Opinion of the Week: At Home and Abroad," The New York TImes, November 24, 1 963, p . E9

WHAT YOU

( 1 2 ) "Johnson Calls Vote Anti-Bias, Cites Victory To B'nai B'rith," by Paul Tobenkin, The New York Hef,lId Tribune, May 9, 1 9 5 6 ( 1 3 ) U P I dispatch from Los Angeles, The Dallas Morning News, September 10, 1960 ( 14 ) "Washington Wire," The Dallas Morning News, June 3, 1 963, Section 1, p. 18 ( 1 5 ) UPI dispatch from Cheyenne, The Dallas Times Herald, July 14, 1963, p. 2 1A

CAN DO

Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption - and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism. What can you do about it? You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government_ When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come. If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you : Have you urged others to subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers, debaters, students, writers ? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books - The Invisible Government, The Hope Of The World, America's Promise?

Subscription : 1962 Bound Volume

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

The Invisible Government

Paperback Clothback The Hope Of The World America's Promise

Film Catalogue Reprint List

- $ 3.00 - $ 5.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - Free - Free

STREET ADDRESS

( Add 2% Sales Tax

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4 Page 408

ZIP CODE

STATE

CITY

TAYLOR 1 -2303

Texas)

THE o

IJ(JII SmootlIe,o,t Vol. 9, No. 52

(Broadcast 436)

December 30, 1963,

Dallas, Texas DAN

SMOOT

FOU RTH ROLL CALLS

Herein

is tabulated the fourth group of roll call votes made in the United States Congress during 1963 : 1 4 roll calls in the Senate; 1 1 in the House. These, plus others reported during the year, make 64 roll call votes tabulated for the First Session of the 88th Congress : 34 in the Senate; 30 in the House. Computing percentages on all 34 Senate roll calls tabulated this year, we find that 5 United States Senators have a conservative voting record of 80ro or better : Strom Thurmond ( Dem., S. C.) - 94% ; Barry Goldwater ( Rep., Ariz.) - 93% ; John G. Tower ( Rep., Texas) - 88% ; Carl T. Curtis ( Rep., Neb.) - 86% ; Milward L. Simpson ( Rep., Wyo.) 82%.

Computing percentages on all 30 House roll calls tabulated to date, we find that 19 United States Representatives have a conservative voting record 90ro or better. Seventeen of the best U. S. Representatives are Republicans ; 2 are Democrats : 1 00% - Ralph F. Beermann ( Rep., Neb. ) , August E. Johansen ( Rep., Mich.) 97% - John M. Ashbrook ( Rep., Ohio ) , Joe Pool ( Dem., Texas) 96% - Clarence E. Kilburn ( Rep., N.Y.) 93% - Bruce Alger ( Rep., Texas ) , Donald C. Bruce ( Rep., Ind . ) , Durward G. Hall ( Rep., Mo. ) , Elmer J. Hoffman ( Rep., Ill. ) , James B. Utt ( Rep., Calif. ) 9 2 % - Homer E. Abele ( Rep., Ohio ) , Ed Foreman ( Rep., Texas) , Dave Martin ( Rep., Neb.) , WilÂ liam E. Minshall ( Rep., Ohio) 90% - Donald D. Clancy ( Rep., Ohio ) , Glenn Cunningham ( Rep., Neb. ) , James A. Haley ( Dem. Fla. ) , James H. Quillen ( Rep., Tenn . ) , M. G. Snyder ( Rep., Ky.)

I nternational Coffee Agreement

On May 2 1 , 1 963, the United States Senate ( by a stand of 74 to 2 2 ) ratified the International Coffee Agreement Treaty which, in effect, empowers an international cartel to control prices and shipments of coffee throughout the world. The Treaty guarantees large annual coffee sales for THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 ( office address 6441 Gaston Avenue ) . Subscription rates : $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO ) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues : 1 copy for 2 5 Â˘ ; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10. 00 - each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No reproductions permitted. Page 409

communist Cuba, while denying guarantees to Japan and Nationalist China. On November 14, 1963, the House ( by a stand of 203 to 1 66) passed HR 8864, to implement the Coffee Agreement for two years. The votes are recorded in column 2 1 under Senate ; in col umn 27 under House. C indicates a conservative stand against this international price fixing. Manpower Training

On September 4, 1 963, the Senate (by a stand of 61 to 28) approved S 1 7 1 6 , extending the un constitutional Manpower Training program for two years and increasing the cost to 326 million dollars. On September 6, 1 963, the Senate ( by a stand of 5 8 to 3 3 ) approved S 1831, expand ing the Manpower program and authorizing an other 1 00 million dollars. These votes are re corded in columns 22 and 2 3 under Senate. C is a conservative stand against. Aid To Education

On September 1 2 , 1 963, the Senate ( by a stand of 85 to 10) passed HR 1 2 , authorizing ( 1 ) un limited funds for loans to medical students, and ( 2 ) $175,000,000 for grants to construct medical school facilities. This vote is recorded in column 24 under Senate. C is a conservative vote against. HR 495 5 : ( 1 ) increased annual authorization for grants to state and local vocational schools from 57 million to 243 million dollars; ( 2 ) ex panded the scope of vocational education activ ities; ( 3 ) extended the National Defense Educa tion Act for another two years; and (4) extended for another two years the program of federal aid to schools in "federally impacted" areas - areas where large numbers of federal personnel, civil ian or military, create special school problems. The Senate approved this Bill on October 8, 1 963 ; but it was different from a version approved by the House. A conference, or compromise, version was approved by the Senate on December 1 3 ; by the House on December 1 2 . The Senate vote, re corded in column 28 under Senate, reflects the stand of Senators on HR 495 5 as originally approved, and on the conference version. The House vote, tabulated in column 30 under House, reflects the stand of Representatives on the con-

ference version of HR 495 5 . C indicates a con servative stand against HR 495 5 . Disarmament Agency and Test Ban Treaty

On November 20, 1 963 , the House ( by a stand of 257 to 1 38 ) passed S 777, authorizing a 1 000/0 increase in Disarmament Agency funds for the next two years. The vote is recorded in column 28 under House. C is a conservative stand against. On September 24, 1 963, the Senate ( by a stand of 81 to 1 9 ) ratified the Test Ban Treaty. This was one of the first results of the Disarmament Agency's activities. This vote is recorded in col umn 2 5 under Senate. C is a conservative stand against. Fishing Boat Construction Subsidies

On October 2, 1 963, the Senate (by a stand of 77 to 1 7 ) passed S 1 006, extending subsidies for the construction of new fishing boats for another 5 years. This program was initiated during the Eisenhower administration as a result of financial difficulties encountered by American fishermen be cause of heavy competition from foreign nations, especially Japan. The vote is listed in column 26 under Senate, C indicating a conservative stand against. Civil Rights Commission

On October 1 , 1 963, the Senate ( by a stand of 80 to 1 7 ) voted to extend the life of the Civil Rights Commission for one year. This extension was in the form of an amendment, or rider, by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) to a private bill ( HR 3369 ) . The "rider" technique prohibited the House from taking a separate vote on the Civil Rights Commission question. Hence, HR 3369, signed into law (PL 88- 1 5 2 ) on October 7, 1963, ex tended the life of the Civil Rights Commission, without specific approval of the House of Repre sentatves. The Senate vote is recorded in column 27, under Senate. C is a conservative stand against. Water Poll ution Agency

On October 1 6, 1 963 , the Senate ( by a stand of 84 to 1 2 ) passed S 649, establishing a federal Water Pollution Control Agency. This legislation

Page 410

authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue regulations preventing the manu facture and use of detergents he determines will contribute to "interstate pollution" of streams and water. The Secretary is also empowered to ob tain court orders compelling states to comply with his regulations. This vote is recorded in col umn 29 under Senate. C is a conservative stand against. Foreign Aid

On August 23, 1 963, the House passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963 (HR 7885 ) , auth orizing 3.5 billion dollars in foreign aid for the coming fiscal year. In the Senate, efforts were made to amend the Act before it was passed. Senator Frank J. Lausche ( Democrat, Ohio) proposed an amendment to prevent the President from continuing to give "most-favored-nations" tariff treatment to com munist Yugoslavia and communist Poland. Most favored-nations treatment means placing our low est tariff rates against the goods of a nation which applies its lowest tariff rates to our goods. The Senate rejected the Lausche amendment. The Senate adopted an amendment to the Foreign Aid Act proposed by Senator Hubert Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota) , exempting the Peace Corps and the Cultural Exchanges Program from any restrictions imposed by Congress on any other foreign aid activities. On November 1 5, 1963, the Senate passed its revised version of the Foreign Aid Bill, author izing 3.7 billion dollars 200 million dollars more than the House had authorized on August 23. On December 9, 1963, the House approved a conference version of the Foreign Aid Bill. The Senate approved the conference version on De cember 1 5 . Three Senate roll calls on the Foreign Aid Bill are tabulated below. In column 30, under Senate, C indicates a conservative stand for the Lausche amendment to end most-favored-nations treatment of communist nations. In column 3 1 , under -

Senate, C indicates a conservative vote against

the Humphrey amendment. In column 32, under

Senate, C indicates a conservative vote against the Foreign Aid Bill itself. In column 20, under House, C indicates a con servative vote against the Foreign Aid Bill, as it was originally passed in the House and as it was revised in conference. District of Columbia Welfare

On November 18, 1963, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (Democrat, Connecticut) sponsored an administration amendment to a House Bill (HR 7 5 3 1 ) , attempting to extend general federal pub lic welfare assistance programs to the District of Columbia. The Senate (by a stand of 50 to 40 ) rejected this move - primarily because of recent disclosures about corruption and abuse in the District of Columbia welfare programs. The Senate vote is tabulated in column 33 under Senate. C is a conservative vote against extending federal welfare programs to the District. Data Processing

HR 5 17 1 authorized the General Services Ad ministration to purchase and maintain all data processing equipment used by all federal agencies. Primary opposition to the Bill resulted from se curity considerations. With all classified data con trolled by one agency, a security leak in that agency could endanger all classified secrets of the federal government. For these reasons , such agen cies as the National Aeronautics and Space Ad ministration opposed HR 5 17 1 . The Bill was also opposed on grounds of economy. United States Representative Joe Pool (Democrat, Texas) noted that the Bill does not provide for competitive bidding. The Comptroller General testified- that the government is already losing millions of dol lars a year by negotiating contracts for data pro cessing machines, instead of purchasing them through the process of competitive bids. Nonetheless, the House (by voice vote on July 1 8, 1 963 ) approved HR 5 17 1 , although many agencies and departments affected had not been given an opportunity to testify in hearings on the Bill. United States Representative August E. Johan sen (Rep ublican, Michigan ) introduced a motion

to recommit HR 5 1 7 1 , saying it was so badly writ-

Page 4 1 1

ten and so strongly opposed by many federal agencies on security grounds that further hearings should be held. The House, by a stand of 263 to 1 0 1 , defeated the Johansen motion to recommit. This vote is tabulated in column 2 1 under House. C indicates a conservative vote against HR 5 1 7 1 . House Resolution 3 1 4 would have authorized a trip (by Roman 1. Pucinski and four other members of a subcommittee on Education and Labor) to Moscow for a study of the Soviet Union's data processing center. The purpose of the proposed trip was to get information which might encourage Congress to finance a similar "data processing center" for the United States. On October 28, 1963 , the House (by a stand of 199 to 1 54 ) rejected House Resolution 3 14. This vote is recorded in column 25 under House. C indicates a conservative vote against sending the House group to Moscow. National Science Foundation

On November 20, 1 963 , the Senate (by a stand of 65 to 2 2 ) defeated an administration effort to increase funds for the National Science Foun dation by $49,800,000. This vote is recorded in Column 34 under Senate. C is a conservative vote against increasing the funds. Mental Health Funds

On September 1 0, 1 963, the House passed S 1 576, authorizing 2 38 million dollars for a three year program of federal aid to construct local mental health centers and research facilities, and to train teachers for the mentally retarded. The Bill was revised in conference to make it coincide with a Senate version. The house passed the con ference version of the Mental Health Funds Bill on October 2 1 , 1963. The House vote is recorded in column 22 under House. C is a conservative vote against the Bill. Tax Cut

On September 2 5 , 1 963, the House (by a stand of 272 to 1 5 5 ) passed HR 8363. This Bill, pres ently stalled in the Senate, was one of the late President Kennedy's two most important bills. Although it would, presumably, lower some per sonal and corporation income taxes, it would raise

taxes on many lower and middle-income individ uals. A main conservative objection to the Bill is that it reduces revenue without reduction in spending, thus causing more deficit financing and increased debt. Vote on the Bill is recorded in column 2 3 under House. C is a conservative vote against. H istory Control

On October 1 5 , 1963, the House (by a stand of 185 to 181 ) passed HR 6237, authorizing $500,000 a year, for five years, to federal agencies, state and local agencies, and non-profit organiza tions for the "collecting, describing, editing, and publishing . . . of documentary sources significant to the history of the United States." United States Representative Richard H. Poff (Republican. Vir ginia) , arguing that such scholastic projects should be financed privately, said the Bill confers upon federal agencies the power to rewrite the history of this country. Vote on this Bill is recorded in column 24 under House. C is a conservative vote against. The Bill is pending in the Senate. National Debt

On November 7, 1963, the House (by a stand of 2 1 0 to 202 ) passed HR 8969 , authorizing an other (the third in this session) "temporary" in crease in the national debt (to 3 1 5 billion dol lars) . The vote is tabulated in column 26 under House. C indicates a conservative stand against. The Senate has also passed the Bill. The Senate vote will be recorded in a subsequent Report. D. C. Subway

On December 9, 1963, the House ( by a stand of 285 to 8 3 ) rejected HR 8929. Originally pro posed by President Kennedy in a special message to Congress on May 27, 1 963, and endorsed by President Johnson, this Bill would have author ized a publicly-owned subway rail transit system for the city of Washington. The project would have required direct federal expenditures of 1 20 million dollars, and federal underwriting of $258,900,000 in bonds. The vote is tabulated in column 29 under House. C is a conservative vote

against.

Page 412

ROLL

A " C " indicates a conse rvative stand.

A n " L " indicates a liberal stand.

C ALL

Column # 2 1 - - International C offee Agreement Treaty, Exec H i #22 School Funds. HR 12; 1/25 -- Test Ban Treaty. Exec M : 1/26

VOTES

A "0" indicates that the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E

S enator was not a member at the time of the vot e .

Manpower Training Extension, S 1716; H 2 3 - - Manpower Training Revision,

"-" indicates the

S 1 8 3 1 ; #24 - - Medical

Fishing Boat Construction Subs i d i e s , S 1 0 0 6 ; #27 - - Civil Rights Commission Renewal, HR 3369;

#28 -

Vocational Education Funds and Revision. HR 4 9 5 5 ; #29 - - Water Pollution Agency, S 649; 1/ 3 0 - - " mo s t - Cavored- nation" treatment (or communist nation s , HR 7 8 8 5 ; __

ff 3 I

Peace Corps and Cultural Exchange exemptions , H R 7 8 8 5 ; fl 3 Z - - Foreign A i d Authorization, H R 7 8 8 5 ; fl 3 3 - - D . C . participation i n federal welfare programs.HR 7431;

fl34 -- National Science Foundation Funds , HR 8747 21

L L

e C

L L

C L

L L

e C

G C

ALABAMA

MONTANA

Hill. Lister

(D)

Sparkman. John J.

(D)

ALASKA

Bartlett, E . L. (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) Goldwater. Barry

(R)

(D)

ARKANSAS

Fulbright. J. William

McClellan, John L.

(D)

CALIFORNIA Engle. Clair

(D)

Kuchel, Thomas H .

(R)

Dominick. Peter H.

(R)

C L

0 L

L L

COLORADO Allott, Gordon

(D)

Ribicoff, Abraham A.

(D)

0 0 0

Curtis, Carl T .

(R)

Hruska, Roman L.

(R)

NEVADA Bible, Alan

O L

0 0

(D)

Cannon, Howard W.

(D)

NEW HAMPSHlRE Cotton, Norris

(R)

Mcintyr e , Thomas J.

(D)

Case, Clifford P.

(R)

Williams , Harrison A . , J r . (D) Anderson, C linton P. Mechem, Edwin L .

(D)

(R)

NEW YORK Javits, Jacob K.

(R)

Keating, Kenneth B.

(R)

NOR TH CAROLINA

Boggs , J. Caleb

(R)

Ervin, Samuel J .

•

Jr.

Holland. Spessard L.

(D)

Burdick, Quentin N.

Smather s , George A.

(D)

C C

Young, Milton R.

0 0

Williams . John J.

(R)

Jordan, B. Everett

(D)

NORTH DAKOTA

FLORIDA

GEORGIA �l. Richard B.

(D)

Talmadge. Herman E.

(D)

HAWAII

Hiram L.

(R)

Inouye. Daniel K.

(D)

IDAHO �rch. Frank

(D)

Jordan, Len B .

(R)

ILLINOIS Dirksen. Everett M. Dougla s . Paul H .

(Rl

(D)

Hartke, R . Vance

(D)

IOWA ---,:rckenlooper. rBourke B . Miller. Jack

(R)

OHIO ----r:iusche, Frank J. Young, Stephen M . OKLAHOMA

Edmondson. J . Howard Monroney, A . S.

(D)

(Mike)

(D)

----son. -carl Frank (R) Pearson. James B. (R)

KENTUCKY Cooper. John Sherman Morton, Thruston B.

(R)

LOUISIANA

Mors e . Wayne

(D)

Neuberger. Maurine B. Clark, Joseph S . Scott, Hugh

•

(D)

Jr.

(D)

L C

(R)

RHODE ISLAND Pastore, John O. Pell, C laiborne

(D)

SOUTH CAROLINA

Johnston, Olin O.

Thurmond, J. Strom

(D)

McGovern. George (D) Mundt, Karl E . (R) TENNESSEE

Gore, Albert

(D)

Walters, Herbert S .

Long. Russell B.

(D)

L L

(D)

C C

C L

L C

C L

C C

L L

C C

MAINE �kie, Edmund S.

(D)

Smith, Margaret Chase

(R)

MARYLAND Beall, J. Glenn (R) Brewster. Daniel B.

(D)

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M.

(D)

Saltonstall, Leverett

(R)

MICHIGAN

Hart. Philip A.

(D)

McNamara. Pat

(D)

McCarthy, Eugene J.

(D)

MISSOURI

�E dward

(D)

A "C " indicales a conservative stand. cates the Representative was not __

(R)

(D)

(R)

Prouty, Winston L. (R) VIRGINIA �Harry Flood (D)

Robertson, A. Willis

(D)

Jackson, Henry M . (D) Magnuson. Warren G. (D)

WEST VIRGINIA

Byrd,

Robert C .

(D)

Randolph, Jennings

WISCONSIN

(D)

Nelson, Gaylord A .

(D)

Proxmir e , William

(D)

An "L" indicates a liberal stand.

McGee, Gale W , -

(D)

Simpson. Milward L.

(R)

HOUSE

A "0" indicates that the Repres entative was absent or did not take a public stand.

A " - " indi

member at the time of the vote.

Foreign Aid Authorization, HR 7885; H Z l -- Data Processing C entralization, HR 5 1 7 1 ; fiZZ -- Mental Health Funds, S 1 57 6 ; HZ3 - - Tax Cut and Revision,

Aid to History, HR 6Z37; flZ5 -- Moscow Data Proc e s s ins: Trip. H R e s 3 1 4 ; HZ6

m e n t Laws . H R 8 8 6 4 ; II Z 8

-- National Debt Increas e . HR 8969; H Z 7 -- International C offee A g r e e

Disarmament Agency F u n d s , S 7 7 7 ; 1129 - - D . C . Subway, HR 8 9 Z 9 ; # 3 0 - - Vocational Education Funds a n d Extension, HR 4 9 5 5 20

24 2 5

L L

ARIZONA

ALABAMA Andrews , George W . Elliott, Carl

�Gcor s c

(D)

WYOMING

Symington. Stuart (D)

HR 8 3 6 3 ; flZ4

M o s s . Frank E. VERMONT

Humphrey, Hubert H . MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O .

(R)

Yarborough, Ralph W . UTAH --aennett. Wallace F.

WASHINGTON

MINNESOTA

Stennis . John

�er, John

(D)

TEXAS

Ellender, Allen J.

OREGON

SOUTH DAKOTA

KANSAS

Column fl Z O

(R)

(D)

PENNSYLVANIA

INDIANA � Birch

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

�,

N E W MEXICO

CONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J.

Metcalf, Lee

NEBRASKA

ARIZONA Hayden. Carl

(D)

Mansfield, Michael J .

(D)

Grant, George M.

(D)

Huddleston. George.

Jouc::o , RobcJ."L E.

Rains , Albert (D)

Jr.

(D)

Roberts, Kenneth A .

(D)

L (D)

Selden. Armistead 1 . , J r .

ALASKA Rive r s , Ralph J.

(D)

0 L

L 0 0 C

L 0

�,

John J.

(R)

Senner, George F . , Jr. Ud:l.ll. Morris K.

ARKANSAS

OaLhll1gs .

Harris. Oren

(D)

e 0

(D)

Mills, Wilbur D.

Trimble, James W .

C A LIFORNIA Baldwin, John F . , Jr.

Page 413

(D)

(D) (D) (R)

0 L 0

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

CALIFORNIA (cont ' d )

Bell, Alphonzo E . , J r .

B r o w n , George E .

(R)

Jr.

•

{D}

Burkhalter, Everett G .

Cameron, Ronald B . Clausen, Don H . Clawson, Del

(D)

(D) (D)

Edwards, W. Donlon

(D)

Gubs e r , Charles S .

Hagen, Harlan

(D)

(R)

Hawkins. Augustus F.

Holifield, Chet Hosmer. Craig

(R)

Leggett, Robert L .

John J.

(D)

George P.

M o s s , John E.

Roosevelt, James

Shelley, John F.

(D)

Sheppard, Harry R. B. F.

(R)

Wilson, Charles H .

(D)

Younger. J. Arthur

(R)

COLORADO

A s pinall, Wayne N .

(R)

Chenoweth, J. Edgar

(R)

L L

0 0

L C

L L

0 0

L L C

L o

Bruce, Donald C.

M c Dowell, Harris B . , Jr . Bennett, Charles E .

(D)

Cramer, William C.

(R)

Fascell, Dante B. Fuqua, Don

Denton. Winfield K .

Madden, Ray J.

L ----si o mwell. James E.

0 L

L C

0 0

Wilson, Earl

Gibbons , Sam M.

(D)

Haley, James A.

(D)

Gurney, Edward J. Herlong,

Gros s , H.

Kyl, John H.

SChwengel.

Smith, Neal

�YI

Roge r s , Paul G.

Forrester,

E. L .

Hagan, G . Elliott L.

HAWAII

L L

0 0 0

L L

(D)

(R)

Rostenkowski, Daniel

L L L

C C

L L

C C

L 0

0 0

O L

L L

O L

0 0

L L

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 C

0 0

L 0

L L

0 0 0 L

0 L

0 0 0

L L

e 0 0

0 0 0 0 o

0 L

L C

L L

0 0 0 L

L L

0 0 L L

0 L O

L L

C L

L L

0 0

Page 414

C C

(D)

C C

(D)

C C

(D)

0 e 0

(R)

C C

(D)

C C C

(D)

C C

(D)

0 L

(D)

0 0

(D)

Pucinski. Roman C. Reid, Charlotte

(R)

Murphy, William T.

Price, Melvin

(R)

C C C

(R)

Thunl4"

C C C

(D)

McLoskey, Robert T.

O'Hara, Barratt

(D)

Libonati, Roland V .

O ' l) r1t :: H ,

(R)

Finnegan, Edward R .

Michel, Robert H.

(D)

(R)

McClory, Robert

(R)

Kluczynski, John C.

(R)

Gray, Kenneth J .

0 0

(D)

Chelf, Frank

(R)

L C

Shrive r , Garner E.

L C

Skubitz, Joe

KENTUCKY

Jr.

HoHman, Elmer J.

(R)

L C

Derwinski, Edward J. Findley, Paul

(R)

(D)

Dawson, William L .

William H .

Matsunaga, Spark M.

Arend s , Leslie C.

(R)

(D)

IDAHO

Collier, Harold R .

(D)

Jr.

(D)

Anderson, John B.

(D)

ILLINOIS

(D)

White, Compton 1 . ,

(D)

�ding, Ralph R.

L C

(D)

Weltner, Charles L. --crrr;- Thomas P.

L L

(D)

L C

(D)

Tuten, J. Russell

L C

Stephens , Robert G . , Vinson, Carl

(D)

Landrum, Phil M.

Pilcher, J.

(D)

Flynt, John J . , J r .

Davis , John W .

(R)

Ellsworth, Robert F.

(R)

(D)

Sikes , Robert L.

(R)

Fred

Dole, Robert

(R)

Jensen, Ben F.

(D)

GEORGIA

Hoeven, Charles B.

(D)

Pepper, Claude

A. Sydney, Jr .

Matthews, D . R .

(R)

IOWA

L KANSAS

L 0

L (R)

(D)

Roush, J. Edward

C O

(R)

L C

(D)

(R)

Roudebush. Richard L.

(D)

(R)

Halleck, Charles A . Harvey, Ralph

DELAWARE FLORIDA

(R)

(D)

L L

(R)

Bradema s , John Bray, William G .

Adair. E . Ross

L L

INDIANA

(R)

L L

(D)

Springer , William L.

Shipley, George E.

(R)

Rumsfeld , Donald

20 2 1 22 2 3 24 2 5 26 27 28 29 30

ILLINOIS (cont'd)

L e

L L C

0 0 0 0 0

(D)

L L

(R)

L (D)

(D)

St . Onge, William

(D)

Bernard P.

Sibal, Abner W.

(D)

C ONNECTICUT

Monagan, John S.

(D)

Daddario, Emilio Q .

Brotzman, Donald G .

Grabowski,

(D)

Giaimo, Robert N.

(R)

Roger s , Byron G .

C C

Van Deerlin, Lionel Wilson, Bob

C C

Teague, Charles M. Utt, James B .

C C

(R)

Talcott, Burt L.

L L

(D)

Smith, H . Allen

(D)

0 0

(D)

Roybal, Edward R.

Sisk,

(R)

Mailliard, William S. Martin, Minor C.

L L

(D)

Lipscomb, Glenard P.

L L

(0)

(D)

Johnson, Harold T.

King, Cecil R .

(D)

(0)

Hanna, Richard T.

L L

(R)

Corman, James C.

McFall,

(D)

(R)

C ohelan, Jeffery

Miller.

L L e

C C

MISSISSIPPI (cont'd) Whitten, Jamie L.

(D)

Williams , John Bell Winstead, Arthur

(D)

0 0 0

MISSOURI Bolling, Richard

(D)

Curtis, Thomas B .

(R)

Hall, Durward G .

(R)

Hull, W. R . , Jr.

(D)

Ichord, Richard (D) Jone s , Paul C.

(D)

Karsten, Frank. M.

(D)

Sullivan, Leonor K .

(D)

Olsen, Arnold

(R)

(D)

Ashbrook, John M.

(R)

Ashley,

(D)

--p;jiele, Homer E.

Ayres , William H.

(R)

Cunningham, Glenn Martin , Dave

(R)

Bolton, Frances P.

Bolton, Oliver P.

C e

C L

L L

C L

C e

C C

Brown, Clarence J .

Clancy, Donald D .

(R)

Devine, Samuel L.

L L

Harsha, William Ho , Jr,

Betts , Jackson E.

(D)

Hays, Wayne L.

Latta, Delbert L.

Wyman, Louis C.

(R)

McCulloch, William M.

Minshall, William E.

Schenck,

(R)

Paul F.

OKLAHOMA

Auchinclos s , James C. Cahill, William T.

(R)

Daniels, Dominick V.

Albert,

Edmondson, Ed

Jarman, John

Gallagher , Cornelius E. Glenn, Milton W.

(R)

(D)

(R)

Joelson, Charles S.

(D)

Minish, Joseph G .

(D)

Osmers, Frank C . , Jr.

(R)

Patten, Edward J . , Jr.

(D)

Peter W . , Jr.

(D)

Thompson, Frank, J r .

(D)

Wallhaus er, George M. Widnall, William B.

(R)

Frelinghuysen, Peter, Jr.

(R)

Belcher,

L L L

(D)

Dwyer, Florence P.

Page

Steed, Tom

(D)

L 0

Norblad, Walter

Ullman, Al

PENNSYLVANIA

Wickersham, Victor

C·

0 L

L C

0 0

0 L

Dague, Paul B.

(R)

Johnson, Albert W .

Kunkel,

John C .

McDade,

Jos eph M.

0 L

Goodling, George A. Holland, Elmer J.

(R)

(D)

(R)

Morgan, "Thomas E.

Nix, Robert N. C .

Mooreheaq., William S.

C C

Rhode s , George M.

Saylor, John P.

Rooney,

Fred B.

(D)

L 0

L L

o o

(R)

0 0

(D)

River s , L. Mendel

(D)

Watson, Albert W.

(D)

C C

McMillan, John L.

Berry, E.

Reifel, Ben

(R)

TENNESSEE

Everett, Robert A.

Evins , Joe L .

L o

Fulton, Richard

Quillen, James H .

(D)

Stratton, Samuel S.

0 c

0 e

Wharton, J. Ernest

(R)

NORTH CAROLINA

L o

(R)

Davi s , Clifford

Murray. Tom

(D) (D)

(D)

(R)

----p;:-yge r , Bruce

(R)

(D)

Beckworth, Lindley

Brooks , Jack

Casey, Robert R.

Dowdy, John

Fisher, O. Clark

Foreman,

C C L

0 0 L

Burleson, Omar

L L

Kilgore,

C C

C L

L e

C L

L L

Mahon,

NORTH DAKOTA

(D) (D)

0 0

C L

0 0

L 0 L

0 0

0 L

(D)

(R)

(D)

Gonzalez, Henry B . Joe M.

George H.

Patman, Wright Pool, Joe Purcell,

Page 415

(D)

(D) (D)

(D)

Grahan>

Roberts, Ray

CD)

(D)

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L L

L e L

L L

0 e

L L

C L

0 e

0 L e L

L L

L e

(D)

Poage , William R. C

(D)

L C

TEXAS

(R)

(D)

James T.

(R)

(D)

Brock, William E . , III

Herbert C .

(D)

SOUTH DAKOTA

Bas s , Ross

L L

Baker , Howard H.

L L

O L e

C C e

Hemphill, Robert W.

Dorn. W. J. Bryan (D)

o o

(R)

(D)

Jonas , Charles Raper

Kornegay, Horace R .

C C

L C

L L

St. Ge-rmain, F ernand J .

L C

L SOUTH CAROLINA L Ashmore, Robert T.

(D)

C C

Weaver,

(R) (R)

(D)

0 RHODE ISLAND L Fogarty, John E.

James D.

Whalley, J. Irving

o o

L C

Schweiker, Richard S .

Schneebeli, Herman T .

L L

L L L

L L

0 �

(R)

Toll, Herman

(D)

o L

(D)

(R)

(D)

(R)

Milliken, William H. , Jr.

(R)

o L

(D)

Fulton, James G .

(R)

(D)

(R)

Short. Don L.

(R)

Andrews , Mark

(R)

(D)

Curtin, Willard S.

Whitener , Basil L.

(D)

Lennon, Alton

Scott, Ralph J.

(R)

Taylor, Roy A.

(R)

(D)

Riehlman , R. Walter

(D)

C C

(R)

Robison, Howard W .

(D)

L C

Henderson, David N.

L L

Fountain, L. H.

L C

Cooley, Harold D.

L C

Bonner,

L C

Broyhill,

L C

(R)

L L

Wydler, John W.

L O

(R)

L C

St. George, Katharine

(D)

Ryan, William Fitts

(D)

C C

(D)

C L

Ros enthal , Benjamin S.

C L C

Rooney, John J.

C L C

(R)

Reid, Ogden R.

(R)

(D)

Powell, Adam C.

(D)

(R)

Jarnes A.

(R)

Byrne,

Pirni e , Alexander

Corbett, Robert J .

(R)

Pillion, John R.

C C

Clark, Frank M.

Lindsay, John V.

(D)

(R)

(D)

O ' Brien, Leo W .

Ostertag, Harold C.

(D)

(R)

Murphy, John M .

(D)

(R)

King, Carleton J 0

Multer , Abraham J.

Miller, William E.

(R)

Kilburn, Clarence E.

(R)

(D)

C L L

Becker, Frank J.

Keogh, Eugene J .

L L

(D)

(R)

(D)

Barry, Robert R.

Horton, Frank J .

Flood, Daniel J.

Kelly, Edna F .

Healey, James C.

(R)

C C

(R)

L L

(D)

Barrett, William A.

Grover, James R . , J r .

Goodell, Charles E.

Halpern, Seymour

(D)

Green, Edith

Gilbert, Jacob H .

(D)

(R)

C C

Farbstein, Leonard

C C

(R)

O C

(D)

O C

(D)

C C

Oerounian, Stephen B.

C C

Delaney, James J .

C C

Dulski, Thaddeus J.

C C

Duncan, �obert B.

(D)

Charles A.

OREGON

(D)

Celler, Emanuel

(D)

Carey, Hugh L.

(D)

(R)

Montoya, Jos eph M.

Pike, Otis G.

(R)

(D)

Morri s , Thomas G .

(D)

NEW YORK

Fino, Paul A.

(D)

Dent, John H .

Addabbo, Jos eph P.

NEW MEXICO

Buckley,

(R)

Taft, Robert, Jr.

Carl

(R)

(R) (R)

Secrest, Robert T.

NEW JERSEY

L (D)

Mosher, Charles A. Rich, Carl W.

(R)

Vanik, Charles A.

Cleveland, James C.

(O)

Kirwan, Michael J.

C C

(R)

(D)

NEW HAMPSIllRE

Rodino,

(R)

Feighan, Michael A.

(R) (R)

(R)

Bow, Frank T.

NEVADA Baring, Walter S.

(R)

NEBRASKA Beermann, Ralph F.

(R)

Thomas L.

C C

20 OIllO

MONTANA Battin, James F.

Randall, William J.

(D)

Cannon, Clarence

TEXAS ( cont'd)

�er s . Walter

(D )

Teague, Olin E .

(D )

Thoma s . Albert

UTAH

(D )

( D)

Thornberry I Horner Young. John

C C

(D) Thompson, Clark W . Wright, James C .

-SUrton, Laurence J .

(R )

Lloyd, Sherman P .

(R)

Stafford , Robert T .

(R )

VERMONT VIRGINIA

Abbitt, Watkins M .

(D)

Broyhill, Joel T . (R ) Downing. Thomas N . ( D) Gary, J. Vaughan ( D)

Hardy. Porter. J r .

Jennings J W. Pat

Marsh, John 0 .

Jr.

•

PofI. Richard H . Smith, Howard W . Tuck, William M .

WASHINGTON

Hansen, Julia B .

(R)

(D)

L L

C L L L L

C C

L L L L L

0 0

C C

L L

(D)

28 29

(D)

24 2 5 2 6 2 7

0 0

C L

(D) ( D)

C L

22 23

L L L L

0 0

L L C

C C C

C L

0 0 L L

0 L

20 2 1

WASHINGTON ( cont'd) Horan, Walt

2 2 2 3 24 2 5 26 27

(R J Ma y, Catherine (R ) Pelly. Thomas M . (R )

Tollefson, Thor C .

(R)

Stinson, K. William Westland, Jack

(R )

WEST VIRGINIA I-Iechler. Ken

Kee, Elizabeth

(D)

Moore. Arch A . Slack,

John M .

(R)

(D) •

•

Jr .

Jr.

Staggers. Harley O . WISCONSIN

(R )

(D) (D)

Byrnes . John W . (R ) Johnson, Lester R . {D}

Kastenrneier. Robert W . Laird, Melvin R .

O'Konski, Alvin E . Reus s , Henry S .

(R )

Thomson, Vernon W . Van Pelt, William K . Zablocki, C lement J .

(D)

(R )

L L

L L C

L C C

L L C C

L C C

0 L

0 0

C C C C

0 0 0

(D )

C C

(R)

Harrison, William Henry

(R)

(D ) Schadeberg. Henry C .

WYOMING

C L

L L

C L

L L

0 L

Consequences

relating this basic law to contemporary problems.

When members of Congress vote for federal aid to education, federal water pollution control, foreign aid, federal subsidies to the fishing in dustry - they vote for unconstitutional programs, because our Constitution does not authorize such federal activities. No matter how admirable the intent of such programs, when we permit the federal government to engage in activities for which it has no constitutional authority, we en dorse lawless government-which will eventually become total dictatorship.

(4) A series of Reports on the Supreme Court's Prayer Decision, with historical resear:ch tracing revolutions in constitutional doctrine which have corrupted the meaning of our organic law - to· gether with recommended action for curbing the Court and restoring law.

Bound Vol u mes

In the coming months of fateful political struggle, Bound Volumes of this Report will be invaluable reference books for all who want enlightened understanding of the great issues. Volumes prior to 1 962 are sold out and cannot be reprinted. Volume VIII is still available, how ever. It contains all Reports published during the 1 962 calendar year - more than 400 pages of research and analysis, bound in maroon fabri koid, extensively indexed, and with a table of contents. Volume VIII presents : ( 1 ) Tabulations of 16 important roll call votes in the U. S. Senate during 1 962, of 22 in the House. (2) Ratings of all Senators and Representatives, based on their actual votes, for the year 1 962. (3 ) The full text of the U. S. Constitution and amendments, fully indexed, with commentary

(5) Extensive discussions of such subjects as: Withholding Tax, Mississippi Tragedy, Berlin, Cuba, Laos, Congo, Council on Foreign Rela tions, Progressive Education, European Common Market, World Government, Wages of Socialism.

Bound Volume IX ( containing all ReportJ published during 1 963 calendar year ) will be available for delivery about February 1 5 , 1964. It will be bound to match previous editions, and will be extensively indexed. Bound Volume IX will present: ( 1 ) Tabulations of 64 important roll call votes in the U. S. Congress during 1 963. (2) Documented discussions of great controver sies which will be issues in the 1 964 elections, including Urban Renewal, Socialized Medicine, Alliance for Progress, General Foreign Aid, Def icit Financing, Tragedy of U. S. Membership in the UN, Disarmament, Civil Rights, Political Use of the Military Forces, Growing Strength of the Conservative Movement and Liberal Efforts to Suppress It. (3) A clear account of the assassination of President Kennedy, and of the aftermath. B ound Volume I X (1 963 calendar year) may be ordered now for late February delivery: $1 0.00 postpaid. Bound Volume VIII (1962) may be ordered for immediate delivery, same price.

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 214 Page 416

TAYLOR 1 -2303

Index t o Bound Volume IX of THE DAN SMOOT REPORT (1963)

A ABC Har riman on TV program of , quoted on India 9

AFRICA problem s , and UN actions 1 06 - 1 0 , 1 1 3 - 2 0 s lavery r eturning t o 1 1 4 violenc e in, planned by S oviets at 115 Accra C onference

A BOLISH THE WHOLE SYSTEM article 9 5 - 6 A C C E LERATED PUBLIC WORKS article on 1 6 3

AFRIC A 'S RED HARVEST by Pieter Les sing footnoted 1 2 0

A C C RA ( GHANA ) C ONFERENCE ON AFRICA African violence planned by Soviets at 1 1 5

AFRO-ASIAN BLOC power of, in UN 1 0 6 - 8 AGRARIAN REFORMS article 54 - 6

Ache s on , Dean G . c o - authors report for international control of atomic energy 1 4 2 law firm of, rec eived money from Betancourt 53 Special Advisor to Kennedy 53 ACLU s e e AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION article 3 64 - 5 AC TION American C ouncil to Improve Our Neighborhoods full name of 3 0 membership of Board o f Directors purpo ses of 30

ADA , s e e AMERICANS FOR DEMOC RATIC AC TION article 3 6 6 - 8 Adai r , E . Ross introduc es Bill to repeal Agricultural 128 Adjustment Act of 1 9 3 8 ADMINIS TRATIVE LAW , s e e BUREAUCRACY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND HEALTH FOODS article 2 2 " ADVERSE E F FEC TS OF THE EXPANDING .AC TIVITIES OF THE NA TIONAL GOVERNMENT ON THE PRIVATE EC ONOMY AND THE FEDERAL S Y S T E M : THE C ASE FOR FREE ENTE RPRISE AND LOCAL GOVERNME N T " r eport b y Library o f C ongr e s s , brief o f 3 69 - 7 3 ADVERTISING C OUNC IL part of Invi sible Government network 30 s ponsors f r e e radio and TV announc e ments f o r AC TION promoting urban r enewal 30 A F L - C I O OUT LINES THE PLAN article 76 - 7 AFL-CIO

e c onOITlic

theory o f 8 1 - 2 outlines Kennedy policy of planned deficit, quotes 7 6 - 7

AGRIC U L T URAL ADJUSTMENT A C T OF 1938 Adair introduc es Bill to repeal 128 provides f o r r eferendum votes b y farmers 121 AGRIC ULTURE ADJUSTMENT A C T OF 1933 r educed gold backing o f dollar 68 AGRIC U L T URE DEPARTMENT defies Hatch A ct in 1 9 6 3 wheat vote 342 AGRIC ULTURE , FEDERAL C ONTROLS OF adve r s e effects of 3 7 3 AGRIC ULTURE TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSIS TANC E A C T s e e PUBLIC LAW 480

A LLIANCE FOR PROGRESS actually started by Eis enhower 49 , 5 1 forcing communist dictatorships in Latin America 62 Kennedy quoted on 5 1 origins of 4 9 - 5 2 preparing Latin America for communi s m 1 0 8 promotes anti -American politicians 61 promotes s ocialistic agrarian r eform 54- 6 provisions and purpos es 5 1 -2 to expand gifts to Mexico 62 total foreign aid to countries of 64 uses Venezuela as showpi ece 5 3 - 4 A LLIANCE FOR PROGRESS - - PART I article 49 - 5 6 A L LIANCE FOR PROGRESS - - P A R T I I article 5 7 - 64 ALLIANCE FOR POLITICIANS article 6 1 ALLIANCE SHOWPIE C E article 5 3 ALLIED S T ORES C ORP . supports urban r enewal

Almond, Lt . General E dwar d M . testimony o n Korean war 11 ALUMINUM C O . OF AMERICA (ALC OA ) supports urban r enewal 3 0

AID TO EDUCA TION article 4 1 0

AMARILLO, TEXAS defeated urban r enewal

"AIDS T O Y OUR C OMMUNITY - PROGRAMS OF THE HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENC Y " booklet on urban renewal , quoted 31-2

AMENDMENTS T O U . S . C ONSTITUTI ON , s e e C ONSTIT UTION , U . S .

ALABAMA Kennedy quote d on s ending federal troops 172

AMERIC A : C ULMINATION OF THE C HRISTIAN IDEAL article 3 9 4 - 6

Ale s s andr i , Jorge visit to Kennedy

AMEROC AN A BOUT FAC E , A N 131 article

Alger , Bruce aims of ADA, quote 367 Bill to eliminate withholding tax introduced by, in 1 9 62 2 4 introduces Bill to g e t U . S . out o f UN 1 04 , 1 2 0 introduces Bill t o repeal Income T ax 96 on 1 9 64 Budget, quote 7 9 o n withholding tax, quote 2 7 7 places material o n defeat o f urban r enewal in C ongres sional Record 40 ALLEGHENY C ONFERENCE ON C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT supports urban r enewal 30

AMERICAN BROADCASTING C OMPANY , s e e A BC

AMERIC AN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION early history, founding 3 64 Founders li sted 3 64 Oswald attends meeting of, at SMU 403 r e lation to Socialist Party 3 64 shows film on evil of right-wing 403 supported by members of Wilson administration 3 64 AMERICAN C OMMITTEE ON AFRICA activities of 1 1 4 - 5 affiliated with C FR 1 14 officials of 1 1 4 supports c ommunist Holden Roberto in Angola 1 1 4 - 5

AMERICAN C OMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL C OOPERATION, THE part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with CFR 2 9 AMERICAN C OUNCIL TO IMPROVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS , s e e AC TION AMERICAN DRUGGIST warns of Drug Industry investigation, quote 1 8 AMERICAN FEDE RATIONIS T , THE r e c ommends higher federal spending and deficits , quotes 7 6 - 7 AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION part of " 1 3 1 3 M et r o " interlocked with C FR 2 9 AMERICAN NEGRO PROBLEMS communist book , quote 2 1 4 - 5 AMERICAN PROSPERITY article 67 - 8 AMERICAN S OCIETY FOR PUBLIC A DMINIS TRA TION part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro " interlocked with CFR 2 9 AMERICAN SOCIETY O F PLANNING OFFICIALS part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with CFR 29 AMERICAN -SOVIET R E LATIONS background of 24 1 - 5 AMERICAN S TANDARD footnoted 72 AMERICAN TRAGEDY , THE article 2 0 9 - 1 6 AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRA TIC ACTION aims and purpos e s of 3 6 7 - 8 endors e d statement b y Schle s inger on futur e of s ocialism, quote 3 6 7 - 8 founde r s o f , partial list 3 6 6 his tory of 3 6 6 - 8 prai s e d by communist party 2 2 5 - 6 r elation t o Socialist Party 3 6 6 - 7 AMERIC A 'S RETREAT FROM VIC TORY by Jos eph R. McC arthy footnoted 1 6 Anderson , Admiral George W . criticizes McNama r a ' s policie s , quote 2 9 9 ANDREW JOHNSON : A S T UDY I N C OURAGE b y Lloyd Paul Stryker footnoted 8 AND NOW artic l e

1 34

AND THEN THE MOON ? 31 article

Anfu s o , Victor L . anti -firearms Bill of, dis cus s e d

404

ANGOLA communist actions agains t , history of 1 1 5 - 9 comITIunist terrorists in, based in C ongo, Guine a 1 1 5 c ommunist terrorists in, get guns from U N - C ongo troops 1 18 d e s c ription of terror i n , by Gen. Howley 1 1 6 - 7 importance of, i n Africa 1 1 9 problems , and U . S . action 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 13-20 terror defended b y Adlai Stevenson 1 17 terror in, desc ribed by American C ommitte e on For eign Affairs , quote 1 1 7-8 U N action condemned b y Max Y e rgan , quote 1 18 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1 9 5 3 , HOUSE C OMMITTEE ON UN - AMERICAN ACTIVITIES footnoted 24 AREA RE DEVELOPMEN T , s e e also PUBLIC HOUSIN G ; URBAN RENEWAL article 2 6 7 - 8 ARGENTINA article 4 3 - 5 attitude of , toward American Industry 44 - 5 desc ription o f 44 Kennedy on U . S . r elations with, quote 43 labor unions dominate ec onomy U . S . foreign aid to 64

ASILOMAR NATIONAL S T RATEGY SEMINAR Nitz e , Rostow r e c oITunendations at 148 ASSASSINA TION , THE arti cle 3 7 7 - 84 ASSOCIA TED PRESS dispatch on gold quoted

1 82

AT LANTIC ALLIANC E , s e e NATO

(A II< P )

A T LANTIC II< PACIFIC TEA C O . supports urban renewal 3 1

AUSTRALIA angry at U . S . 109 angry a t U . S . for actions i n New Guinea 42 little progr e s s made by negroes 2 1 4 AUTHORITY FOR URBAN RENEWAL article 2 5 - 6 B BACKGROUND article on Laos

129-30

BAKER VERSUS CARR, s e e SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS - Tenne s s e e Election C as e Bakewell , Paul , J r . author o f Inflation i n the United States 69

ARMED FORC E S , U . S . abus e s of, by politicians 3 1 0 - 1 1 dependents of members to wear 192 uniforms Guderian plan for r eor ganization of 301-2 land c onfi s c ation di s c us s e d 2 3 6 - 7 McNamara and Kennedy implement Reuther r e c ommendations 2 9 0 - 1 McNamar a ' s abu s e of, di s cu s s ed 297 - 9 reor ganization di s c u s s ed 2 9 9 - 3 0 3 Reuther r e c ommends r emoval of right -wing memb e r s 2 9 0 - 1 ARMED FORCES INTEGRATION , s e e GESELL REPORT

BALANCE OF PAYME NTS, -s e e --also GOLD PROBLEM di s c u s s e d , defined 3 3 1 Baldwi n , Hanson W . article by, on M cNamara ' s Defens e Department, quoted 2 9 7 - 8 Balewa , Sir Abubakar Tafawa demands more UN pow e r , quote BALTIMORE , MARYLAND urban r enewal proj e ct , cost Baruch, B e rnard M . dis armament plan, in 1 94 5

1 07

141 -2

Bate s , Harry C . memb e r , Board of Dir e ctors of ACTION 30

A S BRAZIL GOES . article 59 - 6 1

BAY OF PIGS , s e e also C UBA John F . Kennedy ' S betrayal called "mistake" by Robert F . Kennedy 2 3 Kennedy brothers deny federal government had hand in ransom of pris oners 2 3 prisoners ransomed b y promi s e of tax cut to Drug Industry if c ontribuÂ tions made 2 3

ASIA communist China source and c enter of communism in 1 0

B e all , J . Glenn statement in favor of test ban treaty, quote 3 1 6

ARMS C ONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY , s e e DISARMAMENT AGENCY ARM Y , U. S . communists in

179-80

Becke r , Frank J . quoted on Kennedy tax reforms quoted on 1 9 64 budget 8 9 - 9 0

BOLIVIA U . S . foreign aid to

BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF E DUCATION , s e e SUPREME C OURT DEC ISIONS - - s chool s eg ragation c a s e

Bolling, Richard calls c onservative Democrats ' s ubversive s , ' quote 404 demands punishment of cons ervative Democ rat s 4 0 3 - 4

Beebe , Lucius quoted on Kuchel ' s attack on right wingers 178-9 Bees ley, Eugene N . opposition t o Kefauver Drug Indus try Bill 19

BOUND VOLUME article 1 6 , 56

BEGINNING, THE article 2 5 3 - 4

BOUND VOLUME VIII article 3 0 3 - 4

"BEHIND THE TERROR I N AFRIC AN ANGOLA : REVERSION TO SAVAGE R Y " b y Brig . G e n . Frank L . Howley footnoted 1 2 0

Bradley, General Omar on cost of National Defen s e , quote 91

BELGRADE NEUTRALIS T C ONFERENC E 1 07 condemns U . S . Bell , David E . r e commends deficit spendin g , quote 7 6 B e r l e , Adolf A . quoted on troops from Ghana in Cuba to invade Haiti 1 84 BESSENER SEC URI TIES C ORP . supports urban r enewal 3 1 BETANC OUR T , JIMENEZ , DREW PEARSON, AND THE MONITOR article 8 6 - 8 Betancourt , Romulo a communist 52 communist record of 8 6 , 88 defended by Drew Pear s on 8 6 - 7 defended by E rwin D . C anham 8 7 expelled from U . S . f o r communist activities in 1 9 5 6 53 insults U. S. but prais e s Kennedy 54 story of, biographical 52 - 3 BIG JOB TO DO, THE article 2 8 - 9 BLACK MUSLIMS beliefs of 1 7 4 - 5 or ganizing a n elite militia

B LUEPRINT F O R SUICIDE, article 77 - 9

Buckman, Sandy story of 345 BUREAUCRACY administrative laws of unconstitutional 22 control of Drug Industry by

Brameld , Theodore communist fronter u s ed by Supreme C ourt as authority for school s e g r egation decision 6 BRASILIA , BRAZIL cause of Brazi l ' s inflation 5 7 desc ribed, di s cu s s ed 57 - 8 , 6 1 example of s ociali s t planned economy 57 BRA Z I L Arne.r ican busin e s s lTIen in, activities of 6 0 - 1 article 4 5 - 6 communists and pro - c ommunists work with President Goulart 60 communist support for Kubitschek and Goulart 59 c onfiscation of private property in, good busin e s s 4 5 - 6 gets U . S . tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 98 Goulart becomes pro - c ommunist dictator 6 0 inflation caus ed by Brasilia .57 money exchange rates 57 political hi story, rec ent 5 9 - 6 0 proc laimed neutralist b y P r e sident Quadros 60 s eized I T &: T properties 4 5 - 6 study of, b y S enator Mansfield, quoted 6 2 - 3 U . S . foreign aid to 64

1 74

Blair , John M . author o f S e e ds o f Destruction which s ays private capitalism i s doomed 18 chief economist for Kefauver Drug Industry Investi gation 1 8 s lant s Kefauver Drug Industry Investi gation against big busin e s s 18

BRE T T ON WOODS C ONFERENCE OF 1 944, s e e INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BRIEF C HRONOLOGY , A 1 4 1 -4 article BRITAIN, s ee GREAT BRITAIN

BOGOTA C ONFERENCE dis cussion of 5 0 - 1 Bohlen , Charles memb e r , C ouncil on For eign 149 Relations

BUREAUCRATIC RIVALRY article 2 5 1 - 2 BURMA gets U . S . tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 98 BUSINESS hurt by T r ade Expansion Act

1 83-4

BUSINESS ADVISORY C OUNCIL, s e e BUSINESS COUNCIL BUSINESS C OUNCIL W einb e r g , Sidney, member of

BUSINESSMEN, AMERICAN activities in Brazil 6 0 - 1 Bush, Dr . Vannevar opposition to Kefauver Drug Industry Bill of 1 9 6 1 19 Butl e r , John Mar shall des cribes Kefauver Drug Industry Investigation, quote 1 8 Byrd, Richard E . prediction o n Income T ax , quote

273

C C E D , s e e C OMMITTEE FOR EC ONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C F R , s e e C OUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS C abell , Earle c.ondemns cons ervati ves in Dallas

347

C A B O T , C A BOT &: FORBES supports urban r enewal 3 1 C ALIFORNIA FEPC activities of 2 1 9 CAM BODIA c r eated a neutral nation by Geneva C onference of 1 9 54 1 3 0

BROADC ASTING article 2 9 1 - 3

THE

B 'NAI B ' RITH Johnson speech to, in 1 9 5 6 , quote

Brizola, Leonel communist Governor of Rio Grande Do SuI in Brazil 45

BROCHURE ON THE 1 4T H AMENDMENT, C A N WE TRUS T OUR LEADERS ? A , by John B. Mas on 171-3 article - footnoted 8 405 Brown, C onstantine artic l e : " S ovi e t Plans in America" 3 5 0 - 1

Latin

C ANADA U . S . State Department intervenes internal affair s of 4 1 . 48

Canby, Henry Seide l member o f C F R and American C ommitt ee on Africa 1 1 4

C HICAGO TRIBUNE PRESS SERVICE "Red China Said to Fear Invas ion , Revolt" story of, footnoted 1 6

C anham , Erwin D . letter attacking Jiminez and defending Betancourt, quote 87 letter to Dan Smoot, quote 87

CHILE Pres ident Ale s s andri c onvinc es Kennedy he is not too cons ervative 61 U . S . foreign aid to 64

C annon, C larence on Kennedy ' s 1 9 64 budget, quoted 70-2 CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI defeated urban renewal 40 C aplin, M ortimer M . head of IRS on the powers of IRS agents 163 C astro, Fidel defended b y foreign minister of C ol ombia 50 CAUSE FOR ALL AMERICANS, A article 1 2 7 C HAMI Z AL, EL di s cus sion of 2 38 Kennedy to give this T exas land to Mexico 1 7 2 - 3 Chao Fu former Chine s e communist official on communist China and fear of Chiang, quote 1 3 Chas e , Salmon P . refus e s to hear injunction cases against Rec onstruction Act of 1 86 7 3 Chiang Kai - shek, s e e also C HINA, NATIONALIS T ; F ORMOSA age of 14 believe s A s ians should fight Asia ' s 11 wars forbidden by U . S . to invade c ommuni st China 1 0 - 1 1 forc ed off c ontinent of A s ia by State Department 1 1 forced to negotiate with c ommunists by George C . Marshall 1 1 kept from. invading communist China by 7th Fleet under Truman 's orders 11 offer of troops during Korean War r e fus ed b y Trum.an 1 1 refu s e s Eis enhower adm.inistration deal on Quem.oy and Matsu 1 2 speech t o National A s s embly of China, 1 9 6 0 , quote 1 2 - 1 3 warning by on fal s e com.munist 14 China - U . S . S . R . split, quote CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE footnoted 104, 1 1 2 , 1 3 6 C HIC AGO SUN - TIMES article on K ennedy ' s defense plans quoted 149

C HINA , C OMMUNIST afraid of Chiang Kai - s hek, quote from former com.munist Chin e s e official 13 can b e defeated by Nationalist China 14- 1 6 Chiang Kai - s hek on str ength of, quote 12 - 14 inva s ion of India dis cus s ed 9 - 1 0 prestige inflated by Korean war 12 sour c e and center o f c ommunis m in Asia 1 0 split with U . S . S . R . false 1 4 tactics of, against U . S . 10 threatens t o take Formosa 1 2

CIVIL RIGHTS C OMMISSION article 4 1 0 CIVIL WAR , s e e WAR BETWEEN THE S TATES C lark, Jos eph S . , J r . dedicated t o s ocialist revolution 3 0 member , board of Directors of AC TION on C ongr e s s , Cons titution, quotes 227 statement i n favor o f test ban treaty, quote 3 1 5 C lark, Kenneth B . evidence before Supreme C ourt proven false 6 C lark, General Mark W . t e s timony on Korean war

C ochran e , Dr . Willard W . devi s e d c ommunist -fascist farm system for Kennedy 1 2 6

CHINA, NATIONALIS T , -s ee --al s o Chiang C ohen, Israel Kai - shek; FORMOSA communist official , views on rac e , can defeat communi st China 14- 16 quote 2 3 1 - 2 Eis enhower administration eager to abandon Matsu and Quemoy in 1 9 5 8 C olby, Bainbridge 12 r eas ons for not rec ognizing Soviet Eis enhower administration willing t o Union, quote 242 make d e a l with communist China over Matsu and Quemoy 1 2 C olley, Nathanie l S . military supplies given t o As iatic NAACP official who wrote Ges ell nations who will never fight com Report 3 0 5 munism should be given to 1 5 - 1 6 should b e permitted t o invade C OLOMBIA communist China 1 5 - 1 6 F oreign Minister of, defends C astro U . S . military aid to c onsist of 50 obsolete equipment 14 U . S. foreign aid to 64 C HINA STORY , THE by Freda Utley footnot ed 16 C HINESE NEWS SERVICE pres s r elea s e s footnoted

C HRISTIAN SCIENCE MONI TOR , THE , s e e also C anham, Erwin D .

-- ---

leftwing pr opaganda force

C HRISTIANITY magnifies the individua l , not the mas s e s 393 m.aster principle of American documents of government 3 9 3 socialization o f , dis cussed 3 9 7 - 8 C HRISTMAS GIVING article 32 7 - 8 CIVIL DEFENSE, s e e al s o OFFICE OF EMERGENC Y PLANNING Eis enhower c r eates Offic e of Civil and Defens e Mobilization 1 7 0 Eis enhower i s sues mock m.artia1 law order during test in 1 9 5 5 1 69 - 7 0 CIVIL RIGHTS C ivil Rights Bill of 1 8 6 6 vetoed by Pres ident Johnson 3 CIVIL RIGHTS AC T OF 1 9 63 article 2 0 1 - 08

C OLONIALISM European versus Soviet, U . S . attitude toward 1 14 C OMMI TTEE FOR EC ONOMIC DEVELOPMENT control cent e r , urban renewal propaganda drive 30 d e s c ription of programs for urban renewal promotion 3 0 influential member o f CFR network 2 9 - 30 C OMMODITY CREDIT C ORPORATION article on , including c o s t of 1 6 3 s ubs idizes big farm operato r s , destroying free market 1 2 3 C OMMUNISM, -s e e --also FASCISM; SOCIALISM Roos evelt admini stration attitude toward 3 53 - 4 same as fascism and s ocialisIn 3 5 5 - 60 s ame as s ociali s m and fascism 8 3 C OMMUNISM A N D SOCIALISM similarity of 3 6 5 - 6 C OMMUNIST CHINA,

C OMMUNIST

�ee

CH INA ,

C OMMUNIST FRONT MEMBERS Brameld, Theodor e , member of 1 0 communist fronts 6 Frazier, E . Franklin, has 1 8 citations 6 Lasagna , Louis , official of C on s umers Union 1 8 W eave r , Robert C . , Housing Adminis 足 trator for Kennedy administration 3 0

C ONSERVATIVES r ecommended actions for , in 1 9 64 185- 1 9 1 Strom Thurmond best in S enate C ONFE DERATE S T A TES OF AMERICA 1 90 - 1 former memb ers plac e d under military dictatorship by Rec onstruction Act of C ONS TIT UTION OF THE UNITED 1 86 7 3 r e - e stablished legitimate governments S TATES OF AMERI C A : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRE TA TION : ANNOTA 足 as States of United States 2 TIONS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE UNITED C OMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZ A TIONS C ONFISCA TING THE LAND S TATES TO JUNE 3 0 ; 1 9 52 C on s umers Union 1 8 , 24 article 2 3 3 - 4 0 footnoted 8 C OMMUNIST INTENT C ONGO CONS TITUTION , U . S . article 1 3 8 - 40 Angola terrorists bas ed in 1 1 6 Amendment proc e s s South Kasai province revolt put Amendment proces s , Article V , down by UN 1 0 1 C OMMUNIST MANIFESTO by Karl Marx text 8 UN admits lying about operations in application of, to Americ a , quoted changing by public officials illegal 5 101 373- 5 Christian in principle 3 9 3 UN troops in give guns to Angola article 3 7 - 8 C ongr e s s h a s no authority to coerce terrorists 1 18 article 3 7 3 - 5 action on Amendments to 3 Point 9 of, on establis hment of c ontract between people and C ONGO C RISIS AND THE NEED FOR metr opolitan government - like gove rnment 5 C ONCILIA TION areas , quoted 3 7 Electoral system, di scus sion 1 8 5 - 6 spe ech by S enator Dodd, footnoted Fourte enth Amendment abolition will 48 C OMMUNIST NATIONS r estore constitutional governm ent 8 money r e c eive d by, from UN Fourte enth Amendment, article on C ONGRESS , U . S . Special Fund, amounts 9 8 - 9 history, illegality of 1-8 delays Kennedy legis lation in early F ourte enth Amendment contained e s 1 963 161-2 C OMMUNIST PAR T Y , U . S . A . s ential proviSions o f Civil Rights illegal i n 1 8 6 5 - 1 8 6 7 2 - 3 Hall directive on program of, 1 9 6 3 Bill of 1 8 6 6 3 memb e r s o f C ongres s who are mem足 225-7 Fourte enth Amendment intentions bers of ADA listed 367 o n race problem, quote 2 1 4 - 5 stated in 1 8 7 3 Supreme C ourt New D e al s ocialists gain control by prai s e s Eis enhower 2 2 5 decis ion 4 1938 17 racial agitation program o f , quote Fourte enth Amendment should be r e 足 n o authority t o coerce action on 217 submitted for ratifications or Amendments 3 r ej ection 7 - 8 roll call votes during 1 9 6 3 1 6 1 -8, C OMMUNIST PERFORMANCE F ourte enth Amendment us ed a s pretext 2 6 5 - 7 2 , 2 8 1 - 8 , 409 - 1 6 article 140 - I for 1 9 54 Supreme C ourt school roll call vote s , explanation of 1 6 1 s egragation decis ion 5 C OMMUNIST TE CHNIQUES Fourte enth Amendment r e - defined by C ONGRESS OF RAC IAL EQUALI T Y , article 1 4 1 Supreme C ourt 5 s e e C ORE Fourte enth Amendment u s e d in C OMMUNIST TRADE GOODS Supreme C ourt decisions to change C ONGRESSIONAL FUND State Department requests American meaning of 5- 7 47 8 article by Mabeth E. Smoot business e s to s ell communist goods gives no grant of power to federal 326 government to r egulate Drug Industry C ONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY ALMANAC 19-20 1%1 C OMMUNISTS gives n o grant of power t o governm ent ----rD o tnot ed 24 Betancourt, ROITlUlo 52 - 3 for urban renewal or public housing Brizola , Leonel of Brazil 4 5 activities 2 5 - 6 C ONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY C ohen, I s r a e l , quoted on r a c e limits federal governm ent 3 9 5 - 6 WEEKLY REPORT program 2 3 1 - 2 meaning changed b y Supreme C ourt 6 footnoted 8, 24, 40, 88, 96, 104 DuBoi s , W . E . B . , NAACP founder Sixteenth Amendment (Income T ax ) 365 must b e abolished 9 5 - 6 C ONGRESSIONAL RECORD election o f , i n India 3 58 Sixteenth Amendment repeal would stop footnote d 32 , 40, 48, 5 6 , 72, 8 8 , 9 6 , favor TVA , quote 2 5 5 urban r enewal and similar projects 1 04 , 1 1 2 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 , 1 52 , 1 6 0 , 1 7 6 , Foster , WilliaITl Z . , national chairITlan 40 1 84 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 8 , 2 3 2 , 2 4 7 , 2 6 4 , 2 9 6 , of communist party ( U . S . ) , quoted Supreme C ourt can be limited by 3 0 4 , 3 1 2 , 3 2 0 , 3 3 6 , 344, 3 5 1 , 3 6 0 , 2 5 , 32 C ongr e s s , Article 3, Section 2 , 368, 408 in Brazil support Kubits chek and C lause 2 7 Goulart in elections 59 Thirteenth Amendment submitted and CONNALLY 'S RESERVATION in Brazil work with Pres ident Goulart ratified 2 article 2 5 8 - 9 60 efforts to repeal 2 5 9 - 6 1 in Roosevelt - Wallace Dept . of C ONSTITUTIONAL C ONSERVATIVES Eis enhower favors r epeal of 2 6 0 Agriculture initiate farm programs article 3 9 0 123 C ONNEC TICUT BANK & TRUST C O . Kallett, Arthur, named member 1 8 , C ONS TITUTIONAL DOC TRINE supports urban r enewal 3 1 24 administrative laws of government Kong Le s eizes power in Laos 131 agencies unconstitutional 2 2 C ONSEQUENCES Robert o , Holden, in Angela 1 1 4 - 5 C ongr e s smen o f 1 9 0 6 recognized article 4 1 6 Sukarno of Indonesia 108 c onstitutional liITlitations on powe r s of federal gove rnment 1 7 Daniel Webster o n destruction of, quote 2 2 5 COMPULSORY WHEAT C ONTROLS 122-3 article

di s c u s s ion of basic concepts 3 9 0 Drug Industry A c t o f 1 9 6 2 unconsti tutional 1 9 - 2 0 electoral college 1 8 5 - 6 fear o f political power di s cus s ed 3 54 - 5 Jefferson quoted o n trust o f govern ment 1 6 9 mass immunization program of 1 9 6 2 uncons titutional 2 2 on civil rights 2 0 1 - 2 on urban r enewal 2 5 - 6 o n withholding tax 2 7 4 - 5 r efer endum voting violates 12 1 U . S . has no right to s olve Latin America ' s problems 6 3 - 4 C ONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT cannot be restored unl e s s 14th Amendment abolished 8 C ONSUMERS UNION communist front or ganization until 1 9 54 1 8 , 24 C opeland, Royal S . introduced unconstitutional food, drug, and c osmetics Bill in 1 9 3 3 1 7 C OPLEY NEWS SERVICE story by about Kais er C or p . in Arg entina , quote 44 C ORE c ommunis t - infiltrated 2 0 6 interlocked with NAAC P , Urban League 2 07 protests W ashington police action against negr oes 199 C ORPORATE TAXES article 83 C ORREC TION to page 68 1 1 2 to page 85 1 12 C OSTA RICA U. S . foreign aid to

Nitz e , Paul, member of 1 4 8 Oppenheimer member o f 3 0 2 r o l e of i n reorganizing Armed F o r c e s 302 - 3 Rostow, Walt Whitman, member of 148 Wiesner , Dr . Je rome B . , member of 1 4 9 C OURT W E CAN TRUS T , THE article 2 6 3 - 4

C OUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS , s e e als o INVISIBLE GOVE RNMENT �merican C ommittee on Africa affiliate of 1 1 4 Bohlen, Charles , member of 1 4 9 communist Harry Dexter White member of 3 3 0 c ontrol center f o r the Invisible Government 2 9 Gate s , Thomas S . , member o f 1 5 0 Graham, Philip L . , member of 30 Gruenther , General Alfred M. , member of 1 5 0 Hert e r , Christian A . , member of 1 50 Hoffman, Paul G. , member of 97 indirectly interlocked with C ORE , NAA C P , Urban League 2 0 7 Lodg e , Henry C abot , member o f 1 5 0 Marcus , Stanley, member of 3 0 members o f C FR who a r e members of ADA listed 3 6 6 - 7 members o f i n American C ommitt ee on Africa listed 1 1 4 members of who are members of LID listed 3 6 3 - 4

DAN S MOOT TV FILM NOW AVAILABLE TO GENERAL PUBLIC article 7 9 - 8 0 DARKNESS IS DESCENDING O N THE LAND article 2 89 - 9 6 DATA PROCESSING article 4 1 1 - 2

C OVER U P ? article 3 9 1 - 2

Davids on , Judge T . Whitfield fights Supreme C ourt on Haley wheat cas e , quote 1 2 4 - 6

C owle s , Gardner member of C FR and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4 C rame r , William C . r e s earch by, on Betancourt

De Andrade , Pinto trained by c ommunists to or ganize against Angola 1 1 5 1 19 visits the U . S .

C RIME AND DELINQUENC Y article 3 8

D . C . SUBWAY article 4 1 2

C ROWN Z E LLER BACH C ORP . supports urban renewal 3 1

DECLARATION O F S A N JOSE provisions of 5 0

C UB A , s ee also BAY OF PIGS artick 46 - 7 gets U . S . tax money from U N Special Fund and UN, amounts 98 - 9 Kennedy on S oviet military buildup in, quote 4 6 Kennedy o n Soviet military i n , quote 24 5 - 6 O . A . S . refu s e s t o condemn 49 - 5 1 predictions about proven 1 8 3 review o f Octob e r , 1 9 6 2 C uban crisis 245 Robert F. Kennedy ' s role in ransom of pris oners 2 3 S oviet military buildup 4 6 - 7 C URREN T FIGHT : DAVID AND GOLIA TH, THE 127 article

DANGERS OF OUR UN MEMBERSHIP 101-2 article

DEFENS E , s e e NATIONAL DEFENSE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, see als o ARMED FORC ES , GESELL REPORT, NA TIONAL DEFENSE Mc Namara ' s policies dis cus s ed by military men 2 9 8 - 9 McNamar a ' s rule dis cus s ed by Hanson Baldwin 2 9 7 - 8 r eor ganization of, r ec olnmended by George Marshall 3 0 0 Rockefeller Report u s e d t o reor ganize 302 DEFICIT FINANCING, s e e FEDERAL BUDGE T , FEDERAL SPENDING

D Da C r uz , C lemente trained by co:rnrnunists to organize against Angola 1 1 5 DAILY SENTINE L , GRAND JUNC TION , C OLORADO blames conservatives for P r e s ident ' s death, quoted 389 DALLAS, TEXAS defeated urban renewal 40 Stevenson speech and incident

DECLINE SETS I N article 6 8

DEFICIT FINANCING - - PART I article 6 5 - 72 DEFICIT FINANCING -- PART II article 7 3 - 8 0 D e Gaull e , Char les K ennedy may take r eprisals against 41 DEINBIENPHU fall of , t o communists

1 30

34 7 - 9

DEMOC RACY workings of 1 2 1 DALLAS MORNING NEWS , THE article in, on S oviet military buildup DEMOC RAT PARTY in C uba , quoted 4 6 - 7 prai s ed by communist party 2 2 5 - 6 footnoted 1 6 , 2 4 , 1 04 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 , 1 6 0 , 1 7 6 , 1 84 , 1 9 2 , 2 2 4 , 2 3 2 , 248 , 3 1 2 , DEMOC RAT PARTY PLATFORM , 1 9 6 0 3 5 1 , 384, 3 9 2 , 408 quote o n public power 249 DALLAS TIMES HERALD, THE footnoted 1 6 , 1 04 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 , 1 7 6 , 1 9 2 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 4 , 248 , 304, 3 2 8 , 344 , 384, 39 2 , 408 UPI story in, on Cuba , quoted 4 6 , 47

DEPARTMEN T OF DEFENS E , s e e DEFENSE DEPARTMENT , NATIONAL DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, s e e HEALTH, EDUCA TION A N D WELFARE , DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF S TATE , s ee S TATE DEPARTMENT DEPRESSION did not abate until W orld War II ec onomy 6 6 D E S MOINES , IOWA defeated urban r enewal

3 9 - 40

DETAILED S T ORY , THE article about Laos 135-6 DETROIT TIMES footnoted 1 2 8 Deutsch, Ebe rhard P . devised Long plan for World C ourt 261 Dillon, C . Douglas on gold problem, quote 3 4 1 promi s e s $ 5 0 0 million to Latin America as member of Eis enhower adITlinistration 50 - 1 says he would rec oITlITlend veto unle s s entlre Kennedy tax reforITl adopted 85 s ays Kennedy tax r eform i s really an inc r e a s e 84 "DILLON 'S TREASURY : HIS TOLER ANCE OF DEFICIT SPENDING SURPRISES THE FINANCIAL C OMMUNIT Y , " by Arthur Krock footnote d 80 Dirksen, Everett McKinley pres ents evidence AITlerican POW ' s £rOITl Kor ean war still i n com ITlunist jails 179 stateITlent i n favor o f test ban treaty, quote 3 1 7 DISARMAMEN T , s e e als o DISARMAMENT A GENC Y , TEST BAN TREATY Baruch Plan dis cus s ed 142 discus sion of 1 3 7 - 60 historical chronology, 1 9 4 5 through 1 9 57 1 4 1 -4 historical chronology, 1 9 58 through 1961 146 - 5 1 historical chronology, 1 9 62 through 1 9 6 3 1 55 - 9 purpo s e s of, acc ording to C OITlmunist Inte rnational 2 4 1 quotes £rOITl Lenin, Khrushchev, others on l 3 9 - 40 U. S. propo sals of D e c eITlber , 1 9 6 2 , quoted 1 58 DISARMAMENT A GENCY A gency head WilliaITl C . Foster quoted on U . S. plan 1 56 di sarITlament plans of, quot e s 151-2 facts on 1 7 8 powers of 1 5 0 - 1 Senators and Repres entative s who voted agains t 1 60

DISARMAMENT A GENCY AND TEST BAN TREATY article 4 1 0 DISARMAMEN T A GENC Y FUNDS article 2 6 7

provisions of 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 r elated to fluoridation drive 2 3 thalidoITlide publicity u s e d for pas s age of 1 9 uncons titutional 1 9 - 2 0

DISARMAMENT - - PART II 1 4 5 - 52 article

DRUG INDUS T RY BILL OF 1 9 6 1 introduced by Estes Kefauver 18 Kennedy urges favorable action on 19 ITlaj or provisions of 1 8 - 1 9 oppos e d b y leading druggists 19

DISARMAMENT -- PART III article 1 53 - 6 0

DRUGS A N D DISHONES TY article 23

DISTRIC T OF COLUMBIA WELFARE article 4 1 1

Dubinsky , David confers with Johnson

Dodd, ThoITlas J . quoted on nuclear test bans 147 s p e e c h b y , on the C ongo , footnot ed 48

"DUBIOUS ORIGIN OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMEN T " by Walter J. Suthon, Jr . , TULANE LAW REVIEW footnoted 8

PART I DISARM AMENT article 1 3 7 -44

Doenitz , Grand A dITliral Karl last 'fuehr e r ' of nazi GerITlany 3 0 1 rec ommends German gove rnment based on AITlerican constitutional principles 3 0 1

406

DURHAM MORNING HERALD, THE Editorial footnoted 8 E

DOES THE U . S . OPPOSE COMMUNIST WORLD C ONQUES T ? article - 3 5 3 - 6 0

Eastland, Jan,es O . s peech, 5/2 6 / 5 5 , footnot ed speech, 9/26/62 , footnoted

DOMESTIC PEACE CORPS , s e e NATIONAL SERVICE C ORPS

Eaton, Cyrus S . pro-Soviet AITlerican industriali st 1 57

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC O. A. S. takes action against U . S. foreign aid to 64 Donaldson, John wheat case di s cus s e d

E C UA DOR U . S . foreign aid to

8 8

E DIFIC E OF LIBERT Y , THE article 2 2 5 - 3 2

123-4

Doolittle , Senator quoted on adoption of 1 4th AITlendment 4

EDUCA TION , s e e PUBLIC SC HOOLS

DRAPER 8< KRA ME R , INC . supports urban r enewal 3 1

Edwards , George C lifton, J r . ITleITlber of LID 343 s ocialist with jail r ecord appointed federal judge by Kennedy 343

DREADFUL AFFAIR, THE article 346- 7

EEC ----articles froITl quoted

DRUG C ONTROL AND FLUORIDATION article 2 3

EFFORT S TO REPEAL article 259 - 6 0

DRUG INDUS T R Y effects o f s ocialization of , i n Soviet Union and Great Britain 2 3 pric e s o f wholes ale pr oducts of 2 0 promi s e d tax cut to, i f contributions made to get Bay of Pigs prisoners back 2 3 Senate investigation in 1 9 5 9 , r e s ults 18, 20 s ocializing of 1 7 - 24

EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION acc epted Korean war arITli stice dictated by comITlunists 12 balance o f power i n U N s hifts t o Afro -As ian bloc during 1 0 6 philosophy s aITle as Kennedy adITlinistration 40 1 places controls on wheat farming 1 2 2 wanted t o abandon Matsu and QueITloy to c OITlITlunist China in 1 9 58 1 2 willing t o ITlake deal with c OITlmunist China on Matsu and Quemoy in 1 9 5 5 12

DRUG INDUS TRY A C T , THE article 18 - 1 9 DRUG INDUSTRY A C T OF 1 9 6 2 c a n eliminate meaningful c ompetition in Dru g Industr y

20- 1

pa s s ed unaniITlously by Senate

76-7

Eis enhower , Dwight D . actually started Alliance for Progr e s s 49, 5 1 calls mock ITlartial law i n 1 9 5 5 civil defens e practice 169-70 defies laws o n P anama Canal 342

defies Pos s e Comitatus Act 342 earnings from books by not taxed as income 2 7 5 - 6 emi s s aries shaITIe America b y inte r national begging 7 4 Executive Orders of amended by Kennedy 1 7 0 Executive Orders o n integration 2 1 8 favors repeal of C onnoly R e s e rvation 260 h a d biggest peac etime deficit in history 74 helps create communis t - c ontrolled International Atomic Energy A g ency 143-4 nominated Jes sup t o W orld C ourt 2 64 prai s e d by communist party 2 2 5 record of, o n dis armament 1 4 6 - 8 s ells out Hungarian Revolt 1 8 1 stops U . S . Army from taking Berlin , Prague 324 ur ges Washington to integrate and become model city 1 9 3

EXPOR T -IMPOR T BANK article 2 67

FEDERAL BUDGE T OF 1 9 63 deficit of 75

F FABIANS arti cle

362

FAC TS AND FIGURES ON GOVERNMENT FINANCE footnoted 72 FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRAC TICES C OMMISSION activiti e s of C alifornia FEPC , dang e r s 2 1 9 FAIRNESS D OC T RINE , s e e FEDERAL C OMMUNICA TI ONS C OMMISSION FALLAC Y , A article 2 5 2 - 3

EffiENHOWER REC ORD , THE article 1 46 - 8

FARM A N D RANC H footnoted 1 2 8

E L DORADO, ARKANSAS defeated urban r enewal

F ARM PROBLEM article on 1 2 1 - 2 Feed Grains Act of 1 9 63 discus s e d 1 64 Kennedy-Cochrane s cheme discus s ed 126

E L SALVADOR, see SAN SALVADOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, see OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNIN---C;EMINENT DOMAIN article 2 7 - 8 dis cu s s ion o f 2 7 - 8 ENC Y C LOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ' THE footnoted 8 ENC YC LOPEDIA AMERICANA footnoted 24, 64 ENGEL VERSUS VITALE , s e e SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS - New York School Prayer C a s e ENGLAND , s e e GREAT BRITAIN "EPISODE OF THE RUSSIAN SEAMEN ' T HE , " Report by Senate Internal Security Subcommittee footnoted 1 1 2 , 3 9 2 EQUALITY O F RIGHTS BETWEEN RACES AND NATIONALITIES IN THE USSR publi shed by UNES C O , quotes 1 00 Ervin, Sam J . , J r . statement i n favor o f test ban treaty, quote 3 1 6

F ARM PROBLEM - - WHEAT dis cus s ion of 1 2 1 - 8 dis cus s ion of c a s e s 123-6 Eis enhower administration r e sponsible for controls on wheat farmers 122 federal controls o n wheat farmers 122-7 FARMERS F O R FREEDOM desc ription of activities

127-8

FARMERS WHO LOVE FREEDOM ARE TREATED AS C RIMINALS 123-4 article FASCIS M , s e e al s o , C OMMUNIS M ; SOCIALISM-- -same as <;.ommunism and s ociali sm 3 5 5 - 60 s ame as s ociali s m and comrnunisIn 83 FEDERAL AGENCIES , see - als o BUREAUCRACY control of Drug Industry by 20 dangers of those involved in s cience and r e s earch 9 2 - 3 involved i n science and r e s earch, list 9 2

FEDERAL A I D TO E DUC A TION Evans , J . Claude adve r s e effects of 3 7 0 - 1 blames a s s a s s ination on 'radical right , ' quote 402 - 3 F E DERA L AID TO ME DICINE chaplain o f SMU 402 article on federal aid to medical schools and students 1 64 EXECU TIVE ORDERS , s e e Eis enhowe r , Dwight D . - FEDERAL BUDGET IN BRIEF • 1 9 62 Kennedy, John F" . footnoted 80 Office of Emergency Planning Roos evelt , Franklin D . FEDERAL BUDGET OF 1 9 62 T ruman, Harry S . deficit of 75

F E DERAL BUDGE T OF 1 9 64 di s c u s s ion of by U . S . Repre s entative C annon 7 0 - 2 fi rst planned deficit budget 7 7 Hous e debates o n , quotes 8 9 - 9 0 Kennedy quoted on 7 7 , 7 8 largest budget i n world history 7 7 Senator s and Repres entatives on ' quotes 79 specific reductions recommended 94 stati stics 7 7 - 8 U . S . Repres entative Johansen says deficit will be $20 billion 7 8 F E DERAL C OMMUNICA TIONS C OMMISSION activiti e s against cons ervative programs 2 92 - 5 'Fairne s s Doctrin e , ' complete text 293-4 ' Fairne s s Doctrine ' di s cu s s e d 2 9 3 - 6 reaction o f stations t o 'Fairness Doctrine ' 2 94 - 5 FEDERAL C ONTROL OF A GRICULTURE di s c u s s ion of 1 2 1 - 8 initiated by c ommunists i n Roosevelt Wallace Dept . of Agriculture 1 2 3 F E DERAL C ONTROLS impo s e d by urban r enewal on private developers 34 - 5 FE DERAL CREDIT A GENCIES detrimental effects of 3 7 1 - 2 FEDERAL DE B T increas ed b y all Presidents s ince Roos evelt 6 6 F E DERAL DISTRIC T C OURTS opinion of, in Washington, D . C . , urban r enewal c a s e of 1 9 54 , quoted 2 6 - 7 F E DERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND C OSMETICS ACT OF 1 9 3 8 rej ected in 1 9 3 3 when introduced by S enator C opeland 1 7 uncons titutional law signed by F. D . Roosevelt 1 7 F E DERAL GOVE RNMENT plans of, for urban r enewal to underdeveloped countries 36-7 F E DERAL GRANTS , s ee also FEDERAL LOANS ; FEDERAL SPENDING; FEDERAL S U BSIDIES to city governments for cost of moving person s and busine s s e s displaced b y urban renewal 34 FEDERAL GRANTS -IN -AID adver s e effects of 3 7 3 F E DERA L HOUSING AUTHORITY uncons titutional 2 5 - 6 FEDERAL LOANS , s e e FEDERAL GRA NTS; FEDERAL SPENDING; FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

F E DERAL REGISTER footnoted 24, 40 F E DERAL SPENDIN G , see also F E DERAL BUDGE T ; FEDERA L GRANTS ; FEDERAL SUBSIDIES A F L - C I O r e c ommends planned deficit, higher spending, quotes 76-7 c o st o f urban renewal projects 3 5 - 6 David E . B ell rec ommends higher spending and deficit financing 7 6 deficits o f Roos evelt , 1 9 3 3 - 1 94 1 65-6 did not caus e high postwar pros perity 6 7 - 8 discuss ion o f 1 9 64 Budget by U . S . Repr e s entative Cannon 7 0 - 2 examples o f 9 0 high spending and deficits would have prevented growth of Germany 76-7 history o f since 1 9 3 3 6 5 - 7 0 Housing Act o f 1 9 6 1 authorized $ 9 billion 36 International Settlements Bank recom mends higher federal spending and larger deficits 7 5 - 6 Kennedy mi s r epres ents reduction of 1 9 64 non- defens e spending figures 78 Kennedy recommends higher deficits and s pending 7 5 - 6 OEC D r ecommends higher spending and deficits 76 planned sp ending for 1 9 64 fi s cal year , amount 77 F E DERA L SUBSIDIES , see F E DERAL GRANTS ; FEDERAL SPENDING F E DERAL TAXES amounts , for 1 9 6 3 fiscal year 94 caus e r e c e s s i on of 1 9 58 68 corporate taxes , explanation of 8 3 c orporate taxes , Kennedy proposals on 83 general discussion of 6 5 - 9 6 Muss olini and Hitler had lower corporate tax rates than U. S. has 83 planned collections for fiscal year 1 9 64, amount 7 7 F E E D GRAINS , 1 9 6 3 article 1 64 , 2 6 6 FHA , see FEDERA L HOUSING AUTHORITY FINALLY article

FISHING BOA T C ONSTRUC TION S U BSIDIES article 4 1 0

FOREIGN AID TO INDIA U • S . contemplat e s billion - dollar military aid program t o 9 - 1 0

F LIGHT OF GOLD article 6 8 - 7 0

F OREIGN AID T O INDIVIDUAL NATI ONS li s t of thos e which owe most

F LUORIDATION Drug Industry Act of 1 9 62 related to 2 3 F ONTANA, C A LIFORNIA defeated urban r enewal

FOOD F O R PEA C E , s e e PUBLIC LAW 480

FOREIGN A I D TO LAOS waste d , r e sults in hatred of America 1 3 0

FOREIGN AID I S KILLING A ME RICA article 32 9 - 3 6

FOREIGN AID T O NICARA GUA total 1 9 46 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN AID TO ARGENTINA amount of, since 1 946 4 5 total 1 94 6 - 1 9 6 2 64

FOREIGN AID TO PANAMA total 1 94 6 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN AID TO BRA Z IL amount since 1 946 46 how it is used 4 5 - 6 total 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO C HILE total 1 946 - 1 9 6 2 64 FOREIGN AID TO C OLOMBIA total 1 9 46 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO C OMMUNIST C OUNTRIES discus sion 3 3 9 - 4 0

1 28

404

FOREIGN AID T O INTERNA TIONAL ORGANIZATIONS li sted 3 3 3

F OREIGN AID T O NEUTRALIST NATIONS amount 1 0 7

FOREIGN A I D T O C OS TA RICA total 1 94 6 - 1 9 62 64

FIREARMS attempts to r e strict

FOREIGN A I D T O INDIVIDUAL NA TIONS AND ORGANIZA TIONS complete detailed li'sting 3 3 2 - 4

FOREIGN AID, s ee also ALLIANCE F OR PROGRESs;FOREIGN AID TO (SPECIFIC C OUN T R Y ) arguments f o r 9 1 article 4 1 1 example o f foolishn e s s 3 3 7 - 8 expands urban renewal abroad under Foreign A s s istance Act of 1 9 6 1 3 1 fallacies o f 6 6 - 7 in Latin America 4 3 - 7 promotes s ocialism 3 7 3 r e s ults o f 42 - 7 , 3 3 4 - 5 total amount since W orld War I 3 3 5 U . S . beginnings of 3 2 5 - 6 us ed t o help c ommuni sts 32 5 - 6 , 332 - 6

FOREIGN AID TO BOLIVIA total 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN AID TO DOMINICAN REPUBLIC total 1 946- 1 9 62 64

335-6

FOREIGN AID T O L A TIN AMERICA total figur e s , by countries 64 FOREIGN AID TO MEXIC O total 1 94 6 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO NATIONALIST C HINA c onsists of ob solete military equip ment 1 4

FOREIGN AI D TO PARAGUAY tota1 1 94 6 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO PERU total 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO SAN SALVADOR total 1 9 46 - 1 9 62 64 FOREIGN AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED C OUNTRIES fallacies of 67 FOREIGN AID TO URUGUAY total 1 9 46 - 1 9 6 2 64 FOREIGN AID TO VENEZ UELA total 1 94 6 - 1 96 2 64 FOREIGN AFFAIRS article by R ostow s ays U. S. must help Soviet Union become " r e spectabl e " 3 2 3 FOREIGN ASSIS TANCE A C T O F 1 9 6 1 expands urban renewal abroad 3 1

FIRST ROLL C ALLS , 1 9 6 3 article 161-8

FOREIGN AID T O E C UADOR total 1 946 - 1 9 62 64

Fischer, Ben

FOREIGN AID TO GUATEMALA total 1 946 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN C OMPE TI TION caus ed by taxe,. on American industry and foreign aid 6 6 - 7 , 7 3 c aus e s reces s i on o f 1 9 5 8 6 8

FOREIGN AID TO HAITI total 1 9 46 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN POLIC Y , U . S . proof of stupidity 4 1

tnemb e r ,

AC TION

B oard of

Directors of

Fisher , O . Clark on 1 9 64 budget , quote

79 FOREIGN AID TO HONDURAS total 1 94 6 - 1 9 62 64

FOREIGN POLIC Y BRIEFS by State Department footnoted 1 3 6 FORMOSA, s e e als o C IDNA , NATIONA LIS T ; Chiang Kai - shek communist Chinese threaten to take in 1 9 54 1 2 F OR THE RECORD article 408 F ORWARD T O DISAS TER article 74 Foste r , William C . head of Disarmament Agency, quoted on U. S . plan 1 56 Foster , William Z . author of Toward S oviet America 2 5 , 32 communist party ( U . S . ) national chairman 2 5 , 3 2 demanded a Soviet America similar to metr o . government plans 3 7 o n confiscation o f land, quote 2 3 3

Gannett, Lewis S . member of C F R and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4

FOURTEENTH AMENDMEN T , -s e e --als o C ONSTITUTION, U . S . article 1 - 8 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES , A S T UDY , by Walter E. Long footnoted 8 FOUR TH ROLL CALLS article 409 - 1 6 Frankfurter, Felix quot ed on Monroe C a s e 6 Mallory C a s e decision of, discussed 1 9 8

FREE C HINA , s e e C IDNA , NATIONALIST article 9 - 1 6 FREEDOM VERSUS SOCIALISM article 2 2 - 3

Fulbright, J . William, s ee also FULBRIGHT MEMORANDU� on C ongr e s s , C on stitution , quotes 228 FUL BRIGHT MEMORANDUM admits people would r eject liberal pr ograITl:5 b y vote 4 0 2

Garrett, Garet author of The Peopl e ' s P ottag e , footnoted 96 Garrett, Henry E . on negro intellig enc e , quote

222

Gate s , Thomas S . memb e r , C ouncil on Foreign Relations 1 50 GENERAL ELECTRIC C O . supports urban renewal

GERMAN GENERALS recommend against centralized power 3 0 1

FOUNDA TIONS primary s our c e s of income for all organizations of the Invi s ible Government 2 9

FRES NO, CALIFORNIA defeated urban r enewal

Gaj ewski , Loren R . wheat cas e 1 2 4

GARFINCKEL, JULIUS, DEPARTMENT STORE supports urban r enewal

Frazier J E . Franklin communist fronter used by Supreme C ourt as an authority for school s egregation decision

GOLD RESERVE article 340 - 1

GERMANY deficit spending would have prevented economic growth 7 6 - 7 rej ects deficit spending 7 6 - 7 GESELL REPORT detailed di scus s ion of 3 0 5 - 1 2 House of Repres entatives di scus sion of, quotes 3 07 - 9 outline of provisions 3 0 5 - 6 pas sages from 3 0 6 - 7 quote o n using military force to des egr egate 2 9 1 written b y NAACP official Nathaniel S . C olley 3 0 5 GHANA troops of c ommunist dictator of, trained by I s rael 98 troops from, in C uba to invade Haiti, proof 1 84

GOLD amount of U . S . gold 3 3 1 'balance o f payments ' defined 3 3 1 claims agains t u . S . gold 3 3 1 Dill on quoted on 34 1 discussion in re lation to foreign aid 329-30 Ei senhower emi s s aries shame America by begging foreign ers not to take our gold 74 foreign claims on U. S . gold as of January, 1 9 6 3 70 gold backing of dollar changed by Roosevelt 6 8 - 9 Kennedy administration asks C ongre s s t o abolish gold requirements 34_0 - 1 los s of, 1 9 58 t o January 1 9 6 3 7 0 loss of, t o foreigner s ; explanation 69-70 l o s s e s o f U . S . gold 1 9 5 3 - 1 9 62 330- 1 predictions sinc e 1 9 5 6 proven correct 182 required gold backing f o r dollar 6 9 u . S . gold res erve as o f January 9 , 1963 70

Goldwate r , Barry actions at 1 9 60 Republican C onvention 1 9 0 a s possible pr e s idential candidate 3 1 9-20 discuss ion o f various leftwing state ments by 1 8 9 - 9 0 on public power , quote 2 5 1 - 2 says Kennedy administration helps Soviet Union, quote 3 2 6 Goulart, Joao becomes p r o - c ommunist dictator of Brazil 60 supported by communists in ele c tions 59 works with communists and pro communists 60 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES , s ee FEDERAL AGENCIES ; BUREAUCRAC Y GOVERNMENT EXTRAVAGANCE article 5 7 - 8 GOVERNMENT SHOWCASE , THE article 2 54 - 5 GOVERNMENT SPENDING , s e e FEDERAL GRANTS ; FEDERAL SPENDING Gracey, Richard L . chart by, on Growth o f C ommunis m 3 52 Graham, Philip L . memb e r , Board o f Directors of AC TION 3 0 memb e r , C F R 3 0 GREAT BRITAIN Drug Industry of

GREATER BOS T ON C HAMBER OF C OMMERCE supports urban renewal 3 1 GREED AND C Y NICISM article 39 GROWTH OF C OMMUNISM, THE chart by Richard L. Gracey r e . produced 3 5 2 Gruenth e r , Alfred M .

member of C ouncil on Foreign 1 50 Relations testified in favor of Disarmament Agency 1 50 GUATEMALA U. S . foreign aid to

Guderian, General Heinz has totalitarian beliefs 3 0 1 writes plan for reorganization of U . S . Armed Forces 3 0 1 - 2 GUDERIAN PLAN dia c U 3 5 ion of

3 0 1 -2

Gunthe r , John member of C F R and Honorary Chair man of American C ommitte e on Africa 1 14

H HAITI history of 2 1 3 - 4 U . S . foreign aid to

HEALTH FOODS products under unconstitutional re gulations of HEW 2 2 64

HOTEL C ORPORATION O F AMERICA s upports urban renewal 3 1

HECHT DEPARTMENT S TORE supports urban renewal 3 1

Haley, J . Evetts , J r . wheat case 1 24 - 6 Haley, James A . quoted on 1 9 64 budget proposal

HORROR T O C OME, THE article 1 1 9 - 2 0

HOUSE REPORT 1 3 1 1 , SPECIAL C OMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN AC TIVITIES , 1 944 footnoted 24

HELPING THE "LITTLE " MAN 123 article 89

Hall, Durward G . investigation by , of U N Special Fund 9 9 - 1 0 0 Hall, Gus on American politic s , C onstitution, quotes 2 2 6 , 2 2 7

HENRY J . KAISER C O . supports urban renewal Hensley, Stewart UPI c olumn footnoted

HOUSING ACT OF 1 949 basic authority for urban renewal 25-6 unconstitutional 2 5 - 6

HANCOCK, JOHN, MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE C O . supports urban renewal 3 1

Hert e r , Christian A . leader in O . A . S . action against Dominican Republic 5 0 member o f C ouncil o n Foreign Relations 1 50 testified in favor of Dis armament A g ency 1 50

HAND FROM WASHINGTON, THE article 2 7 5 - 6

HEW , s e e HEALTH, EDUCA TION , AND WELFAR E , DEPARTMENT OF

Harrelson, Max A . P . dispatch by, on U . S . int e r vention i n C anadian internal affairs quoted 4 1

Hightow e r , John M . AP dis patch on pos s ible Kennedy reprisal against de Gaulle quoted

Harriman, W . Averell on India - c ommuni st China war t quote 9 on why Laos agr e ement not s ent to Senat e , quote 1 34 pres sures right-wing government in 133 Laos says red China will not get Rus s ia ' s help o n nuclear bombs 246 says what happens in Laos doe s n ' t matter, quote 1 3 3 Harrington, Reverend Donald United World Federali s t , official of American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4 Hart, Philip A . introduces S 792 for Sleeping Bear Park, quote 2 3 5 - 6

HILTON HOTELS, INC . supports urban renewal

HISTORY C ONTROL article 4 1 2 HISTORY OF THE 14TH article 2 - 4 Hitle r , Adolf had lower corporate tax e s than U . S . 83

HOLIDA Y INNS supports urban renewal

HATERS, THE article 388 - 9

HOLLAND , s e e NETHERLANDS

Holme s , William A . Methodist pastor makes false claims about Dallas s chool children 3 8 9 HONDURAS U. S . foreign aid to

HOOVER ADMINISTRA TION refu s e s to recognize Soviet Union, reasons 242 HOPE article

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENC Y , FEDERAL publi shes attractive urban r enewal booklet , quoted 3 1 - 2 HOUSTON, TEXAS only major city without urban r enewal zoning laws 31 HOW DID SOCIALISM GROW I N THE U.S. ? article 3 6 1 - 8 HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS article 4 1 - 8 "HOW TO REVERSE C OURT 'S SE GREGA TION DECISION" by David Lawrence footnoted 8

HARVES T , THE article 390 - 1

HEALTH, EDUCATION , AND WELFARE , DEPARTMENT OF administrative laws of, unconstitu tional 2 2 given power t o control Drug Industry 18-22 regulations could destroy health food products 22 Secretary of and agents ' powers under Drug Industry Act of 1 9 62 2 0

HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES, C OLONIAL TIMES TO 1 9 5 7 footnoted 9 6 , 1 2 8

HAR TFORD NA TIONAL BANK supports urban renewal 3 1

HEADS HE WINS , TAILS WE LOSE article 8 5 - 6

HOUSING ACT O F 1 9 6 1 authorized $ 9 billions

Hoffman, Paul G . head of U N Special Fund 9 8 member o f C ouncil on Foreign Relations 9 7 quoted o n SUNFED 97

H . DU B . REPORTS quoted on Black Muslims and NAACP 1 74

HOUSING AC T OF 1 9 54 broadens Housing Act of 1 94 9 uncons titutional 2 5 - 6

3 9 8 -400

HOPE OF THE WORLD, THE article 3 9 3 - 40 0

HOW URBAN RENEWAL WORKS article 3 3 - 5 Howley, Frank L . terror i n Angola d e s cribed, quote 1 16-7 Hruska, Roman L . s tatement in favor o f test ban treaty, quote 3 1 7 Hull, C ordell on negotiations with Soviets on debt s , quote 242 - 3 rec ommends against rec ognition of Soviet Union, quote 242 HUMAN EVENTS footnoted 40, 1 2 8 Humphrey, Hubert H . member o f CFR and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4 statement in favor of test ban treaty, quote 3 1 5 HUNGARY Eis enhower, Kennedy s ell out patriots and start "normalizing" relations with 1 8 1 Kennedy administration c onsidering normal relations with 3 3 8 UN vote o n condemning USSR for actions in 1 06

Hus s ey , Dr . Hugh H . says members o f medical and pharmaceutical profe s s ions better informed than government on drugs 19

IDAHO r efused to pass urban renewal laws 31

INDONESIA gets U . S . tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 98 pr o - c ommuni st or outright communist 42 INFLATION IN THE UNITED STATES by Paul Bakewell, J r . information o n 6 9

Advertising C ouncil part of network 30 article 2 9 - 3 1 C E D influential organization in network 2 9 - 3 0 C ouncil o n Foreign Relations control c enter 2 9 F oundations primary s ource o f in come for all organizations of 2 9

I N SEARCH O F SOMETHING NEW article 74 - 5

IRREPRESSIBLE C ONF LIC T , THE article 3 9 6 - 7

"ILLEGALITY BREEDS ILLEGALI T Y " by David Lawrence footnoted 8

INTEGRATION, s e e also RAC E PROBLEM ; SEGREGATION forced in urban renewal areas by Kennedy Executive Order 3 5 Lincoln on , quote 2 1 0

ISRAEL gets U. S. tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 9 8 trains armed for c e s o f communist Ghana 9 8 , 1 0 9

IMPROVING OUR IMAGE article 2 3 8

INTEGRA TION I N ARMED FORCES, s e e GESELL REPORT

I T C A N BE STOPPED article 3 9 - 4 0

INCOME TAX abolition of, need 9 5 - 6 amount , 1 9 63 fis cal year 9 4 Bill to repeal introduced by Bruce Alger 96 Dillon rec ommends veto if Kennedy r eform not entir ely adopted 8 5 Dillon says Kennedy r eform really an increase 84 Kennedy ' s reform proposals 8 3 - 6 must be repealed to stop s ocialism 24 past point of diminishing returns 74 prediction of abus e by Richard E . Byrd 2 7 3 reduction b y Kennedy, purpo s e s 6 5 repeal will end urban renewal pro grams 40

INTERC OLLE GIATE SOCIALIST SOCI E T Y , see LEAGUE FOR INDUSTRIALDE MOCRAC Y

IDLE WIND, THE article 40 1 - 8

INDEPENDENT BAR ASSOCIATION discus s ion 2 6 1

INTERIM, THE 383-4 article INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IRS C ommissioner Caplin on power of agents 1 6 3 Senate refus es to authorize mor e agents for 1 63 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY development and communist control of 1 4 3 INTERNATIONAL C ITY MANAGERS ' ASSOCIA TION part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with C F R 2 9

J Jacks on , Henry M . ans wers question o f Senator Robertson on test ban treaty, quote 3 1 7 Jeffe rson, Thomas cons titutional doctrine, quotes 2 2 7 - 8 , 230 quote on trust in the government 1 69 quote d on truth and government 1 84 Jenner, William E . speech footnoted

Jensen, Ben F . on T VA 2 5 3 JERSEY CITY, NEW J ERSEY urban renewal project in, cost of

J e s sup, Philip C . a s s o ciations with c ommunists nominated to W.orld C ourt by INTERNATIONAL C OFFEE AGREEMENT Eisenhower 2 64 article 4 09 - 1 0

INDEPENDENT E LEC TORS article 1 85-7 INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF THE USA article , di scussion 1 87 - 8 INDIA, s e e als o Nehru, Jawaharlal election of communists in 3 58 gets U . S . tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 98 government of, pro - c ommuni st 1 0 invasion of, by communist China discus sed 9 - 1 0 Kennedy admini stration to build steel mill 340 United States contemplating billion dollar military aid program 9 - 1 0 U . S . S . R . lines up with r ed China against 9 , 1 0

264

INTERNATIONAL C ONTROL C OMMISSION Jimene z , Marcos Perez attacked by Erwin D . C anham 87 created to supervise truce in extradition proce edings against 53 Indochina, composition of 1 3 0 given medal by Eisenhower 88 INTERNATIONAL C OURT OF JUSTIC E , JOHANNESBURG SUNDAY TIMES see W ORLD C OURT article from, on UN action in Katanga, quote 42 - 3 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND created at Br etton Woods Conference Johansen, August E . by communi st Harry Dexter White pr e s s release of, footnoted 80 330 says 1 9 64 budget deficit will be Harry Dexter White first head o f 330 $ 2 0 billion 7 8 purposes of 3 2 9 - 3 0

INTERNA TIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH C ORP . Brazil s eizes properties of 45

Johnson, Andrew Amnesty proclamation to people of C onfederacy 2 quote on Rec onstruction Act of 1 86 7 4 vetoed C ivil Rights Bill of 1 8 66 3

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY destruction of, under "public need"

INTERNA TIONALS history of socialist and c ommunis t Internationals 3 6 1 - 2

Johnson, Hiram oppo sed UN charter from death bed 101 while S enator

INDOCHINA, s e e C AMBODIA, LAOS , VIETNAM

INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, s ee also C OUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AC TION part of network 30

INDIAN S TE E L MILL article 340 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA defeated urban renewal

2. 8

INTERNA TIONAL PEACE C ORPS di scussion , cr eation of 1 64

Johnson, Lyndon B . admits U . S . considering turning over SAC to NA TO 1 4 8 calls conservatives ' r eactionary, I quote 406 confers with Dubinsky, negro lead�r s 406 inj ects religion into 1 9 6 0 elections 405 m o r e liberal than Kennedy 4 0 5 names commiss ion to investigate a s s a s s ination of Kennedy 3 9 1 - 2 Senate voting record o f 4 0 5 - 6 skillful moderator and compromis er 406 tells B 'nai B ' rith 1 9 56 victory b y him defeat of ' racial hatr ed ' , quote 4 0 5 threatens right winge rs , quote 1 7 9 threatens t o muzzle critic s , quote 406 urges C ongr e s s to act in memory of Kennedy 404 Johnson, Robert L . member of C F R and American C ommitte e on Africa 1 1 4 Johnson, Thomas F . proposal for rural renewal 3 7 - 8 under indictment for conspiracy and c onflict of inter est 3 7 J o y , Admiral Charles Turner testimony of, on Korean war

JUST THE B E GINNING article 3 5 - 6

KENNE DY ADMINISTRATION asks C ongr e s s to abolish gold r e quirement 340 - 1 both denies and concedes Nitze disar mament proposals 148 communist party prai s e s , supports for r e - election 2 2 5 - 6 defies laws of C ongr e s s 3 3 9 -42 getting ready to "normaliz e " r e lations with Hungary 1 8 1 helps the Soviet Union 3 2 6 legis lation o f , delayed in C ongr e s s i n early 1 96 3 161-2 legis lative program stalled 402 makes deal with Soviets on U Thant and Hungary 1 8 1 offers ec onomic aid t o Soviet Union 279-80 officials o f , who a r e members of ADA , listed 3 6 6 philos ophy of i t s leade r s 4 0 1 programs o f , i n trouble 4 0 6 - 7 t o build steel mill i n India against expr e s s ed wish of C ongr e s s 340 wants to give away Panama C anal 173 will not support direct action against communist China 1 0

KENN E D Y A N D THE NUCLEAR BAN article 244- 5 KENNE D Y APPOINTMENTS article 343

44- 5

Kai - shek, Chiang , s e e Chiang Kai - s hek KALAMA Z OO , MICIDGAN defeated urban renewal

KEFAUVER 'S INVESTIGATION article 18

KENNEDY AND C U BA article 2 4 5 - 6

JUVENILE DELINQ UENC Y caus ed by peopl e , not by slums

KAISER C ORPORA TION troubles of, in Argentina

KEFAUVER MEDICINE article 17 - 24

4 02 - 5

KENNEDY - C OCHRANE FARM PLAN c ommunist -fascist type s chem e , analyzed 1 2 6

Kallett, Arthur named c ommuni st by Special Committee on Un -American Activities 1 8 , 24 KATANGA United Nations rape of 42 - 3 United States backs UN action in

KENNEDY ASSASSINA TION liberal r eaction to 402 - 5 liberals blame all but assas sin

Keenan, Jos eph D . member , Board o f Directors of AC TION 3 0 K E E P ON KEEPING ON 1 84 article Kefauve r , E s tes Drug Industry investigation by, 18 s lanted heads investigation o f Drug Industry, 1959 18 ignorant of American busines s 2 1 introduced Drug Industry Bill of 1 9 6 1 18

Kennedy, John F . Alliance for Progre s s , quote 5 1 appoints George C lifton Edwards federal judge 343 appoints Moscoso Ambas sador to Venezuela 53 appoints Nitze S ec r etary of Navy 343 asks for Disarmament Agency 1 5 0 a s s a s s ination, details on 3 7 7 - 92 a s s a s s ination motives 3 82 - 3 , 3 9 2 civil rights requests of, dis c u s s e d 201-8 c onceals truth about budget deficit during 1 9 62 elections 75 defies laws on Panama Canal 342 denies federal gove rnment had hand in Bay of Pigs prisoner ransom 2 3 educated b y s ocialist Harold J . Laski 85 Executive Orders c r eate dictatorial powers in OEP 170- 1 first Defense mes sage of, bas ed on Rostow memo 149 housing message of 1 9 6 1 , quoted 3 5 - 6 , 37

income tax reduction, quote 6 5 income tax r eform o f 8 3 - 6 launches campaign against Goldwater 3 19 makes s ec r et ruling that Yugos lavia is not communi s t - c ontrolled 340 misrepres ents reducing non-defense expenditures in 1 9 64 budget , figur es 7 8 o n C onstitution, quote 2 2 9 o n importance o f Atlantic Allianc e , quote 4 1 on importance o f International Monetary Fund, quote 3 3 0 o n "myth" o f balanc ed budgets , quote 7 5 - 6 on 1 9 64 budget, quotes 7 7 , 78 on r e lations with Ar gentina, quote 43 o n S oviet military buildup i n Cuba 4 6 on Soviet military in Cuba , quote 245-6 o n tax r eduction and r eforms . quote 78-9 on test bans , quote 155 o n urban r enewal , quote 3 5 - 6 on Washington, D . C . , quote 1 9 3 plans give - away of E l Chamizal, T exas , to Mexico 1 72 - 3 prai s e s Betancourt and Venezuela, quotes 54 prai s e d by Betancourt 54 presidential commis s ion to investi gate a s s a s s ination of 3 9 1 - 2 pretended t o r e s pect balanc ed budgets 7 5 propagandizes for unbalanced budgets 7 5 - 6 propos es mas s immunization pro gram of 1 9 62 , quote 22 quoted on s ending federal troops to Alabama 1 7 2 quote d on thalidomide "di saster " and need for legislation as result 1 9 quotes of, on corporate taxes 83 r e commends formation of metr opolitan government s , quote d 37 s c raps Office o f Civil and Defense Mobilization 1 7 0 s igned Drug Industry Act of 1 9 6 2 19 State o f the Union M e s s age , 1 9 6 1 , quote 2 8 9 trip to Venezuela, desc ription 5 3 - 4 u r g e s adoption o f Kefauver Drug Industry Bill of 1 9 6 1 19 u s e s A F L - C I O theory o f economics 82 violates Pos s e C omitatus Act 34 1 - 2 wants to finish conversion of U . S . to s o cialist state 85 KENNEDY PROGRAM, THE article 3 2 6 - 7 KENNEDY RECORD, THE article 1 48 - 5 1 Kennedy, Robert F . calls Bay of Pigs betrayal "mistake" by his brother 2 3 denies federal gove rnment had hand in B;:ty o f P i g s pr i r;: on e r ransom

o n C onstitution

229

promi s e d Drug Industry tax cuts for c ontributions to return of Bay of Pigs pris one rs 23 says U . S . communists harmle s s , quote 3 9 1

KOREAN WAR AND RELATED MA TTERS , THE , REPORT by Senate Internal S ecurity Subcommittee footnoted 1 6 Krock , Arthur article on Dillon and deficit financing footnoted 80

Lasagna, Louis former Special Medical Advi s or to c ommuni st front C onsumers 18 Union maj or witness in Drug Industry investigation 1 8 memb e r , Advis ory Board of 18 Medical Letter

KHRUSHCHEV IS WAITING article 70 - 2

Kubit schek, Juscelino leftwing socialist President of Brazil 5 8 supported by communi sts in elections 59

Lasker , Meir blames a s s a s s ination on others than a s s a s s in, quote 403 Rabbi of Temple Judea C ongr egation 403

Khrushchev, Nikita Nehru friend of 9 quoted on dis armament

Kuchel, Thomas H . blasts right-wingers as "extremists " , etc . , quoted 1 7 7 - 9

Laski , Harold J . British socialist leader who taught Kennedy 8 5

KENNE D Y 'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS article 1 7 0 - 1 KENNE D Y 'S TAX PLAN article 8 1 - 6

1 39-40

King, Martin Luther demands favoriti sm for negroes 2 2 2 has conference with Johnson 406 has rec ord of pro - c ommuni st activities 2 0 7 Kirk, Alexander C . on S oviet foreign commercial policy, quote 322 Kloeb, Judge Frank L . upholds government in wheat cas es 124 Klumpp , D r . Theodore oppos ition to Kefauver Drug Industry Bill of 1 9 6 I 19 Klutznick, Philip M . memb e r , Board of Directors of AC TION 3 0 Kohlb e r g , Alfred stati stics on American dead in Korea footnoted 1 6 KOREA , SOUTH doubtful a s s et in any future Asian military ope rations 14

L LABOR UNION LOGIC article 8 1 - 2 LABOR UNIONS A rgentine Unions c ontrol ec onomy rationale of 43

LATIN AMERIC A , s ee also Individual Nations agrarian r eforms in, under Alliance for Progress 54- 6 basic problem of 6 3 communist dictatorships being forced in, by Alliance for P r ogr e s s 62 discuss ion of trip to, by Dan Smoot 43 - 7 foreign aid to, total and by c ountry 64 leftwing politicians in, only recipients of aid 6 1 50 - 1 nations of demand aid from U . S . Soviet plans for 3 5 0 - 1

LAND, see als o ARME D F ORCES, U . S . ; NATIONAL PARKS federal land confiscation, examples 235-9 history o f American public lands 233-4 Secretary o f Interior Udall submits Laus che , F rank J . plan to Congr e s s on federal lands 238-9 blasts Urban Mass Transportation Bill 1 62 Senator Simpson quote d on c onfiscation charges Kennedy administration made of 2 3 6 deal with Soviets on U Thant and Hungary 1 8 1 LAND REC LAMATION detrimental effects of 3 7 2 - 3 on 1 9 64 budget, quote 7 9 reveals National Service C orps formed without C ongres sional approval 3 4 1 Lange r , William L . opposed U N Charter a s S enator in LAWLESS GOVERNMENT 1 94 5 , quote 1 0 1 article 3 3 7 - 44 Lansing, Robert "LAWLESSNESS " by David Lawrence on communist purpo s e in Rus sia, footnoted 8 quote 241

KOREAN WAR American POW I S still in c onununis t LAOS jails from 1 7 9 Ame rican foreign aid wasted, armistice terms of, dictated b y dishonest 1 3 0 12 c ommuni sts agreem ent on not s ent to Senate , armistice terms proposed by India, 1 34 Harriman reas ons dictated by c ommuni sts 129 anti - c ommunist Prince Boun Oum c ommunist tacti c s i n I I becomes Premier of 1 3 1 inflat ed communist China ' s pre stige communi sts start attacking 1 3 0 - 1 12 c r eated by Geneva C onference of number of Americans killed in 1 0 , 1 5 , 130 1 9 54 1 6 , 1 2 9 , 1 36 for c e d b y U . S . to surrender to offer of troops by C hiang Kai - shek 10 communi sts refus ed by Truman 1 1 geographical des cription of 1 3 0 Rhee wanted no American s oldier s , gets U . S . tax money from U N Special only equipment I I Fund, amount 98 s enior military cornrnanders in, Harriman pressures right-wing testify that U . S . could have easily government in Laos 133 won the war and destroyed comÂ memb e r s , coalition government of munis m in A sia I I 133 U . S . prevents bombings acros s Yalu story o f 1 2 9 - 3 6 River 1 0 UN S ecurity C ouncil investigation of, worst disaster in U . S . history, r e sults 1 30 - 1 r e s ults 1 0 2 U . S . acc epts proposal of USSR on 1 3 1 U. S . tries to force right -wing gove rnment out 1 32

Lawrenc e , David article on delay in budget deficit report , footnoted 80 editorials and articles by, footnote d 8 LEAGUE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEMOC RAC Y fabian s ocialist group 3 62 - 3 George Soule of, not same as Soule of New Orleans 408 history and influenc e of 3 62 - 4 members o f , listed 3 6 3 - 4 L ear , John demands investigation of Drug Industry, in Saturday Review 1 8 LEGAL AC TION AGAINST "SLUMS " article 3 8 - 9 L e , Kong

c ornrnunist

s eizes power in Laos

131

LeMay, General Curtis te stimony of, against test ban tr eaty and TFX , causes removal 3 1 1

Lenin , Nikolai on purpos e of treaties , quote quoted on disarmament 1 3 9

24 1

LIBERAL INSANITY article 1 0 7 - 9 LIBERAL TECHNIQUE , THE article 3 57 - 8 LIBERALISM 'official liberali s m ' defined by Schlesinger 367 te chniques and tactics of 3 5 7 - 60 LIBERA LS attitudes of, toward C onstitution 3 54 - 5 blame all but assas sin for Kennedy ' s death 4 0 2 - 5 LID article

362 - 4

LIFE -ar ticle from by Charles J . Murphy footnoted 1 6 Lilienthal, David c o - authors report calling for inte r national control o f atomic energy 142 Lincoln , Abraham amnesty proc lamation to people of C onfederacy 2 doctrine of indivisibility of Union 2 on integration, quote 2 1 0 quote on r e - e s tablishing governments of C onfederate States 2 L odge , Henry Cabot memb e r , C ouncil on Foreign 1 50 Relations testified in favor of Dis armament Agency 1 5 0

MAC Y 'S DEPARTMENT STORE supports urban renewal 3 1 Malik, C harles H . on nations voting against U . S . in UN 106 says U N Human Rights C ommi s s ion leaned toward Soviets , quote 103

MENTAL C ON T R OL DRUGS development and pos sible uses of

MALL OR Y CASE discuss ion of 1 9 8

62 - 3

Marc us , Stanley memb e r , Board of Directors of AC TION 30 member of CFR 3 0 MARRIOTT MOTOR HOTELS supports urban renewal 3 1 Marshall , George C . forced Chiang to negotiate with 11 cOlUIl1.unists rec ommended complete r eorganiza tion of Armed Forces 3 0 0 Marx , Karl C ommunist Manifesto, The , by, on establishment of metro- government like areas , quoted 37 MASS IMMUNIZA TION article 2 2 MATSU A N D QUEMO Y , s e e C HINA, NATIONALIS T ; FORMOS� McCab e , Judge Francis J . on caus e of slums , quoted

McC arthy, Jos eph R . America ' s Retreat from Victory b y , footnoted 16 char ged, in 1 9 5 3 , American POW ' s Long , Russ ell B . still i n communi st jails ; n e w evi plan to r e c onstitute World C ourt 2 60 - 1 denc e proves him right 1 7 9 proven correct 1 7 9 - 8 0 Loomis , Henry speech b y , footnoted 1 6 head of Voice of America, quoted on VOA broadcas t , pre suming right McGehee , Fr ank wingers killed P r e s ident 3 8 8 - 9 organizer of National Indignation Convention and Political C oordinating LOS ANGELES TIMES , THE C ommittee 1 8 8 - 9 UPI article from , reprinted 1 92 McNAMARA A N D KENNEDY LOUISIANA article 3 0 3 refus ed to pa s s urban renewal laws 3 1 McNama r a , Pat Lovestone, Jay introduces S 7 9 2 for S leeping Bear works for communist caus es with Park, quote 2 3 5 - 6 American Labor and State Department 1 8 0 McNamara , Robert S . rule of in Defen s e Department dis Lumumba , Patrice cus s ed by Hanson Baldwin 2 9 7 - 8 helps Angola c ommunist terrorists sque ezes out military men who oppose 115 him 3 1 0 - 1 LONDON SUNDA Y TELEGRAPH on American negroe s , quote 2 2 2

M MacA rthur , General of the Army Douglas te stimony on Korean War 1 1

MENTAL FACILITIES AC T article 2 6 6

MANPOWER TRAINING article 4 1 0 Mansfield, Mike study of Brazil, quoted

M E DICAL LETTER Advisory Board member i s D r . Louis Lasagna, former official of communist front 1 8 Managing Director i s c ommuni st Arthur Kallett 1 8 recommended by Saturday Review

McNAMARA 'S C OMMISSARS article 3 0 5 - 1 2

MENTAL HEALTH FUNDS article 4 1 2 METHODIST PREAC HERS OF DALLAS defend Rev. Holmes ' fals e attack on Dallas school children 389 M E THODS ARE NOW THE SAME article 3 58 - 60 METROPOLIT AN GOVERNMENT article 3 7 organizations hous e d at " 1 3 1 3 " listed 2 9 s imilar to plan f o r Soviet America by William Z . Foster 3 7 through urban renewal es tablishment of, fulfills Point 9 of The C ommuni st Manifesto 3 7 - 8 urban renewal part of 3 7 will destroy government and s ocial or ganization of America 3 7 zoning - law problem long studied by " 1 3 1 3 " organizations 2 9 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE C O . supports urban r enewal 3 1 MEXICO government of, expanding owne r s hip of busines s e s 6 1 - 2 U . S . foreign aid to 64 MEXIC O CITY NEWS, THE quote d on Ales sandri of Chile MIDDLE C LASS Kennedy wants to destroy

MILITARY , THE article 290 - 1 MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND AID, s e e FOREIGN AID MILITARY LAND GRABS article 2 3 6 - 7 Mill e r , Jack statement in favor of test ban treaty, quote 3 1 6 Milli s , Walter on desirability of maintaining Soviet Rus sia, quote 3 2 3 o n world government and forc e , quote 231 Mitchell, Billy case of, di s cus s ed

299-300

MONEY article on r eplacing of silver -backeod dollars 163-4

MONROE , JAMES , CASE , s e e SUPREME COUR T DECISIONS - Monroe Case

NATIONAL DEBT article 4 1 2

MORE EQUAL THAN EQUAL article 2 1 7 - 2 24

NATIONAL DEBT INCREASE article 2 6 7

Morris , Robert quot ed on Chiang Kai - s hek and com munist China - Indian conflict 1 3

NATIONAL DEFENSE, s e e a l s o DEFENSE DE PAR T MEN� - article 9 0 - 2 cost o f 9 0 - 1 General Bradley on c o st of, quote how to cut expenditures for 90-2

Morrison, deLes s eps pro- Kennedy victor i n Louisiana election 405

NATIONAL FOUNDATION, THE Basil O 'C onno r , President of

NEW A T TACK ON THE C ONNALLY RESERVATION, A article 2 5 7 - 64 NEW DEAL s ocialists of gain control of C ongress by 1 9 3 8 1 7

NEW LONDON (OHIO) REC ORD footnoted 1 2 8 NEW ORLEANS race riots of 1 8 6 6 discus s ed

2 1 1 -2

M o s c o s o , T eodoro appointed Ambassador to Venezuela by Kennedy 53" appointed head of Alliance for Progr e s s 53 intimate friend of Betanc ourt 52 protege of Rexford Tugwell 52

NA TIONAL GEOGRAPHIC article " Giant Brazil , " footnoted

MOTIVES article

NA TIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH proj e cts of, examples 9 0

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANC E C O . supports urban r enewal 3 1

NATIONAL PARKS used to c onfiscate land, examples 235-6

NEW YORK PRAYER CASE , s ee SUPREME COUR T DECISION�

3 82 - 3 , 3 9 2

MOZAM BIQUE importance of, in Africa

1 19

MR . S TEVENSON GOES TO DALLAS article 3 4 5 - 9 Multer , Abraham on gold problem, quote

34 1

Mundt, Karl Bill on Soviet wheat deal defeated 404 MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASS OC IA TION part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with CFR 2 9 Murphy, C harles J . article by i n Life , footnoted

NATIONAL GYPSUM C O . supports urban r enewal

NA TIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION article 4 1 2 projects of, examples 9 0 NATIONAL SERVIC E C ORPS Adam C layton Powell gets funds for 34 1 established without c ongr es sional approval 3 4 1 NATIONALIST C HINA, s e e C HINA , NATIONALIST NATO, see NOR T H A T LANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

NEW YORK C ITY race riots of 1 8 6 3 dis c u s s e d 2 1 0 urban renewal project in, cost of 35 NEW YORK DAIL Y NEWS footnoted 1 36

NEW YORK TIMES , THE article on Turke y ' S defeat for UN Security C ouncil quoted 1 0 7 article o n U N housing plans , quoted 36 footnoted 56, 8 0 , 1 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 52 , 1 60 , 1 9 2 , 2 2 4 , 247 , 3 3 6 , 3 9 2 , 408 NEW YORK TIMES MAGA Z IN E , THE article from, on Dr . Jerome B . Wies ner , quoted 1 49 - 5 0 footnoted 56 NEWSLETTER, U . S . REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD H . POFF footnoted 64, 3 6 8

Muss olini , Benito had lower corporate taxes than U . S . 83 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE CO. supports urban renewal 3 1 Myrdal , Gunnar Swedish s ocialist used as authority by Supreme C ourt for s chool s e gre gation decision 6 N NA TIONAL ASSOCIA TION FOR THE ADVANC E MENT OF C OLORED PEOPLE communist DuBois principal founder of 3 6 5 c ommunis t - infiltrated 2 0 6 founding o f 3 64 - 5 interlocked with C ORE , Urban League 207 relationship to S ocialist Party 3 64 - 5 works with Black Muslims 174-5 N ATIONAL ASSOCIA TION O F HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with CFR 29

NATO PARLIAMENTARIANS , C ONFERENCE of 1 9 62 recommendations of, on emergency planning 1 7 0 - 1 NAZ IS M , s ee C OMMUNISM; FASCISM; SOCIALISM NEGROES , s ee also RAC E PROBLE M ; WASHINGTON , D . C . crime stati stic s of, in Wa shington 199 Dr . Garr ett o n intelligence of, quote 2 2 2 illegitimate births i n Washington 200 in Australia have not advanc ed 2 1 4 intelligence of, lower than of whites 222 King demands favoriti sm for 2 2 2 lack o f progr e s s o f , i n Haiti 2 1 3 - 4 make u p maj ority o f population of Washington, D . C . 199 Nehru, Jawaharlal friend of Khrushchev and admirer of USSR 9 gets help from United States 9 NETHER LANDS alienated from U. S . by Indonesia and New Guinea actions 42

NICARAGUA U. S. foreign aid to

Niebuhr, Reinhold member of CFR and American C ommitte e on Africa 1 1 4 Niemeyer , Oscar architect who designed Brasilia, Brazil 5 8 Nitz e , Paul H . appointe d S e c retary of Navy 343 beliefs of 343 member , C ouncil on For eign Rela 148 tions s p e e c h o f , rec ommending disarma ment, denied and admitted by Kennedy administration 1 48 NORTH A T LANTIC TREATY ORGANIZA TION de Gaulle actions may harm NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREA T Y , T E S T BAN TREATY

41 see

o O . A . S . , s e e ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES O ' C onnor , Basil on dangers of governm ent - supported s cience and r e s earch, quote 9 2 - 3 P r e s ident o f The National Founda tion 92 OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION, � C IVIL DEFENSE

Otepka , Otto F . dis cus s ion of firing of

342 - 3

PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. supports urban renewal 3 1

OUR C ONS TITU TIONAL SYSTEM article 3 54 - 5

PICKETING poor means of expr e s sion

OUR SUICIDE STRA TE GY article 1 4 5 - 6

Pike , Bishop James A . Vice C hairman of Am.erican C ommittee on Africa 1 14

P PADRE ISLAND national park used to confiscate land in T exas 2 3 5

OFFIC E R TIPPIT article 384

PANAMA U . S. foreign aid to

O 'Konski, Alvin E . " Our C razy For eign Giveaway Program" by, footnoted 64

PANAMA C ANAL Eis enhower defies laws on 342 Kennedy administration wants to give away 1 7 3 Kennedy defies laws on 342

ONE GREAT JURIST article 1 2 4 - 6 ONLY AN EMERGENC Y NEEDED article 1 7 3 - 6 ONL Y LEF TWINGERS article 6 1 - 2 ON THE MORNING OF MARC H 1 5 1 17-8 article Oppenheime r , J . Robert a s s ociate of c ommunists 3 0 2 r ec ommends stalemate instead of victory over c ommunists 3 0 2 ORGANIZA TION F O R E C ONOMIC C O OPERA TION AND DEVELOPMENT (OE C D ) r ec ommends higher U . S . spending and deficits 7 6 ORGANIZA TION O F AMERICAN STATES actions against Dominican Republic 50 Bogota C onference of, dis c u s s ion 50- 1 c onferences of, in 1 9 6 0 49 - 5 1 r efus es to condemn Castro and Cuba 49 - 5 1 San J o s e C onference of, dis cus sion 49-50 ORIGINS article

49- 5 1

Oswald, Lee Harvey a s s a s sin of Pres ident Kennedy, details 3 7 7 - 9 1 attended ACLU meeting at SMU 403 c ommunist connections of 380, 3 8 5 - 8 evidence against 3 7 9 - 80 killed by Jack Rubenstein 3 8 1 visits homes o f Dallas liberal intellectuals 403

Oum, Boun anti - c ommuni st Prince of Laos becomes Premi er 1 3 1

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING dis c u s s ion of dangers of 1 7 0 - 1 Kennedy Executive Orders giving dictatorial powers to 1 7 0 - 1

OLD MAN GRIPPIN article 348 - 9

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSY LVANIA urban r enewal project in, cost of

Patterson, F r ederick D . member , C F R and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4 PEACE C ORPS article 3 4 1 established illegally

PLANN E D DIC TATORSHIP article 1 69 - 76 PLANNING THE KILL 1 1 4- 5 article P OLAND steel galvanizing plant in, built with U . S . money 3 3 8 POLITIC A L AC TION F OR 1 9 64 article 1 8 5 - 92 POLITICAL C OORDINATING C OMMITTEE article on 1 8 8 - 9

PARABLE , A article 137- 8 PARAGUAY U . S. foreign aid to

349

341

P earson, Drew a liar 86 blames defeat of anti -firearms legis lation for Kennedy death, quote 404 credits Dan Smoot with defeat of anti -firearms bill , quote 404 defends Betancourt and attacks Dan Smoot 8 6 - 7

"POLITICS NO DOUB T : WHY THE DELAY ON NOTICE OF BIG BUDGET DEFIC IT ? " by David Lawrence footnoted 80 POR TLAND C EMENT ASSOCIATION OF C HICAGO supports urban r enewal 3 1 PORTUGAL, s e e also ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQU � -position of , at U N , on Angola 1 1 6 U N General A s s embly condemns , on Angola 1 1 8 PORTUGUESE -AME RICAN C OMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS booklet of , on Angola terror quoted 1 17 - 8

PEKING, see C HINA , COMMUNIST

POSSE C OMITATUS AC T defied by Eis enhower 342 desc ription 342 violated by Kennedy 3 4 1 - 2

PENNE Y , J . C . & C O . supports urban r enewal

P OS T WAR YEARS article 6 6 - 7

PEIPING, s e e C HINA , C OMMUNIST

PEOPLE 'S POTTAGE, THE , by Garet Garr ett footnoted 9 6

Potofsky, Jacob S . memb e r , Board of Dir e ctors of AC TION 30

PEOP LE 'S WORLD c onununist newspaper , endor s e s UN , quote 104

Powell , Adam C layton claims to have written Kennedy ' s civil rights bill , quote 2 0 6 helps form illegal National S e rvice C orps 341 U . S . Repr e s entative who is life member of NAA C P and supports Black Mus lims 1 74 - 5

P e r e s s , Irving Army Major prom.oted after being dis c overed a communist 1 7 9 PERU anti - c om.munist dictatorship of s c orned by U . S . 43 article 4 3 U . S . foreign a i d to 64

POW E L L 'S ILO TRIP article 2 6 8

POWER GRID SCHEME , THE article 249 - 56 POWER GRID SYSTEM e xplanation of 249 - 50 "PRE LIMINAR Y REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1 9 5 6 " footnoted 8 8 "PRESCRIPTION D R U G INDUSTRY STOR Y" by Baxt er Laboratories , Inc . footnoted 24 PRESERVING THE WILDE RNESS article 2 3 8 - 9 PRESIDENT JOHNSON article 40 5 - 6

PUBLIC S C HOOLS , Supreme C ourt implies 1 4th Amendment has effect on 5 PUBLIC S E RVIC E ELEC TRIC & GAS C O . OF NEWARK supports urban renewal 3 1 PUGW ASH C ONFERENCE r e c ommends "black boxe s ' ! disarma 157-8 ment s cheme PURE F OOD AND DRUG AC T OF 1 9 0 6 desc ription o f 1 7 PURPOSE article

PRIORITIES OF PROGRESS : THE UNI TE D NATIONS SPECIAL FUND 1 9 6 1 footnoted 104 PRIVATE EXTRAVAGANCE article 5 8 - 9

Quadros , Janio proc laimed Brazil neutralist

QUEMOY AND MATS U , s e e C HINA , NATIONALIST; FORMOSA' R RACE HATREDS AND S T RANGE MOTIVES article 1 1 3-4

Proxmir e , William statement in favor of test ban treaty, quote 3 1 5 - 6 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE C O . OF AMERICA supports urban r enewal 3 1

Radford, Admiral Arthur W . rec ommends us e of ' s uper weapons ' 303

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE part of " 1 3 1 3 Metro" interlocked with CFR 2 9

" RADICAL RIGHT IN AMERICA TODAY , THE " memorandum by Walter Reuther , dis c u s s ion 2 9 0 - 1

PUBLIC HOUSING, s e e also AREA REDEVELOPME N T ; URBAN RENEWAL adve r s e effects of 3 7 0

REA, s e e RURAL ELEC TRIFICATION ADMINIS TRA TION

PROPAGANDA PUS H , THE article 246 PROPOSAL, A article 8 6 PROVIDENC E ( R . I . ) JOURNAL article from quoted 3 8

PUBLIC LAND, s e e LAND PUBLIC LAW 480 discus s ed 3 3 9 - 4 0 form of foreign aid

339 -40

P U BLIC POWER dan g e r s of

372

di scussion o f curr ent plans 2 4 9 - 5 6 Goldwater on , quote 2 5 1 - 2 Thurmond on , quote 2 52

RED C HINA, s e e C HINA, C OMMUNIST "RED C HINA SAID TO FEAR INVASION, REVOL T " arti ::le footnoted 1 6 Reed, Walter head of Independent Voters of the USA 187-8

RACE PROBLEM , s ee also BLAC K MUSLIMS ; C OR E ; INTE GRATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANC EMENT OF C OLORED PEOPLE Britis h view on , quote 2 2 2 communist Cohen on , quote 2 3 1 - 2 c ommunist party program of 1 9 2 8 on 2 17 discuss ion of 1 74 - 6 federal programs o n negro employ ment 2 1 8 - 9 general di s cus sion o f 1 9 3 - 2 24 governm ent favoritism in protect ing negroes 2 1 9 - 2 1 history o f 2 0 9 - 2 1 6 race riote of 1 8 6 3 in New York C ity 210 race riots of 1 8 6 6 i n New Orleans dis cu s s e d 2 1 1 - 2

PRIVATE PROPERTY rights of, denies by Supreme C ourt in 1 9 54 2 7 s eizure o f , b y state legis latur e s , authorized b y Supreme C ourt 2 7 s eizure o f , i n Latin America 44 - 6

REC OUPING REFORMS , THE article 83 - 5

255-6 Q

"PRESIDE N T 'S BUDGET AND MESSAGE, T HE " speech by U . S . Repres entative C annon, footnoted 7 2

REC ONS TRUC TION ACT OF 1 8 67 abolished governments of 10 former C onfederate States 3 Pre sident A . Johnson quoted on 4 Supreme Court refus e s to give relief from 3 unconstitutional 3

REORGANIZA TION PLANS article 2 68 REORGANIZING FOR STALEMATE article 2 9 7 - 3 04 RE PEAL THE TAX AND STOP THE PLUNDER article 8 9 - 9 6 REPORTER, THE article from by Adolf A. B e rle quote d 1 84 REPOR TS ON DISARMAMENT article 1 9 1 - 2 REPUBLIC STEEL C ORP . s upports urban renewal

RESOLUTIONS OF C ONGRES S , s e e C ONGRESS , U . S . , BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS REUTHE R MEMORANDUM di s cus s ion of, quot es 2 9 0 - 1 r e commendations of 4 0 3 Reuther , Walt e r , s e e also REUTHE R MEMORANDUM memb e r , Board of Directors of 30 AC TION REVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE article 5 1 - 2 REYNOLDS ALUMINUM supports urban renewal

Rhee , Syngman story about, by General Van Fleet , on wanting no American s oldie r s , only equipment I I

REA DE R 'S DIGE S T , THE article from by Dr. Max Y e rgan quoted 1 0 9 - 1 0

RIGHT WING attack on, by Kuchel , other s , di s c us s ed 1 7 7 - 84 examples of truths told by 1 7 9 - 84

REBSAMEN , RAY MOUD, OF LITTLE ROCK supports urban r enewal 3 1

ROAD AHEAD , THE article 4 0 6 - 8

RECESSION OF 1 9 58 caused by high taxes and foreign c ompetition 68

Rob e rto , Holden biographical information 1 1 5 communist in Angola , activitie s of 1 14 - 9

flown to Belgrade C onference in UN plane 1 19 nn es sage of starting terror in Angola quoted 115 visits U . S . 119

Rubenstein, Jack kills Lee H. Oswald

S C IENCE AND GOVERNMENT; THE PERILOUS PARTNERSHIP by Basil O ' C onnor , quoted 92 - 3

381

Runn l , Beardsley devi s e d withholding tax

274

Roberts on, A . Willis questions Senator Jackson on test ban treaty, quote 3 1 6 - 7

RURAL ELEC TRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION discus sion of 2 5 5

Rockefelle r , Nelson A . r eport of used by Eis enhower to r e organize Arnned Forces 302

RURAL RENEWAL proposal by fornner C ongr e s s nnan Thonnas F. Johnson 3 7 - 8

Ronnulo, C arlos P . s ays underdeveloped nations losing r espect for U . S . 106

Rus k , Dean fires Otepka, dis cus sion on test ban treaty, quote

342 - 3 246

SCIENCE AND RESEARC H article 9 2 - 4 "SC IE N TIST FINDS DRUG TO ALTER SUBSTANCES C ONTROLLING EM OTIONS ; SWEDE SUGGESTS C HEMIC AL C OULD BE USE D IN MENTAL ILLNESS OR TO C ONTROL MINDS OF MEN, " article in WALL S TREET JOURNAL footnoted 24 Sc ott, Hugh on 1 9 64 budget, quote 79 statennent in favor of test ban treaty, quote 3 1 5

ROOSEVELT A DMINISTRATION S attitude of , toward c onnnnuni snn 3 5 3 - 4 connnnunists i n Dept . o f Agriculture SACRAMENTO (CA LIFORNIA ) BEE initiate progranns 123 calls c on s ervatives fas cists """"403 deficit financing of 1 9 3 3 - 1 94 1 6 5 - 6 SAFEWAY S T ORES, INC . R oos evelt , Eleanor supports urban r enewal 3 1 U . S . r epres entative to UN C onnnnis sion on Hunnan Rights 1 02 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS defeated urban renewal 4 0 Roosevelt , Franklin D . Executive Order of gives Pre sident SAN BERNARDINO, C A LIFORNIA dictatorial powe r s in an "emergenc y · ' defeated urban r enewal 39 171 quoted on deficit financing 6 5 SAN FRANCISCO CALL- BULLETIN s aved the Soviet Union fronn collap s e article in footnoted 8 32 1 - 2 , 3 2 3 - 4 signed uncons titutional Federal Food, SAN LUIS OBISPO, C A LIFORNIA Drug, and C o s nnetics Act of 1 9 3 8 1 7 defeated urban r enewal 39 talk with Stalin o n TVA , quoted 2 5 5 , 375 SAN SALVADOR U . S. foreign aid to 64 Roos evelt, Theodore Pure Food and Drug Act of 1 9 0 6 SAO PAULO, BRA ZIL signed b y 1 7 desc ription and di s c u s s ion of 5 8 - 9

SE GREGA TION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS : OPINION OF THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE UNI T E D S TATES footnoted 8

ROOSEVELT - TRUMAN -EISENHOWER NEGOTIA TIONS article 242 - 4

SENATE INTERNAL SEC URITY SUBCOMMITTEE on S oviet T r eaty r ecord, quote

ROOSEVEL T YEARS article 6 5 - 6 6 Ros tow, Walt Whitnnan nnennber , C ouncil on Foreign 148 Re lations n e e d to nnake Soviet Union "re spectable " 3 2 3 o n need f o r world gove rnnnent, quote 231 ROTARIAN, THE footnoted 1 04 Roudebush, Richard L . report of shows Kennedy nni s repre s ented about reducing non - defens e expenditures in 1 9 64 7 8 ROUS E , JAMES W . & C O . supports urban renewal

Rous s elot , John desc ription of Latin Annerican agrarian refo rnn 54- 5 q uoted on Kenne dy ' s trip to Venezuela 5 3 - 4 r e s earch b y , o n Betancourt 5 2

S A TURDA Y EVENING POS T , THE article fronn, by Baldwin , quoted 297-8 article fronn, b y General Whit e , quoted 2 9 8 - 9 SA TURDA Y REVIEW dennands Drug Industry investigation 18 r e c onnnnends Medical Letter whos e Managing Director is a communist 18 Schlesinge r , Arthur M . , J r . article b y o n future o f s ociali s m , quoted 3 6 7 - 8 defines 'official liberalisnn, ' quote 367 nnennb er o f C F R and Annerican C onnnnittee on Africa 1 1 4 Schollij , E . M . interview with, on U N action in Katanga 42 - 3 SCHOOLS , s e e EDUCA TION; PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCIENC E federal agenCies financing, controlling 60% of 92 federal agencies involved in 92

SEARS , ROEBUCK & C O . supports urban renewal

SEATO c r eation and connposition of

1 30

S E C OND ROLL C ALLS , 1 9 6 3 article 2 6 5 - 7 2 S E E DS OF DESTRUC TION by John M . Blair clainns private capitalisnn doonned 18 SE GREGATION I N PUBLIC SCHOOLS , s e e SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS

243

SENATOR LONG'S SCHEME article 2 6 0 - 1 S eward, William H . forced t o proc lainn 1 4th Annendnnent adopted 4 SHERA TON C ORP . OF AMERICA s upports urban r enewal 3 1 SHREVEPORT JOURNAL, THE footnoted 80, 1 36, 1 76 SHREVEPORT TIMES , THE footnoted 1 36 on Louisiana elections , quote

405

SHIFT IN THE BALANCE OF POW E R article 1 0 5 - 7 Shipstead, Henrik opposed adoption of UN charter when 101 Senator SILLY AND THE SINIS TER, THE article 2 6 1 - 3

SILVER LEGISLATION article 1 6 3 - 4 , 2 6 6 Simp s on , Milward comments on federal land grab s , quotes 2 3 6 Sing e r , Hans W . founder o f SUNFED idea, quote

SINISTER PARALLELS 10 - 1 1 article S LEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL PARK oppos ition to, quotes 2 3 6 used t o confis cate land in Michigan 2 3 5 - 6 S LUMS caus ed by people 38 examples of c ons titutional actions against 3 9 Smoot , Dan Latin American trip by, dis c us s ion 43-7 Pears on attacks for s tand against anti -firearms bill 404 program investigated by California Legi s latur e , r e s ults 2 9 2 trip to Brazi l , discus sion . 5 7 - 6 1 Smoot , Mabeth E . article by, > !C ongressional Fun d > ! 46-7 SMU, s e e SOUTHERN MET HODIST UNIVERSITY Snyder , M . G . quoted on cutting 1 9 64 budget SOCIAL SECURITY is bankrup t , proof

1 8 0- 1

SOCIALISM, s e e also AMERICAN C IVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC AC TION ; C OMMUNIS M ; FASCISM ; LEAGUE F O R INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRAC Y ; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION F OR THE ADVANC EMENT OF C OLORE D PEOPLE advancement of, in Ameri c a , dis cus s ion 3 69 - 7 5 contrasted with freedom 2 2 - 3 fundamentally atheistic 3 9 6 - 7 Kennedy desires t o complete conversion of America into s ocialist state 85 same as cornITlunisrn and fascism 83, 3 5 5 - 6 0 Schlesinger quoted o n future of 367 - 8 SOCIALISM A N D C OMMUNISM s imilarity of 3 6 5 - 6 SOCIALIST PARTY background and growth of 3 6 1 - 2 Fabian Society o f England, dis c u s s ion 362

SOCIALIZ E D MEDICINE , s e e a l s o DRUG INDUSTRY AC T OF 1 9 6 2 ; DRUG INDUSTRY BILL OF 1 9 6 1 ; KEFAUVER MEDICINE effe cts of, in Soviet Union and Great Britain 23 mas s immunization program of 1 9 6 2 uncons titutional 2 2 m a s s immunization program propos ed by Kennedy and pas s e d by C ongr e s s i n 1 9 62 2 2 SOCIALI Z E D POWER, s e e PUBLIC POWER

STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RE LEASE N o . 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) footnoted 1 3 6 S TATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE No. 59 ( 1 9 6 3 ) footnoted 48 STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE N o . 6 7 9 ( 1 9 6 2 ) footnoted 1 6

SOCIALIZING AMERICA article 3 6 9 - 7 6

S TATE DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION No . 572 ( 1 9 6 1 ) footnoted 56

SOCIA LI ZING THE GOSPEL article 3 9 7 - 8 SOLEDA D , CALIFORNIA defeated urban r enewal

Stanton, Edwin F . member of C F R and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4

Solod, Daniel S emenovich Soviet official involved in sub ver sion of Africa 1 1 4 - 5 Soule , George of New Orleans not member of LID 408 SOUTH AFRIC A , REPUBLIC OF U . S . consis tently votes again s t , in UN 107 will fall to c ommunis t s if Angola falls 1 19-20 S OUTH C AROLINA r efus e d to pas s urban renewal laws 31 SOUT HERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY chaplain blames a s s a s s ination on 'radical right , ' quote 402 - 3 Oswald attends AC LU meeting at 403 SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TE LEPHONE CO. supports urban renewal 3 1 SOVIET PLANS I N LA TIN AMERIC A article by C onstantine Brown 3 5 0 - 1 S OVIE T TREATY R E C OR D S enate Internal S ecurity Subcommittee on , quote 243 SOVIET UNION , s e e UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Sparkman, John J . announ c e s plans of federal govern ment for a s s i sting underdeveloped countries with urban r enewal 3 6 - 7

S TATE DEPAR T MENT , U . S . for c e d C hiang Kai - shek off continent of Asia 1 1 intervenes in internal affair s of C anada 4 1 , 48 Otepka case in, dis cus s e d 342 - 3 prepared t o furni s h a s s i stance to India, quote 1 0 primarily res ponsible for making C uba an enemy 42 requests U . S . busines s e s to s ell communi s t goods 3 2 6 STATE URBAN RENEWAL LAWS article 27 STATIS TICS article 64 S TENNIS C OMMITTEE re commends against t e s t ban treaty 3 13-4 Stevens , Thaddeus wanted to treat C onfederacy as conquered pr ovinces 2 Stevens on , Adlai E . defends Angola r eb el s ' ter ror 117 s p e e c h of, in Dalla s , and incident after 347 - 9 Steven s o n , WilliaITl E . memb e r of C FR and American C ommittee on Africa 1 1 4 STOCKTON, C A LI F ORNIA defeated urban r enewal

Ston e , Kathryn H . member , Board of Directors of AC TION 30 S T OP WITHHOLDING article 2 7 3 - 2 80

SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO article about wheat refer endum 1 2 7 - 8

S T ORM THE SENATE TO REJE C T THE TREATY article 246

SPLUNGE BIRD REFUGE used to c onfiscat e land in Indiana

S T OR Y OF LAOS , T HE article 129- 36

Stalin, Josef communi s t diplomacy, quote

241

235

S TRANGER IN THEIR MIDS T , A article 3 8 5 - 9 2

STRA TEGIC AIR C OMMAND Lyndon Johns on admits U. S . considering turning it over to NATO 148

TAX C U T article

Stratemeyer, Lt . General George E . testimony of, on Korean War 11

TAX REDUC TIONS article 94 - 5

S T RE TCHING THE AMENDMENT article 4 - 5

TAXES , see also F E DERAL TAXES ; INCOME TAX ; WITHHOLDING TAX adve r s e effects of 3 6 9 - 7 0

Sukarno a communist

T eller , Edward te stifies against test ban treaty, quote 3 1 4

108

Sumne r , Charles wanted to treat C onfederacy as conquered provinc e s 2 SUNFED, s e e also UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL FUN� desc ription of 9 7 forerunner o f United Nations Special Fund 9 7 Paul G . Hoffman on , quote 97 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS article 2 6 8 SUPP LY- MANAGEMENT article 126 SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS decision in 1 87 3 on intentions of 1 4th Amendment 4 Mallory C a s e decision dis cus s e d 198 Monroe C a s e di s s e nsion written by Frankfurt e r , quote d 6 Monroe C a s e gives individuals right to bypass state laws and s tate c ourts 6 New York School Prayer C a s e decision reve r s e d meaning o f 1 s t Amendment 7 s c hool s e gr egation decision quoted, discus s ed 5 - 6 s chool s egr egation decision used as precedent for many other illegal decisions 6 s chool s egr egation decision used communist fronters and Swedish s ocialist as authorities 6 T e nnes s ee Election C a s e (Baker versus Carr) makes state govern ments branches of federal government 6 - 7 urban renewal i n 1 9 54 2 7 , 3 5 SUPREME C OUR T , U . S . changes meaning of C ons titution C ongr e s s can limit under C onstitution 7 gives state legis latures right to s eize private property 2 7 private property rights s everely limited by 2 7 s c hool s egregation decision of, authorities 6 Warren leadership re sults in r e defining 1 4th Amendment 5 Sylvester, Arthur admits that government manages news 1 72

412

TEMPLE JUDEA C ONGREGATION Rabbi of blames a s s a s s ination on other than assas sin, quote 403 TENNESSEE ELEC TION CASE , s e e SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY communists favor , quote 2 5 5 damage caus ed b y 2 52 - 3 , 2 54 - 5 fallacy of 2 52 - 4 Roos eve1t -Stalin conversation on, quote 2 5 5 , 3 7 5 TEST BAN : AN AMERICAN S TRA TEGY OF GRADUAL SELF - M UTILATION, THE , by Stefan T . Pos s ony ----"To o tnoted 144, 1 5 2 , 1 60 quoted 1 4 5 T E S T B A N TREAT Y , s ee also -- --DISA RMAMENT background of Soviet- U . S . negotiations on 2 4 3 - 7 chronology prior t o confirmation 3 1 3-4 complete text 247 - 8 Goldwater speech agains t , quote 317-9 Rusk quoted o n 246 S enate debates on ratification, quotes 3 1 5 - 9 Stennis C ommittee Report against 313-4 T e ller testifies against , quote 3 1 4 "TEXT OF THE DECLARATION OF BELGRADE " footnoted 1 2 0 THALIDOMIDE publicity over effects of used as propaganda for pas s age of Drug Industry Act of 1 9 62 19 "THERE I S NO 'FOURTEENTH AMEND MENT ' ! " , by David Lawrence footnote d 8 THE Y KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING article 62 - 3 nITR D ROLL CALLS, 1 9 6 3 article 2 8 1 - 8 "TillR TEE N - T HIRTEEN" ( 1 3 1 3 ) , s e e METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT --

THIS C HANGING WORL D : FOR C OMMANDERS : ARMED FORCES INFORMA TION AND EDUCA TION , Vol. 1 , No . 8 footnoted 64 THOSE WHO OWE US MOS T article 3 3 5 - 6 Thurmond, Strom best cons e rvative in the Senate on public power, quote 2 52 TIME, INC . -SUpports urban renewal

190- 1

TIME IS NOW , THE article 1 4 - 1 6 Tippit, J . D . funds for family of, c ontributions 3 84 killed by Pre sident ' s a s s a s sin 3 7 9 , 3 84 T O TA L EXPENDITURE REDUC TIONS article 94 TOWARD SOVIET AMERICA article 3 1 - 2 TOWARD SOVIET AMERIC A , by William Z . Foster quote d on public housing and urban renewal 2 5 Towe r , John G . quoted o n Afro -Asian bloc i n U N TRADE EXPANSION AC T pr edictions of, proven

109

183-4

TRADE WITH C OMMUNIST NATIONS detailed dis cus sion 32 1 - 8 history of 32 3 - 6 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY article 32 1 - 8 TRAGE D Y OF U . S . MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NA TIONS , THE article 1 0 5 - 1 2 T RA GIC S T ORY , THE article 1 1 - 1 2 TRAVELERS INSURANCE C OS . support urban renewal 3 1 TRICKLE UP THEOR Y , THE article 82 Truman, Harry S . earnings from books by, not taxed as income 2 7 5 - 6 Executive Orders o f amended by Kennedy 1 7 0 orders 7th Fleet to keep Chiang Kai - shek from invading communist C hina 1 1 refus e d Chiang Kai - shek ' s offer of troops during Korean War 11 " T RUTH ABOUT DRUG PRIC ES, T HE " article in U . S . News 8< World Report , quote 2 0

TRUTH WILL OUT article 1 7 7 - 84 Tugwell, Rexford Guy Roos evelt "B raintruster " who taught T eodoro M o s c o s o 52 TULANE LAW REVIEW footnoted 8 TULSA TRIBUNE quoted on Repre sentative J ohns on's plan for rural r enewal 3 8 T URKEY not elected to UN S ecurity C ouncil in 1 9 59 1 0 6 - 7 TURNER CONSTRUCTION C O . OF NEW YORK supports urban renewal 3 1 TVA , s e e TENNESSEE VALLE Y AUTHORITY U Udall, Stewart L . o n learning from Soviets , quote 249 submits plan to C ongr e s s on federal lands 2 3 8 - 9 UNDERDEVELOPED C OUNTRIES U . S . plans for a s s i sting, with urban renewal 3 6 - 7 UNES C O publishes c ommunis t propaganda booklet about race relations in the USSR, quotes 1 00 succe eds in r emoving patriotism from American textbooks 180 U . S . pays 32 . 02 0/0 of c ost of 1 0 0 UNESC O 'S SOVIET PROPAGANDA article 1 0 0 UN FRIENDSHIP FOR THE BUTC HERS article 1 19 UN GUNS AND CANNIBAL SPEARS 1 18-9 article U N "IDEAL" article 1 0 2 - 4 UNION O F PEOPLES O F ANGOLA communist terrorist organization 115 UNION OF SOUTH AFRIC A , s e e SOUTH AFRIC A , REPUBLIC OF UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPU B LICS , see also Khrus hchev, Nikita C ons titution of, compared with UN 103 Declaration of Human Rights Drug Industry o f 2 3 foreign commercial policy of 322 government of, s am e ideal as that of UN 1 0 3 - 4 lines up with C OITllTIu nist C hina against India 9 , 1 0

military buildup by, i n Cuba 4 6 - 7 needs U . S . wheat 32 2 - 3 Nehru a n admirer of 9 purpose of attacks by on UN explained 1 19 purpo s e of communi sts in 2 4 1 saved by Roosevelt froIn invasion by Japan 32 1 - 2 , 3 2 3 split with c OInInunis t China fal s e 14 treaty record of 140 U. S . assistance to 3 2 3 - 6 U . S . attitude toward colonialisIn of, in Africa 1 1 4 U . S . offers e conoInic aid to 2 7 9 - 8 0 Wils on and Hoover adtninistrations refuse to rec ognize , reasons 24 1 - 2 UNITED KINGDOM , s ee GREAT BRITAIN UNITED NATIONS actions by, in the C ongo 42 - 3 actions of, in Africa 1 09 - 1 0 , 1 1 3 - 2 0 admits lying about operations in Congo, quote 1 0 1 armies of COInInit atrocities in S outh Kasai, C ongo 1 0 1 article 9 7 - 1 04 attacks on by USSR explained 1 1 9 balance of power in shifts to AfroAsian bloc during Eis enhower administration 1 0 6 bills to get U . S . out of, introduced by Alger and Utt 1 2 0 c OInmunist advanc es since founding of 1 02 c OInmunist People ' s World endor s es , quote 1 04 complete membership list and date of entry 1 0 8 cost o f t o United Stat e s , perc entage 36 dangers of to the U. S . 1 0 1 -2 delegates to from c OInmunist countries act as agents , iInmune from U. S. law 1 02 General A s s eInbly adopts condeInnation of Portugal 1 1 8 gi ves U . S . tax money t o Cuba, amounts 9 8 - 9 Malik says nations against U . S . increasing in UN 1 0 6 peac e record of 1 02 plane of used by Roberto to fly to Belgrade 1 1 9 promotes rac e wars and hatreds in Africa 1 09 - 1 0 , 1 1 3 - 2 0 record o f 346 same ideal of government as USSR 103-4 Security C ouncil actions o n Angola 1 16 Security C ounci l , composition of 106-7 Security C ouncil investigation of Lao s , results 130- 1 s ocialist international conspiracy to produce s ocialist one - world 1 0 2 Soviet s e cret police with U N creden tials beat and kidnap Russians in AInerica 1 02 supports c ommunist race hatred in Africa 1 1 3 - 4 troops o f i n C ongo give guns to Angola terrorists 1 18

urban renewal and housing plans of 36 U . S . c o s t o f participation i n 1 0 5 - 6 U . S . should withdraw from 104 vote on Hungarian Revolt r e s olution 106 voting and power bloc s , cOInplete listing 1 0 8 UNITED NATIONS C HARTER adoption of, opposition to , in 1 9 4 5 , quotes 1 0 1 -2 UNITED NATIONS C OMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Malik says it responded to the Soviets , quote 103 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS provisions of cOInpared with USSR C onstitution 1 0 3 UNITED NATIONS FISH STOR Y article 99 - 1 00 UNITED NATIONS IN AFRICA 1 13-20 article UNITED N ATIONS RELIEF AND REHABILITATION A DMINIS TRATION, s ee UNRRA UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL FUND gives U . S . money to c omInunists 98-9 history o f 9 7 - 9 HoffInan, Paul G . , head o f 9 8 outgrowth o f SUNFE D idea 97 project of in U . S . , confusion 9 9 - 1 0 0 projects of 9 8 - 1 00 purposes and workings of 9 7 - 8 statistics o n gifts to nations 9 8 - 9 U . S . pays 40% o f 9 8 UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL C olumn by Stewart Hensley footnoted 1 6 dispatch of, about C ongo, quoted

101

UNITED STATES accepts USSR proposal on Laos 131 attitude of toward Soviet colonialisIn in Africa 1 1 4 backs UN C ongo action 42 bills to get U . S. out of UN introduced by Alger and Utt 1 2 0 consistently votes against S outh Africa in UN 1 0 7 c ontemplates billion - dollar military aid program to India 9 - 1 0 cost of UN to, perc entage 3 6 forced Laos t o surrender to 10 communists foreign aid and policy of turns friends to hatr e d of 42 - 7 government of pr events bombings across Ya1u River during Korean war 1 0 government of will not perInit Chiang Kai - shek to invade c ommunist C hina 1 0 - 1 1 Korean war wor � t di�a.�ter o f ,

results

102

promotes c ommuni st race hatred in Africa with UN 1 1 3 - 4 reasons for supporting race hatred in Africa 1 1 3 - 4 should withdraw from U N 1 04 tries to force right-wing government out in Laos 1 32 UN LIES A BOUT THE C ONGO 100- 1 article UN PEACE REC ORD 1 02 article UN RACISM article 109- 1 0 UNRRA di s cus sion of 3 2 5 helps Tito destroy anti-c ommunists 325 UNSF article

97 - 9 9

U N SUPPORTS THE C OMMUNISTS article 1 1 5- 6 URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION article on legis lation for 1 62 URBAN RENEWAL, s e e also AREA REDEVELOPMENT ; PUBLIC HOUSING AC TION is propaganda agency to s ell citizens on 30 Advertising C ouncil spons ors free radio and TV announc ements promoting work of AC TION 3 0 arm o f metropolitan government 3 7 brief desc ription o f us e of taxes for 28 busine s s organizations supporting, list 3 0 - 1 comprehensive dis c u s s ion and analysis 2 5 - 4 0 c o s t o f to taxpayers 3 5 - 6 developers o f must comply with "no racial dis c rimination" order of Kennedy 3 5 expanded abroad b y Foreign A s sist足 ance Act of 1 9 6 1 3 1 federal controls on 3 4 - 5 F e deral District C ourt ruling on, in 1 9 54 in Washington, D . C . , quoted 26-7 federal grants t o city governments to pay cost of moving busin e s s e s and people displaced by urban r enewal 34 federal plans for as s i sting unde r 足 developed countrie s i n 3 6 - 7 Housing Act of 1 949 basic authority for 2 5 - 6 Housing Act o f 1 9 6 1 authorized $9 billion 36 Houston, T exas only maj o r city without zoning laws for 3 1 how it works , desc ription 3 3 - 5 how to stop it 3 9 - 4 0 26-7 i n Washington, D . C . Kennedy, John F . on , quote 3 5 - 6 list o f communities where i t was stopped 3 9 - 40

officials of now admit it doe s n 't s olve slum problem 1 8 2 - 3 promoted b y C E D 2 9 - 3 0 s old t o American people b y Invisible Government and its agencies 2 9 - 3 1 states without urban renewal laws listed 3 1 Supreme C ourt s ays state legis latures may s eize private property under 2 7 Supreme C ourt upholds i n 1 9 54 2 7 United Nations plans for 3 6 W orkable Program defined 3 4 URBAN RENEWAL AND A SOVIET AMERICA - PART I article 2 5 - 3 2

v Van Fleet , General James A . tells story about Syngman Rhee testimony of on Korean war 1 1 Vargas , Getulio fas cist dictator of B razil

VENEZ UELA , -s e e --also Betancourt , Romulo economic condition of 5 3 , 54- 5 gets U . S . tax money from UN Special Fund, amount 98 showpiece of Alliance for Progr e s s 53 U . S . foreign aid to 64

URBAN RENEWAL A N D A SOVIET AMERICA - PAR T II article 3 3 -40

VE TERANS article 92

URBAN RENEWAL FOR THE WORLD article 3 6 - 7

VETERANS BENEFITS dis cus sion of 92

URBAN RENEWAL LAND DEALS article 3 5

VIETNAM c ommunists from reinforce rebels 130 - 1 in Laos divided into neutralist and c OTYlmunis t parts by 1 9 54 Geneva Conference 1 30

URUGUAY U. S. foreign aid to U.S.A. ----not ---roOt ed

U . S. AID OPERA TIONS IN LAOS by House Government Operations C ommittee footnoted 1 3 6 U . S . NEWS & WORLD REPORT article "The Truth About Drug Pric e s " quoted 2 0 article " u . S . Betting o n Mexico - 足 But There ' s Trouble Ahead " , quoted 6 1 , 6 2 article "With Mao Attacking India Time to Unleash C hiang ? " 1 3 editorials from footnoted 8 election of c ommuni sts in India, quote 3 5 8 footnoted 1 6 , 2 4 , 8 8 , 1 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 144, 2 0 0 , 208, 224, 248 , 256, 3 1 2 , 3 2 8 , 360, 376 o n problems o f S oviet Union, quote 322

VOIC E OF AMERICA head of quoted on broadcast blaming rightwing for President ' s a s s a s s ination 3 8 8 - 9 implies Pres ident killed b y right足 wing extr emists 3 8 8 W Waggonner , Joe D . , J r . outlines G e s e l l Report, quote W alke r , Edwin A . jailed without due proc e s s

305-6

342

Wallac e , Henry c ommunists in his Dept . of Agriculture initiate farm programs 123 WALL STREET JOURNAL article from footnoted 24

U . S . PARTICIPATION I N T H E UN : REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT T O T H E C ONGRESS F O R THE YEAR 1 96 1 footnoted 1 2 0

WANDERER, THE column by Dr . Robert Morris on C hiang Kai - s hek and c ommunist China - Indian conflict, quote 1 3

UTAH r efu s e d to pas s urban renewal laws 31

WAR BETWEEN THE S TATES di s c u s sion of 2 09 - 1 2 Lincoln ' s reas on for 2

U Thant made UN head by deal between Soviets and U . S . 181

WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENC E , s e e WAR BETWEEN THE STATES

Utley, Freda The C hina Story by, footnoted

Utt, James B . introduces Bill t o get U . S . out of UN 1 04 , 1 2 0

Warren, Earl communists rec ommend to be head of c ommi s sion to investigate Kennedy ' s death 3 9 1 named by Pres ident Johnson t o head commi s s ion investigating Kennedy's death 3 9 1

reactions of to Kennedy's a s s a s s ination, quote 382 s chool s e gr egation decision of quoted 5 under leaders hip of, Supreme C ourt r e - defines meaning of 14th Amend ment 5 WASHINGTON , D . C . crime in, examples 1 98 - 200 integration o f s chools in, te stimony quoted 1 9 3 - 8 integration problems o f 1 9 3 - 2 0 0 stadium race riot o f 1 9 62 discus s ed 198-9 urban renewal in 2 6 - 7 WASHINGTON : THE MODEL C I T Y article 1 9 3 - 2 00 WASHINGTON POST article on U. S . acc epting USSR ideas on Lao s , quoted 1 3 1 WATER MOCCASIN story of Army maneuver

1 10-2

WA TER MOCCASIN BI TES , THE article from. The Richm.ond News Leader 1 1 0 - 2 WATER POLLUTION AGENC Y article 4 1 0 - 1 WA Y OUT , T HE article 2 5 6 W eaver , Robert C . c om.m.unist fr ont record of caused challenge to his appointment as Housing Administrator 30 memb e r , Board of Directors of AC TION 3 0 W ebster , Daniel on destruction of the C onstitution , quote 2 2 5 W edem.eyer, General Albert C . Wedem.eyer Reports ! by, footnoted 16 W E DEMEYER REPORTS ! by General Albert C . Wedemeyer footnoted 1 6 W E ENFORC E PEACE ON C OMMUNIST TERMS article 1 3 1 - 4 W einber g , Sidney member , Board of Directors of AC TION 30 member of Busines s C ouncil 3 0 WELFARE argUlnents used by prorrlOters of 27-8 W elles , Gideon dis cus s ion of New Orleans race riots of 1 86 6 , quote 2 1 2 WESTERN BLOC NATIONS dis c u s s ion of 1 08

W e stland, Jack on gold problem, quote

329

WE T O L D Y O U SO 1 7 9 - 84 article WHA T C A N BE DONE article , about FCC 'Fairne s s Doctrin e ' 2 9 5 - 6 WHAT C A N I DO ? article , about repeal of Incom.e Tax 96

WHISTLING PAST THE GRA VEYARD OF EXPERIE NCE article 3 1 3 - 2 0 Whit e , General Thomas D . article by, on M c Namara ' s Defens e Department quote d 2 9 8 - 9 Whit e , Harry Dexter communist 3 3 0 im.portance o f 3 2 9 - 3 0 member of C F R 3 3 0

WHAT C A N WE D O article , about Supreme C ourt and 14th Amendment 7 - 8

Wies ner , Jerome B . biographical information 1 4 9 - 5 0 member o f C ouncil o n Foreign Relations 149

WHAT I S LAOS ? 1 30 article

WILDERNESS BILL article on 1 62

WHA T OUR AID HAS DONE article 3 34 - 5

William s , J ohn J . on 1 9 64 budget, quote

WHAT SHOULD B E DONE article , about Alliance for Progr e s s 6 3 - 4 article , about federal land grabs 239-40 article , about public lands 2 39 - 4 0

WILSON A DMINISTRA TION individuals in supported ACLU 3 64 refu s e s to rec ognize S oviet Union 241-2

WHAT SHOULD WE D O ? arti c l e , about foreign aid and policy 47 WHA T SHOULD WE DO NOW ? article about Laos 135 WHAT T O DO article , about civil rights bill 2 0 8 arti c l e , about conservative Senators and Repres entatives 164 arti c l e , about Di s armament Agency 1 59 - 60 article , about federal c ontrols of food, drug s , and cos metics 24 articl e , about foreign aid 3 3 6 article , about Gesell Report 3 1 2 article , about Kennedy appoint ments 3 4 3 - 4 article , about Kennedy ' S Executive Orders 176 article , about race problem. 2 2 3 - 4 artic l e , about U N 1 04 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 0 article , about withholding tax 2 7 8 - 9 article , about World C ourt 2 64 WHEAT DEAL WITH C OMMUNISTS dis cus s ion of 3 22 - 3 WHEAT PROBLE M , s e e FARM PROBLEM - - WHEA .yWHEA T REFERENDUM Agriculture Department defies Hatch Act in 342 WHEAT REFERENDUM , 1 9 6 3 article 1 2 1 - 8 WHERE YOUR TAX MONEY WILL GO article by Kingsbury Smith 2 7 9 - 8 0 "WHICH ' C ONS TITUTION ' ? " b y David Lawr ence footnoted 8

WI THHOLDING TAX adoption of 2 7 4 - 5 Bill introduc e d in 1 9 62 to eliminat e , b y Bruce Alger 24 history of 2 7 4 - 5 plans and organizations opposed to 276-8 "WITH M A O A T T AC KING INDIA - TIME T O UNLEASH C HIA NG ? " article from U . S . News & World Report 1 3 W OODWARD & LATHROP DEPARTMENT S T ORE supports urban r enewal 3 1 WORKA BLE PROGRA M , s ee also -- --URBAN RENEWAL definition of 34 WORKE R , T HE communist paper suggests Earl W ar r en to head c om.m.is sion investi gating Kennedy ' s death 3 9 1 WORLD, THE article from on U. S. aid to Brazil , quote 4 5 WORLD C ONGRESS O F THE C OMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL purpos e of disarmament, quote

241

W ORLD C OURT c ompo s ition of judges of 2 5 7 - 8 , 263-4 C o nnally R e s e rvation to dis cus s e d 258-9 dis c u s s ion of 2 57 - 64 history of 2 57 - 9 Long plan to rec onstitute 2 60 - 1 membership of and r e s e rvations 2 62 - 3 r e s e rvations t o juris diction of 2 6 2 - 3 U . S . joins 2 58 - 9

WORLD WAR II r e sults of in Europe 324- 5 U . S . forces kept from taking Berlin, Prague by Eis enhower

324

WRONG BREEDS WRONG article 6 - 7 Wyman, Louis C . on communist trade goods in U . S . , quote 3 2 6 W Y OMING refused to pass urban renewal laws 31 Y YALTA C ONFERENCE Roosevelt gives Stalin what he wanted 324

Yarmolinsky, Adam activities of, in Defense Department 308 communist activiti es o f 2 9 1 has record of communi st affilia Â tions 3 0 5 has record o f participation in communist activities 1 70 implements Gesell Report 3 0 5 important official i n Defense Department 1 7 0 Yergan , D r . Max comments of, on UN Angola action, quote 1 1 8 quoted on U . S . policy in Africa 1 09 - 1 0 YOUTH C ONSERVATION CORPS article on 1 6 3

YUGOSLAVIA gets U. S . tax money from UN Special Fund 98 Kennedy rule s it is not c ommuni st controlled 340 UNRRA money helps Tito destroy anti - c ommunists 32 5 Z Z eckendorf, William memb e r , Board of Directors of AC TION 3 0 Z ONING LAWS article 2 7 dangers o f strong laws o n zoning studied for long time b y " 1 3 1 3 " member organizations 2 9