Dan smoot report vol xi 435

THE

1965

TAB LE

C ONTENTS

VOLUME XI

Title

1965

Issue

Date

Page

The Road Ahead

Jan.

Congo Tragedy

Jan.

What Are We Doing In Vietnam?

Jan.

Nationalizing Education

Jan.

Metropolitan Government

Feb.

Communist Student Riots

Feb.

Mar. 1

The Great Society Civil Rights Or Civil War? Social Security

Mar.

Agriculture At Bay

Mar.

Earl Warren Court--Part I

Mar.

Earl Warren Court--Part II

Mar.

Earl Warren Court--Part III

Apr.

105

ï¿½ar1 Warren Court--Part IV

Apr.

113

,Apr.

121

Deliver Up Our Arms

Apr.

129

Immigration Problem

May 3

How Long Can We Last?

Through The Looking G1as s

137

TAB LE

C ONTENTS

VOLUME XI

Title

1965

Issue

Voting Rights Bill

Date

Page

May 10

145

The Dominican Republic

May 17

153

Our Labor Laws

May 24

161

May 31

169

The Fruits Of Liberalism

June 7

177

Second Roll Calls,

June 14

185

President Johnson's Two Wars

June 21

193

America's Promise

June 29

201

Toward a Socialist Dictatorship

July 5

209

The Right To Work

July 12

217

Government Guaranteed Security

July 19

225

Big Brother

July 26

233

First Roll Calls,

1965

ï¿½

Aug.

241

Aug. 9

249

Embracing The Enemy We Fight

Aug.

257

The Horror Now Upon Us

Aug.

265

Aug.

273

Sept.

281

Third Roll Calls,

1965

Death Watch Of The Republic

Fourth Roll Calls, Power Politics

1965

TAB LE

C ONTENTS

VOLUME XI

1965

Issue

Title

Page

Date

South Africa

Sept.

289

The Civil Rights Of Perry Smaw

Sept.

297

Communizing America

Sept.

305

Power Hungry Bureaucrats

Oct.

313

Oct.

321

Oct.

329

Oct.

337

Nov.

345

1965

Nov.

353

Peace, Peace--When There Is No Peace

Nov.

361

The America We Lost

Nov.

369

The B lackout And The Power Grid

Nov.

37 7

The Hope Of The World

Dec.

385

The Remnant

Dec.

393

Dec.

401

Dec.

409

Treason Or M adness Communist-Socialist Tactics The Education Cartel Key To Freedom Fifth Roll Calls,

Voting Records,

1965

Insanity In Washington

THE

1Jt/1l SmootRe,o,t Vol. 1 1 , No. 1

(Broadcast 489)

January 4, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H E ROAD A H EAD

T he rules by which the U.

S. House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate operate give the public important protection. They slow down the legislative process. While in committee, a pro posed bill can be exhaustively investigated, and the investigators are relatively free from intense pressures to rush the measure through. Holding a bill in committee, for hearings and other studies, gives the people a chance to learn about it, discuss it, and communicate their opinions to Congress. Under existing rules, it is possible for one committee chairman or for a small group of legislators to delay a piece of legislation which a majority of Congress seems to approve; but if there is enough demand for the bill, it can be pried out of committee and brought before the House or

Senate for debate and vote. The harm which might occasionally be done by a minority of leg islators who delay a bill in committee is infinitely less than the damage that will be done if our national Congress becomes a legislative mill where bills approved by a majority can be rushed

through easily by majority action.

The danger of hasty legislation has always been great. In our age, it is frightening. Totalitar ian liberals are in control of all executive agencies; they have a majority in both Houses of Con

gress; they control most communications media. They have so long been in power, and have so

long ignored constitutional limitations, that they now assume the power to do anything which the President and a majority of Congress desire.

A strong or popular President can easily control a majority of the Congress, especially a Con gress elected in a presidential election year when legislators were swept into office on the Presi dent's political "coattails." If not checked by procedural rules which enforce delay and give time for thought, deliberation, and public reaction, a President can become a dictator, commanding quick, rubber-stamp congressional approval for anything the administration wants.

That danger confronts us in 1965 as never before. When President John F. Kennedy was i�augurated in 1961, he thought a majority of Congress would approve his new-frontier pro grams. Yet, he knew that conservatives on key committees could effect delays. President Kennedy

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 1

demanded that membership of the important House Rules Committee be enlarged so that new frontier liberals would have a majority on it. By the most extraordinary use of executive power (threatening some Representatives with loss of government spending in their districts; promising others increased spending ; warning local business men of loss of government contracts if their Rep resentative did not vote "right" on the Rules Committee proposal ) , the Kennedy administration did force the House to pack the Rules Committee with liberals, early in 1961. (1) Yet, the House managed to stop much of Presi dent Kennedy's major legislative program. Presi dent Johnson, however (by appeal to emotions : requesting approval of new-frontier legislation as a tribute to the "martyred President" ) , pushed through Congress some legislation which, prior to the assassination, appeared to have no chance of enactment. Nonetheless, many Kennedy-John son proposals were stalled by the 88th Congress. ( 2)

T his year, liberals are determined to "reform"

the Congress, changing rules and procedures so that the legislative bodies will quickly approve any proposal made by a President whose political party has a majority in House and Senate. U. S. Representative Richard Bolling (Missouri Democrat) has been the noisiest advocate of re forms, but the groundwork was laid and the plan ning done by the invisible government. From October 29 through November 1 , 1964, the American Assembly studied the problem of congressional reforms, concluding that: "If the Congress is to perform . . . well, ways must be found to strengthen the elected lead ership in the House and Senate - chiefly the Speaker and the floor leaders - and through that leadership to assure that the majority senti ment of the Congress is effectively expressed. In dividuals or miporities in the legislature must not be permitted to frustrate the will of the ma jority, whether in a standing committee or in one or both of the houses."(3)

The American Assembly was founded in 1 9 5 0 b y General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then President

of Columbia University. It is sometimes called the

Arden House Group, because it holds semi-annual meetings at Arden House in Harriman, New York. (3 ) It is an unofficial arm of the Council on Foreign Relations-the control center of an inter locking network of organizations which constitute the invisible government of the United States. (4) Here are a few of the congressional reforms which the invisible government's American As sembly recommends, and which congressional lib erals want: - A petition bearing the signatures of the Speaker of the House and of 1 50 other Repre sentatives should be enough to force any bill out of any House Committee. A discharge petition now requires 2 1 8 signatures (a majority of the House membership) . The new rule, if adopted, will enable a minority, when supported by the Speaker, to force legislation to the floor of the House for a vote before others have had a chance to study it fully. - "The Rules Committee of the House must be at all times an instrument of the leadership of the House. To this end, the Speaker might be restored to his position as chairman of the Com mittee. Alternatively, he might be given author ity in each Congress to appoint its majority mem bers, including the chairman. At a minimum, the Speaker of the House should be empowered to call up . . . any bill which the Committee on Rules has failed to act [on ] for 2 1 calendar days." Years ago, the Speaker of the House had these extraordinary powers, and he became an autocrat who could defy the will of the whole Congress. Liberals now want autocratic powers restored so that the Speaker can rig the House of Representatives as a rubber-stamp machine for the Executive. - The Senate majority leader should be au thorized to offer a motion designating any bill "major legislation," thus requiring the committee to which it is assigned to report it to the Senate floor within 30 days. - Senate rules which permit unlimited debate (filibuster) should be changed so that the polit ical party which has a majority can easily stop debate on any bill and force a vote when the majority pleases. - At present, when a bill passed by one house of Congress is different from a version of the same bill passed by the other house, the bill must go to a conference committee (composed of legis lators from both houses) for changes to eliminate

Page 2

all differences, before the bill can be enacted in final form and sent to the President for signature. Many controversial bills die because the confer ence committee cannot agree to necessary changes. The American Assembly wants House and Senate rules changed so that a majority of every con ference committee shall consist of legislators on record as favoring the legislation. - The American Assembly wants members of the House elected for four-year (instead of the present two-year) terms, the elections to be held in presidential election years. It would take a consti tutional amendment to make this change. If it were made, it would have disastrous conse quences. With relatively few exceptions in our history, a House of Representatives elected in a presidential election year is an "administration" House - a majority of whose members ran on the party ticket with the President, politically pledged to support his programs. America des perately needs an opposition Congress - one which will oppose the totalitarianism of a Presi dent. Our best chance to elect an opposition Con gress comes in off-year congressional elections, not overshadowed and dominated by the presi dential contest. ( 3 )

A fight for congressional reform, along lines specified by the invisible government, is likely to be among the first major legislative battles in 1965. If totalitarian liberals win that battle, they may cram through the present Congress many other ominous proposals : RIGHT-lO-WORK . The Wagner Act of 1935 authorized the closed shop - which means, in essence, that the federal government authorizes monopolistic unions to force employees of an or ganized company to join a union and pay dues, whether employers and employees like it or not. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (which amended the Wagner Act) outlawed the closed shop, au thorized the union shop. That was no improve ment. Closed shop means a company must not hire an employee until after he joins the union. Union shop means a company may hire a non-union per son, but he must join the union (or be fired) after he goes to work. Growing resentment of such compulsory union ism, on the part of victimized workers and of the public, stimulated demands for State right-to-work laws-laws which provide that neither unions nor

management can force workers to join, or not join, a union. Twenty States now have such laws. (5) State right-to-work laws do not conflict with federal law, because Section 14B of the Taft Hartley Act did not pre-empt for the federal gov ernment exclusive authority to legislate in this field. Union officials, and their spokesmen in Con gress , have long called Section 14B a "loop-hole" and have demanded its repeal. Hubert Hum phrey's Americans for Democratic Action and the Democrat Party itself are opposed to 14B. (7) Repeal of this right-to-work section of the Taft Hartley Act was a plank in the 1960 Democrat Party platform, but President Kennedy made no effort to repeal. Repeal was a plank in the 1 964 Democrat plat form ; and union officials now seem confident that Section 14B will be repealed and all State right to-work laws abolished within the next two years. (6) This tightening of big unionism's strangle hold upon the nation's economy may occur, (8) if liberals succeed in reorganizing the Congress and if the public remains silent and indifferent. OUR MON ETARY SYSTEM. During the 1 964 presidential campaign, President Johnson prom ised a "frugal budget" totaling less than 100 bil lion dollars for the 1 965 fiscal year. He promised further tax reductions, together with increased spending in connection with his anti-poverty pro grams. It is estimated that the net result will be a federal deficit of at least 9.3 billion dollars for fiscal 1 965 .(9) This will further inflate our badly inflated currency and decrease confidence in the stability of the dollar. When confidence in the American dollar is destroyed, our dollars will be worthless. American foreign aid programs-draining mon ey out of the American economy, to build in foreign lands commercial and industrial enter prises which compete with our own-have given the United States an unfavorable balance of pay ments every year for several years. In addition to giving away money and goods abroad, Americans and their government spend more for foreign goods and services than foreigners spend for ours. This means that foreign governments accumulate,

Page 3

(6)

thanks to our largess, a surplus of American dol lars-more dollars than they spend for American goods and services. They can present their Ameri can dollars to the U. S. Treasury and demand pay ment in gold-a privilege denied American citi zens. As foreigners thus "cash in" their American dollars , our monetary gold reserve shrinks. It has been shrinking, at a dangerous rate, ever since our foreign-aid programs put our nation in the position of pouring out to foreigners more than it takes in. ( 1 0 ) At present, our gold reserve totals 1 5 . 5 billion dollars-a record low. Of that amount, 1 3.6 bil lion dollars is, by law, in an "anchor pile," where it must be kept to support our domestic currency. This leaves 1.9 billion dollars of our gold reserve in the so-called "free pile," to meet all foreign claims-which total more than 27 billion dol lars. (11) If there should be an international "run" on our gold reserve-if foreigners holding Ameri can dollars, or short-term American securities con vertible into dollars, were to demand payment in gold-our nation would be bankrupt, unable to redeem its own currency held by foreigners. Chaos would result. Is there danger that some foreign nation may start a "run" on the American gold reserve ? Charles de Gaulle, President of France, consis tently antagonistic toward the present policies of the United States government, controls enough "surplus" American dollars to wipe out the "free pile" of gold in our reserve. (12) Many other nations hostile to the United States could-if they com bined their "surplus" dollars-throw the United States into bankruptcy by demanding more gold than the U. S. Treasury has in reserve to meet foreign claims.

There

is an obvious solution to this critical problem. The United States government should stop all foreign-aid programs, stop worldwide spending for defense of other nations, and elimi nate all unconstitutional domestic spending. This would permit sharp tax reduction without creating a federal deficit. The government should repeal all labor laws which give monopolistic unions the Page

power to inflate production costs. Reduced taxes and reduced production costs would enable Ameri can industries to compete with foreign industries, and would stop the flight of gold, jobs, and fac tories to foreign lands. This, together with ending the foreign giveaway, would create a favorable balance of payments and enable us to accumulate a gold reserve adequate for our monetary needs. Instead of this obvious remedy, our government has sought legislation which would provide a brief stop-gap against the disaster of an interna tional run on our gold supply, but which would, in the end, make matters infinitely worse. The Kennedy administration tried unsuccess fully to get a law to eliminate the "anchor pile" in our gold reserve-make all of our gold reserve available to meet foreign claims, leaving none to back our domestic currency. Very likely, President Johnson will demand such a law. ( 13 ) He may get it, if Congress is reorganized as totalitarian lib erals plan. If Congress does authorize elimination of our domestic gold reserve, our currency will be re duced to fiat money, the last monetary stage reached by all other major civilizations in history before economic collapse and invasion by bar barians. ( 1 4) On November 25, 1 964, the U. S. Federal Communications Commission ordered telephone companies to reduce long dis tance telephone rates $100 million by April 1 , 1 965 . A spokesman for American Telephone and Telegraph said: FASCIST CONTROLS .

"The Commission has now insisted o n rate reductions larger than we think justified at this time. This insistence, in our belief, is out of step with the government's effort to encourage eco nomic growth. "We have agreed to the reductions, how ever . . . . "(15)

The following paragraph is from the December 1 964, issue of National Review Bulletin :

22,

"In the last month or two President Johnson has 'persuaded' the steel industry to forgo a price rise . . . and, by a variety of hints, requests, and 4

threats, has moved the banking men to cancel their announced hike in lending rates . . . . Though the wishes of the Imperial Czar of all the Russias never received more . . . slavish obedi· ence, all it takes nowadays is a couple of phone calls."

Governmental control of major industries , by threats and promises, and by administrative actions of regulatory agencies, is an adaptation of the fascist technique for achieving national socialism. Communists confiscate industries and run them as government-owned establishments. Fascists left the ownership of industries in private hands, but regu lated their operations to suit the dictator. Though fraught with danger to the future of freedom, the FCC's fascist-style intervention in the private business of telephone companies is far less significant than this federal agency's illegal, but subtle, controls over the broadcasting industry. Day by day, the so-called Fairness Doctrine of the FCC is being used to silence broadcasting which is sharply critical of the administration in power. My own television broadcast, for example, is now black-balled even in Dallas (where the broadcast was on for years without causing any trouble for broadcast station or sponsors) . The reason? Dal las TV station owners say that the FCC Fairness Doctrine would subject them to harassment, if they presented my broadcast. This situation exists in all parts of the nation, and is steadily growing worse. (16) If totalitarian liberals can remove all conserva tives from the media of mass communication, and if they can reorganize the United States Congress into a rubber-stamp machine for the Johnson ad ministration, there will be no obstacles in the path of the socialist revolution. Prior to 1903 , the Isthmus of Panama was a province of Colombia. The revo lution which separated Panama from Colombia was fabricated by a New York lawyer and five ambitious men in Panama, three of whom were United States citizens. These private Americans, backed by the United States government, created the nation of Panama in 1 903.(11 ) At that time, Panama (a land of chronic politiPANAMA CAN AL.

cal instability, owned by a few wealthy families) was the pesthole of the world. Every virulent tropical disease conceivable had to be conquered before we could wrench worthless land from the voracious jaws of a steaming j ungle and convert it into a mighty waterway to lift ships over the bed rock of the continental divide. Millions of Ameri can dollars and many lives of dedicated Americans went into that dual miracle of sanitation and en gineering. (17) No other nation or combination of nations could have built the Panama Canal without the United States ; and none gave us any help. The Republic of Panama was not a partner in the Panama Canal enterprise : she was merely the principal bene ficiary. (17) Panama-with no investment, and with no re sponsibility for operating, maintaining and de fending the Canal-gets most of the profit from its operation. The payroll of the Panama Canal Company is about 52 million dollars a year. Most of that is spent in Panama, to the benefit of Pana manians. (17) In addition to all else, the United States (since 1946) has given Panama more than 121 million dollars in direct foreign aid. (10) From the day the Republic of Panama was born, her economy has revolved around benefits pro vided by the United States. Her political independ ence and military security and the health of her people depend on us. (17) Our treatment of Panama has always been mag nanimous. Our only disservice to that nation has resulted from our government's efforts, since 1936, to comply with outrageous demands of Pana manian politicians-thus encouraging them to keep their nation in turmoil, making it profitable for them to play politics with the "yankee imperialism" propaganda of communism. In our 1903 treaty with the new Republic of Panama, we did not lease the Panama Canal Zone. ( 11) We bought the Zone - a ten-mile-wide strip across the Isthmus, from the Atlantic to the Pacific -for 10 million dollars plus a guaranteed annuity. The annuity was not a rental fee: it was a guarantee

Page 5

(17)

of revenue to keep the Panamanian government alive. We acquired full ownership and sovereignty, by grant in perpetuity, making the Canal Zone United States territory forever. (17) Surrendering our ownership of the Panama Canal, our sovereignty in the Canal Zone, or any portion of our control over the Zone and the Canal would be a betrayal of our nation, equivalent to giving away any other part of our national terri tory. Yet, President Johnson has announced plans to surrender our interests in Panama. On December 18, 1964, the President said the United States is ready to negotiate a new treaty, which will give Panama sovereignty over the Canal Zone. The President said we will try to obtain permission to build another canal somewhere (either through Panama or through another Cen tral American nation) . The new treaty with Pana ma will remain in effect until the new canal is finished. At that time, apparently, we will aban don the Canal Zone altogether and give Panama the Canal and all of our other property there. (18)

Even though liberals may rig the new Congress to suit their purposes, it is probable that the Amer ican people can prohibit the surrender of our national honor, sovereignty, and property in the Panama Canal-if they will let every member of Congress know that he will be held accountable at the next election. FEDERA L AI D TO EDUCATION. When Fed eral tax money becomes the principal source of income for schools and colleges of America, our educational institutions will become indoctrina tion centers, controlled by politicians and bureau crats who dispense the tax money. Aware of this, the people for a long time strongly resisted federal aid to education. A significant weakening of this resistance-and a breakthrough for advocates of federal control of education-came in 1958 when the Eisenhower administration's federal-aid-to-edu cation proposals were called the National Defense Education Act. The Soviets had launched Sputnik the year before. American proponents of federal

aid to education made almost as much propaganda

use of Sputnik as the Soviets did. The launching

was cited as evidence that American education was lagging, and that lack of funds was the cause ; our "survival" depended on improving education with vast outlays of federal tax money! (19) Identifying federal aid to education with na tional defense was successful. The National De fense Education Act of 1958-the first really com prehensive federal-aid -to-education bill ever en acted-went through Congress rather easily. Since then, new aid to education programs have been added, based on the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Expenditures of the federal Office of Education were $69 1,850,000.00 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964. The 88th Congress more than dou bled that amount ( increasing it to $1 ,499, 149,45 5 .00) for the current fiscal year. The 88th Congress did not, however, enact two major Ken nedy-Johnson administration proposals : ( 1 ) direct aid to public schools ; and ( 2 ) federal loans or scholarships to undergraduate college students. President Johnson is expected to request addi tional federal-aid-to-education legislation. If Con gress can be reorganized to operate as a pliable tool of the President and if public resistance does not harden, educational institutions of the United States may be subj ected to total control by Wash ington bureaucrats before the next election. FIREARMS CONTROL. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy precipitated a rash of demands for more stringent federal firearms con trol. These demands ignored the profoundly-im portant principle of liberty involved in that article of the Bill of Rights ( Second Amendment to the Constitution) which orders the federal govern ment not to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They ignored the fact that existing federal legislation in this field has failed to accomplish its stated purpose. They ignored the fact that stringent gun-control laws, while harass ing and abridging the rights of law-abiding citi zens, never prevent criminals from getting deadly weapons. Some of the 1964 proposals for federal firearms control were so outrageous that they reflected

Page 6

(20)

(2,20)

either shocking stupidity or sinister purpose. (21) None was enacted ; but, this year, there is grave danger that President Johnson may successfully support restrictive firearms-control legislation. The political argument which has induced Congress to "authorize," and the public to pay for, all federal agricultural pro grams (since they were first initiated by commu nists in the Henry Wallace Department of Agri culture during the first administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt) (22) was the necessity of saving small family-size farms in America. But the federal pro grams are eliminating small, independent Ameri can farms. FARM PROGRAMS.

In 1 938, when the population of the United States was 1 29 million, there were 7 million farms furnishing employment for 1 3 million Americans. In 1964, with the population about 190 million, there are 3Y2 million farms, furnishing employ ment for 7 million Americans. (28) Federal subsidies enrich the operators of big farming syndicates, wealthy promoters, land specu lators, and dishonest operators like Billie Sol Estes. (23) By paying big operators to produce surpluses which the Commodity Credit Corporation buys and holds in storage, the federal government de stroys the free market for agricultural commodi ties. This, plus tyrannical controls imposed by the Department of Agriculture, makes it impossible for small farmers to operate profitably as free men. So, many small farmers are moving to cities, turn ing their farms over to big syndicates and pro moters, who prosper, not on the land, but on tax money. ( 23 ) But a significant number will not leave the land. They have the stiff-necked courage of pioneers who conquered the great West. They will not placidly surrender their heritage of freedom.

In May, 1963 , American wheat farmers voted in a referendum to abolish compulsory acreage con trol, despite Kennedy-administration threats that wheat price supports would be lowered disastrous ly if the farmers repudiated controls. Since then, the Kennedy-Johnson administration has continued the old corrupt, costly, agricultural programs, but has proposed nothing new. President Johnson has given no indication of what he may propose in 1965. There is strong sentiment throughout the coun try to get the government out of the farming business. (24) This is a good year for the public to encourage conservative legislators to repeal the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and abolish all federal farm programs. The 88th Congress consid ered, but never voted on, various proposals to re vamp our immigration laws. The 1964 Democrat Party Platform promised to liberalize the laws. (25) Proposed changes would admit hordes of new immigrants from all over the world - to intensify our racial problem, to swell the welfare rolls, and to complicate problems of unemployment and overpopulation, which our natural population growth has already made serious. (26) IMMIGRATION.

If President Johnson tries to keep his party's pledge, the country will be confronted with harm ful immigration proposals in 1965 . MEDICARE . Ever since the Social Security Act was passed in 1 936, liberals have tried to add medical-care provisions to it. This proposal (now called medicare ) would socialize the medical profession. (21) President Johnson failed to push a medicare bill through Congress last yearY} One obstacle was U. S. Representative Wilbur D. Mills ( Arkansas Democrat) , Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Against these men, the naked power of govern ment has been used harshly. This was particularly true of wheat farmers between 1954 and 1963

President Johnson has made medicare a major objective for 1965 and, apparently, has done what was needed to break Representative Mills' re sistance. Mills now says he will support a medi

in effect.

security system, if it is financed by a new, separate

when compulsory federal acreage control s were

care program administered through the social

Page 7

payroll tax, and not financed by social security payroll taxes. ( 28) Conservatives should make it emphatically clear that every member of Congress will be held ac countable in the next election for the way he votes on medicare this year. WORLD COURT. The Johnson administration will try to repeal the Connally Reservation in 1965 . This would give the World Court j urisdic tion over American internal affairs. Conservatives should see to it that every United States Senator receives millions of letters demanding that the Connally Reservation be retained. ( 29) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

U N·AMERICAN

For many years, communists and liberals have demanded the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Chief pro ponent of HCUA abolition in the House has been U. S. Representative James Roosevelt (Cal ifornia Democrat) , who has announced his can didacy for mayor of Los Angeles. This year, U. S. Representative John V. Lind say (New York Republican, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations) says he will in troduce a bill to abolish the HCUA by placing it under the House Judiciary Committee, (30 ) whose Chairman, New York Democrat Emanuel Celler, has been associated with many communist-front organizations. (31 ) ACTIVITI E S .

What To Do F rom the opening battle over congressional

reorganization in 1965 to election day in 1966, American constitutional conservatives should do their utmost to arouse and inform the general public and to let Congress know that constitu tional conservatism is the strongest single polit ical force in the United States today. FOOTNOTES (1 ) Editorial by Arthur Krock, The New York Times, February 2, 1 96 1 ; Time magazine, February 3, 1961, p. 1 6; February 10, 1961, p . 14; February 17, 1961, p. 1 1 ( 2 ) "What Congress Did," What Congress Didn't Do," Congres sional Quarterly Weekly Report, October 9, 1964, pp. 2 3 7 1 -86 (3) The Congress and Americas Future: RepoH of the Twellty-Slxtb American Assembly, Columbia University, November, 1964, 17 pp.

(4 ) For details on the American Assembly and its connections with the Council on Foreign Relations, see pp. 144-6 of The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot; price: $ 1 .00 pocketsize, $2.00 paper bound, $4.00 clothback. ( 5 ) The twenty States having right-to-work laws are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. (6) "Administration Faces Hurdle Over Right-To-Work Question," by Richard Wilson, The Dallas Morning News, December 1 5, 1964, Sec. 4, p. 14 (7 ) For details on various stands taken by Americans for Democratic Action, see this Report, "ADA, Morality, Security," October 26, 1964*. (8 ) Information on labor union activities can be found in three Rep01'1S: "COPE," April 6, 1964, "Union Terrorism," April 1 3, 1964, "Union Officials: Above And Beyond The Law," April 20, 1964*. (9 ) "When The First Bills Come In For The 'Great Society' . . " U. S. News & World Report, December 7, 1964, p. 1 1 5 ( 1 0 ) For further information o n foreign aid, see this Report, "Foreign Aid Is Killing America," October 2 1 , 1963*. (ll) Monetary Notes, The Economists' National Committee on Monetary Policy, 79 Madison Ave., New York City 1 00 1 6, December 1, 1964, p. 4 ; Citizens F01·eif!.lz Aid Com millee News letter, Volume IV, No. 30, August 19, 1963; "Short Term Liabil ities To Foreigners Reported In The United States," Federal Reserve Bulletin, November, 1964, p. 1 492 ( 1 2 ) "Washington Whispers," U. S. News & World Report, De cember 2 1 , 1964, p. 1 7 ( 1 3 ) "Tomorrow; Newsgram," U . S. News & Wo"/d Report, De cember 14, 1964, p. 26 ( 1 4 ) Money A n d Ma1l: A Survey O f Monetary Experience, by Dr. Elgin Groseclose, Frederic Ungar Publishing Co., 1 3 1 East 23rd St., New York City 100 1 0, 1961 edition; price: $5 .00 ( 1 5 ) Infonnation Bulletin, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Dallas, November 30, 1964, pp. 1 -2 ( 1 6 ) For information on the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine, see this Report, "The FCC and Fairness," June 29, 1964*. ( 17 ) Details on the history of Panama and the Canal can be found in two Reports: "Panama - Part I," and "Panama - Part II," January 20 and 27, 1964*. ( 1 8 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times He1'ald, De cember 19, 1964, p. 1 (19 ) Science And Education For National De/ense, Hearings before the U. S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, March, 1958, 1 602 pp. (20 ) "88th Congress Doubled Education Funds, More Sought," Con gressional Quarterly llYeekly Report, November 27, 1964, p. 275 1 (2 1 ) For details, see this Report, "Federal Firearms Legislation," March 1 6, 1964*. (22) Interlocking Subversion In Govet'1lment, Report of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Com mittee, July 30, 1 9 5 3 , p. 44 ( 2 3 ) For information on the farm problem, see this Report, "Communizing and Corrupting Agriculture," June 1 1, 1962*. (24) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, December 16, 1964, Sec. 1 , p. 1 0 ; "Ellender Rips Into U. S. Farm Program," by Tom Milligan, The Dallas Morning News, December 9, 1 964, Sec. 1 , p. 6 ( 2 5 ) "Complete Text of 1964 Democratic Platform, " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 28, 1964, pp. 199 1-20 1 2 (26) For discussion o f immigration problems, see this Report, "Immigration," February 3, 1964*. (27 ) Details on the medicare program are in this Report, "Medical Care Through Social Security," March 9, 1964*. (28 ) AP story from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, December l7, 1 964, p. 5A (29) For a discussion of the World Court and Johnson's plans for abolition of the Connally Reservation, see this Report, "Save The Connally Reservation," December 14, 1964*. (30 ) "Red Front Uses 100 Scholars Who Signed Anti-HCUA Petition," by Allan H. Ryskind, Human Events, December 26, 1964, p. 8 (3 1 ) In vestigation 0/ Un-American Propaf!.anda Activities in the United States: Appendix IX, Special (Dies ) Committee on Un-American Activities , U. S. House of Representatives, 1944, pp. 3 62, 603, 764, 776, 1069, 1 085, 1 1 06, 1 172, 1 547, 1 624 * For reprint prices on above l istings, see bottom of page 1 .

Page 8

THE o

Stili SmootlIe,ort Vol. 1 1 , No. 2

(Broadcast 490)

January 1 1 , 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

C O N G O T RA G E DY

T he

Congo is the heartland of the vast mineral wealth of the African continent.

In 1885, a conference of European powers in Berlin recognized King Leopold II of Belgium (who had organized exploration and development activities within Africa) as sovereign over the Congo. On July 1, 1885, the Belgian monarchy announced formation of the Congo Free State. ( 1 ) In 1 908, after 2 3 years of colonial rule which produced rich revenues in ivory and rubber, Bel gium formally annexed the Free State as the Belgian Congo. (1)

The Belgian Congo prospered until recently, exporting about 10 percent of the world's copper, 70 percent of the world's cobalt, 80 percent of all germanium ( from which transistors are made) , and large quantities of other precious minerals, including uranium. Following World War II, the Soviet Union intensified the international communist campaign of hatred against European colonial powers. Communists knew that if established white rule could be eliminated in such places as the Congo, chaos would ensue, giving communists an opportunity to take over. The campaign was simple. It was easy for trained communist agitators to spread hatred of the white man, to brand his economic developments as exploitation, and to create de mand for national independence. While spurring nationalist movements among primitive people not yet ready for national in dependence, the communists fostered an internationalist movement in civilized Western nations. Colonial peoples were filled with hatred of wh ite exploiters, and urged to demand independence from the advanced nations. People in advanced countries were taught that all nations are inter dependent - that no nation can, or should, maintain its national independence and culture in this modern world.

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 9

Texas.

All of this helped undermine national policies of great nations like the United States, and to make civilized white men ashamed of, and apol ogetic about, the activities of their nations in backward lands. The United Nations functioned as a prime weapon in the Soviet arsenal of propaganda to create chaos in colonial territories. Pretending to support the ideal of independence and self-deter mination for all peoples , the United Nations helped fan the fires of hatred against European colonial powers. Our State Department also be came a major ally of the Soviets in their agita tion of colonial peoples throughout the world.

United Nations support for this communist program is easy to understand, because, since the late 1950's, the UN has been dominated by Afro Asian and communist-bloc nations. American motives, however, are less easily de fined. There is a plausible theory that hidden communists are still in the State Department (pos sibly, men who came in years ago with Alger Hiss, or were brought in by him) . A more generally-accepted theory is that our liberal leaders have developed a psychopathic sensitivity about "race" and "colonialism." Try ing to show that the United States is not "anti colored," and is opposed to colonialism, American liberals follow a policy of supporting any colored agitator who announces himself a leader for na tional independence in Africa. Despite the hor rible consequences for the African people, we support African extremists and murderers, to the detriment of European colonial powers which are supposed to be our major allies. Much of European colonialism - which our State Department j oins communists in condemn ing intemperately - did a great deal of good for Africa. European colonialism eliminated slavery in Africa. Slavery is returning, as Europeans with draw. European colonialism opened Africa to Christian missionary work; brought the first and only light of civilization to the Dark Continent; and was preparing African populations - with

all speed humanly possible - for genuine inde pendence. On the other hand, Soviet colonialism (far more extensive in Asia than European colonialism in Africa) has been characterized by genocide planned murder of whole races, ethnic groups, economic classes. In some Soviet-conquered Asian nations, murder was supplemented by banishment. Native populations (sent to Siberia or scattered elsewhere through the Soviet empire) were re placed by Russian nationals, forced to move into the conquered lands. Our liberal policy makers , who violently con demn the relatively benign European colonialism, seldom mention barbaric Soviet colonialism.

Nowhere on earth has UN-supported com munist agitation of colonial people done more damage than in the Congo. On June 30, 1 960, Belgium, under strong American and United Nations pressure, recog nized the Congo as an independent nation. On July 6, 1 960, African soldiers mutinied against their white Belgian officers. Drunken and berserk Africans rampaged in an orgy of murder, mayhem, rape, and pillage. African atrocities - even against the once loved white missionaries and medical doctors of the interior - are too horrible to relate. Patrice Lumumba, communist African Prime Minister of the new country, lashed the primitive people with demagogic appeals to black racism. He rewarded his black soldiers with promotions, and established pay rates (U. S.-subsidized) al most three times higher than U. S. Army pay at the time. The Belgian government sent back several units of paratroopers to restore order. Lumumba asked for UN military assistance to protect the Congo against "Belgian military intervention." The United States took the lead in the United Nations, to get a. UN resolution condemning Belgium

troops.

Page 10

and

demanding

withdrawal

of her

On July 14, 1960, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling upon the Belgians to withdraw, and authorizing the Secretary Gen eral to send UN invasion forces into the Congo. On July 16, 1960 , before all whites were evacu ated, the first UN soldiers were sped in by U. S. Air Force planes. Belgian troops withdrew under fire. During July and August, 1 960, hundreds of Soviet, Czech, and other communist-bloc tech nicians arrived in Leopoldville. Large guan:ities of communist money, arms, planes, and trucks were shipped through Stanleyville to support the Lumumba regime. Dag Hammarskjold, then Secretary General of the United Nations , said that this Soviet aid to Lumumba was in support of United Nations policy. The United States government also sent aid to communist Lumumba. On September 14, 1960, Colonel Joseph Mobutu (Congolese Army Chief of Staff, angered by the open communist military and technical support of Lumumba ) proclaimed that the Army was tak ing over the country from Lumumba. Colonel Mobutu then ordered Soviet, Czech , and "other socialist" embassies and technicians out of the Congo. Joseph Kasavubu (President of the Congo Re public) , after hesitation, supported Mobutu's over throw of Prime Minister Lumuba; and the UN General Assembly on November 22, 1960, rec ognized the new Congolese government. On February 3, 1961, the Kennedy administra tion announced support of a United Nations scheme to "federalize" the government of the Congo, disarm all opposing Congolese factions, and control the country with UN military force. On February 9, 1961, Patrice Lumumba, with two henchmen, escaped from their Congolese prison. On February 1 2 , 1961, all three were killed by inhabitants of a Katanga village. On August 2, 1 961, the Congolese parliament

approved Cyrille Adoula (a socialist) as Premier of the Congo Republic. (2) Antoine Gizenga (a communist, who had been the head of a provisional government set up by the Soviets in Stanleyville) dissolved his provi sional government and became First Vice Premier (Number Two man) in Adoula's regime. Adoula appointed Egide Bochely-Davidson (a Moscow trained communist) as chief administrator of the Katanga province. ( 3 )

M oise

Tshombe -- President of Katanga, anti-communist and pro-western, who had de clared Katanga independent of the Congo Re public because of chaos and communist control in the Congo - refused to recognize Adoula's regime. Since the UN claimed to be supporting the principle of self-determination and independence for colonial people, Tshombe expected the UN to support his effort for Katangan independence. Instead, the United Nations directed its entire military effort against Katanga, to destroy Tshombe and force Katanga back into the Congo Republic. In pursuit of the policy of "federaliz ing" the Congo, UN forces ( financed and fully supported by the United States) bombed hospi tals, homes, industrial plants, and schools in Katanga. UN troops (which included barbaric Ghurkas from India and tribesmen from Ethiopa and elsewhere) committed indescribable atrocities upon women, children, missionaries, doctors, and other civilians in Katanga. Congolese troops (drawing pay at the expense of American taxpayers) roamed the country in lawless, drunken, savage bands - raping, killing, pillaging. In February and March, 1962, our State De partment rejected repeated requests by President Moise Tshombe for permission to visit the United States. Assistant Secretary of State Frederick G. Dutton explained: "Mr. Tshombe's proposed visit . . . . could seriously delay and even jeopardize implementa tion of the agreement . . . to end his secession

and reintegrate the Katanga with the rest of the

Congo."(4)

Page 11

At about the same time, however, the State De partment approved a visit to the United States by Holden Roberto, communist agitator, responsible for much murder and carnage in Africa. (5) Eventually, the UN war on behalf of the com munist-controlled central Congolese government succeeded. The once prosperous and orderly province of Katanga was devastated. Moise Tshombe left his country on May 3 1 , 1 963, to avoid arrest. Though communists were sole beneficiaries of the UN Congo operation, communist nations re fused to help pay for it, denouncing it as American neo-colonialism. The net result was that American taxpayers paid practically all costs.

A fter withdrawal of UN troops in June, 1 964,

the central Congolese government could not main tain order. Moise Tshombe was invited back to the Congo to become Premier. On July 1 2 , 1 964, Tshombe became Premier of the Congo Republic, which he had been fighting 1 5 months before. On August 7, 1 964, it was an nounced that the U. S. State Department - which had denied Tshombe admission to the United States two years before - would increase "tech nical aid to shore up Premier Moise Tshombe's government in the Congo." (6 ) As soon as Tshombe took control of the central government in July, 1 964, communists incited re bellion against him. They provided narcotics and weapons to savages, appealing to their blood-lust, urging them to rape, pillage, and cannibalize promising that all whites in the Congo would be butchered. In August, 1 964, Stanleyville - second largest city in the Congo, with a population of 300,000 - fell to 100 rebels who drove into the city in six trucks. Defending government troops fled, or got out of uniform and joined the crowds to welcome the rebels. ( 7) Seeing that his black armies would not fight, Tshombe hired white officers and technicians, principa l l y South Africans, South Rhodesians, and Belgians. Tshombe's white soldiers numbered

about 300 ; yet, communists and liberals through out the world have labeled his entire fighting force as "mercenaries." (8) The United Nations army - which had ravaged the Congo for almost four years until it destroyed Tshombe's resistance in Katanga - was truly a mercenary army, composed of foreigners brought to the Congo to fight for hire. The present rebel forces are incited, equipped, and led by communist mercenaries. These facts are seldom, if ever, men tioned. Only Tshombe is condemned for hiring "white mercenaries," the implication being that Tshombe hires white hoodlums to murder inno cent blacks in the Congo.

B y late August,

1964, rebels held most of the northern portion of the Congo - the area around Stanleyville. Under white leadership, however, Tshombe's armies were proving effective, moving northward, retaking territory held by rebels. Shortly after Stanleyville fell to rebels, U. S. Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman flew to Brussels to discuss with Belgian foreign minister Paul Henri-Spaak the possibility of nego tiations to free white hostages. Christophe Gbenye (titular head of the rebel government in the Congo) also went to Brussels for discussions with Spaak. (9) Though it was evident from the beginning that negotiating with communist rebels was worse than futile, Belgians and Americans seemed unwilling to take any direct rescue action. Apparently, how ever, they did urge Tshombe to intensify his drive northward, hoping that his "mercenaries" could retake Stanleyville and save white hostages. (9) Then, a note of horror was sounded. In Stanley ville, a communist-led youth group demanded the blood of all whites in the Congo - unknown numbers of whom were being held as hostages in Stanleyville and elsewhere. They would be tortured to death, butchered, and eaten if Tshombe's "mercenaries" continued their drive against rebels. ( 9 ) On November 1 3 , 1 964, it became known that

Page 12

a column of Tshombe's forces was moving toward Stanleyville, meeting little effective resistance. On that day, Christophe Gbenye formally announced that all whites would be murdered if Tshombe's march on Stanleyville continued. Gbenye said : "We will make our fetishes [ charms ] with the hearts of the Americans and Belgians. We will dress ourselves in the skins of Americans and Belgians."( 9 )

On November 17, and again on November 19, mobs of black savages surrounded buildings hold ing white prisoners in Stanleyville, demanding their blood, taunting them by describing which parts of their bodies would be eaten. Gbenye egged the mobs on, promising that all white hostages would be roasted alive and eaten, but asking the mobs to wait until he gave the word. (9)

A mericans

and Belgians finally decided on a rescue operation. They did not consider an at tempt to rescue all whites in the Congo, because that would take a large-scale land operation, but planned a limited mission of rescuing the hostages in Stanleyville. They did not take Tshombe into their confidence. He was to be told only at the last moment. ( 9) Yet, American and Belgian officials (sensitive to world opinion) notified other Af rican nations of the impending action. (10) This was equivalent to telling the rebels themselves, since most other nations in black Africa are hos tile to the United States and Tshombe, sympa thetic toward the communist rebels. On November 20, 1964, it became general knowledge in Africa that the first stage of a Bel gian-American rescue operation had begun. Amer icans and Belgians then told Tshombe what they were doing, and persuaded him to write a letter of approvaL (9) Early in the morning of November 24, 1964, ten American transport planes landed 400 Bel gian paratroopers at Stanleyville airport. In two hours the paratroopers reached the center of the . city. The rescue operation was seriously han�l capped because the important element of surpnse had been given away. As paratroopers approached,

rebels herded white prisoners (men, women, and children) into the streets and started shooting them. The Belgian paratroopers found 63 dead, rescued approximately 1800, who were carried to safety by the American planes. In a similar opera tion in the nearby town of Paulis, rescuers found 20 whites beaten to death, but saved about 200. ( 9 ) The Belgian paratroopers and American planes withdrew, even before completing their limited mission of rescuing all whites in Stanleyville. Ap parently, American and Belgian officials ordered the hasty withdrawal, because of violent protests by communists and by the leaders of black Afri can, and some Asian, nations about Belgian-Amer ican "intervention" in Congolese affairs. (9) About noon on November 24, 1964, a column of Tshombe's forces (commanded by Major Michael Hoare, a South African) reached Stanley ville, rescuing a few more whites, driving rebels out of the city.

F ollowing the rescue mission, however, con ditions grew worse rather than better in the Congo. As the year 1964 ended, the United States gov ernment was pressing Tshombe to make peace with the rebels and take them into his govern ment. (11) This would mean, of course, surrender to the communist-led savages. To many observers, such a surrender seems in evitable. Note the following passage from pages 28-29 of the January 4, 1965, issue of U.s. News & lPorld

Rep ort :

"As the year 1 964 drew to a close, war in the heart of Africa swelled to international crisis. "Jet-age airlifts swept men and arms into the Congo from arsenals near Odessa in Russia, Can ton in Red China, and from Tampa, Fla. "Communist-made arms were still going to sav ages some of whom still practice cannibalism. U.S.-made arms were going to uniformed black troops who have run amok in the past . . . "After pumping half a billion dollars in aid into the Congo in four years, the U. S. now faces the danger of a Congo take-over by communists abetted by African nations leaning on U. S. aid . . . .

Page 1 3

"French officials say privately that 'the more you intervene the worse things get - let the Africans solve their own problems.' "U. S. . . is left to decide whether to in tervene with force in the Congo or let the heart of black Africa go to the communists." (8) .

How can it be denied that military equipment which Nasser sends to communist rebels in the Congo was bought from the Soviets with Amer ican money ?

It may be technically correct to

say that com munists are financing one side of the Congo war, while Americans finance the other side. Behind the technicalities, is the stark truth : American taxpayers are financing, directly Of indirectly, both sides of the ghastly conflict.

Most of the communist military equipment be ing sent to rebels in the Congo comes from Egypt, Algeria, and Ghana. (8) Algeria and Ghana ( both controlled by communist dictators who specialize in hatred of Americans ) are on the American dole and have been since they acquired "nation hood." They could not possibly be supplying arms for communists in the Congo - or even be in existence to provide facilities for the transship ment of communist arms from elsewhere - if it were not for American foreign aid. And what of Egypt ? Well-informed observers say that the 1952 coup by which Gamal Abdel Nasser seized power in Egypt was planned and partly financed by the American Central Intelli gence Agency. Since then, our government has forced American taxpayers to give or lend Nasser approximately one billion dollarsY2 ) In 1956, our government saved Egypt from invasion by France, England, and Israel, thus permitting Nasser to confiscate the most valuable property in Egypt, the Suez Canal. Our government's policy toward Nasser has also encouraged American banks to grant Egypt loans, and American industrial firms to sell Egypt, on credit, vast quantities of indus trial equipment. American aid to Nasser continues to flow, while ' Nasser, abusing and vilifying Americans, operates as a Soviet agent, serving as an instrument of Soviet foreign policy. ( 12 ) In the same period when American taxpayers were forced to give Nasser one billion dollars in aid, Nasser sp ent about one billion dollars on military equipment from the Soviet Union. (12)

What The U . S. Should Do

is obvious that the United States govern ment should stop, immediately, all aid ( including "sales" of agricultural surpluses ) to all nations which give any kind of support to Tshombe's en emies. If some of the aid committed to such na tions is already in the pipeline and cannot be stopped ( that is, already in the process of pro duction and shipment ) , it should be diverted to Tshombe. Our government should instantly termi nate any overseas investment guarantees which en courage American bankers to lend, or business firms to grant credit, to nations which have re vealed hostility toward Tshombe. These steps should be taken at once. For the longer run, our government should, of course, stop as quickly as possible all foreign aid and overseas-investment-guarantee p rog r a m s , since they have been harmful to American interests everywhere. Simultaneously with stopping all American aid to Tshombe's enemies, we should announce our immediate withdrawal from intervention, in any way, in African affairs.

A side from the fact that our government has no constitutional authority to intervene, there is no sense or logic in our efforts to "help" the "emerging nations" of Africa. Prior to the turmoil which erupted with the rash independence movements of the 1960's, private, voluntary efforts of missionaries performed hu manitarian work in black Africa. Now, that work is about to collapse. This is one result of our gov ernment's intervention in African affairs. In urging and helping the people of Africa to achieve "national independence," our govern

Page 1 4

ment has done them incalculable harm. The net result has been retrogression into the most savage barbarism among people who, under white in fluence and tutelage, had begun to acquire a veneer of civilization. Our government cannot possibly do anything to help the people of Africa. Everything it tries to do makes matters worse. From the viewpoint of our national security, it is nonsense for us to worry about communists tak ing over Africa. What would communists do with Africa ? Even the brutal tactics of a communist police state cannot control, for any useful pur pose, the natives of Africa. Communist activity in Africa is helpful to com munism only as long as the United States can be kept involved as whipping-boy and symbol for in flaming the hatred of Africans. Once we are out, Africa could become an insurmountable, even disastrous, problem for international communism. *

Something You Can Do

weekly radio and television broadcasts are briefs of this published Rep ort, available for commercial sponsorship by reputable business firms anywhere in the United States. In ten years of broadcasting, my programs have never pro voked a lawsuit or any other legal action against me, a station, or a sponsor. Yet, it has now become difficult to expand my broadcast coverage; and coverage I already have is drying up, because broadcast stations and networks will not present news analyzed from the viewpoint of constitutional conservatism. None of the networks will accept my commercially sponsored broadcasts. Cities in the listing below are practically the only ones in the United States where stations will accept my broadcasts ; and some of the listed stations are threatening to cancel. Station managers say that my broadcasts sub ject them to harassment by liberal groups, because of the FCC's so-called Fairness Doctrine. Some

use the Fairness Doctrine as a pretext for banning conservative news commentary. At any rate, constitutional conservatism (not only my broadcast but others ) is gradually being banished from the media of mass communication. When constitutional conservatives can no longer reach the public with the truth, hope of restoring our Republic will be almost gone. This is a matter of such deep significance that I ask your help. I wish you and your friends would write to stations and sponsors listed below, thanking them for presenting my broadcasts. This will help me keep the coverage I already have. If my broadcast is not on in your area, try to find some business firm that will sponsor it as advertis ing. Have the firm communicate with me for de tails. We also need vastly increased readership for this published Rep ort. If you think the Rep ort is effective, try to get ten other people to sub scribe. If every present subscriber will do that, the resulting impact on public opinion, for the cause of constitutional conservatism, will be enormous. Broadcasting' Outlets and Sponsors of the DAN SMOOT BROADCAST RADIO STATION CI TY & STATE SPONSOR & ADDRESS WANA - Ann iston, Alabama ...... Calhoun Motor Company, 13th at Wilmer WHHY - Montgomery, Alabama Culver's Pharmacy, 3405 Atlanta Hwy. Frasier's Restaurant, 3445 Atlanta Highway KWHN - Fort Smith, Arkansas ... Greer's Copper Kettle, Highway 64·71 East, Van B\,Iren, Arkansas Hopper Plumbing Company. Fort Smith, Arkansas KAWT - Douglas, Arizona . . Dr. Ross Pet Food Company, 817 East 18th, Los Ange es, Calif. 90021 , . KCLS - Flagstaff, ArIzona .. . . ...... . KIKO - Globe·Miami , Arizona . .. . KAAA - Kingman, Arizona KTAR - Phoenix, Arizona .. KTAN - Tucson, Arizona KYUM - Yuma, Arizona . . . . ..... ... .. . . KGEE - Bakersfield, California KIBS - B i shop, California . . . . .. .. . .. KPAY - Chico, California ...................... .. K1CO - EI Centro, California KRED - Eureka, California . . .. . . KBIF - Fresno, California . ....... . .. . KNGS - Hanford, California KSOX - Long Beach, California .. . KRKD - Los Angeles, California ... .... KTRB - Modesto, California .. .. KVIP - Redding, California .. ... .... . KACE - Riverside, California ........ .. . . KGMS - Sacramento, California .. ..... KSBW - Salinas, California _................. . KCKC - San Bernardino, California . XEMO - San D iego, California .......... KFAX - San Francisco, California . .. .. KEEN - San Jose, California . .. . ........ . KVEC - San Luis Obispo, California... KIST - Santa Barbara, California........_.. KSRO - Santa Rosa, California. . .. .. .. . KMSL - Ukiah, California . . . ........ . .. . KUDU - Ventura, California . . .. ... WCNH - Quincy, Florida................... Munroe's, Inc., East Jefferson Street WBIE - Marietta, Georgia W. P. Stephens Lumber Co., 315 Church Street WTOC Sa.vannah, Georgia .. Stephens Tire Co., 31 0 Montgomery Street KTRG - Honolulu Hawaii .............................. . Dr. Ross Pet Food Company ,. KTno - Roise, Id ;ho .. KTEE - Idaho Falls, Idabo ................_. _.. KRLC - Lewiston, Idaho . ..... . . . .... KSEI - Pocatello, Idaho ....... .. ....__... KTFI - Twin Falls, Idabo .. ..... ...............

Page 1 5

...... .... ......

...

}

......... _________. .

_ _ _ _.

....____ .___

. .

.. .. . .. . . . ...... . .. .. .. .. ... ..

... .

....

.. .

. . ._____ ..._. _ _ __ ... ...

. ..

.. .

. . ... ..... . . .

. .

...

. .

. ..

. .... .

_..

. . ...

.....

Williams Lbr. & Constr. Co. West Market at the Railroad Hoosier Lime & Stone Co. WYNK - Baton Rouge, Louisiana......... ..... Jones Iron Works & Paint Sup. 6451 Choctaw Drive Patterson·Redmond Equip. Co., P. O. Box 1068 WJON - Saint Cloud, Minnesota........ Multiple Sponsorship ( contact Radio Station) WGCM - Gulfport, Mississippi ........... Multiple Sponsorship ( contact Radio Station) WAML - Laurel, Mississippi.. ...... Ekes O i l Company, Teressa Street KRAM - Las Vegas, Nevada................ ............... Dr. Ross Pet Food Company KOLO - Reno, Nevada............................. . ...... Dr. Ross Pet Food Company KALG - Alamogordo, New Mexico .... ...........The State Furniture Company 8 1 0 Tenth Street KARA - Albuquerque, New Mexico .................. Dr. Ross Pet Food Company KELR - El Reno, Oklahoma. . ............... Multiple Sponsorship ( contact Radio Station) KWFS - Eugene, Oregon .... Dr. Ross Pet Food Company KAGI - G rants Pass, Oregon KAGO - Klamath Falls, Oregon ................ KUMA - Pendleton; Oregon ........ . KXL - POltland, Oregon ....... .. .....______........__ WBRX - Berwick. Pennsylvania ...... Gay Car Sales, 1892 West Front Street WCDL - Carbondale, Pennsylvania ................... ..... B i g Chief Markets, Inc. 52-54 North Main Street WHP - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania......E . E. C. 0 . , Inc. 402 N. Si xth Street , WGCB - Red Lion, Pennsylvania... . WWBD - Bamberg, South Carolina. ........... G. D. Yarn Farm Supply Ehrhardt, South Carolina WMUU - Greenville, South Carolina ............................... Bob Jones Uni versity WSKT - Knoxville. Tennessee ..... Che.-okee Textile Mills, Sevierville. Tenn. KWKC - Abilene, Texas.... ........................ Libedy Auto Parts, Clyde. Texas .. Dr. Ross Pet Food Company KHEY - EI Paso. Texas ...... KRBA - Lufkin, Texas .. ....... Angelina County Lumber Co., Keltys. Texas Service Drug of Midland KJBC - Midland, Texas........... North "A" & Scharbauer Dr. KATQ - Texarkana, Texas ........... Beeson Pharmacy, 2300 New Boston Road KSL - Salt Lake City, Utah .................. Dr. Ross Pe , Food Company KSXX - Salt Lake City, Utah .............. KONI - Spanish Fork, Utah ........ . WSBY - Rutland, Vermont . Seven-Up Bottling Company, 1 1 4 Main Street WRGM - Richmond, Virginia .... American Opinon Library. 1 0 8 E. Franklin KXRO - Aberdeen, Washington ........................... Dr. Ross Pet Food Company " KGMI - Bellingham. Washington .... KVI - Seattle, Washington ... KGA - Spokane, Washington KPQ - Wenatchee. Washington .. KIT - Yakima, Washington KVOC - Casper, Wyoming....Arrow Construction Corp" 153 South Fenway, Ramada Inn, 844 East 20th TELEVISION STATION CITY & STATE SPONSOR & ADDRESS KTVA - Anchorage, Alaska ........ ... Dr. Ross Pe Food Company KTVF - Fairbanks. Alaska ............ . . KPHO-TV - Phoenix, Arizona .... KGUN-TV - Tucson, Arizona KIVA-TV - Yuma, Arizona KBAK-TV - Bakersfield, California XHB C-TV - Calexico, California ................ KHSL-TV - Chico, California .. .. ......._....... KIEM - Eureka, California KATL-TV - Fresno, California .................. .. KICU-TV - Fresno, California KCOP-TV - Hollywood, California .... KTVU - Oakland, California ..... KRCR-TV -Redding, California KSBW-TV - Salinas. California XETV - San Diego, California..... KOVR-TV - Stockton. California .. -" 'r KTRG-TV - Honolulu, Hawaii KMVI-TV - Wailuku. Maui. Hawaii .. ... . .. .. . KIFI-TV - Idaho Falls. Idaho ....... . . . Ransburg Electro-Coating Corn. WPTA-TV - Fort Wayne, Indiana... . P. O. Box 88220 WSLM - Salem,

Indiana........................

...........

�

KPLC-TV - Lake

Charles,

Louisiana.... .. . .. . . ... . ..._ Pak-A-Sak. 1330 Twelfth Dr. Pepper Bottling Company. 2310 Third Louisiana ............Pak-A-Sak. 904 Barksdale Blvd. Bossier City, Louisiana Seven-Up Bottling Company. 1 1 2 7 Milam WPBN-TV - Traverse City, Michigan ............ Multiple Sponsorship ( contact TV Station) KRCG-TV - Jefferson City, Missouri... ............. Jefferson City News-Tribune WCBI-TV - Columbus. Mississippi... ............. Wallace Amusement Co.. Inc. 605 Alabama Street G & H Rexall Drugs. Corner Main & Market Sts. Pete's Restaurant, Highway 8 KULR-TV - B i l l i ngs, Montana ...................... Dr. Ross Pet Food Company " KSHO-TV - Las Vegas, Nevada.. ..... ... . .....__ KCRL-TV - Reno, Nevada .. .. . . . . __......... ....... KGGM-TV - Albuquerque. New Mexico.... KOCO-TV - Ok lahoma City, Oklahoma ..... .......... J. C. Potter Sausage Co. D � rant. Oklahoma KTUL-TV - Tulsa. Oklahoma ................... . KEZI-TV - Eugene. Oregon .. ... ...... .. . . ..... .. . ... .. __.. Dr. Ross Pe , Food Company KVAL-TV - Eugene. Oregon ........................ KOTI-TV - Klamath Falls. Oregon. .......... . KBES-TV - Medford. Oregon ..................... . KPTV - Portland, Oregon WTVK - Knoxville. Tennessee ...... __.. Becky·s Inc .• 5 0 1 South Central Ave. KELP-TV - El Paso, Texas ..... ................... ...... Dl'. Ross Pet Food Company WOAI-TV - San Antonio. Texas....................Travis Savings & Loan Assn. 1 1 1 West Travis Street KRGV-TV - Weslaco. Texas ... The San Juan State Bank. San Juan, Texas Charlene Apartments. 1 1 22 La Vista Dl' .• McAllen. Texas Wilson Radio Dispatch Service. 21,6 Miles North 10th. McAllen. Texas Newcombe Rexall Pharmacies. 125 West Park. Pharr. Texas KNDU-TV - Richland, Washington................ Dr. Ross Pet Food Company " KXLY-TV - Spokane. Washington KTVW - Tacoma, Washington ..... . KNDO-TV - Yakima. Washington ..... .. ....._ KSLA-TV - Shreveport.

�

WTI'V - Indianapolis. Indiana ....... . Indiana......._ ... WFAM-TV - Bloomington,

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume III, 1961 Edition, pp. 455-455b ( 2 ) For events in the Congo through 1961, see Who Killed The Congo, by Philippa Schuyler, Devin-Adair Company, 2 3 & 2 5 East 26th Street, New York City 10010, 1962, 3 1 0 pp., price: $ 5 .00. (3) Newark (N. J.) Star Ledger, September 24, 1961 (4 ) Letter from Assistant Secretary of State Frederick G. Dutton to U. S. Representative Glenard P. Lipscomb (Rep., Calif. ) . dated March 9, 1962 (5) Africa's Red Hart'est, by Pieter Lessing, The John Day Company, New York City, 1962, pp. 1 1 -2 4 (6 ) Special to the Times from Brussels, by Edward T . O'Toole, The New York Times, August 8, 1964, pp. 1, 4 (7 ) "Analysis: The Seething Congo," by AP Special Correspondent Saul Pett, The Dallas Times Herald, December 27, 1964, p . 28A (8) "As An East-West War Heats Up I n The Congo," U. S. News & lJVorld Report, January 4, 1964, pp. 28-9 (9 ) Article by AP Special Correspondent William 1. Ryan, The Shrevepo1'l Times, December 20, 1964, p. 4B ; and The Dallas Mornil1g News, December 20, 1964 , Sec. 1 , p. 1 1 ( 1 0 ) "Massacre In The Congo - Story Of A Rescue Attempt," U. S. News & lJVo'-/d Repo,·t, December 7, 1964, p. 4 1 ( 1 1 ) AP dispatch from Brussels, The Dallas Times Herald, December 20, 1964, p. 18A ( 1 2 ) "Why Nasser Acts The Way He Does," U. S. News & World Report, January 4, 1965, pp. 30-1

6 months - $ 6.00 - $10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET

(Please Print)

ADDRESS

- $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

ZIP CODE

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

95 38,

DALLAS, TEXAS

Page 1 6

7 5 2 14

TAYLOR

1 - 2303

THE o

1)1/11 SmootlIe,olt Vol.

I I,

No. 3

(Broadcast 491 )

January 1 8, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

W H AT A R E W E D O I N G I N V I E T N A M ?

his State-of-the-Union Message, January 4, 1 965 , President Lyndon B. Johnson said:

"Why are we there [ Vietnam ] ? "We are there, first, because a friendly nation has asked us for help against communist aggres sion. Ten years ago, we pledged our help. Three presidents have supported that pledge. We will not break it. "Second, our own security is tied to the peace of Asia. Twice in one generation we have had to fight against aggression in the Far East. To ignore aggression would only increase the danger of a large war. "Our goal is peace in Southeast Asia."(l)

Let us review our Asian wars in the cause of peace.

O n August 8,

1945, six days before the United States forced Japanese surrender, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. On August 9, three Soviet armies moved into Manchuria ( North eastern China, bordering Russia and Korea) . Soviet armies stayed in Manchuria less than a year long enough to dismantle and remove to Russia all modern industrial plants, transportation facili ties, an d everything else the Soviets could use. During this period, they set up a communist puppet state in North Korea. After stripping Manchuria of about one billion dollars' worth of "war booty," the Soviets armed Chinese communists with captured Japanese equipment (and with Ameri can equipment which had been given to Soviet Siberian armies) ; and they helped communists suc cessfully resist Chinese nationalist forces which Chiang Kai-shek sent to occupy Manchuria as the Soviets withdrew. (2) From their Manchurian base, Chinese communists intensified their war against Chiang Kai shek. To weaken United States support for Chiang, communists, and their liberal propagandists in America, claimed they were not real communists, trying to conquer China-but agrarian reform ers, merely wanting a fair share of representation in Chiang Kai-shek's government. Knowing communists well, Chiang resisted demands for a coalition government, until George Marshall forced him to comply. The result was communist conquest of China in 1 949. (3) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 254; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 17

On June 24, 1950, communists attacked South Korea. President Truman sent American troops to drive communists out of Korea, and to unify the nation ( north and south) under the anti communist government of Syngman Rhee. Wash ington and United Nations officialdom would not, however, let Americans and South Koreans win the war. In July, 195 3-after 54,246 Ameri cans had died (4) - President Eisenhower accepted a Korean armistice on terms proposed by "neu tralist" India, but virtually dictated by com munists. Trying to restore shattered American prestige, the Eisenhower administration asserted that we had stopped communists in Korea, and that they realized they could conquer no more territory in Asia. The administration was firm about protect ing French Indochina from communists. Indochina is a huge peninsula, projecting south ward from the Asian mainland into the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea - comprising Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Those parts of the region which were French colonial possessions were known as French Indochina - and included Viet nam, Cambodia, and Laos. There had been sporadic, indecisive guerrilla warfare between French and communist forces for years; and we had supported the French with millions of dollars of aid. The Korean war gave an incalculable boost to the morale, prestige, and military strength of communists in Asia. After the Korean armistice, therefore, conditions changed explosively. Communists converted scattered guer rilla action into total war against the French. (5) We continued aid to the French ; but on May 7, 1 954, the gallant resistance of a small band of French Foreign Legionnaires was broken; and Dienbienphu, the last French stronghold in north ern Vietnam fell. Our aid to France was wasted: communists had done what we had promised never to let them do. In the late summer of 1 954, an international

conference at Geneva divided the old French

Union into four "nations" : neutral Cambodia,

neutral Laos, neutral South Vietnam, and com munist North Vietnam. (6) An International Control Commission - com posed of representatives from Canada, India, and communist Poland - 'was given the job of super vising 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 "neu trality" of those three independent nations. (6) They never did disperse their guerrilla bands, but used them to war against the three nations. The International Control Commission ignored, or tac itly approved, communist violations. In 1955, the Eisenhower administration decided to make its next stand against spreading Asian communism in Laos - a landlocked, primitive, j ungle kingdom of about two million people, mostly illiterate. The Laotian economy went on the American dole. 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°910 of the total civilian budget of the government of Laos. (7) In December, 1960, our side seemed, at last, to be winning. A strong anti-communist (Prince Boun Oum) was the premier of a new govern ment; and communist forces were driven from Vientiane (capital of the nation) where they had been in control for months. The Soviets suggested an international conference to "settle the trouble in Laos." It was obvious that communists wanted to switch the war for Laos from the battlefield to the conference table - where the anti-communist government of Laos could be forced to form a coalition government with communists. (7) The United States rejected the Soviet proposal in December, 1 960 ; but on March 23, 1961, Presi dent Kennedy reversed the American position. In 1961 and 1962, President Kennedy'S special emis sary to Laos ( W. Averell Harriman) did in Laos what George Marshall had done in China 1 5 years before - forced the anti-communist government to surrender control to a communist-controlled co alition. By the end of 1 962, Laos was virtually a

Page 1 8

communist puppet state - but American aid to Laos continued. (7)

American policy will not permit them to be fol lowed, or their supply bases attacked. (10)

Simultaneously with abandoning the fight against communism in Laos, the Kennedy admin istration, in early 1962, announced that the stand against Asian communism would be made in South Vietnam. (8) All forms of American aid were great ly increased ; and thousands of American military personnel were assigned to South Vietnam as advisers, technicians, trainers.

Our government will not even permit South Vietnamese to retaliate when they are fired upon from across the Cambodian border. (11)

By 1964, our aid to that country had climbed to a total of more than 3 billion dollars ; we were continuing to spend an average of one million, 5 00 thousand dollars a day on our stand against communism there; Secretary of Defense McNamara had promised to increase our aid by one million dollars a week ; we had sustained reported losses of more than 1 20 Americans killed by enemy action ; and American military men and diplomats alike had concluded that the war against communism in South Vietnam could not be won. (9)

Another Strange War

L ike the war in Korea, the war in South Viet nam is waged from the American side with self imposed limitations against provoking the princi pal enemy. Communist guerrillas are t�ained . in communist North Vietnam, by commumst Chma and the Soviet Union. By land and by Soviet air lift, troops and supplies from North Vietnam are moved into Laos. From their safe bases in Laos, communist guerrillas have a choice of hundreds of trails for raids across the border into South Vietnam. They terrorize villages, kidnap peasants for training and service in communist armies, con fiscate or destroy supplies and equipment vital to the military and to the civilian population of South Vietnam, kill South Vietnam troops (and, when possible, their American advisers) . Wh� they meet opposition, communists retreat along J �ngle trails to safety, either in

neutra l

T he United States trains, equips, supplies, and

pays the salaries of South Vietnam military forces, and has approximately 2 2,000 of our own officers and men serving as technicians and advisers, and as operators of American equipment. Often in the thick of combat, Americans are under strict orders from their own government not to fire at the communist enemy, unless they are first fired on. Some of the finest American military officers are assigned to South Vietnam combat forces as advisers ; but they can only advise. South Viet namese officers often ignore American advice, with distastrous results. For example : "In one operation, 1 4 American helicopters were damaged; three Americans were killed and 1 0 were wounded. In that battle, American ad visers on the scene pleaded with Vietnamese of ficers to attack and seize key positions. The Viet namese were urged to close the ring around the communist guerrillas, to cut off their escape route. The American advice was ignored. At one point, a call for aid asking Vietnamese forces to rescue Americans cut off by the guerrillas went unheeded. This debacle was only one of several in a single week."(IO)

South Vietnam commanders seem reluctant to engage the enemy in ground combat - as unwill ing to inflict casualties on communist forces as to sustain casualties themselves. Hence, they rely too much on sophisticated American weaponry. The result is that many bombardments of South Viet nam villages, with American planes and weapons, kill more women and children than communist guerrillas. Note the following remarks by Sol W. Sanders, U. S. News & World Report staff member who has covered the jungle war in Vietnam for several years: (12)

Cambodia or

"neutral" Laos - privileged sanctuaries where

"In this war, the Conununists always try to

push the civilians into your line of fire so that you

Page 1 9

whack a lot of civilians over the head and they j oin the communists, too." "Inevitably, the more Americans you have in Vietnam, the more weight it gives to the big argument of the communists-namely, that the Americans have come to Vietnam to replace the French, that they want control of this terri tory . . . . "Out in the country, I'm convinced, 80 per cent of the peasantry doesn't care who rules in Saigon [ capital of South Vietnam ] or H anoi [ capital of communist North Vietnam ] . They j ust want to be left alone. They're tired of being bombed by Government planes, and they're tired of being assassinated by communist terrorists." (ll)

There is growing hatred of Americans through out the rural areas of South Vietnam. One Ameri can, a resident of several years, reports that chil dren in the villages - who used to wave happily at Americans - now turn their backs when they see Americans. (13)

The American government's queasiness

about "world opinion" has also helped communism and severely damaged the anti-communist fight in South Vietnam. When the Geneva agreement of 1954 divided Vietnam into communist north and non-commu nist south, Bao Dai became king of South Viet nam; and Ngo Dinh Diem became premier of his new government. The king and his premier were political enemies. King Bao Dai favored French control of Vietnam; Diem wanted independence. During the summer and early autumn of 195 5, Bao Dai and Diem engaged in open conflict. On October 2 3, 195 5 , a national referendum was held. Diem received 98 percent of votes cast; and the king was deposed. (14) The American State Depart ment welcomed Diem as the new head of a new "democratic" government, and gave him billions of American tax dollars. (15 ) In 1961-62, when the Kennedy administration decided to abandon Laos and make its stand against communism with Diem in South Vietnam, communists (aware of American liberals' attitude about world opi nion ) launched a campaign to represent Diem as a blood-thirsty dictator hated Page

by his own people. Religious freedom was the pretext and the cover for the campaign. Nominal Buddhists compose less than a third of the total population of South Vietnam. Church going (that is, pagoda-going) Buddhists compose about one-half of one percent of the population. Hence, communists tried to inflame Buddhists into resentment against being an "oppressed minority." At the same time, with the help of gullible lib erals, communists conveyed to the world the idea that Buddhism was the religion of "the people" in South Vietnam and that Diem was trampling on something sacred to the whole population. (16 ) Traditional Buddhists in South Vietnam were not taken in by communist propaganda ; but that did not matter. Thich Tri Quang, leader of one Buddhist sect, is a communist. His brother is the head of communist North Vietnam's Ministry of the Interior, in charge of subversion in South Viet nam. (1 6 ) Quang prodded a minority of Buddhists to anger against the Diem government - even utilizing an old Buddhist concept of "self-immo lation" to move a few fanatics to burn themselves to death in public, in protest against "Diem bru tality." (l6 ) American "liberals" took the communist line and ran wild with it. On April 1 1 , 1962, an ad in The New York Times (signed by prominent Americans ) denounced the Diem regime for its cruelty. On May 1 3 , 1962, The New York Times published an article by Robert Trumbull, criti cizing the Diem regime as inept and heavy handed, hinting that Diem was obstructing the fight against communism, suggesting the possi bility of a coup to overthrow Diem. On January 18, 1963, The Los Angeles Times published an article by Ted Sell, sharply criticizing the Diem re gime, suggesting that many communist guerrillas in South Vietnam were not communists, but mere ly a part of the "democratic opposition" to Diem. On January 19, 1963, The Nation published an article, calling the American-supported Diem war against communism a "dirty, cruel war" which should shock the conscience of the American peo ple. On February 5, 1963, the Worker ( communist newspaper published in New York) attacked the 20

Diem government and demanded withdrawal of U. S. support. And so it went.

C ommunist-led

(or duped) Buddhists staged their first public demonstration against Diem at Hue on May 8, 1963. Diem troops were on hand to prevent viDlence, but violence occurred. There was an explosion, or gunfire, which killed 9 per sons. The Diem government said its troops did not fire-that a communist agent threw a grenade into the crowd. Communists claimed that Diem's soldiers had wantonly fired into the crowd of demonstrators. The New York Times story on this event, though giving the Diem interpretation, made it clear that the Times believed the com munist version. ( 1 7) By August, 1963, Quang (communist leader of a Buddhist sect) had converted many Buddhist pagodas into communist centers of subversion, espionage, and treason against the Diem regime. On August 2 1 , 1963, Diem declared martial law and ordered raids on these communist strong holds. (16) The U. S. State Department instantly denounced the Diem government for "serious repressive measures" against Buddhists-though the raids were conducted by special police forces trained by, and on the payroll of, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ) . (18) Henry Cabot Lodge (newly appointed Ambas sador to South Vietnam, but not scheduled to arrive there until August 29) rushed to Saigon, arriving on August 22. ( 1 9) On August 2 5 , 1963, Lodge asked the CIA to poll Vietnamese generals to see which ones were ready to revolt against Diem. ( 16 ) This action by Lodge was coordinated with a Voice of America broadcast, virtually calling upon the military to overthrow Diem. ( 16 ) On August 26, 1963, the Voice of America, in another Asian broadcast, quoted unnamed American officials as saying that the United States government would sharply reduce aid to South Vietnam, unless "of ficials responsible for the attacks" on Buddhist pagodas were removed. The State Department

said the VOA broadcast was "in error" ; but VOA did not broadcast a retraction; (18) and the State Department did cut off economic aid for financing imports to South Vietnam-aid which amounted to 95 million dollars a year. (20) On August 28, 1963, a military coup against Diem was attempted, but failed. There is strong evidence that this un successful coup was organized and directed by the U. S. Embassy in Saigon - where Henry Cabot Lodge was in charge. ( 19 , 21) On September 2, 1963, President Kennedy ( in a nationwide television broadcast) sharply criti cized the Diem regime for "repressions" of Bud dhists, warning that the government of South Vietnam must have a change of policies-and "personnel." (22) The New York Times (fiercely opposed to Diem, and friendly to President Ken nedy) interpreted Kennedy's remarks as a "virtual invitation to insurrection" against Diem. About a week later, President Kennedy made another statement, somewhat modifying his harsh stand against Diem; (23) but, in Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge continued an open vendetta of hatred against Diem. (16) Lodge, for example, gave sanctuary in the U. S. Embassy to communist Quang and two other "Buddhist monks," whom the Diem government considered dangerous enemy agents - an action which Diem considered final proof that the U. S. and Buddhists were allies in an effort to over throw the lawful government of South Vietnam. (12, On September 2 3 , 1963, President Kennedy sent Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and General Maxwell D. Taylor (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to South Vietnam to investi gate. (24) On October 3, 1963, McNamara and Taylor reported that Diem's action against Bud dhists had not significantly affected the military effort. They said the war against communism' was going so well that 1000 American military men could be pulled out of South Vietnam by the end of 1963, and most remaining Americans could be removed by the end of 1965 . ( 25) Meanwhile, the liberal press was shocking the American public with horror stories about Diem's

Page 21

16)

wanton brutalities against innocent Buddhists who wanted nothing but religious freedom. In late October, 1963, a United Nations Fact Finding Mission (created in response to demands by the Afro-Asian bloc in the UN) arrived in South Vietnam to investigate Diem's alleged persecu tions.

A merican military men recognized Diem

for what he was: a strong man at the head of a na tion whose illiterate peasantry (the bulk of the population) knows nothing and cares less about the meaning of communism or about the civilized idea of fighting for freedom - a nation whose educated people are largely brainwashed with the pro-communist ideas of contemporary liberalism. At war against an enemy that was invading from without and entrenched within, Diem did trample on civil rights - as Abraham Lincoln did dur ing the American Civil War. We were not helping Diem because we loved him. We were helping him, ostensibly, because the Kennedy administration wanted to make a de termined stand against communism in South Viet nam. American military men (and the CIA, as well) knew that, if our objective was to fight commu nism, we had better stick with Diem, because he was doing a better job than anyone else avail able. (16) State Department policy, however, was in control at Saigon. Ambassador Lodge conceded that Diem's war against communism was going reasonably well ; (16, 23 ) but Diem was no longer acceptable. On November 1 , 1963, the Diem government was overthrown. President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu (after they had ceased resistance and were under arrest) were murdered. The Kennedy administration, as The New York Times said, "soberly welcomed the coup" against

Diem, "recognized its large share of responsibil ity for the cOUp," (23) and acted quickly to recog nize (November 7, 1963) the new provisional government of South Vietnam. This opened the Page

way for reinstatement of aid which had been withdrawn from Diem. (26 ) On November 8, 1963, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that South Vietnam's war against communism would gain impetus from the coup which overthrew Diem. (27) On December 7, 1 963, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission (which had gone to South Viet nam in October to investigate alleged Diem bru talities against Buddhists) made its official report. The UN representatives had interviewed Bud dhist monks and students whom the American press had reported murdered by Diem's soldiers; they had found that the suicide burnings had been arranged by a communist "suicide promotion squad," and that the foreign press had always been notified, well in advance, of each public suicide by fire. (28)

On December 2 3, 1963, this item appeared on the "Washington Whispers" page of U. S. News &

World Report:

"American officials credited with encouraging the plot to get rid of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother as leaders of South Vietnam now won der if they were 'taken in' again by the Commu nists. War in South Vietnam, involving U. S. directly, has been going from bad to worse ever since the Diem family was driven from power and the D iem brothers slain."

In March, 1964, President Johnson sent Secre tary McNamara and General Taylor on another mission to find out how the war against com munism was going in South Vietnam. On March 17, 1964, the White House released a statement on their findings: "Comparing the situation to last October . . . there have unquestionably been setbacks." (29) A government under Major General Duong van Minh replaced that of Diem. It was over thrown by Major General Nguyen Khanh. Khanh appears to be genuinely anti-communist. Yet, ir ritations between him and American officials de veloped immediately. Note these remarks by Sol W. Sanders: "This is a civil war in which families are divided . . . . You are never absolutely sure who IS on whose side. 22

"In this situation, it is extremely naive for Americans to believe that a government can run the country without using secret police or re pressive measures on occasion . . . . "I remember one American official who com plained bitterly to me in 1 963 that we should not permit the Diem regime to continue using strong-arm methods against Buddhist demonstra tors . . . . A few months later, this same American was complaining just as bitterly because the Khanh Government would not discipline the student demonstrators when the whole country seemed to be falling apart . . . .

On January 3, 1 965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, looking back upon 1964 and anticipating 1 965, said the United States would stay in Viet nam on the present basis, neither increasing nor decreasing our participation. He said pulling out would encourage further communist expansion and lead to disaster, but concluded that expanding the war would "multiply casualties by the thous ands, subject Asian people to devastation and lead down a trail the end of which no one in any country could possibly see with assurance." (32)

"Some of my anti-communist friends are saying things like this to me: 'Now you want a strong government. Last year we had one, and you helped bring it down.' " (11)

Further irritants developed in the summer of 1964. Khanh asked for attacks on North Vietnam, because regular army units from the North were infiltrating the South to support communist guer rillas. American officials, refusing to authorize the attacks, denied that North Vietnam units were invading South Vietnam. Khanh felt that Ameri can officials were hiding the facts from the pub lic to help President Johnson politically - to keep the United States voters from knowing the truth. He said: "Johnson had an election to win, but I have a war to win." (11 )

On October 26, 1 964, Major General Nguyen Khanh resigned to permit formation of a civilian government, with Tran Van Huong as premier. Buddhists began demonstrations against Tran Van Huong's government, trying to force its downfall, threatening to use the "suicide" tactics of 1 963. (30) Thus ended the year

1 964

in Vietnam.

January 7, 1965, U.S. battle casualties in Vietnam totaled 1 7 88 ( 1 17 3 for the year 1 964, 6 1 5 for the previous three years) . (31 ) Vietnamese cas ualties (North and South) during the same per iod ( 1961- 1 964 ) have averaged between 1 000 and (11) 1500 each month.

We Must Get Out

pever should have become involved in Asian wars. Once in, however, we should have taken the victory that was in our hands, so that we could depart with honor. We rejected every golden opportunity to do that. At each critical j uncture since our involvement in Asia, U. S. political leaders have taken the wrong turn. There is really nothing left for us to do but get out, and improve our own national defenses, to protect our own national interests. Otherwise, inevitably, we will become embroiled in another catastrophic cycle of that East-West war between Europe and Asia which has been raging, one way or another, with intervals of calm, for 1 5 00 years. (33) How, specifically, should we pull out of Asia ? We should give Chiang Kai -shek and the world six-months' notice that we plan to get out and let Asians fight their own wars in their own way. During that interval, we should gather military and civilian goods which we now scatter all over the Far East (to nations which will never use them to fight communism) , and divert these sup plies to Chiang Kai-shek, giving him our bless ing to move with his own men, as he pleases, to rescue China from the communists. If Chiang suc ceeded, he would destroy the source and center of communist power in Asia. What if Chiang Kai-shek fails, after we pull out of Asia ? One thing we can be sure of: if there are not enough Asians willing and able to

Page 23

fight for their own freedom, then Asia cannot be saved. No matter how many American lives our political leaders may be willing to sacrifice in the j ungles, deserts, hills, and rice paddies of Asia, we simply do not have enough men to fight Asia's wars for her. The one remaining strong, determined anti communist leader in Asia says he wants to fight now. (34) Now. is the time. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) AP article from Washington, The Dallas MOYlZing News, January 5, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 10 (2 ) Encyclopedia Americana, 1961 edition, Volume XVIII, p . 206 ( 3 ) "The History of George Catlett Marshall, speech by U. S. Senators Joseph R. McCarthy (Rep., Wisc. ) , Robert C. Hendrick son (Rep. N. ] . ) , Wiliiam Langer (Rep., N. D. ) , and Kenneth S. Wherry ( Rep., Neb. ) , Congressional RecO"d, June 14, 1 9 5 1 , pp. 65 5 6-6603 ( bound) (4) "The UN Up To Now-6," The New York Daily News, July 8, 1962 (5) "Bright Spot in Asia," by Demaree Bess, The Saturday Evening Post, September 1 5, 1956, pp. 36, 1 27-8, 1 30 (6) State Department Publication 703 1, November, 1960 (7 ) For complete documented discussion of Laos, see this Report, "The Story of Laos," April 29, 1963, and " Laos-Part I," "Laos-Part II," April 9 and 1 6, 1962. (8 ) U. S. News & lVorld Report, August 5 , 1963, pp.' 46-9 (9 ) Total aid to Vietnam was $2,2 14,200 , 000.00 on June 30, 1962; U. S. News & lVodd Report of August 5, 1963, reported that the Kennedy build-up in Vietnam had increased aid to the rate of 1 . 5 million dollars a day. In a television broadcast on March 29, 1964, Secretary McNamara said ( as reported in The Dallas MOYlZinl{ News, March 30, 1964) that the new premier of Vietnam plans to conscript 50,000 more men to fight com munist guerrillas, and that the United States will give him ap proximately 1 million dollars a week - in addition to aid al ready being given - to train and pay salaries of the new con scripts. A wire service story in The Dallas Monzinl{ News of March 1 6, 1964, reporting on two American planes shot do v.: n in South Vietnam during the weekend of March 1 4- 1 5 , said that the six Americans killed in those incidents brought the tolal of reported Americans dead to 1 2 2 . The lead . paragraph of a story with a Saigon dateline, written by Dennis Warner and published in The Dallas Mornin8, News, March 29, 1964, said: "American military men and diplomats alIke, both here and in Washington, have come face to face with the bitter reality of the situation in South Vietnam. Unless a miracle occurs, this war cannot be won."

Subscription:

( 1 0 ) U. S. News & lVorld Report, January 2 1, 1963, pp. 46-8 (1 1 ) "Can U. S. Win In Vietnam ? An Inside Report," U. S. News & lVorld Report, January 1 1 , 1965, pp. 44-7, 50-2 ( 1 2 ) U. S. News & lVorld Report, September 1 6, 1963, pp. 39-41 ( 1 3 ) U. S. News & lVorld Report, March 23, 1964, pp. 50-2 ( 1 4 ) "Biggest Little Man in Asia," by O. K. Armstrong, The Reade,'s Digest, February 2, 1956, pp. 144-8 ( 1 5 ) The lVashington Daily News, July 20, 1959, pp. 1, 3 and July 2 1 , 1959, pp. 3, 1 4 ( 1 6 ) "Vietnam-Fact and Fiction," series o f articles b y Marguerite Higgins from Vietnam, The New York Herald Tribune, August 26-30, September 2, 1963; "Saigon Summary: Our Country Played An Inglorious Role In The Final Days Of The Diem Regime," by Marguerite Higgins, America, January 4, 1964; all reprinted i n Congressional Record, January 14, 1964, pp. 328-40 (daily) ( 1 7 ) The New York Times, June 1 6, 1963, p. 6 ( 1 8 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, August 27, 1963, Section 1, p. 9; The New York Times, Sep tember 9, 1963, p. 1 ( 1 9 ) Saigon Times, circa September 1 , 1963 (20) The National Observe,', October 28, 1963, p. 5 (2 1 ) "Alien-Scott Report," by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, The Odessa American, October 29, 1963 (2 2 ) AP dispatch from Hyannis Port, The Dallas Mornilzg News, September 3, 1963, Section 1, p. 1 ( 2 3 ) "Optimism Voiced: American Complexity Is Denied-Anxiety Also Expressed," by Max Frankel, The New Yo,·k Times, No vember 2, 1963, pp. 1, 3 (24 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, September 24, 1964, Section 1, p. 1 (2 5 ) UPI story, The Dallas Morning News, October 3, 1963, Sec tion 1, p. 1 ; AP story, The Dallas Times Herald, October 3, 1963, pp. lA, 2 1 A ( 2 6 ) The New York Times, November 8 , 1963, p p . 1 , 9 (27 ) The New York Times, November 9, 1963, pp. 1, 10 (28 ) Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission to South Viet-Nam, published by the United States Senate Internal Se curity Subcommittee, 1964, 324 pp. ( 2 9 ) The New Y01·k Times, March 18, 1964, pp. 1, 1 2 (30) UPI story from Saigon, The Dallas Morning News, December 1 6, 1964, Sec. 1, p. 1 ( 3 1 ) AP article from Saigon by Malcolm W. Browne, The Dallas Morning News, January 7, 1965, Sec. 1, p . 3 ( 3 2 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, January 4, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 1 9 (3 3 ) For details o n conflicts with Asia, see this Report, "Our Asian Wars," May 1 1, 1964 (34) "Chinese Armed Forces Can Recover Mainland," Free China lVeekly, P. O. Box 337, Taipei, Formosa, Republic of China, December 1 3 , 1964, p. 1

6 months - $ 6.00 $ 10.00 1 year - $ 10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9538, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR Page 24

ZIP CODE

STATE

1-2303

THE o

DI/II SmootRepo,t Vol. l l, No. 4

(Broadcast 492)

January 25, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

N A T I O N A L I Z I N G E D U CAT I O N

January 12, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress for a "bold new educa tion program" which would "thrust the federal government into education from preschool through college levels," pouring out billions of federal tax dollars not only to public schools but also to private and church educational institutions. (1) To obtain federal tax money under President Johnson's proposed legislation, local authorities must make plans to conform with federal requirements, then submit their requests to State offices of education. If State authorities approve, plans will be submitted to federal officials. If they approve, grants will be made to the States, relayed to local districts. This is an evasion to avoid the controversial question of granting federal tax money to private or church schools : actual grants will be made by State officials. Administration sources were quoted as saying : "Control of education, choice of textbooks, and planning of the program is left strictly to state and local authorities.H{ l)

This is worse than evasion. It is outright falsehood. No school district can get federal funds (even by the indirect route of going through State authorities ) unless it complies with all re quirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 about non-discrimination-and with all other federal requirements about uniform standards, minimum wages, and so on. (1) Granting federal money means imposing federal controls. It is the government's responsibility to supervise the expenditure of federal tax money. When it does not tightly control the expenditure of every tax dollar dispersed, the federal government is grossly negligent in the handling of public funds. Unnamed administration sources say that present federal spending on education totals 6 billion, 300 million dollars a year, and that the President' s proposals will increase this to 8 billion, 600 mil lion dollars annually. ( 2) Anthony J. Celebrezze ( Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare) says the President's new program "will double federal spending on education." (3 )

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 251,1; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 f or $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 25

Already, a bewildering number of federal-aid to-education programs exist. The federal govern ment still gives aid for vocational education under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The National School Lunch Program (established in 1 946 ) con tinues. The Landrum Act of 1940 provided feder al funds to local and State governments for edu cational facilities in areas crowded with defense workers and military personnel. In 1 950 (with the outbreak of the Korean war) the Landrum Act program became the federally-impacted-areas program, which continues-providing federal tax money for education in areas where there are con centrations of federal personnel (military or ci vilian) . Federal loans to universities and colleges for student housing began in 1 950. This program was said to be necessary because of vast numbers of students attending college on grants of federal tax money under the so-called G I Bill of 1 946. The GI-Bill program and the student-housing pro gram have run out, but have been replaced by federally-subsidized programs under the National Defense Education Act of 1958-the first really comprehensive federal-aid-to-education law. (4) The National Defense Education Act of 1958 was enacted during a period of national fear that Soviet schools were training more and better scien tists and engineers than American schools were (because the Soviets were first - October, 1957 - to launch an orbiting satellite) . The 1958 law was intended to improve the teaching of science, mathematics, and foreign languages, at all school levels. (4) The National Defense Education Act of 1958 has been amended and expanded several times. (5) In September, 1 963, Congress approved a Ken nedy-sponsored program to provide vast sums of federal tax money for construction and improve ment of medical-school facilities, and for loans to students of medicine, dentistry, and osteopathy. ( 6) In October, 1 963, Congress approved a Kennedy sponsored program providing federal tax money to construct local mental-health centers and re search facilities, and to train teachers for the men tally retarded. (6 ) By the end of 1 964, federal tax payers were bearing most of the cost of medical education in the United States. (7)

In 1 964, President Johnson expanded federal aid to education, under pretext of fighting pov erty. The President's anti-poverty Job-Corps pro gram is intended to train youth ( 1 6 to 2 1 ) in various fields, and to give them "practical experi ence" in their professions. The President's anti poverty program will also give federal tax money for j obs and other benefits to older individuals attending school. The Office of Economic Op portunity conducts the anti-poverty educational programs, 'making agreements with local institu tions. Invariably, the agreements involve adoption and enforcement of "federal standards." (B) The size and complexity of federal programs in the educational field have stimulated new support for an old proposal-namely, that the Office of Education be removed from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and elevated to cabinet level as the Department of Education. On January 4, 1965, U. S. Representative John E. Fogarty (Rhode Island Democrat) introduced HR 1 000 in the House ; and on January 7, 1 965, U. S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff (Connecticut Democrat) introduced S 100 in the Senate - to create a Department of Education.

It is impossible to determine exactly how much

federal tax money is being spent on aid to edu cation-impossible to tell how much President Johnson'S new proposals will cost. If the Secre tary of Health, Education, and Welfare is correct in saying that the President's proposals will double federal spending on education, annual federal spending in this field could rise next year to 1 2 billion dollars. This sum of money, for educational activities alone, is about 1 2 times more than the total ex penditures of all branches and agencies of the federal government (including Armed Forces) during the first sixty years of our national life. (9) During that sixty years ( 1789-1849) , the federal government paid the debts of the War for Inde pendence, and financed the War of 1 8 1 2, the Mexican War, and innumerable Indian wars. Total expenditures of the federal government du r ing the peak spending year of Wodd War I

Page 26

(fiscal year ending June 30, 1 920) were about half<9 ) what President Johnson proposes to spend next year on education. U. S. Representative Fogarty says that public funds ( federal, state, and local ) spent this year on all tax-supported schools and colleges total about 25 billion dollars. ( 10) In 1 902, all public funds spent on education at all levels totaled 258 million dollars. In 1 902, population of .the United States was about 79 million. ( 7 ) Our population now is about 190 million. Population has increased approximately 2 .4 times, while public expendi tures on education have increased about 1 00 times.

Pro and Con Arguments

A primary

argument for federal aid is that more spending will provide better education. If the argument were valid, our educational system would be about 50 times more effective now than at the beginning of this century, because our per capita expenditure of public funds on education is now about 50 times greater than 60 years ago. Actually, the quality of education in the United States seems to decrease as public expenditures Increase.

When most schools were privately financed, money for schools was hard to come by. Schools were restricted to dealing in the fundamentals of education. As tax-supported schools replaced pri vate schools, control over school spending passed to local school officials. As long as schools were financed by local taxes, there was still considerable control in the hands of local taxpayers. When aid from State offices of education began to supple ment or replace local taxes as a source of revenue for schools, control was further removed. As fed eral aid supplements or replaces state and local taxes, control over schools moves to bureaucrats in Washington. When local school systems receive aid from a distant taxing authority, sensible frugality tends to vanish. Even local officials who do not believe in federal aid, request and get it. They argue that since local taxpayers must finance education else-

where, they should demand for themselves maxi mum amounts of the federal funds which their taxes helped provide. This attitude-that there is no way to stop the federal gravy train ; and that, since we must help pay for it, we ought to climb aboard-has become a powerful force behind pro grams which are destroying our free society. As control over school spending passed from those who actually put up the money, and into the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and edu cators who spend someone else's money, public funds began to buy more frills than education in the schools of America. "Life-Adjustment" courses and "learning-by-doing" experiments replaced tra ditional education - which had stressed basic knowledge, hard work, honor, duty, self-reliance with Divine guidance, American traditions. What is the focus of education nowadays ? The U. S. Office of Education (which pending legis lation would elevate to the status of Department of Education) has already arrogated to itself the role of establishing national goals for education in the United States. In May, 1 962, the Office of Education published Education For Freedom and World Understanding. On page 23, the "Long Range Objective" of American education is stated : "Our fundamental goal is a progressive nation in a peaceful world . . . . Achieving this objective demands understanding of and commitment to the proposition that education is a primary instrument for social ad vancement and human welfare."

What happened to initiative, scholarship, disci pline ? What has happened to public education since our schools have been committed, not to subjecting young minds to the stern disciplines of learning, but to achieving "social advancement and human welfare" ? Public education in America in the past 2 5 years has turned out millions of semi-literates who are ignorant 'of the history of their own country ; who know so little about the traditions and principles of their own nation that they are easy prey to alien brainwashing, as was proved in Korea ; who have had so little academic discipline in the skills of

Page 27

learning that it is almost imp ossible for them to

educate themselves after they leave school; who

do not understand their native language, much less any foreign language; many of whom do not even know the alphabet well enough to be good file clerks, or enough arithmetic to make correct change in a grocery store. The reason for this is not that we have spent too little on education. We have the most ex pensive educational system in the world. The trouble is that control of schools has passed into the hands of educationists who spend too much tax money on too many wrong things. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover's commentary on public education is as applicable today as when first made in 1 958. Admiral Rickover (often called "father of the atomic submarine" ) said : "The chronic shortage of good scientists, engineers and other professionals which plagues us is the result of time wasted in public schools which must be made up later on. " [America is] reaping the consequences of the de struction of traditional education by the Dewey-Kil patrick experimentalist philosophy. "For all children, the educational process must be one of collecting factual knowledge to the limit of their absorptive capacity. "Recreation, manual or clerical training, etiquette and similar know-how have little effect on the mind itself - and it is with the mind that the school must concern itself. "Dewey's ideas have led to elimination of many academic subjects on the ground that they would not be useful in life, and to substitution of trivial, recrea tional and vocational subjects alleged to be of more practical value.

waves of propaganda were pounding the nation, creating support for a National Defense Education Act to pour billions of federal tax dollars into edu cation, so that the United States could "catch up" with the Soviet Union. At that time, Dr. Bestor said the primary deficiency of American education was not lack of money. He said : "Primarily . . . [the educational deficiency America] is a lack of clear purpose . . . .

"It doesn't make sense to write a blank check pay able to the order of the very educationists who have brought us to our present pass . . . . If there is simply a free-handed pumping of federal funds into local. school systems, much of it will be siphoned off into the trivialities that educationists have been promoting in the past . . . . "What I fear is that control over the new emergency programs will . . . be seized by the very same education ists who have produced our present difficulties. Then we will really be in trouble." ( 12 )

The federal government can obtain money to subsidize education only by taking it away from taxpayers in the States ; and there is a heavy carrying charge on tax money making a round trip to Washington. The amount of money which trickles back from Washington is far less than Washington takes in taxes. The people would be much better off to keep their money at home, for programs which taxpayers themselves approve. Moreover, the federal government is in worse financial shape than any State government. In fact, our federal government is more heavily in debt than all other governments on earth combined. ( 13)

•

"The student thus receives neither intellectual train ing nor the factual knowledge which will help him to understand the world he lives in, or to make well reasoned decisions in his private life or as a responsible citizen . . . . "He is instead handed a bag of know-how tricks; he is helped to become a pleasant, nicely mannered young person, able to get along with whatever group he joins . . . . "It is time we turn back to the home what is properly the function of the home and permit the public schools to concentrate on what is properly their function - the education of young minds." (ll)

Also still applicable today are the comments of Dr. Arthur Bestor (Professor of History at the University of Illinois, former President of the Council For Basic Education) . In 1958, great

O ne argument for federal aid to education is

that educational standards should be uniform throughout the nation. This should be a strong argument against federal aid. Healthy rivalry among individual school systems-each one striv ing to outdo the others-would elevate education al standards of all. With the federal government dispensing tax money and imposing uniformity, the chief rivalry among school districts is for federal funds. Quality of education is sacrificed for ostentatious buildings, elaborate equipment, and "accomplishments" measured by misleading statistics on enrollment and graduation.

Page 28

The fundamental

argument against federal aid

to education, however, is that it is unconstitu-

tional. The first sentence of the first Article of the Constitution and the last Article of the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment to the Constitution) make it very clear that the federal government has no powers or responsibilities except those specified in the Constitution. The Constitution neither makes nor implies any grant of power to the federal government to subsidize or otherwise med dle in educational activities. The federal government has been meddling in education, to some extent, for more than a century; but commission and repetition of the crime of violating the Constitution does not legalize the violation. President Johnson no doubt values the political advantages that may accrue to him and his political party through massive increase of federal spending on education ; but others may have deeper moti vation. Note some remarks in the July, 1953, issue of Atlantic Monthly, by Joseph S. Clark (then Mayor of Philadelphia, now U. S. Senator and longtime advocate of nationalizing our schools by use of federal tax money) : "A liberal is . . . one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political and economic justice at the municipal, state, national and international levels . . . . There is a vast potential reservoir of political leadership coming from the schools and universities . . . . psychologically pre pared to enlist under the liberal banner . . . . I t is sig nificant that what used to be called 'history' is now called 'social studies.' . . . Spiritually and economically, youth is conditioned to respond to a liberal program of orderly policing of our society by government."

That is why men like Senator Clark want fed eraI aid to education: get the schools controlled by the Washington bureaucracy, and they will become propaganda arms of the centralized gov ernment, used to brainwash future generations into accepting socialism-called, of course, "lib eralism."

Internationalizing Education

N ationalizing education

in the United States

is a step toward international control.

In November, 1960, the 1 1th Session of the

General Conference of UNESCO (United Na tions Educational) Scientific, and Cultural Organi zation) convened at Paris to prepare an inter national treaty outlawing "Discrimination in Edu cation." When the UNESCO conference ended on De cember 1 3, 1960, it had written a "Draft Con vention Against Discrimination in Education," to be· submitted to all members of the United Na tions for ratification as a treaty, binding the rati fying nations to reorganize and direct their edu cational institutions in compliance with the terms of the treaty. The UNESCO treaty provides that standards and quality of education must be laid down by "competent authorities." ( 14) Since this is an inter national agreement, it follows that only an inter national authority-UNESCo-would be "com petent" to decide whether the system of any par ticular nation is acceptable. Sections 2 and 3 of Article 2 of the UNESCO treaty permit church and private schools if inter national authorities approve the "standards" in those schools. Section 1 ( a ) of Article 5 of the UNESCO treaty says education must promote tolerance and friendship among all nations and must "further the activities of the United Nations." What about teachers or students who dared criticize the Soviet Union, or the United Nations ? They would be in violation of this UNESCO treaty. Prayer, or any kind of religious observance, in a public school would violate the last clause of Section (b) of Article 5 of the UNESCO treaty. Articles 6 and 7 clearly stipulate that all national school systems will be under the general supervi sion of UNESCO. Article 8 prescribes the referral of disputes about education to the WorId Court. Article 9 of the UNESCO treaty is a direct slap at the United States : The Connally Reservation to our acceptance of World Court jurisdiction re serves to ourselves the right to determine whether a matter should or should not be referred to the World Court. The UNESCO convention would outlaw our Connally Reservation, in connection

Page 29

with all matters involving "discrimination" in edu cation. The UNESCO Convention Against Discrimina tion in Education has not been ratified by the United States Senate, but can be submitted for ratification whenever administration forces think the time is right.

About the time the UNESCO treaty was com pleted, a Committee on Mission and Organization of the U. S. Office of Education started preparing a report on the federal government's role in edu cation. The 5 5-page report, A Federal Education Agency For The Future, was published in April, 196 1 .

Studying this report, together with the UNES CO treaty, a few conservatives in Congress began to fit pieces together. They discovered a design with three major features : ( 1 ) A massive federal-aid program will eliminate �tate, local, and private financing of schools and col leges, and thus transfer to the federal government total responsibility for education. (2) This responsibility will be placed in a federal agency with such broad administrative powers that it will not be answerable to Congress or to the public. I t will get public money from Congress on a blank-check basis so that it can erect and direct the kind of. Ameri can educational system officialdom wants. (3) The federal education agency will, however, be answerable to the United Nations, makin� regular re ports to, and working under the general supervision of, UNESCO.

On July 1 1 , 1961 , five Republican members of the House Education and Labor Committee filed a report revealing, in essence, that federal aid to education can implement a scheme to destroy our educational systems and build, on their ruins, a socialized system to be run by a federal agency under the supervision of international socialists and communists in UNESCO. ( 15)

What To Do

T he threat is real and great. International so

cialists are determined to control education in America, and prepare this nation for surrender to a one-world-socialist government.

The individual conservative can fight this scheme. He can put this information into the hands of other Americans not already alerted. He can demand that every public official take a clear-cut stand against all forms of federal aid to education. Congress should reject efforts to create a De partment of Education ; it should reject all of President Johnson's new federal-aid-to-educatio.t;1 proposals ; it should repeal all existing laws con cerning, and nullify all Supreme Court decisions dealing with, education-because all such laws and decisions are clear violations of the Constitu tion. Before internationalists can take over our schools, they must first get the schools under con trol ' of a federal agency. Stopping federal aid would stop federal control. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Article by Bob Hollingsworth from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, January 1 2 , 1 9 65, pp. l A, 8A ( 2 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, Jan uary 1 2 , 1965, p. 6A ( 3 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, January 1 2 , 1965, Sec. 1 , p. 3 ( 4 ) Federal Aid to Education, Congressional Quartedy Special Report, September, 1 9 6 1 , 39 pp. ( 5 ) "What Congress Did," Cong" essional QUa>·terly lVeekly Report, October 9, 1 964, p. 2 3 7 7 ( 6 ) COllg1'essional Quarterly Almanac for 1 963, pp. 7 0 , 7 5 ( 7 ) "Other Voices . . . A n MD's Words o f Dissent," The Dallas Times Herald, January 1 0 , 1 9 6 5 , p. 6C ( 8 ) Speech by U. S. Representative John M. Ashbrook (Rep., Ohio ) , Congreslonal Record, July 2 , 1 9 64, pp. 1 54 16-24 (daily) ' ( 9 ) Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1 9 5 7 , U. S. Bureau o f the Census, 1960, pp. 7, 7 1 1 , 7 2 3 ( 1 0 ) Congressional Record, January 4, 1965, p . 4 4 (daily) ( 1 1 ) The Tablet, Brooklyn, New York, March 29, 1958, pp. 1, 33 ( 1 2 ) "What Went Wrong With U. S. Schools," U. S. News & Wodd Report, January 24, 1958, pp. 68-77 ( 1 3 ) Letter, U. S. Representative Otto E. Passman (Dem., La. ) , dated July 1 5 1964, giving resume of statistical data o n gold ,

and debts of U. S. and world

( 1 4 ) The UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education has 18 Articles. Here is the full text of the first 9 Articles (which contail) the essential pwvisions, the last 9 Articles deal

ing generally with procedures for ratification, and so on) : ARTICLE 1 1 . For the purposes of this Convention, the term "discrimination" includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education in particular: (a ) of depriving any person or group of persons of access to edu tion of any type or at any level; (b) of limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard ; (c) subject to the provisions of Article 2 of this Convention, of establishing or maintaining separate education,al systems or in stitutions for persons or groups of persons; or (d ) of infl icting on any person or group of persons conditions which are incompatible with the dignity of man. 2. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "education" refers to all types and leve"ls of education, and includes access to education, the standard and quality of education, and the conditions under which it is given.

Page 30

ARTICLE 2 1 . The establishment ·or maintenance of separate educational systems

or institutions for pupils of the two sexes 'shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination if these systems or institutions offer equiva lent access to education, provide a teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard as well as school premises and equipment of the same quality, and afford the opportunity to take similar courses of study. 2. The establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil's parents or legal guardians shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional and if the education provided conforms to the standards for education of the same level laid down or approved by the competent authorities. 3. The establishment or maintenance of private educational insti tutions shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination if the object of the institutions is not to secure the exclusion of any group but to provide educational facilities in addition to those provided by the public authorities, if they are conducted in accordance with that obfect, and if the education provided conforms to the standards laid down or approved by the competent authorities. ARTICLE 3 In order to eliminate and prevent discrimination within the meaning of this Convention, the States Parties thereto undertake: ( a ) to abrogate any statutory provisions and any administrative i nstructions and to discontinue any administrative practices which involve discrimination in education ; ( b ) to ensure, by legislation where necessary, that there is no dis crimination in the admission of pupils to educational institu tions; ( c ) not to allow any differences Qf treatment by the public authori ties except on the basis of merit or need, in the matter of school fees and the grant of scholarships or other forms of assistance to pupils and necessary permits and facilities for the pursuit of studies in foreign countries; ( d ) not to allow, in any form of assistance granted by the public authorities to educational institutions, any restriction or prefer ence based solely on the ground that pupils belong to a particu lar group; ( e ) to give foreign nationals resident within their territory the same access to education as that given to their own nationals. ARTICLE 4 The States Parties to this Convention undertake furthermore to formulate, develop and apply a national policy which, by methods appropriate to the circumstances and to national usage, will tend to promote equal ity of opportunity and of treatment in the matter 01 education and in particular: ( a ) to make primary education free and compulsory; make secon dary education in its different forms generally available and accessible to all ; make higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of individual capacity; assure compliance by all with the obligation to attend school prescribed by law; ( b ) to ensure that the standards of education are equivalent in all public educational institutions of the same level, and that the conditions relating to the quality of the education pro vided are also equivalent; ( c ) to encourage and intensify by appropriate methods the edu cation of persons who have not received any primary education or who have not completed the entire primary education course; ( d ) to provide training for the teaching profession without dis crimination.

ARTICLE 5 1 . The States Parties to this Convention agree that:

( a ) education shall be directed to the ful l development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; it shall promote un derstanding, tolerance and friendship among all natio,\s, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace; ( b ) the liberty of parents and, where applicable, of legal guardians, to choose for their children institutions other than those main tained by the public authorities but conforming to the minimum educational standards laid down or approved by the competent authorities should be respected, as well as their freedom to ensure the religious and moral education of the children in conformity with their own convictions; and no person or group of persons should be compelled to receive religious instruction inconsistent with his or their convictions; ( c ) it is essential to recognize the right of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of schools and, depending on the national policy, of each State, the use or the teaching · of thei r own language,' provided however: ( i ) that this right is not exercised in a manner which pre vents the members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of the community as a whole and from participating in its activities, or which prejudices national sovereignty; and ( i i ) that the standard of education is not lower than the general standard laid down or approved by the competent authorities. 2. The State Parties to this Convention undertake to take all necessary measures to ensure the application of the principles enun ciated in paragraph 1 of this article. ARTICLE 6 In the application of this Convention, the States Parties to it under take to pay the greatest attention to' any recommendations hereafter adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization defining the measures to be taken against the different forms of discrimination in education and for the purpose of ensuring equality of opportunity and of treatment i n education. ARTICLE 7 The States Parties to this Convention shall in their periodic reports submitted to the General Conference of the United Nations Educa tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization on dates and in a man ner to be determined by it, give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention, in cluding that taken for the formulation and the development of the national policy defined in Article 4 as well as the results achieved and the obstacles encountered in the application of that policy. ARTICLE 8 Any dispute which may arise between any two or more States Parties to this Convention concerning the interpretation or applica tion of this Convention. which is not settled by negotiation, shall at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless they agree to another mode of settlement. ARTICLE 9 Reservations to this Convention shall not be permitted. ( 1 5 ) Minority Report to HR 7904, July ll, 1961, by U. S. Repre sentatives John M. Ashbrook (Ohio ) , William H. Ayres ( Ohio ) , Donald C . Bruce ( Ind. ) , Edgar W . Heistand ( Calif. ) , and Dave Martin ( Neb. ) , all Republicans

BOU N D VOLU M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT The

Smoot Report

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

mented. Thus, the material in our Bound Volumes is invaluable to those interested in American history and constitutional government, and in the great controversies troubling the world today. Each Volume contains all weekly

Reports

for a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOLU M E IS A TREAS U R E HOUSE OF I N FOR MATION FOR ( Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

1 964:

$ 10.00�:�

$ 1 0.00*

VOL U M E IX - 1 963: $ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E VI I I - 1 962: $ 1 0. 00*

Revea l i ng stud ies i n depth o n such

A c h ro n o l igical accou nt a n d a n a lysis

Contempora ry

su bjects as - NAT I O NAL CO U N C I L

able

VOLU M E X

h i storic

yea r - TH E

ASSAS·

O F C H U RC H ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

SI NAT I O N

. . . I M M I G RAT I O N LAWS . . . M ED I ·

. . . ALLIANCE FO R PROGR ESS . . .

U R BAN

R E N EWAL

events,

a n a lyses of aga i n st the

memor· backdrop

h i st o ry - S U P R E M E C O U RT'S

PRAYER D E C I S I O N S . . . TH E M I S·

LAWLESS GOVER N M E NT . . . CH I N A

S I SS I PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . . .

T H E STATE DEPART M E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . H OW FO R E I G N A I D

C U BA . . . CONGO I NT R I G U E . . .

ON POVERTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G EN ·

I S K I LLI NG A M E R ICA . . . W O R L D

PROG R ESSIVE E D U CATI O N . . . E U ·

ERAL

COM M U ·

CO U RT .

R I G HTS

TRAGEDY

CAR E . . . COM M U N I ST S P I ES

N ISM

MACART H U R IN

MOVEM ENT

TH E .

CIVIL .

THE

ROPEAN CO M M O N M A R K ET . . . U N

M E M B E RS H I P

A N D WO R LD GOVE R N M ENT . . . TH E

D I SAR M AM E N T U.

WAGES

IN THE UN

I NV I S I B LE

WELFARE

GOVE R N M E NT

SOC I A L I S M

TH E

RACKET

ORDER FORM B E lOW

YOU R NAM E : STR E ET:

_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

P. O . BOX 9 538 _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

C I TY A N D STATE:

____

TH E DAN SMOOT R E PORT

DALLAS, T EXAS 752 1 4 _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

CO P i ES BOU N D VOLU M E X ( 1 964) - $ 1 0.00 each �'

COPI ES BOU N D VOLU M E IX ( 1 963) - $ 1 0 . 00 each *

____

COPi ES BOU N D VOLU M E V I I I

( 1 962) - $ 1 0 .00 eac h *

�' ($ 1 0 .20 each for orders i n Texas for Texas Del ivery) Page 32

____

Payment Enclosed

THE )

1)(/11 Smootfiepo,t Vol. 1 1 , No. 5

(Broadcast 493)

February 1 , 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

M E T R O P O L I TA N G O V E R N M E N T

President Lyndon B.

Johnson's 1965 State of the Union Message contained one section cap tioned "Urban Development" : "In our urban areas the central problem today is to protect and restore man's satisfaction in belonging to a community where he can find security and significance. "The first step is to break old patterns-to begin to think and work and plan for the develop ment of entire metropolitan areas. We will take this step with new programs of help for basic community facilities and for neighborhood centers of health and recreation. New and existing programs will be open to those cities which work together to develop unified long-range policies for metropolitan areas.

)

"We must also make important changes in our housing programs if we are to pursue these same basic goals. So a Department of Housing and Urban Development will be needed to spear head this effort in our cities." (1)

The federal government is already so enmeshed in the affairs of American cities that no one knows the extent. Federal tax money is used for schools, health facilities, public power , research and development, air-pollution control, water-pollution control, public sewage, streets and free ways, airports, welfare, public vaccination programs, transportation, unemployment relief, em ployment services, special programs for manpower training and development, parks and recrea tion facilities, public libraries, special youth training, prison facilities, police activities, j uvenile delinquency control, miscellaneous public works. The government's most dangerous, perhaps most extensive, involvement through urban renewal.

urban affairs

In order to get federal money for urban renewal, urban communities and entire States have scrapped fundamental American concepts of freedom, including rights of property owners.

)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 1 O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 33

Before a city can get federal tax money for urban renewal, it must have zoning laws "with teeth in them" -laws giving city officials control over private real estate, to guarantee use pleasing to federal planners. But zoning laws are not enough. Urban renewal involves not merely con trol, but confiscation, of private property. Traditionally, it was difficult for city govern ments, by eminent domain, to confiscate an oc casional piece of private property for necessary public use, even when public need was obvious and urgent. Urban renewal requires seizures of all private property in large areas (at whatever cost in tax money) ; and it uproots entire com munities of families and established businesses (at whatever cost in heartbreak and financial loss for those uprooted) for no public need-unless tear ing down and rebuilding whole sections of a city to please public planning officials be construed as "public need." How did city governments acquire power to eliminate private property rights ? On November 22, 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed a lower federal court ruling in a Washington, D. c., urban renewal case. ( 2 ) The lower court had said: "One man's land cannot b e seized b y the Gov ernment 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 govern ment's idea of what is appropriate or well·de signed."(2)

The Supreme Court held, in essence, '.that Con gress, in the District of Columbia, has unlimited authority to determine what the public good is, and unlimited power to use any means to achieve that good. The Court said that State legislatures have the same power over all communities in their States. (2) Since this 1954 Supreme Court decision, many State legislatures have enacted special urban-re newal laws-«authorizing" city governments to confiscate private real estate for urban-renewal projects.

C omplexity

of federal intervention in com munity affairs has created what President Johnson

calls the need for a new cabinet post to be named Department of Housing and Urban Development. But there is more to this proposal than an effort to get all the federal government's "urban affairs" programs administered by one agency. Here is the key to the President's "Urban Development" statement: "New and existing programs will be open to those cities which work together to develop unified long-range policies for metropolitan areas " ( 1) .

Many metropolitan areas in the United States cross State lines. The New York City metropoli tan area, for example, includes portions of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. For many years, socialists and other devotees of govern mental planning in the United States, have argued against multiplicity of government-division of the nation into States, Counties, and Cities. These separate governmental authorities overlap, to some degree ; and all duplicate "public services" now being performed by the federal government. Advocates of governmental planning have vis ions of a new kind of America : they would trans form our union of sovereign States into a region ally-planned, monolithically-unified nation, di vided into a score of metropolitan areas which sprawl across State boundary lines. Each area will be ruled, at the "local level," by only one govern mental authority: a metropolitan government. Ex isting governments-City, County, and State-will eventually be abolished. Initially, each metropolitan authority will levy taxes directly on local citizens ; but when the whole nation has been organized into metropolitan areas, taxation can be made uniform (and local opposition to taxes eliminated ) by abolishing local taxes. All taxes can then be levied by the central government in Washington. Each metropolitan area will be governed by a professional manager. Metropolitan councilmen or commissioners elected by the people will ap point the manager-who will be answerable, how ever, not to the people he governs, but to the supreme political power in Washington.

Page 34

Metropolitan America thus being planned is strikingly similar to the Soviet America which communists have long advocated. The Soviet scheme can be found in Toward A Soviet America} written in 1 932 by William Zebulon Foster (then top official of the U. S. communist party) . Liberals, who are pushing plans for a Metro politan America, have no faith in the freedom and individualism which built our great cities; but they seem convinced that compulsory, tax-financed governmental planning can create heaven on earth.

without reference to the State legislature. Home rule sounds good to those who believe in keeping governmental authority close to home; but home rule does not bring government by elected home folks : it brings government by appointed experts over whom local voters and taxpayers have little control.

Brief History of Expertism

is the adoption of city managership, together with strong zoning laws, by the dominant city in a metropolitan area. The idea spreads to sur rounding, minor cities - until it seems logical to consolidate all into one metropolitan govern ment, under one appointed manager.

The National Municipal League was organized in 1894, headquarters in New York, to fight graft and corruption in municipal governments. By 1915, the League had apparently abandoned the idea of reforming city governments, in favor of changing them. At any rate, in 191 5 agitation for city managership became the principal activi ty of the National Municipal League. (4)

The argument which persuades many to support city-manager government is that government by a managerial expert will be more efficient, less costly - but it generally increases cost. The city keeps elected officials-·superimposing the manager and his secretariat on existing offices. (3)

The League's basic principle-of executive gov ernment by appointed experts, with elected offi cials performing ceremonial roles and exercising the perfunctory duty of approving and raising funds for the city managers' schemes-triumphed in 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced a kindred system for the national government.

In some cities (Dallas, for example) , city-mana ger government does not violate American princi pIes of self-government, because elected officials hire the city manager as an administrator only. In other cities, elected officials are simply window dressing and rubber stamps for the appointed manager.

T he National Municipal League in New York was the parent organization of many others, most of which were spawned during the days of the new deal-and which gravitated to Chicago as national headquarters. (3 )

A first step toward metropolitan government

In most cases, existing city and county govern ments must be abolished before all can be consoli dated into a metropolitan government. Counties and cities are created under State authority. Before they can be abolished, the State must give permis sion. This can be done on a selective basis, but that would require lobbying and controversy for the creation of each metropolitan government. A quicker way is for the State legislature to enact a home-rule law, generally authorizing cities and counties to change their forms of government

In April, 1938, the University of Chicago com pleted, at 1 3 1 3 East 60th Street, a building to house organizations devoted to hatching schemes for remaking America. Today, 1 3 1 3 East 60th Street is national headquarters for 2 3 organiza tions, mostly tax-exempt, financed by tax-free foundations (like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Julius Rosenwald, Russell Sage, Ford) . (5) Thus, 1 3 1 3 East 60th Street, Chicago, has be come a national center for the production of ex perts-to fabricate "progressive" legislation for

Page 35

governments at all levels ; to rewrite State consti tutions ; to draw up model zoning laws, urban renewal laws, and home-rule laws ; and to pro vide professional managers whenever people in any locality are ready for government by imported specialists as a substitute for government by elected local citizens.

Citizens of the 26 municipalities in Dade Coun ty were told that a consolidation of governmental services would eliminate costly duplication and produce greater efficiency and economy ; yet they were assured that the people in each municipality would continue to manage their own governmental affairs.

Not all citY !llanagers and county managers in the United States come directly from 1 3 1 3, but the tap roots of their "contacts," if not their train ing, can usually be traced to that source. (3)

On May 21, 1957, about one-fourth of the quali fied voters of Dade County, Florida, approved, by a narrow margin (44, 175 to 42,448) , adoption of a Metro Charter. But imperfections soon ap peared.

A Classic Case Study

In 192 1, Miami (one of 26 municipalities in Dade County, Florida) adopted city managership. By 1947, several of the lesser municipalities had followed suit, and it was time to move for consoli dation of the whole county into Metropolitan Government under one manager. (6)

In 1947, the Dade County Research Foundation was created. It was composed of prominent local citizens devoted to the ideal of building better government for the area. In due course, the Dade County Research Foundation made a deal with the Department of Government at the University of Miami to do its research. (6 ) Donald R. Larson, head of the Department of Government, had come to Miami from the nation al headquarters of expertism-1 3 1 3 E. 60th Street, Chicago. He persuaded the University to sub contract the research work to the Public Admini stration Service, 1 3 1 3 E. 60th Street, Chicago. ( 6) Public Administration Service had already done the research. The social scientists there already knew what kind of government they wanted Dade County to have. But first, they had to persuade the Florida State Legislature to grant Dade County a home-rule charter which would cut it loose from control by the State government. The politi cal-propaganda work was done by local citizens and organizations under leadership of the ex perts. (6)

(4, 6)

A glance at the Metropolitan Government Char ter (voted upon the whole population of Dade County, Florida, by 1 10/0 of the qualified voters) will indicate the quality of those imperfections. The first sentence of Article I, of Dade County's Metro Charter : "The Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and the governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government."(7)

Dade County thus scrapped the American prin ciple that the powers of government should be separated. When the people who make laws are the same ones who administer, adjudicate, and en force the laws-government becomes tyrannical. Although the Dade County Metro Charter lists and grants to the County Commissioners every conceivable power that a government might want, the Charter stipulates that the Commissioners shall not be restricted to powers listed. (7)

Here is one awesome grant of power which the Dade County Metro Charter makes to the Board of Commissioners: "The Board shall have the power of eminent domain and the right to condemn property for public purposes. The Board shall make fair and j ust compensation for any properties acquired in the exercise of its powers, duties, or functions."( 7 )

Anything a man owns can be seized, for what ever purpose the commissioners may consider "public." The "just compensation" he receives

Page 36

for his property is determined by the power that seized it. Section 1.02 of the Dade County Charter pro . vIdes that general ordinances passed by the Board of Commissioners must be given a public hearing before final passage ; but the requirements for publicizing the hearing are such that the Board could validly hold a hearing without the Dade County public knowing about it. Yet, to make sure that Metro is not handicapped by any require ments (however vague) to let the people know what is going on, the Charter says : "No ordinance shall be declared invalid by reason of any defect in publication " (7 ) .

Articles I and II of the Dade County Charter make a grant of unlimited power to a Board of Commissioners who are elected by the people. But the next article requires these elected officials to transfer most of that power to an appointed county manager whom they will then have little control over-except to fire him. (7) Section 3.02, on qualifications of the county manager, says : "At the time of his appointment he need not be a resident of the state . . . . " ( 7)

Social science experts at 1 3 1 3 in Chicago, who wrote a Metro Charter for the people of Dade County, Florida, left the door open for one of their own to move in as manager. Section .3.04 outlines the county manager's pow ers and duties. "The Manager shall have the power to appoint and remove all administrative officers and em ployees of the county subject to the provisions of this Charter and civil service rules and regula tions."(7)

Section 3.05 places restrictions on the elected ' members of the board of commissioners : "Neither the Board nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the Manager or any of his subordinates, or take part in the appointment or removal of officers and

employees in the administrative service of the county . . . . The Board and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the Manager and neither the Board nor any meI?bers thereof shall give orders to any sub ordmate of the Manager, either publicly or pri vately. "Any wilful violation of the provisions of this Section by a member of the Board shall be grounds for his removal from office by an action brought in the Circuit Court by the State At torney of this county." ( 7 )

No matter that the commissioners, the only elected officials in the county, might be trying to expose criminals, communists, or other scoundrels, whom the manager could have installed in the police department and elsewhere : if a commis sioner gets in the appointed manager's way the elected official can be fired, not the appointed expert.

T he Metro Charter was hardly adopted before

citizens in Dade County found they had voted themselves into super-government beyond their control. Officials of the 26 separate municipalities in Dade County had accepted assurances that their communities would not lose self-government. Al most immediately, however, the new Board of Commissioners started passing ordinances which eliminated self-government in the county. In stances of corruption, favoritism, waste, and other evils attributed to Metro, became apparent shortly after the new government was formed. People found that instead of reduced taxes through "more efficient government" they had more irresponsible spending of public money and more governmental harassment: for example, in some Dade County communities, citizens were required to have two safety stickers on their car: one for the municipal government, one for Metro. Within six months after metropolitan govern ment had been voted upon Dade County, 45,000 voters had signed a petition asking for an election to a,dopt an amendmept restoring some autonomy to their local cities. The election was eventually' held on September 30, 1958 ; but a majority of

Page 37

about one-third of Dade County's qualified elec torate voted to keep Metro unchanged. Now, the top-heavy bureaucracy in Miami is a joke even to some who supported Metro. The Miami Herald was a chief advocate for the home rule charter which made Metro possible. On Janu ary 23, 1962, the Herald made these sarcastic com ments about one of Metro's freeways : "It has been pretty well established around here that what we need is planning; we have even had planning sessions to plan places to put the plans we are about to plan . . . but if you plan to go to Miami Beach on the expressway, do not plan to get on board at 1 2th Ave. You can get on the expressway at 1 2th Ave. if you will, but you must go somewhere else. Miami Beach is all right, but you just can't get there from 1 2th Ave. unless you break through some barricades that have been recently planned and established to prevent automotive mayhem re sulting from previous planning which was per haps inadequate."(3)

proved metropolitan government for Davidson County. Metro officials claim savings in tax dol lars ; but local taxes were raised almost immedi ately after metropolitan government was instituted in Nashville. (8)

To Kill An Octopus

P eople can fight tentacles of the metropolitan government octopus at the local level, by opposing urban renewal projects and Metro schemes. But only the U. S. Congress can destroy the monster by withholding the federal tax money which feeds it. Enough pressure from a well-informed public could persuade Congress to reject the President's plan for a Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to stop all federal interference in the affairs of our cities. *

Another Case

Film For Sale

O n June 17, 1 958, voters of Davidson County,

Tennessee (Nashville ) , rejected metropolitan gov ernment. The University of Chicago and the Ford Foundation immediately launched a study in Nash ville to find out who opposed Metro and why. Apparently, they found out. On June 28, 1 962, the matter was put to a vote again ; and voters ap-

T his Report is abbreviated for a news-analysis type television program, which is offered for com mercial sponsorship throughout the United States. The broadcast is produced on 1 6mm sound film. The playing time of each is 1 2 minutes, with a summary at the beginning of the film. Multiple

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 38

prints of each film are made. After broadcast each week, the prints are returned to this office. In 1963, we offered all film produced from 1957 through 1962 to our subscribers and customers for private use-at service clubs, neighborhood discus sion groups, church fellowship groups, college and high school study groups, patriotic organiza tions, business firms, libraries , for rental use by patriotic bookstores, and so on. That film has all been sold. Our 1963 and 1964 broadcast film is now avail able at the special price of $5 .00 per print. A complete list of titles is available upon re quest, or film may be ordered from broadcast numbers published on the 1963 and 1964 Reports. Since the supply of each print is limited, we request that you list substitutes. Allow two to three weeks for delivery. Orders will be processed in the order in which they are received. Payment must accompany orders. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) "Text of President Johnson's State Of The Union Message," Congressional Q uarterly lVeekly Repo1·t, January 8 , 1965, p. 5 2 ( 2 ) Speech by U . S . Representative Bruce Alger ( Rep., Texas ) , Cong1·essional Record, March 17, 1959, pp. 3906-392 1 ( daily) ( 3 ) Terrible 1 3 1 3 Revisited, by Jo Hindman, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, 1963; price: $2 .00 ( 4 ) "Terrible ' 1 3 13'," article by Jo Hindman, American Mercury reprint, January, 1 9 59, 1 2 pp .

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

( 5 ) The following is a list of the 23 organizations housed at 1 3 1 3 East 60th Street, Chicago, taken from a booklet, "Thirteen Thirteen," published by The Central Services Division, Public Administration Service, 1 3 1 3 East 60th Street, Chicago, 1957, and Te11'ible 1 3 1 3 Revisited, by Jo Hindman ( see footnote 3 ) : American Committee for International Municipal Cooperation American Municipal Association American Public Welfare Association American Public Works Association American Society for Public Administration American Society of Planning Officials Building Officials Conference of America Conference of Chief Justices Council of State Governments Federation of Tax Administrators Governors' Conference International City Managers' Association Interstate Clearing House on Mental Health Municipal Finance Officers Association National Association of Assessing Officers National Association of Attorneys General National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials National Association of State Budget Officers National Association of State Purchasing Officials National Institute of Municipal Clerks National Legislative Conference Public Administration Service Public Personnel Association. ( 6 ) "Metropolitanism," article by E. G. Grace, found in "What Is Metropolitan Government ?", booklet published by E. G . Grace, October, 1958, distributed b y the Committee For The Preservation Of The Constitution, P. O. Box 27103, Hollywood 27, California, pp. 8-24 ( 7 ) "Home Rule Charter of Dade County; State of Florida," text of Charter, Tenible 1 3 1 3 , booklet by Don Bell Reports, P. O . Box 2 2 2 3 , Palm Beach, Florida ( 8 ) "Survey Studies Those Who Opposed Metro," The Nashville Tennessian, August 1 3, 1958; "Modern Metro Government Evolv ing in Nashville," article by William Keel, the lVashinf!.ton Post, September 23, 1962, reprinted in the Congressional Record, September 28, 1962, pp. A7 169-70 ( daily ) ; "Metro Government Called' Tax Saver," special staff article from Houston, The Dal las Morning News, August 1 3 , 1963, Sec. 1, p. 14

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00 - $1 0.00 -$1 0.00 -

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

STATE

ZIP CODI!

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS TEXAS 7 5 2 14 TAYLOR 1 -2303 ,

Page 39

BOU N D VOLU M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT The

Smoot Report

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

Reports for

a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOLUME IS A TR EASU RE HOUSE OF I N FOR MATION FOR (Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

VOLU M E X

1 964:

$ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E IX

1 963: $ 1 0.00*

Revea l i ng stud ies i n depth o n such

A c h ro n o l igical acco u nt a n d a n a lysis

Contempora ry

able

O F C H U RC H ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

S I NAT I O N

. . . I M M I G RATI O N LAWS . . . M E D I

. . . ALLIANCE FOR PROGR ESS . . .

h i storic .

yea r - THE .

U R BAN

ASSAS

R E N EWAL

$10.00�:�

VOLU M E V I I I - 1 962: $ 1 0.00*

su bjects a s - NAT I O N A L CO U N C I L

events,

a n a lyses

aga i n st t h e

m em o r backdrop

h i st o ry - S U P R E M E

C O U R T' S

PRAYER D E C I S I O N S . . . TH E M I S-

LAWLESS GOVE R N M E NT . . . C H I NA

S I S S I PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . . .

T H E STATE DEPARTM E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . H OW FO R E I G N A I D

C U BA . . . CONGO I NT R I G U E . . .

ON POVE RTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G E N -

I S K I L L I N G A M E R ICA . . . W O R L D

PROGR ESS IVE E D U CAT I O N . . . E U -

ERAL

COMMU

COU RT .

C IV I L

R I G H TS

TRAGEDY

THE

I NV I S I B LE

CARE .

N ISM

. COM M U N IST S P I ES

MACART H U R IN

M OVEM ENT

TH E .

. OF

ROPEAN C O M M O N M A R K ET . . . U N

M EM B E RS H I P

A N D W O R L D GOV E R N M ENT . . . TH E

D I SAR M A M E N T U.

WAGES

IN T H E U N

WELFA R E

GOVE R N M ENT

SOC I A L I S M

THE

RACKET

ORDER FORM B ELOW

YOU R NAM E : STR EET:

---� __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

P. O. BOX 9 538

_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

C ITY AN D STAT E :

_____

THE DAN SMOOT R EPORT

DAL LAS, TEXAS 752 1 4 _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

CO P i ES BOU N D VO L U M E X ( 1 964) - $ 1 0.00 each �'

____

COPi ES BOU N D VO LU M E IX ( 1 963) - $ 1 0.00 each '�

____

COP i ES BOU N D VO LU M E V I I I

( 1 9 62) - $ 1 0 . 00 each *

�' ($ 1 0.20 each for o rders i n Texas for Texas Del ive ry) Page 40

___

Payment Enclosed

THE

/)flil SmootlIe,ort Vol. 1 1 , No. 6

(Broadcast 494)

February 8, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

C O MM U N I S T STU D E N T R I OTS

On January

3 1 , 1965, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee released a report (prepared by the Library of Congress) revealing that communists have succeeded in "massively infiltrating the student movement in Latin America." In illustrating the importance of such infiltration, Sen ator Thomas J. Dodd (Connecticut Democrat, vice chairman of the Subcommittee) said: "Student riots throughout Bolivia contributed to the overthrow o f the American·backed anti. Communist government of Dr. Paz Estenssoro."(l)

Americans have grown accustomed to reading about student riots in foreign lands, not knowing that the turmoil is part of a long-range assault whose principal target is the United States - feel ing smugly that it could not happen here. It has already happened here ; and the worst is yet to come, unless Americans awaken and do something. Communists incited and led the 1964 student riots at the University of California in Berkeley. The riots had no specific, localized objective. They were part of a prolonged testing operation. For years, communists have probed in non-communist nations, for a means to destroy respect for law and order - to cut the moorings of principles and tradition which make freedom in an organized society possible - leaving people adrift in moral, social and legal chaos. If society can thus be torn apart, need for restoration of law and order eventually creates public demand for strong government which can put an end to anarchy. Communists, who arrange the demoli tion of orderly society, stand ready to provide the restoration - through a dictatorship of the proletariat. The student riots at Berkeley indicate that communists, after years of testing, are finding a way to promote civil disobedience, which is a key to communist conquest of our nation, from within. Earlier tests of communists' ability to create destructive social disorder backfired, because they were crude, and did not involve enough duped (though well-intentioned) persons. In August and September, 1949, for example, the communist party sponsored two concerts by negro singer Paul THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $ 1 2.50 a year; by ainnaii ( including APO and FPO) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 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 Texa s for Texas delivery.

Page 41

Robeson at Peekskill, New York. Because of the sponsorship, and because of Robeson's own record, there was wholesome local resentment. On the night of the first concert (August 27, 1949 ) , police were out in force to maintain order. Communist led goons attacked not only the police but inno cent bystanders, with baseball bats , broken bottles, rocks. The wild melee generated much publicity, a great deal of it presenting the line which com munists had planned in advance - namely, that total responsibility for the affair rested on "big ots," and "racists" who were trying to keep a great negro artist from performing. ( 2) Larger crowds and greater violence attended the second Robeson concert on September 7, 1 949 ; but in the end, the public was not deceived. It was obvious that the Peekskill riots were planned and directed by communists for the sole purpose of creating propaganda and disorder. Yet, the com munists had gained valuable experience. They changed tactics and locale. ( 2 )

D uring

1 950, communists, in Japan, experi mented with inciting student riots. (3) The ex periments were most successful, until General Douglas MacArthur ordered the Japanese gov ernment to ban communist party officials from public affairs. (4) That stopped communist-incited student rioting in Japan for a while; but com munists had learned that students could be very useful pawns to create chaos in non-communist nations. Utilizing techniques and lessons they had learned in Japan, communists instigated student riots and insurrections in nations throughout the non-communist world during the 1950's. The year of most bloodshed and violence was probably 1958, when communist-led student riots greeted U. S. Vice President Richard M. Nixon on his tour of South America. The worst mob was in Venezuela, where our Vice President and his wife, spat upon and pelted with garbage, were forced to seek refuge in the American Embassy.

riots and mob violence) were ready for solid ac complishments. Communist-led student demonstra tions forced the resignation of Syngman Rhee, anti-communist President of South Korea. (5, 6 ) Massive communist-incited student riots in Tur key resulted in the downfall of the anti-communist government of Premier Adnan Menderes. (5, 7) Communist-directed student demonstrations in Japan caused the Japanese Government to cancel a pending State visit by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. All this happened during the first six months of 1960 ; but the communist operation of most significance to the people of the United States during that time occurred in San Francisco. In the middle of May, 1 960, the area around City Hall, in San Francisco, was the scene of the first major communist-led student riots in the United States. From May 1 2 to May 14, 1 960, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activ ities held public hearings at San Francisco City Hall, investigating communist activities in the Bay area. On May 1 2, communists inside the hearing room were so violently unruly and abusive that they had to be removed by force. Outside - in the corridors of the building and on the streets below - a communist-led mob of students created disruptive noise and turmoil. Just before noon on May 1 2, a mass rally in Union Square protested the hearings and demanded abolition of the House Committee. Principal speaker at this rally was an Episcopal clergyman - Richard Byfield, Canon of Grace Cathedral, a member of the personal staff of James A. Pike, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California. Canon Byfield is also editor of Pacific Churchman, official magazine of the Diocese. (3, 8)

A s the decade of the sixties began, communists

(with 10 years of experience in inciting student Page 42

On May 1 3 , 1 960, a larger mob gathered. When the hearing room was filled, a police officer, act ing as guard, closed the door and announced that no one else could be admitted. The mob in the corridor rushed him. Someone seized the officer's nightstick and beat him on the head with it. Police unrolled firehoses and turned streams of water

on the mob. This moved rioters back from the hearing room door but did not disperse them. When police moved into the mob to remove the leaders, a wild fight ensued. About 400 policemen and 350 rioters were involved. Twelve persons were inj ured : 6 policemen, 2 firemen , and 4 rioters. Two policemen had heart attacks. Sixty four rioters were arrested. Three, being juveniles, were not charged. The other 61 were released on bail after being charged with inciting a riot, dis turbing the peace, and resisting arrest. ( 3, 8 ) On Saturday, May 14, a crowd of some 3000 milled around City Hall, 500 of them picketing with signs against the House Committee. Inside the hearing room, communists Archie Brown ( "Number Two" communist in California and member of Harry Bridges' union) and Merle Brodsky were so violent that they had to be re moved (as on the' first day) ; but outside, the mob was reasonably peaceful, on this third and final day of the hearings. (3, 8) The sixty-one adults arrested on Friday, al though at first saying they would demand j ury trial, waived a jury trial and, in a body, went before San Francisco Municipal Judge Albert Axelrod on June 1 , 1960. The j udge dismissed all the cases, after saying there were "ample grounds" for conviction of all 61 defendants on the charge of engaging in a riot, which carries a penalty of one year in jail and a $1000 fine. The j udge apparently did not consider the charges of disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. (3, 8) Efforts to prosecute one rioter, for assault and battery on a police officer, were unsuccessful. U. S. Representative Gordon Scherer (Ohio Re publican) was present in San Francisco as a mem ber of the HCUA subcommittee. In a speech to the House, Representative Scherer gave proof that communists planned the San Francisco riots in advance, and were on the scene as leaders, in the hearing room and in mobs outside, directing student rioters, egging them on. ( 8) A group of local clergymen who attended the San Francisco hearings, not as participants in the riots but as thoughtful observers, issued a joint

statement, glvmg the following eyewitness ac count of what happened inside the hearing room: "More than a dozen ministers were in attend ance at the Congressional hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee in San Fran cisco on May 1 2 and 1 3 . . . . What we witnessed was utterly fantastic. The shameful demonstra tion against law and order and against this duly constituted Committee of the Congress defies description . . . .

"It is our certain conviction that this inde fensible demonstration against law and order was conceived, planned, and directed by a few hard core communist agitators . . . . Leaders of the mob included faculty members and well-known leftist lawyers for the fifth-amendment commu nists. "We were sitting where we were able to ob serve the giving of instructions by the riot leaders who had gained access to the room. The Daily Californian, which was distributed widely at the scene, gave explicit instructions on . . . how to harass the Committee. They were told to laugh out loud . . . to make the Congressmen look ridiculous. These well-disciplined mobsters laughed on the dotted line and obeyed their masters to the last jeer. We watched a national committeeman for the Party line up a dozen Communists near the railing and throw . . . in vective, abusive language, vile profanity, and fiendish charge at the Congressmen . . . . "The students, comprising the rear third of the audience, stood up on their seats and yelled, jeered, hissed. and scoffed at the Congressmen. It was almost complete breakdown of law and order . . . . The only criticisms we have of the police authorities were of allowing this element to make such a mockery out of law and order, without jailing everyone of the leaders. "We are at a loss to understand how clergymen, such as Bishop James Pike, could give any aid and comfort to this lawless kind of activity by state ments deriding the Committee, and by allowing his assistant pastor to address one of their despica ble rallies. "We came away from this hearing absolutely convinced of the overwhelming necessity of con tinuing the House Committee on Un-American Activities. No free agent could view the hearings without being impressed with the fairness, justice, and dedication [ of Committee members and Counsel ]

Page 43

"Chairman Edwin Willis was unusually tem perate and patient. We have nothing but un bounded admiration for Richard Arens, Com mittee Counsel, whose skill and understanding of this perilous conspiracy was a blessing to behold . We apologize to these devoted public servants from Congress for the devilish and deceitful con duct of an infinitesimally small but alarmingly arrogant segment of this area, who are willing to be tools of the communist conspiracy which would make a shambles out of the liberty which marks this great nation as the land of the free and the home of the brave."( 8 )

T hanks to the support of liberals in churches,

colleges, Congress, the communications industry, racial-agitation groups, labor unions, and else where, communists achieved a great propaganda victory with their 1 960 San Francisco riots. The official communist youth movement, dormant for years in the United States, was revitalized. Communist youth groups (with various names, such as "Socialist Youth Union of Philadelphia" ) were established, on and off campus, in many cities. Communist party officials were sought as guest speakers to student groups at universities throughout the land. Advance! (communist party organization which had been formed in February, 1960, for young people in the New York City area) was expanded, and converted into a national group. (8, 9 ) In February, 1961, Gus Hall, general secretary of the communist party, gloated over the success of the new communist youth movement: ( 3)

"There has been a considerable amount of ac tivity, especially in and around the colleges, in the first place in relation to the citizens and [ racial ] discrimination, as well as for peace, abo lition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and other issues. There is a mush rooming of Marxist and Socialist-oriented groups on the campuses in all parts of the country, and we have witnessed the emergence of a new and very successful youth paper [ New Horizons for Youth ] ."(9)

In April, 1961, Advance! published a bulletin calling attention to its activities and those of a new communist organization:

"We are part of an emerging national youth movement to protest against the House Com mittee on Un-American Activities in San Fran cisco; of citizens in the South, and of Easter peace marches throughout the land. We are one of the cooperatin g organizations of the Progressive Youth Organizing Committee that is helping to organize hundreds of groups over the land."(9)

The Progressive Youth Organizing Committee was founded by Daniel Rubin, national youth director of the communist party. (9) In 1962, about 1 2 young people formed in San Francisco a new organization, naming it the W. E. B. DuBois Club, in honor of W. E. B. DuBois, prominent negro American communist, who was one of the principal founders of the NAACP, and a hero to communists throughout the world. The W. E. B. DuBois Club grew with amazing speed. (10) In 1 964, it became a national organi zation and held a convention at Harry Bridges' ILWU Hall in San Francisco. About 5 00 delegates represented more than thirty clubs formed in cities throughout the United States. (11 ) The official insignia of the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs is a half-white, half-black circle encom passing a white hand and a black hand under a dove. John Hagg, chairman of the Los Angeles area council of the DuBois Clubs, says the dove represents peace; the black and white circle rep resents integration ; the hands represent "workers." The goal of the DuBois Clubs is "Foundation of a Socialist order." ( 10 ) The W. E. B. DuBois Clubs have been so suc cessful in ensnaring Amercan youth into the orbit of communist influence and activities that the older communist youth organization (Advance! ) has been disbanded. The communist party is giving full support to the DuBois Clubs, which work closely with racial-agitation groups, (11) es pecially the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. (10) Children of many well-known communist offi cials are active in various DuBois Clubs. Among well-known communists associated with this new youth operation are Carl Bloke, Archie Brown, Douglas Wachter, and William M. Mandel.

Page 44

Bloice is publications director for the DuBois Clubs and also a reporter for People's World, communist party newspaper for the West Coast. Brown, Wachter, and Mandel ( leaders in the 1960 San Francisco riots) helped found the Clubs. ( 10, 1 1 ) Despite all evidence, communists do not admit that the Clubs are communist organizations ; but J. Edgar Hoover (FBI Director) says categori cally that they are communist- inspiredY1) Concerning the general activities of communists among American youth, J. Edgar Hoover says : "One of the primary recruiting targets of the Communist Party, U. S. A., is the youth of America and the party has continued its intensi fied program aimed and directed at our youth. The intensity of this program is revealed in a statement made by Gus Hall in March 1 963 when he spoke on the party's success in placing its speakers on various college campuses through out the country. The youth program of the party, he said, is so important that he or any other national leader would go anywhere to meet with young students . . . . Hall . . . concluded that the future depends on the youth . . . . "Skillfully imparting the Communist line with espousals paralleling Soviet views, party spokes men appeared before 45 student groups, mostly at on-campus sites during the calendar year 1 963 . . . . "In its continuing efforts to attract the youth of America, the party discussed the youth ques tion at a meeting . . . . Gus Hall felt that the character of such an organization should be as broad as possible and tied to scientific socialism, which means communism. Hall's goal was for the party to have an organization which would express itself in the broadest possible terms so that no large segment of youth would be alien ated . . . "This committee [ of the communist party ] agreed that the appeal to young people should emphasize three current items: peace, civil rights, and employment for youth."(12)

Communists

in, or connected with, the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs were prime movers of the student riots at the University of California at Berkeley, in 1964.

Shortly after the June, 1964, Republican Con vention in San Francisco, Goldwater supporters charged that the forces of Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton had actively recruited demon strators on the University of California campus. After investigating these charges, University offi cials decided to enforce rules preventing non university political campaigning on the campus. (1 3 ) On September 19, student organizations (ranging from Youth for Goldwater to Young People's Socialist League) protested enforcement of the rules. (14 ) On September 2 1 , a compromise was offered to the protesting students, who reacted by staging a demonstration. On September 29, Chancellor Edward W. Strong offered another compromise. Student leaders denounced the compromise and demanded "no settlement less than victory." The following day, September 30, it was announced that campus police would remove unauthorized political soapboxes or tables. (14 ) On October 1 , in protest against the dismissal of eight students for refusal to obey University rules, several hundred students staged a sit-in demonstration. A 22-year-old student from New York suddenly emerged as leader of the demon strators-Mario Savio, a leader in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and a veteran of SNCC activities in Mississippi. (1 5) Almost at once, Savio became director of a new organization-the Free Speech Movement (FSM) -representing 22 organized groups. ( 1 5) The governing body of FSM is a steering com mittee of 1 1 . Ten of the 1 1 are from left-wing groups. Savio is head of the committee. Two other notable members are Bettina Aptheker ( daughter of a well-known communist party official, and member of a DuBois Club) and Jack Weinberg (a CORE member, whose address is the same as that of Douglas Wachter, one of the communist leaders of the 1960 San Francisco riots) . ( 16, 17 ) During the riotous sit-in demonstrations, the , steering committee of FSM was virtually under '

Page 45

the direction of communist adults who were seen on the campus almost daily-among them : Mickey Lima, chairman of the communist party of North ern California; Mortimer Scheer, who was kicked out of the American communist party for fol lowing the Chinese communist line ; Robert True haft, communist member of the National Lawyers' Guild. Howard Jeter ( follower of communist Herbert Aptheker) was also on the University campus, advising the FSM steering committee during the student riots. There were many other communists and pro-communists from the outside, directing the student rioters. (17, 18) Clark Kerr (President of the University) said that "up to 40 per cent of the hard-core leaders" of the student riots were adherents of the Mao-red Chinese communist line. ( 1 8)

On October 5, 1964, a faculty-student committee was named to study the situation. On November 5 , Savio led an FSM demonstration protesting the "dragging" negotiations. On November 20, Uni versity Regents agreed to permit "lawful off campus activity" but insisted on disciplinary action against students already in violation of University rules. An FSM mob of 4000 protested. FSM staged another sit-in on November 2 3 ; and, on December 1 , threatened more demonstrations un less University officials agree that only the courts had authority to regulate campus political activity. This would mean abdication of administrative authority at the University. If students violated rules, University officials could do nothing but bring action in the courts. University officials ignored this preposterous demand ; so, on Decem ber 2 , Savio staged another overnight sit-in with 1000 students. (14) On December 3, Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California, .ordered the arrest of about 800 of the demonstrators. All were released on bond, (14) but there is no indication that any will be prose cuted, or even expelled from the University. By the end of December, the University faculty had voted to support the FSM. Chancellor Strong ( who had refused to cap itulate to FSM )

was

replaced.

More To Come

The communist-inspired riots at UC in Berkeley were only a beginning. Dr. Eric A. Walker, President of Pennsylvania State Uni versity, warns that the Berkeley incident is merely the first of many which will occur throughout the nation. ( 19) DuBois Clubs are spreading rapidly. Mario Savio has quit school and gone on a speaking tour, encouraging formation of FSM groups on campuses throughout the land. He has appeared on national television and has already spoken at many leading universities, including Harvard and Columbia. Speaking to the Young Socialist Alliance (a Trotskyite organization) , Mario Savio said that student revolts against established authority can be understood by those who study Karl Marx. (20)

(20)

Something Could Be Done

C ommunists are not the only inciters of law

lessness, which is tearing our society apart. Powerful church groups urge disobedience of laws which church officials do not like. ( 21) The federal government makes it extremely difficult, often impossible, for local and state authorities to maintain order or punish violations of law in connection with racial demonstrations and labor disputes. Adlai E. Stevenson (U. S. Ambassador to the UN) has specifically praised "student dem onstrators [who ] have been toppling governments all over the world in the last few years." Stevenson made these remarks in a speech at Colby College, Waterville, Maine, expressing pleasure that the lawless spirit, which has created such havoc abroad, is now burgeoning on American campuses. He said : "I think especially of the participation of American students in the great struggle to ad vance .civil and human rights in America. "Indeed, even a j ail sentence is no longer a

dishonor but a proud achievement.

Perhaps we

are destined to see in this law-loving land people Page

running for office not on their stainless records but on their prison records." ( 22)

( 4 ) The World Almanac /01' 1955, New York World-Telegram Corp., p. 360; MacArth1l1',' His Rendezvous with History, by Major General Courtney Whitney, Alfred A. Knopf, New York City, 1956, 547 pp.

D uring the political campaign last year, Sena

( 5 ) "Red Score in Luring Youths," The Dallas Mornhzg News, August 2, 1960

tor Barry M. Goldwater accused "highest execu tive officers" in the Johnson administration of en couraging individual and mob violations of law. The accusation was accurate. As long as this situ ation exists, we cannot fully restore freedom in an orderly society ; but we could make a start, if there were enough courage and determination at the local and State level. The communist youth movement in the United States would have been seriously crippled if State and University officials had acted quickly and vigorously in Berkeley. Every student who dis obeyed a University rule should have been ex pelled summarily, and not re-admitted. Every person who participated in any kind of demonstra tion that disturbed peace and order at the Uni versity should have been arrested-and prosecuted, to the full extent of applicable local or State laws. Negotiating and compromising with student rioters mean surrender of our universities, and ultimately our nation, to agitators and subversives.

( 6 ) The Wodd Almanac for 1964, New York World-Telegram Corp., 1964, p. 362 ( 7 ) UPI story from Ankara, The Dallas Mominf!. News, May 6, 1960; article by Zeyyat Goren, The Dallas Times Herald, Oc tober 22, 1960 ( 8 ) "How Far Will They Go?", speech by U. S. Representative Gordon Scherer (Rep., Ohio ) , COllf!.l·essional Record, June 2 , 1960, p p . 10917-21 ( daily) ( 9 ) Communist Appeal To Youth, Internal Security Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, April 25, 1961, 42 pp. ( 10 ) "New Left-Wing Club Spreading," by Gene Blake, Los Ange/es Times, November 23, 1964

( l l ) "FBI Warns on DuBois Clubs," by Gene Bl ake, Los Angeles

TImes, No vember 24, 1964; "U C Revolt Swings on Rights Movement," by Daryl E. Lembke, Los Angeles Times, November

22, 1964, pp. I G, 2 G

( 1 2 ) FBI 1965 Appropriations, Testimony o f J. Edgar Hoover before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations on January 29, 1964, released April 30, 1964, pp. 39-40 ( 1 3 ) UPI story from Berkeley, Los Ange/es Times, December 9, 1964, pt. 1 , p. 6 ( 14 ) "Berkeley Wrangle-Its Chronology," The Los Angeles Herald Examiner, December 18, 1964, p. 3A ( 1 5 ) "Closeup of Mario Savio," by Paul Weissman, San Francisco Examiner, December 9, 1964, pp. 1 , 1 2 ( 16 ) " A Guide To U C Free Speechers," San Francisco Examiner, November 26, 1964, p. 2 8 ( 17 ) "Behind The Scenes At UC," b y Ed Montgomery, San Francisco Examiner, November 26, 1964, p. 28 ( 18 ) "Cal Rebels: Tail Wags Dog," by Ed Montgomery, The Los Ange/es Herald-Examiner, December 1 5 , 1964, pp. I B, 7B

FOOTNOTES

( 19 ) UPI dispatch from Philadelphia, The Los Angeles Hera/d Examiner, December l l , 1964, p. 1 2A

( 1 ) Communist In/iltration In Latin American Educational Systems, Report of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, released January 3 1 , 1965, 18 pp. ( 2 ) The American Legion Firing Line, Vol. IX, No. 1 3, July 1 , 1960 ( 3 ) Communist Target-Youth, by ]. Edgar Hoover, U. S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1960, 18 pp.

( 2 0 ) "The Lesson Of Berkeley," by Seymour Martin Lipset and Paul Seabury, The Reporter, January 28, 1965, pp. 36-40 ( 2 1 ) For discussion of church endorsement of civil disobedience and involvement in political activities, see this Report, "Churches

and Politics," November 23, 1964. ( 22 ) " 'A Jail Sentence Is No Longer A Dishonor News & World Report, June 22, 1964, p. 1 2

u. S.

BOU N D VOLU M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT The

Smoot Rep ort

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

Reports

for a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOLU M E IS A TREASURE HOUSE OF I N FOR MATION FOR ( Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

VO LU M E X

1 964:

$ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E IX

1 963: $ 1 0.00*

A c h ro n ological accou nt a n d a n a lysis

Conte m po ra ry

su bjects as

able

NAT I O N A L CO U N C I L

h i storic

yea r

TH E

ASSAS·

$10.00��

VOLU M E V I I I - 1962: $ 1 0.00*

Revea l i n g studies i n depth o n such -

events,

ana lyses

aga i n st the

m e m o r backdrop

O F C H U RCH ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

S I NAT I O N

. . . I M M IGRATION LAWS . . . M ED I

. . . ALLIANCE FOR PROGR ESS . . .

PRAYER D E C I S I O N S . . . T H E M I S-

CAR E . . . CO M M U N I ST S P I ES

U R BAN

R E N EWAL

h i st o ry

S U P R E M E C O U R T' S

LAWLESS GOVE R N M E N T . . . C H I N A

S I SSI PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . . .

T H E STATE D E PARTM E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . HOW FO R E I G N A I D

C U BA . . . CONGO I NT R I G U E . . .

O N POVERTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G EN -

I S K I LL I N G A M E R ICA . . . WORLD

PROG R ESSIVE EDUCATI O N . . . E U -

E R A L MACARTH U R

CO M M U

COURT .

R I G H TS

TRAGEDY

N ISM

MOVEM ENT

TH E .

CIVIL .

THE

I N V I S I B LE

D I SAR M A M E N T . U.

M E M B E RSH I P

ROPEAN COM M O N MAR KET . . . U N

A N D WO R L D GOV E R N M ENT . . . T H E WAG ES

IN THE UN

O F SOC IALISM

WELFARE

GOVER N M E N T

THE

RACKET

O R D E R FORM B E lOW

YOU R NAM E: STR EET:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

P. O. BOX 9538 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

C ITY A N D STATE:

_____

THE DAN SMOOT R EPORT

DALLAS, TEXAS 7 52 1 4 _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

CO PiES BO U N D VOLU M E X ( 1 964) - $ 1 0.00 each �'

___

CO P I ES BOU N D VOLU M E IX ( 1 963) - $ 1 0.00 eac h *

_____

COP i E S BOU N D VOLU M E V I I I

( 1 9 62) - $ 1 0 . 00 eac h "

* ($ 1 0 . 20 each for o rders i n Texas fo r Texas Del ivery) Page 48

___

Payment Enc losed

IHE

!)tlil SmootRepo,t Vol. 1 1 , No. 7

(Broadcast 495)

1 5, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H E G R E AT S O C I E T Y

January, 1964, President Lyndon B . Johnson sent an Economic Message to Congress. At tached to and made part of the Message was a report by the President's Council of Economic Advisers (Walter W. Heller, Chairman) . (1) The Heller report dealt with poverty in the United States, asserting that a person is in poverty if he lives alone on an income of $ 1 500.00 a year or less, or if he lives in a family group whose income is $3000.00 a year or less. Using these criteria, the Council of Economic Advisers found that 35 million, 100 thousand Americans were in poverty. (1) The President's Council of Economic Advisers disclosed that poverty results from inadequate in come; that inadequate income results from low earning; and that low earning results either be cause a person does not receive much pay for his work, or does not work very much ! (l) In February, 1964, President Johnson (without congressional authority) created a new Office of Economic Opportunity to wage war against the poverty which his economic advisers had dis covered. In March, 1964, the President submitted to Congress a special message, urging enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 to make "national war on poverty" - and to authorize the Office of Economic Opportunity, already created by executive fiat. ( 1 ) The anti-poverty war, outlined in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, included an elaborate system of "job corps" training camps and "national work-training" programs for American youth. Similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt's CCC and WPA camps of the 1930's, the Johnson anti-poverty youth program is also reminiscent of the party youth movements of communist countries, and of the quasi-military programs by which nazis controlled and indoctrinated young people in pre war Germany. (1)

T he

President cited the general-welfare clause of the Constitution as authority for the Eco nomic Opportunity Act, saying : THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 49

"The Congress is charged by the Constitution to 'provide . . . for the general welfare of the United States.' Our present abundance is a meas ure of its success in fulfilling that duty. Now Congress is being asked to extend that welfare to all our people." (2)

The general-welfare clause is not, as the Presi dent asserts, a grant of power to the federal gov ernment to provide for the general welfare. It is an introductory clause to specific grants of power, stating the purpose for which the specific powers are granted. If there were a constitutional provision granting the federal government gen eral powers to do anything the President and Congress deem good for the, people, all the rest of the Constitution would be meaningless. Our government would be an absolute dictator· ship, without constitutional restraint, empowered to do anything officialdom pleases, under the guise of necessity or welfare. The Constitution is a binding contract of gov ernment, limiting the federal government to powers specifically granted. There is no consti tutional grant of power for programs outlined in the President's "Poverty Message." Hence, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is wholly un constitutional. That, however, seemed to matter little. 0ppoQ.ents of the bill generally discussed its absurdity, not its illegality. Since the first Roosevelt adminis tration, the federal government has spent many billions of dollars trying to eliminate poverty in the United States. Indeed, in the year 1964, when President Johnson declared war on poverty by recommending a bill which called for initial out lay of slightly less than one billion dollars a year, more than 40 billion dollars a year in taxpayers' money was already being spent to eliminate pov erty. ( 3 ) Yet, the poverty picture which President Johnson and his economic advisers described in 1964 seemed as dismal as the "ill-fed," "ill housed," and "ill-clothed" image of America pre sented by Franklin D. Roosevelt in political speeches of the 1930's. The political assumption that more plundering of taxpayers, for more government spending on

programs with a thirty-year record of failure, could now produce utopia was so preposterous that, at the outset, some critics had fun pointing out the asininities. For example, U. S. Representa tive M. G. Snyder, a Republican from Kentucky (one of the Appalachian states officially desig nated as poverty-stricken) made a brief speech in the House, ridiculing the war on poverty. U. S. Representative Richard H. Poff, a Republican from Virginia (another State officially labeled as impoverished) reprinted Snyder's speech for a mailing to constituents, on June 8, 1964. Repre sentative Snyder said : " . . . the work camps in the Landrum-Powell Johnson poverty bill would cost $4,700 per year for each enrollee, according to Mr. [ Sargent ] Shriver [ Director of the Office of Economic Op portunity ] . "The camps, our poverty czar tells us, would provide healthy outdoor recreation and basic education for draft rejectees and j uvenile de linquents. My question is: 'For $4,700 per year, why send these young men to camps? Why not Harvard?' "Harvard offers football, soccer, and bird watching for healthy outdoor recreation. It offers a pretty good basic education, and it does not cost as much as Mr. Shriver's work camps. "Tuition, fees, board and room is only $2,701 per year at H arvard. During the 3 summer months, while not at Harvard, our draft rejectee could be paid $50 per week, or $600 for the summer. During the school year we could allow him another $ 1 00 per month for books and spend ing money. All this amounts to a mere $4,20 1 for the year, $499 less than the poverty camps. "But let us not be cheapskates - this is an election year. After all, why should not a boy at Harvard have a sports car? With $499 in each of the four years, he could buy a good, secondhand MG for $ 1 ,000 leaving $249 a year for gas, oil, registration, and dates with Radcliffe College girls. "This would cost the same as the work camps, and it should eliminate the recruitment problem which has bothered Mr. Shriver."

Page 50

Case Histories

"72-room motor hotel under construction. Proj ect cost $800,000. Financing arranged by Con gressman Jack Brooks." ( 4 )

fun of mocking the President's war on poverty did not last long. "War on poverty" was an effective political slogan, for the President and his political party. Opposition collapsed ; and Con gress passed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 despite contemporary, publicized cases proving beyond doubt that the "war" was a cyni cal means of buying votes with taxpayers' money ; damaging, rather than helping, the economy of communities ; penalizing thrifty, hard-working, self-reliant individuals for the-benefit of political favorites and supporters.

The other sign, conspicuously displaying the facsimile signature of Lyndon B. Johnson, read :

T he

. "We ' re creating . . . "MORE JOBS FOR AMERICA "Produced By

"A Working Partnership Of "Your Community . . . Your State . . . "And the "Area Redevelopment Administration "U .

S. Department of Commerce." ( 4 )

Here is comment from Human Events:

H uman

Events publicized a classic case in Woodville, a delightful little town (population 1900) in the Second Congressional District of Texas. This district is in a lovely and unique part of East Texas, somewhat sheltered from the sprawl ing, noisy urbanization that is rapidly destroying quiet village life and rural beauty in the United States. There was no genuine poverty in Wood ville; but there were votes in the Second Congres sional District for Lyndon B. Johnson and Jack Brooks, Democrat who represents the district m Washington.

"Mrs. James R. Willis is an owner of the Willis Motel, near the Community Inn. Eighteen years ago, Mrs. Willis . . . and her husband built a . . . 1 0-room motel . . . . Through scrimping and saving, they managed to expand the motel to 24 rooms. When her husband died in 1 952, Mrs. Willis took over sole management . . . .

Woodville was declared a depressed area, so that it could get a $685 ,000 low-interest loan from the Public Housing Administration for S 6 public-housing units, and aid from the Area Re development Agency. Authorized by Congress in 1961 during the Kennedy administration, the Area Redevelopment Program is a vital part of President Johnson's war on povertyY)

" 'I have had a scant 50 per cent occupancy rate since the Community Inn opened here,' she said. 'Prior to that, I averaged a minimum of 85 per cent. If the new motel doesn't make money, I and the rest of the taxpayers will have to pay for it. If it does succeed, I'll probably be run out of business. Tell me, what is happening to this country?'

(1)

The ARA grant to Woodville was a loan of 420,000 federal tax dollars (at below-market in terest rates ) to help finance the Woodville Com munity Inn, a luxurious, $800,000, 72-room motel, featuring beauty parlor, swimming pool, banquet halls, and so on. Among the first structures on the site of the new motel were two signs, one reading:

"Shortly after the largely federally-financed Community Inn opened doors last November [ 1 963 ] , Mrs. Willis' profits collapsed. She has been compelled to trim her staff. Before the Community Inn was in business, she averaged a gross income of $7,000 every three months; now it's down to $3,000.

"But Mrs. Willis is not alone in getting trampled by federal handout artists in Wash ington. "Mrs. Dolly Sturrock, who owns a real estate agency nearby, says the Community Inn and the low-rent housing project were both 'a factor' in getting her to sell two of her four rental houses in the area. She stressed she couldn't face the competition from subsidized housing. And she worries about how much these government proj ects will eat into her profits on the remaining rental units . . . .

Page 51

"A rather bitter and ironic note has been struck in all this because the businessmen in the area claim they don't understand how these govern ment projects can be successful 'unless new in dustry moves in.' Yet there are few signs that such will happen. "Both Mrs. Sturrock and Mrs. Willis claim there was seldom . full occupancy before the gov ernment projects came and they don't see how this small, out-of-the-way community can support them. "Mr. Leo Nelson, resident manager of the Community Inn, seems to verify these claims. He tells Human Events there are only 30 full-time employees working at the Inn at the moment, although ARA claimed '75 direct new jobs' would be created by its loan to the area. Mr. Nelson also admits the Community Inn has not yet reached the break-even point . . " (4) .

Kentucky, after one federal agency spent tax money to help train unskilled, unemployed persons to do handicraft work, another federal agency spent tax money to destroy jobs of those who had been trained. Both federal agencies were fighting poverty. (5 ) In 1961, the State of Kentucky, with a $35 ,000 loan from the Area Redevelopment Agency, set up vocational training programs to teach unskilled, unemployed persons such crafts as basket-weaving, wood-carving, pottery-making. Miss Jo Pack of Paintsville, Kentucky, got aid from the State's division of arts and crafts, ?nd established a business-Kentucky Hills Handicrafts-to employ people being trained by the ARA-financed pro grams. (S) By 1964, Miss Pack was beginning to break even financially, and was giving employment to more than 200 previously-unemployed mountain eers. She was paying the State minimum wage of 70 cents an hour, which she (and her employees) considered a fair salary in eastern Kentucky particularly for persons otherwise unemployable. (5) Hoping to expand the business, Miss Pack

started selling her wares in West Virginia. U. S.

Labor Department officials notified her that, if

she operated across a State line, she must pay the federal minimum wage of $1.25 an hour-even to persons who worked part-time in their own homes. To show they meant business, Labor De partment officials told Miss Pack they would go to homes of her workers and hold stop-watches on them to make sure they were getting $1.25 an hour for every minute worked. (5)

Unable to pay the higher wage required by the federal government, Miss Pack discontinued her sales operations outside the State of Kentucky. Labor Department officials said she still had to pay the $1.25-an-hour minimum, however, because tourists who bought her merchandise carried it across State lines. Miss Pack fired her employees and quit. She said: "This crackdown means that more eastern Ken tuckians are being forced out of work than President Johnson's poverty program can put back to work." ( 5 )

H ere,

from a column by Ken Thompson in

The Dallas Morning NewsJ February 3, 1965, is

a report on another front in President johnson's anti-poverty war :

"Two years ago, a pilot project for the Ap palachia poverty program was begun in Wil liamson, W. Va. "To demonstrate the kind of job that Washing ton could do to revive the stagnant economy of the region, a model industry was established at Williamson with $ 1 ,800,000 in financing-mostly loans from the Area Redevelopment Administra tion and the Small Business Administration. For two years, this model industry, National Seating and Dimension Co., Inc.-which the New York Times described as the 'newest and most modern in the furniture parts industry' -provided some 1 00 jobs. "But it made no profits, and two months ago with great reluctance, the company had to close its door and discharge its employes in the face of mounting debt. "Today, with the collapse of both the invest ment and the experiment, $220,000 in local stock ownership, $75,000 in loans from three West Virginia banks, $ 1 34,000 from the West Virginia Industrial Development Authority and $ 1,029,000

Page 52

in aid from the federal government has been wiped out. "State and federal authorities, still hoping to make the experiment a success in spite of the disaster, have been looking for a buyer in private industry who is interested in a ready.made $675,OOO-a-year tax writeoff. "Failure of the experiment is blamed on a number of factors, including management mis takes and a smoldering labor situation. The United Mine Workers organized the company's 78 production workers two years ago and, while they called no strikes, they have been blamed for several temporary slowdowns, much absen teeism and refusal to work overtime. The situ ation wasn't helped, says a company spokesman, by 'a few union troublemakers.' "But the same spokesman placed the primary blame on the fact that a lot of Appalachia's people simply don't want to work. The company's employes could make almost as much money and live as well 'standing on the street corner' collecting unemployment checks, aid-to-depend ent-children payments, federal food stamps and other welfare benefits as they could earn working full time at the plant. "Collapse of the Williamson experiment-which was supposed to prove how efficiently the federal government can solve the poverty problem should have taught a valuable lesson. Its failure, the New York Times noted, has left a 'bitter legacy' for both the rescuers and the rescued. "Out of this legacy or lesson, perhaps somebody will be able to conclude that the government can't solve all our problems for us and perhaps is already trying to solve too many."(6)

Consequences

I n 1961, when the Area Redevelopment Act was passed, 103 areas were designated "de pressed," eligible for aid. In January, 1965, there were more than 1 000 "depressed" areas-in cluding the original 103. (G)

On January 28, 1965, the President's Council of Economic Advisers announced that there are 300,000 fewer Americans living in poverty now

than two years before. This change did not result from economic improvement, however, but from a change in the Council's formula for determining what poverty is. In January, 1 964, the Council of Economic Advisers said all family groups living on $3000.00 a year or less were impoverished. In January, 1965, the Council said a larger "base" than $3000.00 is now being used for large families, a smaller "base" for small families. ( 7 ) Although this change in formula removed the poverty label from 300,000 adult Americans, it did not help children. The President's Council of Economic Advisers says 1.5 million American children were living in poverty in January, 1965 four million more than in January, 1 964. (7 )

Obviously, the governmental drive to eliminate poverty is in reverse; but the drivers seem to be enjoying themselves. An air of condescension clings to people di recting President Johnson'S war on poverty. Note, for example, some details about the National Con ference on Poverty in the Southwest (at Tucson, Arizona) , January 25-26, 1965, arranged and financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity, attended by 1700 persons from five States. (8) Sargent Shriver, Jr. (commanding general in the President's war on poverty) addressed the conference, saying: "We did not come here with a federal check book or a federal blueprint. We came, instead, to listen to the voices of the poor."( 8)

The federal checkbook paid for the affair, how ever. Estimates of the over-all cost (to taxpayers) have not been made; but the OEO says it spent $22,000 to send 1 83 indigent persons to the Con ference on Poverty ( after spending an unde termined amount of money interviewing and screening to determine which indigents to send) _ These were the voices of the poor Mr. Shriver mentioned ; but, apparently, few of the voices were heard. (8 )

Page 53

Mrs. Grace Oliveraz, executive secretary of the conference, gave the press details about four

genuinely poor people from Dallas, carefully screened and sent to Tucson to explain what they want in the way of help from the government. Unfortunately, the four poor people from Dallas did not get a chance to speak, because the con ference was busy listening to other speakers among them, a Dallas man (Earl E. Allen, colored pastor of a Methodist church ) who is regional director of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) . Reverend Allen enlightened the Poverty Con ference with a speech about the "horrible" situ ation in Dallas schools , which are not integrating as fast as CORE demands. (8)

The End of The Road

The snobbery of uplifters ; the use of public funds to provide forums for political-racial agi tation, under pretext of helping the poor ; the cyni cism of our highest public officials who, to get votes for themselves , blatantly advertise their roles as dispensers of federal aid ; the essential corrup tion of private groups and individuals who com pete for unconstitutional handouts of federal tax money ; the utter absurdity of governmental pro grams which subsidize employment of unemploy able persons and then force them back into unem ployment by requiring employers to pay more wages than employees earn ; the stupidity of using federal tax money for financing businesses to cre ate jobs and then permitting those businesses to be destroyed by monopolistic unions, whose monopo ly is granted and protected by the federal govern ment: these are conspicuous features of President Johnson'S war on poverty. These obvious flaws in Mr. Johnson'S Great Society seem trivial, however, after a deeper look into the real meaning of the President's plans for our nation. President Johnson'S education program would give the federal government control of education from kindergarten through college. His Urban Development programs ·would make every city in the United States a controlled dependency of fed eral agencies. His various proposals in the field

of hospitalization and medical care would produce a system of socialized medicine as complete (and as damaging to liberty ) as that of any communist country. Total dictatorship would result from the President's multitudinous programs for subsi dizing industries, shifting farmers to cities, training youth, controlling agricultural produc tion, debasing our currency by eliminating gold reserve backing, tightening labor-union control over workers and management by destroying State right-to-work laws, and stopping public criticism of his administration by use of the Internal Rev enue Service and the Federal Communications Commission.

short, Mr. Johnson'S Great Society means total national socialism for the United States. But national socialism is not the end. The ultimate aim is international socialism} to be financed by the people of the United States. On April 2 1 , 1964-one month after submitting his war-on-poverty program for the United States -President Johnson spoke to a group of news paper editors asking support for his foreign-aid program. He characterized foreign aid as a crusade to raise living standards for all people in the world. The President said : "Every American concerned about his country should also be concerned about Africa, Asia and our friends in Latin America . . .

"The young, teeming masses of the under developed world are determined to have the better things in life . . . . "If a peaceful revolution in these areas is im possible, a violent revolution is inevitable . . . . "We who stand here in peace and security and prosperity must realize we are greatly out numbered . . " (9) .

Mr. Johnson insinuated that the have-nots of the world (who, he said, outnumber us 17 to 1 ) may turn on us and destroy us if we do not give them what they want. There is no logic in the President's insinuation. Impoverished nations have never caused a major war and are incapable of fighting one. If all impoverished nations on earth

Page 54

pooled their resources and organized for militant action against us, they could not impair our na tional security, so greatly superior is our strength. But if we continue bleeding our own resources to provide hostile foreign nations the means to pro duce for modern wars, they may become a threat to us. President Johnson was not, however merely in dulging in political exaggeration and rhetoric to frighten editors into supporting his foreign-aid programs. He was stating long-range policy. The policy was stated somewhat more clearly on January 26, 1965 , by Adlai E. Stevenson (U. S. Ambassador to the UN) . Mr. Stevenson spoke to the UN General Assembly, saying the United Nations will be in serious financial trouble if the Soviet Union does not pay 60 million dollars as sessed as the Soviets' share of UN expenses in the Middle East and in the Congo. If the UN resolves its financial crisis (by collecting from the Soviets ) , the United States pledges (Mr. Stevenson said ) to help pay for an international war on poverty to be fought through UN agencies. Mr. Stevenson said the United States has already contributed more than two billion dollars to UN activities and is willing to give much more. (10) Thus, Mr. Stevenson offered a bribe-promising to multiply America's multi-billion-dollar contri butions to the UN if the UN will collect a mere 60 million from the Soviets. Bribing other nations with American taxpayers' money has become our government's only means of getting support for U. S. positions in the UN General Assembly, be cause communist countries, and other anti-Ameri-

can nations, hold a commanding majority of votes in the Assembly. What right had Mr. Stevenson to promise that Americans will be further plundered to pay for a United Nations war on poverty ? He had no right. The Constitution clearly provides that Americans can be taxed only by their elected representatives in Congress ; but flagrant disregard of the Con stitution has become routine procedure among officials in all branches of our federal government.

Without a Constitution as a binding contract to limit the powers of the central government, and with a Congress which seems disposed to rubber stamp everything President Johnson proposes, our nation is in grave danger. Note how easily the Appalachia-aid bill passed the Senate on February 1 , 1965 : only 22 Senators voted against this bill, which will, if approved by the House, give federal agencies control of the economy of 1 1 entire States. Enough pressure from the public could force the House to reject the Appalachia-aid bill, a keystone of the frightful structure which President Johnson calls the Great Society. Unless the public can be informed and aroused to resist-not only the Ap palachia scheme but all other portions of the "war on poverty" -we may find ourselves so tightly con trolled by a socialistic dictatorship that resistance will be impossible. Each reader of this Report could help immensely by ordering multiple copies for distribution to others.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT? and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 civili American in doctorate a for work graduate doing Fellow, Teaching a as 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard two years on zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent : three and a half years on communist investigations; the FBI and, FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases ill various places. He resigned from controversial from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of Dan Smoot The publishing : business se free-enterpri issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, television and radio s news-analysi weekly a producing and ; subscription by available magazine Report, a weekly and broadcast broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report as a yard give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution immensely-help get stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

Page 55

Congressional Fund

FOOTNOTES

A t the request of subscribers, we keep all members of the United States Congress - both House and Senate-on a permanent subscription list. We do this at our expense; and , since the cost is rather high, we make this formal announce ment once each year, inviting contributions to help carry the load. Your contributions to us for this purpose are not tax-exempt ; and we can no longer use a specific ccatribution to provide a subscription for specific Representatives or Senators. Any sum that you send will be placed in our general Congres sional Fund to help pay the over-all expense and will be sincerely appreciated, because it is needed. *

( 1 ) See this Report, "Johnson's War On Poverty," March 30, 1964, pp. 97-104; "Foreign Aid And Poverty," August 10, 1964, pp. 249-2 56; copies are available at 2 5c each. ( 2 ) "Text of President Johnson's Special Message on Poverty Presented to Congress," The New York Times, March 17, 1964, p. 22 ( 3 ) "There's Already a 'War on Poverty'-," U. S. News & World Report, April 13, 1964, p. 46

( 4 ) "Johnson's ARA Program Bankrupting Widow," Human EI)ents, June 20, 1964, pp. 1 , 2 ( 5 ) "Federal Bureaucrats Take Jobs From Over 200 in Appalachia," Human Events, September 5, 1964, p. 9; "Kentucky Conflict,"

editorial, The Dallas Moming News, December 1 5 , 1964, Sec. 4, p. 4 ( 6 ) "Report on the Appalachian Front," by Ken Thompson, The Dallas Moming News, February 3, 1965, Sec. 4, p. 4

( 7 ) Special to the Times from Washington, D. C, The New York

Index

Times, January 29, 1965, p. 1 3

( 8 ) "Dallas Delegates to Poverty Talks Reflect Present Despair,

We still have a

separate index available for the following years, for those who save individual Reports:

Future Hope," Special to the Times Herald from Tucson, Ariz., The Dallas Times Herald, January 27, 1965, p. 18A

(9) "LBJ Speaks for Aid Program; Cites World's Teeming Poor," article by Allen Duckworth from Washington, D. C, The Dallas

1 964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1 .50 1 963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 .50 1 962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 .50 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.50 1 957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 .50

Subscription:

Morning News, April 2 2 , 1964, Sec. 1 , p. 1

( 10 ) "Stevenson Warns UN On 'Double Standard'," UPI dispatch from UN, New York, The Dallas Morning News, January 27, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 2

6 months - $ 6.00 $ 10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

- $ 3 .98 - $ 3.98

NAME (Please Prinl)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9538, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR Page 56

ZIP CoDE

STATE

1-2303

THE

1)(/11 SIIIOOtRe,Olt Vol. 1 1 , No. 8

(Broadcast 496)

February 22, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

C I V I L R I G H T S O R C I V I L W A R?

D uring the month of January and the first two weeks of February, 1965 , a group of out-of-State lawyers, calling themselves a deposition caravan, worked openly in Mississippi on a program origin ally launched by Joseph Stalin at the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International, in Mos cow, 1928. The immediate objective of the deposition caravan was to unseat the Mississippi delegation in Congress - to replace lawfully-elected Representatives with non-elected persons approved by com munist agitators. The long-range communist aim is to foment racial civil war which will cause enough bloodshed and violence to dismember the American Union and enable communists to estab lish a Soviet dictatorship. The deposition caravan, claiming to be working for negro civil rights, had enthusiastic support from many members of the United States Congress, and from other prominent people throughout the nation. Generally, the press was either silent about what was happening, or presented distorted reports which helped the communist cause. It is a frightening story which can be understood only against the backdrop of history. In

1921, the Communist International at Mosc ow instructed American communists "to organize and lead the Negro masses." In 1928, Joseph Stalin gave specific directions : the communist goal was to confiscate the property of all whites in the "black-belt" region of the American southern States, detach the region from the Union, and establish it as a negro Soviet Republic. This com munist objective has never been altered. It was laid aside in 1941 when nazi armies invaded the Soviet Union, and held in abeyance until 1946. Since then, tactics have been more subtle than be fore World War II; slogans have changed ; and more well-intentioned non-communists (especially clergymen and college students ) have been duped into doing the party's racial-agitation work; but the goal has remained fixed : bloody race war in the United States. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 ainnail ( including APO and FPO) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $l O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 57

In 1928, when Stalin dictated this long-range program, Benjamin Gitlow was head of the U. S. communist party. Stalin's new program frightened him. He was later expelled from the party for disobeying orders. Since then, he has made a con siderable contribution toward exposing the com munist conspiracy in the United States. Here are exerpts from a Benjamin Gitlow article inserted in the Congressional Record on August 7, 1963 (pages 1 3665-7, daily edition) : "Communists and their supporters . . intend to arouse to a fever heat the nationalist and chauvinist sentiments now finding expression in segments of the Negro population, into a drive for separation of the Negroes from the whites through the establishment of an independent Negro republic in the United States . . . . _

"The communists are deliberately maneuver ing among the American Negroes to create a situation for the outbreak of racial violence, to such an extent that it can be turned into a civil war - a civil war on a racial basis . . . . In such a civil war, should they succeed in foment ing it, the communists hope to so undermine the American government and our social structure that they can take over power. In the racial civil war they envisage, they are sure Negroes will be in the front ranks, the shock troops of the communist revolution . . . . "Until recently, the Communist policy . . . has been to soft pedal their demand for . . . a Negro . . . separationist movement . . . to oust the whites from the South, expropriate their lands and property, and establish a Negro Re public under communist hegemony . . . . [ But now] the slogan of self-determination for the Negro . . . is in the forefront of the American Communist Party's general program . . . . "The communists . . . . know where they are going and they are hell bent on getting there, even if they have to drown the American Negroes in their own blood to get the power they covet."

T he so-called civil-rights movement in the United States is a communist creation, and has been largely manipulated by communists since it was created. (1) The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the primary civil rights group - connected with others through in-

terlocking directorates. The NAACP was founded in 1909. Its first five top officials were well-known socialists - one of whom ( W. E. B. DuBois ) later became a militant communist. Iri 1936, com munists began infiltrating the NAACP. By 1956, at least 77 top NAACP officials were known to federal agencies as participants in communist or pro-communist activities. (1) The Southern Conference Educational Fund, a powerful civil-rights organization , has helped fi nance and establish several other groups. The Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Ac tivities of the State of Louisiana revealed (in a report published April 1 3, 1 964) that the SCEF is controlled and managed by communists. ( 1 ) The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Com mittee (which has incited much racial violence, particularly among college students) is "substan tially under the influence of the Communist Party," according to the Louisiana Joint Legisla tive Committee. (1) The Committee reported that Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference is also "substantially under the control of the Communist Party." King (foremost personality in the civil-rights movement ) is notorious for his association with communists, communist-fronters, communist organizations, and moral degenerates connected with communist causes. ( 1 ) The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) has, perhaps, directly instigated more racial violence and civil disobedience than any other civil-rights group. On May 25, 1961, U. S. Senator James O. Eastland (Mississippi Democrat, Chairman of the Internar Security Subcommittee) reported: "From investigation and examination of the facts and records, there can be little doubt, in my judgment, but that this group [ CORE ] is an arm of the Communist conspiracy. They are agents of worldwide communism." ( 1)

The National Council of Churches has become a militant racial-agitation group. At least 658 of ficials of the NCC have communist-front records - according to a 3 1 O-page book ( listing names and records) published by Circuit Riders, Inc.,

Page 58

1 1 0 Government Place, Cincinnati 2, Ohio ($4.00 ) . The American Civil Liberties Union (very in fluential in the civil-rights movement) was founded by communists and socialists. At least nine prominent officials of ACLU have been linked with communist fronts or with communist activities. ( 1, 2) At least four officials of the National Urban League (oldest civil-rights group ) have commu nist-front records. ( 1 ) The American Jewish Congress is militantly active in the civil-rights movement. Rabbi Stephen Wise (head of the AJC for years ) was associated with about 40 communist fronts. Israel Goldstein (who succeeded Wise as head of the AJC) ; Rabbi Joachim Prinz (present head of the AJC) ; and Will Maslow ( present executive director of the AJC) - all have communist-front records.(l)

P resident Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st

Airborne Division to Little Rock in 1957. He vio lated federal law and the Constitution, but appar ently believed he was properly enforcing a "law of the land," concerning school integration though no such law existed. Similarly, President John F. Kennedy sent 20,000 troops, 700 U. S. Marshals, and scores of special agents into Mis sissippi in 1962, to enforce an illegal order by one Supreme Court Justice, concerning the en rollment of one NAACP-sponsored negro in a State University. ( 3 ) There was a comparable inva sion of the State of Alabama in 1963. In 1 965, President Johnson is pushing a drive to remove immigration barriers. This would admit, among others, hordes of Africans, who would quickly and inevitably intensify racial tensions. These events are part of the harvest we are reaping from seeds of destruction which communist-directed racial agitators have been planting for a generation. It is deeply disturbing to watch the communist plot unfold. Most prominent actors in the plot seem

unaware

that their actions are related to

communist purposes. The press (revealing super-

ficial insight, or none, into what is happening ) generally reports racial controversies as struggles· for j ustice, thus concealing communist machina tions and purpose. The public is quite unprepared to believe that a machiavellian conspiracy to incite civil war has any connection with the actions and policies of our Presidents, or connection with northern and western college students on a summer proj ect of voter registration in the South, or with a group of out-of-State lawyers taking depositions in Mississippi. To relate and document the entire story of what communists intend to do, and what they have already accomplished, would require vol umes. We can get an inkling by examining the background and conduct of the recent Mississippi operation . which fits into the general commu nist plan for conquest of the United States.

On June 23, 1 963, The Worker (official news

paper of the communist party) presented a policy statement written by Benjamin Davis ( negro, second highest official of the U. S. communist party) . Davis demanded that the federal govern ment declare State governments in the South il legal and then conduct federally-supervised elec tions to install new governments (as was done after the Civil War) . Note that this communist demand for overthrow of lawful State governments in the South (the first region which communists want to detach from the American Union and establish as a Soviet satel lite) was made in June, 1963. On December 6, 1963, John Lewis (negro, head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Commit tee) announced the SNCC's Mississippi Sum mer Project for 1964 : college students would be sent to arouse hundreds of thousands of Mis sissippi negroes to register for voting. Lewis said this activity would precipitate in Mississippi a crisis of such magnitude that "the Federal Gov ernment will have to take over the State,"(4) Early in 1964, the Student Nonviolent

Coordi

nating Committee distributed a pamphlet explain-

Page 59

ing its Mississippi Summer Project, and pleading for contributions of money. Here are excerpts : "Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinat ing Committee has active projects in thirteen Southern States . . . . Mississippi has become the main target of SNCC's staff and resources . . . . "This summer, SNCC, in cooperation with COFO [ Council of Federated Organizations ] , is launching a massive Peace Corps·type opera tion in Mississippi . . . . "A large number of law students will come to Mississippi to launch a massive legal offensive against the official tyranny of the state. The time has come to challenge every Mississippi law which deprives Negroes of their rights, and to bring suit against every state and local official who commits crimes in the name of his office . . .

Early in June, 1 964, it was announced that more than 1 000 students from the North and West had been recruited to participate in the Mississippi Summer Project - with the specific assignment to register negroes for voting. The Council of Fed erated Organizations (COFO) was to be respon sible for co-ordinating activities of all groups in volved in the project. ( 7 ) On June 26, 1 964, the NAACP's board of di rectors demanded that the federal government take control of the State of Mississippi (8) - one year and three days after communist official Ben j amin Davis had demanded federal occupation of all southern States.

"The struggle for freedom in Mississippi can only be won by a combination of action within the state and a heightened awareness through out the country of the need for massive federal intervention to ensure the voting rights of N e groes. This summer's program will work toward both objectives."

On May 2 0, 1 964, the Council of Federated Organizations ( COFO - which coordinates the activities of such organizations as NAACP, CORE, SNCC, and Martin Luther King's SCLC) made an announcement concerning the impend ing Mississippi Summer Project. COFO said it would stress voters' rights throughout the South, but especially in Mississippi, to demonstrate the need for federal intervention. (5)

On that same day - May 20, 1964 Leo Pfeffer (general counsel of the American Jewish Congress) announced in New York that religious and civil-rights organizations had arranged for 60 volunteer lawyers to spend at least two weeks without pay in southern States during the sum mer of 1 964, to defend demonstrators who might be charged with violations of local and State laws. Organizations named as participants with the AJC in this project were the National Council of Churches, the Congress of Racial Equality, the National Association for the Advancement of Col ored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, -

1 964 Political Action

In May,

CORE and COFO held a meet ing in Jackson, Mississippi, to organize the par ticipation of negroes (as candidates) in the forth coming Democrat Party primary elections. Only 5 5 persons attended, most of them from out of State. (9) Nonetheless, four negroes did get on the ballot as candidates for federal office in the June, 1 964, Democrat Party primaries in Mississippi : 1964,

( 1 ) Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer ran for nomina tion as Democrat Party candidate for the U. S. House of Representatives from the second con gressional district; but the incumbent Democrat, Jamie Whitten, defeated her by a vote of 35,2 1 8 to 62 1 . (2) J . M . Houston ran against the Democrat incumbent (John Bell Williams) in the third congressional district, and was defeated by a vote of 37,70 1 to 1 259. (3) In the fifth congressional district, a negro (J ohn Cameron) and two whites ran against U. S. Representative William M. Colmer. Colmer won with 30,398 votes. The negro received 883 votes. (4) Mrs. Victoria Jackson Gray ran against U. S. Senator John Stennis, and was defeated by a vote of 1 7 3,764 to 4703. ( 1 0 )

the American Jewish Committee, and the Student

Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. ( 6)

Page 60

Having signally failed in their efforts to direct

negro participation in the Democrat Party pri-

maries, racial-agitation groups in Mississippi formed their own party - the Freedom Demo cratic Party. Later, a Mississippi Court ordered deletion of the word Democratic. In Mississippi, the group is now called Freedom Party; but, in its national propaganda, it still calls itself Free dom Democratic Party. On August 1 , 1 964, the Freedom Party held con ventions in 40 of the 82 counties in Mississippi. It held a State convention on August 6. Out of-State persons were in control of all the conven tions. The Freedom Party did not hold primary elections and was not on the official ballot for the 1 964 general elections. (9) Instead of participat ing legally in the general elections, the Party staged a four-day mock election, keeping its "polls" open continuously, 24 hours a day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, October 30 through November 2, 1964. In the November 3, 1964, general elections, qualified voters of Mississippi elected four Demo crats and one Republican as U. S. Representatives from the State's five congressional districts: Thomas G. Abernethy, John Bell Williams, Wil liam M. Colmer, Jamie Whitten, and Prentiss Walker (the Republican) . On December 4, 1964, William M. Kunstler, counsel for the Freedom Party, announced that his party considered the elections invalid, and would challenge the seating of the entire Mississippi delegation. Saying the Constitution provides for election of U. S. Representatives by "all the peo ple" (which is not accurate) , he alleged that the Democrat Party in Mississippi violated the Con stitution, because only 5.7 per cent of Mississippi's negroes were registered to vote in 1964. He also alleged that Mississippi's literacy test for voters ( stipulated in the State Constitution adopted in 1 890) violates the terms under which Mississippi was "readmitted" to the Union in 1870. (11)

Kunstler asserted that Freedom Party candi dates (in the four-day mock election) legally won three of Mississippi's seats in the national Con gress. (11)

Contest and Caravan

When the U. S. House of Representatives con

vened on January 4, 1965 , Representative William Fitts Ryan (New York Democrat) , supported by liberals from various other States, objected to the swearing in of five Representatives from Mis sissippi - on grounds that their elections had been challenged by the Freedom Party. House Majority Leader Carl Albert (Oklahoma Demo crat) introduced a Resolution authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to the five Mississippi Representatives. By a vote of 276 to 149, the House supported Albert. The Mississippi delegation was sworn in and seated. (12)

That did not end the matter, however, because the Freedom Party had filed formal Notices of Contest, demanding : ( 1 ) that three negro women (Mrs. Anne De vine, Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, and Mrs. Vic toria Jackson Gray) be seated in the House to replace U. S. Representatives Prentiss Walker, Jamie L. Whitten, and William M. Colmer; (2) that the elections of U. S. Representatives John Bell Williams and Thomas G. Abernethy be declared illegal, and their seats in Congress be vacant until new elections are held.

The Freedom Party's Notices of Contest did not allege that the Mississippi Representatives had acted unethically, violated any law, or failed to meet provisions of law. They alleged only that the elections were invalid because not enough ne groes were registered to vote. ( 11,13) Here, in brief, are rules governing the con testing of elections to the House of Representa tives: 1 . Notice of Contest must be given within 30 days after official canvass. 2. Reply by the Member whose election is contested must be within 30 days after Notice of Contest. 3. Testimony must be taken within 90 days following the reply by the Member. This shall be divided into three periods:

Page 61

40 days in behalf of contestant

b. 40 days in behalf of Member c. 1 0 days for rebuttal by contestant . 4. Testimony may be taken at two or more places, but both sides must be given an oppor tunity to be represented. Names of witnesses must be given in advance so that the opposite side may be prepared to cross-examine. (14)

Lawyers for the Freedom Party found in an old federal law (enacted in 185 1 ) a weapon to serve their ends. The 185 1 law provides that anyone contesting an election can obtain subpoenas and compel witnesses to appear for testimony. The subpoenas can be issued by any notary public, mayor, or j udge of a court of record, any where in the United States. Any person failing to obey a contestant's subpoena to appear and give testimony can be fined $20.00 (which is given to the contestant) and imprisoned for misdemea nor.(15 ) Contestant's lawyers can hold hearings to take testimony or depositions at any time, anywhere in the United States, provided only that the per son whose election is being contested be given notice 24 hours in advance. ( 1 5)

Mississippi Summer Proj ect of 1 964 (many of whom also participated in the communist-incited student riots at Berkeley later in 1964) . At Yale, they took testimony from psychiatrists about the general mental condition of Mississippi citizens. They held hearings in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington, Newark, Buf falo, San Francisco - in cities throughout the United States where they could find "students" or "experts" who claimed to have derogatory infor mation about conditions in Mississippi. The five U. S. Representatives from Mississippi did not have enough time, money, or voluntary help from able lawyers to meet the challenge. When given 24-hour notice of hearings to be held in a dozen distant places, from San Francis,co to Boston, they were unable to attend or send legal representatives. Hence, testimony taken was hostile to them, and went into the record un challenged. It was even difficult for them to have lawyers present at all hearings held in Mississippi, impossible for them to make adequate prepara tion for hearings in which they could participate.

Senator James

Rules for conducting the hearings are vague, and j udicial procedures are not prescribed. Hence, attorneys taking testimony can operate not only as partisan lawyers but also as presiding officers, conducting hearings as they please.

O. Eastland says that most of the deposition-caravan of lawyers who invaded Mississippi in January and February are either communists or have records of associati0n with communists, communist activities, communist fronts. (9) Note some examples.

By mid-January, 1 965 , approximately 200 out of-State lawyers were in Mississippi, ( 16) armed with subpoenas, holding hearings, taking depositions and testimony in behalf of the Freedom Party. Officials of the State of Mississippi were forced to attend hearings (which, according to one As sociated Press writer, were conducted "like a base ball game without a referee" ) (17) and to answer, under oath, insulting questions propounded by hostile lawyers from New York, Massachusetts, California, and elsewhere.

Morton Stavis of Newark, New Jersey, headed the deposition caravan. Stavis was known to be a communist party member in 1945 and 1 946. From 1954 to 1 962, he was on the executive board of the National Lawyers Guild, (9) cited by the U. S. House Committee on Un-Amerrcan Activi ties as the "foremost legal bulwark of the Com munist Party." (IS) From 1955 to 1 964, Stavis was a member of the national council of the Emer gency Civil Liberties Committee, a communist front. ( 9 )

An unknown number of lawyers representing the Freedom Party held hearings outside Mis sissippi. In Berkeley, California, they took testi mony from students who had participated in the

Ephraim Gross of New York ; Benjamin B. Dreyfus and Edward Stern of San Francisco; Jack Berman of Los Angeles - all were leaders in the deposition caravan; all have had connections with

(14,15)

Page 62

· communist activities. The same can be said about the three general attorneys for the Freedom Party: William M. Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy of New York City, and Benjamin E. Smith of New Or leans. ( 9 )

What To Do

This official action in Washington was ap parently coordinated with Martin Luther King's agitation activities in Selma. About the same time the suit was filed in Washington, King had letters printed in Alabama, showing his address as the county j ail in Selma. The letters were dated Feb ruary 1 the day King insisted on being arrested in Selma for defiant violation of local law. (20)

Under House rules, Freedom Party repre sentatives had to submit their evidence to the House by February 1 3, 1 96 5 . The Mississippi Representatives have 40 days for reply. The Free dom Party will then have ten days to submit reo buttal. Following that, the House will examine all evidence and reach a decision.

King could have been released on bond any time he pleased. He chose to stay in jail five days. He held a press conference when he left, saying he was going to ask President Johnson for new civil-rights legislation, especially federal voter registration laws. President Johnson saw King, and promised to support the legislation King wants. (21)

While the deposition caravan was operating, the five U. S. Representatives from Mississippi desparately needed volunteer help from able law yers. They may still need it. Lawyers who would like to hel p should get in touch with U. S. Repre sentative Thomas G. Abernethy, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Others could help by getting this Report into the hands of as many people as possible.

attack on the State of Alabama is also under way. On January 1 5 , 1 9 6 5 , the U. S. De partment of Justice filed suit against Alabama, claiming that the State's literacy test for voters discriminates against negroes. (1 9)

The Alabama operation is different from that in Mississippi, but the communist goal is the same.

Conservatives in Alabama and Mississippi are

fighting for the survival of our Republic. The rest of the cour;try ought to know about it, and join the fight. People in all States can help, by keep ing maximum pressure on Congress, not merely to reject Martin Luther King's proposals for new federal voter-registration laws, but to stop all federal intervention in the internal affairs of the States.

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 195 5 , was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 63

( 12 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 8, 1965, pp.

FOOTNOTES

30-1

( 1 ) For detailed information on these organizations and communist

( 1 3 ) "Lawyers, Mixed Group Are In Clash In City, Admit Congress

influence in the civil rights movement, see this Report, "Com

men Met All Requirement," by William 1. Chaze, The Jar:kson

munism In The Civil Rights Movement," June 1 , 1 964.

Clarion-Ledger, January 30, 1965, pp. 1, 8

( 2 ) For more detailed information on the ACLU, see this Report,

( 14 ) Laws And Committee Rules Governing Contested-Elution Cases In The House 0/ Representatives, U. S. Government Printing

"The American Civil Liberties Union," July 27, 1964.

Office, 1950, 9 pp.

( 3 ) For information on the Oxford, Mississippi crisis of 1962, see this Report, "The Mississippi Tragedy," October 8, 1962, and

( 1 5 ) "Seating Challenge Weapon Is Century-Old U. S. Statute," The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., February 2, 1965,

"The Wages of Socialism," October 1 5 , 1962.

p. 9

( 4 ) "On 2 Fronts: Militant Plan To Create Crisis In Mississippi," by Bob Robertson, The San Franr:isw Chronir:ie, December 7 , 1963, p . 4

( 16 ) "Moscone, Francois On Dixie Task Force," by Luther Meyer, San Franr:isw Call Bulletin, January 14, 1965, p. 1 6

( 17 ) AP article by James Aggus, Jackson Daily News, February 1 ,

( 5 ) AP dispatch from Jackson, Mississippi, The Dallas Times Herald, May 20, 1964, p. 24A ( 6 ) Article by M. S. Handler, The New York Times, May 2 1 , 1964,

1965, p . 9 ( 1 8 ) Guide To Subversive Organizations And Publir:ations, House Document No. 398, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962, p. 1 2 1

p. 2 6 ; AP dispatch from New York, The Dallas Morning News, May 2 1 , 1964, Sec. 1, p. 1 2

( 19 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 5 , 1965, pp. 1 83-209

( 7 ) "Freedom Push in Mississippi," b y James Foreman, The Los

( 20 ) Speech by U. S. Representative William 1 . Dickinson ( Rep.,

Angeles Times, June 14, 1964, p. 3G

Ala. ) , Congressional Rewrd, February 4, 1965, pp. 1996-7

( 8 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Mobile Register, June 27,

( daily)

1964, p. 8B (9) "Communist Forces Behind Negro Revolt In This Country,"

( 2 1 ) UPI dispatch from Washington, The New York Times, February 10, 1965, p. 18

by U. S. Senator James O. Eastland, including information from the House Committee on Un-American Activities, East Coast

and West Coast newspapers, Congressional Record, February 3 , 1965, pp. 1908-18 ( daily)

Film Notice

( 10 ) Offidal Vote Tabulation, State of Mississippi, First Demor:ratic Primary Returns of June 2 , 1964, 4 pp.

( 1 1 ) Congressional Quaftedy JVeekly Report, January 1, 1965, pp. 4, 1 5

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album) THE

1 963 and 1 964 broadcast film are for sale at special price of $5.00 each. Send for free list, or order from broadcast number on Reports.

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

ZIP CoDE

STATE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 TAYLOR Page 64

1-2303

THE

1)(/11 SmootlIepolt Vol.

I I,

No. 9

(Broadcast 497)

March

1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

S O C I A L S E C U R I TY

In 1928, France adopted a national system of compulsory social security. In 1957, France added medicare. In 1964, the French social-security system was bankrupt. Medical expenses had more than doubled since 1957, and social security was 250 million dollars in debt. The French gov ernment has found no way to get the system out of debt-because the social-security tax is already so high ( 240/0 of the gross salary of every employed person) that it is a damaging burden on the national economy. Social security in France for the year 1964 cost 1 8 billion dollars. All other activities of the French government cost 18.5 billion dollars. (1) In 1935-seven years behind France-the United States adopted a national system of compulsory social security. ( 2 ) In 1964-again seven years behind France-the United States came very close to adding medicareY) It is generally predicted that Congress will approve medicare in 1965 . How far behind the French are we in descent toward irremediable insolvency of the social-security system ? Even without medicare , our social security system already is technically bankrupt: it pays out more than it takes in, and its shrinking reserve fund covers only a fraction of future obligations. (4) We crossed the line into bankruptcy in 1957-when social-security benefits exceeded social-se curity taxes. (5) Since 1957, social-security taxes have increased more than 610/0 ( from 4.50/0 of salaries to 7.250/0 ) ; and the bas.e on which the taxes are levied has increased more than 1 10/0 ( from $4200 to $4800) . Nonetheless, in the eight-year period, 1957 through 1964, social security paid out four billion, 2 1 5 million dollars more than it collected (collected 86 billion, 508 million ; paid out 90 billion, 723 million) . The social-security trust-fund reserve to cover future obligations shrank by more than 170/0 ( from 22 billion, 393 million in 1957 ; to 1 8 billion, 505 million in 1964) Y) No one knows the size of future obligations under social security. The obligations depend on such unpredictable factors as future population growth, future employment levels, future changes (4)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $IO.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 65

that Congress may make in social-security laws. Cal�u�ations based on present law and present statIstICs reveal an impending situation far worse than the condition now existing in France. At the end of 1964, 19,799,5 39 persons were drawing social-security benefits, (6) which totaled I ? billion, 95 million dollars a year. (5) The average lIfe expectancy remaining for these present social security beneficiaries is at least 10 years. Therefore, social security will need at least 1 5 0 billion, 950 million dollars to meet future obligations to the 19,799, 5 39 persons already drawing benefits. There are only 18 billion, 505 million dollars in the social security trust fund.O) Hence, social security owes present beneficiaries 1 3 2 billion, 445 million dollars more than is in the social security trust fund. That staggering deficit is only a fraction of the whole. At the end of 1964, 62,100,000 persons were paying social-security taxes, expecting to draw benefits in the future. (7 ) On an average, social security pays out at least $1 1 ,000 more on each account than it takes in. (8) Therefore, social security's future obligations to persons presently paying social-security taxes will be, at the very least, 683 billion, 1 00 million dollars more than social security is supposed to collect from them and their employers. Thus leaving the social-security system as it is, without adding medicare or otherwise increasing coverage and benefits, present and contingent lia bilities of the social-security system total 8 1 5 billion, 545 million dollars more than the total of what the system now has and of what it is supposed to collect from and for all persons now paying social-security taxes. In short, the social security system has already made long-range com mitments twice the value of all property (public and private) in the United States.

In 1957, when the public first became dimly aware that social security was bankrupt, there was a rash of propaganda in support of the social security system. A "social security" column be came a regular feature in metropolitan news papers throughout the land. In April, 1957, Page

millions saw Eddie Cantor on television proudly accept his first social-security check. In June, 1957, a $200 social-security check was ceremoniously presented to a widow in Manhat tan. She was the ten-millionth person to become a beneficiary. The highlight of this internationally publicized affair was the presentation of a personal letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the widow saying: "As the ten-millionth person receiving social security payments, you represent a significant ad vance in the history of our nation, whose prime concern is the welfare of its people. "But this money is not charity. "In his daily work, out of his regular wages, your husband earned the monthly checks which will be coming to you now while your children are growing to maturity. "You can accept them proudly."(9)

There, in President Eisenhower's letter, is the theme of most social-security propaganda which has drenched the nation since 1 95 7 : Social security is not mortgaging the future of America; money which beneficiaries draw from the social-security fund is money which they put into it; social secu rity is a sound} self-supporting operation which the nation should be proud of.

Sometimes, social-security enthusiasts say more, apparently, than they intend. On February 1 , 1965, the Progress-Bulletin} Pomona, California, published a column entitled "SS Gives Retirees Full Money's Worth," written by Martin E. Segal, President of Retirement Advisors, Inc. Mr. Segal said he got his statistical information from Robert Myers, chief actuary of the Social Security Ad ministration. From Mr. Segal's column: "How would you like to get $ 1 3,422 return on an investment of $2580? "That's what an average man, who retired in 1 960 after having paid maximum Social Security taxes since 1 937, will get under the present law. "This average 1 960 retiree paid $ 1 290 in Social Security contributions. His employers' contribu tions on his account were the same amount. Ac cumulated interest (at 3 percent) on the em ployee's share added $374. Total $2954. "But this average man and his wife would re66

ceive about $ 1 3,422 in total benefits - about $ 1 l ,000 more than was paid in for him." ( l o )

welfare-state operations involve different pro grams, social security being only one of many.

Having justified the title of his column by showing that social security gives each present retiree $ 1 1,000 more than his money's worth, Mr. Segal explains that this bounty is granted at the expense of future workers who will get less than their money's worth :

Officials estimate that social security will pay out 1 7 billion, 1 1 5 million dollars to beneficiaries in 1 965 ( 1 0 million dollars more than estimated income) . That expenditure for social-security benefits will be less than half of the federal gov ernment's total spending in the general field of welfare. Note this passage from the February 8, 1965, issue of U. S. News & World Report:

"But this average man and his wife would re ceive . . . about $ l l ,OOO more than was paid in for him. "How is this possible? Well, this average man's son and grandson are working now. They are paying Social Security taxes, and their employers are paying equal amounts. Some of these contri butions go to make up the deficit in the 1 960 re tiree's account . . . . "So, by the third generation of Social Security retirees (those young men starting their work careers about now), total contributions and in terest will be more than total benefits. That ex cess is being drawn off now to meet the cost of benefits for current retirees whose total taxes do not cover their total benefits." ( ln )

(0)

"Welfare State? In terms of actual cash paid out . . . the President's budget for the year to start July 1 will exceed by 6 billion dollars the total of the present year. It will be 1 27.4 bil lions . . . . "Spending by the Federal Government for wel fare, health, education and veterans' benefits largely a form of welfare - will approach 42 billion Qollars . . . . Five years ago, the same costs were less than 26 billion.

Yet, Mr. Segal scoffs at the "oft-repeated state ment that Social Security" is "mortgaging Amer ica's future." He quotes Robert Myers, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, as saying "the principle followed by Social Security is exactly the same as that followed by most private pension plans." Any private-pension plan operating like the social-security system would be insolvent within months after the first pensioners began drawing benefits ; and administrators of the plan would be (or should be) prosecuted for fraud and sent to pnson.

"These figures are a measure of the progress being made toward a welfare state in America. Totals would be increased substantially if spend ing by State and local governments were added. "All of this, too, is before any benefit payments under a projected plan of hospital care for re tired persons. "In countries abroad, health insurance of one kind or another, once started, has tended to be come the most costly of all forms of welfare."(ll)

( spending 18 billion dollars a year on soci�l security, 18.5 billion on all other activities) has already reached the point where government must soon break its welfare promises to the people, or go down in ruin. The United States is rapidly

We are plunging toward the self-destruction predicted more than 1 2 5 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville ( French scholar and historian ) , who made a tour to study the great American experi ment in freedom. Fascinated with what he saw, de Toqueville predicted that the vigorous Ameri can Republic, whose people had remarkable ideas about freedom and independence, would never encounter real danger from foreign enemies-but that it would ultimately destroy itself. His pre diction was grounded in a knowledge of history. When emperors of ancient Rome discovered that they could win popular support by using public funds to buy food, entertainment, and pensions for the people, candidates for the office

conspicuous here, because, for one thing, our

promise most.

As noted at the outset of this Report, France

approaching that condition. The fact is not yet

Page 67

(12)

of emperor vied with each other to see who could (13)

More than one Roman emperor was "elected" by the Roman legions, backed by idle mobs in Rome, strictly on the basis of having promised large cash handouts from the public treasury. (13) People who demanded handouts from public funds were, for the most part, those who did not work and who, consequently, never paid much, or any, tax into the public funds. (13) Every demand which the mob, the armies, and the veterans made upon the public treasury placed heavier burdens upon industrious, productive members of society. This discouraged thrift and industry. Workers were taxed so heavily to sup port non-workers that many workers quit, because they could fare better on the public dole than on a job. The number of tax-consumers grew, while the number of taxpayers shrank. (13) The international program of Roman rulers ac celerated the drift toward ruin. (1 3) Roman emperors, abandoning the notion that government in Rome had an exclusive responsi bility to the people of Rome, became world leaders. They saddled upon Roman citizens the task of supporting their leadership of the civilized world(IS ) (today we call it the "free world" ) . The emperors squandered the resources of Rome, giving military equipment, gold, and other goods (today we call it economic and military aid ) to rulers of countries on the outer fringes of the empire. The purpose was to keep foreign rulers friendly so that Rome would have staunch allies against her enemies. (13) In the end, foreign and domestic demands for handouts so far exceeded what productive Roman citizens could pay in taxes that Rome was bank rupt. (13) When the barbarians moved in to sack and pillage, Romans had neither will nor strength to resist. (13) What about the allies who had been subsidized for the specific purpose of helping defend Rome ? They joined Rome's enemies, and fought for a share of the loot-fought ith weapons which Rome had given them. (13) w

That ended the international welfare state of ancient Rome. (13) The end for Rome had been a long time in coming. How far from the end is America ? No one can tell, but everyone who has studied the facts knows we are on the way.

What's In A Promise?

W hen a welfare-state measure like social se

curity is adopted in a wealthy nation such as America, its first noticeable effects are attractive; but the rolls of those who receive continue to grow. Unable to produce the wealth it has prom ised to distribute, government confiscates and bor rows from the people, to pay back what has al ready been confiscated and borrowed from them. The evil feeds on itself. Thirty years ago, if government had given an elderly couple $100 a month, they could have managed to get by; but when government, in order to pay the $100, bor rows, or waters its own currency (or increases taxes, which are always paid in consumer costs ) , the purchasing power of the $100 diminishes. Today, a couple are impoverished (according to official definitions ) if they do not receive at least $250 a month. If government borrows or taxes enough to provide $250 a month, the $250 will not be adequate. When you turn to government for your social security benefits, government officials, if perfectly candid, will have to say: "Mr. Citizen, years ago when you started to work, we began confiscating money from your paycheck, promising to pay you benefits later on. Unfortunately, we have spent that money, and have not one penny left. If we are to keep our promise, you and all other taxpayers in the na tion must now give us more money."

That is how social security operates. The money taken from you and your employer

for social security goes into

trust fund, but the

government borrows the money immediately and

Page 68

spends it as fast as it comes in. Hence, the social security trust fund is a bookkeeping record of what government has collected for social security, but has already spent, largely for other purposes. (14) Thus, social-security benefits are paid, not out of a reserve fund, but out of the general fund, which is provided by current taxation and bor rowing. Eventually, inevitably, demands for so cial-security payments will be greater than the gov ernment can meet. At that point, the system will collapse. Here, we come to a grim truth about social security: the law (which compels most of the people to contribute money, and to build their future plans around the compulsory government program) contains no guarantee that government will pay the benefits it promises. Congress could repeal the social-security law, without even re quiring the federal government to pay back money already taken away from workers for social se curity. It may seem unlikely that Congress would ever default on its social-security promises to the people ; but Congress has already defaulted several times. In most election years since social security went into effect, Congress has expanded the coverage by raising amounts promised to beneficiaries, by lowering the qualifying age-limit, or by bringing new groups into the system. (2,15) Political propa ganda about taking better care of more people obscures other considerations involved in election year expansions of social security. For one thing, extending social-security cov erage to new groups helps to hide, temporarily, the system's insolvency : the new taxpayers must contribute awhile before any are eligible for bene fits. Moreover, each expansion requires, even tually, an increase in social-security taxes. Each time Congress increases social-security taxes, it defaults on its promise to all persons already paying the taxes : a promise that they will be required to pay a fixed amount, and no more.

tax at 2% of salaries up to $3000.00-the em ployee to pay 170) the employer to pay 170' The system went into operation January 1 , 1 937. In 1 939, Congress amended the law, setting the "ulti mate rate" of tax at 370' In 1947, Congress amended the law, providing that the "ultimate rate" could rise to 4% by 1952. In 1950, Congress amended the law, retaining the "ultimate rate" of 4%, but raising the salary limit, on which the tax could be levied, from $3000 to $3600. In 1954, Congress amended the law, raising the salary-limit tax base to $4200. By revisions of 1956, 1958, and 1961 , Congress has raised the tax base to $4800.00, and increased the tax to the present 7.2570, authorizing increase to an "ultimate rate" of 9.2 5% in 1968.(2,4 ) In 1964, the House of Representatives (by a vote of 388 to 8) passed a bill increasing social security taxes to an "ultimate rate" of 9.670' The Senate passed the same bill, but added medicare provisions and authorized increase in social-se curity taxes to an "ultimate rate" of 10.40/0' (5) The House would not agree to the medicare provisions. Hence, no social-security expansion was made in the 1964 election year. ( 3 ) Addition of medicare, and other expansions of social-security coverage, were among President Johnson'S major political promises in 1 964. On the opening day of the new Congress, January 4, 1965, the President said: "Let a just nation throw open . . . the city of promise: to the elderly, by providing hospital care under Social Security and by raising benefit pay ments to those struggling to maintain the dignity of their later years . . . . " ( 1 6 )

On that same day, U. S. Representative Cecil R. King ( California Democrat) , introduced HR 1 in the House ; U. S. Senator Clinton P. Anderson ( New Mexico Democrat ) introduced S 1 in the Senate. King and Anderson were supported by numerous Representatives and Senators, repre senting both political parties and most of the States. ( 17 ) HR 1 and S 1 are practically identical with the social-security- amendments bill approved

The social-security law of 1935 fixed the payroll Page 69

by the Senate in 1964 : extending compulsory cov

erage to self-employed medical doctors and in-

terns ; making social-security coverage available to police and firemen ; increasing general social-se curity benefits by 50/0 ; and authorizing a new "ultimate rate" of 10.40/0 for social-security taxes. ( 1 8 ) Employees and employers covered by the social security act of 1935 were promised that their com bined social-security tax would be 2%. In 1939, they were promised that the tax would never rise above 30/0. In 1947, they were promised that the tax would never rise above 40/0' In 1956, they were promised a tax-rate of 4. Y7o ; in 1958, a tax rate ceiling of 60/0; in 1961 , a tax-rate ceiling of 9.250/0 ' If HR 1 and S 1 pass in 1965 (as is generally predicted) , Congress will once again break its promise to the people - by increasing social-se curity taxes. The most flagrant default on government's so cial-security promises to the people occurred in 1939. Note the following paragraph from a pam phlet entitled Social . . . But Is It Security?, writ ten by Dillard Stokes, published in 1961 by America's Future: ( 19) "The Act of 1 935 guaranteed every person brought under social security at least his money back. If he died without drawing its annuities, it would go to his estate. Under this law refunds were made to 1 78,583 persons and 3 1 8,665 estates. There were some 33,000,000 others to whom the same guarantee applied. The Congress took it away from them in 1 939, and in the 15 years that followed, 6,400,000 died without getting either pensions or refunds."

The Political Untouchable

astonishing margins, U. S. Senators and Representatives always approve election-year ex pansion and extension of social security. Yet, most members of Congress must be aware that the pro gram will eventually bring disaster to our Re public. In March, 1957, I was in \Vashington, visiting with a U. S. Representative from a southern state.

I asked him about the social-security program. "Oh," he said, "it's just a question of time . . . before the whole thing blows up in our face. The social-security system is already bankrupt." "Literally bankrupt ?" I asked. "Yes, literally," he said. "The whole idea was bankrupt from the beginning. But up until . . . [recently] , social security was at least taking in more money every year than it was paying out because there were 10 or 1 5 times more people paying than receiving. "But . . . [ now] . . social security [ has] crossed the line into actual bankruptcy and [ has] started running a deficit . . . . "This is serious," I said. "If the thing is in that shape now, it will be horrible 1 5 or 20 years from now when another 30 or 40 million people are added to the beneficiary rolls." "You're right," he said. "It could wreck our entire economy." "Well, why aren't some of you in Congress trying to do something about it ?" I asked. "You never see a word in the papers about all this. About all you ever see are statements from the administration about how wonderful social secur ity is ; statements from the political-party leaders trying to give their own parties all the 'credit' for social security ; statements from Congressmen and Senators perpetually wanting us to expand social security. Why don't some of you tell the people the truth about this thing ?" "Look, Dan," he said, "any politician who makes an all-out crusade against social security, will be on his last crusade. He would sacrifice everything and gain nothing. Take me. I'm from a conservative district. The people want me up here to fight civil rights and other police-state legislation. But if I made one strong speech against social security, I'd never be re-elected. All the old folks who are already getting it would be mad. The middle-aged people who expect to get it soon would be mad. And the young folks who don't want to support their aging parents would be mad. One honest speech about social security

Page 70

would make a good majority of the voters In my district mad at me." "If the social security administration . . . [is running] an actual deficit . . . how does it cover up so that the people won't know ?" I asked. "Oh," he said, "they slip over to an executive session of the appropriations committee with a bunch of figures and some double-talk about how there were some errors in computation when the last amendments were passed. They're j ust tem porarily running a deficit. The whole thing will be adjusted when the next social-security amend ments are adopted. "But in the meantime, they need a little supple mental appropriation out of general revenues. And, of course, the gentlemen of the Congress know that this is the sort of thing that must not be given any publicity, because the papers would distort it. Extremists would draw sensational con clusions. It would be deeply disturbing to the people-and might even upset our delicately-bal anced economy. The whole thing is a fraud, and everybody has his own reasons for being afraid to expose it. We're just waiting and drifting." "Yes," I said. "And what will you do when I quote you ?" "I will," he said very earnestly, "call you a liar." Since I never have identified the Representative, in quoting what he said about social security, he has had no occasion to call me a liar. Many other prominen� officials have called me a liar, however, because of what I have written about social se curity. But name-calling cannot forever hide the facts. The federal government's welfare-state programs (of which social security is the largest) are drag ging our Republic to utter ruin.

Congress from enacting HR 1 and S 1 this year stop it from enacting any social-security amend ments, with or without medicare. Every person who reads this Report could help immensely by sending extra copies to others helping to inform and arouse a maximum number of Americans. When enough people write their Representatives and Senators, demanding defeat of the King-Anderson bills to expand social secur ity and add medicare, Congress will listen. FOOTNOTES (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

"French Social Security on Verge of Bankruptcy," by Don Shannon, The Los AlIgeles Times, September 9, 1964, Part 1 , p. 5; "Worldgram," U. S. News & 1170"/d Repofi, September 28, 1 9 64, p. 9 5 Social Security ill the United States, Social Security Administra tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1 95 7 , 6 0 pp. "What Congress Did Not Do," Cong,'essional Quarterly Weekly Report, October 9, 1 9 64, pp. 2 38 2 - 3 "Back of the Questions About Social Security," and "An Official Interview : How Safe Is Your Social Security Pension ?" , U. S. News & World Report, December 7, 1964, pp. 54-63

( 5 ) Actuarial

Cost Estimates Fo,' The Old-Age, SUI'vivo,'s, and Disability Insurance System As Modified By H. R. 1 1 865, As Passed By The House Of Rep" esentatives Alld As According To The Action Of The Senate, Committee on Ways and Means of

the House of Representatives, September 10, 1964, 3 2 pp. Data obtained by telephone from Dallas Regional Office of the Social Security Administration. ( 7 ) In a telephone interview, the Dallas regional d irector of social security said there are no available statistics on the exact number of persons paying social security taxes. He said his best estimate is that 90% of all workers in the United States are covered. Total employment in the United States at the end of 1964 w as approximately 69,000,000. Ninety percent of that figure is (6)

6 2 , 1 00,000. (8)

"SS Gives Retirees Full Money's Worth," by Martin E. Segal,

Pt-ogress Bulletin, Pomona, Calif., February 1, 1965, Sec. 2 ,

( 9 ) The New York Times, ( 10 )

June 7 , 1 9 5 7 , p. 1 The eleven-thousand-dollar-profit figure for each social-security taxpayer, mentioned in Mr. Segars column, is the one I used

to compute social security's future liability of 683 bi l l ion, 100 million dollars to the 6 2 , 1 00,000 million persons now paying social securi ty taxes. I multiplied $ 1 1 ,000 ( the amount social security loses on each account) by 6 2 , 1 00,000 ( the number of

accounts presently existing ) . 1 2 7 Bill ion Dollars," U . S . News & World Report, February 8, 1 9 6 5 , p p . 29- 3 1 The Recollections o f Alexis d e Tocqueville, edited b y J. P . Mayer, Columbia University Press, 1949, 3 3 2 pp. For details on Rome, see any of the various editions of The Hist01'y of the Dec/ine and Fall of the Roman EmpIre, by Edward Gibbon, originally published in 5 volumes from 1776 to 1788. "$22 Billion Trust Fund 'Shrinkage'," Los Angeles Herald Examiner, November 30, 1964, p. 3A

( l l ) "The Story of ( 12 ) (13)

( 14 )

( 1 5 ) Cong"essional Quarterly Almanac for 1961, p . 258

"Text of President Johnson's State of the Union Message," 117eekly Report, January 8, 1965, pp. 50-3 ( 1 7 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 1 5 , 1965, p. 67 ( 1 8 ) Brief Analysis of the P" ovisions of S. 1 and H.R. 1 , U. S. Senate Committee on Finance, January, 1 9 6 5 , 7 pp. ( lY ) This 1 6-page pamphlet, which is eminently worth readinp ' can be ordered directly from America's Future, Inc., 542 Marn St.,

( 16)

What To Do

C ongress supports social security, because it is

the people could do something. The first thing is to stop

regarded a s a political untouchable ; but

Page 7 1

Congressional Quarterly

New Rochelle, New York ( price 2 5 ¢ ) .

2lmtriCQ's I'romiSt

THE

by DAN SMOOT

INVI I GOrE.II.

by DAN SMOOT Revealing the plans

for a Socialist America in

a Socialist World!

Clothbound

$4.00

Pocketbook

$ 1 .00

5 0c

\ \ ...

a copy

6 copies for $4.00; 1 0 for $6.00; 25 for $ 1 2.00; 50 for $22.00; 1 00 for $40.00; 500 for $ 1 75 .00; 1 000 for $250.00.

AMERICA'S PROMISE is an 1 8-page, paper bound handbook, setting out the basic funda mentals of Constitutional Americanism.

1Cht lItopt <91 1Cht Uorld

Long-playing records (33%) of Dan Smoot speeches

by DAN SMOOT Described

as "the greatest tribute

to Christianity

ever

written

layman "

A "hard-hitting, sometimes A thrilling speech, full of hilarious, album, which tells fa c t and h u m o r, on the a star-spangled story " American struggle for liberty $3.98 each THE DAN SMOOT REPORT

Name

P. O. Box

Street

THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT (pocketbook)

-$1.00

THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT (clothback)

-$4.00

THE HOPE O F THE WORLD (clothback)

-$ 2.00

AMERICA'S PROMISE (paperback)

-$ .50

THE FEARLESS AMERICAN (record)

-$ 3.98

-DEACON LARKIN'S HORSE (record)

-$3.98

___

Texans add 2% State Sales Tax

95:l8

DALLAS, TEXAS 75214

City, State

Page 72

Check en.closed

THE

IJtlll SmootRep" t Vol. 1 1 , No. 1 0

(Broadcast 498)

March 8, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

H OW L O N G C A N W E LAST?

In the first half of the twentieth

century, the prosperity and material might of' the United States rested chiefly on the productivity of industry. The relative superiority of the United States - the relation between our material strength and that of other nations - reached its peak at the close of World War II. The United States was then the dominant economic and financial power of the world ; our industries were producing more mili tary and civilian goods than those of all other nations ; our commerce was unrivaled in world trade; our military might was matchless. But a planned change was beginning. A United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference was held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22, 1944. Harry Dexter White, head of the American delegation, controlled the conference. White, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was an under cover Soviet espionage agent. Officially, he was Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury ; but he actually ran the Treasury Department. Henry Morgenthau, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secre tary of the Treasury, endorsed plans which White created and gave White full authority to imple ment them. ( 1 ) Harry Dexter White's Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 set policies which our government has followed since the end of World War II. These policies were intended to accomplish four major objectives : ( l ) Strip the United States of the great gold reserve, which had made our dollar the domi· nant currency on earth, by giving the gold away to other nations; · (2) Build 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; THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 73

(4) Entwine American affairs - economic, po litical, cultural, social, educational, and even re ligious - 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 worldwide socialist chain. (1)

To understand such a plan, we must under stand gold reserve and balance of payments. The Gold Reserve Act was passed January 30, 1934. Before then, the American dollar was re deemable currency. Anyone who held a paper dollar could demand, and get, payment in gold ( 2 5 .8 grains of gold , before President Franklin D. Roosevelt devalued the dollar) . The Gold Reserve Act abolished our standard gold dollar, prohibited further coinage of gold, made it il legal for Americans to use gold as currency, and made it impossible for Americans to redeem their paper dollars (that is, to cash them in) for gold. The Act of 1934 did not, however, make the American dollar irredeemable for foreigners. If our government had refused to redeem foreign- . held American currency, in gold, foreigners would not have accepted American paper money. The American dollar would have become "soft cur rency" (which means , virtually worthless on the world market) . Our international trade would have stopped - except on a cumbersome barter basis - and wild inflation would have ruined our economy. Therefore, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (which made the American dollar irredeemable for Americans ) provided that foreign govern ments, institutions, and central banking systems can redeem their American dollars in gold, at a price fixed by the U. S. Treasury ($35 .00 an ounce) . Consequently, every American dollar spent, invested, or given away abroad, and every American dollar spent in the United States to purchase foreign-made goods , are potential claims against our gold reserve. The total of all such claims is reduced by the amount of foreign money spent or invested 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 foreigners buy from us, is called balance of payments. We suffer a balance-of-payments deficit when what we spend and give away abroad exceeds what for eigners buy from us. Every deficit represents for eign claims against our gold reserve. When the total of foreign claims exceeds the amount in our reserve, we are technically bankrupt, because we could not meet all foreign claims if all were pre sented for redemption in gold. We shall be in an actual state of bankruptcy if foreigners do sell their American holdings and demand more gold than we have.

When

the Bretton Woods Conference was held in 1944, the U. S. had 60 percent of all known gold reserves in the world, and the total of all foreign claims against our gold was rela tively insignificant. ( 1 ) The annual balance of pay ments had been running steadily in our favor for almost half a century. Although the communist plan to reverse this situation, to scatter our im mense wealth abroad, and to make us a deficit nation at the mercy of foreign bankers and gov ernments was grandiose, it was in operation with m a year. Before World War II ended, the American government was spending billions to relieve war shattered Europe. In 1948, this foreign relief was converted into foreign aid, to stabilize the cur rencies , build the industrial productivity, and gen erally strengthen the economies of foreign na tions - with money confiscated from American taxpayers. In 1949, we expanded our military aid to for eign nations by entering the NATO agreement committing ourselves to defend European nations with American troops. This required annual ex penditures of billions to maintain our own over seas forces, in addition to billions given our al lies for the maintenance of their military estab lishments. In 1950, the annual balance of payments be gan running against us : the plot to dissipate American strength was working with great speed.

Page 74

As early as 1953, I and a few other constitu tional conservatives were warning that our gold reserve was shrinking and that disaster lay ahead if the policies of government were not reversed. But, in 1953, the U. S. gold reserve totaled 23.252 billion dollars, while all foreign claims against it totaled only 1 0. 5461 billion dollars. ( 2) The fed eral government accelerated the drive toward ruin. Through the Export-Import Bank, the Inter national Bank For Reconstruction and Develop ment, the International Monetary Fund, the In ternational Finance Corporation (and several other international lending agencies ) , our govern ment has committed many billions of American tax dollars to finance the building of industries in foreign lands. In the early 1950's, our government initiated .1 program of guaranteeing private American in vestments abroad, to encourage the flight of private capital overseas. Under this "political-risk guarantee" program, the United States govern ment guarantees to compensate private American investors for overseas losses which result from : ( 1 ) inability to convert foreign currency into U. S. dollars ; ( 2 ) expropriation or confiscation by a foreign government; ( 3 ) war, revolution, or insurrection. ( 3 ) Meanwhile, the federal government's foreign and domestic spending was increased , thus piling up the tax burden which added to the cost of do ing business in the United States, inflating the cost of American products until they could be undersold by foreign goods all over the world.

couragement would be special tax benefits for Americans investing abroad. He also disclosed that the State Department was already giving American overseas investors special tax benefits, in tax-treaty negotiations with foreign nations. (4)

On April 27, 1959, U. S. News & World Report pubished an article entitled "Is U. S. Pricing It self Out Of Markets ?" which was the result of an extensive survey. Here are briefs of some of the findings : Nails More than one-third of all nails used in the United States are foreign made. Reason? Workers in American nail-manufacturing plants made an average of more than $2.90 an hour. N ails just as good were made in Germany at a wage cost of 90c an hour - in Japan for 40c an hour. Add to this the fact that the raw materials for making nails cost the American manufacturer more than twice as much as they cost his foreign competitors. Then add the fact that American nail manufacturers, along with all other Ameri can taxpayers, have been taxed for foreign aid to provide American techniques and the best modern machinery to the foreign producers. The facts spell unemployment for Americans and death for an American industry which was once dominant in the world and which, though rela tively small, is vital. -

Barbed Wire Barbed wire, an American in vention, was once made almost exclusively in America. In 1 958, more than one-third of all barbed wire sold in America was m ade in foreign mills by foreign workers, with foreign steel. Our 1 958 imports of barbed wire were fifty times greater than our exports. We do not know what percentage of our exports were foreign-aid gifts, rather than legitimate sales on the world market. -

Reasons? Same as for nails.

B y the end of

1958, America was well on the road to becoming a have-not nation, its peo ple becoming dependent on foreign factories for essential goods, while its own factories were clos ing or moving overseas. Yet, on December 1, 1958, C. Douglas Dillon (then President Eisenhower's Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, later Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) announced a scheme to encourage a greater flight of American capital

abroad. Mr. Dillon indicated that the main en-

Bicycles - American manufacturers (bearing labor costs that averaged around $2.30 an hour, in competition with German manufacturers whose wage costs were between 60c and 70c an hour, and with English manufacturers whose wage costs were only slightly higher than Ger man) held more than half the American market (60<,10 in 1 955; 7 1 .8% in 1 958) by importing bicycle parts from abroad. Sewing Machines - Most of the sewing ma chines for American homes are made in foreign factories. Singer still makes machines in America; but White, second largest in the world, has closed

Page 75

its American plants and now manufactures its machines in Japan. Steel flatware - As late as 1 953, practically all steel flatware sold in America was made in America. In 1 958, 38% of all stainless steel flat ware sold to Americans was made abroad principally in Japan, where manufacturers had all the latest equipment and fa,cilities and tech niques, ,cheaper steel than Americans can get, and a 22-cents-an-hour wage scale, compared with a $2. 1 3-an-hour wage scale in American plants. In that five-year period, four major American companies went out of business - leaving unem ployment and depression. Office machines 3070 of all portable type writers sold in America were made abroad many of them in American plants, forced to shut down in America and build overseas, in order to meet foreign competition. One American man ufacturer of typewriters' merely assembled the machines in America: all parts were made in Europe. The same thing was happening to manu facturers of calculators and other office machines - they were moving their plants abroad where the wage scale was about one-fourth the Ameri can wage scale. -

One official of a business-machine-manufac turing firm said: "We're being forced into setting up overseas plants, where labor costs are lower, in order to compete with foreign companies."

Lawrence Cowen, President of Airex Division of Lionel Corporation (producer of fishing tackle) said: "We're going to take a chance on the rest of

1 959, but, if the situation doesn't improve, we

will ship Airex's tools, dies, jigs and fixtures abroad and manufacture outside the U. S. Be lieve me, it's not a pleasant prospect, but we may have to do it if we want to continue that part of our business."(5)

The U. S. News & World Report survey dis closed the same trend developing, or already well advanced, in a dozen other industries - some large, some small, but all important to American workers and taxpayers. Similar information was presented in other ma j or publications during the early part of 1959. It had become obvious that policies of the fed

eral government - fixed during the closing days

of W odd War II and pursued relentlessly throughout the Truman and Eisenhower admin istrations - were driving American capital and American gold reserves and American jobs abroad, causing a disastrous shift of industrial and economic strength from the United States to other nations. Yet, the Eisenhower administration continued to demand more outpouring of American tax money through foreign aid, and more govern mental effort to encourage overseas investment of private American capital.

I n the fi.rst week of September, 1960, I began a series of Reports, discussing causes and conse quences of the flight of America's gold reserve. At that time, foreign claims against our gold re serve had risen above 20 billion dollars. The re serve had shrunk below 19 billion, and was shrink ing at the rate of 936 million dollars a year. Be fore I finished the series, foreigners were cashing in their dollars and demanding gold at the rate of more than two billion dollars a year. The flight of America's gold reserve - clearly the issue of most immediate danger to the nation - was totally ignored by Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy, in their campaigns for the Presi dency, until the night of October 13, 1960. On that night, when Nixon and Kennedy were hav ing their third television debate, a reporter asked how they would "go about stopping this de parture of gold from our shores." They gave al most identical answers. Both admitted that gov ernmental policies had caused the loss of Ameri ca's gold reserve and American markets. Both said the policies must be continued, but that we should plead with foreign governments to help us carry the burden. (6) The Nixon-Kennedy remarks (revealing that America's perilous monetary condition would grow worse, regardless of the election outcome) touched off a gold crisis in the money markets of Europe. We came dangerously close to an in ternational run on our gold reserve, but neither

Nixon nor Kennedy mentioned the gold problem

again during the campaign.

Page 76

O n May 9,

1961, U. S. Representative Abra ham Multer ( New York Democrat) introduced a bill to repeal the requirement that the Federal Reserve System maintain a gold reserve equal to 2 5 percent of all outstanding Federal Reserve notes and of all deposit liabilities of Federal Re serve member banks. (7) This was a Kennedy-ad ministration effort to solve the monetary problem. The American gold reserve is divided into a free pile and an anchor pile. The U. S. Treasury can use gold in the free pile to redeem foreign held American dollars , or can sell it to authorized industrial users. Gold in the anchor pile must be kept as backing for Federal Reserve notes and deposit liabilities, and not used for any other purpose. The intent of the Multer bill was to "free" the anchor pile so that the U. S. Treasury could pay out every ounce of our gold to foreigners, leaving none to back our currency at home. Obviously, the bill would not have stopped the flight of gold. It would merely have postponed the day when the U. S. Treasury would not have enough gold to meet foreign demands. Congress declined to pass the Multer bill ; and, for almost four years, the Kennedy-Johnson ad ministration proposed no solution for the gold problem. Reckless spending and deficit financing during that time further eroded our economic con dition. On January 1 3, 1964, U. S. News & World Re port said that an increasing number of American firms were building overseas plants, bringing their foreign-made products into the American market : -Burroughs, giving up making adding ma chines in America , will import them from its foreign plants. -Studebaker, no longer m aking cars in the United States, imports cars from Canada. -Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler import cars manufactured by their foreign affiliates in Great Britain, Germany, France. -Typewriters, calculators, radios, light trac tors, cement, kitchen appliances, food specialties: these are on the growing list of products being

produced abroad by American firms and im ported into the United States. ( 8)

On March 1 6, 1964, U. S. News & World Re port revealed that, in 1963, Germany became the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods. Never before in the twentieth century had any nation surpassed the United States. (9) In March, 1964, Human Events reported that U. S. foreign aid had built, overseas, 179 steel mills, which are now competing strongly with American mills not only for foreign markets but also for the domestic American market. (10) On August 24, 1964, the U. S. Department of Commerce reported that U. S. investments abroad rose by 6.3 billion dollars in 1963, 4.3 billion dollars in direct capital outflow - bringing total overseas investment of American private capital to 66.4 billion dollars. ( 1 1 ) By January, 1965, the flight of American cap ital, gold, and industry to foreign lands had brought us to the brink of disaster.

January, 1965, the French annou�ced that they would begin exchanging their American dol lar holdings for gold. It was estimated that they would exchange 300 million dollars immediately, and exchange all new dollar holdings as acquired. Apparently, the U. S. Treasury plans, without pro test, to honor French demands as long as our gold lasts. ( 1 2) France owes us 6.456 billion dollars on her old Warid War I debt - most of which (4.497 billion) is past due. (13) Seventeen nations owe us a total of 20.364 billion dollars on World War I debts - 1 3.869 billions being past due. (13) All of these nations have dollar holdings (ac quired largely as a result of our government's post-World War II gifts to them) , which they could convert into claims on our gold reserve. In the second week of February, 1965, Con gress passed HR 3818, an administration-spon sored bill which was a compromise version of the 1961 Multer bill. HR 3818 eliminated the require ment for 2 5 percent gold backing of Federal Re serve deposit liabilities, but did not eliminate the 2 5 percent backing for Federal Reserve notes. This

Page 77

bill removed about 4.9 billion dollars of gold from the anchor pile, making it available to meet foreign claims. (14) On February 1 1 , 1 965, the U. S. gold reserve totaled 14.9 billion dollars. ( 1 5 ) Under the new law just passed, about 8.7 billion of the reserve must still be kept in the anchor pile to back our do mestic currency. This leaves about 6.2 billion dol lars in the free pile to meet all foreign claims which total more than 26 billion dollars. On February 1 6, 1965, The Wall Street Journal reported that President Johnson had asked Con gress to increase the 300-million-dollar U. S. over seas-mortgage-insurance program by an additional 1 00 million. This government insurance program has stimulated American banks, insurance com panies, and AFL-CIO pension-fund administrators to invest many millions of dollars for construc tion of houses and apartments in foreign coun tries. (16) On February 18, 1 965, President Johnson spoke to 350 leading bankers and businessmen at the White House, saying: ''Your country needs your help . . . . "We face a problem that we must not ignore. Our cash position has been impaired by seven straight years of balance-of-payments deficits . . . . "Your government is doing its utmost to cut back its dollar drain. We are determined to do what we can to encourage a more favorable dol lar balance through constructive steps . . . ." ( 17)

The President asked the bankers and business men to curtail their overseas investments and loans, warning that if they did not do so volun tarily, the government could use force. The Presi dent has also called upon American tourists to curtail their spending in foreign lands, and has suggested new customs laws to enforce compli ance. On the day when President Johnson warned private businessmen that they must do something about the outflow of American capital to foreign lands (February 1 8, 1965 ) , the U. S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 288 to 92, passed HR 45 - an administration bill authorizing con-

tributions of 750 million tax dollars to the Inter American Development Bank during the next three years. A similar bill (S 805 ) has been approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with only Senator Frank J. Lausche (Ohio Democrat) in opposition. The Inter-American Development Bank finances all kinds of construction and devel opment throughout Latin America - pouring out U. S. taxpayers' money to build industrial plants, irrigation projects, schools, houses, apartments, roads, public works, office buildings - everything. Since the bank was created in 1960, U. S. con tributions have totaled 1 . 1 36 billion dollars. On February 2 1 , 1965, it was revealed that the Defense Department has been spending an av erage of 1 . 5 billion dollars a year for the past seven years, on the purchase and transportation of foreign petroleum. The Defense Department will not curtail its overseas spending on foreign oil, saying that American oil would cost 30 million dollars a year more than the foreign oil. (19) (18)

What Must Be Done

C ongress should, by law, prohibit the U. S.

Treasury from redeeming American dollars in gold for any nation that owes us past-due debts. Congress should stop all foreign aid, stop worldwide spending for defense of other nations, and eliminate all unconstitutional domestic pro grams. This would permit sharp tax reduction, while eliminating deficit spending. Congress should repeal all labor laws which give monopolistic unions the power to inflate pro duction costs. Reduced taxes and reduced pro duction costs would enable American industries to compete with foreign industries, and would stop the flight of gold, j obs, and factories to for eign lands. This, together with ending the foreign giveaway, would create a favorable balance of payments and enable us to accumulate again a gold reserve adequate for our monetary needs. Congress should immediately restore the re ,quirement for 2 5 percent gold backing of the de-

Page 78

posit liabilities of Federal Reserve member banks, and should move with all possible speed toward repeal of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, eventual ly making the American dollar once again fully redeemable in gold, at home and abroad.

W hile

programs of government push our nation toward ruin, President Johnson threatens to tighten fascist-communist controls over Ameri can individuals and businesses, unless they help remedy the situation which government has caused and is rapidly making worse. It is up to individuals and organized groups of constitutional conservatives who understand the problem, to pass this information on to others until a sufficient number of Americans are in formed and aroused. If enough public pressure were put on Congress, Congress would reject johnson's disastrous programs and start doing what must be done to save our Republic. *

Bound Volumes

A ll Bound Volumes for the year

1 964 are off the press. We have shipped all orders received, and can now fill orders promptly. Some Bound Volumes for the years 1962 and 1963 are still available. The volumes cost $ 10.00 each, delivered. For anyone who wants a carefully-indexed reference

book on the most important subjects of our time, there is no better bargain. In the 1964 bound volume, you can determine how every member of the national Congress voted on critical roll calls throughout the second session of the 88th Congress. There are brief, lucid dis cussions of the issues involved in the voting, and tabulations giving the ratings which each mem ber of Congress earned by the way he stood up to be counted. There are fascinating accounts of Union Terrorism, of Supreme Court efforts to outlaw God from public life in the United States, of efforts to take the Panama Canal away from the United States, of the United Nations Franken stein, of the 1964 elections, and of many other subjects. The 1 963 Bound Volume contains compact, pre cisely-organized, on-the-scene information about the Assassination in Dallas - and about the back wash of that grim affair. How China could be set free from communism; how urban renewal is promoting a Soviet America; how our tax money is paying for socialism and anti-American ism throughout the world ; how lawless govern ment is growing in the United States : these are a few of the many topics discussed in the 1963 an nual of this Report. Among the most useful and widely-read Re ports in the 1962 Bound Volume are "The Wel fare Racket," "Berlin and Cuba," "It Helps To Be A Communist," "The Mississippi Tragedy," "Congo Intrigue," "Progressive Education," and "Stabbed In The Back On The Fourth Of July."

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases ill various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smool Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give

one

side of important issues: the side that presents docum.ented truth using the American Constitution

as a

yard

stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 79

Bound volumes for all years prior to 1962 are sold out and cannot be reprinted. If you do not have the three volumes still available ( 1962, 1963, 1964) , order them today. If you al ready have the volumes for your own use , let us send them as your gift to a library, a student, a teacher, a relative, a friend. Price : $10.00 each , delivered ($10.20, if or dered in Texas for Texas delivery) . See order blank at the bottom of this page.

( 5 ) " I s U. S. Pricing Itself Out O f Markets ?", U . S. News & Wodd Report, April 27, 1959, pp. 54-8 ( 6 ) "Transcript of The Third Kennedy-Nixon Television Debate on Issues of Campaign," The New York Times, October 14, 1960, p. 2 1 ( 7 ) "Taxes and Economic Policy," Congressional Qua,·terly Weekly Report, May 19, 1961 , p. 867 ( 8 ) "Business Around the World," U. S. News & World Report, January 1 3, 1964, pp. 79-80 ( 9 ) "Business Around the World," U. S. News & World Report, March 1 6, 1964, p. 68 ( 1 0 ) "U. S. Aid Boomerangs," article by Fulton Lewis, Jr., Human Events, March 14, 1964, p. 7

Zip Codes To comply with new postal regulations, we must add complete zip code numbers to all mail ing addresses. To insure delivery of your Report, please send us your zip code number immediately.

( 1 1 ) "U. S. I nvestments Advance Abroad," by Edwin L. Dale, Jr., The New York Times, August 2 5 , 1 964, p. 45 ( 12 ) "France Clarifies Attitude On Gold," by Richard E. Mooney, The New York Times, February 1 3 , 1965, p. 2 5 ( 1 3 ) Original source, U . S. Treasury Department; 1965 Wodd Almanac, New York World-Telegram Corp., New York City, 1965, p. 736 ( 14 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 12, 1965, pp. 2 2 1-2

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Gold Swindle: The Story of Om' Dwindlint; Gold, by George Racey Jordan, The Bookmailer, Inc., 1959; The Hany Dexter White Papers, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, August 30, 1 9 5 5, 505 pp. ; "Kennedy Pledges U. S. Help If Gold Runs Low Abroad," by Edwin L. Dale, Jr., The New Yo,·k Times, October 1 , 1963, pp. 1 , 1 6 ( 2 ) Letter from U . S. Representative Otto E. Passman ( Dem., La. ) , July 1 5 , 1964 ( 3 ) United States G01Jernment Memorandum : Aid.r To Business ( O verseas Investment ) ; State Dept. - Agency For International Development, 1963, pp. 20-23

( 1 5 ) "Treasury Statement," The New Y01·k Tim es , February 17, 1 965, p. 66 ( 1 6 ) "Building Abroad," by Laurence G. O'Donnell, The Wall Street jou1'llal, February 1 6, 1965, pp. 1 , 1 6 ( 17 ) "LBJ Asks Business t o Curb Overseas Lending, Spending," article by Mike Quinn, The Dallas Mornint; News, February 19, 1965, Sec. 1 , p. 14 ( 18 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly · Report, February 1 2 , 1965, pp. 2 37-8; February 19, 1965, pp. 289, 292 ( 19 ) "Oilmen Charge Imports Hurt Balance of Payments," by Max B. Skelton, The Dallas Times HeMld, February 2 1 , 1965, p. 3 3A

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $ 10.00 - $10.00 - $ 10.00 -$1 0.00

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

( 4 ) "Plan Would Spur Investing Abroad," by Allen Drury, The New York Times, December 2, 1958, p. 1 8

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- $ 3.98 "

- $ 3.98

STATE

ZIP CODE

( Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9538, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR 1·2303 Page 80

THE

IJflll Smootlieport Vol. 1 1 , No. 1 1

(Broadcast 499)

March

I S,

1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

A G R I C U LT U R E AT BAY

February 4, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent his Agriculture Message to Congress. He said: "Rural America is the scene of one of the greatest productive triumphs in the history of man. Yet, despite its service to the Nation, rural America is also the scene of wasted human talent, where there are too many people without jobs and too many with only part-time jobs . . . . "Only one out of ten boys now growing up on farms can expect to earn a good living as a full-time farmer. Most young people in rural areas must go elsewhere to find their opportun ities . . . .

"Farmers with inadequate resources make up one segment of rural America's great unsolved problem of underemployment. Another is made up of families who have left the farm but have not yet found a place in the non-agricultural sector of the economy . . . . "Lack of a decent life is almost twice as prevalent in rural America as it is in urban America . . . . "Rural America has almost three times the proportion of substandard houses found ban areas . . . . "Rural people lag almost two years behind urban residents "Rural communities lag in health facilities . . .

III

ur-

education attainment

" ( 1)

After presenting this dismal picture of rural America to prove need for his recommended farm programs, the President recommended continuation of programs which have been in existence for 30 years. He presented a bright picture of rural America to prove that the programs are effective: "The commodity programs which were initiated 30 years ago in the Administration of Presi dent Franklin D. Roosevelt have helped to create a commercially successful agriculture. I pro pose that these commodity programs be continued and improved. "Over the past four years our commodity programs have raised and sustained net farm income at an annual level nearly $ 1 billion above 1 960. Few activities so dramatically indicate the value to farmers of good programs well administered . . . . "( 1 ) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ I O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one penon. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 81

Though President Johnson began his Agricul ture Message with a colorful compliment to "the farm people of this nation" for making "a last ing contribution to our national prosperity," he later made clear that he does not really think farm ers are due much credit for our "agricultural progress" and "agricultural abundance." He gives the credit to government: "The skill of our family farmers is not an ac cident. It is the product of a century of public policy aimed at improvement of our agricul ture . . . . "President Abraham Lincoln . . . founded the Department of Agriculture a century ago and thus started us on the path to abundance . " (1) .

President Johnson emphasized that the primary purpose of government's farm program is, and always has been, to assure "parity of income for America's family farmers." Parity or parity ratio is the relationship between

In 1930, before initiation of federal farm pro grams, farmers' parity of income was 8yro. In 1964 (after net expenditure of 41 billion, 759 mil lion, 384 thousand, two hundred and twenty-seven federal tax dollars - $41,759, 384,227.00 - to help family farmers ) , ( 3 ) farmers' parity of income had declined to 7 5 70.( 4 ) (2)

The vast outlay of public money has accom plished the opposite of its announced purpose : it has encouraged corporation farming - the growth of huge estates owned by absentee landlords, man aged by resident professionals.

Government programs have enriched operators of big farming syndicates and dishonest operators like Billie Sol Estes, while millions of little farm ers, unable to compete, have become farm hired hands, or moved to the cities. In 1 930 (before the government initiated pro grams to save the little farmer) , there were 6,289,000 farms in the United States. The farm popula tion was 30, 1 58,000. In 1963, there were 3,7 1 1 ,000 farms ; and the farm population was 1 3,367,000. As the number of "little farmers" decreased, the size of farms increased. An average farm of 1963 was about twice the size of an average farm in 1 930Y) In his 1965 Agriculture Message, President Johnson avoided the old theme about saving the little farmer as a symbol of our way of life and the backbone of our economy. Indeed, there is more than a hint in the President's message that the small family farm is already doomed - and that government must now help provide city employ ment for displaced farmers, and subsidize the es tablishment of industries in rural areas.

History

Federal farm programs were first authorized by Congress in the Agricultural Adj ustment Act of 1933. In 1936, the Supreme Court ( in the But ler Case) held the AAA unconstitutional. Roose velt's threat to pack the Court in 1937, together with the demise of some of the "nine old men," changed the complexion of the Court. So, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (even worse than the AAA of 193 3 ) was approved by the new Supreme Court as constitutional. (2) In the 1930's, Henry Wallace was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture. Surrounded by communists (who, official investigation later disclosed, actually conceived the new-deal farm programs ) , ( 6 ) Wallace paid farmers to destroy crops and animals. It was a preposterous program, bound to do great harm; but World War II

erupted in 1939 ; and war-stimulated demands for

Page 82

agricultural products solved our "farm surplus" problem for several years and obscured damage that government's farm programs were doing. The parity ratio for farmers' income rose to 1 1 30/0 in 1943 and remained above 1000/0 until 1 949, when it started a decline. President Harry S Truman recommended the Brannan plan - a program of direct federal payments to give farm ers a minimum annual income which officialdom wanted them to have, regardless of merit, produc tion, market demands, or anything else. Congress rejected the Brannan plan. ( 2) The Korean war created enough demand for agricultural goods to solve the farm problem again, temporarily, and hide the absurdities of the government's farm programs. The parity ratio for farmers' income rose to 1070/0 in 195 1 , and then started a steady decline, dropping to 830/0 in 1956 exactly where it was in 1930 before fed eral farm programs began. (2)

-Farmers turned their entire corn crops over to the government under high price-support loans, then bought corn they needed in the open market for 60¢-a-bushel less than the government had paid them for their own corn.

Volumes could be filled with accounts of out

-In 1 955, the United States, with billions of dollars' worth of surplus food commodities in government storage, imported more food prod ucts than it exported (the same thing happened again in 1 962) . ( 7 )

rageous incidents in the federal government's farm programs. Here are a few samples from the post Korean war period : -Canadian potatoes were smuggled across the border and turned over to the federal govern ment under high price-support loans, and then destroyed by the government as surplus, at a time when potatoes were so high in American grocery stores that many families could not af ford them. -The government had millions of bales of "surplus" cotton in storage. Storage alone was costing taxpayers an estimated one million dol lars a day. Yet, American textile manufacturers, whose taxes helped pay for the cotton program, could not get American raw cotton for their mills as cheaply as t,heir foreign competitors in Japan and elsewhere could get it. At the same time, American tax money, given away in foreign aid, provided irrigation, machinery, and production techniques to multiply cotton production in for eign nations (Egypt, Brazil, India, Mexico) which began capturing world markets for cotton, while American cotton was going into federal storage.

-In 1 954, the government bought ninety mil lion pounds of cheese from big cheese distributors and then, a few days later, without ever taking possession of the cheese, sold the cheese back to the distributors for 1570 less than the government had paid for it. -Although federal subsidies caused the ac cumulation of costly surpluses in government storage, government fined small farmers who re fused to accept federal subsidies: farmers who re jected federal controls and federal handouts be cause they wanted to raise grain on their own land to feed their livestock. -The government cracked down on a filling station operator for raising a little cotton which he wanted to give away as souvenirs to customers.

Eisenhower

E isenhower's administration tried to solve our farm-surplus problem with the foreign-dis posal operation ( later called "Food For Peace" program) , conducted under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954. Under this law, we sell and give our farm sur pluses to foreign nations. Sales under the law (amounting, to date, to about 60 percent of total surpluses disposed of abroad) are made for the local currency of receiving nations. These sales, presumably, do not damage world markets, be cause they are not gifts. Yet, they are not really sales. For examp le, we sell wheat to communist Poland, accepting payment in Polish currency. We cannot

Page 83

(8)

bring Polish money home to help lighten the tax burden on Americans, or use it in other nations in place of American dollars, because Polish money is soft currency, not acceptable outside of Poland. The Polish money which we get for our wheat can be spent only in Poland. We use a tiny fraction of it to pay American embassy expenses in Poland, but most of it is given to the communist govern ment there to build steel mills and other industrial plants. Proceeds of our wheat sales to Poland can be used to produce commodities which compete with American goods. Poland can resell some of our wheat abroad for American dollars , thus accu mulating claims on our gold reserve. She can use some of it in barter deals with other communist countries, thereby enabling those countries to get a commodity they need and to dispose of others they have in surplus. Seven years after enactment of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 ( for the primary purpose of reducing our agri cultural surpluses ) our government had in storage surplus farm commodities worth about nine bil lion, 400 million dollars ($9,400,000,000.00) (9) _ almost twice as much as it had stored in 1 954 when the act was passed. A secondary purpose of the 1954 act was to win worldwide friendship. Within six years, anti American feeling had spread more widely and reached higher peaks of intensity than ever be fore in our history: American embassies and in formation libraries were mobbed and ransacked in all parts of the world; our Vice President and his wife were spat upon and pelted with garbage while on a good-will tour abroad ; our President was ordered to cancel a planned good-wil l trip to Japan because of anti-American rioting there.

officially adopted the policy that news about its own operations should be "managed" to present the public a favorable image) , current reliable statistics are often non-existent. Should the 2 1 . 3 billion-dollar cost of the Food For-Peace program from 1954 through 1964 be added to the 41. 7 billion-dollar net cost of the government's agricultural programs from 1933 through 1964, to get the total cost, to taxpayers, of our government's efforts to solve the farm prob lem ? If so, the federal government's programs to support agricultural prices and to dispose of the resulting surpluses cost at least 63 billion dol lars for the 31 -year period, 1933 through 1964. This does not include billions which govern ment has spent to help farmers, through the Rural Electrification Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal Land Banks, the Farm Credit Administration, and so on. Yet, the pres ent parity ratio for farmers' income is eight per centage points less than in 1930, before all the spending began. (2,4)

Having failed to solve the farm-surplus prob

lem with the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, Eisenhower's admin� istration, in 1956, produced a new "solution." Instead of paying farmers to destroy crops and animals already raised , as the Democrats had done 20 years before, Republicans initiated the soil bank - paying owners to keep their land idle and not raise anything.

From 1954 through 1964, the Food-For-Peace program cost American taxpayers at least 2 1 bil� lion, 300 million dollars ($21,300,000,000.00) . (4 ) Government statistics on its own operations have always been confusing and contradictory, partic ularly with regard to farm programs and foreign aid. Since the beginning of the Kennedy-John son administration in 1961 (when government Page 84

Legalized racketeering in the government's farm programs multiplied rapidly under the soil bank law. There were great expanses of land in eastern Colorado and western Nebraska that could be bought for $15 .00 to $25.00 an acre. People with money bought a great deal of it and put it in the soil bank for seven years at $6.00 per acre each year. By 1963, they had collected from the gov ernment - for doing nothing - $42 .00 an acre on land that had cost them, on an average, about half that amount. In some instances, landowners

who got soil-bank payments for keeping their land idle also got the soil conservation service to pay 75% of the cost of putting the land into good permanent grass, while it was in the soil bank. In the deep South, people with money bought worn-out cotton farms for $35 .00 an acre and "banked" it with the government for 1 0 years at $7.00 an acre each year. At the same time, some of the new owners got the government to pay 800/0 of the cost of clearing the idle land and planting it in timber. Not all land owners who banked their soil had enough capital or were willing to use their capital (even with government aid) to improve the land while it lay idle. Hence, much of the land "banked with the government" was ruined. During the past few weeks, I have looked at many acres of land ( formerly, rich loamy soil) which has lain unused in the soil bank since the late 1950's. Some of it is so badly eroded that more than 50% of the rich top soil has been lost for ever. Much of it is a wilderness of weeds and brush, useless for any productive purpose without heavy expenditure to reclaim and restore it. There was a provision in the soil-bank law, putting a limit of $5 ,000 on the amount that one person could get in one year for "banking" idle land;(lO) but the provision was easy to circumvent. Out in the high-plains country of Texas, for ex ample, where land comes in big pieces, a man could buy 1 0 sections (6400 acres) and put the whole piece in the soil bank at $9.00 an acre for a total of $57,600.00 a year. The trick was to bank the land in the names of relatives so that no one person got more than $5,000 a year from the government. The Tallman case is a classic illustration of a soil-bank operation. Wayne E. Tallman bought a 6,960-acre ranch in Colorado for $1 39,200 and then, through a maze of complicated subleasing arrangements, placed 3,879 acres of the ranch in the soil bank in such a way that, in ten years, the government would pay him $271,000 for doing nothing. During those ten years, Tallman or his agents, would have use of approximately half

the ranch. In substance, the federal government gave Wayne Tallman a $1 39,200 ranch and $ 1 3 1 ,800 in cash in return for Tallman's agreement to do nothing, during the first ten years of his own ership , with approximately half the ranch. (11) Before setting up this deal, Wayne Tallman, on February 14, 1957, outlined it to the Depart ment of Agriculture agency in his county (Kiowa County Agricultural Stabilization Committee) and got official approval. (11) On the other hand, consider the James Weir case. Weir owned a 944-acre rice farm (near Lake Village, Arkansas ) which he valued at $300,000. In April, 1962, agents of the federal government sold Weir's farm at auction for $60,000 to collect fines imposed on Weir for overplanting his rice acreage allotments. Weir had sacrificed his farm in a fruitless attempt to show that the farm pro gram is unconstitutional and that farmers want to be free men, not controlled wards of govern ment. (12) Weir's experience contrasts sharply with that of another rice producer who, in one year, received $486,725 from the federal government for surplus rice.

Thought processes of political liberals are re

vealed in the record of the 84th Congress, which enacted the soil-bank law in 1956 - authorizing expenditure of at least 750 million dollars a year in payments to landowners for taking pro ductive land out of use. Just before passing the soil-bank law, the 84th Congress passed ( and President Eisenhower approved) a bill authorizing the Upper Colorado River dam and irrigation to irrigate and put in culti vation high project arid land never before cultivated. (13) ( 10)

Kennedy

March 1 6, 1961, President John F. Ken nedy proposed a new program to solve the farm problem. The program was devised by Dr. Wil lard W. Cochrane, Minnesota economist who had

Page 85

been Kennedy's chief farm adviser during the 1 960 campaign. (14) The Cochrane plan prescribed a supply-man agement system in which committees of farmers, under control of the Secretary of Agriculture (with Congress having only a negative veto vote if it disapproved) would regulate production and income of American farmers. This scheme would have created ,a system similar to agricultural sys tems in communist countries. Congress rej ected the Cochrane plan in 1961, but did extend existing farm programs. Congress also passed Kennedy's Emergency Feed Grains bill - providing for a rise in price supports for feed grains, payments in cash and kind for farm ers who agreed to reduce acreage of corn and grain sorghums by 20 to 40 percent, and loss of eligi bility for price supports on feed grains by farmers who did not participate in the acreage-reduction plan. (14)

In 1 962 , Kennedy asked Congress to authorize a modified version of the Cochrane plan - elim inating the Farmers' Committee proposal of 1961, and eliminating the proposal that Congress aban don its legislative function and grant the Secretary of Agriculture authority to do anything he likes, subject only to congressional veto. Kennedy'S 1 962 proposals retained the supply-management feature of the 1961 Cochrane plan. This would have provided tight, dictatorial regimentation of all farmers producing major commodities then in great surplus (wheat, corn , grain, sorghum, and barley) . The Secretary of Agriculture would have been (15)

empowered to allot acreages, telling farmers how

(Kennedy'S Secretary of Agriculture) admitted that the scheme would mean granting (by sale or gift) a federal franchise to farm. ( 1 6 ) The value of a man's farm would depend not on the quality of his 1 and or on the labor and investment he put into improvements, but on the kind of federal franchise he had.

Congress again rejected Kennedy's supply-management farm plan, but did convert the emergency feed-grains program of 1961 into a permanent program - authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to support feed-grains prices (as high as 900/0 of parity) , requiring no acreage limits or other production curtailment. This per manent program of supporting feed-grains prices (said to be needed because of over-production of feed grains ) went into effect in 1 964. (1 5) In 1 964, Congress enacted and President Johnson approved a bill authorizing 47 million dollars for three irrigation projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin: proj ects which will put 65 ,000 acres of land into production of feed grains. (17) 1 962,

In 1 962, Congress also authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a wheat referendum in 1 963 to determine whether the supply-manage ment system should be adopted for wheat. (IG)

The Kennedy administration mobilized the re sources of the federal government to get a re sounding yes vote in the wheat referendum of May, 1 963 - hoping to show that America's farmers wanted high price supports and tight regimentation. But the wheat farmers (despite all the prestige and power, and even threats, of fed eral officialdom) voted

no. Consequently, no farm

many acres to plant, how many to leave idle or put to other use; to guarantee a high price for authorized crops ; to pay farmers for not planting idle acres - or, to give them "land use" aid for authorized "other uses." Some "other uses" speci fied were soil and water conservation, develop ment of recreational facilities, and wild-life pres ervation. (15)

legislation was passed in consequence in 1964.

Dr. Cochrane ( creator of Kennedy'S supply management fa rm p �an ) and Orville Freeman

P resident Johnson proposed nothing new in his Agriculture Message of 1 965 . He revived the

1 963,

and none of major

Jo h nson

Page 86

Kennedy-Cochrane proposal for making farmers subject to federal franchise - though he did not state the proposal in just that way. President John son recommended that farmers be allowed to sell or lease their federal acreage allotments - a practice, now illegal, which has produced many multi-mill ion-dollar scandals in the past. Imagine the scandalous profiteering at taxpayers' expense which will occur if the practice is legalized. In dividuals who know the right people, or who support the right political candidates, can get federal acreage allotments which they may sell to others. President Johnson asked Congress to supplement present farm programs with a "long-term Crop land Adjustment Program" ; but this is merely an elaboration of the Kennedy "Land Use" pro posals of 1 9 6 1 and 1 962 - a scheme to take cropland permanently out of agricultural produc tion, by buying it for public parks or lakes, or by paying owners to develop it for industrial, recreational, or other uses. ( 1 )

out of the farming business, leaving farmers free to solve their own problems in their own way. The Adair Bill (which Mr. Adair plans to intro duce again in the present Congress) merits ener getic support from every American ( farmer and urban dweller alike ) who wants to restore Ameri can constitutional government. Conversely, every farm proposal thus far made by President Johnson deserves energetic opposition. *

Reports on an American Tragedy most grateful to readers of this Report who have answered my plea for wide circulation of "Civil Rights Or Civil War ?" Many, to whom you have sent that issue of the Report, have asked for more details. I

The following six Reports, available at 25c each, or all six for $ 1 .00, deal with many aspects of the harrowing race problem:

What To Do

Vol. 9, No. 25 - Washington: The Model City

I n each Congress,

for several years, U. S. Rep resentative E. Ross Adair (Indiana Republican) has made the only proposal which would really solve our farm problem : he has introduced legisla tion to repeal the Agricultural Adustment Act of 1938, as amended, thus getting the government

Vol. 9, No. 27

The American Tragedy

Vol. 9, No. 28 - More Equal Than Equal Vol. 1 0, No. 2 1 - Discrimination In Reverse Vol. 1 0, No. 22 - Communism In The Civil Rights Movement Vol.

I I,

No. 8 - Civil Rights Or Civil War?

WHO I S DAN SMOOT ? and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 civili· 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American on years two ns; investigatio communist on years half a and three : zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent

from the FBI and, FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases ill various places. He resigned of controversial sides both giving programs, television nd from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio a Dan Smoot The publishing : business rise free-enterp orted, profit-supp present his started issues. In July, 1955, he television and radio sis news-analy weekly a Report, a weekly magazine available by subscriptio n; and producing broadcast and Report The vehicle. advertising an as firms, business reputable by broadcast, available for sponsorship Constitution as a yard give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American help immensely-help get stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

Page 87

I urge you to help give maximum distribution to all six of these Reports. They present historical and current information, not available elsewhere, on a problem which ,has become an American Tragedy. Public understanding of the problem must precede solution.

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1 962, Bureau of the Census, 1 962, p. 6 1 0 ; The World Almanac for 1965, New

York World-Telegram Corp., 1 965, pp. 284, 677 ( 6 ) Interlocking Subvenion in Government Departments, Report of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1 9 5 3 , p. 44 . ( 7 ) The World Almanac fOi' 1 965, New York World-Telegram Corp., 1965, pp. 694, 7 1 3

Order the set of six Reports now, and put them in the hands of others. Ruthless leaders are manip ulating others .as pawns in a frightfully dangerous revolutionary operation. We can stop this destruc tion of orderly society.

( 8 ) Food For Peace: Building a Better lVorld, Agency for Inter national Development of the State Department, March, 1963, 20 pp. (9) Newsletter by U. S. Representative Harold C. Ostertag ( Rep., N. Y. ) , February 1 5 , 1962 ( 10 ) "Agriculture Act of 1 9 5 6," United States Code; 84th Congress, Second Session, 1 95 6, Vo!' 2, West Publishing Co. and Edward Thompson Co., pp. 2 5 57-83 ( 1 1 ) Speech by u. S. Senator John J. Williams ( Rep., Dela. ) , Con ' gressional Record, February 24, 1 9 6 1 , pp. 2473-4 ( daily ) , 2 649-50 ( bound)

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "Text of President Johnson's Feb. 4 Agriculture Message," Con· gressional Quartedy lVeekly Repo,·t, February 5, 1965, pp. 2 1 2-5 ( 2 ) U. S. Agl'iCIIltul'al Policy In The Postwar Yean Congressional Quarterly Service, 1963, 89 pp.

1945- 1 963,

( 1 2 ) Extension of Remarks of U. S. Representative Paul Findley ( Rep., II!. ) , Congressional Record, May 1 , 1 962, p. A 3 1 8 5 ( daily) ( 1 3 ) "Colorado River Storage Project - Authority to Construct, Operate and Maintain," United States Code; 84th Congress, Second Session, 1 956, Vol. 1, West Publishing Co. and Edward Thompson Co., pp. 1 3 3-40 ( 1 4 ) Congressional Quarterly Almanac fOI' 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 04-41

( 3 ) Source: Department of Agriculture, The World Almanac fo,' 1965, New York World-Telegram Corp. , 1965, p. 7 5 2 ( 4 ) Speech b y U. S. Senator Jack Miller ( Rep., Iowa ) , Congres sional Record, February 8, 1965, pp. 2 2 2 3- 5 (daily) ( 5 ) Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1 957, U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, pp. 9, 36, 47, 280;

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume

The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months 1 year

( 1 5 ) Congressional Quarterly Almanac for 1962, pp. 94-143 ( 1 6 ) U. S. News & World Report, June 1 1 , 1 962, pp. 54-5 ( 1 7 ) Congressional QUCl1·terly Weekly Report, August 7, 1964, p. 1 68 5 ; August 28, 1964, p. 1976; and September 25, 1964, p. 2 2 62

$ 6.00 $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .50

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 88

ZIP CoO!!

THE o

1Jf/1l SmootlIe,olt Vol.

I I,

No. 1 2

(Broadcast 500)

March 22, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

EA R L WA R R E N C O U R T - PA RT I

T he turmoil in Alabama is one

product of the so-called civil-rights movement, a communist creation intended to foment racial civil war (as shown in "Civil Rights Or Civil War ?", the February 22, 1 965, issue of this Report) . The non-communist agency which has done the most to precipitate civil turmoil is the Supreme Court of the United States under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The present nine Supreme Court Justices are :

Hugo Black, Roosevelt appointee, took oath of office on August 1 9, 1 937; William O. Doug las, Roosevelt appointee, took office April 1 7, 1 939; Tom Clark, Truman appointee, August 24, 1 949; Earl Warren, Eisenhower appointee, October 5, 1 953; John Marshall Harlan, Eisen hower appointee, March 28, 1 955; William J. Brennen, Jr., Eisenhower appointee, October 1 6, 1 956; Potter Stewart, Eisenhower appointee, October 1 4, 1 958; Byron R. White, Kennedy appointee, April 1 6, 1 962; Arthur J. Goldberg, Kennedy appointee, October 1 , 1 962. (1 )

The appointment of Earl Warren was a political payoff. The California delegation at the Re publican National Convention of 1952 was pledged to Earl Warren. Warren released the dele gates to vote for General Dwight D. Eisenhower, thus assuring Eisenhower's nominationY> After almost 1 2 years on the Court, Warren is still either abysmally ignorant about, or deeply hostile toward, the U. S. Constitution and American j uridical principles. Eisenhower could hardly have found a prominent person less qualified to be Chief Justice; yet, Warren does qualify as a radical. political leader. The Supreme Court has become an Earl Warren Court.

One Justice who most

consistently supports Warren's decisions is Hugo Black. In 1937, Hugo Black was a United States Senator from Alabama. A passionate partisan of the new deal, Senator Black fought hard for President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing scheme. The scheme failed, to the Supreme Court. but Roosevelt rewarded Black by appointing him - August 1 2, 1937 -

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ I O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texa s for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 89

Though the Senate had j ust defeated Roosevelt's effort to pack the Court with leftist radicals, it quickly confirmed the nomination of Senator Black- who was a leader among leftist radicals. (2) As soon as Hugo Black became an Associate Justice, the Supreme Court began to weaken the doctrine of stare decisis and thus started what is described on page 565 of Senate Document No. 1 70 (82d Congress, 2d Session) as a "con stitutional revolution." ( 3 ) Stare decisis is an abbreviation of a Latin ex pression meaning "to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters." In law, stare decisis means the doctrine, or policy, on the part of coqrts, of following principles laid down in previous decisions, unless they contravene the ordinary principles of j ustice.

The doctrine of stare decisis was essential to the development of English common law-and of all law in the United States. When the highest court repeatedly reverses its own decisions, it is saying that what was legal yesterday is illegal today but may again be legal tomorrow, depending on the mood of the court. When such a state of affairs prevails for a long time, even the most civilized society will become lawless, kept orderly only by force of dictatorship. In 1 937, the Supreme Court began to lay the groundwork for such a condition in America, when it started repudiating the ancient doctrine that a court must follow the precedent of its own decisions. Between March 27, 1937, and June 1 4, 1943, the Supreme Court reversed earlier decisions on constitutional questions in fourteen cases. (3) In 1944, Justices Owen J. Roberts and Felix Frankfurter began dissenting, saying the Court was discrediting itself by reversing its own de cisions. Justice Roberts said the Court's frequent reversals of earlier decisions tended to bring ad j udications of the Supreme Court "into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only." ( S) This criticism from within the Court slowed down the erosion of the great principle of stare

decisis

in 1953.

until Earl Warren became Chief Justice

In Brown versus Board of Education, May 17, 1954, Earl Warren (supported by all other mem bers of the Court) reversed an 1896 Supreme Court decision which had held that racial segre gation in public schools is constitutional, if segre gated races are provided equal facilities. ( 4) On previous occasions when the Court had re versed itself, the j ustices had at least pretended to be following honest conviction about what the Constitution means. In the school segregation case, Warren admitted that the Fourteenth Amend ment, as written, was not intended to affect the operation of public schools. He said, however, that, in view of "modern" sociological opinions, the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted as affecting racial segregation in schools. (4 ) Warren relied on writings of communist fronters, in preference to the Constitution - in cluding An American Dilemma, by Gunnar Myr dal, Swedish socialist with a communist-front record. In this book, Myrdal expresses contempt for the United States Constitution. (5) On May 17, 1954, the Warren Court not only abandoned stare decisis and lit a fuse touching off the explosive lawlessness that is shattering our society, it did something even worse: it enunciated the doctrine that the U. S. Supreme Court can change the Constitution at will, without regard to law, constitutional meaning, or precedent. Below are samplings of Warren Court decisions since May, 1954, when the Court usurped authority to do anything it pleases with the Constitution, the traditions, the laws, the governments, and the people of the United States. STEVE NELSON CASE. On April 2, 1956, the Warren Court overturned . the conviction of Steve Nelson (admitted. communist party leader) who had been given a 20-year sentence in 1952 for violating the Pennsylvania state s�dition law. The Court said the Smith Act of 1940 gives the federal government exclusive j urisdiction in the field of sedition. (6)

Page 90

The Smith Act of 1940 specifically provides that: " . . . nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several states."

Counsel for the State of Pennsylvania called attention to this provision, and also introduced a letter from U. S. Representative Howard Smith (Virginia Democrat, who wrote the Smith Act) saying that, in passing the Smith Act, Congress never had "the faintest notion" of nullifying state laws. Nonetheless , Earl Warren declared : "The conclusion is inescapable that Congress has intended to occupy the field of sedition."(S)

THE CASE OF SUBVERSIVE FEDERAL EM PLOYEES. The Summary Suspension Act of 1950 authorized federal agencies to fire known commu nists from federal jobs. Senator Karl Mundt, who helped write the law, said its intent was to remove all subversives from all federal jobs. On June 1 1, 1956, the Warren Court held that the Act applied only to federal employees in sensitive positions. (7) This opened the door for hundreds of fired communists to demand reinstate ment in government jobs , with back pay. (2 ) SLOCHOWER CASE. Harry Slochower was an associate professor at Brooklyn College. The New York City Board of Higher Education fired him for invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer questions about communists, while under interrogation by a subcommittee of the U. S. Senate. On April 9, 1956, the Warren Court held that the Board had violated Slochower's constitutional rights(S) (though the Constitution guarantees no right to a job ) . Transcripts of the subcommittee hearings showed that Slochower knew he would be fired for refusal to answer questions ; but the Warren Court falsely asserted that the professor did not know he would lose his job for refusal to answer. The Board petitioned for a re-hearing. The Warren Court admitted having misstated the facts, but denied the re hearing. As a result of this case, New York City had to reinstate, and give back pay to, several

teachers who had been fired for communist ac tivities. Slochower drew an indemnity of $40,000 from taxpayers. (2 ) KONIGSBERG AND S C H WA R E CASES. The California Bar Association refused member ship to Raphael Konigsberg because he would not answer questions about whether he had ever been a communist. The California Supreme Court upheld the Association. The New Mexico Bar Association refused membership to Rudolph Schware, finding him morally unfit because of past membership in the communist party and because of two arrests for criminal syndicalism. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the Association. On May 6, 1957, the Warren Court reversed the Supreme Courts of California and New Mexico, holding that refusal of Bar Association member ships had violated Konigsberg's and Schware's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (9) JENCKS CASE. On April 2 8 , 1950, Clinton E. Jencks, union official in New Mexico, filed an affidavit (as required by the Taft-Hartley labor law) , swearing that he was not a member of the communist party. Using FBI evidence to prove that Jencks was a member of the communist party when he filed that affidavit, the Department of Justice prosecuted Tencks for perjury. The federal district court in New Mexico convicted Jencks, and the circuit court of appeals upheld the conviction. At his trial, Jencks was given full opportunity to face all of his accusers in open court. No infor mation supplied by unnamed informants was used against him. He was permitted to examine every piece of evidence used to prove that he had li�d under oath. On June 3, 1957, the Warren Court reversed lower courts-saying that Jencks should have been permitted to see all confidential FBI reports on communist meetings which Jencks was accused of attending. The Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Jencks. Inasmuch as the government would have to reveal to Jencks and his lawyers virtually everything the FBI knows about com

munist activity in the State of New Mexico, the

Page 91

Department of Justice decided not to try Jencks again. ( 2,10) WATKINS CASE. In sworn testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, John A. Watkins, a labor union official, admitted to communist activities but refused to answer ques tions about communist activities of his associates. He claimed no constitutional privilege, but as serted that the Committee had no right to ask him such questions. Watkins was tried and convicted for contempt of Congress. On June 17, 1957, the Warren Court overturned his conviction, saying it did so "with conscious awareness of the far-reaching ramifications that can follow from a decision of this nature." ( l1) SWEEZY CASE. When que�tioned under oath by the New Hampshire Attorney General, Paul M. Sweezy (professor at the State University) denied membership in the communist party, but refused to answer questions about alleged associa tion with communists and about allegations that he indoctrinated his students with communist ideas. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held Sweezy in contempt. On June 17, 1957, the War ren Court reversed the State Court, Justice Frank furter holding, in a concurring opinion, that state officials have no right to question the beliefs and associations of professors in state institutions. ( 12 ) SACHER CASE. The Warren Court reversed two federal courts and set aside the conviction of Harry Sacher for contempt in refusing to tell the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee whether he was "a member of the Lawyers' Section of the Communist Party." In the second Sacher appeal, the Court again reversed the court of appeals and said this question was not pertinent to the Sub-committee's investigation. The Court refused to hear any argument from government lawyers representing the Senate Subcommittee. ( 1S ) WITKOVICH CASE. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides that any alien against whom there is a final order of deportation shall "give information under oath as to his nationality, circumstances, habits, associations and activities, and such othe� information . . . as the

Attorney General may deem fit and proper." The Warren Court held that, under this statute, the Attorney General did not have authority to ask Witkovich this question: "Since the order of deportation was entered in your case on June 25, 1 953, have you attended any meetings of the Communist Party of the U .S.A.?"(14 )

YATES CASE. In the case of Yates, et aI., 14 communists in California were convicted and sen tenced to prison for advocating overthrow of the United States government by force and violence, in violation of the Smith Act. On June 17, 1957, the Warren Court ordered outright acquittal for five of the communists, new trials for the other nine. The Court held that advocating forcible overthrow of our government, even "with evil intent," is not a violation of the Smith Act if the advocacy is "divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end." ( 15 ) COMMUNIST P A R T Y REGISTRATION CASE. Citing provisions of the Subversive Ac tivities Control Act of 1950 and of the Communist Control Act of 1954, the Subversive Activities Control Board ( SACB ) ordered the communist party to register with the Attorney General as a communist-action organization under foreign domination. The Federal District Court and the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia both upheld the SACB ruling; but the communist party refused to register. On April 30, 1956, the Warren Court held that the party did not have to register because it claimed that some of the evidence against it was clouded. ( 16) On June 5, 1961 , the Court (with Justices War ren, Black, Douglas, and Brennan dissenting) up held the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 and ordered the communist party to register. ( 17 ) Subsequently, a lower federal court held that the communist party did not have to register (because of Fifth Amendment protection against self-in crimination) . On June 8, 1964, the Warren Court (with Justice White not participating) refused to review the lower court ruling. In this odd way, the Warren Court reversed its June 5, 1961, de-

Page 92

cision which had ordered the communist party to register. (18) CASES ON SUBVERSION, PERVERSION, AND PRAYER. On June 2 5 , 1 962, the Warren Court overturned a Post Office Department ruling that a magazine for homosexuals is unmailable because of obscenity. The Court asserted that the First Amendment guarantees the rights of homo sexuals to receive such magazines through the mails-and that the magazines are not patently offensive. (19) On June 2 5 , 1 962, the Warren Court struck down a California statute which made addiction to narcotics a crime. (19) On June 2 5 , 1 962 , the Warren Court reversed contempt-of-Congress convictions against two men (Louis Hartman of California and Bernard Silber of New York) who, in 1957, had refused to give the House Committee on Un-American Activities information about communist infiltration in the communications industry. ( 19) And on June 2 5 , 1962, the Warren Court handed down its New York School Prayer Case decision (Engel versus Vitale) , holding that class room recitation of an official prayer violated the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, as "reinforced by provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. " The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, but the Warren Court used the First Amendment as authority to deny the free exercise of religion. (20) APPORTIONMENT CASES. In Baker versus Carr, March 26, 1 962, the Warren Court decided, in effect, that the Fourteenth Amendment gives federal courts j urisdiction to supervise the actions of state legislatures in districting states for pur poses of state and local elections. The Baker versus Carr decision involved the districting laws of the State of Tennessee ; but approximately 26 other states were involved in similar suits, or ex pected to be shortly. ( 21 ) The Constitution makes no grant of power to any branch of the federal government to interfere

in any way with such matters. When the federal government can make decisions governing the composition and representation of state legisla tures} state governments become branches and tools of the central authority. The American sys tem-a constitutional federation of separate states -is destroyed. (21) The Baker versus Carr decision encouraged (as Earl Warren himself said ) a "spate of similar cases." (21) On June 1 5 , 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on six legislative apportionment cases, involving Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Earl Warren ruled that a state apportionment which does not provide for representation in both houses of the state legis lature solely on the basis of population, violates the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (21) This decision is creating political chaos. If per mitted to stand, it w�ll destroy existing forms of government in a majority of states. It denies, for states, the same kind of balanced bi-cameral (two house) legislative system that the federal govern ment itself has. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING CASE. The Constitution provides that each State, regard less of population, may have two U. S. Senators and one U. S. Representative. A populous State may have more than one Representative, the number depending on population as revealed by the census every ten years. The Consitution grants Congress authority to supervise the division of States into congressional districts, but gives federal courts no authority in this field. On February 1 7, 1 964, however, the Warren Court, in Wesberry versus Sanders} usurped power to rule that States must draw district lines 'to guarantee that "as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a Congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." In other words, Congressional districts must be about the same in population. (22) Under the Constitution, there never has been

and never can be "equality of voting power" for

Page 93

all voters in elections of U. S. Representatives. For example, the 1960 census shows a population of 226,167 for Alaska, 1 6,782,304 for New York. Alaska has one U. S. Representative; New York has 41. Thus, every Alaskan voting for a U. S. Representative has almost twice as much voting power as a New Yorker voting for a U. S. Rep resentative. F R E E - S P E E C H DEMONSTRATORS. In March, 1963, the Warren Court ruled (in a case involving sit-in demonstrators in Columbia, South Carolina) that state and local officials have no authority to stop such demonstrations or to make arrests because "the privilege of free speech is broad." The Court said that free speech may best serve its high purpose when it causes unrest and "stirs people to anger." (23) SIT-IN CASES. On June 22, 1964 , the Warren Court overturned the convictions of several sit-in demonstrators, who had been tried under local and state laws prohibiting trespass on private property. The Court refused to give any constitu tional, or other grounds, for overturning the con victions. It simply ordered them overturned. (24) GIRARD CASE. Stephen Girard, by a will probated in 1831, left a fund in trust to build and operate a college in Philadelphia for "as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain." In 1954, two negro boys asked the Orphan's Court of Philadelphia to order their ad mission to the school. The Court refused, and was upheld by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. On April 29, 1957, the Warren Court re versed the Pennsylvania Court, citing the Four teenth Amendment as interpreted in the May 17, 1954, school-segregation decision. (25) MALLORY CASE. Andrew R. Mallory, a 19year-old negro, confessed to raping a woman in the cellar of her apartment house in Washington, D. C. He was tried and convicted in District Court. His conviction was upheld in the Court of Appeals. Without s uggesting any doubt of guilt or sus picion of police brutality, the Warren Court set Page

Mallory free to go unpunished for his crime, solely because police had questioned him before formal arraignment. The decision means that Washington police cannot question a suspect before he is formally arrested and arraigned unless the suspect agrees. After he is formally arrested, he cannot be questioned at all. (26) When police are prohibited from questioning 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 pro tection. 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 a state court. He brought action directly in federal court. On February 20, 1961, the Warren Court, in the Monroe case, held, in effect, that the Fourteenth Amendment does give certain indi viduals the right to bypass state courts. (27) NOlA CASE. On March 18, 1963, in Fay versus Noia, the Warren Court ordered New York to release from the State Penitentiary a man who had been incarcerated for 20 years, after con viction in state court for the crime of murder. The Court held that the man's rights under the federal Constitution had been violated because he had not effected an appeal from his conviction in state court. (28 ) GIDEON CASE. In Florida, 'a defendant

named Gideon was sentenced in state court. The

State of Florida has its own procedures to guaran tee that a defendant is not denied right to counsel ; and federal courts have no constitutional right to review procedures of state courts. Gideon, who had no counsel at his trial, was convicted of petty larceny. Later, the case was appealed. In Gideon versus Wainwright (March 1 8, 1963 ) , the War ren Court ordered Gideon released from Florida pnson, because he had had no lawyer at his trial. (29)

ESCOBEDO CASE. On June 22, 1964, the Warren Court, in Escobedo versus Illinois , reversed the state conviction ( for murder) of defendant Escobedo, because Escobedo had had no lawyer present when he confessed to police offi cers. (30) Responsible law officials predict that "vast numbers" of hardened criminals will be set free as a result of this Escobedo expansion of the rule which the Warren Court had laid down in the Gideon case of 1963. Indeed, confessed murderers have already been released from prison. (31)

What To Do

There

is swelling public demand that some thing be done about the Earl Warren Court. Some thing can be done. Subsequently, I will discuss various proposals, outline legal remedies available, and recommend specific measures to curb the ty rannical power of the Earl Warren Court. *

BERKELEY RIOTE RS WILL BE PROSECUTED

Research for each of my Reports takes a long

time, and each Report goes to press weeks before the material is actually broadcast on radio and television. Hence, the Report on "Communist Student Riots" ( published February 8, 1965, broadcast in March ) was actually written in Janu ary. At that time, there was no indication ( in sources available to me) of prosecution against

persons arrested on December 3, 1964, in con nection with riots at the University of California in Berkeley. I have now received a welcomed letter from J. F. Coakley, District Attorney for Alameda County, Oakland, California, saying: "Request is hereby made that you correct state ments made in your telecast of Sunday, March 7, 1 965, to the effect that there had been no prose cution of the so-called Free Speech Movement demonstrators at the University of California at Berkeley. The fact is that all persons having no lawful business in Sproul Hall who refused to leave the building at closing time, after being re q�ested to do so, were arrested and charged with CrImes of trespass . . . and failure to disperse fr�m the scene of an unlawful assembly upon bemg ordered to do so . . . . About two-thirds of these persons went limp and refused to co operate with the police upon being arrested. These persons were also charged with resisting and obstructing arrest . . .

"The number of persons charged were seven hundred and seventy three. Eight of these per sons were referred to the Juvenile Court of Ala meda County, pursuant to California law which requires such referral where an accused is under eighteen years of age. Four of these eight have been found guilty and given confinement in a work camp under the jurisdiction of the Proba tion Department of the County. Cases against the other four j uveniles are still awaiting trial before another Juvenile Court Judge. Seventy five of the defendants, as of today, have pleaded nolo con tendere to the charges. In California, this plea has the same effect and is subject to exactly the same penalties as a plea of guilty, except that a nolo plea cannot be used in a civil action as an ad-

WHO I S DAN SMOOT ? and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. 10 Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA for a doctorate in American civili work 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate investigations; two years on communist on years half a and three zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: He resigned from the FBI and, places. various ill cases FBI general on years four almost staff; rs FBI headquarte giving both sides of controversial from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, publishing The Dan Smool business: rise free-enterp orted, profit-supp present his started issues. In July, 1955, he sis radio and television news-analy weekly a Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing Report and broadcast The vehicle. advertising an as firms, business reputable broadcast, available for sponsorship by give

one

using the American Constitution side of important issues ; the side that presents documented truth

as a

yard

communism, you can help immensely-help get stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and suocribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

Page 95

mission against interest. Trial of one hundred and sixty two of the defendants will begin in the Municipal Court of Berkeley on April 1 , 1 965. Trials of the remaining defendants who may not at that time have pleaded nolo conten· dere or guilty will follow as soon as possible. "At the outset I made it clear to the press, to the public and to the defendants that I had no intention of recommending either dismissal of the charges or clemency. I have been deluged with letters from all over the United States request· ing that I drop the charges. I have no intention of so doing. Our position has been and will con· tinue to be that we are ready to try all of the de· fendants who have not pleaded guilty or nolo j ust as quickly as possible. You will, no doubt, realize that processing and getting such a large number of defendants to trial involves some de· lay and many procedural and mechanical diffi· culties .

( 8 ) 350 U. S. 5 5 1 ( 9 ) Konigsberg 2 3 2 ( 19 5 7 ) ( 10 ) 3 5 3 U . S. 657 ( 1 1 ) 354 U. S. 178 ( 1 2 ) 354 U. S. 234 ( 1 3 ) 3 5 6 U. S. 576 ( 14 ) 353 U. S. 194 ( 1 5 ) 354 U. S. 298 ( 1 6 ) 3 5 1 U. S. 1 1 5 ( 1 7 ) 367 U . S. ( 1 8 ) SPecial Repol·t

( 19 ) (20) (21) (22) (23)

and Iliterpl'etation: Annotations of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court of the United States To June 30, 1 9 5 2 , prepared

(4) (5)

(6) (7)

by the legislative Reference Service of the library of Congress and edited by Edward S. Corwin, published as Senate Docu ment 170, May 30, 1953, pp. 565, 566 347 U. S. 483 ( 19 5 4 ) "The Supreme Court's 'Modern Scientific Authorities' in the Segregation Cases," speech by U. S. Senator James O. Eastland ( Dem., Miss., Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) , Congressional Record, May 26, 1 9 5 5 350 U . S. 497 ( 19 5 6 ) 3 5 1 u . S. 5 3 6 ( 19 5 6 )

Subscription:

( 24 ) (25)

( 1 ) Salary of an Associate Justice is $39,500 a year; of the Chief Justice, $40,000. ( 2 ) Nine Men Against America by Rosalie M. Gordon, Devin-Adair Company, New York City, 1958, 1 66 pp., price : $ 3 .00; also paper edition by American Opinion, Belmont, Mass., price: $ 1 .00 ( 3 ) The Constitution of the United States of Am erica: Analysis

3 5 3 U. S .

( 19 5 7 ) ( 1957) ( 19 5 7 ) ( 19 5 8 ) ( 1957 ) ( 1957) ( 1956) ( 196 1 )

of the County Counsel on Problem Created By Recent United States Supreme Court Cases Affecting The Communist Party And The Twenty Year Fight Of The County Of Los Angeles Against Sub1le1'Sion and Communism, by Harold

FOOTNOTES

( 19 5 6 ) 3 5 3 U . S. 2 5 2 ( 19 57 ) ; Schware

W. Kennedy, County Counsel of the County of los Angeles, August 1 9, 1964, 65 pp. The New York Times, June 26, 1962, pp. I, 1 6, 1 7 For details o n the Prayer Case decision, see this Report, "Out lawing God," March 2, 1964. For details on the Apportionment Cases, see this Report, "The Supreme Court's Apportionment Decisions," August 3 1 , 1964. "Court Opinions on Congressional Apportionment," Congres sional Quarterly Weekly Repol·t, February 2 1 , 1964, pp. 367-8 1 "Preserving law and Order," by Dick West, The Dallas M01'ning News, July 7, 1963, Sec. 3, p . 2 AP story from Washington, The Dallas Morning News, June 2 3, 1964, Sec. 1 , p. 1 2 Manchester (N.H . ) Union Leader, April 30, 1957, p . 3 ; The Dallas Morning News, April 30, 1957, Sec. 1, p. 1

( 2 6 ) Limitation of Appellate Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, Hearings before the Internal Security Sub committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, February and March, 1 9 58, pp. 1 52 , 1 69-70, 199, 2 33-4, 269, 476 ( 2 7 ) Editorial in The Durham (N.C. ) Morning Herald, February 23, 1961 ( 28 ) "States Rights," speech by U. S. Senator A. Willis Robertson (Dem., Va. ) , including dissenting opinions of Supreme Court in Fay versus Noia, Congressional Recol·d, March 2 1 , 1963, pp. 4406-9 ( daily ) ; 372 U. S. 39 1 ( 29 ) 372 u. S. 335 ( 1963 ) ( 3 0 ) In the Supreme Court of the State of California, In Bank, The People vs. Robel·t B. Durado, filed August 3 1 , 1 964, with de tails on Gideon, Noia, and Escobedo Cases and their applications to state level ( 3 1 ) "Fear Voiced That 400 At Chino May Go Free," The Los Angeles Times, September 19, 1964, Sec. 1, p. 1 ; AP story from Tallahassee, Florida, The Dallas Times Herald, September 1 6, 1964, p. 1 6A

6 months - $ 6 .00 $10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

- $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

95 38,

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax) DALLAS, TEXAS

Page 96

75214

TAYLOR

1·2303

THE o

!Jtlil SmootlIe,olt Vol. 1 1 , No. 1 3

(Broadcast 50 1 )

March 29, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

EARL WAR R E N C O U RT-PART I I

L ast

week, I briefly reviewed some significant decisions which the Earl Warren Court has handed down since its fateful school-segregation decision on May 1 7 , 1 954. When placed against the backdrop of history, many of the decisions regarding communism form part of a design. In 1 945, American strength and prestige were matchless in the world, unrivaled in all of history. In contrast, the Soviet Union was weak and impoverished, despised throughout the world-even by millions of its own citizens. Yet, within five years (by 1950) , communist imperialists had conquered and enslaved more than six hundred million people in China and about two hundred million others in a tier of European states from the Baltic to the Adriatic ; and mighty America, already on the defensive, was crushing her own people with taxes to bribe other nations not to join the Soviets. Just as the American people were becoming conscious of this frightful power shift, there came public exposures that the hand of treason was on levers of power in Washington, directing Soviet espionage operations inside important agencies of government, formulating policies harmful to America. Public demand for action against communism in the United States became great; and, in 1950, action was taken : eleven top officials of the communist party were tried and convicted in Judge Harold Medina's Federal Court. The communist leaders were prosecuted under the Smith Act which had been enacted in 1 940-but not used against the communist leaders for ten years, al though during that time the FBI had cases ready and suitable for trial. The 1 950 trial of communists ; the 1950 incarceration of Alger Hiss (who had been convicted of perjury for denying that he committed espionage for a communist spy ring) ; and the 1952 election of General Dwight D. Eisenhower (who had promised vigorous action against commu nism) mollified public opinion: something had been done about the communist conspiracy, and more was expected. Yet, within four years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice in October, THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 97

1953, the Warren Court ( in a series of cases, some of which were reviewed in this Report last week) had made it -almost impossible for local, state, or federal authorities to remove communists from jobs in tax-supported institutions; -next to impossible for law-enforcement agen cies and legislative committees to investigate the communist conspiracy; -absolutely impossible for state bar associa tions to deny membership to known communist lawyers; -extremely difficult for the federal govern ment to prosecute communist union officials who flaunt provisions of the Taft-Hartley law; -practically useless to invoke the Internal Se curity Act of 1 950; and -illegal for state governments to prosecute communists, on grounds that the Smith Act pre empted for the federal government exclusive authority in this field.

Having blunted or destroyed other legal weap ons against communism, the Warren Court, in June, 1957 , rendered the Smith Act ineffective releasing from jail communists who had already been tried and convicted under the Act. In effect, the shabby, unimportant officials of the communist party had served as decoys. Sending them to j ail had allayed public concern. The Earl Warren Court made further effective investi gation or prosecution of communists virtually impossible, and then let the decoys out of prison emasculating the law that had sent them there. In this connection, it is interesting to study material which U. S. Senator James O. Eastland (Mississippi Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) presented to Congress on May 2, 1962. Senator Eastland said: " . . . nine men appointed . for life, with n o re sponsibility to the people in either their appoint ments or tenure . . . arrogate unto themselves the power to dictate to the sovereign states how they shall conduct their internal affairs, even to the point of . . . overturning the established constitutions and laws of the . States . . . . "The day is coming when such a usurpation Page

of power on the part of nme such men must and will be repudiated."

To show what he meant by nine such men, Senator Eastland put in the Congressional Record a chart showing the stand taken by each Supreme Court Justice in 104 decisions ( involving 107 cases) concerning subversive activities, from 1943 through 1961. He also mentioned cases prior to 1 943. From 1919 to 1942, the Court reached decisions in 1 1 subversive cases. The first seven decisions were against communism ; the last four favored communism ( 36% in support of the communist position) . From 1943 through 1953, the Court reached decisions in 34 cases, 1 5 for the communist position, 19 against (44% in favor of the com munist position ) . From 1954 (after Warren became Chief Jus tice) to the end of 1961, the Court made 70 drecisions involving subversive activities - 46 in favor of communist positions, 24 against, for an average of 66% in favor of communist positions. Warren, participating in 65 decisions involving subversive activities, supported the communist position 62 times, held to the contrary three times, for an individual score of 9Sro in favor of com munist positions. Senator Eastland and many others ( including Associate Justices who often strongly dissent) have pointed out that Warren decides on the basis of personal predilection, not on the basis of constitutional meaning. Some assume, there fore, that Warren supported the communist posi tion 95ro of the time because he personally favored that position.

W arren

Court decisions directly aiding and abetting the communist enemy of the United States have not, however, done as much harm to our nation as decisions which have undermined the foundation of constitutional government. As shown by cases reviewed in this Report last week, the Warren Court has usurped legisla tive powers of Congress, destroyed constitutionally reserved rights of states, and invaded the domain 98

of constitutionally protected private rights-even to the extent of invalidating a private will which had been probated and had stood the test of law for a hundred years. For more details on how the Warren Court has aided the communist conspiracy and weakened the 'constitutional foundation of our society, I rec ommend five specific documents (which may be available in your local library, or from the pub lishers indicated, but cannot be obtained through The Dan Smoot Report) :

( 1 ) Law of the Land, by Warren Jefferson Davis, A Reflection Book, Carlton Press , New York City, 1962, price $3.50; ( 2 ) Nine Men Against America, by Rosalie M. Gordon, The Devin-Adair Company, New York City, 1958, price $3.00 ; also available in paper back for $ 1 .00 from American Opinion, Belmo!Jt, Massachusetts 02 1-18 ; ( 3 ) Special Report of the . County Counsel on Problem G'eated by Recent United States Supreme Court Cases Affecting the Communist Party and the Twenty Year Fight of the County of Los Angeles Against Subversion and Communism, by

Los Angeles County Counsel Harold W. Ken nedy, printed in the Congressional Record, Sep tember 23, 1 964, pp. 2 1 939-48 ( daily) ; (4) The August 1 , 1958, annual report of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives, briefing 20 Warren-Court decisions which "di rectly affect the rights of the United States and the 48 states to protect themselves from commu nism" ; ( 5 ) The chart prepared by Senator James O. Eastland, showing positions taken by Supreme Court Justices in 1 04 cases involving subversive activities, published in the Congressional Record, May 2, 1962, pp. 7026-34 ( daily).

Sounding The Alarm

Concerning the May 17, 1 954, decision of the Page

Earl Warren Court, Senator James O. Eastland, on May 26, 1955, said : "The Court has not only arrogated to itself powers which were not delegated to it under the Constitution of the United States and has entered the fields of the legislative and execu tive branches of the Government, but they are attempting to graft into the organic law of the land the teachings . . . and social doctrines arising from a political philosophy which is the antithesis of the principles upon which this Gov ernment was founded. "The origin of the doctrines can be traced to Karl Marx, and their propagation is part and parcel of the conspiracy to . . . destroy this Gov ernment through internal controversy . . . . "In the rendition of the opinion on the school segregation cases the entire basis of American jurisprudence was swept away. There is only one other comparable system of jurisprudence which is based upon . . . vacillating, political, and pseudo scientific opinion-the Peoples Courts of Soviet Russia. "In that vast vacuum of liberty [ the Soviet Union ] , the basis of their jurisprudence is the vacillating, ever-changing winds of pseudo-au thority. "And that today is the basis of American jurisprudence as announced by a unanimous opinion of our Supreme Court . . . ."

All Amer.icans who understood and respected American constitutional principles shared Senator Eastland's concern about the Warren Court's de cision of May 17, 1954; but the decision was so deeply entangled in the emotional, and politically explosive, racial problem, that there was no nation wide outcry of protest. Before long, however, the Warren Court's law less decisions had evoked public criticism by re sponsible men in all parts of the nation. By a vote of 36 to 8, the 1956 Conference of Chief Justices of State Courts declared: "Recent decisions [ of the U. S. Supreme Court ] have departed so far from constitutional precepts that the country no longer has a written Constitution any more than England." (1) 99

On May 1 3 , 1957, in a speech on the floor of the House, U. S. Representative Noah M. Mason (Illinois Republican) said :

California rejoicingly exclaimed that it was 'the greatest victory the Communist Party in America has ever received.' . . .

"The Founding Fathers and the makers of the Constitution agreed that an uncontrolled Supreme Court meant despotism, and must be guarded against. We now have such a Court . . . .

"In one fell swoop these decisions of the Supreme Court have all but destroyed the most powerful weapons that the Federal Bureau of Invest �gation and Congressional investigating commIttees have in their fight against the internal subversion of this country.

"Thi� menace should haunt the thoughts of . every cItizen who believes in Constitutional Gov ernment. Congress must establish some form of control over the Supreme Court so that our guaranteed personal rights and privileges cannot be usurped by an uncontrolled, capricious Su preme Court. That is the task Congress must face up to and must accomplish before it is too late . . . . "Our first and primary responsibility as Mem bers of Congress . . . is to protect and preserve o�r Federal Constitution; to insist upon States' RIghts; to do all we can to curb and control our uncontrolled Supreme Court . . . . "Our oath of office pledges us to do j ust that . . . . "

Alarmed members of Congress have called June 17, 1 957, "Red Monday," because on that day the Warren Court handed down the Watkins Case decision which handicaps congressional investi gations of communism; the Sweezy Case decision which cripples state agencies investigating com munist activities in tax-supported institutions ; the Yates Case decision, which ruined the Smith Act and released 14 communists from prison. On June 26, 1 9 5 7 , U. S. Representative Gordon H. Scherer (Ohio Republican) called June 17, 1957, "a Roman holiday for the Kremlin but an ominous day for the United States," explaining: "I have reviewed a series of decisions by the Supreme Court over the last two years. As I come to realize the full impact of these decisions on the security of this nation, I become more alarmed about the direction in which we are heading. Legal principles, investigatory and judi cial procedures which I learned in law school and which have been followed during 25 years of practice at the bar have been shattered. "When the most significant of these decisions was handed down by the Court on June 1 7, a former chairman of the Communist Party in

"The Court has usurped the powers of the Congress. It has rewritten and nullified laws to fit its own social, political, and economic philosophies. It has destroyed basic and funda mental states' rights. It has invaded and taken over prerogatives of the executive branch. It has s�pplanted the jury and trial j udge when expedIency demands. It has handcuffed the police and F.B.I. in criminal cases . . . . "

On July 16, 1957, U. S. Senator Harry Flood Byrd (Virginia Democrat) said: " . . a continuation o f such decisions a s those . . . rendered by the present Supreme Court will destroy the very fundamental principles which have made America the greatest Nation in all the world."

Here are abbreviated excerpts from a speech made by U. S. Senator William E. Jenner (Indiana Republican) on August 7, 1957 : The extreme Liberal wing of the Supreme Court has become a majority; and we witness today the spectacle of a Court constantly changing the law, and even changing the meaning of the Constitution, in an apparent determination to make the law of the land what the Court thinks it should be. Reasonable men may err. If the Court had erred only once or twice in these decisions in volving the greatest threat to human freedom which history ever had to look upon, reasonable men could find excuses for it. But what shall we say of this parade of decisions that came down from our highest bench on Red Monday after Red Monday? We in Congress must fulfill our plain duty and act immediately in the way the Constitution empowers us to act, to repair as much of the damage as we can and prevent even worse damage in the future.

Page 100

Senator Jenner quoted Assistant U. S. Attorney

General Warren Olney as saying the Supreme Court's Mallory Case decision of 1957 , ". . . clearly demonstrates that a great many very serious crimes will go unpunished . . . not because the truth cannot be ascertained, but because of the procedures that have to be fol lowed to develop the facts . . . . "The Court is supposed to have its judgment rest on the best truth it can get but the Court will not listen to the truth."

On September 18, 1957, M. T. Phelps (now deceased, formerly chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court) said of the Warren Court: "It is the design and purpose of the court to usurp the policy-making powers of the nation. "By its own unconstitutional pronouncements it would create an all-powerful, centralized gov ernment in Washington and subsequent destruc tion of every vestige of states' rights, expressly and clearly reserved to the states under the 1 0th Amendment of the Constitution . . . . "Regardless of what we as individuals may think about the justice or injustice of segregation, I here assert without hesitation or reservation that the [ May 1 7, 1 954 ] decision was not based upon logic or law. "I further charge that the processes followed in reaching the decision's conclusion violate all procedures of due process known to American jurisprudence . . . . "I honestly view the supreme court with its present membership and predilections a greater danger to our democratic form of government and the American way of life than all forces aligned against us outside our boundaries. "And I repeat again, that if the court is much longer permitted to destroy states' rights by a process of attrition, as it has been doing, we will see Washington clothed with powers so strong that the people will be helpless to curb its tyranny over them as they are in Russia today . . . . "(2)

unlimited policy-making powers it IS now exer cising." ( l )

The furor about the long train of Warren Court Red Monday decisions ( culminating in the Red Monday decisions of June 1 7 , 1957 ) died down amazingly soon; and public criticism of the Court waned until the New York Prayer Case decision of June 2 5 , 1 962. That decision shocked more Americans than any other action of the Warren Court. Below is a brief sampling of remarks made in the national Congress on June 26, 1 962, the day after the Prayer Case decision. Representative Richard L. Roudebush (Indiana · Republican) : " . . . the Supreme Court would place this nation on an equal plane with Soviet Russia where the godless and atheistic communist rulers permit no mention of a Supreme Being . . . . "It is incomprehensible to me that a nation which has acknowledged and pledged its very existence to God could produce a judicial body that would decide it is unconstitutional for our children to . . . declare their belief in God . . . . the hour is indeed late for America, when we would deny our God, from whom all our blessings flow. "This is not a question of separation of church and state; it is a question of oppression of re ligion in America."

Representative Henry C. Schadeberg (Wiscon sin Republican) : "If the name of God is not to be uttered in the public school classroom, then . . . we can look forward to the time when it will become un constitutional to read or to teach the Declaration of Independence in our schools, because this historic document includes . . . references to God as the very Author of our rights . . . .

At the 1958 Conference of Chief Justices of State Courts, 38 chief j ustices endorsed this state ment:

"This is the beginning of . . . a bold attempt to destroy the spiritual foundation of our Nation, and thus our freedom . . . . "

"We do not believe that either the framers of the original Constitution or . . . the draftsmen of the 1 4th Amendment ever contemplated that the Supreme Court should, or would, have the

Representative Joe D. Waggoner, Jr. (Louisiana Democra t) :

Page 101

"Not any time before

III

the short history of

this nation has a more disgraceful or evil act been perpetrated . . . than yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to ban Almighty God from the schools of the land . . . . "I 'am appalled, horrified, ashamed, . . . and ., . . fearful."

, ,Representative Don L. Short (North Dakota Re publican) : "We have reached a strange point in our history when this nation of people) endowed by their Creator (as stated in the Declaration of Inde pendence) should take such a long step toward prohibiting the reiteration of a belief in God "

Representative Ben F. Jensen ( Iowa Republi can) : "I had always thought we could safely assume that acknowledgment of a supreme deity was . . . a universal common ground in this blessed land. "I am horrified that six supreme jurists now think such recognition has no place in the schools, where formative guidance is so important. ' "This is deliberate annihilation of a historical and sacred custom. I pray for America and its honorable Court."

Representative Frank J. Becker (New York Republican) : "This is not the first tragic decision of this Court, but I would say it is the most tragic in the history of the United States . . . ."

Representative Richard H. Poff (Virginia �e publican) called the Prayer decision, " . . . a complete departure from established practice and precedent in American jurispru dence . . . . "

Representative John Bell Williams (Mississippi Democrat) : "Surely no action ever taken by an agency of Government in America has been so destructive of the basic foundations of our society. The implications of this decision and the interpre tations which it suggests, are more terrifying, even than the threats of another war . . . . "I . . . detect in this and other recent actions a deliberate and carefully planned conspiracy to substitute materialism for spiritual values, and thus to communize America . . . . "

Representative Robert L. F. Sikes (Florida Dem ocrat) : "I find , it difficult to choose the adjectives which properly describe this latest bid for infamy by the Nation's highest court. But, I must say that if the Supreme Court were openly in league with the cause of communism, they could scarcely advance it more than they are doing now."

Representative Thomas G. Abernethy (Missis sippi Democrat) : "The decision of the Supreme Court . . . should once again demonstrate . . . that an unbridled Court [ will ] . . . destroy this country . . . . "Legislation is pending before the Congress to calm the power grab of these power-drunken men. We should lay , aside all else until this job is attended to."

Representative William G. Bray ( Indiana Re publican) : "Many of my constituents have asked me if the protection of the laws only applies to com munists and fellow travelers, to atheists and perverts, and to those who would destroy our society. They wonder why this protection is not more often extended to protect things which are good and decent in our society, encouraging patriotism, spiritual devotion, personal morality, and responsibility."

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.. (North Carolina Democrat) : "The writer of this particular opinion-Justice Black . . . . says the right of freedom of speech is absolute and is not subject to any limitation whatever . . . . But . . . . a person cannot talk to God or about God while he is on public-school property."

Senator A. Willis Robertson (Virginia Demo crat) : "The Court would not prohibit the circulation of obscene literature among the youth of the country, but yet it would not allow them to join in the offering of a prayer when they go to school . . . . I was shocked; and I hope all Mem bers of the Senate were shocked and that they will not hesitate . . . to join . . . in a resolution to say to the Court, We will not stand for this

Page 102

any longer. You have gone as far in misinter preting the Constitution and our form of govern ment as we will stand for . . . . "

Senator Herman E. Talmadge (Georgia Demo crat) : "For some years now, the members of the Supreme Court have persisted in reading alien meanings into the Constitution of the United States. Through interpretations which cannot be sustained by either the language of the Consti tution or the intent of the Framers, they have sought, in effect, to change our form of govern ment. "But never in the wildest of their excesses . . . have they gone as far as they did on yesterday when-in a gross distortion of the first amend ment-six of the justices decreed that the volun tary saying of nondenominational prayers in public schools is unconstitutional. "It was an outrageous edict which has numbed

the conscience and shocked the highest sensi bilities of the Nation. If it is not corrected, it will do incalculable damage to the fundamental faith in Almighty God which is the foundation upon which our civilization, our freedom, and our form of government rest . . . . "The first amendment is so clear that any fourth-grade student can understand it. It says simply that: Congress shall make no law re specting an establishment of religion, or prohib iting the free exercise thereof.

"Congress has made no such law . . . . And in the absence of such a law, the Supreme Court is without authority to act on the subject. "In fact . . . a true interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution would hold that the Supreme Court, not the State of New York, has violated it . . . . because the effect of yesterday's ruling was to prohibit the free exercise of religion by the school children of the State of New York . . . .

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a ya rd stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

O R D E R

F O R M

(for pocketsize paperback edition of The Invisible Government) I copy

1.00

6 copies

4.00

10 copies

6.00

25 copies

$ 12.00

50 copies

$ 22.00

100 copies

$ 40.00

500 copies

$1 75.00

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

1000 copies

$250.00

Payment in the amount of ____ enclosed.

___

N arne of person to whom books should be shipped Street Address City

Page 103

State

Zip Code

" [ I ] hope . . . this unconscionable edict will [ arouse ] . . . the American people to demand action by their elected representatives to put an end . . . to . . . judicial encroachments which are destroying freedom and constitutional governÂ ment in this country . . . ."

Hence, I want to express special appreciation to those who are helping again this year to bear the burden, by contributing to our Congressional Fund.

Film For Sale Something Must Be Done

The Warren Court's

apportionment decisions have again raised criticism of the Court to a high pitch, swelling the demand for corrective action. Since the Court's Red Monday decisions of 1957, members of Congress have formally proposed many bills to curb the Supreme Court, and to offset evil effects of some of its decisions. None has yet been enacted by both Houses of Congress ; but in 1965, efforts to do something about the Court are greater in volume and more determined in purpose than ever before. Next week, I shall discuss past and pending proposals to check the Warren Court's dangerous abuse of power, and shall suggest some remedies. *

Each Dan Smoot Report is briefed for radio and television broadcast. Our 1 6 mm. broadcast film for 1 963 and 1 964 are now for sale at $5 .00 each. Send for free list, or order from broadcast number on 1 963 and 1 964 Reports. Film on Reports published during 1 965 are available for $25 .00 each. Allow three weeks for delivery.

Zip Codes We appreciate the response of subscribers in sending us their zip codes but there are still thousands who have not sent them. To insure delivery of your Report, please send us your zip code number immediately, if you have not yet done so.

FOOTNOTES

Congressional Fund

( 1 ) "Six Indictments of the U. S. Supreme Court," by former U. S. Representative Burr P. Harrison ( Dem., Va. ) , Human Events, January 1 1 , 1964, pp. 8-9

The financial burden of sending the Report to all members of the national Congress is great.

( 2 ) Text of speech by Justice M. T. Phelps of the Arizona Supreme Court to the Hiram Club, Phoenix, Arizona, September 18, 1957

6 months - $ 6.00 - $10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $1 0.00 -$10.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

( Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14

Page 1 04

TAYLOR 1 -2303

THE o

I)�II SmootlIeport Vol.

I I,

No. 1 4

(Broadcast 502)

April 5, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

EA R L WA R R E N C O U R T - PA RT I I I "If some partial inconvenience� sb ould appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of . . . [tbe federal judiciary . . powers] mto the . . . [ConstltutlOn] it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences." - Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers, No. 80

less than four years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court (in October, 1 9 5 3 ) , the Court had made a shambles of the nation's internal security laws and pro cedures and had shattered the j uridical and constitutional principles on which our American sys tem is built. There was insistent, widespread demand that something be done. On February 22, 1957, the General Assembly of Georgia unanimously adopted a resolution calling for impeachment of six members of the U. S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 1 957, it was announced in Washington that U. S. Representatives Noah M. Mason (Illinois Republican) and George W. Andrews (Alabama Democrat) would sponsor a movement to start impeachment proceedings against all members of the Supreme Court. No action toward impeachment ensued. On June 24, 1957, U. S. Senators James O. Eastland and Olin D. Johnston (Democrats, Mis sissippi and South Carolina ) proposed a constitutional amendment to make Supreme Court justices subject to Senate approval every four years. This proposal died in committee. , In August, 1957, U. S. Senator William E. Jenner ( Indiana Republican) introduced a bill to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction in five broad categories of cases. By June, 1 958, the Jenner Bill had been laid aside for the Butler Bill, which was intended only to eliminate harmful ef fects of the Warren Court's Steve Nelson case decision (nullifying state laws against sedition and subversive activities) . The House passed the Butler Bill in 1958, but it was defeated in the Senate by one vote. Lyndon B. Johnson, then majority leader of the Senate, voted against the Butler Bill . (1) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $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 254; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 105

In January, 1961, U. S. Senator John L. McClel lan ( Arkansas Democrat) and U. S. Representa tive Howard W. Smith (Virginia Democrat) in troduced bills embodying the proposal of the Butler Bill of 195 8 ; but the McClellan and Smith bills never got out of committee. Within a week after the Warren Court's June 2 5 , 1962 , New York School Prayer Case decision, 35 U. S. Representatives had proposed 36 differ ent bills to do something about this ruling; and 18 Senators were sponsoring similar bills in the Senate. Not one of the bills got out of committee. On August 12, 1963, the House passed the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime Bill which, among other things, nullified some harmful ef fects of the Warren Court's 1957 Mallory case decision. The Senate refused to act on this bill. Congressional dismay over the Warren Court's June 1 5 , 1964, apportionment decisions resulted in positive action by the House of Representatives. On August 19, 1964, the House, by a stand of 2 3 1 to 188, passed the Tuck Bill, which stated that federal courts have no j urisdiction in cases in volving legislative apportionment in the states. The Tuck Bill died, because the Senate refused to act on it. The Tuck Bill ( HR 1 584) was rein troduced in the present Congress on January 5 , 1965. In 1 964, the General Assembly of the States (an agency of the Council of State Governments) suggested that state governments petition Con gress to convene a constitutional convention to write an amendment limiting the power of fed eral courts in state legislative apportionment mat ters. By the first of March, 1965 , 2 1 states had so petitioned Congress. If 34 states (two-thirds of all in the union) petition, Congress must, under the Constitution, call the convention. This method of submitting a constitutional amendment ( for approval by the people, through state conven tions or state legislatures) has never been used. ( 2 ) It is generally believed that sponsors of this movement do not really want a constitutional convention. They hope, rather, that the petition ing will force Congress itself to propose a con stitutional amendment. (2) (10)

During the first ten days of the 89th Congress ( 1 965 ) , members of Congress introduced 7 1 res olutions proposing constitutional amendments to limit the j urisdiction of the U. S. Supreme Court or to offset harmful effects of the Court's recent decisions. Fifty-one of the proposed amendments were aimed at the Court's state-legislative appor tionment decisions ; 1 5, against the Court's deci sions outlawing prayer and Bible-reading in pub lic schools ; five, against other Warren Court usurpations of power. (3)

One

What Should Be Done

fundamental principle of our constitu tional system is that the Constitution is a binding contract, meaning exactly what it says, to be obeyed explicitly by all agencies of the federal government. Even if the President, all members of Congress, and the total population want some thing done, the federal government cannot le gally do it, unless the Constitution clearly author izes the desired action. If - for any purpose whatever - the federal government acts without clear constitutional authority, then we have unauthorized, lawless government. Since human beings - including Presidents and members of Congress - are fallible, it is inevit able that Congress will occasionally enact, and the President will approve, a law which the President and a majority of Congress think the Constitution authorizes - but which others think the Constitution does not authorize. If the constitutionality of such a law - or any law - is tested in the courts, no court has author ity to consider the social, economic, political or other merits or demerits of the law. No court can validly consider such questions as whether the law would be good or bad for the country or whether the people seem to want or not want the law. A court can legally consider only one question: Does the Constitution as amended ob viously give the federal government power to enact the law ? In deciding this question, the court cannot validly entertain such considerations as modern needs or changing times, or altered con-

Page 106

ditions in our society. In making its decision, the court cannot legally rely on its own, or any other, contemporary opinion about the meaning of the constitutional provision in question. Legally, the court must restrict itself to determining what the constitutional provision in question meant at the time it was written and adoptedJ to the people who wrote and adopted it. The original intent of any provision of the Constitution as amended must be determined by the original historical record of that provision. In

the case of a provision in the Constitution itself, the original record consists of debates at the Con stitutional Convention of 1 7 8 7 ; discussions of the provision in the Federalist Papen (a collection of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, explaining the meaning of the Constitution, to persuade the people of the states to approve ratification) ; and official debates in the states which ratified the Constitution.

In the case of a constitutional amendment, the records revealing its original intent consist of debates in the national Congress which submitted the amendment, and debates in the states which adopted it. Generally, the language of the Constitution and the historical record will clearly reveal that the Constitution does or does not grant a power which the federal government assumes in enact ing a law. In rare instances where there may be reasonable doubt whether the government does or does not have the power assumed, the law in question is unconstitutional. It is an absolute cer tainty that the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, and of those who adopted it, was to establish a limited government of enumerated powers. Hence, if the Constitution does not ob viously enumerate a power, the federal govern ment cannot lawfully assume that power.

What is the remedy if

the Constitution does not clearly authorize federal action which the people want ? The remedy is not for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution - to decide that it now means, or should mean, something different from what it originally meant. The

only legal remedy is for the people, acting through processes specified in their Constitution, to amend the Constitution and give the federal government clear authority to do what the people want it to do. What is the remedy if the Supreme Court hands down a decision which clearly violates the original intent of the Constitution ? Article 3, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitu tion says : " . . . 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."

This means that the Supreme Court has no authority to hear any case on appeal unless Con gress has specifically granted such authority. This rule was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1796, in the case of Wiscart venus Dauchy. ( 4 ) Chief Justice John Marshall reaffirmed the rule in 1 8 1 0 in the case of Durousseau versus United States. (4)

The most emphatic statement that the appel late j urisdiction of the Supreme Court is totally dependent on Congress - that Congress can give or take away the Court's authority to hear cases is in United States versus Bitty. In this case, de cided in 1 908, the Supreme Court held that there

is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court ex cept as an act of Congress confers it. (4)

The most dramatic demonstration of congres sional power over the Supreme Court is in the McCardle Case of 1 868. From page 614 of Senate Document No. 1 7 0 : "The power of Congress to make exceptions to the court's appellate jurisdiction has thus be· come, in effect, a plenary power to bestow, with· hold, and withdraw appellate jurisdiction, even to the point of its abolition. And this power ex· tends to the withdrawal of appellate j urisdiction even in pending cases. In the notable case of Ex parte McCardle, a Mississippi newspaper editor who was being held in custody by the tn ili tary authorities acting under the authority of the Reconstruction Acts filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court for

Page 107

Southern Mississippi. He alleged unlawful re straint and challenged the validity [of] the Re construction statutes. The writ was issued, but after a hearing the prisoner was remanded to the custody of the military authorities. McCardle then appealed to the Supreme Court which . . . heard arguments on the merits of the case, and took it under advisement. Before a conference could be held, Congress, fearful of a test of the Reconstruction Acts, enacted a statute withdraw ing appellate . jurisdiction from the Court in cer tain habeas corpus proceedings. The Court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal for want of ju "( 4 ) risdiction .

In addition to Wiscart versus Dauchy in 1796 ; Durousseau versus United States i n 1 8 1 0 ; Ex parte McCardle in 1868 ; and United States versus Bitty in 1908, here are other cases in which the Supreme Court holds, or by its meaning proves, that the Court cannot legally hear a case on appeal and render a valid decision unless Congress has spe cifically granted the Court appellate jurisdiction to handle that kind of case: Ex parte Yerger in 1896; Railroad Co. versus Grant in 1878; Kunz versus Moffitt in 1 885 ; Cross versus BU1'ke in 1892 ; Missouri versus Mis souri Pacific Railroad Company in 1 934; and Stephan versus United States in 1 943.(4)

A constitutional amendment to offset an un constitutional court decision would do more harm than good. For example, most of the proposed amendments resulting from the New York School Prayer Case decision would authorize prayer and Bible· reading in public schools. Such proposals imply that the present Constitution outlaws prayer and Bible-reading, and that the Warren Court was constitutionally correct in its Prayer Case de· cision. The implications are false. This decision violated the Constitution which clearly prohibits any agency of the federal government from meddling in educational and religious matters. Most of the proposed amendments resulting from the Warren Court's legislative apportion ment decisi ons would authorize states to have one legislative chamber whose members are not elected entirely on the basis of population. Such

proposals imply that the states do not already have that authority and that the Warren Court was constitutionally correct in its legislative ap portionment decisions. The implications are false. Under the Constitution , as is, states have full authority to make such legislative apportionment as they please, and federal courts have no au thority to intervene.

The proper remedy against all Warren Court

decisions harmful to our nation is simple legis lative enactment. Congress should pass a law saying the federal courts never did have, do not now have, and never shall have appellate j uris diction in any case affecting religious or edu cational matters ; in any case affecting procedures of state courts or laws enacted by state legis latures ; in any case affecting state and local legislative or executive actions involving efforts to control subversive activities ; in any case affect ing investigative activities of the national Con gress. To eliminate damage already done, the law should declare null and void all federal court decisions in these fields.

Fourteenth Amendment

Most

of the Warren Court's damaging de cisions are based on the Fourteenth Amendment which is not a valid part of our Constitution. 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 co ercion from any branch or agency of the federal government. It is important to keep this in mind while reviewing the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. During the Civil War, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts (radical leader in the Senate) and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania (radical leader in the House ) wanted President Abraham Lincoln to consider the southern states territories or alien lands outside the union, so that they could be treated as conquered provinces if the north won

Page 108

the war. Lincoln refused to do this. Lincoln maintained that the American union was indi visi�le ; that the war was being fought, not to aboltsh slavery, but to suppress rebellion which threatened to dismember the union. (5 ) On December 8, 1 863, Lincoln formally em phasized this doctrine by issuing a proclamation, promising amnesty ( forgiveness ) to people in the confederate states who would swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and to the union, and promise to obey laws and proclamations abolishing slavery. ( 5 ) Inasmuch as the north won the war, Lincoln's point was proved : the southern states never did secede from the union; they merely tried to. The day hostilities ended, therefore, the south ern states were constitutionally entitled to full representation in the national Congress. The fed eral 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 Ulllon. On April 14, 1 865, Lincoln was assassinated ; but on May 29, his successor-Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty patterned on Lincoln's proclamation of December, 1 863. On the same day, Johnson also issued a proclamation to carry out Lincoln's plan of reconstruction. John son's proclamation set up' a provisional govern ment 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. ( 5 ) By July 1 3 , 1 865, President Johnson had ap plied this Lincoln formula for reconstruction to all remaining states in the confederacy. Before Congress convened in December, 1865, all con federate states ( except Texas, which delayed until

the spring of 1866) had thus established legiti mate gO'/ernments. And, as states, all (except

Mississippi and Texas) , had ratified the Thir teenth Amendment, abolishing slavery. But when Congress convened in December, 1 865, the radicals in control refused to seat Rep resentatives and Senators from the confederate states. Therefore, it was an illegal Congress, be cause it denied representation to states constitu tionally entitled to representation. On April 9, 1866, 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 Congress incorpor ated the essential provisions of the Civil Rights Bill in a Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. (4 ) The Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment passed the Senate on June 8, 1 866, by a vote of 33 to 1 1 , with five Senators not voting. On June 1 3, 1866, the House took a final vote on the resolution : 1 20 Representatives for the proposal, 32 opposed, and 32 not voting. This vote in the House would not have been valid, even in a legal Congress, because it did not meet the constitutional requirement that a reso lution proposing a constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both Houses. There were 1 84 Representatives in the illegal Congress on June 1 3, 1866. Two-thirds of that number would have been 123. Only 1 20 voted for the Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amend rpent. Nonetheless, the leadership of Congress arbi trarily declared the Resolution enacted. Congress submitted the Fourteenth Amendment proposal to all states for ratification-including the con federate states which had been denied represen tation. Tennessee was the only confederate state which voluntarily ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. The other ten confederate states (Alabama, Ark ansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Vir ginia) rej ected it. Four states outside the old confederacy also rejected the Amendment: Cali-

Page 109

(6)

(1)

f�rnia, Del �ware, Kentucky, and Maryland. Iowa dId not rahfy the Fourteenth Amendment until Ap �il 3, 1868 ; and Massachusetts did not ratify. untIl March 20, 1 867. Thus, by the first of March, 1867, only 2 1 of the then 37 states said to be in the union had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. (8) At least 28 st�tes had to ratify, to meet the consti . tutIOnal requIrement that amendments must be approved by ' three-fourths of all states. So, on March 2 , 1867, Congress passed the Re construction Act, abolishing governments in the ten confederate states which had rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act placed these ten states under military dictatorship, 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 to hold office-despite the presidential proclamation 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. (5,6,7 ) The Reconstruction Act provided that when the legislatures of these reconstruction governments ratified the Four teenth 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. Congress denied southern states judicial relief, by intimidating the Supreme Court into silence threatening to abolish the Court's appellate juris diction, or to abolish the Court itself, by consti tutional amendment. When Mississippi attempted to secure a court injunction to prevent the President from en forcing the unconstitutional Reconstruction Act (and when Georgia asked for an injunction 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. (9)

President Andrew Johnson called the Recon struction Act a " bill of attainder · against nine million people at once." (9) During debates in the Senate, over passage of the Act, Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, cond�mning the radicals for what they were doing, saId: "The people o f the South have rejected the constitutional amendment [ the Fourteenth ] , and therefore we will march upon them and force them �o ad��t it at the point of the bayonet, and estabhsh mIhtary power over them until they do adopt it." (9)

That is precisely what happened : Army bayo nets escorted illiterate negroes and white carpet baggers to the polls, keeping most southern whites away. By July 20, 1868, Iowa and- Massachusetts had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment , and the legis latures of six "reconstructed" confederate states ( Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina) had ratified. These eight new ratifications, plus the 2 1 which had been completed before March, 1 867, made a total of 29 state ratifications by July 20, 1 868. But legislators of two northern states had changed their minds. Their sense of decency out raged by the whole monstrous procedure, legis lators of New Jersey (on March 24, 1 868 ) and of Ohio (on January 1 5 , 1868 ) withdrew their ratifications, and rejected the Fourteenth Amend ment. Consequently, there were still not enough ratifications to adopt the Amendment. -There had to be 28. There were only 27. (8,9) On July 20, 1 868, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed that three-fourths of the states had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment if the legislatures which ratified in the six con federate states were authentically ofganizedJ 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. (8,9) On July 2 1, 1 868, Congress passed a j oint reso lution declaring the Fourteenth Amendment a valid part of the Constitution, directing Seward

Page 1 10

to proclaim it as such. On July 28, 1 868, Secretary Seward certified, without reservation, that the Amendment was part of the Constitution. (4.5 )

F reedom of the slave race was, ostensibly, the exclusive purpose of the framers of the Four teenth Amendment. Yet, as soon as the Amend ment 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 federal courts, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government authority to supervise activ ities of state and local governments. In 1873, the Supreme Court heard the first case testing this doctrine, and held that the Four teenth Amendment did not authorize federal in tervention in state and local affairs. The Court said the real purpose of those who claimed such ' federal authority under the Fourteenth Amend� ment, "was to centralize in the hands of the fed eral government powers hitherto exercised by the states." (4 ) To foster such intentions, the Court declared, would be " . . . to constitute this Court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States . . . with author ity 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 subject ing them to the control of Congress, in the exer cise of powers, heretofore universally conceded to them, of the most ordinary and fundamental character. "We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress, nor by the legislatures which ratified this Fourteenth Amendment." (4 )

The Court's position on this point began to weaken at the turn of the century; and, by the 1 930's, the Court had begun to assume j uris diction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to act as "censor upon . . . legislation of the states." The Warren Court has used the Fourteenth Amendment to convert itself into a judicial oli garchy, with unlimited power to do what it pleases.

Obviously,

we need to eliminate the Four teenth Amendment and nullify all court decisions, executive actions, administrative regulations, and laws based on it. How ? By simple legislative enactment, Con gress could proclaim the Amendment invalid; but this would be dangerous. It could set a prece dent which Congress might try to use in elimi nating a 1)alid amendment to the Constitution. Congress could enact a resolution proposing repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment; but this would imply that the Amendment is now legal. The only proper remedy appears to be a reso lution by Congress re-submitting the Fourteenth Amendment to all states for proper ratification or rej ection. In other words, this vital question should be resolved not by some branch or agency of gov ernment, but by the people themselves, acting through their state legislatures by due consti tutional process. If the people want the Four teenth Amendment and all that it has produced, they could persuade three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify it legally. N EXT WEEK

We will conclude this four-part senes on the Earl Warren Court. FOOTNOTES

For specific information on Supreme Court decisions mentioned herein, see this Rep01·t, "Earl Warren Court - Part I." ( 1 ) Congressional Record, August 21, 1958, p . 17437 ( daily) ( 2 ) " 2 1 States Pressing For Apportionment Amendment," Con gressional QuaYle"'y Weekly Repof/, March 5, 1965, pp. 3 39, 3 59 ( 3 ) "Amendments Hit The Court," by Ken Thompson, The Dallas Morning News, February 2 2 , 1965, Sec. 4, p. 2 ( 4 ) The Constitution of the United States of Amefica, Analysis and

Intefpretation: Annotcllions of Cases Decided by the Supfeme Court of the United States to June 30, 1952, prepared by the

and edited by Edward S. Corwin, published as Senate Document 170, May 30, 1953, pp. 614-6, 749-49, 966-78 ( 5 ) The Encyclopedicf B" itanJ1ica, Fourteenth Edition, Vol. 22, pp. 8 1 0 ff. ( 6 ) Andrew Johnson: A Study III Coufage, by Lloyd Paul Stryker, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1929, Chapter XXVI ( 7 ) A Bfochure On The 14th Am endment, written and published by John B. Mason, 357 East Wood, Raymondville, Texas, 1956 ( 8 ) The Fourteenth Amendment T o The Constitution Of The United States, A Study, written and published by Walter E . Long, P. O . Box 1 , Austin, Texas, 1960 ( 9 ) "The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment," by Walter ]. Suthon, Jr., Tulane Law Review, Vol. XVIII, New Orleans, Louisiana, December, 1 9 5 3 pp. 22-44 ( 10 ) Introduced as HR 5 688 in the present Congress, this bill to

Page 1 1 1

Legislati ve Reference Service of the Library of Congress

null ify h:lrrnful effects of the Mallory Rule w:>.s again passed

by the House on March 2 2 , 1965. It now awaits action in the Senate.

BOU N D VOL U M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT The

Smoot Report

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

Reports for

a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOL U M E IS A TREAS U R E HOUSE OF I N FOR MATION FOR ( Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

VO LU M E X - 1 964:

$ 10.00::;

$ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E IX - 1 963: $ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E V I I I - 1962: $ 1 0.00*

Revea l i ng stud ies i n d e pth o n such

A c h ro n o lo g ical acco u nt and a n a lysis

Contem porary

able

sub j ects as - NAT I O N A L CO U N C I L

h i storic

year - THE

ASSAS

events,

a n a lyses

aga i n st the

m e m o r backdrop

O F C H U RCH ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

S I NAT I O N

. . . I M M I G RATI O N LAWS . . . M ED I

. . . ALLIANCE FOR PROGR ESS . . .

PRAYER D E C I S I ON S ' . . . THE M I S-

LAW LESS G OV E R N M ENT . . . C H I NA

S I SS I PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . .

T H E STATE DEPARTM E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . H OW FOR E I G N A I D

C U BA . . . CONGO I NT R I G U E . . .

ON POVERTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G E N -

I S K I LL I N G A M E R ICA . . . W O R L D

PROGR ESS IVE E D U CATI O N . . . E U -

ERAL

COMMU

COURT .

R I G HTS

TRAGEDY

CAR E . . . COM M U N I ST S P I ES

N ISM

MACARTH U R IN

M OVEM ENT

TH E .

C IV I L .

THE

I NV I S I B L E

. OF

U R BAN

R E N EWAL

h i st o ry - S U P R E M E C O U RT'S

ROPEAN C O M M O N M A R K ET . . . U N

M EM B E R S H I P

A N D WO R L D GOV E R N M ENT . . . TH E

DISARMAMENT U.

WAGES

IN THE U N

WELFARE

GOVE R N M E N T

SOC I A L I S M

TH E

RAC KET

O R D E R FORM B E LOW

YOU R NAM E : STR E ET:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

P. O. BOX 9 538

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

C I TY A N D STATE:

____

T H E DAN SMOOT R EPORT

DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __

CO PiES BOU N D VO LU M E X ( 1 964) - $ 1 0.00 each ':'

____

COPi ES BOU N D VO LU M E IX ( 1 963) - $ 1 0.00 each �'

____

COPiES BOU N D VOLU M E V I I I

( 1 962) - $ 1 0 . 00 each ':'

* ($ 1 0 .20 each for ord ers i n Texas for Texas Del ivery)

Page 1 12

____

Payment Enc losed

THE o

IJI/II SmootlIe,o,t Vol.

I I,

No. 1 5

(Broadcast 503)

April 1 2, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

EA R L WA R R E N C O U R T - PA RT I V "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of Oftf government by the noiseless, and therefore alarmmg, mstt'llmentaftty of the supreme court.JJ Thomas Jefferson ( 1 )

1117-

Warren Should Be Impeache d

law of Congress prohibiting the Supreme Court from accepting j urisdiction in any of the types of cases which it has wrongly handled, and nullifying decisions already handed down in such cases ; and a resolution of Congress, re -submitting the Fourteenth Amendment for re jection or ratification by the people-these two measures would eliminate most of the damage done by the Warren Court and would prevent similar damage in the future. But that is not enough. Simple legislative action will flot undo the major disservice which Warren has done in de stroying public respect for the Supreme Court. To re-establish the Court as a venerated part of our magnificent constitutional system, Congress should impeach Earl Warren.

The

Constitution says federal judges shall hold their offices-not for life-but during good behavior. It also says, "judicial Officers . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution . Concerning impeachment, the Constitution provides : "

"The House of Representatives shall . . . have the sole Power of Impeachment "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Pur· pose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present . .

THE DAN SM OOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of spec ific 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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 1 1 3

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Convic tion of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors."

Treason is defined as "Levying War against

them [ the United States ] , or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." During impeachment proceedings against Presi dent Andrew Johnson (in 1 868 ) this definition was developed :

"An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of dis cretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose."(2)

Earl Warren could be impeached for high crimes, misdemeanors, failure to be bound by oath of office, and , possibly, treason. Witnesses could include prominent persons quoted in this Report last week (and many others ) who have condemned Warren for violating his oath to support the Constitution, and for aiding communists who are sworn enemies of the United States. The primary witnesses could be Warren's fellow Supreme Court j ustices-men whose dis sents from decisions in which Warren participated are clearly accusations of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors, as officially defined in 1 868.

Testimony Against Warren

B elow

are samples of the kind of testimony against Earl Warren which can be gleaned from official opinions of Associate Supreme Court Justices. The 1 2 cases from which the samples are taken were decided during the period, 1 956-1964, and were briefly reviewed in "Earl Warren Court-Part I," the March 22, 1 965, issue of this Report. THE CASE OF SUBVERSIVE FEDERAL EM PLOYEES. Associate Justices Tom Clark, Stanley

Reed, and Sherman Minton dissented in the War ren Court's 1956 decision that the Summary Sus pension Act of 1950 app lied only to federal employees in sensitive positions. Justice Clark wrote the dissenting opinion, saying: "The Court's order has stricken down the most effective weapon against subversive activity avail able to the government. It is not realistic to say that the Government can be protected merely by applying the Act to sensitive jobs. One never knows j ust which job is sensitive. The janitor might prove to be in as important a spot security wise as the top employee in the building."

KONIGSBERG CASE. Dissenting in the War ren Court's Konigsberg Case decision of May 6, 1 957, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan said : "It seems to me altogether beyond question that a state may refuse admission to its bar to an applicant, no matter how sincere, who re fuses to answer questions which are reasonably relevant to his qualifications and which do not invade a constitutionally privileged area . . . . "But what the Court has really done, I think, is simply to impose On California its own no tions of public policy and judgment. For me, today's decision represents an unacceptable in trusion into a m atter of State concern."

SCHWARE CASE. Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter voted with the Warren Court ma j ority in the Schware Case decision of May 6, 1957, but wrote a separate, concurring, opinion, saymg: "Admission to practice in a state and before its courts necessarily belongs to that State . . .

"It is beyond this Court's function to act as overseer of a particular result of the procedure established by a particular State for admission to its bar . "Especially in this realm, it is not our business to substitute our judgment for the State's j udg ment - for it is the State in all the panoply of its powers that is under review when the ac tion of its Supreme Court is under review." .

JENCKS CASE. Dissenting in the Warren Court's Jencks Case decision of June 3, 1957, Associate Justice Tom Clark said: "The Court . . . . fashions a new rule o f evi dence which is foreign to our federal juris-

Page 1 1 4

prudence . . . . The rule announced today has no support in any of our cases. Every federal judge and every lawyer of federal experience knows that . . . . "Unless the congress changes the rule an nounced by the Court today, those intelligence agencies of our government engaged in law en forcement may as well close up shop, for the Court has opened their files to the criminal and thus afforded him a Roman holiday for rum maging through confidential information as well as vital national secrets . . . . "It opens up a veritable Pandora's box of troubles. And all in the name of Justice."

WA T K I N S CASE. Dissenting in the Warren Court's Watkins Case decision of June 17, 1957, Associate Justice Tom Clark said : "As I see it the chief fault in the m ajority opinion is its mischievous curbing of the inform ing function of the Congress. "So long ·as the object of a legislative inquiry is legitimate . . . it is not for the courts to in terfere with the committee system of inquiry. To hold otherwise would be an infringement on the power given the Congress to inform itself, and thus to trespass upon the fundamental American principle of separation of powers. The majority [ of the Supreme Court] has substi tuted the judiciary as the grand inquisitor and supervisor of congressional investigations. It has never been so."

YATES CASE. In the Yates Case decision of June 17, 1 957, the Warren Court, which is an appellate court, usurped the function of a jury in a trial court, thus violating a' basic principle of American j urisprudence. Dissenting in this case, Associate Justice Tom Clark said : "In its long history I find no [ other ] case i� which an acquittal has been ordered by thIS Court solely on the facts. It is somewhat late to start in now usurping the function of the jury, especially where new trials are to be held cover ing the same charges."

NEW YORK SCHOOL PRAYER CASE. Dis senting in the Warren Court's New York School Prayer Case decision of June 25, 1962, Associate Justice Potter Stewart said : ". . . the court says that in permitting school children to say . . . [ a ] simple prayer, the New

York authorities have established 'an official re ligion.' "With all respect, I think the court has mis applied a great constitutional principle. I can not see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in recit ing this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our na tion . . . . "

APPORTIONMENT CASES. In 1905, Associ ate Justice John Marshall Harlan (grandfather of the present Supreme Court j ustice with the same name) dissented in a Supreme Court de cision which overturned a New York State law regulating working hours in bakeries, saying: "No evils arising from . . . [ State ] legislation could be more far-reaching than those that might come to our system of government if the judiciary, abandoning the sphere assigned to it by the fundamental law, should enter the do main of legislation, and upon grounds merely of j ustice or reason or wisdom annul statutes that had received the sanction of the people's representatives . . . . "

On June 1 5 , 1964, the present Associate Justice Harlan (echoing the prophetic sentiments of his grandfather) dissented in the Warren Court's apportionment decisions , saying : "These decisions . . . have the effect of plac ing basic aspects of State political systems under the pervasive overlordship of the Federal j udi ciary. Once again, I must register my protest. "Today's holding is that the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment requires every State to structure its legislature so that all the members of each house represent substantially the same number of people . . . . "The equal-protection clause was never in tended to inhibit the States in . . . apportion ment of their legislatures. This is shown by the language of the 1 4th amendment taken as a whole, by the understanding of those who pro posed and ratified it, and by the political prac tices of the States at the time the amendment was adopted . . . . "The failure of the Court to consider any of these matters cannot be excused or explained by

Page 115

any concept of 'developing' constitutionalism. It is meaningless to speak of constitutional 'develop ment' when both the language and the history of the controlling provisions of the Constitution are wholly ignored . . . . "State legislative apportionments, as such, are wholly free of constitutional limitations . . . . The Court's action now bringing them within the purview of the 1 4th amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amend ing power by this Court . . . . "So far as the Federal Constitution is con cerned, the complaints in these cases should all have been dismissed . . . because what has been alleged or proved shows no violation of any con stitutional right . . . . "The history of the adoption of the 1 4th amendment . provides conclusive evidence that neither those who proposed nor those who rati fied the amendment believed that the equal -pro tection clause limited the power of the States to apportion their legislatures as they saw fit. More over, the history demonstrates that the inten tion to leave this power undisturbed was de liberate . . . . "The Court's elaboration of its new 'consti tutional' doctrine indicates how far - and how unwisely - it has strayed from the appropriate bounds of its authority . . . . It is difficult to imag ine a more intolerable and inappropriate in terference by the j udiciary with the independent legislatures of the States . . . . "Records such as these in the cases decided today . . . . present a j arring picture of courts threatening to take action in an area which they have no business entering, inevitably on the basis of political judgments which they are in competent to make. They show legislatures of the States meeting in haste and deliberating and deciding in haste to avoid the threat of j udicial interference . . .

these cases, however desirable it may be thought in itself, will have been achieved at the cost of a radical alteration in the relationship be tween the States and the Federal Government, more particularly the Federal judiciary. Only one who has an overbearing impatience with the Federal system and its political processes will believe that that cost was not too high or was inevitable . . . . "The Constitution is an instrument of govern ment, fundamental to which is the premise that in a diffusion of governmental authority lies the greatest promise that this Nation will realize liberty for all its citizens. "This court, limited in function in accordance with that premise, does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its authority, even to satisfy justi fied impatience with the slow workings of the political process. For when, in the name of con stitutional interpretation, the court adds some thing to the Constitution that was deliberately excluded from it, the court in reality substitutes its view of what should be so far the amending process."

Associate Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting in the June 1 5 , 1964, apportionment decisions, said: "The Court's draconian [ which means, ac cording to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, barbarously severe; harsh; cruel ] pronounce ment, which makes unconstitutional the legisla tures of most of the 50 States, finds no support in the words of the Constitution, in any prior de cision of this Court, or in the 1 75-year political history of our Federal Union . . . ."

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING CASE. Dissenting in Wesberry versus Sanders, the Warren Court's congressional districting case de cision, February 17, 1964, Associate Justice Harlan said:

"What is done today [ by the Supreme Court ] deepens my conviction that judicial entry int? this realm is profoundly ill-advised and constI tutionally impermissible . . . . The vitality of our political system, on which in the last analysis all else depends, is weakened by reliance on the judiciary for political reform; in time, a com placent body politic may result. "These decisions also cut deeply into the fab ric of our federalism . . . . The aftermath of

" I had not expected t o witness the day when the Supreme Court of the United States would render a decision which casts grave doubt on the constitutionality of the composition of the House of Representatives. It is not an exaggeration to say that such is the effect of today's decision . . . . "It is unsound logically on its face and demon strably unsound historically . . . . "It goes without saying that it is beyond the province 'Of this Court to decide whether equally

Page 1 1 6

populated districts is the preferable method for electing Representatives, whether state legisla tures would have acted more fairly or wisely had they adopted such a method, or whether Congress has been derelict in not requiring state legis latures to follow that course. Once it is clear that there is no constitutional right at stake, that ends the case . . . . "The Court's holding is, of course, derogatory not only of the power of the state legislatures but also of the power of Congress, both theoreti cally and as they have actually exercised their power . . . . It freezes upon both, for no reason other than that it seems wise to the majority of the present Court, a particular political theory for the selection of Representatives . . . . "The . . . language of Article I, Sections 2 and 4 [ of the Constitution ] , the surrounding text, and the relevant history are all in strong and consistent direct contradiction of the Court's holding . . . . "It cannot be contended, therefore, that the Court's decision today fills a gap left by Con gress. On the contrary, the Court substitutes its own judgment for that of the Congress . . . . "The claim for. judicial relief in this case strikes at one of the fundamental doctrines of our system of government, the separation of powers. In upholding that claim, the Court at tempts to effect reforms in a field which the Con stitution, as plainly as can be, has committed exclusively to the political process . . . .

"The Constitution does not confer on the Court blanket authority to step into every situ ation where the political branch may be thought to have fallen short . . . .

"What is done today saps the political process . . . . By yielding to the demand for a judicial remedy, in this instance, the Court in my view does disservice both to itself and to the broader " values of our system of government .

Associate Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Wesberry versus Sanders, says : " . . . the Constitution gives no mandate to this Court or to any court to ordain that congres sional districts within each State must be equal in population."

SIT-IN CASES. Associate Justices Harlan, Black, and White dissented in the Warren Court's

June 2 2 , 1964, decision which overturned the con victions of sit-in demonstrators who had been tried under local and state laws prohibiting tres pass on private property. The Court gave no grounds for its decision. The dissenting justices said : "We think that the question should be decided and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid this application of a state's trespass laws . . . to prosecute for crimes committed against a person or his property, however narrow the victim's views may be . . . . Such a doctrine would not only be based on a fiction, it would also severely handicap a state's efforts to maintain a peaceful and orderly society. "Our society has put its trust in a system of criminal laws to punish lawless conduct . . . it would betray our whole plan for a tranquil and orderly society to say that a citizen, because of his personal prejudices, habits, attitudes, or be liefs is cast outside the law's protection and can not call for the aid of officers sworn to uphold the law and preserve the peace. " [ The 1 4th Amendment ] . . . does not prohibit privately owned restaurants from choosing their own customers. It does not destroy what has until very recently been universally recognized in this country as the unchallenged right of a man who owns a business to run the business in his own way so long as some valid regulatory statute does not tell him otherwise."

MONROE CASE. Dissenting in the Warren Court's February 20, 1 961, Monroe Case decision, Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter said the effect of the decision was to convert the U. S. Consti tution into a, "law to regulate the quotidian [ daily] business of every traffic policeman, every registrar of elections, every city inspector or' investigator, every clerk in every municipal licensing bureau in this country."

NOLA CASE. Dissenting in Fay versus Noia (March 1 8, 1963 ) , Associate Justice Tom Clark said: "Beyond question the federal courts .until t� day have had no power to release a pns�ner III respondent Noia's pre�ica�ent, there be�ng .no basis for such power III eIther the ConstItutIon or the statute. But the Court today in releasing

Page 1 17

Noia makes an abrupt break not only with the Constitution and the statute but also with its past decisions, disrupting the delicate balance of federalism so foremost in the minds of the Founding Fathers and so uniquely important in the field of law enforcement. The short of it is that Noia's incarceration rests entirely on an adequate and independent state ground-namely, that he knowingly failed to perfect any appeal from his conviction of murder . . . .

is one of the most disquieting that the Court has rendered in a long time . . . .

"The Court . . . effectively swings closed the doors of justice in the face of the State, since it certainly cannot prove its case 20 years after the fact . . . .

Rationale of Impeachment

"There can be no question but that a rash of new applications from State prisoners will pour into the Federal courts, and 98 percent of them will be frivolous . . . . This influx will necessarily have an adverse effect upon the disposition of meritorious applications, for . . . they will be buried in a flood of worthless ones . . . . "Second, the effective administration of crimi nal justice in State courts receives a staggering blow. Habeas Corpus is in effect substituted for appeal, seriously disturbing the orderly disposi tion of State prosecutions and jeopardizing the finality of State convictions in disregard of the States' comprehensive procedural safeguards which, until today, have been respected by the Federal courts. Essential to the administration of j ustice is the prompt enforcement of judicial decrees. After today, State judgments will be relegated to a judicial limbo, subject to Federal collateral attack . . . . "The rights of the States to develop and en force their own judicial procedures . . . . are today attenuated if not obliterated in the name of a victory for the 'struggle for personal liberty.' But the Constitution comprehends another strug gle of equal importance and places upon our shoulders the burden of maintaining it - the struggle for law and order. "I regret that the Court does not often recog nize that each defeat in that struggle [ for law and order ] chips away inexorably at the base of that very personal liberty which it seeks to protect . . . ."

Dissenting in Fay versus Noia, Associate Justice Harlan said : "This decision, both in its abrupt break with the past and in its consequences for the future,

"The federal courts have no power, statutory or constitutional, to release the respondent Noia from state detention . . . . In what it does today, the Court has turned its back on history and struck a heavy blow at the foundations of our federal system . . . ."

pointed out in "Earl Warren Court Part III," proposals that U. S·, Supreme Court j ustices be impeached were made in February and June, 1957. In the July 1 , 1 957, issue of this Report, I reviewed enough dissenting opinions in Warren Court decisions to show that the j ustices could logically be impeached on the basis of what they were saying about each other. Early in 1961, the John Birch Society launched a project in public education, to create an edu cated concern and insistent demand that would persuade the House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against Chief Justice Earl Warren. Whereas earlier suggestions about the impeach ment of several Warren Court justices had created relatively little interest, the John Birch Society's singling out Earl Warren evoked howls of rage from communists and liberals throughout the land. The impeach-Earl Warren project started an incredible avalanche of false and distorted propaganda intended to discredit the John Birch Society as a "hate group" and all its members as fools, crackpots, or subversives more dangerous than communists. The John Birch Society still demands impeach ment of Earl Warren, and leftwing hatred of the Society still grows. A trenchant commentary on this situation was made by Federal Judge T. Whitfield Davidson of Dallas, a profound constitutional scholar who has been on the federal bench for more than 30 years-probably the ablest man to grace the fed eral judiciary in this century. In a letter published

Page 118

by The Dallas Morning News} December 3, 1 964, Federal Judge Davidson said: " . . . I a m not a member [ of the John Birch Society ] and am not personally acquainted with any m an or woman who is a member, according to my knowledge; but during the recent cam paign I had heard it criticized as a group of ex tremists; and I have asked several people who made the criticism to tell me what was the extreme; and none of them could tell me . . . . "I have never heard of the John Birch Society's advocating anything in particular which I would consider extreme. The worst thing they have been charged with was an effort to impeach Justice Warren. Well, Thomas Jefferson wanted to impeach Judge Chase of the same court. He was impeached and tried, though acquitted. "Andrew Johnson was impeached and ac quitted, but the people who urged the impeach ment in each case have never been outlawed nor has any well-organized group demanded that they be outlawed. "And our senior member of Congress, the Hon. Wright Patman, introduced into Congress an act to impeach Andrew Mellon when he was secretary of the Treasury. We have never jumped on Wright or denounced him as an extremist."

W h at You Can Do

T he Earl Warren Court has virtually scrapped

the Constitution of the United States, leaving us at the · mercy of a little oligarchy of men who have usurped power to revolutionize our society and remake our organic law, in compliance with their personal ideologies, whims, and moods. The demand that something be done about the Court is great, but most proposals formally being made at present are wrong. As I pointed out last week, any constitutional amendment to offset the harmful effects of an unconstitutional Warren Court decision would do more harm than good. To solve the problem, Congress should do three things:

appellate jurisdiction in any case affecting re ligious or educational matters; in any case affect ing procedures of state courts or laws enacted by state legislatures; in any case affecting state and local legislative or executive actions in volving efforts to control subversive activities; in any case affecting investigative activities of the national Congress-and declaring null and void all federal court decisions already handed down in these fields; (2) Enact a resolution re-submitting the Four teenth Amendment to all states for proper rati fication or rejection; (3) Impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Congress will do none of these things until public demand is overwhelming. Public demand will never be great enough, until the public is informed and aroused to action. The job of those who know what should be done is to educate others. You who agree with my proposals can do a valuable public service by widely distributing reprints of this four-part series of Reports on the Earl Warren Court. Any Report in the series can be ordered in bulk at our regular reprint prices (quoted at the bottom of the first page of each Report ) . All four Reports can be ordered as a set, at the following special pnces : $ .75 1 set $ 4.75 10 sets $ 9.75 2 5 sets $ 19.50 50 sets $35 .00 100 sets FOOTNOTES

For specific information on Supreme Court decisions mentioned herein, see this Report, "Earl Warren Court-Part 1." ( 1 ) The Constitutional Principles of Thomas Jefferson, by Caleb Perry Patterson, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1953,

p. 71 ( 2 ) The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 30, 1952,

( 1 ) Pass a law saying the federal courts never did have, do not now have, and never shall have Page 1 19

prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress and edited by Edward S. Corwin, published as Senate Document 170, May 30, 1953, pp. 503

flmtr1cQ's IlromiSt by DAN SMOOT

by DAN SMOOT Revealing the plans for a Socialist America in

a Socialist World!

'-Clothbound -

....

, ---:\

Pocketbook

$4.00 $1 .00

5 0c

\ \" ...

6 copies for $4.00; 1 0 for $6.00; 25 for $ 1 2.00; 50 for $22.00; 1 00 for $40.00; 500 for $ 1 75.00; 1 000 for $25 0.00.

copy

AMERICA'S PROMISE is an 18-page, paper bound handbook, setting out the basic funda mentals of Constitutional Americanism. Long-playing records (33V3) of

1Chr �opr <Sf 1Chr �orld

Dan Smoot speeches

by DAN SMOOT Described

Uthe greatest tribute

to Christianity ever written

layman "

2 00

a copy

A "hard-hitting, sometimes A thrilling speech, full of hilarious, album, which tells fa c t and humor, on the a star-spangled story " American struggle for liberty $3.98 each THE DAN SMOOT REPORT

Name

P. O.

Street City, State THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT (pocketbook)

-$ 1.00

THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT (cloth back)

-$ 4.00

THE HOPE OF THE WORLD (clothback)

-$2.00

AMERICA'S PROMISE (paperback)

-$ .50

THE FEARLESS AMERICAN (record)

-$ 3.98

___

� EACON LARKIN'S HORSE (record) Texans add 2% State Sales Tax

Box

9538

DALLAS, TEXAS 75214

-$3.98

Page 120

Check enclosed

THE o

IJtlll SmootlIeport Vol. 1 1, No. 1 6

(Broadcast 504)

April 1 9, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H R O U G H T H E L O O K I N G G LA S S "The time has come," the Waltus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax Of cabbages - and kings And why the sea is boiling hot And whether pigs have wings."

T h e Day T h e UN Laug h ed

Article 1 9 of the UN Charter says that any member nation two years "in arrears in the pay ment of its financial contributions" to the UN "shall have no vote in the General Assembly." By January, 1964, the Soviet Union was two years in arrears in paying its UN assessments. On February 27, 1 964, Harlan Cleveland, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Or ganization Affairs, announced that the United States would exert all its power and influence to invoke Article 1 9 and prohibit the Soviets from voting on any issue in the UN General Assembly, if the Soviets had not reduced their indebtedness before the 19th session of the General Assembly began in the fall of 1 964. Mr. Cleveland said UN failure to force the Soviets to pay their past-due assessments would create widespread protest in the United States and seriously threaten United States participation in the UN. (2) Throughout 1 964, spokesmen for the Johnson administration repeated the warning issued by Mr. Cleveland, and reiterated his implied threat that if the UN did not take action against the Soviets, the United States would curtail or stop its contributions to the UN. (1) By the end of November, 1 964, the UN problem was at an impasse. The Soviets would not pay their past-due assessments and said they would walk out of the UN if any attempt was made to invoke Article 1 9 against them. The 1 9th session of the UN General Assembly, scheduled to begin on December 1 , could not legally convene unless the United States backed down from (1)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 121

its firm stand, because the first important order of business for each new session is an election, by vote of all members present, of a General As sembly president. (1) U Thant, UN Secretary General, devised a scheme to by-pass normal procedures : through informal discussion, UN delegates would agree on a candidate for assembly president and then, on the opening day of the new session, install him in office by unanimous acclamation without putting the matter to a vote. The United States, still vowing that it would not permit the assembly to vote until Article 1 9 had been invoked against the Soviets, accepted U Thant's maneuver. On December 1 , 1 964, the UN General Assembly met and, without voting, acclaimed Alex Quaison Sackey assembly president. Quaison-Sackey (UN �pok�sman for the communist dictator of Ghana) 1S w1dely known for his bitter hostility toward the United States. (1 ) On January 26, 1 965, Adlai E. Stevenson spoke to the UN General Assembly, saying the United Nations would be in serious financial trouble if the Soviet Union did not pay 60 million dollars assessed as the Soviet share of the UN peace keeping expenses. If the UN collected from the Soviets, however, the United States pledged (Mr. Stevenson said) to help pay for an international war on poverty to be fought through UN agen cies. Mr. Stevenson said the U. S. had already contributed more than two billion dollars to UN activities and was willing to give much more. (3) It was a remarkable bribe that Mr. Stevenson offered : a promise to increase America's multi billion-dollar contributions to the UN if the UN would collect a mere 60 million from the Soviets. But the UN did nothing and, by mid-February, 1965, was in a most ludicrous condition. Assess ments for its 1 965 budget had not been made, and could not be made without a vote. The United States was still firm about not permitting the assembly to vote on any issue without first in voking Article 1 9 against the Soviets. Quaison- Sackey tried to adjourn the General Assembly, which had done On February

1 6, 1965,

nothing but talk, since its initial illegal action of choosing a president by acclamation on December 1, 1964. (1) Halim Budo, UN delegate from com munist Albania, strode to the rostrum, proposed that the General Assembly resume normal voting procedures, and demanded an immediate vote on his proposal. If Budo did not withdraw his request, the assembly could not adjourn until his proposal was put to a vote. If the United States stood firm, it would invoke Article 1 9 against the Soviets. The Soviets were sure to stand firm and refuse to pay. What would happen ? (4)

There was much scurrying about. Various UN delegates crowded the rostrum begging Budo to yield. Others milled around Quaison-Sackey, whispering advice in his ear. Quaison-Sackey banged his gavel, trying to rule Albania's pro posal out of order. After about two hours of tumult, Quaison-Sackey succeeded, not in ad journing the assembly, but in recessing it for two days ( until Thursday, February 1 8 ) Y ) Thursday morning , before the assembly con vened, the United States delegation informed other delegations that the United States would not yield the point it had steadfastly held and often reiterated : if the assembly tried to vote, the United States would invoke Article 1 9 to disqualify the Soviets. But, at noon on Thursday, as the assembly was beginning to convene, Adlai Stevenson notified UN Secretary General U Thant that the United States would yield and permit a vote on Albania's proposal without invoking Article 1 9Y) As soon as the assembly convened, Halim Budo, who had not been recognized to speak, advanced to the platform and started making a speech, demanding a vote on his proposal. Unable to shut Budo up, Quaison-Sackey turned off the amplifying system; and the delegate from Saudi Arabia dragged Budo back to his seat. (4 ) . Adlai Stevenson took the platform on a point of order to explain that the United States had decided to yield and permit a vote on Budo's proposal without invoking Article 19. Budo, how-

Page 122

ever, would not let Stevenson talk. Standing at his seat, shouting at the top of his voice, Budo claimed that Stevenson had no right to speak until after the vote was taken. Quaison-Sackey, who had recognized Stevenson to make the speech,

banged his gavel and ruled that Budo was correct : the U. S. delegate did not have a right to make

a speech before the vote. Stevenson cited a Gen eral Assembly rule which permitted such speeches on a point of order prior to a vote. Quaison Sackey banged his gavel and reversed himself

again, telling Stevenson to speech. (4)

proceed with his

Unable to talk above the noise the Albanian

delegate was making, Stevenson repeatedly stopped to plead with Quaison-Sackey that Budo be silenced. Eventually, Quaison-Sackey asked Budo to be quiet, saying, "The United States delegate is trying to make a speech, I think. " (4)

scheme to get the UN General Assembly on December 1 , 1 964. It had made the States an object of scorn by permitting which enabled the assembly to adjourn on ary 1 8, 1 965.

started

United a vote Febru

What would President Johnson do about the oft-repeated threat to curtail U. S. contributions to the UN if the UN failed to take action against the Soviets for non-payment of assessments ? The answer came on March 2 5 , 1 965. On that day, Johnson administration spokesmen revealed th�t the United States would continue its contributions to the United Nations ( about $200,00 0,000 this year) , despite failure to force the Soviet Union to make a payment on its $60,000 ,000 past-due assessments. The spokesmen said the Johnson ad ministration considers the Un ited Nations "too important for U. S. foreign policy interests to let it founder." (5)

This comment-laden with contempt for the

United States delegate-brought a roar of de

risive laughter from the assembly. Eventually, the

noise subsided and Stevenson made his pronounce ment : the United States would back down and permit a vote. (4) Laughter and applause erupted.

With sardonic smiles on their faces, the Soviets

and other communist bloc delegates, supported the United States in the only vote taken in the 1 9th session of the UN General Assembly. By a vote of 97 to 2, with 1 3 nations abstaining,

the assembly decided that Albania's proposal was out of order and that the assembly could adjourn until September, 1965, without resuming normal voting procedures. (4)

Communist China was behind the Albanian maneuver which forced the United States to abandon a stand it had maintained for a year, with repeated, emphatic assertions that it would

never yield. Once again, the U. S. State Depart ment had provided amplification for communist propaganda foghorns to proclaim (as they �ave been doing since the Korean war) that the Umted

Our Asian War and Our Allies

March 1 0, 1 9 6 5 , U. S. Representative Paul G. Rogers ( Florida Democrat ) addressed the House, saying :

"Mr. Speaker, in the last half of 1 964, over 200 ships flying the allied flag hauled red car goes into North Vietnam. Ironically, these same ships are being permitted to pick up the profits from U. S. trade in our own ports. "This situation exists at a time when the U. S. merchant marine has slipped to the point where it now carries less than 1 0 percent of America's sea trade . . . . "While over 40 percent of the free-world ships going into North Vietnam fly the British flag, the allied nations of Japan, Greece, Norway, Lebanon, Italy, West Germany, and Panama also engage in this red trade.

States, a paper tiger, roars but cannot b·lte. ( 4 )

"Other free world vessels going into Vietcong ports are using U. S. ports as well. I have urged the State Department to stiffen diplomatic pres sures on those countries shipping for the reds."( 6 )

The Johnson administration had compromised its stated principles in accepting U Thant's i llegal

diplomatic pressures ? What diplomatic pressures have been exerted to stop other nations

Page 123

Stiffen

from aiding the enemy with whom we are at war ? The nations Representative Rogers named Great Britain, Japan , Greece, Norway, Lebanon, Italy, West Germany, and Panama-have received from the United States government, as foreign aid since 1946, more than 39 billion dollars. ( 7 ) That is 1 1 billion dollars more than total ex penditures of the federal government during the first 1 28 years of its existence ( 1 7 89 through 1 9 17 ) -a period which included expenditures on debts incurred during the War for Independence, on the War of 1812, on the Mexican War , on the Civil War, on the Spanish American War, on the first year of preparation for World War I, and on numerous Indian wars. (8)

help the sailors ? More than two-thirds of them are out of a job, unable to find a berth on any American ship, because not enough American ships are sailing. Merchant ships of the world (some of them owned by American capital ) are sailing under the registry of other nations, be cause a ship can be operated more economically under any flag in the world other than the Amer ican flag. Here is another example of government policies driving a vital American industry to foreign lands. The American merchant navy would have vanished completely except for government sub sidies to ship owners. All taxpayers are bled to subsidize some whom the government has driven to the wall.

Our Merchant Marine

R epresentative

Paul G. Rogers' comments about allied shipping to our communist enemy in North Vietnam are significant ; but his most sig nificant comment concerns the U. S. Merchant Marine which, he says, "has slipped to the point where it now carries less than 10 percent of America's sea trade." (6) From the days of the Yankee Clipper until this generation, the American merchant marine was a vital force in world trade. Now, it is dying. Why ? The Seaman's Act of 1919 fixed wage scales on American merchant ships far above those on foreign ships. Since then, federal labor laws have granted unions a tight monopoly on the labor force for the merchant marine. Monopolistic unions require payroll padding and feather bedding practices, and make unrealistic wage and fringe-benefit demands. The federal govern ment forces upon shippers burdensome welfare programs and bookkeeping jobs, and levies upon them (along with all other taxpayers) exorbitant taxes for foreign aid which benefits the shipping and other industries of foreign nations. How much have American merchant sailors benefitted from federal laws and government supported union policies, intended, ostensibly, to

Clergymen and Perverts

O n the evening of January 1 , 1 965, about 600 sex perverts and their friends and a dozen Christian ministers attended a benefit ball for homosexuals at California Hall on Polk Street in San Francisco. The affair was arranged and sponsored by ministers of four major Protestant denominations : Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Church of Christ. The ministers said the purpose of the ball was to raise money to promote "a dialogue between the church and the homo sexual." (9) A squad of men from the sex crime detail of the San Francisco Police Department policed the affair, because, their spokesmen said, "a dance permit had been issued and tickets were being sold publicly." (9) Three attorneys at the ball (Elliot Leighton, Evander Smith, and Herbert Donaldson, who said they had been retained by sponsoring min isters) argued with police officers about the offi cers' presence there. All three were arrested and charged with obstructing police officers. Nancy May ( a claims adjuster for the Teamsters Union security fund) was also arrested for obstruction.

Page 124

Two men (Konrad A. Osterreich and John Bor set) were arrested for disorderly conduct. (9) On January 2, 1965, ministers who had spon sored the affair, held a press conference and denounced the police who "broke up the party an hour early," charging the officers with "in timidation, broken promises, and obvious hos tility." (9 ) The Reverend Ted McIlvenna (young-adult . duector of the Methodist Glide Foundation) , Canon Robert Cromney ( special assistant to Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike) , the Reverend Charles Lewis of the Lutheran North Beach Mission, and the Reverend Clarence Colwell of the United Church of Christ, said the benefit for perverts had been planned after extended but strained negotiations with top police officials. They said the police acted in bad faith, by hav ing a police photographer take pictures of the guests. (9) The Reverend Mr. McIlvenna said that while they were trying to arrange the benefit ball, he and another Methodist minister (the Reverend A. Cecil Williams) had been questioned "by the whole vice squad." "But," he said, "it was a very well-run ball. After the police forced their way in , it took them more than an hour to find any thing wrong." (9) The Reverend Mr. Williams said : "The police department wanted to deal more in theology rather than open up a dialogue . . . . They looked at the rings on our fingers and said, 'We see you're m arried - how do your wives ac cept this?' . . . They said, 'We believe in the Ten Commandments - what do you believe in?' They wanted to know what theological concepts we h ad. I believe their theological j argon and be liefs are somewhat outdated." ( 9 )

Great Society - I llinois

has an unemployed husband. On March 23, 1965, the Internal Revenue Service filed a levy against her wages for an alleged federal income tax lia bility of $164. 18. Prior to this, the woman had never asked for any kind of public assistance. She was proud, and did not want her name on welfare rolls ; but when the government con fiscated her income, she applied for aid to de pendent children. With six children, she will get at least $250.00 a month. Of that amount, the federal government will pay $187. 50.00 ) The woman also applied for emergency relief from the township. She will receive about $200.00 a month from this source, bringing her total welfare income to at least $450.00 a month. (10)

Great Society - Tennessee

One

aspect of President Johnson'S war on poverty involves on-the-job training for unskilled, unemployed youths between the ages of 16 and 2 1 . Public agencies and non-profit organizations hire the youngsters; and government provides money for their salaries : the federal government paying 90%, the local government 10%. ( 11 ) In Memphis, Tennessee, $1,275,000 a year is to be spent on jobs and training for 1 5 00 unem ployed youths selected by the Youth Guidance Commission, which directs the program. Judge Kenneth Turner's Juvenile Court is one of several city agencies designated to participate. Judge Turner agreed to hire 43 young persons and give them on-the-job training as clerks and guards. By March 22, 1965 , he had hired 24-most of them negroes-and was in despair, saying the plan "is j ust about unworkable. " (l1) Judge Turner said that the "PWs" ( poverty workers) are paid $6.2 5 a day, which is more than some of his regular employees get, and that this has caused friction at the court. Mrs. Lena Klyman, court dietitian, has four trainees working in her kitchen. She said: (11)

3 1-year-old white woman, who earns $50.00 a week at a laundry in Bloomington, Illinois, is the mother of six children (ages 5 to 16) and

" . . . and the only thing I've been able to find for them to do is wash the walls. They're doing

Page 125

a good job, but if they stay here much longer there won't be any paint left on the walls." (11)

Thomas R. Boyle, court clerk, said: "The problem is they can't do anything. We can't use them as clerks, because we have to stand over them every minute, and then our regular employees can't get their work done. "This is supposed to be a training program, but we're training one person to be a clerk and another to operate a dishwasher. The others are mostly being paid to pick up trash or stay out of the way . . . . "We had only one girl who was really a big help. But Youth Guidance found out they had hired her by mistake. She had a high school edu cation and couldn't qualify. Too much educa tion."( ll )

Charles Fleer, Youth Guidance Commission director, whose salary escalated from $6500 to $ 1 2,000 when the anti-poverty program went into effect, could not be reached for comment on March 22, 1965, when The Commercial Appeal was preparing the above story for publication.

which the Swedish welfare pours out. Demands are so excessive that one has to wait for one's share. The long lines keep growing longer, with no relief in sight. "Another public frustration feeds on the stul tifying bureaucracy, an unavoidable by-product of the multitude of welfarisms. "Low-income recipients enjoy first choice in the allocation of housing and school facilities, with scant regard for such things as individual ability or productive contribution. "With welfarism comes smothering taxation. Someone has to pay for all that 'security.' "Swedes are estimated to be Europe's most heavily taxed citizens, due to the high cost of the overgrown welfare state. "Prime Minister Erlander himself is an ex ample . . . . His monthly salary is close to the equivalent of $ 1 ,000. After social security levies and taxes he receives a little over $500. He is, in effect, in the 50 percent tax bracket.

From the March 1 5 , 1 96 5 , newsletter of U. S. Representa tive Richard L. Roudebush, Indiana Republican:

"Direct taxes - including social security con tributions - take nearly 24 percent of a bache lor's very modest yearly income of less than $2,000 . . . . With doubled income, the tax rate j umps to 32 percent; the progression reaches 60 percent in the $50,000 bracket. Married couples are financially better off in the low income brackets.

"The advocates of welfarism have an appealing argument, particularly to those who are not vig orous or who lack ambition . . . .

"These figures do not include municipal or property taxes. Capital gains, if any, are taxed too.

"The socialists' dreams for creating a Utopia are, of course, rubbish and represent a scheme that has been tried unsuccessfully since the be ginning of time.

"Sweden's deficit-ridden budget . . . the prime source of its growing money supply . . . relies to a great extent on excises which, of course, do not appear as direct charges. But they boost the cost of living.

(11)

Great Society - Sweden

"But lessons must be learned anew, and an cient history has little appeal or urgency for modern day citizens searching for modern day answers. "Contemporary Sweden offers a better lesson. Hailed by some socialists as a 20th Century Garden of Eden, Sweden is running into some of the problems that always beset a society where the government operates on the theory it better knows how to live its citizens' lives than the citizens themselves . _

"One trouble results from the demand for the educational, medical and housing benefits Page

"The annual rate of price inflation in Sweden is 3.5 percent. . . . "It is small wonder that ambitious Swedes feel discouraged and stymied. The welfare state, for all its promises, is moving relentlessly in the direction of leveling the middle class - down ward. "Growing shortages of teachers, doctors and dentists are . . . symptoms of the frustration caused by the equalitarian drift toward medioc rity."

126

New Though ts On The Old Math By Joyce Loreen McIlvaine, a California schoolteacher

We've been promised many things by the proponents of "New Mathematics." As a teacher, I am currently being educated into the mysteries of set theory and Venn Diagrams, but I confess I still cling hopefully to the security of familiar vocabulary and the multiplication tables. They try to comfort me with the promise that soon I will be rewarded with a more accurate mathe matical language and an increased understanding of the number system which I will miraculously transfer to children and which will enable the coming generation to take its place in the Great Society. The knottiest problem seems to be the vo cabulary. It's difficult to call a spade a heart after all these years, but it isn't the first time this has happened. Just the other day, a group of fellow teachers were complaining that even after years of teaching otherwise, children were still using the word "borrowing" to describe a particular

process III subtraction - you know, the kind where you have to subtract $ 1 .64 from $5.00, and you have all those O's on top. Everybody knows you can't take 4 away from zero, so you "borrow" one from the next column. I learned it that way, and probably you did, too. But several years ago, the experts decided that the word, "borrowing," was a misconcept be cause when you borrow in a subtraction prob lem, you don't pay it back. That was unrealistic, so "borrowing" went on the educational black list. Well, that might have been true a while back, but society has finally caught up with educa tional theory, and I maintain that the concept of "borrowing" and not paying it back is com pletely realistic today. The government does it all the time. It has become a basic law of eco nomics - A National Purpose. Follow the method a bit further. If you're sub tracting $ 1 .64 from $5 .00, and you can't take 4 away from 0, you "borrow" one from the dimes. Of course, the dimes don't have anything either, so they, in turn, "borrow" one from the dollars.

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 195 5 , was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial Dan S�?OI issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-en.terprise business : publis ing The Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and produclOg a weekly news-analYSIS radlO and teleVISion Rep�rt �nd broadcast broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an adver�ising vehicle . . The C nst1tutlon as a yard give one side of important issues : the side that presents do�ented truth USlOl? the AmerIcan � can help unmense1y-help get stick. If you think Sm.oofs materials are effective against SOCialIsm and commUOlsm, you subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

�

O R D E R

F O R M

( for pocketsize paperback edition of The Invisible Government) 1 copy

1.00

6 copies

4.00

10 copies

6.00

25 copies

$ 1 2.00

50 copies

$ 22.00

100 copies

$ 40.00

500 copies

$ 175.00

( Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

1000 copies

$250.00

Payment

___

N arne of person to whom books should be shipped Street Address Zip Code

State

City

Page 127

the amount of

____

enclosed.

The dollars give one to the dimes, and the dimes give one to the pennies. And now, the pennies have a whole dime to play with so you can sub tract 4 and even have 6 left for a color TV. No body's asking you to pay it back. This realism is complete. Can the dimes re fuse to give the pennies? Can the dollars refuse to help the dimes? Of course not. The dimes and the dollars have no choice in the matter. It's the rule of the game. Do you notice that the larger the numbers get, the more they have to give? The pennies don't have to give anything except what you subtract; all they do is ask. But the dimes have to give a whole dime, and the dollars have to give ten times that much; and if it should go to the next column over, well, you can see the possibilities. It's a splendid ex ample of taking from the haves to give to the have nots, and think of the income tax ! Current policy makers, perhaps a little sensi tive about terminology, prefer to call it "re grouping." But "borrowing" is obviously the best way to prepare children for the future. It's a real life adj ustment program. :::

:::

:;:

" What is tbe me of repeating all that st1lff ?" the Mock TlIrtle inlermpted, "if Y01l don't explain it as y01l go on ? It's by far the most confllsing tbing tbat I ever beard!"

- Alice In Wonderland

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) For further details on the UN and its financial and other activities, see this Rep01·t, "The UN Frankenstein, " December 2 1 , 1964. ( 2 ) Special to the Times from the United Nations, The New York Times, February 28, 1964, p. 7 ( 3 ) UPI dispatch from United Nations, The Dallas Morning News, January 27, 1 965, Sec. 1, p. 2 ( 4 ) Special to the Times from the United Nations by Thomas ]. Hamilton, The New York Times, February 19, 1965, pp. 1, 2; "The World: Exit U.N.," The New Y01·k Times, February 2 1 , 1965, Sec. 4, pp. 1, 2 ( 5 ) AP story from Washington, The Dalias Times Herald, Febru ary 2 5, 1965, p. 9A ( 6 ) COllgl'essiollal Record, March 10, 1965, p. 4569 (daily) ( 7 ) "Our Crazy Foreign Giveaway Program," by U. S. Representa tive Alvin E. O'Konski ( Rep., Wisc. ) , Congressional Record,

August 6, 1962, pp. A5998-9 ( daily) ( 8 ) The Budget in Brief, 1 965 Fiscal Year, Bureau of the Budget, 1965, p. 8 1 ( 9 ) "Incidents at a Homosexual Benefit: Angry Ministers Rip Police," by Donovan Bess, Sail Francisco Chr01zicle, January 3, 1965 ( 10 ) AP dispatch from Bloomington, Illinois, The Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 1 ( 1 1 ) "Job Training 'Unworkable,' Juvenile Court Judge Says," The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., March 23, 1965, p. 1 5

For pnces o n single and multiple copies o f this Report, see bottom o f the first page. How many people do you know who should read this Report?

Subscription:

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $1 0.00 -$1 0.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

ZIP CODE

STATE

- $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR Page 128

1-2303

THE o

Stili SmootRe,o,t Vol. 1 1 , No. 1 7

(Broadcast 505)

April 26, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

D E L I V E R U P O U R A RMS "It [the government of Mexico] has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to OUI' defense, the rightful property of freemen, aJld formidable only to tYl'annical govemments."(J }-Texas Declaration of Independence

T he assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November, 1 963, precipitated a rash of demands for more stringent federal firearms control. More than a dozen federal firearms pro posals, introduced in Congress within the first few weeks of 1964, were given serious consider ation ; but none was enacted into law. On March 8 , 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message to Congress on problems of law enforcement and administration of justice. Among other things, the President said: o

"Lee Oswald sent for and received a rifle through the United States mail. I believe that the people of the United States have learned, through the recent tragic loss of President Kennedy, the need for strengthened control." ( 2 )

The President outlined his proposals for new firearms legislation; and, by the end of March, 1965, many bills were before Congress, some providing what the President had requested, some at variance with his proposals. The Second Amendment to the Constitution says : "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is an absolute prohibition against any kind of federal firearms law, because any such law clearly infringes upon the specified right of the people. Consequently, all existing federal fire arms legislation and all now being proposed are unconstitutional. The basic federal statutes in existence are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. The 1934 law was intended to restrict possession and interstate transportaTHE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 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.

Page 1 29

tion of certain types of firearms : submachine guns, sawed-off shotguns, guns with silencers. The 1938 law prohibits interstate transportation of any kind of gun to any person who has been con . victed of, or is under indictment for , a crime of violence; who is a fugitive from justice; or who does not present proof that he is licensed to purchase a gun, if the purchaser lives in a state requiring such license. (3) How much good have these old federal laws accomplished ? None! On January 30 , 1 964, Mr. John M. Schooley ( former president of the National Rifle Associa tion ) testified before a Senate Committee. Mr. Schooley has had over 30 years' experience as a law-enforcement officer-2 5 years as a regional director of the U. S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (which is charged with enforcing the National and Federal Firearms Acts) , and five years as Director of Public Safety and Sheriff of Denver and Denver County, Colorado. Mr. Schooley said: "In m y many years o f . . . law enforcement, I cannot recall one case where the provisions of the Federal Firearms Act prevented one criminal from securing a firearm, nor can I recall one in stance when a crime was prevented by the pro visions of the Act. . . . "At the same time, you will find that many . . . honest citizens have been unnecessarily harassed by the terms of our federal firearms legislation already in effect." ( 4 )

Mr. Schooley spoke of "the futility of attempt ing to reduce crime by legislation that depends upon criminal cooperation for its success," saying: "Such legislation does nothing more than cur tail the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The criminal has never, is not now, nor will he ever be denied the tools of his profession, by legislation directed at the tool and not at him." (4)

What are the tools of criminals ? Mr. Schooley presented statistics ( from FBI Uniform Crime Reports ) on kinds of weapons used ( during 1961 ) in aggravated assaults. Guns were used in 1 2.7ro of the cases. Obj ects suitable for cutting

or stabbing were used in 44% of the cases ; blunt objects were used in 24% ; personal weapons ( hands, fists, feet) were used in 1 2.3ro. Poisons, acids, and other weapons were used in the re maining tro of all reported cases of aggravated assault. (4)

If advocates of gun-control laws really think they can decrease crimes of violence by outlawing weapons used in such crimes, what do they pro pose to do about human hands, feet, teeth, knees, and heads-not to mention kitchen utensils, razor blades, broken bottles, ice picks and whatnot ?

T oday, we have more restrictive firearms regu

lations than ever before in the history of the United States ; and today, there are more crimes of violence (more in actual number, and more in proportion to the total population) than ever before. This is not coincidental ; it is inevitable. Criminal violence against law-abiding citizens will always increase, as citizens are restricted m their right to defend themselves. A free man must have unrestricted right to own and use personal weapons, in defense of his family, his home, and his own person, against any marauder-whether the marauder be a soldier of an invading army, an agent of an internal political conspiracy, or a common criminal. If a man loses his right to free, lawful use of personal firearms, he loses his identity as a free agent in a civilized country. He becomes totally dependent upon centralized police authority for protection of his life, liberty, and property. It is probably no exaggeration to say that an American citizenry, well armed with personal firearms, and possessing the knowledge to use them effectively and properly, would provide more defense against invasion by a foreign enemy -or against internal attempt to seize power than the federal governmen t's annual multi-bil lion-dollar expenditures on national defense. The early history of our nation bears out this assertion, and the example of Switzerland con firms it. Switzerland (which has not been involved

Page 130

in war since 1 5 1 5 ) bases its national defense on a militia system, in which all boys, between ages 1 7 and 19, take voluntary rifle training. At age 1 9, all boys take tests for military service. Those not qualified are given firearms training and re examined periodically. All members of the militia keep their guns, ammunition, and other fighting equipment at home ; and they wear sidearms when going to the polls to vote, not to intimidate any one, but to demonstrate pride in readiness to defend their nation against all enemies, domestic or foreign. In a crisis, Switzerland could instantly mobilize 850,000 men , armed and trained, out of a total population of 5,500,000. This represents, on a per capita basis, the biggest national defense army in the world ; yet, Switzerland has practically no standing army to drain the public treasury for its upkeep and for benefits to its veterans. (5) In 1939 and 1 940 , Finland, with a population of only four million (but with an unusually large number of trained riflemen) was able to resist and humiliate the mammoth armies of the Soviet Union, whose population totaled about 170 mil lion. Why was Sergeant Alvin York so effective in World War I ? Alvin York had grown up in a free part of the world where a good rifle was a more indispensable part of a man's personal equipment than shoes were!

A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is so essential to freedom that tyranny must follow if it is abrogated. Nikolai Lenin and Adolf Hitler-experts at enslaving large segments of the human race understood clearly that a well-armed citizenry is a mighty handicap to dictators. Lenin said: "It is only after we � ave �isarmed the bo� r . geoisie, that the proletarIat, wlth(;)U t betraym� Its world historic mission, can turn Its weapons mto ploughshares. And that is the way the proletariat will act - but only then, and by no means be fore." ( 6 )

Hitler said: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." (6)

Note also this comment by Mahatma Gandhi : "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of de priving a whole nation of arms the blackest." ( G )

Requiring national registration of personallyowned firearms can be quite as disastrous to freedom as total disarmament of the citizenry. In May, 1919, a group of allied intelligence officers raided the headquarters of a revolutionary group in Dusseldorf, Germany. One document seized was entitled "Rules For Bringing About A Revolution. " Three basic rules were set out. The first involved corruption of the young by instilling in them contempt for religion and traditional mo rality. The second involved capturing means of communication so that revolutionists could control the thinking of the people and the programs of government. The third rule read : "Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless."(7)

France had a national gun-registration law be fore World War II. Nazis confiscated the records and the guns, making effective resistance impos sible. It was a firearms registration-and-control law which enabled communists to disarm Czechoslo vakians, thus leaving them helpless when commu nists decided to take over. Many Americans remember the impassioned pleas of the British for personal firearms to defen� their homes and families in 1 940, when a NaZi invasion of England seemed imminent. The Brit ish had been disarmed by their own government, with severe firearms control regulations. that, when our Armies overran Europe toward the end of World

Page 1 3 1

Many Americans also remember

War II, we immediately confiscated and used, wherever possible, the lists of people who had been forced by their own government to register tHeir firearms.

The Dodd-Murphy Bills

O f all present proposals for new federal fire

arms legislation, the bills most likely to be passed are those introduced by Senator Thomas J. Dodd ( Connecticut Democrat) and by Representative John M. Murphy ( New York City Democrat) . The Dodd-Murphy bills have administration sup port, because they would fully implement de mands made by President Johnson. On March 2 2 , 1 965, Senator Dodd introduced two bills : S 1 5 9 1 , to amend the National Firearms Act of 1934 ; and S 1 592 , to amend the. Federal Firearms Act of 1938. On March 2 3 , 1965 , Repre sentative Murphy introduced the same two bills in the House as HR 6629 and HR 6628. (8)

mentioned before, the National Firearms Act of 1 934 sought to restrict possession and inter state transportation of certain types of firearms. The proposed Dodd-Murphy amendment ( S 1 59 1 and HR 6629 ) expands the coverage from fire arm to destructive device. Destructive device, as used in S 1 59 1 , means any bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, or launching device; and any weapon which can expel a projectile---except a shotgun with a barrel 1 8 inches long or longer, a,nd a weapon whose barrel is one-half inch, or less, in diameter. The exceptions include all types of guns normally used in hunting and sporting events. A shotgun with a barrel less than 1 8 inches long is considered a sawed-off shotgun-no good for conventional hunting or sport-shooting, but very effective for indiscriminate destruction at close range. Most hand guns and rifles used in hunting and sporting events have barrels smaller than one-half inch in diameter. In short, coverage of the National Firearms Act of 1 9 34 would be expanded to include every

conceivable kind of explosive device or mecha nism, except guns generally used in hunting and sports. The Secretary of the Treasury would be empowered to make any additional exceptions he pleased - to exclude from the definition of de structive devices any contraption which the Secre tary thinks not likely to be used as a weapon. Importers and manufacturers of destructive de vices would have to notify the Secretary of the Treasury and local law enforcement officials of all transfers of such devices. Persons, other than im porters and manufacturers, who possess a de structive device, could be required to mark the device with whatever "proper identification" the Secretary of the Treasury might designate. Note that the National Firearms Act of 1 9 34, and the Dodd-Murphy bills (S 1 591 and HR 6629 ) now proposed as an amendment to that Act, do not seek to penalize criminals who use prohibited types of firearms or destructive devices. Hence, the old law never did (and, as the Dodd Murphy bills now propose to amend it, never will) keep criminals from obtaining destructive devices for use in the commission of crimes : they merely confer unconstitutional power on the Sec retary of the Treasury to meddle in the private affairs of citizens and to impose burdensome reg ulations upon law-abiding persons who have rights and legitimate reasons to possess or transfer something which the Secretary may consider a de structive device.

and HR 662 8 (the Dodd-Murphy bills which would amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ) are even more objectionable than S 1 59 1 and HR 6629. S 1 5 92 and HR 6628 would: 1 5 92

0 ) Prohibit any person (except authorized dealers, manufacturers, and importers) from shipping or receiving in interstate commerce any type of firearm. This provision would place harsh and unreasonable restrictions upon law abiding citizens who do not have convenient ac cess to licensed dealers for over-the-counter sales and who wish to order sporting firearms by mail. The Treasury Department could impose burden some requirements and penalties on any person who moves from one state to another and wants to take his firearms with him to his new home;

Page 1 32

and on anyone who transports a sporting firearm across a state line for service repairs, for hunting, for participation in a sporting event, or for any other lawful purpose. (2) Prohibit dealers from selling a pistol over the counter to anyone who does not live in the state where the sale is made. This provision, and the restrictions on interstate transportation, woul� impose discriminatory burdens on people who hve near state boundaries and on those who must cross state lines to shop. (3) Empower the Secretary of the Treasury to deny a dealer's license to an applicant, if the Sec retary or his agents do not like the business ex perience, financial standing, or trade connections of the applicant. (4) Empower the Secretary of the Treasury to disapprove the importation of any new fire arm, if the Secretary or his agents believe the im portation would be contrary to public interest. (5) Classify every firearm with a bore diameter of more than one-half inch as a destructive de vice. This would include three-fourths of all an tique guns, subjecting them to federal registra tion, confiscation, or defacement - at the discre tion and pleasure of the Secretary of the Treas ury.(9) (6) Require any manufacturer of ammunition to buy a $500 manufacturer's license every year. Apparently this would apply to gun clubs which re-Ioad ammunition for their own members, and to individuals who re-load for friends. (7) Require anyone selling rifle and hand-gun ammunition (even .22 caliber) to buy a $ 1 00 dealer's license each year. This would be a heavy (in most cases, impossible) burden on small inde pendent stores which now sell ammunition.

The Dodd-Murphy firearms bills would give federal officials unlimited power to impose harsh and burdensome restrictions on all law-abiding citizens who sell, possess, or use firearms. The power could be used to require national regis tration, or even to eliminate the private ownership of guns-by law-abiding persons; but it would never keep criminals from getting and using guns and destructive devices. Indeed, the Dodd-Mur phy bills provide no penalties for criminals who use guns in the commission of crime. The penal ties are aimed at lawful sellers and users of guns. Page

What To Do

O ne firearms bill presently before Congress is

aimed at the proper target-criminal use of fire arms. On March 2, 1965, U. S. Representative Robert R. Casey (Texas Democrat ) introduced HR 5642, a bill providing that, "whoever uses or carries any firearm during the commission of any robbery, assault, murder, rape , burglary, kidnap ping, or homicide (other than involuntary man sl �ughter ) " shall be sentenced to 2 5 years in pnson. In support of his bill, Representative Casey said: "I ask this Congress to stop the harassment of the legitimate gun owner - and instead to open war on the illegal use of firearms by the criminal preying on society."

The Casey firearms bill is the only kind of firearms legislation desirable in a free society; but, as a federal law, it , too , would be unconsti tutional. Responsibility for restricting criminal use of firearms belongs to local and state governments. When enough American voters understand and respect our Constitution, they will elect consti tutionalists to the national Congress. A Congress composed of constitutionalists would repeal all existing firearms laws and refuse to pass any more, because the Constitution absolutely prohibits fed eral firearms legislation. In dealing with the pres ent Congress, however, the people should, per haps, concentrate on limited objectives, one at a time. There is real danger that the Dodd-Murphy firearms bills will pass this year. Constitutional conservatives might realize their maximum effec tiveness if they would concentrate on stopping these specific bills.

Write to the U.

S. Representative from your district and to the two U. S. Senators from your state. Instead of demanding repeal of all existing, and rejection of all pending, federal firearms leg islation, express your disapproval of the Dodd133

Murphy bills-S 1 59 1 , S 1 592, HR 6629, and HR 6628. Make your letters brief and courteous. Say simply that you believe the bills are unconstitu tional, and that they would place harsh burdens on law-abiding citizens, but would not prevent criminal use of deadly weapons. Address U. S. Representatives , House Office Building, Washing ton, D. c. ; U. S. Senators, Senate Office Building. Give a copy of this Report to as many other people as possible, and encourage them to write members of Congress. If you think additional legislation is needed to curtail criminal use of firearms in your state, you should work for legislation, comparable to the Casey bill ( mentioned above ) at the state level. You could start by writing the National Rifle Association, 1 600 Rhode Island Avenue , N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006. Ask for particulars on firearms legislation which the Association is sup porting, or would recommend, for your state. If you wish to communicate with your state legis lators, you can get their names and official mail ing addresses by calling your city clerk, your county clerk, or , possibly, a public library.

Disarmament

I nternationalists

say that we are moving inex orably toward a world order ; that we must aban don national sovereignty, disarm our nation, and surrender to a world authority, if ,ve wish to survive in this age of hydrogen bombs and inter continental ballistic missiles ; that any who cling to old-fashioned ideals of individualism and na tionalism are mentally ill. Internationalists have been in control of Ameri can foreign policy for more than two decades. There is abundant evidence that they are moving toward unilateral disarmament of the United States, planning the surrender of our arme � for.ces to some international agency. InternatlOnal1sts working to disarm the nation are also leaders in the drive for federal firearms laws to disarm the citizenry. In short, there is a close, significant relationship

between disarmament and federal firearms con trol. Bearing this in mind , note some comments by Lieutenant General Arthur G. Trudeau, USA ( Re tired ) , former Chief of Army Intelligence and former Chief of Research and Development for the Army. General Trudeau is now president of Gulf Research and Development Company. On March 9, 1 965, General Trudeau spoke at an arms control symposium in Los Angeles , Californ ia. His speech was published in the Borger, Texas, News-Herald, March 3 1 , 1965 . Here are abbrevi ated excerpts : Since 1 947 there has been a gradual movement toward arms control and disarmament. The mo mentum of this movement has accelerated in the last two years. The impetus has come from both sides of the Iron Curtain, but for different rea sons. Many respected advocates of arms con trol and disarmament in the United States be lieve that this is a road to real peace, while the Soviets use this as an effective instrument to fur ther their goal of world domination. Foundations and Government agencies (such as the Department of Defense, Department of State, and The U. S. Arms Control and Disarma ment Agency) have opened their coffers to fi nance studies, publications, meetings and sem inars, costing millions of dollars. Press, propa ganda, and popular literary efforts have �x tended this movement by such novels and mOVIes as On the Beach, Seven Days in May and Fail Safe. The public is frightened to death by such language as escalation, proliferation, megadeath, second strike, and mutual deterrence. Today Arms Control efforts are adversely af fecting our national policy and military posture, from strategy to weapons. This influence is one of the most pervasive of all forces at work today in restricting a more positive national policy worthy of the United States. The very fact that recent United Stat.es dis armament proposals do not seem to reqUIre po litical solutions of major existing disputes as a prerequisite of disarmament .demonstrates. a very real danger that, in the Umted States, dIsarma ment, which is at best an idealistic approach to peace, may be becoming an end in itself. There is great peril in assuming that condi tions of general and complete disarmament are synonymous with peace as we understand that term.

Page 1 34

The conditions of general and complete dis· arma� ent would make a pre-emptive attack more te� ptmg. In the �<?nflict between powers with m �Jor but demobIlIzed war potential, any sur pnse move could be decisive. Therefore the temptation of an enemy to strike first will be much stronger if the planned reduction of our stockpile from 30 [thousand] to two thousand megatons is effected by the 1 970's. Disarmament favors those states which are bet· tel' equipped to employ nonmilitary or submili· t �ry and covert means of coercion. This gives a . dIstmct advantage to the closed society over the open democratic society as years of cold war ex· perience have proven. Advocates of World Disarmament at the Sixth Pugwash Conference held in Moscow, Russia, three weeks after our 1 960 presidential election stressed three objectives: 1 . A highly centralized world government. 2. A socialistic economic system. 3. A totally regimented society with a built·in, self-policing process utilizing police and inform ers. Are you skeptical? As a good citizen, you should be, particularly since this position was accept· able to a group of recognized American scien· tists, including some who came to occupy key policy-making positions in our national govern ment. Some of you may be inclined to scoff when I say that these Pugwash Conferences advocate a totally regimented society. But the late Dr. Leo Szilard-who, with Cyrus Eaton and Bertrand Russell, was one of the founders of the Pugwash movement-seriously proposed a worldwide gestapo system at the eighth conference held in Vermont even more recently.

Dr. Szilard emphasized the need for empower . mg a world Peace Court to "to impose the death penalty" on anyone who even justifies war in defense of their ideals. Furthermore, he pro posed that, "The Court could deputize any and all citizens to execute the sentence." Lest you be inclined to shrug off the Pugwash Conferences as �lere theorizing, I would like to . pomt out that thIS movement has to date enjoyed unbelievable success. It may have paved the way for the test ban treaty and for the United Nations resolution banning the orbiting of nuclear wea pons-both seemingly desirable, but both loaded with perhaps fateful consequences for the future of our nation and of freedom in the world. What else have these Pugwash conferences planted the seed for or accomplished? H�ve they signaled the weakening of American foreIg� pollcr �upported by sufficient power to make It realIstIc-and credible? Have they fostered other steps toward uni lateral disarmament? Did t �ey initiate muzzling of the military and . the contmued downgradmg of professional mili tary opinion? Did they press for reduction in the develop ment and even procurement of new weapons systems and the cutback or elimination of some already under development? Did they forecast the coming reduction of U. S. ground divisions to a number less than those available at the beginning of World War II. And air units to come? Did they result in the rejection of the manned bomber, Sky Bolt, Red Eye, Davy Crockett, the MRBM and other weapons systems advocated for new or continued military use? Was such a philosophy extended [ in State Department Paper No. 7277 ] in September,

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA for a doctorate in American civili work graduate doing Fellow, Teaching a as Harvard 1941, he joined the faculty at t investigations; two years on communis on zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent : three and a half years resigned from the FBI and, He places. various in cases FBI general on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years , giving both sides of controversial from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs : publishin g The Dan Smoot business prise free-enter ported, issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-sup lysis radio and television news-ana weekly a g producin and ion; subscript by available Report, a weekly magazine Report and broadcast The vehicle. g advertisin an as , s rm fi broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business Constitution as a yard American the using truth d documente presents side that the : issues important of give one side sm, you can help immensely-help get stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communi broadcast. the for sponsors l subcribers for the Report, commercia

Page 1 35

1 96 1 ? This paper proposed, you will remember, placing all armed forces and all weapons under one international organization-the United Na tions. Our country could only possess weapons needed, literally, for internal police. This is the concept envisioned when they talk about world order under world law. But who could enforce it? This proposal for general and complete dis armament, as presented by President Kennedy to the Gener'al Assembly of the UN and by our government to the Geneva Committee on Dis armament, stands as the official U. S. position today, as far as I know. I cannot accept the warped conclusion pro mulgated by some that since no modern defense can be completely adequate, we must accept the best disarmament terms we can negotiate. While the CIA is reported to have told Con gress that the Soviets are pouring an enormous amount of resources into upgrading military weapons and hoping for a "qualitative break through," defense plans still withhold a pro posed $25 billion expenditure over five years for missile and satellite defense that, by their own estimates, could save over 70 million Amer ican lives. Though I've gladly taken my battle field risks for free, I hate to have any of us written off for about $350 per person in these days of government largess. Our apparent failure to press on toward even better weapons systems endangers our survival in the years ahead. Even today, Viet Cong anti-aircraft equipment seems better rounded out than our own. With the practical elimination of anti·aircraft weapons Subscription:

in the conventional 30 cal. to 75 mm. class from our arsenal and the refusal to procure Red Eye [ missiles] , our troops and installations are relatively naked to air attack. We can "save," not two but up to 50 billion dollars a year on the National Budget by reo ducing our defense effort but if we do, we may be paying many times over in tribute and taxes to the Communist Treasury some day.

Correction and Apology On Page 1 24 of the April 19, 1965, issue of this Report, I said the Church of Christ was one of four Protestant denominations whose ministers arranged a benefit ball for sexual perverts in San Francisco, but should have said United Church of Christ. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Texas Almanac fOI' 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 62, pp. 346-7 ( 2 ) "Text Of President Johnson's March 8 Message On Crime," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, March 1 2 , 1965, p. 395 ( 3 ) Federal Fireat'ms Laws, complete texts published by the Na tional Rifle Asociation of America, 1 600 Rhode Island Avenue, W ashington, D. C. 20006 (4) Copy of prepared text by Mr. John M. Schooley ( 5 ) The Encyclopedia Americana, pp. 148-9

1961

edition, Volume XXVI,

( 6 ) Pamphlet, National Rifle Association, circa 1963 (7) The American Rifleman, August, 1 946, p. 3 1 ( 8 ) U . S . Representative Murphy's bill, H R 6629, i s the same as U. S. Senator Dodd's bill, S 1 59 1 , to amend the National Fire arms Act of 1 9 34; Representative Murphy's bill, HR 6628, is the same as Senator Dodd's bill, S 1 59 2 , to amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1 9 3 8 ,

(9) Conference with Mr. Leon C. Jackson of Dallas, Texas, inter nationally-known antique firearms dealer and official of the National Rifle Association

6 months - $ 6.00 $10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

1962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L.P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 Page 1 36

TAYLOR 1 -2303

THE

1)1/11 Smoot Report Vol. 1 1 , No. 1 8

(Broadcast 506)

May 3, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

I MM I G RATI O N P R O B L E M

In July, 1963, President John F. Kennedy asked for revision of immigration laws, demand ing abolition of the national origin quota system (the basic feature of our present immigration laws) , saying: "The system is based upon the national origins of the population of the United States in 1 920 . . . Because of the composition of our population in 1 920, the system is heavily weighted in favor of immigration from northern Europe and severely limits immigration from southern and eastern Europe and from other parts of the world . . . . "(1) .

On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson endorsed the Kennedy immigration proposals ; but the 88th Congress did not enact them into law. On January 1 3, 1 965, President Johnson submitted a special message to Congress, saying :

"A change is needed in our laws dealing with immigration. Four Presidents [ Johnson, Ken nedy, Eisenhower, Truman ] have called attention to serious defects in this legislation. Action is long overdue . . . The principal reform called for is the elimination of the national origins quota system. That system is incompatible with our basic American tradition . . . . "Violations of this tradition [ of admitting people from all nations ] by the national origins quota system does incalculable harm. The procedures imply that men and women from some countries are, just because of where they come from, more desirable citizens than others . . . . Relationships with a number of countries, and hence the success of our foreign policy, is need lessly impeded by this proposition. "The quota system has other grave defects. Too often it arhitrarily denies us immigrants who have outstanding and sorely needed talents and skills. I do not believe this is either good government or good sense. "Thousands of our citizens are needlessly separated from their parents or other close rela tives . . . . "I urge the Congress to return the United States to an immigration policy which serves the national interest and continues our traditional ideals . . " ( 2 ) .

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of spe<'ific issues: I copy for 25¢; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O.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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 137

Represe�tative Emanuel Celler, New York City Democ�at, Illtroduced the administration bill ( HR 2 580) III th � �ouse on January 1 3 . Senator Philip A. Hart, MIChIgan Democrat, introduced a com panion bill (S 500 ) in the Senate on January 1 5 . The Celler-Hart administration bills are prac tically identical with the Kennedy proposals of 1 963.

History of American Immigration

P resident Johnson is not correct in asserting that a non-selective , wide-open immigration policy is a traditional American ideal. Even before the American War For Independence, immigration into the colonies was often restricted, most of the restrictions being against undesirable individuals. The Founding Fathers strongly opposed easy, in discriminate admission of foreigners to the United States, fearing that people who did not under stand or respect American ideals of freedom and independence would re-establish in the new world the oppressive old-world political, social, and economic systems which Americans had rebelled against. George Washington , Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jef ferson - all were outspoken on this point. (8) In 1 788, the Continental Congress unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that states impose restrictions on certain types of immigrants. Six states (Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) promptly acted to implement the recommendation. The troublesome problem of immigration was much discussed in the early days of the Republic ; but no national policy was adopted, because of an un resolved question : should action be taken by the national government or by state governments ? (3) The Constitution was adopted in 1789 ; and the first national census, required by the Con stitution, was taken in 1790. That first census re vealed the following composition of the American population: ( 3 )

English Negro Scotch German Dutch Irish French Hebrew All others

2,605,699 757,208 (4) 221 ,562 1 76,407 78,959 61 ,534 1 7,619 1 ,243 9,421

Exclusive of Indians ( not counted in the 1790 census) and of negroes (most of whom were slaves) , the American population at the beginning of our national life was more than 99% northern and western European stock (generally called nordic) . It is estimated that fewer than 250,000 immi grants came to America from 1790 to 1 820 ( and that they were practically all northern and west e�n Europeans) . (3 ) Yet, during that 30-year pe nod, the population of the United States more than doubled. (5) On March 2, 1819 , Congress passed the first immigration bill, not restricting immigration but requiring a listing of all immigrants. Before then, there had been no accurate records of immigra tion. Between 1 820 and 1850, the population of the United States more than tripled. In this 30year period, immigration was responsible for much of the population growth ; but, since most of the immigrants were from northern and west ern Europe, the U. S. population in 1850 ( exclu sive of Indians and negroes) was still nordic. (8) Public demand for immigration controls was widespread during the 1830's and 1 840's, and re mained a dominant political issue until the Civil War. Opening of the West greatly accelerated immigration after the Civil War ; but the new in flux of immigrants did not significantly change the racial composition of our population, be cause most of the immigrants were still from northern and western Europe. The 1880 census re vealed that more than 950/0 of the white American population was nordic. (6)

T he

first century of America's national life under the present Constitution ended with the decade of the 1 880's. In that same decade, the

Page 138

great American frontier vanished. The passing of the frontier brought profound changes III im migration. The millions of immigrants who came to America between 1790 and 1890, pushing across the continent in the miracle of human achieve ment known as the Westward Movement, hazard ing their all on a voyage into the unknown, carving a great nation out of a raw wilderness, were, predominantly, nordics from northern and western Europe. Life on the American frontier was harsh - often extraordinarily cruel ; but the immigrants who helped tame the wild country during that first miraculous century of our na tional life were not looking for the fat and easy life. They were looking for freedom. By 1890, the West was won. The great, vacant continent had been explored and made safe. The voyage to America was no longer an adventure into the dangerous unknown, or a daring pilgrim age in quest of freedom; it was a journey to the promised land. It was then that great tidal waves of immigrants-a majority of them from south ern and eastern Europe - began pounding our shores. ( 7) By 1900, Americans had begun to worry about the prospect of over-population , and about the added problem of assimilation. In most of our eastern cities, there were huge, unassimilated na tionality groups - people who retained the lan guage, customs, and attitudes of the nations whence they had come. Some second-generation products of these groups ( feeling left out, cut off, and oppressed) became easy prey to racket eers, vice merchants, and subversive agitators. ( 3) Early immigrants from northern and western Europe had brought with them some understand ing of freedom and some experience in self-gov ernment; but vast numbers of later immigrants, from the slums and ghettoes of southern and east ern Europe, were an illiterate, oppressed - often brutalized - people. Many of them came, not to help build something from nothing, but hop ing to get something for nothing.

By 1914, immigration was a delicate and dan gerous problem in the United States. Concentrated nationality groups had become voting blocs able to control venal politicians and thus influence na tional legislation to serve, not the nation's in terest, but their own selfish interests. Woodrow Wilson spoke bitterly of "this .coarse crew [of eastern and southern Europeans] that came crowding in every year at the eastern ports," saying they were less desirable than Chinese la borers (who had been excluded by various acts of Congress since 1882 ) . (3) On February 5, 1917, Congress passed an im migration act excluding practically all Asians, requiring immigrants to pass a simple literacy test, and prohibiting immigration of individual unde sirables ( idiots, criminals, degenerates, persons with serious communicable diseases, and so on) . ( 3 ) But the mammoth influx of eastern and southern Europeans continued. ( 7 ) In the years 1920-2 1, more than one and a quarter million immigrants entered the United States. A recession occurred during this time of adjustment to a peacetime economy ; and Ameri can soldiers , returning from Wodd War I, found the good jobs taken by the new immigrants. Statistics revealed an alarming picture at the beginning of the Roaring Twenties : - Immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, adhering to the cultures of their mother countries, were hostile to the free institutions of America. They were fomenting views and ex erting political pressures dangerous to the Amer ican system of social and political organization. - The ignorance and low standards of non nordic immigrants were depressing wages, caus ing unemployment, creating slums, increasing crime rates. - Immigration was replacing the old native stock with a racially different stock, not only because of the vast numbers of new immigrants, but also because they created social and economic conditions which depressed the native birth rate. - Almost all violence and turmoil caused by anarchism, socialism, communism, and other alien iSIlls could be traced to the new immi grants.

Page 139

- There were more than 1 500 foreign-lan guage new�papers in the United States, many of t�em hostile to American constitutional prin CIples, many advocating socialism, most of them encouraging foreign nationality groups to retain their identity as aliens, apart from, and at odds with, the mainstream of American life. - Fewer than 50% of the new immigrants tried to achieve citizenship, because they did not understand (or did not want) the responsibilities of citizens in a free, self-governing country. - A majority of all inmates in public institu tions for feeble-minded and insane persons, for paupers, and for criminals were new immi grants. ( 3 )

S omething

had to be done, but effective ac tion was difficult because of the political power of unassimilated nationality groups. In 40 of the 68 American cities with more than 100,000 people in 1920 , foreigners and their children constituted a majority of the total population. Eighty percent of New York City was foreign born or of foreign parentage. In Boston, 46. 30/0 of all males over 2 1 were foreign born. In all the New England states, and in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, more than 350/0 of all males above the age of 2 1 were foreign born. ( 3 ) On May 19, 192 1 , Congress passed a stop-gap law placing some quota restrictions on immigra tion; but a definite, permanent policy was needed. (3) In 1924, the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization reported : "Since it is the axiom of political science that a government not imposed by external force is the visible expression of the ideals, standards and social viewpoint of the people over which it rules, it is obvious that a change in the character or composition of the population must inevitably result in the evolution of a form of government consonant with the base upon which it rests. If, therefore, the principles of individual liberty, guarded by constitutional government created on this continent nearly a century and a half ago are to endure, the basic strain of our popu lation must be maintained and our economic standards preserved. "With full recognition of the material progress which we owe to the races from southern and

eastern Europe, we are conscious that the con tinued arrival of great numbers tends to upset our balance of population, to depress our stand ard of living, and to unduly charge our institu . tIOns for the care of the socially inadequate. "If immigration from southern and eastern Europe may enter the United States on a basis of substantial equality with that admitted from olde� sources of supply, it is clear that if any ap preCiable number of immigrants are to be al lowed to land upon our shores the balance of racial preponderance must in time pass to those ele� ents of the population who reproduce more rapIdly on a lower standard of living than those possessing other ideals. "We owe impartial justice to all those who have established themselves in our midst . . . . On the other hand, the American people do not concede the right of any foreign group in the United States, or government abroad, to demand a participation in our possessions, tangible or in tangible, or to dictate the character of our leg islation . . ." (3) .

Despite heavy opposition from states with large numbers of new immigrants, America's first comprehensive immigration policy was enacted in to law in April, 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 established a national origin quota system which applied to all nations, except independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. The law pro vided that a total of 1 64,677 immigrants a year could be admitted from all of the quota countries. The quota given each country was based initially on the 1 890 census, the base shifting to the 1920 census in 1929, and the total quota decreasing to 1 5 3,7 14. The system worked this way: ( 3)

If 40 % of the American population in 1 890 was of British origin, only 40 % of the 1 64,677 immigrants allowed from quota countries each year could be British; if 20 % of the American population in 1 890 were German, only 20% of all quota immigrants could be German; if 5 % of the population were Italian in 1 890, only 5 % o f all quota immigrants could b e Italian. In 1 929, nationality quotas were changed to reflect the composition of the American population as revealed by the 1 920 census. Exceptions from quota restrictions were made for certain individuals. For example, if only

Page 140

65,000 could be admitted in one year from Great Britain, as quota immigrants, additional British could be admitted as non-quota immigrants, de pending on family ties and other situations speci . �Ied .by law. National origin quotas applied to I�mI�rants from European colonies or posses SIons III the Western Hemisphere, but all immi grants from independent nations in the Western Hemisphere were non-quota. The law set no limit on non-quota immigrants. All immigrants - quota and non-quota - were subject to restrictions intended to keep out such undesirables as illiterates, idiots, criminals, and so on .

The disproportion in sizes of immigrant quotas assigned to quota nations by the Immigration Act of 1924 was not based on theories of racial supe riority, but on a desire to maintain, as nearly as possible, the kind of population which had built our nation. Inasmuch as the 1890 census revealed that approximately 850/0 of the population of the United States was nordic, the intent of the 1924 law was to guarantee that approximately 8Y7o of all future immigrants would be nordic. But the law failed to accomplish its purpose, because of exceptions which allowed an unspecified number of non-quota immigrants. From 1925 to 1929, practically all quota immigrants came from nordic countries ; but they were only half of the total. The other half were non-quota immigrants, most of them from non-quota countries in the Western Hemisphere. ( 3 ) After the economic collapse of 1929, non-quota immigration declined sharply - until the mid1930's, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt virtually nullified our basic immigration laws by pushing through Congress various refugee acts and amendments to the 1924 statute, admitting, as non-quota immigrants, the kinds of people whom the 1924 law was designed to keep out. By 1940, non-quota immigration was much greater than quota immigration; and about 900/0 of the non-quota immigrants were coming from non nordic nations. ( 3 ) By 1946, our immigration laws were a j umble of amendments and exceptions, providing little

protection against alien hordes swarming into our country. The Soviets were sending communist agents into the United States by the thousands. Soviet agents were smuggled into the United States Zone of Germany where, with the help of communists and their sympathizers in the Inter national Refugee Organization, they were de clared victims of the nazis and, as such, given pri ority visas to the United States. It was against this background that Congress, in 1947, began an exhaustive four-and-one-half year study which resulted in the McCarran-Walter Act, our present basic immigration law, enacted in 1952 over President Truman's veto. (3) The McCarran-Walter Act set a limit of 1 54,657 a year as the maximum number of quota immi grants, (8) and divided this number into national ity quotas based on the census of 1920. The law discriminates against criminals , com munists, and other subversives, requiring careful examination of all immigrants.

Attacks on The Immigration Law

Within five days after the McCarran-Walter

Act became effective in 1952, a commission, ap pointed by President Truman, reported that the law had to be rewritten. Before the law was a year old, the Eisenhower administration by-passed it by ramming through Congress the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, which permitted 209,000 refugee immigrants to enter the U. S. from Europe and Asia - in addition to im migrants admitted under the McCarran-Walter Act. ( 3 ) One of the oldest communist fronts still active in the United States - American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born - works cease lessly to destroy the immigration barriers by which this nation seeks to protect itself, and so do leading liberals in both political parties and in the liberal establishment generally. Concerted attack on the McCarran-Walter Act rises in in-

Page 141

tensity when world events provide pretext or useful propaganda material. An all-out assault was made following the Hun garian rebellion of 1956. During the year 1956, 2,45 3,337 aliens were admitted to the United Stat�s. The annual recorded average of immigrants dunng the 1890-1914 period (when the volume of immigration was considered a floodtide) was less than one million. These facts were largely ig nored. Through the media of mass communica tion' Americans were bombarded with the idea that America was not opening her arms wide enough to receive freedom-loving refugees ; that we were being stingy and selfish about admitting oppressed people while the rest of the world, less able to help, was being generous ; and that we should, therefore, remove our national shame by throwing open the doors. On January 2 1 , 1957 , a group of liberal Demo crats in the House proposed major revision of the McCarran-Walter Act. On January 3 1 , 1957, President Eisenhower asked Congress for liberalizing revisions of the McCarran-Walter Act. The Eisenhower proposals (never enacted) were essentially the same as those made by liberal Democrats ten days before about the same as those made by President Ken nedy in 1963, and those now being made by Pres ident Johnson.

ferred quota or as non-quota immigrants - if they could pass tests intended to exclude individ ual undesirables, such as morons , criminals, illiterates, degenerates, communists , and so on. ( 3 ) In an article published February 4, 1965, by the Washington Evening Star, Jenkin Lloyd Jones said : "Why should the United States be the only advanced nation in the world to develop a guilt complex over selective immigration? Every other country that is attractive to immigrants selects baldly and without apology. "Trinidad is in the British Commonwealth. Yet under a new British law, Trinidad is closely restricted. But Johnson'S proposed bill would make Trinidad quota-free. "The President has decried our present strin gent quotas for Asiatic immigrants. Australia has no quota at all. It simply excludes anyone of non-European ancestry. And the Japanese gov ernment discourages immigration from any country. A spokesman for the Japanese embassy in Washington this month stated simply that the Japanese are of one race and proud of it. "Although any person may apply for immi gration to Israel, that government frankly seeks only an 'ingathering of the Jews.' Last year a Jew who became a Catholic was denied citizen ship by an Israeli court . . . . "Is the President really going to try to satisfy . . . anxious-to-leave home people [ of all nations on earth ] in the interest of the success of our ' ';l . f orelgn · pol ley. "Well, it's our country, too, and when we start writing immigration laws to suit the hungry camel drivers of Upper Malaria, old man history will bust his buttons laughing." •

Danger Ahead

P resident Johnson

claims one purpose of his bill is to bring in "immigrants who have out standing and sorely needed talents and skills." Yet, his bill would double quotas from such countries as Tanzia, Malawi, and Yemen. What talents and skills do we sorely need from such places ? ( 9) The President makes an emotional appeal about "thousands of our citizens . . . needlessly sepa rated from their . . . close relatives." Under ex

ceptions specified in present law, alien close rela

tives of American citizens could enter as pre-

Exceptions

for non-quota immigrants written into the present McCarran-Walter Act, and spe cial refugee legislation enacted since the Act was passed, leave present immigration laws far from adequate to protect our nation. Quotas from nordic countries are not filled, while non-quota immigrants continue to pour in. Quota immigrants totaled 948,334 in the ten-year period en d i ng June 30, 1964, while non-quota immigrants totaled 1 ,774,367. The table below

Page 142

lists a few of the nations which annually send us more immigrants than are allowed under their quotas. Country

Quota Immigrants Allowed, 1954-1964

Immigrants Admitted, 1954-1964

China (and "Chinese persons")

( 1 ) "Text of the President's Proposals to Liberalize Immigration Statutes," The New York Times, July 24, 1963, · p. 1 2 ( 2 ) Congl'essional Qual'terly Weekly Report, January 1 5 , 1965, pp. 79-80, 64 ( 3 ) Ame" ican Immig"ation Policies : A History, by Marion T. Bennett, Public Affairs Press, Washington, D. c., 1963, 362 pp.

2050

76, 290

Greece

3050

26, 660

Indonesia

1 000

1 6,5 70

5 6,660

1 5 6, 8 50

Japan

1 850

48, 87 0

Korea

1 000

1 2,500

Philippines

1000

22, 8 10

Portugal

438 0

27,360

Spain

2500

1 2, 640 (1 0)

I taly

FOOTNOTES

(4) In 1 790 (when most negroes in the U. S. were slaves ) , 19% of the total population were negroes; 1 3%, in 1880 ( 1 5 years after slaves had been freed ) ; 9.5%, in 1930; 9.9%, in 1950; 1 0. 5 % , i n 1960. In the decade of the 1950's, when there was little negro immigration into the U. S., our negro population increased 2 5 .4%. In the same decade (when approximately 3,000,000 new immigrants were added to the white population ) , the total increase in white population was 17.5%.

More than 60% of all immigrants during the past ten years have been persons without occu pation. (11) The new legislation demanded by President Johnson (the Celler-Hart bills - HR 2 580 in the House, S 500 in the Senate ) would admit new hordes to swell the roles of unem ployed and unemployables, of welfare recipients, and of criminal delinquents - and to augument the volume of racial and social agitation. Our society could be submerged under an in discriminate flood of immigrants. This is what has happened in the past to all prosperous socie ties when the gates were left open to people who had not helped build, and could not understand, the civilizations they took over. Instead of liberalizing our immigration laws, we should drastically tighten and strictly enforce them.

( 5 ) Historical Statistics o f t h e United States, Colonial Times to 1957, U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, pp. 7- 1 6 ( 6 ) Percentages based on computation o f U. S . birth rate, im migration data, and U. S. Census data. (7)

(12)

IMMIGRATION TO U . S . A. REGION

1 820- 1880

1 88 1- 1964

TOTAL

Northern & Western Europe 8,7 18,275

1 1,62 1 ,986

20,340,2 6 1

Belgium

2 3,8 1 7

1 7 1,027

194,844

Denmark

54,405

30 1,007

3 5 5,41 2

3 1 6, 2 5 5

389, 3 3 1

705,586

Germany

3,052,126

3,870,472

6,922,598

Great Britain England Scotland Wales Unspecified

1 ,949,2 5 6 962,648 174,223 18,879 793,506

2,7 2 1,357 2 ,0 1 8 , 5 37 623,819 74,330 4,671

4,670,61 3 2,98 1 , 1 8 5 798,042 93,209 798,177

Ireland

2,829,206

1,868,326

4,697, 5 3 2

2,287

47,222

309,400

3 5 6,622

3 56,676

1,746,333

2 , 103,009

89,31 2

242,446

3 3 1,758

France

Luxembourg Netherlands Norway & Sweden Switzerland

WHO IS DAN SMOOT? 38 and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 19 American civili in doctorate a for work graduate doing Fellow, 4 Teaching a as 19 1 , he j oined the faculty at Harvard zation. From 1 94 2 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1 95 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio a nd television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 195 5 , he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard get stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help broadcast. the for sponsors commercial Report, the for subcribers Page 143

Southern & Eastern Europe

South America 270, 5 5 1

Albania Austria-Hungary

80,769

Bulgaria Czechoslovakia

1 5 ,2 3 1 , 1 3 1

1 5, 5 0 1 ,682

3,885

4,280,471

4,361,240

68,989

149,065

Estonia

1 3,806

Finland

29,009

Greece

398

532,033

532,43 1

8 1 ,277

5,0 1 0,910

5,092,187

Latvia

43,736

Lithuania

3 6,689

36,689

Italy

Poland

1 6,656

60 1,403

618,059

Portugal

19,354

280,205

299,559

Rumania

1 76,052

176,063

Russia

43, 170

3,345,740

3,388,910

Spain

28,2 1 1

165,125

193,336

705

368,4 17

369, 1 2 2

Turkey Yugoslavia

West Indies Australia-New Zealand

8,726

3 30,440

3 39 , 1 70

63,490

644,867

708,357

9,922

76,375

86,297

Sources : The Encyclopedia Americana, 1961 Edition, Volume 27, pp. 3 3 6-4 1 ; American Immigration Policies : A History, by Marion T. Bennett, Public Affairs Press, Washington, D. c., 1963, pp. 333-6, 3 3 8 ; Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1964, Department of Justice, 1964, pp. 42-7; compiled to include displaced persons and refugees ad m itted since June 2 5 , 1948, but not included as i mmigrants on official data.

( 8 ) The McCarran-Walter Act provided for the addition to quotas of new nations as they came into existence. The present, 1965, quota i s 1 58,361 immigrants.

( 9 ) "It's Our Country; Let's Keep It," by Jenkin Lloyd Jones, The E11ening Star, Washington, D. c., February 4, 1965

( 1 0 ) "Some Insights on Immigration," text of speech by U. S. Rep resentative Michael A. Feighan ( Dem., Ohio ) , to the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D. c., February 4, 1965, 12 pp.

1 2 5 , 596

1 2 5,596

1 ,006

56, 183

57,189

Asia

2 30,0 5 3

783,757

1 , 0 1 3,810

( 1 1 ) Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1964, U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1964, p. 9 5

Canada

654,660

3,094, 1 5 6

3,748,8 1 6

( 1 2 ) For additional information on the effects o f immigration, see

98, 5 5 5

2,430,385

2 , 5 28,940

1 ,220

1 5 3,8 1 3

1 5 5,033

2 5 , 1 19

1 , 3 0 1 ,2 6 1

1 , 326,380

Africa

Latin America Central America Mexico

the newly published book Im/alion Alen, by Mary Barclay Erb. This book is available from the American Committee on Im migration Policies, Suite 2 2 5 , The Dodge House, 20 E Street, N. W., Washington, D. c.; Price: $ 1 .50.

For pnces 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?

Subsc r ip t ion :

6 months - $ 0.00 $ I O.()O 1 year - $ 1 0 .00 - $ 10.00 -$ 10.00 -

1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Cloth back Pap erbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2_00 _50

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4

Page 144

TAYLOR 1-2303

THE o

1J�1I SmootlIepo/' Vol.

I I,

No. 1 9

(Broadcast 507)

May 1 0, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

VOTI N G R I G HTS B I L L

T he Civil Rights Act of 1957 established extraordinary, unconstitutional procedures to pre vent denial of the right to vote because of race; but racial agitators were not satisfied. They de manded, and got, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which provided even more unconstitutional pro cedures for protection of negro voting rights. The agitators demanded still more. The direct chain of events which led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began on April 3, 1963, when negroes in Birmingham started a series of orderly protests against segregation practices in the city. Martin Luther King soon arrived, and the demonstrations became massive and unruly. (1) The first large-scale arrests of demonstrators ( for violating Birmingham city ordinances) were made on April 6, 1963. 0 ) On April 12, Martin Luther King was arrested for violation of state court orders. (2 ) King remained in jail eight days before posting bond, though he could have been released on bond without going to j ail. After King appeared on the scene , approximately 360 Birmingham policemen and Alabama state troopers were required to maintain order and protect the lives and property of Birmingham citizens. Police, using dogs on leashes and other conventional law-enforcement techniques, did yeo man service, not only in protecting the community, but also in protecting the demonstrators from outraged local citizens. The leftwing press and broadcast networks magnified and distorted the Birmingham picture until it looked like a horrid monstrosity. The entire world was drenched with false "news" about brutal treatment of innocent negroes trying to make peaceful protest against violation of their human rights. Throughout the nation, people were inflamed by ugly untruths about Birmingham. The highest officials of government added fuel to the flames. On April 1 5 , 1963 , President John F. Kennedy-vacationing in Florida-summoned the press to let the world know he had called Mrs. Martin Luther King to commiserate with her about the imprisonment of her husband. U. S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy also made a widely THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 1 4; Telephone TAylor 1 -2303 (office address 6441 Gaston Avenue) . Subscription rates: $ 1 0.00 a year, $6.00 for G months, $1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ I O .OO-each price for bulk mailing to one persoll. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 145

publicized telephone call to Mrs. King. Mrs. King said that the Kennedys had promised to do everything possible to help her husband ; that they had sent FBI agents to the j ail to make sure Dr. King was all right ; that only through personal intervention of President Kennedy was she able to telephone her husband at the j ail. On April 2 3, 1963, William 1. Moore (a va cationing Baltimore Post Office mail carrier, mem ber of the American Civil Liberties Union who had been a patient in a mental institution for 25 months ) was shot to death on a highway in Ala bama, while walking alone on a "personal inte gration march."(4) On April 25, U. S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy called on Alabama Governor George C. Wallace in Montgomery to discuss integration in Alabama schools. The New York Times re ported that Kennedy was "shaken" by the experi ence and quoted Kennedy as saying the South "is like a foreign country." (S) On April 26 , Martin Luther King and ten others were sentenced to five days in j ail and fined $50.00 each for defying court injunctions against racial demonstrations. (6) On May 2, 1963, large groups of negroes (most ly children) staged protest marches. Seven hun dred persons were arrested. One adult negro leader said the demonstrations would continue "until we run out of children." ( 6 ) On May 3, police had to use fire hoses to control unruly demonstrating mobs. (6) On May 4, the Justice Department sent �� sistant Attorney General Burke Marshall (C1v� l rights chief) to Birmingham to encourage �1racial discussions between negro leaders and whlte businessmen. (6) About the same time, 19 rabbis from northern states arrived to join negro demon strations. On May 8, the biracial negotiators announced an agreement for partial desegregation; but no peace followed, because Martin Luther King was again arrested for leading marches in defiance of court orders. ( 1 ) (3)

(1)

On May 9, demonstrators in Birmingham asked the United Nations to intervene. Senator Jacob K. Javits (New York Republican ) demanded that President Kennedy use all available resources to fight for civil rights in Birmingham. (8) On May 10 , the biracial group announced an other desegregation agreement. The Birmingham city government refused to recognize the agree ment. (9) On May 1 1, the Birmingham Police Commis sioner (Eugene Connor ) urged white citizens to boycott merchants who had agreed to desegregate. That night, several buildings ( both negro and white) were bombed. Negroes rioted. Several whites were dragged from their cars and beaten. A policeman was knifed. (9) On May 1 2 , 1 963 , President Kennedy said he had prepared an Executive Order to federalize the Alabama National Guard, and that federal military units specializing in riot control had been alerted for service in Birmingham. On May 13, the President warned Governor Wallace that federal troops would be sent to suppress domestic violence in Birmingham, if nec essary. Governor Wallace replied that President Kennedy already had federal troops in Birming ham to enforce, not a law, but a "worthless agree ment made by a so-called biracial committee." Kennedy administration spokesmen admitted that federal military command post personnel were in Birmingham, but said they amounted to only a "handful of men." (9) On May 18, Governor Wallace said Alabama was asking the U. S. Supreme Court to prohibit the use of federal troops. The court refused to hear the suit. (10) On May 20, the Birmingham Board of Educa tion expelled 1081 negro students who, in defiance of administrative regulations, had left school to participate in public demonstrations and had been arrested. (10) On May 22, Clarence W. Allgood, federal dis trict j udge, refused to interfere with the school board's order; but, on the same day, Elbert R.

Page 146

Tuttle, chief judge of the Fifth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ordered the school board to readmit the expelled negro students. (10) On June 19, President Kennedy submitted a special message to Congress, proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1963. On June 2 1 , U. S. Representa tive Adam Clayton Powell ( Harlem Democrat) publicly boasted that he wrote major portions of President Kennedy's message. (11) In September, 1963, Governor Wallace tried to stop federally-enforced desegregation of public schools in Birmingham, Tuskegee, Mobile, and Huntsville. On September 10, President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, forcing the Governor to stand aside and permit integra tion which violated Alabama's Constitution and laws. (10) Violence soon followed. On September 1 5 , 1963, four negro girls were killed when a Birm ingham negro church was bombed. Later that same day, police-trying to control a mob of demonstrators who were throwing rocks and en gaging in other acts of violence-shot and killed a negro boy. (10) By autumn, 1963, the public was thoroughly outraged by continued racial violence. Opposition to new frontier programs had hardened until President Kennedy's legislative proposals were hopelessly bogged down in Congress. His pro posed Civil Rights Act of 1963 never got out of committee. Five days after Kennedy was assassinated, Presi dent Johnson, on November 27, 1963, urged Con gress to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to the late President. In 1964, Congress (by stands of 7 3 to 27 in the Senate, 294 to 1 3 1 in the House) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Johnson signed it on July 2. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (nearly identical with the Kennedy proposals of 1963 ) outlawed oral literacy tests for voter qualification ; outlawed written literacy tests for anyone with

sixth grade

or higher education; and provided several un-

constitutional measures for expediting and giving preferential treatment to voting-rights litigation.

Back To The Streets

M artin

Luther King perpetually agitates for more civil rights laws, but considers himself above all law. He has publicly stated that he and his followers will obey laws and court orders he con siders good, but will disobey those he considers bad. (1 2) King's "non-violent" agitation triggered violence which brought death to five children and one adult in Alabama during 1963. His al leged objective was passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to take the civil rights struggle "out of the streets and into the courts." After the law was passed, King took the fight back into the streets. ( 1 8 ) On January 2 , 1965, King announced that his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SC LC) would join the Student Nonviolent Coordi nating Committee (SNCC) in conducting voter registration demonstrations in Selma, Alabama. (14 ) The Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee has reported that King's SCLC is "substantially under control of the communist party," and that SNCC is "substantially under the influence of the com munist party." (1 5 ) On January 1 5 , 1965, the U. S. Department of Justice filed suit ( under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ) against Alabama, claiming the State's lit eracy test for voters discriminates against ne groes. ( 1 3 ) King would not wait for the law to operate. About the time the suit was filed in Washington, King had letters printed and pre pared for mailing, pleading for help and sym pathy, showing his address as the county j ail in the Selma. The letters were dated February 1 day King insisted on being arrested in Selma for defiant violation of local law. (16,11) King chose to stay in j ail five days. While he was in j ail, a federal court handed down an order to accomplish an obj ective which King had been proclaiming as the objective of his demonstrations

Page 147

In Selma. Federal Judge Daniel H. Thomas, on February 4, 1965, ordered registrars to increase voter registration in Selma by July 1, warning that if registration was not satisfactorily increased, the court (under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) would appoint federal voting ref erees. (13) The next day (February 5 ) , King was released from j ail, and made it quite clear he would not await results of the court order. King said his demonstrations would continue unless the Selma board of registration stayed open every day until all negroes who wished to vote were registered. He did not say that all negroes meeting legal requirements must be registered. He demanded registration of all who wanted to be registered. King said he will not stop until there are enough negro voters to "purge Alabama of all Congressmen who have stood in the way of negroes." (18) John Lewis, chairman of SNCC, made the fol lowing remarks during a speech at Selma, in February, 1965 : "It matters not wheth�r it is in Angola, Mo zambique, Southwest Africa, or Mississippi, Ala bama, Georgia, Harlem, United States of Amer ica. The struggle is one and the same. Call it what you m ay . . . . It is a struggle against a vicious and evil system that is controlled and kept in order for many by a few white men throughout the world. We are struggling against the same powers . . . . "I think we all recognize the fact that if any radical, social, economic, and political changes are to take place in our society, the masses must be organized to bring them about . . . . "SNCC is one of many forces at work in our society for certain basic changes . . . . SNCC is the shot in the arm of a sick society. We are the birth pains of the body politic . . . "Our job is to help educate, help prepare people for poli�ical action. Our job is to organize the unorganized into a vital force for radical, social, economic and political change . . . " (19) .

When released from jail in Selma on February 5, 1965, Martin Luther King announced that he would ask President Johnson for more voting rights legislation. He did not say he would try

to see the President. He baldly stated that he would see the President of the United States. Four days later (February 9 ) King met with President Johnson, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, and U. S. Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzen bach. King told them what he wanted in the way of a voting rights bill. President Johnson assured King that the bill would soon be ready. (20) On February 18, 1965, a state trooper (on duty at a demonstration in Marion, Alabama) shot a 26-year-old negro man who died eight days later. The trooper claimed he acted in self-defense, after the negro had threatened him. (19) Martin Luther King, with ample press assistance, made a martyr of the dead man. On March 7, 1965, civil rights agitators at tempted to lead demonstrators from Selma to Montgomery, in defiance of Governor Wallace's orders. The Governor had forbidden such unlaw ful preemption of one of the State's major high ways, by mobs which might initiate or incite violence and other lawless disorder. State troopers and police turned the marchers back at the out skirts of Selma, using force necessary to control such a mob. Liberal news media portrayed the incident as a disgraceful orgy of police brutality against innocent people. (19) On March 9, 1965 , Federal Judge Frank John son issued a restraining order, prohibiting demon strators from making the Selma-to-Montgomery march until j udicial findings could be made. Martin Luther King defied the court order and started the march. He and his crowd turned back without violence when met by law enforcement officers. Questioned about his defiance of the fed eral court order, King said: "Possibly I can be held in contempt, and others too. The judge'S order was an unjust injunction . . . . As a matter of conscience, the march will continue." (19)

King was not charged or arrested for violating the federal court order. On March 9, 1965, the Reverend James J. Reeb of Boston, Massachusetts (who had gone to Selma to' participate in demonstrations) , was

Page 148

beaten by whites as he left a beer tavern in Selma. (21) He died two days later in a Birming ham hospital. On March 1 5 , 1965, a mob ( composed largely of out-of-state agitators) staged a turbulent dem 0nstration in Montgomery. The crowd seemed to have no purpose or leadership, though some shouted that they were demonstrating against ra cial prejudice. In one street they blocked an emer gency ambulance. Police were unable to disperse the mob, or even to clear a path for the am bulance. The Sheriff of Montgomery County brought in mounted deputies , who were assaulted by demonstrators using bricks, rocks, knives, and other objects. The Sheriff and several deputies were injured and eight horses slashed before the mob was scattered and the emergency ambulance released to continue its mission. (19) That night - March 1 5 , 1 965 President Johnson called Congress into extraordinary joint session and demanded the voting rights bill he had promised Martin Luther King. The President had selected an early evening hour which is prime television time ; and his speech was carried by all networks. We shall overcome the slogan of racial agitators - was a refrain in the President's speech. To Congress, the President said: -

"We have all sworn a n oath before God to sup port and to defend . . . [ the ] Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath."

The President then demanded legislation which U. S. Senator Harry F. Byrd (Virginia Democrat) has correctly characterized as "a vicious bill," "subversive of the Constitution of the United States and the whole system under which we are governed" ; a bill which "clearly bears the stamp of hysteria" ; a bill whose provisions "are iniqui tous in effect and contemptible in design." ( 22 )

Th e Pending Bill

March 1 7 , 1965 , President Johnson for mally submitted his Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It was introduced in the House by Representative Emanuel Celler (New York City Democrat) as HR 6400. On March 18, it was introduced in the Senate as S 1564, by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (Montana Democrat) , Senate Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen ( Illinois Re publican) , and 62 other Senators. Henry J. Taylor, in a syndicated. column, said : (23)

"It's astounding, but true, that the communist party U.S.A. actually planned the Johnson Ad ministration's Voting Rights Act of 1 965." ( 24)

To prove his assertion, Taylor quoted the fol lowing from a pamphlet outlining the communist party's "Lincoln Project," launched in December, 1956: "To implement the Lincoln Project, the Com munist Party's Central Committee will begin to dispatch agents to I I Southern states next month [January, 1 957 ] to work with local party leaders in surveying 20 counties, any one of which might be ideally suited as a target for disorder early in 1 965. "This survey will continue through 1957, the Central Committee making the choice of 20 counties . . . with the final selection to be made on the estimated most favorable conditions pre vailing in 1965. "The legislation which the party will seek from Congress in 1965 has already been prepared by its legal staff. It provides for elimination of all educational requirements, including minimum literacy tests, as qualifications for voting in Fed eral, state and local elections; voids residence with respect to counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions within a state, �� estab lishes a system of direct Federal supervlSlon and control of the local, county, state and Federal elective process." (2 4)

T he voting rights

bill would apply only to six southern states which have literacy tests to de termine voter qualifications ( Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia) , although 1 5 other states also require literacy tests. It would enable the federal government to confer voting rights on any illiterate (or moron) in the

southern states singled out for punishment, though

the same person could not qualify to vote in

Page 149

northern and western states with literacy require ments. The bill is a discriminatory, ex post facto law which would punish, in the future, officials of six southern states for something which the U. S. Attorney General may allege that officials in those states did in the past. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution pro hibits Congress from enacting ex post facto laws. Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution leaves with states the authority to prescribe voter quali fications provided only that qualifications to vote for U. S. Representatives be the same as qualifications to vote for representatives in "the most numerous Branch of the State Leg islature." The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. The Nineteenth Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying or abridging the right to vote on account of sex. The Twenty fourth Amendment ( ratified January 23, 1964) prohibits poll-tax qualifications for voters parti cipating in federal elections. No provision of the Constitution or of the twenty-four amendments gives the federal government authority to deter mine voter qualifications.

Constitutionally, state governments may impose voter-qualification requirements concern�ng edu cation, age, residence, property ownersh1p, occu pation, criminal behavior and associations, sub versive activities and associations, and so on. The federal government has no constitutional authority to do anything about state-established voter quali fications, unless the states require poll taxes in federal elections or deny the vote on account of sex or race. If states deny the vote for prohibited reasons, the federal government has no constitu tional authority to intervene positively and estab lish federal voting qualifications. Constitutionally, the federal government can only intervene neg� tively to keep states from doing what the Consb tution forbids.

Supporters

of the pending voting rights leg the six southern states affected that claim islation

(especially Alabama) have violated the Fifteenth Amendment by denying negroes the right to vote, merely because they are negroes. Doubtless, some qualified negroes have been denied the vote because of race. There are abuses of law and miscarriages of j ustice, of various kinds and extent, in all states - in all places where human beings exist. The critical question is whether there is an Alabama state policy or pattern of denying negroes the right to vote be cause of race. All present registration boards in Alabama were appointed in, or since, October, 1963. Prior to that time, the U. S. Department of Justice, after thorough investigation, claimed to have found some evidence of racial discrimination by registra tion boards in 1 1 of Alabama's 67 counties. The Justice Department has not made formal charges of racial discrimination against any present regis tration board in Alabama. Yet it is present regis

tration boards that agitators have been agitating about and that the pending law intends to pun ish. (25) The Department of Justice alleges that only 20% of qualified Alabama negroes are registered to vote. This is not true. (25) In Alabama, there are about 200,000 negroes of voting age with sixth grade or higher educa tion. It is estimated that 1 00/0 of these ( 20,000) are not qualified to vote because of crimi,nal r,ec ords. Other factors reduce possible reg1strabon to 140 000 ' and there are 1 1 5 ,000 negroes regis tered ;0 v�te : 820/0 of the absolute potential, in stead of the 200/0 alleged. (25) These statistics reveal that 2 5 ,000 of Alabama' s eligible voting-age negroes, with sixth grade or higher education, are not registered to vote, Were these 2 5,000 excluded by unreasonable; or un fairly administered, literacy tests ? Pracbcally all Alabama negroes with less than 8th g�a.de educa tion are when drafted, rejected for mtl1tary serv ice beca�se they fail mental tests administered by the armed forces. Yet a very high percentage of literacy tests administered negroes have .passed . theoar ds, (25) b by voter reg1strat1On

Page 150

The March From Selma To Montgomery

On March 1 7, 1965, Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson issued an order authorizing the Selma-to Montgomery demonstration. It began on March 2 1 , ended on March 25, under protection of U. S. armed forces all the way. Many of the marchers were human scum: beat niks, prostitutes, degenerates , drunks, bums, and communists - some of whom were paid to join the march. (26) U. S. Representative William L. Dickinson (Alabama Republican) has made a careful in vestigation of the Selma-to-Montgomery demon stration. Here is a sample of his findings : "Drunkenness and sex orgies were the order of the day in Selma, on the road to Montgomery, and in Montgomery. There were many - not j ust a few - instances of sexual intercourse in public . . . . "The Communist Party . . . is the undergirding structure for all of the racial troubles in Alabama for the past 3 months. Look at the speakers on the platform in front of the capitol of Mont gomery or participating prominently in the march and demonstration . . . . Carl Braden . . . . Abner Berry . . . . James Peck . . . . Bayard Rus tin . . . . "And what about the king himself - King Martin Luther? . . . Martin Luther King himself has amassed the staggering total of more than 60 communist-front affiliations since 1 955." (26)

On March 25, 1 965, the Selma-to-Montgomery demonstration ended ; and, on that day, Mrs. Viola Liuzzo (returning by car to Selma, accompanied by a 19-year-old negro barber) was shot and killed on the highway. Mrs. Liuzzo had left her husband and five children in Detroit and had gone to Alabama to participate in the demonstration. On April 3, 1965, Martin Luther King, in a Saturday Review article, explained the importance of violence in building up pressure for what he wants :

"The goal of the demonstrations in Selma, as elsewhere, is to dramatize the existence of in j ustice and to bring about the presence of justice by methods of nonviolence. Long years of ex perience indicate to us that Negroes can achieve this goal when four things occur: " l . Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights. "2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them. "3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legis lation. "4. The Administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation."(27) *

" 'Tis too much p" oved-that with devotion's 1lisa/!,e and pio us action Hamlet-Act III sc. 1 we do sugar o'er the devil himself ."-

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) Special to the Times from Birmingham, The New York Times, April 7, 1963, p. 5 5 ( 2 ) UPI story from Birmingham, The Dallas Morning News, April 1 3, 1963, Sec. 1, p. 6 ( 3 ) AP dispatch from Palm Beach, Fla., The Dallas Morning News, April 1 6, 1963, Sec. 1 , p. 1 ; AP dispatch from Atlanta, Ga., The Dctllas Times Herald, April 1 6, 1963, p. 3A ( 4 ) AP story from Attalla, Ala., The Dallas Times Herald, April 24, 1963, pp. l A, 29A ( 5 ) The New Y01·k Times, April 26, 1963, p. 1 ( 6 ) Cong" �ssional Quarterly 1JVeekly Report, May 1 0, 1963, pp. 7 1 3-4 ( 7 ) "The Reporter's Notes From Birmingham," by George Bailey, The Reporter, May 23, 1963, pp. 1 2, 1 4 . ( 8 ) Special to the Times from Birmingham, The New York Times, May 10, 1 963, pp. 1 , 1 4 ( 9 ) Congressional Quarterly 1JVeekly Report, May 1 7 , 1963, pp. 7 59-60 ( 10 ) Congressional Quarterly Almanac fo,' 1963, pp. 337-8, 359 ( 1 1 ) UPI dispatch from long Beach, Calif., The Dallas Times Herald, June 23, 1963, p. 17A ( 12 ) See the text of NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" program with Martin Luther King, March 28, 1965 ( 13 ) Congressional Quarte"ly 1JV eekly Report, March 19, 1965, pp. 428, 434 ( 14 ) Congressional Quarterly 1JVeekly Report, February 5 , 1965, p. 183 ( 1 5 ) For details o n the interlock and associations o f SCLC, SNCC, other civil rights organizations and leaders, see this Report, "Communism in the Civil Right Movement," June 1 , 1964. ( 1 6 ) "Selma, Ala.," speech by U. S. Representative James D. Martin ( Rep., Ala. ) , Congressional Record, February 10, 1965, pp. 2456-60 ( daily ) ( 17 ) "A Master Plan Guides Negroes In Alabama, Sets Next Moves," The National O bserver, March 8, 1965 ( 18 ) Congressional Q uarterly 1JVeekly Report, February 19, 1965, p. 2 7 1 ( 19 ) "The Selma, Ala., Situation," speeches with articles b y U . S . Representatives George W. Andrews ( Dem., Ala. ) , William M. Tuck (Dem., Va. ) , Armistead 1 . Selden, Jr. ( Dem., Ala. ) , James D . Martin ( Rep., Ala. ) , John Bell Williams (Dem., Miss . ) , William 1. Dickinson ( Rep., Ala. ) , Robert E. Jones

Page 151

( Dem., Ala. ) , John H. Buchanan, Jr. (Rep., Ala. ) ' Glenn Andrews ( Rep., Ala. ) , Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. ( Dem., La. ) , Congressional Recol'd, March 17, pp. 5 1 49-62 ( da i l y )

(20)

"For

1965,

Negro Rights," Sec. 4, p . 2

The New York Times,

The Whole Truth )" Texas, April 1 1, 1 965, pp. I,

( 2 1 ) "Selma:

February

The Sunday Brand, 2

G. Stipulated that the federal registration apparatus, where invoked, would remain in fo rce until the Attorney General notified the Civil Service Commission that all qualified voters in the area had been registered or that there was no longer reasonable cause to believe that persons would be denied the right to vote on the grounds of race or color.

14,

Hereford,

(22)

"The Other Side of the Voting-Rights B i l l ," by U. S. Senator Harry Flood Byrd ( Dem., Va. ) , U. S. News & World Report, April 1 2 , 1965, pp. 86-8

( 23 )

Here, from Congressio/l(/l Qlle/fterly 1/yeekly Report, April 1 6, is a summary of major provisions in S 1 564, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( the House b i l l being only sl ightly different ) :

H . Required that any new voting law enacted by a state or local government whose voter qual ifications had been n u l l i fied b y t h e bill b e submitted t o t h e Attorney General for h is consideration before it could take effect. If the Attorney General, within a 60 day period, filed objection in a three j udge federal court in the District of Columbia, the new law could not be enforced unless or until the court had determined it was non-discrimi natory. If a new law was not contested by the Attorney General or was determined non-discriminatory by the court, subsequent action cou l d s t i l l be taken t o strike down the measure i f enforcement appeared to deviate from the law's intent.

1965,

A. Provided for the appointment by the Civil Service Com mission of " examiners," federal officials who woul d de termine a voter's qualifications and acquire enrollment of new voters, whenever: ( 1 ) A federal court, hearing a suit by the Attorney General charging a state or political subdivision with denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, determined during the course of the suit that examiners were needed or delivered a final j udgement finding voting discrimination. ( 2 ) The Attorney General certifies to the Commission that he has received complaints from 20 or more residents of a political sub division of a state ( such as a county or voting district ) that they had been denied the right to vote on account of race or color, or that he has determined that general discrimination existed. Examiners would be appointed i n these cases only if t h e political subdivision qualified statisti cally as one practicing massive discrimination under the triggering formula provided i n the b i l l . ( 3 ) The Director of the Census, in a survey conducted at the request of the Attorney General, determined that less than 25 percent of the voting age population of the Negro race or of any other race or color, was registered to vote. B. Made any state or subdivision subject to the appointment of federal examiners if a l i teracy test was used as a qualification for voting on Nov. I , 1964, and ( 1 ) the Director of the Census had determined that less than 50 percent o f t h e persons o f voting age residing i n the area were registered to vote on that date or actually voted in the 1964 Presidential Election, and also ( 2 ) more than 20 percent of t h e persons of voting age, according t o the 1 960 Census, were non-white.

E. Required an appl icant appearing before an examiner to submit allegations that he had been denied the right to vote on account of race or color and also stipulated that the Attorney General might require such an applicant to further allege that a state official had denied him the right to register or vote within a 90 day period preced ing . his application. When an examiner determined that an applicant was qualified to vote, he would place the ap plicant's name on a l ist of eligible voters. Such l ists wou l d b e sent t o local election officials at least once a month, and the appropriate officials wou l d be required to add the list to their voting rol ls . F. Authorized federal examiners, upon determining that proper ly registered voters had been turned away fro � the polls, to go into a U. S. district court and get an order Impounding the ballots until persons entitled to vote had been a llowed to do so. The court would be required to give expeditious treatment to such cases.

Provided that, to free itself of the federal registration apparatus, a state or locality would have to prove in a three j udge federal district court in the District of Columbia that it had not used a l iteracy test to discriminate against voters for a five-year period preceding the filing of its action; or ( 1 ) that its percentage of voting age population participating in the previous presidential election had ex ceeded the national average ( 62.0 percent in 1 964 ) or that at least 60 percent of adult residents were currently registered to vote, and ( 2 ) that there had been no discrimination against voters. Final j u dgements of any federal court during the preceding five years determining that the state or voting district had discriminated could be introduced by the Government as prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

Provided that even i f a court freed a state of the charge of discrimination, the court would retain j u risdiction for a f ive-year period and could reopen the action upon the Attorney General's motion that the state or district had discriminated.

Provided that if a state or locality in which examiners had been appointed considered a federally registered applicant unqualified to vote, it could challenge that voter's qualifi cations before a hearing officer appointed by the Civil Service Commission. The hearing officer would be re quired to make a ruling on the chal lenge within 1 5 days.

1. Provided that upon the request of a state or voting district

seeking to come out from under the bill or challenging the registration of a voter it considered unqualified, the C i v i l Service Commission would be empowered to sub poena any witness or documentary evidence pertinent to the case.

C. Eliminated state pol l taxes as a requirement for registering or voting in state and local elections. (The 24th Amend ment abolished poll taxes as a requirement for registering or voting in federal elections . ) D . Provided for suspension of l i teracy tests and similar devices in a l l elections-federal, state and local ( including pri maries and special elections) upon appointment of federal examiners. The Civil Service Commission, in consultation with the Attorney General, then would be authorized to determine which aspects of state voting laws were non discriminatory and could remain i n force. The Civil Service Commission would also promulgate regulations regarding the times and p l aces for voting and the contents of the application form.

M. Provided that intimidation, vote fraud, or other interference by private citizens or public officials would carry upon conviction a maximum fine of $ 5,000, maximum imprison ment of five years, or both. N. Authorized federal examiners to appoint pol l watchers to observe election procedures, including tabulation of votes, in order to ensure that no discrimination took place.

(24)

"Red Voting Act Plan," by Henry J. Taylor, The St. April 1 6, 1965

Dispatch,

( 2 5 ) Congressional Rum'd,

March

17, 1965,

pp.

5 1 5 6-7

Paul

( daily)

S . Representative W i l l iam 1 . Dickinson ( Rep., Ala. ) , has presented information to the House On the Sel ma-to-Mont gomery march. His first speech is in the CongressIOnal Recol-d, March 30, 1 965, pages 6 1 1 3-4 of the daily edition. H i s secon ? . speech, together with remarks from other RepresentatIves, IS i n the Congressional Record, April 27, 1 965, pp. 8307- 1 5 . He repeated the speech later off of the House floor. Personal interviews made by my staff ( with newsmen and members of the Arm�d Forces present during the march ) corroborate sworn statements and other information presented by Representative Dickinson. Alabama law enforcement and other agencies have photographs and other documents to back up �he�e charges. Some of the information has not been made publIc In order to protect the m i l i tary personnel and others involved.

(26) U.

( 2 7 ) Saturday Review,

Page 1 52

April

3, 1965, pp. 16-7, 57

THE

IJI/II Smootlie,olt Vol. I I , No. 20

(Broadcast 508)

May 1 7, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

TH E D OM I N I CA N R EPU B L I C

N inety miles south of Florida is the island of Cuba, about 650 miles long, east to west, about 100 miles wide, north to south. East of Cuba, across a narrow strait called the Windward Passage, is the island of Hispaniola. East of Hispaniola, across a strait called the Mona Passage, is the island of Puerto Rico. These three key islands, discovered by Columbus, separate the At lantic Ocean from the Caribbean Sea.

The middle island-Hispaniola-was the original base of Spanish operations in the new world. Spaniards founded Santo Domingo, at the mouth of the Ozama River, on the southeastern shore of Hispaniola-the first permanent settlement of Europeans in the Americas. Though Columbus died in Spain, his remains are buried in Santo Domingo, as he had requested. Native Indians whom Columbus discovered on Hispaniola were nearly exterminated by white men's diseases and by hard labor imposed on them. They were replaced by negro slaves imported from Africa. About a century after Spaniards founded Santo Domingo, freebooters, buccaneers, and pirates began to form a settlement on the northwestern tip of the island. They came under the protection of France; and in 1 697, Spain conceded the western third of the island as French territory. The French called their part of the island Sainte Dominique. The Spanish colony was known as Santo Domingo, after the name of the original city. In 1 795 , Spain surrendered the entire island of Hispaniola to France; but the French never occupied the Spanish part of the island. A slave rebellion in the French colony exterminated or drove out whites, and resulted in establishment of the negro nation of Haiti on the western third of the island. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., m � i1ing 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 ye�rs. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail ( including APO and FPO) $ 1 4.50 a year. Repnnts of speofic issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ l O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 1 53

Haitians invaded and occupied Santo Domingo. Napoleon sent an army which defeated Haitian invaders ; but disease, continued slave uprisings, and war in Europe soon compelled the French army to withdraw. With the help of England, Spain recaptured her old colony of Santo Domingo in 1809 and held it until 182 1 , when Dominicans revolted and declared independence from Spain. Within three months, Haitians again invaded Santo Domingo. They occupied it for 2 2 years. In 1844, Dominicans successfully revolted against Haitian rule and proclaimed the Domin ican Republic an independent nation. Power struggles among leaders and factions in the new nation ; continued domestic rebellions ; and re peated invasion attempts by Haiti brought misery for the next 1 7 years. In 1861, the Dominican president (General Pedro Santana ) proclaimed the nation re-annexed to Spain. In 1 865, Dominicans again revolted, threw off Spanish control, and re-established the Domini can Republic. Again, they were unable to main tain freedom and independence. In 1869, the Dominican president asked that his country be annexed to the United States. President Ulysses S. Grant wanted annexation, but the U. S. Senate would not approve. Anarchy prevailed until 1882, when a strong dictator gained control. He ruled until his assassi nation in 1899. During the next six years, four major revolutions occurred. The nation sank so deeply in debt that foreign creditors (particularly French and Italian ) were threatening force to effect collections. An American financial syndi cate was also heavily involved. In 1905, the United States assumed control of collecting Dominican customs duties and, in re turn, guaranteed Dominican territorial integrity. The U. S. allocated to the Dominican government 45 % of duties collected. This created financial stability, because it gave the government more income than previously when most customs rev enue was siphoned off by graft and corruption. (16)

Political turmoil continued, however; and in 1916, the United States sent Marines to protect American lives and property and to establish order. The Marines confiscated and dumped into the sea approximately 3,000,000 small firearms (more than the total number of people in the country) . (1) They built sewage and water systems, roads and schools. They armed and trained a native con stabulary. (16)

R afael Truj illo was a young lieutenant in the nondescript Dominican army when the U. S. Marines arrived in 1916. He served with the Marines, and developed a passionate loyalty and admiration for them. The Marines, in turn, trained Trujillo and a few other young officers to take command of a new Dominican army. ( 1 ,16) The U. S. Marines withdrew in 1924, and Horacio Vasquez was elected President of the Dominican Republic. Before his four-year term ended, Vasquez autocratically extended it to a six-year term, giving indications that he would never willingly relinquish power. In 1930, Rafael Trujillo (who had become Chief of Staff of the American-trained Dominican army) led a revolt which overthrew Vasquez. Trujillo was elected President. (16) In 1 9 34, Truj illo was re-elected President for a second four-year term. In 1 9 3 8, he chose not to run; but the political party which he had founded won the election; and Truj illo retained control, while serving four years as special ambassador of the Dominican Republic. United States receivership of Dominican cus toms duties, begun in 1905, continued until 1941. A new Dominican constitution of 1942 ex tended the presidential term to five years. With out significant opposition, Truj illo was elected in 1942 and 1 947. In 1952, he decided not to run again for elective office ; but, through his political military machine, he remained virtual dictator un til his death in 1961, permitting only members

Page 154

of his family or other chosen candidates to run for major offices.

The Truiillo Era: 1 930-1 961

T ruj illo

had hardly taken office for his first term as President in 1930 when a terrible hurri cane struck the island, devastating the capital. Truj illo rebuilt Santo Domingo and renamed it Ciudad Truj illo ( its original name being restored after his assassination) . Throughout the Truj illo era, the Dominican Republic operated on a balanced budget. The foreign debt was paid off in 1 947, the national debt in 1953. When Truj illo became President in 1930, only 50,000 students were enrolled in the nation's schools. In 1956, total school enrollment was close to half a million. Great tracts of land were brought into production by irrigation. In dustries were built to process native agricultural products. Foreign trade flourished. (16)

Always loyal to the United States, Truj illo saw to it that the Dominican Republic was among the first Latin American nations to join the U. S. in WorId War II. He offered land for settlement by refugees from European persecution. (16)

H ere is a brief summary of Dominican history taken from Trujillo : The Last Caesar, written by General Arturo Espaillat, who held high offices during the Truj illo dictatorship, but left his home land as an exile after Trujillo was assassinated :

"From this chaos there emerged regional chiefs, k ?own as caciques. These were very tough indi VIduals who had clawed their way to local lead ership and held it until someone a bit tougher came along . . . . Dominican politics consisted of several caciques periodically getting together to overthrow the government . . . . [ which ] was never strong enough to resist the caciques. The army was merely a handful of ill-trained con scripts. Recruitment was simple. From time to time the government would call on loyal caciques for volunteers. The local chiefs would then round up a batch of unhappy youths and send them to the capital. Sometimes it was necessary to use force. One cacique handcuffed his 'volunteers' to a huge rope and sent them to the army with this message: 'Here are your volunteers. Please return the rope.' "But the U. S. Marines and Trujillo changed all that . . . . "Trujillo always thought of himself as basi cally a Marine Corps officer-and 'damned proud of it.' It was typical, for instance, that of the 40 to 50 decorations conferred upon him during his long career, Trujillo was proudest of a faded, threadbare medal attesting to his service with the Marines. "This loyalty to the Corps was responsible for his unwavering loyalty to the United States. This was true even in the face of Washington's re buffs and attempts to topple him. Trujillo never got over his love affair with the Marines. "The Marines pulled out in 1 924. Behind them they left . . . [ a ] small but efficient army and a network of roads. The roads penetrated to the formerly isolated regions ruled by the caciques. And the new Marine-trained army had become more than a match for the caciques' pistoleros. . . .

"Dominican politics . . . . is a claw and fang struggle for survival. Truj illo was able to sur vive for 3 1 years only because he was almost per fectly adapted to, and shaped by, that environ ment . . . .

"Trujillo crushed the caciques. Moving his Marine-trained troops over Marine-built roads, the Generalissimo struck again and again. Ca ciques who wouldn't surrender unconditionally were gunned down. The survivors saw the light. The era of regional warlords was ended. The Era of Trujillo had begun.

"For centuries, Dominicans have referred to their country as 'The land Columbus loved best.' But Dominicans also had reason to fear that theirs was the land that God must love least. Our whole history is one of foreign invasions and domestic insurrections . . .

"For his own reasons, Trujillo then precipi tated a social revolution. He was not of the aristocracy. He feared and resented the old fami lies, a feeling that most of them heartily re ciprocated. So Trujillo addressed himself directly to the campesinos, the peasants. The power of

Page

155

the caciques is broken, he told them, and you are now under the protection of my government. Thousands of letters were sent out urging the peasants to submit their complaints directly to Trujillo. Were they abused by the landowners? Tell Trujillo. Did a village need a schoolhouse? Ask Trujillo . . . . "And it worked. The masses remained loyal to Trujillo to the end. When he was buried, tens of thousands ,of grief-stricken campesinos poured out of the hills to attend his funeral . . . . No member of the educated classes ever dared at tempt to lead a popular revolution. No colonel ever dared order his troops to march on the N a tional Palace. His own men would have mowed him down. That is why the men who finally as sassinated Trujillo were all from the upper ranks of Dominican society, and even they dared to act only in concert with agents of the U . S. gov ernment. "Trujillo's political tactics also produced an other social transformation: the appearance of a middle class. In 1 930 there were only' three really wealthy families in the Dominican Re public - the Vicinis, Ricarts and Espaillats plus another fifty landed families of moderate wealth. Below them were only the masses. There was nothing in between. "There were several reasons for the absence of a middle class. One was that the ever-recurring revolutions ruined agriculture, the country's only major SOllrce of income. Harvests rotted while field hands shot at each other in opposing armies. Not enough wealth could be generated to produce any real business or businessmen. "What few merchants there were made it a point to live from hand to mouth . They kept very little merchandise in stock. And they had good reason, for anything of value in the stores was invariably confiscated by one or another of the rebel armies which made their annual appear ance. "Trujillo's iron-fisted dictatorship changed all that. He shot people who disturbed the peace. And with peace, the republic's natural wealth burst forth. Agricultural production soared. A commercial and professional class came into be ing. The population of the Dominican Republic nearly tripled in the Era of Trujillo. "The price was freedom. Trujillo imposed a military discipline which turned the population

into an army. The Dominican government was commanded with the same military efficiency that Trujillo had so admired in the Marines. For the first time, and possibly the last, public employees went to work on time. Official func tions were conducted on a precise schedule. Of fenses were punished in the same spirit of a commanding officer meting out disciplinary ac tion. And anti-Trujillo activity, to the Old Man, was the same as a soldier committing mutiny."(l )

Exit Truiillo

T hough

he imposed a national socialist dic tatorship on the Dominican Republic, Trujillo was a fierce enemy of that brand of international socialism called communism. In his latter days, Truj illo felt that the U. S. State Department began to turn against him when he warned the Department that Fidel Castro was a dangerous communist. The State Department made it possible for Castro to sieze power in Cuba in 195 8-1959. Destruction of Trujillo became a primary Castro objective. A remarkable chain of events indicates that the U. S. government helped accomplish that communist objective. In July, 1960, the Peruvian government sug gested a meeting of the Organization of Ameri can States (O.A.S. - composed of the U. S. and 20 Latin American nations ) to discuss the Soviet threat in this hemisphere, particularly Soviet con trol of Castro in Cuba. The O. A. S. committee appointed to arrange the conference was pri marily concerned, however, with making arrange ments acceptable to Castro. The committee de cided to placate Castro by setting a conference whose first order of business would be, not com munist control of Cuba, but charges against Trujillo. The Venezuelan government had ac cused Truj illo of plotting to assassinate Presi dent Romulo Betancourt, a former communist<4) who, like other communists, hated Truj illo. (2)

( :1 )

The U. S. State D epartment supported the com mittee plan. When the O. A. S. conference met

Page 156

at San Jose, Costa Rica, on August 16, 1960, Ei senhower's Secretary of State took the lead in get ting a resolution recommending that O. A. S. nations break diplomatic relations with the Do minican Republic and impose severe economic sanctions. The U. S. was not successful, however, in getting the conference to do anything about Cuba. The San Jose Conference ended with no action taken against communist Cuba; but, under U. S. leadership, it had ruined Truj illo, our only strong anti-communist friend in the Caribbean area. (5)

On August 26, 1960, the United States broke diplomatic relations with the Dominican Repub liC; (5) and Truj illo's days were numbered. Our State Department and Central Intelligence Agency have been accused of plotting his murder. Note the following from T1'ujillo : The Last Caesar: "Norman Gall . . . in his New Republic ac count of 'How Trujillo Died' . . . . says: " 'The assassination of the Dominican Repub lic's Rafael L. Trujillo was carried out with as sistance from the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency. Arms for . . . slaying . . . the 69-year old dictator . . . were smuggled by CIA into the country at the request of the assassins, ac cording to highly qualified sources I interviewed in Santo Domingo shortly after the collapse of the Trujillo rule. " 'The CIA began shipping guns to the Do minican Republic in late 1 960 . . . . " 'The key link between the assassins and the CIA in the arms shipment was a long-time Amer ican civilian resident of Ciudad Trujillo . . . who operated a supermarket in a fashionable neighborhood where Trujillo also lived . . . . " 'The weapons were imported in small parts, to be assembled later by the plotters, among the routine grocery shipments for the supermarket arriving regularly in the capital's port . . . .'

had put together a powerful political-military machine which could only have been destroyed by intervention from the outside world. And the State Department had decreed: Trujillo must go . . . . [ But ] . . . . his magnetic appeal to the masses was still overwhelming . . . .

"So there was only one way to get rid of the man . . . . he had to die. The plot began to take shape in the fall of 1 960, shortly after the con demnation of the Trujillo regime at the Organi zalion of American States conference in Costa Rica. "Masterminding the operation were two rather improbable conspirators. They were foreign service officers who had held posts in the U. S. Embassy until the rupture of relations, after which they had been transferred to the U. S. Consulate. The pair reminded me of the Ameri can comic strip characters Mutt and Jeff . . . . "It was typical that Trujillo would always be the last to admit that U. S. diplomats were knif ing him in the back. "It was this same blind confidence that per mitted the conspiracy to flower literally under his nose. Trujillo knew that Mutt and Jeff were in contact with oppositionists. It was fairly com mon knowledge in the government that the American's market was being used as a rendez vous by the two diplomats and oppositionists. But he and the diplomats were Americans. And Trujillo, always the ex-Marine, liked Americans . . . . "By early December, 1 960, the conspiracy had shaped up . . . . On Christmas Day, 1 960, the green light was flashed [ from Washington ] Tactical execution of the plot was the next step." Cl)

Truj ilIo died in a hail of machine gun bullets, on a lonely stretch of highway near Santo Do mingo, the night of May 30, 1961 ; and anarchy returned to the land that Columbus loved best. Dominicans (presently about 85 Cfo negro and mulatto ; 1 5 Cfo white) have never known freedom, or shown themselves capable of it.

Sequel

"The arrival of weapons from the Government of the United States was, for the plotters, tangi

ble evidence that the might of the United States was behind them. Without that support there would simply have been no conspiracy. Trujillo

J oaquin Balaguer was President of the Domin

ican Republic when Trujillo was assassinated. He

Page 157

and members of Truj illo's family continued gov erning the country ; but riots, demonstrations, and strikes created grave problems and indicated that a major revolt was impending. By mid-December, 1961, most of the Truj illo family had left the country. Balaguer formed a new government, promising to resign as President as soon as the O. A. S. lifted economic sanctions. President John F. Kennedy announced that he would personally urge lifting of sanctions on the basis of Balaguer's promise. (6)

On January 4, 1962, the O. A. S. lifted econom ic sanctions. Two days later, the U. S. resumed di plomatic relations and economic aid. Elections were held in December, 1962 ; and Juan Bosch was elected President. Bosch, who had been in exile for a quarter of a century, was well known for involvement in leftist activities in Latin America and was reported to have been a communist. ( 7)

On January 1 0, 1963, Bosch visited President Kennedy in Washington. On February 27, 1963, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson attended Bosch's inauguration in Santo Domingo. Johnson pledged U. S. support to Bosch, saying: "We celebrate with you the rebirth of an au thentic democracy." ( 8 )

Bosch permitted communists to return from exile, and took communists into his government. He demanded a "reform act" authorizing him to confiscate property of almost anyone who had done business during the Truj illo regime. He ex tended government control over education. He tried to force all labor unions into a government controlled central federation. He closed down several newspapers and broadcast stations for crit icizing his regime. He attempted to take over the nation's judiciary. He replaced experienced gov ernmental officials with his leftist political cro nies. (9) All the while, the Kennedy-Johnson adminis tration rushed economic aid, to make the Do minican Republic, under Bosch's presidency, a Page

"showcase of democracy." Despite the aid, the Dominican economy sank into ruin. Poverty and unrest were more prevalent than at any time dur ing the 30-year Truj illo eraY)

On September 24, 1963, Dominican military leaders, seeing the country rapidly becoming a communist satellite, seized power. Bosch took ref uge in Puerto Rico, a U. S. territorial possession ; and the U. S. again suspended diplomatic rela tions with the Dominican Republic. After the anti-communist military junta had surrendered control to a "moderate" civilian j unta, President Johnson (on December 14, 1963 ) renewed diplo matic relations. On April 24, 1965 , supporters of Juan Bosch rebelled against the civilian junta. On April 28, 1965, President Johnson ordered Marines into the Dominican Republic to evacuate Americans and other foreigners. The French government ordered two warships to evacuate French citizens. (10) On April 29, Johnson administration spokes men denied reports that the President was acting with force because of communist involvement in the rebellion. The O. A. S. (at a special meet ing which President Johnson had requested) sanc tioned U. S. rescue operations. When Dominican military leaders, who were trying to suppress the rebellion, asked the U. S. to expand its rescue operations to help restore order, the U. S. said that this could not be done without O. A. S. approval - that we could act only to protect U. S. citizens and property. On May 1, another special O. A. S. meeting was called, to consider President Johnson's re quest that the O. A. S. take responsibility for re storing order. (11)

(12)

On May 2 , President Johnson said that the re volt had been taken over by communists and that the U. S. purpose was no longer merely to pro tect U. S. lives and property, but to prevent estab

lishment of another communist government in the

Western Hemisphere. This May 2 speech made it 158

clear (as Walter Lippmann pointed out ) that President Johnson wanted restoration of "the kind of popular democratic revolution, committed to democracy and social justice, which . . . [ Juan ] Bosch represents." (13) On May 6, 1 965, the O. A. S. voted to create an inter-American military force to restore order in the Dominican Republic. President Johnson had promised to withdraw American troops as soon as an O. A. S. force was ready to take over. The O. A. S. action and the President's promise do not mean that our soldiers will be withdrawn. It means that they will serve under O. A. S., rather than under U. S., command. By May 8, 1965, about 19,000 U. S. troops were in the Dominican Republic (another 1 1 ,000 in supporting naval forces ) . Thirteen had been killed, 75 wounded.

P resident Johnson insists that communists took

over a "popular revolt" in the Dominican Repub lic. Facts, however, attest that communists planned the revolt; and that one leader in the com munist plot was Juan Bosch, ( 14 ) the man whom Kennedy-Johnson policies helped to power in 1963 ; the man on whom Kennedy and Johnson lavished praise and aid ; the man whose socialist dictatorship President Johnson apparently wants re-established in the Dominican Republic. We and Dominicans would have been in finitely better off if we had left them and their pro-American dictator alone to manage their own affairs. But Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson politi cal intervention helped create conditions which made our military intervention necessary.

Once intervention was ordered, it should have been robust and unlimited. Instead, our troops were initially handicapped by restrictions to keep them from appearing aggressive. They could not shoot unless shot at first. They were permitted to use only "hand-held weapons" - forbidden to use heavy weapons or tanks. They could not blow up houses filled with snipers who were killing them. (15) When our troops are ordered to battle, they should be permitted to use their most effective weapons and tactics. They should fight as United States soldiers, for clearly-defined United States objectives. Giving an international organization any control over the mission or tactics of our fight ing men will cost us blood and treasure. It will prevent quick, decisive action. It will prohibit concentration on promoting United States inter ests. It could eventuate in a situation far worse than the one which prompted our intervention in the first place. *

Bound Volumes Bound volumes for the years 1962, 1963, and 1964 are still available. The volumes cost $10.00 each, delivered. For anyone who wants a carefully-indexed reference book on the most important subjects of our time, there is no better bargain. In the 1964 bound volume, you can determine how every member of the national Congress voted on critical roll calls throughout the second session of the 88th Congress. There are brief, lucid dis cussions of the issues involved in the voting, and

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smool Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

Page 159

tabulations glvmg the ratings which each mem ber of Congress earned by the way he stood up to be counted. There are fascinating accounts of Union Terrorism, of Supreme Court efforts to outlaw God from public life in the United States, of efforts to take the Panama Canal away from the United States, of the United Nations Franken stein, of the 1964 elections, and of many other subjects. The 1963 bound volume contains compact, pre cisely-organized, on-the-scene information about the Assassination in Dallas - and about the back wash of that grim affair. How China could be set free from communism ; how urban renewal is promoting a Soviet America ; how our tax money is paying for socialism and anti-American ism throughout the world ; how lawless govern ment is growing in the United States : these are a few of the many topics discussed in the 1963 an nual of this Report. Among the most useful and widely-read Re ports in the 1962 bound volume are "The Wel

FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) Tmjillo: The Last Caesar, by General Arturo EspaiIIat, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1 963, 192 pp., price: $4.95 ( 2 ) Special to the Times from Washington, The New York Times, July 14, 1 960, pp. I , 1 0 ( 3 ) Special t o the Times from Washington, b y John W . Finney, The New York Times , July 30, 1960, p. 4

( 4 ) For information on Betancourt's communist record, see material by U . S. Representative John H. Rousselot ( Rep., Cal if. ) in Congressional Records, September 23, 1 9 6 1 ( pp. 19674-9 ) , February 2 6, 1962 ( pp. 2703-7 ) , July 1 1 , 1 9 6 2 ( pp . 1 2 288-94 ) , daily editions; U . S . Representative Wil liam C . Cramer ( Rep., Fla. ) , COllgressional Recol'ds, October 1 3, 1 962 ( pp. An02 - 3 ) , and February 7. 1 963 ( PI'. 1 870-2 ) , daily editions; U . S. Represen tative Henry C. Schadeberg ( Rep., Wise. ) , Congl'es sional Rec o rd , February 1 8 , 1963, pp. 2 3 3 5 - 6 ( daily ) ; U. S. Representative John M. Ashbrook ( Rep., Ohio ) , COIIKressiollal Record. February 2 1 , 1963, pp. 2 548-9 ( daily ) ; U. S. Repre sentative R. Walter Riehlman ( Rep ., N. Y. ) , Congressional Rum·d, February 2 5 , 1963, pp. 2 8 1 0 - 3 ( daily ) . ( 5 ) UPI story from Washington, The Dallas M01'll illg News, August 27, 1960 ( 6 ) Special to the News from Santo Domingo, by Thayer Waldo, The Dalias M01'!1iIlK News, December 18, 1 9 6 1 , p. 9

( 7 ) "Washington Whispers," U. S. News & World Report, April 22, 1963, p. 19 ( 8 ) AP from Santo Domingo, The Dallas Times Herald, February 27, 1963, p. 6A

fare Racket," "Berlin and Cuba," "It Helps To Be A Communist," "The Mississippi Tragedy," "Congo Intrigue," "Progressive Education," and "Stabbed In The Back On The Fourth Of July."

Subscription:

gift to a library, a student, a teacher, a relative, a friend. Price : $10.00 each, delivered ($ 10.20, if or dered in Texas for Texas delivery ) . See order blank at the bottom of this page.

( 9 ) "Bosch : A Man of Controversy." by Ken Thompson, The Dal las M01'!1ing News, May 8, 1 96 5 , See. 4, p. 2 ( 1 0 ) AP story from Washington, The Dallas Times Hel'ald, April 29, 1 96 5 , PI'. lA, 1 7 A

( 1 1 ) AP story by John Hightower, The Dallas M01'!1ing Ne ws, April 30, 1 965, Sec. I, p. 1 5 ( 1 2 ) AP story from Santo Domingo, April 30, 1 9 6 5 , pp. l A, 1 7A

The Dallas Times Herald,

( 1 3 ) Walter Lippmann column, The Dallas Morning News, May 6, 1 965, Sec. 2, p. 8 ( 1 4 ) "Full Story of Caribbean War: How Reds Plotted a Take Over," U. S. News & World Report, May 1 0 , 1 9 6 5 , pp. 3 2 - 5

( 1 5 ) U. S. News & World Repol·t, May 1 7 , 1 9 6 5 , p. 34 ( 1 6 ) For a general history of the Dominican 1 960, see Encyclopedia Americana, Volume pp. 243-247b.

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00 - $ 10.00 -$10.00

Republic through 1961 edition,

IX,

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

ZIP CODE

STATE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR Page 1 60

1-2303

THE o

I)flil SmootlIeport Vol .

I I,

No. 2 1

(Broadcast 509)

May 24, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

O U R LAB O R LAWS

On March 29,

1965, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down decisions in three labor-manage ment relations cases : ( 1 ) THE AMERICAN SHIP BUILDING COMPANY CASE. In 1961, the company was unable to negotiate a new contract with eight unions representing employees. The unions wanted to continue negotiations until mid-winter, which is the busiest time of year for the company. The company (which had endured five strikes in nine years) feared that if negotiations continued, the unions would call a strike at the worst possible time-the peak season of the company's highly seasonal operations. To obviate this catastrophe, the company closed its shipyard. This ex erted such economic pressure that the unions agreed to a new contract ( in October, 1961 ) . The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board ) found the company guilty of illegal lockout. The Su preme Court reversed the NLRB, unanimously hold ing that, when bargaining stalemates, an em ployer may close his plant to exert economic pressure on unions. (1) ( 2 ) CARLSBAD GROCERY STORE CASE. In 1960, Local 462 of the Retail Clerk's Inter national Association called a strike against one of six Carlsbad, New Mexico, grocery stores with which the union was trying to negotiate labor contracts. The other stores recognized this as a divide-and-conquer, whipsaw strike. They closed their doors, locked out union members, and re opened with non-union employees. The NLRB ruled the stores guilty of illegal lockout. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRB ruling. (1) ( 3 ) DARLINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY CASE. In 1956, the American tex tile industry was in bad shape-because of governmental policies which used American tax money to subsidize building and maintenance of textile mills in foreign lands ; which enabled mo nopolistic unions to impose labor costs about 20 times greater than labor costs in foreign textile mills ; which made American cotton available to foreign mills at prices below what American mills THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ l O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 161

paid. In October,

1956,

a textile mill in South

Carolina-Darlington Manufacturing Company

-decided to give up. The stockholders voted to

sell its assets and go out of business. Meanwhile, the Textile Union was trying to organize the

March

29, 1965 ,

Supreme Court decisions affirm

ing the right of employers to close their plants

rather than give in to union demands make sense,

Yet, they directly contradict previous Supreme Court findings on this same point. The Court's

plant. In an election, the union, by a margin of

Darlington Manufacturing Company decision

ton's

may not stop part of his operations-compounds

eight votes, won bargaining rights for Darling

315

employees. The sale of Darlington's

assets was made at public auction shortly after

the election. ( 2)

The NLRB ruled that the mill had been closed

because Roger Milliken ( President of Darlington and owner of

5<;10

of its stock ) disliked unions.

Holding that there was sufficient common owner

ship of the Darlington mill by Deering Milliken

& Company and related corporations to make

them all responsible for Darlington employees thrown out of work, the NLRB ordered the Deer

ing Milliken textile group to give back pay to

Darlington employees until they had obtained

equivalent jobs with other companies or in other Deering Milliken mills. The company appealed.

The NLRB upheld the union position on four

different occasions. Eventually, the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to order en

forcement of the NLRB ruling. The Appeals

Court refused, saying that even if the Darlington

mill had closed for anti-union reasons,

"to go out of business in toto, or to discontinue it in part, permanently at any time, we think was Darlington'S absolute prerogative." ( 2 ) On March 29, 1 965, the U. S. Supreme Court, in a 7 -0 ruling, returned the case to the NLRB

and the Circuit Court for a decision on whether

holding that an employer may quit enti rely but

the confusion.

What rights

Court held that an employer has an absolute right to terminate his entire business for any reason he pleases, but does not have a right to close

part

of his business "if motivated by a purpose to chill unionism in any of the remaining plants of the

single employer." ( 1, 3)

In a free society, the right of an employer to

quit business should be as unlimited as the right of an employee to quit work. Hence, the two

employers have under federal

labor laws, as administered and interpreted by

the NLRB and the federal courts ? No one knows.

An employer may appeal an NLRB decision to

a higher level of the Board itself. Eventually, he may appeal to a federal court. The court mav hear the appeal, or reject it and leave the employ er at the mercy of the NLRB. When a case gets

into the federal courts, no one can guess what

will happen. The Supreme Court may or may not hear the case on final appeal. The Court may up

hold, or overturn an NLRB ruling. The Court

may decide in one case the opposite of what it

had previously decided in a similar case. Some times, the NLRB reverses itself.

The only consistency in the administration and

adj udication of federal labor laws is the i llegal use of government power. All federal labor laws are

unconstitutional,

because

the

Constitution

grants the federal government no power to inter

vene in labor-management affairs. Federal labor laws are also

discriminatory,

listic unionism,

favoring monopo

granting special privileges to

union organizations.

the Darlington Manufacturing Company had anti

union motives in closing its plant. The Supreme

T he

basic federal labor law is the National

Labor Relations Act ( Public Law 74-198, signed by President Franklin D . Roosevelt on July 5 ,

1935,

generally called the Wagner Act ) . The

Taft-Hartley Act of

fin Act of

1959

1947

and the Landrum-Grif

amended the Wagner Act, but

did not alter basic purposes.

The Wagner Act created the NLRB to help

achieve the purposes of the law. A basic, stated purpose was to encourage collective bargaining. The law, and the agency established to admin-

Page 162

ister it, have been used to enforce collective bar gammg. Workers who want to band together and bar gain collectively should not be denied the right to do so ; but when government forces workers to bargain collectively, it denies them the right to bargain as individuals. Government-enforced col lective bargaining strips a worker of his individu ality as a human being. In a big unionized plant, a man cannot put in extra effort with the hope of getting ahead on his merit. He cannot go directly to his own employer to make a complaint or ask for a raise. He gets a uniform raise, along with all other workers-a raise which he had no part in negotiating and which may have no relation to his individual worth as an employee. Under federal law and NLRB practices, an employer, in a unionized plant, who gives his own employees a raise, without first getting permission from union officials, can be found gui lty of the unfair labor practice of taking unilateral wage action. The NLRB has even found employers guilty of unfair labor practices for giving wage raises to employees in companies where em ployees do not belong to a union, and have made it emphatically clear in an election that they do not want a union to represent them. Union officials contend, and the NLRB officially agrees, that : "The natural effect of unilateral wage action is to undermine the union by demonstrating to the employees that they don't need a union to secure economic benefits " (4 ) .

On the other hand, the NLRB has ruled that a union, as an employer, in handling its own employee affairs, can engage in practices which the NLRB calls unfair if engaged in by other employers. (5)

Chaos and Iniustice

A few cases illustrate the chaos and injustice caused by unconstitutional government meddling in labor-management affairs.

On January 28, 1955, the New York News paper Guild struck one of the oldest newspapers in America, the Brooklyn Eagle, a daily. (6)

On March 16, 1955, the owner-publisher sus pended publication, saying the union's wage de mands would bankrupt the Eagle. The newspaper sold its assets and paid its debts. The union demanded that the defunct corporation give sev erance and vacation pay to 3 1 5 employees, whose jobs the union had destroyed. (6)

In April, 1957, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the corporation had to submit to NLRB arbitration. The corporation appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which refused to review the case. The dispute, therefore, went to the NLRB for final decision. The arbiter whom NLRB selected was H. Willard Wirtz (then a professor at North western University, now U. S. Secretary of Labor) . On February 5 , 1959, the union announced that Professor Wirtz had ordered the non-existent BfOoklyn Eagle to pay union members nearly a million dollars in severance and vacation pay. Professor Wirtz denied the former publisher's counter claim for two million dollars damages from the union-which had driven the paper out of business.

union had a contract, as bargaining agent for employees, with Quaker State Oil Refining Company. When the contract period was near an end, management and union officials entered negotiations for renewal. Union officials made demands which the company considered ruinous. Negotiations deadlocked. The old contract ex pired before a new one was made. In this case, company officials took the initiative to say "no contract, no work." They closed the plant. Union officials called this a lockout, and accused the company of unfair labor practices. The NLRB found the company guilty as accused. The com pany appealed to the courts. ( 7) On December 7, 1959, the Supreme Court

Page 163

upheld the NLRB and lower courts. (7 ) This de cision was directly contradicted by two Supreme Court decisions on March 29, 1965 , as mentioned before. (1,3)

union had a contract as bargaining agent for Boston Gas Company employees - many of whom disliked the union, and resented being forced to belong and pay dues. In 1960, before the union contract expired, 30 percent of the employees petitioned for a decertification election to determine whether a majority of employees wanted to get rid of the union. The NLRB granted the petition, but the union appealed, and the election was not held. Before other legal steps were taken, the Eisenhower administration was replaced by the Kennedy administration. President Kennedy appointed an NLRB member even more friendly to union officials than those appointed by President Eisenhower. The NLRB, previously known as the "Eisenhower Board," be came the "Kennedy Board." The Kennedy Board reversed the Eisenhower Board in the Boston Gas Company case, ruling that employees had no right to a decertification election. (4)

When

Indiana had a right-to-work law, 14,000 General Motors employees in that state refused to join Walter Reuther's UAW. Reuther tried to negotiate an agency-shop clause in his contract with GM, so that the 14,000 would be forced to pay union dues even though they would not join the union. GM refused. UAW accused GM of unfair labor practices and took the case to the NLRB. Early in 196 1 , while it was still the "Eisenhower Board," the NLRB ruled in favor of the 14,000 employees. In September, 1 961, the NLRB (now the "Kennedy Board" ) reversed the previous NLRB ruling and said that GM must grant the agency-shop agreement. Gen eral Motors appealed. In June, 1 962, the Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed the NLRB. The appeals court said, in effect, that General Motors did not have to grant an agency shop agreement in Indiana. Reuther's UAW ap-

pealed to the Supreme Court. On June 3, 1963, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals decision, ruling, in effect, that General Motors must give Reuther the agency-shop agree ment in Indiana. ( 8 )

On July 27, 1959, the Fibreboard Paper Prod ucts Company hired an independent contractor to do maintenance work at Fibreboard's San Fran cisco plant. The company took this action in order to save $225 ,000.00 a year. The United Steel workers of America complained that granting maintenance work to an outside firm would throw 73 Fibreboard employees out of work. (9) On March 27, 1961, the Eisenhower NLRB ruled that Fibreboard had the right to decide who would do plant maintenance work. (9) On April 1 3, 1962, the Kennedy NLRB re versed the March 27, 1961, Fibreboard deci sion. (10) Kennedy'S NLRB ordered Fibreboard to do its own maintenance work, and to rehire the laid-off union members and give them back pay. (9) On December 14, 1 964, the U. S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, upheld the 1962 NLRB decision against Fibreboard. (11)

In the case of the Royal Plating and Polishing Company of Newark, New Jersey, one agency of government (the Newark Housing Authority) forced the company to close its plant; and then another agency of government (the NLRB ) found the company guilty of an unfair labor practice for closing. (12)

The plant was located in an area which the Housing Authority had selected for redevelop ment. The Authority gave notice that it would confiscate the plant, by condemnation if necessary. In 1962, the Housing Authority took a 90-day option to buy the site; and the company began liquidating the business, refusing new orders and gradually laying off employees. At the end of the 90-day option period, the plant was closed.

Page 164

(12)

The AFL-CIO Metal Polishers Union, Local 44 (which had had a contract with the company since 1947 ) , accused the company of an unfair labor practice, because it closed without con sulting union officials. The union contended that the company might have managed to stay in business another six months. The NLRB held the company guilty as accused, ordering it to compen sate all discharged employees for wages they did not earn during the six months when the company might have stayed in business. (12)

On April 5 , 1954, Walter Reuther's UAW CIO struck the Kohler ( plumbing ware) Com pany, of Kohler, Wisconsin. The UAW massed imported pickets at the gates of the Kohler plant, and instituted a train of violence which resulted in murder, vandalism, arson, boycott, and terror ism against innocent people. The evident object of the strike was not to get anything for the workers at the Kohler plant, but to bludgeon Kohler into forcing his employees into the UA W, after the employees had made it very clear that they did not want to join the union. ( 13)

On August 26, 1960, the NLRB ruled against Kohler and in favor of the United Auto Workers on most issues in the six-year-old strike, ordering Kohler to reinstate nearly all strikers. Subsequent ly, a U. S. Court of Appeals upheld the 1960 NLRB ruling, but asked the Board to review the cases of workers not rehired. ( 1 3 ) On September 29, 1964, the NLRB ordered Kohler to offer jobs and wages back to January, 1 962, to 5 7 strikers not covered by the 1960 NLRB ruling. The Kohler Company has appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals at Washington, D. C, noting that the dismissed employees had been guilty of unlawful conduct involving use of force, violence, and intimidation against non striking employees. (1 3)

On January 20,

1964, the NLRB ( in another case involving Reuther's UAW) ruled that unions have the legal right to make and enforce their

own "internal rules." This means that union officials, backed by federal law, can control the working lives of union members, who can never appeal for relief if they feel abused by the unions. Specifically, the NLRB ruled (in this January, 1964, decision ) that union officials have power to set production limits of workers in unionized plants, and power to fine any union member who produces more than union officials want him to produce. ( 1 4) In February, 1964, a trial examiner of the NLRB ruled that, since union officials can fine members for over-producing, they can also fine members for crossing picket lines to work. (14)

On March

1 1 , 1963, representatives of several unions negotiating with the Kingsport Press (Kingsport, Tennessee ) rejected company offers, refusing to submit the offers to workers for a vote. Union officials called a general strike and declared economic warfare on the company and on workers who defied union orders. ( 1 5 ) Employees of companies which do business with the Press were threatened and intimidated upon entering and leaving company grounds. ( 1 5 ) Press employees, and their families, were sub jected to threats and violence. Occupied homes, school buses, and automobiles were riddled with bullets. Tires were slashed, sugar dumped in gaso line tanks, houses and cars splashed with paint, people and property pelted with rocks and gar bage, homes bombed with molotov cocktails. (1:;) After more than 700 incidents of violence, union spokesmen said : "If the company had not insisted on operating its plant in spite of the strike of its workers, would there have been any violence? It is a com pliment to those involved that there has been so little violence considering the great provoca tion and the emotionally-charged atmosphere which is common in any strike situation. "(1 5 )

The Kingsport Press has managed to replace most of the striking workers. Though striking union members have been out of work for almost

Page 165

two years, the unions refuse to consider company contract proposals and are now demanding that the company discharge its new employees to make room for returning strikers, if and when other issues are resolved. (10)

195 1 , the NLRB, in a case involving the Denver Building Construction Trades Council, ruled that it was unfair labor practice for a union, in a dispute with one subcontractor of an in dustrial site, to picket and prevent employees of other subcontractors from working. ( 16 ) In 1 964, the U. S. Supreme Court ( in Carrier Corporation versus the United Steelworkers of America) , in effect, reversed that NLRB rule,

saying it was within the rights of the steelworkers' union to picket a railroad gate used by New York Central workers because "the rail workers' jobs were related to normal production in the plant." ( 16)

O n March 22, 1 965, the U. S. News & World

Report disclosed that the NLRB had held that

an employer who had withdrawn personal friend ship from a worker who joined a union was guilty of coercion amounting to a threat of job reprisal. A U. S. court of appeals has reversed that NLRB ruling. (17)

What Should Be Done

S. Senator John G. Tower (Texas Re publican) says : "Almost from its inception with the Wagner Act in 1 935, this [National Labor Relations] Board has been under public and congressional fire for failure to perform its duties in an even handed, impartial manner. "After 1 2 years' experience with the Board under the Wagner Act, a long-suffering public saw Congress in 1 947 pass the Taft-Hartley law, not only to redress a basic statutory imbalance, but also to undo the damage wrought by biased Board decisions. It soon became clear, however, that the Labor Board would not follow the man date of the new law and would not respect the

intent which Congress clearly expressed in pass ing that law . . . . "So-called NLRB loopholes became the rule, and the very abuses grew which Congress in 1 947 ordered stopped. Then after another 1 2 years, Congress again amended the labor laws with the Landrum-Griffin Act. And the Board's continuing refusal to follow congressional direc tives has been even more pronounced. "Today abuses grow and flourish, abuses Con gress thought it had banned . . . . Most damaging to public confidence, and most hostile to the will of Congress, have been those Board decisions that have permitted secondary boycotting, that have literally encouraged blackmail, picketing, that have trampled upon constitutional and stat �tory. guarant �es of free speech, and that have ImpaIred the nght of those who risk their capital to make the economic decisions necessary for proper management of their businesses. " . . . the NLRB . . . . now says management can no longer make its own decisions on efficien cy and competitiveness. "Management may no longer make decisions on the location of its facilities, on the future prospe�ts of the business; in fact, it may no long er deCIde for itself whether it will stay in or go out of business . . . . "The NLRB by its own decisions has demon strated that it respects neither the letter of the law nor the intent of Congress . . . ." "I would limit the NLRB to handling repre sentation matters. This would include conduct of employee elections. But this agency would no longer investigate, prosecute, or adjudicate un fair labor practice cases as it does today." ( 1 8 )

On March 4, 1 965, Senator Tower introduced S 1 384, a bill to divest the NLRB of its judicial functions and transfer unfair labor practice cases to federal district courts. (18) Since the NLRB has never respected the intent or obeyed the laws of Congress, there is no reason to believe the Board would obey the new law Senator Tower proposes. The NLRB should be abolished.

A mericans have a right to organize unions and join them. They also have a right to strike.

Page 166

Taking a job that is offered, or quitting the one he has ; joining a union that wants him, or re fusing to join-these are part of an American's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one-not even government-has a right to force someone to join a union if he does not want to join ; and no one has a right to use force to keep a man from taking a job which someone else has quit, whether he quit for the purpose of striking or for any other purpose.

Union strength in America has been built, in part, on hatred-class hatred. The insistent theme of union propaganda holds that management is the enemy of the laboring man, and that unions are due all credit for higher wages and better working conditions. If unions were responsible for the rise of work ers' living standards, then, of course, the highest living standards in the world would be in France, England, and Italy, where unionism has been dominant for generations.

A labor picket line-however orderly and de cent the individual members of it may be-is an instrument of force. Talking about peaceful pick eting is like talking about peaceful robbery : it is peaceful because the victim does not resist. Instances of violence on picket lines and in connection with strikes generally are almost in finite in number. Workers are beaten and shot, their cars destroyed, their homes bombed, and their families threatened because they try to work in a struck plant.

Since 1 790, living standards of wage earners in the United States have improved continuously -not in ratio to union activity, but in ratio to investment that private management has made in better plants and equipment.

What seldom gets into the newspapers in con nection with the so-called peaceful strikes are the relatively minor harassments which force workers to do what unions want-such harassments as ostracism, slander, personal vilification, and seem ingly innocent but repeated accidents on the job. Most workers in America are afraid to cross a picket line. To many, however, the picket line has become a symbol of the class warfare they have been taught to believe in.

Heavy capital investment in labor-saving tools accounts for the high productivity of America's workers. And high productivity accounts for high living standards. Big monopolistic unions tend to depress living standards of workers, because they hold down production-with their strife-inciting activities, their feather-bedding practices, and their de struction of individual incentive.

The

central evil of the labor movement is that government has granted special privileges to union officials and has given them unlawful power to force their will upon workers and management-sometimes upon the whole nation. On May 18, 1965, President Johnson asked

WHO IS DAN SMOOT?

1938 .i

1940.

In and Born in Missouri reared in Texas ' Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, civili· American n ate octor a fo work graduate doing Fellow, Teaching a as Harvard at he joined the f culty � . he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on commuOlst mveStlgatlOns; two years on to zation. From FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases i r:t . various places. � resigned . from the FBI a l!d, . was commentator on national radlO and teleVISlOn programs, gIvmg both SIdes of controvers1al to from he started his present profit-supported, free-e n,terprise business : publis ing !he Dan S"!1'? ot issues. In July, Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and p roducmg a w��kly ne�/s.analysIs radIO and teleVISlOn broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an adver�1S1ng vehIcle. . The Rep � rt �nd broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth usmg the Amencan C�nStltutlOn as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help Immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

1941,

1951

�

: 1942 1951, 1955 1955,

�

Page 1 67

Congress to outlaw state right-to-work laws, by repealing Section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act. This would vastly increase the power of union officials. Closed shop labor contracts, which force employees to join unions, would be authorized throughout the land. Congress should repeal all federal labor laws. This would abolish the NLRB and get the federal government out of its unconstitutional activities in labor-management relations. Proper enforcement of state and local laws in tended to protect life and property would provide adequate public regulation of labor-management relations in most cases. If special labor laws are needed for special circumstances, they should be enacted, enforced, and adj udicated at the state and local level.

( 5 ) "News Section," Hllman Events, September 10, 1 9 5 5 ( 6 ) "Should Unions Have Monoply Powers ?", by W. 1. White, Readen Digest, August, 1 9 5 5 , pp. 33-42 ; "Strikebound Eagle Shut Permanently," story, The New York Times, March 17, 1 9 5 5 , pp. 1 , 24

( 7 ) The Wall SHeet JouYllal, December 8, 1959 ( 8 ) "Important Decision," The Ariz01la Repllblic, July 30, 1962; U. S. News & World Report, June 1 7 , 1963, pp. 87-8 ( 9 ) "Plant Moves Possible, NLRB Executive Claims," article by Harry Bernstein, The Los Angeles Times, June 1 3 , 1964; 1 3 0 NLRB 1 0 2 2 ( 1 961 ) ( 1 0 ) 1 3 6 NLRB 1022, 7 ( 1 962 ) ( 1 1 ) "Summary of Supreme Court's Actions," The New York Times, December 1 5, 1964, p. 48 ( 1 2 ) "Firm's Caught in NLRB Bind," article by Ken Thompson, The Dallas Mornhzg News, November 19, 1964, Sec. 4, p. 4

( 14 ) "For Unions - New Power Over Members," U. S. News & World Report, February 1 7 , 1964, p. 1 0 3

( 1 ) " High Court Holds Business Can End To Balk Unionism," The New York Times, March 30, 1965, pp. 1, 3 7 ; "The Supreme Court; Limits on Labor & Management," Time maga· zine, April 9, 1965, pp. 66-7 ( 2 ) " High Court Agrees to Rule Whether Firm Has Right To Close To Avoid Unionization," The 1/7all Street JOllrnal, March 2 1 , 1964 ( 3 ) "High Court Affirms Complete Lockouts," AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas M01'l1ing News, March 30, 1965, Sec. 1 , p. 1 1

1 962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

34, No. 2 , April, 1961, pp. 1 , 8

( 1 3 ) The Kohler Strike, by Sylvester Petro, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1961 ; "Latest Ruling In Kohler Strike," U. S. News & World Report, October 1 2, 1964, p. 93

FOOTNOTES

Subscription:

( 4 ) "The NLRB, Tool of Union Leaders," The Labor Digest, Vol.

6 months 1 year

( 1 5 ) "Terror In Kingsport," Hllman Events, February 1 3 , p. 1 1

1965,

( 1 6 ) "Unions Reach an Accord on Picketing," by Damon Steston, The New YO/·k Times, February 27, 1965, p. 1 5 ( 1 7 ) "Trends i n Labor," U . S . News & World Report, March 2 2 , 1 9 6 5 , p. 94 ( 1 8 ) "Address By Senator Tower Before The National Association of Manufacturers," Congressiollal Record, March 4, 1965, pp. 4018-9 ( daily)

$ 6.00 $ 10.00 - $ 10.00 - $1 0.00 -$1 0.00 -

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 Page 1 68

TAYLOR 1 -2303

THE

1Jt/1l SmootRe,olt Vol. 1 1 , No. 22

(Broadcast 5 1 0 )

May 3 1 , 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

FI RST RO L L C A L LS, 1 9 6 5

this issue, we tabulate 14 important roll call votes taken during the first two months of the 89th Congress-7 in the Senate, 7 in the House. Though definitive ratings cannot be made on so few votes, 7 major votes in each chamber of the national Congress are enough to reveal a dis couraging trend : the 89th Congress looks like a rubberstamp for the Johnson administration. Hence, the 50 U. S. Representatives, whose voting is 1000/0 conservative on all 7 roll calls tab ulated herein, should be congratulated and encouraged by their constituents.

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

On January 28, 1965, the Senate, by a stand of 87 to 9 passed S4 (as President Lyndon B. Johnson had requested) , to authorize $20,000,000.00 in matching grants to states for water pollution control, during a three-year period ending June 30, 1968. S4 gives the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare limitless authority to establish water quality standards in the United States, the program to be administered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Admini stration. The vote is recorded in Column 1 under Senate, C being a conservative stand against. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to engage in such activities as this program provides. Granting an officer of the federal government autocratic power to prescribe and enforce national standards for anything is hostile to constitutional principles which form the bedrock of our society. Moreover, people whose taxes pay for the federal government's water pollution control activities could get a great deal more for their money through private effort or through their local and state governments-if the federal government did not confiscate their money and keep them from using it as they see fit. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 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.

Page 169

Appalachia Bill On February 1 , 1 965 , the Senate, by a stand of 74 to 26, passed the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, authorizing various "anti-poverty" programs in the region called Ap palachia-all of West Virginia, and portions of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland , North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The bill authorized a five-year $840,000,000.00 plan to build 3,350 miles of roads and highways , with the states to furnish an additional $360,000,000.00. It also authorized $252,400,000.00 for construction of health facilities, vocational education schools, land improvement , water resources development, mining reclamation, timber development, and so on. The vote is recorded in Column 2 under Senate, C being a conservative stand against. The Appalachia program is obviously uncon stitutional. For commentary on this, and evidence that the program is also wasteful and harmful, see "The Great Society," the February 1 5 , 1965, issue of this Report.

International Coffee Agreement Implementation In 1 962, the Kennedy State Department took the lead in negotiating the International Coffee Agreement, to regulate price and distribution of coffee, guaranteeing to most coffee-producing nations (including communist Cuba) markets and reasonable prices (but excluding some non-com munist countries-notably, Free China) . The U. S. Senate ratified without much delay, and the Agreement went into effect on December 3 1 , 1 963. U. S. participation could not be complete, how ever, until Congress enacted implementing legis lation. In urging Congress to enact such legis lation, President John F. Kennedy promised that the Agreement would reduce coffee prices for

American consumers. The House of Representa tives passed an implementation bill in 1 963 ; but, contrary to the President's promise, coffee prices rose in the United States as soon as the Coffee Agreement was adopted. The Senate took no action on an implementation bill in 1 963. On July 31, 1 964, the Senate amended and passed HR 8864, the bill which the House had passed the year before. In August, 1964, the House took final action on the implementation bill as amended by the Senate. By that time, there was strong opposition to this government-created, worldwide coffee cartel which benefited com munist coffee-producing nations, while discrimi nating against some non-communist nations. On August 18, 1964, the House rej ected the coffee implementation bill. In 1965, President Johnson again requested the legislation. On February 2, 1 965, the Senate, by a stand of 61 to 26, passed S 701, to implement the International Coffee Agreement. The vote is recorded in Column 3 under Senate, C being a conservative stand against.

Aid To Nasser Well-informed observers say the 1 952 coup by which Gamal Abdel Nasser seized power in Egypt was planned and partly financed by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Since then, our government has forced American taxpayers to give or lend Nasser approximately one billion dollars. In 1956, our government saved Egypt from invasion by France, England, and Israel, thus enabling Nasser to confiscate the most val uable property in Egypt, the Suez Canal. Our government's policy toward Nasser has also en couraged American banks to grant Egypt loans, and American industrial firms to sell Egypt, on credit, vast quantities of industrial equipment. American aid to Nasser continues to flow, while Nasser operates as an agent of Soviet foreign policy. On November 27, 1964, African students stormed the U. S. Embassy in Cairo, and burned

Page 1 70

the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library. Nasser's government eventually apologized, after the gov ernment-controlled press had denounced Ameri can policy as "hideous imperialism." This incident created strong public demand in the United States that our government give no more of our tax money to Nasser. On January 26, 1 965, the House, by a stand of 2 1 0 to 183, passed an amendment to HJ Res 2 34, to prevent the use of any Food for Peace funds for aid to Egypt during fiscal 1 965 . The Johnson administration denounced this action. On February 3, 1 965 , a canvass of the Senate disclosed 46 Senators supporting the amendment to stop aid to Nasser, 45 against it. When the roll was called immediately thereafter, 2 Senators who had taken a stand for the amendment could not be on the floor to vote for it. Consequently, the amendment was defeated ; and the Senate, by a vote of 44 to 38 , supported the President, authorizing him to use Food for Peace funds for Egypt if he determined that doing so would be in the national interest. On February 8 , 1 965, the House, by a stand of 248 to 172, approved the Senate measure, authorizing aid to Nasser during the 1 965 fiscal year. The Senate stand is recorded in Column 4 under Senate ; the first House stand, in Column 3 under House; the second House stand, in Column 4 under House-C being a conservative stand for stopping aid to Nasser.

Gold Backing At the end of World War II , the United States had 60 percent of known gold reserves in the world, and the total of foreign claims against our gold was relatively insignificant. Then, our gov ernment began squandering abroad, and pushing private American capital overseas, to build in foreign lands industrial and commercial enter prises which compete with our own. Conse quently, as early as 195 0, foreign nations-getting more of our money for goods, services, and invest-

ments than we were getting of theirs-started accumulating surplus American dollars which could be presented to the U. S. Treasury for re demption in gold. As foreigners cashed in their American dollars, our monetary gold reserve shrank. By 1961, we had less than half enough in the free pile of our gold reserve to meet foreign claims ; but we still had enough gold in the anchor pile to provide 2 5 percent backing for Federal Reserve notes and for deposit liabilities of Federal Reserve member banks. The Kennedy administration asked Con gress to eliminate the anchor pile and permit the U. S. Treasury to pay out our entire gold reserve to foreigners, leaving none to back our domestic currency. Congress refused. By 1 965, foreign claims against our gold had risen to more than 26 billion dollars. Our reserve had shrunk to about 1 5 billion, almost 14 billion of which was in the anchor pile where it could not be used to meet foreign claims. On February 9, 1965, the House, by a stand of 3 1 2 to 94, passed HR 3818, an administration supported bill which eliminated the requirement for 2 5 percent gold backing of Federal Reserve member bank deposit liabilities. This removed about 4.9 billion dollars of gold from the anchor pile, making it available to meet foreign claims. The Senate passed HR 3818, by a stand of 86 to 8, on February 1 8, 1 965. The Senate vote on HR 3818 is recorded in Column 5 under Senate; the House vote, in Col umn 5 under House C being a conservative stand against the weakening of our currency. -

The Johnson administration claimed that HR 3818 would slow down the outflow of our gold. But in less than a month after the bill was passed our gold loss in one week was twice as great as our total loss for the entire year 1 964. Our gold loss for the year 1 964 was $ 1 2 5 ,000,000. In the week ending March 18, 1 965 , France alone took approximately $250,000,000 of our gold. The total loss of U. S. gold to all nations during the first two and one-half months of 1965 was $825,000,000.

Page 1 7 1

For details on the gold problem and other dis cussion of HR 3818, see "How Long Can We Last ?", the March 8, 1 965, issue of this Report.

Inter-Am erican Bank Funds On February 1 8, 1 965, the House, by a stand of 298 to 1 02, passed HR 45- a bill authorizing contributions of $75 0,000,000 to the Inter-Ameri can Development Bank during the next three years. The Inter-American Development Bank fi nances construction and development throughout Latin America - pouring out U. S. taxpayers' money to build industrial plants, irrigation proj ects' schools, houses, apartments, roads , public works, office buildings - everything. Since the bank was created in 1960, U. S. contributions have totalled $ 1 , 1 36,000,000. On the day the House passed this administra tion-sponsored bill to augment the outpouring of American tax money to foreign nations, Presi dent Johnson asked American bankers and busi nessmen to curtail their overseas investments, warning that if they did not do so voluntarily, the government could use force. On February 25, 1965 , the Senate, in two roll call votes, amended and passed HR 45. The amendment, proposed by Senator Wayne Morse (Oregon Democrat) , requires the United States to use its voting power on the board of the Inter American Development Bank (the U. S. has 40 percent of the votes on the board ) to disapprove loans in any country which had expropriated American property without compensation. The Senate adopted the Morse amendment by a stand of 63 to 2 3 ; passed the amended bill by a stand of 69 to 1 6. The Senate vote on the Morse amendment is recorded in Column 6 under Senate, C being a conservative vote for the amendment. The Senate vote on passage of the bill is recorded in Column 7 under Senate ; the House vote on passage of the bill, in Column 7 under House-C being a conservative stand against this foreign giveaway of tax money.

President Johnson demands tax money to lend and give away abroad and uses tax money to stimulate the flight of private capital overseas, while simultaneously threatening to force cur tailment of foreign spending and lending by American individuals and businesses. HR 45 is part of this strange picture. For details, see "How Long Can We Last ?", the March 8, 1965, issue of this Report.

Seating Mississip pi Delegatio n When the U. S. House of Representatives con vened on January 4, 1965, Representative William Fitts Ryan (New York Democrat) , supported by liberals from various other states, objected to seating the five Representatives from Mississippi -on grounds that their elections had been chal lenged by the Freedom Party, a leftwing political group which was formed in Mississippi in the summer of 1964, largely by out-of-state persons. The Freedom Party did not even participate in the November general elections , but held its own mock election instead. By a stand of 276 to 149, the House voted to seat the elected Representatives from Mississippi, pending formal House investigation of the con tested elections. The vote is recorded in Column 1 under House, C being a conservative stand for seating the Mississippi delegation. For details on this important subject, see "Civil Rights or Civil War ?", the February 22, 1965 , issue of this Report.

House Rules Changes On January 4, 1 965, the House, by a stand of 225 to 203, made various changes in the rules governing its own procedures. One change enables the Speaker to force the Rules Committee to re lease a bill which has been in the Committee 2 1 days or longer. Another abolished the rule that a bill could be sent to conference with members of

Page 1 72

the Senate only upon unanimous consent of all members present in the House: now a simple ma j ority vote is enough to send a bill to conference. Another removed the rule which permitted any Representative to demand a revised copy of a bill amended on the floor, before a final vote could be taken : now a floor-amended bill can be passed without a final, corrected text being available for members to read before voting. This vote is recorded in Column 2 under House C being a conservative stand against rules changes which speed up the legislative process by eliminating opportunities for thoughtful de liberation, careful study, and full debate. For more comment on this subject, see "The -

ROLL A lIe ' l indicates a conservative stand.

An rrLI1 indicates a liberal stand.

Road Ahead," the January 4, 1965, issue of this Report.

Disarmament Agency Funds On February 1 7, 1965, the House, by a stand of 3 1 9 to 81, passed HR 2998, a bill authorizing $40,000,000 for the U. S. Arms Control and Dis armament Agency during a three-year period ending with the 1968 fiscal year. This is $1 3,333,333 a year for the Agency, which originally re ceived $1 0,000,000 a year. The vote is recorded in Column 6 under House, C being a conservative stand against.

C ALL

VOTES

A " O i l indicates the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E

C olumn # 1

_ _

Water Pollution Control Act Amendment s , 54; #2 - - Appalachia Bill, 5 3 ; # 3 - - International CoHee Agreement ImpleITlentation. 5 7 0 1 ; #4 - - Aid to Nass er, _ _ Gold Backing. HR 3 8 1 3 : #6 __ Inter-American Bank Funds , HR 4 5 . Expropriation Amendment; #7 - - Inte r - American Bank Funds , H R 4 5 , passage

HJ Res 2 3 4 ; is

ALABAMA Hill . Lister (D) �parkman. John J . (D) ALASKA �ett. E . L . (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) ARIZONA �. Paui J . (R) Hayden. Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J. w . (D) McClellan, John L. (D) CALIFORNIA Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) Murphy, George (R) COLORA DO Allott, Gordon (R) Dominick, Peter H . (R) CONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J . (D) Ribicoff, Abraham A . ( D ) DELAWARE Bo gg s . J . Caleb (R) Williams , John J . (R)

F LORIDA

Holland, Spessard L. (D) Smathers , George A . (D) GEORGIA �l. Richard B . (D) Talmadge. Herman E . (D)

L L

C C

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 C

C C

L L

C C

L C

L L

HAWAII Inouye , Daniel K. (D) Fang, Hiram L . (R) IDAHO ---c:hUr ch, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B . (R) ILLINOIS ------orrkSen , Everett McK. (R) Douglas I Paul H . (D) INDIANA � Birch (D) Hartke, Vance (D) IOWA --rrr-ckeniooper, Bourke B . (R) Miller , Jack (R ) KANSAS ---carlson. Frank (R) Pearson, James B . (R) KENTUCKY Cooper. John Sherman ( R ) Morton, Thruston B. (R) LOUISIANA Ellender J Allen J . (D) Long, Russell B . (D) MAINE �kie. Edmund S. (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Brewster, Daniel B . (D) Tydings, Jos eph D. (D)

Page 173

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

L 0

L L

L L L

MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M. (D) Saltonstall, Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A, (D) McNamara. Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy, Eugene J. (D) Mandale, Walter F. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O. (D) Stennis, John (D) MISSOURI -r::;;;:;g;-E dward V. (D) Symington, Stuart {D} MONTANA Mansfield, Mike (D) Metcalf, Lee (D) NEBRASKA Curtis. Carl T . (R) Hruska, Roman L. (R) NEVADA Bible, Alan (D) Canon, Howard W. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cotton, Norris (R) McIntyre , Thomas J. (D) NEW JERSEY Case. Clifford P. (R) William s , Harrison A . • Jr. NEW MEXICO Anderson, Clinton P. (D) Montoya, Joseph M. (D) NEW YORK Javit s , Jacob K . (R) Kennedy. Robert F. (D) 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) Young. Stephen M. (D)

(D)

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

O L

L L

O L

O C

C C

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L C

L L

L 0

L L

L 0

C C

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

C L

L L

C L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

0 L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

L C

C L

L L

C C

C L

OKLAHOMA Harris , Fred R. (D) Monroney. A. S. Mike (D) OREGON � , Wayne (D) Neuberger, Maurine B. (D) PENNSYLVANIA Clark, Joseph S. (D) Scott, Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastore. John O. (D) Pell, Claiborne (D) SOUTH CAROLINA * Johnston, Olin D. (0; Thurmond. Strom (R) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern. George (D) Mundt, Karl E . (R) TENNESSEE Bas s . Ross (D) Gore. Albert (D) TEXAS �er , John G. (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 �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) Proxmire, William (D) WYOMING McGee, Gale W. (D) Simpson, Milward L . (R) *Senator Johnston died April

18.

L L

L 0

C 0

L L

C C

L L

L C

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

0 C

L L

C L

L L

L C

O C

O L

O C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C L

C 0

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C O

L L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

L C

L O

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

C C

L L

O L

L C

L 0

L C

L L

L C

1965.

H O US E A "C" indicates a conservative stand. An "L" indicates a liberal stand. A " 0 1 1 indicates the Representative was absent or did not take a public stand. A " - " indicates that the Representative was not a member of Congre s s at the time of the vote. Representative Albert C. Watson of South Car olina cha,:ged party affiliation from Democrat to Republican after Congress convened. He subsequently r e signed to seek r e - election in his Congressional District as a Republican . Informed observers say he will be r e -elected in a special election during Jun e , 1 9 6 5 . Henc e , his first three votes of this ses sion are recorded below. Column HI - - Seating Mississippi Delegation, H Res I; #2 -- House Rules Change s . H Res 8 ; 234. s e c ond vote; # 5 - - Gold Backing. HR 3 8 1 8 ; # 6 - - Disarmament Agency Funds. HR 2 9 9 8 ;

#3 #7

-- Aid to N a s s e r , H J Res 234. first vote; H4 -- Aid to N a s s e r , H J Res - - Inter-American Bank Funds , HR 4 5

ALABAMA Andrews. George W. (D) Andrews. Glenn (R) Buchanan. John H . , Jr. (R) Dickinson, William L. (R) Edwards . W. Jack. III (R) Jones. Robert E . (D) Martin, James D . (R) Selden, Armistead I . . Jr. (D) ALASKA Rive r s , Ralph J. (D) AR[ZONA � , John J . (R) Senner , George F • • J r . (D) Udall, Morris K. (D) ARKANSAS Gathings, E. C. (D) Harris. Oren (D) Mills , Wilbur D. (D) Trimble. James W. (D) CALIFORN[A Baldwin, John F. (R) Bell, Alphonzo (R) Brown, George E . , Jr. (D) Burton. Phillip (D) Cameron, Ronald B. (D) Clausen. Don (R) Clawson, Del (R) Cohelan, Jeffery (D) Corman. James C. (D) Dyal, Kenneth W. (D) Edwards, W. Donlon (D) Gubse r , Charles S . (R) Hagen, Harlan (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins , Augustus }o- . (0) Holifield. Chet (D) Hosmer. Craig (R) Johnson, Harold T. (D) King , Cecil R. (D) Leggett, Robert L. (D)

C C C C C C C C

C C C C C L C C

C C C C C L C L

L L C C C L C L

C C C C C L C L

C C

C C L

C L L

C L

L L

C L L

C C C C

C C L L

L L L L

L L L

C L L L

C C L L

L L L L C C C L L L L C C C

C C L L L C C L L L L C L L

C C L L

o L

L L L C C L

L L

o o

C C L

L L C C L

L L C L L

L L

L C C C L

L C L L L

C C L L L L C L o o o

L L o

L C C C L L L L C L L

L C L L L

L o

L C o

o o

L C L L L

CALIFORNIA (cont'd) Lipscomb. Glenard P . (R) Mailliard. William S . (R) McFall, John J . (D) Miller, George P . (D) Mos s , John E . (D) Reinecke. Edwin (R) Roosevelt. James (D) Roybal, Edward R. (D) Sisk, B. F. (D) Smith. H. Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L . (R) Teague, Charles M. (R) Tunney, John V . (D) Utt, James B . (R) Van Oeerlin. Lionel (0) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson, Charles H. (D) Younger. J. Arthur (R) COLORADO Aspinall, Wayne N. (D) Evan s , Frank E . (D) McVicker. Roy H . (D) Rogers . Byron G . (O) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q. (D) Giaimo, Robert N . (D) Grabowski. Bernard P . (D) Irwin, Donald J . (D) Monogan, John S. (o) St. Onge. William (D) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . • Jr. (D) FLORIDA Bennett. Charles E. (D) Cramer. William C. (R) FasceU. Dante B . (D) Fuqua. Don (D) Gibbons, Sam M. (D) Gurney. Edward J. (R) Haley. James A. (D)

o o

L C o

L L

Page 174

C C L L L C C L L C C C L C

C L C L C C L L C C C C C C L C C C

C C L L L C L L L C C C L C L C L C

C L C L

L L L L

L L L C

L L L L

L L L L C L

L L L L L L

L L C L L C

C C C C C C C

C C L C L C C

C L L o

C C L L C C C L C L C L C

L 0

C L L L L C

L L C C C L C L C L C

C L L L L C L L L C C

C L L L L C L L

C L C

L L

L L L L

L L L L L L

C C

L C

C C C C

L C C C

L C L L L C C

C L C C

L C

L o

F LORIDA (cont 'd) Herlong. A . Sydney, J r . (D) Matthews , D. R . (D) Pepper, C laude (D) Rogers, Paul G. (D) Sikes. Robert L . F. (D) GEORGIA -carraway , Howard H. (R) Davis , John W. (D) Flynt, John J . , Jr. (D) Hagan. G . Elliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Mackay, James A. (D) O'Neal, Maston E . (D) Stephens , Robert G . • J r . (D) Tuten, J . Russell (0) Weltner, Charles L. (D) HAWAII �unaga. Spark M. (D) Mink, Patsy (D) IDAHO �s en. George V . (R) White, Compton 1 . . Jr . (D) ILLINOIS Anderson, John B. (R) Annunzio. Frank (D) Arends. Leslie C. (R) Collier, Harold R . (R) Dawson, William L . (D) Derwinski. Edward J . (R) Erlenborn, John N . (R) Findley. Paul (R) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Kluczynski, John C. (D) McClory, Robert (R) Michel, Robert H . (R) Murphy. William T . (D) O'Hara, Barratt (D) Price, Melvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C. (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Ronan , Dan (D) Rostenkowski, Dan (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) Schisler, Gale (D) Shipley, George E . (D) Springer, William L. (R) Yates , Sidney R . (D) INDIANA Adair, E. Ross (R) Brademas , John (D) Bray, W illiam G. (R) Denton, Winfield K . (D) Halleck, Charles A . (R) Hamilton, Lee H . (D) Harvey, Ralph (R) Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. (D) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L . (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) IOWA ----ai"n dstra, Bert (D) Culver, John C . (D) Greigg, Stanley L. (D) Gros s , H. R . (R) Hansen, John R . (D) Schmidhauser , John R . (D) Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS ----,-riOIe Bob (R) Ellsworth, Robert F. (R) Mize. Chester L. (R) Shriver , Garner E . (R) Skubitz, Joe (R) KENTUCKY Carter, Tim Lee (R) Chelf, Frank (D) Farnsley, Charles P . (D) Natcher, William H . (D) Perkin s , Carl O . (D) Stubblefield, Frank A. (D) Watts , John C . {O} LOUISIANA Boggs , Hale (D) Hebert, F . Edward (D) Long, Speedy O . (D) Morrison, James H . (D) Passman, Otto E. (D) Thompson, T. Ashton (D) Waggonner, Joe D . , Jr. (D) Willis, Edwin E. (O) MAINE �haway, William O . (D) Tupper, Stanley R. (R) MARYLAND Fallon, George H . (D) Friedel. Samuel N. (0) Garmatz, Edward A. (D) Long, Clarence O. (D) Machen, Hervey G. (D) Mathias , Charles McC . (R) Morton, Rogers C. B. (R)

4 C C C C C

C C L C C

C L L C C

O L L C L

O L L L L

L L L L C

C C C C C C C C C C

C C C C C L C C C L

C L

C L L O

C L L

C L L C L L C

C L L O 0

L C L L C

L L L L

L L

C L

L L

C C

C L

L L L

L L C

C L L C L L C L L L

L L

C C

C L

C L C C L C C C C L C C L L L L C L L C L L C L

C L C C L C C C L L C C L L L L C L L C L L C L

C L C L C C C L L C C

C L C L C L C L L C L

L L C L

C L C L C L C L L C L

C C L C L L C

L L L C L L L

L L L C L

C C C C C

C C L C C C C

C C L C L C C

C L L L L L L

C C C C C C C C

L C C L C C C C

L L C L C L C L

L L

L o

L C

L L

C C C L C L C

L L L L L L C

L C C C L C C

L L L L L C C

L L L

L L L L L L L

C L C C L C C C L L C C L C L C C L o

C L o

C C C L C L C L o

C L C L

C L C C L C C C L L C C L C L O C L L

C L L C C

O L L

C L C C C L L L

L L L

O C

L L L L

C L

L L L C L O C C L L L C L L L L C L L L L L O 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

L L L C L L L

C L C

C L L L L

L L

C L

C L C L L C L

L L

L L L L L L L L L

C L L L L L

C L C L C L C L L C L

L L L L

L L C L C L C L

L C C L C L C L

C L C L

L L L

MARYLAND (cont'd) Sickles, Carlton R. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Bates, William H. (R) Boland, Edward P. (D) Burke, James A. (D) Conte, Silvio O . (R) Donohue, Harold D . (D) Keith, Hastings (R) Macdonald. Torbert H . (D) Martin, Joseph W . , Jr. (R) McCormack, John W. (D) Mor s e . F. Bradford (R) Philbin, Philip J . (D) O rNeiLl, Thomas P . , J r . (D) MICHIGAN Broomfield, William S. (R) Cederberg, Elford A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E. (R) Clevenger, Raymond F. (D) Conyers, John J . , J r . (D) Diggs, Charles C . , Jr. (D) Dingell, John "D . (D) Farnum, Billie S. (D) Ford, Gerald R . , Jr. (R) Ford, William O . (D) Griffin, Robert P . (R) Griffith s , Martha W. (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Mackie, John C. (D) N edzi, Lucien N. (D) OrHara. James G. (D) Todd, Paul H . (D) Vivian, Weston E . (0) MINNESOTA Blatnik, John A. (D) Frase r , Donald M . (D) Karth, Joseph E. (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor, Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G. (D) Quie, Albert H . (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy. Thomas G. (D) Colmer, William M. (D) Walker , Prentis s (R) Whitten, Jamie L. (D) William s , John Bell (D) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D) Curtis , Thomas B. (R) Hall, Durward G . (R) Hull, W . R . , J r . (D) Hungate, William L. (D) Ichord, Richard H . (D) Jones, Paul C. (D) Karsten, Frank M . (D) Randall, William J. (D) Sullivan, Leonor Kretzer (D) MONTANA Battin, James F. (R) Olsen, Arnold (D) N E B RASKA Callan, Clair A . (D) Cunningham, Glenn (R) Martin, David T. (R) NEVADA Baring. Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland, James C . (R) Huot, J. Oliva (D) NEW JERSEY Cahill, William T . (R) Daniels, Dominick V . (D) Dwyer, Florence P. (R) Frelinghuysen, Peter, Jr. (R) Gallagher, Cornelius E. (D) Helstoski, Henry {D} Howard, James J. (D) Joelson. Charles S. (D) Krebs. Paul J . (D) McGrath, Thomas C . , J r . (D) Minish, Joseph G . (D) Patten, Edward J . , Jr. (D) Rodino, Peter W . , Jr. (O) Thompson, Frank, J r . (D) Widnall, William B. (R) NEW MEXICO Morris, Thomas G . (D) Walker, E. S. (D) NEW YORK Addabbo, Joseph P . (D) Bingham, Jonathan B. (D) Carey, Hugh L . (D)

Celle-r, En'\anuel

Page 175

(0)

Conable, Barber B • • Jr. Delaney, James L. (D) Dow, John G . (D) Dulski, Thaddeus J. (D) Farbstein, Leonard (D)

(R)

C L L L L C L C

C L L C L C L C

L L L

L C C C C C

C L L C L C L

L L L L L L C L

L L L L L L L L

C L L

C C C

C L L

L L L

L C C L L L L L C L C L L C L L L L L

L C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

C C C L L L

L L L L

C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

L C C L L L L L L L O L L C L L L L L

L L L L L L

C L L L L L

L L L C C C L C

L L L C L C L L

L L L L L L L L

L L L C 0

O C C L O

C C C C C

L L C C C L C C C C C C

L o

L C L C L C C o

C L C

L C C C C C C L C L

L C C C L C C L L L

L C C L L C L L L

L C C L L L L L L L

L C C L L

C L

C C C

L C C

C L L

L L

L C L L L L L L L L L L

L C C L L 0

L L L L L L

L L

C C C

L L L L

L C L L L L L L L

C C L L C C L C L

C C

C L

L C C

L L C

L C C

C L

L L

L L L C L L L L L L L L L L C

C L C C L C C L C L C L L

C L C C L L L L L L L L L L C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C C

L L

L o

L C

L L

C L C C L C L L L

L L L L C L L L L

C C C C C C L C C

L C L L C L L L C

L L L L L L L L L

L L L

L L L L L

NEW YORK (cont'd) Fino, Paul A. (R) Gilbert. Jacob H . (D) Goodell. Charles E. (R) Grover, James R . , Jr . (R) Halpern, Seymour (R) Hanley, James M. (D) Horton, Frank J. (R) Kelly. Edna F. (D) Keogh, Eugene J . (D) King, Carleton J. (R) Lindsay, John V. (R) McCarthy, Richard D . (D) McEwen. Robert C. (R) Multer, Abraham J . ( D) Murphy. John M . (D) O 'Brien, Leo W . (D) Ottinge r , Richard L . (D) Pike. Otis G . (D) Pirnie, Alexander (R) Powell, Adam Clayton (D) Reid. Ogden R. (R) Resnick, Joseph Y . (D) Robison, Howard W. (R) Rooney, John J. (D) Ros enthal, Benjamin S. (D) Ryan, William Fitts (D) Scheuer, James H . (D) Smith, Henry P . . III (R) Stratton, Samuel S . (D) Ten�der . Herbert (D) W01££, Lester L. (D) Wydler. John w . (R) NORTH CAROLINA Bonner, Herbert C. (D) Broyhill, James T. (R) Cooley, Harold D . (D) Fountain, L . H . (D) Henderson, David N . (D) Jona s , Charles Raper (R) Kornegay, Horace R. (D) Lennon, Alton (D) Scott. Ralph J. (D) Taylor. Roy A. (D) Whitener, Basil L, (D) NORTH DAKOTA Andrews, Mark (R) Redlin, Rolland (D) OHIO --;;.shbrook. John M. (R) Ashley, Thomas L . (D) Ayres, William H. (R) Betts. Jackson E . (R) Bolton, Frances P . (R) Bow. Frank T. (R) Brown, Clarence J. (R) Clancy, Donald D . (R) Devine, Samuel L . (R) Feighan, Michael A. (D) Gilligan, John J. (D) Harsha, William H . . Jr. (R) Hays . Wayne L . (D) Kirwan, Michael J . (D) Latta. Delbert L. (R) Love, Rodney M. (D) McCulloch. William M. (R) Minshall, William E. (R) Moelle r . Walter H. (D) Mosher. Charles A. (R) Secrest, Robert T . (D) Stanton. J. William (R) Sweeney, Robert E. {D} Yanik, Charles A . (D) OKLAHOMA Albert. Carl (D) Belcher, Page (R) Edmondson, Ed (D) Jarman, J ohn (D) Johnson, Jed, J r . (O) Steed. Tom (D) OREGON ----rsuncan , Robert B. (D) Green. Edith (D) Ullman. Al (D) Wyatt, Wendell (R) PENNSYLVANIA Barrett. William A. (D) Byrne. James A. (D) Clark. Frank M. (D) Corbett, Robert J. (R) Craley, N . Neiman, Jr. (D) Curtin, Willard S. (R) Dague. Paul B. (R) Dent, John H . (D) Flood. Daniel J. (D) Fulton, James G . (R) Green, William J . . III (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D) Johnson. Albert W. (R) Kunkel. John C. (R) McDade, Joseph M. (R) Moorhead. William S. (D)

L L C C L L L

C C C L L C C C L

L L C C L L L L

C C C C C L C C C C C C C C C L L C C

C C C C C L C L L C C L C L L L L C C L L L C L C C C C C L L C

L L O 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 L L C

L L L L L L L L L L L

L L C L L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L C L L L C L L 0 L L

L C L L 0 L L C C L L

C C L C L C C C L C C

L L

C L L 0 C L L C C L L C L L L L L C L L

C L C

L C L L L C C L L L C L L L L

L C L L C L L L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L L C

C C C C C C C C C C C

C L C L C L L C

L C L L L C L C L L L

C C

0 L

C L

C L L C C C C C C C L C C C C L C C C L C C L L

C L C C C C C C C L L

C L C C C C C 0 C L L C L L C L

C L O C C C C C C L L C 0 L C L

C C C C C C

L C L C L C

L L C C L L C C L C C L C C L o

C L C C

L C C C C C C L L C L L C L C C L C L C L L

C L C C C C C C C C e C L C

o o

L C L

C L C C C L o

C L C C C 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 L

L C C C C L L C L L C L C C L L C L L L

C L L

L C L C L L

L C L L L L

L C L L L C

L C L C L L

L L L C

L C L C

L L L C

L L L L

L L L L L C C L L L L 0 C C L L

L L L C L C C L L C e L C C C L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L

L L L L L C C L L L L 0 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 L

L C o

L L L L L

L L

Page 176

PENNSYLVANIA (cont'd) Morgan, Thomas E. (D) Nix, Robert N. c. (D) Rhodes. George M. (D) Rooney. Fred B . (D) Saylor. John P. (R) Schneebeli. Herman T. (R) Schweiker. Richard S . (R) Toll. Herman (D) Vigorito, Joseph P. (D) Watkins, G . Robert (R) Whalley, J . Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty. John E. (D) St. Germain, Fernand J . (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Ashmore, Robert T. (D) Dorn, W. J. Bryan (D) Gettys , Thomas S. (D) McMillian, John L . (D) Rivers , L . Mendel (D) Watson. Albert W. (R) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry. E . Y. (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Anderson. William R. (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Duncan, John J. (R) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evins. Joe L. (D) Fulton. Richard (D) Grider. George W. (D) Murray, Tom (D) Quillen, James H. (R) TEXAS ----aeckworth, Lindley (D) Brooks, Jack (D) Burleson, Omar (D) Cabell. Earle (D) Casey, Bob (D) de la Garza, Eligio (D) Dowdy. John (D) Fisher. O. C. (D) Gonzalez, Henry B. (D) Mahon, George H . (D) Patman, Wright (D) Pickle. 1. 1. (D) Poage. W . R. (D) Pool. Joe (D) Purcell, Graham (D) Roberts . Ray (D) Rogers , Walter (D) Teague. Olin E. (D) Thomas, Albert (D) Thompson, Clark W. (D) White, Richard C. (D) Wright, James C . , Jr. (D) Young. John (D) UTAH ----airi ton, Laurence J. (R) King. David S. (D) VERMONT StaUord. Robert T . (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joel T. (R) Downing, Thomas N. (D) Hardy, Porter, Jr. (D) Jennings. W. Pat (D) Marsh. John 0. , J r . (D) PoU, Richard H . (R) Satterfield, David E . , III (D) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck, William M. (D) WASHINGTON Adam s , Brockman (D) Foley. Thomas S. (D) Hansen, Julia Butler (D) Hicks. Floyd V . (D) May. Catherine (R) Meeds . Lloyd (D) Pelly. Thomas M. (R) WEST VIRGINIA Heckler, Ken (D) Kee, James (D) Moor e . Arch A • • J r . (R) Slack. John M . • Jr. (D) Stagge r s , Harley O. (D) WISCONSIN Byrnes . John W. (R) Davis. Glenn R. (R) Kastenmeier. Robert W. ( D ) Laird, Melvin R . (R) 0 lKonski. Alvin E . (R) Race. John A . (D) Reuss, Henry S . (D) Stalbaum, Lynn E. ( D ) Thomson, Vernon W. (R) Zablocki, Clement J . (D) WYOMING Roncalio, Teno (D)

O L L L C C

L 0 L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L C L

L L

C C L L L

L L L L L

C C L C 0

C C L

C C

L L

C C

L C C C L L L C C

L C C L L L L L C

L L C L L

L C C L L L L L C

C C C C C C C C L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

C L C C C C C C L C C C C C C C C C 0 L C L C

L L C L C L C C L L

L L L L L L C

L L L

L L L L L L C C L L L L L C 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 0 C 0 C 0 C C 0 L L L L C L C C C L L C 0 L

C L

C C C C C C C C C C

0 0

L L C C C C C

C C 0 L C C C L C

L L L 0 L L C L L L

0 L C C C L 0

C L L C L L L L C

C C C C C C C

L L L L C L C

L L L L C L L

L 0 L L L L 0

L L L L L L L

C C C C C

L L C L L

L L

L L C L L

L L C L 0

L L C L L

C C L C C L L L C C

C C L C L L L L C L

C C L C C L C e

O O

C L

C C L L L O L

L L L L C L L

C C L C C L L L C L

L L L L C C L C C C

L L L L C C L 0 L C C

L L L L C C C C L C C

L L L L C C C L L C C

C C

L L

C C

C C C C C C

C C C C

C C

C C C C C C C C C

L L L L C

L L C L L L L L o

L C

L L C

L C

L L C C L L L L L C L C C C L

L L L o

L o

L L

C C L L L C L

THE o

IJI/II SmootRe,olt Vol.

I I,

No. 23

(Broadcast 5 1 1 )

June 7, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H E F R U I TS O F L I B E RA L I S M President Lyndon B. Johnson says the crime rate has doubled in 2 5 years - that it has in creased five times as fast as population in the past seven years. Those figures grossly under state the increase in crime, and give no idea of the horrible condition actually prevailing. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, recently told a congressional committee: (1)

"You cannot walk the streets of New York with safety, you cannot do it in Washington, D. C., and you cannot do it in Chicago. All through the country, almost without exception, that con dition prevails."( 2 )

That gives some inkling of the existing anarchy. The New York Wodd-Telegram and Sun has warned that people may soon be forced to travel in armed groups for self defense, even in broad daylight. That warning helps bring the picture into focus ; but it is impossible to com prehend the horror of what is happening without reviewing some details. (3)

In March, 1964, a man attacked Catherine Genovese on a street in New York City. He stabbed her several times and ran away, but came back a few minutes later, found her still alive, stabbed her some more, and ran again. Not satisfied, he returned, this time stabbing the woman until she was dead. From beginning to end, this incident lasted about 35 minutes. At least 38 people watched from darkened apartment windows, but did nothing. After the third attack, which left Catherine Genovese dead, one witness called police. When interviewed later, witnesses offered no apologies for their behavior. They did nothing because they were afraid to become involvedY) The murderer has not yet been identified. Shortly after the Genovese murder, some 40 spectators in New York City ignored the cries of a nude, screaming I S-year-old girl who had been beaten and raped. No one moved to help or to get help, even when the attacker pounced again. (4) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 75214; 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢; 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.

Page 177

These two crimes, occurring in relatively safe areas of New York City, sent chills of fear through other neighborhoods where savagery is commonplace. Crown Heights in Brooklyn, a largely Jewish community, borders Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant section which contains one of the heaviest concentrations of negroes in New York City. To give themselves some protection against ravaging and pillaging negroes, Crown Heights residents organized their own vigilante patrols. New York's anti-gun laws prohibit the vigilantes from carrying weapons with which to defend themselves or others ; but they patrol in radio-equipped cars, and on foot with dogs, to give such aid as they can, and to call police when they see a crime being committed. (3,5) The patrols have helped, but not enough. On May 30, 1964, a negro man caught a Jewish school teacher alone in the self-service elevator of her apartment building in Crown Heights. He beat, raped, and murdered her. Police said the woman was knifed once in the forehead, twice in the neck, four times in the abdomen. (6 ) An orgy of savagery followed this crime. Ma rauding negroes beat, knifed, robbed, raped, and terrorized in subways, on streets, trains, and fer ries. (3 ) Two negroes forced a 19-year-old World's Fair waitress off a city street at knifepoint and drove her to a wooded area where both raped herY) A gang of 30 negroes swarmed into an elevated train at Coney Island, assaulted white passengers, wrecked seats, broke light bulbs. They left the train at a Brooklyn stop where they smashed into a beauty parlor and robbed it. Police arrived in time to arrest 12 of the negroes. Whites poured out of taverns and homes to watch. Their mood rose to a high pitch of anger when police carried from a subway entrance a white boy whom the negroes had beaten into insensibility. (8) On a subway train in lower Manhattan, four negroes attacked and knifed a 1 7-year-ol d white boy. The negroes, all j uveniles, were arrested but not jailed. They were released in custody of their parents, because the white boy was not "injured seriously." (3)

On a ferry from Staten Island to Manhattan, 20 negroes ran wild, shouting obscenities at white passengers, wrecking a refreshment stand, rob bing the woman attendant. Police made no ar rests, because whites on the boat were too fright ened to identify the thugs. (3 ) On a subway train under the negro section of Brooklyn, four negroes forced their way into the motorman's compartment. One negro jammed the blade of a meat cleaver against the motorman's throat and threatened to cut his head off because he was white. His companions persuaded him not to commit murder ; but the four, armed with the meat cleaver and other weapons, raced through the subway train, knocking down white pas sengers, smashing windows. (3) On July 1 6, 1964, Police Lieutenant Thomas Gilligan tried to arrest James Powell, a 1 5-year old negro, in front of a New York apartment house. The boy - man-sized and ferocious attacked the officer with a knife. Lt. Gilligan shot and killed him. Negro and civil rights leaders accused Gilligan of murder. Harlem negroes went on a rampage. New York Police Commissioner Michael J. Murphy mobilized his 26,000-member police force to suppress the bloody negro riots. Negro and civil rights leaders demanded Mur phy's resignation, accusing him of police bru tality. Murphy refused to resign; and a New York County Grand Jury, after taking 1 700 pages of testimony, refused to indict Lt. Gilligan. The New York police review board studied the grand j ury testimony and concluded that Gilligan had acted in self defense. (8) Negro and civil rights agitators demanded that a civilian review board be created to investigate their charges of police brutality. Commissioner Murphy strongly opposed this, knowing the board would be packed with agitators already a major handicap to law enforcement. Mayor Wagner supported demands for a civilian review board. Eventuall y, a city council study committee formal ly recommended establishment of a board. Com missioner Murphy resigned. (8) The American Civil Liberties Union had tried

Page 178

to get Commissioner Murphy fired in 1963, after a New York policeman killed a murderer in a gun battle. (9) Establishing civilian review boards, a national project of the ACLU, is a tactic which ACLU and similar leftwing groups are using to get rid of good law officers and to cripple what is left of effective law enforcement. ( 10) Chief Wil liam H. Parker of Los Angeles has already said he will resign if a civilian review board is es tablished in Los Angeles. ( 11 ) In Rochester, New York, on July 24, 1964, two white policemen arrested a drunk and disorderly negro. A gang of negroes who surrounded the officers soon became a mob of about 4000. They raged through more than 50 city blocks, knocking out store windows and pillaging, using guns, bricks, bottles, and molotov cocktails against out numbered police. The National Guard restored order on July 26. Four white men had been killed ; 350 persons (including 3 5 police) had been in j ured ; more than a million dollars in property damage had resulted from theft, vandalism, and fires. (12) Rochester is a prosperous city of about 300,000, where whites have long prided themselves on eliminating racial segregation and discrimination. Negroes share the general prosperity - own fine homes in the best neighborhoods, mingle freely with whites. More good jobs are said to be avail able to negroes in Rochester than in any other city of comparable size. Yet, after the riots, of ficials of the National Association for the Ad vancement of Colored People demanded that Ro chester provide more jobs for negroes and make immediate improvement in housing and recrea tional facilities. (12) Investigating the riots, U. S. News & Wodd Re port interviewed a Rochester civic leader who said : "The city seems to have become a victim of its own generosity. Rochester is known as a soft touch for welfare and relief chiselers. As a re sult, there has been a large influx of shiftless Negroes with no real desire to work for a living. "In 1950, there were only about 6,500 Negroes

in Rochester. Now there are 33,000. Many of the newcomers are ne'er-do-wells. They are the people who live in squalor, who won't try to better themselves, whose main interest seems to be where the next bottle of booze is coming from. "They are the people who ran wild when a crowd of boozed-up Negroes attacked a couple of policemen. They weren't 'demonstrating' for anything. They used the riot as an excuse to see how much they could get away with wrecking and sacking hundreds of stores - but making sure they cleared out the liquor stores first. They got away with enough liquor to keep them drunk for six months."(12 )

Dr. Benjamin Pollack, a psychiatrist who is assistant director of the Rochester State Hospital, said : "Rochester is the last place a thing like this should have happened. Many of our Negroes here live in greater affluence than those of their race almost anywhere else in the country. Com munity leaders have worked for years to break down racial barriers. Half the employes at the State hospital, for example, are Negroes . . . " (12) .

An industrialist (who has been a key figure in Rochester's efforts to preserve racial peace and help negroes ) said: " I have found that 'police brutality'-as Ne groes see it-is anything that involves a colored person and an officer of the law, even a mild reprimand or an order to 'move on.' "Police are aware of the fact that a 'brutality' charge by any Negro who is arrested quickly becomes a political issue, with the arresting offi· cer often punished for doing his duty. "The trouble that rocked this city got out of hand because police-inhibited by fears of 'bru· tality' charges - didn't start using their night. sticks soon enough. "Another thing I have found is this: The atti· tude of Negroes seems to be, more and more, 'The white man has got to give me something and if he doesn't give it to me right away, I'll grab it.' "You j ust can't win. You try to do what you can, and Negroes don't respond. "You build

them

high-rise

apartments,

and

almost overnight those new apartments become

Page 179

high-rise slums. You offer them educational op portunities, and they reject them. "You try to train them for skilled work, and, by and large, they aren't interested. You offer them jobs, then, that require nothing more than a strong back, and they - many of them - j ust sneer at you. "They know that here in Rochester they can live on relief handouts and city charity without doing a day's work." (12 )

In New York City, there is no legal segrega tion or discrimination against negroes. Indeed, some of the anti-discrimination laws and practices in New York actually discriminate against whites, favor negroes. Yet, the city is still largely segre gated - negroes choosing to concentrate in their own neighborhoods. Racial agitators call such voluntary concentration de facto segregation. They want enforced integration, especially in schools. Specifically, they demand that white chil dren be forced to travel across town to attend schools in negro districts, that negro children be forced to attend schools in white districts. New York City authorities have yielded to these de mands to a considerable degree ; but opposition from white parents and high costs of such "bus ing" have prevented full compliance with the agitators' demands. In January, 1965, the Reverend Milton A. Gala mison, a negro, initiated a prolonged boycott of schools in negro districts, to protest de facto segregation. This kept about 5 500 negro young sters out of school, leaving them free to roam the streets. On February 17, 1965 , about 400 of them ran wild in Brooklyn, attacking whites and po lice, destroying property. The violence lasted three days. ( 13 ) On the night of March 1 3 , 1965 , a gang of young negroes tried to rape three negro girls on the floor of a moving subway car. A white boy rushed to help the girls. The negro thugs stabbed him to death, and fled. About 10 adult passengers in the car silently watched the attempted rape and the murder, doing nothing. ( 14 ) Following this crime, authorities ordered an

armed patrolman to ride every subway train dur ing the most dangerous evening hours ; and they ordered that one car on each train be fully seg regated ( for women only) , protected by special guards. ( 1 5) As the spring of 1 965 drew to a close, New Yorkers braced themselves for another summer of violence and terror.

Conditions

in Washington, D. C , are about the same as in New York City. Note the follow ing from a Chicago Tribune story: "Thirty-six girls and boys from Maine, who had come here to march in the National School Safety Patrol parade, walked out of their hotel for a little sight seeing the other evening-into an ambush by one of the wolf pack gangs of the nation's capital. "The young visitors were stoned, manhandled and jeered by a mob of Negro boys before they could run back to their hotel . . . .

"A 1 7 -year-old girl, who fell while trying to escape a wolf pack, was raped by 1 0 boys. A pack of 25 beat and robbed two women they had come upon in a stalled car. Two teen-age girls, who had hailed a cab and held up the driver, shot him in the back as he tried to flee. "A bus driver was brutally beaten and robbed by a small pack, while 39 passengers watched without giving help. "All this is happening in a capital . . . where 85 percent of the cab drivers fear to work at night . . . where men as well as women are afraid to leave their homes after sundown . . . . where the Johnson administration is pressing for mil lions to build a national cultural center, which lovers of the arts could visit only at the peril of their lives. "Policemen with dogs roam the grounds of the Capitol itself. But they cannot prevent such attacks on tourists as that in which a woman was beaten down and robbed on the Capitol steps by girls who even smashed her eye glasses. "Police are assigned to escort women employes of members of Congress to their cars when the women leave work at night. Women em ployes of the Supreme Court, facing the Capitol, are similarly guarded.

Page 180

"Rep. John McFall (D., Cal.), has said it is irony for Chief Justice Earl Warren's court to guard its women while making rulings that ham· per the police and protect the criminal. One Su preme Court ruling . . . under fire is known as the Mallory rule. Under it judges free mur derers and criminals whom the judges deem to have been held too long before arraignment, even tho guilt is evident. "The Durham rule by the United States Court of Appeals is another rule of which the police complain.

"Un�er it a jury here found a rapist not guilty of rapmg three women. But it found him guilty of robbing the same three women at the same time the rapes were committed. He had pleaded insanity, and the j ury invoked the rule, holding that he was insane about rape but sane about robbery . . . . "Members of wolf packs now taunt the police with: " 'I don't have to talk to you or even give you my name unless you have got a charge against me.' "Many of the wolf packs are made up of j uveniles under 18 years of age. When j uveniles are arrested, their names are kept secret on the ground that allowing the public to know of their crimes would injure their tender sensibilities. "A j udge here recently turned loose upon the community four hardened j uvenile criminals who had been so violent in one federal institution that they had been transferred to another. The j udge ruled that the transfer violated the juve· niles' rights . . . . "The cruelty of Washington's wolf packs is incomprehensible. When young criminals fin ished robbing an elderly concert pianist recently, they beat him to death with a tree limb . . . . "Some of the wolf packs, after beating their victims to the ground, gouge their eyes and stomp upon them to break their ribs . . . . "Supporters . . . defend the criminal on the ground that they can't find jobs. But house wives complain that they cannot hire servants, clubs complain they cannot hire workers, and building managers complain that they have to do the work of employes who do not show up for work." (16)

A Washington, D. C. court decision in mid May, 1965 , made matters even worse. Note the following from The Dallas Morning News, May 24, 1965 : "Last week . . . . Chief Judge Morris Miller of the . . . [ District of Columbia's] juvenile court sentenced a 1 6-year.old youth to four years in a correctional institution . . . . He [had ] entered the home of Mis� Jeanne E. Wright, 45 . . . and . . . strangled and stabbed her to death . . . . "Judge Miller, under the law, could have referred the case to a federal district court for handling of the defendant as an adult. However, he chose-after 'considerable mental anguish,' he . saId-to keep the case in juvenile court. The youth will be scot-free when he is 2 1 . . . . "The easy sentence handed out by Judge Mil ler can only make citizens wonder about much less violent offenses and just how little punish ment is meted out for them. "Washington papers daily report numerous muggings, yokings and robberies, frequently committed by packs of teenagers who roam the streets like wild animals. "If a 4-year term is adequate for a savage murder, what is proper punishment for youths apprehended for merely beating up someone and running away with a purse? . . ."

E arly

this year, in Chicago, three teen-age "goof-ball" addicts shot and fatally wounded a 66-year-old man, and stood by laughing, as , he lay screaming. But in Chicago, as elsewhere, law enforcement is handicapped by racial agitators and by the courts. For example: two Chicago policemen noticed two men on a sidewalk, one menacing bystanders with a broken beer bottle. The men resisted arrest. One officer was jabbed in the face with the broken bottle, knocked to the ground, and kicked. The police drew their guns and subdued the thugs, but did not fire. The wounded officer spent 23 days in a hopital. On March 5, 1 965, Criminal Court Judge George N. Leighton freed the two men, saying that, by draw ing their guns, the policemen used excessive force.

Judge Leighton, a negro, was formerly president of the Chicago chapter of the NAACP. (17)

Page 181

On March 7, 1965 , eight negroes attacked a 16-year-old white girl on a subway platform in Philadelphia. They dragged the girl, screaming and struggling, down the track to rape her. Six men standing on the platform watched passively. A 2 3-year-old naval air reservist from Atlanta, Georgia, ran to rescue the girl. The negroes beat him so savagely that he was later hospitalized ; but he managed to break loose and summon a police man from the street above, in time to save the girl. (18) In Philadelphia, on May 7, 1965 , three negro teen-agers accosted 1 5-year-old Elme-r Rish, Jr., as he walked home from school. Elmer, a brain damaged child, spoke haltingly. Unable to under stand Elmer's answer to their question, the negroes beat and stabbed him to death. They later told police they did not know Elmer and had not intended to kill him. "We were just going to grease a white boy," they explained. (19 )

As the barbarism spreads in our land, courts,

do-gooders, civil rights activists, racial agitators, and federal officials continue to undermine the ability of police to provide society adequate pro tection. Gun control laws - especially in big eastern cities where conditions are worst - make it illegal for decent citizens to use, or even possess, weapons for defense against savages, while the savages roam the streets heavily armed. The John son administration demands a federal gun-control law which can eventually disarm all lawabiding Americans. Abolition of all gun-control laws, leaving Americans unfettered in their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, might do more to curtail criminal violence than everything recommended by liberal pontificators. (20) Let a few hoodlums get killed by their intended victims, and the rest would begin to restrain themselves, because hood lums are cowards. Even if helpful, however, this would be superficial treatment of a symptom of a national disease. We must look deeper into the

soul of our nation to find the causes and the cure for criminal anarchy. The courts are much to blame for the cancerous growth of crime and indecency. The Supreme Court under Earl Warren has made a shambles of our laws. Successful enforcement of laws in tended to protect life and property is virtually impossible if "racial" or "labor" overtones are in any way involved. The responsibility of racial and civil rights agi tators for the spreading horror is obvious, and so is the responsibility of churches. High officials of many major denominations and groups openly endorse civil disobedience - another name for anarchy. The National Council of Churches has played a despicable role in agitating racial violence. For example, the National Council sponsored a "Youth Ministry Consultation on Race," at the Methodist General Board of Education Building, Nashville, Tennessee, January 6, 7, 8, 1964. Par ticipants from the National Council argued that children should be freed from parental control to do what they please. NCC spokesmen be moaned the fact that parents keep many high school students from taking part in racial dem onstrations. Some participants in the consultation said it is good for children to run afoul of the police - it shows children what is going on in the world. (21)

The National Council and some churches have done much to corrupt the morals of our youth, by recommending pornographic literature and by an easy-going permissiveness about all kinds of indecent, lawless conduct. In the attitude and practices of such church men, we find the root cause of our grave national problem: Abandonment of the teachings of God - of God Himself - has produced a secular paganism which is destroying our civilization. liberals - colle�tivists - have led us down this path, by corrupting our thinking

Page 182

T otalitarian

with ideas of socialism. Socialism is atheistic. It subsititutes almighty government for Almighty God. It rejects individualism for collectivism. It degrades individual men, while worshiping a faceless, soulless collective man. President Johnson's Great Society is founded on a New-Think dogma which holds that no in dividual - except, perhaps, a constitutional con servative - should be held accountable for his own behavior; a man should never be blamed for not supporting himself and family; he is always a victim of social oppression, or of inequities and maladjustments in our capitalistic system. An able bodied man who refuses to work because he dis likes labor and who lets his family live in want because he has a quenchless thirst for strong drink should not be censored ; he should be provided tax-subsidized housing so he can have drunken orgies at home; he should get free medical care to restore his vigor after one debauch so that he can enjoy the next one; the government should provide job-retraining so that he will have a vari ety of j ob opportunities to reject. A woman who has illegitimate children should not be blamed : Society is at fault and should give the woman bigger welfare checks to encourage the breeding of more illegitimates. It is a fact - astonishing and grim, but a fact - that the growth in U. S. crime rates has fol lowed the growth of the socialistic welfare state. From 1933 to 1 963, population in the United States increased 50910; crime rates increased

1 2 3 1 %; government spending ( approximately one half of which is for welfare) increased 1 2 1 5%. (22,23)

Figures give the lie to the liberal contention that poverty and unemployment are basic causes of crime. In 1933, at the bottom of the great de pression when more than 1 2 million adults were said to be unemployed, reported arrests for crime in the United States totaled 320, 162. In 1963, when the nation was enjoying full employment, riding the crest of affluence, reported arrests to taled 4,259,463. In 1933, government spend ing ( federal, state, and local ) totaled about $ 12.8 billion; in 1963, $168.4 billion. Bad conditions do not create bad people. Bad people create bad conditions. When decent, pro ductive people are forced to support and coddle criminals and other dregs and drones of society, chaos, degradation, and ruin are inevitable. The longer we wait to abandon collectivism and return to individualism - to dismantle social istic welfare-statism and re-establish constitutional government - the harder our task will be. If we do not act quickly, we will soon reach the point of no return to freedom and decency in an organ ized society. The criminals and the drones feed and flourish on the bounty which productive citi zens are forced to provide. When tax consumers so overwhelmingly outnumber tax producers that they control all elections and politicians, it will be too late to save our civilization. (22)

(23)

WHO IS DAN SMOOT? and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA for a doctorate in American civili· work graduate doing Fellow, Teaching a as Harvard 1941, he joined the faculty at on communist investigations; two years on zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years places. He resigned from the FBI and, various in cases FBI general on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years programs, giving both sides of controversial television and radio national on tor commenta was 1955, to 1 195 from rise business : publishing The Dan Smoot issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterp weekly news-analysis radio and television a producing and on; subscripti by available magazine Report, a weekly vehicle. The Report and broadcast advertising an as broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, American Constitution as a yard the using truth d documente presents that side the issues: give one side of important can help immensely-help get you m, communis and socialism stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against broadcast. the for sponsors l commercia subcribers for the Report, Page

183

FOOTNOTES

( 13)

"New Racial Violence In North And South," U. S. News & World Report, March 1, 1965, p. 1 2

( 14)

A P from New York City, The Dallas Morning News, March 14, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 1 2

(1)

"The Courts, The Police, The Public," by Henry Lee, This Week Magazine, May 1 6, 1965, pp. 6-7

(2)

( 1 6)

( 17 )

(4)

( 18)

(5)

( 19 )

1965,

p. 1 2A; UPI from New York City, The Dallas Morning

(6)

AP from New York City, The Dallas Morning News, May 1 9 64,

(7)

Sec.

31,

Sec.

1965,

28A;

Press Release No.

( 10 )

(11)

Sec. I , p.

Series of articles by Bob Bell, Jr., Nashville Banner, January January

editorials from Nashville Banner, January

30, 1964,

and February

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1963,

Story compiled from wire services, The

82,

1957,

1 9 60,

pp.

20, 1964

Col011ial Times to

1 9 3 , 7 2 2 -3, 7 2 5 , 7 2 6-7,

728-9; Statistical Abstl'act of the United States,

pp.

of the Census, 744;

1964,

pp.

1933,

1934; Uniform Crime Reports,

Federal Bureau of Investigation, July

Bureau of the Census,

14,

14, 1964

( 2 3 ) Historical Statistics of the United States,

Police Department of the City of New

4, 1 963, 4

AP from Philadelphia, The Dallas Morning News, May 7 ,

1964,

281,

284,

"Police Group Will Battle 'Subversion,' '' by Mervin Nelson.

434,

Des Moines Register, July 20, 1960, p. 3

Foundation, Inc., Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

420,

422,

1964,

Bureau

425,

428-9,

Facts and Figm'es 011 G01)ernment Finance, Tax 1965,

pp.

80-1, 8 3 , 86-7,

1 67 ; Actuarial Cost Estimates FOI' The Old-Age, Survivors, And

"A Police Chief Talks of 'Police Brutality', " U. S. News &

Disability Illsurance System As Modified By H.R. 1 1 865, As

World Report, August 1 0 , 1964, pp. 3 3-4 ( 12 )

( 2 2 ) Compiled from Uniform Crime Reports, 4th QU<I1'1er,

Dallas Morning News, November 8, 1964, Sec. 1 , p. 3

York, September

Sec.

7, 8, 1 0 , 1964;

UPI from New York City, The Dallas Morning News, May 20,

(9)

(21)

( 2 0 ) For details o n present attempts i n Congress t o control firearms, see this Report, "Deliver Up Our Arms," April 26, 1 9 6 5 .

UPI from New York City, The Dallas Moming News, June 4, 1964,

(8)

Sec.

AP from Philadelphia, The Dallas Morning News, March

1965,

AP from New York City, The Dallas Times Herald, April 2, News, June 4, 1964, Sec. 1, p. 2

2 5 , 1964,

"Is Crime In U. S. Out Of Hand ?", U. S. News & World

1965,

"A New Horror: Apathy Toward Suffering," The Dallas Moming News, July 2 6, 1964, Sec. 1 , p. 22

"Gangs, Murder, Rape Rampant In U. S. Capital," by William

Report, March 22, 1 965, pp. 38-43

"New York City In Trouble - Another Chapter," U. S. News & World Report, June 1 5 , 1964, pp. 43-5

2 1 , 1965, p . 2 B

March

Moore, Chicago Tribulle, May

"Personal Report: Washington," by Robert E. Baskin, The Dallas Morning News, May 24, 1965, p. 6A

(3)

( 1 5 ) The Sh,'eveport Times,

Passed By The HOllse Of Representatives And As According To

"Rochester: Where A Race Riot Hit A 'Model' City," U. S.

The Action Of The Senate, House Committee on Ways and

News & World Report, August 10, 1964, pp. 37-40

Means, September

6 months 1 year

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L.P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (LÂˇP Record Album) THE

$ 6.00 $10.00 - $10.00 - $1 0.00 -$10_00

10, 1 964,

p. 2 3

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

NAME (Please Print)

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2,00 .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 1 84

THE o

1Jt/1l SmootlIeport Vol. 1 1 , No. 24

(Broadcast 5 1 2)

June 1 4, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

S ECO N D R O L L CAL LS, 1 9 6 5

I n the May 3 1 , 1 965 Report ( "First Roll Calls, 1 965 " ) , we tabulated 14 roll call votes in the national Congress (7 in the House, 7 in the Senate) during the first two months of this year. Herein, we tabulate 14 more roll calls (7 in the House, 7 in the Senate) taken during March, April, and May. As a whole, Congress is little more than an echo chamber for administration propaganda, a rubber stamp for the President. The Senate is worse than the House. There were 30 U. S. Representatives who maintained 1000/0 conservative voting on the first 14 roll calls tabulated in this Report. No Senator had a 1000/0 rating. Only seven Senators ( four Republicans and three Democrats ) had conservative ratings of 800/0 or better : Carl T. Curtis and Roman L. Hruska, Nebraska Republicans ; Milward L. Simp son, Wyoming Republican ; Strom Thurmond, South Carolina Republican; Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis Robertson, Virginia Democrats ; and James O. Eastland, Mississippi Democrat. Disarmament Agency Funds On February 17, 1965, the House passed HR 2998, authorizing $40,000,000 for the U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the three-year period ending with the 1 968 fiscal year (see "First Roll Calls, 1 965 " ) . On March 10, 1965 , the Senate, by a stand of 83 to 12, passed an amended version of HR 2998, reducing the Disarmament Agency's fund to $20,000,000 for two fiscal years - thus keeping ex penditures at the $10,000,000-a-year level established when the Agency was created in 1 96 1 . On April 1 3, 1965, the House, by a stand o f 3 2 8 to 77, passed a compromise conference ver sion of HR 2998, authorizing $ 10,000,000 a year for the Disarmament Agency during the next three fiscal years. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25 ¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 1 O.00-each price for bulk mailing to one person Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. .

Page 1 85

Texas.

U. S. Representative H. R. Gross (Iowa Repub lican ) calls the Disarmament Agency a "wanton waste of the taxpayers' money." It is worse than that. It is an agency to promote unilateral disarma ment of the United States and eventual surrender of our armed forces to international control. The Senate March 10, 1965, vote on Disarma ment Agency funds is recorded in Column 8, under Senate. The House April 1 3, 1965, vote is recorded in Column 14, under House. In both places, C indicates a conservative stand against funds for the Agency.

Manpower Development and Training Act In March, 1 962 , Congress passed the Manpower Development and Training Act. In defiance of constitutional limitations, this law authorized the Secretary of Labor to decide the number of Ameri cans who should be working in any industry at any given time and place ; and to allocate tax payers' money for training youth in fields which the Secretary of Labor decides they should be trained in. President Kennedy and other sponsors of the legislation said it would provide "vocational training and on-the-job training" for an estimated 410 000 American workers burdened with "obsolete and insufficient skills." The program was supposed to last two years, and cost $262,375 ,000. By the end of 1964, it had cost $42 5 ,874,2 3 3 ; 60,000 individuals had completed job retraining; another 1 3 5,000 were in training. On February 1 , 1965, President Johnson asked Congress to expand and extend the Manpower Development Training Act of 1962. To j ustify the request, the President presented a dreary pic ture of unemployment and untrained workers. Evidently, the unconstitutional spending of $42 5 . 874,233 in less than two years had not improved conditions which President Kennedy had de scribed as j ustification for initiating the Man power Development and Training program. Yet, Congress quickly complied with President ,

Johnson'S request to pour out more tax money on a program which was already a failure. On March 16, 1965 , the Senate, by a stand of 90 to 8, passed S 974, extending the Manpower Devel opment and Training Act of 1962 for five more years - authorizing $454,000,000 for the 1966 fiscal year, placing no limit on authorizations for subsequent years. On April 1 , the House, by voice vote, passed a somewhat different version of the bill. Senate and House agreed on a conference version, which was passed by voice votes. On April 26, 1 965 , the President signed into law (PL 89-1 5 ) the 1965 expansion and extension of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. The roll call vote taken in the Senate on March 16, 1965 , is recorded in Column 9 under Senate C being a conservative stand against extending the program.

Federal Aid To Education On March 26, 1965, the House, by a stand of 268 to 1 5 8, passed the Education Act of 1965 (HR 2362 ) . The Senate passed the bill on April 9, by a stand of 78 to 20. The President signed it into law (PL 89-10) on April 1 1 . Involving multi-billion-dollar expenditures of federal tax money, the aid to education program is considered a major front in the President's war on poverty. Tax money used in this war is financ ing a scandal of vast proportions. Politicians and political factions, particularly in large cities, are fighting for control of the spending - using tax money for political purposes. For example, U. S. Representative Adam Clayton Powell (Harlem Democrat) has allegedly won a contest with Sargent Shriver for control of anti-poverty money to be spent in New York City. Franklin Roosevelt, Jr. is said to be using his job as head of the new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to improve his chances for winning the governor ship of New York in 1966. During debates on the Education Act of 1965, Senator Peter H. Dominick (Colorado Repub-

Page 186

lican) proposed a means to check some of the political corruption which flourishes in the war on poverty. Senator Dominick wanted to prevent the granting of federal aid-to-education money directly to local agencies without approval of state governments. This would have handicapped big-city political machines in their scandalous lobbying for direct grants of federal tax money ; but the Senate, by a stand of 5 5 to 41, rej ected the Dominick proposal. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (North Carolina Dem ocrat) wanted to require the U. S. Commissioner of Education to give notice 30 days prior to dis bursement of federal aid-to-education funds so that any individual could bring suit challeng ing the constitutionality of the proposed disburse ment. By a stand of 59 to 39, the Senate rej ected the Ervin proposal. The defeated Dominick and Ervin amendments would not have made the Education Act of 1965 constitutional, but would have eliminated some outrageous features. Note how many Senators cast conservative votes for the amendments, but then cast liberal votes for the unconstitutional Act after the amendments were rejected. Roll calls on passage of the Education Act of 1965 are tabulated in Column 10 under Senate and in Column 12 under House - C indicating a conservative stand against the Act. Senate roll call on the defeated Dominick amendment to the Education Act of 1965 is re corded in Column 1 1 under Senate - C indicat ing a conservative stand for this effort to eliminate political corruption from the aid-to-education program. Senate roll call on the defeated Ervin amend ment is recorded in Column 12 under Senate C indicating a conservative vote for the amend ment. As passed, the Education Act of 1 965 author ized : ( 1 ) $ 1 .06 billion for special aid-to-education in school districts with large numbers of children whose families have incomes of less than $2,000 a year;

(2) $ 1 00 million first-year expenditure on a five-year program of grants to buy textbooks and library books for elementary and secondary schools; (3) $ 1 00 million first-year expenditure on a five-year program of grants to community-wide centers which will establish model school pro grams and provide educational services not be ing provided by existing schools; (4) a $ 1 00 million, five-year program of grants for improving educational research, training re search personnel, constructing new research centers; (5) $ 1 0 million first-year expenditure on a five-year program of grants to strengthen state departments of education.

Within 30 days after President Johnson signed the Education Act of 1965, federal education offi cials were overwhelmed by the task of processing "compliance plans" submitted from 26,000 school districts and 50 state departments of education. This alone gives the lie to insistent liberal propa ganda that federal aid does not mean federal control.

Voting Rights Bill The pending voting rights bill (S 1 5 64) has a provision called the automatic trigger-making automatic the appointment of federal examiners to supervise elections in states (or subdivisions of states ) where the Justice Department alleges that fewer than 2 5 percent of voting-age adults are registered. This would give the U. S. Attor ney General authority to meddle, unconstitution ally, in any election. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., pro posed an amendment which, though it would not have made the voting rights bill constitutional, would have given states some chance to defend themselves against charges of voter discrimina tion before federal intervention. Ervin proposed that federal examiners not be appointed until after a federal district court ( in the area involved) made a j udicial finding. On May 6, 1965 , the Senate, by a stand of 71 to 26, rej ected the Ervin amendment. The vote is recorded in Column 1 3 under Senate, C in d i cating a vote for the defeated amendment.

Page 187

On May 1 1 , 1 965 , the Senate, by a stand of 52 to 48, rejected a "liberal" amendment to the voting rights bill - the amendment (sponsored by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat) to outlaw poll taxes as a requirement in state and local elections. This vote is recorded in Column ] 4 under Senate, C being a conserva tive stand against the anti-poll tax proposal. For more information on the voting rights bill, see this Report, May 1 0, 1 965 .

HCUA Funds On February 25, 1965, the House, by a stand of 363 to 32, voted funds to continue the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It is ob vious that many liberals, who dislike the anti communist work of the HCUA, vote funds for the committee, because they know it is popular with the public. The vote is recorded (in Column 8 under House ) to show the 32 hard-core liberals who identify themselves with a cause widely known to be a primary goal of the communist party - abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Note that Adam Clayton Powell avoids taking a stand on the question of voting funds for the HCUA - whose files reveal that Powell has many associations with communist activities.

Appalachia Act In February, the Senate approved the wasteful, harmful, unconstitutional Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (vote tabulated in "First Roll Calls, 1965 " ) . The House, by a stand of 262 to 1 70, passed the bill on March 3, 1 965 . This vote is tabulated in Column 9 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against.

National Council of Arts Government control of the arts is an essential and conspicuous feature of communist societies. Now, our own government, in the hands of total itarian liberals, moves craftily toward control of

the arts - under guise of promoting art, insist ently denying that federal aid will bring federal control, ignoring the fact that any kind of federal activity in the arts is unconstitutional. In 1 964, Congress created a National Council of Arts (composed of 2 5 members, appointed by the President) . Its purpose was vague. Appar ently, liberals intended it merely as a door opener - to get the federal government involved in the arts, intending to legislate deeper involvement later. On March 1 5, 1965 , the House voted on HR 47 14, an administration-sponsored bill to provide $ 1 50,000 a year to operate the National Council of Arts. Administration forces tried to achieve passage of HR 47 14 under suspension of rules. Under suspension of rules, a bill can be passed without any debate or discussion, but passage re quires two-thirds of all votes cast, rather than a simple majority. The administration maneuver failed : 223 Representatives voted tor HR 471 4 on March 1 5 ; only 1 1 6 voted against ; but the bill did not pass because the yea vote was not two thirds of the total. This vote is recorded in Col umn 10 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against funds for the National Council of Arts.

Washington, D . C., Crime Bill In August, 1963, the House passed the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime Bill ( HR 7525 ) which, among other things, nullified the rule of evidence established by the U. S. Supreme Court in the Mallory case, and the rule of evidence established by a U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Durham case. The Mallory case involved Andrew R. Mallory, a 1 9-year-old negro, who confessed to' raping a woman in the basement of her apartment house in Washington. He was tried and convicted in District Court. His conviction was upheld in the Court of Appeals. Without suggesting any doubt of guilt or suspicion of police brutality, the Su preme Court set Mallory free to go unpunished Page 188

for his crime, solely because police had questioned him before formal arraignment. The decision es tablished a rule of evidence which means, in ef fect, that police cannot question a suspect before he is formally arrested and arraigned unless the suspect agrees. After formal arrest, he cannot be questioned at all. In the Durham case, a U. S. Court of Appeals established a rule of evidence which makes vir tually impossible successful criminal prosecution of anyone who pleads momentary insanity or mental incompetence. Kennedy administration liberals, who strongly opposed the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime Bill of 1963, supported the Durham case rule with the astonishing argu ment that an individual who may intellectually know he is committing a crime, but lacks emo tional capacity to refrain from committing it, is not really guilty of crime. The Kennedy administration, and its liberal supporters in Congress, could not keep the House from passing the D. C. Crime Bill in 1963 ; but the bill died because the Senate refused to take action during 1963 and 1964. On March 22, 1965, the House, by a stand of 262 to 141, passed HR 5688, another District of Columbia Crime Bill to nullify the Mallory and Durham rules of evidence. The vote is recorded in Column 1 1 under House, C indicating a con servative stand for the bill. A t i C " indicates a conse rvative stand. Senator was not Column

HII

- -

a lTl e rnb e r

to Education,

Ervin amendment; # 1 4

- -

2362,

On April 8, 1965, the House, by a vote of 3 1 3 to 1 1 5 , passed the medicare bill (HR 6675 ) , adding medical care benefits to social security, expanding present benefits, increasing social se curity taxes. It is estimated that HR 6675 will add six billion dollars to the cost of social security during the first year. There are no reliable estimates on how much HR 6675 will add to the annual cost, and deficits, of the social security system in subse quent years. Without medicare, the social security system is already bankrupt: paying out more than it takes in, building no reserve to meet ever-grow ing obligations for the future. In the eight-year period 1957-1964, social security disbursements averaged 1 1 .3 billion dollars a year, while col lections averaged 10.8 billion a year - leaving an annual average deficit of about 500 million dollars. For a historical review, and current anal ysis, of the social security system, see "Social Se curity," the March 1 , 1965 , issue of this Report. The vote on medicare is recorded in Column 1 3 under House, C indicating a conservative vote against. V O T E S

A 1 ' 0 " indicates the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

A 1 1 _ I I indicates the

S E N A T E

at the time of the vote.

-- Disarmament Agency Funds ,

Federal A i d

Medicare

C ALL

ROLL

An ilL" indicates a liberal stand.

The Johnson administration Justice Department is opposed to HR 5688, j ust as the Kennedy ad ministration was opposed to HR 7525 in 1963. The Senate has not yet taken action on the bill.

HR 2 9 9 8 ;

Manpower Development and T r aining A c t . S 9 7 4 ; # 10

Dominick amendment; H 1 2

Federal A i d t o Education, HR 2 3 6 2 ,

- -

Federal Aid to Education, HR 2 3 6 2 , p a s s a g e ;

Ervin amendment; N 1 3

Voting Rights

Bill, S

1 5 64 ,

Voting Rights Bill. S 1 56 4 . Kennedy amendment.

ALABAMA Hill, Lister ( D ) Sparkman, John J . (D ) A LASKA Bartlett. E. L. ( D) Gruening. Ernest (0) ARIZONA F ann i n , Paul J . ( R ) Hayden. Carl (D ) A RKANSAS Fulbright, J. W . (0) McClellan, John L. (0) CALIFORNIA K uc h e l , Thomas H . (R ) Murphy, George (R ) COLORAOO Allott. Gordon (R ) Dominick, Petcr H. (R ) CONNECTICUT Dodd. Thomas J . (0 ) RibicoCf, Abraham A . (0) DELAWARE Boggs. J. Caleb (R ) Williams , John J . ( R )

L L

L 0

C C

L L

C L

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

L C

C C

L C

L L

L C

FLORIDA Holland. Spessard L . ( D ) Smather s . George A . ( D ) GEORGIA Russell, Richard B . (0) Talmadge, Herman E . (0) HAWAII Inouye. Daniel K . ( D ) Fong, Hiram L . (R ) IDAHO �rch, Frank (0 ) Jordan, Len B. ( R) ILLINOIS Dirksen, Everett McK . (R ) Douglas , Paul H . (0) INDIANA � Birch (0 ) Hartke. Vance ( D ) IUWA

-Wckenlooper. Bourke B . Miller, Jack (R ) KANSAS ----carTs on, Frank (R) Pearson. James B . (R )

Page 189

(R )

L L

C L

C 0

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

C L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

L C

L L

C C

KENTUCKY Cooper. Jahn Sherman (R) Morton, Thruston B. (R) LOUISIANA Ellender . Allen J. (D) Long. Russell B. {D} MAINE �kie. Edmund S. (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Brewster I Daniel B. (D) Tydings. Joseph D. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy I Edward M. (D) Saltonstall, Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart. Philip A. (D) McNamara. Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy. Eugene J. (D) Mondale , Walter F. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O. (D) Stenni s . J aho (D) MISSOURI ----rc;;;g;-E dward V. (D) Symington, Stuart (D) MONTANA Mansfield, Mike (D) Metcalf. Lee (D) NEBRASKA Curtis J Carl T. (R) Hruska, Roman L . (R) NEVADA Bible, Alan (D) Canon, Howard W. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE C otton. Norris (R) McIntyre . Thomas J. (D) NEW JERSEY Case, C li{[ord P. (R) Williams, Harrison A . , Jr. NEW MEXICO Anderson. Clinton P. (D) Montoya, Joseph M. (D) NEW YORK Javit s , Jacob K. (R) Kennedy. Robert F. (n) NORTH CAROLINA Ervin. Sam J . , J r . (D) Jordan, B. Everett (D)

L L

L C

C C

C L

L L

C C

C L

L L

C L

C C

C L

L L

L C

L L

(D)

A liC i t indicates a conservative stand.

L L

L C

L L

NORTH DAKOTA Burdick, Quentin N. (O) Young, Milton R. (R) OHIO --r;iusche, Frank J . (D) Young. Stephen M . (D) OKLAHOMA Harris. Fred R. (D) Monroney. A. S. Mike (D) OREGON Morse. Wayne (D) Neuberger, Maurine B. (D) PENNSYLVANIA Clark. Joseph S. (D) Scott. Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastore, John O . (D) Pell, C laiborne (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Russell, Donald S . (D) Thurmond. Strom (R) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern, George (D) Mmdt. Karl E. (R) TENNESSEE Bas s . Ross (D) Gore. Albert (D) TEXAS --rower, John G. (R) Yarborough. Ralph W. (D) UTAH ----sennett. Wallace F. (R) Mos s , Frank E . (D) VERMONT Aiken, George D. (R) P routy. Winston L . (R) VIRGINIA �Harry Flood (D) Robertson. A. Willis (D) WASHINCTON 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) WYOMING McGee. Gale W. (D) Simpson, Milward L . (R)

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

C C

L C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

HOUS E An l I L " indicates a liberal stand.

A "0" indicates the Repres entative was absent or did not take a public stand.

Column H 8 __ HCUA Funds , H R e s 1 8 8 ; #9 - - Appalachia Act, S 3; H I D -- National Council of A r t s . HR 4 7 1 4 ; H l 1 Federal Aid t o Education, HR 2 3 62 ; H 1 3 - - Medic a r e . HR 667 5 ; # 1 4 - - Disarmament Agency Funds. HR 29 9 8 .

A LABAMA Andrews, George W. (D) Andrews, Glenn (R) Buchanan, John H . • J r . (R) Dickinson, William L. (R) Edwards, W. Jack, III (R) Jones, Robert E. (D) Martin, James D. (R) Selden, Armistead 1 . , J r . (D) ALASKA River s , Ralph J . (D) ARIZONA �. John J. (R) Senner, George F . , J r . (D) Udall, Morris K. (D) ARKANSAS Gathin�s . E. C. (D) Harris, Oren (D) Mills, Wilbur O. (D) Trimble. James W. (D) CALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F. (R) Bell, Alphonzo (R) Brown, George E . , Jr, (D) Burton, Phillip (D) Cameron, Ronald B. (D) Clausen, Don (R) Clawson, Del (R) Cohelan, Jeffery (D) Corman, James C. (D) Dyal, Kenneth W. (D) Edwards, W. Donlon (D) Gubser, Charles S . (R) Hagen, Harlan (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins, Augustus F. (D) Hol1!1eld, Chet (0) Hosmer. Craig (R) Johnson, Harold T . (D) King. Cecil R . (D) Leggett, Robert L. (D)

L L

C C C C C C C C

C C C C C L C C

C L C

C C C C C

C C

C L

C L C o

o o

C C

C L L

C C C C

C L L L

C C C L

C C C C

C C L L

C L L L

C C L L

C C L L C C C C C C L

C C L L L C C L L L L C

C L

C C L L L

L L L L C C C L L L L C L L L

o o o

C C C L

L L L C L L L

L L C C L L L L C

L L

C L L o

C L L L L C C L L L

L L L L

C L L L C C L L L L L L

C L L L

Washington, D. C .

CALIFORNIA (cont'd) Lipscomb , Glenard P. (R) Mailliard, William S . (R) McFall. John J. (D) Miller, George P. (D) Mos s , John E. (D) Reinecke, Edwin (R) Roosevelt, James (D) Roybal. Edward R . (D) Sisko B . F. (D) Smith, H . Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L . (R) Teague, Charles M . (R) Tunney, John V . (D) Utt, James B . (R) Van Deerlin, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson, Charles H . (D) Younge r . J. Arthur (R) COLORADO Aspinall, Wayne N. (D) Evans , F rank E. (D) McVicker, Roy H. (D) Roger s , Byron G. (D) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q. (D) Giaimo. Robert N. (D) Grabowski, Bernard P . (D) Irwin, Donald J. (D) Monogan, John S . (D) St. Onge , William (D) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , J r . (D) FLORIDA �, Charles E. (D) Cramer, William C. (R) F:u.cell. Dante B . (D) Fuqua , Don (D) Gibbons , Sam M . (D) Gurney, Edward J. (R) Haley, James A. (D)

- -

L L L L C C L L L L o

L L L L C

L L L

Page 1 90

•

C rime Bill. HR 5688; # 1 2 -

C L L L

C C

C C L L L C

L L L L L L L C L L L C L C L C

L L L C L L L C L L L C L C L

C C L L L C L L L C L C L C L C L C

C C C C

L L L L

L L L

L L

L L L L

C C

L C C C C C C C

c o

C C C C C C C C C C C C

C C

C C C L C L

L L C L L L C C C C C L

C C

o o o

c L

C L o

C C L

L o o o o

L L L C L

C C L C L C C

C L o

L L C C

C C C C C c

L L C C C L C L

C L C L L L L L L L L L L L C

L C

L L L L L

L L

L o

L L

C L L C L

L C L C L C C

FLORIDA (cont 'd) Herlong. A . Sydney, J r . (D) Matthews, D . R . (D) Pepper I Claude (D) Rogers. Paul G. (D) Sikes. Robert L. F . (D) GEORGIA Callaway. Howard H . (R) Davis I John W. (D) Flynt, John J . • Jr. (D) Hagan, G . Elliott (D) Landrum , Phil M. (D) Mackay, James A. (D) O'Neal, Maston E. (D) Stephens. Robert G . • Jr. (D) Tuten, J. Russell (D) Weltner, Charles L. (D) HAWAII �unaga, Spark M. (D) Mink, Patsy (D) IDAHO �sen. George V . (R) White, Compton I . . Jr. (D) ILLINOIS Anderson, John B. (R) Annunzio. Frank (D) Arends, Leslie C. (R) Colli e r , Harold R. (R) Dawson, William L. (D) Derwinski, Edward J. (R) Erlenborn. John N. (R) Findley, Paul (R) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Kluczynski, John C . (D) McClory, Robert (R) Michel. Robert H . (R) Murphy, William T. (D) O'Hara. Barratt (D) Price, Melvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C. (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Ronan, Dan (D) Rostenkowski, Dan (D) Rums feld. Donald (R) Schisler, Gale (D) Shipley, George E. (D) Springer , William L . (R) Yates, Sidney R. (D) INDIANA Adair, E . Ross (R) Bradema s , John (D) Bray, William G. (R) Denton, Winfield K . (D) Halleck, Charles A . (R) Hamilton. Lee H . (D) Harvey. Ralph (R) Jacobs , Andrew. Jr. (D) Madden. Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) IOWA �ndstra. Bert (D) Culver , John C . (D) Greigg, Stanley L . (D) Gros s , H. R. (R) Hansen, John R . (D) Schmidhaus e r , John R. (D) Smith. Neal (D) KANSAS ----o.oIe Bob (R) Ellsworth, Robert F. (R) Mize. Chester L. (R) Shriver, Garner E. (R) Skubitz. Joe (R) KENTUCKY Carter, Tim Lee (R) Chelf, Frank (D) Farnsley. Charles P . (D) Natcher , William H . (D) Perkins, Carl D. (D) Stubblefield, Frank A. (D) Watts, John C . (D) LOUISIANA Boggs , Hale (D) Hebert, F . Edward (D) Long. Speedy O . (D) Morrison, James H. (D) Passman. OUo E. (D) Thompson, T. Ashton (D) Waggonner, Joe D . , Jr. (D) Willis, Edwin E. (D) MAINE --Hathaway, William O . (D) Tupper . Stanley R . (R) MARYLAND Fallon. George H . (D ) Friedel, Samuel N. (D) Garrnatz. Edward A. (D) Long , Clarence D. (lJ) Machen. Hervey G . (D) Mathia s . Charles MeC . (R) Morton, Rogers C. B. (R)

C C C C C

C C L C L

C C C C C C C C C C

L L L L C L L L

C C

L C C C C C

C C C C C

C C L C C

L L L L L

L L L L C

C C

C L C C L L C

C L C L L C L L C

L C C C L

G C C C C C C

C L

C C C C L L C C L L

L L

C C

G L

C L

L L

C C C C

C L

C L C C L

C L

C L C

L L L C

C C C C C C C C L C C C C C G

C C C C

C L C C C L L C C L L

C L L C L L C L

C C C C

C L C L

C C C C C C

C C L L C L

C C

L L C L L

L L C

o o

L L

C L C L C L G L C L L C L o

C L C C o

C L C C L L L C C L L C C L C L

C L C C C C o

C C C C

C C C C C C C

L L L C L L L

C C C C C

C L G

C G

C C

L L L L L L L

C C G G C C C C

C L L C C

C L C G C L L G

C L L L L C L L C L L o

L C L G

L C L C L L C L L

L C C C L L L C L L L L C L

L C L L C L C L C L C L C L L C L

L C

G o o

L C L L

L L C L L L L L L L L L C L L L o

L L

L C L L L

L L L C L L L

C L L L C

C C C C C

C L L L L

L L L L L L L

C C C C C C C

L L L L L L L

L L L L L

L L L L L L L

L C C L C L C L

L C C L C L C

L G C L C C L

L C C L C L

L L C L C L

C C C C C C C C

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C C

L L

o o

L L L L L L L

L L L L L L C

L L L L L L L

C C G

C C C

L L L C

L L C L L L o

L L L

o L

C C

C L C

MARYLAND (cont 'd) Sickles. Carlton R. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Bates , William H. (R) Boland, Edward P. (D) Burke, James A. (D) Conte. Silvio O. (R) Donohue, Harold O. (D) Keith. Hastings ( R ) Macdonald, Torbert H . (D) Martin. Joseph W . , Jr. (R) McCormack, John W . (D) Morse, F. Bradford (R) Philbin, Philip J . (D) O ' Neill, Thomas P . • Jr. (D) MICHIGAN Broomfield. William S. (R) Cederberg, Elford A. (R) Chamberlain. Charles E . (R) Clevenger, Raymond F . (D) Conyer s , John J . • J r . (D) Diggs , Charles C . , J r . (D) Dingell. John D . (D) Farnum, Billie S . (D) Ford, Gerald R . • Jr . (R) Ford, William O . (D) Griffin, Robert P. (R) Griffiths , Martha W. (D) Harvey. James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Mackie, John C. (D) Nedzi, Lucien N. (D ) O'Hara, James G. (D) Todd. Paul H. (D) Vivian. W eston E. (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik. John A. (D) Fl'aser, Donald M . (D) Karth, Joseph E. ( D ) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor, Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson. Alec G. ( D ) Quie, Albert H. (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colmer, W illiam M. (D) Walker. Prentiss (R) Whitten, Jamie L. (D) Williams. John Bell (D) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D) Curti s , Thomas B. (R) Hall, Durward G. (R) Hull. W . R . • J r . (D) Hungate, William L. (D) Ichord, Richard H . (D) Jones . Paul C . (D) Karsten, Frank M. (D) Randall. W illiam J. (D) Sullivan, Leonor Kretzer (D) MONTANA Battin, James F. (R) Olsen. Arnold (D) NEBRASKA Callan, Clair A. ( D ) Cunningham. Glenn (R) Martin, David T . (R) NEVADA Baring, Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland, James C . (R) Huot, J . Oliva (D) NEW JERSEY Cahill, William T. (R) Daniels , Dominick V. (D) Dwyer . Florence P . (R) Frelinghuysen. Pete r , Jr. (R) Gallagher , Cornelius E. (D) Helstoski, Henry (D) Howard, James J. ( D ) Joelson, Charles S . (D) Krebs , Paul J . (D) McGrath, Thomas C . , Jr. (D) Minish. Joseph G . (D) Patten, Edward J . , Jr. (D) Rodino. Peter W . , Jr. (D) Thompson, Frank. Jr. ( D ) Widnall, William B. (R) NEW MEXICO Morris, Thomas G. (D) Walk e r . E. S . (D) NEW YORK Addabbo, Joseph P. (D) Bingham, Jonathan B. (D) Carey. Hugh L . (D) Celler, Emanuel (D) Conable. Barber B . • Jr. (R) Delaney, James L . (D) Dow. John G. (D) DuIs ki. Thaddeus J. (D) Farbstein, Leonard (D)

L C L

Page 1 9 1

C C C C C C

C L L C L C C C

o o o

C C

C L L

C C C C L L L C C C C C C C L L C C L

C C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

C L C G C C C C

L L L C C C L C

C C C C C

C L L L L C L C

C L L L L C L L

L L L L L L L L

o o

L L L

G C C L L L L L C L C L L C L L L L L

L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L L

o o L o o

G G o o o

L L L o

L C

L L

o o o

L L

L L L L o

o o o o

C L L L L L C L o

L C C L L L L L L L C C C C L C G

L L C C C L C

L L L C

L L L L L 0

L L L L L L L L L L L 0

C L C

L L L L L L L

C C C C

C C C C C

C C C C

L C C C L C G L C L

C C C L L C L L L

L L C C C C C L C L

L C C L L L O L L L

L C C L L L G L L L

L L C L L L L L L L

C C

C L

C C C

L C C

C C C

L C C

L L C

L L

C C C C C L C C C C C C C C

C 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 C

L L L O

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L

C C

L C

L L

C L C

L L L L C

C L C L L

L L L L C

L L L L L

L C L

L L L

C C C

o o

C C

L C L

L L L

o o

L L

L L L L o

o o

L L L

L L

L L L L L C G

C L L L L L L L

NEW YORK (cont 'd) Fino. Paul A . (R) Gilbert. Jacob H . (D) Goodell, Charles E . (R) Grover, James R . • Jr. (R) Halpern, Seymour (R) Hanley, James M. (D) Horton, Frank J. (R) Kelly. Edna F. (D) Keogh, Eugene J. (D) King, Carleton J. (R) Lindsay, John V . (R) McCarthy, Richard D . (D) McEwen, Robert C. CR} Mult e r , Abraham J . (D) Murphy, John M . (D) O' Brien, Leo W. (D) Ottinge r , Richard L . (D) Pike, Otis G . (D) Pirnie, Alexander (R) Powell, Adam Clayton (D) Reid, Ogden R . (R) Resnick, Joseph Y. (D) Robison. Howard W. (R) Rooney. John J. (D) Ros enthal, Benjamin S . (D) Ryan, William Fitts (D) Scheuer, James H . (D) Smith, Henry P . , III (R) Stratton, Samuel S . (D) Tenzler, Herbert (D) W olff, Lester L . (D) Wydler , John W. (R) NORTH CAROLINA Bonner, Herbert C. (D) Broyhill, James T. (R) Cooley, Harold O. (D) Fountain, L . H. (D) Henderson, David N. (D) Jonas . Charles Raper (R) Kornegay, Horace R . (D) Lennon. Alton (D) Scott, Ralph J. (D) Taylor, Roy A. (D) Whitener , Basil L . (D) NORTH DAKOTA Andrews , Mark (R) Redlin. Rolland (D) OHIO --x5hbrook, J ohn M . (R) Ashley, Thomas L . (D) Ayres, William H . (R) Betts, Jackson E. (R) Bolton, Frances P . (R) Bow, F rank T. (R) Brown, Clarence J. (R) Clancy, Donald O. (R) Devine, Samuel L . (R) Feighan, Michael A . (D) Gilligan, John J. (D) Harsha, William H . , Jr. (R) Hays, Wayne L . (0) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta . Delbert L . (R) Love, Rodney M. (D) McCulloch, William M . (R) Minshall, William E . (R) Moeller, Walter H . (D) Mosher, Charles A . (R) Secrest, Robert T . (D) Stanton, J. William (H.) Sweeney, Robert E. (D) Vanik, Charles A . (D) OKLAHOMA Albert, Carl (D) Belcher , Page (R) Edmondson , E d (D) Jarman, John (D) Johnson, Jed, Jr. (D) Steed. Tom (D) OREGON Duncan, Robert B. (D) Green, Edith (D) Ullman, Al (D) Wyatt, Wendell (R) PENNSY LVANIA Barrett, William A . (D) Byrne, James A. (D) Clark, Frank M. (D) Corbett, Robert J . (R) Craley, N. Neiman, J r . (D) Curtin. Willard S. (R) Dague, Paul B . (R) Dent, John H. {O} Flood, Daniel J. (D) Fulton. James G. (R) Green, William J . , III (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D) Johnson, Albert W. (R) Kunkel. John C. (R) McDade, Joseph M. (R) Moorhead, William S . (D)

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 L L L L L L L L L

L L L C L L C L L C L L C L L L L C C L L

L C C L L L

C L L L L

C L L

L L

C C C

L L C L L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L C L L L L C L L L L

C C C C C C C C C C C

C L C C C C C C C C

L L L L L L C C L L L

C L C C L L

C L C C C C C o

C C C C C L C o

L C C o

L L L L L L L C L L C L 0

L L L L 0

0 0

L C L C L L

C L C C L C C L L L

C C L L L

L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L o

L L L L L L L L L L L L

C C C C

L L L C

C C C C C C C C C C C

L C C C C L C L L L

C C C C C C C C L C C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C L L

C L C C C C C C C L L C L L C L C C L C L C L L

C L L L L L L C C L L C L L L L L C L L L L L L

L C L C L C

C C C C C C

L C L C L L

L C L C L 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 C C C C C L C

L L L L L L L

C L C C C

C C C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C C C

L L C C C C C L C L L L

L L C L C C

L L

L C L L

C C C C

C L C L L

L L C C

L C L C

L L L L L L C L L L L L

C C L o

C C C C C L

C C C

L L L

L C L C C C C L 0

C 0 0

C 0

C C L L L C L L

L L

L L L 0

L L 0

C C C C C C C C L C L C C C C C C

o G

C L L

L C C L C C C L L 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

PENNSYLVANIA (cont'd) Morgan, Thomas E. (D) Nix, Robert N. C. (D) Rhodes , George M . (D) Rooney, Fred B. (D) Saylor, J ohn P. (R) Schneebeli. Herman T. (R) Schweiker , Richard S . (R) Toll, Herman (D) Vigorito, Jos eph P . (D) Watkins , G . Robert (R) Whalley, J. [rving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty, John E . (D) St. Germain, Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROLrNA Ashmo r e , Robert T. (D) Oorn, W. J. B ryan (D) Gettys . Thomas S. (D) McMillian, John L . (D) Rivers , L . Mendel (D) ,OUTH DAKOTA Berry, E. Y. (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Anderson. William R. (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Duncan, J ohn J. (R) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evins . Joe L. (D) Fulton, Richard (D) Grider. George W. (D) Murray, Tom (O) Quillen, James H. (R) TEXAS �worth, Lindley (D) Brooks. Jack (D) Burleson. Omar (D) Cabell, Earle (D) Casey, Bob (D) de la Garza, Eligio (D) Oowdy, J ohn (D) Fisher, O. C . (D) Gonzalez , Henry B. (D) Mahon, George H . (D) Patman, Wright (D) Pickle, J. J. (D) Poage, W . R . (0) Pool. Joe (D) Purcell, Graham (D) Roberts, Ray (D) Roger s , Walter (D) Teague, Olin E. (D) Thomas , Albert (D) Thompson, Clark W. (D) White, Richard C. (D) Wright, James C . , J r . (D) Young, J ohn (D) UTAH �rton, Laurence J. (R) King. David S . (D) VERMONT Sta[[ord, Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M. (D) B royhill, Joel T. (R) Downing. Thomas N. (D) Hardy, Porter, J r . (D) Jennings . W . Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 . • Jr. (D) Po£[, Richard H. (R) Satterfield, David E . , III (D) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck, William M . (D) WASHINGTON Adams , Brockman (D) Foley, Thomas S . (D) Hansen. Julia Butler (D) Hicks , Floyd V . (D) May, Catherine (R) Meeds , Lloyd (D) Pelly, Thomas M. (R) WEST VrRGINIA Heckler . Ken (D) K e e , James (D) Moor e , Arch A . , J r . (R) Slack, John M . • Jr. (D) Stagger s , Harley 0 , (D) WISCONSIN Byrne s , John W. (R) Davis , Glenn R . (R) Kastenmeier, Robert W. (D) Laird, Melvin R. (R) O'Konski, Alvin E. (R) Race, J ohn A . (0) Reuss , Henry S. (D) Stalbaum, Lynn E. (D) Thomson. Vernon W. (R) Zablocki, Clement J . (D) W Y OMING Roncalio, Teno (D)

C L L o

L o

L L L o

o o

L L L o

L L L

Page 1 92

C C C

L L L L L L L L L L L

C C

L L

C C C C C

C L L L L

C C C C C

C C C o

C o

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C o

C C C C o

L L L L L L L

C L C L C C C

L L L L C C L

L L L L L

L C

C C C

L L L

L L

C C C

L L

l4 L o

C C C C C

C C C C

L C L C C

C C L C C

C C

C L

C C

C L

L L

L C L L L L L L L

L C C L

C C C

L C C

C C L C C

L C C L L L L L C

L L C L L L L L C

L L C C C L L C L C

L L L L C L C C L L L L L C

L L C L C C C C L C L L C C L C C C L L L L L

L C C L

C C C L L C L L

C C C C C C C C L C C C C C C C L C C C C C C

C C C L C C L L L L

L C o

L L L

C C L L

C L C L C C

L C L

L L C L C C C

L o L

C C C L L L C L L

C C C L

L L

C L L

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

C C C C C C C C C C

C C C C L C C C C C

C C C C

C C C C L C C C C C

C C C L L C C C C C

L L L L L C L C L C

C C C C C C C

C L

L L

L L L L C L C

L L L L C L L

L L L L L L L

C C C C C

L L L L L

L L C L L

C C L C C C C C C

C C L C L L L L C

L L L L C L L L C

C C L C L L L L C

L L C L C

L L L L L C C C C o

C C C C C

L L

C C

L C L

L C o

C C

C L L

C C L

C L L L C

o o

L L L L

I..

THE

IJfllllmootRepoft Vol. 1 1 , No. 25

(Broadcast 5 1 3)

June 2 1 , 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

P R E S I D E N T J O H N S O N ' S TWO WA R S

Since

February, 1965, when President Johnson ordered bombing of targets in North Vietnam, conservative opposition to disastrous great society programs has steadily declined. The opposition that remained virtually collapsed on April 2 9 , 1965, when the President ordered Marines into the Dominican Republic. One year ago, conservatives were imbued with virile hope. Now they often j ibe, with bitter ness bearing a tinge of grudging admiration, that President Johnson is faithfully fulfilling Sena tor Goldwater's campaign promises of 1 964. Comments from my subscribers provide a good sampling of the changing conservative attitude. From all over the nation, people say to me: (1)

"I did not vote for President Johnson; and I do not like his crazy great society programs; but I must now admit that he has the right idea about foreign policy. At last, we have a Presi dent who is really standing up against the communists."

Noting this condition, U. S. News & World Report made a nationwide survey, and published the results, on May 3 1 , 1965 , in an article entitled "The Changing Mood of America." From the article: "The mood of people in America is discovered to be undergoing a change in this period . . . . Sentiment seems to have hardened back of the President on a tougher policy in Vietnam. There is almost unanimous support for the military move into the Dominican Republic."

Samuel Lubell, a political pollster who generally reflects the totalitarian liberal view, has also noted the collapse of opposition to President johnson's programs. In a column syndicated by United Features, published in The Dallas Times Herald on June 7, 1965 , Lubell said : "Although 1 9 months have passed since Lyndon Johnson became President, no clear line of resistance to his policies has yet been drawn in the minds of the American public. If anything, in fact, the opposition to him through the country appears weaker and more divided than it was during the last presidential election . . .

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $ 18.00 for two years. For first class mail $ 1 2.50 a year; by airmail (including APO and FPO) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 1 O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one persoll. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 193

"Among conservative Republicans, disgruntle ment over Johnson's economic policies has been undercut by his forceful action in Viet N am and the Dominican Republic. Repeatedly, these con servatives have said, 'I don't like Johnson's so cialism, but he's surprised me with his strong stand against communism.' "

I cannot refrain from saying, as President John son himself often says-paraphrasing the Lord as quoted in Isaiah-"Come now, let us reason to gether. "

In The Caribbean

C oncerning

the Dominican Republic : as pointed out in the May 17, 1965 , issue of this Report} the only interval of relative peace and prosperity in the history of the Dominican Re public was the 30-year Truj illo era. Rafael Tru j illo was a tyrant; but the Dominicans have an unbroken record of proof that they are incapable of understanding or maintaining a free society. Truj illo's tyranny was directed against commu nists and the camp-following liberal leftists, and against regional chieftains-none of whom wanted freedom for the people. They lusted after the power that Truj illo possessed. The majority of the people-the peasant masses-loved Tru j illo. (1) The kind of government a foreign people have, or want, is no business of ours, unless the govern ment poses a threat to the life and property of U. S. citizens or to the security of the United States. Truj illo, far from being a threat to the United States, was the only strong friend we had in the Caribbean area. Yet, despite Truj illo's fierce, unshakable loyalty to the United States, the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations took the lead in destroying the Truj illo regime. The State Department and the CIA have even been accused of plotting and arranging the assassina tion of Truj illo in 1961.(1)

In contrast, the Kenned y-Johnson administra tion lavished aid and praise upon Juan Bosch, who was elected President of the Dominican Republic in 1962. Bosch had been a communist, in exile from the Dominican Republic for 2 5 years, and was notorious for involvement in Latin American leftist activities. During the ten months of Bosch's presidency, the Kennedy-Johnson administration gave him multiplied millions of our tax dollars, to make the Dominican Republic, under his leftist dictatorship, a "showcase of democracy." The aid we gave Bosch in less than one year was many times more than the total amount we had given Truj illo in 30 yearsY) Bosch used American tax money to create a socialist dictatorship worse than Trujillo'S ; and the Dominican economy sank into ruin. Seeing the country rapidly becoming a communist satel lite, a military j unta seized power in September, 1963 ; and Bosch fled the country. The communist rebellion of April, 1 965, was planned and di rected, at least in part, by Bosch-from his United States sanctuary in Puerto Rico. (1) We and the Dominicans would have been in finitely better off if we had left them and their pro-American dictator alone to manage their own affairs. Instead, we helped create conditions which made our military intervention necessary in 1965 . If our intervention had been robust and unlimited, our soldiers could have wiped out the communists' rag-tag hoodlum gang in 30 hours ; and Johnson would have deserved praise for vigorous action, despite his complicity in previous events which destroyed the Dominican Republic as a staunch friend of the United States. But Johnson ordered a halting, timid intervention which handicapped our soldiers, confused their objectives, and pro hibited them from using their best weapons and tactics. (1) ' Before our troops had been in Santo Domingo a month, President Johnson threatened to use them against the anti-communist j unta, if the anti-com munists did not stop fighting and negotiate a coalition settlement. At the time we forced a cease-fire in the Dominican Republic, the com munist-led rebels were losing in all quarters, ap-

Page 194

proaching utter defeat. The truce we enforced gave them an opportunity to regroup and gather strength to fight some more. (2)

Shades of the past ! This is how we helped communists conquer China in the 1940's. This is how our State Department gave communists victory in Korea in 1953, after our soldiers had whipped the communists on every major field of battle, at a cost of 54,246 American lives. This is how we helped communists gain control of stra tegic North Vietnam in Indo-China in 1954. This is how we negotiated the surrender of Laos to a communist-controlled coalition government in 1962, after millions of our tax dollars had been squandered, to the tune of loud boasts that we would never permit communists to take Laos. ( 3 ) This is how Henry Cabot Lodge and the Kennedy administration destroyed the Diems in South Viet nam in 1963, thus removing the last probability of strong anti-communist control in that land. (4)

Just recently, former President Eisenhower ex plained why he and other eminent Americans did not oppose Castro until it was too late. Mr. Eisen hower said : "All sorts of people"-including John F. Kennedy-"said that Castro was a great man who was getting rid of that dictator, Batista. It wasn't until December, 1961, that Castro finally confessed he was a marxist and always had- been." There is a liberal method of spotting communists : wait for their voluntary confession. Now that we are in the Dominican Republic, what we should do is obvious. We should ignore the Organization of American States and all other outside organizations and nations. We should act swiftly, with all our strength, to clean out every pocket of communism. We should occupy the nation with our own troops until a genuine anti communist government is installed ; and we should then get out and leave the Dominican Republic alone.

May 2 5 , 1 965, about 1 000 women in Santo Domingo marched on the American Embas sy, bearing signs protesting our policy of forcing anti-communists to negotiate a coalition govern ment with communists. Some of the signs read : "Why does the United States stop our fight against communism?"

Some read : "Yankees yes, communists no! "

Others said: "Yankees stay with us, but let's keep the house clean. Out with the communists."u,}

At this moment, however, it seems certain that the Johnson administration will force the Domin icans to accept a communist-dominated coalition government, under the control of some henchman of Juan Bosch-or of some other extreme leftist. -who, before long, will openly announce his dedication to communism. Then, our leaders will be surprised, j ust as they were surprised about Castro.

In Asia

T he Vietnam affair is even more complicated and dangerous than the Dominican situation. We have many times reviewed the steps which took us to our present im'passe in Asia. Let us review them again. (3,4) On August 8, 1945 , six days before the United States forced Japanese surrender, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. On August 9, three Soviet armies moved into Manchuria (Northeastern China, bordering Russia and Korea ) . Soviet armies stayed in Manchuria less than a year long enough to dismantle and remove to the USSR all modern industrial plants, transportation facilities, and everything else the Soviets could use. During this period, they set up a communist puppet state in North Korea. After stripping Manchuria of about one billion dollars' worth of war booty, the Soviets armed Chinese communists with captured Japanese equ ipment (and with American equipment which we had given the

Page 195

Soviet Siberian armies) ; and they helped com munists successfully resist Chinese nationalist forces which Chiang Kai-shek sent to occupy Manchuria as the Soviets withdrew. ( 3 ) From their Manchurian base, Chinese commu nists intensified their war against Chiang Kai shek. To weaken United States support for Chiang, communists, and their liberal propagan dists in America, claimed they were not real com munists, but agrarian reformers, merely seeking fair representation in Chiang Kai-shek's govern ment. Chiang resisted American demands that he negotiate with communists, until George Marshall forced him to comply. The result was com munist conquest of China in 1949. (3 )

an incalculable boost to the morale, prestige, and military strength of communists in Asia. After the Korean armistice, therefore, conditions changed explosively. Communists converted scattered guer rilla action into total war against the French. We continued aid to the French ; but on May 7, 1954, the gallant resistance of a small band of French Foreign Legionnaires was broken; and Dienbienphu, the last French stronghold in north ern Vietnam, fell. Our aid to France was wasted ; communists had done what we had pledged never to let them do. (3,4)

In the late summer of 1954, an international conference at Geneva divided the old French Union into four nations : neutral Cambodia, neu tral Laos, neutral South Vietnam, and communist North Vietnam. (4)

An International Control Commission-com posed of representatives from Canada, India, and communist Poland-was given the job of super vising the truce agreements. Communists had guerrilla bands throughout the area. They had been given all of North Vietnam, with the under standing that they would disperse their rebel groups in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, and respect the neutrality of those three independ ent nations. They never did disperse their guer rilla bands, but used them to harass the three nations. The International Control Commission ignored, or tacitly approved, communist viola tions. (4)

Indochina is a huge peninsula, projecting south ward from the Asian mainland into the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea - comprising Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. French colonial possessions in that region - known as French Indochina - in cluded Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

In 195 5 , the Eisenhower administration decided to make its next firm stand against spreading Asian communism in Laos-a landlocked, primi tive, j ungle kingdom of about two million people, mostly illiterate. The Laotian economy went on the American dole. We trained, equipped, clothed, housed, fed, and paid the salaries of the Laotian army and police forces ; and we directly financed more than 80% of the total civilian budget of the government of Laos. (4)

There had b�en sporadic, indecisive guerrilla warfare between French and communist forces for years; and we had supported the French with millions of dollars of aid. The Korean war gave

In December, 1 960, our side at last seemed to be winning. A strong anti-communist (Prince Boun Gum) was the premier of a new govern ment; and communist forces were driven from

Page 1 96

Vientiane (capital of the nation) where they had been in control for months. The Soviets suggested an international conference to "settle the trouble in Laos." It was obvious that communists wanted to switch the war for Laos from the battlefield to the conference table--where the anti-communist government of Laos could be forced to form a coalition government with communists. (4)

trails to safety, either in "neutral" Cambodia or "neutral" Laos - privileged sanctuaries where American policy would not permit them to be followed, or their supply bases attacked. ( 4 )

The United States rejected the Soviet proposal in December, 1960 ; but on March 23, 1961, Presi dent Kennedy reversed the American position. In 1961 and 1962, President Kennedy's special emis sary to Laos (W. Averell Harriman ) did in Laos what George Marshall had done in China 1 5 years before-forced the anti-communist government to surrender control to a communist-dominated coalition. By the end of 1962 , Laos was virtually a communist puppet state-but American aid con tinued. (4 )

For the most part, the people of South Vietnam -like the people of Laos-had little interest in the war against communism. But the South Viet namese government of President Ngo Dinh Diem, strongly anti-communist, was determined to stay in the fight until victory was achieved. (4)

Simultaneously with abandoning the fight against communism in Laos, the Kennedy admin istration, in early 1962, announced that the firm stand against Asian communism would be made in South Vietnam. All forms of American aid were greatly increased ; and thousands of Ameri can military personnel were assigned to South Vietnam as advisers, technicians, trainers. ( 4) From the beginning, the war in Vietnam, like the earlier war in Korea, was waged from the American side with self-imposed limitations against provoking the principal enemy. Commu nist China and the Soviets trained guerrillas in North Vietnam and moved them, by land and by airlift, into Laos. (4) From their safe bases in Laos, communist guer rillas had a choice of hundreds of trails for raids across the border into South Vietnam. They ter rorized villages, kidnapped peasants for training and service in communist armies, confiscated or destroyed supplies and equipment vital to the military and to the civilian population of South Vietnam, killed South Vietnam troops (and, when possible, their American advisers ) . When they met opposition, communists retreated along j ungle

Our government would not even permit the South Vietnamese to retaliate when they were fired upon from across the Cambodian border. (4)

American military men recognized Diem for what he was : a strong man at the head of a nation whose illiterate peasantry (the bulk of the popu lation) knows nothing and cares less about the meaning of communism or about the civilized idea of fighting for freedom-a nation whose few educated people are largely brainwashed with pro-communist ideas of contemporary liberalism. At war against an enemy that was invading from without and entrenched within, Diem did trample on civil rights, j ust as Abraham Lincoln did during the American Civil War; but we were not helping Diem because we loved him. We were helping him, ostensibly, because the Kennedy ad ministration wanted to make a firm stand against communism in South Vietnam. ( 4) American military men knew that, if our ob jective was to fight communism, we had better stick with Diem, because he was capable of doing a better job than anyone else. ( 4 ) Indeed, as late as October, 1963, Robert S. Mc Namara (Secretary of Defense) and General Maxwell D. Taylor (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said the war against communism in South Vietnam was going so well that 1 000 American military men could be pulled out by the end of 1963, and that most remaining Ameri cans could be removed by the end of 1965 Y) But President John F. Kelllledy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and other major officials in

Page 197

the Kennedy administration seemed to have an implacable hatred of Diem. Henry Cabot Lodge was sent to South Vietnam as American Ambassa dor' for the purpose, it later appeared, of remov ing Diem. On November 1 , 1963, the Diem gov ernment was overthrown. President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu were mur dered. There are disturbing indications that Henry Cabot Lodge (carrying out policies of the State Department) . was deeply involved in that grue some affair - that he prodded and unleashed forces, and helped plan events, which led to the dual murder. (4) After the Diem government was overthrown, the war against communism in South Vietnam went from bad to worse. President Kennedy was assassinated in the same month when President Diem was murdered.

President

Johnson has continued the basic Kennedy policy in South Vietnam. (4) In the past 1 3 years, our armed forces have spent 5 3 billion, 800 million dollars on devel opment and production of nuclear weapons. Relatively few of them are world-shattering bombs. Most are tactical weapons designed to save the lives of our own men by giving them weapon superiority. To date, however, we have not used one nuclear weapon in Vietnam.

In February, 1 965, President Johnson delighted American conservatives-and horrified liberals by revealing that he had authorized bombing in North Vietnam, previously a privileged sanctuary for the communists. Almost everyone seemed to overlook the fact that, before ordering the bomb ing, President Johnson had sacrificed the effec tiveness of that decision by announcing that we would not bomb major cities, harbors, and vital industrial installations. (6) Two full months of such bombing apparently did little damage to the communist enemy in North Vietnam (though it did great damage to Pres ident Johnson's political opposition at home ) . So, President Johnson took another bold step : he

virtually offered the communists a billion-dollar bribe if they would quit fighting to negotiate. The communists sneered. What does this do to our "world image" ? The people of the world know we are fighting a war in Vietnam. They reasonably assume we are doing our best, fighting with all we have. Yet, after four months of presumed all-out effort by mighty America, against the twelfth-rate communist pup pet state of North Vietnam, no appreciable gains for our side have been made; and the little com munist enemy still j eers when President Johnson pleads for unlimited discussions. Will this deter communist aggressions in the world ? To the contrary, it suggests that the United States does not have the spine or the will to use its great national strength against communism.

W e should never have involved ourselves in Vietnam. We have no business shedding Ameri can blood in Asia for Asians. But there, as elsewhere-when the internation alist policies of our totalitarian liberals get us involved in war-we ought to give our fighting men our best weapons, and strike full strength to win, and win quickly. President Johnson says he is determined to stop communist aggression in Asia, regardless of cost. If he is determined to stop it with American man power, he had better hit the center of communist power in Asia. That is not in the jungles south of Hanoi : it is in Peiping, the capital of communist China! If we continue the policy which our interna tionalist meddlers seem determined to follow , we will have to fight the Chinese communists. If we are going to fight them, we had better do it now, before they acquire more weapons of mass de struction. The Chinese communists are ruthless barbarians

who murdered about 50 million of their own

people, without benefit of superior weapons.

Page 1 98

To me, it is spine chilling to see us heading for war with the Chinese communists, but de laying long enough for them to build a full arse nal of nuclear weapons and to make the first strike!

A ll-out war with communist China is one alternative to the dreadful impasse into which our political leaders have manipulated us. Two other courses are possible : ( 1 ) another disguised, disgraceful surrender in Vietnam, comparable to previous surrenders in Asia ; or ( 2 ) a prolonged, limited war, infinitely costly in American blood and resources. There is one alternative, which makes liberals

froth at the mouth, but which

recommend :

We should give Chiang Kai-shek, and the world, notice that we plan to get out, when we are ready, and let Asians fight their own wars in their own way. While preparing to get out, we should patrol the Strait of Formosa to protect Chiang from the communists, permitting him to strike the com munists if he likes. We should instantly stop all foreign aid-most of which goes to communist, pro-communist, and neutralist nations. All aid that has already been committed (which is already in the "pipeline" and cannot reasonably be abruptly stopped ) should be diverted to

Chiang Kai-shek, who has been begging for chance to fight for 20 years.

After our aid is delivered to Chiang, we should pull out, giving him our blessing to move as he pleases to rescue China from the communists. If he succeeded, he would destroy the fountainhead of communist power in Asia. What if he failed ? There is one thing we can be sure of: if there are not enough Asians willing and able to fight for their own freedom, then Asia cannot be saved. No matter how many American lives our polltical leaders may be willing to sacrifice in the jungles, deserts, hills, and rice paddies, we simply do not have enough men to fight Asia's wars for her.

What is Chiang Kai-shek's view of the prob

lem ? Here, from the April 18, 1965, issue of Free China Weekly, are comments which President Chiang made to a UPI correspondent in Taipei on April 12, 1965 : "The United States should . . , . adopt a positive policy with a view to eliminating the communist regime on the Chinese mainland and at the same time avoiding a direct armed clash with the Chinese Communists. "We must realize that the Peiping regime is not only the source of the current disturbances in much of Asia but also poses an ever-growing threat to the free world as a whole. Its leaders

Report,

both

one

The Dan Smoot

a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television

broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The give

sides of controversial

publishing

Report

and broadcast

side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard

stick . If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help gel subcribers for the

Report,

commercial sponsors for

the broadcast. Page

199

are fanatics bent on internal oppressIOn and external aggression . . . . "Anti-Communist Asian nations, such as the Republic of China [ Free China ] , that have wellÂ trained armed forces . . . should have their hands unshackled so that they can use their own strength to launch a crusade against a rebel regime in their own country. In so doing, they will be destFoying the sanctuary of the Chinese Communists' aggression against the free world. The United States need not send a single soldier to fight on the Chinese mainland. Thus other countries could be denied any ground to interÂ vene in China's domestic affairs . . . .

the globe. The destruction of this regime and the avoidance of a direct armed conflict with the Chinese Communists, therefore, should be the ultimate purpose of the U. S. policy in Asia."

"Since the formation of their party in 1 92 1 , the Chinese Communists have always regarded the United States as their arch enemy. They have openly and repeatedly declared that they cannot co-exist with America, and that they will keep on instigating other nations to oppose the United States until they succeed in expelling her from the Western Pacific. Their aim is the complete subjugation of Asia and world domination. This means that until and unless the Peiping regime is overthrown, there is neither any hope of peace in Asia nor any chance of security anywhere on

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) For background information on the Dominican Republic crisis, see this Report, "The Dominican Republic," May 17, 1965. ( 2 ) AP story from Santo Domingo, The Dallas Times Herald, May 19, 1965, pp. lA, lOA; UPI story from Santo Domingo, The Dallas Times Herald, May 23, 1965, pp. lA, 27A

( 3 ) For details on American Asian policies, see this Report, "Our Asian Wars," May 1 1, 1964. ( 4 ) Detailed information on U. S. involvement in Vietnam, and Henry Cabot Lodge's part in the destruction of the Diems, is in this Report, "Vietnam and Lodge," April 27, 1964. ( 5 ) UPI story from Santo Domingo, The Dallas Morning News, May 26, 1965, p. 1 A ( 6 ) "Washington Whispers," U . S. News & JI7 orld Report, June 2 1 , 1965, p. 3 1

For prices on single and multiple copies o f this Report, see bottom o f the first page. How many people do you know who should read this Report?

Subscription:

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year $10.00 - $10.00 - $1 0.00 -$ 10.00 -

1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Paperbound Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 Page 200

TAYLOR 1 -2303

THE o

1)(/11 Smootlie,olt TENTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

Vol.

I I,

No. 26

(Broadcast 5 1 4)

June 29, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

AMERI CA'S PROM I S E "No free go �er,!ment, fundamental prinCIples."

The

Of -

the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but . . . by a frequent recurrence to

George Mason, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights,

1776

1�

first issue of The Dan Smoot Report This Is My Side"-was published June 29, I have revised and republished that first issue two or three times, because it expresses the fundamental principles which form the bedrock of our magnificent American constitutional sys tem. In 1960, I expanded "This Is My Side" into a little book, titled America's Promise. America's Promise has gone through several printings and has been distributed around the globe. It has been called a handbook of Americanism, because it clearly and briefly states the funda mentals of American constitutional principles. It is a commentary on the Great Society of America which the Founding Fathers envisioned and provided for in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. To President Lyndon B. Johnson, a great society means government-provided housing, govern ment-guaranteed medical care, government-financed education, government-stabilized agriculture, government-subsidized arts, government-controlled industry, government-regulated jobs, govern ment-created material prosperity-and universal equality, as defined and enforced by government. To the men who founded our nation, and to those who developed it, a great society meant the direct opposite--it meant a political system which left people free to follow their own destinies, with God's help. I agree with George Mason that "No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be pre served by any people, but . . . by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Hence, for this tenth anniversary issue of the Report, I present a condensation of America's Promise, to ex press once again the eternal principles of liberty which motivate and guide genuine constitutional conservatives. -"

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 ainnail ( including APO and FPO) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ 1 O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

No Reproductions Permitted. Page 201

B etween 1 790 and 192 1 , great waves of immi

gration pounded the shores of America, bringing in twenty million Europeans. Why ? What promise of America brought them here ? America is a fabulous country. From Puget Sound to the Florida Keys ; from the thunder of Niagara to the sunbaked stillness of El Centro America is a land of magnificent contrasts : a place of raw desolation and lush abundance; of quick money and sudden loss ; of bitter ugliness and tender beauty. America is a land whose lofty mountains and deep rivers bear names that are music on the tongue, names rich in the lore and legend of mar velous and mysterious Indian tribes who preferred death to surrender. But America is more than poetry. It is a land where men know that morality, conscience, and happiness are the exclusive pos sessions of individuals and can be achieved only by individual effort with divine help ; -Where equality signifies the equal importance of individuals before God and before the law, but recognizes the infinite diversity of talents, tastes, ambitions, capacities, and material con ditions as natural for free men and essential to the sustenance and progress of human society; -Where men realize that the tyranny of un· restricted majority rule can be even more terrible than the tyranny of a dictator; -Where men, knowing that the ballot box is not enough to secure the blessings of liberty, es tablished a constitutional system of limited gov ernment to guarantee personal freedom by law ; -Where stern men, firm i n their faith i n God, speak with divine authority when they say to their own government: "Thou shalt not abridge these freedoms which God hath given us." For generations, it was taken for granted that the precious diamonds of human civilization were here, and only here-in America. And there was sheer magic in the old American formula. It wrought miracles upon the swarming millions who came here seeking the promised

land. In a miraculously short time, it produced the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Ancient feuds and class-conscious hatreds of Europe failed to take root in the soil of America -until recently, when they were planted and nourished by alien philosophies. Only in the twentieth century have Americans begun to doubt, to fear, to lose their faith-lose their old confidence in the absolute rightness of American principles. One generation of Ameri cans faltered in faith and understanding. Falter ing, they did not care or did not perceive when leaders began to introduce worn-out quackeries of old-world collectivism into the American system. And, as we lose our faith, we lose our strength. We are told that the world is sick and needs our help; but we cannot cure the patient by con tracting his fatal disease. We might give him hope of recovery if we showed him evidence of our own vigorous health and told him how to achieve that health himself. A man near death would benefit more by learning of a cure for his ailment than by having his hospital bills paid. If the real and fascinating American story were told and understood throughout the world, tyranny everywhere might topple in a scramble of peoples trying to follow the American example. All around us, frantic men are searching for new concepts and fresh approaches to achieve universal peace and prosperity. America needs no new discoveries in the realm of political ideas, or the launching of new social experiments. OUf need now is for rediscovery and renewed under standing of the true and tried principles of Americanism. In the striking record of our own country, the precious gem of human understanding lies buried. While civilization exhausts itself in fruitless ef forts for peace, it is tragic that the one simple, proven, and effective formula is permitted to lie unheeded in the dusty, unturned pages of Ameri can history.

F or

many years, our government, and other American institutions, have been using our own

Page 202

money to brainwash us and our children of all patriotism, all love of country, all loyalty to our ancient ideals and traditions, in order to indoctri nate us with the ideals of internationalism - to prepare us for world citizenship. Results are apparent. When I was a boy, American school children were so steeped in the legends and traditions of America that they thrilled to feel themselves a part of their glorious heritage: Paul Revere, looking across the Charles River for signal lights in the church tower ; a mud -spattered courier on a winded Virginia racing-mare dashing recklessly for the old state house in Philadelphia, to bring news of Benedict Arnold's march on Richmond ; the noble, pock-marked face of Washington, stern with high purpose as he gives a simple order: Post none but Americans on guard tonight. I talk to American children today who have never heard the illustrious names of the American Revolution-names which, for more than a cen tury, were closer and more real to an American school child than names in the daily paper. Americans of previous generations knew that America was a miracle that God had wrought: they could prove it. In 1 776, America was a sprawling colonial possession, a land of farms and small towns scat tered along the eastern seaboard, populated by fewer than five million people. Yet, at the critical moment, this rural society sent to Philadelphia the largest assemblage of wise and learned states men ever to congregate in one room, in the entire history of the human race. Who could have done this without God ? Who, without reference to God, can explain that unique chapter in American history dealing with miraculous events in the lives of John Adam� and Thomas Jefferson ? John Adams, second President of the United States, and Thomas Jefferson, third President, were enemies during much of their long lives. Both wrought many and great works in their time; but the greatest, for both, was their joint work at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, 1776,

when the thirteen American colonies unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence from England. Jefferson wrote the magnificent Declaration, and the magnificence of Adams helped assure its adoption. The adoption of the Declaration marked the birth of the greatest nation in the annals of mankind. There were fearful and wavering men at that Congress in Philadelphia-among them, John Hancock, presiding officer. The Declaration of In dependence was before the Congress for a vote; but John Hancock urged caution, pointing out the benefits to Americans of being subjects of Eng land. Timid men wanted delay and further nego tiations. But John Adams, stern New Englander, stood before them, thundering: "Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there's a Divinity which shapes our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and, blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately per sisted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. "Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a recon ciliation with England? . . . "You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We may die; die Colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. "Be it so, be it so. "If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my . life, the victim shall be ready . . . . But whIle I do live, let me have a country, or -at least the hope of a country, and that a free country. "But whatever may be our fate, be assured . . . that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. "Through the thick gloom of the present, I . see the brightness of the future, as the sun In heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an im mortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it

Page 203

with than�sgi� ing, wit� festivity, with bonfires, . and IllummatIOns. On Its annual return they will �he� tears, copious, gushing tears, not of sub· JectIOn and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude and of joy. "Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying . sentIment, Independence now, and Independence forever."

Rejecting caution, the Congress voted unani mously with John Adams and adopted the Decla ration of Independence. John Adams died on Independence Day, July 4, 1 826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In their twilight years, he and Jefferson had become warm friends, by correspondence: Adams in Massachusetts, Jefferson in Virginia. As he lay dying on the fiftieth anniversary of his greatest accomplishment, Adams, feeling satis faction in having fought the good fight, expressed, in his last words, some exultancy that the old order had not entirely passed away. With the last breath of life, John Adams said: "Thomas Jefferson still lives."

But there is, as Adams himself had said, a divinity that shapes our ends. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same day-Ju ly 4, 1 826.

The promise of America is obvious to anyone

who knows her early history: knows enough about the Founding Fathers to understand their lives and their ideals. But the teeming millions from Europe who glutted our eastern ports of entry and pushed across the continent to the Pacific in the nine teenth century-they, for the most part, were ignorant of the details of American history. What was the promise of America to them ? A promise

of fertile land, cheap and abundant ? A promise of great deposits of natural resources ? A promise of good climate ? There have always been other places with greater natural resources, with climate as good or bette� , and with land more fertile and plentiful . than In the Unlted States of America · and indeed , there �ere places j ust as accessible to Europeans -Afnca, South America, Australia, Asia, which still have vast, vacant lands and undeveloped natural resources. "

Th�se American pioneers who pushed through gaps In the mountains, driving westward, with blue vistas of hope and adventure in their eyes : were they in quest of social security or some kind of government-guaranteed existence ? Were they yearning for the fat and easy life ? Were they bound for the land of the common man ? Most of them were common men in the general evaluation of the world. Most of them were poor and would have welcomed abundance. They all were human and would have been glad to be spared hardship and arduous labor. But these were not the things they sought in the new world. They expected, and they encoun tered, more hardship and harsh toil in the raw American wilderness than they had left behind in Europe. They were looking for a place where a common man could, God willing, become uncommon where a man could become whatever his vision, his faith, his energy, his intellect, and his man hood combined to make him, without a govern ment to harass him and hold him down to a common level, for benefit of the "general wel fare." In short, the promise of America was freedom. Today, a whole generation of Americans have been educated to believe that freedom means ease and comfort. Freedom is not free. People cannot-as most Americans loosely claim-inherit freedom. We can inherit a desire for freedom ; we can inherit a social system built on the principles of freedom ;

Page 204

but freedom itself must be won anew, in toil and strife, by each generation. Freedom is not a soft way of life, but it is the only noble way for creatures made in the image of God. When man is left free to struggle, he develops strength and wisdom by struggling. When forced into dependence upon government, he becomes a dependent personality, flabby and irresolute, with no will, courage, or personal convictions. A free man can dream, and will dare to enter what Job called the warfare of life to capture his dreams and transform them into reality. A dependent personality has no dream of conquering anything; he has, instead, greed : greed to get all he can for himself, not by constructive effort, but by con tinuing demands upon the power which made him dependent. There are many hazards in a free society. One hazard is that there will always be people who will not manage their own affairs as well as they should, or as well as someone else thinks they should. But when you start passing laws to force people to do all the things that someone else thinks good for them, you are headed for a slave society.

T he American Founding Fathers were known

as liberals because they believed in freedom. They were true liberals, in the classic sense. They revolted against the autocratic use of political power. An immediate reason for the revolt :was taxes. But King George's taxes on the .-Amenc.an colonists were insignificant in companson with what we are forced to pay today. Moreover, a great deal of money which government takes out of your paycheck today is used for purposes more destructive of individual freedom than the pur poses which King George III was trying to finance with the American Stamp Acts. The great liberal patriots of the American Revo lution did not really revolt against payment of taxes. They revolted against the idea of govern ment behind the taxes : that government had un limited power to do what government thought proper.

The early American patriots had a deep sus picion of all governments-including the one they created. They knew that the worst threat to a man's life, liberty, and property is the government under which he lives. They knew that all govern ments will, if permitted, waste the labors of the people and ultimately enslave the people----always under the pretense of taking care of the people. That is why they were resolved to bind the American government down with the chains of a Constitution - limiting government's powers to performing carefully specified responsibilities. That is why they set up an elaborate system of checks and balances to keep any branch of the federal government from acquiring supreme power. Afraid of concentrations of political power in the central government, the early patriots wrote the tenth article of the American Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution - re serving to the individual states the really danger ous governmental powers over the lives of citizens. The political philosophy known as liberalism today is the reverse of the classic liberalism �hich founded this great nation. Today, most Amencans who call themselves liberals, and who acclaim Thomas Jefferson their idol, have lost faith in the early American ideal of liberty under God for every individual, and independence from all other nations for this Republic. Every President of the United States takes an oath of office, on the Holy Bible, which reads : "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will

faithfully execute the Office of President o� �he United States, and will to the best of �y Ablhty, . preserve, protect and defend the ConStItutIOn of the United States."

Two things in this oath are particularly signifi cant: ( 1 ) Its complete wording was set d�w� in Ar ticle 2, Section 1 , Clause 8, of the Const1tut1�n and not left to the discretion of the elected public serv ant who takes the oath; ( 2 ) Not one word, idea, or inference in it sug gests any responsibility for, or excuse to meddle in, the affairs of the world.

P age 205

The language is clear; the statement is brief; the promise is solemn: the job of the President of the United States is to preserve, protect, and de fend the Constitution of the United States. The great classic liberals who founded this na tion regarded patriotism - love of one's own country - as among the noblest of human senti ments ; and they made it quite plain that the re sponsibility of the American government was to the American people. The Preamble of the Con stitution says that this great document was or dained and established to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Modern liberals are contemptuous of patriotism (which they call nationalism ) ; they think it both indecent and impossible for Americans to main tain their national independence as a free Repub lic; and they have completely lost faith in a central idea of the American Revolution, namely, that free men, under God, can manage their own af fairs. Modern liberals are not suspicious of govern ment : they worship government as if it were God. They want to set government up as a kind of big brother deity to look after us and run our lives for us. Modern liberalism rests on the assumption that political power makes men wise. Modern liberals presume that you, as an individual, if left to your own devices and resources, do not have enough decency, ability, or good sense to educate your own children, provide your own housing, prepare for your own future, or help a neighbor in des perate need. Therefore, liberals want laws which will force you to do all things that liberals think you should do. They take money away from you and put it in a big federal pot, on the presumption that poli ticians and bureaucrats will make better use of it than you would. But remember, politicians and bureaucrats are, themselves, individuals. As indi viduals, they - according to their own liberal philosophy - are incapable of managing their own affairs. Once vested with political power, they are, presumably, transfigured and trans formed - automatically injected with enough

ability and wisdom to manage the affairs of every one. As philosophies of government, modern lib eralism, communism and fascism are essentially the same. Each believes that government should have absolute power to promote the general wel fare. The trouble here is that when government has absolute power to promote the general welfare, government must also have absolute power to de cide what the general welfare is. Why do com munists murder people in nations they take over ? They are promoting the general welfare, as com munists see it. When a politician tells you that your govern ment has a warm, personal interest in you and that he wants government to be a big brother to you - look out. That politician ( no matter how nice a fellow he may be) is herding you toward slavery. A big-brother government is the kind that every dictator in the world has always wanted. Nowhere in the history of the human race is there any j ustification for the naive faith in politi cal power, which is bedrock in the thinking of all fascists, communists, socialists, and modern lib erals. The welfare state which modern liberals wor ship is not a twentieth-century invention, as they allege. It is the oldest, most reactionary kind of social organization. The welfare state - with the usual trappings of government price controls, government-fixed minimum wages, government subsidies, govern ment relief for the poor, and government pen sions - was tried out in ancient Babylon, ancient Greece, and ancient Rome; in Mussolini's Italy, in Hitler's Germany, and in all communist coun tries. It has always failed to provide economic security, and has always ended in slavery. A government which can take a warm, personal interest in one citizen can take a cold, calculating interest in another.

Page 206

A government which can subsidize your farm or business or send you checks for unemployment . or relIef, can also seize the bodies and property of your sons and daughters. The classic liberalism of the Founding Fathers was idealistic. Modern liberalism is materialistic. Modern liberals, scorning talk about the noble way of life for free men, evaluate man's way of life on the basis of how much idleness and ma terial prosperity he has. The mass appeal of modern liberal leaders is t?eir prom�se of ease and prosperity. The prac tice of bUylllg votes with the voter's own money - of promising everybody something to be paid for out of the public treasury - has become a successful political racket in the past thirty years. It has become a fixed habit of both political parties. Apparently, our modern liberals are ignorant of the lesson which the thrilling history of our own country should have taught the world : name ly, that freedom - important primarily because it is essential to human dignity - creates more material prosperity than any government-planned or government-guaranteed way of life could ever do, because freedom releases, from stifling con trols and burdensome regulations, the construc tive energies and talents of the people. The old American constitutional system of freedom never · did - never could - eliminate poverty; but it produced greater material abun dance for more people ( fed, housed, and clothed more people) than any welfare state, planned economy, or communist-socialist-fascist system on record.

The Founding Fathers made prosperity in America possible when they gave us a workable means of preserving personal freedom.

M any Americans are pitifully confused in their efforts to defend Americanism against com ",:unism - because they do not really know the d1fference. They have the leadership of modern liberalism to thank for this confusion. Using the police power of government to take from those who have for redistribution among those who have not is called, by modern liberals, achieving economic justice through the processes of democracy. In communist countries, the same thing is called liquidation of capitalism through the dictatorship of the proletariat. What is the American concept of helping the have-nots ? Every American has an individual responsibil ity under God to help others in distress; but the decision as to when, how much, and to whom, is legally and morally his and not his government's. Government cannot make men prosperous, any more than it can make men good. Government cannot produce anything: it can merely seize and divide what individuals have produced. Govern ment can give the people nothing which govern ment has not first taken away from them. And the amount which government doles back to the people or spends to promote their welfare is al ways less than it takes. The American system of government was built on political principles which are eternal.

FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit.supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smool Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news·analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 207

They do not change with the seasons. Hence, it is the most sinister kind of subversion for the Supreme Court, or any other agency of govern ment, to reinterpret our fundamental charter of government in the light of contemporary condi tions. I cringe when I hear an American praise the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and insinuate that it is an extension of the Ameri can Bill of Rights. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a blueprint for international socialism. It is a prom ise of all member nations that the force of gov ernment will be used to level and spread material benefits until everyone enjoys the same kind of sameness that characterizes a fine litter of fatten ing hogs. The American Bill of Rights, on the contrary, tells government what it must not do ! Congress shall make no law respecting an es tablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the peo ple peaceably to assemble, and to petition . . . . The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed . . . . The right of the peo ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . . Government shall not ! Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 - $ 10.00 1 year - $ 10.00 - $ 10.00 -$1 0 .00 - $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98

That is the password of liberty. That is the American philosophy of liberty which spread abroad and tugged at the hearts of men all over the earth. That was the promIse of America. *

95 38,

America's Promise

America's Promise, from which this Report is taken, is an I S-page, paperbound handbook, setting out the basic fundamentals of constitu tional Americanism. It is an attractive, particular ly appropriate gift for students and others who have never had an opportunity to learn the prin ciples and ideals which form the bedrock of our magnificent American constitutional system. America's Promise is available at the following

prices, in bulk shipment to one address: 1 11 51 101

to 10 copies to 50 copies to 100 copies and over

......... ...........................

....................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........

..........................................

50¢ 45 ¢ 40¢ 35¢

each each each each

Mailing envelopes will be included, free, with all orders for five or more copies. We will mail as gifts to individuals, complete with gift card, at S O ¢ each. See order form below.

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

DALLAS, TEXAS Page 208

75214

TAYLOR 1 -2303

IHE

IJtllllmootlIeport Vol. I I , No.

(Broadcast 5 1 5 )

5, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

TOWAR D A S O C I A L I ST D I CTATO RS H I P

T he

Area Redevelopment Administration (an unconstitutional, extravagant failure) is to be come the Economic Development Administration, which will be equally unconstitutional, more ex tragavant; and thereby hangs a tale. Producing and spending for World War II created in the United States an economic boom which continued to gather strength after the war ended. Yet, by 1950, despite the generally soar ing prosperity, there were ominous signs of danger ahead. Key industries were dying, or fleeing to foreign countries, leaving pockets of unemployment and severe depression in the United States. Federal programs were responsible for these economic conditions. Foreign aid, which built the industrial and economic power of foreign nations at our expense, placed such burdens on Americans that the cost of doing business in the United States skyrocketed. Foreigners, using the production facilities which our government had handed them, began to cap ture world markets, including the domestic American market. American industries, taxed to subsidize cheap-labor foreign products, started closing their Ameri can factories and moving abroad. The federal government encouraged this disastrous trend by granting special tax privileges to American firms going overseas. Foreign-trade policies of the federal government also helped foreigners and handicapped Ameri cans. Foreigners, whose industries had been built with American tax money, protected their markets against American imports ; but our government, under the "reciprocal trade" program, made it easy for foreign goods to enter the American market. Our government made it possible for foreign factories to obtain American agricultural products at prices below what American factories paid. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $ 1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25¢; 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, 1965. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas.

No Reproductions Permitted. Page 209

Big unions - enjoying monopolistic power and special privileges granted by federal labor laws - helped create American payroll costs rang ing upward of ten times the payroll costs of rival foreign industries. The heavy burden of taxes for welfare pro grams added greatly to the cost of American products. American industry was also saddled with the tremendous cost of keeping records, collecting taxes, and making reports for a multitude of agen cies administering an appalling welter of govern ment programs. Prior to Wodd War I, only one worker in 40 was engaged in paperwork for American business. By 1950, one worker in six was doing paperwork - most of it required by government.

B y the mid- 195 0's, government programs had

created so many depressed areas that the country appeared to be on the road to ruin. Politicians whose programs had caused the condition were the shrillest in demanding that something be done; but not one of them ever suggested stopping the programs doing the damage. Instead, they suggested accelerating the programs causing de pressions, and then mollifying depressed areas with handouts from the federal treasury.

"Area redevelopment" was a part of this re markable program of stabbing American citizen� , then giving them federal money as balm for thelf wounds. The phrase, area redevelopment, was first widely used in 1955 when the Joint Economic Committee (composed of U. S. Senators and Rep resentatives) recommended accelerated programs of federal spending on public works to redevelop depressed areas, and special federal subsidies to stimulate "private" economic activity. Senator Paul H. Douglas ( Illinois Demorcrat) introduced area redevelopment legislation, but his bill died in committee. (1)

The next year ( 1956 ) , President Dwight D.

Eisenhower recommended a less extravagant pro gram than the one proposed in 195 5 . The Senate passed a bill to implement President Eisenhower's recommendation, but the bill died in the House. (1) In 1957, both Democrats and Republicans intro duced area redevelopment bills ; but none was passed. Area redevelopment had become a bitter political issue between liberal Democrats and lib eral Republicans. ( 1 ) In 1958, President Eisenhower asked Congress for a 5 0 million dollar federal loan program to help depressed areas. The Democrat controlled Congress passed a bill providing 280 million dol lars for loans and gifts. Eisenhower vetoed the bill. (1) From early 1959 until May, 1960, Congress argued about area redevelopment; then it passed a bill providing 2 5 1 million dollars for loans and gifts to depressed areas. President Eisenhower vetoed that bill, and asked Congress to authorize his own program. Democrats could not muster enough votes to override the President's veto of their bill. Republicans could not muster enough votes for the President's area redevelopment pro posal. ( 1 ) The 86th Congress adjourned in 1 960 without enacting area redevelopment legislation; and fed eral aid to depressed areas became a campaign issue between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Nixon advocated federal loans to de pressed areas. Kennedy advocated both loans and gifts. Nixon said his was the free-enterprise ap proach and that Kennedy'S proposals were ex travagant and socialistic. Kennedy said Nixon's proposals were too little and too late. (1) An Area Redevelopment Act was introduced on the first day of the 87th Congress in January, 1 961. Both houses of Congress passed the Act; and President Kennedy signed it into law on May 1 , 1 961. The act created ARA-the Area Redevelopment Administration - and provided,

initially, $394,000,000 for federal grants and loans

to depressed areas. (1)

Page 210

1961, when the Area Redevelopment Act was passed, lO3 areas were designated "de pressed," eligible for aid. In January, 1965, there were n:ore than 1000 depressed areas - including . the ongmal 103. ( 2 ) Obviously, the ARA drive to redevelop depressed areas was moving in reverse. Urban renewal, though older than area rede velopment and not administered by the ARA, was an integral part of the over-all program to revita lize depressed areas. Urban renewal has also been a monumental failure. Between 1950 and 1960, urban renewal projects destroyed 1 26,000 homes, of which 2 5 ,000 were not even considered sub standard. Only 28,000 new housing units were built to replace the 126,000 that were destroyed. Many of the new 28,000 units were high-priced rental units which could not be used by the 609,000 individuals displaced by urban renewal projects. The majority of the 609,000 j ust moved to other areas and created more problems. (3) Dr. Martin Anderson, assistant professor of finance at Columbia University Graduate School of Business, comments on the failure of urban renewal : "The federal urban renewal program has made little significant progress. Our cities are not de teriorating, and housing conditions are not get ting worse. In fact, we have witnessed a fantastic increase in housing quality in the United States.

1 940, 5 1 per cent of our housing was classified as standard; in 1 950, 63 per cent was; and in 1 960, fully 8 1 per cent was standard . . . . "In

"Virtually all of this increase in housing qual ity was accomplished by private construction, re habilitation and demolition efforts that resulted ' from the investment of massive amounts of pri vate funds in housing. These investments were in no way connected with the federal urban re newal program . . . .

"By any objective measure, the indications are that our cities-in overall terms-are continually improving and that today they are better than

"Compare the costs and consequences of urban renewal to the concrete results of free enterprise.

Contrary to the claims of urban renewal pro ponents, the program has aggravated the housing problem for those it purports to help, it has not 'revitalized' cities, and its costs are immense both in terms of doIlars and the destruction of personal liberty." ( 3)

Area redevelopment was j ust another cynical means of buying votes with taxpayers' money. It was an unconstitutional invasion of the rights of states and of the personal liberties of individuals. It was an enormous waste of tax money; and it fail ed grotesquely to provide material blessings . . whIch Its sponsors had promised. All of this being known fact, would President Johnson ask Con gress to extend ARA before it expired on June 30, 1965 ? The following editorial from TheDallas Morning News gives an illuminating answer to that question: "After four years of trial and error-during which time it spent some

435 million dollars,

strayed widely from its original purpose and of fended numerous state and local groups by pin ning a 'depressed' label on many well-to-do com munities-the Area Redevelopment Administra tion is scheduled to die a well-deserved death . . . . "Apparently Congress is going to let the ARA 'die'-though the death will be in name only. President Johnson has proposed legislation which would allow the agency to live on under a new name. The Senate passed the bill and sent it to the House, where final passage is expected short ly. This is an old trick to perpetuate the life of many a federal bureau that has outlived its use fulness but not its desire to continue spending the taxpayers' money. The name-change trick has been used several times to keep the foreign aid program alive. Each time that program has reached a new low in popular support it has been reorganized under another banner. Recently the Senate approved yet another reorganization of the foreign-aid program.

they ever were before. Page 21 1

"This is precisely what the President proposes

to do with area redevelopment . . . . ARA will be known as EDA-the 'Economic Development Ad ministration'-if the President's proposal is ac

way to make a government program better, then j ust make it bigger.'

cepted by Congress. A new name is not the only

T he bill to transform the Area Redevelopment

change that Mr. Johnson has requested. The re development agency would get a complete-and expensive-face-lifting. "When the job is done, the EDA will be in charge of a new 'grab-bag of grants, loans and technical aid proj ects' that, according to the Wall Street Journal, will make the work of the ARA seem 'pretty puny' by comparison. A few of the changes anticipated in the face-lifting plan are as follows: "-While the ARA was gIven a total of 435 million dollars in its 4-year lifespan, the new EDA would be given an appropriation of 665 million dollars per year for five years-a grant of 3,325 million dollars. "-To avoid the ARA problem of requiring that areas be 'depressed' before they could qualify for federal funds, nobody will be asked to give proof of poverty to get on the EDA dole. This will eliminate the awkwardness and embarrass ment some rather prosperous communities such as Beverly H ills, California, had experienced when they were officially designated as 'depressed areas' for ARA's purposes to qualify for hand outs.. Besides, notes the Journal, 'voters live in rich areas too.' "-Normally, ARA projects have been financed on a 50-50 basis with the federal government and the localities putting up an equal amount of funds. Under the new program, the federal gov ernment would put up 60 per cent through EDA, and in some cases as much as 80 per cent. EDA would also guarantee low-cost loans for busi nesses and help them pay the interest on money borrowed from private lenders-something the ARA was never allowed to do. "So there is no 'death' of the redevelopment program. As the Wall Street Journal noted, we now see a practical application of 'the familiar

Washington theory that when you can't find a

" (4 )

Administration into the Economic Development Administration was passed by the Senate on June 1, 1965 , by a stand of 78 to 17. It is known as the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and, as the News editorial indicates, IS expected to pass in the House. (5) It will authorize expenditure of 3 billion, 3 2 5 million federal tax dollars over a five-year period -to develop waterworks, sanitary and storm sewers, industrial parks, police and fire stations, tourism facilities, airports, watershed protection, flood prevention projects, residential streets, hos pitals, vocational education facilities, community centers. ( 5 ) The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 also authorizes the Secretary of Com merce to designate "economic development re gions" which would cross state lines, and auth orizes the Secretary to "invite and encourage" states to plan development through multistate re gional commissions. ( 5 ) This is, perhaps, the most Slll1ster feature of the new EDA, making it in finitely worse than the ARA which it replaces. Advocates of governmental planning would transform our union of sovereign states into some thing called Metropolitan America-a regionally planned, monolithically-unified nation, divided into a score of metropolitan areas which sprawl across state boundary lines. Each area will be ruled by a metropolitan government of appointed experts-who will receive their jobs, their orders, and their revenue from the Washington politburo. We will have taken another long step toward such Metropolitan America when the new Eco nomic Development Administration begins using tax money to "invite and encourage" regional planning through multistate regional commissions.

Page 212

Other Fronts In The Poverty War

The

Economic Development Administration will represent only one aspect of President John son's schemes for urban development. Another aspect is the new Housing bill, which, this year, contains a novel feature called Rent Supplements. Notice what U. S. Representative Richard H. Poff ( Virginia Republican) says on this subject: "Congress is about to debate the President's new

$6.3 billion Housing Bill. Don't mistake

this for the same old washday product. It's bigger and better-and it contains a new miracle ingredi ent ! Rent supplements, it's called. And it will take all of the drudgery out of home ownership. Matter of fact, it will take out home ownership with it. "Here's the plan. If you earn too much to qualify for low-rent public housing, Uncle Sam will pay part of your rent bill, provided you can

Rent supplements, subsidized housing, urban renewal, aid to depressed areas-these are merely a few of the many fronts in President Johnson'S war on poverty. Concerning the President's total scheme for this once-free nation, Richard Wilson comments (in a column distributed by The Regis ter and Tribune Syndicate, April 18, 1965 ) : " 'This is only the beginning,' Mr. Johnson said . . . as he signed the first bill in history for direct federal aid to primary and secondary edu cation. He can repeat this when he signs the hospital care bill . . . .

"A beginning of what? It is the beginning of a massive expansion of the welfare state, adding many millions of men, women and chil dren and institutions to the many other millions who are direct or indirect beneficiaries of the federal government. There is more to follow, even in the preliminary stages of the Johnson program. We have not seen anywhere near the full scope of an urban development program . . . .

convince him that you don't earn enough to afford decent private housing. The bureaucrats

4 million families fall in this cate gory, and they are asking for $500 million for cash payments to landlords for the first 4 years of the 40 year program. Don't despair if you count your income in 5 digits. They say families earning more than $ 1 0,000 may be able to quali

figure about

"It is a grand scheme to give the cities a made in-Washington

look,

with

grants

for

sewers,

streets, land acquisition and development, land scaping and beautifying projects, loans for neigh borhood development, urban renewal, social serv ice enterprises, housing rehabilitation, rent sub sidies, standards for loning, taxation and de velopment, training of city planners, mayors,

fy.

councilmen-all under the direction of a new

"Of course, there is that nasty little problem called a means test. You have to turn over all your personal records to the F eds to prove you're not too rich or too poor. And if next year, the boss should give you a raise, watch out. Be sure

government department to be called the Depart ment of Housing and Urban Development which easily could outstrip the 7-billion-dollars-a-year Department of Agriculture

to report it. Might as well. If you don't, some neighbor will.

in extending the

helping hand. "Along with this, of course, will go a certain amount of beneficent duress, the nature of which

"But think what this can mean ! No more grass cutting. No more snow shoveling. No more repairs. No more real estate taxes. No more fire

is now being revealed in certain other govern ment programs. Federal funds for education and the war on poverty are now being held back in states and districts which do not comply with

insurance. No more mortgage payments. And no more private home. Just sell out, move into an

the federal time table for ending racial segre

apartment, let the landlord worry and let Uncle

gation. Three fourths of the plans submitted by

Sam pay the tab. Society, it is great!"(6l

Southern states are regarded as unsatisfactory by Page 213

the Office of Education. Federal contributions for the National Guard will be cut off if more Negroes are not admitted . . . . "Quarreling has already begun III the anti poverty program as local officials snarl over a division of the spoils, and this is typical, too, of wel£arism . . . . "The question unanswered now is how much farther Mr. Johnson will feel that he can and should go. The surest guide may lie in his own words, 'this is only the beginning,' and his fre quent, but vague, references to his yet unfulfilled

who testified before a Congressional subcommit tee, the war on poverty is being run largely for the benefit of Mayor Richard Daley's political machine. The majority of those serving on the Chicago Committee for Urban Opportunity are on the city payroll or otherwise connected with the city government. It is being run by men who . . . drive Cadillacs, eat three-inch steaks and drink champagne at luncheon meetings . . . . " [ Yet ]

the President is asking Congress to double the program's size by raising spending to almost $2 billion in the next fiscal year.

dreams and aspirations."

"While only l out of 9 projects in the poverty

U. S. Representative Richard H. Poff discusses political corruption as a conspicuous feature of the President's war on poverty: "The recently declared war on poverty . . . . is riddled with waste, riddled with extravagance and riddled with war profiteering.

program is even

35 per cent operational so far,

the administrators are striking it rich. The Office of Economic Opportunity has spent a whopping 85 per cent of the $5.5 million budgeted for per sonnel and administration. And some of these tax dollars are going to handle little ence." (?)

$50 a day consultants who

than

routine

correspond

"Poverty experts, at fantastic salaries, have mushroomed all across the country. It is not too much of an overstatement to say that there are more generals than GI's in the army that is

The Strategy of Surrender

being raised to fight this war. "Let me quote from a recent report on the poverty program issued by several members of the House Committee on Education and Labor : " 'The community action program . . . has been turned into a political pork barrel by big city machines whose only interest in the poor is to exploit them . . . .' "The report charges that the Office of Eco nomic Opportunity is an administrative shambles in which astonishing numbers of highly-paid, casually-selected amateurs frantically attempt to patch together programs that will reflect a favor able image of Congress and the public . . . .

"The so-called war on poverty has been mostly talk with little action, the talkers with their high salaries being the principal beneficiaries. "Chicago is certainly a case in point. There, according to the Reverend Lynward Stevenson,

Inasmuch as federal aid programs are not only

unconstitutional and ineffective but are also arro gant usurpations of political and economic power from state and local governments, why do state and local governments take the aid and clamor for more ? James J. Kilpatrick makes a cogent comment on that question ( in a syndicated column published by The Dallas Times Herald, June lO, 1965 ) : "In one field after another, the lure of 'federal money' becomes overwhelming. It becomes po litically impossible for local governing bodies to spurn a federal grant: Too much money is in

volved. Besides, state and local budgets are now heavily dependent upon subsidies from Washing ton; if these subsidies were abruptly cancelled,

Page 214

as Mr. Johnson threatens in the case of highway funds, it would be nothing short of castastrophic. The states will do what Big Daddy demands. They are hooked; they cannot wiggle free. "For the past

30 years, since these programs

of 'federal aid' really began to multiply, the states and cities have been nudged along by carrot and stick. Today the delectable carrot diminishes; and the J ohnsonian stick gets longer all the time."

The attitude-that it is smart to surrender prin ciple, in order to participate in the federal dole -was reflected recently by two local officials In Texas. On May 24, 1965 , Dallas City Manager Elgin Crull told the City Council that it should con sider "a change of philosophy" in regard to fed eral-municipal relationships. He said :

for water purification, long-range planning, pe destrian walkways over and under busy streets, transit systems, housing programs, and the pur chase of expensive tracts of land in the downtown area to create " green space." (8) On May 16, 1 965 , the U. S. Office of Economic Opportunity approved 1 1 ,000 requests for "Proj ect Head Start" funds. The total amount of tax money approved was $ 1 2 2,000,000-to pay most of the cost of pre-school education for under privileged children. One of the 1 1 ,000 grants approved on May 16 went to Midland County, Texas ; but Midland's "Project Head Start" was stopped shortly after it started-because mothers of children involved protested that their children were not underprivileged. School Superintendent Carroll Watkins defended his request for Project Head Start by saying:

"This will exist whether we agree with the final decisions of Congress on interference into local affairs.

"1£ the government was going to spend

$ 1 22, -

000,000 of federal money on the program, I thought it was my responsibility to get . . . part

"If we don't do it, then we double tax our own

of it."(9)

people to achieve the same thing . . . . They are paying federal taxes for these projects

. . . I

doubt that we have the right to ask them to pay twice where federal grants are available." (8 )

The proj ects he mentioned include federal aid

M r.

Crull and Mr. Watkins were wrong. It is the responsibility of all Americans who value liberty - and prosperity - to resist, relentlessly,

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents d ocumented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 215

every aspect of President Johnson's war on pov erty. President Johnson is winning his war, but the war is misnamed. It is not a war against pov erty. It is a war against the American constitu tional system and against the freedom, independ ence, and prosperity of the American people. It will create in the United States a socialist dictator ship as complete and degrading, and as destructive of material prosperity, as any now existing in com munist countries.

( 2 ) "Report on the Appalachian Front," by Ken Thompson, The Dallas Mornillg News, February 3, 1965, Sec. 4, p. 4

( 3 ) Special to the Times Herald from New York City, The Dallas Times Herald, May 8, 1965, p. 4B

( 4 ) " 'Death' of ARA," The Dallas Mornillg News, June 18, 1965, p . 2D ( 5 ) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, June 4, 1965, pp. 1050-2 (6) Report from Washington, by U. S. Representative Richard H . Poff ( Rep., Va. ) , June 7 , 1965 ( 7 ) Report from Washingtoll, by U. S. Representative Richard H . Poff ( Rep., Va.) , June 2 1 , 1965 ( 8 ) "New View Of Federal Aid Asked," by Carl Harris, The

FOOTNOTES

Dallas MOflZing News, May 2 5, 1965, p. 1A; "Federal Hel p ?

For What And Whom ?", b y Dick West, The Dallas Morning News, June 6, 1965, p. 2C

( 1 ) COllgressional Quarterly Almanac, 1956, pp. 5 17-9 ; 1958, pp.

( 9 ) " 'Head Start' Fails To Get Any Start," by Eddie S. Hughes, The Dallas Morning News, May 27, 1965, p, 19A

1 47-9; 1960, pp. 292-6; 1961, pp. 247-56; 1963, pp. 563-8

For pnces 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?

Subscription:

1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $ 10.00 - $1 0.00 -$ 10.00

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

- $ 3.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

95 38,

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

DALLAS, TEXAS

Page 2 1 6

7 5 214

TAYLOR 1 -2303

THE o

1)t1l1lmootlIe,o,t Vol.

1 1, No. 28

(Broadcast

5 1 6)

July

1 2, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

THE RI G HT TO WORK "l want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of huma,n liberty, tke PI'i ciple of volulltal·ism, No lasting gain has ever come from , � , comfulston, If we seek to fo,'ce, we but tear apart that, whlch, u1l1ted, IS 1I1v1l1clble , , , , No mall shall be dep"ived of livelihood for his , tamtly , because of em �!oymellt conditlOllal UPOII membershIp of allY union, Insofar as he alld his depelldents upon him are concerned, it , IS capItal punrshment, ( 1 ) Samuel Gompers, Founder of the AFL and father of American labor unions, 1 9 2 5 -

I n 1930, fewer than 8% of all employed persons

in the United States were members of labor unions. At that time, many businesses had agreements with their employees that any who joined a union would be fired. Union officials, denouncing such agreements as "yellow dog" contracts, demanded a federal law against them. Though the Constitution grants the federal government no authority to intervene in labor-man agement affairs, Congress, in 1932, passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act which provided that workers could neither be denied employment because they belonged to unions, nor forced to join unions as a condition of employment. Unions had wanted to outlaw yellow dog contracts which keep workers from joining unions, but not to outlaw yellow dog contracts which force workers to join unions. Hence, union officials did not like the N orris-LaGuardia Act. (3) In 1 9 3 3 , Congress passed Franklin D. Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act. The labor section of this act gave union bosses what they wanted : it forbade management-employee yel low dog agreements which keep workers from joining unions, but authorized the closed shop a management-union yellow dog contract which forces employees to join unions as a condition of employment. In 1 9 3 5 , the Supreme Court declared the labor section of the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. Congress promptly enacted the Wagner Act, reinstituting and ex panding the NIRA labor provisions which the Supreme Court had just invalidated. In 1937, the Supreme Court - having embarked upon its lawless career of substituting political ideologies for constitutional law(3,4) - upheld the Wagner Act. The country was plunged into a bloody, shameful period of monopolistic unionism. Workers, forced to join unions and pay dues, were ordered out on strike as a means of compelling whole industries to do the will of union bosses. Examine the statistics. In 1930 ( before the federal gov(2 )

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 1 4; 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ I O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 217

ernment "authorized" compulsory unionism ) , union membership in the United States was 3,401,000 ; and the number of members involved in strike activity was 1 83,000. By 1 941 (six years after the Wagner Act was passed ) , total union membership was 1 0,201 ,000 ; and the number in volved in strikes was 2,200,000. ( 2 ) Bombings, beatings, vandalism became com monplace union strike tactics and recruiting prac tices. The victims included not only business firms which resisted unionism and workers who refused to join unions, but families of non-union workers and entire communities. Communist infiltration into big monopolistic unions also created grave dangers. Key industries (vital not only to national prosperity but also to national defense) were controlled by unions which were, in turn, controlled by communists. (5 )

P ublic outrage at abuses by monopolistic unions created a movement for voluntary union ism. In 1941, The Dallas Morning News gave the movement a name: right to work. Other publi cations picked up the phrase. On November 7, 1 944, voters in two states - Arkansas and Florida - adopted amendments to their state constitu tions, authorizing right to work laws. Since then, 1 9 additional states have adopted right to work laws : Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nev ada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Caro lina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vir ginia and Wyoming. (6 ) The Indiana right to work law, adopted in 1957, was repealed early in 1965 by the Democrat-controlled Indiana legislature. The Louisiana right to work law now applies only to agricultural workers and to workers in plants processing agricultural products. Elsewhere, exist ing right to work laws apply to all workers. ( 7 ) The Florida right to work amendment, ap proved by voters on November 7, 1 944, is typical of the full right to work laws now effective in 1 9 states. I t says : "The right of persons to work shall not "?c

denied or abridged on account of membershlp or non-membership in any labor union, or labor

organization; provided, that this clause shall not be construed to deny or abridge the right of em ployees by and through a labor organization or labor union to bargain collectively with their employer." (6)

The movement for voluntary unionism did not grow fast enough to allay public indignation at the arrogant behavior of union bosses to whom the Wagner Act had given special privileges and powers. The public should have demanded repeal of all federal labor laws. The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to legislate in this field. The responsibility to protect life, liberty, and property belongs, constitutionally, to local and state governments. But, without proper education in constitutional principles and with out adequate political leadership by constitution alists, the people demanded changes in, rather than repeal of, federal labor laws. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 resulted. Taft Hartley is j ust as unconstitutional as the Wagner Act of 1 93 5 was. Taft-Hartley did, however, re flect prevailing public opinion against compulsory unionism. It outlawed the closed shop ; but this was a mere sop to public opinion, because it per mitted the union shop. The difference between closed shop and union shop is a meaningless tech nicality. A closed shop contract is a union-manage ment agreement which prohibits management from hiring non-union workers. Under a union shop contract, management may hire non-union workers but must fire them if they do not j oin the union after they go to work. The effective Taft-Hartley provision against compulsory unionism is in Section 14 (b) of the Act - the so-called right to work section, which says : "N othing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agree ments requiring membership in a labor organiza tion as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or applica tion is prohibited by State or Territorial law." (6 )

If Section 1 4 (b) did not exist, union officials would demand that federal courts outlaw state right to work laws - the legal pretext being that the federal government had preempted for itself

Page 218

exclusive right to legislate in the field of labor management relations. The federal government has no authority for such preemption ; no author ity to permit, or prohibit, state right to work laws ; no authority to operate at all in the field of labor-management relations. Yet, it is a fore gone conclusion that the present Supreme Court would illegally usurp power to invalidate state right to work laws if Section 14 (b) of the Taft Hartley Act were repealed. Hence, repeal of Section 1 4 (b) is a major poli tical goal of monopolistic unions. Union bosses fought bitterly against passage of the Taft-Hart ley Act, largely because of Section 14 (b ) . Pres ident Harry S Truman, bidding for political sup port from union bosses, opposed Taft-Hartley and vetoed the act when Congress first passed it. Lyn don B. Johnson, then a U. S. Representative and keenly aware of broad public support for Taft Hartley, was among those who voted to override President Truman's veto in 1947. In 1949, Lyndon B. Johnson, then a Senator, voted against a bill intended to repeal Section 14 (b) . ( 8) Johnson'S support of Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act was the primary reason why union bosses, at the Democrat National Conven tion in 1960, opposed Johnson, and backed John F. Kennedy, as candidate for the Presidency. In 1964, Johnson promised union bosses that he would work for repeal of Section 14 (b) . (7 ) On May 18, 1965, President Johnson sent his labor message to Congress, recommending, among other things, repeal of Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Several bills to effect repeal have been intro duced in both Houses of Congress. The bill most likely to be acted upon is HR 77. (6)

Pro And Con

O n August

1, 1958, the AFL-CIO published a 1 3 3-page book entitled Union Security: The Case Against The "Right-To-Workl! Laws.

The book contends that, because a union gets

benefits for all employees, all should be forced to support the union : employees who get the benefits of unionism without paying dues are getting a "free ride" at the expense of union mem bers. Unions call these sturdy Americans who want to be left alone many harsh names : moral parasites, scabs, spies, traitors, union-bust�rs. Unions claim it is a heavy burden to bargain for employees who do not pay union dues ; yet, contract negotiating is about the least expensive of all union activities. Unions spend most of their money on political lobbying and propagan da, on slush funds for union officials, and on strikes. Moreover, unions demanded this monopoly of bargaining. They were not content to sell their services on a voluntary basis, to employees who wanted to buy, permitting others to do their own bargaining. Union bosses wanted a law to give them exclusive bargaining rights in a plant where they could get a bare majority of employees to vote for the union. They got their law (in both the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act) , but now complain that they are abused. The truth was stated by Donald Richberg in Labor Union Monopoly (Henry Regnery Com pany, Chicago, 1957 ) : "The unions took away by law the right and freedom of individual employees to contract for themselves - and now the unions demand that non-members be compelled to pay for having their freedom of contract taken away and exer cised against their will ! The non-member is not a 'free rider'; he is a captive passenger."

Inasmuch as unions do much good for many people, all people who benefit should be forced to support the unions : this is the essence of the unions' "free-rider" argument against right to work laws. If there were any validity in this argument, then all churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, polit ical parties, and other groups which claim to benefit society, should be empowered to compel all members of society to join and pay dues. Unions answer this point by saying unions are different. In fact, unions covet the power of

Page 219

government itself. When the AFL challenged the constitutionality of a state right to work law in Lincoln Union vs. Northwestern Company ( 1949 ) , AFL lawyers filed a brief, saying: "The common rule of collective bargaining carries with it the legal doctrine that the union is the common authority for government of a society of workers. It has in a sense the powers and responsibilities of a government."

This is identical with the corporate-state idea called fascism. It is also identical with the com munist idea that all workers in a workers' soviet, or union, must be governed by that soviet, or unton. The unions' Case Against The IIRight-To Work" Laws heavily emphasizes this communist fascistic doctrine that unions should have the power and prerogatives of government itself: "There can b e only one government represent ing citizens and, by law, there can be only one union representing a given body of employees. At one time in our nation's history, both police forces and labor unions were private organiza tions in the sense that both were free to deny their services to those who refused to pay in ad vance . . . . "Changes in our society now require that police protection be made available to all citizens, whether they order it or not. When police pro tection was made available and imposed by law upon everyone, the cost of operating a police de partment was imposed upon all citizens within the geographical unit in the form of taxation. "It is equally just and reasonable with union protection required by law to be made avail able to every employee, that all members of the industrial unit pay for the cost." "The answer to the problem of dishonest offi cials (be they union, city or state officials) is not to put tax (or dues) paying on a voluntary basis. The answer . . . is greater participation and in terest in the affairs of government (be it union, city or state government) . . . . "Just as tax paying stimulates an interest in local government, dues paying stimulates an in terest in union government."

On page 82 of the unions' Case Against The "Right-To-Work" Laws : "The good of the many is of greater moral value than the good of the individual."

This is what Hitler said a thousand times : "The individual is nothing; society is everything; heil !"

Union

bosses claim that unionism has pro duced enormous benefits, not only for union members, but for the entire nation. In Case Against The IIRight-To-Work" Laws, unions boast primarily about what they have forced others to do. In the first three pages of the book, unions brag that they successfully lobbied for public housing, socialized power (TVA ) , social secu rity, rural electrification, federal seizure of state owned tidelands oil, farm subsidies, and even for the Supreme Court's school desegregation de cision. Such political lobbying has nothing to do with legitimate union problems. Moreover, it is illegal. Federal tax laws prohibit tax-exempt organizations from engaging in political lobby ing; and unions are tax exempt. Union bosses claim that right to work laws depress the economy, but facts give the lie to that claim. From 1953 to 1 963 : per capita personal income in right to work states increased 43.7% increased 370/0 in states that do not have right to work laws ; wages of manufacturing workers in creased 46.70/0 in right to work states-increased 41.50/0 in non-right to work states ; the rate of new jobs created by industry increased 23.30/0 in right to work states - increased 90/0 in non-right to work states ; bank deposits increased 69.4% in right to work states - increased 63.5% in non right to work states. In 1964, the unemployment rate in right to work states was 4%-50/0 in non right to work states. These statistics, compiled by the Department of Commerce and by the Depart ment of Labor, prove conclusively that the econ omy is growing faster in states with right to work laws than in other states. (6)

President

Johnson says he recommends re peal of Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act "with the hope of reducing conflicts in our na tional labor policy." The President parrots a union argument. Concerning the argument, Mr. Reed Larson (Executive Vice President of the National Right To Work Committee) says:

Page 220

"Proponents of forced unionism have appealed . . for the elimination of Section 1 4 (b) with the . . . fallacious argument that it would pro mote peace and eliminate conflict. Not only does this argument affront the conscience of all free dom-loving Americans - based, as it is, on the Soviet-style peace through suppression of dis sent - but the record shows that even this kind of enforced conformity will produce more con flict than it eliminates. (6)

Events in Indiana illustrate Mr. Larson's re marks. During an eight-year period when Indiana had a right to work law, the State enjoyed relative labor peace. Union violence quickly followed re peal of the right to work law in 1 965 . On May 1 7, 1 965, Local 997 of the Internation al Union of Electrical Workers ordered a strike at Electric Motors and Specialties Company, in Garrett, Indiana. Many employees refused to strike, continued to work. Numerous threats, against non-strikers and against the plant, were made. (9) On the night of June 9, about 300 persons mob bed the struck plant, imprisoning 70 employees inside. The mobsters smashed plant windows, in j uring workers ; damaged 14 automobiles belong ing to employees ; started about 40 fires, burning a company bus and a company loading ramp. Many of the mobsters had never worked for the company and, therefore, had no legitimate in terest in the controversy. Some were from other cities. (9 ) Ted Nolan, international representative of the IEU, said the union would disperse the violent mob if the company would close the plant until the strike was settled. The company refused ; but, on the morning of June 10, 1965, the Mayor of Garrett ordered the plant closed "for the safety and welfare of the community." Later that day, Circuit Judge Harold D. Stamp issued a tempor ary restraining order against the union and its of ficials. The order limited picketing to authorized union personnel and prohibited interference with company employees entering and leaving the plant. (9)

Case Against The ffRight-To-Work" Laws,

unions argue for "freedom of contract" : if an

employer and his employees want a union shop contract, state governments should not intervene. The argument is hypocritical. Management and employees had freedom of contract before the federal government passed laws-demanded by unions - to outlaw management-employee con tracts displeasing to unions. Unions do not want non-intervention by gov ernment in labor-management affairs, nor do they want impartial treatment by law. They want fa voritism for unions. Having successfully lobbied for the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, which pro hibited management from making "yellow-dog" contracts to exclude unionism, unions successfully lobbied for another federal law, which continued the prohibition against management but permitted unions to make their own yellow dog contracts. There is no freedom in contracts which force em ployees to join unions. In the first place, employees have nothing to do with making the contracts. They are made by management and a union-an outside organiza tion that both management and the employees may, and frequently do, despise. In the second place, most companies which ne gotiate union shop agreements with big unions do not want to do it. They simply yield to the brute force and violence of union bosses who can shut down whole industries ; hold the population of great cities for ransom ; have loyal employees beaten, maimed, and stomped to death, and their personal property destroyed ; and terrorize whole communities-for the sole purpose of making management force workers to join unions and pay dues. (10)

One

cunning touch in Union Security: The Case Against The Right-T0- Work" Laws (as in all other union propaganda) is the identifying of unions with the working people who are victim ized by unions. Union contract provisions which compel man agement to deduct union dues from employees' rr

wages are called "union security" arrangements.

"Union security" is made to mean security for

Page 221

workers. Actually, it means a guarantee of money and power for union bosses. Few of the strikes which cause bloodshed and widespread suffering are intended to get some thing for workers. They are intended to get some thing for union bosses. When Harry Bridges, a few years ago, called a walkout which shut down shipping on the west coast, paralyzed the economy of the Hawaiian Islands, and temporarily crippled vital American military forces at Pearl Harbor, Bridges was not demanding anything for men who worked as long shoremen or as laborers in the Hawaiian pineapple and sugar industries. Bridges was merely staging a protest against the action of a federal district court which had found one of Bridges' henchmen (Jack Hall ) guilty of communist sedition under the Smith Act. (11) When the Teamsters' Union shut off the milk supply for millions of people in New York City a few years ago, union bosses were not trying to get increased benefits for truckdrivers : They were punishing innocent men, women and children, be cause some truckdrivers in New York did not belong to the Teamsters' Union. ( 10 ) On June 20, 1965 , Local 107 of the Teamsters' Union ordered truck drivers in Philadelphia out on strike - to express sympathy for four men whom the Railway Express Company had fired. Some food supplies for the public were delivered by non-striking truck drivers, under police escort; but financial losses (in spoilage of food supplies that could not be delivered, and so on) averaged $4,500,000 a day. During the first four days of the strike, police arrested 1 19 persons in connec tion with 64 incidents which involved beating, and otherwise intimidating, non-striking drivers; stealing vehicles ; erecting illegal roadblocks. Judge Leo Weinrott ordered the strike stopped, imposing heavy fines on the union and on its of ficials for each day the strike continued in con tempt of court. The union ended the strike on June 26. (12)

T hroughout Union Security: The Case Against

The "Right-To-Work" Laws, abusive language is

used against Americans who favor right to work laws. On page 104, G. Bromley Oxnam (now de ceased, formerly President of the Council of Bish ops of the Methodist Church, President of the World Council of Churches, and high official of the National Council of Churches ) is quoted : "Greedy and undemocratic powers . . . are among those who today sponsor these 'right-to work' laws. The public is being deceived by the machinations of these stupid men . . . ."

On page 105, the Rabbinical Council of Ameri ca is quoted as calling a non-union worker "a moral parasite." The Reverend Doctor Walter G. Muelder, Dean, Boston University School of Theology: "The 'right-to-work' laws are a virtual con spiracy of the crafty, the ignorant, or the mis guided . . . . "

On page 103, the Most Reverend Francis Rum mel, Archbishop of New Orleans, characterized right-to-work laws as, "insincere . . . . unfair and unsocial class legis lation contrary to the common good."

Reinhold Niebuhr, Professor of Philosophy at Union Theological Seminary: "The implausibility of the so-called 'right-to work' laws is so obvious that one must come to the conclusion that their proponents are either stupid or dishonest . . . ."

Note that this vilification of Americans who believe in freedom came from churchmen. Liberal churchmen still work hand-in-glove with union bosses for repeal of Section 14 (b) of the Taft Hartley Act, so that right to work laws can be destroyed. On June 4, 1 965, Dr. J. Edward Carothers tes tified before a House subcommittee, urging repeal of Section 14 (b) . Dr. Carothers (Associate Gen eral Secretary of the National Division of the Board of Missions of the Methodist Church and a high official of the National Council of Churches) began his testimony by saying: "I have been asked to :make this statement on behalf of the National Council of Churches." ( 13 )

Page 222

Later, Dr. Carothers admitted that the National Council of Churches had made no effort to de termine the views of churches which the National Council represents. He admitted that the General Bo�rd of the NCC sometimes takes public stands on 1ssues, knowing "that their constituency would differ with them." He also admitted that the Na tional Council of Churches once received $200,000 from the CIO through the Philip Murray Memorial Foundation-the money to be used "on behalf of the practical application of religious principles to the everyday world of economic life." (13 ) If the federal government impartially enforced its own laws, it would cancel the tax exemption which the National Council of Churches and labor unions enjoy; and it would prosecute NCC and union officials who have used NCC and union money for lobbying and politics, in flagrant viola tion of federal tax, and other, laws.

There are strong indications, however, that many of these union-endorsed legislators have be gun to waver, because the public seems opposed to repeal of Section 14 (b) . This is the cue for all Americans who want to do something. By distributing copies of this R e port, by word of mouth, by correspondence, and by any other means available, arouse as many peo ple as you can-to the end that every United States Senator and United States Representative will be stormed with wires and letters urging him to stand against repeal of Section 14 (b) of the Taft Hartley Act.

The letters should be brief and polite, dealing with no other issues-addressed to Representatives at the House Office Building, Washington, D. c. ; to Senators, at the Senate Office Building.

FOOTNOTES

W h at To Do ( 1 ) Seventy Years of Life and Labor, by Samuel Gompers, 1925

O f the present 435 members of the U.S. House

of Representatives, 2 34 were supported by the AFL-CIO in the elections last year because they promised to work for repeal of Section 1 4 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. ( 7 )

edition, p. 1 3 2

( 2 ) Histo,·i.al Statisths of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957,

U. S .

Bureau of the Census, 1960, pp. 97·8; Statisthal

Abstra.t of the United States, 1964, U. S. Bureau of the Census,

1964, pp. 247-9 ; Faas and Figures on Govemment Finan.e, Tax Foundation, Inc., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965, p. 38

WHO IS DAN SMOOT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. 10 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years 00 FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smool Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 223

( 3 ) For add'itional details on federal labor laws and activities of

( 9 ) "Goons Keep 70 Captive In Terror Reign," Chicago Tribune,

unions, see the following Repo.·ts: "COPE," April 6, 1964; Union Terrorism," April 1 3, 1964; "Union Officials: Above and Beyond the Law," April 20, 1964; "Our labor Laws,"

June 1 1, 1965 ( 1 0 ) The McClellan Committee Heat'ings-1957, The Bureau of

National Affairs, Inc., 1 9 57, 508 pp.

May 24, 1965.

( 1 1 ) Human Events, March 19, 1955, pp. 3-4; "Washington Re (4) For further information on activities of the Supreme Court,

port, by Fulton Lewis, Jr., The Shreveport foumal, January 7,

see the series of Repo."IS, " Earl Warren Court," Parts I, II,

1963 ; Press Release, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, De

III, IV, March 2 2 , March 29, April 5, April 1 2 , 1965 ; price:

cember, 1956; Chicago Daily Tribune, December 1, 1956, Sec

75 ¢ per set.

tion 1 , p. 8; [mua Spotlight, February 1 5 and March 28, 1964, 568 Alexander Young Building, 1 0 1 5 Bishop Street, Honolulu,

( 5 ) 1 00 Things You Should Know About Communism and Labor,

House Committee

Hawaii 968 1 3

Un-American Activities, 1948, 2 1 pp.

( 6 ) Information obtained from the National Right to Work Com

( 1 2 ) UPI from Philadelphia, The Dallas Morning News, June 2 5 , 1965, p. 2 A ; UPI from Philadelphia, The Dallas Morning

mittee, 1900 1 Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036.

News, June 26, 1965, p. 2A; AP from Philadelphia, The Dallas

( 7 ) Cong" eJSional Quarterly Weekly Report, May 1 4, 1965, pp. 929-34

Times He"ald, June 28, 1965, p. 5A ( 1 3 ) "Does The National Council of Churches Represent You

( 8 ) Extension of Remarks of U. S. Senator Karl E. Mundt ( Rep.,

S.D. ) , COllgressional Record, June 4, 1965, pp. A2890·1 ( daily )

Politically?", by ]. C. Phillips, including the testimony of Dr. Carothers, Bm'gel', Texas, News-Herald, June 1 8, 1965,

For pnces on single and mul tipl e copies of this Report, see bottom of the first page. How many people do you know who should read this Report?

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $ 10.00 -$1 0.00

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

STATE

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 224

THE o

IJtlll SmootlIeport Vol. I I , No. 29

(Broadcast 5 1 7 )

July 1 9, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED SECU RITY

Concerning

the rent-subsidy portion of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (HR 7984) , U. S. Representative Richard L. Roudebush ( Indiana Republican) says : Mark Wednesday, June 30, 1 965, on your calendar as the day housing was socialized In America. By a slim vote of 208-202, a $6 billion rent subsidy bill (scaled down from an $8 billion proposal) passed the U. S. House of Representatives. The vote came after three days of the bitterest and most hotly contested debate that has

occurred in my 4 Yz years in the Congress. It was the closest vote on important legislation this session. Despite LBJ's overwhelming majority in the House, this legislation is so unmistakably social ism in its purest form and such a radical departure from the traditional American thinking that it resulted in an extremely close vote. Our six-vote defeat on what I consider a key vote if there ever was one, was doubly hard to take because 1 9 Congressmen were not even present to vote and five Congressmen did not vote "aye" or "nay" but only answered "present" on the crucial roll call vote. My vote was cast in opposition. ( 1 ) The rent subsidy measure could provide rent assistance for over half the families in the United States, will benefit families with income up to $ 1 l ,200 in New York and, although ad vanced as an "experimental" program, will run 40 years. The worst feature of the bill is that it strikes at the very heart of America-our strong middle class. Persons who have toiled and saved and worked extra hard to buy a home of their own

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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) $1 4.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: I copy for 25¢ ; 6 for $ 1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 1 00 for $ I O.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 225

will now find themselves pushed to the wall fi

"Aside from the positively astronomical cost

nancially to pay the rent of their less ambitious

of this scheme over the long pull-a cost totaling

and energetic neighbors.

high into the billions-there is its complete un

The bill will create another huge class of par asites living off of the Federal government, and, of course, will be utilized and managed in a po litical manner for partisan purposes by the Great Society.

soundness. The plan would permit rent subsi dies to families with incomes ranging as high as $8,900 in New York City. The fact that such families never before have even been considered to be appropriate recipients of federal largesse makes no difference to this administration"

Ownership of private property has been a key stone of our society and one of the chief reasons

1 9.

the American way of life has flourished. Now Americans are going to be offered a rent subsidy in return for a�other measure of their independ ence. Because of the huge LBJ landslide last fall which swept into Washington the most liberal Congress in our nation's history, the socialization

"The rent subsidies proposal is goofy enough to get a political party ridden out of town on a rail of ridicule. The administration drew hard on its imagination to find some class of Americans who could be supplied with housing. It hit upon the great American middle class"-Holmes Alex ander, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 8.

of America is proceeding at a rate undreamed of by the most optimistic "planner."

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond, Va., June

"Should your friends and neighbors be en couraged to tell tales about you if your rent is

Those who believe they know how you should

being subsidized by the Federal Government and

live your life are in complete control in Washing

you are earning too much money? On this con

ton, and by the time the 89th Congress leaves

tentious invasion-of-privacy score, a sharp battle

office at the end of 1 966, this country will be

is shaping up in Congress with most of the oral

so far down the road it may be impossible to

missiles due to be zeroed in on Robert C. Weaver,

retrieve the freedom we will have lost. ( 2 )

Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance

Representative Roudebush cited the following editorial comment about the rent-subsidy scheme: "The rent supplement plan is merely the latest, though the most extreme, expression of the po litical philosophy which would create an egali

Agency"-Thomas R. Guthrie, Cleveland Plain

Dealer, May 26. ( 2 )

During House debates on HR 7984, U. S. Rep resentative Jackson E. Betts (Ohio Republican) said of the rent-subsidy plan:

tarian socio-economy, irrespective of individual merit, with subsidies financed by the ambitious, the industrious, and the worthy . . . the real issue is whether the Federal Union is to undergo its greatest transformation thus far into a collec tivist state" - Arthur Krock, The New York

Times, May 26.

I believe it has been rightly described

foreign to American concepts. It goes to the root of private ownership-killing the incentive of the American family to improve its living accommo dations by its own efforts. This cynical device virtually destroys the normal desire for home ownership; it makes renters wards of the Govern

"The philosophy of the program is a signifi cant departure. It would extend the hand of direct federal subsidy to families well above the official poverty line. The rent subsidy proposal

ment. (2)

U. S. Representative Frances P. Bolton (Ohio Republican) said :

has re-emerged as one of the Great Society's boldest ventures into welfarism"-Charles Bart

I am wondering if you are at all aware of the dangers of this new doctrine. Are you quite

lett, Washington Evening Star, April 29.

certain that when you make it possible for a Page 226

man to feel little, if any, responsibi lity for his home, you are not endangering the very foun dation stones of our free land?(2)

U. S. Representative A. Sydney Herlong, Jr. ( Florida Democrat) said: This whole business of attempting to embark on a program of rent subsidies or supplements has caused me to ponder just what comes next. If a man has sub-standard clothing, would we not have to give him a subsidy so that he can wear as expensive clothes as others? Recreation has become an integral part of our lives-would we not have to subsidize recreation to keep a man from feeling frustrated because he cannot afford the same recreational activities and clubs that his neighbor enjoys? . . . This whole rent supplement idea is . . . ridicu lous . . . . And that is why I cannot vote for it. The image that Congress . . . already has of yielding to whatever comes up here just because some arms are twisted is already bad enough. (2)

thinly disguised revival of a socialistic scheme tried a century ago. I propose that we change the name of part of this bill to the Brook Farm Act of 1 965 . Its modern trappings, the Housing and Urban De velopment Act of 1 965, do not tell a true story.

Let us look at Brook Farm. More than 1 00 years ago, Francois Fourier, a French social reformer, proposed to mass people into what he called pha langes. These were to be subdivided into beauti ful tracts. The idea was that the members would derive their support from the labors of all. The project got underway in 1 846. The . . . first unit burned, and the venture into communal living failed. Luckily the group did not have access to tax funds. Section 1 0 1 (d) , the rent subsidy section of the bill before us, is merely a revival of the Brook Farm principle. Separated from its utopian con cept, it provides that people making up to $8,900 could move into bigger houses with their tax paying neighbors picking up part of the tab.

U. S. Representative Robert H. Michel (Illinois Republican) said :

Statistics show that the costs could be astronomi

Section 1 0 1 of this bill [ Housing and Urban

a potential of 47 million families. Some 40 per

Development Act of 1 965 ] poses a simple ques tion: Is the United States ready for socialism? No other interpretation can be placed on this section, which proposes to subsidize some at the expense of the many. It seeks to make an American who has practiced ambition, frugality, and initiative, pay for an expensive experiment in federalized housing. Not only must he pay for his own home, taxes, and maintenance, but he must also pay taxes so that his neighbor can live in a bigger house, and pay much less for his housing. This is socialism. It penalizes thrift. It threatens to create a class of professional federalized tenants. It will foster concealment of income, and, of course, a monstrous bureaucracy to supervise and investigate the incomes of those living in Govern ment-subsidized housing. This bill is not progressive. It is a throwback to one of the most often-tried and always-found wanting types of social experimentation. It is a

cal. There are 1 90 million people in the United States. A t an average of 4 per family, this creates cent of them, or more than 1 8 million families, could qualify under the formula of eligibility concocted by Housing and Home Finance D irec tor Robert Weaver. Should a family with earn ings of $8,000 choose to live in a $220 per month home-maximum under the bill-their annual housing cost would be $2,640. The Federal Gov ernment would pick up the difference between the costs and one-fourth of their income, or $640 per year . . . . It is obvious that this utopian plan would dis courage homeownership . Why sacrifice and save, why build up an equity when the Federal Gov ernment stands ready to provide a dole of thou sands of dollars per family over the course of 40 years? This bill would pyramid in cost as more and more families abandoned ownership in favor of subsidized rental.

Page 227

This bill is clearly intended to make Uncle

Sam the Nation's landlord. It, of course, is de signed as a politically motivated effort to bring more people under the umbrella of paternalism. Behind the proposal, cloaked in the high-sound ing phrases that the bill is aimed at the elderly, disadvantaged, and the poor, is a provision that it applies to those living in substandard housing. What is substandard is a matter of interpretation. The slogan for this new excursion into mass dependency might well be "A check in every mail box means a vote in every ballot box." Once relieved of the basic responsibility to provide housing by their own initiative, the desire of beneficiaries to continue this domiciliary dole would be automatic-as, hopefully, would be the tenure in office of those who supply it. This legislation would be a giant step back ward. It would be the antithesis of the American spirit. It penalizes thrift, narrows ambition, de stroys initiative and the pride of self-sufficiency. It is bad legislation .

The House today could do yeoman service to the American system by striking down this radical

Over the weekend I noticed a speech that was delivered by a Mr. Donald Henderson who is the

director of research . . . for the united planning organization, the group which coordinates the anti-poverty program in the District of Colum bia . . . . He said that the war on poverty should be aimed at bringing about fundamental changes in the American social structure. And one of the things that he went on to stress as being necessary to produce those changes is, "facing the inevitability of the welfare state." Believe me, we not only face, we accept in this bill the inevitability of the . . . welfare state. This is nothing short of a Brannan plan for city dwellers, a Brannan plan where there will be compensatory payments to allow the renter to upgrade his housing without any effort on his part but at the expense of the American tax p ayers

will be penalized by this ill-founded section of the bill. I would warn those zealots whose arms have been twisted to cast a vote for this fiscal fiasco that robbing Peter to pay Paul may not be good politics at all-there has been no ground swell of public demand for our Nation to go back 1 00 years in the housing fieldY )

Representative John B. Anderson (Illinois Republican) said : U. S.

I have not been able to determine, even after several days of hearings in the Commit tee on Rules, how much this is going to cost the tax payers. Some people have put a price tag of $6

billion o n i t . Someone else said $7 billion . . . . i Under one sect on alone, section 1 0 1 , the even tual cost to taxpayers could be $8 billion . . . .

Not only is it gigantic in cost, but it is a bill that is revolutionary in its philosophy which it espouses and the concepts it seeks to introduce into the field of housing legisla tion . . .

. (2)

U. S. Representative William G. Bray (Indiana Republican) said :

departure from our national heritage. Every American family that owns, or is buying, a home

The rent-subsidy proposal in the legislation before us is nothing less than an attempt to make the Federal Government the landlord for the entire American middle class. It has been esti· mated that this plan could eventually cover

percent of all American families. Yet, the Gov ernment's own census figures show that over 90 percent of all families in the $4,000 to $8,000 income group are adequately housed. Who will police such a program? How will the Government determine that those receiving rent subsidies are not falsifying their income figures? An open invitation to the American people to

turn into informers was freely given during the hearings on this bill . . . . Robert Weaver, Ad· ministrator of the Housing and Home Finance

Agency [ testified ] : . .

"There will be spot checks . . . and there is one other check, too, which I hate to say. Your friends and neighbors would be very much con· cerned about this. They are the best investigators that you have in these projects."

Page 228

Mr. Weaver later piously told a newspaper: "We are not encouraging snooping.

I was just

reporting a fact of life." How ironic, that this House, which has heard so many ringing speeches denouncing informers, should now be asked to approve legislation that, more than any other bill that has ever come before us, would turn Americans into a collection of snoops and sneaks, running to some Govern

with only one sub-section of one title of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1 965. In its entirety, the Act is a monstrous piece of un constitutional, socialistic legislation which will make the federal government not only the nation's landlord, but also the dictatorial manager of the nation's cities, colleges, farms, parks, recreation facilities. The Act has ten "Titles."

ment agency with tales about their neighbors' income. And this has been gratuitously suggested

TITLE I

by an administration official who will have a major part to play in the operation of this pro gram if it becomes law. If this provision becomes law, we can look forward to the day when there is just one land lord for all Americans: the Federal Government. When Nikita Krushchev visited the United States, he bragged that in the Soviet Union the Govern ment took care of everyone's housing. That is true, but by American standards almost all of . Russian housing would be classed as slums. A bureaucrat, in Russia called a commissar, de termines whether you will live in a house the equal of a pigsty or in one of the better houses. Is this what we want in our country? Why stop with subsidies for rent? The same distorted logic which seeks to j ustify this program may be j ust as easily applied to automobiles, clothes and, for that matter, television sets. Why not subsidize them as well? The government is already on its way to paying doctor bills and this program would provide for rent. What is next on the list? . .

The minority report on this bill sums up the rent-subsidy provision very well: it is foreign to American concepts; it kills the incentive of the American family to improve its living accommo

dations by its own efforts; it kills the incentive for home ownership; it makes renters wards of the Government; it is a system of economic integra tion of housing through Government subsidy; and it is the way of the socialistic state. ( 2 )

T he

comments quoted above deal primarily

-Authorizes the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to grant rent subsidies to physically handicapped persons ; to persons aged 62 or older; to occupants of substandard housing; to persons displaced from their homes by government action in connection with urban renewal projects, highway construction, and so on. The Administrator will have broad authority to decide who qualifies for rent subsidies. The size of the federal subsidy will be limited to the difference between 25% of the occupant's income and the fair market rental charge for the place he lives in. The federal housing administrator will decide what is fair market rental charge. The per sons to receive federal rent subsidies will be se lected by owners of the housing units to be rented. The housing must be built by private, non-profit (or limited dividend) corporations, or by coop eratives which financed the building with FHA insured mortgages. The federal housing adminis trator will make 40-year rent-supplement contracts with the owners. -Extends until October 1 , 1969, the FHA Home Loan programs to persons of low and mod erate income, and to persons displaced from previous housing by government action. -Authorizes gifts of federal tax money (up to $ 1 500 each) for repairs and improvements of private homes in urban renewal areas; authorizes

Page 229

smaller gifts to persons, not living in urban re newal areas, who have annual incomes of less than $2000.

another four years, authorizing $2,900,000,000 (two billion, 900 million) in urban renewal grants during that period.

-Extends the low-rent public housing program to October 1 , 1969, authorizing expenditures of $5 54,250,000.

-Authorizes unlimited appropriations for reha bilitation loans in urban renewal areas.

-Amends existing law to provide that handi capped families can receive the same federal as sistance in pubic housing as elderly persons re ceive; to remove limitation on the amount of federal tax money that may be lent to provide housing for the elderly and the handicapped (the existing limitation was a $350,000,000 ceiling) ; to reduce interest rate on such federal loans to 30/0 (existing rates were 3%0/0 and 4%) .

TITLE IV

TITLE I I

-Authorizes FHA insurance on loans, to de velopers, for land acquisition. -Provides for a moratorium in payments on FHA-insured loans to homeowners who are un employed because of the closing of a federal fa cility. -Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to buy FHA-insured homes (for subsequent disposal by FHA) from homeowners who, thrown out of work by the closing of a federal facility, cannot sell their homes on reasonable terms. -Establishes a new FHA program for veterans who have not already received GI loans, and pro vides that the new FHA loans may cover 1000/0 of single-family houses costing up to $20,000, 850/0 of any additional amount up to $30,000. -Expands existing FHA programs. TITLE I I I

-Continues the urban renewal program for

-Establishes uniform procedures for compen sating persons whose land has been seized, under eminent domain, for some program of the federal housing administration. TITLE V

-Extends, for another four years, the program of federal loans for college housing, authorizing expenditures of $ 1 ,200,000,000 ( one billion, 200 million) during that period. TITLE VI

-Authorizes the federal housing administrator to make "Community Facilities" grants to local public agencies, for: two-thirds of the cost of neighborhood health and recreation centers, and similar community services; one-half of the cost of public water and sewage facilities (provided the facilities are approved by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) . TITLE VII

-Increases by $ 1 ,600,000,000 (one billion, 600 million) the amount the Federal National Mort gage Association may use in buying FHA-insured mortgages on housing for low-income and mod erate-income families, on housing for elderly and handicapped persons, and on property in urban renewal areas.

Page 230

TITLE VI I I

-Removes limitation on amount of federal tax money that may be used as grants for the purchase of land, and for other purposes, in connection with land beautification, park improvement, cre ation of open space areas in cities, and so on. Authorizes increase in federal underwriting of such projects to 40% of total cost; and authorizes use of federal funds for surveys and studies. TITLE IX

-Authorizes the Farmers' Home Administra tion to make loans for the purchase of land and other farm properties ; establishes a new program of loans for farm home improvements ; increases to $50,000,000 ( 5 0 million) the authorization for grants to sponsors of rent housing for domestic farm labor. TITLE X

-Removes limitation on amount of federal tax money that may be granted for urban planning and for public works planning.

WHO

-Authorizes loans to private non-profit corpo rations for financing water and sewage systems. -Gives savings and loan associations special authorization to make loans for the construction of college dormitories, fraternity or sorority houses, and for dwellings to be used by staff members of community hospitals.

T he Housing and Urban Development Act was

proposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on March 2 , 1965. The original administration bill was amended in committee, and reintroduced as HR 7984 on May 7, 1965 , by U. S. Representative Wright Patman (Texas Democrat) . On June 30, 1965, the House, by a vote of 208 to 202, defeated an effort to remove the rent subsidy section. On the same day, the House, by a vote of 245 to 169, passed the Housing and Urban Development Act with the rent subsidy in it. (1) United States Senator John J. Sparkman ( Ala bama Democrat) introduced S 2 2 1 3, which is only slightly different from HR 7984. S 22 1 3 has al ready been reported out of committee and is now awaiting final action by the Senate.

DAN

Criticism of the rent subsidy scheme (quoted

SMOOT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In civili 1941 he j oined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American on years two s; investigation communist on years zation. From 1942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half and, the FBI from resigned He places. FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial Smoot issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan television and radio s Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysi vehicle. The Report and broadcast broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising as a

one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution can help immensely yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you - help get subscribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. give

Page 231

at the outset of this Report) alleges that members of Congress support this legislation because of "arm twisting." This is an inelegant way of telling the shameful truth : the present Congress of the United States is legislating not on the basis of constitutional principle or even of personal con viction, but on the corrupt basis of political barter.

The

Housing and Urban Development Act, now pending in the United States Senate, could be stopped, if enough Americans stormed their Senators with protests-not just protests against the rent subsidy section, but against the whole bilL

Congress, under the "arm twisting" of President Johnson, is rapidly dragging an apathetic people into the quagmire of socialism. The end will be poverty and degradation for the United States of America. Who will bear the torch of liberty and where will it burn, after Americans have completed the sale of their magnificent birthright for the false promise of government-guaranteed security ? FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) The roll call vote on the rent subsidy, as well as the vote on final passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, will be included in a subsequent issue of this Report. ( 2 ) The remarks of U.

When will people awaken and take action to save their Republic ? That question harrows the souls of all patriots, because time is running out.

Representative Richard 1. Roudebush

are taken from his newsletter of July 5, 1965. The remarks of other U.

Representatives are taken from debates on the

rent subsidy and can be found in the Congressional Records of June 28, 29, and 30, 1965.

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?

Subscription:

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -

1962 Bound Volume 196� Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

THE

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 232

THE o

IJtlll SmootlIe,olt Vol. I I, No. 30

(Broadcast 5 1 8)

July 26, 1 965 DAN SMOOT

BIG BROTHER "A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thougbt Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that h e is alone. Wherevef he may be, asleep Ot· awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected . wlthou : warn�ng and .wlthout kno u:zng . that he is being inspected. 1'!othing that he d'!es is indifferent. His frendships, his hIS behavIor toward hIS wIfe and children, the expressIon of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters elaxatlons, � zn sleep, e�en the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanor, but �ny eccentrtClty, . howe �er small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an znner struggle, IS certam to be detected. He has no freedom or choice in any direction whatever." 1 984, by George Orwell -

T he Social Security Act

of 1935 created the federal-state unemployment system. The purpose was to force establishment of state unemployment insurance programs. To do this, the act imposed a 3% federal unemployment tax on payrolls of all employers with eight employees or more but provided that 90% of the taxes thus raised would be given to states that adopted their own unemployment insurance programs. ( 1 ) The law accomplished its purpose. By June 30, 1 93 7, all states, plus the District of Columbia and the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, had established unemployment insurance programs, in order to get 90% of the unemployment tax money which the federal government was taking away from private employers. ( 1 ) Many changes have been made in the federal statute - the most notable, in 1954, when the tax was imposed on all employers with four employees or more ( instead of eight or more) ; and in 1960, when the federal tax was increased from 3% to 3 . 1% of covered private payroUsY) The federal unemployment tax money given to states ( plus unemployment taxes which states themselves levy on employers ) must be kept in an unemployment trust fund managed by the U. S. Treasury. It is disbursed to states for benefits to unemployed workers. The portion of unemploy ment tax money retained by the federal government is used to pay administrative expenses of fed eral and state agencies, and to build a reserve fund for loans or gifts to states that run out of un employment insurance money. (1 ) _

Smoot Report, Inc., m�i1THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan TAylor 1 -2303 (office Telephone 14; 752 Texas Dallas, Station, Lakewood 9538, Box O. ing address P. months, $18.00 for two y � rs. address 6441 Gaston Avenue). Subscription rates: $ 10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 . a year. ��prmts of specific For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail (including APO and FPO) $14.50 bulk madmg to one person. issues: 1 copy for 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ 1O.00-eac? price for dehvery. Texas for Texas Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second Class

mail privilege authorized

No Reproductions Permitted. Page 233

at Dallas,

Texas.

During the first 2 5 years of this system, em ployer contributions (plus interest) totaled 30 billion, 400 million dollars ; benefits paid to work ers totaled 24 billion, 200 million dollars. ( 1 ) The system brilliantly serves the purposes of persons afflicted with the anti -capitalist mental illness with which socialism has infected the mod ern world: union officials, employees who have been taught that employers are their enemies, so cialists, communists, welfare-state liberals, poli ticians buying votes with promises of something for nothing. Since the unemployment tax is levied only on employers(2 ) ( in addition to all their other taxes ) , everyone but an employer can advocate expansion of the system without risking an in crease in his own taxes. Advocates of the govern ment program win support of those who receive unemployment compensation, while employers (who pay the compensation) are considered tight fisted oppressors of the down-and-out. The system also brilliantly serves empire-build ing purposes of the bureaucracy. A vast army of state employees who administer unemployment in surance programs are supervised, regulated, and controlled by another army of federal employees. Operation of the program has enabled federal agencies to exert dictatorial powers over state gov ernments, in violation of the U. S. Constitution in defiance of the spirit and purpose of our federal system. By threatening to withhold federal tax money, federal bureaucrats virtually dictate laws for state governments to enact; compel adminis trative changes in state operations ; practically force state agencies to favor some citizens over others, under pretext of protecting "minority group" interests.

Employment service is an integral part of the federal government's unemployment services. In 1918, the United States, Employment Service (USES ) was established (within the Department of Labor) for emergency labor-mobilization dur ing Wodd War I. The war ended, but USES survived and grew. Created during a war emer-

gency to recruit labor when there were more jobs than workers, the agency was expanded in 1933 to recruit labor when there were about 1 3 000 , 000 more workers than jobs. USES eventually be came a unit in the Labor Department's Bureau of Employment Security, which has responsibility for both unemployment and employment services of the federal government. (1,3) ,

A primary function of USES has been to cre ate a nationwide network of state employment services under federal control - j ust as state un employment services are under federal control. Budget figures show how this function has ex panded. In 1932, the USES budget was $1,000,000 ; in 1964, $200,000,000. In addition to its own budget, USES now receives annually many mil lions allocated for President Johnson'S war on poverty. (8) Through USES, the federal government con trols every tax dollar the states raise for their employment service operations. The budget of every state employment service must be approved by the U. S. Labor Department. To get this ap proval, each state must conform to Labor De partment policies. (1,8) In 1 963, the Labor Department demonstrated its dictatorial control over state governments. The Pennsylvania Senate passed a bill limiting state employment offices to helping only the unem ployed and the under-employed. Labor Depart ment officials claimed the bill raised "serious con formity questions" which could cut off federal funds for Pennsylvania in the future and require immediate payment of an old federal loan of $ 192,000,000 to the Pennsylvania unemployment compensation fund. This would have bankrupted the state. To keep federal money already obtained, and to get more, Pennsylvania Governor William W. Scranton led a movement to kill the state leg islation that federal bureaucrats disliked. (3) The purpose of USES, when it was expanded during the depression of the 1930's, was to help the unemployed ; but its present goal appears to be a federal monopoly over the nation's work force. If this goal is ever reached, no American

Page 234

will be permitted to work in any job or occupa tion, or change employment, without government orders specifying how, where, and when he may work, and for how much. Note some comments by U. S. Representative Frank T. Bow (Ohio Republican) in the October 1 964, issue of The Reader's Digest: "There is mounting evidence to support the charge that the USES has 'turned its back on the unemployed.' Instead of concentrating on helping our jobless, the agency is expanding more and more into fields where it is neither needed nor wanted. If this is permitted to continue it can only result in absolute control of American man power and its allocation. The surrender of our free enterprise system will be complete." ( 3 )

To prove his charge, Representative Bow cited the following: ( 1 ) The federal-state Employment Service tests and counsels senior students in some 1 0,000 U. S. high schools (about half the high schools in the country) . Though some psychologists seriously question the qualifications of untrained govern ment personnel to operate in this sensitive field, USES promises to extend its activity to all h igh schools. (2) USES hopes to handle job placement of

every college student in the United States. USES claims it can save many colleges $50,000 to $ 1 00,000 a year if they will accept USES services in lieu of their own placement operations. USES boasts that nearly 300 colleges and universities already use government counseling and guidance.

(3) USES wants private businesses to hire ex

clusively through the Employment Service.

placement, USES has spent huge sums of tax money on plush furnishings and decor, to give its "Professional Office Network" offices an air of affluence. ( 3 )

Private employment agencies must, of course, charge fees for their services - to pay their own expenses and to pay taxes for the support of their biggest competitors, the public employment agen cies, which operate on tax money and charge no service fees. Despite such outrageously unfair competition from their own government, more than 4,000 private employment agencies are still in business. This fact alone indicates that private agencies do a better job than public agencies do. Otherwise, private agencies would have no cus tomers. (4)

Bureaucrats are determined to drive private em ployment agencies out of business. During the summer of 1964, academic experts testified before a U. S. House labor subcommittee. They said Con gress should force all employers to list all job openings with USES. ( 3) Bernard Teets, director of the Colorado State Employment Service recently boasted : "In five years, if we are not hampered by new restrictions, and if we can get adequate funds from Congress, we'll be handling 90 percent of the [ job placement ] business. We are not living in a free-enterprise system, but rather operating under a controlled economy." ( 3 )

Mr. Teets said he now controls 400/0 of all placements in Colorado and looks forward to eliminating private employment agencies. (4)

(4) Many labor union officials - who lobby for legislation to force employers to list all job opportunities with the Employment Service-have turned over their own hiring halls to USES state subsidiaries. (5) USES has enlarged its own jurisdiction, in order to place more than 250,000 professional

and managerial personnel (many of whom are already employed) in new jobs each year. This activity (not authorized by Congress) has nearly tripled in the last ten years. USES has opened 1 60 "Professional Office Network" offices through out the country. To attract more clients seeking government help in professional and managerial

On October 9, 1964, Robert O. Snelling, Sr., president of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Na tional Employment Association, spoke in Pitts burgh about the "ominous federal manpower grab," saying: "It may amaze you to know that there is now a bill in Congress-called the Fogarty Bill-that, if passed, would make jobs and job seeking a federal monopoly and would do away completely with the private employment agency industry. The USES has declared open war on the private employment agencies and is blatantly spending

Page 235

billions of your dollars to compete with the pri vate employment agencies . . . . "Another example of the spreading danger of the government manpower grab is dramatized in California, where the . . . . state-controlled em ployment service has entered a bill in the Cali fornia Legislature for each of the last four years to reduce the charges of the private employment agencies to less than I % of a year's wages."(4)

Private employment agencies could not survive on such low fees. If they charge too much, no one has to patronize them. USES has been accused of falsifying its own achievements. Note the following from U. S. Rep resentative Bow: "Willard P . Dudley, director of the Ohio Bu reau of Unemployment Compensation, discovered last October [ 1 963 ] that placement figures at the Cleveland employment office were padded. Be cause of pressure from Washington to increase placements, as many as half of all placements claimed by the office were fraudulent. "Dudley said USES officials deplored releasing the results of his investigation because the agen cy's appropriation was pending before the Con gress. "Padding the figures is, however, apparently nothing new with USES. In Akron, Ohio, 1 40 placements claimed turned out to be jobs an Em ployment Service supervisor assigned to his three sons, one of whom was simultaneously drawing unemployment compensation. Ward A. Riley, former Employment · Service chief in Cleveland, shrugs off the hiking of placement figures as old stuff. " 'You'll find that in every employment office in the country,' says Riley. 'They do it in Chi cago, Pittsburgh, and Podunk. I don't care where it is. It applies not just to Cleveland, but from Maine to California. It's been the pattern every where since the 1 930's.' "There is more involved in the practice than the natural desire of clerks to justify their jobs. The bogus statistics make it appear as though USES is doing such a fine job that it deserves public support for its expansion."(3 )

Government not only falsifies its employment

service achievements, but also distorts unemploy-

ment statistics - to show need for multiple, multi

billion-dollar programs to fight unemployment and poverty. On February 1 , 1965, President Lyndon B. John son announced that he was expanding federal em ployment and job-training services. He said: "Unemployment i n America stands a t almost 5 percent. Yet we face the paradox that, with nearly four million people unemployed "-it often takes weeks to have an appliance or other repair made "-hospitals and many other community serv ices are understaffed "-housewives cannot get the help they seek for work in the home or in the yard "-we have been admitting almost 200,000 foreign workers annually because American workers were not considered available "-and the papers are full of Help Wanted Ads. "I am convinced that a substantial number of j obs can be developed from such presently exist ing and unmet service needs - in business, at home, on the farm and in the community. There fore, I am launching a nationwide Job Develop ment Program in service and related fields . . . . "By July, 1 965, this Job Development Program should reach 1 0,000 jobs a month. This initial five-month stage can be accomplished under exist ing law. It will be supported out of funds already appropriated or requested in my Budget Mes sage. "I will also propose to the Congress the adop tion of legislation by amendment of the Man power Development and Training Act and in, if necessary, other appropriate ways which will give this program the broadest and firmest possible basis . . . " ( 5 ) .

U. S. Senator Joseph S. Clark and U. S. Rep resentative Elmer J. Holland (Pennsylvania Dem ocrats ) introduced legislation to implement the President's proposal for amending the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.(6) Con gress quickly enacted the legislation. The Presi dent signed it, April 26, 1965 .

Page 236

Among other things, the Clark-Holland Act: ( l ) Empowers the Secretary of Labor to initiate federal job.development programs when the Sec· retary feels that private business activity is in· adequate;

(2) Expands benefits for persons enrolled in the government's job.training programs-author. izing, for example, special federal assistance to j ob.training graduates who cannot get work be· cause of inability to post bond for minor offenses, or for other reasons;

officials about present employment conditions. A labor expert said : "Among people with any skill, full employ. ment is already here. And almost anyone, skilled or unskilled, can get a job of some sort if he really needs and wants one."

The personnel manager of an Oklahoma oil company said : "We need everything from unskilled laborers to salesmen with college degrees."

(3) Empowers the Secretary of Labor to grant tax money and contracts to governmental and non·profi t private organizations, to provide spe· cialized training for special groups. ( 5 . 6 . 7 )

An Indiana moving-company official, whose city was described as a depressed area one year ago, said :

Note that President Johnson began his Febru ary 1 , 1965 , speech by saying "unemployment in America stands at almost 57'0'" In March, 1 965 , federal officials claimed that, of the 73,909,000 persons who constitute the U. S. civilian labor force, 5 . 1% ( 3,740,000 ) were unemployed. Check ing these figures closely, U. S. News & World Re port discovered that, of the 3,740,000 Americans counted as unemployed :

"We've been able to find only half the office workers we need, even though we are offering double our wages of 1 960."

( 1 ) Nearly 20 % were m arried women whose husbands were working;

(2) Almost 23% were teen·age boys and girls,

many of whom were living with parents or at· tending school and seeking only part.time work;

(3) Less than 33.3 % were married men with families, most of whom had been out of work less than 1 5 weeks; (4) Only 3.6% ( 1 35,000) were "hard core" un· employed married men out of work for six months or longer. (8)

These findings show that less than two-tenths of one percent (0. 1 87'0) of the civilian labor force can be legitimately classified as persons un able to find work and provide for their families. Compare this with conditions during Wodd War II: all American manpower was in demand ; yet the annual rate of unemployment never fell be low 1.2 7'0' (8) u. S. News & World Report interviewed em ployers, labor experts, and private job-placement

A job-placement expert said: "A large part o f the unemployed, especially the long-term ones, are just plain unemployable. Some are functional illiterates. Even those who finish school lack real training or skills or the ability to learn them. "Many of the 'hard core' unemployed come out of a pool·hall culture, often with police rec· ords . . . . We find they frequently don't under· stand the simple concepts of getting to work on time and staying until quitting time."

A Chicago employment agency teported : "Employers are crying for unskilled help in factories, restaurants and filling stations, and they're paying up to $80 a week. But some work· ers would rather live on the dole. They figure: 'Why work when you can collect up to $60 a week in unemployment pay?' "

A New York labor department official de scribed certain millinery workers, "who are able to stagger the two big produc. tion seasons, one for winter felt hats, one for summer straw, so that they work just long enough to qualify for unemployment pay the rest of the year. Many then spend winters in Florida."

A North Carolina furniture maker said: "We sent recruiters to the hills of Appalachia for men to train, but only a few responded. And

Page 237

then we found most are unhappy when you take them out of the hills. They'd prefer to be home without a j ob."

A New York job-placement official commented : "Newspaper ads show a big demand for kitchen and dishwashing help. But many white and Ne gro youths won't take the jobs. They feel that such work is only fit for Puerto Ricans."

A New Jersey county vocational school recently dropped a waitress training program because only a handful of applicants showed up. A school offi cial said : "We discovered that local Negro leaders told the girls that jobs as waitresses were beneath them. Yet most of the girls getting this advice couldn't read or write."(S)

The governmental drive to control private em

ployers and employees moves on many fronts. For example, federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act) now requires most private employers to pay a min imum wage of $1.25 an hour. Unions want the coverage extended and the minimum raised to $2.00. On May 18, 1965, President Johnson de manded extension of coverage to 4,500,000 work ers not now covered, but disappointed unions by not demanding increase in the minimum wage. ( 9 , 10 )

Thousands of Americans, especially school chil dren seeking part-time or summer work, are al ready unemployed because potential employers cannot afford to pay $1.2 5 an hour. Raising the minimum wage, and extending its coverage to four and a half million more workers, will force additional hundreds of thousands of people out of private employment. It will also destroy many small businesses j ust getting started, and others barely getting by - businesses which are impor tant to the present economy and future growth of the nation ; businesses which perform a valuable public service by providing on-the-job training for unskilled workers. Government contracts provide powerful con trols over private employment. Some of the con trols, so subtle that victims hardly realize what is happening, reveal that the federal bureaucracy

aims to dominate the thinking and personal habits of workers, not only at work but at home. For example, the government encourages de fense contractors to adopt an employee-motivation program called Zero Defects. Employees anon ymously fill out questionnaires each week, con fessing to any errors made. They are told that generous government contracts are awarded com panies who support the Zero Defects program, and promised that if employees voluntarily sign pledges to cooperate, the companies will be in fluenced in decisions about promotions, salary raises, lay-offs. (11) Edith Kermit Roosevelt, in a column entitled "Big Brother's Aides," published by the Shreve port Journal, May 1 , 1965, said: "Under the Zero Defects program, grown workers in these industries with government con tracts, including scientists and executives, are treated like . . . children to be rewarded or punished for their behavior. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Norden division of United Aircraft Corp. awards red vests - to be worn on the job - to workers in departments re ceiving low error rates. At Litton Industries, Inc., employees are given lapel buttons which they are encouraged to wear daily. These depict a ficti tious character with a mask and cape named Zero (for Zero Defects) , brandishing a rapier."(U )

Zero Defects propaganda encourages employees and their families to follow the program in their private lives. One such piece of propaganda tells a 1984-type success story - about a good zero defector who improved his lot by informing on fellow workers for not conforming to Zero De fects' image. (11) While extending controls over private employ ment, through direct intervention and indirect pressures, officialdom lures workers into govern ment employment. On May 1 2 , 1965, President Johnson demanded immediate pay raises for fed eral employees and asked Congress to authorize a study every four years to compare federal pay with pay in private industry. Johnson suggested that, after each study, the President should have

authority to make salary changes for top positions

Page 238

in the executive, legislative, and j udicial branches. New salaries established by the President would go into effect automatically, unless vetoed by �ongress. (12) This proposal would invade the leg Islature's constitutional responsibility for public revenue. It would make members of Congress be holden to the President for money - enabling th�m to �et pay raises which the President pre sCf1?es, WIthout the political risk of proposing and votmg for their own raises.

On April 1 5 , 1965 , The Dallas Morning News reported Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz as saying, with pride: "One of every eight workers in the nation is on the public payroll . . . . More than one-third of all U. S. professional and technical workers are on the public payroll."

Is the Secretary of Labor proud because govern ment is accomplishing its purpose ? What is the purpose of government operations which destroy private businesses, and of government programs which encourage or compel workers to leave pri vate employment for life on the public dole or public payroll ? U. S. Representative Bow comments on USES testing and guidance counseling activities : "The ineptitude of USES testers is pointed up by the experience of Marcellus S. Merrill, presi dent of the Merrill Engineering Laboratories in Denver. An electrical engineer, he numbers

W H O

I S

among his many inventions an electronic wheel . balancing device for automobiles, and precision gyroscopes for space satellites. "Out of scientific curiosity, Merrill dropped by an employment office in Denver and took a 2 Yz -hour aptitude test. " 'They told me I might make a teacher, but o�ly in the junior grades of a rural school,' Mer nIl reported. 'They also thought I might do as a file clerk or a male nurse or possibly even a test ing clerk. But they said I could never hope to make the grade as an electrician or an engineer.' "It is impossible to calculate how many young people - potential doctors, lawyers, scientists have been steered into wrong careers by such tests."(3 ) _

Bow also alleges that USES bases job place ments too largely on political reliability. ( 3 ) When the federal government controls employ ment of every individual, a person's career will depend on performance during government-ad ministered tests, and on loyalty to the ruling po litical party. "We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagin ing that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable. Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like the animals.. Humanity is the Party. The others are outside - irrelevant." - 1 984, by George

Orwell

D A N

S M O OT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941 he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get subscribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 239

FOOTNOTES

( 5 ) "Job Development Program, " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 5, 1965, pp. 2 1 5, 2 19

( 6 ) "Manpower Programs," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Re port, February 5, 1965, pp. 1 82-3

( 1 ) "Bureau of Employment Security," United States Governmem Organization Manual, 1963-64, ( Superintendent of Documents,

(7) "Manpower Programs," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Re

$ 1 .75 ) , pp. 3 16-2 1 ; "labor Sought Unemployment Program

(8) "The Myth Of Big-Scale Unemployment," U. S. News &

port, April 9, 1965, p. 612

Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 20402, price:

Overhaul in 1961," Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1961, pp.

World Report, May 10, 1965, pp. 80-2

273-6 ( 2 ) All federal unemployment tax is levied only on employers.

( 9 ) "Text Of President johnson's State Of The Union Message," Cong" essional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 8, 1965, pp.

The 1961 Congressional Quarterly Almanac ( page 274) notes

5 1-2

that the states of Alabama, Alaska, and New Jersey place a minuscule unemployment tax on employees who earn $7,200.00

( 10 ) "$2 Hourly Minimum labor Aim," AP dipatch, The Dallas

or less.

Times Herald, February 26, 1965, p . 3A; "LBJ Hits 'Right-to

Work,' " The Dallas Morning News, May 19, 1965, p. 1

( 3 ) "The Great Manpower Grab," by U. S. Representative Frank T. Bow ( Ohio Republican ) , The Reader's Digest, October, 1964 ( 4 ) "Snelling Warns Business Executives Of Federal Manpower Grab," Snelling and Snelling, Inc., News Release 64574, October

( 1 1 ) "Big Brother's Aides," by Edith Kermit Roosevelt, Shreveport Journal, May 1, 1965 ( 1 2 ) "lBJ Seeks To Hike Federal, Military Pay," AP dispatch from Washington, D. C, The Dallas Times Herald, May 12, 1965, pp. 1, 24

9, 1964

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?

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214

Page 240

TAYLOR 1 -2303

IHE o

1)1111 SmootlIepo,t Vol.

1 1, No. 3 1

(Broadcast

5 1 9)

August

2, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

TH I R D RO L L C A L LS, 1 9 6 5

In the May 3 1 ,

1965 , Report ( "First Roll Calls, 1 965 " ) , we tabulated 14 roll call votes in the national Congress (seven in the House, seven in the Senate) during the first two months of the year. In the June 14, 1 965, issue ( "Second Roll Calls, 1965 " ) , we tabulated 14 roll calls taken during March, April, and May. Herein, we tabulated 14 roll calls (seven in the House, seven in the Senate) taken during April, May, and early June. The present Senate, though it contains a few good conservatives, is an aggregation of social ists who calls themselves "liberals" or "moderates. " Only 2 2 Senators have conservative ratings of 60% or better ( 1 2 Republicans, 10 Democrats ) . Only four (three Democrats, one Republi can) have conservative ratings of 90% or better : Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis Robertson (Virginia Democrats ) , 957'0 ; Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Republican) , 9 17'0 ; Richard B. Russell (Georgia Democrat) , 90%. In the House, however, a fine group of conservatives have fought with courage and deter mination against the President's unconstitutional programs. Their leadership has encouraged others, and they are gaining strength. On the 2 1 House roll calls which we have tabulated thus far in 1965 , 144 Representatives ( 100 Republicans, 44 Democrats) have conservative ratings of 607'0 or better. Of these 144, 64 have conservative ratings of 900/0 or better ; 2 3 have 1000/0 rat ings. Here are the 2 3 Representatives ( 1 5 Republicans, 8 Democrats) with 1000/0 conservative ratings : Alabama : Buchanan, Dickinson, Edwards, Martin ( all Republicans) California: Clausen and Younger (Republicans) Georgia: Callaway (Republican) Illinois : Reid (Republican) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing address P. O. Box 9538, 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, $ 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 $lO.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 241

Iowa: Gross (Republican) Kansas: Dole (Republican) Louisiana: Long, Passman, Waggoner ( Demo

crats )

Abernethy, Colmer, Williams (Democrats ) ; Walker (Republican ) Mississippi:

Missouri: Hall (Republican) Nebraska: Martin (Republican ) Nevada: Baring (Democrat) Ohio : Devine (Republican) Oklahoma: Belcher (Republican) Texas: Pool (Democrat)

Thus, to date, the House, in the 89th Congress, is almost equal to the House in the 88th Congress ( 1963-1964) , which had 1 5 9 representatives with conservative ratings of 60% or above. The pres ent House is much more conservative than the House in the 87th Congress ( 1961-1962 ) , which had only 83 Representatives with conservative ratings of 60% or above. One election held in 1965 indicates growing conservative strength. On June 1 5 , 1965 , Albert W. Watson ( formerly a Democrat Representative from South Carolina) was re-elected to his House seat as a Republican. Watson's opponent was a "moderate" Democrat. A close contest was ex pected ; but Watson, a strong conservative, got 69.7% of the total vote-in a heavy voter turnout.

IMF Funds On April 27, 1 965 (by a stand of 203 to 91 ) , the House passed HR 6497, an administration bill which increases U. S. contributions to the Inter national Monetary Fund by $ 1 ,035,000,00 0.00. This brings our total IMF contributions to $5 ,160,000,000.00. Harry Dexter White (member of the Council on Foreign Relations and undercover Soviet spy) planned the International Monetary Fund at the Bretton Woods Conference, July 1 to 22, 1944.

White ( first director of the IMF) established basic policies which the United States government has followed since the end of World War II. These policies, of which the IMF is an integral part, were intended to accomplish 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; ( 2 ) Build the industrial capacity of other na tions, at our expense, to eliminate American pro ductive superiority; ( 3 ) Take world markets ( and much of the American domestic market) away from Ameri can producers until capitalistic America could no longer dominate world trade; ( 4 ) Entwine American affairs - economic, political, cultural, social, educational, even reli gious - with those of other nations, until the United States could no longer have an independ ent policy, either domestic or foreign, but must become an interdependent link in a worldwide socialist chain. The new IMF-funds bill and the new foreign aid authorization ( discussed later in this Report) indicate that the Harry Dexter White plans are still being followed. They are near fulfillment. The vote on IMF funds is recorded in Column 1 5 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against this additional grant of our tax money to the International Monetary Fund.

Helicopter Subsidies On April 29, 1 965, the House and the Senate passed Conference versions of HR 7091, the Sec ond Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 1 965. Prior to passage, the House rejected a mo tion by administration forces to include $942,000 for additional subsidies to helicopter service in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The stand was 1 5 9 for the additional subsidy, 243

Page 242

against. The Senate agreed to the House action, and President Johnson later announced he was considering dropping the helicopter subsidy after 1 966. The vote is recorded in Column 1 6 under

House, C indicating a conservative stand against

subsidies for helicopter operations.

National Council of Arts As pointed out in "Second Roll Calls, 1 965," our government, in the hands of totalitarian liber als, is moving toward control of the arts, under guise of promoting art, denying that federal aid will bring federal control, ignoring the fact that any kind of federal activity in the arts is uncon stitutional. Another significant step was taken on April 29, 1965 , when the House (by a stand of 250 to 126) passed HR 47 14, a bill authorizing an annual appropriation of $ 1 50,000 for the Na tional Council of Arts. The vote is recorded in Column 1 7 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against this unconstitutional use of tax money.

Foreign Aid On May 25, 1 965, the House (by a stand of 263 to 162 ) passed HR 7750, the Foreign Assist ance Act of 1965. The bill authorized $3,367,670,000.00 for foreign aid during fiscal year 1 966. Some of this money will go directly to Latin American labor unions, for housing projects. Rep resentative E. Ross Adair (Indiana Republican) proposed an amendment to specify that only "non-communist dominated" unions will get our tax money. Administration forces opposed the Adair amendment, which the House (by a stand of 2 3 3 to 192) rejected. The vote on the Adair amendment is recorded in Column 18 under House, C indicating a con servative stand for stipulating that American tax money cannot be given to Latin American labor

unions unless they are "non-communist domi nated." The vote on passage of the Foreign As sistance Act of 1 965 is recorded in Column 19 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against this unconstitutional giveaway of our tax money to foreigners. During Senate debates on the Foreign Assist ance Act of 1965 , Senator Jack Miller ( Iowa Re publican) introduced an amendment which would have prohibited aid to any country more than one year behind in payment of its dues to the United Nations. The Johnson administration opposed this amendment; and the Senate (by a stand of 63 to 30) rejected it. This vote is recorded in Column 20 under Senate, C indicating a conserva tive stand for stopping aid to nations which will not pay their past-due UN dues. The Johnson ad ministration's incredibly humiliating stand con cerning the refusal of nations (particularly the Soviet Union) to pay UN dues, is set out in some detail in the April 1 9, 1965, issue of this Report, "Through The Looking Glass." For years, liberals have tried to get long-term foreign-aid appropriations, to avoid the annual conservative opposition to this disastrous, uncon stitutional program ; but Congress has refused to authorize foreign aid for more than one year at a time. This year, the Senate version of the Foreign Assistance Act (S 1837) authorizes for eign aid for two fiscal years ( 1966 and 1 967 ) . Senator Ernest Gruening ( Alaska Democrat) proposed an amendment to eliminate the authori zation for 1967. Complying with administration wishes, the Senate (by a stand of 66 to 28, on June 9, 1965 ) rejected the proposed Gruening amendment. This vote is recorded in Column 2 1 under Senate, C indicating a conservative stand for restricting foreign-aid authorizations to one year.

UAR and Indonesia Aid The United States helped Sukarno become dic tator of Indonesia and helped Nasser become dic tator of the United Arab Republic. Nasser is an

Page 243

instrument of Soviet foreign policy. Sukarno is a friend and supporter of the Chinese communists. Both are outspoken, implacable enemies of the United States. Yet, both have received vast sums of our tax money as gifts and loans, under various foreign-assistance programs. Every year, our gov ernment, through the Food for Peace program, gives Nasser and Sukarno huge quantities of our agricultural products. In May, 1 965, when the House was debating HR 8370 (Agriculture Department appropriations for fiscal 1966) , conservatives tried to amend the bill to prevent allocation of funds for export of U. S. food to Nasser and Sukarno. On May 26, the House (by a stand of 2 1 7 to 1 96) complied with administration demands and rej ected the proposed amendment. The vote is recorded in Column 20 under House, C indicating a conserv ative stand against giving our agricultural pro ducts to Nasser and Sukarno.

On June 9, 1965 , the House ( by a stand of 244 to 180) passed HR 8464, authorizing a "tempor ary" increase in the national debt to $328 billion. In 1959, Congress set a permanent statutory limit of $285 billion on the national debt. "Temporary" increases have since been made in each session of Congress. The debt limit was "temporarily" raised three times in 1963. The vote is recorded in Column 2 1 under House, C indicating a conservative stand against increasing the national debt limit, in violation of the 1959 statute.

1 0, 1965 , issue of this Report, "Voting Rights Bill. " Prior to final passage, the Senate adopted amendments which made the voting rights bill even worse than it was when originally intro duced. On May 19, the Senate (by a stand of 67 to 29) accepted an amendment, proposed by Senator Hiram L. Fong (Hawaiian Republican) , which authorizes the U. S. Attorney General to assign federal poll watchers in voting districts where federal voting registrars are assigned. On May 20, the Senate (by a stand of 59 to 3 2 ) accepted an amendment sponsored by the two New York Senators, Republican Jacob K. Javits and Democrat Robert F. Kennedy. The Javits-Ken nedy amendment can force states to grant the vote to a person who cannot read or write English, if the person has a sixth grade education from a school conducted under the American flag. On May 2 5, the Senate (by a vote of 70 to 30) adopted a cloture motion made by Senator Philip Hart (Michigan Democrat) . Cloture limits de bate, so that opponents of a bill cannot discuss it thoroughly. Invoking cloture on a bill as out rageously unconstitutional as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is most alarming. The vote on the Fong amendment is recorded in Column 1 5 under Senate, C indicating a con servative stand against. The vote on the Javits Kennedy amendment is recorded under Column 16, C indicating a conservative stand against. The vote on cloture is recorded in Column 17, C in dicating a conservative vote against. The vote on passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is re corded in Column 1 8 under Senate, C indicating a conservative stand against the Act.

Voting Rights Bill

Public Works Act

On May 26, 1965 , the Senate ( by a stand of 80 to 20) passed S 1 5 64, the Voting Rights Act of 1 965. For details on this unconstitutional, ex post facto law against six southern states, see the May

On June 1, 1965, the Senate ( by a stand of 78 to 1 7 ) passed S 1648, the Public Works and Eco nomic Development Act of 1 965, which authorizes annual appropriations of $665,000,000 for the

National Debt Increase

Page 244

next five years, to aid economically depressed areas. The money is to be used to develop water works, sanitary and storm sewers, industrial parks, police and fire stations, tourism facilities, airports, watershed protection and flood prevention proj ects. Funds may be used for other projects such as residential streets, hospitals, vocational education facilities, community centers. The bill "encourages" regional economiC plan-

ROLL

ning. It authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate "economic development regions" which would cross state lines ; it authorizes the Secretary to "invite and encourage" states to establish multi state regional planning commissions. The vote on this bill is recorded in Column 1 9 under Senate, C indicating a conservative vote against this unconstitutional invasion of states rights and squandering of tax money.

C ALL

V O T E S

S E NA T E A lie 1 1 indicates a conservative stand.

An " L " indicates a liberal stand.

A 1 I 0 1 t indicates the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

C olumn H I 5 -- Voting Right s Bill. Fang amendment. S 1 5 64; # 1 6 - - Voting Rights Bill, Javits -Kennedy amendment, S 1 564; # 1 7 -- Voting R ights Bill, cloture vote, S 1 5 64; # 1 8 -- Voting R ights Bill. passage, S 1 564; # 1 9 -- Public Works and Economic Development Act o( 1 9 6 5 . S 1 64 8 ; # 2 0 - - Foreign Aid, UN non-payment ban S 1 8 3 7 ; #2 1 - - Foreign Aid, stop 1 9 6 7 authorization, S 1 8 3 7

ALABAMA Hill, Lister (D) Sparkman , John J. (D) ALASKA �ett. E . L . (D) Gruening . Ernest (D) ARIZONA Fannin, Paul J. (R) Hayden. Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright. J. W. (D) McClellan. John L. (D) CALIFORNIA Kuchel. Thomas H. (R) Murphy. George (R) COLORADO Allott. Gordon (R) Dominick. Peter H. (R) CONNECTICUT Dodd. Thomas J. (D) RibicoIf. Abraham A . (D) DELAWARE Bog g s . J. Caleb (R) William s . John J. (R) FLORIDA Holland, Spessard L. (D) Smather s , George A . (0) GEORGIA � , Richard B . (0) T almadge . Herman E. (D) HAWAII ---rcmg . Hiram L . (R) Inouye . Daniel K . (D) IDAHO --a:w:rch. Frank (D) Jordan, Len B. (R) ILLINOIS Dirksen. Everett McK. (R) Douglas , Paul H . (0) INDIANA � Birch (D) Hartke . Vance (0) IOWA �ckenlooper , Bourke B. (R) Miller . Jack (R) KANSAS �son. Frank (R) Pearson , James B. (R)

C C

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

C L

C C

L L

C o

C L

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

L C

C L

C C

L L

KENTUCKY Cooper. John Sherman (R) Morton. Thruston B . (R) LOUISIANA Ellender . Allen J. (0) Long, Russell B. (D) MAINE �kie. Edmund S . (D) Smith . Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Brewster. Daniel B. (D) Tyding s . Joseph D. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy. Edward M. (0) SaItonstall, Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart. Philip A. (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy. Eugene J. (0) Mondale, Walter F. (0) MISSISSIPPI Eastland. James O. (D) Stennis . John (0) MISSOURI �Edward V . (0) Symington . Stuart (0) MONTANA Mansfield, Mike (0) Metcalf, Lee (0) NEBRASKA Curti s . Carl T. (R) Hruska, Roman L . (R) NEVADA � Alan (D) Canon, Howard W. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cotton, Norris (R) Mclntyre, Thomas J. (D) NEW JERSEY Case, Clifford P . (R) William s . Harrison A . , Jr. (D) NEW MEXICO Anderson. Clinton P. (D) Montoy a . Joseph M. (D) NEW YORK Javits . Jacob K. (R) Kennedy. Robert F . (0)

L L L

Page 245

L L

L o

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

C L

L L

L o

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

C L

L L

C L

L L

�L L

C L

L L

L C L

C L

NORTH CAROLINA Ervin, Sam J • Jordan,

B. Everett

(D)

NORTH DAKOT A

Burdick. Quentin N. Young, Milton R.

OHIO

----r:u ::a 5 c h e . Young .

Frank J.

Fred R.

(D)

Monrone y . A. S. Mike

(D)

Neube r ge r . MaU1'ine B. Clark. Joseph S.

Scott , Hugh

(D)

(R)

Pasto r e . John O. Pell,

Clai.borne

(D)

(R)

SOUTH DAKOTA McGove rn . George Mundt. Karl E.

(D)

(R)

unions.

- -

IMF Funds ,

HR 7750;

#19

ALABAMA

Andrews. Glenn

Jr.

•

(R)

Dickinson. William L.

Edwar d s . W.

Jack,

Jone s . Robert E.

(R)

III

(R)

(D)

Martin, James D.

L C

Jr.

•

ALASKA

(D) (R)

Senne r . George F •

•

Udall. Morris K.

(D)

ARKANSAS

Gathing s . E . Harri s , Oren Mills.

(O)

Jr.

c. (O)

Wilbur D.

Trimble . James W.

Bell.

Alphonzo

(R)

Brown, George E •

(O)

Cameron. Ronald B . Clausen. Don

(R)

Clawson, Del

(R)

Cohelan. Jeffery

Corman. James C .

(D)

Edwards . W. Donlon

Gubser. Charles S . (D)

Hanna. Richard T .

(D)

(R)

(D)

Holifield. Chet Hosmer,

Craig

King , Cecil R.

Leggett. Rob�rt L .

(D)

Lipscomb. Glenard P .

Mailliar d , William S. McFall, John J.

(D)

Mille r . George P .

Mos s . John E.

(D)

Reinecke. Edwin

Roosevelt , " James

(R)

Roybal, Edward R .

(D)

Talcott . Burt L .

(R)

Utt, James B.

(R)

Younger, J. Arthur Aspinall. Wayne N. Frank

McVicker .o Roy H .

Rogers . Byron G.

c o

C C C C

C C

o o

L C

C C

C L

(D)

(R)

(D)

L L

(D)

o C L

o L L

o o

C C

Davi s . John W.

Flynt. John

(D)

Landrum. Phil M .

(D)

O'Neal. Maston E .

(D)

Stephens , Robert G . Tuten. J . Russell

•

(D)

WeHne r . Charles L.

IDAHO

Patsy

�sen,

L L

White . Compton

I•

John

ILLINOIS

�son. Annunzio .

L L

Arends,

Dawson.

Frank

Leslie

Collier , Harold

(R)

Jr.

•

(R)

McClory. Robert

L C

Findley. Paul

(R)

L L

Barratt

(D)

Rostenkowski , Dan

Schisler. Gale

Ronan. Dan

(D)

(R)

(D)

Rumsfeld. Donald

(D)

(R)

(D)

Shipley. George E.

(D)

Springer . William L . Yate s . Sidney R .

INDIANA

Adair . E.

Ross

Brademas . John

L L

Page 246

(D)

Pucinski . Roman C .

Reid. Charlotte

O'Hara.

(R)

P r i c e . Melvin (D)

(R)

(D)

(R)

(D)

Murphy. William T.

(R)

Derwinski . Edward J.

L L L L

(D)

(R)

(D)

(R)

communist

8464

L L

C C

L C

C C

L L

(D)

William

(D)

(R)

(O)

(D)

George

(D)

HAWAlI

Erlenbo r n . John N .

Jr.

�unaga. Spark M.

(D)

Mackay. James A.

L L

(D)

Gray. Kenneth

(R)

(D)

J • • Jr.

Hagan. G . Elliott

Mink.

(D)

Jr.

�ay. Howard H .

(D)

Sike s . Robert

Sydney.

GEORGIA

Peppe r , Claude

L L

Herlong,

Foreign A i d .

(R)

Gurney. Edward J .

National Debt i nc r e a s e .

(D)

Fascell. Dante B .

Jr.

(R)

(D)

•

Bennett . Charles E.

Fuqua. Don

McDowell , Harris B •

Michel. Robert

(D)

Cramer. William C.

HR 47 14; H 1 8

H2 1

(D)

Kluczynski . John C.

(D)

HR 8370:

National Council of Arts funds ,

L L

(D)

St. Onge, William

Gale W.

Irwin, Donald

Monogan. John S.

Grabowski . Bernard

CONNECTICUT (cont'd)

o o

(D)

o o

Rogers. Paul

Matth ews .

HR 709 1 ; H I 7

(D)

Haley. James A.

Gibbons , Sam M.

o o

L L

McGee

FLORIDA

L (D)

Simp s o n , Milward L.

(D)

Proxmire . William

DELAWARE

(D)

Nelson, Gaylord A .

W YOMING

C L

(D)

Byrd, Robert C .

Randolph , Jennings

(D)

WISCONSIN

(D)

Warren G.

Surplus food b a n t o UAR and I n d o n e s i a .

Magnuson,

A " 0 " indicates the R e p r e s entative was a b s e n t or did not take a public s t a n d .

Flood

Jackson. Henry M.

(R)

WEST VIRGINIA

(R)

Robertson, A . Willis

WASHINGTON

(R)

Win ston L .

(D)

George D.

�H arry

Aiken,

Prouty,

VIRGINIA

Mos s . Frank

VERMONT

----S;nnett. Wallace F .

(D)

7 7 5 0 : H20

(D)

Daddario. Emilio Q.

Giaimo, Robert N .

(D)

CONNE CTICUT

(R)

COLORADO

(Rl

Wilson. Charles

UTAH

Helicopter subsidies deletion,

L L

(D)

HOUS E

(R)

Yarborough , Ralph W.

indicates a liberal s t a n d .

(R)

(D)

Van Oeerlin. Lionel Wilson, Bob

pas s age ,

(R)

Teague, Charles M.

Tunney , John V .

ilL!! --

(D)

Smith, H . Allen

Evans .

{Rl

L (R)

TEXAS

(D)

� e r . John G.

(D)

(R)

Johnson. Harold T .

Sisk, B . F .

(D)

Hawkins . Augustus F .

(D)

Dyal. Kenneth W.

Hagen. Harlan

(D)

Jr .

•

(O)

Burton. Phillip

L L

(R)

CALIFORNIA Baldwin. John F.

(D)

Gore , Albert

Bas s , Ross

(D)

ARIZONA Rhod e s , John J.

(D)

(R)

Selden . Armistead I •

-ru;e;s . Ralph J.

H R 6497: # 1 6

(O)

(R)

Buchanan. John H •

Foreign A i d .

Andrew s , George

A " C " indicates a c o n s e rvative s t a n d . C olumn H 1 5

(D)

Thurmond, Strom

SOUTH CAROLINA Russell, Donald S .

(D)

PENNSYLVANIA

RHODE ISLAND

(D)

OREGON

Mor s e . Wayne

(D)

Stephen M.

OKLAHOMA Harris .

(D)

(R)

TENNESSEE

(O)

Jr.

•

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L o

C L C

INDIANA ( c ont'd) � William G.

MISSOURI (cont' d)

(R)

� Thomas B.

(R)

Denton. Winfield K.

(D)

Halleck, Charles A .

(Rl

Hall. Durward G.

(R)

Hull.

(D)

Hungate . William L.

Hamilton, Lee H . Harvey, Ralph

(D)

(R)

Jacobs , Andre w , Jr . Madden. Ray J .

(D)

Roudebu s h , Richard L. Roush,

(Rl

J. Edward (D)

c C

Jone s , Paul C.

Karsten, Frank M .

Randall, William J .

o C

(D)

Greigg. Stanley L . Gro s s . H . R .

(D)

(R)

Hansen, John R.

(D)

Schmidhauser. John R. Smith. Neal

(D)

Bob

(R)

Ellsworth. Robert F. Mize. Chester L .

{Rl

(Rl

Shrive r . Garner E. Skubitz. Joe

(Rl

(R)

Chelf. Frank

(Rl

(D)

Farnsley, Charles P.

(D)

Natcher, William H . Perkins. Carl D .

(D)

Stubblefi e l d , Frank A . Watts. John C .

(D)

Hebert. F. Edward Long. Speedy O.

(D)

Morrison. James H. Passman. OUo E.

(D)

Thompson, T. Ashton (D) Waggonner , Joe D • Willi s . Edwin E.

Jr.

(D)

Tupper . Stanley R .

(D)

Garmatz. Edward A .

(D)

Machen, Hervey G .

(D)

Mathi a s , Charles McC.

(R)

Morton, Rogers C . B. Sickle s , Carlton R.

Olsen. Arnold

Callan. Clair A.

Cunningham . Glenn

Martin, David T.

(R)

(D)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Cleveland. James C. Huot. J. Oliva

(D) (D)

Conte. Silvio O .

(R)

Donohue, Harold D. Keith. Hastings

(D)

(R)

Macdonald, Torbert H .

(D)

Martin, Joseph W . , Jr. McCormack, John W .

(R)

c o

Frelinghuysen. Peter , J r .

Gallagher. Cornelius E .

Helstoski. Henry (D)

Joelson, Charles S .

Krebs. Paul J .

Cahill, William T.

(R)

Daniels. Dominick V . Dwyer , Florence p.

Howard, James J.

(D)

Broomfield, William S . Cederber g , Elford A.

(R)

Chamberlain. Charles E . Clevenger . Raymond F . Conyer s . John J . . J r .

(D)

(O)

Ford, Gerald R . , J r :

(R)

(O)

Griffiths. Martha W. (R)

Hutchinson, Edward Mackie . John C.

(D)

O'Hara. James G . Todd. Paul H .

(R)

(D)

Nedzi. Lucien N .

(D)

Vivian, Weston E.

(D) (D)

Donald M .

Karth • Joseph E .

L L

(D)

(R)

MacGregor, Clark

(D)

(R)

Mini s h , Joseph G .

Patten, Edward J . , J r .

C L

Rodino , Peter W . , J r .

(D)

Thompson, Frank. J r .

(D)

Widnall , William B .

(R)

(D)

L L

Addab bo . Joseph P .

Bingham, Jonathan B .

(D) (D)

NEW MEXICO Morris . Thomas G . Walker. E. S .

(D)

Carey. Hugh L.

(D)

Conable , Barber B •

Delaney, James L .

Dow. John G .

DuLski , Thaddeus J .

(D)

o o o

Celle r , Emanuel (D) Jr.

(R)

(D)

L C

Farbstein. Leonard

Fino, Paul A .

(D) (D)

(R)

Gilbert, Jacob H.

(D) (R)

0 0

Grover. James R . , J r .

Halpern. Seymour

(R)

Hanley. James M .

(D)

Horton. Frank J.

King. Carleton J.

(R)

Lindsay. John V .

(R)

Kelly. Edna F .

(R) (D)

McEwen. Robert C .

Multer , Abraham J .

Murphy . John M .

(D)

O'Brien,

(D)

Ottinger . Richard L.

Pike . Otis G.

Pirnie. Alexander

Powell, Adam Clayton

Reid. Ogden R.

L L

Leo

(R)

(D)

Keogh, Eugene J.

L L

(D)

(R) (D)

Resnick. Joseph Y .

Robison, Howard W.

o o

Rooney , John J .

Rosenthal, Benjamin S.

(R) (D) (R)

(D) (D)

o (D)

(D)

L L

Ryan. William Fitts

Scheue r , James H .

Smith. Henry P . . III (R)

Stratton. Samuel S .

(D) (D) (D)

(D)

Wydler,

(R)

Wolff. Lester L .

(D)

Tenzer , Herbert

(D)

(R)

MINNESOTA Blatnik , John A .

(D)

Griffin. Robert P. Harvey. James

(D)

Farnum, Billie S. Ford. William

(R) (D)

Diggs, Charles C . . J r .

(R)

(O)

McGrath. Thomas C . , Jr.

MICmGAN

Dingell. John D.

(O)

(R)

(D)

McCarthy , Richard

F . Bradford (R)

Philbin . Philip J .

NEW JERSEY

(D)

O'Neill. Thomas P . . J r .

Langen. Odin

(R)

(D)

(R)

Boland, Edward P.

Fraser.

(O)

Goodell, Charles E.

Burke, James A .

(R)

Baring. Walter S.

L L

(D)

NEVADA

MASSACHUSET T S

Morse.

(D)

Bate s . William H .

NEW YORK

(D)

(R)

Friedel. Samuel N . Long . Clarence

NEBRASKA

MARYLAND Fallon . George H .

(D)

(R)

MAINE �haway. William D.

Battin, James F.

LOUISIANA B o g g s . Hale

(O)

Sullivan. Leonor Kretzer

KENTUCKY Carte r . Tim Lee

(D)

KANSAS

----nore.

(D)

MONTANA

(D)

Culve r . John C.

(D)

Ichord. Richard H.

IOWA ----sandstra. Bert

W. R . . Jr .

IS C

John W .

NORT H CAROLINA Bonne r , Herbert C. Broyhill, James T . Cooley, Harold D.

Fountain, L. H.

(D)

Henderson, David N .

(D)

Jonas . Charles Raper

(R)

Kornegay, Horace R.

(D)

Lennon. Alton

(D)

Nelsen, Ancher

(R)

Scott. Ralph J.

(D)

Olson. Alec G.

Taylor . Roy A.

(D)

Whitene r . Basil L.

G G

C C

OHIO

------:AS h brook, John M.

Ashley, Thomas L .

Ayr e s . William H .

Qui e . Albert H .

(R)

MISSISSIPPI Abernethy. Thomas G. Colme r , William M. W a l k e r , Prentiss

(D)

(R)

Whitten. Jamie L .

(D)

William s , John Bell

(D)

NORTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI Bolling ,

Richard

(D)

Andrews , Mark

(R)

Redlin, Rolland

(D)

Betts, Jackson E .

Page 247

(R) (D) (R) (R)

OHIO (cont'd) ----SOl tan, Frances P. (R) Bow. Frank T. (R) Brown. Clarence J . (Rl Clancy, Donald D . (R) Devine , Samuel L . (Rl Feighan . Michael A. (D) Gilligan, John J. (D) Harsha, William H . , J r . (R) Hays, Wayne L. (D) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta. Delbert L. (R) Love. Rodney M. (D) McCulloch, William M. (R) Minshall , William E. (R) Moeller . Walter H. (D) Mosher, Charles A. (R) Secrest, Robert T. (D) Stanton. J. William (R) Sweeney. Robert E. (D) Yanik, Charles A . (D) OKLAHOMA Albert, Carl (D) Belcher. Page (R) Edmondson. Ed (D) Jarman, John (D) Johnson, Jed, Jr. (D) Steed, Tom (D) OREGON Duncan. Robert B. (D) Green, Edith (D) Ullman, Al (D) Wyatt. Wendell (R) PENNS YL VANIA Barrett, William A. (D) Byrne . James A. (D) Clark, Frank M. (D) Corbett. Robert J. (R) Craley. N . Neiman, Jr. (D) Curtin, Willard S . (R) Dague, Paul B . (R) Dent. John H. (D) Flood. Daniel J. (D) Fulton. James G . (R) Green, William J • • III (D) Holland. Elmer J. (D) Johnson. Albert W. (R) Kunkel, John C . (R) McDade, Joseph M. (R) Moorhead. William S. (D) Morgan. Thomas E . (D) Nix. Robert N. C. (D) Rhode s . George M. (D) Rooney. Fred B. (D) Saylor . John P. (R) Schneebeli . Herman T . (R) SChweiker. Richard S . (R) Toll, Herman (D) Vigorito , Joseph P. (D) Watkins , G . Robert (R) Whalley, J . Irving (R) R HODE ISLAND Fogarty , John E. (D) St. Germain. Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Ashmore. Robert T. (D) Oorn, W. J. Bryan (D) Gettys , Thomas S . (D) McMillan , John L . (D) River s . L. Mendel (D) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E . Y. (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Anderson. William R. (D) Brock, William E • • ill (R)

L C C C C L L C L L C L C C

L C C C C C L C L C C L C C

C C C C C L L C

L C L L L

C L C L C

L C C L L

L C C C C L L C L L C L C C C C C C L L

C C C C C L L C L L C L C C C C C C L L

C C C C C L L C L

C C C C C L L C L L C L C C C C C C L L

L C L

C C C

L C

L C L C C L

L C L C L

C C

L C L C L L

L L L L

L L L C

L L

L L L C L L L L

L L L

L C C C L C L L C C C C L L L L L C C C L C C C

L C L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C C C L L C C

L L

C L

L L

C C L L C

C C C C C

C C L L

C C C C C

C C

C L

C C

L L

L C

L L L L L L L L L

L L L o

L L L L o

L L L L L o

L C

L C L C C

L L

C L L L L o

L L L L L o

C C C C C C C C L L L C L L L L

L L L C

L L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C C C C L C C

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C C C L L C C

L L

C L L L L

C C C L L

C C

C L

C C

L C

C C L L L L L C L L L L L L L C C L

L L C L

TENNESSEE (cont'd) Duncan. John J . (R) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evins . Joe L. (D) Fullon, Richard (O) Grider. George W. (D) Murray. Tom (O) Quillen. James H . (R) TEXAS ----a;ck worlh. Lindley (D) Brooks , Jack (D) Burleson. Omar (D) Cabell, Earle (D) Casey. Bob (D) de 1a Garza. Eligio (D) Dowdy, John (D) Fisher, O . C. (D) Gonzalez , Henry B. (D) Mahon. George H. (D) Patman, Wright (D) Pickle, J. J. (D) Poage , W. R. (D) Pool. Joe (D) Purcell. Graham (D) Roberts, Ray (D) Rogers. Walter (D) Teague. Olin E. (D) Thomas, Albert (D) Thompson, Clark W. (D) White, Richard C . (D) Wright. James C. , Jr. (D) Young . John (D) UTAH �rton, Laurence J. (R) King. David S. (D) VERMONT Staffor d , Robert T . (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joel T . (R) Oownin� . Thomas N. (D) Hardy, Porter , Jr. (D) Jennings , W. Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 • • Jr. (D) Pof{, Richard H . (R) Satterfield. David E . , III (D) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck, William M. (D) WASHINGTON Adam s . Brockman (D) Foley, Thomas S . (D) Hansen, Julia Butler (D) Hicks, Floyd V. (D) May. Catherine (R) Meeds, Lloyd (D) Pelly. Thomas M. (R) WEST VIRGINIA Heckle r . Ken (D) Kec , James (D) Moore. Arch A. , J r . (R) Slack, John M . , Jr. (D) Staggers . Harley O . (D) WISCONSIN Byrnes , John W. (R) Davis , Glenn R. (R) Kaslenmcicr, Robert W. (D) Laird. Melvin R. (R) Q t Konski, Alvin E. (R) Rac e , John A. (D) Reus s . Henry S . (D) Stalbaum. Lynn E. (D) Thomson. Vernon W. (R) Zablocki, Clement J. (D) WYOMING Roncalio. Teno (D)

C C C L L C C

C L

C L L L L C C

C L L C L L C

C L L L L L C

L L C C C L C C L L L L L C L L C L L L C

L L C C C C C C L L L L C C L C C C L L C

L L L L L L C C L L L L L

L L C

L L L L C L L C L C C C C L L L L L C L C o

C L L L L 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 C C L

C C C L C C L L L L L C L C C L L L C L

L L C C L L C L L

C C C C L L L L L C o

L C L L L C L L

C L

C C

L 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

C C C C C C C C C C

C C L L C C C C C C

C C L L L C C 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 L C

L L L L L L L

L L L L C L C

L L L C C L C

L L L L C L C

L L C L L

C L C L

L L C L

L L C L L

L C L L C L L L C L

L C L C C L L C C L

L L L C C L L L L L

C C L C C

L C L C C

L L C L

C C L C C L L L C L

L C L C C L L L C L

C O R R E C T IONS

In the June 1 4 , 1 9 6 5 . Report. " Second Roll Call s , 1 9 6 5 , " there w e r e s e ve r al typographical e rr o r s in the tabulations . of each Repre s e ntative whose vole was affec ted.

ARIZONA Rhodes , John J. (R) Senner , George F . , Jr. Udall, Morris K. (D) ARKANSAS Gathings , E. C. (D) Harri s . Oren (D) Mills, Wilbur D. (D) CALIFORNIA Reinecke , Edwin (R) Talcott, But'l L. (R) INDIANA � , J . Edward (D)

Listed below a r e c o r re ctly tabulated votes

KANSAS

(D)

C C C

C L L

L L L

C L L

C C C

C L

L L L

C C C

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

�. Chester L. (R)

C L L

Shrive r , Garner E. (R) NORTH CAROLINA Jonas . ChaT'les Raper (R)

01-110

C C

�she r . Charles A. (R) SOUTH CAROLINA Rivers , L. Mendel (D) TEXAS ---:r:hOmas . Albert (D) Thompson. Clark W. (D)

Page 248

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

THE o

1)1111 Smootfiepolt Vol.

1 1 , No. 32

(Broadcast

520)

August

9, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

D EA T H WATC H O F T H E R E P U B L I C

The following anonymous article-entitled "Death Watch"-expresses the feelings of many Americans in this year of Grace, 1965 : "This is a time for great sorrow; a time for mourning. "He is dying. "He, who was once proud and strong and vital, is having the life crushed out of him by the thing he created to doctor his ills. The would-be cure is killing the patient. "The American is dying.

"He is passing from the scene, thin and wasted, his voice reduced to a whisper while the thing that is killing him has grown fat and sleek and blustery. "Once he stood tall and strong and vigorous; once he planted his feet firmly on solid ground and laughed lustily at kings and emperors and dictators who would rule him ; he stood with his head held high, his broad shoulders lighting up the spirits of the peoples of the world, show ing them that Man could stand alone. . "He was a wonderful thing, The American. "His strength was something that had never been seen before on earth. He was Man as Man was meant to be and nothing, not even the powerful ghosts of past centuries who shrieked that Man could not rule himself, could move him once he had planted his roots and called the earth his own. "Yes, The American was a magnificent thing, standing alone, thinking for himself, doing for himself. Magnificent he stood, breathing free in a world that had known no freedom. "He was a unique thing, The American. "He believed his life was his own and that no man, no matter what title he gave himself, had a right to that life; he believed he had a right to what was his, to what he produced, and

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $18.00 for two yean 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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 249

that no man had a better right. He believed these rights were his because they were in him when he was born. "He was a good thing, The American. "He changed the entire world; he changed the way of life, the way of thinking, of millions of people who didn't know there could be another way of living or thinking and who didn't know Man could govern himself; he told the world that Man could stand alone and survive. "He was a human being, The American. "He faced a wilderness and carved from it a home and a way of life; he faced a history of stagnant thought and from it molded new ideas and progress; he faced a solid wall of unlimited power and forged from it pylons of individual freedom; he faced a past of starvation, depriva tion and degradation, and molded from it a world of plenty and good and equal opportunity. "He was a legend come to life, The American. "He was Beowulf, Siegfried, Roland; he was Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill and John Henry; and he was Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Hancock and George Washington. "Yes, he was a wonderful thing, The Ameri

can.

"Now he is passing. Now his strength is being drained from him by the thing he created . . . now his strength is being eaten up by the many mouths of the government he thought would be the right kind of thing to prevent anyone from eating him up. "He is dying, The American. "This is a time for weeping, not for The American, but for ourselves. We are letting him die. We are standing by watching him gasp for the life that once made him the greatest being on earth and we do nothing. "Instead, we are helping to kill him; instead, we feed more power to the thing that is crushing him in its socialistic vise of welfare. Instead of helping him we are frantically clearing all The American's defenses from the thing's path-his self-reliance, self-responsibility, initiative, desire clearing them from the thing's path toward un limited government and oppressive power. "We are helping the thing that was meant to preserve him, push The American off the face of the earth. "The American is dying.

"And - we are digging his grave.

T he grave does yawn for the kind of American

who transformed a wilderness into the land of the free and the home of the brave. When Amer ica was an infant nation, the abundance and brilliance of her political leaders astonished the world. Now, we seem to have lost the capacity to select leaders with integrity, honor, and re spect for truth. For example, President Lyndon B. Johnson, campaigning in 1 964, promised again and again, that federal aid to states would never bring fed eral controls. Speaking in Denver, on October 1 2 , 1964, the President vowed that he would never permit federal meddling with the operation of schools. He said : "We must keep control of our schools where it belongs, with the people. I believe that you should run your own schools, and you will do that as long as I am President."(l )

In January, 1965 , President Johnson urged Con gress to pass the Education Act of 1965, which will put the federal government in control of education at all levels, from elementary school through college. (1) Before the Education Act became law (April 1 1 , 1965 ) , federal education officials warned that schools could not receive federal tax money without first complying with the rules, regula tions, and requirements laid down by the U. S. Office of Education, under terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of other federal laws. (2 ) Yet, in early June, 1965 , Francis Keppel, U. S. Commissioner of Education, made a public speech, once again giving assurance that federal aid is dispensed "without strings," warning that control of education must be kept at the local and state level, asserting that "we cannot look to Washing ton for the solutions" to our problems. (1,3) Within a few days after making that speech, Keppel gave the lie to his own words. On June 17, 1965 , Keppel warned that he would withhold federal tax money from colleges and universities where private sororities or fraternities practice

Page 250

racial discrimination, although fraternities and sororities are not subsidized with federal tax money. Keppel even threatened to punish all colleges and universities whose students belong to a fraternity that practices "de facto segregation." In other words, it is not enough for fraternities to have no rules prohibiting negro membership. Every fraternity must have negro members, or all colleges where that fraternity has chapters may lose federal aid. (5) Thus, the federal official who reassures us that federal aid brings no federal controls presumes to control not only the educational institutions which receive the aid but also the private lives of students. Keppel cites, as his authority, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ( 3) This proves he has no respect for the law he pretends to cherish. Section 201-e of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it plain that no agency of the federal government is given authority to control "a bona fide private club or other establishment not open to the pub lie." That Commissioner Keppel is violating the law he cites as authority for his actions is made even plainer by Section 504-a-6 of Title V of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: « )

(3)

"Nothing in this or any other act shall be con strued as authorizing the commission, its advisory committees, or any other person under its super vision or control to inquire into or investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or uni versity fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization." ( 3 )

On July 20 and 2 1 , 1965, a White House Con ference on Education was held in Washington, D. c., sponsored by U. S. Office of Education (at an estimated cost, to taxpayers, of $50,000 ) . It was attended by state governors, state educa tional officials, and prominent educators. J. W. Edgar, Texas commissioner of education, was a participant in the White House Conference. He belittled the idea that federal aid brings fed eral controls, saying: "I'm not afraid of federal aid to education be cause we in Texas intend to manage it."( 6 )

On July 22, 1965-one day after the Texas com missioner of education made his boast in Wash ington-The Dallas Morning News published a story based on information supplied by the Texas Education Agency. From the story: "Unless . . . [ Texas ] schools are approved in Washington as satisfying the civil rights law's de mands, they are ineligible for federal aid. "Included is the biggest bundle of federal cash ever offered to Texas schools, $86,000,000 under the elementary-secondary education act of 1 965 . . . . "State education agency spokesmen reported . . . that 1 75 Texas school districts have not sub mitted any plans to qualify for federal funds in the future. Another 377 have compliance plans awaiting approval in Washington . . .

"Approvals have been coming slowly due partly to requirements of federal attorneys seeking to direct local school officials in drafting their in tegration programs. "A major concern of state education officials is the 1 75 districts, some of them fairly large, which have not submitted any program for com plying with the civil rights act. School districts are subject to penalties under the federal law if they follow racial discrimination, even though they do not seek federal funds. "Vocational training teachers paid from federal funds . . . may be the first to suffer from with holding of U.S. money if their districts fail to come up promptly with acceptable desegregation plans . . . . "Schools opening in September apparently will be without federal funds unless they have re ceived Washington approval on civil rights com pliance, according to state officials."( 7 )

T he theme of the July, 1965, White House Conference on Education was that state governors have the responsibility of keeping "the Federal Government's purse strings from becoming puppet strings"-of "making education basically a state affair." The conference said governors could keep federal control from accompanying federal aid if, among other things, " a council of state gov ernors . . . [would ] meet with the President per haps twice a year to discuss upcoming programs and issues."( 6 )

Page 251

Apparently, participants in the White House Conference on Education operated in sublime ig norance of widely publicized facts which prove that federal officials who dispense tax money not state officials who receive it-are the ones who set policy and exercise control. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Presi dent Johnson'S Poverty War bill) gave state governors power to veto proposed federal anti poverty programs affecting local or state govern ments. In June, 1965 , Nelson Rockefeller, Gover nor of New York, tried to veto a small item in a nine-million-dollar federal poverty grant for New York City. Sargent Shriver, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, bluntly notified Gov ernor Rockefeller that if he vetoed any part of the grant offered New York City, Shriver would cancel the entire grant. Faced with a choice of all or nothing, Rockefeller surrendered and with drew his veto. On July 22, 1965, the U. S. House of Repre sentatives approved a bill to double the amount of tax money authorized for the Office of Eco nomic Opportunity during its second year of operation-and to limit severely the veto power of state governors. On July 30, a Senate committee, considering this legislation, eliminated the gov ernors' veto powers altogether. ( 8 ) (3)

In the July 27, 1965 , issue of Look, Sargent Shriver congratulates himself on how well he is running the war on poverty. He heavily empha sizes that the war is directed from Washington, and that no community gets federal funds unless its behavior pleases Washington officials. The war on poverty has been widely (and correctly) criti cized because much of the federal tax money is going for salaries and expenses of the bureau crats administering the programs. Sargent Shriver makes it clear that he expects poverty war officials to get "adequate" salaries and that he will with hold federal tax money if his wishes are ignored. Note passages from his article in Look : "Before we grant one cent, we require the in volvement of the whole community in the plan ning and operation of the program. We specify representation of the poor. In effect, we are ask-

ing those who hold power in the community to 'move over' and share that power with those who are to be helped . . . . "Again and again, communities throughout the country have been denied funds until they clearly established their willingness to give representa tion to the poor and minorities . . . . "Probably the noisiest discussion has been about the salaries paid in the War on Poverty . . . . Well, I believe that communities should employ the most competent men available to run their programs and should pay them adequate salaries. "If competent people receive salaries that we consider out of line, we will not pay the Federal share of those salaries. We have already refused to pay in some communities, and we anticipate that we will in others. "If the politicians frustrate local efforts for poverty planning, we will withhold or withdraw Federal funds. We have followed this hard line from the first days of the program, and have no intention of abandoning it now." ( 9 )

Concerning "participation of the poor" in pov erty war programs, note the following from the June 1 1 , 1965, issue of Research Institute Recom mendations :

"This week's angry quarrel between Washing ton and 1 1 mayors . . . . looked like just one more fight over funds, patronage and power, but the issues causing the collision actually cut more deeply . . . . "Core of the problem is Title II of the anti poverty law, seeking 'participation' by the poor. It may succeed too well; they've started partici pating in ways that alarm the I I mayors, most of whom have put their cities in the anti-poverty program. Now the mayors have second thoughts; they're afraid participation could get out of hand, encourage demonstrations, even violence. "One of the angriest voices belongs to the

mayor of Syracuse. He's facing a march on City

Hall, fears it will provoke violence. He says par ticipation is 'pitting the poor against everyone else,' a violation of the traditional principle of social welfare work. "Point is the march isn't intended as social work; its leaders are products of a Syracuse Uni

versity project to help train and organize the poor

for 'involvement' in the poverty war.

Page 252

"University professors handling the project reo ject 'welfare,' call what they're doing 'self·help' by the poor in using power. Syracusans behind the mayor's 'Crusade for Opportunity' program are especially incensed by a University brochure which calls for 'controlled but intense anger about continued injustice.'

"The organizers of the 'self·help' drives regard their work as a pilot project; if it has effect, they expect it to be used in other poverty.hit cities-e.g. Buffalo, Kansas City, Mo. This could bring on even bigger battles over the war on poverty . . . . "Make no mistake: This is just the beginning of controversy. So far, there's been no close tie·in between poverty militants and civil rights mili· tants. But that's almost sure to happen-and then passions will begin to run even higher than today."

The use of tax money as a club

(or bribe) to force the will of federal officials upon individuals and upon state and local governments is a con spicuous feature of all federal spending programs. In a recent pronouncement about highway beau tification, President Johnson gave state govern ments a stern ultimatum : adopt legislation to get rid of billboards and j unkyards by 1967, or lose federal aid for highways. (10) Here are excerpts from an Associated Press story, datelined at Goldsboro, North Carolina, June 24, 1965 : "The County Welfare Board in [ Goldsboro, North Carolina ] . . . has issued an order that anyone owning a television set or a telephone will not be eligible, as of July 1 , [ 1 965 ] for public assistance . . . . "When the board ruling was released, a cry of protest arose from many county residents . . . . "Mrs. Jack Barfield . . . chairman of the Wel· fare Board, said the ruling was made 'after we found welfare recipients with princess phones and two television sets.' "Mrs. Barfield added, 'The Welfare Board does not believe it should spend taxpayers' money to make payments on television sets when some people

are struggling to

cannot afford TV s.'

" (11)

pay

their

taxes

and

Here are excerpts from an Associated Press story, datelined at Goldsboro, the next day, June 2 5 , 1965 : "The county welfare board in this Eastern North Carolina community . . . rescinded its order that welfare recipients could not own tele· vision sets or telephones. "The county board said it took the action be· cause 'Our stand on the television and telephone problem might have threatened federal assistance to all of North Carolina.' . . . " 'Communications have been received from federal and state agencies in Washington and Raleigh to the effect that our action was contra· dictory to federal and state regulations. " 'This would jeopardize the use of public wel· fare funds not on' y in Wayne County, but also in the entire State of North Carolina . . . .' " ( 1 2 )

In 1 964, the regional U. S. Housing Office in Philadelphia threatened to withdraw federal funds for a housing project in Richmond, Vir ginia, if the Richmond City Council did not adopt a hot-water ordinance pleasing to the federal housing administrators. The Richmond City Coun cil complied. In November, 1960, the City Manager of New burgh, New York, appointed a three-man com mittee to study welfare operations in the city. After three months of study, the committee re ported that welfare money was being used for political purposes ; that it was subsidizing strikes ; that it was paying social parasites to breed illegiti mate children ; that cash welfare payments to par ents for dependent children was being spent on vice and luxuries ; that some people were quitting jobs because they could make more on relief than at work ; that, in certain instances, state and fed eral regulations 1'equired relief recipients to loaf; that welfare programs were contributing to the rise of slums, to an increase in social diseases among children and adults, to the wreckage of business and residential neighborhoods, to school problems, and to a sharp rise in crime and vio lence. (10)

( 13)

Newburgh officials initiated reforms. They or

dered that relief be given, not in cash, but in

Page 253

vouchers, so that recipients must spend it, not in bars, but on food and clothing for their destitute children and on other necessities. They ordered that able-bodied men on relief be put to work for the city doing something useful, earning part of the money given them. Newburgh officials ordered that able-bodied men who refused to work be denied relief. They ordered that mothers of ille gitimate children be taken off relief if they had more illegitimates-and that victimized children be taken away from such mothers and placed in decent foster homes. ( 1 3) Liberals throughout the nation violently con demned Newburgh officials for attempting such reforms. Governor Nelson Rockefeller denounced the city officials ; and on January 5 , 1 962, the New York Supreme Court issued a permanent in junction against enforcement of the Newburgh welfare reforms. (13) Why such frenzy against one community for trying to eliminate abuse and corruption from its local welfare programs ? The federal government requires that all welfare districts in a state con form to federal rules and procedures, before the state can get any federal funds for welfare. Fed eral officials did not like the reforms attempted in Newburgh ; and if Newburgh had not been forced to comply with their wishes, the entire state of New York could have lost federal aid for wel fare. (13) Under threat of terminating all federal aid to an entire state, federal officials have even forced local communities to accept federal aid they did not need or want. A classic case of this kind occurred ten years ago. Note this Associated Press story from Columbus, Ohio, dated February 3, 1 95 5 : "Rebellious Harrison County, struggling for years to stay free of federal aid, has lost its fight. "The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday ruled the county must participate in a federal aid program for Ohio's totally and permanently disabled. "Harrison County's flat refusal of the money threatened to cost Ohio $3,000,000 a year in U. S. grants unless all 88 counties joined in the federal program. Harrison County alone remained aloof.

"County commissioners had claimed they nei ther needed nor wanted the federal money. They said their handicapped were cared for under their poor relief program."(14)

T hough

many self-styled conservatives have somehow been mesmerized, intimidated, or bribed into asserting that "President Johnson is a con servative at heart," the President is doing more to socialize this nation than all previous liberal Presidents. Note the following from an article in the July 26, 1965, issue of U. S. News & World Report: "What amounts to a revolution within the United States is being carried out by President Johnson and a Congress that is heavily Demo cratic. "In the process, an all-powerful Central Gov ernment is rising, States are further down graded . . . . "This dream of revolutionary change was in the minds of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his 'New Dealers' and of John F. Kennedy and his 'New Frontiersmen' . . . . Lyndon Johnson is succeeding where the others failed . . . . "Congress now is ready to approve a start down the road to state medicine as part of the broad concept of a Government assuring cradle-to-grave security of all kinds . . . . "The President, too, pushed through the start of what eventually will be a huge program of federal aid to local schools. Along with that aid will go strings controlled by Washington that will shape the direction of schooling . . . . "All of this is only the beginning . . . . "The secret of the Johnson success appears to lie in substantial part in his ability to sell the business and banking community on his objectives where former Democratic Presidents aroused hostility. Given business and labor sup port, the Johnson program sails through Con gress." (15)

On July 18, 1965, David Brinkley (NBC commentator) told Ohio University students: "The decline and fall of the 50 state govern ments will be completed in our lifetime . . . . The movement of political power from state

Page 254

capitals to Washington . . . is inevitable and un stoppable whether we like it or not." ( 1 6 )

Mr. Brinkley revealed that he liked it, saying the federal government will "legislate wisely," whereas state legislatures tend to be corrupt and inefficient, and local governments are under too much pressure from the people "to legislate on unpopular but necessary measures." (16) David Brinkley here discloses the basic con viction of all totalitarian liberals-a conviction forthrightly expressed by the late Harry Hopkins who said "the people are too dumb to think." Liberals, as David Brinkley indicates, believe that if government is kept close to home where it is responsive to the will of the people, the people will not permit governmental action which lib erals consider desirable. Hence, liberals approve the transfer of all economic and political power from state and local governments to a centralized government less responsive to the public will.

Our Republic can be saved if the people will elect a Congress, and a President, who will re spect the Constitution as a clear and binding con tract of government, who will repeal all existing federal laws and abolish all existing federal pro grams not obviously authorized by some provision in the Constitution, who will rej ect all new pro posals for federal programs not sanctioned by the Constitution. In short, we, the people, must put constitutionalists at the helm of government. Before constitutionalists can be elected to high offices, the people who do the electing must under stand and respect the principles of American con stitutional government.

Here

is the cue for you who do understand and care: educate as many other Americans as you possibly can, using the materials which have been most helpful in your own education.

David Brinkley correctly characterizes the lib eral conviction that the American people are un able to govern themselves and must, therefore, have a dictatorship in Washington. He accurately describes the trend of our times ; but fulfillment of his prophecy about the decline and fall of the 5 0 state governments is not inevitable.

Set yourself a specific goal. If you have found my Repott an effective expositor of constitutional principles, resolve to get at least ten new sub scribers to the Report. By such action, subscribers to this Repott could, before election time next year, educate a decisive numbet of influential people - in every congressional district in all 50 states.

Most federal programs being used to undermine local and state governments, to control the activi ties of private organizations, and to invade the privacy of individuals are unconstitutional, be cause there is no grant of power in our Constitu tion for such programs.

The sound of the rattling chains that will bind us and our posterity in slavery is muted by the thunder of false propaganda about the bright promise of the great society. But even Lyndon Baines Johnson cannot fool all the people all the time.

W H O

I S

DAN

S M O O T?

headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report} commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page

255

We who believe in freedom have a mighty na tion to save, a glorious tradition to restore. Let us get on with the job. Instead of silently attend ing the death watch of our Republic, as if hyp notized and helpless, let us break the spell and go to work.

( 8 ) "House Doubles 'Poverty' Funds," UPI dispatch from Wash ington, The Dallas M01'l1in/i News, July 2 3 , 1965, p. 1 ; "Panel Cuts Veto Power On

Projects,"

by Bob Hollingsworth,

The

Dallas Times Herald, July 30, 1965 (9)

"How goes the War on Poverty ?", by Sargent Shriver, Look magazine, July 27, 1 9 6 5, pp. 30-4

(10)

"New Housing Secretary Will Be a Virtual Czar," article from the Richmond News Leader, reprinted in Human Events, July 24, 1 9 6 5, p . 6

FOOTNOTES

( 1 1 ) "TV, Telephones Illegal for Poor," AP dispatch from Golds boro, North Carolina, The Dallas Times Herald, June 24, 1965,

( 1 ) "Local

Education

Control Pledged,"

(2)

( 1 2 ) "Welfare Board Relents,"

( 3 ) " Federal

Noose

Tightened,"

editorial

(13)

"Government Action

Social

Welfare,"

by Roger Burgess,

Concern ( magazine published by the General Board of Christian

by Ken Thompson,

The Dallas Morning News, J u l y 1 3 , 1 9 6 5 , p. 2D

Social Concerns of the Methodist Church ) , July 1 5 , 1 9 6 2 ; edi·

"Colleges Face U.S. Aid Cutoff If They Permit Fraternity Bias,"

February

torial, The New York Times, June 29,

( 14)

"Curb o n Clubs May Come Next,"

19 6 1 ; Human Events,

Revolt,"

an address by

"County Loses

Fight Against U.S.

'Aid'," AP d ispatch from

( 1 5 ) "Revolutionizing The U.S.," U.S. News & World Report, July 26, 1965, pp. 29-32

( 16)

( 7 ) "Education Agency Seeking Compliance,"

"The Newburgh

p. 1 1

man, The Dallas M01'l1ing News, July 5, 1965, p . 6B

p . 8A

1962 ;

Columbus, Ohio, The Dallas Times Herald, February 3, 1 9 5 5 ,

editorial by Mike Engle

( 6 ) "State Governments Cautioned On Federal Aid For Schools," by Karen Klinefelter, The Dallas M01'l1ing News, July 2 1 , 1965,

17,

Joseph McDowell Mitchell, City Manager of Newburgh

by Wallace Turner, The New York Times, June 18, 1965, pp.

(5)

A P d ispatch from Goldsboro, North

Carolina, The Dallas M01'l1ing News, June 2 5 , 1965, p. 1

"Voluntary School Mixing Predicted," AP dispatch from Wash ington, The Dallas Times Herald, July 3 1 , 1964, p. 1 6A

(4)

p. A5

by Francis Keppel, The

Dallas Morning News, June 2 6, 1 965, p. 2D

"Local-To-Federal Power Shift Inevitable, Unstoppable: Brink· ley," UPI dispatch from Athens, Ohio, Indianapolis Star, July

Richard More

1 8, 1965, Sec. 1, p. 1 6

head, The Dallas M01'l1ing News, July 2 2 , 1965, p. 4A

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?

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsile The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months $ 6.00 1 year - $ 1 0.00 - $ 1 0.00 - $ 10.00 -$10.00 -

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

- $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

STATE

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page

256

THE o

1Jt/1l SmootlIe,ort Vol. 1 l , . No. 33

(Broadcast 52 1 )

August 1 6, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

E M B RAC I N G T H E E N E MY W E F I G H T

T he liberal leadership of our nation seems to be schizophrenic about communism. While President Johnson has American troops in the Dominican Republic and is daily dragging our na tion toward the ghastly quicksands of a major land war in Asia - all for the alleged purpose of fighting communism - communists and pro-communists at home are honored and rewarded.

In recent months, communist party officials have received standing ovations when appearing as speakers on college campuses. When the legislature of North Carolina passed a law prohibiting known communists from speaking at state colleges, every state college in North Carolina was threatened with loss of accreditation and loss of federal aid. President Johnson urged, and Con gress hastened to enact, the voting rights bill demanded by Martin Luther King, a notorious com munist fronter. ( 2 ) The President appointed Thurgood Marshall Solicitor General. Marshall has a communist front record. (3) As Ambassador to the United Nations, the President appointed Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg has a communist front record. To replace Goldberg on the Supreme Court, the President appointed Abe Fortas. Fortas has a communist front record. (4,5) (1)

(4)

The case of William Arthur Wieland is part of this strange picture. A high-ranking career man, Wieland had been accused of being "an activ$! apologist for Fidel Castro," of lying to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and to State Department security investigators, of lacking judgment and integrity. He had also been named as the official primarily responsible for the decision to break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic in 1960 a decision which initiated a chain of calamities leading to present conditions in Santo Domingo. (6)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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; 100 for $ 1O.0O-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

1965. Second Class

tnail

privi lege

No Reproductions Permitted.

Page

257

authorized at Dallas, Texas.

On July 19, 1 965, the State Department an nounced that Wieland had been cleared of all charges, and promoted to the job of top U. S. con sular official in Australia. (7 ) The charges against Wieland have not been refuted, or even denied. The Department cleared him in spite at adverse testimony. (6)

The men and women of America - especially those whose loved ones have been called , or soon will be called, to fight communism in Vietnam ought to review the facts of the Wieland case.

August, 1960, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee questioned, under oath, two former U. S. Ambassadors to Cuba-Arthur Gardner and Earl E. T. Smith-who said the State Department had deliberately sabotaged the pro-American re gime of Batista, in order to install Castro in power. They blamed Roy R. Rubottom, Jr., As sistant Secretary of State, and William Arthur Wieland, who was Rubottom's assistant during that critical period. (8) A significant part of former Ambassador Smith's testimony involved Herbert L. Matthews, editorial writer for The New York Times. In February, 1 95 7 ( after Castro and his gang of cutthroats hid out in the hills of South Oriente Province, Cuba , pillaging and terrorizing the peasants while claim ing they were leading a revolution to liberate the Cuban people from Batista) , Herbert L. Matthews had three front-page articles in The New York Times, classing Castro with Robin Hood and A braham Lincoln. Shortly afterward, when Earl E. T. Smith was appointed Ambassador to Cuba, the State Department sent Smith to Herbert L. Mat thews for advance briefing on Cuban affairs. ( 8 ) .

Here are portions of Smith's testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on August 30, 1 960: Mr. Sourwine [ Counsel for the Subcommit

tee ] : Is it true, sir, that you were instructed to get a briefing on your new job as Ambassador to Cuba, from Herbert Matthews of The New York Times?

Mr. Smith: Yes; that is correct. Mr. Sourwine: Who gave you these instruc

tions? Mr. Smith: William Wieland . . . . At that time, he was Director of the Caribbean Division, Cen tral American Affairs . . . . Mr. Sourwine: . . . give us the highlights of what Matthews told you . . . . Mr. Smith: . . he eulogized Fidel Castro and portrayed , him as a political Robin Hood . . . . .

Mr. Matthews had a very poor view of Batista, considered him a rightist ruthless dictator whom he believed to be corrupt . . . . Mr. Sourwine: It was true that Batista's gov ernment was corrupt, wasn't it? Mr. Smith: It is true . . . . However, the estab lishment of a communist regime in Cuba involves the defense and safety of this country . . . .

To make my point more clear, let me say that we helped to overth�ow the Batista dictatorship . whIch was pro-Amencan, only to install the Cas tro dictatorship, which is pro-Russian . . . . You asked me a short while ago who arranged the meeting with Mr. Matthews . . . . I said Wil liam Wieland, but William Wieland also had to have the approval of Roy Rubottom, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for Latin Amer ican Affairs . . . . I think that Roy Rubottom was under terrific pressure from segments of the press, from certain members of Congress, from the avalanche of Cas tro sympathizers and revolutionary sympathizers, who daily descended upon the State Department . . . . Pressure on Roy Rubottom came from the representatives and sympathizers of the 26th of July Movement [ Castro's organization] in the United States and particularly those in Washington •

•

Many of these people, who later became mem bers of the first Cabinet of Castro, were asylees in the United States. They had close contacts with members of the State Department . . . . As a matter of fact, the first time that I met [ Miro] Cardona [ first Prime Minister of Cuba

Page 258

under the Castro dictatorship ] , was after Ba tista had left the country . . . . He turned to me and said, "I am a good friend of William Wieland, a very good friend of Wil liam Wieland." (8)

William D. Pawley, now a retired business man living in Miami, was United States Ambas sador to Peru in 1945 ; Ambassador to Brazil in 1946-47 ; and special emissary of the State De partment on various occasions through 1954. Here are portions of Mr. Pawleis testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on September 2 , 1 960 : Mr. Pawley: . . . I had a man with me by the name of Wieland . . . .

He served with me as press attache in Rio when I was Ambassador there . . . . His activity there was of a nature that was displeasing to me, being conscious of this communist problem . . . . al though there was nothing specific that I could put my hands on-it was conversations that I would hear, hear him have with other members of the press in press conferences and things of that kind-to give me a squirmy feeling regarding his activities; and I made it known to various officials from time to time . . . that I didn't believe that Wieland was particularly useful to the U. S. Government . . . . I later found out . . . that he had taken a For eign Service examination and had come along in the Foreign Service, and I then came in touch with him when he became the area o.fficer . for the Caribbean, including Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Mr. Sourwine: Doesn't he also have j urisdiction

over Mexico? Mr. Pawley: Probably. Since I knew this-the

minute I found it out, I made my questions known to U. S. Government officials.

Mr. Pawley: Yes, I went to the Department of State by arrangement made by the President . . . . and we discussed Cuba, we discussed Haiti and Santo Domingo . . . .

In this discussion I said . . . . "I have great misgivings of the wiseness to have had and to continue to have William Wieland in a critical post. His close association with Herbert Matthews of The New York Times and the activities having to do with this whole Cuban episode in which he is in charge . . . . this man should not be there; and he should not have been there for a long time." . . . The man is still there, and I understand he was even invited to participate in the foreign ministers' conferences which have just taken place . . . . I would like to know . . . how did Bill Wieland get assigned to this critical area? . . . Senator Hruska: Mr. Pawley, with regard to the decision to break diplomatic relations with Trujillo, where do you suppose that policy might have been made in the light of your experience of previous years with the [ State] Department? Mr. Pawley: I think this is a Bill Wieland idea . . . . I think Bill Wieland is the one respon sible for this problem and therefore it would have to originate at that point.

He was the one, no question about it, who came up with the idea of not selling arms to either side in Cuba. But here is an interesting thing: While they were doing this, I lived in Miami, and this is a fact: more than 1 0,000 men were armed for Castro out of Dade County with all of the officials closing their eyes to Castro receiving their arms in spite of the neutrality law; and the minute Castro came in, the Justice Department sent down 250 special agents which are there today to prevent anyone from hurting our friend Castro . . . . Mr. Sourwine: I think this question should be asked for the record: Have you any reason to believe that William Wieland is a Communist? Mr. Pawley : No, I don't have any reason to

Senator Keating: When did you do that?

believe that.

Mr. Pawley: I have been doing it for 2 years

periodically . . . . I first transmitted that informa tion to the President. I have also transmitted it to the Vice President. Senator Keating: You mean President Eisen

I only know that many of these men . . . are serving the cause of our enemies, that is all. Mr. Sourwine: You think he is doing this wit tingly, intentionally?

hower and Vice President N ixon? Page 259

Mr. Pawley: I have got to say that he is either

one of the most stupid men living, or he is doing it intentionally. (8)

Robert C. Hill had a long career in the State Department. He held diplomatic posts in many parts of the world. He was an Assistant Secretary of State in 1956 and 1 957. From May, 1957, to January 3, 1961, he was United States Ambassador to Mexico. On June 12, 1961, in response to a subpoena, Mr. Hill testifiied before the Senate In ternal Security Subcommittee. Here are portions of his testimony: Mr. Sourwine: Your period of service as Am bassador to Mexico covered the entire time in which Fidel Castro was making his coup in Cuba and i�cluding his rise to power there, did it not? Mr. Hill: That is correct . . . . Mr. Sourwine: Are you acquainted with Mr. William Wieland? . . Mr. Hill: William Wieland, at the time I was Ambassador of the United States to Mexico, could be properly classified as my superior because he was in charge of the Cuban-Mexican affairs. It is interesting to note that during the period of time I was Ambassador . . . in Mexico, I heard from Mr. Wieland only twice by telephone and once or twice through the mail. He did come to Mexico on several occasions, accompanying Dr. Milton Eisenhower, who was there often as a guest of the Mexican Government. Mr. Sourwine: What has been your experience with Mr. Wieland? . . Mr. Hill: Well, I did not regard him as a competent officer or a man who could be trusted. I was warned by members of the Foreign Service about Mr. Wieland; that he was an opportunist and . . . that I should be very careful in my dealings with him.

It certainly was verified by the personal experi ences I had with him when he accompanied Dr. Eisenhower to Mexico. Mr. Sourwine: Tell us about this visit he made

to Mexico . . . .

Mr. Hill: He accompanied the doctor on each of his trips to Mexico. I think the most im portant visit, where there was some controversy, was the time he came to Mexico with Dr. Eisen hower in August of 1 959 . . . .

The U. S. Embassy in Mexico was very con cerned about the Cuban problem and how it would affect our relations with Mexico. We felt that with Dr. Eisenhower coming to Mexico, it would give us an opportunity to at least give him our point of view regarding the danger of Castro and communism in Cuba and how it might affect !he relations between the United States and Mex-

ICO

•

I felt that . . . patience and forbearance which was the U. S. policy, would not work in dealing with Castro. In the past it certainly has proven unsatisfactory in dealing with communism. The proximity of Mexico to Cuba was such that the agents coming from Moscow and some from China would go back and forth between the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and Cuba. Propaganda was Howing into Mexico at this time from Cuba and from behind the Iron Curtain . . . . If the United States did not act affirmatively, you could have a solid communist bastion on the doorstep of the United States. We wanted to do our part in Mexico to prevent such a thing hap pening without intervening in the affairs of the Mexican people. Mr. Sourwine: Do I understand you correctly that it was your hope that, through briefing Dr. Milton Eisenhower, this situation could eventual ly be brought to the attention of the State De partment and result in some action? Mr. Hill: That is correct. Mr. Sourwine: Surely, you had some way of getting this information [ to ] the State Depart ment other than through Dr. Eisenhower? Mr. Hill: We had the normal, diplomatic chan nels and we utilized those channels . . . . We h ad no positive results. It concerned us greatly. Mr. Sourwine: And so you hoped to bring this to the attention of the State Department through a briefing of Dr. Eisenhower? Mr. Hill: We brought to the attention of every Congressman, every Senator, every newspaper man and every person of importance that came to Mexico: the seriousness of Castro and the com munist problem in Cuba. We had a briefing ses sion for every important person that came to Mexico from the United States . . . . Mr. Sourwine: Was this briefing of Dr. Eisen hower opposed by anyone?

Page 260

Mr. Hill: When the briefing started, it was op posed by Mr. Wieland because he gave the im pression that we were misrepresenting the situa tion in Cuba.

of course, it caused tempers to flare and Dr. Ei senhower said he did not want to hear any more about the situation.

Mr. Sourwine: When and where was this brief

The Chairman: The man said Wieland was either a damn fool or a communist?

Mr. Hill: As I pointed out, the doctor was

Mr. Hill: Yes, sir; that was said in the temper of the moment. I don't believe Wieland is a communist.

ing held?

there as a guest of the Mexican Government and he had 2 or 3 days rest before taking one of his trips to Mazatlan. I asked the doctor if I could take along the counselor of the Embassy for po litical affairs, Mr. Raymond Leddy. Mr. Leddy . . . one of the most knowledgeable men in Latin American affairs in the Department of State . . . knew the problem in Cuba firsthand having lived there as a Foreign Service officer. I asked Mr. Leddy if he would bring with him the documentation to support our position . . . . Mr. Sourwine: Did he do this? Mr. Hill: He did . . . . Soon after we took off from Mexico City I spoke to the doctor and I said: would it be possible for us to utilize the time between Mexico City and Mazatlan to give him our point of view regarding the problem of communism in Cuba. He said, "Fine." Then we sat down together. It was a C-47 airplane that had a divan in the middle and bucket seats along the side. The doctor was seated on the divan with Mr. Leddy so he could personally view some of the documents. Mr. Wieland was seated on the divan. Mr. Leddy started to give his report based on his judgment and based on his experience . . . . Each time Mr. Leddy would say, "This is communist dominated" or "This man is a communist" he was met with Mr. Wie land saying "It is not true."

In the middle of what turned out to be quite a long discussion, Colonel Glawe, who was the air attache, came back and joined in the discus sion and became involved in supporting Mr. Leddy's point of view. Each time that commu nism was mentioned and its control of the situ ation in Cuba, it was discounted by Mr. Wieland. Mr. Leddy had an intelligence report for the month of June, 1 959 which supported many of Mr. Leddy's contentions. It was obvious to me that Mr. Wieland had not read the report, al though he was directly responsible for the area. But when Mr. Leddy attempted to project the actual documents into the picture, an argument ensued . . . . Colonel Glawe referred to Mr. Wie land as either a damn fool or a communist, and Page

Senator Keating: You didn't comment on the

other part of the description.

Mr. Hill: Do you think it is necessary, Sena

tor? . .

Mr. Sourwine: Do you remember telling us in executive session that, on the occasion of this airplane trip to Mazatlan . . . . Mr. Wieland had declared that Castro was an idealist; that he knew Castro personally; that there had been lots of charges and misrepresentations, but that there was no evidence in the State Department files to confirm Mr. Leddy's point of view that Castro was a communist or surrounded and controlled by communists? Mr. Hill: I recall the conversation. We referred to the intelligence report of June 1 959, to sub stantiate Mr. Leddy's claim that there was evi dence in the files of pro-communist and com munistic associations by Fidel Castro . . . . Mr. Sourwine: Did Mr. Leddy get an oppor tunity to show Dr. Milton Eisenhower this in telligence report? Mr. Hill: If I recall correctly, Mr. Sourwine, he took it out of his briefcase, but that was the point that the meeting broke up. The doctor felt that tempers had risen and it would be unproduc tive to pursue the matter any further . . . . Mr. Sourwine: Did you ever see any intelli gence reports of the FBI to the State Department respecting Castro's communist connections? Mr. Hill: I worked very closely with the repre sentatives of the FBI in Mexico. They were very cooperative with the Embassy . . . . The repre sentatives of the FBI told me of their concern over Castro and Cuba . . . . I was told by a repre sentative of the agency that it was their under standing the reports had not reached the upper echelon of the Department of State. Mr. Sourwine: You are saying reports of this nature respecting Castro's communist affiliations had been transmitted but were told that they had

26 1

not reached the upper echelons of the State De partment? Mr. Hill: That is correct. Mr. Sourwine: Were you told where they were

sidetracked?

Mr. Hill: Down at the desk level. Senator Keating: Who is in charge of the desk? Mr. Hill: Well, the desk officer for Mexico was

Mr. Osborne. The desk officer for Cuba during part of this time was a Terence Lynnhardy, who is now the consul in Nogales . . Senator Keating: Who is their immediate su perior? .

Mr. Hill: Mr. Wieland. (8)

The heated discussion aboard an airplane in Mexico - recounted by Ambassador Hill - oc curred in August, 1959. At that time, as the Am bassador testifies, William Arthur Wieland said he knew Castro personally, knew him to be an idealist, and knew he was not a communist. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee has sworn testimony, however, that, as early as 1958, Wie land told friends he knew Castro was a commu nist. ( 8) Circumstantial evidence indicates that there may have been a very significant connection be tween Castro and Wieland, dating back many years. From 1933 to 1936, Wieland worked as a news paper man in Havana, Cuba. While there, he was associated with a Cuban terrorist organization (non communist) , in which he used the alias Guillermo Arturo Montenegro. Wieland later entered the U. S. diplomatic service. (6, 8 ) In 1948, the Ninth International Conference of American States was held at Bogota, Colombia. Among the U. S. officials attending were Secre tary of State George C. Marshall and Ambassador William D. Pawley. ( 8 ) During the conference, communists from all over the Western Hemisphere led a bloody up rising in Bogota. Communist hoodlums set fire to the city, and roamed the streets with machine guns, mowing down innocent people. About 2 500 people were killed. ( 8 )

When the riots erupted, Secretary Marshall was visiting at the residence of Ambassador Pawley, apparently unaware that anything was happening. Ambassador Pawley turned on the radio and heard a voice saying: "This is Fidel Castro from Cuba. This is a communist revolution . . . . " (8)

Ambassador Pawley said it was generally be lieved in Bogota that Castro had led one of the communist machine-gun squads. ( 8 ) When the Bogota police finally quelled the riots, they arrested the leaders - among them, Fidel Castro. Castro demanded - and got - release by claiming to be the bodyguard of George C. Mar shall. At the time of the Bogota riots, William Arthur Wieland was American Consul at Bogota. ( 8 ) In 1961, the State Department made its own in vestigation of Wieland. On the basis of that in vestigation, Otto Otepka (Chief of the Evaluation Division of the State Department Security office) recommended that Wieland be fired as unsuitable. Otepka's superior ordered Otepka to clear Wie land. Refusing, Otepka was demoted from his job as chief evaluator for the security office. ( 9.10 ) In March, 1963, the Senate Subcommittee sub poenaed Otepka. Otepka testified that the De partment was clearing possible security risks, de spite warnings from the Department's own Eval uations Division. He 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. Testimony of John F. Reilly (who had been moved into the State Department security job from which Otepka had been demoted) conflicted with that of Otepka. (9) On May 23, 1963, J. G. Sourwine (counsel for the Senate Subcommittee) called Otepka in for a conference, and said to him:

"One of you is lying under oath. If you have evidence to prove you're right, you'd better pro duce it."(10)

Page 262

Otepka sent the Subcommittee 36 State Depart ment documents which proved the truth of his testimony. In furnishing these documents, he did nothing illegal or unethical ; but State Department officers ( �rying to "make a case" against him ) tapped hIS telephone, robbed his safe, put him under surveillance. On July 9, 1963, John F. Reilly and one of his assistants, Elmer Dewey Hill, lied to the Senate Subcommittee about the tactics used in the Otepka investigation. Later, both men ad mitted they had lied. Both were put on adminis trative leave, then permitted to resign - with neither disciplinary action nor prosecution for per j ury. (6,9,10) On September 23, 1963, the State Department fired Otto Otepka for actions "unbecoming an of ficer." Otepka appealed. He is still on the payroll, awaiting the outcome of his case. (10)

S acrifice American lives to fight communism in Asia, while communists and pro-communists in the United States are honored and rewarded ? It does not make sense. By firing all communists and pro-communists from government jobs and refraining from ap pointing any more, President Johnson could fight communism far more effectively than by sending American soldiers to die in Asia. In his July 29, 1 965, speech to the nation about Vietnam, President Johnson began by quoting a letter from a mother who asks why American boys are being sent to Vietnam. The President said: " I have tried to answer that question a dozen times and more." W H O

I S

He tried once again, saying: "Three Johnson ] promised nation . .

Presidents . . . [ Eisenhower, Kennedy, have committed themselves and have to help defend this small and valiant . .

"We j ust cannot now dishonor our word or abandon our commitment or leave those who believed us and who trusted us to the terror and repression and murder that would follow. This, then, my fellow Americans, is why we are in Vietnam."

Must the blood of our soldiers be shed in Viet nam to save face for three Presidents who made promises they had no right to make ? President Johnson says : "We did not choose to be the guardians [ of Asi a ] but there was no one else."

He is dead wrong about that. Chiang Kai-shek, President of free China, com mands powerful armed forces - and wants to fight communism in Asia. There are reports that Chiang may be asked to send soldiers to fight with ours in Vietnam. This would be a serious, possibly fatal, error. Limited, peripheral wars against communist puppet states help build and train communist military power in Asia. The only way to save Asia from communism is for Asians to destroy the fountainhead of com munist power - in communist China. This is the kind of war Chiang wants to fight. In a message to a mass rally at Taipei on July 24, 1965 , Chiang called upon Asians to fight in self-defense, saying:

D A N

"We must . . . eliminate the Peiping regime S M O O T ?

Born i n Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1 942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 263

with a single blow before it can develop nuclear weapons, thus winning total victory in our strug· gle against communism and sparing the world . . . the scourge of a nuclear war." ( 1 1 )

Chiang has said repeatedly that American man power is not needed ; but if President Johnson continues his negative, no-win policy, Asia will become a limitless graveyard for our sons ; and the sacrifice will not save Asia. We should get out, giving Chiang Kai-shek our blessing to move as he pleases to rescue his home land. If he succeeded, he would save Asia from communism. Would to God the American people would compel their government to adopt this positive policy of honorable withdrawal before it is too late!

( 3 ) "Waggonner Protests Marshall Appointment," The Shreveport Joumal, August 18, 1962, p. 2A

( 4 ) IrJ1lestigation of Un·American Propaganda Activities in the United States - Appendix Part IX: Communist F"ont Organiza. tiOIZS,

Special House Committee on Un· American Activities

( Dies Committee ) , 1 944. This old HCUA 3·volume, 1 89 5·page publication is now reprinted and available from Poor Richard's Book Shop, 5403 Hollywood Blvd., los Angeles, Calif. 90027, price: $29.90, ( 5 ) Staff Study by the Alabama Legislative Commissioll to Preserve the Peace: Abe Fol'tas, Montgomery, Alabama, July, 1964

( 6 ) State Department Security

1963·65: The Wieland Case Up·

dated, Hearings before the Internal Subcommittee of the U. S.

Senate Judiciary Committee, released July 19, 1965, 1 06 pp. ( 7 ) "Wieland Cleared Over Cuba," by Richard Eder, The Dallas M01'1ling News, July 19, 1965, p . 5A

( 8 ) Hear'ings befol'e the Inte1'1lal Security Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, August, September, 1960 and June,

FOOTNOTES

1961

( 1 ) AP article by Bob Wood from Raleigh, N . C, The Dallas Times Herald, July 14, 1965, p. 14A ( 2 ) For additional information on Martin luther King, the voting rights bill, and other aspects of the civil rights movement, see the following Reports: "Communism in the Civil Rights Move· ment," June 1, 1 964 ; "Civil Rights or Civil War," February 22, 1965 ; "Voting Rights Bill," May 1 0, 1965 .

( 9 ) For additional information o n the Otepka case, see this Report, "Communist Spies in the State Department," March 23, 1964. ( 10) "The Ordeal of Otto Otepka," by Charles Stevenson and Wil· liam ]. Gill, The Reader's Digest, August, 1965, pp. 55·9 ( 1 1 ) Free China Weekly, Taipei, Taiwan, July 2 5, 1965, p. 1

For pnces 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?

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

6 months 1 year

$ 6.00 $10.00 $ 10.00 - $10.00 -$1 0.00 -

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50

STREET ADDRESS

- $ 3.98

ZIP CODE

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 Page

264

TAYLOR

1·2303

THE o

1Jt/1l SmootlIe,o,t Vol. 1 1 , No. 34

(Broadcast 522)

August 23, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

TH E H O RRO R N OW U PO N U S

In a pamphlet entitled

"Two Revolutions At Once," Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, refers to the civil rights movement as "the horror that is now upon us." Events in Los Angeles - and Chicago - in August, 1965 , justify the label. Negro insurrections are products of the civil rights movement. President Johnson repeatedly tells the world that American negroes are mistreated. It is not so. It is a lie to say that negro riots occur because negroes are not given a fair and equal chance in our society. Not only are their rights fully protected by law, but the federal government and many states now have laws prescribing favored treatment for negroes. Negro insurrections occur, not because of poverty, but because communists, high officials, and other leading liberals, have agitated about mistreatment of negroes for a generation. Now, a generation of negroes, deliberately taught to hate whites, are giving vent to their hatred. The "two revolutions" Robert Welch discusses are communist directed. The aim of one is to de tach southern states from the American union and to establish them as a negro soviet republic. The other revolution aims to convert our whole nation into a soviet satellite. Both revolutions are part of a worldwide communist negro revolutionary movement, operating under pretext of promoting civil rights for negroes. The intent is to tear civilization apart and create lawless disorder, leaving communists in command. Aided and abetted by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Supreme Court, and Congress - by liberals generally - the dual communist revolution is advancing with incredible speed. Note a rapid-fire chain of events : On February 9, 1965 , Martin Luther King (militant communist fronter, whom FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover has called "the most notorious liar in the country" ) ( 1 ) met with President Johnson, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, and U. S. Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $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 $1O.0�ach price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page

265

King demanded a voting rights bill for negroes. On March 1 5 , 1 965, President Johnson asked Con gress for the legislation King had demanded. Con gress passed the legislation on August 4. The President signed it on August 6. On August 8, U. S. Attorney General Katzen bach said trained federal examiners were ready to start registering negroes as voters in five south ern states - including illiterates who cannot even sign their own names. Katzenbach pronounced it fair to force southern states to grant illiterate negroes the vote (though they would be ineligible to vote in several northern states not affected by the Voting Rights Act) , because, he asserted, the southern states have been registering illiterate whites. ( 2 ) Katzenbach presented no evidence to prove his assertion. Martin Luther King - who had watched Presi dent Johnson sign the Voting Rights Act - esti mated that the law would give the ballot to about one million southern negroes who had never be fore qualified to vote. Obviously, racial agitators - supported by the federal government - will herd illiterate negroes to the polls in southern states, to vote for candidates approved by the liberal establishment. The Los Angeles insurrection erupted five days after the monstrous Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law. Every such unconstitutional law that grants favoritism to negroes will trigger more violence, because agitation for the laws - and the laws themselves - are further indications to negroes that whites are their enemies.

Educational Tools

R obert

Welch thinks education - public awareness of what is happening - would save us from the "horror . . . now upon us." I agree. Mr. Welch's "Two Revolutions At Once" gives documented proof that the civil rights movement, supported by the federal government, is a com munist program. Reprints of Welch's pamphlet can be ordered from American Opinion, Belmont, Page 266

Massachusetts 02 1 78, at the following prices : Ten copies, one dollar ; 100-999 copies, eight cents each ; 1000 or more copies, seven cents each. In the past three years, I have published Reports which contain information desperately needed at this time. Below are briefs of 1 3 such Reports. Slavery was a national sin; but when we compare the history of black men in the United States - even including the slave era - with their history anywhere else at any time, we find that the American negro has made unparalleled progress. Within 20 years after the Civil War" American negroes were more ad vanced than negroes anywhere else in the world. Communists began a program of racial agitation in the United States in 192 8 ; but negro progress, with white help, was so solid that communists alone could do little harm. It was Democrats and Republicans (greedy for political support from organized negroes in northern cities ) who stirred the race problem into a cauldron of violence and hate. * *T H E AMERICAN T RAGEDY:

Civil rights for negroes has come to mean that harming a negro is a national disaster requiring federal ac tion, even when such action violates the Consti tution; but routine negro violence against whites is beneath the notice of federal officials. Negroes must be given employment preference, though they already hold a disproportionate share of all government jobs. * * MORE EQUAL THAN EQUAL:

For years, to racial end an for clamored agitators civil rights discrimination so that negroes would be treated as individuals, without regard to race. They now demand racial discrimination for negroes, against whites. * * DISC RIMINATION IN REVERSE :

Eisen that said 1963 in Kennedy and 1954 hower in racial integration should convert the nation's cap ital into a showplace. It did. The school system segregated on an orderly and equal basis before 1954 - is now segregated beca se whites are flee ing the city. Negroes constitute 5 5ro of the total * * WASHINGTON : T H E MODEL C ITY:

The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

Washington population, but commit 850/0 of all reported crimes. Sex crimes have become so numer ous that police provide escort service for women. This condition is not due to previous mistreatment of negroes. It results from agitation by high offi cials, including Presidents of the United States. Supreme Court de cisions have crippled law enforcement, and have freed hardened criminals already convicted. Su preme Court reversals of state and local convic tions against racial agitators have made it diffi cult for states to control mob violence. Statements by the Court encourage mob violence as a means of social protest. * * A LAWLESS SOCIETY:

As crime rates soar and barbarism spreads in our land, the courts, racial agitators, civil rights activists, do-gooders, federal officials continue to destroy the power of law enforcement to protect society. Prominent churchmen urge civil disobedience - another name for anarchy. The National Council of Churches urges racial agitation, which leads to lawless violence. Totalitarian liberals have led us down this path : witness the grim fact that crime rates increase at the same pace as public spending for welfare. * *THE FRUITS OF LIBERALI SM:

* * COMMU N I SM

THE

CIVIL

RIGHTS

MOVEMENT: Robert Kennedy (when Attorney General ) said the FBI had no evidence of com munism in civil rights groups ; but the FBI di rector said communism in the civil rights move ment is vitally important. The foremost civil rights group is the NAACP. More than 70 of its top officials have communist front records.

In 1965, hundreds of out-of-state, leftwing lawyers held hearings in Mississippi - armed with quasi-gov ernmental power to issue subpoenas and compel attendance and testimony. The immediate obj ec tive was to unseat the Mississippi delegation in Congress. The long-range obj ective was dictated by Joseph S talin in 1 9 2 8 - to foment bloody race war which can dismember the American union. * * C IVIL RIGHTS OR CIVIL WAR?:

The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

* *VOTING RIGHTS BILL: Racial agitators trig gered violence to create pressures for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saying they wanted to take the civil rights struggle out of the streets and into the courts. When the law was passed, agitators took the struggle back into the streets, inciting more violence to create pressures for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - which Senator Harry Flood Byrd (Virginia Democrat) calls a "vicious bill, subversive of the Constitution, iniquitous in effect and contemptible in design." The disgraceful Selma-to-Montgomery march revealed only one aspect of the ugly picture. -

* * EARL WARREN COURT

( four complete Re

ports) : The Supreme Court under Earl Warren

has done more than any other non-communist agency to aid the communist-created civil rights movement. The Court has virtually eliminated every legal weapon that could be used against communists ; has released communists already tried and convicted ; has made it extremely difficult for states to protect society against heinous crimes. A law of Congress denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction in types of cases it has wrongly handled, and a resolution re-submitting the Four teenth Amendment would undo most of the dam age done by the Warren Court ; but that is not enough. Congress should impeach Earl Warren.

Mass Disobedience Endangers Nation The followi17g article (reprinted with p ermission from the July 2 5 , 1 96 5 , issue of The Kansas City Star) was written by Charles E. Whittaker, whom President DWight D. Eisenhower appointed an Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court in 1 9 5 7. Justice Whittaker retired, because of health, zn 1 96 2 .

Can any thoughtful person reasonably believe that a disorderly society can survive? In all re corded history, none ever has. On the contrary, history shows that every society which became lawless soon succumbed, and that the first eVI dences of each society's decay appeared in the toleration of disobedience of its laws and the judgment of its courts. These are ancient and universal lessons. Yet, in recent times, all of us have daily seen and Page 267

heard an ever-increasing number of accounts that show, with unmistakable clarity, the rapid spread of a planned course of lawlessness in our land that threatens seriously to get out of hand, and, hence, to destroy law and order. While, of course, all of our crime is not due to any one cause, it can hardly be denied that a large part of our current rash and rapid spread of lawlessness has derived from planned and or ganized mass disrespect for, and defiance of, the law and the courts, induced by the irresponsible and inflammatory preachments of some self-ap pointed leaders of minority groups "to obey the good laws, but to violate the bad ones" - which, of course, simply advocates violation of the laws they do not like, or, in other words, the taking of the law into their hands. And this is precisely what their followers have done and are doing - all under the banner of "peaceable civil disobedience," which their lead ers have claimed to be protected by the peaceable assembly-and-petition provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In truth, that conduct is neither "peaceable" nor "civil" in nature, nor is it protected by the First Amendment, as we shall see. In furtherance of that philosophy, some of those leaders have incited their followers to as semble at a focal point, from far and wide often, unfortunately, with the encouragement and physical support, and also frequently at the expense, of well-meaning but misguided church organizations - into large and loosely assembled groups, which at least resemble mobs, to wage what they call "demonstrations" to force the con cession of what they demand as their "rights" in defiance of legal processes, the courts, and all constituted authority. Because of general familiarity with the pat tern, only a word as to the nature of those "dem onstrations" is needed. In the beginning, they consisted of episodic group invasions and tem porary appropriations of private stores, first �y sitting down and later by lying down therem, and eventually by blocking the entrances thereto with their bodies - conduct which has always been known as criminal trespass. Seeing that those trespasses were applauded by many, even in high places, and were generally not punished, but, rather, were compelled to be appeased and rewarded, those leaders and their Page 268

incited groups quickly enlarged the scope of their activities by massing and marching on the sidewalks, streets and highways - frequently blocking and appropriating them to a degree that precluded their intended public uses. And that conduct, too, being nearly always appeased, the pattern has rapidly spread, as one might expect, pretty generally throughout the land, even into our university campuses, and there is some re cent evidence that it is now threatening to m vade our military forces. "Crime," says Webster, means: "Any act or omission forbidden by law and punishable upon conviction." It can hardly be denied that those trespasses violated at least the criminal-trespass laws of the jurisdictions involved, that those laws imposed penalties for their violation, and, hence, that those trespasses constituted "crimes." In the first place, that conduct cannot honestly be termed "peaceable," for its avowed purpose was and is to force direct action outside the law, and hence was lawless, and, of course, inherently disturbing to the peace of others. One can hardly deny the truth of the statement written by Mr. Justice Black, joined by two other justices, in June, 1 964, that "Force leads to violence, vio lence to mob conflicts, and these to rule by the strongest groups with control of the most deadly weapons." In the second place, that conduct cannot hon estly be termed "civil disobedience," for the sim ple reason that willful conduct violative of crim inal laws is not "civil," but is "criminal" dis obedience. And lastly, that conduct is not protected by the peaceable-assembly-and-petition provisions of the First Amendment. That provision reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of griev ances." Surely, nothing in that language grants a license to any man, or group of men, to violate state criminal laws. Rather, as Mr. Justice Rob erts wrote upon the subject in 1 939, "the privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of vie�s on �a tional questions must be regulated � n the m . terest of all; it is not absolute, but IS relatIve, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in con sonance with peace and good order . . . ." (Em phasis added.) The D a n Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

Would not every thinking person also agree with the statement made very recently by the president of Yale university in a speech at De troit, that the current rash of "demonstrations" makes "a ludicrous mockery of the democratic debating process"? The pattern of forcing demands by mass or mob actions, outside the law and the courts, has proven - as certainly we should have expected to be tailor-made for infiltration, use and take over by rabble-rousers and Communists who are avowedly bent on the breakdown of law, order and morality of our society, and, hence, on its destruction. Even though those results may not have been contemplated, and surely weren't wished, by those Americans who so advocated and participated either conspiratorily, financially or physically in such disobedience of our laws, nevertheless, they did advocate that philosophy, and they did put its processes into action, and however well even if ignorantly - motivated, cannot now es cape responsibility for its results. As we have all seen, the pattern of the process has now spread into the campuses of most of our great universities. A sampling of examples of what is there occurring may be seen through a few brief quotations. The California state superintendent of pub lic instruction, in commenting about conditions on the campus at Berkeley, recently said: "Dem onstrations there provided a vehicle for infiltra tion by rabblerousers, redhots and Communists and resulted in assaults, kidnappings, and im prisonment of police officers, the commandeering of public-address systems, and their use in spew ing over the campus the most filthy four-letter words, and the general breakdown of law and order." An Associated Press dispatch of Wednesday, May 1 9, in speaking of lawless demonstrations in progress at the University of Wisconsin, said that one of the "leaders" there openly espoused, from a public rostrum on the campus, that "The students should band together to bring down the government by any means." It also said that the "demonstrations" there had now been infiltrated and were being led by "eight to a dozen" ring leaders who are operating under "pretty good cover," and at least some of them are known mem bers of the DuBois clubs of America, which Sen ator Dodd and J. Edgar Hoover have recently The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 ( Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

described as a "new Communist-oriented youth organization." These "demonstrations" have even invaded Howard university - the largest Negro university in our country. In a recent interview, its presi dent, Dr. Nabrit, says that he is meeting on his campus "open defiance of law and order," which he characterized as a part of a campaign "to bring the university into general disrepute." He warned that even though those "demonstrators" parade under the banner of civil rights, "they do not believe in civil rights for anyone. They are children of lawlessness and disciples of destruc tion. They are people who cloak themselves in the roles of civil righters but plot and plan in secret to disrupt our fight for justice and full citizenship. They must," he said, "be unmasked for the frauds that they are, and must be fought in every arena." A very recent issue of The Kansas City Star contained several articles about the general break-down of law and order on our college cam puses. One of them fairly put the finger on the cause. It did so by quoting one of the "demon strating students." He was asked why some stu dents had abandoned historical "panty raids" and similar college pranks for open and riotous rebellion. "Why," he said, "You could get kicked out of school for conducting a panty raid and things of that kind, but no one is ever kicked out or pun ished for demonstrating for something like civil rights." It is thus plain that the students, knowing just as everyone else knows, that riotous conduct in the name of "civil rights" is not being punished, but is being tolerated, have been thus encouraged to continue and spread their riotous actions. . These lawless activities, nauseating as they are, can hardly be surprising, for they are plainly some of the results that we should have known would inevitably come from tolerating open and direct preachments to defy and violate the law. Another recent article quoted some comments of J. Edgar Hoover about the effects of spread ing crime upon the personal safety of our citi zens. He said: "There is too much concern in this country . . for the 'rights' of an individual who com mits a crime. I think he is entitled to his [ legal Page 269

rights ] , but I think the cItIzens of this country ought to be able to walk all the streets of our cities without being mugged, raped or robbed." "But," he said, "we can't do that today." And he added: "All through the country, almost with out exception, this condition prevails." The April 1 0, 1 965, issue of the magazine

America contained an article on the imperative

need for certain and severe punishment of crime, which made many pertinent observations, in cluding this one:

" [ Government ] has no right to turn the cheek of its citizens. Instead, it is gravely obligated by the very purpose of its existence - to see to their protection." To this, I say Amen. There are, of course, first duties of citizenship, but there are also first duties of government. It is undoubtedly true, as recited in the theme of the recent presidentially proclaimed Law day, 1 965, that "A Citizen's First Duty Is To Uphold the Law," but it is also a first duty of government to enforce the law.

Because some of our citizens will not volun tarily perform their "first duty" to uphold the law, our governments, state and federal, are, as said in the article quoted from America, "gravely obligated - by the very purpose of [ their ] ex istence - to see to [ the protection of the peo pIe ] " by at least making them obey the law. All of us have been often told, and many of us have preached, that crime does not pay, but the recent rash and spread of law defiance, and the successes - even though tenuous and tem porary - of that philosophy in obtaining goals, seems to compel a reappraisal of that concept for, from what we see currently happening, one can reasonably believe that certain types of crime are being permitted to pay. Probably because of a rather widespread recog nition that, at times and in certain sectors, some of our colored brethren have suffered unconsti tutional discriminiations, and because many of us have been sympathetic to the ends they seek and have not, therefore, thought very much about the destructive means they have embarked upon to attain those ends - there has been a rather general public apathy toward their preach ments to violate, and their practices in violating, our laws. Page 270

But whatever may have been the provocations - and, doubtless, there have been some - no man or any group or race of men can be per mitted, in a government of laws, to take the law, or what they think ought to be the law, into their own hands, for that is anarchy which always re sults in chaos. The fact that the provocations may have been themselves constitutionally unlawful cannot jus tify unlawful means for their resolution. Both types of conduct are wrong - constitutionally wrong, the one as much as the other. And, ob viously, two wrongs cannot make a right. All discriminations that violate the Constitu tion and laws of the United States are readily redressible in our courts which have always been open to all citizens. And no one has any room to doubt that, if he will resort to those courts, and have the patience to await their processes as we all must do in an ordered society - all his constitutional and legal rights will be vouch safed to him, whatever his creed or color. But there has been impatience with the ju dicial processes manifested by the recent hue and cry for "action now - not the delays of the law." Obviously, that cliche, too, calls for direct action in disobedience of the laws, the judgments of the courts and of all constituted authority. It is true that legal processes, being refined and deliberative processes, are slow. But like the mills of the gods, though they grind slowly, they grind exceedingly fine, and their judgments are most likely to be just. In all events, there is no other orderly way to peaceably and fairly decide the issues that arise among us, and to have an ordered liberty. The great pity here is that these minority groups are, by their unilateral mass actions out side of and in defiance of the law, actually erod ing and destroying the legal processes which alone can ever assure to them, or permanently maintain for them, due process and equal pro tection of the laws, and that can, thus, protect them from discriminations and abuses by ma jorities. Last May, Lewis F. Powell, president of the American Bar Association, in a speech dedicating the new Missouri Bar center at JefIerson City, said: The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 9 65 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

"Many centuries of human misery show that once a society departs from the rule of law, and every man becomes the judge of which laws he will obey, only the strongest remain free." I think we must all agree with his conclusion that "America needs a genuine revival of respect for law and orderly processes, a reawakening of individual responsibility, a new impatience with those who violate and circumvent our laws, and a determined insistence that laws be enforced, courts respected and due process followed." We must take the laws into our hearts rather than into our hands, and seek redress in the courts rather than in the streets if we are to sur vive as a civilized nation. The remedy is as plain as the threat. It is simply to insist that our governments, state and federal, reassume and discharge their "first duty" of protecting the people against lawless invasions upon their persons and property by the impartial and vigorous enforcement of our criminal laws and by the swift, certain and substantial punish ment thereunder of all persons whose conduct violates those laws - and to do so immediately, and hopefully before planned and organized crime has spread beyond the capacities of our peace-keeping machinery to control and suppress. These are not platitudes, but are fundamentals and vital, as every thinking man should see, to the survival of our civilized and cultured society.

W H O

D A N

In no other way can we orderly resolve the is sues that confront and divide us, or live together in peace and harmony as a civilized nation of brothers under the fatherhood of God.

Civil Rights Packet The 13 Reports summarized in this issue may be ordered singly, or in quantities, at prices listed at the bottom of the first page of each Report. To encourage maximum distribution, we will combine the 1 3 with the present Report to make a CIVIL RIGHTS PACKET of 14 Reports, at the follow ing special prices : 1 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKET

( 14 Reports)

2.00

5 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKETS

(70 Reports)

6.25

10 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKETS

( 140 Reports)

$ 12.50

2 5 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKETS

(350 Reports)

$ 3 1.50

50 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKETS

(700 Reports)

$ 63.00

100 CIVIL RIGHTS PACKETS ( 1400 Reports)

$1 1 3.00

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "The FBI and Civil Rights - J. Edgar Hoover Speaks Out," U. S. News & lVodd Report, November 30, 1964, p. 5 6

( 2 ) New York Times News Service article b y John Herbers, The Dallas Morning News, August 9, 1 965, p. 3A

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 , he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1 942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1 95 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 34)

P age 27 1

BOU N D VOLU M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT T he

Smoot Report

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

mented. Thus, the material in our Bound Volumes is invaluable to those interested in American history and constitutional government, and in the great controversies troubling the world today.

Reports

Each Volume contains all weekly

for a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOLU M E IS A TREASURE HOUSE OF I N FOR MATION FOR (Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

VO LU M E X

1 964:

$ 1 0.00*

VOL U M E IX

1 963: $ 1 0.00*

Revea l i ng stU d i es i n depth o n such

A c h ro n o logical account and a n a lysis

Contempora ry

able

h i storic

yea r - THE

ASSAS

$ 10.00�:;

VOLU M E V I I I - 1962: $ 1 0.00*

su bjects as - NAT I O NAL CO U N C I L

events,

ana lyses

m e m or

aga i n st the

backdrop

h i st o ry - S U P R E M E

CO U RT'S

O F C H U RCH ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

SI NAT I O N

. . . I M M IG RAT I O N LAWS . . . M E D I

. . . ALLIANCE FOR PROGR ESS . . .

PRAYER D E C I S I O N S . . . TH E M IS-

LAW LESS GOV E R N M E NT . . . C H I NA

S I SS I PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . .

T H E STATE DEPART M E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . H OW FOR E I G N A I D . I S K I LL I NG A M E R ICA .. . . W O R L D

C U BA . . . C O N G O I NT R I G U E . .

CARE .

. CO M M U N I ST S P I ES

ON POVERTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G EN E R A L MACARTH U R N I SM

M OV E M ENT

TH E .

CIVI L .

THE

COM M U

CO U RT

R I G H TS

TRAGEDY

I NV I S I B LE

U R BAN

R E N EWAL

PROG R ESSIVE E D U CATI O N . . . E U -

R O PEAN CO M M ON M A R K ET . . . U N

M E M B E RS H I P

A N D WORLD G OV E R N M ENT . . . TH E

D I SA R M AM E N T U.

WAG ES

IN TH E U N

WE LFARE

GOVER N M E NT

SOC I A L I S M

TH E

RACKET

O R D ER FORM B ELOW

YOU R NAM E : STR E ET:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

P. O . BOX 9538 __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

C I TY AN D STATE :

_____

____

_____

TH E DAN SMOOT R E PORT

DALLAS, T EXAS 7 5 2 1 4 _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

COP i ES BO U N D VO LU M E X ( 1 964)

$ 10.00 each �'

CO P i ES BOU N D VO LU M E IX ( 1 963) - $ 10 .00 each " COP i ES BO U N D VOLU M E VI I I

( 1 962) - $ 1 0 . 00

eac h �'

____

Payment E n c l osed

"' ($ 1 0 . 2 0 each fo r o rders i n Texas fo r Texas Del ivery) Page 272

The Dan Smoot Report, August 23, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 34)

THE o

Bf/II SmootlIeport Vol. 1 1 , No. 35

(Broadcast 523)

August 30, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

FO U RTH R O L L CALLS, 1 9 6 5

In three previous

issues of this Report, we tabulated 42 roll call votes in the national Congress - 2 1 in the Senate, 2 1 in the House ( "First Roll Calls, 1965 ," May 3 1 ; "Second Roll Calls, 1965," June 14; "Third Roll Calis, 1965," August 2 ) . Tabulations herein bring the total to 56 - 28 in the Senate, 28 in the House. Thus far in 1 965, only 26 Senators have earned conservative ratings of 60% or better ( 1 5 Repub licans, 1 1 Democrats ) . Only four Senators (three Democrats, one Republican ) have earned conserv ative ratings of 900/0 or better : Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis Robertson (Virginia Democrats ) , 960/0 ; Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Republican ) , 930/0 ; and James O. Eastland (Mississippi Democrat) , 92%. To date, only 1 5 8 Representatives have earned conservative ratings of 600/0 or better. The grim truth is that most members of Congress have sold out politically: they vote for harm ful, unconstitutional programs, in return for political support believed necessary to keep them in their jobs. Outrageous legislation - which Congress rejected when proposed by President Ken nedy - is now being enacted in response to President Johnson'S pressures and deals. Yet, the closeness of some votes on major issues is encouraging. A leading conservative Demo crat has remarked privately that if conservatives can gain only 20 House seats in the 1 966 elec tions, they will have enough strength to block Johnson administration programs. Facts indicate that he is right. In the 88th Congress (1963-1964) which rejected much of the Kennedy-Johnson legis lative program, there were only 1 59 Representatives with conservative ratings of 60910 or better. Of the 1 59 in the 88th Congress, none had 1000/0 conservative ratings. Of the 1 5 8 who rate 600/0 or better now, 16 have 100910 conservative voting records (nine Republicans, seven Democrats) : Alabama: Buchanan, Dickinson, Edwards, Martin (all Republicans) Georgia: Callaway (Republican) Iowa: Gross (Republican) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $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 $ 1O.0O-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

1965. Second Class

mail

privilege

No Reproductions Permitted. Page 273

authorized

Dal las,

Texas.

Louisiana: Passman, Waggonner (Democrats) Mississippi: Abernethy, Colmer, Williams (Democrats); Walker (Republican) Missouri: Hall (Republican) Nevada: Baring (Democrat) South Carolina: Watson (Republican) Texas: Pool (Democrat)

Americans who want to save their country from socialist dictatorship have an obvious job to do : find and elect constitutional conservatives to the House and Senate in 1966. Their first task is edu cational. They should inform themselves about the voting of members of Congress, and make maxi mum effort to inform others. FOREIGN AI D

On June 14, 1 965, the Senate, by a stand of 73 to 25, passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1 965 (HR 7750) authorizing $3.243 billion a year for the next two years. The vote is tabulated in Column 22 under Senate C indicating a con servative stand against foreign aid. On March 1 5 , 1 965 , Representative Otto Pass man (Louisiana Democrat, Chairman of the For eign Operations Subcommittee on Appropria tions ) said : -

"Our Government will be disbursing some type of foreign aid during Fiscal 1 965 in 99 foreign nations and 9 territories. I contend that this pro gram, in its present form, is uncontrolled and ap parently uncontrollable. There are 71 ,41 6 indi viduals, including participant s, on its payrolls. It has reached the point that even the confusers are confusing themselves. No program in the his tory of mankind has had as many paid lobby ists as the foreign aid program. It would take many, many pages, if not a book, to list the names of all individuals who are lobbying for or are recipients of the program."

On July 1 , 1 965 , Representative Passman dis closed that total foreign aid for the 1 966 fiscal year (aid authorized in other bills, in addition to the regular foreign aid bill ) is $7,5 1 2,476,000.00. He revealed that total fOfeign aid avail able for fiscal 1966 (new funds authorized, plus funds authorized in previous years and carried Page 274

forward because not yet used ) 000.00.

$ 1 0,605,738, -

NATION AL DEBT I NC REASE

On June 16, 1 965, the Senate (by a stand of 67 to 2 7 ) passed HR 8464, authorizing a "tempo rary" increase in the national debt level to $328 billion. This is the sixth "temporary" increase since the beginning of the Kennedy-Johnson era in January, 1961 . The vote is tabulated in Column 2 3 under Senate C indicating a stand against increasing the national debt level. We tabulated the House vote on this in the August 2 Report. -

MEDI CARE AND S OC IAL SECU RITY

On April 8, 1965, the House passed HR 6675, adding medical care benefits to social security, expanding present benefits, increasing social se curity taxes. We recorded this House vote in the June 14 Report. On July 9, 1 965, Senator Carl T. Curtis (Nebraska Republican ) offered an amendment to delete medicare provisions from HR 6675. The Senate rej ected the Curtis amendment by a stand of 67 to 29. This vote is tabulated in Column 24 under Senate C indicating a conservative stand against adding medicare to social security. On July 9, 1965 , the Senate passed HR 667 5 , with the medicare provisions included, but dif ferent in some details from the House-passed ver sion. This Senate vote is tabulated in Column 2 5 under Senate C indicating a conservative stand against. A House-Senate conference committee later agreed on a final version of HR 667 5 . Congress passed the bill ; and President Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965 . In a subsequent Report, we will tabulate both House and Senate votes on final passage. -

HOUSING AND U RBAN D EVELOPME NT

On June 30, 1 965, the House, by a stand of The Dan Smoot Report, August

30, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 35)

2 1 3 to 208, refused to remove rent subsidy pro visions from the Housing and Urban Develop ment Act of 1 965 (HR 7984) . This vote is tabu lated in Column 24 under House - C indicating a conservative vote against the rent subsidy scheme. On June 30, 1 965, the House, by a stand of 249 to 1 73, passed HR 7984 with the rent subsidy in cluded. This vote is tabulated in Column 2 5 under House - C indicating a conservative vote against. On July 1 5 , 1 965, the Senate, by a stand of 5 3 to 46, refused to remove rent subsidy from HR 7984. This vote is tabulated in Column 26 under Senate - C indicating a conservative vote against the rent subsidy. On July 1 5 , 1965, the Senate, by a stand of 64 to 35, passed HR 7984, with the rent subsidy in cluded. This vote is tabulated in Column 27 under Senate-C indicating a conservative stand against. A final conference version was later passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the Presi dent. Roll call on final passage in the House will be tabulated in a subsequent Report. Final pas sage in the Senate was by voice vote. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1 965 is among the most harmful, most revolution ary pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress. For details, see "Government Guaranteed Secu rity," the July 19, 1 965, issue of this Report. D. C. H OME R U LE

The Constitution provides that:

�

egislation " [ Congress shall h ave ] exclusive . in all Cases wh atsoever, over such DIstrict . . . as m ay . . . become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . . .

unconstitutional. It also violates American prin ciples of representative government. In other cities, governments chosen by the people must impose taxes on the people. If Washington, D. C. had home rule, city politici ans could buy votes for themselves by promising benefits to be paid, not by local taxation, but by grants from the na tional treasury. This year, the perennial D. C. Home Rule bill is S 1 1 1 8. Senator Peter H. Dominick (Colorado Republican ) offered an amendment to S 1 1 1 8, specifying that appropriations for the District of Columbia be made on an annual basis. On July 2 1 , 1965, the Senate, by a stand of 5 1 to 43, re j ected the Dominick amendment. This vote is tabulated in Column 28 under Senate - C indi cating a conservative stand for subjecting District of Columbia appropriations to annual action by Congress. S 1 1 1 8 without the Dominick amendment per mits the District of Columbia to draw - auto matically, without congressional action - speci fied sums of tax money from the U. S. Treasury every year. Congress has already abdicated much of its con stitutional responsibility, delegating to the Presi dent and to executive agencies powers that were intended to rest only in the legislative branch. If S 1 1 1 8 is passed, it could set a precedent for other bills, eventually making it possible for the vast federal bureaucracy to draw funds from the Treas ury without congressional appropriations, leaving the elected Congress no control whatever over the squandering of our tax money. The Senate passed S 1 1 1 8 on July 22, but the House has not yet acted. The Senate vote on final passage will be tabulated in a subsequent Report.

This means that Congress must be the real gov erning body of Washington, D. C. For many Years , however , extreme liberals have advocated home rule for the District - that is, permitting citizens of the District to elect their own govern ment.

Home rule for Washington, D. C. is obviously The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 35)

HOUSING AND U RBAN AFFAI RS DEPARTMENT

President Kennedy unsuccessfully urged Con gress to create a new Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, to administer the federal govern ment's various housing and urban renewal pro grams, city planning, mass transit subsidies, and Page

275

other programs which are making the federal gov ernment the absolute master of our cities and states. On June 16, 1965, the House, by a stand of 228 to 195, passed HR 6927, which is President John son's bill for creating the new cabinet level De partment. The Senate passed HR 6927 on August 1 1 , 1965 . Passage of HR 6927 is one more signifi cant instance of Johnsonian success, where Ken nedyism failed, in taking a major step toward totalitarian, centralized government. The Senate vote will be recorded in a subsequent Report.

"We will, in one sweeping gesture create a goliath which will drain our Treasury and which will keep a watchful, police eye on every urban community and its citizens, planning, spending, directing, until citizens will not call city hall when streets need repair, or a water main needs replacing, but will notify their Congressman to contact the cabinet member handling such prob lems."

A major argument tOl' a Department of Hous ing and Urban affairs is that the Department would give city dwellers an equal chance with other special interest groups to exert pressures on the federal government, for programs favoring cities. For example, the House sponsor of this measure in 1961 said :

The June 16, 1965, House vote on HR 6927 is tabulated in Column 22 under House - C indi cating a conservative stand against authorizing a Department of Housing and Urban Affairs.

"You have the farm bloc that can scare poli ticians and make them jump, and we pass all kinds of legislation for it. Labor, Agriculture, and business have Cabinet spokesmen, and the city dwellers have none . . . . At long last, Ameri ca's largest group of citizens would at least get a seat at that table, and it is certainly in my judg ment past due."

On June 24, 1965, the House, by a stand of 2 24 to 167, passed HJ Res 541 , authorizing a two month extension of the Area Redevelopment Ad ministration. The vote is tabulated in Column 2 3 under House - C indicating a conservative vote against extending ARA. The Senate approved the extension by voice vote.

The following quotation is from the Minority Views expressed by Senators who opposed crea tion of the new Department during committee hearings in June, 1961 : "Every pressure group in the nation, looking for Federal funds, wants to have its representative crowding to the President's cabinet table, not to advise and guide him on the problems of gov ernment, but to push for special favors for spe cial interests . . . . "We are, more and more, moving toward a directed economy in this country. The theory of those who support more Federal intervention is that Washington knows best, works best, pays best; and all lesser segments of government must change - they must reshape their concepts of self-determination, and accept the blueprint of the planners . . . .

"This new Department can eventually nullify local city government . . . . Page 276

Neither during 1961-2-3, nor in 1965 , was any substantial notice given to the fact that all pro grams scheduled to be administered by the new Department are unconstitutional.

ARA EXTENSION

During debates, Representative William B. Widnall (New Jersey Republican) said: "Neither the ARA's past record nor its present status justify any extension of time for this agency. It is a matter of public record and pub lic knowledge that the ARA has done less with more money than almost any other bureaucratic agency in history."

Congress created the Area Redevelopment Ad ministration in 1961, to make loans and gifts of tax money to depressed areas. After four years, and the unconstitutional squandering of $43 5 ,000,000.00, ARA had failed grotesquely to pro vide the material blessings its sponsors had prom ised - and was scheduled to expire June 30, 1965 . President Johnson asked for a new Eco nomic Development Administration - which would incorporate activities of the ARA and add The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 35)

new ones. The two-month extension was intended to keep ARA alive until Congress approves the new EDA to take its place. For details, see "Toward A Socialist Dictator ship," the July 5, 1965 , issue of this Report.

GOVERN ORS' VETO OF POVERTY WAR PROGRAMS

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Pres ident Johnson's Poverty War bill) gave state governors power to veto proposed federal anti poverty programs affecting local or state govern ments. This was a sop to those who expressed fear that the poverty program would further un dermine states rights. A few governors, exercis ing the veto power granted them in the EconomiC Opportunity Act, rejected certain federal anti poverty programs proposed for their states. On July 22, 1965, the House, by a stand of 239 to 190, voted to limit severely the veto power of state governors. The vote is recorded in Column 28 under House L indicating a liberal vote against the governors' veto power. For details on this, and related instances of the federal government dictating to state and local officials and overriding their wishes, see "Death Watch Of The Republic," the August 9, 1965 , issue of this Report.

VOTING RIGHTS BILL

On July 9, the House, by a stand of 220 to 206, rejected an amendment to HR 6400 (The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ) which would have forced states to grant the vote to persons who cannot read or write English, if the persons have a sixth grade education from a school conducted under the American flag. The vote is tabulated in Col·umn 26 under House C indicating a conserva tive stand against the amendment. The House passed HR 6400 by a stand of 336 to 88. This vote is tabulated in Column 27 under House. Sen ate and House roll call votes on final passage of the Voting Rights Act will be be tabulated in a subsequent Report.

ROLL

C ALL

VOTES

S E NA T E A " C " indicates a cons e rvative stand.

A n i l L " indicates a liberal stand.

"0"

indicates the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

Column #22 - - F o reign Aid Authorization. HR 7 7 5 0 ; C olumn H 2 3 - - National Debt Incr eas e , HR 8464; C olumn 1124 - - Medicare and Social Security, H R 6675. medicare provision; Column 1/ 2 5 - - Medicare and Social Security. HR 6675, passage; Column # 2 6 - - Housing and Urban Development Act, S 2 2 1 3 , rent subsidy; Column #27 _ _ Housing and Urban Development A c t , S 2 2 1 3 , passage; C olumn fl2 - - D . C . Home Rule, S 1 1 1 8

ALABAMA Hill, Lister (D) Sparkman, John J. (D) A LASKA Bartlett, E. L. (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) ARIZ ONA �, Paul J . (R) Hayden, Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J. W. (D) McClellan, John L . (D) CALIFORNIA Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) Murphy. George (R) COLORADO Allott, Gordon (R) Dominick, Peter H. (R) CONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J. (D) RibicoH. Abraham A. (D) DELAWARE Boggs, J . Caleb (R) William s , John J. (R) FLORIDA Holland, Spes sard L . (D) Smathers, George A. (D) GEORGIA �, Richard B. (D) Talmadge, Herman E. (D) HAWAII �. Hiram L. (R) Inouye . Daniel K . (D) IDAHO ---chUr ch, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B. (R) ILLINOIS Dirksen, Everett McK. (R) Dougla s . Paul H . (D) INDIANA � Birch (D) Hartke. Vance (D) IOW.I\

�ckenlooper , Bourke B. Miller , Jack (R) KANSAS ----carlson. Frank (R) Pearson. James B. (R)

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C 0

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

L C

C C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

L C

L L

0 L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

L C

C C

C L

C C

KENTUCKY Cooper , John Sherman (R) Morton. Thruston B. (R) LOUISIANA Ellender, Allen J. (D) Long, Russell B. (D) MAINE �kie . Edmund S. (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND

N )!; W M)!;XICO

(R)

The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 35)

Anderson, Clinton P. (D) Montoya, Joseph M . (D) NEW YORK Javit s . Jacob K. (R) Kennedy, Robert F. (D)

L L

L C

C C

C L

L L

L C

Brewster, Daniel B . (D)

Tydings , Joseph D. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy. Edward M. (D) Saltonstall. Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A. (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy, Eugene J. (D) Mondale, Walter F. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O . (D) Stenni s , John (D) MISSOURI ---r:ong:-E dward V. (D) Symington, Stuart (O) MONTANA Mansfield, Mike (D) Metcalf, Lee (D) NEBRASKA Curtis , Carl T. (R) Hruska, Roman L . (R) NEVADA � Alan (D) Canon, Howard W. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cotton, Norris (R) McIntyre. Thomas J . (D) NEW JERSEY Case, Clifford P. (R) Williams , Harrison A . , Jr.

L L L

(D)

L L

L C

L L

C C

C L

C C

L L

L e

L L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

Page

277

NORTH CAROLINA Ervin, Sam J . , J r . (D) Jordan, B Everett (D) NORTH DAKOTA Burdick , Quentin N. (D) Young, Milton R. (R) OHIO --r::ausche. Frank J . (D) Young, Stephen M. (D) OKLAHOMA Harri s . Fred R. (D) Monroney. A . S. Mike (D) OREGON Mor s e , Wayne (D) Neuberger. Maurine B. (D) PENNSYLVANIA Clark, Jos eph S. (D) Scott, Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastore, John O. (D) Pell, Claiborne (0) SOUTH CAROLINA Russell, Donald S. (D) Thurmond, Strom (R) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern, George (D) Mundt, Karl E. (R)

C C

C L

C C

L C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L C

C C

L C

C C

L L

L C

TENNESSEE B as s , Ross (D) Gore. Albert (D) TEXAS --rower, John C. (R) Yarborough, Ralph W. (D) UTAH --sennett, Wallace F. (R) Moss. Frank E. (D) VERMONT �George D. (R) Prouty, Winston L. (R) VIRGINIA �Harry Flood (D) Robertson, A . Willis (D) WASHINGTON Jackson, Henry M. (D) Magnuson, Warren C . (D) WEST VIRGINIA Byrd, Robert C . (D) Randolph, Jennings (0) WISCONSIN Nelson, Gaylord A. (D) Proxmire, William (D) WYOMING McGee, Gale VI. (D) Simpson, Milward L . (R)

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

L C

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

HOUS E

A "Olt indicates the Repres entative was absent or did not take a public stand. C o lumn # 2 2 -- Hou ing and Urban Affairs Department, H R 692 7 ; Column #23 -- ARA Exte n sion . HJ R e s 54 1 ; Column # 2 4 -- Housing and Urban Development � Act, HR 7 9 8 4 , r e n t SUb � ldy; �olumn # 2 5 - - Housing a n d Urban Development A c t . H R 7 9 8 4 . p a s s ag e ; Column #26 - - Voting Rights A c t , HR 6400 . American Flag school; C o lumn # 2 7 -- Votmg Rlghts A c t . HR 6400, pas s a g e ; Column # 2 8 -- Poverty W a r Revision, H R 8 2 8 3 , governo r ' s veto A " C " indicates a c o n s e rvative stand.

A LABAMA

Andrews, Geor g e W.

(D)

Andrews , Glenn (R) Buchanan, John H , . J r . (R) Dickinson, William L. (R) Edwards, VI, Jack, III (R) Jones. Robert E. (D) Martin, James D . (R) Selden, Armistead I . , Jr. (D) ALASKA Rivers , Ralph J , (D) ARIZ ONA 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. (R) Bell, Alphonzo (R) Brown. George E . , J r . (D) Burton, Phillip (D) Cameron, Ronald B . (D) Clausen, Don (R) Clawson, Del (R) Cohelan, Je[[ery (D) Corman, James C. (D) Oyal, Kenneth W . (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, Craig (R) Johnson, Harold T . (D) King, Cecil R. (D) Leggett, Robert L. (D) Lipscomb, Glenard P . (R) Mailliard, William S. (R) McFall, John J. (D) Miller, George P. (D) Mos s , John E. (D) Reinecke, Edwin (R) Roosevelt, James (D) Roybal. Edward R. (D) Sisk, B. F . (D) Smith, H . Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L . (R) Teague, Charles M . (R.) Tunney, John V , (D) Utt, James B. (R) Van OeerHn, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson, Charles H . (D) Younge r , J . Arthur (R) COLORADO A s pinall, Wayne N. (D) Evans, Frank E . (D) McVicker, Roy H . (D) Rogers , Byron G. (D) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio Q . (D) Giaimo, Robert N. (D)

Page 278

An i l L " indicates a liberal stan d .

C C C C L C C

C C C C C C C

C C C C L C C

C C C C C C C

C C C C L C C

C L L

L L L

C L L

C C L L

C L L L

C C L L

C C L

C C C C

C L L L

C C L L L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L L L C L L L C C C L C L C L C

C C L L C C C L L

C C

C C L L L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L L L C L L L C C C L C C C L C

L C L L L C C L L L L C C L L L O L L L C C L L L C L L L C C C L C L C L C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L O L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L L C L L L L

L C L L L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L L L C L L L C C C C C L C L C

L L

L L L

L C C L

L C L L 0

C C L L L C L L 0

C C C L C L C 0

0 L

C C

L L

L C

L L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L .L

L C L L L C C C L C L C L C L

L L

CONNECTICUT (cont'd) Grabowski , B ernard P. (D) Irwin, Donald J . (D) Monogan, J ohn S. (D) St. Onge, William (D) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , Jr. (D) F LORIDA Bennett, Charles E. (0) Cramer. William C . (R) Fascell, Dante B. (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, Claude (D) Rogers , Paui G . (D) Sikes I Robert L. F. (D) GEORGIA Callaway, Howard H . (R) Davi s" John W. (D) Flynt, John J . • Jr. (D) Hagan, G. Elliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Mackay, James A. (D) O'Neal, Maston E. (D) Stephens , Robert G . , Jr. (D) Tuten, J. Russell (D) Weltner. Charles L . (D) HAWAII �unaga, Spark M, (D) Mink, Patsy (D) IDAHO --ai'iis en, George V . (R) White. Compton 1 . , J r . (D) ILLINOIS �son, John B. (R) A nnunzio, Frank (D) Arends, Leslie C. (R) Collier, Harold R. (R) Dawson, William L. (D) Oerwinski, Edward J. (R) Erlenborn. John N. (R) Findley, Paul (R) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Kluczynski, John C. (D) McClory, Robert (R) Michel, Robert H. (R) Murphy, William T. (D) O'Hara. Barratt (D) Pric e , Melvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C . (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Ronan, Dan (D) Rostenkowski, Dan (D) RumsCeld, Donald (R) Schisler, Gale (D) Shipley, George E. (D) Springe r , William L . (R) Yates , Sidney R . (D) INDIANA Adair, E, Ross (R) Bradema s , John (D) Bray, Wilham C . (R) Denton , Winfield K . (D)

L L L

C L L

L L L

L L

C L

L L L

L L L L

C C L C L C C C C L C C

C C L C L C C C C L L C

C C L C L C C C C L C C

L L L C L C C C C L L C

C C L C L C C C C L C C

C L C L L L C L L L

C L C L L C L L L

C L C C C C C C C L

C C C C C L C C C L

C C C C L L C L C L

L L C C C C C L L L

C C C C C C C C C C

C C C L

L L

C L

C C

C L

C C

C L

C L C C C L L C C L L L C C L

C L C C

C L C L L L L C L L L

L L L C

C L C C

C C C L L C C L L L L C L L

L C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C L C L

L L L

C L C C L C C C L L C C L L L L

L C L

L L

L L C L C C L

C C C L L C C L L L L C L L C L L C L

C L C L

The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 1 965

L C

C C C L L C C L L L L C L

C L

o o

L C L

C L

C L C L

(Vol.

L L L L C L L C L L

L L C L C L C L

1 1, No. 35)

INDIANA (cont'd) Halleck, Charles A. (R) Hamilton, Lee H . (D) Harvey, Ralph (R) Jacobs. Andrew. Jr. (D) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) IOWA -aindstra, Bert (D) Culver, John C. (D) Greigg, Stanley L . (D) Gross , H . R . (R) Hansen, John R. (D) Schmidhauser, J ohn R. (D) Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS ----o;,;re Bob (R) Ellsworth, Robert F . (R) Mize , Chester L . (R) Shriver , Garner E. (R) Skubitz, Joe (R) KENTUCKY Carter, Tim Lee (R) Chell, Frank (D) Farnsley, Charles P . (D) Natcher, William H . (D) Perkin s , Carl O . (D) Stubblefield, Frank A. (D) Watts, John C . (D) LOUISIANA Boggs, Hale (D) Hebert, F. Edward (D) Long, Speedy O. (D) Morrison, James H. (D) Passman, Otto E. (D) Waggonner, Joe D . , J r . (D) Willis , Edwin E . (D) MAINE �haway, William O. (D) Tupper, Stanley R. (R) MARYLAND Fallon, George H. (D) Friedel, Samuel N. (0) Garmatz, Edward A. (D) Long, Clarence D. (D) Machen, Hervey G. (D) Mathias , Charles McC . (R) MorLon, Rogers C. B . (R) Sickles , Carlton R . (D) MASSACHUSE TTS Bate s , William H. (R) Boland, Edward P . (D) Burke, James A. (D) Conte, Silvio O . (R) Donohu e , Harold D . (D) Keith, Hastings (R) Macdonald, Torbert H . (D) Martin. Joseph W . , Jr. CR) McCormack, John W. (D) Mors e , F. Bradford (R) O'Neill, Thomas P . , Jr. (D) Philbin, Philip J . (D) MICHIGAN Broomfield, William S. (R) Cederberg, El[ord A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E . (R) Clevenger, R aymond F. (D) Conyers , John J . , Jr. (D) Digg s , Charles C . , Jr. (D) Dingell, John D. (D) Farnum, Billie S. (D) Ford, Gerald R . , J r . (R) f'ord. William D . (D) Griffin, Robert P. (R) Griffiths , Martha W . (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Mackie. John C . (D) Nedzi, Lucien N. (D) O'Hara, James G . (D) Todd, Paul H . (D) Vivian, Weston E . (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik, John A. (D) Fraser. Donald M. (D) Karth. Joseph E . (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor, Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G . (D) Ouie, Albert H . (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colmer, William M. (D) Walker, Prentiss (R) Whit t en , Jo.mie L. (D) Williams, John Bell (D) M ISSOURI Bolling, Richard (D) Curtis, Thomas B . (R) Hall, Durward G . (R) Hull, W . R . , Jr. (D)

C L

L L

L L C L

L L C C

L L C L

C L C

L L L L

L C L

L L L C L L L

L C L C L C C

L L L C L L L

L L L C L

L L L C L L L

C C C C

C C C C C

C L e C e

C C e C e

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 L L

C e C C C C

L L L L L L L

L C C L C C L

L C L L C C L

L C C L C C L

L C C L C C C

L L

L C

L L

L L L L L L C L

L L L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L L C C

C L L C L C L L

C L L C 0

C L L C L C L

C L L

C L

C C

C C C L

L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

L L L C C C L C C C C C C L C C C

L L L C L C L C C L L L L L L L 0

C C C L C C 0 0

C C L C 0

L L L C L L L L

C L L C L C C C

L L L L L L

L L

L L L L

C L C L L C L C

C L L

L L L

C L L

L L L

C C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L C L

C C C L L L L

L L L L L

C C C

L L

C L C L C C L L L C L

C C C L L L L L C L C L L C L L L C L

L L L

C L C L C C L L L L L

L L L C C C C C

L L L C C C L C

L L L L L L L L

L L L C C C L C

C C C C C

L C C C

L C C e

L C C L

L L L L L L L L L L

L L C L

L L

L C C C

The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 35)

MISSOURI (cont'd) Hungate, William L. (D) Ichord. Richard H . (D) Jones, Paul C. (D) Karsten, Frank M. (D) Randall, William J. (D) Sullivan, Leonor Kretzer (D) MONTANA Battin. James F. (R) Olsen, Arnold (D) NEBRASKA Callan, Clair A. (D) Cunningham, Glenn (R) Martin. David T . (R) NEVADA Baring, Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland. James C . (R) Huot, J. Oliva (D) NEW JERSEY Cahill, William T. (R) Daniels, Dominick V . (D) Dwye r , Florence P. (R) Frelinghuysen, Peter, Jr. (R) Gallagher, Cornelius E. (D) Helstoski, Henry (D) Howard, James J . (D) Joelson, Charles S. (D) Krebs, Paul J. (D) McGrath, Thomas C . , Jr. (D) Minish, Jos eph G. (D) Patten, Edward J . , J r . (D) Rodino, Peter W . , Jr. (D) Thompson, Frank, Jr. (D) Widnall, William B. (R) NEW MEXICO Morris , Thomas G . (D) Walker, E. S. (D) NEW YORK Addabbo, Joseph P . (D) Bingham, Jonathan B . (D) Carey, Hugh L. (D) Celler, Emanuel (D) Conable, Barber B . , Jr. (R) Delaney. James L. (D) Dow, John G . (D) 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) Hanley, James M. (D) Horton, F rank J. (R) Kelly, Edna F . (D) Keogh, Eugene J. (D) King. Carleton J. (R) Lindsay, John V. (R) McCarthy. Richard O . (D) McEwen, Robert C. (R) Multer, Abraham J. (D) Murphy, J ohn M. (D) O'Brien, Leo W. (D) Ottinger, Richard L . (D) Pike, Otis G. (D) Pirnie. Alexander (R) Powell, Adam C layton (D) Reid, Ogden R . (R) Resnick, Joseph Y . (D) Robison, Howard W . (R) Rooney, J ohn J. (D) Rosenthal, Benjamin S. (D) Ryan, W illiam Fitts (D) Scheuer, James H . (D) Smith, Henry P . , III (R) Stratton, Samuel S. (D) Tenzer, Herbert (D) Wo1££, Lester L . (D) Wydler, John W. (R) NORTH C AROLINA Bonner, Herbert C . (D) Broyhill, James T. (R) Cooley, Harold D . (D) Fountain, L. H. (D) Henderson, David N. (D) Jonas, Charles Raper (R) Kornegay. Horace R. (D) Lennon, Alton (D) Scott, Ralph J. (D) Taylor, Roy A . (D) Whitener, Basil L. (D) NOR TH DAKOTA Andrews, Mark (R) Redlin, Rolland (D) OffiO ----XShbrook. John M. (R) Ashley, Thomas L. (D) Ay,. ... ..: .

Willi:::. rn l --I .

(R)

Betts, Jackson E . (R) Bolton, Frances P . (R) Bow, Frank T . (R) Brown, Clarence J. (R)

L C C L C L

L e C L L L

L L C L

L C L L L L

e C L C L

L L C L L L

L C C L L L

C L

L L

C L

L C C

L L L

L C C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L C C L L L L L L L L L L C

C L C C L L L L L L L L L L C

L L L C L L L L L L L L L L L

L C C L L L L L L L L L L C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

C L C C L L L L L L L L L C

C L

C C

L L

L L L L C L L L L L L C C · L L L L L C L L C L L L L L

O L L L C L L

O L L L C L L L L

L L L L C L L L L e L C C L L C L L C L L C L 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

C L C L L L L C L L L C

L L L L L L L L L L

L L C L L L o

C L L L C

L 0 0

L C L L L L L 0

C C L L L L L L 0

e 0

L L L L C C L C L C L L 0

L C 0

L C

C C L L L L L e L L C L L L L C c

L L C L L L 0

C L L L C

L C C L L L L L e L L C L L L L C C

L L C L L L 0

C L L L L

C L L L L L L

C L L L L L L C C L L L L L C L L C L L L L C C

L L C L L L L C L L L C

C C C C C C C C C C

C C C L C C

C L C e C C C C C C

C C C e C C C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

C C

C C C C

L L O L

C C O C

Page

279

L L

0 0

C L

C C C C

OHIO (cont'd) -crancy, Donald D. (R) Devine, SamueL L. (R) Feighan. Michael A. {D} Gilligan, John J. (D) Harsha, William H . • J r . (R) Hays , Wayne L. (D) Kirwan. Michael J . (D) Latta, Delbert L . (R) Love , Rodney M. (D) McCulloch, William M. (R) Minshall, William E. (R) Moeller. Walter H. (D) Mosher, Charles A. (R) Secrest, Robert T. (D) Stanton, J. William {R} Sweeney, Robert E. (D) Yanik, Charles A. (D) OKLAHOMA Albert, Carl (D) Belcher, Page (R) Edmonds on. Ed (D) Jarman, John (D) Johnson, Jed, J r . (D) Steed, Tom (D) OREGON Duncan, Robert B. (D) Green, Edith (D) Ullman, Al (D) Wyatt, Wendell (R) PENNSYLVANIA Barrett, William A. (D) Byrne. James A . (D) Clark. Frank M. (D) Corbett, Robert J. (R) Craley, N. Neiman, J r . (D) Curtin, Willard S. (R) Dague, Paul B. (R.) Dent, John H . (D) Flood, Daniel J. (D) Fulton, James G. (R) Green. William J • • III (D) Holland, Elmer J. (D) Johnson, Albert W. (R) Kunkel, John C. (R) McDade, Joseph M. (R) Moorhead. William S. (D) Morgan, Thomas E. (D) Nix, Robert N. C . (D) Rhode s , George M . (D) Rooney, Fred B. (D) Saylor, John P. (R) Schneebeli, Herman T. (R) Schweiker, Richard S. (R) Toll, Herman (D) Vigorito, Joseph P. (D) Watkins , C . Robert (R) Whalley, J. Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND Fogarty, John E. (D) St. Germain. Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Ashmor e , Robert T. (D) Dorn, W. J. Bryan (D) Gettys , Thomas S . (D) McMillan, John L. (D) Rivers, L. Mendel (D) Watson, Albert W. (R) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E. Y. (R) Rei!el, Ben (R) TENNESSEE Anderson, William R. (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Duncan, John J. (R)

C C L L C L L C L C L C C C C

C C L L L

C C L L C

C L C L L

L L C L L

C C L L C C L C L C C L L C C L L

L L L L L L

C L C C L C L C L L

L C L C C

C C L L C L L C L C C

L L L L L L L L L L

C C L L C L L C L C C L C L C L L

L C L C L L

L C L C L C

L C L L L L

L C L C L C

L L L L L L

L C L C L L

L L L C

C L L C

L L L L

L L

L L C L

L L L L L C L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L

L L C C C L L

C C

0 0

L C L L L L L C C L L L L 0

L L L L L L L L L C L 0

L C L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C o

C L L L L L C C C L L C C

L L L L L C C L L L L L C L L L L L L L

L C L L L L

L L C C L C C L L L L L C C C L L L L L C C C L C 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 L L L

C L L L C L C C L L C L L C C L L L L L L

L C C L L C C

L L

C C C C C C

C C 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 C C

WHO

L C C

TENNESSEE (cont 'd) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evins, Joe L. (D) Fulton. Richard (D) Grider, George W. (D) Murray, Tom (D) Quillen, James H . (R) TEXAS --aeckworth, Lindley (D) Brooks. Jack (D) Bur leson, Omar (D) Cabell, Earle (D) Casey, Bob (D) de la Garza. Eligio (D) Dowdy, John (D) Fisher, O . C , (D) Gonzalez, Henry B. (D) Mahon. George H. {O} Patman, Wright (D) Pickle, J. J. (D) Poage, W. R . (D) Pool, Joe (D) Purcell, Graham (D) Roberts , Ray (0) Rogers, Walter (D) Teague, Olin E . (D) Thoma s , Albert (D) Thompson. Clark W. (D) White. Richard C. (D) Wright, James C . , Jr . (D) Young. John (D) UTAH -atirton, Laurence J . (R) King, Dav�d S . (D) VERMONT Stafford, Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M. (D) Broyhill, Joel T. (R) Downing. Thomas N. (D) Hardy, Porter, Jr. (D) Jenning s , W. Pat (D) Marsh, John 0 . , J r . (D) Poff, Richard H . (R) Satterfield. David E . , III (D) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck. William M . (D) WASHINGTON Adams. Brockman (D) Foley, Thomas S. (D) Hansen. Julia Butler (D) Hicks, Floyd V . (D) May, Catherine (R) Meeds, Lloyd (D) Pelly, Thomas M. (R) WEST VIRGINIA Heckler, Ken (D) Kee, James (D) Moore, Arch A . , J r . (R) Slack, John M . , J r . (D) Staggers. Harley O. (D) WISCONSIN Byrnes, John W. (R) Davi s , Glenn R . (R) Kasteruneier, Robert W. (D) Laird, Melvin R. (R) Q'Konski, Alvin E . (R) Race, John A . (D) Reuss. Henry S . (D) Stalbaum. Lynn E. (D) Thomson, Vernon W. (R) Zablocki . Clement J . {O} WYOMING Roncalio. Teno (O)

C C

DAN

L L

L L L L C C

L L C C

L L C L

C L L C C

C L L L C C

C L L L L C

C L C C C L C C L C L C C C

C L C L C L C C L C C L C C

C C C

L L

C C

L L C C C C C C

L L C L C L C C L C L C C C C C C C

L C L L

C C C L

L C C C L C C L C L C L C L C C C L L C L L

L C L

L L L

L C C C L C C L L L L C C L L C C L L C L L

C C

C L

L L

C L

C C L L L C C C C C

C C C C L C C C L C

C C C C L C C C C C

C C C C C C C C C C

C C C C L C C C C C

L L L L C L C

L L L L C

L C L L C L C

L C L L C

L L L L

L L

L L L L C L C

L L C C L

L C L

C L C C C

L L L L L

L L C L L

C C L C C L C L

L L L L L L L L L L

C C L C L L L L C L

C L L

C C L C C C L L L C L

L L C C o

L C o

L o

C L L

C C L C L L L L C L

C C L C L L L L C

L C C C L C C L

C L L L C L C C C

C C

C C L C C L L C C L

C L L L L C L

L L

SMOOT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 194 1 he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Repo1't and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents docu mented truth using the A merican Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get subscribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page

280

The Dan Smoot Report, August 30, 196 5 (Vol. 1 1, No. 35)

THE

I)flil Slnootlleport Vol. I I , No. 36

(Broadcast 524)

September 6, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

POWER POLITI CS

I n 1963, the United States Congress considered, but did not approve, a Kennedy administration proposal to build a government power dam across the Savannah River at Trotters Shoals in Abbe ville County, South Carolina. U. S. Senator Strom Thurmond (then a Democrat, now a Republi can) opposed the project because it would flood 24,000 acres of valuable land and prohibit pri vate development. (1) A House subcommittee on public works held h earings ( 1 963 ) on the Trotters Shoals proposal and found it undesirable; but federal bureaucrats - relentless in their grab for power - still lob by for congressional authorization. o

Meanwhile, Duke Power Company (a private enterprise, investor-owned utility ) asked the Fed eral Power Commission for permission to build a 700-million-dollar power complex in two South Carolina Counties where the federal government has never proposed to build any dams or power plants. Duke proposes a gigantic power development project on the Keowee and Toxaway Rivers (both intrastate) in Oconee and Pickens Counties, in the northwestern corner of South Carolina. The Duke development would directly create hundreds of jobs in the part of South Carolina which is included in the Appalachian region schedule d to receive vast grants of federal tax money in President johnson's war on poverty. Indirectly (by attracting new industry ) , the Duke project would create thousands of new jobs for this portion of Appalachia. When completed (in the early 1970's) , the Duke power complex would provide recreational facilities for the public, a game-management area, and many millions of dollars in taxes for local, state, and federal govern ments. ( 2) On June 2 1 , 1965, Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior, filed a petition asking the Federal Power Commission to prohibit Duke Power Company from building the Keowee-Toxaway proj ect. Udall said that Duke "has no need for the hydro power" it proposes to produce and that Duke THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $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 $1O.0�ch price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

1965. Second Class mail privilege No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 281

authorized

Dallas,

Texas.

can meet future needs by purchasing power from the Trotter� Shoals project which the federal gov ernment still wants to build on the Savannah River (about 75 miles distant from Duke's pro posed Keowee-Toxaway complex ) . (2) The State Legislature, the Governor of South Carolina, South Carolina's delegation in the U. S. Congress, and, apparently, most of the people in the State, are outraged by Secretary Udall's efforts to stop the proposed development by private en terprise. (2) It is obvious that the Duke Power Company development would vastly improve the economy of northwestern South Carolina. It is equally ob vious that socialists, who call themselves liberals , are ready to sacrifice the welfare of the people for a chance to socialize further a major industry. Another motive is also involved. Secretary Udall's efforts to stop the Duke Power Company develop ment is one of several indications that the Johnson administration is retaliating against the people of South Carolina for their political behaviorY) How have South Carolinians offended Presi dent Johnson? - South Carolina was one of six states carried for Goldwater in 1964. ( 2 ) - South Carolinians have not wavered in their admiration and support of Senator Strom Thur mond who, in 1964, switched his affiliation from Democrat to Republican Party. ( 2 ) - South Carolinians in the Second Congres sional District reelected U. S. Representative Al bert W. Watson, by an overwhelming majority, in a special election on June 1 5 , 1965. (2) Watson was elected as a Democrat in 1962 and 1964. He later switched his affiliation to the Republican Party, resigned his seat in the House, and ran for re-election as a Republican. The result of that spe cial election was considered a direct slap at the Democrat Party of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Use

of power politics is the chief character istic of johnson's administration. In defiance of Page 282

the Constitution and to the detriment of public welfare, the President and Congress use the auto cratic authority of federal agencies and the tax mo��y of the people to reward and punish, for polrttcal purposes. Under administration pressure, some members of Congress actually sell their votes, not for money to put in their pockets, but for political support to keep them in their jobs. For exam ple, co�sider the political bargaining in volved thIS year In farm and labor legislation. To repay a political debt to union officials, Pres ident Johnson promised to outlaw state right-to work laws by repealing Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Vice President Hubert H. Hum phrey arranged the congressional vote-trading to insure repeal. Pro-union Congressmen (who have no farm constitutents ) promised to support farm legislation if farm-state Congressmen (who have few union constituents ) promised to support re peal of Section 14 (b) , ra) On July 28, 1965, the House, by a vote of 221 to 203, passed HR 77 to repeal Section 14 ( b ) . Members from farming districts voted with pro-union members from big cities. The effectiveness of Humphrey's political co ercion is revealed by the fact that all six Democrat Representatives from Iowa voted for HR 77. Iowa has a right-to-work law, which, according to pub lic opinion polls, is favored by 73% of all Iowans. Moreover, a recent Iowa case disclosed the ugliness of monopolistic unionism. (4)

Local 46 of the United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers has a contract with the Rath Pack ing Company at Waterloo, Iowa; but, because of the Iowa right-to-work law, employees are free to stay out of the union if they wish. In defiance of the law, the union undertook to force member ship on employees who had chosen not to join, and to collect back dues from others. On the basis of a complaint filed by one non-union employee, the National Labor Relations Board investigated, and decided that the union was guilty of unfair labor practices. A report on the NLRB decision was published in the Des Moines Register: The Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 36)

The NLRB decision says . . . . "It was not un common to see union representatives . . . stop ping employes, . . . and in some instances shov ing or pummeling them . . . . Many times em ployes had to be escorted by policemen in order to gain entrance to the plant. The employes ac costed were . . . in some cases jostled or pushed or struck during the course of their exchange of words with union representatives."

and welfare of the public, to magnify the illegal power of monopolistic unions. Note the following from an article in the August 2 , 1965 , issue of U. S. News

World Report :

"The latest strike against the shipping in dustry - now well into its second month - is raising the question of whether the U. S. mer chant marine can stay in business in the face of its growing labor problems . . . .

Samuel W. Berry, a non-union worker, was re ferred to as "Chicken Sam" in the union's bul letin . . . . The NLRB described his treatment as follows: "Berry . . . and his wife and daughter were threatened and called abusive names. Berry was frequently threatened with physical assault . . . . The whole series of events indicated that Berry was threatened with beatings, mutilation in a meat chopper, and loss of his life, and that water and oil were poured on him, he was jabbed with sticks and brooms and shovels, shoved, kicked, tripped, and had his clothes ruined . . . . The culmination of the many acts of persecution was when employe Berry was pushed down a flight of stairs resulting in his hospitalization." The NLRB found that the union and its agents had similarly harassed a number of other em ployes . . . . ( 5)

Conditions in the American merchant marine starkly reveal the evils of monopolistic unionism. From the days of the Yankee Clipper until this generation, the American merchant marine - vital not only to the national economy but also to na tional security - was a vital force in world trade. Now it is dying, primarily because federal labor laws have granted unions a tight monopoly on the labor force for the merchant marine. Excessive operating costs forced upon shippers by monopol istic unions make it impossible for Americans to compete with foreigners. A recent chapter in the alarming story about monopolistic unionism and the merchant marine was widely publicized at the very time Vice Presi d ent Hubert Hu mphrey was persuading members of Congress to sell their votes, and the freedom The Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 36)

"Secretary of Commerce John T. Connor has termed demands of the striking union 'inflation ary and . . . unreasonable.' . . .

"The current strike, by marine engineers, is the latest in a long series that has cost the ship ping industry millions of man-days of idleness in recent years . . . . "Shipping lines had lost millions in revenue. They were losing business to airlines and to for eign ships. The Government shifted some mili tary cargo to foreign vessels. And the Defense De partment called up some fast cargo ships to move military supplies and equipment to South Vietnam . . . . "Maritime experts say the labor problem is complicated because shippers have to deal with so many unions. Often, it is said, these unions work at cross purposes. Personal and economic rivalries develop among union leaders . . . . "Wages of maritime workers, meanwhile, are continuing to rise, and now are estimated at three to four times those of workers on foreign ships . . . . "(6)

W hat

about the farm legislation which the Johnson administration's unholy farm-labor alli ance is trying to push through Congress ? It is as unconstitutional and harmful to the public as the labor legislation for which it has been bartered. On April 5 , U. S. Representative Harold D. Cooley (North Carolina Democrat) introduced HR 7097, the administration's omnibus farm bill. The bill was revised during hearings, which began April 6. On July 14, Representative Cooley intro

duced a new bill (HR 981 1 ) , which incorporated Page 283

HR 7097, and added new · programs for cotton and dairy products. ( 7 ) The House passed HR 981 1 on August 1 9, 1 965. The farm bill under consideration continues and expands old programs, which have cost taxpayers about 42 billion dollars and have failed wretched ly to accomplish their announced purpose of guar anteeing income parity for small family farms. (7,8 ) Parity or parity ratio is the relationship between

prices which farmers get for what they sell, and prices they pay for what they buy - a measure of farmers' prosperity, in terms of purchasing power. Parity ratio is based on indices of prices in a five year period ( 1910-1914) prior to World War 1 . During that period, farmers enjoyed 1000/0 parity. That is, prices they got for what they sold were adequate in comparison with prices they paid for non-farm products. ( 8 ) In 1 930, before initiation of federal farm pro grams, farmers' parity of income was 830/0' In 1 964 ( after net expenditure of 41 billion, 759 mil lion, 384 thousand, two hundred and twenty-seven federal tax dollars-$41 ,759,384,227.00-to help family farmers ) , farmers' parity of income had declined to 75%. (8 ) The vast outlay of public money has enriched big farming syndicates and dishonest operators like Billie Sol Estes, while millions of little farm ers, unable to compete, have either become farm hired hands, or moved to cities. (8) Federal farm programs were first authorized by Congress in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. In 1936, the Supreme Court ( in the Butler Case) held the AAA unconstitutional. Roosevelt's threat to pack the Court in 1937, together with the demise of some of the "nine old men," changed the complexion of the Court. So, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 ( even worse than the AAA of 193 3 ) was approved by the new Supreme Court as constitutional. ( 8 ) In the 1930's, Henry Wallace was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture. Surrounded by communists (who, official investigation later Page 284

disclosed, actually conceived the new-deal farm programs ) , Wallace paid farmers to destroy crops and animals. It was a preposterous program, bound to do great harm ; but World War II erupted in 1939; and war-stimulated demands for agricultural products solved our "farm surplus" problem for several years and obscured damage that government's farm programs were doing. (8) The parity ratio for farmers' income rose to 1 1 3% in 1 943 and remained about 100% until 1949, when it started a decline. President Harry S Truman recommended the Brannan plan - a program of direct federal payments to give farm ers a minimum annual income which officialdom wanted them to have, regardless of merit, produc tion, market demands, or anything else. Congress rejected the Brannan plan. ( 8 ) The Korean war created enough demand for agricultural goods to solve the farm problem again, temporarily, and to hide the absurdities of the government's farm programs. The parity ratio for farmers' income rose to 1070/0 in 195 1 , and then started a steady decline, dropping to 830/0 in 1956 - exactly where it was in 1930 before federal farm programs began. ( 8 ) President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administra tion tried to solve our farm-surplus problem with the foreign-disposal operation ( later called "Food For Peace" program) , conducted under the Agri cultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954. Under this law, we sell and give our farm surpluses to foreign nations. ( 8 ) Seven years after enactment of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 ( for the primary purpose of reducing our agri cultural surpluses) , our government had in storage surplus farm commodities worth about 9 billion, 400 million dollars ($9,400,000,000.00 ) , almost twice as much as it had stored in 1954 when the act was passed. ( 8 ) A secondary purpose of the 1954 act was to win world-wide friendship. Within six years, anti American feeling had spread more widely and The Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 36)

reached higher peaks of intensity than ever before in our history: American embassies and informa tion libraries were mobbed and ransacked in all parts of the world ; our Vice President and his wi �e were spat upon and pelted with garbage whIle on a good-will tour abroad ; our President was ordered to cancel a planned good-will trip to Japan because of anti-American rioting there. (S)

From 1954 through 1964, the Food-For-Peace program cost American taxpayers at least 2 1 bit li �n, 300 million dollars ($2 1 ,300,000,000.00 ) . If . thIS sum IS added to the 41.7 billion-dollar net cost of the government's agricultural programs from 1933 through 1964, the federal government's pro grams to sup port agricultural prices and to dispose of the resultmg surpluses cost at least 63 billion dollars for the 3 1 -year period, 1933 through 1964. (8) This does not include billions which govern ment has spent to help farmers, through the Rural Electrification Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal Land Banks, the Farm Credit Administration, and so on. Yet, the present parity ratio for farmers' income is eight percentage points less than in 1930, before all the spending began.(S) Having failed to solve the farm-surplus problem with the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, Eisenhower's administra tion, in 1956, produced a new "solution." Instead of paying farmers to destroy crops and animals al ready raised, as the Democrats had done 20 years before, Republicans initiated the soil bank - pay ing owners to keep their land idle and raise noth ing.(8 ) Legalized racketeering in the government's farm programs multiplied rapidly under the soil bank law. On March 1 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy proposed a new program to solve the farm prob lem. The program ( devised by Dr. Willard W. Cochrane, Minnesota economist) prescribed a supply-management system in which committees of farmers, under control of the Secretary of Agri culture (with Congress having only a negative The Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 36)

veto . vote if i � disapproved ) would regulate pro ductton and mcome of American farmers. This sch �me would have created a system similar to agncultural systems in communist countries. (8) Congress rejected the Cochrane plan in 1961, but extended existing farm programs. Congress also passed Kennedy'S Emergency Feed Grains bill - providing for a rise in price supports for feed grains, payments in cash and kind for farmers who agreed to reduce acreage of corn and grain sor ghum� by 20 to 40 percent, and loss of eligibility for pnce supports on feed grains by farmers who did not participate in the acreage-reduction plan. (8) In 1962, Kennedy proposed another Cochrane farm plan - which, as Dr. Cochrane himself ad �itted, would have meant granting (by sale or gIft) a federal franchise to farm. The value of a farm would depend not on the quality of land or on the labor and investment put into improve ments, but on the kind of federal franchise held. (8) Congress rejected the 1962 Cochrane supply management farm plan, but converted the emer gency feed-grains program of 1961 into a perma nent program - authorizing the Secretary of Agri culture to support feed-grains prices (as high as 900/0 of parity) , requiring no acreage limits or other production curtailment. This permanent pro gram of supporting feed-grains prices (said to be needed because of over-production of feed grains) went into effect in 1964. In 1964, Congress en acted and President Johnson approved a bill auth orizing 47 million dollars for three irrigation proj ects in the Upper Colorado River Basin : projects which will put 65,000 acres of land into produc tion of feed grains. (8) In 1 962, Congress also authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a wheat referendum in 1963 to determine whether the supply-manage ment system should be adopted for wheat. The Kennedy administration mobilized the re sources of the federal government to get a re sounding yes vote in the wheat referendum of May, 1963 - hoping to show that America's farm ers wanted high price supports and tight regimenPage 285

tation. But wheat farmers (despite all the power and threats of federal officials ) voted no. Conse quently, no farm legislation was passed in 1963, and none of major consequence in 1964. (8)

In effect, President johnson's 1965 farm bill revives the Kennedy-Cochrane proposal for mak ing farmers subject to federal franchise. President Johnson recommends that farmers be allowed to sell or lease their federal acreage allotments - a practice which, although illegal, has produced many multi-million-dollar scandals in the past. Imagine the profiteering at taxpayers' expense which will occur if the practice is legalized. In dividuals who have "contacts," or whose political behavior pleases officials in power, will be given federal acreage allotments which they may sell to others. (7,8) President Johnson wants Congress to supple ment present farm programs with a " long-term Cropland Adjustment Program" ; but this is merely an elaboration of the Kennedy "Land Use" pro posals of 1961 and 1962. This scheme would take cropland permanently out of agricultural produc tion, by converting it into public parks or lakes, or by paying owners to develop it for industrial, recreational, or other uses. (7,8) Under guise of promoting soil conservation, the pending farm bill (HR 98 1 1 ) authorizes long term government contracts (up to ten years) to pay farmers for diverting 40 million acres of crop land to conservation and related uses - permit ting the diverted land to be used for grazing dur ing emergencies. ( 7 ) This is merely an extension of the corrupt soil-bank program initiated by the Eisenhower administration in 1956. Though the present farm bill is wholly uncon stitutional, and all its programs thoroughly dis credited, the only feature which caused much con troversy was the proposal to increase the cost of the wheat marketing certificate scheme adopted in 1964. To a farmer covered by this program, the government gives marketing certificates for wheat which the farmer sells for domestic consumption. When the farmer sells his wheat to a domestic Page 286

processor, he also sells his marketing certificates. Under the new bill, the processor would pay market price for the wheat, and pay enough for the marketing certificates to guarantee the farmer $2.50 for each bushel of wheat he sells - an in crease of 50 cents from the 1 964 level. ( 7 ) Supporters of this scheme said it would finance wheat price supports "out of the market place," rather than "out of the U. S. Treasury." Oppo nents called it a bread tax. Processors must calcu late the cost of marketing certificates as part of the cost of the wheat, and must pass the cost on to con sumers. The result of the added cost of the mar keting certificates would be an increase in the price of bread (and other wheat foods ) for con sumers. This hidden bread tax would hurt poor people most because the poor spend more than others on bread, in proportion to total income. Orville Freeman (Secretary of Agriculture) conceded that the wheat marketing certificate scheme would increase the price of bread, but denied it was a bread tax. In a speech to the Missouri Farmers Association on August 2, 1965, Freeman denounced opponents of the plan as a huge "bread trust." He said : "This is a basic matter of principle. Why shouldn't the farmer get a fair rate of return out of his product? Why should this come as a sub sidy out of the Treasury - paid by the tax payers? . . . "I will not bow down to this bread trust. It is spending untold sums of money, misleading ur ban members of Congress and trying to frighten them that there is a great consumer ground swell against a bread tax."(9 )

Having joined other administration officials to get farm-district Congressmen to support the ad ministration's labor legislation, Freeman con demned the "bread trust" for trying to use the same tactic in reverse. Having condemned the "bread trust" for inspir ing letter writing to stop the farm bill in Congress, Mr. Freeman urged farmers to write letters de manding enactment of the bill. (9) The

Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 36)

On August 4, 1965, Charles B. Shuman, Presi dent of the American Farm Bureau Federation , wrote a letter to Secretary Freeman, saying:

forced upon the House leadership by the over whelming pressure of opponents to Freeman's bread tax. (11 )

"Reports we have received from all parts of the nation show conclusively the expenditure of large sums of public money in efforts to induce farmers to influence their representatives in Con gress to vote for this ill-advised legislation.

The hypocrisy of the Johnson administration which the Freeman speech typifies - is galling; yet, there is something instructive in what Freeman said. In urging farmers to put pressure on Con gress, he revealed the importance of letter writing to members of Congress. Defeat of Freeman's bread tax proposal proves the effectiveness of con certed effort to stop the Johnson steamroller.

"Even if this were a bill of unquestioned merit and universal appeal - which it certainly is not - the expenditure of government funds to prop agandize the citizens is an illegal, immoral and unethical use of public money and power."( 1 D)

Mr. Freeman claims to stand on principle; but no perceptible principles guide the Johnson ad ministration - j ust the exigencies and strategems of power politics. On August 19, 1965 despite the best efforts of the Johnson administration - the House passed a "compromise" farm bill which, in the end, did not raise the cost of wheat marketing certificates, but raised the cost of each bushel of domestically consumed wheat by 50 cents to be paid out of general tax revenues, spreading the burden of sub sidized wheat from bread consumers to the gen eral tax-paying public. House Majority Leader Carl Albert (Oklahoma Democrat) made it clear that the decision for the "compromise" measure was not made by Secretary Freeman, but was -

W H O

Though the House has already passed HR 77

(repealing the right-to-work section of the Taft Hartley Act) and HR 98 1 1 (the omnibus farm bill ) , neither bill has yet been finally approved by the Senate. Both bills may be enacted before this session of Congress ends, but that will be no excuse for constitutional conservatives to quit in despair. All members of Congress should be swamped with demands that they work for repeal of all federal labor legislation, and work for passage of the Adair farm bill. Repeal of all federal labor laws would elimi nate the special privileges which big unions en joy, would get the federal government out of its

DAN

S M O OT ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in A�erican civili zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's lDaterials are effective agai nst socialism and cOlDffiunism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, September 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 36)

Page 287

unconstitutional activities in labor-management relations, and would leave with state and local governments their constitutional responsibilities to protect life and property. The Adair farm bill (HR 7835, introduced on May 4, 1965 , by U. S. Representative E. Ross Adair, Indiana Republican) would repeal the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amend ed, thus getting the government out of the farm ing business, leaving farmers free to solve their own problems in the free enterprise way. This bill offers constitutional conservatives a positive program of action : they can help create public demand that Congress pass the Adair bill.

( 3 ) "Washington Whispers," U.S. News & World Rep01·t, August 2, 1965, p. 1 4 ( 4 ) "Washington Whispers," U.S. News & World Report, August 9, 1965, p. 3 1

( 5 ) "Shocking Tactics Used to Enroll Union Members," reprint from the Des Moines Register, Human Events, July 3 1 , 1965, p. 1 1 ( 6 ) "Can Union Demands Kill The U.S. Shipping Industry ?" News & World Report, August 2, 1965, pp. 61-2

U.S.

( 7 ) Cong" essional Quarterly Weekly Report, July 1 6, 1965, p. 1 372, and July 30, 1965, pp. 1 5 1 2-4

( 8 ) "Agriculture At Bay," The Datz Smoot Report, March 1 5 , 1965, pp. 8 1-8 ; reprints available at rates published at the bottom of the first page of this Report ( 9 ) "Freeman

FOOTNOTES

Lashes At 'Bread Trust,' ''

UPI

dispatch

from

Columbia, Missouri, The Dallas Morning News, August 3, 1965, p . I DA

( 1 ) "The Power Grid Scheme," The Dan Smoot Report, August 1 2, 1963, pp. 249- 56; reprints available at rates published at the bottom of the first page of this Report ( 2 ) "Secretary Udall Tries Power Grab in South Carolina," by Allan H. Ryskind, Human Events, July 3 1 , 1965, pp. 6-7

( 10 ) "Unfair Lobbying Charge Levied at Freeman, USDA," Dallas M01'11ing News, August 5, 1965, p. 14A

The

( 1 1 ) Congressional Qua,·terly lJV eekly Report, August 20, 1965, pp. 1631-2

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?

Subscription:

1 962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P R ecord Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $ 1 0.00 - $ 10.00 - $1 0.00 -$10.00

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ �.98

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT,

Page 288

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

ZIP CODE

STATE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR

1·2303

The Dan Smoot Report, S eptember 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 36)

THE

/)t/II SmootlIepo,t Vol.

I I,

No. 37

(Broadcast 525)

September 1 3, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

SOUTH AFRICA

T otalitarian

liberals, in control of U. S. government policies for a generation, have made an unholy mess of our domestic and foreign affairs. Among other things, they have so incited Ameri can negroes to hatred that our nation teeters on the brink of race war and anarchy. Yet, even while the negro insurrection in Los Angeles was demonstrating the gruesome consequences of race agita tion, leading liberals poured oil on the fire. Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York - recently the chief law enforcement officer of the United States - excused negro rioters, inciting them to more violence by saying they cannot be expected to obey the law which they consider their enemy. (1) American totalitarian liberals - like the communists they closely resemble - are not content to shatter peace and order in our country. They have become devil's advocates to destroy every anti-communist nation whose internal policies displease them. American liberals seem determined to foment their next race war in South Africa. To that end, they are encouraging our government to set a policy course that will lead to frightful calam ities. To understand the tragedy looming ahead, we need facts about past and present conditions in South Africa.

History

Dutch businessmen established a way station on the Cape of Good Hope (southern tip of Africa ) to service Dutch ships trading with the rich East Indies. After 1 688, French Huguenots and Germans j oined the Dutch at Cape Town, and began spreading out around the countryside in search of good farmland. Malays from the Dutch East In1 652,

(2)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $1O.0O-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,

Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

1965 .

Page 289

dies were brought in, as slaves, to help farm the land. (2) In the late 1700's, South African pioneers, mov ing east to take up vacant land, encountered negro tribes moving south and west for the same pur pose. Convergence of these two groups at the Great Fish River in south-central South Africa in itiated a long period of sporadic wars between whites and negroes. ( 2 ) During the Napoleonic Wars, the British seized South Africa's Cape Province. After 1820, large numbers of Englishmen began settling the Port Elizabeth area, east of Cape Town. When the British gained control of the area, in 1836, the Dutch began their Great Trek - a series of migrations to northeastern sections of South Af rica, again encountering negroes moving from the North. ( 2 ) On December 16, 1 838 (a day now celebrated as a national holiday in South Africa ) , Dutch farmers decisively defeated Zulus in battle on the banks of the Blood River. In 1843, the British de clared Natal (the northeast area newly settled by the Dutch ) a British colony. Dutch farmers moved north, founding the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. (2) During the American Civil War, South Afri cans openly sympathized with the South. On Au gust 5 , 1863, the Confederate raider Alabama sailed into Table Bay at Cape Town and captured the Federal merchantman Sea-bride, which had anchored only a short time before. Crowds of negroes, watching the scene, began a spontaneous chant, which is popular even today: "Daar kom die A labama, die Alabama, "Daar ver oor die see

" ( 3)

T here are interesting parallels, and contrasts, between the history of white settlement in South Africa and the history of white settlement in the United States. While the Dutch East India Com pany was establishing Cape Town on the South ern tip of Africa, the Dutch West India Company was establishing New Amsterdam (now New York) on the eastern shore of North America. Page 290

The Calvinist Dutchmen who founded Cape Town were very much like the stern Christian Puritans who settled New England. (3)

While Dutchmen moved into the beautiful val leys near Cape Town, their kin were clearing land in Delaware and New Jersey. (3) In America, pioneers pushed westward ; in South Africa, they pushed eastward. Our frontiersmen moved into lands which, for countless ages, had been the homeland of Indians. Generally, the In dians were destroyed or driven from the lands they claimed. South African frontiersmen, mov ing into vacant lands never possessed by indigen ous natives, clashed with negroes simultaneously moving in from another direction to take up the same lands. South Africans did not destroy or drive the negroes away : they subdued the negroes and made them a part of the new nation. Both South Africa and America felt the heavy hand of European colonialism. Both suffered the heart-breaking, bloody schisms of regional jeal ousy and hatred.

In the late 1 800's, frictions between the British

government and the independent Afrikaner re publics festered into war. Afrikaner (also spelled Africaner) is a Dutch word, used in South Africa to mean a white person of Dutch or Huguenot descent. In 1867, rich diamond deposits were discovered on the Vaal River in the Kimberley area. The British Cape Colony and the Orange Free State disputed ownership of the diamond field. Cape Colony seized the land and paid Orange Free State ninety thousand pounds compensation. In 1877, the British annexed the independent re public of Transvaal. Afrikaners disputed the an nexation and defeated the British Army, February 27, 188 1 . Transvaal became independent once again. ( 2 ) In 1886, gold was discovered on the Witwaters rand ridge in southern Transvaal : uitlanders (goldseekers from Britain) flooded Transvaal and demanded the immediate right to vote. Afrikaners The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 37)

refused. Cecil Rhodes, prime minister of Cape Colony, conspired with the British government to overthrow the Transvaal government at Johannes burg, center of the gold mining area. A British raid failed, but British officials demanded immed iate citizenship and enfranchisement for all new British immigrants in Transvaal. Since this would have given the British a voting majority, the Trans vaal government refused. (2)

Afrikaners (called Boers, meaning farmers ) in Transvaal and in Orange Free State united to re sist British pressures. The Boer War resulted (October 12, 1899 to May 3 1 , 1902 ) - the farmers of Transvaal and Orange Free State on one side, the British Empire on the other. (2)

Without formal military organization, the Boers fought in guerrilla bands, under such famous leaders as Jan Christiaan Smuts, Christiaan De Wet, Jacobus H. De La Rey, Louis Botha. British Empire forces prevailed by adopting a scorched earth policy - denuding the land of food, reduc ing the populace to starvation. The defeated Af rikaner republics became British colonies - Brit ish Transvaal and Orange River. (2) The British granted full self-government to Transvaal and Orange River in 1906 and 1907. On May 3 1 , 1910, the two joined Natal Province and Cape Colony, to form the Union of South Af rica, an independent member of the British Com monwealth of Nations. (2)

During World War I, forces of the Union of West Africa, a German colony adj acent to the Union. Following the War, the League of Nations gave South West Africa to the Union as a mandated territory. Since then, the territory has been administered as an integral part of South Africa. South Africa occupied South

(2)

South Africa joined the British against Germany in World War II, though many Afrikaners wanted to remain neutral in that struggle. (2)

On May 3 1 , 1961, the Union of South Africa withdrew from the British Commonwealth of Nations and proclaimed herself the Republic of South Africa. (4 ) The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 37)

Present Conditions

T here were many reasons for tensions between South Africa and Great Britain. The greatest irri tant to Afrikaners was, perhaps, official British criticism of South Africa's internal racial policies. South Africa has a dangerously complex racial problem. Its white population - totaling 3,106,000 - consists of Afrikaners, British, and Ger mans. The whites are outnumbered five to one by non-whites. The non-white populatoin consists of 1 1 ,007,000 Bantus (negroes ) ; 1 ,5 22,000 coloreds (mixed bloods) ; and 487,000 Asiatics (mostly from the Indian subcontinent) . (2,4 ) Neither whites, negroes, coloreds, nor Asiatics are aborigines of South Africa. They are immi grants or descendants of immigrants. Negroes who compose the bulk of the population - are not a unified group. They comprise many different tribal nations, their ancestors having migrated to South Africa from various parts of the continent; no single negro tribal nation in South Africa is as large as the combined South African white population. About half of all South African negroes have remained pagan, many only now emerging from a primitive state. South Africa is both multi-racial and multi-national. (5 )

I n an effort to solve, or at least to control, the dangerous racial problem, the South African gov ernment (in the late 1940's and early 1950's) en acted a series of laws establishing a policy called apartheid (an Afrikaner word pronounced a-part hite) . Apartheid requires all South Africans to register with the government for determination of race, and aims at strict, complete separation of races. Negroes (who now have no representation in the South African parliament) are governed by negro tribal authorities in eight main negro ter ritories. The Nationalist Party (in control of the South African government since 1948 ) established the apartheid policy. The main opposing political group is the United Party - which was in control (2)

(2)

Page 291

during World War II and involved the nation in that war, overriding strong opposition from the Nationalist Party. (2) The United Party, though critical of the Na tionalist Party's established policy of apartheid, offers no clear alternative, inasmuch as United Party leaders themselves strongly oppose racial integration. When asked whether he favors, for South Africa, the kind of racial integration now being enforced in the United States by the federal government, Villiers Graaf, leader of the United Party, said : "Heavens no! I was in New Orleans when it was forced there, and I saw what happened . . . . White leadership must be maintained . . . . When you give a primitive people political voting rights, they use that right to break down voting qualifica tions so that a majority can get control - no matter how ill-prepared for self-government this majority might be." (6)

Hendrik F rensch Verwoerd (Nationalist Party leader who has been Prime Minister of South Af rica since 1958) explains the reasons for the apartheid policy: "More than 300 years ago two population groups [ European white and African negro ] , equally foreign to South Africa, converged in rather small numbers on what was practically empty country . . . . The white man therefore ·has not only an undoubted stake in, and right to, the land which he developed into a modern industrial state from denuded plains and empty valleys and isolated mountains, but according to all prin ciples of morality it was his, is his and must re main his." "We prefer each of our population groups to be controlled and governed by themselves, as na tions are. Then they can cooperate in a common wealth or in an economic association of nations where necessary . . . In the transition stage the guardian must keep the ward in hand and teach him and guide him and check him where neces sary. This is our policy of separate develop ment."(7)

Explaining apartheid, W. C. du Plessis, a South African authority on the subject, says : "Looking now to economic development in the Page 292

Bantu's own areas, it is our policy to encourage and to assist them to develop their territories, so that it can be a homeland for them in name as well as in fact. The Bantu areas have some of the best agricultural land in the Union, and we are teaching the Bantu modern methods of agricul ture, animal husbandry and soil conservation . . . . "Separation [ of the Bantu and Europeans] re duces the possibility of friction and correspond ingly assures harmonious co-existence. It assures to the White man as well as to the Bantu his con tinued and unhampered existence in a country to which both rightly lay claim and to which both rightly belong. It removes from the White man the threat of ultimate political domination by the numerically superior Bantu and from the Bantu the threat of continued economic domina tion by the White man . . . . It assures to the Bantu the interest and assistance of the more ex perienced and competitively stronger White race in his development to maturity . . . . It is based on the recognition of the fundamentally impor tant fact that the Bantu has the right to be him self and that to be himself he has primarily to draw . . . upon the sources of his own being for that form and that substance which alone can and will make of him a whole man."( 7)

Afrikaner publications in South Africa support the policy of apartheid. The English-language press (which includes most major publications, and controls 80 percent of all newspaper adver tising in the nation ) is solidly opposed to apart heid. (8) But the "liberal" English-language press of South Africa - like the "liberal" press of America - does not reflect the attitude of the people it serves. The majority of South Africans (both white and non-white ) support the apartheid policy as the best workable solution to their race problem. Spokesmen for the Council for Indian Affairs (representing Asiatics in South Africa ) recently told visiting American newsmen that social, eco nomic, and educational opportunities for non Europeans are better in South Africa than any where else on the African continent. (9) Spokesmen for the Council of Coloured Affairs ( representing mixed bloods in South Africa) say their people gained nothing during 200 years of racial integration before the policy of apartheid The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No.

37)

but have progressed rapidly since apartheid was established, and have opportunity to advance to the highest social, cultural, and economic levels in the country. Today, coloreds have four times more schools than before apartheid. They have their own university to educate and train their own people for the professions. Apartheid pro tects colored businesses from competition with white and Asiatic businesses. It protects colored laborers from ruinous competition with negro laborers. ( 8 ) Thomas Robert Swart (head of the South Afri can Council of Coloured Affairs ) wants apartheid to go even further than at present. He would like it to exclude negroes from areas where his people of mixed bloods live and work. He says : "Social mingling of the Bantu male with the lower-class Coloured women has been absolutely demoralizing." ( 7 )

Impressive statistics reveal that South African negroes have also benefitted from apartheid. Nonetheless, totalitarian liberals throughout the world are frenetic in their condemnation of the South African government and its policy of apart heid. Liberals offer no workable, alternative solution. Apparently, their objective is surrender of South African whites and their advanced civilization to negro tribesmen who constitute a majority of the total population. ( 1 <1)

What Lies Ahead

Our government has given billions of tax dollars to African nations whose leaders are com munists or pro-communists. Our high officials practically grovel before African politicians who demand U. S. aid while insulting us publicly and inciting their own people to hatred of America. From Washington, there is no word of harsh re buke against African governments which survive on money confiscated from American taxpayers, while imposing dictatorship on their own people, aligning their nations with the communist bloc in the United Nations. The

Dan Smoot Report, September 1 3, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 37)

On the other other hand, there is the Republic of South Africa, which has the only white, Chris tian, anti-communist government on the Dark Continent. South Africa is the only African na tion which has never requested, or received, for eign aid from the United States. It is one of three countries in the world which have repaid their war debts to the United States. In every conflict with communist nations, South Africa has been on our side. Yet, it is the only African nation toward which our government consistently mani fests hostility. Our spokesmen in the United Na tions have gone out of their way to embarrass, harass, and insult the Republic of South Africa. (5)

On August 2, 1963, for example, U.S. Ambas sador to the UN Adlai E. Stevenson, speaking be fore the UN Security Council at a special meet ing called by 32 African countries, said : "Progress in Africa is overshadowed by the racial bitterness and resentment caused by the policies of the South African Government. And it is the duty of this Council to do what it can to insure that this situation does not deteriorate further, and that the injustice of apartheid comes to an end - not in bloodshed and bondage but in peace and freedom . . .

"As the United States Representative informed the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly on Oct. 1 9, 1 962, the United States has adopted and is enforcing the policy of forbidding the sale to the South African Government of arms and military equipment, whether from govern ment or commercial sources, which could be used by that government to enforce apartheid either in South Africa or in the administration of South West Africa. We have carefully screened both gov ernment and commercial shipments of military equipment to make sure that this policy is rigor ously enforced . . . . "We expect to bring to an end the sale of all military equipment to the Government of South Africa by the end of this calendar year [ 1 963 ] in order further to contribute to a peaceful solu tion . . . . "We are taking this further step to indicate the deep concern which the Government of t�e . United States feels at the faIlure of the RepublIc of South Africa to abandon its policy of "(11) apartheid Page 293

Now, since arms boycotts have failed to force South Africa to change its domestic policy to one favored by UN officials, and since it is feared that even a complete UN boycott and blockade of South Africa would meet with the same re sults, there are indications that our government is supporting plans to overthrow the South Afri can government by force and violence.

On May 1 5 , 1965, Paul G. Hoffman, manag ing director of the United Nations Special Fund, spoke to a 30-nation African Conference at Kam pala, Uganda. In the past, Hoffman has held many high offices in the United States government. He is a most influential member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the invisible govern ment in our country. (12) Hoffman told African leaders that all people and all governments should unite in a concerted effort to eliminate racial dis crimination in South Africa - that they should use "pressures and measures necessary to bring this about." ( 1 3) In March, 1965, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (a maj ority of whose officers are members of the Council on Foreign Rela tions(12) published a 170-page paper entitled Apartheid and United Nations Collective Meas ures. ( 7 )

This study, prepared by a tax-exempt American peace organization, outlines a battle plan for a UN military invasion of the Republic of South Africa. The Carnegie peace plan calls for "mas sive direct military intervention" in South Africa, by 93,000 United Nations troops - including two divisions for amphibious assaults, 700 frontline and transport air units, 60 to 70 warships, 30 to 50 sea transports. This Carnegie study suggests that the United States and the Soviet Union join other nations as allies in the war against the Republic of South Africa - estimating that it would take about four months to beat South Africa to her knees, and would cost UN forces between 19,000 and 38,000 casualties (killed and wounded ) .

( 7 ,1 4 )

To create favorable public opinion for the war against South Africa, the Carnegie study suggests Page 294

that American negroes be encouraged to identify themselves, on a racial and emotional basis, with foreign negroes, in order to create pressure on white Americans. From the study : "If American Negroes increasingly identify the struggle against apartheid with their domestic civil rights struggle, they could bring interest in the South African policy of the United Nations to a level seldom achieved by any foreign policy issue."(7,1 4 )

U, S. Army Major Sam Charles Sarkesian (as signed to the Department of Social Sciences at the Military Academy at West Point) was a princi pal advisor and assistant in the preparation of the Carnegie peace plan for an international war against South Africa. The staff editor of the Carnegie study - Miss Amelia C. Leiss - thanks Major Sarkesian specifically for his aid in detail ing "u. N. Military measures . . . to achieve the goal of transforming the South African social and political structure." (7,14) \X1hile the Pentagon muzzled anti -communist military officers who criticized the Soviet Union and tried to inform the public about the mortal danger of communism, Major Sarkesian was per mitted to help plan a war against the friendly anti-communist government of South Africa. Vernon McKay and William O. Brown - both former State Department officials and both mem bers of the Council on Foreign Relations - also contributed to the Carnegie study. ( 7 ,1 2 .1 4 ) On July 1 6, 1 965, the South African Digest printed excerpts from a speech by the acting Commandant-General of the South African De fense Force, Lieutenant-General R. C. Hiemstra. General Hiemstra said: "In the face of threats openly expressed South Africa has taken steps to strengthen and modern ise her defence force with weapons of a high standard and power in relation to the country's financial means. "Let us not forget the threat against our stand ards and our civilisation by people who openly state that they will use any means to achieve their aim. "We and our country are an indivisible part The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 37)

of Western civilisation. Let us be determined not to share in the tendency of the West to commit national suicide and let us preserve South Africa �or th � happiness and to the advantage of all its mhabItants and the Western civilisation as a whole when the moment to awake arrives.

"�et ';Is accept the fact that force and power are mevItable, normal and natural factors in our will to survive, unavoidable for the preservation . of mternal order and against external threats. No nation, large or small, could survive, not even for a few hours, if its instruments of force were " to be removed . .

film for 1963 and 1964 are now for sale at $5 .00 each. Send for free list, or order from broadcast number on 1963 and 1964 Reports. Film on Reports published during 1965 are available for $2 5 .00 each. Allow three weeks for delivery.

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "Incredible," editorial, The Dallas Morning News, August 20, 1 965, p. 2D

( 2 ) "South Africa, Union Of," The Encyclopedia Americana Vol. ' ume XXV, 1961 edition, pp. 28 5a-286b

"We shall defend ourselves against aggres sion."( l ")

( 3 ) "Historic Parallels," by George W. Shannon, The Shreveport /ollrnal, March 3, 1965 ( 4 ) The JPodd Almanac, 1965, pp. 408-9

What to Do

( 5 ) "Debt-Free Nation," by George W. Shannon, The Sh"eveport /ournal, April 2, 1965

I nternal

policies of the Republic of South Africa are not the legitimate concern of the U. S. government ; but our government's policy toward South Africa is our concern. To avoid the horror of another useless and costly war, help spread the truth about South Africa-and about the tragical ly wrong policy of our government toward that friendly nation - to the end that an informed public will compel our government to reverse its present course and attitude.

( 6 ) "United Stand," by George W. Shannon, The Shreveport /ou1'Ilal, March 2 3 , 1965 ( 7 ) Afartheid and United Nations Collective Measures: An Analysis, edited by Amelia C. Leiss, Carnegie Endowment for Interna tional Peace, United Nations Plaza at 46th Street New York, ' New York 10017, March, 1965, 170 p p .

( 8 ) "Verwoerd's Foes," by George W. Shannon, The Shrevepol'/ /ou1'lIal, April 3, 1965 (9) "Port and Resort," by George W. Shannon, The Shrevepo,·t /oll1'11al, March 10, 1965 ( 1 0 ) "Bantu Achievements," by George W. Shannon, The Shrevepol't /ou1'Ilal, March 1 1 , 1 965 ( 1 1 ) "Excerpts From U. S. Statement on Arms Sales to South Africa," The New York Times, August 3, 1963, p. 6 ( 1 2 ) The illl)isible GoVe1'll 1lZeJlt, by Dan Smoot, 1962, 2 50 pp. ( 1 3 ) "Hope For Better Aid Links; Swai back from Kampala talks," The Standard, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, May 17, 1965, p. 1

Film Each Dan Smoot Report is briefed for radio and television broadcast. Our 1 6mm. broadcast W H O

( 14 ) "Invasion Blueprint," by Edith Kermit Roosevelt, The Shreve port /01l1'l1al, July 3 1 , 1965 ( 1 5 ) "Red threat: S. A. arms for survival," South Af" iean Digest, July 1 6, 1965, p. 3

D A N

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1 940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 37)

Page 295

2lmcriCQ's I'romisc by DAN SMOOT

by DAN SMOOT Revealing the plans for a Socialist America in

" . \

a Socialist World!

5 0c

L-_________----'\

Clothbound

$4.00

Pocketbook

$ 1 .00

\ \

a copy

6 copies for $4.00; 1 0 for $6.00; 25 for $ 1 2.00; 50 for $22.00; 1 00 for $40.00; 5 00 for $ 1 7 5.00; 1000 for $250.00.

AMERICA'S PROMISE is an 18-page, paper bound handbook, setting out the basic funda mentals of Constitutional Americanism. Long-playing records (33¥3) of

�ht �opt <9f �ht �orld

Dan Smoot speeches

by DAN SMOOT Described

as "the greatest tribute

to Christianity ever written

layman "

A thrilling speech, full of fact and humor, on the American struggle for liberty

A "hard-hitting, sometimes hilarious, album, which tells a star-spangled story "

$3.98 each

Name

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT

Street

P. O.

THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT ( pocketbook)

-$1.00

THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT (clothback)

-$4.00

THE HOPE OF THE WORLD (clothback)

-$2.00

AMERICA'S PROMISE ( paperback)

-$ .50

THE FEARLESS AMERICAN (record)

-$3.98

�EACON LARKIN'S HORSE (record)

-$3.98

___

Page 296

Box

9538

DALLAS, TEXAS 75214

City, State

Check enclosed

Texans add 2% State Sales Tax

The Dan Smoot Report, September 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 37)

THE J

IJflll SmootlIeport Vol. I l , No. 38

(Broadcast 526)

September 20, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H E C I VI L R I G H TS O F P E R RY SMAW by Mabeth E. Smoot and Sue Fitch

July 17, 1965, 1 7 negroes and a white woman were arrested during a disturbance at a negro tavern in Springfield, Massachusetts. Negro leaders, charging police brutality, threatened to turn Springfield into a "Selma of the North." Negro demonstrations and mass rallies devoted to reviling the white race created such fears and tensions that Mayor Charles V. Ryan asked for the national guard to protect the community. Mayor Ryan said : "We won't submit to mob rule."

The editor of a Springfield, Massachusetts, newspaper said :

"In my belief, the ingredients for 'a Northern Selma' just aren't here. To get something like that started, the agitators would have to use imported scalawags."

A Springfield, Massachusetts, police officer said: "What we've just been through here can change a man's thinking. A t the time o f the trouble in Selma last March, my sympathies were with the Negroes who wanted to be voters. I was in clined to scoff at the complaints the Alabama authorities were making about 'outside agitators.' "But now I believe I know what those Alabama officials were talking about. North or South, it's a nasty thing when outsiders come in and stir up trouble."

If the 162 ,000 whites in Springfield, Massachusetts, outnumbering negroes in that city ten to one, fear the consequences of outside agitators stirring up the negroes, how do whit�s feel in a little Ala bama town of 3000, where negroes outnumber whites five to one - where wh te agitators from the north and communist-fronting negro leaders like Martin Luther King work ceaselessly to create hatred of local whites ? There is no hope of saving our nation from race war and anarchy until people in the North and West understand what is happening in the so-called civil rights movement in the South. It THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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, $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 $1O.00-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Dan S.moot,

1965. Second Class

.mail

privilege

No Reproductions Permitted. Page 297

authorized

at Dallas, Texas.

may take more bloody orgies like the one in Los Angeles, more trouble like that in Springfield, to create the necessary understanding, because the northern and western press, and federal officials, will not let the people know the truth until awful reality is exposed by blood and violence. Violence, or suspected violence, against civil rights workers in the South makes screaming head lines in the nation's press, prompts editorials bit terly denouncing southern whites, and brings an gry intervention by the federal government. Vio lence by civil rights workers in the South is praised, excused, or ignored. Two recent cases illustrate this double standard. On August 14, 1965, Jonathan Daniels (a white, Episcopal seminary student from Keene, New Hampshire) and Richard Morrisroe ( a white, bearded Roman Catholic priest from Chicago ) were arrested, together with a group of negroes, for violation of law in connection with racial agi tation activities in Lowndes County, Alabama. A few hours after their release from j ail on August 20, 1965, Daniels and Morrisroe were shot down at a grocery store in Hayneville, Alabama, where they allegedly were leading negroes in a picketing demonstration. Daniels was killed, Mor risroe severely wounded. The man charged with the shooting is Tom Coleman (white, age 5 2 ) a prominent and respected Hayneville citizen who serves as an unpaid, part-time deputy. The Department of Justice ordered an FBI in vestigation. President Lyndon B. Johnson sent flowers and a telegram to Morrisroe in the hos pital, and a telegram of condolence to Daniels' mother in New Hampshire. On five successive days (August 2 1 -25 ) , The New York Times published nine news stories (two of them on the front page) and one long editorial dealing with the Hayneville case. In contrast, there is the case of Perry Smaw. Perry Smaw ( age 87 ) , negro farmer near Greensboro, Alabama, was noted for his outspoken criticism of civil rights agitators who had been Page 298

creating turmoil all summer in the community of Greensboro. On Sunday morning, August 22, Smaw's daughter found him unconscious, bleed ing and near death, in his three-room farm house about six miles from Greensboro. His skull had been crushed by a blow with an iron frying pan a blow so hard that it broke the pan. Smaw's tongue had been pulled out as far as possible and cut off, "all the way back to his tonsils." Perry Smaw died August 27, 1 965, without regaining consciousness. Governor George C. Wallace offered a $ 1,000 reward (the maximum amount the State can give) for information leading to conviction of Smaw's assailants. The Governor said : "To my knowledge, the Department of Justice has not ordered an FBI investigation of a civil rights violation in this case. President Johnson did not send flowers or messages of condolence to Perry Smaw's grieving family. But here in Alabama, we are concerned with protecting the civil rights of all citizens - black and white."

The New York Tim es - which had given over

. a thousand lines of space, in nine news stories and one editorial, to the slaying of a civil rights worker in Hayneville, Alabama - ran one 30-line story on page 2 1C reporting the attack on Perry Smaw. There were no follow-up stories - not even to report that Smaw had died : no feature stories about his life and grieving relatives, no editorial comment.

W ho was

Perry Smaw ? What kind of com munity did he live in ? We went to Greensboro to find out. Before reaching our destination, we learned that Roosevelt Long (a 2 1-year-old negro, taken into custody several days earlier) had confessed to the murder of Perry Smaw. Brief news accounts issued previously referred to the search for Smaw's "as sailants," "attackers," and "terrorists" - indicat ing a belief, or assumption, that one man could not have committed the crime. Our interest in details of the murder increased. The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 38)

Greensboro lies northwest of Montgomery and Selma, on the edge of the great Black Prairie Belt. We approached the town along the famous Montgomery-Selma highway, bordered by tall moss-covered trees, and stretching uncrowded and peaceful before us in the hot morning sun. It was difficult to imagine this road, as it had looked .several months before, commandeered for the use of Martin Luther King's brigade, supported and protected by the federal government, inspired and led by "imported scalawags." Remembering, we wondered how we would be received in Greensboro - we fellow Texans of Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom the editor of the Greensboro newspaper calls "this dangerous, de structive autocrat in command." William C. Christian, Mayor of Greensboro, received us with a gracious courtesy which in cluded the gesture of gathering a number of the town's officials for proper introduction. The long, hot, harassing summer had not affected this com munity's official, or individual, manners. It was readily apparent that civic leaders and officials of Greensboro, and members of the negro community (who asked firmly to remain un named ) were far more interested in the reason for Perry Smaw's death than we could ever be. Neither in Greensboro (nor later when we talked with Colonel Albert Lingo - State Director of Public Safety - and members of his staff ) did we find the "red neck bigots" who (according to civil rights leaders and many national news "authori ties" ) are indigenous to the climate of Alabama. The Alabamans we saw are people enduring, with admirable dignity, the indignities of a second Reconstruction.

the latter stages of the Civil War, when Federal troops poured into Alabama, they by passed Greensboro and pushed to the East and West. The cotton economy was prostrate by then. With no industry to help the Southern war effort, Greensboro was not considered worth burning. The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 38)

Because of this blessing ( there are those who consider it an unfortunate oversight ) , Greensboro might be called an heirloom in the old South. Here are some of the finest examples of ante bellum architecture in existence. Giant magnolia trees still shade the churches and mansions of the ante-bellum gentry, many of whose descendants became leading statesmen, soldiers, educators, cler gymen. In this setting, Greensboro treasures the beauty of its antiquity, as its people work to build a mod ern agricultural economy : dairying, poultry, live stock, timber, cotton - industry suited to the rich land of the Black Belt. Some would say that the past is "glorified" here. It would be more accurate to say that the landmarks of a proud heritage are not forgotten, nor abandoned here. In a similar way, it is obvious that Perry Smaw refused to abandon his own "heritage" - which began, and ended, on the site of the Alexander McAlpine Plantation, the boundaries of which were stipu lated in a land grant signed by President James Monroe in 1824. One of Alexander McAlpine's daughters mar ried a Scot named Isaiah Smaw. At the end of the Civil War, many freed slaves followed the custom of the time and adopted the name of the family to whom they had belonged. One hundred years later, Perry Smaw (the de scendant of an Isaiah Smaw slave) lived six miles west of Greensboro in a house that would have wrung the heart and doubled the enthusiasm of any Poverty Program representative. Investigation reveals, however, that the 87-year-old negro farm er owned the 100 acres of rich cotton land sur rounding his weather-beaten three-room home, where he lived by choice with one companion, a mongrel dog. A few miles down the road from "Perry's Place" is the neat, attractive farm house of Ernest Smaw, Perry's oldest son. From Tuscaloosa, Per ry's daughter, Marie Cadell, came often to check on her father's needs and take him to services at the Springfield Baptist Church. Page 299

In his prime, Smaw stood six feet, a dominant and influential figure among other negroes in the community. He was considered a "prosperous farmer who worked eight to ten mules." Unusually skilled in training bird dogs, Smaw had been a hunting companion of leading white citizens in Greensboro - including Probate Judge W. H. Knight, whose great-grandfather was Isaiah Smaw. By the spring of 1965 , Perry had retired from ac tively working his farm. When necessary, he hired other negroes to work for him. He was growing feeble with age, given to "dizzy spells," and was quite hard of hearing. He came into town less often. When he did come, he saw things he neither liked nor understood. Young white strangers (who, Perry learned, were civil rights workers) gathered with teen-age negroes (some of whom he knew) at the African Methodist Episcopal Church on Morse Street. By May, 1965, civil rights workers in Greensboro had become quite militant. Encouraging teen-age local negroes to "join the cause," they padlocked a negro school, even though 200 students protested because they could not attend classes. When school authorities refused diplomas to seniors who had not attended school during the last three weeks of the term, there was a cry of indignation. Perry Smaw was not in town that day in May when Martin Luther King came to Greensboro for a few hours. Dr. King shook hands with the de lighted pastor of the Morse Street A.M.E. Church (the Reverend A. T. Days) and made a speech to the negro students. If the students who failed to receive their diplomas would come to Selma, King would give them graduating certificates from his "Freedom Schoo1." After King's visit in Greensboro, there was in creased activity at Days' A.M.E. Church, located near the home of Mayor and Mrs. Christian. The church had become headquarters for self-appoint ed civil rights leaders, and camp followers (white and negro) who worked feverishly, encouraging ( and, when necessary, press uring ) older negroes to take part in the civil rights activity and agitation. Page 300

The white citizens remained calm in this com munity of less than 3000 population, in Hale County where negroes outnumber whites about five to one. During early June, white divinity students from the North came to Greensboro to intensify the civil rights agitation. More pressures were brought on the older "moderate and responsible" negroes in the community, who were told where they could shop. Sacks of groceries were knocked from the hands of those who bought in picketed stores. Other negroes, who refused to quit long standing jobs with white families, were threatened. In mid-July, Greensboro attracted national news paper notice. Two small negro country churches burned down at night. A rural white church also burned, with less attention. More civil rights leaders and demonstrators converged on Greensboro. On Friday, July 16, a massive demonstration was held at the Court House. A riot was narrowly avoided. The Hale County Red Cross Chapter's blood bank drive in Greensboro presented a new cause for agitation. The blood bank drive was picketed by demonstrators ( most of whom were under the "donor" age limit of 1 8 ) who insisted on giving blood, and demonstrating in a mass march to the town armory. The armory is located directly across the street from the Hale County Hospital in a restricted "quiet" zone. The town wondered why some of the older civil rights workers "were sud denly filled with the blood bank zeal" when al most none of them had previously seen fit to co operate. They wondered even more when news television cameramen (who had come to cover the demonstrating and picketing) were seen help ing the young civil rights demonstrators print signs, and then ushering the pickets up the street so that television camera shots of them could be taken. Feeling it was unseemly and unwise for the negroes to use the blood bank as a weapon to

dramatize their civil rights program, Judge R. K. The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 38)

Greene, Hale County Red Cross Chapter chairman, ordered a cancellation of the blood bank drive. "Peaceful demonstrations" by civil rights groups (particularly in the South) have been encouraged by highest federal officials - regardless of the danger such demonstrations can foment. But a permit is still needed, even in Alabama, for a "legal" parade. Such a permit was requested by civil rights leaders in Greensboro, after their July 16th massive demonstration at the Court House. The parade (intended, ostensibly, as a further protest against the unsolved burning of the two country churches ) would include some 500 dem onstrators. It would begin at the A.M.E. Church, progress to the Court House (where speeches would again be made) and follow a circuitous route through the town before the paraders marched, in mass, four miles into the country to the site of a burned church. Mayor Christian re fused a permit for the parade as planned. He offered a permit stipulating a shorter route to the church, without prolonged marching up and down the main streets of Greensboro, and without an other demonstration at the Court House. Civil rights leaders sought a federal court in j unction against Mayor Christian for violation of their rights. The hearing was held in Selma, before Federal Judge Dan Thomas. In substance, Judge Thomas supported Mayor Christian's stand. The Judge upheld the right to parade with limitations, and upheld the right of free speech and free as sembly, but ruled that civil rights leaders do not have the authority to take a town apart, to incite violence against its citizens (black or white) , or to put its merchants out of business by massive picketing. He denounced "the outrageous perform ance" by Martin Luther King and his cohorts who had lured negro students away from classes and padlocked their school. Judge Thomas ruled that no more than 1 00 demonstrators could engage in any single parade ; that they march two abreast only ; and that they not parade during heavy business hours. Civil rights leaders ignored Judge Thomas' rul ing and proceeded with preparation for their pa rade and demonstrations as planned. One "demonThe Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 38)

stration" was described briefly by editor Hamner Cobbs, in the Greensboro Watehman, published August 1 2th : "We do not deny that among these young Negroes, there were a few who were earnest and dedicated . . . but they were obviously in the vast minority. For instance, that rain dance at the corner of Main and Morse early that Monday afternoon was little more than a primitive per formance imported from the jungles of Africa, with its contortions, violent dancing and shed ding of clothes . . . . That rain dance was an emotional binge . . . . [ There is ] no excuse for the public display of vulgarity by these Negroes on the local scene. If they d�mand the right to be low comedians, we may have to put up with it, but it does nothing to promote the serious cause which they claim to be promoting."

The location chosen for the "rain dance" is also interesting: Mayor Christian's home is on the corner of Main and Morse. On July 26, when the demonstrators in the pa rade departed from the route outlined by the Mayor and the Court, a road block was set up by law enforcement officers. The demonstrators still would not give up. They stayed at the road block for two days, until they were arrested, in groups, on July 28, 29, and 30. Those arrested were sent by bus to Camp Selma or Camp Thomaston. Charges were placed against virtually all partici pants : obstructing a street and refusing to obey an officer of the law. By the weekend, most of them had posted bond which, generally, was $100 each. Of the 317 arrested the first day, 70 percent were 2 1 years of age or under. Only 20 percent of the demonstrators were over 26 years old. Ap proximately half of the group lived in Hale Coun ty, where Greensboro is the county seat. Some of the others came from Indiana, New Jersey, Massa chusetts, California.

W e were curious to know why such an enor

mous demonstration was concentrated on Greens boro. Had the burned churches really been the cause ? Editor Hamner Cobbs expressed his opin ion:

"No, the churches (and we never found out who burned them) gave them the excuse they Page 301

wanted. After they hit Selma, we were next on their list. A TV cameraman who covered the parade confirmed this. He said he rushed here from Bogalusa because civil rights leaders there told him that 'Greensboro is going to be the next hot spot.' "What they wanted was a riot and they thought they could stir one up here. They guessed wrong, not knowing anything about Greensboro. They were the most disappointed bunch of people I ever saw."

At approximately the same time the riots broke out in Watts, California, Greensboro authorities learned that a new "white worker" from Califor nia was in town, giving lessons (at the A.M.E. Church ) in making Molotov cocktails. The church was inspected and the "makings for the Molotovs" were discovered - giving credence to Editor Cobbs' observation that "They haven't finished with us yet." By mid-August, little interest was shown in fur ther Greensboro demonstrations, as civil rights workers concentrated on voting registration. Alabama is operating under three sets of rules for registering voters. Qualifications for voting appear to be determined by the whim of the Great Society's Attorney General Katzenbach, who di rectly controls registration in some counties. Other counties are under the control of federal judges, while others operate under state law. Evidently, the Attorney General is now pressing the "register-aIl-negroes" voting law in precisely those counties which have most to fear from rule by illiterates - the Black Belt counties where ne groes far outnumber whites. In Montgomery County, where the level of ne gro education is higher, registrars may require that an applicant be able to read and write. Wilcox County, which has much to fear if all standards are swept aside, may not require even the most primitive ability to read and write. Wil cox and Hale County are two of the four counties in Alabama where federal registration of the in competent and illiterate is being pushed (with the help of civil rights leaders) , in what seems to be a federal attempt to glorify illiteracy only

where it will do the most damage. Page 302

Greensboro seemed to be j ust such a spot. There, some older negroes (who were brought to the post office for registration) explained their only interest in getting " rettished" : they had been told, by civil rights leaders, that they would lose their old age pensions if they did not register. Other negroes were disappointed over not getting some sort of handout or gift after they had "rettished."

Few

people in the Greensboro area seemed more irritated over the civil rights activities, from May into August, than Perry Smaw was. Some said his deafness made communication with the old man difficult. Others said Perry was becoming senile. No one denied, however, that he spoke his mind clearly, using the vernacular of his people. Standing near one demonstrating group, he had called out: "Who is this nigger Martin Luther King who's causin' all this?"

After watching northern white student leaders with groups of negro marchers, he observed loud ly: "1£ the poor white trash would get out of here, we would get along all right."

When members of his family cautioned him against speaking his mind so bluntly, he replied : "I ain't scared of none of them niggers! "

After the old man's mutilated body was found by his daughter, it was discovered that (along with $25 .00 in cash which he was known to have) , two of his prized possessions were also missing: a silver dollar good luck piece, and his 76-year-old 38-40 rifle. Many negroes in this old southern area own silver dollars (called "bo-dollars" ) which they carry for luck. But Perry's dollar was special : a gift from his daughter, it was minted the year he was born, and was probably the oldest "bo dollar" in the negro community. His rifle was the only 38-40 in the county. Deputy David Holloway says that, when news

of the attack spread through the community,

Smaw's negro friends (young and old ) expressed The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 38)

fear that this crime had been a deliberate effort to silence the old man, and to serve as a lesson to others who felt as he did. Through one of these people, Smaw's missing "bo-dollar" was located, and was traced to Roosevelt Long. Evidence against Long (including the stolen rifle and the knife used in the mutilation ) w1ll be presented at his trial in November. This is not the proper place for such details. But it is worth noting that, as conclusive evidence mounted against him, Long admitted striking the blow that crushed Smaw's skull and then robbing him, but ( for several days ) denied that he had amputated Smaw's tongue. Here are the highlights of Roose velt Long's final story that we heard :

3 �-40

According to Long, three negro civil rights en thusiasts in Greensboro had approached him to quit his job and "join the cause. " They told him that "the boss sent them. " Long identified the "boss" as the Reverend A. T. Days (who has been visited several times since May by one of Martin Luther King's lieutenants ) . The negroes Long identified as recruiters for Days are known hood lums with police records. Long claimed that a fourth civil rights henchman threatened him, and shot at him several times-although he had not reported these incidents at the time they occurred. In an effort to protect himself, Long claimed, he decided to kill the negro who shot at him, and then leave for Chicago. Long lived near Perry Smaw (some say he worked for Perry at one time) . W H O

He went to Smaw's home to borrow the old man's valued rifle for the killing he planned. Perry was napping at 1 : 30 in the afternoon when Long arrived. When awakened, he refused to let Long have the gun, and told him to leave. In anger, Long fractured Smaw's skull with the iron skillet robbed him, and grabbed the rifle. Then, accord� ing to Long, he knew that the unconscious, feeble negro had to be kept from talking. So he put down the loaded gun, and found the knife which he used for the amputation. Af�er the attack, Long did not leave for Chi cago. He hid the rifle and the knife, lost Smaw's $25.00 in a crap game, and finally pawned Smaw's "bo-dollar." One Greensboro official observed : "If Long just wanted to keep Perry from telling on him, why didn't he use the loaded rifle? Besides, I don't think Long would have had the nerve to try to borrow Perry's 38-40. Steal it, yes. Borrow it, no!"

Editor Hamner Cobbs said : "Let me put it this way: if civil rights agitators had stayed out of Greensboro, Perry Smaw wouldn't be dead. Directly, or indirectly, they killed him. This we know! "

Was Perry Smaw's family satisfied with Long's story ? "No, they were not."

How did Perry's negro friends feel about the murder, and about Long ? Here are some direct answers we received after promising not to divulge

DAN

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1 941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1 942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Repot·t and broadcast give one side of i mportant issues: the side that presents documented truth using the A merican Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 38)

Page 303

identity, and agreeing that comments about the murder were no more than expressions of personal opinion no proof, j ust opinion : -

"Roosevelt Long wasn't alone when h e at tacked Perry . . . . Someone watched him do it." "Long was 'courted and instructed' on how to do it. Someone promised him, 'I will take care of you.' He was ignorant and they used him." "Long wasn't in Perry's class . . . . Perry, he was a community leader. He was respected and looked up to. He came by it through hard work - being a farmer, working in the earth, in the common way of life." "Perry hated laziness, particularly in 'the young folks.' He liked to see folks working . . . . He could make enemies with words. Some of our people just laughed when he said the things he did; but the other side didn't laugh."

We asked other questions, and were answered politely: "Sorry, ma'm, I'd rather not answer that one."

Later, Judge Knight asked : "Would you like to see Perry's place? It looks terrible, but he wouldn't leave it. His cur-dog won't leave now. He just lies there on the porch, waiting for old Perry to come back . . . " .

We wanted to see Perry's place, and the mon grel dog that waited by day and howled by night. He lay on the broken porch, head between his paws. The Mayor and the Judge called to him

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $ 10.00 - $ 10.00 - $ 10.00 - $ 1 0.00 - $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

softly. He watched them. The men walked to the porch ; we stood beneath the giant pecan tree that cast a protective shadow over Perry's cluttered lit tle yard. Reassured, the dog rose and wagged his tail, but did not leave the porch. We looked around us. "Will Perry be buried here?"

Judge Knight replied : "No, Perry's going to be buried next to his wife, at the burial plot of his family, on the grounds where my great, great grandfather's plantation once stood. Perry wanted it that way."

We walked toward the car. The dog settled down, still watching us, his head resting on his paws. The late afternoon sun struck the neat, green rows that stretched across the silent field where Perry had worked "in the earth - in the common way of life." We stood for a moment looking at the field. Then one white southern American - born and bred to a tradition and heritage that Perry Smaw had understood and tried to defend - turned to the other and said : "Perry's cotton is almost ready."

And the other replied : "Yes - we'll take care of it."

NA ME

(Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

( Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 304

The Dan Smoot Report, September 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 38)

THE

IJtlll Sm0011lepOr11WifiH Vol. 1 1 , No. 39

(Broadcast 527)

September 27, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

COMMU N IZI N G AME R I CA

In an article entitled "How We Are Being Communized,"

published by American Opinion, Mar tin Dies (original chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities ) says : "We are now spilling precious American blood and expending billions of dollars . . . on acts which we are told will contain Communism abroad. Is it not time for us to ask ourselves: 'Are we containing Communism at home?' " ( 1 )

Presenting a mass of impressive facts and figures to prove his point, Mr. Dies concludes that not "even Karl Marx could . . . expect more progress in his recommended program of gradual Com munization," than is now being made in the United States. Here are extracts from Mr. Dies' article:

"My dictionary defines communism as: 'A social system that puts property, capital and industry under the control of the community.' It is obvious that such control can be achieved by ownership of the title of the means of production, or by control of them . . . . "The federal government now owns a third of the . . . land in the United States . . . . Washington has also vastly increased its share of all civilian holdings and structures. In 1 900 . . public holdings comprised 6.8 percent of the values of all structures in the country; by 1 958, this ownership had grown to twenty-one percent . . . . .

"We have considered federal ownership, but we must discuss federal control which, in many in. stances, is equivalent to ownership. Since 1 933, the U.S. Government has spent $36 billion for price support of farm commodities. Accompanying this aid . . . have been hundreds of rules and regulations establishing federal control . . . . "While the small farmers were being oblitera ted, the small businessmen were suffering the same fate as a result of expanding federal control and competition from government·operated businesses and government.labor blackmail . . " The Wagner Act [ 1 935 ] established the Nation· al Labor Relations Board . . . and changed the balance of power between labor and management to an imbalance heavily in favor of organized labor . . . . "There were also the vast federal corporation taxes, and the reciprocal trade treaties which . . . THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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 $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 $lO.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 305

made it impossible for some businesses and in dustries in America to compete with lower-cost un-unionized labor abroad. "To gauge the effect of all these controls upon American business, one need only read the statis tics of commercial and industrial failures in the past ten years; they have averaged about fourteen thousand per year. This is only a drop in the bucket compared with the thousands of independ ent businesses which have voluntarily quit or which have been sold to some national chain com pany in disgust. "What will be the effect of the disappearance of small farmers, businessmen, and industrialists in the United States? The first speech I made in Congress was on this subject. I quoted from the leading Socialist writer of that period who said that the multitude of small businesses and in dustries had to be eliminated before Socialism could win the United States. He said that when farming and industry were concentrated in large corporations, and a few individuals, it would be an easy matter to convert the economy from free enterprise to Socialism, but that this would not be possible as long as the multitude of independent businessmen and industrialists stood in the path of Socialism . . . . "In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx ad vocated 'Centralization of credit in the hands of the state . . . .' Can anyone deny that credit is now largely centralized in . . . agencies of the federal government? . . . "Marx . . . recommended 'Centralization of the means of communication . . . in the hands of the state.' The federal government now fully controls the air waves through the Federal Communica tions Commission, and political considerations have become dominant in the administration of the laws regulating the use of air waves by the tele vision and radio industries. All that one need do is listen to a . . . broadcast to discover the influ ence of the Administration in power upon the views expressed and the slanting of the news. Commentators, reporters, and columnists who do not play ball with the Administration in power are the victims of devastating discrimination . . . . "Marx . . . advocated the centralization . . . of transportation in the hands of the state. Today the federal government is spending billions of dollars to subsidize transport . . . . Hand in hand with these subsidies are ever-tightening controls of the transport companies . . . . Page 306

"Karl Marx, in the first plank of his program, advocated 'Abolition of property in land and ap plication of all rents of land to public purposes.' This is being accomplished steadily. In every sec tion of our nation, land is being taken for gov ernment lakes, parks, forests, power projects, re serves, and the like . . . . The federal government now owns one-third of the nation's total real estate . . . . "The second plank in Marx's platform, 'A heavy progressive or graduated income tax,' has already been accomplished in the United States. "In his third proposal, Marx advocated 'Aboli tion of all rights of inheritance.' This has not yet been fully accomplished in America, but con siderable progress in this direction has been made. All that anyone needs to do is read the tax rates of our federal government and our states on the estates of decedents to discover that, in the case of many estates, the tax amounts to virtual confisca tion . . . . "In his seventh plank, Marx advocated 'Exten sion of factories and instruments of production owned by the State.' . . . The value of factories and instruments of production owned by the fed eral government accounts for a considerable part of the 328 billion dollars of property now owned by the federal government. "The eighth plank in Marx's program for Com munization of countries by degrees advocates 'equal liability of all to labor' [ and ] 'establish ment of industrial armies, especially for agricul ture.' This will be the last plank which will be adopted in the United States, but its adoption will become inevitable when the other proposals are written into law. Already, we have had our C. C. C., and our Job Corps, and more such pro posals are on the way. "In the Manifesto, Karl Marx said, 'But com munism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religions, and all morality, instead of constitut ing them on a new basis; it therefore acts in con tradiction to all past historical experience.' This provides us with the most important yardstick to measure the degree of Communization of our country. Ask yourself: Are religion and morality being abolished in the United States? . . . "The sad truth is that the moral fiber and ethical standards of our people and their public servants have been seriously weakened . . . . A minister of Christ holds a party for homosexuals and is praised for doing it by his fellow clergyThe

Dan Smoot Report, September

27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

men. Billy Sol Estes, the President's friend, de frauds hundreds of millions and gets away with it on a weird technicality. Bobby Baker, another friend of the President, uses government to make himself a millionaire-and laughs at efforts to hold him to account. Walter Jenkins, a Presi dential Assistant, meets sick old men in restrooms for homosexual activity and winds up the heart throb of 'Liberals' everywhere for having been 'overworked.' Prayer is stopped in schools . . . . Morality is no longer revered and many reverends are no longer moral, and America is sick with the rot of it, and Karl Marx has achieved another goal for Communizing our land. "More than one hundred years ago Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto. It is the Bible of Communists and Socialists, and the yardstick by which nations can measure their descent into the abyss of Communism. Any truthful consideration of the record and facts should convince anyone but the ignorant, the brainwashed, or the blind that the United States is moving towards Communism according to the timetable of the International Communist Con spiracy."(1)

However, Martin Dies states : "I do not say, nor do I mean to intimate, that Communists have planned and directed the poli cies of our government-even though about five thousand Communists were discovered on the federal payroll as a result of the investigations conducted by the Dies Committee on Un-Ameri· can Activities . . . . I do say, however, that if the Communists had planned and directed America's turn to the Left, they could not have done a bet ter job of carrying out the advice of Karl Marx to Communize the United States by degrees." ( l )

first became aware of communism in 1943 when, as an FBI agent, I was assigned to investi gate commu nist activities in northern Ohio. I noticed that communists were entertai ned in the White House and that some in government were promoted after the FBI had submitted reports on their communist activiti es. I observed, on the other hand, that patriots like Martin Dies, who spoke out strongly and plainly against communism were bludgeoned with public slander. Some of the bitterest vilification of anti-communists came from liberals who professed hatred of commu nism. I (�)

The Dan Smoot Report, September 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 39)

was bewildered by all of this, until I understood it. Roosevelt liberals in 1943-like Truman, Eisen hower, Kennedy, and Johnson liberals later were sensitive to any fundamental criticism of communism, because the liberalism which has dominated intellectual and political life in Amer ica 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 govern ment and feared political power, modern liberals worship government and strive to give it unlimited power to do anything which government offi cials claim to be good. The Founding Fathers were confronted with a dilemma. They knew that an inexorable law of human nature causes men to abuse political power. They knew that all governments will, if permitted, waste the substance of the people and ultimately enslave the people, always under pretense of help ing the people. Thomas Jefferson summed up their attitude when, in essence, he said : In questions of political power, do not talk about confidence in men, or trust anyone with political power : just bind all government officials down from mischief with the chains of a Constitution so that they can not 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 government agency to engage in activitv which may become, at a later time, a proper a� d needed function of government. 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 to gether in a union, so that their citizens had com mon citizensh ip in a national system, there would be some restraining and corrective force. If a state government abused its power, it would lose good, Page 307

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. 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 pretext of giving them aid ; robbing and enslaving 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 tyran ny and follies of the federal government, because they would be imposed on the whole nation, arbi trarily; and there would be no way for citizens to escape. Our Founding Fathers solved the complex prob lem by writing a binding contract of government -the Constitution-rigidly limiting the federal government to powers granted in the contract, leaving all flexible, general powers of govern ment to the states. This was the political system which left the American people so free from harassment by gov ernment and, thus, released so much human energy and ingenuity, that Americans quickly converted their portion of the backward, underdeveloped North American continent into the most powerful and prosperous nation in history. Yet, by 1943, American liberals had rejected the system and were branding its advocates crackpots and trouble makers. By 1961, the Attorney General of the United States (Robert F. Kennedy) was considering a recommendation, made by one of the nation's foremost socialists (Walter Reuther) , that advocates of the old constitutional system be formally branded "radical right-wing extremists" and placed on the Attorney General's list of sub versives. (3)

America's totalitarian liberals do not, for the

most part, admit to being socialists, because the American public still thinks it is opposed to soPage 308

cialis� . For yea rs, socialists openly participated in . American electIOns, but received only token sup port at the polls. Eventually convinced that Amer icans would not wittingly adopt socialism, the so cialists changed tactics. They infiltrated the major political parties and presented their old ideas un der deceptive new labels. Instead of demanding a centralized government with absolute power to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of the people, they clamored for "government with a heart," "government with power to act in the in terests of the whole people," "industrial democ racy," "social reform," a "welfare state." Change in slogans and language made no change in ultimate goal : the aim of socialists is a central government with absolute power to confiscate from the people whatever officials say they need for promoting the general welfare. Modern American liberals, who generally deny being socialists and claim to hate both communism and fascism, want the same kind of political sys tem that socialists, communists, and fascists want: a totalitarian state which directs and controls the people for purposes which officials allege to be good for the people. Though socialism, communism and fascism have always had the same objective, there has been bit ter enmity among socialists, communists, and fas cists. Part of the enmity resulted from rivalry for power-rivalry as elemental, as easy to understand, as the rivalry among three dogs fighting for the same bone. Yet, part of the enmity among the three major branches of socialism arose from dif ferences in methods used to accomplish the com mon objective. Historically, socialists believed that a majority of people could be persuaded to vote for the es tablishment of socialism by legislative process ; but socialists were not honest in their claim of wanting to institute socialism in the United States by legal means. If they had been honest, they would have started by advocating amendment of the Constitu tion, through Iegal constitutional process, to give the federal government absolute power to do any

thing the President and a majority of both Houses The Dan Smoot Report, September 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

of Congress want to do. As our Constitution stands, the federal government does not have enough power to institute socialist programs legal Iy, even if the entire population should want the programs. Constitutional prohibitions against an all-powerful socialist government are ignored, however ; and socialists are credited with wanting to institute socialism by Iegal means. Historically, communists believed that social ism must be instituted by illegal means. Asserting that the people are controlled by the propaganda, wealth, and entrenched power of capitalists, Karl Marx believed that the people could never be led to institute socialism by legal, legislative process. Therefore, communists traditionally advocate seizure of power, through violent means, by a small elite of communists who will then govern as a dictatorship of the proletariat until the last rem nants of private capitalism are eliminated, and until the people have been trained to live and work in a pure socialist society. Then the dictator ship will be dissolved and people will live and work under the benevolent controls of society. The original marxian fear of capitalist resist ance to the establishment of socialism made com munism an international movement. Marx be lieved that even if a communist elite could seize power in one nation and institute a socialist dic tatorship, capitalists of other nations would com bine to make war on the socialist state and destroy it. Marx was convinced, therefore, that socialism would not be safe until all nations of the world were under one socialist dictatorship. This is why communists are dedicated to a program of wodd conquest. Fascists also believed that the people could nev er be openly persuaded to approve institution of the totalitarian socialist state ; but the fascist meth od of conquest was less direct than the communist method which Marx prescribed. Hitler in Ger many and Mussolini in Italy created what can best be described as "corporate states." Ownership of major business, financial, commercia l, and indus trial organizations was left in private hands ; but government imposed such controls over the or ganizations that they became mere branches of govThe Dan Smoot Report, September 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

ernment. The net result was the same as in com munist nations : total government control of all major means of production. . "Yhereas Karl Marx believed that wealthy cap Italrsts 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 often lack the sense or courage to fight for their own. The fascists in Germany and Italy acquired power with the eager assistance of wealthy businessmen who later be came helpless tools of the power they had financed. Fascist contempt for capitalists resulted in an other basic difference between the over-all pro gram of the fascist brand of socialism and the �on:munist brand. Fascists (thinking that cap ItalIsts of one nation would not lift a finger to help fellow capitalists in other nations ) believed that socialist nations could exist safely in a world where other nations retained capitalistic systems. Hence, fascists did not feel the absolute compul sion, that communists felt, for world conquest. Fascists were devoted to what Hitler called na tional socialism ( nazi being a new-deal type ab breviation meaning national socialism ) . Com munists are devoted to international socialism.

T otalitarian liberals in the United States, hav ing the same ultimate goal as socialists, fascists, 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 ap proach : brainwashing a majority of the Congress and a substantial portion of the public into ac cepting (in utter defiance of constitutional limita tions ) experiments in pure socialism: government ownership and operation of electric power facili ties, for example. American liberals share with fascists a contempt for capitalism ; but their manipulation of capital ists has not been so cynically obvious, or so com plete, as that of fascists. A system closely similar to Page 309

the corporate states of fascist Italy and nazi Ger many has been erected in the United States. Today there are hundreds of huge federal corporations which compete with private corporations. In the United States, private corporations have not yet lost all control over their own operations, as they eventually did in Germany and Italy. Dur ing Mussolini's and Hitler's rise to power, big cor porations in Itlay and Germany enjoyed a honey moon period. By cooperating with government, they got profitable business from government. In the United States, big corporations are still in that honeymoon period. They support extravagant spending programs of the federal government, be cause the spending provides lush contracts. Many big corporations, which do not profit directly from government contracts, profit indirectly from the economic sti mulation of government lending, spending, and giveaways in their communities. Cooperating with big government also provides some insurance against harassment by the Internal Revenue Service, and other federal agencies. Many American businessmen (who neither profit from nor approve the government programs they toler ate ) go along to get along. It was the same in fascist Italy and in 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 brainwash the public-hoping to make it all "legal" and ac ceptable later on. President John F. Kennedy did a great deal of this-instituting, by Executive Or der, programs which Congress had not authorized, financing the illegal programs with money ap propriated for other purposes, until Congress could be manipulated into "authorizing" what had already been done. President Johnson uses this same tactic, though Johnson does not have as much need for it as Kennedy had. Johnson is far more successful than Kennedy, in getting prior congres sional "authorization" for his programs.

As late as 1948, however, socialists still had a dis tinct party and were still running their own candi dates in national elections. They were not yet total ly satisfied with liberal progress toward the so cialist state. In 1952, Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party, said there was no longer any need for him to run for the presidency, because the major par ties had stolen his platform. In November, 1963, Norman Thomas said that about 80910 of the socialist party's platform had been enacted into law in the United States. In 1964, Thomas made a speaking tour, campaign ing for Lyndon B. Johnson. ( 4 ) 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 his tory-gained control of government power, not by force of arms or by subversion, but by persuad ing a majority of voters to vote for known com munist candidates. This happened in Kerala, a state in the southern part of India; in Java ; in Oki nawa ; and in British Guiana. Commenting on these political phenomena of 1957, U. S. News & World Report (September 6, 1957 ) said : "The Reds, who for years avoided free elections in favor o f subversion and armed aggression, are turn ing to American-style political campaigning . . . . The Communists in Kerala ran openly on a a Communist Party ticket, but they . . . . made no references to M arxism, Moscow, and revolution o f t h e working class. Instead, they promised some th ing 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 prom ised to the peasants . . . . More and better schooling . . . was pledged by the Communists to disgruntled studen ts."

(calling themselves liberals or new dealers ) acquired major political power in the

In the United States, communists have adopted, in toto, the techniques of our totalitarian liberals. Communists no longer openly advocate commu

Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration in 1933.

grams of liberalism, and use liberal labels for them

S ocialists

n ism in the United States : they advocate the pro

United States during the f irst 1 00 days of President

Page 3 10

The

DalZ Smoot Report, September 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

-knowing that completion of liberal programs means completion of the socialist revolution. The United States will then be ready for integration into a worldwide union of socialist states-the ultimate goal of communism. In the 1 960 presidential election year, the com munist party of the United States (23 West 26th Street, New York 1 0, New York ) distributed na tionally a four-page statement of the party's politi cal objectives for that year. The statement advo cated the same maj or programs that were support ed in the platforms of Democrat and Republican parties of 1 960 : increased foreign aid to underde veloped nations ; strengthening the United Nations as the keystone of American foreign policy ; in creased social security benefits for the aged ; fed erally-enforced racial integration in all areas of American life, public and private ; a new and big ger farm subsidy program ; increased giveaway of American agricultural goods abroad ; federal aid to economically distressed areas in the United States ; enlarged federal programs of slum clear ance, urban renewal, public housing. In the 1964 presidential election year, the com munist party vigorously supported Lyndon B. Johnson. Communist officials had words of praise for liberal Republicans, but said "most of the broad peoples' movements are in the orbit of the Democratic Party." ( 5 )

I n the American

Opinion article quoted at the outset of this Report , Martin Dies discusses the imW H O

plementation, in the United States, of Points One, Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight of the Communist Manifesto's ten-point platform for communist conquest. In subsequent Reports, I will discuss implemen tation of Point Nine of the Communist Manifesto, give more details on the implementation of Point One, reveal how communists dominate the politics of one State in the American union, and mention some of the organizations created to promote the socialist revolution in our nation. FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "How We Are Being Communized,"' by Martin Dies, American O/,iJlioJl, July·August, 1965, pp. 1 1 3- 2 5 ; subscription: $ 1 0.00 a

year, address 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, Massachusetts 0 2 178 ( 2 ) For additional details on the activities of the House Committee on Un-American Activities during its first 7 years, and the vilifi cation of anti-communists, see the excellent book, Martin Dies'

Siory by Martin Dies, The Bookmailer, 1963, 30 West Price

Street, Linden, New Jersey, 07036, price: $5.00. ( 3 ) "The Radical Right in America Today," memo by Victor G. and Walter P. Reuther to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, The Chrisliall Beacon, August, 1 5 , 1963, pp. 4-5

( 4 ) "People," The Dallas Morning News, November 21, 1963, Sec tion 1, p. 3 ; "Many Socialists Backing Johnson," by Peter Kihss, The New York Times, October 1 1 , 1964, p. 73 ( 5 ) "United People's Action For Peace, Democracy and Social Prog ress," by Gus Hall, special feature edition of The Worker, June

DAN

2 3, 1963

S M O OT ?

BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In Born in Missouri reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· 194 1 , he joined the f:culty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing years on commu nist investigations; two years on FBI zation. From 1942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half various places. He resigned from the FBI and, . fro� headqua rters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in n programs, giving both sides of controversial IS 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and televisio erprise business: ?ublis� ing The Da� �moot Report, sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-ent news-analysIs radiO and teleVISiOn br�adcast, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly ing vehicle. ! he Rep01: a�d broadcast gl�e one available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertis the American Constitution as a yardstick. If side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using communism, you can help immensely - help get subyou think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, September 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

Page 3 1 1

BOU N D VOLU M ES OF TH E DAN SMOOT REPORT The

Smoot Report

Dan

is exhaustively researched, carefully written, and thoroughly docu

Reports

for a calendar year, a table of contents, and exten

sive index. They are handsome books, more than 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering.

EACH BOU N D VOLUME IS A TREASURE HOUSE OF I N FORMATION FOR (Volumes for the years 1 955 through 1 96 1 are sold out)

VO LU M E X - 1 964:

$10.00::�

$ 1 0.00*

VOLU M E IX - 1 963: $ 1 0 .00*

VOLU M E V I I I - 1962: $ 1 0.00*

Revea l i ng studies i n depth o n such

A chronolog ical acco u nt and a n a lysis

Contempora ry

su bjects as

able

NAT I O N AL CO U N C I L

h i storic

yea r

THE

ASSAS·

O F C H U RCH ES . . . PANAMA CANAL

S I NATI O N

. . . I M M IG RATION LAWS . . . M E D I ·

. . . ALLIANCE FOR PROGR ESS . . .

U R BAN

R E N EWAL

events,

h i st o ry

a n a lyses

agai nst the

m e mor backdrop

S U P R E M E C O U R T'S

PRAYER D E C I S I O N S . . . T H E M IS-

LAW LESS GOVER N M ENT . . . CH I N A

S I SS I PPI TRAGEDY . . . B E R L I N . .

T H E STATE DEPARTM E N T . . . WAR

. . . LAOS . . . H OW FOR E I G N A I D

C U BA . . . CONGO I NT R IG U E . . .

ON POVERTY . . . V I ETNAM . . . G E N -

I S K I LL I N G A M E R ICA . . . W O R L D

PROGR ESS IVE E D U CATI O N . . . E U -

E R A L MACARTH U R

COM M U

CO U RT

C IV I L

R I G H TS

TRAGEDY

THE

I NV I S I BLE

CAR E . . . COM M U N I ST S P I ES

N ISM

TH E

M OVEM ENT

ROPEAN CO M M O N MARKET . . . U N

M E M B E RS H I P

A N D W O R L D GOV E R N M ENT . . . TH E

D I SAR MAM E N T U.

WAGES

IN THE UN

WE LFARE

GOVE R N M E N T

SOC I A L I S M

THE

RACKET

O R D E R FOR M B E LOW

YOU R NAM E : STR E ET:

P. O. BOX 9538 -----

C I TY AN D STATE:

_____

THE DAN SMOOT R EPORT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

DALLAS, TEXAS 752 1 4

__ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

CO P i E S BOU N D VOLU M E X ( 1 964) - $ 1 0.00 each '"

CO P I ES BOU N D VO LU M E IX ( 1963) - $ 1 0 . 00 each ':'

_____

CO P i ES

BOU N D VO LU M E V I I I

$ ____ Pay m e n t E n c losed

( 1 962) -- $ 1 0 . 00 eac h "

* ($ 1 0 .20 each for orders in Texas for Texas Del ive ry) Page 3 12

The Dan Smoot Report,

September 27, 1 965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 39)

THE )

IJtlll SmootlIe,ort Vol. I l , No. 40

(Broadcast 528)

October 4, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

P O W E R H U N G RY B U R EA U C RATS

1 950, Wilford Metcalf, a disabled World War II veteran with three and a hilf years' com bat service in Europe, bought 86 acres of Tennessee mountain land. His deed specified that he owned the land "to the top of the mountain." He cut timber and raised tobacco on his little farm. In 1 965, the U. S. Forest Service declared that Metcalf owned only 3 1 acres - that the other 5 5 acres belonged to government because they are part of the Cherokee National Forest. Asserting that Metcalf owed $ 1 7 17.52 for timber he had cut on land claimed by the government, the Forest Service submitted the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution against Metcalf. Metcalf offered his entire farm to the government to settle the claim. (1) U. S. Representative James H. Quillen (Tennessee Republican) said :

"It is strange that at the same time the Federal Government is spending $760 a month each putting girls up in plush hotels in St. Petersburg, Florida, and Los Angeles - in the name of fight ing poverty - they are prosecuting a disabled veteran with a wife and four children who is guilty only of trying to wrest a living from his land."(1)

Public and congressional interest in the Metcalf case prompted the Forest Service to make another survey. On second survey, the Service discovered that Metcalf owned all 86 acres of the farm he had bought, had not been guilty of trespass upon government land, and did not owe the $ 1 7 17.52. ( 1 ) Official hunger for private land to add to the public domain has produced many strange cases. On June 20, 1 965 , a meeting of the Western Mining Council was held at Catheys Valley, Cali fornia, to protest U.S. Forest Service confiscation of a five-acre tract of land where a millsite has been located along Highway 140 since 1 927. The millsite serves two gold mines. The Forest Service wants to eliminate this privately-owned facility ( essential to the production of gold from two mines, at a time when America's monetary gold reserve is desperately low ) so that a government THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $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 $ lO.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 3 1 3

campground for tourists can be established on the five-acre tract. A Forest Service official admits there are many other suitable tracts for a camp site along Highway 140, but says the Service wants this particular tract and is going to take it - as serting that the Forest Service has power to con fiscate any private land for public recreational purposes. (2 ) During February, 1 962 , the Interior Depart ment tried to seize 10,000 acres of property near Terre Haute, Indiana, to establish the Splunge Bird Refuge. This would have forced 86 farm families to vacate some of Indiana's richest farm land. Landowners organized and resisted, argu ing that there was no necessity for the refuge ; that its establishment would cause a loss of one million dollars a year in agricultural production, together with loss of trade and local tax revenues dependent on agricultural production - and that wild birds attracted to the proposed Splunge Bird Refuge from other available and adequate sanc tuaries would endanger jet aircraft using nearby fields. Government officials said : "We need some place for the birds to get to gether with the people."( 3)

In September, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Public Law 87-7 1 2 , establishing an 81mile long National Park on Padre Island - a sandy spit of land, 1 17 miles long, 3 miles wide, in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the coast of Texas at Corpus Christi. Portions of Padre, under private development, have yielded 1 2 million dollars in oil and gas tax revenue for Texas public schools. Commercial mineral potential of the island is estimated at one billion dollars. Public Law 87-7 1 2 authorized the Secretary o f the Interior to pay out five million dollars for private lands confiscated for the park. Land that was producing tax revenue for state, local, and federal governments now con sumes tax money from the federal treasury. No one benefits - except bureaucrats whose power and dominions are enlarged. Padre is no better place for tourists and vacationers now than be fore it became government property. (4) On August 26, 1 965 , the Senate, by voice vote, Page 314

passed S 936, to establish the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Northwest Michigan. If approved by the House, this bill will complete a federal land grab contemplated by Washington officialdom since 1959. S 936 will authorize the Department of Interior to spend $9,500,000 for acquisition costs and $14,500,000 for develop ment costs in establishing a 46, 100 acre national park, occupying 3 1 miles of Lake Michigan shore line and embracing South Manitou Island (about 5 300 acres ) which is seven miles offshore. (5)

Michigan already has five national forests con taining over 2,543,000 acres. Two of them, cover ing 40 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, are seldom used by the touring and vacationing public. Michi gan 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. (5) What, then, is the need for this federal land grab ? Here are excerpts from the minority views of United States Senators opposed to the Sleeping Bear Dunes scheme: "The Sleeping Bear Dunes area is a beautiful area which has been kept up and maintained by the citizens of the area. There is no need for Federal intervention to maintain the beauty of that area. "This proposed lakeshore area of 46, 1 00 acres has within it 37,600 acres of privately owned land which would be subjected to condemnation or the threat of condemnation if this bill were passed. Spread out over these 37,600 acres of privately owned land, you will find 274 homes. "We can find nothing . . . which would justify the condemnation of these privately owned lands or the harassment and regimentation to which the homeowners would be subjected . . . . "The bill dearly gives the Secretary [ of the Interior ] the power to condemn private property, but he can exercise or withhold that power at his discretion. Consequently, if the Secretary re fuses to offer the landowner what he considers to he a fair market value, the landowner has no redress, because it is unlikely that any other perThe Dan Smoot Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 40)

son would be interested in buying the land which is subject to condemnation. "Those who own unimproved property as de fined in the bill could not develop or use the property except as the Secretary dictated. Yet, they would receive no compensation for the re stricted use nor would the Secretary be required to acquire or purchase it. The only privilege the landowner would have because of his ownership would be to pay taxes on it . . . .

"This bill . . . does not provide for the loss of revenues that would result to the school di&tricts and county governments in that area. Two school districts in this area would be seriously affected if these private lands are taken by the Federal government and removed from the local tax rolls." ( 5 )

The federal government already owns 772 million acres of land - about 340/0 of the total land area of the nation. Hence, more than one third of all land in the United States, instead of producing revenue, is an expense to taxpayers. (6) Some consequences of this condition are indicated by the following passages from an article in the August, 1 965, issue of the California Mining

only need places to live, but we must also supply jobs for them. This cannot be accomplished as long as communities are stifled by Federal Bu reaucracies."(7)

Yet, the government's hunger for land grows with every new tract seized from private owners and added to the public domain. The Wilderness Bill of 1 964 placed 9. 1 million acres of federally-owned lands under a wilderness system controlled by the Secretaries of Agriculture a.nd Interior. The Bill authorized future acquisi bon of an additional 5 2 . 1 million acres. ( 8) All land in the wilderness system will be re tained in primitive condition. No road-building, cattle-grazing, mining, lumbering, or other human activity is permitted except as desired and author ized by federal administrators. Federal officials may permit prospecting for water, establishment of reservoirs, construction of public power projects and transmission lines, and construction of other facilities which the officials consider " in the public interest." ( 8 ) The Omnibus Farm Bill of 1 965 ( HR 98 1 1 ) provides for converting privately owned cropland into public parks, lakes, recreation areas, and so on. (9)

JOU1'nal: "The State of California is the largest State in the Union population.wise, yet it is a divided State since the Federal Government owns and controls over 50 percent of the land within its boundaries. Although the Federal agencies control over half the State, they devote most of their energy to the accumulation of more land. The Government pays no taxes on this land and as a result, the counties find it difficult to raise enough money for . . . legitimate needs. Communities sur rounded by Federal land are unable to expand, and industry is driven from the area. Almost every county in California which is labeled a depressed area is surrounded by huge areas of Federally owned lands. "Meanwhile, the biggest problem in the U. S.

today is the expanding population. People not The

Dan Smoot Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 40)

N ational

policy with regard to the public domain is now doing the exact opposite of what was originally intended. When American independence was declared, some of the original 1 3 states claimed jurisdiction over unsettled western lands, and many 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 territories for the good of all states and ( in due time and under proper conditions ) to admit western territories as states of the union having eq a l rights and privi leges with the original states. u

Page 3 1 5

The ceding of lands by the original states in the union ; the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon in 1803 ; and purchase agreements and treaties with England, Spain, Mexico, Texas, Russia, Hawaii, and various Indian tribes, brought into the public domain of the United States a vast empire of more than one and one-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 new state govern ments being organized. Originally, land in the public domain was dis posed of by sale, to provide revenue for the federal government. Beginning in the 1 830's, however, the federal government began to give away public lands, to serve various economic and social pur poses. Special grants of land from the public do main were made for schools, seminaries, deaf-mute asylums, charitable institutions, wagon road con struction, canal digging, levee building, swamp draining. Between 1850 and 1 870, nearly 95 mil lion acres of public lands were given to some 70 railroad systems. Between 1 862 and 1957, nearly 248 million acres of public lands were given to in dividuals who settled the West under terms of the Homestead Act. Another change in the administration of public lands became apparent in the late 1 920's and early 1 930's. Instead of disposing of public land, so that it could be developed by private individuals under the political authority of state and local govern ments, the federal bureaucracy began holding on to the public domain, creating a mammoth land management system, administered and policed from Washington. Great tracts of public land were set aside as na tional parks, national forests, national monuments, and wildlife sanctuaries. The use of other lands re tained under government ownership was subject to tight federal controls. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, for example ( ostensibly intended to regu late the use of undeveloped public land for graz ing livestock ) gave the Secretary of the Interior Page 3 1 6

authority 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 districts. In 1946, the Department of the Interior was re organized. The General Land Office and the Graz ing Service were combined into the Bureau of Land Management. This marked the beginning of a new policy. Instead of disposing of public land, or merely holding onto what it already had, the federal government began accumulating more land, by purchase or outright seizure. The area of land now owned and controlled by the federal government, within the United States, is greater than the combined land area of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ger many, Iceland, Denmark, Poland, Austria, Czech oslovakia, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Albania, Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.

H ow

do federal officials j ustify confiscating private land to swell the public domain ? They use propaganda that is appealing, but false. For ex ample, the propaganda about preserving the mag nificence of unspoiled nature for future genera tions has emotional appeal, but is not grounded in truth or logic. If you set aside wilderness areas that are acces sible only to a favored few who can afford expen sive safaris into them-what becomes of your ar gument that you are preserving these beauty spots "for the people" ? On the other hand, when an area of natural beauty is set aside as a National Park and made ac cessible to motorized millions, with handy water fountains, ready-made camping sites, and other modern conveniences, the place qui'ckly loses much of the beauty and grandeur (and all of the soul restoring solitude) of the wilderness. Parts of man-made, privately-owned Disneyland have more of the appearance of unspoiled beauty The Dan Smoot Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 40)

than some of the famous spots of natural grandeur which are trampled, buffeted, scratched and litter ed by a floodtide of tourists who feel no obliga tion to care for something that belongs to nobody, but is the property of everybody. Hatred of private enterprise and distrust of pri vate ownership underlie much of the government propaganda about the need to "preserve our wil derness areas." This propaganda assumes that pri vate owners will waste, despoil, and ruin, and that government is therefore justified in "saving" wil derness lands "for future generations," from ruth less exploitation by "private interests." This is the current theme of officials who want the federal government to confiscate the great Allagash wil derness of Maine. (10 ) Timber forests of Maine have been owned and managed by private interests for hundreds of years. Private owners have actually improved on nature, making wilderness areas accessible to the public, clearing underbrush, containing lightning-caused forest fires, scientifically planting and tending dis ease-free trees - while preserving the beauty, grandeur, and solitude natural to great forests. (10 ) In 1 604, when white men first began cutting trees in Maine, Maine had about 1 8 million acres of standing timber. Today, after three and a h<ill centuries of commercial lumbering, Maine has 1 7 million acres of standing timber-an area which actually contains more trees than the entire region had in its primeval state. (1 0 )

publican, former Governor of Wyoming) was on hand a few years ago to witness the establishing of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Com menting on the Sleeping Bear Dunes scheme about to be authorized in Michigan, Senator Simpson said : "They built a Coney Island in the world's most beautiful country . . . . They'll do it here. The power-hungry bureaucrats in this department have no great love for Mother Nature. They want only one thing: more and more property your property and mine and they don't care how they get it."(S) -

T he empire building of power hungry bureau

crats is helping implement the communist plan for conquest of the United States. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx outlined ten meas ures for worldwide communist conquest. The first of the ten was : "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." (ll)

In 1 932, William Z. Foster (then national chair man of the U. S. communist party) restated Point One of the Communist Manifesto in terms specifi cally applicable to the United States. Foster said: "The establishment of an American Soviet gov ernment . . . . will involve the early confiscation of the large landed estates in town and country . . . and also the whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers, etc."(12)

Owners of timberland in Maine provide hun dreds of miles of privately-built roads, which the public may travel, free of charge, through one of the most beautiful wilderness areas in the world.

What will the government do with the land it is acquiring ? 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

Men who invest in land and timber do not per mit destruction of their investment. They protect it. The best preserved, most carefully protected wilderness areas anywhere are privately owned, commercially operated timberlands. Land suffer ing depletion is usually government land, adminis tered by bureaucrats who have no vital interest in caring for it.

The Dallas Times Herald:

(10)

U. S. Senator Milward Simpson (Wyoming ReThe Dan Smoot Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 40)

"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 paths of expanding areas. Page 317

"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 and substandard land uses would not be permitted. Performance bonds might be required in some cases."

There are the language and the thinking of the planners of other people's lives. When the gov ernment controls all land, permitting it to be used only within conformity to the taste and specifica tions of the Washington bureaucracy, we will have national, monolithic ugliness, standardized by gov ernment planning. The planning is already in an advanced stage. In August, 1 965 , Congress approved HR 6927, complying with President Johnson's request to create a new cabinet-level Department of Hous ing and Urban Affairs. This Department will com bine (and direct into a united front against the in terests of private property) the federal govern ment's various programs of housing, urban renew al, city planning, mass transit subsidies, and other operations designed to make the federal govern ment absolute master of our cities and states. On August 26, 1 965 , President Johnson signed into law the Public Works and Economic Develop ment Act of 1965-to give the bureaucrats more tax money for forcing their schemes upon the public. The Economic Development Act of 1965 created the Economic Development Administra tion (EDA ) , to replace the Area Redevelopment Administration (ARA ) , which had been created in 1961. After four years, and the unconstitutional squandering of 435 million dollars, ARA had failed to provide material blessings promised by its sponsors. So, President Johnson ordered Con gress to change the name of the organization, ex pand its functions, extend its reach into the pockets of all taxpayers. The new EDA is authorized to spend three billion, 250 million dollars during the next five years-to develop waterworks, sanitary and storm sewers, industrial parks, police and fire Page 3 1 8

stations, tourism facilities, airports, watershed pro tection, flood prevention projects, residential streets, hospitals, vocational education facilities, community centers. (13) The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 also authorizes the Secretary of Com merce to designate "economic development re gions" which will cross state lines. The act author izes the Secretary to "invite and encourage" states to plan development through multistate regional commissions. Each commission will be composed of one member from each participating state in the region and one federal member with singular veto power over any plans made by the majority of state members. The regional commissions are auth orized to make "recommendations" about expendi ture of funds by federal, state, and local agencies in their respective regions and to recommend local, state, and federal legislation desired by the com missions. (13) If the EDA does all that its supporters envision, it will transform our union of sovereign states into Metropolitan America-a regionally planned, monolithically unified nation, divided into a score of metropolitan areas which sprawl across state boundary lines. Each area will be ruled by a metro politan government of appointed experts who re ceive their jobs, their orders, and their revenue from the Washington politburo. Each area will be developed according to the wishes of government planners. Any private landowner who hinders "progress" dictated by government officials will be removed by force from his property, compensated with whatever amount of tax money the bureau crats declare his confiscated property to be worth. Land grabbing by the federal bureaucracy ful fills Point One of the Communist Manifesto. Plan ned use of the federal land (together with related schemes for urban-rural planning and manage ment by federal officials ; and Supreme Court re apportionment decisions which eliminate d.istin.c tions between urban and rural representatlOn 1n state legislatures ) fulfills Point Nine of the Com mzmist Manifesto :

"Combination of agriculture with manu£acThe

Dan Smoot

Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 40)

turing industries; gradual abolition of the dis tinction between town and country, by more equable distribution of population over the country."( ll )

The Metropolitan America being planned by Washington bureaucrats, financed by money con fiscated from all taxpayers, enforced by the un limited power of the federal government, is ful filling William Z. Foster's 1932 plan for a Soviet America.

What To Do

The people must elect a Congress of constitu

tionalists who will repeal the laws that are commu nizing our nation. An article entitled "Return 'Public Lands' to the States and Abolish Federal Agencies," in the August, 1 965 , issue of California Mining loumal, mentions some specific steps which Congress should take : "We can no longer afford the luxury of financ ing bureaucracies on top of bureaucracies es pecially when they duplicate each other's work. In California, we have a State Division of For estry and a U. S. Forest Service; we also have a U. S. Parks Service and a State Parks Service; a California Division of Mines and a U. S. Bureau

W H O

of Mines; a California Fish and Game and a U. S. Fish and Game. "The State agencies, being closer to the prob lem, are in a better position to know the needs of the State and are the better judge of what lands should be released for private use . .

"The states are fully capable of managing the land within their own boundaries and can do so more economically."(7)

The federal Forest Service, Parks Service, Bu reau of Mines, Fish and Wildlife Service, and kin dred federal agencies should be abolished. The Bureau of Land Management, which acquires and manages public land, should be replaced with something comparable to the old General Land Office which was created in 1812 to dispose of

tederal lands.

Since the most effective work in pr'eservation of historical sites and scenes of natural beauty has been accomplished by private effort, it is hardly conceivable that government action would ever be necessary in this field ; but if it ever should be, the responsibility should rest with state and local governments. There is no valid reason why Washington bu reaucrats should plan and control parks and other recreational areas for the people. There are many reasons why they should not have such power-the most important reason being that concentration of

DAN

S M O O T ?

headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1 9 5 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Repot·t and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, October 4, 1965 (Vol.

11, No. 40)

Page 3 1 9

power in Washington is a prerequisite step toward communizing America. Congress should determine what lands are needed for public use by civilian and military agen cies of the federal government. All federal land not absolutely necessary for legitimate, constitu . tIOnal federal use, should be sold to private pur

chasers and to local and state governments. The proceeds should be applied on payment of our na tional debt, to reduce the crushing burden we are piling up for future generations.

( 4 ) "Sadler Calls Padre Plan 'Give-Away'," The Fort Worth Star Telegram, October 24, 1 96 1 ; Congressional Quarterly Almana., 1962, p. 466

(5)

"UdaIJ Plans Land-Grab in Michigan," article by William Schulz, Human EvelZls, June 1 5, 1963, pp. 1 68-9; "Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Mich." Congressional Ruord, Au gust 26, 1965, pp. 2 1 257-62

( 6 ) "Value of Federal Property Exceeds Amount of U. S. Debt, Re port Says," by Kim Willenson, The Washington Post, January 1 6, 1963; The World Almana. for 1955, p. 285 (7) "Return 'Public Lands' to the States and Abolish Federal Agen cies," Califomia Mining Journal, August, 1965, p. 18; for sub scription details, see Footnote ( 2 ) . ( 8 ) Congressional Quarterly Almana., 1964, pp. 485-92

FOOTNOTES

(9) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 5, 1965, pp. 2 12-5

( 1 ) "Real 'Poverty' In Tennessee," by Ken Thompson, The Dalias Monzillf!, News, May 29, 1965, p . 2D; "Dept. of Agriculture

Evicts World War II Vet From Tennessee Farm," California Mining Journal, August, 1965, p. 1 9 ; "Happy Ending," editorial, The Dallas M01'll ing News, July 7, 1965, p. 2D

Millsite," Califomia Mining Joumal, August, 1965, p. 2 0 : for 3 . 50 to the Califomia

Mining Journal, P. O. Drawer 628, Santa Cruz, California 95062 .

( 3 ) "Bird Refuge Plan Praised and Assailed," by Frank Hughes, The Chi.ago Tribune, April 18, 1962

Subscription: 1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Record Album ) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

tion," reprint from the Lima, Ohio News, California Mining Joumal, Feb�ary, 1965, p. 5

( 1 1 ) Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, Gateway Editions, Inc.,

( 2 ) "Mari posa W.M.C. Meeting Held to Air F. S. Plan to Take one year's subscri ption ( 1 2 issues ) send

( J 0 ) "Private En te rp ri s e Excels The Gov't In Wilderness Preserva

6 months - $ 6.00 - $10.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $ 1 0.00 - $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

1954

( 1 2 ) Toward Soviet Amerira, by William Z. Foster, Elgin Publica tions, 1961, pp. 276-8 ( 1 3 ) COlzgressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 20, 1965, pp. 1635-40

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 TAYLOR 1-2303 Page 320

The Dan Smoot Report,

October 4, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 40)

THE )

/)1111 Smoo,lle,o" Vol. 1 1, No. 4 1

(Broadcast 529)

October 1 1 , 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T R EAS O N O R MA D N E SS

In the August 16, 1965 , issue of this Report

( "Embracing The Enemy We Fight" ) , I commented upon the schizophrenia of America's liberal leaders : they crush us with taxes and sacrifice our soldiers to "fight communism," while coddling communists at home and supporting them abroad. Public apathy about this condition seems boundless. Politicians responsible for policies which must be conceived either in treason or in madness, are rewarded with re-election to high offices. Note some particulars.

INDON ESIA . In 1948-49, the United States virtually forced the Dutch to abandon their posses sions in the East Indies. We encouraged and financed the organization of the former Dutch posses sions into the Republic of Indonesia. We lavish aid on Indonesia (more than a billion dollars by 196Yl» , tho,ugh the dictator of that nation, Sukarno, is openly our enemy, aligned with the Chinese communists. ( 1 ) In 1962, Sukarno was threatening war to wrest more territory from the Dutch, in Western New Guinea. President John F. Kennedy sent his brother Robert on a mission to settle the trouble. Robert Kennedy was instrumental in forcing the Dutch to give Western New Guinea to Sukarno. This rape of New Guinea made Sukarno a more sinister threat to Australia and New Zealand. Thus, the Robert Kennedy deal of 1962 offended three friends for the benefit of one known enemy. ( 1 ) In January, 1964, Sukarno was making war on Malaysia, a new anti-communist, pro-American Asian nation. President Johnson sent Robert Kennedy on another peace-making mission. On Janu ary 23, 1964, Kennedy announced in Tokyo that Sukarno had agreed to a cease fire and wanted peace. On that same day, Sukarno renewed hostilities along the Malaysian-Indonesian border. Shortly after Kennedy returned to Washington, Sukarno announced that he was renaming the Indian Ocean, Indonesian Ocean-and warned the United States to keep all naval craft out of his ocean. (I) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $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 $ l O.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 32 1

Secretary of State Dean Rusk indicated that U. S. aid to Indonesia might be reduced if Sukarno continued his war against Malaysia. In a public speech at Jakarta, on March 2 5 , 1964, Sukarno pointed at U. S. Ambassador Howard P. Jones and said : "There is one country threatening to stop its foreign aid to Indonesia. That country thinks it can scare Indonesia. I say go to hell with your aid."(2)

In February, 1 965, Sukarno seized American owned rubber plantations valued at eighty million dollars. ( 3 ) In February and March, 1965, Indonesian mobs attacked five U. S. Information Service Libraries. The attacks were apparently intended not to de stroy the libraries but to harass U. S. officials into abandoning them, so that Sukarno's government could take them over. (4 ) The tactic worked. On March 8, 1 965 , Carl Rowan, director of the U. S. Information Agency, said U. S. libraries in Indonesia were being closed because "the Indo nesian government's harassments became intoler able." It was indicated that books in the libraries (60,000 volumes-property of U. S. taxpayers ) would be given to Indonesian universities. (3.4) On March 1 8 , 1 965, Indonesian workers shut off gas and electric service to American homes and offices in Jakarta. ( 5 ) On March 19, Sukarno seized American owned oil properties worth hundreds of millions of dol lars. (5) On March 2 3, telegraph workers in the Indo nesian government telegraph office in Jakarta im posed a one-day boycott on handling cables to and from the American embassy and American news agencies. (6) In May, 1965, the U. S. House of Representa tives, yielding to President Johnson'S demands, passe� an appropriation bill, including money to continue "Food For Peace" aid to Sukarno. (7)

In August, 1965, the United States gave Su karno's government $350,000 to help it operate an atomic research reactor. A State Department Page 322

spokesman explained that this was a payment on a pledge made in 1960 when we entered an "atoms-for-peace" agreement with Sukarno. (8) At present, Indonesian military officers are being trained in the United States, at our expense, in the use of U. S. military equipment. ( 9) On December 3, 1964, Wing/oot Clan, a publication of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, said : ROMANIAN

RUBBER

PLANT

DEAL.

"Even to a dedicated profit-making organiza tion, some things are more important than dol lars. Take the best interests of the United States and the Free World, for example. You can't put a price tag on freedom."( 1 0 )

Wing/oot Clan was explaining why Goodyear

would not build a synthetic rubber plant for the communist government in Romania. Romania sells heavy trucks to communist China, principal sup plier of communist armies now fighting Americans in Vietnam. Hence, a synthetic rubber plant in Ro mania would directly benefit the enemy with whom we are at war. On January 4, 1 965 , Secretary of State Dean Rusk announced that Firestone Tire and Rubber Company had signed a contract to build a fifty million-dollar synthetic rubber plant in Roman ia. (10) In February, 1 965 , Young Americans For Free dom (an organization composed largely of con servative college students) initiated a nationwide campaign urging a customer boycott of Firestone products. On April 22, 1965 , Firestone announced that it was cancelling the Romanian deal. ( 1 0 ) On July 26, 1965 , President Johnson ordered Under Secretary of State George W. Ball to investigate Firestone's cancellation. Presidential press secretary Bill Moyers said : "This government considers that Firestone's original intentions were in the national interest. "This government believes that this particular, as well as general, kind of commercial enterprise is in the national interest." ( 10 ) U . S. COMPUTERS TO COMMUN IST NA TION S . From the syndicated column of Edith The Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1 , 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 4 1 )

Kermit Roosevelt, The Shreveport Journal, July 24, 1965 : "U. S. computers, which could be used to im prove the efficiency of communist defense agen cies, are being licensed for sale to the Soviet satellite countries, by the Commerce Depart ment's Export Control Office." U . S . - U . S . S . R. CONSULAR TREATY. From the August 9, 1 965, issue of Strom Thurmond Reports To The People, entitled "Invitation to Espionage" :

"On June 1 , 1 964, the United States and the Soviet Union signed a Consular Treaty. On June 1 2, 1 964, the treaty was submitted to the Senate with a request for its advice and consent . . . . "In March 1 965, the treaty was the subject of testimony to Congress by 1- Edgar Hoover, Direc tor of the FBI. Mr. Hoover testified: " 'Long seeking greater official representation in the United States which would be more widely spread over the country, a cherished goal of the Soviet Intelligence services was realized when the United States signed an agreement with the Soviet Union on June 1 , 1 964, providing for the recipro cal establishment of consulates in our respective countries. " 'One Soviet intelligence officer in comment ing on the agreement spoke of the wonderful op portunity this presented his service and that it would enable the Soviets to enhance their intelli gence operations.' "On July 1 4, 1 965, Mr. Hoover commented further . . . : " 'The great majority of the 800 Communist bloc official personnel stationed in the United States, protected by the privilege of diplomatic immunity, have engaged in intelligence assign ments and are a dangerous threat to the security of the United States.' . . . "Presently, Soviet diplomatic personnel are sta tioned only in Washington, with their embassy, and in New York, with the United Nations. The Consular Treaty would open the door for them to be located in major cities across the nation. Our open society, in contrast to the totalitarian Soviet State, offers a ripe field for enemy intelli gence activity . . . . "On August 3, 1 965, the Foreign Relations Committee,

a ft er

brief

treaty to the Senate.

hearings,

rep orted

the

The Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1 , 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 4 1 )

"The resurrection of the Consular Treaty co incides with an apparently renewed effort to re-invigorate 'peaceful coexistence' with the Soviet Union . . . . "At the very time when U. S. aircraft are being shot down in Viet-Nam by Soviet missiles, the Administration, by reviving the Consular Treaty, is in effect issuing to the Soviets an engraved invitation to multiply their espionage activites in the heart of our homeland. "This treaty should be rejected by the Senate, and this is possible since its approval requires a 2/3 vote. However, with the staunch support it is receiving from the White House in the name of 'peaceful coexistence' and 'disarmament,' pros pects for rejecting it are not too bright without a strong show of adverse public opinion." FREE DELIVERY OF COMMU N I ST PROPA GANDA. For years, the U. S. Post Office (under

universal postal agreements ) has been delivering, at American taxpayers' expense, literally thou sands of tons of communist propaganda sent into our country from the Soviet Union and other communist nations. This has imposed a heavy financial burden on American taxpayers. It has also created a grave threat to our internal security, because the propaganda goes to college students, teachers, members of minority groups, aliens, and so on. When passing a law to increase postal rates in 1 962, Congress added a section requiring the Post Office to intercept communist propaganda mail from abroad and to deliver it only after receipt of notice from addressees that they wanted the communist material. On May 24, 1 965 , the Supreme Court held this section of the 1962 postal pay raise bill unconsti tutional, claiming it limits freedom of speech. John A. Gronouski, then Postmaster General, said " he was pleased by the Court' s deC1Slon. (11)

(12)

COMMUNIST LABOR U N ION OFFICERS.

When passing the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959, Congress added a section prohibiting communists from serving as officers in labor unions covered by the Act. On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court de clared this section unconstitutional. ( 1 3) For detailed, authoritative discussion of the Supreme Court decisions concerning communist Page 323

labor union officials and the free delivery of com munist propaganda ( and other Court decisions affecting the security of the United States) , see Latest United States Supreme Court Decisions Favorable To Communists Have Harmed Man agement, Labor And The American People, pre

pared by Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel of Los Angeles County, August, 1 965 . You can get the report free by writing directly to The Office of The County Counsel, 648 Hall of Administra tion, Los Angeles, California 90012. COMMUNISTS AND T H E VOTING RIGHTS

Following his March 1 5 , 1965 , televised speech to Congress, demanding a voting rights bill, President Johnson received this telegram from Claude Lightfoot, an official of the U. S. commu nist party: ACT.

"Mr. President, on behalf of all American Com munists, we join Americans of all political per suasions, religious beliefs and ethnic groups in applauding your address to Congress and the American people. If its spirit and content remain uncompromised, it will rank in history as one of our nation's greatest speeches. We Communists pledge to do all in our power to help implement your efforts to pass a right-to-vote law at the grass roots level of America."(1 4) HAWAII. The most astonishing examples of coddling communists within the United States are found in Hawaii. Harry Bridges and Jack Hall are the key figures of communism in Hawaii. Bridges (born in Australia) has been interna tional president of the ILWU (International Longshoremen's and Warehouseman' s Union) since the mid-1930's. He has been identified as a communist, in sworn testimony, by many indi viduals-including his former wife and William Z. Foster, former head of the U. S. communist party. In 1 945, he became a naturalized American citizen. At his naturalization hearing ( September 17, 1 945 ) , he swore that he had never been a com munist. A federal grand j ury indicted Bridges (May 25, 1 949 ) ; and a federal court convicted him ( April 4, 195 0 ) on charges of perjury and

conspiracy, in that : ( 1 ) he lied under oath when

denying he had ever been a communist; and ( 2 ) Page 324

he conspired with others to deny communist party membership. Bridges was sentenced to five years in prison for perjury, two years for conspiracy. Later, the U. S. Supreme Court freed Bridges, on the technicality that the statute of limitations had run before formal charges were filed against him. (15) Jack Hall, regional director of the ILWU, has been Harry Bridges' chief lieutenant in Hawaii for almost 30 years. In 195 3, Hall was tried in federal court and convicted, under the Smith Act, for conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence. (15) A 1957 Supreme Court decision overturned the convictions of Hall and other communists, on grounds that they had mere ly advocated overthrow of the government without committing any overt acts to that end. ( 16 )

1938, Harry Bridges sent Jack Hall to Hawaii to organize workers on the waterfront and in the sugar and pineapple industries into a single union as a branch of the U. S. West Coast ILWU. Hall succeeded. Though few rank and file mem bers of the union he organized were communists, the leadership of the Hawaiian branch of the ILWU was in the hands of communists in key positions. Since pineapple and sugar production are the dominant industries, and shipping the lifeline, of the Islands, Hall's success in organizing the ILWU put the economy of Hawaii at the mercy of a handful of communists. (15) Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Har bor on December 7, 1941 (an event which made the United States an ally of the Soviet Union) , the Hawaiian communist party was disbanded. Jack Hall and Jack Kimoto, party leaders, ordered communist party records destroyed, and suspended communist activities. (15) In August, 1 945, at the end of World War II, Hall and Kimoto reactivated the Hawaiian com munist party, with the initial goal of organizing all of Hawaii's labor force into unions controlled or dominated by communists. (15) The U. S. House Committee on Un-American Activities has reported on communist-union ac tivities in Hawaii during 1946-1 947 : The Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 41)

"Upon organizing the workers of the water front, sugar, and pineapple industries, Jack Hall surrounded himself with individuals identified before the committee as members of the Com munist Party. These Communists were placed by Jack Hall in the most strategic positions within the union [ ILWU ] , thereby assuring the control of the union by members of the Communist Party. Testimony taken at the hearings revealed that in some instances individuals recruited into the Communist Party were elected to union of fices without knowledge that they were even candidates. Through this method, a well-knit minority of Communist Party members exercised complete control over the large membership of the ILWU . . . . "The Communist-controlled ILWU has pitted race against race and creed against creed in any issue where it was losing ground with the workers. In this manner, a well-knit minority has been able to maintain rigid control over the rank and file of a powerful union. "In recruiting workers to membership in the Communist Party, the Communist leaders of the ILWU were successful in being able to dupe many workers into . . . . believing that they could best serve the cause of organized labor through membership in the Communist Party."( 15)

In 1946, labor union communists initiated a campaign to gain political control in Hawaii. Their front was the CIO-PAC ( CIO Political Ac tion Committee) . The ILWU at that time was part of the CIO. The CIO-PAC (which Jack Hall ran) was composed of representatives (most ly communists) from the ILWU and from the Stewards National Union of. Marine . Cooks . and (another commulllst- dommated unlOn ) . (15) Hall's political action committee did not try to form a third party or to run its own candidates. It worked for liberal candidates (either Republi can or Democrat) known to be sympathetic with communist-union programs. In the 1946 Hawaiian territorial elections, Hall's CIO-PAC endorsed 5 1 political candidates, 3 5 of whom were . electe� . This gave the communists great power m ter�� torial, county, and city governments of Hawall, but not as much power as they wanted. (15) At meetings in Jack Hall's Honolulu home

during late 1947 and early 1948, communists

The Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 4 1 )

decided to capture the Democrat Party, by work ing through the ILWU. The campaign began in early 1948. (15) ILWU members were told to join the Democrat Party and to participate actively in party affairs. On April 1, 1948, communists gained control of the Democrat Party in Oahu ( island on which Honolulu is located ) at precinct level. On May 6, 1948, the Oahu Democrat Party elected Wilfred M. Oka party secretary and Mrs. Peggy T. Uesugi assistant secretary. Both were members of the communist party. Other communists were elected or appointed to positions of importance in Ha waiian Democrat Party headquarters. (15) Anti-communist Democrats tried to protect their party by excluding known communists from mem bership, but failed. In June, 1949, the central committee of the Territorial Democrat Party re jected a resolution to require prospective members of the party to swear they were not and had never been members of the communist party. (15) In 1950, the CIO expelled the ILWU because it was controlled by communists ; but that had no appreciable effect on the ILWU. It remained the dominant influence in the economic and political life of the Islands. (15) By 195 5 , communist political and economic con trol in Hawaii, through communist-dominated unions, was so great that the official communist party went out of existence. Since 195 5 , communist propaganda and other activities have been con ducted through the unions. (17) Communists in Hawaii scored a major political victory in 1 956 when John A. Burns was elected Territorial Delegate to the United States Congress. Burns is not known to be a communist, but he has worked closely with Jack Hall for many years. He was a member of the Honolulu Police De partment from 1934 to 1945 . When the ILWU launched its campaign to gain political control of Hawaii in 1946, John A. Burns became a perennial ILWU-endorsed candidate for public office. After ten years of defeats, he triumphed in 1956 when he became the Representative of the Territory of

Hawaii in the United States Congress.

Page 325

Hawaii was admitted to statehood in 1959. John A. Burns ( running as a Democrat, endorsed by the ILWU) was elected Governor in 1962 . Note some of Governor Burns' appointments : -Jack Hall was appointed to the Hawaii State Maritime Advisory Board. -Robert Wenkam was appointed a member of the Hawaii State Land Use Commission. Wenkam was identified as a communist in sworn testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Ac tivities in April, 1 95 0. ( 1 8 ) He was identified as a communist by a witness in the U. S. District Court for Hawaii, on January 2 , 195 3.0 9) In 1954, when questioned by the Hawaiian Commission on Subversive Activities, he refused to answer questions about communist membership, pleading the Fifth Amendment. (15) -David E. Thompson was appointed a member of the Hawaiian Manpower Advisory Committee. Thompson (who is education director of the ILWU) has been identified as a card carrying member of the communist party (party member ship card 74532 ) . -Bernard W. Stern was appointed a member of the Hawaiian Manpower Advisory Committee. Stern (assistant to the president of Local 996 of Teamsters and Allied Workers in Hawaii ) has been identified as a communist in sworn testimony before congressional committees. ( 16) ( 1 6)

-Edward G. Rhorbough was appointed ad

ministrative assistant to Governor Burns. Rohr bough was the principal stockholder of the com munist newspaper Honolulu Record (now de funct) . He wrote for The People!s World (West Coast communist newspaper) and for New Masses (communist magazine ) , and was associ ated with several other communist publica tions. (16.20) The political power of the communist-domi nated ILWU in Hawaii is shown by the fact that ILWU-endorsed politicians hold the major elec tive offices in Hawaii. In addition to Governor

Burns, the ILWU-endorsed office-holders are: -Neal S. Blaisdell, Republican, elected Mayor

Page 326

of Honolulu three times ( 1956, 1 960, 1 964 ) ; ( 21) -Spark M. Matsunaga, Democrat, elected U. S. Representative in 1962 ; ( 22 ) -Patsy Mink, Democrat, elected U. S. Repre sentative in 1 964 ;(22) -Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat, elected U. S. Senator in 1962 ; ( 22) -Hiram L. Fong, Republican, elected U. S. Senator in 1 959, re-elected in 1 964. The re-election of Senator Fong in 1 964 is of particular interest. His opponent was Thomas P. Gill, Democrat member of the House of Repre sentatives, who, in previous elections, had had the endorsement of the ILWU. The ILWU has such political power in Hawaii that Fong was doomed without ILWU support; and the ILWU was prepared to oppose him. ( 2 3) On October 24, 1 963, Jeff Kibre (ILWU repre sentative in Washington) wrote a letter to Jack Hall, explaining why it was in the interest of ILWU to back Fong instead of Gill for the U. S. Senate. ( 2 3 ) Kibre has been identified as a commu nist, in sworn testimony before congressional com mittees. ( 24 ) On June 2, 1964, Jack Hall (with Fong present) publicly announced that the ILWU was support ing Fong against Gill. (23) Concerning his association with Jack Hall, a convicted communist, Senator Fong said : "I have kept my word with him and he has kept his word with me." (23 )

Fong, a Republican, won over Gill, a Democrat, with 5 3lJ'o of the total vote. In the same election, the two Democrat candidates for the House of Representatives won over their Republican op ponents with 7 1 .4ro and 54.4ro of the total vote. The ILWU (present membership in Hawaii about 2 2 ,000 ) has a close relationship with the United Public Workers Union, also communist dominated, which represents about 2000 employ ees of state and local governments in Hawaii. (15.17)

With communists dominating unions that conThe Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 41)

trol the labor force of Hawaii's major industries and control workers in government offices, imag ine the probability of sabotage, espionage, and subversion against the national interest in time of major war between the U. S. and a communist nation. Since the late 1 950's, Harry Bridges has had a close relationship with James Hoffa and the Teamsters' Union. Bridges has threatened the most damaging strike of all time if Hoffa goes to prison. On April 1 1 , 196 1 , Bridges said : "This country will see the biggest labor tieup in history . . . . If necessary, we can call on the support of dock workers in every port in the world."( 2 5 )

To see that Bridges was not making an idle boast, we need only to look at some of the past strikes he has inflicted on Hawaii. The ILWU strike of 1 949-begun on May Day, in concert with strikes of other communist-dominated dock workers' unions throughout the world-lasted six months, and was a turning point in Hawaiian history. The strike crippled the economy of the Islands and broke the back of all strong resistance to the union-communist combine. ( 24) In 1950, the ILWU stalled economic activity in the Islands with a walkout to protest a federal court order which put Harry Bridges in j ail for violating terms of his bail. (24 ) In 1953 (when we were still at war in Korea) , Harry Bridges ordered a four-day walkout which affected the naval installation at Pearl Harbor and paralyzed the economy of Hawaii-to protest the Smith Act conviction of Jack Hall. ( 24) In May, 1956, Harry Bridges ordered a walkout in Hawaii to protest a visit by Secretary of Labor James Mitchell, who, Bridges claimed, had made disparaging remarks about the ILWU. (24) In November and December, 1956, Bridges or dered another walkout, to protest hearings on communism in Hawaii by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. ( 24 ) A union walkout which demonstrates that every person in Hawaii is at the mercy of a few com munists reveals the power of communism in that The

Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1 , 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 41)

State. Less spectacular events also reveal some thing significant and disturbing. On September 8, 1 964, Castner Tadishi Ogawa, an identified communist, was buried in Honolulu. Governor Burns, Honolulu Mayor Blaisdell, U. S. Senator Fong, and U. S. Representative Mat sunaga, were among the government officials who paid tribute to the communist by attending his funeral. On September 9, 1 964, William B. Stephenson, chairman of the State Commission on Subversive Activities, was buried in Honolulu. State Attorney General Bert T. Kobayashi was the only govern ment official who attended Stephenson's funer al. ( 2 6 ) On October 4, 1 964, it was announced that the Central Union Church in Honolulu would present a series of lectures on "Responsibility in a Rapidly Changing World." Among the speakers in the series were Senator Fong, Representative Thomas P. Gill, Jack Hall of the ILWU, and Teamsters' Union President Arthur Rutledge. ( 2 7 ) Communism is not only entrenched in power, but has even become respectable, in the State of Hawaii. Now Governor Burns endorses a scheme which would make Guam, American Samoa, and other smaller islands, part of the State of Hawaii. The new State which Governor Burns envisions would stretch 5000 miles east to west, 1800 miles north to south : from the Hawaiian Islands on the east to Tobi Island near Indonesia on the west; from Kure Island on the north to Kapingamarangi on the south-enveloping all U.S. military installa tions and other possessions in the Pacific Ocean. (28) What would that do to the Pacific defenses of the United States ? (26)

What To Do

Our nation is in peril. If the people were awake, they would elect constitutionalists to re store the foundations of our free society and protect our national interests. Awakening and activating the people is a big job, requiring dediPage 327

cation and effort by every individual who already knows and cares. You can make a major contribution by arousing and educating other Americans. Distribute the materials which have been most helpful In your own education. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULAnON (as required by the Act of Oc tober 23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) for THE DAN SMOOT REPORT; published weekly at 6441 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 752 14; by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc.; edited and managed by Dan Smoot; owned by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., whose stockholders are Dan Smoot, Mabeth E. Smoot, and Virginia C. Erwin, 6441 Gaston Avenue, Dallas; there being no bondholders, mortagees, or other se curity holders. The average number of copies printed each week dur ing the preceding 12 months: 36,316; of the single issue nearest October 1, 1965 : 34,000. Average number of week ly subscription sales during preceeding 1 2 months: 19,8 13; of the single issue nearest October 1 , 1965: 19,84 1 . Aver age weekly sales by means other than subscription during preceeding 12 months: 1 3,476; of the single issue nearest October 1 , 1965: 1 1, 1 59. Average paid weekly circulation during preceeding 1 2 months: 33,289; of the single issue nearest October 1 , 1965 : 3 1 ,000. There is no free distri bution. Average total weekly distribution during preced ing 12 months: 33,289; of the single issue nearest October 1, 1965 : 31,000. Average number of copies retained weekly for office use during preceeding 1 2 months: 3,027; of the single issue nearest October 1, 1965 : 3,000. FOOTNOTES ( 1 ) For additional information on Indonesia, see this Report, "The U. S. Government Protested," February 1 7 , 1964. ( 2 ) U. S. News & World Report, April 6, 1964, p. 20 ( 3 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, Feb ruary 2 8, 1965, p. 1 A ( 4 ) A P dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, March 8, 1965, p. 5A ( 5 ) "Now It's U. S. Oil Firms That Sukarno Grabs," U. S. News & World Report, March 29, 1965. p, 6

W H O

I S

( 6 ) AP disptach from Jakarta, Indonesia, The Dallas Times Herald, March 24, 1965, p. 1 5A ( 7 ) For the roll call vote "Food for Peace" funds for Indonesia' see this Report, "Third Roll Calls, 1965," August 2, 1965. ( 8 ) "Atoms for What," editorial, The Dallas Morninf( News' August 20, 1 965, p. 2D ( 9 ) "Training Our Enemies," Christian Economics, August 3, 1965, p. 2 ( 10) "Romanian Tire Deal Fizzles Under Pressure," by Robert DIetsch, The lVashmgton Daily News, April 29, 1965 ; AP from Washington, The Dallas Times He"ald? July 25, 1965, p. 5A; AP fro� Washington, The Dallas Mornmf( News, July 29, 1965, p. 3D; . Threatened WIth Boycott, Company Drops Red Deal," by Bernard Gwertzman, The E1lellillf( Star, Washington D.C., May 8, 1965 ( 1 1 ) Congressional Qu(/rterly Alm(/lIac, 1962, pp. 35 5-7 ( 1 2 ) "High Court Voids Mail Law Curbing Red Propaganda," The New York TImes, May 2 5, 1965, pp. 1 , 1 8 ( 1 3 ) "Reds and Unions: A New Ruling," U.S. News & World Repo,·t, June 2 1, 1965, p. 106 ( 1 4 ) Human E,len/s, April 3, 1965, p. 5 ( 1 5 ) Scop � of SOI'iet Activity in the Ullited SWes, Part 41-A, Ap pendIX II, Internal Security Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1957, 98 pp. ( 1 6 ) IMUA Spotlight, Honolulu, Hawaii, Vol. 1 5, No. 1 , February 1 5 , 1964 ( 1 7 ) Scope of Soviet Activity in the Ullited States, Part 41-A, Ap pendIX III, Internal Secunty Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1957, 92 pp. ( 1 8 ) Hearillgs Re/?,C/1'din/?, Communist Activities in the Ten'itory of HawaII, Part I, U. S. House Committee on Un-American Ac tivities, April 12, 1950, pp. 1 360- 1 ( 1 9 ) United States of America vs. Charles, etc., 1953, pp. 5470-4 ( 20 ) IMUA Spot iight, Honolulu, Hawaii, Vol. 1 5 , No. 9, October 30, 1964, p. 3. ( 2 1 ) Congressional Qua,-te,·ly lVeekly Report, August 20, 1965, p . 1 66 1 ( 2 2 ) Cong" essional Quarterly lVeekly Report, November 13, 1964, p. 2682 ( 2 3 ) "Hiram Fong: A Darling Of Expelled Union," by Fulton Lewis, Jr., Muskogee Daily Phoenix, July 18, 1964; Honolllill Star Bulletin, June 16, 1964, p. A; The HOllolul1l Advertiser, June 2, 1964 ( 24 ) Internal Sewrity Annual Report For 1 956, Section Ill, In ternal Secunty Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee, March 4, 1957, p. 34 ( 2 5 ) AP story from Los Angeles, San Jose Evening News, April 1 2, 1961 , p. 4 ( 2 6 ) "The Funerals of Two Men: A Portrait of Contrasts," Hono lulu Star-Blilletin, September 1 1 , 1964, p. 4 ( 27 ) The Slinday Star-Blilletin & Advertiser, October 4, 1964, p. 9A ( 28 ) "Governor favors study of new Pacific state," by A. A. Smyser; "Important Lawmakers applaud: Congressional reaction," by Frank Hewlett, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 7, 1965, pp. A, A-1 A

D A N

S M O OT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 195 5, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 328

The Dan Smoot Report, October 1 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 41)

THE )

IJIIII SmootRepo,t Vol. 1 1, No. 42

(Broadcast 530)

October 1 8, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

C O M M U N I S T - S O C I A L I S T TA C T I C S In "Communizing America" (the September 2 7, 1 965, issue of this Report) , I pointed Ottt that fascism, communism, socialism, and modern liberalism all have the same goal: an authoritarian state in which rulers have absolute power to do anything they please to the people, under pretext that it is being done for the people. In that Report, and in two subse quent issues, I showed that the communist revolution is already far advanced in the United States.

How did it happen? The present Report outlines the answer.

On September 24, 1 864, Karl Marx formed, in London, the International Workingmen's As sociation-an organization intended to foster the worldwide socialist revolution which Marx and Engels had urged in their Communist Manifesto (published in 1848) . Being the first international organization created for such purpose, the IWA is generally known, in the history 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 London to New York. This was the formal beginning of the socialist movement in the United States (though there had pre viously been several unsuccessful experiments in communal living, socialistic communities, and so on) . The Socialist Party, proving ineffective, was reorganized as Labor Union No. 5 of New York; but the various factions of the socialist movement still could not agree on method. The First Socialist International was disbanded at Philadelphia on February 1 5 , 1 876Y ) Delegates from 20 countries organized the Second Socialist International at Paris on July 14, 1889. Whereas the First Socialist International had been formed on the assumption that "workers of the world" would voluntarily unite to "throw off the chains of capitalism," the Second Socialist International recognized that "workers" must be manipulated into supporting socialism. The Sec ond Socialist International intended to accomplish world revolution by organizing and controlling labor unions. Hence, it is often called the Labor International. The Second International still exists as a small splinter group of the communist-socialist movement; but, in achievement, the Second International failed as completely as the First. (1) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $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 $1O.0O-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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 329

By the end of the 1 9th century, most socialists had come to realize that socialism could be im posed on the world only through violence, treach ery, and deception. The Third Socialist Interna tional (often called Red International and Mos cow International ) was formed at Moscow, March 2 -6, 1 919, under the leadership of bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia. ( 1 ) The Third Inter national converted Russia into an enormous power base for the international socialist movement and spawned communist parties all over the world ; but the techniques of the Third International did not work in the United States.

Fabians

B ritish fabians devised the technigue that suc

ceeded 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 borrowed from Quintus Fabius Maximus, a gen eral of ancient Rome, who, after disastrous defeats in open battle, developed a successful strategy of delay, deception, and infiltration. (1,2) George Bernard Shaw, a leading member of the Fabian Society, said the Society made it pos sible for respectable citizens to support socialism without suspicion of lawless desire to overturn the existing order. The fabian artifice of feigning respectability, while subverting society for revo lutionary purposes, gave socialists easy entry into government, banks, stock exchanges, universities, and other respected centers of power and influ ence. (1,2)

Fabians more realistic than other socialists, know it is much easier to subvert sons, daughters and wives of the prominent and well-to-do than it is to impress laboring classes. They also realize that socialist movements spring from middle and . (2 ) upper classes - not from the pro Ietanat. A fundamental principle of fabianism is that a select brain trust should plan for, and direct, ,

Page 330

all of society. This concept of an elite attracted people from the English nobility, who began to join the Fabian Society, reflecting unconscious, sometimes conscious, attempts to regain their lost power. (3) This policy of hiding behind the skirts of respectability did not, however, deter fabians from consorting with and helping their more violent brethren in the socialist movement. In fact, fabians aided and abetted Russian bolsheviks long before the revolution in 1 9 1 7. ( 2 ) Fabians, like other socialists, claim to represent a progressive society; but, like communists, they are devoted to dictatorship. George Bernard Shaw put it rather bluntly: "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."( 3 )

LID

On September 12, 1 905, a small group of socialists (under the leadership of Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and Clarence 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 Inter collegiate Socialist Society was founded for the stated purpose of "promoting an intelligent in terest in socialism among college men and women . . . and the encouragement of all legitimate en deavors to awaken an interest in socialism among the educated men and women of the country." (l,4) 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 The Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

nourishing and spreading the virus of socialism. By 1 9 1 5 , the Intercollegiate Socialist Society had chapters on 60 college campuses. (1)

The 1 9 1 7 bolshevik seizure of power in Russia stimulated a ferment of activity among socialists in the United States. Some, like John Reed (Har vard, 1 9 1 0) , joined the bolshevik movement out right. While some American fabians retained their cover of respectability and sympathized secretly with the bolsheviks, others abandoned deception, and helped form the communist party of the United States (September, 1 9 1 9 ) . The socialist bloodbath in Russia, and the ac tivities of American socialists, stirred such 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 1 92 1 , the Intercollegiate Socialist Society became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID ) ; but its purpose did not change. LID remains the oldest socialist organization in the United States -a parent group of other fronts which have been set up since, spreading the poison of socialism, badly contaminating thought streams of the entire nation. Below are names of a few prominent individ uals who are, or were, influential in LID. CPR after a name indicates membership in the Council on Foreign Relations ; ADA means membership in Americans for Democratic Action ; ACLU, Ameri can Civil Liberties Union: (4)

Roger N. Baldwin - founder and head of ACLU Charles A. Beard - historian Daniel Bell - labor editor,

Fortune

John K. Benedict - professor, Union Theological Sem inary John C. Bennett - Dean, Union Theological Seminary, CFR Andrew J. Biemiller - former U. S. Representative, founding member of ADA, now AFL·CIO official Carroll Binder - editor of the

Minneapolis Tribune

Ella Reeves ("mother") Bloor - communist party offi· cial (deceased) Ralph J. Bunche - UN Under Secretary General, NAACP official, CFR, ACLU

The Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

James B. Carey-Secretary.Treasurer, AFL.CIO, ADA founder Everett R. Clinchy - first President, National Con ference of Christians and Jews, now head of Conference on World Tensions (World Brotherhood, Inc.), CFR George S. Counts - author, educator Max Danish - editor of Justice, Garment Workers Union official, ADA founder Babette Deutch - writer, mother of Adam Yarmolin· sky John Dewey - "father" of progressive education (de. ceased) Paul H. Douglas - Democrat Senator from Illinois, former professor at University of Chicago, ADA founder, ACLU David Dubinsky - head of Garment Workers Union, head of New York Liberal Party, ADA founder, CFR W. E. B. DuBois - communist party member, official of NAACP, author (deceased) George Clifton Edwards, Jr. - Judge, Sixth U. S. Cir· cuit Court of Appeals, ADA founder Morris Ernst - chief attorney for ACLU, NAACP official, ADA founder Samuel A. Eliot, Jr. - author, educator James Farmer - head of the Congress on Racial Equal. ity (CORE) Felix Frankfurter - former Harvard professor, Suo preme Court Justice, CFR, ACLU (deceased) Lewis S. Gannett - author, editor of

ald-Tribune, NAACP official, CFR

New York Her

Reverend Donald Harrington - official of United World Federalists Albert J. Hayes-International President, International Association of Machinists union, ADA founder S idney Hook - author, educator Quincy Howe - author, radio commentator Hubert H. Humphrey - Vice President of the United States, founding member of ADA, CFR Jacob K. Javits - Republican Senator from New York, ADA, CFR Nicholas Kelley - retired vice president of Chrysler Corporation, CFR William H. Kilpatrick - educator (deceased) Freda Kirchwey - publisher of

The Nation

Corliss Lamont - President Roosevelt's secretary Joseph P. Lash - UN correspondent for the New York Post, former intimate of the late E leanor Roosevelt, ADA founder

Harold J. Laski - professor, Harvard University and London School of Economics (deceased) Page 33 1

Owen Lattimore - author, educator, alleged commu nist, CFR

Harry F. Ward - professor emeritus of Union Theo logical Seminary

Herbert H. Lehman - retired investment banker, for mer Democrat Governor of New York and former U. S. Senator, ADA founder, NAACP official, CFR, ACLU (deceased)

James Wechsler - editor of founder

Max Lerner - writer, professor of American Civiliza tion, Brandeis University

Charles Zimmerman - Vice President of Garmen t Workers Union, NAACP official

Alfred Baker Lewis - President of Union Casualty Company, NAACP official

ACLU

Trygve Lie - First UN Secretary-General Walter Lippmann - author, columnist, CFR, ACLU founder 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 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 Neibuhr - Vice President of Union Theological 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 Workers, Vice President of AFL-CIO, ADA founder, official of United World Federalists Will Rogers, Jr. - ADA founder, actor, official of United World Federalists Eleanor Roosevelt - ADA founder (deceased) Harold O. Rugg - author, educator Stanley Ruttenberg - Director of Research and Educa tion, AFL-CIO William

Shirer - author, radio commentator, CFR

George Harry Soule, Jr. - educator, long-time editor of

The New Republic

Monroe Sweetland - editor of founder

Oregon Democrat, ADA

Norman Thomas - long-time head of socialist party Alexander Trachtenberg - communist party official (deceased) Rexford G. Tugwell - Roosevelt "brain-truster" H. Jerry Voorhis - ADA founder, former Democrat

Representative frOln Californi a, Executive Chainnan of

Cooperative League of America, United World Federal ists member Page 332

New York Post, ADA

Having

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 emotion or prejudice of factional groups in the population. Leadership and tactics of socialist fronts came largely from the parent group, League for Industrial Democracy. For example, Roger N. Baldwin, prominent in LID, was one of the initial founders of a socialist front which ultimately be came the American Civil Liberties Union. In a 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." <l} .

Formed in the spring of 1917, 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 movement. Jane Addams, Adolf A. Bede, Max Eastman, Norman Thomas, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise were among prominent socialists who joined Roger Baldwin in founding American Union Against Militarism. On November 1 , 1917, the organization became the National Civil Lib erties Bureau. It had enormous influence during World War I, because: ( 1 ) it received support from individuals powerful in Woodrow Wilson's administration, such as Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfurter, Frederick Keppel, Colonel Edward The Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 42)

Mandel House; and ( 2 ) it received money from the Carnegies. (1)

ticipation in SNCC activities. One SNCC official JImmy Garrett, says :

On January 12, 1920, the National Civil Lib erties Bureau was reorganized as American Civil Liberties Union, under the guidance of Roger N. Baldwin, Felix Frankfurter, Louis F. Budenz, Wil liam Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Jane Addams, Arthur Garfield Hays, Robert Morss Lovett, A. J. Muste, Norman Thomas, Harold J. Laski, and others. ( 1 ) Budenz, Foster, and Flynn were prominent officials of the American commu nist party.

"We are subverting them. We're more revolu tionary than the Communists."(7)

NAACP

In 1909, the National Association for the Ad vancement of Colored People was organized in New York City. As early as 1920, a Joint Legisla tive Committee of the New York State Legislature reported that NAACP, while pretending to work for the advancement of colored people, was in reality a front to promote socialism among ne groes, and among whites who either wanted to 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. DuBois, a member of the Intercol legiate Socialist Society, had a long career as a communist leader. He died in Africa in 1963, a hero of the international communist movement. (1)

SNCC

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Com mittee ( SNCC-violent civil rights organization) was formed in 1960 by the National Student As sociation, The National Student Christian Feder ation, and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) . SDS (student branch of LID) was the prime mover in setting up SNCC. (5) The Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee has reported that SNCC is "substantially under the influence of the communist party." (G> Offi ci als of SNCC belittle the importance of communist parThe Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

Brotherhood Among 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 three most important socialist fronts organized in the United States during the first quarter of this century. The rec?r� of their formation reveals how closely SOCIalIsts and communists worked together for their common objective-utilizing the fabian tech nique of deception. Since the end of World War I, communists and other socialists have worked harmoniously to gether for their common cause-by setting up fronts with names and stated purposes which appeal to the reformist, uplifting urge of do gooders. The deception enabled socialists to draw Americans with respected names into socialist fronts. It also created a tremendous lobby for unconstitutional federal programs. Socialists and communists support federal programs which re quire taxing and spending by the federal govern ment, in defiance of constitutional limitations, because this gives them appeal as advocates of wel fare for the downtrodden. But it does something far more important than that for the cause of socialism : it concentrates economic and political power in the central government, to the detriment of state governments. As our federal system thus crumbles, the Washington bureaucracy becomes so big and complicated that the elected legislative branch of government loses control. Unable to operate efficiently in its constitutional role as formulator of national policy, Congress surrenders its responsibilities to gigantic bureaus and corpo rations, managed by an elite of appointed experts who make and enforce "administrative law" in defiance of the Constitution. Thus, the federal government is gradually transformed into a totali

tarian bureaucracy.

Page 333

Eventually, brotherhood with

communists be came an embarrassment to "respectable" American socialists. When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, for example, many American socialists winced at being publicly associated with commu nists who supported the bungling and bloody Soviet tyranny. They were further embarrassed when the Soviets signed a treaty of friendship 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 in 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 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 public respect. If liberalism-which is fabian socialism were to survive and flourish, it had to rid itself of the communist taint. Liberals did not change their obj ectives. They continued to work for a totalitarian state, but spoke out publicly against communism. CIO un ions, which were known to be controlled by com munists, were expelled from the CIO. The CIO itself, and the unions which were expelled, con tinued to work, as before, for a common obj ective ; but publicly they called each other dirty names. The CIO, formed by socialists and communists and dedicated to the totalitarian socialist state, loudly proclaimed itself a staunch foe of com munism. The same thing happened to other lead ing, "respectable" leftist organizations : the Anti Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advance ment of Colored People. Yet, liberals, claiming to be anti -communists, remained virulent anti-anti-communists. Commu nists, socialists, and totalitarian liberals may fight Page 334

among themselves about tactics and strategy; but they adhere to a code of the political underworld which unites them in a tight bond to fight their common enemy-the genuine anti-communists.

ADA

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) was a product of the early postwar period when American totalitarian liberals tried to purge them selves of the communist taint. 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 movement." ( 8 . 9 . 10 ) Biddle was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here are other prominent founders of the ADA (CFR after a name indicating mem bership in the Council on Foreign Relations ) : Joseph Alsop; Stewart Alsop; Barry B ingham (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).

To get some inkling of ADA power, note some important individuals in the Johnson administra tion who are ADA members : Hubert H. Humphrey-Vice President; Eugenie Ander son-Ambassador to Bulgaria; Chester Bowles-Ambassa dor to India; Philip H. Coombs - Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs; Thomas K. F in letter - Permanent Representative to NATO; Orville L. Freeman - Secretary of Agriculture; W. Averell Har riman - Ambassador-at-Large; James Loeb, Jr. - Ambas sador to Guinea; Howard Morgan - Member of Federal Power Commission; Charles S. Murphy - Under Secre tary of Agriculture; Wilbur Nestigen - Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; Robert C. Weaver Administrator, Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency; G. Mennen Williams - Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Harris L. Wofford - Special Assistant to the President.

Here are United States Senators known to be members of the ADA (all Democrats except Javits ) : The

Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

Joseph S. Clark, Jr. (Pa.) ; Paul H. Douglas (IlL) ; Jacob K . Javits (N.Y.) ; Eugene J. McCarthy (Minn.) ; Wayne Morse (Ore.) ; Maurine B. Neuberger (Ore.) ; Har rison B. Williams (N.] . ) . (8 , 9 ,lO )

The following United States Representatives (all Democrats ) are known ADA members : Henry B. Gonzales (Tex.) ; Robert Kastenmeier (Wis.) ; James Roosevelt (Calif.) ; William Fitts Ryan (N.Y.) .

Former United States Representative Bruce Al ger has given a terse summary of ADA beliefs, in these words : "That it is possible for a police state to be obedient to the popular will; that the apparatus of such a state can be so affected by benevolence that it can produce-through such coercive meas ures as compulsory union membership, enforced fraternization, a compulsory share-the-wealth tax system, and a strong centralized bureaucracy - a guaranteed annual wage for everybody, complete freedom from fear, want and anxiety for all, and total economic welfare from the cradle to the grave for the entire populace." (l1)

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (Advisor, special assist ant, and speech writer for former President Ken nedy) , is considered the philosopher of the ADA. United States Representative Richard H. Poff (Virginia Republican) quotes Schlesinger as say mg: "Official liberalism was the product of the enlightenment, cross-fertilized with such things as science, bourgeois complacency, and a belief in progress. It dispensed with the absurd Chris tian 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, operating in the framework 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."(12)

In 1947, Schlesinger made a statement on "The Future of Socialism." ADA has endorsed the statement. Schlesinger recently said he still be lieves what he believed in 1947. Here are extracts from Schlesinger's statement: "If 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

The Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

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 process 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 prerogatives. Here, as elsewhere, the Marxists enormously 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 anything 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 regulation have not been fully tapped . . . . "That doyen of American Capitalists, Joseph P. Kennedy, recently argued that the United States should not seek to resist the spread of communism. Indeed, it should 'permit commu nism to have its trial outside the Soviet Union if that shall be the fate or will of certain peo ples . . . . '

"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 . . . " ( 1 1 ) .

Page 335

FOOTNOTES

In naming prominent persons in socialist organi zations, I have indicated many who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR ) . To gether with a web of interlocking organizations, the CFR has become the invisible government of the United States. The CFR is the control center of organizations promoting socialism. (1 3)

( 1 ) Revolutionary Radicalism : Part One - Subversive Movements, Report of the Joint Legislative Committee of the State of New York Investigating Seditious Activities, Albany, 1920, Two Volumes, pp. 41-86; 505-9, 4 1 3-93 ; 145-86; 1 1 19-20, 1 2 47-50; 1 280, 629-30; 1088; 1 10 1 , 1 979-89; 1 5 18-20 ( 2 ) Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain, 1919-1930, by Sister M. Margaret Patricia McCarran, second edition, The Heritage Foundation, Inc., 1 9 5 4, 6 1 2 pp.

August, 1963, Constantine Brown, syndi cated columnist, reported from Munich, Germany, on Soviet plans for subversion and conquest of Latin America. Mr. Brown got his information from a man who had recently been a high official in the communist government of Czechoslovak ia. (14) Though he defected from communism because he could no longer endure the lies, intrigues, and treacheries of communists, the Czech felt that he had joined the losing side when he fled to the West. Communism will win, the former commu nist official asserted, because Western leaders (particularly in the United States) do not want to believe that the Soviets are planning to conquer the world. Kremlin leaders think the United States, under present leadership, is actually help ing communists achieve world conquest; but the Kremlin understands and expects token opposition from United States political leaders. (14) To restore their constitutional Republic and save succeeding generations from the scourge of communism, Americans have a twofold task: ( 1 ) to inform themselves and others about what is being done, who is doing it, and how; and ( 2 ) to use their knowledge politically, in selecting and electing constitutionalists to high political office. W H O

( 3 ) Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo, Veritas Foundation, P. O. Box 340, New York, New York 10005, 1 14 pp. ( 4 ) The L.I.D.-Fifty Years of Democratic Education, 190 5 - 1 9 5 5, by Mina Weisenberg, League for Industrial Democracy, 1 1 2 East 19th Street, New York, New York 1 0003 ( 5 ) Revolution in Mississippi, SPecial Report, by Tom Hayden, Students for a Democratic Society, 1962, 27 pp.

( 6 ) For details on communist influence in SNCC and the civil rights movement, see the civil rights packet of 14 Dan Smoot Reports, 1 packet $2 .00. ( 7 ) "Subverters vs. Subverters," by Fulton Lewis, Jr., The Shreve port Journal, April 19, 1965 ( 8 ) Ame,·icans for Democratic Action-Its Origin, Aims, and Character, and Its Designs Upon the Demon·alic Patty, Staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, April 19, 1955 (9) "The ADA: lts Impact on the New Frontier," series of articles by Robert T. Hartmann, The Los Angeles Times, September 3-8, 10, 1961 ( 10 ) Americans for Democratic Action, by Clifton Brock with in troduction by Max Lerner, Public Affairs Press, 1962, 2 29 pp. ( 1 1 ) Speech by U. S. Representative Bruce Alger ( Rep., Tex . ) , COllgressional Record, May 2 8 , 1963, pp. 9086-98 ( daily ) ( 1 2 ) Newsletter of U. S. Representative Richard H . Poff ( Rep., Va. ) , November 4 , 1963 ( 1 3 ) The Invisible Govemment, by Dan Smoot, 1962, 250 pp. ; price: clothbound $4.00, pocketbook $ 1 .00 ( 14 ) "Soviet Plans in Latin America," by Constantine Brown, The Evening Stal·, Washington, D. c., August 3 1 , 1963

DAN

S M O OT?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. Page 336

The Dan Smoot Report, October 18, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 42)

THE o

I)_II SmootlIeport Vol.

1 1 , No. 43

(Broadcast

53 1 )

October

25, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

T H E E D U CATI O N CART E L

Under our Constitution, we cannot legally have a federal agency which directs a national education system ; yet, the U. S. Office of Education is rapidly becoming such an agency. For ex ample, the 1964 budget of the U. S. Office of Education was $432 ,793,000 ;(1) its budget for the current fiscal year is $1,833 ,889,000.(2) Its aims ? In May, 1962, the U. S. Office of Education published Education For Freedom and World Un derstanding. From page 2 3 : "Our fundamental goal is a progressive nation in a peaceful world . . . . Achieving this obj ective demands understanding of and commitment to the proposition that education is a primary in strument for social advancement and human welfare."

What happened to knowledge, scholarship, discipline, intelligence ?

T raditional American education stressed hard work, honor, duty, self-reliance with Divine guidance, Christian traditions, individualism. It was not easy. But it developed great men and women-sturdy individualists who (without federal aid or foreign aid ) transformed the backward and underdeveloped American wilderness into the most fruitful nation in history. John Pierpont was a founding father of public education in America. His National Reader, originally published in 1 827, was used for years in grammar schools throughout the United States. In the preface to his grammar school textbook, John Pierpont summed up his ideas about education for the children of America: "This country has political institutions . . . which the men of each successive generation must uphold. But this they cannot do, unless they are early made to understand and value them . . . .

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $1O.00-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Page 337

"Our country, both physically and morally, has a character of its own. Should not something of that character be learned by its children while at school? Its mountains, and prairies, and lakes, and rivers, and cataracts, its shores and hill-tops, that ,;ere early made sacred by the dangers, and . saCrifIces, and deaths, of the devout and the dar ing-it does seem as if these were worthy of being held up, as objects of interest, to the young eyes th � t . . are opening upon them; and worthy of : . bemg lInked, wIth all their sacred associations, to the young affections, which, sooner or later, must be bound to them, or they must cease to be (what they now are) the inheritance and abode of a free people." (3)

In the latter half of the 19th Century, most American schools used McGuffey'S Readers (com piled by William H. McGuffey, another of the founding fathers of public education) : "McGuffey's Readers were more than readers: while learning to read, the beginning student was absorbing doses of the vitamins of moral law and principles of behavior . . . . "The books . . . . emphasized the identity of the moral and natural law, defined the Christian fundamentals from which sprang the social vir tues of truthfulness, temperance, modesty, kind ness, and tolerance . . . " ( 4) .

While hardy individualists, products of tra ditional American education, were building the nation, thoughtstreams of the nation were being polluted in prosperous and settled regions, by some intellectuals who were ill at ease in the vigorous, daring life of America-and who, there fore, readily responded to the tired, cynical, and sickly socialist philosophy imported from Europe. John Dewey was one of these; and he, more than any other, is responsible for bringing socialist theory and revolution to American education. The goal of a Christian is to take the hand of God and pull himself above the dull level of mediocrity-to stand on a pinnacle of spiritual growth and individual accomplishment. To Dewey, this was preposterous. Deweyism is a com bination of socialist political theory and modern psychology. It scorns individualism, holding that the proper aim of the biological organism called Page 338

man is to lose his individuality by finding ac

ceptance and absorption in the mass. The "pro gressive education" Dewey recommended is in tended to make men and women faceless factors in a controlled and levelled-down mass of humani ty. ( 5 ) In 1904, John Dewey became head of Teachers College at Columbia University-where his ideas have molded the thinking of leading American "educationists" ever since. When Dewey retired in 1930, his disciples were prepared to carry on the drive for progressive education.

D r. Harold O. Rugg was a leading Dewey disciple. In 1933, Rugg wrote The Great Tech nolo gy, a book for teachers. Rugg told teachers that America must be converted into a socialist dictatorship. He did not, of course, put it that bluntly. He said we must have a "new govern ment" with "all-pervading" powers to plan and regulate the lives of the people and the economy of the nation. ( 6 ) Rugg said teachers had the important job of conditioning "a new public mind" for the "new social order."( 6 ) In all, Rugg wrote 14 teachers' guides, 14 student workbooks, and 14 student textbooks. His work was partly financed by the Rockefeller Foun dation, (7) one of the tax-exempt foundations which support the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) . The CFR is the control center of an interlocking web of organizations which operate to socialize the United States-and which constitute the in visible government of our nation. (8 ) Six of Rugg's textbooks, called the Building America series, were sponsored by the National Education Association. By 1 940, more than 5,000,000 Building America books were in use in Ameri can public schools. The State of California finally banned them, the California legislative committee reporting: " [ The Building America books do ] not present a true historical background of American history and progress . . . the cartoons and pictures ap pearing in said books belittle American states men, who have been . . . heroes of American

The Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No.

43)

tradition and . . . idealized by the American peo ple; yet . . . the Building America series glam orizes Russian statesmen and [ is ] replete with pictures which do great credit to these leaders of Russian thought . . . . [ The ] books contain pur posely distorted references favoring Communism, and life in Soviet Russia . . . . " ( 7 )

The San Francisco Board of Education found that Rugg's books for school children deny all moral law, that they are anti-religious, and that, by "a constant emphasis on our national defects," they "tend to weaken the student's love for his country, respect for its past, and confidence in its future." (7)

D r. George S. Counts (another John Dewey disciple) helped organize the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical Associa tion, dedicated to abolishing traditional educa tion by changing curricula, textbooks, and teach ing techniques. The Commission was financed by a $340,000 grant from the Carnegie Corpora tion, (7 ) another tax-exempt organization which supports the Council on Foreign Relations. (8) The Commission recommended that courses in history, economics, civics, and geography be com bined into one course called "social studies," with emphasis on "social" or "conflict of masses" ideas. Maintaining that the age of American indi vidualism was dying and must be replaced with a socialist ("collectivist" ) nation, the Commission said : "Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion, that, in the United States as in other countries, the age of individualism and laissez faire in economy and government is closing and that a new age of collectivism is emerging." "As to the specific form which this 'collectiv ism,' this integration and interdependence, is taking and will take in the future, the evidence at hand is by no means clear or unequivocal . . . . Almost certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary cooperation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy, a corresponding enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to the individual discretion and initiative-a state intervention that in some in-

The Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 43)

stances may be direct and mandatory and in others indirect and facilitative. In any event the Commission is convinced by its interpretation of available empirical data that the actually inte grating economy of the present day is the fore runner of a consciously integrated society in which individual economic actions and individual property rights will be altered and abridged." ( 7 )

British socialist leader Harold J. Laski said of the Commission's report: "At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neu tral phrases, the report is an educational program for a Socialist America."( 7 }

J ohn Dewey provided the rationale.

His dis ciples supplied the techniques and the textbooks. Financiers of the invisible government put up the money. And the program to convert America into a socialist nation by corrupting public education was formally begun in the mid-1930's. In 1935, public schools of New York City started adopting techniques and textbooks of Deweyism. By 1 945, many (if not most) school systems in America had been converted, in whole or in part, to Dewey's "progressivism." By 1950, many American parents were becoming aware that our fabulously expensive educational system was graduating young people who could not spell, write a correct sentence, work simple arithmetic problems, or read with understanding; who had not been disciplined in work habits ; and who were ignorant of the history and traditions of their own country. On September 29, 1965, Lt. General Lewis B. Hershey, director of selective service, released figures on draft rejections which reveal that more than half of all American males between the ages of 18 and 26 are unfit for military service, mental ly, physically, or morally. (9) All blame for this condition cannot be placed on our public schools and colleges. Yet, most draft age men today have been more exposed to the influence of our schools than to the influence of any other institutions in our society. They are of a generation whose schooling was prescribed and Page 339

directed by John Dewey educationists who feel that schools should be given total responsibility for the training of youth, with parents relegated to the role of supplying the children and the tax money, and of supporting whatever the educa tionists prescribe. John Dewey educationists have driven far toward their goal of eliminating academic disci pline and basic learning from public schools-of developing a nationally-controlled school system whose primary purpose is not to educate young people as individuals, but to prepare them en masse for government-provided cradle-to-the grave security in the new socialist order.

T hough the federal government has supported

sioner of Education, Dr. McMurrin told William G. Carr, head of the NEA : "You �nd I head up the biggest bureaucracies . m Washmgton. NEA has all of the bureaucratic sho� tcomings and is in danger of moving toward natIOnal control of education, not by the Federal Government but by the NEA."( l O}

The NEA exerts its influence not only through government agencies, but in other ways. Remem ber, the NEA was largely responsible for getting mo�e �han 5 ,00 ? ,000 copies of Harold O. Rugg's Butldmg Amenca books used in public schools books which were eventually banned by the State of California as pro-communist, subversive of American ideals. ( 7 ) T?e NEA sponsored The American Way of Busmess for use by teachers as source material.

this drive with tax payers' money, federal agencies involved have been dominated and led by John Dewey educationists outside of government. The non-governmental organization which has done the most to promote John Dewey's theories, and to dominate the federal government's unconstitu tional activities in educational matters, is the National Education Association (NEA) .

This publication was financed by the Rockefeller General Education Board, and was written by Oskar Lange and Abba P. Lerner. Lange was a professor at the University of Chicago, before renouncing his U. S. citizenship to become an official of the communist government of Poland. (7) The American Way of Business, sponsored by the NEA, recommended :

The NEA works closely with the U. S. Office of Education-so closely, in fact, that U. S. Com missioners of Education sometimes appear unable to function without NEA approval. For example, when Dr. Sterling M. McMurrin resigned as U. S. Commissioner of Education in September, 1 962 (after serving slightly more than one year ) , the press attributed his resignation to the fact that he could not get along with the NEA. About 950,000 of the 1 ,700,000 public school teachers in America are members of the NEA; but Dr. McMurrin says the NEA is not responsive to its membership, which is manipulated into rubber stamping policies and resolutions prepared by a small group of NEA executives. He accuses the NEA of dominating state education associations, and charges that the NEA "is not interested in higher education, is cool to the private schools,

-that all banks, credit institutions, and insur ance companies be nationalized (that is, con fiscated by the federal government and operated under public ownership ) ;

anu

is pathologically opposed to the parochial

schools. " ( l O) Before resigning as U. S. Commis-

Page 340

-that all basic natural resources (mines, oil fields, timber, coal, and so on) be nationalized; -that special courts "might" be created to oversee all economic activities, and given enough power to overrule laws of Congress, of state legis latures, of local governments. (7)

The National Education Association has spon sored and recommended many sociology textbooks which have poisoned the minds of high school and college students throughout the land. In 195 1 , Dr. A . H . Hobbs o f the University o f Pennsyl vania reviewed more than 100 sociology textbooks being used in American high schools and colleges. He found that 950/0 of these books (many of them recommended by the NEA) were slanted to favor a collectivist (i.e., socialist ) economy in prefer ence to America's traditional free enterprise econoThe Dan Smoot

Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 43)

my, and that they even attacked religion, suggest ing that mysticism be removed from religious doctrines so that religion can be modernized and related to our modern collective society. (7) Though NEA officials deny that the association is a teachers' union, and claim they do not advocate teachers' strikes, the NEA operates as a gigantic union which virtually forces membership on many teachers, which assumes authority to bargain with school boards about policies, which uses teachers' strikes and boycotts to force school districts, com munities, or entire states to comply with NEA wishes. Compelling teachers to join the NEA against their will is done subtly, indirectly. Since most public school administrators belong to the NEA, many teachers feel that NEA membership is an unspoken, unwritten, unofficial-but neces sary-requirement for employment. (11) NEA collective bargaining with boards of edu cation is called professional negotiations. NEA teachers' strikes are called sanctions. In November, 1 962, the NEA Classroom Teachers National Study Conference on Professional Negotiations published a report on "professional negotiations" saying, among other things : "Professional education associations [ meaning, of course, the NEA and its various divisions and affiliates] have the right to participate with boards of education in decision making . . . . re garding personnel practices, working conditions, fringe and nonwage benefits, salaries, employ ment standards, inservice education of personnel, class size, teacher turnover, communications with in the school system, curriculum planning, and teaching methods." (ll)

Concerning "sanctions," the NEA report says : "Sanctions are a means to impel an object to ward moral action. In education it is moral that a community should support its schools; that school boards will discharge their functions with integrity and impartiality; that administrators will use the procedures essential for the demo cratic administration of good schools; that teach ers will make every reasonable effort to provide the best possible learning experiences for stu dents. Against those who are immoral by this standard, teacher organizations Illay iIllpOSC sanc tions." (11) The

Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 43)

In short, the NEA declares it immoral for a school system to disobey NEA commands, and uses sanctions to compel the "moral action" it wants. It imposes sanctions by recommending that school teachers and administrators boycott a school system singled out for punishment. Sometimes, NEA sanctions backfire, as in Little Lake, California. The Little Lake controversy lasted three or four years, beginning in 1 959 when parents became generally alarmed that their children were going through the public schools without acquiring even the rudiments of learning in spelling, reading, writing, arithmetic, or any other academic discipline. After considerable ado, the school board and a new superintendent of schools eliminated much of the "progressive edu cation" nonsense from Little Lake schools and initiated a program of basic education. Student achievement rose; and the Little Lake schools soon acquired an enviable reputation. NEA educationists resented the change. It was rejection of educational theories the educationists had been sponsoring for a generation; it was de fiance of the educationists' assumed authority to dictate the policies of public schools. The Cali fornia Teachers Association and the Little Lake Teachers Association imposed sanctions on Little Lake schools. This solidified public support for the basic education program. Some teachers, obey ing NEA recommendations, boycotted Little Lake Schools ; but many parents considered this an ad vantage: it removed from Little Lake schools "pro gressive-education" teachers who were a liability to the schools anyway. (12) In May, 1964, the Utah Education Association imposed sanctions on all public schools in Utah, hoping to force the governor to call a special session of the legislature to raise teachers' sal aries. The educationists did not achieve their objective, but felt they had gained much favorable national publicity. In 1 965, NEA educationists forced the people of Oklahoma to comply with the educationists' demands. In the spring of 1965 , Oklahoma voters ( encouraged by the Governor of the State) re jected a proposed sales tax increase to raise (12)

(13)

Page 341

teachers' salaries. On May 1 1 , 1965, the NEA and the OEA (Oklahoma Education Association) im posed sanctions on Oklahoma schools - urging school teachers to boycott the State. On September 14, 1965 , Oklahoma voters approved a law per mitting local tax levies to bolster school financ ing. ( 14 ) On September 18, the NEA and the OEA lifted their sanctions. (1 5 ) In October, 1962, the Chicago Sun-Times pub lished an editorial which sums up NEA aims and accomplishments : "That the National Education Association . . . advocates Federal aid has surprised us at times. But no longer. For control-real control over the Nation's children-is being shifted rapidly to the NEA. That organization has about completed the j ob of cartelizing public school education under its own cartel. "It is doing so under an organization known as the National Council for Accreditation of Teachers Education, an agency whose governing council is tightly NEA controlled . . . . The manner in which the NEA is usurping parental prerogatives by determining the type of educa tion offered . . . . is . . . very simple: control the education and hiring of teachers. "This is what the National Council for Ac creditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, pro nounced 'en-kate') has set out to do and what, to a considerable extent, it has accomplished. Most public school administrators belong to N EA. In creasingly public school administrators hire only teachers who have received their training in NCA TE-approved institutions. "The absurd result of this policy is illustrated by the Carleton College episode. Without a doubt, Carleton . . . is one of the Nation's out standing colleges. Academically, it probably has . no supenor. "Yet N CATE initially refused to approve Carleton's program of teacher education. Carle ton is a liberal arts college. Its students receive fine training in the humanities and in other areas which make for a well-rounded person. Its em phasis is on education in the best sense of the word. It provides a minimum education in teach ing methods, an area of study on which NCA TE places its emphasis. "Carleton was refused NCATE

accreditation

. . . [ Other schools with lower academic stand-

Page 342

ings ] were approved because their curriculums contained a preponderance of courses having to do with methods of teaching. Their students were required to take courses in methods at the expense of acquainting themselves with the subject they were going to teach. "Carleton refused to be traduced. It insisted that education in content was more important than education in teaching methods. It believed knowledge of history was more important to a his tory teacher than knowledge of procedure and methods. It didn't contend that procedures and methods were unimportant. It merely contended they were secondary. "Carleton's refusal to knuckle under resulted in NCATE capitulation insofar as Carleton was con cerned. But many fine colleges throughout the Nation . . . . have to knuckle under, otherwise their students who wish to be teachers would have dif ficulty getting jobs, the NEA cartel being what it is. So the NEA is now dictating to colleges what they will teach . . . . "NEA has no apprehension regarding Federal control of public schools as a consequence of Federal aid. It has control itself. It is extending that control over colleges and universities. In the NEA scheme of things it will be a simple matter to extend control over whatever Washington agency handles the funds. "Professional organizations and accrediting agencies have their proper places. But when they become masters rather than servants of the people who hire their members they have gone too far." (16 )

NEA has one of the most expensive lobbying operations in Washington. Its lobbying is not limited to pushing legislation directly affecting schools : the NEA is at one with monopolistic unions, racial agitation organizations, and other leftwing groups in lobbying for civil rights legis lation, anti-poverty laws, ( 1 7 ) and other unconsti tutional measures which are transforming our free society into a socialist dictatorship.

T he National Congress of Parent-Teacher As

sociations (PTA ) generally follows the leftwing lead of the NEA. (18) Local PTAs are composed largely of parents whose PTA activity is an effort The Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 43)

to be helpful ; but their membership dues enable the national organization to support programs harmful to our free society. (19)

Whereas the NEA presumes to speak for about

900,000 teachers and administrators on its member ship roles, and the national PTA presumes to speak for some 12,000,000 parents, the NSA (Na tional Student Association) presumes to speak for about 1 ,300,000 students throughout the nation. The NSA was formed in 1947, under the lead ership of 2 5 students who had attended a com munist World Student Congress in Czechoslovakia the year before, and had participated in estab lishing the communist International Union of Students. The NSA consistently supports ob j ectives of the communist party, including ad mission of communist China to the UN, abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activi ties, rent strikes, sit-ins, massive civil disobedience, student riots. The invisible government (the Council on For eign Relations and its network of foundations and other interlocking organizations ) has a hand in the NSA, just as it had a hand in initiating and financing the progressive education drive which has corrupted education in the United States. Note some of the national advisors of NSA : Ralph J. Bunche, member of CFR, of NAACP, and of League for Industrial Democ racy ; John Cogley, staff administrator for Fund For The Republic; Ralph McGill, publisher of Atlanta Constitution ; Harold E. Stassen, CFR (20.21 )

(22)

W H O

I S

member ; O. Meredith Wilson, official of the old Atlantic Union Committee; Russell Kirk, respected by leftwingers as a philosopher and spokesman of conservatism. (23)

Remedies

I n recent years, many local PTAs have with drawn from the national and state organizations. In some areas, conservatives-realizing that left wingers or uninformed persons have acquired leadership of local PTAs by default-are joining and working actively to make local PTA groups what they should be. Some good teachers are quitting the NEA and forming independent local groups. When enough teachers rebel, the base of NEA's power and in fluence will be gone. Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) is ac tively fighting socialist-communist doctrines of the National Student Association in colleges throughout the nation. A packet of material about YAF' s fight against the leftwing NSA can be ob tained for $ l .00 from Stop-NSA, P. O. Box 62 1 , Bloomington, Indiana. Beyond these efforts of parents, teachers, and students to wrest control from socialist-liberals who have run our schools and colleges for a gen eration, all of us should work to elect to Congress constitutionalists who will compel the federal gov ernment to withdraw from all unconstitutional ac tivities in the field of education.

DAN

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving b oth sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

The Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 43)

Page 343

( 1 3 ) AP dispatch from Detroit, The Dallas Morning News, July 7, 1963, Sec. 1, p. 2 3 ; AP dispatch from Salt Lake City, The Dallas Times Herald, May 20, 1964

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "Labor-H.E.W. Funds," Congressional Quarte"/y Almanac for 1963, pp. 1 52-3 ( 2 ) Repo1't from lP'ashington by U. S. Representative Richard H. Poff (Rep., Va. ) , September 27, 1965 ( 3 ) The National Reader by John Pierpont, George F. Cool edge Co., New York City and other companies in Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Ken tucky, and Louisiana, 28th Edition, 1 8 5 5 , 277 pp. ( 4 ) Education for lP'hat? by Charles W. Coulter and Richard S. Rimanocsy, Intercol legiate Society of Individualists, circa 1958, 39 pp. ( 5 ) "John Dewey's Theories of Education" by William F. Warde, International Socialist Review, Winter, 1960 issue ( 6 ) lP'hat's Happened to OU1' Schools by Rosalie M. Gordon, America's Future, Inc., 1956 (7)

FouJldatiolls: Their Power alld Influellce by Rene A. Wormser, Devin-Adair Company, New York City, 1958, 4 1 2 pp.

( 8 ) The Invisible Gove1'1lment by Dan Smoot, 1962, 2 50 pp. (9) AP dispatch from Miami Beach, The Dallas Times Herald, September 29, 1965, p. 5A ( 10 ) "McMurrin Insists He Quit To Teach" by Wallace Turner, T he New York Times, October 20, 1962, p. 40

( 14 ) AP dispatch from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, May 1 1 , 1965, p. 8A; AP story from Oklahoma City, The Dallas M01'l2ing News, May 1 2 , 1965, Sec. 1 , p. 1 0 ; "Oklahoma Acts to Aid Teachers" by Donald Janson, The New YOt·k Times, May 1 6, 1965 ( 1 5 ) AP dispatch from Oklahoma City, The Dallas Times Herald, September 19, 1965, p . 26A ( 1 6 ) "The Education Cartel," editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times, placed in the CongreJsional Retard by U. S. Representative Edward J. Derwinski ( Rep., Ill. ) , November 2, 1962, pp_ A8054-5 ( daily) ( 1 7 ) "Pressures on Congress," Congressional Quarterly lP'eekly Re port, September 1 0, 1965, pp. 1 847-50 ( 18 ) National Parent Teaclm', April, 1950 ( official publication of the National PTA ) ( 19 ) For additional information on the National PTA, see "The National Parent Teachers Association," News and Views, Church League of America, 422 N. Prospect Street, Wheaton, Ill. 60187, September, 1 9 59, 6 pp.; Parents are Puppets of the P-TA, Tarrant Coun.ty Public Affairs Forum, P. O. Box 1 2 1 8 1 , Fort Worth, Texas, 1963, 23 pp. ( 20 ) "American Youth - Today's Communist Target," Manion Fo/'1tlll , January 17, 1965 · ( 2 1 ) Guide to Subversive O rganize/tions alld Publications, U. S. House of Representatives Document No. 398, 1962, pp. 9 1 , 1 79-80

( 1 1 ) "National Education Association versus the School Boards" by U. S. Representative John M. Ashbrook ( Rep., Ohio ) , Con gressional Record, June 2 5, 1963, pp. 10880-5 (daily )

( 22 ) "Student Congress Emphasizes Political Activism" by Donald Janson, The New York Times, September 5, 1965, p. 4 5 ; "What is the United States National Student Association ?" by U. S. Representative John Bell Williams ( Dem., Miss. ) , Congressional Record, July 14, 1958, pp. 1 2 5 1 7-9 ( daily)

( 1 2 ) The Little Lake Story, Report by Parents for Better Education, 4433 Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif., 90043, September, 1962, 20 pp_

(23)

Subscription: 1 962 Bound Volume 1 963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L·P Record Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L·P Record Album)

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $1 0.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 - $ 10.00 - $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

of 1961

List

nat on a

NAME

advisors taken

from

letterhead,

USNSA, May 2,

(Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR 1 -2303 Page 344

The Dan Smoot Report, October 25, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No.

43)

THE

1Jt/1l SmootReport Vol.

1 1, No. 44

(Broadcast

532)

November

1, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

K EY T O F R E E D O M

In the spring of 1952, United Steel Workers of

America (CIO ) threatened a nationwide steel strike, because management would not meet union officials' demands for increased wages, fringe benefits, and so on. On April 8, 1952, President Harry S Truman ordered the Secretary of Com merce to seize and operate major steel mills in the United States. Truman's Executive Order said the industry was being nationalized in order, "that we may be able to repel any and all threats against our national security and to fulfill our responsibilities in the efforts being made throughout the United Nations and otherwise to bring about a lasting peace . . . . " ( 1 )

On June 2, 1952, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, in a six to three vote, that the seizure was illegal, saying a President has no constitutional authority to seize private property within the United States without prior congressional authorization. The U. S. Constitution does not empower Congress to authorize seizure of private property, either to promote defense or to fulfill commitments to the United Nations. Truman's illegal act (though nullified by the Supreme Court decision ) set a precedent for future control of the steel industry by the executive department of the U. S. government. On March 3 1 , 1962 , United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO ) and the steel industry announced agreement on new contract terms, three months before the old contract was to expire. New fringe benefits which steel manufacturers granted the union cost about ten cents per hour per worker, raising employment costs by about 2.5 percent the first year. President John F. Ken nedy, who had urged contract negotiators to reach an early settlement, was jubilant over the "obviously non-inflationary" settlement. (2) On April 10, 1962, the United States Steel Corporation announced an immediate increase of six dollars a ton in the price of steel to meet increased production costs caused by the "non-infla tionary" settlement. Other leading steel companies announced similar price increases. Furious, President Kennedy said : (1)

" My father always told me that all businessmen were sons-of-bitches but I never believed it till now." (2)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing 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 $ 1O.0�ch price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 345

Concerning the union which had forced the increased costs requiring the price increases, Presi dent Kennedy said : "The Steel Workers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement . . . ." " [ The actions of the steel companies ] consti tute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible de fiance of the public interest." ( 2)

On April 13, 1 962, U. S. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara announced that defense con tractors and suppliers had been ordered to shift their buying to companies that had not raised steel prices. Arthur J. Goldberg (then Secretary of Labor ) was sent to New York to confer with steel officials. Steel company officials, buckling under government pressure, cancelled the announced price increases. ( 2) In the summer of 1965 , the United Steel Workers Union was again threatening a nation wide strike. President Lyndon B. Johnson de manded that steel companies come to terms with the union, or suffer the full wrath of the federal government. On September 3, 1 965, President Johnson announced that the companies and the union had met his demands (which increase steel industry wage costs 47.3 cents an hour) . Some Americans laughed sardonically about how Johnson got the "consensus" he wanted in the 1965 steel dispute. There were reports that the President virtually ordered the negotiators to stay in a room at the White House until they made a settlement the President approved. Columnist Art Buchwald - known as a humorist - wrote a mock article about the President locking the nego tiators in a room, denying them food and water and cutting off the air conditioning, until they surrendered to his demands. In serious vein, U. S. News commented :

World Report

"Strong-arm methods by White House in steel indicate that there will be compulsory arbitra tion of big disputes within the White House itself in the future, with political influence of unions a factor in fixing the balance." ( 3) Page 346

Associated Press news analyst James Marlow, also in serious vein, applauded President Johnson's intervention in the steel dispute, saying it proves that the American people do not really want free enterprise, because it will not work. ( 4 )

T hus, we have arrived at a standard landmark of all modern socialist dictatorships : the place where monopolistic unions, having been coddled and favored by government, become de facto branches of government. We should review some of the landmarks we have passed in the descent to our present position. In 1776, Adam Smith, Scot economist, published Inquiry into Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which is the classic statement of the laiSJez-iaire theory of economics-the theory that

government should not meddle in the economic affairs of the people, because national progress is best advanced by freedom of private initiative within the bounds of common law. When people are left free in their economic activity, the people effectively regulate and control business activities of employers and workers-dooming to bank ruptcy and unemployment those who abuse the consuming public, rewarding those who serve consumers well. In a free-market economy, each consumer votes for the product of his choice with every penny he spends. Producers must compete for consumers' money by offering the most attractive product or service at the lowest cost. The system cannot work perfectly, however, if government intervenes to favor, or to inhibit, the economic activity of any particular group of employers or workers.

The American Republic, with a constitutional system that bound the federal government down with chains of specific limitation, and required equal treatment of all citizens under the law, came closer than any other nation in history to having a genuine enlightened free enterprise system-a perfect free-market economy. Hence, America prospered more than any other nation in history. Government favored no special interest. Businessmen were free to hire and fire, produce The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

and sell, as they pleased, in competition with others, as long as they complied with laws which protected the life, liberty, and property of every one. In consequence, private investors constantly opened new fields of endeavor, founding new businesses, creating new job opportunities faster than they could be filled, continuously bidding up the wage level in their quest for workers. Workers were free to offer their skills or common labor to the highest bidder. Real wages, paid in uninflated dollars, rose to unmatched heights. While Europe was sinking into the mora.ss of socialism - misled by socialist propaganda that employers were the enemy of workers, perpetually engaged in ruthless warfare to keep the proletariat in chains-America became the promised land for people who wanted freedom to work for their own fortunes, uninhibited by government or by special interest groups enjoying government favoritism.

E arly in the 19th Century, the federal govern ment began stretching the constitutional bounds upon its power, tampering with the free-market system ; but nothing of profoundly damaging con sequence was done until the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln set aside the Consti tution in order to prosecute the war and save the union. During the Civil War, the federal govern ment violently disrupted the free-market economy by establishing a central banking system ; issuing fiat money ; granting war contracts which enriched some citizens while harming others ; enforcing a draft act which disrupted the free labor market by enabling some to buy exemption from military service and engage in lucrative civilian occupa tions, thus imposing upon others an unfair portion of the fighting and sacrificing. Economic distortions caused by government dur ing the Civil War multi plied in the postwar pe riod. The administration of President Ulysses S. Grant ( 1 869- 1877 ) , who was enamored of wealth, was notorious for corruption and special favorit ism which enabled great private fortunes to grow greater. The deliberately cultivated national urge to build transcontinental railroads immediately , without regard to current need and consequences, The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

together with the greed of wealthy speculators who had influence in government, produced the reckless program of giving millions of acres of public land to private railroad companies. Eventually, the federal government acted, not to eliminate the bad condition it had created, but to "regulate" the condition: on February 4, 1887, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, creating the Interstate Commerce Commission to provide government regulation of railroads, whose abuses had been made possible by government favoritism. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was another step in the wrong direction. Accomplishing noth ing constructive, the Sherman Antitrust Act was supplemented by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. Whereas previous federal programs and laws had disrupted the free market economy by grant ing special favors to an arbitrarily selected few, the Clayton Act was the first federal law to inject class distinction into government meddling in the market place. The Clayton Act compelled business men to obey the dictates of federal antitrust bu reaucrats, while exempting unions. (5) In 1926, Congress passed the Railway Labor Act, authorizing unions to combine for restraint of trade by conducting nationwide strikes against railroad companies (while the companies were prohibited from acting in unison to protect their own interests) (5) .

T he Clayton Act of 1914 and the Railway Labor Act of 1926 provided a means of shifting control of the American economy from a govern ment-business combine to a government-labor com bine. The time was not ripe for the shift, however, until the economic backlash of government's in temperate interventions and ruthless manipulations (during and following World War I ) produced the depression of the 1930's. Then, instead of abolishing the socialist controls that had caused the trouble, so that our magnificent open market

economy could again flourish at a healthy, peace-

Page 347

time level, Americans allowed Franklin D. Roose velt to establish the welfare state. Samuel Gompers (known as the father of the labor movement in America ) had founded the old American Federation of Labor in 1 881 as a volun tary association of free working men. Gompers had strongly opposed political action by unions, and scorned the use of force in union activities. The National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) , passed in 1935 during Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, put an end to the Gompers type of union official and plunged the country into a bloody, shameful period of monopolistic unionism. Work ers, forced to join unions and pay dues, were or dered out on strike as a means of compelling whole industries to do the will of union bosses. Bomb ings, beatings, vandalism became commonplace union strike tactics and recruiting practices. The victims included not only business firms which resisted unionism and workers who refused to join unions, but families of non-union workers and en tire communities. ( C. , G )

By 1 943, America was in the midst of World War II, and control of our economy was in the hands of the government-labor combine. The com bine denied responsibility for the war, but took credit for the economic activity and technological development which the war stimulated. Note these comments from Economic Council Letter: "In World War II, there were almost unbeliev able technical advances, which we see in TV, airplanes, plastics, drugs, all kinds of familiar things. They are the same type of technological gains which followed World War I. They pro vided the surpluses from which industry would have paid higher wages. The political leaders and the political 'labor' leaders were sitting on top of the wage negotiations. Like Chanticleer they crowed, 'We made the sun rise.' "That was not all. After World War II the Government retained a dominant influence on the pricing of goods and services through another channel. Government was the largest and most powerful purchaser in the nation. Its purchases for defense, foreign aid, housing it financed, for agricultural products, gave it monopolistic power in setting prices in wide and influential areas of the economy. The private procurer must set prices Page 348

in relation to the market situation, because he must sell at prices which please other people. The Government can set its price for goods or services above the market, because it controls the amount of money in circulation. If it wishes wages to rise, it pays a higher price in its contracts, gives the employer a high enough return to cover the politi cal increases, and balances its books, not by ad mitting a deficit but by increasing the supply of money through bank credit expansion. "Industry-wide bargaining has turned into a device by which the Federal Government can let wage levels rise above productivity levels, and reimburse industry out of inflation." (5)

In 1943, monopolistic unions began to organize

for political control in the United States. Sidney Hillman (president of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America-CIO) formed two political action groups which quickly became such powerful forces in American politics that "clear it with Sid ney" became a grim national joke. The implication was that President Franklin D. Roosevelt never listened to a new proposal affecting policies of the federal government or of the Democrat Party until Sidney Hillman had first evaluated it. (1)

The CIO's political action arm soon became notable for another reason: communism. Com munist control of CIO political action virtually meant communist control of the national Demo crat Party and of the federal government. In 1944, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, under the chairmanship of a Democrat (U. S. Representative Martin Dies, from Texas ) , made a report calling Hillman's National Citizens Politi cal Action Committee a communist front. The House Committee report said : "It has been clearly established by overwhelm ing evidence that the N ational Citizens Political Action Committee is the major Communist front organization of the movement. As a front or ganization, it represents the Communist Party's supreme bid for power . . . . "It is not alleged that 83 percent of the 1 4 1 members o f the NCPAC are Communists. I t is, on the other hand, alleged and established on the basis of the public record that 83 percent of the NCPAC's members, including Sidney Hillman The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

himself, have served as 'fronts' for Communist front organizations . . . ."(7)

In 1 947, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) established a political action group : League of Political Education-AFL-LPE. In 1955, when the AFL and the CIO merged, CIO PAC and AFL-LPE joined to become COPE Committee on Political Education. Walter Reuther was the first director of COPE. (7) Not controlled by federal laws which severely limit political activities of businessmen and busi ness organizations (and ignoring laws intended to limit political activities by unions ) , Walter Reuth er's COPE, with money taken from workers for other purposes, had a profound influence on 1956 congressional elections - almost capturing a con trolling majority in both houses of the U. S. Congress. ( 7 ) Constitutional conservatives intensified their ef forts and made progress in reeducating the public to an understanding of constitutional principles. Consequently, in the 1958 congressional elections, Reuther's COPE, though gaining some strength in the U. S. Senate, lost influence in the House. This challenge to socialist supremacy alarmed Reuther and his minions. Though they had been spending millions of dollars from union funds (and countless man hours ) in support of political candidates, and in the dissemination of socialist propaganda through union publications and broadcasts, they launched a new program to dis credit or outlaw all effective educational and polit ical activity by constitutional conservatives. (7)

On December 1 9, 1 961, Walter Reuther pre sented to Attorney General Robert Kennedy a memorandum on "The Radical Right in America Today," which said, among other things : "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

"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 com munist movement." ( 7 )

Expressing grave concern because the "radical right" already numbers millions, and is growing, Reuther suggested that the Attorney General for mally brand "radical rightists" subversives and outlaws ; that they be harassed by the Internal Re venue Service; and that they be denied means of expressing their views on radio and television. (7)

On July 26, 1 963, the Federal Communications Commission sent a Public Notice to all broadcast stations, concerning the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. The FCC Fairness Doctrine has not achieved all that Reuther wished, but has been used most ef fectively to harass and restrict the already limited broadcast coverage of constitutional conserva tives. (7) The government-labor combine's discrimina tion against conservative broadcasters, together with increased political activity by COPE, was among the factors contributing to socialist victories at the polls in 1 964. In November, 1 964, the COPE Research Department exulted over the elec tions, saying: "President Johnson's landslide victory on No vember

3 shook established patterns of voting,

sweeping through traditionally Republican states in New England and the middle west and swing states on the west coast, securing the beach-head established by Kennedy in suburban areas with a

1 5 percent increase in the Democratic vote and smashing right-wing claims to a silent waiting body of voters large enough to affect the outcome . . . . "The campaign which resulted in a defeat of

and on the right by Robert Welch . . . .

almost unprecedented magnitude started with a

"The radical right moves the national political spectrum away from the Administration's pro posed liberal programs at home and abroad . . . .

bang in San Francisco by commending extremism and promoting what James Reston called 'the im

The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

morality of policies that would leave the Negro'S Page 349

yearning for equality to the states, weaken the

distributed in the campaign. In a number of im

social legislations of a generation and impose

portant areas this was the only literature avail

aggressive policies that would not be tolerated by

able. Its popularity is attested to by the number

either the allies or the Communists' . . . .

of re-orders received which ran the number

"One of COPE's most valuable contributions

printed to this enormous figure.

1 964 election campaign began about two

"Sixty-eight percent of all COPE-backed na

years before Senator Goldwater's nomination with

1 964. This compares to 5 7 % in 1 960 and 60% in 1 962.

to the

the collection and distribution of detailed infor mation on extremist groups operating in every state of the union. The

1 964 COPE Area Con

ferences were directed almost entirely to this subject with discussion reinforced by literature and a film which received wide exposure through out the country and continuing to election eve. Until the Republican convention in July,

1 964,

COPE's voice was almost the only one raising the alarm against such groups as the Birch Society, the Americans for Constitutional Action and the Minutemen. COPE fought alone to counteract the flood of right-wing broadcasts and literature for many months before the threat was taken seriously and such action became not only re spectable, but fashionable.

354 labor 25 of 3 1 can didates for the Senate and 1 4 of 22 candidates "Two hundred and thirty-seven of

endorsed candidates for the House, for Governor won election . . . . "The

1 964 COPE registration drive, concen

trated in areas with a high potential of liberal votes, was of major importance in close Sena torial, gubernatorial and House contests . . . . "Efforts should be begun now to secure good candidates for close races in

1 966 . . . .

"Some of the conservative incumbents who won by narrow margins in

1 960 may be vulnerable if

good candidates can be found to start running early enough to establish themselves early . . . ."

"More International Unions were involved in the

tional candidates were elected in

1 964 COPE operation than ever before. More

unions have appointed full-time COPE Directors and others are contemplating this action. Attend

Recently, the Weekly Labor Forecast and Re view quoted Alexander E. Barkan, present na

tional director of COPE, as saying:

ance at COPE Operating Committee meetings

"Unions will put political actions on an equal

has been unusually high. Requests by national

basis with collective bargaining. Whatever we

COPE for all kinds of assistance from the various

cannot obtain from management through b ar gaining, we will get from city councils, state legislatures and the U. S. Congress." (8)

internationals have been met to an unprecedented degree. "Financial contributions reached a new high in

1 964, and more Internationals released top

grade manpower for election work. "We are encouraged by a general improvement in COPE organization on the state and local level . . . "The COPE campaIgn at the national level selected areas of concentration

and provided

direction and materials for a campaign which was unusually successful on all levels . . . . "More than 5 5 million pieces of COPE

ture and Page 350

litera

1 0 million COPE voting records were

On July 28, 1965 , the U. S. House of Represent ati ves passed a bill to repeal Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act-the right-to-work section which keeps the federal government from interfering with state legislation that outlaws compulsory unionism. Next day, Roy Evans, secretary-treas urer of the Texas AFL-CIO, expressed jubilation over the House action, and explained why unions want to abolish state right-to-work laws. Evans said : "We expect to get at least $6,000,000 a year during the next two years if the Senate joins the House in passing this bill. The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

, ;

"We would get about

$2,000,000 almost imme

diately. The money would go a long way to help us attain our objectives . . . . " "This is money we can use to finance arbitra tion and negotiation activities and to pay for campaigns promoting the objectives of organized labor." ( 9 )

The following paragraph from Dorothy Kil gallen's column of September 27, 1965, indicates how union bosses use union funds for "promoting the objectives of organized labor" : "Members of a show business union were more than a bit annoyed at getting requests - on union stationery, from their union chief - for a dona tion for one of the Democratic candidates who lost. Not that they had anything against the can didate, but they just weren't planning to vote for him, and they're still wondering what percentage of their dues went to pay for the letter paper, the secretaries, and the stamps involved in soliciting for a candidate they had never endorsed. The performers can't do a thing about it, because if they don't belong to the union they can't work, but it would seem to indicate a congressional investigation . . . . "

What To Do?

In the COPE report on its 1964 successes and its

plans for 1966, constitutional conservatives can see W H O

I S

what they should do : intensify their public educa tional work immediately, directing all efforts to ward finding and electing constitutionalists in the 1966 elections. American labor unions are already spending nearly a billion dollars a year. If Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act is repealed, they can confis cate more millions from workers to serve the in terests of union officials. Constitutionalists do not have access to that much money and do not enjoy the tax exemption and other special privileges that unions enjoy; but constitutionalists have truth and the Constitution on their side. That is enough for victory if they will exert themselves to educate the uninformed about the fallacies and failures of socialism, and about the proven success of free dom. When the educational job is adequately done, effective political action will follow. The key to freedom is first, public education in the principles of free enterprise and constitutional government and, second, political action which elects officials to implement those principles. If constitutionalists do not get this job done, the gov ernment-labor combine will soon have a death grip on our Republic. Some constitutionalists who have worked very hard for a very long time have been discouraged -by the fact that millions voted for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, despite all that was publicly known about Johnson and some of his friends (such as Billy Sol Estes, Bobby Baker, Walter Jenkins ) ; by the sorry spectacle of Congress rush ing to approve Johnson programs that even a

D A N

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1 940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. The Dan Smoot Report, November 1 , 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

Page 3 5 1

school child should recognize as harmful and un constitutional ; by the apparent apathy of the gen eral public. I wish they could read my mail. They would see proof that people are being reached and moved to action in the cause of freedom. The following is from a recent letter, which is typical of letters now coming to me, in increasing volume, from all areas where my broadcasts are on the air: "Three or four years ago

fault in our government. But the past year, with the election and the war in Viet Nam, I've become very politically aware . Suddenly the errors of our liberalized politicans have become all too appar ent. I can't read enough about our government, history and other forms of government. I'm sure your work will help me to a broader understand ing. I would also appreciate any reading matter you might suggest, to help me learn more about our government. The more I read, the more con servative minded I become. I hope other Ameri cans can pull their heads out of the sand as I have, before it is too late."

The above letter, from an American who has been alerted to the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society, by listening to conservative broad casts, provides a cue to action for all constitutional conservatives : withdraw your support from busi nessmen who do nothing for the cause of liberty, or who sponsor the propaganda of socialism, and 6 months 1 year

1 962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1 964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise The Fearless American (L-P Re50rd Album) Deacon Larkin's Horse (L-P Record Album)

FOOTNOTES

I used to turn off your

program. I could not stand the way you found

Subscription:

encourage the businessmen who sponsor conserva tive broadcasts and publications-by writing to let them know you like what they are doing for our country, and by purchasing their products and serV1ces.

$ 6.00 $10.00 - $10.00 - $1 0.00 - $ 10.00

( 1 ) The Constitution Of The Ullited States of America; Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, 1953, pp. 489-92 ( 2 ) "Steel Price Rise Rescinded, Inquiry Blocked," Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1962, pp. 1 0 1 7-9 ( 3 ) "Tomorrow," U. S. News & l/Yarid Report, September 20, 1965, p . 34 (4) "Responsibility for Welfare Slowly Evolves in the U. S.," by James Marlow, The Dallas Times Herald, September 1 5, 1965, p. 56A ( 5 ) Clayton Antitrust Act," The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume VII, 1 961 edition, p. 7 5 ; "Privileged Labor," Economic Council Letter, February 1, 1965, 4 pp. ( 6 ) Seventy Years of Life and Labor, by Samuel Gompers, 1925 edition, p. 132

(7) For a detailed, documented background of labor's Committee on Political Education, see "COPE," The Dan Smoot Report, April 6, 1964, pp. 105- 1 1 2 ; reprints available at rates printed on the bottom of the first page of this Report. ( 8 ) "Whither The Republican Party - Can It Be Revived ?", Eco nomic Council Letter, August, 1965, 4 pp. ( 9 ) "Union Leader Talks Of Additional Funds," The Dallas Morn ing News, July 30, 1965, p. l lA

- $ 4.00 - $ 1.00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

( Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 TAYLOR Page 3 52

ZIP CODE

STATE

1-2303

The Dan Smoot Report, November 1, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 44)

THE )

lJt/il SmootReport Vol.

I I , No. 45

(Broadcast

533)

November 8,

1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

FI FTH ROLL CAL LS, 1 96 5

In four previous issues of this Report, we tabulated

)

56 roll call votes in the national Congress ( "First Roll Calls, 1965 ," May 3 1 ; "Second Roll Calls, 1 965," June 14; ' Third Roll Calls, 1965 ," August 2 ; "Fourth Roll Calls, 1965," August 30) . Tabulations herein bring the total to 84 - 42 in each chamber of the United States Congress. Thus far in 1965, only 27 Senators ( 1 6 Republicans, 1 1 Democrats ) have earned conservative ratings of 600/0 or better. Only four Senators (three Democrats, one Republican ) have earned con servative ratings of 900/0 or better : Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis Robertson (Virginia Demo crats) , 980/0; Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Republican) and James O. Eastland (Mississippi Democrat) , 93%. Only 1 5 3 Representatives ( 102 Republicans, 5 1 Democrats ) have earned conservative ratings of 600/0 or better. Of these 1 5 3, 6 have 1000/0 ratings ; 6 have 98% ratings: �� 100 % - Buchanan and Edwards (Alabama Republicans ) , Gross (Iowa Republican) , Walker (Mississippi Republican ) , Williams (Mississippi Democrat) , Baring (Nevada Democrat) ; � � 98 % - Andrews (Alabama Democrat) , Dickinson and Martin (Alabama Republicans) , Pass man (Louisiana Democrat ) , Hall (Missouri Republican ) , Pool (Texas Democrat) . D. C. HOME RULE : On July 22, 1965 , the Senate (by a stand of 68 to 3 1 ) passed S 1 1 18, an administration bill to give the District of Columbia home rule. The vote is recorded in Column 29 under Senate - C indicating a conservative stand against D. C. home rule. Under our Constitution, Congress must govern the District of Columbia. S 1 1 1 8 would permit partisan municipal elections in the District; would enable the District to get funds automatically from the U. S. Treasury each year, without congressional authorization or control ; would enfranchise 18-year-old persons ; would permit the election of a non-voting delegate from the District to the House of Representatives ; would waive provisions of the Hatch Act, thus permitting government employees to participate actively in partisan politics. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing address P. O. Box 95 38, Lakewood Statiop, Dallas, Texas 752 14; Telephone TAylor 1-2303 (office address 6441 Gaston Avenue) . Subscription rates: $ 1 0.00 a year, .%.00 for 6 months, $ 1 8.00 for two years. For first class mail $ l 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 $ lO.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2'1f. sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1 965. Second Class mail privilege No Reproductions Permitted. Page 353

auchorized

Dallas,

Texas.

On July 27, the House (by a stand of 309 to 1 18 ) , and on July 28, the Senate (by a stand of 7 2 to' 2 5 ) , passed HR 6675. The votes are recorded in Column 30 under Senate, and in Column 30 under HouJe C indicating a conservative stand against. MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY:

converting city governments into begging depend encies of the federal bureaucracy. CIVI L RIGHTS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

For the 1965 fiscal year, the Johnson administra tion requested, and Congress granted, $8,000,000 for the Department of Health, Education, and President Johnson signed HR 6675 into law Welfare to conduct civil rights educational activ (PL 89-97 ) on July 30. The law adds medical ities. The administration requested $8,000,000 for care for the aged to the social security system; the 1966 fiscal year, but the House approved only enlarges existing social security benefits and cov $5 ,000,000. When the bill (HR 8639) went to erage ; extends coverage of the Kerr-Mills health the Senate, Senator Jacob K. Javits (New York plan to an additional eight million persons ; in Republican) offered an amendment to grant the creases social security taxes, over a ten-year period, full $8,000,000 requested by the administration. from the present 7.20/0 of payroll to 1 1 .30/0 ; and On August 1 2 , the Senate (by a stand of 7 1 to changes the ta:Ji:able earnings base for social secur 2 1 ) rejected Javits' amendment. The vote is re ity from $4800 to $6600. corded in Column 3 3 under Senate C indicat ing a conservative stand against increasing funds VOTI NG RIGHTS ACT : On August 3, 1965, for civil rights educational activities. the House (by a stand of 335 to 81 ) and on Au- . FOREIGN AID: On August 19, the House (by gust 4, the-Senate (by a stand of 80 to 19) , passed a stand of 261 to 1 67 ) , and on August 24, the S 1 564, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The votes Senate (by a stand of 70 to 2 8 ) , passed HR 7750, are recorded in Column 3 1 under Senate, and in authorizing foreign aid expenditures of $3.36 bil Column 34 under HouJe C indicating a con lion during fiscal year 1966. These votes are re servative stand against. corded in Column 37 under Senate, and in Column President Johnson signed the bill into law (PL 38 under House C indicating a conservative 87- 1 10 ) on August 6. Under this law, U. S. Attor stand against foreign aid authorization. ney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach is already On September 8, the House (by a stand of 259 directing the registration of illiterate negroes in to 162 ) passed HR 1087 1 , -appropriating $3.28 selected southern areas. For details, see "Voting billion for foreign aid during fiscal year 1 966. Rights Bill" and "The Civil Rights of Perry This vote is recorded in Column 41 under House Smaw" - the May 1 0, 1 965, and September 20, C indicating a c::onservative stand against appro 1 965, issues of this Report. priating tax money for foreign aid. The Senate vote will be recorded in a subsequent Report. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND U RBAN On AFFAIRS: August H , 1 965 , the Senate (by a POVERTY WAR: The Economic Opportunity stand of 63 to 36) passed HR 6927. The vote is Act of 1964 (President Johnson'S Poverty War recorded in Column 32 under Senate C indicat bill) gave state governors power to veto proposed ing a conservative stand against. federal anti-poverty programs affecting local or state governments. In 1965, the Act was amended The Senate, on August 30, and the House, on and extended by HR 8283, which removed the August 3 1 , passed (by voice .votes ) a compromise governors' veto power. version of HR 6927. President Johnson signed it into law (PL 89- 174) on September 9. The law On August 1 7, Senator Paul Fannin (Arizona creates a cabinet' level Department of Housing and Republican ) ,offered an amendment to restore the Urban Affairs to administer the federal govern governors' veto power. The Fannin amendment was defeated by a vote of 45 to 45 , with Vice ment's housing and urb�n renewal programs, mass President Hubert Humphrey casting the tie-breaktransit subsidies, and other programs which are -

Page 3 54

The Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

ing vote against the amendment. The vote is re corded in Column 3 3 under Senate - C indicating the 45 Senators who cast conservative votes for the Fannin amendment and 3 Senators who took a public stand for it but did not actually vote; L indicating the 45 Senators who cast liberal votes against the Fannin -amendment and 4 who took public stands against it without actually voting. On August 1 8, Senator Peter ,H. Dominick (Colorado Republican) offered an amendment to restore some of the governors' veto power. The Dominick amendment was defeated by an actual vote of 43 to 42. Seven Senators who did not vote took a public stand for the Dominick amendment; five who did not vote tOOK a public stand against the amendment. Thus, if all Senators who took a public stand had voted, the Dominick amendment would have carried_ by 49 to 48. In Column 34 under Senate, we record the stand on the Domi nick amendment - C indicating those 49 Senators who took a conservative stand for the amend ment, L indicating the 48 who took a liberal stand against. On August 19, the Senate (by a stand of 66 to 3 3 ) passed HR 8283, authorizing $ 1.65 billion for the "war on poverty" during fiscal year 1966 - with the governors' veto power deleted. This vote is recorded in Column 35 under Senate - C indicating a conservative stand against. On July 22, the House (by a vote of 255 to 168) passed a versiot,1 of HR 82 ,8 3 that is different from the version passed by the Senate on August 19. The House vote is recorded in Column 29 under House - C indicating a conservative stand against. The House-passed bill authorizes $1.9 billion for fiscal 1966, and allows governors some veto power. Action on a compromise version was com pleted September 24. On September 3, 1965, the Senate passed HR 5688 to amend District of Columbia crime laws. Among other things, the bill invalidated the Mallory Rule and the Dur ham Rule - rules of evidence (handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court and by a U. S. CO)lrt of Appeals) which have made prosecution of heinous D. C. CRIME BILL :

The

Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

crimes ' extremely difficult (often impossible) in the District of Columbia. Prior to passage of HR 5688, Democrat Sen ators Robert F. Kennedy, (New York ) and Joseph D. Tydings (Maryland ) offered a moti<?n to delete the section which invalidated , the Mallory and Durham Rules. The Senate defeated the ' Kennedy-Tydings motion by a stand of 70 to 26. This vote is recorded- in Column 38 under Senate - C indicating a conservative stand against the Kennedy-Tydings motio? : HIGHER EDUCATION, ACT:' On September 2, 1965, the Senate (by a stand of 95 to 4 ) passed HR 9567, the Higher Education Act of 1965. The vote is recorded in Column 40 uncler Senate - C designating the four Senators who cast conserva tive votes against the unconstitutional bi!l. HR 9567 authorized $4.7 billion for aid to col leges and college students during the next five years. The Communities Service Program section of the bill authorized $50 million a year for cO'I leges to devise programs and make studies con cerning city planning, guidance ,for social workers and anti-poverty workers, management of com munity enterprises, community· welfare adminis tration. Prior to passage of HR 9567, the Senate- (by a stand of 66 to 29) adopted an amendment, pro posed by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen ( Illi nois Republican) , to prevent government control of membership policies of fraternities, sororities, private clubs, religious organizations. The vote on the Dirksen amendment ' is recorded in Column 39 under Senate - C ind icating a conservative 'stand for the amendment. FARM BILL: On Augll:st 19, 1965, the House, (by a stand of 237 to 188 ) and, on September 14, the Senate (by a stand of 74 to 2 5 ) , passed HR 98 1 1 , the administration's omnibus farm bill. The votes are recorded in Column 41 under Senate and in Column 39 under House - C indicating a con servative stand against. For details on the omnibus farm bill, see the September 6, 1 96 5 , issue of this Report, "Power Politics.' , Page 3 5 5

H I GHWAY BEAUTIFICATION : S 2084, the Highway Beautification and Scenic Development Act, gives the Secretary of Commerce power to control (or banish) signs, and anything else the Secretary considers unsightly, near interstate and primary highways. The bill gives the Secretary power to override state determinations even on primary roads built with state funds. By a stand of 5 2 to 37, the Senate rejected conservative efforts to delete, this grant of totalitarian power to the federal bureaucracy. The vote is recorded in Col umn 42 under Senate C indicating a con�erva tive stand for deleting the federal veto power over state decisions. The Senate roll call on final passage of S 2084 will be recorded in a later Report. -

HOUSING A N D U RBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT: On July 26, the Senate ( by voice vote)

passed HR 7984, the Housing and Urban Devel opment Act. The House ( by a stand of 256 to 173 ) passed the bill on J uly 27. The House vote is recorded in Column 3 1 under House C indi cating a conservative stand against the bill, which expands existing public housing and urban re newal programs, and which authorizes the rent subsidy scheme. For details, see the July 19, 1965, issue of this Report, "Government Guaranteed Security." -

President Johnson signed HR 7984 into law (PL 89- 1 1 7 ) on August 10. On July 28, 1965, the House (by a stand of 226 to 202 ) rejected conservative efforts to kill HR 77, which, by re pealing Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, will enable the federal government to invalidate state right-to-work laws. The conservatives had tried to kill HR 77 by offering a motion to recom mit. When their recommittal motion was defeated, the House had a roll call on final passage. HR 77 was passed, by a stand of 223 to 205. The votes are recorded in Columns 32 and 33 under House C indicating a conservative stand against repeal of the right-to-work section of the Taft-Hartley Act. The bill is pending in the Senate. RIGHT T O WORK REPEAL :

For details on the right-to-work controversy, see Page 356

the July 12, 1965, issue of this Report, "The Right To Work." For information on administration and union pressures for passage of HR 77, see the September 6, 1 965 , issue of this Report, "Power Politics. " IBRD AND IFC C HANGES: On August 4, 1965 , the House (by a stand of 3 3 1 to 54) passed S 1 742, amending charters of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ( IBRD ) and of the International Finance Corporation (IFC ) . The vote is recorded in Column 3 5 under House C indicating a conservative stand against. S 1742 virtually eliminates congressional control over operations of these two organizations which lend American tax money abroad. By making it easier for foreigners to get U. S. taxpayers' money, the bill will strengthen foreign competition which is already hurting American workers and manu facturers, and is contributing . to our balance of payments deficits. -

PU BLIC WORKS: On August 1 2 , the House (by a stand of 2 5 7 to 149 ) passed S 1648, the Public Works and Economic Development Act. The vote is recorded in Column 37 under House C indicating a conservative stand against. Prior to passage, the House ( by a stand of 234 to 1 7 3 ) rejected a conservative recommittal mo tion which would have provided for annual con gressional review of the economic development loan fund ; would have required that funds for construction or improvement projects be spent on American-made products ; and would have deleted provisions for government loans and guarantees for the purchase or development of land. The vote on the recommittal motion is recorded in Column 36 under House C indicating a conservative stand for the defeated motion. President Johnson signed S 1648 into law (PL 89- 1 36 ) on August 26. For details, see "Toward A Socialist Dictatorship," the July 5 , 1965, issue of this Report.

AID TO FEDERALLY IMPACTED SCHOOLS:

For years, the federal government has been giving special aid to schools "impacted" by children of (Continued on Page 360) The Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

ROLL A "C " indicates a cons ervative stand.

A n "L" indicates a liberal stand.

C A LL

VOTES

S E NA T E "0"

indicates the Senator was absent or did not take a public stand.

C olumn #29 - - D . C. Horne Rule , S 1 1 1 8 ; 11 3 0 - - Medicare and Social Security, HR 6675; 1/ 3 1 - - Voting Rights Act, S 1 564; 11 3 2 _ _ Department of Housing and Urban Affair s , HR 692 7 ; 1/33 -- Civil Rights Educational A ctiviti e s , HR 8 6 3 9 ; #34 -- Poverty W a r , HR 8 2 8 3 , Governors t Veto; 1135 -- Poverty War , HR 8 2 8 3 , Governor s ' Veto on C ommunity A ction; "36 -- Poverty War, HR 8 2 8 3 , Passage; #37 -- Foreign Aid A uthorization, HR 7 7 5 0 ; #38 -- D. C . C rime Bill, HR 5 6 8 8 ; 1139 __ Higher Education rksen Amendment; #40 - - Higher Education Act, HR 9 5 6 7 , Pas sage; 1141 - - Farm Bill, HR 98 1 1 ; 1142 - - Highway Beautification, S 2084, Secretary of w r

�:�:: :;��

ALABAMA Hill, Lister (D) Sparkman, John J. (D) ALASKA Bartlett, E. L. (D) Gruening, Ernest (D) ARIZONA Fannin, Paul J. (R) Hayden, Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J, W. (D) McClellan. John L . (D) CALIFORNIA Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) Murphy, George (R) COLORADO Allott, Gordon (R) Dominick, Peter H. (R) CONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J . (D) Ribicoff, Abraham A. (D) DELAWARE Boggs , J. Caleb (R) Williams , John J. (R) FLORIDA Holland, Spessard L. (D) Smathers , George A. (D) GEORGIA Russell, Richard B. (D) Talmadge, Herman E. (D) HAWAII Fong, Hiram L. (R) Inouye, Daniel K. (D) IDAHO Church, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B. (R) ILLINOIS Dirksen, Everett McK. (R) Douglas , Paul H. (D) INDIANA Bayh, Birch (D) Hartke, Vance (D) IOWA Hickenlooper, Bourke B. (R) Miller, Jack (R) KANSAS Carlson. Frank (R) Pearson, James B. (R) KENTUCKY Cooper, John Sherman (R) Morton, Thruston B . (R) LOUISIANA Ellende r , Allen J. (O) Long, Russell B. (O) MAINE Muskie. Edmund S . (D) Smith, Margaret Chase (R) MARYLAND Brewster, Daniel B. (D) Tydings , Joseph O. (O) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M. (O) Saltonstall, Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A. (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy, Eugene J. (D) Mondale, Walter F. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O. (D) Stennis, John (D) MISSOURI Long, Edward V. (D) Sytnington, Stuart (D)

ncn

39 40

C C

L 0

C C

C O

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

C L

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C C

L L

C C

L C

C C

O C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C C

L L

C C

C L

C C

C L

L L

C C

L L

C L

C C

L L

e C

C C

C L

C C

e C

L L

C C

L 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 C

L L

L C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

e L

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C C

L L

C C

O C

O L

C L

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

L L

e C

o C

C C

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

C L

C C

C L

C C

C L

C C

C e

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

C L

L L

L C

L L

L C

L O

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

L C

L L

C C

L L

indicates a conservative stand.

L 0

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C e

L L

L C

C C

L L

An "L" indicates a liberal stand.

MONTANA Mansfield, Mike (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) McIntyre, Thomas J . (D) NEW JERSEY Case, Clifford P. (R) Williams , Harrison A . , J r . (D) NEW MEXICO Anderson, Clinton P. (D) Montoya, Joseph M . (D) NEW YORK Javits , Jacob K. (R) Kennedy. Robert F. (D) NORTH CAROLINA Ervin, Sam J . • J r . (D) Jordan, B. Everett (D) NORTH DAKOTA Burdick, Quentin N. (D) Young, Milton R. (R) OHIO Lausche, Frank J. (D) Young, Stephen M. (D) OKLAHOMA Harris, Fred R. (D) Monroney, A. S . Mike (D) OREGON Morse, Wayne (D) Neuberger, Maurine B. (D) PENNSYLVANIA Clark, Joseph S. (D) Scott, Hugh (R l RHODE ISLAND Pastore, John O . (D) Pell. Claiborne (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Russell, Donald S. (D) Thurmond, Strom (Rl SOUTH DAKOTA Mc Govern, George (D) Mundt, Karl E. (R) TENNESSEE Bas s . Ross (D) Gore. Albert (D) TEXAS Tower, John G . (R) Yarborough, Ralph W . (D) UTAH Bennett, Wallace F. (R) Mos s , Frank E. (D) VERMONT Aiken, George D. 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, J ennings (D) WISCONSIN Nelson, Gaylord A . (D) Proxmire. Williatn (D) WYOMING McGee. Gale W. (D) Sitnpson. Milward L. (R)

L L

C C

39 40 4 1

L L

C e

L L

C L

e L

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C C

e C

L L

L C

L L

C L

C C

C L

C C

C L

C C

L L

e C

L L

C e

L L

C C

e L

L L

C L

L L

C C

C L

C C

C L

C C

L L

C C

C e

L L

C L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C e

L L

L C

L L

C L

C C

C L

e L

L L

C C

O L

L L

C L

C C

L L

C L

C C

e e

L L

C L

e L

L L

C e

L L

L C

L L

L e

L L

L e

L L

C e

L L

C L

L L

C C

L C

C C

L C

C C

L C

L L

C C

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

L L

L C

L L

e e

L L

C L

C C

C L

C C

C e

L L

C L

L L

C L

�

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

C C

L L

L C

C C

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C L

L L

C C

L L

e C

e L

L L

L C

L L

L C

C C

L C

C C

L L

L C

0 0

HOUSE

A "0" indicates the Repre s entative was absent or did not take a public stand.

Medicare and Social Security, HR 667 5 ; 1131 - - Housing and Urban Development Act, HR 7984; 11 3 2 - - Right to Work Repeal, C o lumn /1 2 9 _ _ Poverty War, HR HR 77, Recommittal; 11 3 3 _ _ Right to Work Repeal, HR 7 7 , Pas sage; 1134 - - Voting Rights Act, S 1 5 64; 1135 - - lBRD and lFC Changes, S 1 74 2 ; 11 3 6 - - Public Works . S 1 64 8 , C ongressional Review; 11 3 1 -- Public Works , S 1 648, P as s a g e ; /138 - - Foreign A i d A uthorization, HR 1 1 5 0 ; 1139 -- Farm Bill, HR 9 8 1 1 ; 1140 -- F ederally Empacted Schools Aid, HR 9 02 2 ; 1141 -_ Foreign Aid Appropriation, HR 1 0 8 7 1 ; 1142 -- Federal Aid to Arts , HR 9460 8 2 8 3 ; 11 3 0

ALABAMA Andrews , George W. (D) Andrews , Glenn (R) Buchanan, John H . • Jr. (R) Dickinson, William L . (H.) Edwards, W . Jack, III (R) Jon.:;:!, Robert

(0)

Martin, James O. (R) Selden, Armistead 1 . , Jr. ALASKA Rive r s . Ralph J. (D) E.

(D)

36 37

39 40 41

C C C C C

C L C C C

C C C C C

O L C C C

O L C L C

C C C e C

C C e C

C C

L L

C C

C L

C e

C L

C C

The Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

ARIZONA Rhodes, John J . (R) Senner, George F . • Jr. Udall, Morris K . (D) ARKANSAS Gathings , E. C. (D) Ol"Qn

(D)

Mills, Wilbur O. (D) Trimble, James W. (D) CALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F. (R) l-i"' ... ... i o= .

(D)

40 41

C L L

C L C

L L L

C L L

L L

L L L

C L L

C e C L

C e C C

C C C L

L L

C L L L

L L

C L

Page 357

CALIFORNIA (cont 'd) Bell, Alphonzo (R) Brown. George E . • Jr. (D) Burton, Phillip (D) Cameron, Ronald B. (D) Clausen. Don (R) Clawson, Del (R) Cohelan, Jeffery (0) Corman, James C. (D) Dyal. Kenneth W. (D) Edwards . W. Donlon (D) Gubs er, Charles S. (R) Hagen, Har Ian (D) Hanna, Richard T. (D) Hawkins . Augustus F. (D) Holifield, Chet (0) Hosmer. Craig (R) Johnson, Harold T. (D) King, Cecil R. (D) Leggett, Robert L . (0) Lipscomb, Glenard P. (R) Mailliard. William S. (R) McFall, John J. (0) Miller. George P . (D) Mos s , John E . (D) Reinecke. Edwin (R) Roosevelt, James (D) Roybal, Edward R. (D) Sisk, B. F . (0) Smith, H . Allen (R) Talcott, Burt L. (R) Teague, Charles M. (R) Tunney, John V. (D) Utt, James B . (R) Van Deerlin, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) Wilson. Charles H . (D) Younger, J. Arthur (R) COLORADO Aspinall, Wayne N, (D) Evans, Frank E. (D) McVicker, Roy H. (D) Rogers, Byron G, (D) CONNECTICUT Daddario, Emilio 0, (D) Giaimo, Robert N . (D) Grabowski, Bernard P . (D) Irwin, Donald J. (D) Monogan, John S . (D) St. Onge, William (D) DELAWARE McDowell, Harris B . , Jr. (D) FLORIDA Bennett, Charles E. (D) Cramer, William C. (R) Fascell, Dante B . (D) Fuqua , Don (D) Gibbons, Sam M. (D) Gurney, Edward J. (R) Haley. James A. (D) Herlong, A. Sydney, J r . (D) Matthews, D. R . {D} Pepper, Claude (D) Rogers, Paul G . (D) Sikes , Robert L. F. (D) GEORGIA Callaway, Howard H. (R) Davi s , John W. (D) Flynt, John J . , J r . (D) Hagan, G. Elliott (D) Landrum, Phil M. (D) Mackay, James A. (D) O'Neal, Maston E. (D) Stephens , Robert G . , J r . (D) Tuten, J. Russell (D) Weltner, Charles L. (D) HAWAII �naga, Spark M. (D) Mink, Patsy (D) [OAHO Hansen, George V. (R) White, Compton 1 . , Jr. (D) ILLINOIS �on , John B . (R) Annunzio, Frank (D) Arends, Leslie C . (R) Collier , Harold R. (R) Dawson, William L. (D) Derwinski, Edward J. (R) Erlenborn. John N. (R) Findley, Paul (R) Gray, Kenneth J. (D) Kluczynski, John C. (D) McClory, Robert (R) Michel, Robert H. (R) Murphy, William T, (D) O'Hara, Barratt (D) Price, Melvin (D) Pucinski, Roman C . (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) Ronan. Dan to) Rostenkowski, Dan (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) Schisler , Gale (D)

Page 358

C L L L L L L L C C C C L 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 C C C L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L C C C L C L L L C C L L C C L L C C

C L L L C C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L L L C L L L C C e L C L C L C

C L L L C C L L L L C L a L L C L L L C C L L L C L L L C C e L C L C L C

C L L C L L L L L L L 0 L L L 0 C L L C C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L C L C C C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L 0 L L L L C C L C C L L C C L L C L L L C C C C C L L L L C L L C L L L L C L L e

L L o L

L L

C L

L L L L

L L L L L L

C C L C L C C C C L C C

C L L C L L C L L L L L

C C

L L L L

L L L L L L

C C L C L C C C C L e C

C C L C C C C C C L e C

C C C C C C C C C L e C

C C

C L

C C

C L L C L C L

C L L C C L L

L L L C L L L

L L

C a

C L

L C C C O C L C C e

C L C

L L L L

L L L

L C C C e L

L O L L o L

L L L L L L

L L

C C L 0

L C L L L C C L L L C L 0

0 0

L L L L C C L L L L C L

L L 0 L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L C C L C L L a L L C L L L C L L L C

L C L L L

L L L o L o L O L

L L C C L e C C L L L C L e L C C C L C L C C e

0 0

e L L e C e C C L L C L

L L L L C c L L L L C L L L L L L L L C L L L L C L L L C C L L C L C L e

C L

L 0

L L L C L L L L C L L L L C L L L C L L L L L 0

L 0

C C C L C 0

L L

L L L L L L

L L L C L C C L C L L C

L L L O L L C L L L L L

C C

C C L L L e C C L L C L

e C L C L C e L C L C C

e C L O C C e C L L C L

L L L O L L L L

C C L C L C C C L L C C

C C L L C C C C L L L

e C e C C L C C C L

L L L C O L C L L L

C C

C C C C L L C C C L

L L L L L L L L L L

C C

L L L C L L L

C L L L L L L L L L

C e

C e e C C C C

e C e C e e C C C C

L L

C L

L L

e 0

e L

C C C C L L L L C C C C C C C e L L L L C C C C C C C C C C C C L L L L L L L L C L C C C C C C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C C C C L L L L L L L L o C C C L L L L

C L C e L C C C L L C C L L L L C L L C 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 L 0

L C L L L L C L L L L

L C e C C L L C L

C C L L e e C C L L C C C C C C L L L L C C C C L L L L L L L L C C L L L L C C L L

C C L L L e C C L L C C e e C C L C L L C C C C L L L L L L L C C C L L L L c e L L

L L L 0

C L L C C C L

C L L C L C C

L L

C L

L C L L

L L 0

L L L C L 0

L e L L L O C L L o L

C C L L L C C C L L e e C C L C L L L L C C e L L L L L L L L L C C L L L L C C L L

ILLINOIS (cont'd) Shipley, George E. (D) Springer , William L . (R) Yates, Sidney R. (D) INDIANA Adair, E. Ross (R) Brademas. John (D) Bray, William G . (R) Denton, Winfield K . (D) Halleck. Charles A. (R) Hamilton. Lee H. (D) Harvey, Ralph (R) Jacob s , Andrew, Jr. (D) Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L. (R) Roush, J. Edward (D) IOWA Bandstra. Bert (D) Culver, John C. (D) Greigg, Stanley L . (D) Gros s , H. R. (R) Hansen, John R. (D) Schmidhauser, John R. (D) Smith, Neal (0) KANSAS ---oB ore.- ob (R) Ellsworth, Robert F. (R) Mize, Chester L. (R) Shriver, Garner E. (R) Skubitz, Joe (R) KENTUCKY Carter, Tim Lee (R) Chelf, Frank (D) Farnsley, Charles P. (D) Natcher, William H. (D) Perkins, Carl D . (D) Stubblefield. Frank A. (D) Watts, John C . (D) LOUISIANA Boggs , Hale (0) Hebert, F. Edward (D) Long, Speedy O. (0) Morrison, James H. (D) Passman, Otto E. (D) Waggonner , Joe D . , Jr. (D) Willis, Edwin E. (D) MAINE Hathaway, William D. (D) Tupper , Stanley R. (R) MARYLAND r Fallon, George H. (D) Friedel, Samuel N. (D) Garmatz, Edward A. (D) Long, Clarence D. (D) Machen. Hervey G. (D) Mathia s , Charles McC . (R) Morton, Rogers C. B. (R) Sickles, Carlton R . (D) MASSACHUSETTS Bates, William H. (R) Boland, Edward P. (D) Burke, James A. (D) Conte, Silvio O. (R) Donohue. Harold D . (D) Keith, Hastings (R) Macdonald, Torbert H . ( D ) Martin, Joseph W . , J r . (R) McCormack, John W . (D) M01"se, F. Bradford (R) O'Neill, Thomas P . , Jr. (D) Philbin, Philip J . (D) MICHIGAN Broomfield, William S. (R) Cederberg, Elford A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E. (R) Clevenger. Raymond F. (D) Conye r s . John J . , J r . (D) Digg s , Charles C . , Jr. (D) oingell, John D . (D) Farnum, Billie S. (D) Ford, Gerald R . , Jr. (R) Ford. William D. (D) GrifCin, Robert P . (R) Griffiths , Martha W. (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) Mackie, John C. (D) Nedzi, Lucien N . (D) O'Hara, James G. (D) Todd, Paul H . (0) Vivian . Weston E . (D) MINNESOTA Blatnik, John A. (D) Fraser, Donald M. (D) Karth, Joseph E. (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor, Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) Olson, Alec G . (D) Ouie, Albert H. (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colmer, William M. (O) Walker, Prentiss (R)

The Dan

L C L

L L L

C L

C L L

C C L

L L L

C L L

L L L

C L C L C L C L L C L

C L C L C L C L L e L

L L L L L L L L L L L

C L L L

C C L L C C L L L C L L C C L C L L C C e L

L L L a O L L L L L

C L C L L L C L L e C

C L C L C C C L L o L

L L L L C L

L L L C L L L

L L C L L L

L C e L L

L L L C L L L

C L L C L L L

C L L L

C L C C C

C C C C C

C C C e C

L L L L L

C C C

C L C C C

C C C C C

L L L L L

C L L L L

C C C C C

C L C C C

L L L L L L L

C L L L L L L

C L L L L C C

L L L L L L O

L L L L L O

L L L L L L

L L L L L L L

C e L L L L L

L L L L L L L

C C

C L

L C C L C C L

L C C L C C C

L C C L C C L

L C C L C C C

L C e L C C C

L O L L C C L

L O L L C L

L L L C L 0

L e C L e C L

o L L o L

L L C L c C C

L L

L L L

L L C L

L L L L L L C L

L L L L L C C L

L L L L L L O L

0 0

L L L L L L C L

L L L L L C L

L L L L L L L L

C L L L L L L C

L L L L L L L L

L L L C L L L C

C L L C L C L C

C L L C L L L C

L L L L L L L

L L L L L L 0

e L L C L C e e

L L L L L L L L

L L L

C L L

L L L

e L L

L L L

C C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

L C C L C C L C C L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C C C L L L L C C L L L L C C L C e L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L

e C C L L L L L C L C L C e 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 L L L L L

C C C L L

L L L L C L L L L L

L L C C C L C

L L L C C C L C

L L L L L O L L

L L L e L O L L

C C C

C c C

C e C

C o

L L L 0

L 0 0

C L C L C L C L L C L L L

C 0

C L C L C L L C L L 0

L L e L e L C C L L L C e

L C e L e L C C L L L C L

L L L e e C

L L L C e C

L L L L

C L L L

L C C L L C C

C L C C L

L L

C L e C C e C L

L L L L L L L L

a L L a L L C L

C L L C L L e L

L L L L L L L

C L L L

L L L L L L L L

L L

L C C C C C L L L L L L L L L C L C L L L C L L C C C C L L L C 0 L L L L L

L C C L L

L C C L L L L L L L L L C e L L L L ' L

L L

L O C L L L L L L O L L O

L 0

0 0

L L L C C C L L 0

L L C L C L C e C L 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 L L L C C L L L C L L L C

e C C

L L C

C C C

L L L 0

0 0

Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

MISSISSIPPI (c ont ' d ) Whitten, Jamie L .

(D)

Williams, John B e l l ( D ) MISSOURI Bolling, Richard

(R)

Hall, Durward G .

(R)

Hull. W.

(D)

R. . Jr.

Hungate. William L .

(D)

Ichord. Richard H.

(D)

Karsten, Frank M.

(D)

Jones, Paul C.

(D)

Randall. William J.

(D)

Sullivan. Leanor Kretzer

(D)

MONTANA Battin, James F. Olsen, A rnold NEBRASKA (D)

Martin, David T.

(R)

NEVADA (D)

NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland,

James C .

Huot. J. Oliva

(R)

NEW JERSEY (R)

Daniels . Dominick V.

(D)

Dwye r . Florence P .

(R)

Frelinghuysen. Peter, Jr. Gallaghe r . Cornelius E . He!stoski. Henry

(D)

1oelson, Charles S.

(D)

McGrath. Thomas C .

•

Krebs, Paul J.

(R)

(D)

Howard. James J. (D)

Mini sh, Joseph G.

Jr.

(D)

Patten, Edward J .

Jr.

•

(D)

Rodino, Peter W . , Jr.

(D)

Thompson, Frank, Jr.

(D)

Widnall, William B'.

(R)

Morris, Thomas G.

to)

NEW MEXICO

Walker, E. S.

(D)

Bingham, Jonathan B. Carey, Hugh

(D)

Celler, Emanuel

(D)

Conable, Barber B . , J r .

Delaney, James Dow, John G .

(D)

Dulski , Thaddeus J.

Fino, Paul A.

(D)

(R)

Gilbert. Jacob H .

(D)

Goodell, Charles E. Halpern, Seymour Hanley. James M. Kelly, Edna F .

(R)

(D)

Lindsay, John V.

(R)

(D)

McEwen, Robert C .

(R)

Multer, Abraham J.

(D)

O ' Brien. Leo W .

(D)

Pike. Otis G .

(D)

Pirni e , Alexander

(D)

(R)

Resnick. Joseph

(D)

Robison. Howard W. Rooney, John J.

Ryan, William Fitts

(D)

Scheuer, James H.

(R)

Tenzer, Herbert (D)

Wydler. John w .

(R)

Herbert C .

(D)

Broyhill, James T. Cooley, Harold O. Fountain. L. H.

(D)

NORTH C A ROLINA Bonner,

(R) (D)

(D)

Jonas, Charles Raper

Kornegay, Horace R . (D)

Taylor, Roy A.

(D)

Whitener, Basil L .

NORTH DAKOTA

Andrews, Mark Redlin, ROlland OHIO

(R)

(D)

Scott, Ralph J.

(D)

(R)

(D)

Ashbrook, John M.

(R)

L L L L

0 0

41 C C

�

0 0

L L

L L C C C L C L L C L 0 C L L L L L L L C C C L L C L L e L L L e L L C L e e C C C C C O O C L C L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L C L L C L L L L L L L 0 0 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 e e L e e e

L L L L L L L L L L L 0 0 e e L C L L

L L C L L L

L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L L L L

L 0 0 0 0 0 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C C C 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 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 L L L L C L L C C L L

L L o 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 C

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C C C L L L L 0 L L L L e e c e 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 0 L L L L L L L L e e C L� L L L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L o

L L L L L L L L L C 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 C C L

L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L L 0 L 0 L C L o L L L L L L L L L L L L C C L C C L C L 0 L L L C C 0 L L L e e L L L L L L 0 o 0 L L L C L L L L L L L L L C C 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 L L L L L L L L L L

C C

·C C

C C

L L

L L C C L C C L e e L C C L C

L L L L L L L L L L L L o L

L L L L L L L

0 L L

0 0

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 L C L L L C L L L C

L L 0 L L L L L 0 L L

C C

L L L L L L L L 0 o L L L L L L C

L C L � L L L L L L L C O L L L C L L L

L L L

C C

L L L L

L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 0 C L L L L L C C L C L L C O L L L C L L L L C L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L e e C C C L e o L 0 L e L L L

L L L C L C L C L e L C L C L C L C L

C C

L L e L C L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 0 L 0 C L

L L C L C L L L L L 0 L C L C L L L L L L C L L e L L L L L L L L L L L L L L C L L L L L L L L e e L L L L L L C C C C L C C C C

L L L L L L

L L L C C L C C L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L 0 L L L 0 L L L L C C e L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L e L L L L C C C L C C C L

(D)

Henderson, David N .

Lennon, Alton

(D) ;

(D)

Stratton, Samuel S.

(R)

(D)

Ros enthal, Benjamin S.

Smith. Hemy P . . III

L L L L

(R)

Powell, Adam Clayton Reid, Ogden R.

McCarthy, Richard D .

Ottinger, Richard

(R)

(D)

Keogh, Eugene J.

Murphy, John M.

(R)

(D)

King, C a rleton J.

(D)

Horton. Frank J .

(R)

Grover. James R . , Jr.

WoHr, Lester

(R)

(D)

Farbstein, Leonard

L L C L L L L L e L L L

NEW YORK Addabbo, Jos eph P.

(D)

Cahill, William T.

(R)

Baring. Walter S.

L L L L

(D)

Callan, Clair A .

(R)

Cunningham, Glenn

(D)

Curtis . Thomas B.

L L

0 C

L L L C

0 C C C

29 OHIO

(cont'd)

Ashley, Thomas

Devine, Samuel

Latta, Delbert

Love, Rodney M.

(D)

McCulloch, William M . Minshall, William E. Mosher, Charles A .

(D)

OKLAHOMA Albert,

Carl

Edmondson, Ed

(D)

Johnson, Jed,

Jr.

Steed, Tom

(D)

OREGON Duncan, Robert B. Green, Edith Ullman, A l

Wyatt, Wendell

(R)

Barrett. Wi1liam A.

The Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

(D)

Byrne, James A.

(D)

Clark, Frank M.

(D)

Corbett, Robert J.

(R)

Craley, N . Neiman, Jr. Curtin, Wi1lard S. Dague, Paul B.

(D)

Fulton, James G .

(R)

G r e e n , William J . , III Holland. Elmer J . Johnson, Albert W . Kunkel, John C .

(D)

McDade. Joseph M. Morgan, Thomas E. Nix, Robert N , C .

Rhodes, ' George M.

(D) (D)

(D)

(R)

Schneebeli, Herman T .

(R)

Schweiker. Richard S. To1l, Herman

(R)

(D)

Vigorito, Joseph P.

(D)

Watkins , G. Robert J. Irving

(R) (R)

RHODE ISLAND

Fogarty, John E.

(D)

St. Germain, Fernand J.

(D)

SOUTH C A ROLINA Ashmore. Robert T. Dorn, W . J. Bryan Gettys , Thomas S. Rivers,

SOUTH DAKOTA Y.

Reifel, Ben

(R)

Everett, R obert A.

(D)

Grider, George W . (D)

Quillen, James H . Beckworth, Lindley Brooks , Jack

(oj

Cabell, Earle

(D)

Burleson, OITlar Bob

(D)

de la Garza, Eligio Fisher,

(D)

(R)

TEXAS

Casey,

(O)

(D)

Murray, Tom

O. C .

Poage. W . R.

(D) (D)

(D)

(D) (D)

(D)

Rogers, Walter

L L L L L L L L L L

L L L C L C L L C L L L 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 L L L L L L L L L L L L

(D)

36 L

L L L

L L L L L L

L L

L L L L 0 L C L L L L L L L L L C C L L L

L e L L L L 0 L C C L C L L 0 L L L L L C C L C L L L L C C C C C L C C C C C C L C L L L e L L C L C C C C L C e L L C L L C L

L L

L L L L

C C

L L L

L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L e L L L

L L L L L L L L C C C C L C C L L L L L 0 L L L C C C C L C C L L L C L L C L L L L C L 0 C L

L L L L L C

L L L L L

(R)

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

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 L L C L C C C C L L L L L 0 L 0 L L L L L L L L 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 L L L

L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L L 0

L L L C L C

L L L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L e L L L L L L C L C C L O O C C L L L L e L L L L L L C L L C L L L L L L L L L 0 L C L C C L C C L e L L L L e L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L C L c e o C C C C L L L L C L 0 0 L L 0 L L L L L C L C C L C L L C L

L L L L L C 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 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 e L L L C

L L

L L L L L L L L L L L L C

L e e

L L L C L C L e e e C C L L L L L L L C C e C C L C

c C L L L L L O L L L L L

0 C

C C

L L L L L L L L L L L

C C

0 0

L L

L L L L L L L 0 L C C C C 0 C C C C L C C C C C L L L L C L C L L L L L L 0 L 0 L L L 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L e L L C C C C L C C C C C

L L L C C e 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 C C C L C C C L L C C L C C C C L L C C C L 0 L C C C C C C C L C C C L L C C L L C C C .L C L L C L L C C

C C C C C L e e L L L L L L L L L L C C C C L L C C L L L L C L L L L L C L L C L L L L C C L C C C L e e C

(D)

Pool, Joe (D) Purcell, Graham Roberts, Ray

(D)

Patman, Wright

Brock, William E . , III

(R)

�ulton, ,Richard

(R)

Anderson, William R.

Evins , Joe

(R)

TENNESSEE

"' Ouncan , John J.

Mendel

Watson, Albert W, Berry, E .

(D)

L. (D) (D)

McMillan, John

(R)

Moorhead, William S.

Rooney, Fred B.

(R)

Saylor. John P.

(D)

Flood, Daniel J.

Whalley,

(D)

(R)

Dent, John H .

L L L L L L L L 0 L L L L C L L L C C L 0 L L L e L L L o L L L L L L L L L L 0 L L C L C C C L L C L C C L C L

(D)

PENNSYLVANIA

(R)

Jarman, John

L L L L L L C C C C L L L L L L L C C L C C L L L L L L L L L L L L L

(D)

Belcher, Page

Pickle, J.

(D)

Yanik. Charles A .

Mahon. George H.

(R)

Sweeney. Robert E.

(R)

Secrest, Robert T.

Gonzalez.. Henry B .

(D)

Stanton. J. William

(R)

Moeller, Walter H.

(D) (R)

L L

(R)

(D)

Dowdy, John

(D)

Harsha, William H. , J r .

Hays , Wayne L .

(R)

Kirwan, Michael J.

(R)

(D)

Gilligan. John J.

Feighan, Michael A.

(R)

Clancy, Donald O .

(R)

L L L L C L

Bolton, Frances P: Bow, Frank T.

o C

(R) (R)

(D)

Ayres, William H. Betts , Jackson E.

L L

C C

e L L L L e

L L L L

L L L L C L L L L L L L L C L

Page 359

TEXAS (cont'd) Teague, Olin E. (D) Thomas, Albert (D) Thompson, Clark W . (D) White, Richard C . (D) Wright, James C . • J r . (D) Young. John (D) UTAH Burton, Laurence J . (R) King, David S . (D) VERMONT StaHord. Robert T . (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M . (D) Broyhill, Joel T . (R) Downing, Thomas N . (D) Hardy. Porter, J r . (D) Jennings . W. Pat (D) Marsh, John 0. , J r . (D) Poff, Richard H . (R) Satterfield, David E. I III (D) Smith, Howard W . (D) Tuck, William M . (D) WASHINGTON Adams I Brockman (D)

C L L L L L

C L L C L L

C L L C L C

L L L

L C L L

L L

C L

L L

C C C C L C

C L C L L C

C C C L L C

C C C C L C

C C C C C C

C C C C

c c c c c C C C

C C C

C C C C L C C C C C

C C C C L C L C C C C C C C C C C C C L

C L L L

C C C C C

L L L L L L L L L L

L L C C C

C C C C L C L C C L C C C C C C C C C C

L L

0 0

C L L C

L L L C

C L

0 0

L L

0 0 -0

0 0

L C L L

C L

L L

(Continued from Page 356)

federal employees. Schools were considered "fed erally impacted" if children of federal employees constituted 60/0 of enrollment. On August 30, the House (by a stand of 305 to 37 ) passed HR 9022 , extending and amending this special school aid program. The vote is recorded in Column 40 under House C indicating a conservative stand against. -

HR 9022 redefines "federally impacted" to mean schools with 30/0 of enrollment from families of federal employees ; continues aid to schools pre viously receiving the aid even though federal mili tary bases which caused them to be impacted have

W H O

WASHINGTON (cont'd) Foley, Thomas S . (D) Hansen, Julia Butler (D) Hicks. Floyd V . (D) May, Catherine (R) Meeds. Lloyd (D) Pelly, Thomas M . (R) WEST VIRGINIA Heckler. Ken (D) Kee , James (D) Moore. Arch A . I J r . (R) Slack, John M . • J r . (D) Stagger s , Harley 0 , (D) WISCONSIN Byrnes , John W . (R) Davis , Glenn R . (R) Kastenmeier. Robert W . (D) Laird, Melvin R . (R) O'Konski, Alvin E . (R) Race, John A . (D) Reus s , Henry S . (D) Stalbaum. Lynn E . (D) Thomson, Vernon W . (R) Zablocki, C lement J . (D ) WYOMING Roncalio, Teno (D)

39 40

L L L C L C

L L L C L L

C L L C L C

L L L C L L

L L L L L

L L L C L C

L L C C L C

L L L C L C

L L L

L L L L L L

L L

L L L C L L

L L L

C L L

C C C

C L L

L L L

C C L

L L L

L L C L L

C L L

L L L

C L L

L L L

C C L C L L L L C L

L C L C L L L L C L

C C L C L L L L C L

L C

L L

C C

L L L C L

C C C L L C L

C L L L C L

C L L L L C L

L L L L L L

L L L C C

C L L C L L L L L L

C C L C C C L L C L

C C L C L L L L C L

L 0

0 0

been closed ; authorizes aid to schools damaged or destroyed by a "major disaster." FEDERAL AID TO ARTS : On September 1 5, 1965 , the House (by a stand of 2 59 to 1 36) de feated a conservative motion to kill HR 9460, which authorizes expenditure of $20 million a year to aid the arts and humanities. The vote is recorded in Column 42 under House C indicat ing a conservative stand against this dangerous, unconstitutional step toward government control of the arts. After defeating the motion to kill, the House passed HR 9460 by voice vote. President Johnson signed the bill into law (PL 89-209 ) on Septem ber 29. -

DAN

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

Page 360

The Dan Smoot Report, November 8, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 45)

::)

THE

I)tlil SmootReport I I , No. 46

Vol.

(Broadcast

534)

November

1 5, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

PEACE, PEAC E - WH EN THERE IS NO PEACE

I n a press release dated October

1 1 , 1965 , the U. S. Department of State said :

"Congress and the Executive Branch have provided laws and regulations to assure that nothing is traded with any communist country that will be detrimental to our national security and weI· fare. In the case of certain countries, such as C ommunist China, Cuba, North Korea and North Viet·Nam, trade is - with minor humanitarian exceptions - prohibited. "On the other hand, your Government regards commerce in peaceful goods with the countries of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, as completely compatible with our national inter· est . . " (1) .

In an interview on the British Broadcasting Company, October 4, 1 965, U. S. Under Secretary of State George W. Ball said : "The Soviet Union is actively supporting the regime in North Viet.Nam . .

" (2)

The Soviet Union is also actively supporting the regimes in Cuba, North Korea, and (despite widely publicized differences and jealousies ) communist China. If it is in our national interest to prohibit trade in "peaceful goods" with North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and communist China, how can it be in our national interest to have such trade with European communist countries that supply the "peaceful goods" to the prohibited communist coun tries ? What are "peaceful goods" ? On January 4, 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk announced that Firestone Tire and Rubber Company had signed a contract to build a fifty-million-dollar synthetic rubber plant in communist Romania. On April 22, 1965, Firestone announced cancellation of the deal, because outraged American conservatives were organizing a nationwide boycott of Firestone products. On July 26, 1965 , President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered Under Secretary of State Ball to investigate Firestone's cancellation. (3) The White House announced : "This government considers that Firestone's original intentions were in the national interest." ( 3 ) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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; 100 for $1O.0�ach price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 361

Romania sells heavy trucks to communist China, principal supplier of communist armies now fight ing Americans in Vietnam. (3) Hence, a synthetic rubber plant in Romania would directly benefit the enemy with whom we are presently at war, and all other communist countries with whom we may in the future be at war. Is this in our national interest ? On October 1 8, 1 965, diplomatic sources in London revealed details about a secret agreement authorizing sales of nuclear power reactors to communist countries of eastern Europe. This agree ment was made in July, 1 965, by the Inter-Allied Coordinating Committee (COCOM ) , represent ing Japan and 14 North Atlantic Treaty Organiza tion nations. Most of the nuclear power reactors sold to communist countries will be made in the United States, though some will be made in Great Britain. The power reactors will be sold only to those eastern European communist nations which promise to use them exclusively for "peaceful pur poses." (4) Is it in our national interest to supply communist countries the means of making nuclear weapons with which to kill us ? Can we rely on communist promises not to use nuclear power reactors for military purposes ? If we can trust communists, why squander the blood and treasure of our nation to fight com munism ? Or, are we reduced to the absurdity of accepting the State Department dictum that com munists are our mortal enemies in Asia, our trust worthy friends in Europe ? Foreign aid has been a major instrument of America's internationalist foreign policy. Since July, 1946, we have given more than 1 5 0 billion dollars to foreign nations and international organi zations. Presumably, our aid was intended to bind other nations to us in friendship and strengthen them as allies to help us "defend the free world. " Actually, our aid has strengthened and multiplied worldwide hatred of America and has enabled our allies to help our enemies. (5) Since the end of World War II, we have given

Japan about seven billion dollars. ( 5 ) Yet, the press Page 362

which dominates Japan is almost unanimously pro communist, hostile to the United States. Anti American feeling in Japan is intense, widespread, growing fast. (6) In the latter half of 1964, more than 200 ships flying the flags of Great Britain, Japan, Greece, Norway, Lebanon, Italy, West Germany, and Panama, hauled cargoes to North Vietnam. ( 7) These eight nations, supplying the enemy with whom we are at war, have received more than 39 billion dollars of our tax money as foreign aid since 1 946. (5) The India-Pakistan war this year demonstrated the result of our foreign aid programs. India has received about six billion of our tax dollars ; Paki stan, about two billion. We have financed the armaments race between these two nations ; each uses equipment and supplies we have given; and each hates us for the help we have given the other. Since 1945 , we have poured billions of dollars into United Nations agencies and activities, pro claiming the UN the cornerstone of our foreign policy, touting it as man's last hope for peace on earth. The utter futility of the UN as a peacemaker is universally recognized. Yet, when Pope Paul visited New York and heaped praise on the UN as "the last hope of concord and peace," Presi dent Johnson met the Pope and heaped praise on him for trying to salvage UN prestige. (8) On September 9, 1 965, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) "is the centerpiece of the world wide system we have been building for 20 years to protect the Free World." On the same day, President Charles de Gaulle said that France would no longer accept NATO's integrated de fense command after 1969. (9) We have spent hun dreds of billions of dollars on NATO, and have built it on France as the keystone, with command headquarters in Paris. Without France, therefore, NATO, as presently organized and commanded, is useless. France never made a strong gesture of support for NATO. In 1959, de Gaulle eliminated all but token French support by refusing to permit American missiles bases on French soil, and by withdrawing most French troops from the NATO The Dan Smoot Report, November 1 5, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 46)

command. Consequently, de Gaulle's September 9, 1 965 , statement (amounting to formal notice that NATO must remove its command headquarters from France by 1 969) merely reaffirms French pol icy which has been known to the United States for many years. President Johnson's September 9, 1965, statement about NATO being the "center piece" of our worldwide defense system is another exhibition of the mental bankruptcy of totalitarian liberals. Though faced with absolute proof that their internationalist foreign policy has been a fail ure, they can think of nothing to do except to squander more American blood and money on the same failure; they can think of nothing to say ex cept to repeat their cliches about "defending the free world."

The first complete, formal statement of Ameri can foreign policy was made by George Washing ton in his Farewell Address to the People of the United States, September 17, 1796. Washington urged America to avoid permanent, entangling alliances with other nations, recom mending a national policy of benign neutrality toward the rest of the world. Washington did not want America to build a wall around herself. His policy permitted freer exchange of travel, commerce, ideas, and culture between Americans and other people than Americans have enjoyed since the policy was abandoned. The Father of our Country wanted the government kept out of the wars, revolutions, and political affairs of other nations. He said :

undisturbed pursuit of national self interest. Amer ica was destined to be the torchbearer of liberty for all mankind, a living example of how free men could govern themselves and prosper and live in peace. America was not ordained to be a bread basket for the world, not a meddler in the affairs of foreign nations, not a constable to enforce peace among warring countries. The Farewell Address is a prayer that Americans, by preserving for them selves the blessings of liberty under constitutional government, would "acquire . . . the glory of recommending" their system "to the applause, the affection and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it." The foreign policy of George Washington was followed until April 2 , 1917, when Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany, to make the world safe for democ racy. Wilson's airy evangelism sent thousands of men to bleed and die on foreign soil in World War I. After it was over, Americans realized their error : they had not made the world safe for anything worthwhile.

"Why forego the advantage of so peculiar a situation [ as America has ] ? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by inter weaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or· caprice?"

Washington told Americans their nation had a high destiny, which it could not fulfill if they permitted their government to become entangled in the affairs of other nations. The American destiny was something more than The Dan Smoot Report, November 15, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 46)

Revolted by the bloody and costly consequences of our first major venture in international meddl ing and uplifting, we returned to our traditional policy of political isolation. Franklin D. Roosevelt got himself elected three times on a platform of political isolation. In 1940, however, while promising to keep the United States out of World War II, Roosevelt was work ing to get us involved. When he succeeded, he inaugurated America's present internationalist pol icy of world-meddling - of perpetual war for perpetual peace. (10) Such men as former President Herbert Hoover and Senator Robert A. Taft said, at the time, that American involvement in World War II would be a gargantuan error: getting in the war on the side of communism would be suicidal - we should stay out and let Hitler and Stalin destroy each other. Page 363

In August, 1 941, Herbert Hoover joined in a public statement which said: "The American people should insistently de mand that Congress put a stop to step-by-step projection of the United States into undeclared war . . . . "Few people honestly believe that the Axis is now, or will in the future be, in a position to threaten the independence of any part of this Hemisphere if our defenses are properly pre pared. Freedom in America does not depend on the outcome of struggles for material power be tween other nations."(ll)

Hiram Johnson trumpeted in the United States Senate a question which has never been answered. He said : "Good God! Did we ever sink so low before as to choose one cutthroat out of two? This man [ Stalin ] was Hitler's ally . . . . Now we furnish him with weapons which may be turned upon US."(ll)

Senator johnson's prophecy was fulfilled. Com munists have turned our weapons against us. As German power disintegrated in Europe, the Soviets - using supplies and equipment which we had given them - moved in to rape, pillage, enslave. They used our aid to control the con quered populations and to install and support their puppet communist governments. It was with our money that the Soviets paid, maintained and gave bonuses to, their own armies of occupation. It was with our aid that they dis mantled German rocket-producing plants and atomic-energy laboratories, and transported them to Russia. It was with our help that they took over rich uranium mines in Eastern Germany. It was with our acquiescence, and aid, that they kid napped many of Germany's best scientists and tech nicians and shipped them to Russia - where they designed weapons now used to intimidate the world. It was American equipment and supplies which Page 364

the Soviet Siberian armies used in the rape of Manchuria, after we had defeated Japan. Chinese communists used American materials to make war on our ally, Chiang Kai-shek.

J ust before his death, Franklin D.

Roosevelt

said:

"We have learned that w e cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent upon the well-being of other nations, far away . . . . We have learned to be citizens of the

world." ( 1 2 )

President Harry Truman initiated programs to implement the policy he had inherited - multiple alliances which scattered American military power all over the world on the presumption that Amer ica could not defend herself but could defend the world ; foreign aid to all nations which would accept it (including communist nations ) on the presumption that America could no longer stand alone, but could carry the world on her back. By 1949, America's post-war foreign policy had so stimulated communist expansion in Europe that something had to be done. Truman sent General Dwight D. Eisenhower to Europe to set up NATO as the "free world shield against com munism." NATO became a permanent multi-billion-dol lar commitment to defend Europe with American men and material, while European nations grew economically strong on our aid - strong enough to extend trade and aid to our enemies in com munist lands ; strong enough to compete with us industrially and to capture world markets from American industries being taxed to subsidize for eign competitors. Our defense of the free world in Europe worked at cross-purposes with our defense of the free world in Asia and Africa. The United States government supported communist propaganda against European colonialism while, at the same The Dan Smoot Report, November 15, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 46)

time, supporting European colonial powers. The result has been general resentment, or outright hatred, of the United States in all quarters. Our internationalist foreign policy has also failed in Latin America. Despite billions of dol lars which we have given Latin American nations, animosity toward the United States is more wide spread than ever. Never before has our military security been so endangered by the presence of enemy power and intrigue in the Caribbean area.

N othing could be more obvious than the fail

ure of our internationalist foreign policy. Yet, in ternationalists react with scorn when anyone sug gests return to the traditional American policy of national independence - which they call isolation ism - the policy which America actually followed for 148 years : from 1789 to 1917, and from 1920 to 1940. Indeed, internationalists often try to blame the failure of their own policy on isolationists. Yet, if isolationists had had their way about keeping us out of World War I, we would have saved thousands of dead and wounded American sol diers. We would have been spared the waste of natural resources and the great depression we suf fered in the backwash of World War I. We would also have been spared the New Deal socialist revo lution - which was fobbed off on the American people as a means of ending the depression.

skirmish threatens to involve America. The traditional policy of political isolation made it possible for America to become a powerful citadel of freedom, a beacon of hope for all men everywhere. Why not return to that policy ? Internationalists assume that because we have airplanes, missiles, mass-destruction weapons, and instantaneous worldwide communications, Amer ica can no longer live an independent national life. Actually, we are in better position to live inde pendently now than we were in the early nine teenth century. We were then a rural nation, heav ily dependent on European manufacturers for farm implements, household goods, transportation ve hicles, books, musical instruments, medicines, clothing, building supplies. Arguments for American intervention in Euro pean struggles were far more logical and com pelling in the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson than they are now: - The French, claiming a debt of gratitude, de manded our help, arguing that Britain would take back the American colonies if she succeeded in defeating France. - England, claiming bonds of kinship and tra dition, warned that England stood as America's only protection against conquest by Napoleon.

If isolationists had had their way about keeping us out of WorId War II, Hitler and Stalin might have destroyed each other, and the evil systems they controlled might have died with them. There would have been no Korean war, which cost us another 5 3,000 dead, and ended in disgrace for the United States. If isolationists had had their way, the United States would not today be so entangled in the affairs of all nations on earth that every border The Dan Smoot Report, November 1 5, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 46)

- Spain, with colonies to the south and west of us, and with claims on most of the vast Louis iana Territory, entered the tug-of-war, trying to drag America into the endless turmoil of Euro pean politics. We were a weak and backward nation in those days. Many thought we could not maintain a pol icy of political isolation - that we could not sur vive unless we j oined hands with one or another of the great powers of Europe. They were wrong. We maintained our national independence; we survived; we prospered. Page 365

Suggestion that America return to a policy of

national independence brings objections from peo ple who have been saturated with propaganda about America's world responsibilities.

The American government has no world respon sibility - has no constitutional right or power to concern itself with how people in other nations live or what they do, as long as they do not violate the rights of Americans. American individuals, as decent human beings, do have large responsibilities - and should have freedom, from their own government, to fulfill their responsibilities in compliance with individual means and conscience. When our government con fiscates our earnings to provide assistance to for eign governments, it robs us of the means to meet our personal responsibilities. One of America's world responsibilities, accord ing to the majority opinion of our political and intellectual leaders, is to help backward or under developed nations build industrial systems like ours so that their living standard will be raised. Actually, American foreign aid gravely injures the backward nations it is supposed to help, and prepares them for communist conquest. Even Dr. Hans Morgenthau (a leading interna tionalist intellectual who believes in a world meddling, world-uplifting American foreign pol icy) says: "Successful foreign aid, infused into a primitive society, is, by the very nature of its success, a revolutionary and disruptive element, not at all a factor making for social stability. This being so . . . it may well be considered a blessing in disguise that in many countries our policy of foreign aid has not been successful; for, had it been, it might well have undermined the very status quo to whose support we are committed."

What happens to the self-reliance of people in an

underdeveloped nation after we give them com

plicated machinery which they cannot produce Page 366

themselves, cannot maintain, cannot even under stand ? Where do we end in this program of using American tax money in a futile effort to revolu tionize backward nations ? We end in disaster for ourselves and for the people we have tried to help. They are not ready for a complicated industrial system. We are forcing upon them a way of life which they are not yet capable of accepting. We cut them loose from customs and moorings of their own systems, making them victims of any political leaders who can seize power. We consider America's advancement from a rural, backward nation to our present status as having been remarkably fast; it was ; it took only 175 years ! Much of the basic scientific information that we have today was known more than a century ago. Why, then, did it take 175 years to develop our complex, industrial civilization ? Because a whole people had to adapt and adjust culturally and intellectually to a machine-age! What if our present-day technological system had been thrust suddenly upon Americans of the early nineteenth century ? It would have destroyed them. They were not ready for it. Yet, Americans of the early nine teenth century ( in cultural, political, and techno logical development) were ages ahead of peoples whom we now try to push into our twentieth century way of life! America's advancement was not due to more abundant natural resources. Many underdeveloped areas possess more unexploited natural resources than America ever had. Our spectacular growth was made possible be cause we had a political system which gave us freedom from our own government, a foreign pol icy which kept us out of foreign wars. Our political system released the energy and in genuity of every individual ; it attracted foreign capital by guaranteeing the inviolability of valid The Dan Smoot Report, November 1 5, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 46)

contracts ; it nourished growth of domestic risk capital by guaranteeing that man was entitled to whatever rewards he could honestly earn with his own effort and money. Our growth was achieved by private, not govern mental, effort. This is the only safe and effective way for any nation to achieve industrial growth. When industries develop under private capitalism, they must operate efficiently and profitably; they must produce goods the public wants, and improve production as the consumer market develops. These controls do not operate on governments. Governmental plans for industrial development tend to be grandiose and impractical, often influ enced by the greed, corruption, and political am bition of p lanners, rather than by needs of the peo ple. This tendency is inevitable and fatal, when the governmental planners get their funds, not through taxes imposed on their own people, but as foreign aid from abroad. The initiative for any "improvement" in a back ward area must come from the people of that area. People wanting to develop industries can get American private capital if they will first establish themselves as good credit risks - by adopting a political system to prevent their own government from confiscating foreign investments in their country. That is how Americans originally got foreign capital to help develop industry. W H O

If people in backward areas are ready for modern farm machinery, private American busi ness firms will send experts to teach them to use it. If they want day schools for their children and lessons in hygiene, all they need do is show a little more tolerance toward Christian missionaries from the United States. What, then, should the United States govern ment do about all the backward countries ? Leave them alone, just as we insisted that other nations leave us alone when we were a backward nation! We never would have moved an inch forward, if we had depended on other governments - or our own - to give us something.

One

of our alleged world responsibilities to promote world peace.

We cannot prevent other nations from warring on one another ; but we could keep our own nation out of war if we would maintain such strong national defense that none would dare touch us and if we would return to the traditional American foreign policy of benign neutrality which George Washington recommended in 1796. We would thus make our maximum contribu tion to world peace. Without American help, other nations could not afford the costly destructive wars which they have been fighting in this century with our money.

D A N

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1 940. In 194 1, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1 942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. The Dan Smoot Report, November 15, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 46)

Page 367

Our disastrous internationalist policy is founded on, and tied to, the United Nations, where the momentous decision of war or peace has been taken from our hands.

( 2 ) Department of State Press Release No. 2 35 , October 6, 1965,

An initial step toward promoting world peace, by re-establishing traditional American foreign policy, must be withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

AP from Washington, The Dalias Morning News, July 29, 1965,

10 pp. ( 3 ) "Romanian Tire Deal

Fizzles Under Pressure" by Robert

Dietsch, The Washington Daily News, April 29, 1965; AP from Washington, The Dallas Times Herald, July 2 5 , 1 965, p. 5A; p. 3D; "Threatened With Boycott, Company Drops Red Deal" by Bernard Gwertzman, The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1965 ( 4 ) AP from London, The Dalias Morning News, October 19, 1 965, p . 2A ( 5 ) For details on the foreign aid program, including a listing of

Hope Of The World

nations and amounts of money received, see this Report, "Foreign Aid Is Killing America," October 2 1 , 1963.

Our regular Christmas Report, "The Hope Of The World ," dated December 6, 1965 , is already off the press, available for those who want quanti ties to use as Christmas greetings. If you have never seen this issue, and would like to read it to deter mine whether you want to use it as a Christmas greeting, you may order a single copy. Our regular reprint prices apply - 25c for a single copy, quan tity prices as shown at the bottom of the first page of each Report.

( 6) "Worldgram," U.S. News & World Report, October 2 5, 1965, p . 77 ( 7 ) Remarks of U. S. Representative Paul G. Rogers (Dem., Fla. ) , Congressional Record, March 10, 1965, p. 4569 ( daily )

( 8 ) "Special Report: Pope Paul's Visit to the U.N., its meaning and message" by Russell Shaw, Our Sunday Visitor, October 1 7 , 1 9 6 5 , p. 3 ( 9 ) "LBJ Lauds NATO as De Gaulle Denigrates It and Common Market," Atlantic Community News, September, 1965, pp. 1, 2 ( 10 ) Perpetual Jf/ar for Pe"petual Peace edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, 1953, 679 pp. ( 1 1 ) Roosevelt's Road to Russia by George N. Crocker, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1 959, pp. 93-4, 9 2

FOOTNOTES

( 1 2 ) " Fourth Inaugural Address" January 20, 1945, The Inaugural Add" e,rses of The America1l Presidents, From Washington To

( 1 ) Department of State Press Release No. 240, October 1 1 , 1965, 3 pp.

Subscription:

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00

1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The Invisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise Long-Play Record Albums The Fearless American Deacon Larkin's Horse 01lr Nation's Pact IVith The Devil

Ken1ledy,

Holt,

Reinhart,

Winston, New York City,

NAME (Please Print)

- $ 4.00

- $ 1 .00 - $ 2.00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

ZIP CODE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9538, DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 Page 368

and

1961, p. 248

TAYLOR 1-2303

The Dan Smoot Report, November 1 5, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 46)

IHE

I)t/II Smootlie,ort Vol. 1 1, No.

(Broadcast

535)

November

22, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

THE AMERICA WE LOST "The Amel'ica We Lost" was written by Dr. Mario A . Pei (Professor of Romance Languages at Columbia University ) . Originally published in the May 3 1 , 1 9 5 2, issue of the Saturday Evening Post ( copyright by The Curtis Publishing Company ) , Dr. Pds article has been reprinted by several other publications and widely distributed, in leaflet form, by the Foundation for Economic Education. It merits repl'inting again .

When I first came to America, forty-four years ago, I learned a new meaning of the word "liberty" - freedom from government. I did not learn a new meaning for "democracy." The European country from which I came, Italy, was at that time as "democratic" as America. It was a constitutional monarchy, with a par liament, free and frequent elections, lots of political parties and plenty of freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. But my native country was government-ridden. A vast bureaucracy held it in its countless ten tacles. Regardless of the party or coalition of parties that might be in power at the moment, the government was everywhere. Wherever one looked, one saw signs of the ever-present government - in the uniforms of numberless royal, rural and municipal policemen, soldiers, officers, gold braided functionaries of all sorts. You could not take a step without government intervention. Many industries and businesses were government-owned and government-run - railroads, tele graphs, salt and tobacco among them. No agreement, however trivial, was legal unless written on government-stamped paper. If you stepped out of the city into the country and came back with a ham, a loaf of bread or a bottle of wine, you had to stop at the internal-revenue barriers and pay duty to the government, and so did the farmers who brought in the city's food supply every morn ing. No business could be started or run without the official sanction of a hundred bureaucrats. Young people did not dream of going into business for themselves ; they dreamed of a modest but safe government job, where they would have tenure, security and a pitiful pension at the end THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 14; 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 2 5 ¢ ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $1O.0O-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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized No Reproductions Permitted. Page 369

Dallas ,

Texas.

of their plodding careers. There was grinding taxation to suppor't the many government func tions and the innumerable public servants. Every body hated the government - not j ust the party in power, but the government itself. They had even coined a phrase, "It's raining - thief of a government !" as though even the evils of nature were the government's fault. Yet, I repeat, the country was democratically run, with all the trap pings of a many-party system and all the freedoms of which we in America boast today.

Above all, the national ideal was not the obscure security of a Government job, but the boundless opportunity that all Americans seemed to consider their birthright. Those same Americans loved their Government then. It was tpere ' to help, protect and defend them, not to restrict, befuddle and harass them. At the same time, they did not look to the Government . for a livelihood or for special privileges and handouts. They were independent men· in the full sense of the word. Foreign-born citizens have been watching with alarm the gradual Europeanization of America over the past twenty years. They have seen the growth of the familiar European-style Government octopus, along with the vanishing of the American spirit of freedom and opportunity and its replace ment by a breathless search for "security" that is doomed to defeat in advance in a world where nothing, not even life itself, is secure.

America in those days made you open your lungs wide and inhale great gulps of freedom laden air, for here was one additional freedom freedom from government. The Government was conspicuous by its very absence. There were no men in uniform, save occasional cops and firemen, no visible bureau crats, no stifling restrictions, no Government monoplies. It was wonderful to get used to the American system : To learn that a contract was valid if written on the side of a house ; that you could move not only from city to the country but from .state to state and never be asked what your business was or whether you had anything to declare ; that you could open and conduct your own business, provided it was a legitimate one, without Government interference; that you could go from one end of the year to the' other and never have contact with the national Government, save for the cheery postman who delivered your mail with a speed and efficiency unknown today ; that there were no national taxes, save hidden exCises and import duties that you did not even know you paid.

Far more than the native-born, they are m a position to make comparisons. They see that America is fast becoming a nineteenth-century model European country. They are asked to be lieve that this is progress. But they know from bitter experience that it just isn't so.

The Cyclonic Pace

In that horse-and-buggy America, if you made an honest dollar, you could pocket it or spend it without having to figure what portion of it you "owed" the Government or what possible deduc tions you could allege against that Government's claims. ' You did not have to keep books and rec ords of every bit of income and expenditure or run the risk of being called a liar and a cheat by someone in authority. Page 370

Unconstitutional encl'oachment of the fedel'al gov emment into affairs of local communities and states, and into lives of individuals, has multiplied alal'm ingly since Dr. Pei wrote liThe Amel'ica We Lost" in 1 9 5 2 . Note the Septembet· 27, 1965, Report From Washington by U. S. RepreJentative Richard H. Poff ( Virginia Republican ) , illustrating what the first ses sion of the 89th Congt'ess did in less than nine m onths.

New federal spending programs are being cre ated and old programs are being expanded and diversified at such a cyclonic pace it is impossible to inventory, much less to assess the impact of, the whole package. Here, simply to illustrate the scope and depth of the spectrum', are 50 examples of estimated authoriz<J,tior:s for appropriations, showing first year costs and cumulative costs:

'The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

Estimated Costs 1st Year

Example of Legislation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Housing, Rent Subsidies, and Urban Development. Community Health Services and Immunization_. Rapid Rail Transit, Washington, D. C. Poverty Program Expansion : Federal Aid to Higher Education Area Redevelopment, Public Works Acceleration Community Health & Mental Facilities and Staffing Social Security, Medicare and Public Assistance 9. Regional Medical Centers 10. Appalachia Assistance 11. Water Resources Planning Act. 12. Manpower Development and Training 13. Federal Aid to Elementary, Secondary Schools 14. Older Americans Act 15. High S peed Rail Service Research 16. Military Pay Raise 17. Federal Pay Raise 18. National Arts-Humanities FoumJ.ation . 19. Highway Beautification 20. State Technical Services Act � 21. Rivers and Harbors Projects 22. Peacetime GI Cold War Benefits 23. Water Pollution ControL 24. Saline Water 25. Air Pollution �. Additional Cost of River Basin -Projects.. 27. Pension Increase for Federal Employees 28. Vocational Rehabilitation Programs 29. Health Professions Education 30. Arms Control and DisarmamenL 31. Pesticides Research 32. Health Research Facilities Extension � 33. Veterans Rehabilitation Cost-of-Living Increase. 34. Training Seriously Disabled Veterans 35. Ship Construction Subsidies. : 36. International Coffee AgreemenL 37. Water Resources Research AcL 38. Peace Corps Extension . 39. National Teacher Corps and Fellowships for Elementary, Secondary Schools 40. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4 1 . Conservation Program for Great Lakes Fish 42. Crime Control Training 43. National Wild Rivers System 44. Teacher Sabbaticals 45. Cape Lookout National Seashore 46. St. Croix Scenic Railway 47. Ellis Island National MonumenL 48. Assateague Island National Recreation Area 49. Spruce Knob (W. Va.) Recreation Area 50. Juvenile Delinquency Program

_________________ ________________________________________.

_______________________________________________________________ .

_________________ . ________________________________________________ •_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______.

_______________________ _______________________

____________________________________________

_____.

_____________________________________________________________ ____________________________ .

__________________________________________________________.

_____________________________________________________ .

__________________________ ___________________________________ .

__________________ ___________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________________________.

______________ ___________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________ _

___________________________________________________________________________________________ _

______________________________________ ___________________________________________.

_________________________________________________ _____________.

___________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________________________________________ __

___________________ . ____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________.

______________________________________. __________________________________________________________________ ________

____________________________________________________________ ________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ _ _

______________________ _____________________________ ___________________________ _ _

___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________ ______________________________---------------------

------------.

__________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ _____.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________________________________________________________ _ _ _.

_____ _.._ ______ ____ ____ ___ _______ ___________ __ ___ ______ _ ____________ _______ _ ___ _ __ ____ ___________ _____ ___.

___ ______ _ _____________ ___•_ ___ ______ _ ___ __ __ _ ______ ____________ ____ ______________ __ ____ _ ___ __ __ _____ _____ ____________ ______ ___.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________________________________________.

_________________________________________ __________________________________.

_________________________________________________________ ___________________________.

_ _ _ ____________________________________________________________________________________________.

________________________ .. ______________________________________________________________ _

___________________ _ _ _ _ _ __________ _________________________________________________________________________________.

________________ �_ ______ ___ ______ __ _____ __ _________ _____ __ _______ _ ____

__ _____ ___ _ _

____________________________________________________ __________.

__________________ ________________________________________________________________.

___ _ _____ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _____ __________

____ _ _____ _____ ______ __ ___ ________ _ ___ __________ ____________ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________________________________________________________________ .

_____________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ _____________________ ______________________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

_______________________ __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ --- ---------- - ---- - - - ------- ----- ----- - - --- - -- - -- ---

- - - -- - - - -.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________- - ------------ - ---- -------- -- --- -----------------.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _____ _ _ ____ __ _ _ - - -- - - - - - - - - ------ -- - - - -- ------------ ------ -- ------------------------- - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-_ _ _ _ _ _ _._____________________________________________----------.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

________________

----

. . - - -________________________ ,____________________________________ --, -- --- -

.. ________________ ___________________ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----------

_ _ _. . . . _. .__________________________________________________________________ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ . . .

Estimated Total Cumulative Authorizations

____________________________________________________ --------------------- . .

It will be noticed that the list does not· include some of the larger spending programs such as Foreign Aid, Agriculture subsidies, etc. Neither does it include spending from the several trust funds such as Social Security, Interstate High ways, etc. The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

million million million billion 672 million 760 million 45 million 6.5 billion 50 million 365 million 1 1.7 million 454 million 1.34 billion 6.5 million 20 million 1.04 billion 621.6 million 20 million 160 million 10 million 1.989 billion 338 million 170 million 35 million 20 million 944 million 101.9 million 400 million 200 million 10 million 3.2 million 93.6 million 1.6 million 3.2 million 124.9 million 150 million 5 million 115 million 35 million 5.19 billion 5 million 2 million 1.8 million 50 million 9.3 million 6.5 million 6 million 24 million 19.8 million 6.5 million

$ 935 28 431 1.8

Years 4 4

Cumulative Amount $ 7,400,000,000 112,000,000 431,000,000 5,400,000,000 4,700,000,000

3 5 5 4

3,250,000,000 235,000,000 32,500,000,000 650,000,000 1,092,400,000

5 4 6 10 4

117,000,000 1,810,000,000 6,600,000,000 49,000,000 90,000,000 5,240,145,000

5 5 3 5

6,,821,000,000 60,000,000 320,000,000 60,000,000 1,989,428,500 1,930,000,000 380,000,000

5 3 2 3 5 4 5 3 2 5 3 4 3 3 3 5 5

5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

185,000,000 60,000,000 944,00,0 ,000 559,500,000 1,414,250,000 800,000,000 30,000,000 13,200,000 280,000,000 8,100,000 16,000,000 124,900,000 150,000,000 39,000,000 345,000,000 236,000,000 26,000,000,000 25,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 150,000,000 9,265,000 6,500,000 6,000,000 24,015,000 19,780,000

16,500,000 $112,717,983,500

The Overregulated State The following editorial, published by the Littleton ( Colorado ) Independent, was inserted in the Congres sional Record by U. S. Senator Peter H. Dominick ( Colorado Republican ) on O ctober 8, 196 5 . It gives Page 371

details on governmental harassments, commonplace in this age of big government, which were unknown in The America We Lost.

This shot is fired in anger. Congress, eager to please a dozen big union leaders since 1 939, has made it almost impossible for little businessmen to obey the law. There are 4 million entrepreneurs in America, and 3,900,000 of these employ only from 1 to 80 persons. These small businessmen are the backbone of their communities. They are the stable element in a mobile society, and they are proud to provide jobs for families in their neighborhoods. They collect taxes for the Federal Government, for the State government, and for the city govern ment. They sit up nights preparing figures for government forms. Many can't get this done at nights, and they come back to the office on Sat urdays and Sundays. They pay out money for an accountant to cal culate some of the monthly reports, but they are unable to pay a labor lawyer $20 an hour to be at their elbows day after day. Every now and then one of them comes to this newspaper. "I am closing up my business and taking a civil service job or one with a big cor poration," they are saying in substance. "I j ust can't keep up with all the laws." One Main Street businessman had to surrender his records. The Government agent kept them for 6 months. The merchant worried. He thought about Disraeli who said, "A man can stand only so much uncertainty." After his term in purgatory was up, the agent returned the records. He gave the merchant a clean bill of health. Another businessman not far from Main Street also had a visitor. The agent asked for a desk and stayed 1 3 months. Morale in that office went down. At the end of the period, the agent again gave a

good report. Page 372

Those two cases involved income taxes and excise collections. It is harder to comply in other fields, such as public health requirements or on labor clauses. Until a few years ago, Littleton's chief income was derived from small dairies. Then the State government passed laws that drove every one of them out of business. Now we come close to having milk trusts. This newspaper has had trouble with the De partment of Labor for 2 months. When the agent arrived to swoop up our records, we had confi dence that we were complying with the minimum wage and overtime laws. But we didn't know what the bureaucrats m Washington had done. We were assessed a penalty for our sins. We can pay off this penalty from the profits of 73,000 extra newspaper sales (in a town of 4,900 homes) . What was our mistake ? We made two. The first was in looking upon our staff as members of the family. Some years ago we decided to give about one-third of the monthly profits to the employees. The Depart ment of Labor says you can't use this as an incen tive. Washington has its own formula. For example, Employee A, with 20 years of experience, draws $ 1 10 a week as a supervisor. Employee B, with 2 years of experience, gets $90. If business thrives and both men work Saturday, Mr. A gets $ 1 10 for the week as usual and B gets $ 1 17. All of this makes a bigger profit, and when profit-sharing time comes around, it would seem logical to pay Mr. A 1 10 units of profit to B's 90. The bureaucrats in Washington won't let you do that. You must pay A 1 10 units of profit and B (the beginner) must get 1 17 units. For violating this regulation from Washington, we were heavily penalized. Our second violation concerned monthly wage earners. Reporters must necessarily keep odd hours. We The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

explain the assignments to them when they are employed. The Department of Labor won't stand for this. It will allow a newspaper to hire a reporter for $1.2 5 an hour. If that reporter works 42 hours a week, he is to get $3.75 for the extra 2 hours making his pay $53.75 for the week. It is illegal to say, "Joe, we want you to go to one meeting a week and work 2 hours at it, above your regular 8-to-5 job. For this you will get $90 a week." Joe likes that arrangement, but Washington won't stand for it. The employer and the employee must both keep time cards. They must become bookkeepers instead of newspapermen. The Department of Labor has given us nine paperback books filled with regu lations. They must be studied. We have asked the Denver office what some of the regulations mean, and we often get evasive answers. One agent told a supervisor that he can't spend more than 20 percent of his time on the phone or reading proof. The fact is that the Department of Labor can send 10 men to examine our records and they would come up with 10 different reports and 10 different dollar penalties. It's that complicated. While we were being examined, two retail stores also came under the gun. The Constitution permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce and at present the Department of Labor is only bothering big and medium-size stores, but the agent told us that the little stores will come under the law soon. Retailers don't consider themselves in interstate commerce. But they'll learn. Maybe they deal with a wholesaler in Denver who buys brassieres in Cincinnati. This newspaper is primarily local in news and local in circulation. But if a woman asks us to send a paper containing her daughter's wedding to Boise, that makes us interstate commerce. Our paper sells for 7 cents. If we have to mail

paste. We write the address down j ust as the fond mother asked us to do. We go to our rubber stamp collection and find the proper stamp to comply with regulations. And we run over to the post office. That isn't all. The bureaucrats in Washington require that we make a record of this transaction. We must state how much each sheet of the news paper weighs, to six decimal points. We must state what percentage of advertising the paper contains and submit a marked copy of each inch of paper to the postoffice. We must look up the mileage (907 ) between Littleton and Boise so that the Government may be informed of the distance we sent the wedding story. Washington has decreed that we cannot let our newsboys have their newspaper bags at less than cost. Violation of this section can get a newspaper , in bad trouble. Regulations take the time of America's 8,500 newspaper editors who should be devoting their energies to community projects and national prob lems. The smaller papers are still beyond the clutches of the Department of Labor, but the Department almost got Congress' permission to grab them last month. The whole emphasis at the Department of Labor is on "equality instead of excellence." This is the fashion of the times, an idea that may mean the death of America. Equal opportunity is one thing, but it should not breed laws that curb the superior individual. Australia is worse off than we are. It tells a newspaperman what training he must have before he sits down to a typewriter, and the Government tells the editor what the man's pay should be (equality rather than excellence) . Australia tells the farmer what he must pay the hired man. Our Congress has heard of this regulation, and it plans to bring 1 . 3 million farmhands under the law.

get a piece of wrapping paper and a pot of

Department of Labor a little more leash.

it, the price is 10 cents. For this extra 3 cents we

The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

Many other nations of Western culture have similar redtape regulations, and not a one of them matches our production record or the living stand

ard of the American worker. But just give the Page 373

What are the social consequences of the "over regulated state ?" Such harassment means the slow demise of the small businessman. Most of these entrepreneurs struggle with their own affairs because they enjoy that freedom of decision which is their her'itage. They like the challenge of invention and innovat ing. They must not. be beaten into submission. They must be allowed to give jobs to 1 5 or 20 million Americans, some of them old, sickly, or with IQ's below 90 . . . . "

Fat Bureaucracy The iollowing editorial (f1'om the Octobe1' 14, 1 96 5 , Stamford Advocate ) also deals with a n ala1'11zing aspect of mushrooming big government.

If it is money you are interested in and you are an average fellow you should work for the federal government. If you can't get a job in Johnsonville then your next best bet is to work for a state or local government. Failing that, you are stuck with having to work in a job for private industry. The frightening thing about this is that while the private industry worker is getting along better than in 195 5 he is not doing as well as the federal worker or the state and local government worker. . . . While the private worker has increased his pay 3 3.6 percent to $5,1 8 1 , the federal employe has increased his pay 48.2 percent to $6,8 1 2 . The state and local government employe is up 45.9 percent to $5, 1 97. There are 7.5 million state and local govern ment employes and 2.5 'million federal civilian employes. This means that one person out of every twenty is on the public payroll. One out of every sev�n working persons is a federal employe. Six persons are wo�king in private industry to support the federal employe, and incidentally support him better than they are supporting themselves. This is a heavy burden but there is a dangerous aspect of the situation. As the federal worker's pay increases it is natural that many men who would be valuable to the productive area of our Page 374

economy will be attracted to government bureauc racies. One can imagine what will happen if this trend continues to a point where the best brains in the nation are attracted , to government service instead of to production. In the long run the gov ernment cannot succeed as · Communism proves without an economic, productive base. Govern ment services, no matter how pleasant they may be for some, do not produce wealth. Wealth is produced by turning raw materials into useful finished products. This area needs the finest brains. Even at the cost of breaking President Johnson's guidelines, the private sector of the economy will have to increase wages to compete with the fed eral bureaucracy. Unless the federal government decides that it too should live by its own guide lines.

News Items of Interest The following sto1'ies (one from . the Health Bulle tin, the othe1' f1'om The Dal l as Morning News) reveal that people who believe in the totalitarian state believe in it wholly : they want it empowe1'ed n ot only to con, tl:01 human life, but to prevent or create life, as the rulers see fit.

TREATING PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES TO ACHIEVE BIRTH CONTROL (August 14, 1965, issue of Health Bulletin ) : The pressure of population explosion may be so great in future ' years, says Texas physician Joseph W. Goldzieher, that "there will no longer be time for the utopia of mass enlightenment, or for the persuasion of people who may not be sufficiently advanced to understand the nature of the problem." Birth control substances may have to be put in food or in the water supply, he says, so that the whole population would be exposed, not just those people who have "the advantages of modern culture." Two compounds would be required, he points out in an article on his conception control ideas published in the Feb ruary issue of Pacific Medicine and Surgery. One compound placed in food or water would inhibit fertility. A special antidote to the birth control chemical wou ld be given 'to those people who wish to have children. "If such an antidote were The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

freely available to all," he says, "there could be no ethical objection to the chemical sterilization of entire populations." Goldzieher's article is a frank attempt to specu late on the ways in which new birth control devel opments or concepts might arise in the future. He notes that even the "most learned and original thinkers" in the field have had clouded crystal balls in the past. . . . Effective fertility-control ' measures are likely to be developed, he feels, if investigators wilt use their imagination to explore new avenues, instead of sticking to "safe academic studies." He also advises that researchers stop con sidering the reproductive system to be basically the same in all animals and man, pointing out that there are differences in reaction to fertility control compounds, and those differences could be significant in the search for the most effective method. The aspect of birth control which may be most important of all in future years, Dr. Goldzieher believes, is whether or not voluntary measures will be sufficient to control growing populfl.tions. "The time may come when over-population will present problems as terrible as an epidemic disease," he says, noting that under those circumstances public health officials don't spend months or years trying to convince individuals that vaccination is advis able. Compulsory "vaccination" with birth control chemicals can be made to work, , he says, "just as salt is iodized or water is fluoridated." He also feels that optional methods of birth control now so popular could lead to selective breeding, since they are likely to be little-used by the uneducated and unintelligent. "The end result of such selec tive breeding on the economic, social and cultural level of a nation is obvious and frightening in its implications," says Dr. Goldzieher. ARTIFICIAL CREATION OF LIFE A NA TIONAL GOAL (Associated Press story in The Dallas Morning News, September 1 4 , 1965 ) : A scientific leader proposed Monday night that the artificial creation of life itself be set as "a national goal." A rush of knowledge is putting within sight the ability to modify living things and to control

evolution, and ultimately to create new or existing forms of life, perhaps new "human" life, de clared Dr. Charles C. Price, president of the American Chemical Society. "The job can be done - it is merely a matter of time and money, and great effort," he told a general session of the society's national meeting, amplifying his views in an interview. He said a first result - coming about in per haps 10 to 20 years - could be ability to achieve "more efficient production of plants and animals, or even .species doing things never done before." Or to improve human characteristics. "I can't imagine that the ability to synthesize ( create) new life will not happen within a cen tury or so," he added. Dr. Price suggested the search for such knowl edge be organized as a national goal, not unlike the space program or the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The other choice is to let such knowledge and vast powers "come about haphazardly," he said.

The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 47)

But setting it as a national goal - or even pos sibly as an international goal - " would allow time and opportunity to consider the critical ques tions of who then might control" life and evolu tion and for what purposes. "We could control such powers more satisfactorily for the welfare of mankind," he said. Dr. Price said he outlined his ideas by letters in June to scientific leaders in some government agencies - the Atomic Energy Commission, Na tional Institutes of Health and National Aeronau tics and Space Administration - "who are doing some component work in the bio-sciences" or life SCIences. "They were much interested," he said. "In gen eral, the reaction was that the idea should first be considered carefully by the scientific community before being brought to the government." He said he planned to "try to get a group of scientists active in these research fields together to consider whether it is timely and appropriate to organize these efforts as a national goal." Page 375

SU BSCRIPTIONS FOR CHRISTMAS

P L EASE NO NOT W R I T E IN T H I S S PACE

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT

Sub. Cd.________ Ord. Ack.________

P . O . BOX 9538

B i l l ed

DALLAS, TEXAS 752 1 4

G i f t Cd._ _ _

Ren. _________ Appvd.________.

This Christmas, g ive su bscriptions to The Dan Smoot Report to those whom you want to remember with someth ing of special val ue. ORDER NOW. Gift subscriptions wi l l beg in with the first issue in 1 966. A free copy of Dan Smoot's a n n u a l Christmas message (an abbreviation of h is popular book, THE HOPE OF THE WORLD), a free copy of the Dan Smoot Story, and an attractive g.ift annou ncement card bearing you r na me, will be mai led to each g ift reci pient i n time for Christmas, if your order reaches us by December 1 0. Orders received after that date w i l l be hand led as q u ickly as possible. Please help us serve you efficiently by furn ish ing ALL i nformation requested AND PLEASE TYPE OR WRITE PLAI NLY. -

C H R ISTMAS G I FT RATES (Not Effective after December 26, Regular

$ 9.00

2 o r more 1 -yea r s u b s cr i p ti o n s . .

$ 1 1 .50

ea.

Air M a i l

$ 1 3 .50

ea .

7.00 e a .

5 .50 e a .

2 o r m o re 6-month s u bs criptions

1 965)

First Class

ea .

8 .00 ea .

! I n q u ire for fo re i g n rates)

DO NOT L I ST G I FTS H E R E Your N a m e,_______ Please renew___ , StreetÂ·

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --'---' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

or b e g i n

_ _ _

my own S u bscription at the C h ristmas rate

C i ty, State, Zip Code' ______ for : 1

yr .. _____ ; 6 m o .

_ _ _ _

Paym ent Enclosed :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( P lease a d d

tax if you reside in Texas a n d order for Texas d e l ivery. If you are an esta b l i ;; h e d custo m e r of ours,

you may write " Bi l l m e " i n the " Payment Enclos e d " b l a n k . We will bill you i n J a n u a ry. All i nvoices a re d u e o n receipt.)

L I ST G I FT O R D E R S B E LOW Name

Name

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Address

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Address,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ -7_ _ _ _ _

1 yr. __;___ 6 mo.,

1 y r . ____;___ 6 mo.

Signature on gift' card

Signature on gift card

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Name

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Name

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Signature on gift card,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Page 376

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --'-_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Address

Address,

1 yr._______i 6 mo.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

---'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

1 yr.,____;___ 6 Signature on gift card

mo. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Dan Smoot Report, November 22, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 47)

THE o

I)flil SmootlIe,olt Vol. 1 1 , No.

(Broadcast 536)

November 29, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

TH E B LA C K O U T A N D T H E P OW E R G R I D

For

many years, electric power companies throughout the United States produced and dis tributed their own power. Hence, power failures were limited to local systems. Prodded and coaxed by the federal government, power companies, in recent years, began forming a vast power grid interconnecting their transmission lines so that power could be transported from one system to another in times of emergency or heavy demand. Today, according to a Federal Power Commission survey, 97 percent of the electric industry's generating capacity is integrated in five large networks. The largest of these (with 167 million kilowatts of generating capacity) covers, roughly, all the United States east of Texas and of the Rocky Mountains. Within this great eastern intertie is a smaller grid called CANUSE (Canada United States eastern interconnection) , covering an 80,000 square mile area, from Ontario, Canada, to Southern Pennsylvania, where 30,000,000 people live. ( 1 ) In 1964, the Federal Power Commission released a report, saying it was unlikely that all electric power could be cut off in any area of the nation, even under nuclear attack. The FPC attributed the invulnerability of the nation's power systems to the grid which ties systems together, enabling any area which suddenly needs power (because of breakdown or excessive demand ) to get power automatically from other areas. The purpose of th e 1 964 FPC report was to urge expansion of the power grid system to achieve total, nationwide interconnection and interdependence of all major power producing facilities. But - on Tuesday, November 9, 1965 , when it was 5 : 1 5 p.m. in Ontario, and along the eastern seaboard of the United States, a mysterious surge of electric power broke an automatic switching device in a Canadian power plant near Niagara Falls. This triggered a chain reaction which cut off electric power in the heavily industrialized, densely populated, 80,000-square-mile (2)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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 $ IO.OO-each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

Dan Smoot,

1965. Second Class mail privi lege No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 377

authorized

Dal las,

Texas.

area served by CANUSE. New York City was blacked out for 1 2 hours. About 800,000 people were trapped in subways ; thousands were caught in elevators ; millions were stranded without transportation ; virtually all industry abruptly stopped. (3)

which could have caused national disaster on No vember 9. At Indianapolis on November 10, 1 965 , Dr. Ahmed H. EI-Abiad, a Purdue University authori ty on power systems, said "Electric utilities neither understand well enough nor control well enough the great regional power networks which now cover the United States." Instead of recommending that electric utilities limit their interties to systems which they can understand and control, Dr. EI Abiad suggested, among other things, that the networks have central authorities who can make decisions for the entire system, overriding de cisions by local officials of local systems. ( 6 ) On November 1 1 , 1 965 , Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall said a consensus of government and private experts is that "stronger interties be tween systems" would have made the November 9 blackout less severe, and might even have averted it. (4) Joseph C. Swidler, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, also favors a national power grid. These officials imply that if a nationwide grid had been operating, power might have rushed from the Tennessee Valley or from the West Coast to meet the emergency in the Northeast. They ignore the probability that the reverse would have happened : the power grid would have spread the eastern blackout throughout the nation.

The system had backfired : instead of supplying power to an area where there had been a failure, the interlocking grid spread the failure through out a great region, affecting 30 million people. (3) George A. Orrok, vice president in charge of engineering for Boston Edison Company, said that if the heavy grid system, which the Federal Power Commission wants, had been operating nation wide, the entire nation would have been plunged into darkness in less than a second. (4) John P. Jolliffe, chief of power operations for Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest, said the giant northwest power pool broke down on June 6, 1 950, j ust as the eastern power grid did on November 9, 1965 ; but power was restored in the Northwest within an hour. He acknowledged that another such breakdown could occur but claimed that a prolonged blackout, as occurred in the East, is improbable in the North west, where concentrated use is much lower. (5) Jolliffe said the big breakdowns occur because an automatic device fails to shut off a system when there is a line failure. He said that systems could be built with virtually no chance of widespread failure, but that the cost would be prohibitive. (5)

One great danger revealed by the blackout is the danger of more federal controls which will make the electric power situation infinitely worse. It is obvious that the power grid system was re sponsible for spreading a local failure into a regional disaster. It is also obvious that if the entire nation had been tightly linked in the kind of single power grid the federal government wants, the blackout would have been nationwide. Yet, federal officials and other advocates of centralized, fed erally-controlled power are trying to exploit the eastern power failure as an excuse for hurrying to completion the kind of national power grid Page 378

The federal government entered the field of producing electric power in 1 906, when it began building small generating plants to provide elec tric power for government installations only. The government's electric power program was limited to this scope until 1925, when a federal power plant was built at Wilson Dam, Alabama, on the ':Muscle Shoals stretch of the Tennessee River. By 1 928, the government was beginning to sell some electric power for general use, but in very small amounts. (7) The 1 928 authorization of the Boulder Canyon project (Hoover Dam) drastically changed the situation. Hoover Dam now produces more than 1 ,000,000 kilowatts of power for general sale, in competition with private investor-owned produc tion facilities. During the New Deal era, govern-

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 48)

ment power dams multiplied rapidly: Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Shasta, Parker, Davis, TVA, and others came into existence. (7) In 1 930, government-owned facilities produced only 5 percent of all electric power in the United States. In 1 963, government facilities produced 2 5 percent of all electric power. (7) The federal government is responsible for the frightfully vulnerable electric power system we now have. The more the federal government inter venes and controls, the more dangerous the situ ation becomes. The mammoth federally-financed, publicly-op erated power plant at Niagara Falls provides a case in point. For many years, advocates of socialized (government owned ) electric power wanted a government generating plant at the Falls. A private power plant owned by the Niagara Mohawk Power Company was already in oper ation there. ( 7 ) On May 3, 1 950, Herbert H. Lehman (Demo crat, then U. S. Senator from New York) and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. (Democrat, then U. S. Representative from New York ) introduced legis lation to authorize a federal power plant at Niagara. On August 9, 1950, the Senate ratified the Niagara Treaty with Canada. The Treaty pro vided that the United States and Canada could build separate power facilities on the Falls, and share the water flow equally. ( 7 ) Controversy raged for the next six years. Both Thomas E. Dewey (when Republican Governor of New York ) and W. Averell Harriman (when Democrat Governor of New York) supported the public power lobby, while the Niagara Mo hawk Power Company and other investor-owned utilities opposed a public power plant at Niagara. On June 7, 1956, a rock slide destroyed Niagara Mohawk's plant at the Falls ; and the company switched sides in the controversy, becoming an advocate of a public power plant. (7)

(7)

A "compromise" bill was passed by Congress

and signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower

in 1957. The "compromise" was, in fact, a

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 48)

shameful deception. To placate those who opposed construction of another big federally-owned, fed erally-operated power proj ect the bill provided that the power plant at Niagara would be built and operated, not by the federal govern ment, but by the New York Power Authority with the federal government providing assistance and, of course, controlling the power plant. (7) Work on the Niagara public power plant began in 1 957. The first electric power from the facility went into transmission lines in 1 961. Its output is the second largest in the United States. It sells power to the Niagara Mohawk Power Company and to other utilities (both public and private) . (7) The giant Niagara public power plant has pre vented construction and expansion of smaller generating plants in the region, making a vast industrial area dependent on a single source of supply and on miles of vulnerable transmission lines. Enthusiasts for big water-powered plants capa ble of generating power for whole regions claim this system is more economical than a system of numerous, relatively small steam-generating plants, each serving a limited area. There is, however, impressive evidence to the contrary. Private, in vestor-owned power facilities must operate eco nomically or go out of business. As long as they were left free to produce power for the nation, without government interference, they utilized the system of numerous, local steam-generating plants -thus proving that this is the most economical system. It was only after the government began pouring taxpayers' money into power production, ignoring economy and efficiency, that we began building fabulously expensive hydroelectric plants to produce power which must be transported over thousands of miles of fabulously expensive trans mission lines.

A fter the November 9, 1965, eastern blackout,

there can be no valid argument about which system provides the nation maximum security. The present system of gigantic government-owned, or government-subsidized, or government-controlled generating plants, all tied together in a governPage 379

ment-sponsored power grid which makes them all interdependent, leaves the nation at the mercy of some faulty switch, some careless workman, some skilled saboteur. A nationwide system of small, investor-owned generating plants, each serving a limited area, could not be knocked out by one blow. Public demand for electric power does fluctuate from hour to hour, and from day to day; and generating plants do break down. Hence, it is sensible for power companies to develop grids interconnecting transmission lines which enable one system to borrow from another in times of peak demand or of emergency. Private power companies actually began developing such grids in the 1930's ; but the grids developed slowly and sensibly, in response to actual need, under the controls of profit-and-Ioss economics, and within the limits of the technological skills and facilities of private companies responsible for them. The power grid became a dangerous monster after the federal government intervened, persuad ing, prodding, or forcing private companies to form grids which they could neither understand nor control. During the administrations of President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the federal government has stampeded many private power companies into the power grid system, by trying to establish a federal power grid, owned and operated by the federal government, excluding private enterprise from the field. This aspect of the federal government's illegal operations in the electric power industry was discussed in the August 12, 1963, issue of this Report, entitled "The Power Grid Scheme." Portions of that Report bear repeating at this time: The 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." To implement the promise of his party's plat form, President Kennedy [ in 1 96 1 ] appointed Stewart L. Udall as Secretary of the Interior. In 1 962, Udall made a tour of the Soviet Union to study communist electric power installations. Page 380

Upon his arrival in Moscow, Secretary Udall said: "We are here to learn as much as we can. We have so much to learn from your Soviet specialists in this field." Udall's plans to place the power industry under tight control, and eventual ownership, of the federal government, include expansion of TVA facilities, expansion of Rural Electrification Ad ministration I activities in financing co-operative power producing plants, the building of new multi-purpose dams in all parts of the nation, and a nation-wide power grid, owned and con trolled by the federal government. The power grid, when completed, will involve long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines con necting all power-producing facilities in the con tinental United States, so that electric power, produced in any region, can be delivered to any other region, over facilities owned by the federal government. Privately owned, long-distance trans mission lines will be forced out of business by federal monopoly, or harassed out of business by federal regulations and controls . . . .

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 proj ect in New Mexico; with the Upper Colorado River Storage Project complex of 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 Ad ministration system in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 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 . . . . Within 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, 1 96 1 , proposing three alternate plans for this West Coast system-which would range in estimated cost from 136 million to 342 million dollars.

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 48)

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 project of the Pacific Northwest. Despite the fact that taxpayers in all parts of the nation have poured millions 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 pro duction) 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 invade the Idaho market. The Kennedy task force which, on December 1 9, 1 96 1 , 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. 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-operatives) preference as customers for below-cost federal 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 trans mission lines from Bonneville to other regions, preference customers in those other regions (es pecially, big co-operatives and publicly-owned utilities in California) can take most of Bonne ville's belo w-cos t power. This will neate a prob lem for politicians in the Pacific Northwest who The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 48)

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 appeased 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.

T he

Kennedy administration tried unsuccess fully, in 1962 and 1963, to get congressional authorization for a federal Northwest power grid, with the desired "preference policy" included. President Johnson pushed the legislation through Congress in 1964. The bill ( S 1007 ) , passed in 1964, authorized a federal Northwest power grid. (8) During the years 1961-1 965 , the federal power bureaucrats were working both sides of the street in the matter of forming a national power grid. While threatening to form a government power grid for the nation, they used their own threats as a spur to speed private companies into forming a national grid which the government could control. It is heartening to note, however, that some investor-owned companies have resisted govern ment pressures with regard to the power grid, despite the FPC's enormous power over them. On July 12, 1 963, J. K. Horton, President of the Southern California Edison Company, testified before the Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee, in opposition to the proposed federal Northwest California intertie. Statements by government and private experts (expressing dismay that the No vember 9 blackout could happen) lend special interest to one paragraph of Mr. Horton's testi mony in 1963. Mr. Horton said : "As prudent managers of a utility, we cannot rely upon a single direct current line 800 miles in length which has claimed capacity of 1 , 350,000 KW. Indeed, if the proposed federal direct cur rent line were to be operated at 1 ,350,000 KW, engineering studies indicated the California sys tems, if interconnected to the direct current line, would be taking unjustified risk of a blackout to their entire systems in the event of an outage on the direct current line. We do not intend to

put our systems in such j eopardy."(9 )

Page 38 1

have been a saboteur who pulled the switch on purpose ? The gigantic, complex power grid could have collapsed because of some minor flaw or human error, as government experts clearly imply; but it could have been sabotaged by someone under communist orders. For many years, communists have been placing undercover agents in critical positions in key industries and labor unions. (12) Hidden somewhere in some inconspicuous job could be a communist agent who sabotaged the CANUSE power grid on November 9 to serve a two-fold communist purpose: ( 1 ) to test the ef fectiveness of communist sabotage plans ; and ( 2 ) to create a national mood which will let the gov ernment move faster and further toward a tight nationwide power grid which would enable a saboteur to blackout and paralyze the whole nation when the critical time arrives. Note one significant paragraph from a front page article, entitled "People Aroused Against Power Monopolies," published in the November 14, 1965 , issue of The Worker (official newspaper of the U. S. communist party) :

Despite the great danger to national security, federal bureaucrats want to create a national power grid, by one means or another: either by building the grid as a federally-owned-and-operated system, or by forcing existing power-producing firms to form a grid which the bureaucrats can control, or by a combination of means. Why ? Note these comments from Richard Wil son's syndicated column, entitled "More Controls : Regulators Exploiting Blackout" : "The federal regulators have one paramount thought in mind: A national power grid system would unquestionably make it easier to control the economics and technology of electrical power production and distribution . "We are seeing now in Washington a steady expansion of the scope of federal control over utilities and communications . . . . "In the case of electric powert it is contended in a federal power survey that annual power costs could be reduced by 1 1 billion dollars . . . by 1 980, through higher centralization . . . . One large factor in bringing about the reduction would be the advocated national power grid, which carries with it so many implications of centralized control . . . .

"While nationalization of utilities . . . is not yet an immediate possibility, the big blackout has stimulated proposals for a national power grid. This would be a step towards real national coordination and control of the power network to make possible real insurance of alternative power for any area in time of an emergency. This would be at least a limited curb on the authority of the profit-hungry power companies and an as surance that additional power facilities would be built where needed."

"FPC Chairman [ Joseph C . Swidler ] . . says that this network could be created without disturbing the present institutional arrangement and pluralistic ownership of the nation's power system. Perhaps, but the slow and steady expan sion of federal control and regulation in this and other fields suggests that the contrary might be true. "Furthermore, how can Swidler now guarantee that a mysterious power surge or fade-out in some wild and remote area would not bring the nation to a standstill?" ( 1 0)

What To Do

G overnment officials, while admitting they do

not know what caused the electrical disturbance which triggered the November 9 blackout, have asserted that it was not caused by sabotage. Joseph C. Swidler, Chairman of the Federal Power Com mission, said the vast power failure could have been caused accid ental l y when "someone pulled the wrong switch." (lJ) Could not that "someone" Page 382

S ince it is a policy of the Johnson administra tion to give the public only such information as the administration wants the public to have, we can be reasonably sure we will never be told that sabotage caused the blackout, even if govern ment investigators have reason to believe that it did. The people have no means or authority to investigate the matter, or to uncover and remove hidden communists who may be in positions to sabotage power facilities. But, if communists did sabotage the power grid, to stampede us further

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 48)

FOOTNOTES

in the wrong direction, the people could make that communist scheme backfire. When the business of producing and delivering electric power is returned to private industry, free of government controls and manipulation, a major security problem will be solved. Production and distribution facilities will be so decentralized, and independent of each other, that one act of saboÂ tage--or a thousand acts-could not endanger the whole nation, or even an entire region. Hence, the people still have an effective means of protecting themselves and the security of our nation : we can put irresistable pressure on all present members of Congress to block government efforts to extend the power grid. Next year, the people can elect to Congress enough constitutional conservatives to get the federal government out of all its unconstitutional activities in the electric power industry.

( 1 ) "Failure Feeds on Self, Raising Some Questions," The Dallas Moming News, November 10, 1965, p. 1 1A; "Electricity Flow Pulled a Switch," The Dallas Times Herald, November 10, 1965, pp. 1 , 22 ( 2 ) "Power System Reappraisal Seen," The Dallas Morning News, Moming News, November 1 6, 1 965, p. 12A ( 3 ) " 1 2 -Hour Blackout for 30 Million Disturbs Nation, Remains Mystery," The Dallas Times He" ald, November 10, 1965, pp. l A, 20A; "Blackout Laid To Device in Canada Plant," The Dallas Moming News, November 1 6, 1965, p. 1A ( 4 ) "The Great Blackout," U.s. News & JI7orld Report, November 22, 1965, pp. 40-42 ( 5 ) "Power Grid In Northwest Failed in ' 50," The Dallas Morning News, November 1 1 , 1965, p. 24A ( 6 ) "Weaknesses of Regional Power Networks Cited," The IndianÂ apolis Star, November 1 1 , 1965, pp. 1, 24 (7) "Natural Resources and Power," Cong" ess A n d The Nation, Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965, pp. 771-969 ( 8 ) Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1963 and 1964, pp. 463-5,

497-500

Christmas Orders

( 9 ) "Statement Before On Interior Power Norhwcst-California Southern California

Thanks to all of you who are using this Report, and Dan Smoot's books and records, as Christmas gifts this year. We appreciate your doing your Christmas shopping with us early. If you need more Christmas order forms, please let us know. Note that a new Dan Smoot long-playing record has been added to our list of Christmas gift items: Our Nation's Pact With The Devil, just released by KEY Records.

The Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee Marketing Agencies On Proposed Pacific Power Intertie," by J. K. Horton, President, Edison Company, June 1 2, 1963, 1 1 pp.

( 10 ) "More Controls; Regulators Exploiting Blackout," by R ichard Wilson, The Dallas Moming News, November 1 2 , 1965, p. llA ( 1 1 ) "N.Y. Trims Power: 'Looks Good' Now; Many Leave Jobs Early; School Cut," The Dallas Morning News, November 1 1 , 1965, pp. lA, 14A, 24A, 25A . ( 1 2 ) "Blackout Enlightens," by Victor Riesel, Shreveport Journal, November 1 3, 1965, Editorial page

S U BSCRIPTIONS FOR CH RI STMAS ORDER NOW. Gift su bscriptions will begi n with the first issue in 1 966. A free copy of Dan S moot's a n n u a l Ch ristmas message (an a bbreviation of his popular book, THE HOPE OF THE WORLD), a free copy of the Dan Smoot Story, and an attractive gift annou ncement card bea ring you r name, will be mai led to each gift recipient in time for Christmas, if you r order reaches us by December 1 0. Orders received after that date will be hand led as q u ickly as possible. CHRISTMAS GIFT RATES (Not Effective after December 26, 1 965) Regular

First Class

Air Mail

2 or more 1 -year subscriptions____________________________________

$9.00 ea.

$ 1 1 .50 ea.

$ 1 3.50 ea.

2 or more 6-month su bscriptions__________________________________

5 . 50 ea.

7.00 ea.

8.00 ea.

(Order Blanks Will Be Furnished upon Request) THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX

9538,

DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4 TAylor

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 48)

1 -2 303 Page 383

G I FT ITE M S FO R C H R I STMAS THE DAN SMOOT REPORT

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

P. O. BOX 9538 LAKEWOOD STATION DALLAS, TEXAS 75214

Order Handled By

Billed '-'-

Order Ackd.

d Gift Carll

_____

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

THE INVISIBLE GOVEINMINT by DAN SMOOT

Revealing plans for a socialist America in a socialist world! SPECIAL CHRISTMAS PRICES:

Clothbound

. . . . . . $3.50 ( IGC on Order Form)

·Pocketbook ( to your list) . . . . .

. . .$

.75 (IGP on Order Form)

• If

you would like to send the Pocketbook Invisible Government to friends as a Christmas remem brance, note these prices on quantities shipped in bulk to you :

___ : iiii== iL ==::::r

"'\5t

�() gmtt\t\1' 5 by

. pAll

sMOO1'

6 copies for $4.00; 10 for $6.00; 25 for $ 12.00; 5 0 for $22.00; 1 00 for $40.00; 500 for $175.00; 1000 for $250.00.

gmrlicQ' 5 �romisr

1.Cht !lopt <Bf 1.Cht nlorld

by DAN SMOOT

"A beautifully written brief of

Described as "the greatest tri

the basic fundamentals of con

bute to Christianity ever written

stitutional Americanism."

by a layman."

Special Christmas Price : 45¢

Speci al Christmas Price : $ 1 .80

( AP on Order Form )

( Hope on Order Form )

BOUND VOLUMES OF THE DAN SMOOT REPORT Each Volume contains all weekly Reports for a calendar year, table of contents, and extensive index. They are handsome books, more than ' 400 pages, bound in maroon fabrikoid with gold lettering. 1 9 62 Bound Volume ( 62 BV ) Special Christmas Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 963 Bound Volume ( 63 BV ) Special Christmas Price 1 964 Bound Volume ( 64 BY) Special Christmas Price . . .

. . . . . . $9.00 . . $9.00 . . . . . . $9.00

( Bound Volumes for the years 1 9 5 5 through 1 9 6 1 are sold out .)

THREE LONG -PLAYING ( 3 3 Y3 ) RECORDS OF SPEECHES BY DAN SMOOT The Fearless American ( FA ) . . . . . $3.98 "A hard-hitting, sometimes hilarious, album, which tells a star-spangled story." Deacon Larkin's Horse ( DLH ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 .98 "A thrilling speech, full of fact and humor, on the American struggle for liberty." Pact With the Devil ( PD ) . . . . . $3.98 "We are destroying our stockpile of the one weapon without which we cannot win - morality."

THESE SPECIAL CHRISTMAS GIFT RATES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE AFTER DECEMBER 26, 1 965

Please fill in the Order Form carefully, showing plainly to whom your gifts go, what items you want sent, and the names you want on the gift announcement cards. ORDER NOW so that your gifts can be mailed not later than December 10. Orders received after that date will be handled as promptly as possible.

Page 384

The Dan Smoot Report, November 29, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 48)

THE

1Jt/lllmootRe,ort Vol.

I I , No. 49

( Christmas Broadcast)

December 6, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

THE HO�E OF THE WORLD

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. Christmas 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, $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; 1 00 for $10. 00 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery. -

No reproductions permitted.

Page 385

Neither 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 Page 386

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 62 0." 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."

W 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 together in a union for protection against foreign powers and for preventing wars among The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

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.

The Constitutional Convention was on the point

of breaking up. Benjamin Franklin pulled the thing together. Addressing the Convention on June 28, 1 787, 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."

n 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."

The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

here 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.

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. Congress shall make no law abridging these Page 387

specific, sacred rights of ours.

That is the meaning of the American Constitu

tion and Bill of Rights.

The 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 worldy 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 infinite worth of the human personality had to lie 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 IRREP RESS IBLE CONFLICT The strength and culture of America, built on Page 388

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 justified 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 faiths, 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 revail, because socialism is fundamentally

The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

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 that 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.

The 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 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.

The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

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 remove 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.

n 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.

v ou could fill a room full of reliable statistics 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.

The

important question is whether Christian preachers have rejected or corrupted the fundaPage 389

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. The social gospel originated in a Kingdom of-God concept, which is not Biblical. In 1907, Walter Rauschenbusch (professor of church his tory in Rochester Theological Seminary) gave ex pression to what others before him had been say ing. Rauschenbusch believed that the Kingdom of God would grow out of existing institutions of society, and would be a way of life for this earth. He believed that man is redeemed when his environment is redeemed. Hence, the emphasis of the social gospel is not on redemption by Grace, or on God's promise of a Kingdom in Heaven for His people. The emphasis is on man's efforts to change the social organization and create his own heaven on earth. This emphasis on material reform, achieved by man himself, with only casual, or no, reference to Salvation by the Grace of God, seems to have left many modern liberal ministers with no con fidence in God. They react to problems around them by exerting pressure, in the name of Chris tian churches, for federal laws which will impose their notions of equality and morality on the en tire nation. They do not believe in voluntary, in dividual Christian giving - except to their own churches. They believe in organized political pres sures for legislation which will force other people to give. Page 390

Great numbers of modern clergymen appar

ently have come to regard their j ob 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.

W ell-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 2 5,000 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.

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 close ly akin to contemporary doctrines of the social gospel - that many cannot tell the difference. *

HOPE Christian leaders are concerned about contemThe Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

- 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. This withering of spirituality and growth of materialism are primary characteristics of the twentieth century.

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.

How late is the hour in the night of our history ?

he 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 *

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. *

WHO IS DAN SMOOT ? Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent : three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various piaces. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial issues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business : publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues : the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yard stick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely-help get subcribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. 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?

The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

Page 391

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足 cans are beginning to realize that a worship of "Science" and of "Scientific political organiza足 tion" wil l create a Frankenstein monster capable of destroying the human race.

It came upon the midnight clear. As the white

flocks lay sleeping along the hills of Judea, 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 :

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 ?

"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足 traught, frenzied, and "insecure" place than ever before in the long, tragic history of man's struggle for enlightenment ?

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. Special Christmas price: $1.80 .

People who have for a long time - out of ignorance, or indifference, or something - fol足 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.

SU BSCRIPTIONS FOR C H RISTMAS

ORDER NOW. Gift subscriptions will begin with the first issue in 1 966. A free copy of Dan Smoot's ann ual Ch ristmas message (an a bbreviation of h is popular book, THE HOPE OF THE WORLD), a free copy of the Dan Smoot Story, a nd an attractive gift a n nou ncement card bea ring your name, will be ma i led to each gift recipient in time for Christmas, if your order reaches us by December 1 0. Orders received after that date will be handled as q uickly as possible. CHRISTMAS GIFT RATES (Not Effective after December 26, 1 965) Regular 2 or more I -year su bscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 or m o re 6-month subscriptions

...................

Air Mail

First Class

$9.00 ea .

$ 1 1 .50 ea.

$ 1 3.50 ea.

5.50 ea .

7.00 ea.

8 .00 ea .

(Order Blanks Will Be Furnished upon Request)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9 5 38 , D ALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4

Page 392

TAylor

1 -2 3 0 3

The Dan Smoot Report, December 6, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 49)

IHE o

IJI/II SmootReport· Vol.

1 1 , No. 50

(Broadcast 538)

December 1 3, 1 965

Dallas, Texas

TH E REMNANT Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should htl1'e been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah Isaiah 1 :9 -

And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace Wherefore lift liP thy prayer for the remnant that are left

·0

Ezra 9 : 8

Romans 1 1 : 5

Kings 19:4

Most of the dangers to our free society were created by our own government and are daily being made worse by government programs. Our Republic cannot be saved until the people understand what is happening, and are imbued with determination to elect constitutionalists to high office. Among the many obstacles to creating necessary public understanding are four of major importance. I. One high obstacle to arousing public interest in correcting evils which government has caused is the reluctance of many people to believe that a President of the United States, members of Congress, and other high officials are stupid or evil men. The following letter is typical of sev eral received from people who hear my broadcasts or read this Report: "What you say sounds sensible; and you give facts; but if government programs are as bad as you claim, why do high officials support them? If you are right, we must conclude that our top leaders are too stupid to understand something easily understandable to average people -or, they are evil men who want to ruin our country. I cannot accept either of these conclu sions. If President Johnson were a stupid man, he would not be where he is today; and I simply cannot believe that he is an evil man who wants to hurt his own country, though there are many things about him and his political record that I dislike. I must conclude, therefore, that there has to be a lot that is good and desirable in the government programs you condemn, or so many smart and honorable people would not be for them."

Such acceptance, on faith, of government programs, even when logic and facts p.rove the pro grams harmful, is based on wrong assumptions. It assumes that intelligent, well-intentioned people always do good and wise things. It overlooks the fact that practically every tyrant in history (in cluding Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin) was a well-intentioned person trying to

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail ing address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas, Texas 752 14; Telephone TAylor 1 -2)03 (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 4 ; 6 for $1 .00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $ lO.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 393

do what he considered best for his country or for the world. In each case, the man had to have con siderable intelligence. I do not accuse President Johnson of being stupid, or of being so evil that he wants to hurt his country; but I do accuse him of an attitude toward the Constitution which can destroy all the precious human liberties which the Constitu tion was ordained to protect. By his deeds, the President proves that he regards the Constitution as nothing more than a vague statement of general purpose which leaves the President unlimited power to do anything which he can persuade, coerce, or blackmail Con gress to approve. In reality, the Constitution is a binding contract, which specifies everything the federal government can legally do, prohibits the government from doing anything not clearly specified. President Johnson ' is removing all legal bar riers to absolute tyranny. He assumes power not gr'l-nted in the Constitution - to use tax money for building up stockpiles of aluminum and cop per which the government does not need, and then uses the threat of dumping those commodi ties on the market as a club to control producers' prices. This is illegal use of power to achieve an illegal purpose, because the President has no authority to control prices. What is to keep the President from illegally forcing other industries to bend to his personal will ? What is to keep him from using illegal power to reward some groups, punish others ? Nothing! President John son often displays favoritism in his use of power. One example: while forcing his will upon alu minum and copper industries, on the pretext that a rise in aluminum and copper prices would harm the nation, the President deliberately re fused to do anything about a machinist union strike ( against McDonnell Aircraft Corporation) which obviously hurt the nation by halting con struction of Phantom Jet fighter planes badly needed in Vietnam. (1) The President assumes power - not granted in the Constitution - to confiscate money from Page 394

all citizens to subsidize government-approved ac tivities of chosen groups of citizens. By a similar assumption of power, he could seize all the prop erty of all the people for redistribution to suit his pleasure. It would not be stretching the same assumption of power very much for the President to order liquidation of all Americans whom he considers a threat to his plans for a great society. Though I do not accuse President Johnson of stupidity or evil intent, I do accuse him of a lust for power - a trait common among men. Once a man has tasted power, he seems to develop an insatiable hunger for more. Scorning Lord Acton's truism that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, most power-hungry men sin cerely feel that power in their hands is beneficial. President Johnson ( like the four Presidents who preceded him and all other totalitarian lib erals of our time ) clearly believes in the benef icence of government power. Yet, in truth, gov ernment p ower, though necessary in a civilized society, is potentially dangerous and inherently evil. If unchecked by specific limitations, govern ment power will always expand until it stifles the civilization it was intended to protect. History- from ancient to contemporary times - proves that government with unlimited power is a greater threat to the peace, progress, and freedom of human beings than anything else on earth is. Norwegians recently voted their socialist gov ernment out of office, having finally faced up to the truth that socialism brought depressed living standards, debasement of individualism, and wide spread corruption to Norway. Right now, the socialist welfare state of Great Britain is showing up as a dismal failure, though much of the fan tastic cost of British socialism was paid by Ameri can taxpayers through foreign aid. President John son ignores these lessons of history, unfolding before his very eyes. He is driving the United States into precisely the kind of socialist welfare statism that millions of Britons and other Euro peans yearn to discard. Apparently, the President feels that he can succeed where all others, from ancient Rome to modern England, have failed. Or, perhaps, he is so blinded by faith in the benefThe Dan Smoot Report, December 1 3, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 50)

icence of government power that he cannot see the lessons of history. Though I do not accuse President Johnson of stupidity or evil intent, I do accuse him of want ing an America very different from the free Re public we inherited from our forefathers. Presi dent Johnson wants an America so regulated and controlled by government that everyone will exist on a flat plateau of ease and comfort - all housed alike, fed alike, trained alike, dressed alike; all thinking alike, voting alike, working alike, play ing alike. The America we had was a land where everyone could either develop or waste his indi vidual talents ; where a man's being and becoming depended on his own tastes and ambitions and on his God-given abilities ; where a man was as free to be an impoverished good-for-nothing as he was free to become rich. In fac:t, government cannot create ease and comfort for all. If it could, it would destroy civil ization. Signs are ominous that the government welfarism we already have is feeding a cancerous social growth that will be fatal, unless checked. Note some passages from an interview with Dr. William Shockley (co-winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1956 ) , published in the Novem ber 22, 1965 , issue of U. S. News & Wodd Report, under the title "Is Quality of U. S. Population Declining ?" : ". . . in San Francisco . . . the proprietor of a delicatessen was blinded by a hired acid-thrower . . . . who . . . . was a teen-ager, one of 1 7 illegiti mate children of an improvident, irresponsible woman with an 1.0. of 55 . . . . If that woman can produce 1 7 ch ildren in our society, none of whom will be eliminated by survival of the fittest, she and others like her will be multiplying at an enormously faster rate than more intelligent people do . . . . This sort of thing could snowball so that . . . such people could double in less than 20 years, and outnumber all the others in a few centuries . . . . "One frightening possibility is that our hu manitarian relief programs may be exerting a negative influence . . . . " Is there an imbalance in the reproduction of inferior and superior strains? Does the reproducThe Dan Smoot Report, December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 50)

tion tend to be most heavy among those we would least like to employ - the ones who would do least well , in school? . . . With improvements of technology . . . you have had declining death rates, so that inferior strains have increased chances for survival and reproduction at the same time that birth control has tended to reduce family size among the superior elements . . . . "

II. Another obstacle to informing and arousing the public to work for the salvation of our Re public is a feeling of despair which has recently sapped the strength of our great conservative movement. After years of hard work, constitutional con servatives had created a movement which was becoming a dominant force in American politics. In the fall of 1 963, as President John F. Kennedy approached the end of his first term in office, the political influence of the Kennedy family was waning fast. Major portions cif the New Frontier legislative program were hopelessly stalled in Con gress. It was apparent to many astute observers that any real conservative running on the Repub lican ticket could defeat President Kennedy in 1 964. Then came the assassination, with its great emo tional backwash, cynically and deliberately manip ulated and utilized by President Johnson and other ultra liberals. People who had intelligently, hon estly, and properly criticized President Kennedy'S policies were made to feel ashamed, as if their honorable opposition to the President's ultra lib eralism were partly responsible for his death. With matchless cunning, President Johnson played upon peoples' emotions to rush through Congress New Frontier legislation which pre viously had had no chance of enactment. Emotional backwash from the assassination was also a deciding factor in the 1 964 elections. States - especially Texas, where, prior to the assassina tion, no liberal Democrat could have won the presidential race - voted for Johnson, as if to atone for collective guilt about the murder of President Kennedy. Shaken by political defeat in

1 964,

many leadPage 395

ing conservatives seemed to remain in a state of shock throughout 1 965, making no effort to rally resistance to the Johnson bulldozer, which pusheg an incredible mass of unconstitutional, socialistic leg-islfltion through Congress. By the end of the first session of - the rubber-stamp 89th Congress, many conservatives - seeing that President John son, in less than one year, paralyzed a movement which had taken many years to build - gav.e up in despair. III. Another obstacle to arousing public action against harmful policies of government is the selfishness of people who value material pros perity above all else. Many Americans mistakenly believe our afflu ence is government-created and seem sincerely to think that government with unlimited power can guarantee perpetual prosperity. Others are quite cynical : knowing where we are headed, they have adopted · the slogan, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em." They realize that government harassment of private enterprise and reckless government squandering of the nation's financial resources will inevitably lead to ruin ; but right now, money is flowing their way; they will let others discuss causes and speculate on consequences : they intend to get' theirs while the getting is good. IV. A fourth major obstacle to reinvigorating the conservative movement is that many individ uals identified with the cause of constitutional conservatism have been so vilified by powerful and influential liberals, and so harassed by agen cies of the federal government, that they can take no more.

T hroughout

the nation, however, there is a remnant of patriots who never quit. Their daunt less determination has begun to reactivate others, and to arouse many who had never before par ticipated in the fight to restore the constitutional foundations of our Republic. Many groups and individuals working in the cause of constitutional conservatism give me infor mation about their activities ; but I seldom mention them in this Report, because I lack the means of Page 396

investigation to determine that all conservative efforts called to my attention are in reality what they seem to be. If I had the means, I would not have the space to report on all that I approve. In this issue of the Report, however, I wish to give a sampling of what some conservatives are doing. I know a great deal about a few of the individuals and groups mentioned below. I know some of them only by material they have sent to explain what they are do,ing. In all cases, the efforts mentioned typify the kind of activity that constitutional conservatives should be engaging in all over the country. POLITICAL ACTION WITHIN THE MA JOR PARTIES. In South Dakota, the Democrat Party is tightly controlled by socialists who call themselves liberals ; but the Republican Party seems basically conservative. Knowing there is no possibility - of orienting the Democrat Party toward constitutional prin ciples, but feeling that hard work could make the Republican Party accep�able, some constitutional conservatives in South Dakota are currently trying to serve the cause of constitutional government by working within the Republican Party. A notable effort is that of Richard R. Murphy of Sioux Falls, who is seeking the Republican nomination ( in 1 966 ) for U. S. Senator. His opponent is Senator Karl Mundt. Liberals generally call Karl Mundt a conserva tive; but, in his efforts to be "moderate," Mundt has abandoned constitutional principles. His guide to action in the Senate appears to be his own j udgment as to what will best serve the political interests of Karl Mundt. He casts enough con servative votes to retain the conservative label in a State where Republicans are expected to be conservative; yet, he supports some of the most reprehensible liberal legislation. Mundt's record on the notorious Voting Rights Act of 1 965 is illuminating. He cast four conseryative votes on proposals to amend the Act before it was passed; but, on the critical question of passing the Act ( after all conservative efforts to modify it had

failed ) , Mundt voted for it, thus aligning himThe Dan Smoot Report, December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 50)

self, on this major issue, with extremist ultra liberals, including racial agitators, socialists, com munists. Men like Karl Mundt - wearing the conser vative label while supporting the major programs of totalitarian liberalism - make it difficult for constitutional conservatives to get elected to Con gress : they draw support from timid conservatives who fear that if they support someone better than a moderate, they run the risk of "throwing the election" to someone worse. But Richard R. Murphy scorns such timid coun sel. Taking an uncompromising stand as a con stitutional conservative, he has high hopes of replacing Karl Mundt as Republican Senator . from South Dakota. More information on Murphy's candidacy can be obtained from Murphy For U. S. Senate Head quarters, 2 1 1 West 10th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Many men like Karl Mundt, and many much worse, will run for re-election to Congress in 1966. Voters should be offered a choice between them and genuine constitutional conservatives. THIRD PARTY POLITICAL ACTION. In Virginia, the Virginia Conservative Council works within the framework of the two major parties to foster conservatism; but it is pledged to provide candidates who are real constitutional conserva tives, when major party candidates offer nothing but liberals or moderates. In 1965 , the Council having decided that Democrat and Republican candidates for Governor of Virginia offered voters no real choice - ran its own candidate on the Conservative Party ticket. The Conservative Party in New York did ap proximately the same. It did not present a full slate of candidates for the 1965 elections, but offered candidates for several significant offices. Arnold Bayley of East Hampton (a dedicated leader among constitutional conservatives ) ran for State Assembly. The Conservative Party's one The Dan Smoot Report, December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 50)

statewide candidate was Henry Stump Midden dorf, Jr., who ran for Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals. Middendorf is a young Har vard graduate. In 1963, he organized the Inde pendent Bar Association, to provide a professional organization for lawyers who disapprove of left wing policies of the American Bar Association ( especially the ABA's leftwing efforts to get the Connally Reservation repealed ) . The most widely publicized Conservative Party candidate in 1965 was William F . Buckley, who ran for Mayor of . New York. Conservative Party candidates lost in Virginia and New York ; but their campaigns contributed greatly to the public informational work that must precede success at the polls. In every district and State of the Union where Republicans and Democrats are merely rival advo cates of totalitarian liberalism, offering voters no clear choice between socialism and constitutional ism, constitutional conservatives should form their own party and run their own candidates in 1966. The effort will be worthwhile for its educational impact. It will also produce positive political results : either forcing one of the major parties to return to constitutional principles, or forcing them to consolidate, thus making possible eventual formation of a new national party- a real sec ond party to carry the banners of constitutional conservatism. INFORMATION FOR POLITICAL A C TION. Whether constitutional conservatives work within the major parties, or in a third party, they should arm themselves with reliable information about the members of Congress they try to unseat. The surest measure of a member of Congress is his voting record. We are offering a Political Action Package (seven Reports for $ 1.00 ) which ( 1 ) shows the voting of every U. S. Senator on 46 roll call votes during 1965, of every U. S. Representative on 50 roll calls ; and ( 2 ) gives the ratings of all members. Page 397

ACTION IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION. Our system of compulsory, tax-supported schools has relegated parents to the role of providing children and tax money, and of supporting estab lishment policies. Many parents feel that educa tionist philosophies and practices have eliminated basic education from schools, and have created a fabulously expensive school system which mass produces semi-literate, undisciplined graduates. (2) Many parents are deeply disturbed by poor textbooks used in schools, by pornographic mate rial in school libraries, by socialistic indoctrina tion in the classrooms, by testing programs which create in children hostility toward their parents, discontent with their environment, contempt for their country. Many parents feel that the federal government's racial-integration programs have made bad matters infinitely worse - sacrificing education for "racial balance" to satisfy agitators. On October 28, 1 965 , a group of about 50 negro parents in Lincolnton, Georgia, did some thing worthy of emulation : they stood on a dirt road and turned back a civil rights march. They acted on their own volition, angry because their children were being kept out of schools by civil rights agitation. (3 ) In Chester Township, Pennsylvania, two young sters were suspended from school because they brought their lunches every day, refusing to pay thirty-five cents each for federally-subsidized lunches in the school cafeteria - or to pay for the school lunches without eating them. Robert F. Russel, school board president, said that, to get federal aid, the school had to include all pupils not going home for lunch - that there was no provision for children who brought lunches. Mrs. Charles Steward, Sr., mother of the suspended students, said she could afford to buy her chil dren's lunches, or to contribute seventy cents a day and let them eat their home-prepared lunches ; but she made a stand on principle. The case aroused others who supported the Stewards. Pub lic opinion quickly forced the school board to alter its policy. ( 4)

Page 398

These are two examples of what parents can do within the framework of our existing system ; but beyond such relatively minor accomplish ments, parents can really do nothing about our public schools. President Johnson'S federal aid to education programs are transferring control of public schools to a central bureaucracy responsive, not to parents and taxpayers, but to professional educationist groups like the National Education Association. An alternative is a system of private schools and church schools which do not accept federal aid - schools which are financed pri marily by parents. Throughout the nation, people are seeking and finding the private-school solution to the problems of primary and secondary educa tion : but little is being done to loosen the grip which the federal bureaucracy and the liberal socialist establishment have on our institutions of higher learning. In Dallas, however, a valiant effort is being made. Dr. Robert Morris has founded the Uni versity of Plano (temporary campus at 409 North Pearl Street, Dallas ) , a liberal arts college dedi cated to the preservation of our American con stitutional and cultural heritage. With no federal aid or other tax money, and with no grants from big foundations which subsidize institutions ori ented toward socialism, the University of Plano, in its present, first semester, has brought to its student body such scholars as Dr. Natalie White, brilliant educator whose literature course, con ducted within traditional guidelines, is rooted in the absolutes of right and wrong and in the exciting concepts of freedom ; Dr. Bella V. Dodd (a former official of the communist party, now a devoted constitutionalist) for lectures on political science; Dr. Ludwig Von Mises, the world's fore most authority in the field of free-market economics. Another interesting effort in the broad field of education was begun in 1964 at Worcester, Mass achusetts, when a group of conservatives, under the leadership of Bradford Harrison, III, founded The Dan Smoot Report, December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 50)

the Conservative Library Association. The Ameri can Library Association (controlled by totalitarian liberals) dominates the policies of most libraries in the United States. It is, to a large degree, the influence of the American Library Association which keeps the best conservative books and pub lications out of libraries, fills their shelves with the works of extreme leftists and with pornog raphy parading as good literature. The Conservative Library Association hopes to get conservative books and publications in librar ies. Present headquarters address of the Conser vative Library Association is 4 5 8 Stevens Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey. ACTION IN CHURCHES. On October 1 8, the Mullins Methodist Church, Memphis, Tennessee, by unanimous vote of the board, with drew financial support from the National Council of Churches, until the "Council removes itself from the political area." The National Council of Churches supports practically every extremist leftwing movement or program in the United States. Mullins Methodist was specifically out raged because the NCC stands for repeal of the right-to-work section of the Taft-Hartley Act. (5) 1 96 5 ,

On October 28, 1 965, the Right Reverend Hor ace W. B. Donegan, Episcopal Bishop of New

W H O

York, said his support of the civil rights move ment had resulted in cancellation of several sub stantial gifts pledged for completion of the Cathedral Church of st. John the Divine. He said there have been cancellations or reductions of financial support to local parish churches for the same reason. (6) Here are obvious cues to action by church peo ple, acting as congregational groups, or as indi viduals : stop supporting church organizations whose leaders engage in improper activities. ACTION IN THE LEGION. In a resolution adopted on September 1 6, 1 965 , the Lowe McFarlane Post No. 14 of the American Legion at Shreveport, Louisiana (third largest in the world ) , noted that prominent leaders encourage civil disobedience and lawless demonstrations which violate the rights of all citizens ; and that federal courts often order police to protect the lawless demonstrators, thus prohibiting protection for law-abiding citizens. The resolution appealed to all public officials, including specifically the President of the United States, to denounce rather than to condone such mass lawlessness. Imagine the wholesome impact on Congress if every American Legion Post adopted such a resolution!

D A N

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili· zation. From 1 942 to 1951, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 195 1 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of �ontroversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues; tbe side tbat presents documented trutb using tbe American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. The Dan Smoot Report, December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 50)

Page 399

ACTION ON SPECIFIC ISSUES. An election was held in Salt Lake City on August 1 7 , 1965, on the question of creating a Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency to bring federal urban renewal to that city. Both major newspapers, practically all radio and television stations, and most of the city's "leaders" favored urban renewal. A group of citizens who opposed urban renewal formed the Citizens Committee for the Protec tion of Property Rights. Newspapers and broad cast stations denounced them harshly, providing them little opportunity to present their ideas to the public, but giving extensive coverage to all meetings, speeches, and pronouncements in favor of urban renewal. The constitutional conservatives persevered, taking the facts about urban renewal to the public by such means as they could find word of mouth, unpublicized meetings, distribu tion of mimeographed material, and so on. On election day, the voters of Salt Lake City defeated urban renewal by a margin of six to one. (7)

Constitutional conservatives hold in their hands the fate of the nation. If we resolve to give our cause a full measure of devotion, we will see a new birth of freedom. Our constitutional Republic will be restored.

FOOTNOTES

( 1 ) "LBJ Avoids Role in Jet Plant Strike," The Dallas Morning

News, November 2 1 , 1965, p . 5A ( 2 ) For additional information on the problem of modern public education, see th i s Report, "The Education Cartel," October 2 5 , 1 9 6 5 . Reprint prices a t bottom of Page 3 9 3 of this Report. ( 3 ) UPI from Lincolnton, Ga., The New York Times, October 29, 1965, pp. I, 28 ( 4 ) AP dispatch from Chester, Pa., The Dallas Morning News, October 29, 1965, p. 9A; AP story from Chester Township, Pa.,

The Dallas Morning News, November 12, 1965, p. 6A ( 5 ) "Church Wi thdraws Council Support:' The Commerdal Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., October 23, 1965 (6) "Bishop Donegan Losing Pledges Over His Stand for Civil Rights," by Charles Grutzner, The New York Times, October

It Can Be Done

29, 1965, pp. 1, 32

Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left.

Subscription :

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00

1962 Bound Volume 1963 Bound Volume 1964 Bound Volume The ltlVisible Government Clothback Pocketsize The Hope Of The World America's Promise Long-Play Record Albums The Fearless American Deacon Larkin's Horse Our Nation's Pact With The Devil

- $ 4.00 - $ 1 .00 - $ 2 .00 - $ .50 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98 - $ 3.98

(7) Urban Renewal's Greatest Defeat, by AI Biorge, Citizens Com

mittee for the Protection of Property Rights. P. O. Box 1 1 3 6 1 , Salt Lake City. Utah

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

(Texans Add 2% for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 95 38, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14

Page 400

ZIP CODE

TAYLOR 1 -2303

The Dan Smoot R eport December 13, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 50) ,

THE o

IJtlll Smootlie,ort Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1

(Broadcast 539)

December

20, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

VOTI N G R E C O R D S, 1 9 6 5

In five previous issues of this Report, I have tabulated 84 roll call votes in the national Congress.

Tabulations herein bring the total to 96 for the first session of the 89th Congress-46 in the Sen ate, 50 in the House. Percentages in the listings which follow are the conservative ratings which legislators earned by stands they took on the roll call votes tabulated. BEST SENATORS: During 1 965, no U. S. Senator earned a perfect ( 1 000/0 ) conservative rating. The following 2 2 Senators ( 1 2 Republicans, 10 Democrats ) were the best conservatives in the Sen ate during 1965 : Byrd (D, Va.) Robertson (D, Va.) Eastland (D, Miss.) Thurmond ( R, S. C.) Simpson ( R, Wyo.) Tower (R, Texas)

98% 98% 93% 93% 89% 89%

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

______

____

______

__________

Hruska ( R, Neb.) Curtis ( R, Neb.) Russell (D, Ga.) Bennett (R, Utah) Jordan (R, Idaho) Stennis (D, Miss.)

__________

______________

____________

__________

87% 84% 82% 80% 78% 78%

_ _ _ _ ________

________

Ellender (D, La.) Williams ( R, Del.) Young (R, N. D.) Hickenlooper (R,. Iowa) Fannin ( R, Ariz.) McClellan ( D, Ark.)

____________

________

__________

______

76% 76% 76% 75% 74% 74%

Ervin (D, N. C.) Murphy (R, Cal.) Russell (D, S. C.) Talmadge (D, Ga.)

___________

,73% 72% 72% 70%

_ _ _ _ _ _______

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

_ ________

WORST S ENATORS: The 63 Senators in the following list ( 5 2 Democrats, 1 1 Republicans ) made conservative ratings of less than 400/0' Note the five who rated zero-all Democrats : the two Kennedys, Mondale from Minnesota, Williams from New Jersey, and Pell from Rhode Island. Kennedy (D, Mass.) Kennedy (D, N. Y.) Mondale (D, Minn.) Pell (D, R. I.) Williams (D, N. J.) Hart ( D, Mich.) Inouye (D, Haw.) Magnuson ( D, Wash.) Nelson (D, Wisc.) McCarthy ( D, Minn.) Neuberger (D, Ore.) Case (R, N. J.) Pastore (D, R. I.) Tydings (D, Md.) Clark ( D, Pa.) Metcalf (D, Mont.)

______

________________

______

____________

__________

____

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

____

______

________________

____________

__________

________________

__________

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5%

Moss (D, Utah) Bass ( D, Tenn.) Bayh (D, Ind.) Brewster (D, Md.) Dodd (D, Conn.) Douglas ( D, Ill.) Hartke (D, Ind.) Javits ( R, N. Y.) McGee ( D, Wyo.) McGovern (D, S. D.) McNamara ( D , Mich.) M uskie, (D, Me.) Ribicoff (D, Conn.) Bartlett ( D , Alas.) Church (D, Idaho) Long (D, Mo.)

____________

______________

________________

__________

______

_____

____________

__________

____________

__________

______

____

__________

________

__________

________________

5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 9% 9% 9%

Mansfield (D, Mont.) Proxmire ( D, Wisc.) Yarborough (D, Texas) Gore (D, Tenn.) Burdick (D, N. D . ) Jackson (D, Wash.) Montoya (D, N . M . ) Randolph (D, W. Va.) Young (D, Ohio) Monroney ( D , Okla.) Symington (D, Mo.) Anderson ( D, N. M.) Hayden ( D, Ariz.) Gruening (D, Alas.) Harris (D, Okla.)

____

______

9% 9% 9% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 14% 16% 17% 17% 18% 20%

______________

________

____

_______. ___

____

______

____

__________

_____

____________

Kuchel ( R, Cal.) McIntyre ( D, N. H.) Morse ( D, Ore.) Smathers (D, Fla.) Smith ( R, Me.) Long (D, La.) Aiken ( R, Vt.) Cooper ( R, K y.) Scott ( R, Pa.) Fulbright (D, Ark.) Cannon (D, Nev.) Fong ( R, Haw.) Saltonstall ( R, Mass.) Boggs (R, Del.) Prouty, ( R, Vt.) Byrd ( D, W. Va.)

20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 22% 23% 26% 26% 28% 30% 30% . . 32% 33% .. 34% 39%

____________

_ _ ____

______________

__________

________________

_ _ _ _ ______ ______

______________

__________________

_____

_________

____________

______________

____________

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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, $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 $ lO.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, 1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas. No Reproductions Permitted. Page 401

In 1 965, 49 U. S. Representatives (32 Republicans, 17 Democrats) earned conservative ratings of 900/0 or better-6 of them with perfect ( 100%) scor�s : BEST REPRESENTATIVES:

1 00 % -Buchanan and Edwards (R, Ala.) ; Gross (R, Iowa); Walker (R, Miss.); Williams (D, ·Miss.) ; Baring (D, Nev.) 98 %-Andrews (D, Ala.) ; Dickinson and Martin (R, Ala.) ; Abernethy (D, Miss.h Hall . (R, Mo.) ; Pool (D, Tex.) 97 % -Colmer (D, Miss.); Watson (R, S. C.) 96%-Smith and Utt (R, Cal.) ; Haley (D, Fla. ) ; Calla· way (R, Ga. ) ; Passman (D, La.) ; Devine (R, Ohio) 94 %-Reid (R, Ill.); Waggonner (D, La. ) ; Lennon (D, N. C.) ; Clancy (R, Ohio) ; Belcher (R, Okla.) 92 %-Lipscomb (R, Cal.); Gurney (R, Fla.) ; O'Neal (D, Ga. ) ; Martin (R, Neb.) ; Broyhill (R, N. C.) ; Duncan (R, Tenn.) ; Dowdy and Fisher (D, Tex.) ; Satterfield and Tuck (D, Va.) 91 %-Clawson (R, Cal.) 90%-Andrews (R, Ala.); Wilson and Younger (R, Cal.) ; Hansen (R, Idaho) ; Dole (R, Kans. ) ; Long (D, La.) ; Battin (R, Mont.) ; Jonas (R, N. C.) ; Ashbrook and Betts (R, Ohio) ; Ashmore (D, S. C.); Quillen (R, Tenn.); Poff (R, Va.)

WORST

DEMOCRAT

REPRESENTATIVES:

There were 2 27 Democrats in the flouse who earned conservative ratings of less , than 40ro. Of these, 16 had zero ratings : Brown, Burton, Edwards and Hawkins from California ; Dawson from Illinois ; Edwards from Louisiana ; Conyers, Diggs, and DingeU fr9m Michigan; Fraser from Minnesota ; Karsten from Missouri ;' Dow and Powell from New York; Byrne and Nix from Pennsylvania ; Kastenmeier from Wisconsin. . WORST

REPU BLI CAN

REPRESENTATIVES:

Ther,e were 14 Republicans in the House of Rep resentatives who earned conservative ratings' of less than 40.0/0: , - . Tupper (Me.), Lindsay (N.Y.) .................... 1 3 % Reid (N.Y.) .................................................... 1 4 % Halpern (N.Y.) . . ... .............. ..... .................. 1 5 % Horton (N.Y.) ............................., ..................24 % Mathias (Md.), McDade (Pa.) ...................... 3 1 % Fulton (Pa.) ............................................ .'.. .... 33 % Dwyer (N.J.) .................................................... 34% Corbett, Schweiker (Pa.) . ........... . ... . . . ... ... 35 % Morse (Mass.) ............. ...... ...... . ..... ....... =...... 36%· Cahill (N.J.) ....................................................37 % Fino (N.Y.) ............: ........................................ .39 % ,. · .

Page 402

Political Action Package

The 89th Congress-in one session, under the

whip of President johnson's drive for' "consensus" -enacted unconstitutional, socialistIC legislation more damaging to the cause of freedom than all legislation enacted during the terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Dwight D. Eisen hower, and John F. Kennedy. Conversely, conservative accomplishments in the first session of the 89th Congress were pathetical ly few : In 1965 , conservatives blocked repeal of the right-to-work section of the Taft-Hartley Act; they postponed Senate approval o� the U.S. U.S.S.R. Consular Treaty ; they defeated home rule for the District of Columbia ; they stalled, in com mittee, administration proposals for federal fire arms legislation, expanded federal minimum wage laws, and unemployment compensation amend ments. Should all blame be placed on the President and Congress ? I think not. Throughout the. nation, constitutional conservatives, who had worked tire lessly to save their Republic, gave up or slowed down after the 1 964 elections. The few conservative victories in Congress dur ing 1965 were made possible because of public sup port. The avalanche of socialistic legislation was possible because of apparent public indifference. It is not too late to undo what has been done. On October 2 5 , 1965 , The New York Times published an article commenting on the adjournment of the first session of the 89th Congress. Note these re marks : "Behind the partisan clatter attending the ad· j ournment of Congress, there is surprising bi· partisan agreement on one main point about the session: The voters have not yet grasped the extent of the last 1 0 months' legislative work . . . . "In plain truth . . . a good many members of both parties are in � state of uncertainty border· ing on anxiety about how their constituents will react to their handiwork. They are streaming out of Washington today in a headlong rush to their home towns, eager for comfort and reassurance."

There is a cue to action for constitutional con· The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 11, No. 51)

servatives. Before election day 1 966, every voter should know how the U. S. Representative from his district, and the two U. S. Senators from his State, voted on vital issues that came before . Con gress in 1965 . Six issues of this Report published during 1 965 -"First Roll Calls, 1965," May 3 1 ; "Second Roll Calls, 1965 ," June 1 4 ; "Third Roll Calls, 1 965," August 2 ; "Fourth Roll Calls, .1 965," August 30; "Fifth Roll Calls, 1965," November 8 ; and the present issue--show how every U. S. Senator voted on 46 roll calls during 1965 and how every U. S. Representative voted on 50 roll calls. The present Report shows the rating each member of Congress earned by the stands he took-shows how many conservative stands each member took, how many liberal stands, and how many times he took no stand at all when an important roll call was being taken. In this Report last week ("The Remnant," De cember 1 3, 1965 ) , we presented examples of what constitutional conservatives are doing. These seven Reports-the five roll-call votes listed above, "The Remnant" of last week, and the present issue-could make a useful political action package for 1966: they provide constitution al conservatives in each district precise details to show voters why a member of Congress deserves support, or deserves voting out of office, because of the way he actually performed in 1965 ; they pro vide the basis of an effective platform for any can didate who wants to run as a constitutional con servative; they reveal the desperate need for politi cal action by constitutional conservatives ; they pro vide encouragement by giving examples of what others are doing. These seven Reports are being offered as a "Political Action Package" at the following special rates : 1 Political Action Package (7 Reports) $ 1 .00 50 Political Action Packages (350 Reports) $32.50 1 00 Political Action Packages (700 Reports) $60.00

Roll Calls Recorded In This Issue HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION : On

ber

1 6, 1 965 ,

Septem

the Senate (by a stand of 72 to 19)

The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 5 1 )

passed S 2084 (the Highway Beautification and Scenic Development Act) , giving the Secretary of Commerce dictatorial powers to .overrule state and local zoning laws along all interstate al1d primary highways. The vote is recorded in Column 43 under S enate-C indicating a conservative stand against the grant of autocratic power: On October 7, 1 965, the House (by a stand of 243 to 1 66 ) rejected a conservative amendment which would have left zoning determ�riatiop.s in the hands of state officials. ' This vote is recorded in Column 47 under House-C indicating a conserva tive stand for the defeated states rights amend ment. The basic . princi pIe of the states rights amend ment was, however, incorporated - in S 2 084, as finally passed by the �ouse and later approved by the Senate. In its final form, S 2084 leaves most zoning responsibility along interstate highways with state officials, empowering the Secretary of Commerce to withhold only 10% of committed federal funds when he disagrees with state zoning decisions (instead of 1 00%, as stipulated in the bill originally passed by the Senate) , and provid ing for j udicial review of actions by the Secretary in withholding highway funds. POVERTY WAR: On September 24, 1 96 5 , the Senate (by a stand of 59 to 30 ) passed the con ference version of HR 8283, the Economic Oppor tunity Act of 1 96 5 . The vote is recorded in Column 44 under Senate-C indicating a conservative stand against. The bill (authorizing $1,785 ,000,000 dur ing the next fiscal year for poverty ,war programs) restricts but does not eliminate the v�to power of governors over federal poverty programs in their states. FOREIGN AID : On October 1 , 1965, the House (by a stand of 209 to 199 ) rejected, a proposed amendment of HR 1 087 1 , prohibiting foreign aid to nations which trade with communist North Vietnam. The vote is recorded in Column 46 un der House-C indicating a conservative stand against aid to nations which are assisting our com munist enemy in North Vietnam. On October 5 , 1 96 5 , the Senate (by a stand of 5 8 to 2 9 ) passed HR 1 087 1 i n its final form, approPage 403

pnatmg $3,2 1 8,000,000 for regular foreign aid during fiscal 1966, and appropriating $714,1 88,000 for other foreign aid. The vote is recorded in Column 45 under Senate-C indicating a conserv ative stand against the appropriations. RIGHT TO WORK : On October 1 5, 1 965 , lib erals in the Senate tried to stop debate on HR 77, the bill to repeal the right-to-work section of the Taft Hartley Act. This effort to invoke cloture was defeated by a stand of 50 to .50 (invoking cloture requires approval of two-thirds of all Senators present) . The vote is recorded in Column 46 un der Senate-C indicating a conservative stand for continuing debate on the pending bill. Failing to stop debate on HR 77, administration leaders announced that the effort to repeal section 14 (b) of Taft Hartley would be dropped until the next session of Congress, which convenes in Janu ary, 1 966. MISSISSIPPI DELEGATION: On September 17, 1965, the House (by a stand of 240 to 1 56) adopted H Res 585, thus rejecting the efforts of civil rights agitators to unseat all five U. S. Rep resentatives from Mississippi, on grounds that they were illegally elected in 1964 because not enough negroes were registered to vote in Mississippi. The vote is recorded in Column 43 under House-C in dicating a conservative stand for rejecting the effort to unseat the duly elected Representatives from Mississippi. It is illuminating to note that the Mississippi delegation in the House had an average conserva tive voting record of 960/0 during 1 965-the best in the House. D. C. HOME RULE : For many years, totalitar ian liberals have tried to grant home rule to the District of Columbia, despite the constitutional re quirement that Congress must govern the federal district. In 1 965, the Senate, yielding to Johnsonian pressures, passed a D. C. Home Rule bill ( recorded in the November 8, 1 965, issue of this Report) ; but the House changed the bill (HR 4644) thus stopping D. C. home rule for the present. Prior to passage of the changed bill, conservatives made two unsuccessful efforts to kill home rule completePage 404

ly. The votes are recorded in Columns 44 and 45 under House-C indicating a conservative stand against D. C. Home Rule. RENT SUBSIDY FUNDS : In July, 1965, both houses of Congress passed the Housing and Urban Development Act, authorizing, among other things, President johnson's outrageous rent-subsidy scheme. For the voting, see "Fifth Roll Calls, 1 965," the November 8, 1965, issue of this Report. For details on rent subsidy, see "Government Guaranteed Security," the July 1 9, 1 965 , issue of this Report. In October, 1 965, the House, in enacting the Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill for fis cal 1966 (HR 1 1 588 ) , voted (by a stand of 210 to 189 ) to delete funds for the rent-subsidy pro gram-thus making it impossible for the adminis tration to initiate the program. The vote is re corded in Column 48 under House-C indicating a conservative stand against the rent-subsidy funds. HIGHER EDUCATION ACT : The Higher Ed ucation Act of 1 965 (HR 9567 ) , authorized a multi-billion dollar program of federal aid to col leges and college students. Title V of the Act created a Teachers Corps-to consist of teachers, selected and paid by the federal government, to teach children from low-income families. On Octo ber 20, 1965, the House had two important roll calls on HR 9567-one on a conservative effort to delete the Teachers Corps . provision, the other on final passage of the bill. By a stand of 239 to 165, the House rejected the effort to eliminate the Teachers Corps. The vote is recorded in Column 49 under House-C in . dicating a conservative vote against the Teachers Corps. By a stand of 324 to 74, the House passed HR 9567, with the Teachers Corps provision included. This vote is recorded in Column 50 under House C indicating a conservative stand against the Higher Education Act. Later, when voting appropriations to implement the Higher Education Act, the House (by voice vote) refused funds for the Teachers Corps. The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1)

VOT ING

REC ORDS

The capital letter in parentheses after each legislator ' s name indicates his party. The " 0/0 11 column shows conservative. perc entage rating. The "C II column shows the number of cons ervative votes . The "Lit column shows the number of liberal vot e s , The I1NV'1 column indicates the number of times the legislator was absent or did not take a public stand.

S E NA T E The 1 9 6 5 ratings of Senators are based on 4 6 roll call votes tabulated in this and five other issues of the Report (May 3 1 , June 1 4 , August 2 , August 3 0 , and November 8, 1 9 6 5 ) . C olumn #43 - - Highway Beautification Act, S 2084; #44 - - Poverty War amendment s , HR 8 2 8 3 ; Column #45 _ _ Foreign Aid Appropriations , HR 1 0 8 7 1 ; 1146 - - Right -to-Work, HR 7 7 , cloture. Virginia Democrat Senator Byrd resigned November 1 1 .

ALABAMA Hill, Lister (0) Sparkman, John J. (D) ALASKA Bartlett, E . L. (D) Gruening , Ernest (D) ARIZONA Fannin, Paul J. (R) Hayden, Carl (D) ARKANSAS Fulbright, J. W . (D) McClellan, John L. (D) CALIFORNIA Kuchel, Thomas H. (R) Murphy, George (R) COLORADO Allott, Gordon (R) Dominick, Peter H . (R) CONNECTICUT Dodd, Thomas J. (D) RibicoH, Abraham A . (D) DELAWARE Bogg s , J. Caleb (R) Williams, John J. (R) FLORIDA Holland, Spessard L. (D) Smathers , George A . (D) GEORGIA � lUchard .!:S . (D) Talmadge, Herman E . (D) HAWAII Fang, Hiram L. (R) Inouye, Daniel K. (D) IDAHO Church, Frank (D) Jordan, Len B. (R) ILLINOrS �, Everett McK . (R) Douglas , Paul H . (D) INDIANA 8ayh, Birch (D) Hartke , Vance (D) IOWA Hickenloope r , Bourke B. (R) Mille r , Jack {R} KANSAS �n, Frank (R) Pearson, James B. (R) KENTUCKY Cooper , John Sherman (R) Morton, Thruston B. (R) LOUISIANA Ellender , Allen J . (D) Long, Russell B (D) MAINE Muskie, Edmund S . (D) Smith, Margar-et Chase (R) MARYLAND Brewster, Daniel B . (D) Tyding s , Joseph O . (D) MASSACHUSETTS Kennedy, Edward M. (D) Saltonstall, Leverett (R) MICHIGAN Hart, Philip A. (D) McNamara, Pat (D) MINNESOTA McCarthy, Eugene J. (D) Mondale. Walter F. (D) MISSISSIPPI Eastland, James O . (D) Stennis . John (D) MISSOURI Long, Edward V. (D) Symington. Stuart (D)

54 42

25 16

21 22

L o

L L

C C

41 37

L L

C L

C C

34 6

12 30

28 74

Ii 34

28 12

L C

C C

20 n

37 13

L L

L C

54 63

25 29

21 17

C C

L L

C C

42 43

L L

33 76

15 34

30 11

C C

L C

C C

67 20

31 8

15 32

C L

L L

C C

82 70

27 31

o o

C L

C C

32 45

L L

C L

4 36

41 10

L L

L C

19 3

24 43

L L

C L

L L

C L

41 42

L L

13 2

75 63

30 29

10 17

C C

L L

C C

49 60

20 26

21 17

C C

L C

C C

26 50

32 22

L L

L C

76 22

35 10

II 35

C L

40 37

L L

43 44

L L

46 30

L L

L C

40 43

L L

C C

39 37

o o

L L

o 14

32 46 41 36

93 78 9 16

o o

42 39

Mike (O) 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) Mcintyre , Thomas J . (D) NEW JERSEY Case, Clifford P . (R) Williams , Harrison A . , Jr. (D) NEW MEXICO Anderson, C linton P. (D) Montoya, Joseph M . (D) NEW YORK Javits , Jacob K. (R) Kennedy, Robert F. (D) NORTH CAROLINA Ervin, SatTl J . , J r . (D) Jordan, B. Everett (D) NORTH DAKOTA Burdick, Quentin N. (D) Young, Milton R. (R) OHIO Lausche. Frank J. (D) Young, Stephen M. (D) OKLAHOMA Harris , Fred R . ( D) Monroney, A . S. Mike (D) OREGON Morse, Wayne (D) Neuberger, Maurine B (D) PENNSYLVANIA Clark, Joseph S. (D) Scott. Hugh (R) RHODE ISLAND Pastore, John O . (D) Pell. Claiborne (D) SOUTH CAROLINA Russell. Donald S. (D) Thurmond, Strom (R) SOUTH DAKOTA McGovern, George (D) Mundt, Karl E. (R) TENNESSEE Bass . Ross ( D) Gore, Albert (D) TEXAS Tower, John G. (R) Yarborough, Ralph W. (D) UTAH Bennett, Wallace F. (R) Mos s . Frank E . (D) VERMONT Aiken, Geoqze D. (R ) Prouty, Winston L. (R) VIRGINIA Byrd. Harry Flood (D) Robertson, A . Willis (D) WASHINGTON Jackson, Henry M . (D) Magnuson, Warren C. (D) WEST VIRGINIA Byrd, Robert C . (D) Randolph, J ennings (D) WISCONSIN Nelson, Gaylord A . (D) Proxmir e , William (D) WYOMING McGee, Gale W . (D) Simpson, Milward L. (R)

74 17

MONTANA

ManSITeTd ,

L L

C C

84 87

38 39

40 30

18 14

27 32

L L

C L

C C

61 20

18 36

L L

C L

L L

44 43 17 11

34 41

o o

L L

43 46

L L

C C

C C L C

73 56

33 24

12 19

II 76

41 11

L C

50 11

21 5

21 41

L L

20 14

36 36

36 38

L L

42 34

44 46

5 26

n 93

23 43

7 67

C L

L L

C L

L C

o o

L L

L C

C C

43 15

L C

C C

43 36

L L

L C

89 9

41 4

5 40

C L

80 5

37 2

9 40

C L

23 34

10 14

34 27

L L

L C

98 98

43 44

C C 41 40

11 18 5

39 11

7 89

C C

L L

28 41

L L

C L

43 42

L L

L C

HOUSE

The 1 9 6 5 ratings of Representatives are based on 50 roll call votes tabulated in this and five other issues oC the Report (May 3 1 , June 1 4 , August 2, August 3 0 , and November 8, 1 9 6 5 ) . C alifornia Democrat Roosevelt resigned September 30 to become a permanent U. S. Ambassador to the UN. New York Republican Lindsay was elected Mayor of New York City on November 2 . North Carolina Democrat Bonner died November 7. Representatives known to have been endorsed by the C ommittee on Political Education (COPE ) of the AFL-CIO in the 1964 elections are indicated by an asterisk (* ) . Column # 4 3 - - Mississippi Delegation, H R e s 5 8 5 ; #44 - - D. C . Home Rule, H R 4644, motion t o kill bill; # 4 5 - - D . C . Home Rule, H R 4644, final vote o n amended version; 1146 -- Foreign Aid Appropriations . HR 1 0 87 1 , North Vietnam aid; H47 -- Highway Beautification Act, S 2 0 8 4 , State s ' Rights motion; H48 -- Rent Subsidy Funds , HR 1 1 58 8 ; #49 - - Higher Education Act, HR 9 5 6 7 , Teacher Corps; 1#50 - - Higher Education Act, HR 9 5 6 7 , passage C ALABAMA Andrews , George W. Andl'o..... o . Clonn

(n)

(D)

Buchanan. John H . . J r . (R) Dickinson, William L. (R)

98 90 1 00 98

44 ., 49 48

C C

NV 43 C

C ALABAMA (cont 'd . ) Edwards . W . Jack III (R)

The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1)

+Jon e o , Robert

(D)

Martin, James D. (R) Selden, Armistead 1 . , Jr. (D) E.

1 00

49 35

98 71

L 31 I 14

C C

NV 43 C

C L

Page 405

C A LASKA *Rive r s , Ralph J. (D) ARIZONA Rhode s , John J. ( R ) *Senner , George F . , J r . *Udall, Morris K . (D) ARKANSAS

(D)

Gathings, E. C. (D) .Harris , Oren (D) *Mills , W i lbur O . (D) .Trimble, James W. (D) CALIFORNIA Baldwin, John F. (R) Bell. Alphonzo (R) .Brown, George E . , Jr. (D) .Burton. Phillip (D) *Cameron. Ronald B. (D) Clausen, Don (R) Clawson, Del (R) .Cohelan, Jeffery (D) *Corman, James C . (D) *Oyal, Kenneth W. (D) *Edwards. W. Donlon (D) Gubser. Charles S . (R) .Hagen. Harlan (D) *Hanna, Richard T. (D) *Hawkins. Augustus F . (D) .Holifield, Chet (D) Hosmer, Craig (R) *Johnson, Harold T. (D) .King, Cecil R. (0) .Leggett. Robert L . (D) Lipscomb, Glenard P. (Rl Mailliard. William S. (R) *McFall. John J . (D) *Mille r . George P . (D) .Moss, John E. (D) Reinecke. Edwin (R) *Roosevelt. James (D) *Roybal, Edward R . (D) .Sisk. B. F . (D) Smith. H . Allen CR) Talcott, Burt L . (R) Teague, Charles M. (R) .Tunney. John V . (D) Utt. James B . (R) .Van DeerHn, Lionel (D) Wilson, Bob (R) *Wilson, Charles H . (D) Younger. J. Arthur (R) COLORADO *Aspinall. Wayne N. (D) *Evans , Frank E. (D) *McVicker. Roy H . (D) *Rogers , Byron G . (D) CONNECTICUT *Oaddario, Emilio Q. (D) .Giaimo, Robert N. (D) .Grabowski, Bernard P . (D) .Irwin. Donald J. (D) *Monogan. John S. (D) *St. Onge. William (D) DELAWARE *McOowell, Harris B . , Jr. (D) FLORIDA � Charles E. (D) Cramer, WillialTl C. (R) .Vascell, Dante B . (D) Fuqua, Don (D) .Gibbon s . Sam M. (D) Gurney. Edward J. (R) Haley, James A. (D) Herlong, A. Sydney. Jr. (D) Matthews , D. R. (D) .Pepper, Claude (D) Rogers, Paul G . (D) Sikes, Robert L . V . (D) GEORGIA Callaway. Howard H . (R) Davi s , John W. (D) Flynt, John J . • J r . (D) Hagan, G . Elliott (D) Landrum. Phil M. (D) *Mackay, James A. (D) OtNeal. Maston E. (D) Stephen s . Robert G . , J r . (D) .Tuten. J. Russell (D) .Weltner. Charles L. (D) HAWAII �naga, Spark M. (D) .Mink. Patsy (D) IDAHO Hi'ii'i'en, George V. (R) "'White. Compton 1 . , J r . (D) ILLINOIS �on, John B. (R) "'Annunzio, Frank (D) Arends, Leslie C . (Rl Collier. Harold R. {R} .Oawson, William L. (D) Derwinskl, Edward J . (R) Erlenborn. John N. C R ) Findley, Paul (R) *Gray, Kenneth J. (D)

Page 406

46 84 9 II

82 44 38 14

40 ZI 18

58 57

28 26

o 16 83 91 6 2 o 84 15

75 14 6 2 92 51 8 80 2 9 96 81 67 16 96 7 90 II 90

40 41

45 24 3 39

48 38 33 48 3 43 45

17 II

II 8 II 21

10 2

74 80 15 80 27 92 96 72 62 8 62 66

37 39 7 35 13 45 48 33 30 4 31 33

96 58 73 76 37 17 92 47 50 30

45 29 32 34 15 8 45 23 25 14

41 41

45 8

84 2 70 88

36 I 35 43

85 86 85 8

41 42 41 4

C L L

L L L

C L L

C L

C L C L

L L L L

C L L L

C C L L L C C L L L L C L C L L C L L L C L L L L C

L C L L L L C L L L L

C L L L L C C L L L L C L L L L

L L L L L C C L L L L L L L L L

o G G

27 30 43

C C C

20 20 46 48 38 8

L L L L C C

L L L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L L C C L C

L L L L C L L L L C L L L C

L L L L C L L L L C L L

47 41 49 48 7 39 39 42 46 II 42 46 46 4 23 46 47 46 10 39 46 41 2 9 16 36

C C L C L C

L L C

G C C C C

L L L C L L L C C L L

C L L L L L L L L C L L L C L

38 43 39 46

C L L L

47 42 45 41 38 45

L C L L C L

L L L L L L

L L L L C L

L C C L C L C

13 18 45 19 17 21 12 II 26 39 4 26 25 32

35 49 15 6 47

C C C C C C C C C C C

L L

C C C

13 10 41 9 35

L L C

C L C L C L C

42 5 40 5

47 48 90 19

L C L

L L L

C C L C C

L L

L L L L C L L L C L L L L C L L C C C L C L C L C L

o c C L C C L L L C

L L L L

C C L L L

L L L C

L L L C C L L L C

L L L C L L L L L

L L C

L L L C

o o

L C C C L C

o o

C L

L C

C L C L C

L L L

L L L L

L L

C L C L

L L L L L L

L L L L C L

L L L L L L

C C L C

C C C C C C

L C L C L C C C C L L L

C C L C

L C L

C C C C L C C

L L L

C C C C L C

L L

C C L C L C C C C L L C C C C

o L

L L

o L

C C L C L L L

L L L L L

C C C C C L C

L L L

C L L C L L L

C C C C

L C C C L

C C C C C L C C C L

C L

L L

C C

C L

C C

C L

L L

C L C C L C C

L L

C C C C C

G C

L L C C L C C

C o

C C C C

L C C L C C

L L L L C L

C L C C L C C

L C C L C C

C L C C L C C

C L

L C

L o G L L L

L G

L C C

C ILLINOIS (cont 'd . ) *Kluczynski, John C . (D) McClory, Robert (R) Michel, Robert H. ( R ) "'Murphy, William T . (D) *OtHara, Barratt (D) *Price. Melvin (D) .Pucinski. Roman C . (D) Reid, Charlotte (R) "'Ronan, Dan (D) "'Rostenkowski, Dan (D) Rumsfeld, Donald (R) .Schisler, Gale (D) .Shipley. George E. (D) Springe r , William L. (R) .Yates, Sidney R. (D) INDIANA Adair, E. Ross (R) *Brademas, John (D) Bray, William G . (R) "'Denton, Winfield K. (D) Halleck, Charles A. (R) .Hamilton, Lee H . (D) Harvey, Ralph (R) .Jacob s , Andrew, Jr. (D) .Madden, Ray J. (D) Roudebush, Richard L . (R) *Roush, J. Edward (D) IOWA .Bandstra, Bert (D) "'Culve r , John C. (D) .Greigg, Stanley L . (D) Gross , H. R. (R) *Hansen, John R. (D) .Schmidhauser, John R. (D) .Smith, Neal (D) KANSAS --oore;-Sob (R) Ellsworth, Robert V. (R) Mize, Chester L . (R) Shriver , Garner E. (R) Skubitz, Joe (R) KENTUCKY Carter, 'Jim Lee (R) *Chelf, Frank (D) C<Farnsley, Charles P . (D) "'Natc her, William H . (D) .Perkin s , Carl O . (D) .Stubblefield, Frank A. (D) *Watts , John C. (D) LOUISIANA *Boggs, Hale (D) Edwards, Edwin W. (D) Hebert, F. Edward (D) Long, Speedy O . (D) .Morrison, James H . (D) Passman. Olto E . (D) Waggoner, Joe D . , Jr. (D) "'Willis, Edwin E. (D) MAINE �way, William O . (D) .Tupper. Stanley R. (R) MARYLAND "'Vallon. George H . (D) .Friedel, Samuel N. (D) *Garmatz, Edward A. (D) .Long. Clarence O . (D) Machen. Hervey G . (D) Mathias . Charles McC. (R) Morton. Rogers C. B . (R) *Sickles, Carlton R. (D) MASSACHUSETTS Bates, William H . (R) .Boland, Edward P . (D) "'Burke, James A. (D) Conte. Silvio 0 , (R) *Donohue, Harold D . (D) Keith, Hastings (R) "'Macdonald. Torbert H . (D) Martin, Jos eph W . , Jr. (R) "'McCorlTlack. John W. (D) Morse, F . Bradford (R) .O'Neill. Thomas P . • Jr. (D) *Philbin, Philip J. (D) MICHIGAN �ld, William S . (R) Cederberg, EHord A. (R) Chamberlain, Charles E. (R) "'Clevenger , Raymond F. (D) .Conye r s . John J . • Jr. (D) "'Diggs, Charles C . , Jr. (D) t.<Oingell, John O. (D) .Farnum, Billie S. (D) Ford, Gerald R . • J r . (R) .Ford, William D. (D) Griffin, Robert P . (R) "'GriHiths , Martha W. (D) Harvey, James (R) Hutchinson, Edward (R) t.<Mackie, John C. (D) .Nedzi. Lucien N. (D) .O'Hara, James G. (D) .Todd. Pa.ul H. (D) *Vivian, Weston E. (D)

2 67 89 2 6 15 94 2 70 8 25 66 86 4 86 8 7� 18 85 10 4 89 28

33 42

47 I I 33

49 47 49 39

10 29 4

47 45 14 43 30 15 46

42 2 43 4 34 9 34 5 2 41 14

47 7 45 11 41 6 45 45 5 36

13 II 6 1 00 10 10 10

5 3 50 5 5

90 53 n 71 79

45 25 34 35 37

56 27 2 22 12 27 25

27 13 II 6 13 12

45 16

35 43 5 47 45 19

C L L C L L C L

L C C L L L L C L L L L L L L

3 10 6

L L L L L L L L L 0 L

C L L L C

o L L

10 o

3 4 o

L C C C C C L L

C L

L C C L

C L L L L C L L C L O C L

C L C L

L C L L C C

C C L L C C

L C L C C

C L C L C L C L L C L

L L L C L L L

L L L C L L

L L C C L L L

L C L C L C C

L L L C L L L

L C L L L

L L

C C C

C C

G C

0 0 0

C C C C C

C L L L L

C L L L L L L

C e L L L C C

L L L L L L L

L L

C L

L L C C L

L L L L C L L C L L C L

L L L L L L L L L L L L

C L C L C L C L L C L

L L L L L L L

L L L

0 L

L C

C C C C C

C C C C C C

C C L C L C C

L L L C L C C

C L L L L C C

C C C C C C

C C L C C C

C C L

o L

C C L

C C C

L C L

C C L

C C C

C C L

21 36 40 39 44 35 36

44 3 25 I 11

L L

L C

L L

40 40 42 43 43 29 16 47

L L L L L L C L

L L L L C L L L

L L L L L 0 C L

L L L L L C

L L L C

L L L L L L

L L L L L C C L

C L L L L L L L

C L L L L C C C

L L L L L L C L

L L L

L L

L C C L L L L L C L L C L C

L C C L L L L L 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 L L L L L

21 2 24 II 19

36 6

16 3 2

29 45 46

54 85 82 2

27 40 40 I

23 7 9 48 46 42 48 43 15 47 18 47 18 8 43 48 46 38 46

19 4

L C C L L L

C L

20 46 48 28 46 25 35 21

34 2 30 2 30 42 3

22 13 14 10

L C C L L L L C L L

C C C C C

58 4 4 43 4 49 24 48

8 69 4 62 4 62 84

L C C L L L C C L L C L

L L L C L L L

13 13 14 10 14 31 64 2

L L

C C C C C L

45 34

L L

42 39 47 o 45 43 43

7 13 28

L C C L L L

44 83 90 II 96 94 43

L C C L

L L

o L L L L

C L L L C C C

L L L L C L O

C e C L L L L L C

C e C L L

L L L L

L L

C C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L L

C C C L L L L L C L C L C C L L L L

L L L L L L L O

C L C L C

L C

C L C C L

L C L

L L

L L C L

L C C L L L L L

L L

L L L L C L L C L L L L L

The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1 )

C M[NNESOTA *Blatnik. John A. (D) *Fras e r , Donald M. (D) *Karth, Joseph E. (D) Langen, Odin (R) MacGregor I Clark (R) Nelsen, Ancher (R) *Olson, Alec C . (D) Quie. Albert H. (R) MISSISSIPPI Abernethy, Thomas G. (D) Colmer, William M . (D) Walker. Prentiss (R) Whitten, Jamie L. (D) William s , John Bell (D) M[SSOUR[ *Bolling, Richard (D) Curtis . Thomas B. (R) Hall, Durward G. (R) Hull. W . R . • Jr. (D) *Hungate , William L. (D) *Ichord, Richard H . (D) *Jone s , Paul C . (D) *Karsten. Frank M . (D) *Randall, William J. (D) *Sullivan. Leonor Kretzer (D) MONTANA Battin, James F. (R) *OIsen, Arnold (D) NEBRASKA *Callan. Clair A. (D) Cunningham, Glenn (R) Martin, David T . (R) NEVADA Baring. Walter S. (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE Cleveland, James C. (R) *Huot, J. Oliva (D) NEW JERSEY *Cahill. William T. (R) *Oaniels , Dominick V . (D) Dwyer, Florence P. (R) Frelinghuysen, Peter, Jr. (R) "'Gallagher, Cornelius E. (D) Helstoski, Henry (D) Roward, James J. (D) *Joelson, Charles S . (D) *Krebs, Paul J . (O) McGrath, Thomas C . , J r . (D) "'Minish, Joseph G. (D) *Patten, Edward J . , Jr. (D) *Rodino, Peter W . , J r . (D) *Thompson, Frank, Jr. (D) Widnall, William B . (R) NEW MEXICO *Morris, Thomas G . (D) *Walker, E. S. (D) NEW YORl< *Addabbo, Joseph P. (D) *Bingham, Jonathan B . (D) *Carey, Hugh L. (D) *Celler, Emanuel (D) Conable, Barber B . , J r . (R) *Oelaney, James L. (D) *Dow, John G. (D) *Oulski, 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) *Hanley, James M . (D) Horton, Frank J. (R) *Kelly, Edna F. (D) *Keogh, Eugene J. (D) King, Carleton J. (R) *Lindsay, John V. (R) *McCarthy, Richard O. (0) McEwen, Robert C . (R) *Multer, Abraham J. (D) *Murphy, John M. (0) *O'Brien, Leo W. (0) *Ottinger, Richard L. (D) *Pike, Otis G . (D) Pirnie , Alexander (R) *Powell, Adam Clayton (D) *Reid, Ogden R. (R) Resnick, Joseph Y. (D) Robison, Howard W . (R) :O:Rooney, John J. (D) *Rosenthal, Benjamin S. (D) *Ryan, William Fitts (D) Scheuer, James H. (D) Smith, Henry P. , III (R) :O:Stratton, Samuel S. (D) "'Ten:z.er , Herbert (D) *Wolff, Lester L. (D) Wydler, John W . (R) NORTH CAROL[NA Bonner, Herbert C. (D) Broyhill, James T . (R) Cooley, Harold D. (D) Fountain, L. H. (D)

42 50 46 84

100

1 00

12 49 32

37 43

44 25

2 56

17 23

47 47 48 47 46

4 53

49 42

47 27

6 39 6

64 15

4 24 8

41 47

4 3

6 78

16 78

45 46 45 19

0 14

43 42

46 47 39 40

3 25

53 84

24 46 26

C C C C C

25 10 23 8

L C C

C L C

C L C C C C C C 0

C C

C C L L C L L L

L C C C C C C L C L

C C C C C C L C L

C C L C C L L L

C L

C C

C L

L L L

L C C

C C

C C C L L C L L o

L C o

L C L L L C L L o

L L L L o

L L

C L

L L

L L L

C L C

C L L

C 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 L L L L L L L L L C

L L L L L L L L L L C

C C

L L L L C L L L L

L L L L L L L L L C L

L L

L C L L L L L L C L L C L L L

L L L L

41 23

C C

21 46

6 16 48

C C L L L L L L L L

C C C C C

L L L L C C L C

L L L L L L L L C

L L L C C C L C

L L C C C C C C

18 48 47

L L L C

L C C

L L L C C C L C

C L

L L L L L L L L

C C

1 00

L L L C C C L L

C L L C L

9 1

L C C C L C C L C L

C L C C C C C L C L

o o o

C L

9 44

C L L L C L C

L L L L 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 C L o L

L L L C L L C L C L

C C

L L L L

C L L C

C C L L L L C C L L L C L L L L C L L C C

L L L L C L

L L L L L L L

L L L

C c

C L C

C o

L L L

L L L L L L L L L L L

L L

C C

L L

L L L L C L L

C L L L C L L L L C L C C L L L L L C L C C L L L L C C L L L C L L

L L L L C L L L L L L C C L L C L L C

L L L L L L L L L L L C

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 L L L L L

L C C L L C L L C L L C L L L L L C L L L C L L L L C C L L

C C C C

L o

C L L L o

C C C

L L L L C L L L C L C L C

L L L L o

L C L C

NORTH CAROLINA (cont'd. ) Henderson, David N. (D) Jonas , Charles Raper (R) Kornega y, Horace R. (D) Lennon, Alton (D) Scott. Ralph J. (D) Taylor, Roy A. (D) Whitener , Basil L. (D) NORTH DAKOTA Andre� (R) *Redlin, Rolland (D) OHIO Ashbrook, John M. (R) *Ashley, Thomas L. (D) Ayre s , William H . (R) Betts, Jackson E. (R) Boiton, Frances P. (R) Bow, Frank T . (R) Clancy, Donald D . (R) Devine, Samuel L. (R) *Feighan, Michael A. (D) *Gilligan, John J . (D) Harsha, William H . , Jr. (R) :O:Hays , Wayne L. (D) Kirwan, Michael J. (D) Latta, Delbert L. (R) *Love, Rodney M. (D) McCulloch, William M. (R) Minshall, William E. (R) *Moeller, Walter H. (D) Mosher, Charles A. (R) *Secrest, Robert T. (D) Stanton, J. William (R) *Sweeney, Robert E. (D) *Vanik, Charles A . (D) OKLAHOMA *Albert, Carl (D) Belcher, Page (R) *Edmondson, Ed (D) Jarman, John (D) "'Jop,nson, Jed, Jr. (D) "'Steed, Tom (D) OREGON "'Duncan, Robert B. (D) *Green. Edith (D) *Ullman. A l (D) Wyatt, Wendell (R) PENNSYLVAN[A *Barrett, W illiam ·A . (D) *Byrne, James A. (0) *Clark, Frank M. (D) *Corbett, Robert J . (R) .Craley, N. Neiman, Jr. (D) Curtin, Willard S. (R) Dague, Paul B. (R) .Dent, John H . (D) *Flood. Daniel J. (D) *Fuiton, James G. (R) .Green. William J • • III (D) *Holland, Elmer J. (D) Johnson, Albert W. (R) Kunkel, John C . (R) McDade. Joseph M . (R) *Moorhead, William S. (D) .Morgan, Thomas E. (D) "'Nix, Robert N . c.. (D) *Rhodes , George M. (D) *Rooney, Fred B. {O} Saylor, John P. (R) Schneebeli, Herman T. (R) Schwcikcr, Richard S. (R) .Toll, Herman (D) .Vigorito, Jos eph P. (D) Watkins , C. Robert (R) Whalley. J. Irving (R) RHODE ISLAND *Fogarty, John E . (D) "'Sl. Germain, Fernand J. (D) SOUTH CAROL[NA Ashmore, Robert T. (D) Dorn, W. J. Bryan {D} Gettys, Thomas S. (D) McMillan, John L. (D) Rive r s , L. Mendel (D) Watson. Albert W. (R) SOUTH DAKOTA Berry, E. Y. (R) Reifel, Ben (R) TENNESSEE *Anderson, ....Villiam R . (D) Brock, William E . , III (R) Duncan, John J. (R) Everett, Robert A. (D) Evins , Joe L. (D) *Fulton, Richard (D) *Grider, George W. (D) Murray, Tom (D) Quillen, James H . (R) TEXAS �orth, Lindley (D) *Brooks, Jack (D) Burleson, Omar (D) Cabell, Earle (D) Casey, Bob (D)

The Dan Smoot Report, December 20l 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1 )

94 73

46 33

[4 44

43 1

39 42

40 74

20 37

30 13

45 44

28 45

43 19 47 49

42 17

9 45 44

46 46 44 48 1

35 6 10

2 5

42 44

84 66 76

64 97

92 32

46 15

20 8

47 21

8 42 28 40

84 61 80

4 5 2

8 18 10

C C C C C C C

C C C C L C C

L C L L C

C C

L L

C L

C L C C

L L L C

C L C C

C L

C C C L

C C C L L C C C C L C C C L L C L L

C C C L L L L L C L L L L L L L L L

C C C L L C L L C L

C L L L L L C C L L

C C C C C L L

C C C L L C L L C L C C L C C C L L

C L C C C C C C L L C L L C L C C C C L C L L

o L

C L L

L L L L

L C L C

L C L C L C

L C L C L L

L C L L L L

L L L L

C C C C C L L C L L C L C C L

L L L L L L L

C C C C C C

o o

L C L L L L

L L C L

L L L

L L L L

L L L C

C L C C

L C L o

L C

L L L L L C C L L L L L C L L L L L L L C L L L L C L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C C L L L L L C C

L L L

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C

C L L L L L C C

L L L C L C C L L C L L C C L L

L L L L L C C L L L L L L L L L

L L C C

C C L L C C

L L L C C C L L

L L L C L L L L

L L C C L C C C C L L L C L L L L L L o

33 45

C C C C C C C

L C C C L C C L L

C C C C C C C

C C C

C C C C C C C

2 83

C C L o

L C C

L L C L L C C L o

L L L C C C L L L L L C C L L L C C

l..

L C C L L L L L C o

L L L L L o

L L

C L

L L

C C C C C C

C C C C

C C C C C C

C C

C L L C L C

o o

C L

L L

C C

o o

C C C C C C C C C

L C C C C L L C C

L L C C L L L C C

L C C L

L L L C

C L L L L L C

L C C C L L L C

L C C L L L L L C

L L L L L L L L C

C C

C C C C L

L L L L C

L L C L L

C C

L L C C C

L L C L L

C C C C

C C

Page 407

TEXAS (cont'd. ) �Garza, Eligio (D) Dowdy, John (D) Fisher, O. C. (D) *Gonzalez. Henry B. (D) Mahon. George H. (D) .Patman, W right (D) Pickle. J . J. (0) Poage. W. R. (0) Pool, Joe (D) .Purcell, Graham (D) Roberts, Ray (D) Roge r s , Walter (D) Teague. Olin E . (D) .Thomas . Albert (D) Thompson. Clark W. (D) White, Richard C. (D) .Wright, James C . , Jr. (D) .Young. John (D) UTAH BUr'to n. Laurence J. (R) .King, David S. (D) VERMONT Stafford, Robert T. (R) VIRGINIA Abbitt, Watkins M . (D) Broyhill, Joel T. (R) .Oowning. Thomas N. (D) *Hardy, Porter, Jr. (D) *J enning s , W . Pat (D) Marsh. John 0 . , Jr. (D)

NY 43

21 46 46 24 8 13 25 48 15 32 39 38 4 5 29 6 10

28 4 4 46 26 40 37 21 I 30 18 8 II 28 30 21 35 36

77 8

34 4

10 46

89 81 65 59 35 84

41 39 32 27 17 42

17 19 31 8

C C C C C C

43 9Z 92 6 48 17 26 54 98 33 64 83 78 12 14 58 15 22

C C C C C C e C c

18 15 o 9

C C C L L o L e

L C C L C

L C C L L L L L

C C C L L L e e

C C C L C L L o

L L C L L L L

L e

C C C C

e C C C

o e e C

C L L C

C L

C L L C

C o o C L L

L L L

e C C C o o C L o

L L

C L

O L

C L

L L

C C C C C C

C C e C e C

C C e O e C

C C L L L C

e C e e e e

e C e e L e

L L L L L L

L C

L L L C 0 0

WHO

L C C L

0 c

C L L

L L C L o o L L L

0 0

VIRGINIA (cont 'd . ) porr, Richard H. (R) Satterfield, David E . , III (D) Smith, Howard W. (D) Tuck, William M . (D) WASHINGTON *Adams , Brockman (D) *Foley, Thomas S. (D) *Hansen, Julia Butler (D) Hicks, Floyd V . (D) May, Catherine (R) *Meeds, Lloyd (D) Pelly, Thomas M. (R) WEST VIRGINIA *Heckler , Ken (D) *Kee. James (D) Moore, Arch A . , Jr. (R) .Slack, John M . , J r . (D) .Staggers, Harley O . (D) WISCONSIN Byrnes, John W. (R) Davi s , Glenn R . (R) *Kastenmeier, Robert W . (D) Laird, Melvin R . (R) *O'Konski, Alvin E . (R) *Race, John A. (D) *Reuss, Henry S. (D) *Stalbaum. Lynn E . (D) Thomson, Ve rnon W. (Rl *Zablocki, Clement J. (D) WYOMING *RO'nCaTIQ, Teno (D)

D A N

C 90 92 82 92

45 46 41 45

15 6 10 80 6 59

7 3 5 36

12 8 75 18 16 77 82 o 89 59 12 4 10 83 10

35 9 37 40 o 41 27 6 2 5 39

NY 4 3 C C C C

46 39 44 45 9 47 20 o 2 3 o 6

44 44 12 41 37 II 9 49 5 19 43 48 45

44 32

C C C C

C C L C

L L

L L L L C L C

L e L L e L e

L L L L e L e

L L L L L L L

L L

L L C L L

L L L L L

C C L C o L L e C L

C C C

C C L C

L L L C L

L L L L L

L o L L o L L

L C L L

L L L L

L L L L C L C

C C C C C

L L C L L

C e L C C L L L C e

C e L C C L L L C L

C L L L C L L L L L

C C L C

e L L e L

C L C e L L L o L

L L

L L 0

S M O O T ?

Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, 1938 and 1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow, doing graduate work for a doctorate in American civili. zation. From 1942 to 195 1, he was an FBI agent: three and a half years on communist investigations; two years on FBI headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases in various places. He resigned from the FBI and, from 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television programs, giving both sides of controversial is sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: publishing The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and television broadcast, available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report and broadcast give one side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitution as a yardstick. If you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help immensely - help get sub scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast.

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?

6 months - $ 6.00 1 year - $10.00 - $10.00 - $10.00 -$10.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

4.00 2.00 1 .00 2.00 .50

NAME (Please Print)

STREET ADDRESS

STATE

CITY

- $ 3.98

(Texans Add 2 % for Sales Tax)

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, BOX 9538, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 14 Page 408

ZIP CODE

- $ 3.98

TAYLOR 1 -2303

The Dan Smoot Report, December 20, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 5 1)

THE o

DIIII SmootReport Vol. 1 1 , No. 52

(Broadcast 540 )

December 27, 1 965

Dallas, Texas DAN SMOOT

I N SA N I TY I N WAS H I N G T O N by U. S. Representative Otto E. Passman, Louisiana Democrat, Membe1' at the House Committee on Ap propriations, Chait'nzan ot the Foreign Operations Subcommittee

(The following was taken, with permission, from a speech which Congressman Passman made to the Public Affairs Luncheon Club of Dallas on November 1 5, 1 965.)

I am not speaking as a Democrat, or as a Republican, but as an American-not only as a mem ber of Congress; but also as a businessman. I shall speak frankly to point out certain changes that are taking place in our government, leading us into a socialistic state. If I am to help preserve our form of government, then I must speak frankly about the programs that are leading us in that direction. The record shows that in all ages, where republican forms of government have been lost, it has been through the pretense of a "share-the-wealth" program, and a blind faith in public officials. Americans should be reminded that the more freely Washington spends their money, and the larger the annual deficit, the less their earned and saved dollars will buy. Deficit spending will never be stopped until such time as business people evaluate their leaders for what they are, rather than for what they say they are. The wealth and brains of our Nation are in the fifty States, not in Washington. If what we are doing in Washington under the "Great Soci ety" leadershi p is right - then the procedures under our Constitution which made this Nation great, free, strong, advanced and wealthy, were wrong. We should never assume that when a man is elected to high office, he automatically becomes honest, or sincere - or even smart. Elected public officials are our servants, not our masters. We should never hesitate to challenge them when in our opinion they are not acting in the best interest of America. THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mail· ing 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, $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 $1O.00--each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery .

S moot,

1965. Second Class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas.

No Reproductions Permitted.

Page 409

Vote�s did not gi�e !l mandate to the President to bankrupt America and destroy our sovereignty, or to the Congress to rubber-stamp all proposals · submitted by the President. Most of the legislation rammed through the Congress by the "Gr:eat Society" architects is as socialistic as any legis lation to be found in any acknowledged socialistic country.

political purposes. It is a delusion to expect that the government can end poverty with your money. The government has nothing of its own to give away - except that which it takes from the people. through taxing and borrowing. Through the scheme of trying to do everything for everybody everywhere, savings are drained from the thrifty of the past and given, free, to be consumed by those who have not and, in most Each year in the Congress, we see fewer leaders instances, care not. This is the opposite of capital and more followers. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for propaganda, endeavor , . formation on which productivity rests and on which relief from poverty actually depends. ing to convince the American people that govern mental paternalism and welfarism are for their The Administration's programs are a political best interests. giveaway - a redistribution of people's wealth and savings -.with nothing formative, productive Those ' of us who are pledged to responsible or creative about them. government need the backing of concerned citizens from back home. Unless responsible citizens face Your government is a spender - not an earner. up to their task, socialism will become the form Anything the government gives the people, it of government in America. must first take from them. Never i� the history of America has it been proposed to take away The spirit of self-reliance that animated the much from so many to do so little for so few. so earliest settlers and which for more than a century and a half inspired Americans to exercise their We should keep in mind that a government initiative and develop this country through hard big enough to give you everything you want is work, while preserving their independence from a government big enough to take away everything too much government, is disappearing. you have, inc'luding your freedoms. What right has the President - what right has We are not creeping - we are running the Congress-to spend unnecessarily your savings towards a socialistic form of government in of the past through inflation, your earnings of America. We are dissipating our wealth and the present, and then place a debt upon the heads burning ourselves out, forming a socialistic gov of unborn generations, when the ' purpose is mainly ernment in America, and helping to form and to establish a one-party system in' 0ur country ? finance socialistic governments all over the world. There are many in high places in government On the surface, it would appear that we have who have little concern Jabout the' policies that a strong economy in America, that we are enjoying made America what it is, and less concern about great prosperity. But, upon what basis can some of preserving thein. the present prosperity be explained ? The affairs of government need your attention. Our record of government spending can be It is for the best interests of our country that its compar�d with the actions of an ' individual who citizens �nform . themselves, 'tha� they recogn�ze was thrifty and saved for a rainy d.ay. But, sud the frightening facts and deal with them firmly. Otherwise, we will soon live under a socialistic . denly he, stopped saving and raised his standard of living .fir?t to the level of his earnings ; then, form of government. The rriyth of governmenta-l paternalism and irresponsible welfarism must be · he started spending his savings of the past. Finally, I

exposed. Remember, federal_handouts are intended

primarily to control the people for voting and Page 410

he wanted to live even higher, so he staFted bor

rowing against his future earnings. No doubt, The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 52)

such a person would enjoy living it up in this manner if he did not take into account what the consequences would be when his savings were gone and his credit exhausted. I am not against necessary Federal programs ; however, I am against Federal programs that are designed to lead us into a socialistic state and control ou.( private lives from the cradle to the grave. I say again, we are spending money we do not have for things we do not need. If there are those who question the fact that we are dissipating the savings of the past through inflation, then check the purchasing power of the dollar in 1 940 against the purchasing power of the dollar in 1965. Somewhere along the way, mainly by our government's policies of waste and extravagance, and by spending money we did not have for things we did not need, the dollar, since 1940, has lost 57 percent of its purchasing p.ower. On December 3 1 , 1964, our borrowed-money public debt amounted to 3 1 8 Billion Dollars. Statutory obligations calling for the pay-out of money in subsequent years for services previously rendered, amounted to 800 Billion Dollars. The two together make a real public debt, or obliga tion, for services previously rendered, of .1 Trillion, 1 18 Billion Dollars. These obligations amount to approximately 2 3 Thousand Dollars per family of four i n America, or, 5 Thousand, 750 Dollars for every living American. And, this figure does not .include the heavy additional obligations of state and local units of goverrunent." We usually think that borrowed money is our only public debt, but this is the smallest part of the total of federal obligations. The statutory obli gations call for the pay-out of money in subsequent years for services previously rendered. The govern ment created no reserves to pay for these_ services at the time they were being performed ; so, present and future generations must pay the bill. I want to explain a few of the statutory obligations : It requires over One Billion Dollars annually to pay the p<5nsions of present retired military The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 , No. 52)

personnel - and, it will be 132 years before the last check is drawn to the dependents of present retired military personnel. Neither the goverrunent nor the retired military personnel created any reserves to pay for these benefits. Veterans' benefits approach Six Billion Dollars annually. It will require 1 28 years to meet our obligations to the present living veterans and their dependents. "

It costs the governme1,1t in excess of One Billion ' Dollars annually to meet its part of the retire ment program of present retired federal employees. The employee makes his contribution toward his retirement pay, but the government does not. The government's share must come out of current revenues. Interest on the public debt is approaching Twelve Billion Dollars annually. Paying the public debt - or any part of it - is never mentioned by the "Great Society" architects. It is also well to keep in mind that the expected 100 Billiqn Dollar budget for the new fiscal year which began July 1, tends, as do all our annual budgets, to hi.de from the public the full extent of federal receipts and expenditures. Disburse ments during fiscal year + 966 will exceed 1 30 Billion Dollars. This figure is 30 Billion Dollars above the estimates for expenditure of the gen erally publicized budget figure. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the budget items presented to the public cover only the admini strative budget where the money must be ap propriated by the Congress. This does not include the 30 Billion Dollars of receipts and disburse ments in trust funds and other accounts, and the several statutes that permit funds to be withdrawn from the U. S. Treasury without a prior appropri ation. Our federal budget has been balanced only six times during the past 36 years. There was an operating deficit of nearly 4 Billion Dollars for the fiscal year which ended June 30, this year; and it is anticipated the same will be true on and on into the future, unless the people decide to Page 4 1 1

put a stop to the squandering of their wealth. Does it not frighten you to realize that during the years of our greatest revenues our government has had the largest deficits ? Deficit spending creates inflation - inflation which has brought the purchasing power of the 1940 dollar down to forty-three cents on the 1 965 market. Nothing is easier than the expenditure of public money - your money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody. Under the first 24 months of operation of the "Great Society," the pres�nt Administration, dealing with an extremely responsive Congress, secured the adoption of more socialistic legislation than during the previous 176 years of existence of our government. Here are some of the plus programs approved or pending: Manpower Development and Training-Youth Employment - Health Professions Assistance Teachers' Corps-Higher Education-Inter-Amer ican Bank-Far Eastern Bank-Accelerated Public Works-Community Facilities-Area Redevelop ment -' Beautification - Mass Transit - Appala chian Aid-War oh Poverty-Food Stamp Plan Federal Aid to Education-Socialized Medicine Direct Rent Subsidies-and now, direct Wage Subsidies are being proposed to equalize living standards regardless of individual ability and initiative. It is estimated that the first year's cost of the super duper programs already passed under the "Great Society" will exceed 1 1 Billion Dollars, and at the end of the tenth year, the cost will have exceeded 1 2 5 Billion Dollars. Also, there are many more costly programs in the making. We must stop the rivers of waste occasioned by the extravagance of our public leaders, or else some day regret our complacency and reluctance to speak out.

Another matter of deep concern to me and of

great importance to the American people is the Page 412

rate by which we have been giving our wealth away to foreign nations. I find not a word, a line,

a clause, or a provision in the Federal Constitu tion that authorizes the foreign aid program. Even

with the outpouring of billions of dollars all over the world, there is little indication that we are admired or respected for our generousity. This nation became great building a world reputation based on trade. Giving away our wealth to secure friends is a new concept in foreign policy; and the record will show that it has contributed to bringing about a world of confusion and tur moil, with America having fewer friends now than when we started the program. Foreign-aid dollar diplomacy has been about our only foreign policy since the end of World War II. It is the most misguided, disappointing, expensive experiment in foreign relations ever undertaken. Our foreign-aid program has been a dismal failure. Aid is scattered all over the world. It is received grudgingly and resentfully. We are now experi encing the truth of this, but the aid bill grows larger. Yet, the United States today is the most vilified nation on the globe, simply because it has offered aid to buy friends. This we do not admit, but is is true, nevertheless, and the recipients know it. It is time to stop this giveaway program before we have given away your life's savings, or en cumbered them to the point that you have lost most of your control over them. It is humiliating to face up to the fact that some of the recipient nations have said to us, "Get out! To hell with your aid, we do not want it or need it. " Yet, we still have aid programs going in these countries. The aid program is the most flexible program ever known to our government. The Executive branch presents its requests for appropriations for foreign aid on an "illustrative" basis. Congress does not actually know to what projects or to what countries the money will go. As the AID Agency operates, they can testify for funds for a The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 52)

road in Burma, but use the money for a brick building in Algeria.

you include the annual interest on what we have borrowed to give away.

The budget request for the aid program is so slipshod that all of their estimates for funds are a guess of the wildest sort.

No program in the history of mankind has had as many paid lobbyists as the foreign aid program. It would take many pages, if not a book, to list the names of all individuals who are lobbying for or are recipients of the program.

In view of the uncertainties, waste and built-in contingencies of foreign aid, the Administration in power must bluff, flatter and flimflam members of Congress to keep the global giveaway program gomg. Only a few people have gone into the program's ramifications and misrepresentations thoroughly enough to be informed on the subject. And, those best informed certainly are not in the Executive branch of our government. The facts are conclusive that the foreign-aid program is beyond the realm of reason. U. S. aid often encourages the development of perpetuation of socialism by leaders anxious to maintain power on all facets of life in their coun tries. U. S. aid frequently never gets any farther than the ruling class of a country. Usually, the United States gets no recognition for the good our aid is said to accomplish. Massive aid is given to communist countries, other unfriendly countries, and so-called "neutral ist" countries. Now, it is suggested that we open it up to other communist countries. The foreign-aid program has created a serious threat to the dollar and America's gold reserves. Foreign aid is a major factor contributing to the continuing increase in our public debt. It is sub stantially responsible for our annual operating deficit. It is mainly responsible for our dangerous balance-of-payments situation. Foreign aid creates foreign competition ; it is mainly responsible for our frightening, ever-in creasing, non-competitive position in world mar kets. The program, this year alone, will dissipate your wealth and resources in 98 countries of the world

at a cost of more than

Billion Dollars, when

The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 52)

All nations, large and small, old and new, earn dollars or other convertible currencies from their exports. But, when nations are credited free with foreign-aid dollars with which they may purchase our goods, the invoices are sent to the U. S. Treas ury for payment - from the taxpayers' till - not to the governments which receive our goods and serVlces. In normal practice, when the United States sells a nation goods, the U. S. receives something in return : dollars, gold or goods. Under the foreign aid program, however, it is a one-way deal; the goods go out, the U. S. Treasury pays the bills, and the United States receives very little of a tangible nature in return. Since the nation gets free what it would normally spend its dollars for, it can use the dollars it earns from its exports to buy our gold. So great has been America's outpouring of wealth that many of the recipient nations have ac cumulated dollars far in excess of their needs for commerce. Therefore, they demand gold in ex change for the dollars they earned from their ex ports - or we gave them - and, in the past 1 1 years, they have reduced our gold reserves from 23 Billion Dollars to 1 3 Billion, 800 Million Dollars. While depleting our gold stockpile - which is the source of strength of the dollar - and in creasing theirs, so-called "free-world" foreign na tions have upped their short-term U. S. Dollar claims to 30 Billion Dollars ( from 1 0 and One half Billion Dollars 1 1 years previously) . For these dollars, those countries can demand gold. And, if such a demand should come, the United States could not meet it. So, it is clearly within the p ower of those countries to wreck the economy

and control the monetary system of our country.

Page 413

The United States is the only country in the world which is giving away its wealth. Other na tions engaging in foreign aid are doing so on about the same basis on which they operated gen erations ago : Where loans are made, they are on "banker" terms, with short maturity dates and substantial rates of interest. We are borrowing money to give away, when our public debt exceeds by 34 Billions of Dollars the combined public debt of all other nations of the world. Our generosity and overspending at home and abroad are forcing us out of many world markets. Most of those who act as bankers, and who have the right to commit this nation to billions of dollars in gifts and grants for programs throughout the world, could not by any fair evalua tion qualify to serve on the board of a small bank. They are mainly conforming bureaucrats. The practice of scattering the aid fund request throughout the budget and dealing with it at dif ferent times during the Congressional session tends to cause both the Congress and the pub1i� to lose sight of the total of the aid we are giving. Foreign aid is scattered throughout 15 bills pre sented to the Congress. Only the bill that I handle is ever publicized, but the total request in the sev eral bills presented to the Congress for fiscal 1966 exceeds Seven and One-half Billion Dollars. Add the annual interest we are paying on the money we have borrowed to give away, and the cost will exceed TEN AND ONE-HALF BILLION DOL LARS. Fantastic, isn't it? We had better look to our own economic health first. The Billions of Dollars we have given away since the end of World War II are adding to our distress in many fields. Regardless of the statements of the "Great So ciety" architects, new funds requested and ap proved for the foreign aid program for fiscal 1966 amount to approximately SEVEN AND ONE HALF BILLION DOLLARS. Fiscal 1966 will be one of the largest foreign-aid spending years since the program started. When will the American

people finally wak.e up as to how badly they are

Page 414

being fooled and flimflammed about the foreign aid program ? Our foreign-aid program is indeed an enemy of our country because it destroys world markets and our monetary system, and it places a public debt "pan the heads of unborn generations.

W asteful

and wild federal spending - the dissipation of your wealth, if you please - ur gently needs to be curtailed, not only in aid to foreign countries, but also excessive spending for unnecessary programs in our own country. The foreign-aid program is an ever-expanding program created through the scares and claims of the one-worlders, liberals, schemers, dreamers and personnel in our State Department and Embassies in 98 nations of the world. There are those in the highest places in govern ment who parade as conservatives but perform as liberals. A liberal is an individual with high-pres sure feeling, low-pressure thinking, and a constant urge to give away that which belongs to some body else. The American form of government, as created by our Founding Fathers, made this Nation great, free and wealthy. Incentive creates initiative, and a combination of the two has given us what we have. Is it worth our efforts to keep our present form of government from being replaced by a socialistic form of government which destroys in centive and initiative ? Those who are insisting on spending money we do not have for things we do not need, thus reducing the purchasing power of the dollar and increasing the public debt, attempt to justify their actions by saying: "Have no fear, because our population is in creasing; ,and, on a per capita basis, we are holding our own on the public debt."

This reminds me of Henry and Lucy Jones, the parents of four children - a family of six, with an indebtedness of Three Thousand Dollars. Then,

Lucy gave birth to triplets ; and they borrowed an

The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1, No. 52)

additional Fifteen Hundred Dollars, and spent that. With three more mouths to feed, they now owed Forty-five Hundred Dollars, but they applied the government formula : They reasoned that, though they had increased their indebtedness from Three Thousand Dollars to Forty-Five Hundred Dollars, their per capita debt remained the same !

blessings of the Great Society with all they have lost to obtain those things labeled "blessings," a day of reckoning would be at hand. History is replete with facts that in other ages nations which followed the welfare-state path we are now following have crumbled. One ex ample, if I may: The philosopher Socrates, in the year 363 B. c., not long before the fall of one of the greatest civilizations of the past said :

We are confiscating the savings of the thrifty of the past through inflation, spending the rev enues of the present, and borrowing billions of dollars from unborn generations, to create more and more programs for aid to more and more big groups of voters. There is a mad scramble on the part of the masses to get something for nothing, and this Administration is cooperating with these groups one hundred percent.

"The poorer citizens have captured the gov e � nm �nt and have voted the property of the nch mto the coffers of the state for redistribu tion among the voters."

Now, my friends, if all the plans for the "Great Society" are put into effect, and it appears that they will be, the people's reward for their reluctance to open their eyes-and see the faults -and make corrections-will be a complacent society with free enterprise shackled by govern ment controls-if not government partnership incentive deadened and initiative paralyzed-and with the government controlling the individual's life from the cradle to the grave. In the end, our reward for complacency: A socialistic form of government in America.

Could all this mean that the architects of the Executive branch plan to lull to sleep the recipi ents, hoping they will not observe too closely, or understand, while freedom-destroying legislation is being pushed through the Congress which will further restrict the individual and control his life ? Is it not time for Americans to take stock of their lost personal liberty-of their diminishing property rights-of their dwindling freedom to run their businesses without undue government interference ? If the people should ever start equating the

W, H O

Can it happen ? It is happening, now ! The American people must find some way to restore sanity in Washing ton-and now-or it will be too late.

D A N

S M O O T ?

1938 and 1940. In Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU getting BA and MA degrees, American civili· in doctorate a for work graduate doing Fellow, Teaching 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a years on FBI two ns; investigatio communist on years half a and zation. From 1 942 to 195 1 , he was an FBI agent: three and, from FBI the from resigned He places. various in headquarters staff; almost four years on general FBI cases al is controversi of sides both giving programs, 1951 to 1955, was commentator on national radio and television Report, Smoot Dan The publishing sues. In July, 1955, he started his present profit-supported, free-enterprise business: television broadcast, a weekly magazine available by subscription; and producing a weekly news-analysis radio and broadcast give one and available for sponsorship by reputable business firms, as an advertising vehicle. The Report as a yardstick. If n side of important issues: the side that presents documented truth using the American Constitutio - help get sub immensely you think Smoot's materials are effective against socialism and communism, you can help scribers for the Report, commercial sponsors for the broadcast. The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965 (Vol. 1 1 ,

No.

52)

Page 4 1 5

The

First and Only Printing of. . .

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT BOUND VOL. XI (1965) ...

This volume contains all 52 issues of the Report published in 1 965. Nowhere else on earth

can you get such a readable and concise - yet thoroughly documented and comprehensive - collection of facts and commentary on the great political, economic, and social issues that troubled the world in the Year of Our Lord, 1 965.

. . . $10.00

BOUND VOLUME XI Size :

8�

Binding :

ll�

Maroon Fabrikoid, with gold lettering ( matches editions of previous years)

Contents : More than

400

pages of documented research, plus table

of contents and comprehensive index Price :

$10.00,

postage prepaid

($10.20

for orders in Texas for Texas delivery)

AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR USE IN THE 1 966 congressional elections and in the con tinuing job of public education on the great issues of our time, the 1 965 BOUND VOLUME contains roll call votes of all members of Congress during 1 965, the ratings that members earned by the votes they cast, and penetrating discussions on such subjects as : Vietnam * * Dominican Republic * * South Africa * * The Congo Tragedy * * Nationalizing

Education

Metropolitan

Government

Communist

Student Riots * * The Great Society * * Civil Rights * * Social Security * * Federal Farm Programs **

Earl Warren Court

Firearms Legislation

Immigration Problems * * Labor Laws * * Right to Work * * Communizing

America. GIVE THE

1 9 6 5 B O U N D V O L U M E TO

We will mail the Bound Volumes to your gift list,

O TH ER S . . . It will be an invaluable gift for

and pay the postage ourselves ; or, we will ship them

teachers, students, writers, speakers - or for any

to you in sealed cartons so that you can mail them

one who needs to be informed on the major issues of

to others by merely adding address and postage.

our day.

A limited number of the 1 965 Volume was bound, and the Volume cannot be reprinted. Volumes for 1 962, 1 963, and 1 964 are still available (at $ 1 0.00 each ) ; but Volumes for all years prior to 1 962 are sold out. ORDER FORM YOUR NAME : STREET :

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT � __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

CITY AND STATE :

9538 DALLAS, TEXAS 75214 P. O. BOX

� __ __ � __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

_ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __

-Copies of BOUND VOLUME XI (1965) @ $10.00 each'

___

____ Check Enclosed

* ($10.20 each for orders in Texas for Texas delivery)

Page 416

The Dan Smoot Report, December 27, 1965

(Vol. 1 1,

No. 52)

Index to Bound Volume XI of THE DA N S M OOT REPORT ( 1 9 6 5) A

B e c ke r , Frank J .

AMERICAN LEGION Low e - M c F a r lane Post No.

Abe rnethy, Thomas G . 102

attacks Supreme C ourt, quote

denounc e s civil di s obedience

399

AMERICAN LI B R A R Y ASSOCIATION A dai r , E . R o s s

promot e s books by extreme lefti s t s

intr oduc e s bill to e n d farm programs

399

AC TION

2 04

endo r s e s statement of s ociali s m , quote

on f r e edom ,

quote

203-4

335

founded b y s ociali s t s i n 1 94 7

334

partial li s t of memb e r s in gov e r n Â AFRICA

ment

c ommun i s t influence in

3 34 - 5

article

201-8

s e e a l s o S E LMA , --

A LA BA MA

c a s e of P e r r y Smaw

2 9 7 - 3 04 145-7

civil rights turmoil i n pr ecipitated b y Sup r e m e C ourt

c o mmuni s t party behind civil r i ghts activit i e s in

151

Robert Kennedy s ays like "foreign c ountr y "

146

King us e s demonstrations in to for c e C ivil Rights A ct s of 1 9 64 and 1965

145-7,

147-9

u s e o f federal t r oops i n

W a s hington launch e s civil rights attack on A lge r ,

d e s c rib e s ADA beliefs

2 1 1 -2

his t o r y o f anti -trust laws A P A R THEID defined

d e c line of into European type state noted by immigrant

369 - 7 0 249- 56

d e c line o f into welfare state racial population of i n 1 7 9 0 A M E RICA W E LOS T ,

138

THE

A MERIC A N ,

1 70,

188 A P P A LA C HIA POVE R T Y PROGRAM examples of failure of

52 - 3

93,

1 1 5- 7

death of

r e commends changes in Hou s e Rules 2-3 unofficial arm of C ouncil on For eign 2

332

51-2

commun i s t s or c o mmuni s t fronts 59

276-7

S. involvement in s i n c e 1 94 5

governm ent controls i n on news paper industry

373

l e a d e r s of have c ommun i s t front

B O U N D V OLUMES article Bow,

79 - 80,

1 5 9 - 60

F r ank T .

c i t e s federal activity i n employment 235, 236, 239

B r a y , William G . on r ent s ub s i di e s ,

quote

1 02

228-9

324

c ontrols Hawaii

324-6

union headqua r t e r s of u s e d to found

Brinkley,

David

says d e c l i n e of state governments inevitable , quote

2 54 - 5

B R OOKL YN EA GLE c a s e of against unions di s c u s s ed

B A LA NC E OF P A Y M E N TS , s e e GOLD

on keeping s ociali s m undercover , 3 32

S up r e m e C ourt d e c i s i on on 90, 99

B UREA U C RA C Y g rowth o f

374

Burns , John A . appoints known c o mmuni s t s to high offi c e in Hawaii

3Z6

e l e c t e d t o various positions in

B all, G e o r g e W . admits Soviet Union supporting North Vi etnam

BROWN VERSUS BOARD O F E D U CATION di s cu s s e d

quote

1 58

1 63

Baldwin , Roger N .

AMERICAN JEWISH C ONGRESS

1 59

Dominican R e public

DuBois Clubs

17 -24

demands poli c e r eview boards 178-9 officials o f a s s ociated with

226-7

permits c ommuni s t s to r eturn to

c ommun i s t

ASIAN WARS U.

o n r ent s u b s i di e s , quote

B r i d g e s , Harry R .

209

2 10- 1 1

AUSTRA LIA

A M ERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION brief d e s c ription of

chan g e s name

roll c all votes on

founded by Eis enhower

R elations

ADMINIS T R A TION

A DMINIS T R A T ION E X T ENSION

AMERICAN ASSEM B L Y

Bolton , F r a n c e s P .

attacks Sup r e m e C ou r t , quote

A R E A REDEVELOPMENT

AREA RE DEVELOPMENT

249 - 5 0

377-83

fields , quote

AMERIC A N ASSE M B L Y

busin e s s

THE

B LA C K O U T A N D T H E POWER GRID

R e public in 1 9 6 5

di s c u s s i on , roll c all votes

programs of d e s troying private

3 69 - 7 5

leads communi st plot in Dominican

APPA L A C HIA BILL

hi s t o r y o f

m o s t f r e quently supports E a r l

B o s ch , Juan

291

ARDEN HOUSE GROU P , s e e

A MERICA

c itations

347 - 8

helps weaken s ta r e d e c i s i s

article

A N T I - T R US T

dis cus s ed

335

m a s s s t e rilization through water

Warren

APPOR TIONMENT DECISION

Bruc e

article

228

on failure of urban r enewa l , quote

chronology of events leading to Civil Rights Act of 1 9 64

on r ent s ub s i di e s , quote Ander s o n , Martin

B I R T H C ON T R O L

appointe d by Roos evelt

Ande r s o n , John B .

A LA BAMA ,

s e e JOHN BIRC H

S OC IE T Y

B la c k , Hugo

81-8

A GR I C U L T UR E , s e e F A R M P R O B LE M

B I R C H S OC IE T Y ,

226

3 74 - 5

AMERIC A 'S PROMISE arti c le

supply r e c ommended by physician

9 - 14

A GRICULTURE A T B A Y

purpos e , quote

o n r ent sub s i di e s , quote

AMERIC A NS F O R DEMOCRA TIC di e s at s am e time a s J effe r s on

B e stor , A r thur says U . S . education has n o c lear

B ett s , J a c k s on E .

A dams , John

102

attacks Sup r e m e C ourt , quote

361

Hawaii with c ommuni s t backing 325

agitator s try to unseat Mis s i s s ippi

Byrd, Har r y Flood

C on gr e s s ional delegation

100

on Supreme C ourt , quote

E D U C A T I ON ,

Bishop Donegan of N e w Y o rk City C

lo s e s financial support b e c au s e of his civil rights activitie s

C A LIFORNIA MINING JOURNA L

c a s e of P e r r y Smaw

on federal land grabs , quote s 3 1 5,

399

319

266-7

demonstr ations in A labama during 1963

C A RNEGIE ENDOWMENT Africa by U . S .

145-7

forrne r head o f c ommunist party

r e c ommends invasion of South - UN for c e s

r e veals plans for , quote 2 94

launched by communists in 1 9 2 8 into ,

bill of o n r e s tricting c riminals p o s s e s sion of fir earms ,

quote

1 33

example

2 9 7 - 3 04

398

known to have been c ommuni s t in late 1 94 0 ' s

178-9

promoted by U . S . State Department 2 5 8 - 62

151

S elma march morally degr ading s om e northerne r s begin to unde r stand , quot e s

C ENTRA L I N T E L LIGENCE A GENC Y involved in Trujillo a s s a s s ination

297-8 57

s p e cific instructions from Stalin Sup r e m e C ourt d e c i s ions on

1 56 - 7

demonstrators Mi s s i s s ippi

calls on A s ians to fight red China , quote

263-4

quote

199-200

wants to fight communi s t China now 23-4,

u s e n e g r o c ri m e s to demand poli c e 1 78

199

lSI

against S outh

editorial of on N E A quoted

145-7

pa s s ed a s tribute t o Kennedy

147

Powell c laims t o have written major CHINA , NA TIONALIST

portions

George M a r shall caus e s to go

147

s talled in C ongr e s s b e f o r e Kennedy

c ommun i s t

147

a s s a s s ination

s o r orities t o integrate

A m e rica

390-2

goal o f individual C h r i s tian

383

CIVIL DIS O B E DIENC E

94,

C la r k , Torn 1 14-5

dis s ent i n Noia C a s e quote d

1 17-8

c a s e , quote

MISSISSIPPI , NA TIONAL ASSOC I A TION

dis s ent in Y at e s C a s e quote d

115 1 15

FOR T HE A DV A N C E M E N T OF

activiti e s in N e w Y o r k City

C oakley, J . F . to p r o s e cute California Unive r sity riot e r s , quote

95- 6

C ochran e , Willard W .

devi s e s Kennedy farxn prograIn.

1 80

similar to c ommuni s t program 85-6

10- 1 1 12-4

U . S . News

10-2

10-4 1 3 -4

W o r ld Report on

what U . S . s hould d o i n

14-5

arti c l e

9- 1 5

C ONGRESS ,

89TH

cons e rvative vi ctories during li sted

E D U C A TIONAL F U N D , S TUDENT C OMMITTEE

12-3 9- 10

C ONGO T R A G E D Y

1 14

dis s ent in Watkins C a s e quote d

NON -VIOLENT C OORDINA TING

10,

U . S . activities i n

C ONGRESS OF R A C I A L E Q UA L I T Y ,

E NC E , S O U T HE R N C ON F E R E N C E

97-8

UN actions in di s cus s ed

di s s ent i n subv e r sive employees s e e a l s o A LA BA MA ,

1 2 -4

dis s ent in J encks C as e , quote 1 82

149

c ommuni s t r eb e l s active in

399 2 67 - 7 1

r e s cue operations in during 1 9 64

define s liberali s m , quote

former Justice Whittaker o n , quote

c ommuni s t maneuve r s in

1 17

Clark, J o s eph S .

A m e rican L e gion P o s t denoun c e s

C OLORED PEOPLE , S O U T HE R N

57-8

atrocities in

CIVI L RIGHTS SIT -IN CASES di s cus s e d

C HRISTIAN LEADERSHIP C ON F E R

41 plan o f for civil r i ghts activiti e s

b r i ef hi story o f

1 24 - 5

CIVIL RIGHTS,

317 in s pi r e student riots all ove r world

C ONGO

5 7 - 64

C HURCHMEN sponsor dance for homos exuals

3 24

m e n d s f e d e r a l land grabs , quote

to p r o s e cute

CIVIL RIGHTS OR CIVI L W A R ?

r e c ommended by church gr oups

151

W a r r en Court makes it impossible

3 54

article

C OMMUNISTS

rights bill in 1 9 5 6

C HRISTMAS ORDERS article

41-7

s et u p new youth movement

federal p r ogram on r e s tr i c t e d , vote

329 - 36

r e c omm.end provi s i ons of voting

AC TIVITIES

338

article

r e c ommend m e t r o government

CIVIL RIGHTS E D U C A TIONA L 389-90

323

Unive r s it y riots

2 50 - 1

can again b e c o m e driving f or c e for doctrines o f s ocialized

Supreme C ourt order s to be

prime move r s i n California

u s e d to for c e fraterniti e s and CHRISTIA N I T Y

C OMMUNIST PROPAGANDA

head of U . S . communi s t s r ec o m -

King demon s t r ations lead to 1 80 - 1

90-2

favor voting rights a c t , quote

CIVIL RIGHTS A C T OF 1 9 64 on c rime in W a shington

308- 1 1 ,

Sup r e m e C ourt d e c i s ions favor

A labama

342

C mC A GO TRIBUNE

s ocialism

behind civil rights activiti e s in

W o rk e r r e c ommends federal war C mC A GO S UN - TIMES

2 57

C O M M UNIST P A R T Y

article

violence in activities of r e c ommended by Kin g , quot e

appointing c ommuni s t front e r s to high offi c e s

C OMMUNIST S TU D E NT RIOTS

u s e of troops in Little R o c k , Mi s si s sippi , A labama

329

J ohnson pretends to fight while

C OMMUNIS T -SOC IA LI S T T A C TICS

60- 1

review boards

o n des truction o f c ommuni s t China ,

329- 30

d e liv e r e d free

takes form of political action in Chiang Kai - shek

305-7

fonned a s s ociali s m

333

r i o t s in New Y o r k C i t y a n d R o c h e s t e r

2 62

329 - 3 0

examples o f i n U . S .

s uc c e s s o f i n U . S . through s ocialism

communists

388-9

o rganizations o f infiltrated with C a s tr o , Fidel

dang e r s of

early history of

s am e as fas ci s m ,

n e g r o parents stop demonstration in G e o r gia

C OMMUNISM

founding o f b y Marx

many n e g r o e s r e s i s t but are f o r c ed C a s e y , Robert R .

s e e C OPE

A m e r i c ans b e c o m e awa r e of

2 9 7 - 3 04

Dan Smoot Reports on listed

C OM M I T T E E O N POLI T I C A L

402 R e p r e s entative s , b e s t and wor s t li sted

402

roll call votes 24 1 - 4 8 , 2 7 3 - 80 , Senato r s ,

1 69 - 7 6 ,

1 8 5 - 92 ,

3 5 3 - 60 , 40 1 - 8

b e s t and w o r s t li s t e d

voting r e c o r d s of memb e r s of

40 1

40 1 - 8

C ONGRESS OF R A C I A L EQUA LIT Y

C O U N C I L O N FOREIGN R E LA TIONS

a n arm o f communist conspiracy

c enter for p romotion of s o c iali s m

336

h e a d f o r m e r L I D official

325 338,

339

D E PA R T ME N T OF HOUSING A N D

memb e r s o f national advi s o r s to

U. S .

communis t - s upporting NSA

has power to r e s t r ic t Supreme C ourt

c ommunis t s gain control of in 1 94 8

foundations of support p r o g r e s sive

331

education C ONGRESS ,

D E M O C R A T PA R T Y O F HAWAII

U R B A N A F FAIRS ,

343

s e e HOUSING A N D

U R B A N A F FAIRS D E PA R T M E N T

106-8

should r e strict powers o f Supreme Court

Count s ,

George S.

h e a d s commi s s ion which calls f o r

1 08

339

a s oc i a l i s t U . S . C ONGRESSIONAL DIS T R I C T I N G

influential i n LI D

93-4,

331 338

331

C R E A TION OF LIFE A R TIFIC I A L L Y

1 1 6-7

influential i n LID

s ta r t s p r o g r e s sive education

DECISION di s cus s e d

D e w e y , John

Dickins on , W i lliam L . 151

d e s c ri b e s S e lma march, quote

r e c ommended a s national goal b y C ONGRESSIONAL F U N D artic le

56,

s c i enti s t s

375

Diem, N g o Dinh, s e e VIET N A M

1 04

� also

C RIME I N A MERIC A , CIVIL RIGHTS

C ONSERVATIVE LI BRA R Y

Di e s , Martin on application of c ommun i s m to

d e s c ription of c rime in W a s hington,

ASSOCIA TION activities of

D. C.

398-9

examples in Chicago C ONSERVATIVE P A R T Y O F N E W Y OR K activiti e s of

397

181

Dillon , C . Douglas

examples in New Y o r k C ity

1 78

enc our ag e s flight of gold

177 population g rowth

3 93 - 6

General T rudeau , quote

c r iminals

U. S.

94 - 5

of quote

2 5 8 - 62

based on C h r i s tian beliefs

on fir e arms r e s trictions d i s c u s s ed

346-7

DOMINICAN R E P U B LIC , THE DADE C O U N T Y , F LORIDA metr o government of d e s c r i b e d

36-8

2 02 - 8

155-6

181

387 -8

o n civil di s obedi enc e by Justic e

c ommun i s t r e volt lead b y B o s c h

on s chool compliance plan s , quote

267 -7 1

251

on C ongr e s s ional control of

o r i ginates t e r m ' right - to -work '

1 62

DA LLA S ,

on s ei z u r e s of private property

345

218

TEXAS

1 58 215

history of

1 53 - 5

in c onstant turmoil after T rujillo

C ONSULAR T R E A T Y

a s s a s s ination

Thurmond on, quote

Davi d s on , T . Whitfield

323

S o c i ety

activities of in 1 9 5 6 elections

349

analysis by of 1 9 64 election s , quote 349 - 5 0

119 1 18

s a y s nothing wrong with impeachment 1 19

meet unions ' demands

1 94 - 5

1 56 - 7 similarities o f t o c ommuni s t take 195

Trujillo a s s a s s inated with U . S . , DEA TH W A T C H OF T HE REPU BLIC

350

1 58 - 9 ,

over of China

controls majority o f U . S . Hous e of d i r e c tor o f c alls all governments to

purpo s e s

sanctions again s t , pushed b y U . S .

F e d e r al Judge in Dallas of War r en , quote

1 57 - 8

Johnson intervenes for political

defends action o f John Birch C OP E

article

249 - 5 6

CIA help

1 56 - 7

Trujillo elected P r es ident

1 54

350

Reuther head o f and dominant 349

d e Gaull e , Charles d e s t r oying NA T O

D U B OIS C L U BS 363

founded at H a r r y B r i dg e s ' union

has enough ' s urplus ' dollars to wipe C OUNCIL OF E C ONOMIC A DVISORS defines poverty

1 58 - 9 c ommuni s t s r eturn t o under B o s c h

city manager of s a y s it mus t get federal funds

influenc e in

1 59 communi s t r evolt of 1 9 6 5 d i s c us s ed

1 06 - 8

o n rights o f employer s

1 53-9

acc omplishments under Trujillo

on c rime in Di strict of C o lumbia

meaning o f Bill o f Rights

article

DOMINIC A N R E P U B LIC DALLAS MORNING NEWS

106-7

R e p r e s entatives

355

general philos ophy of

105,

353

1 32 - 3

393-6

how to understand Constitution

judiciary

275,

roll call votes

D O D D - MURPHY BILLS

386-8

307-8

Whittaker

THE

370- 1

article

federal government limited i n pow e r s

di s c u s s ion , 1 88 - 9 ,

C Y C LONIC PA C E ,

ec onomic theory

3 5 3 , 404

1 14

C ONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE d i s c u s s i on o f

180- 1

horne rule for di s cus s ed

review of State Department p romotion

1 1 3 -4 t r e a s on defined,

c rime i n , examples 275,

C U BA

impeachment provi s i on s , quote

185-6

horne rule bill roll call votes

gives power t o C ongr e s s t o r e gulate 107

173,

DIS T R I C T O F C OLUMBIA

tells Dallas it mus t get federal funds 215

Supreme C ou r t , quote

DIS A R M A M E N T A GE N C Y F UNDS roll call votes

C rull , Elgin

129

1 34 - 6

183

Sup r eme Court d e c i s ions which help

395-6

forbids r e s t riction o n fi r e a r m s , quote

U . S . poli c i e s on di s cus s e d b y

177

inc r eas e i n sinc e 1 9 3 3

shaken b y defeat i n 1 9 64 , remain

C ONS TITUTION,

DIS A R M A M E N T

inc r e a s e s 5 time s fas te r than

obs tac l e s to reinvigorating

in shock

305-7

Genov e s e murder in New Y o rk City

C ONSERV A TIVES di s c us s ed

U. S . , quote

1 80 - 1

out U. S . gold r e s erves

headqua r t e r s

named for W . E . B . DuBois

supported by c ommun i s t party DELIVER UP OUR A RMS article

129-36

works clos ely with civil rights groups

works c lo s e ly with S N C C

DuBoi s , W . E . B . c ommun i s t

44 ,

n ew math program di s c us s e d 333

127-8

private s chools a s olution to

principal founder o f N A A C P

problems in

333

bill introduc e d to end federal

398

pr ograms

progr e s sive education discus s ed DURHAM C A S E d e c i s i on on

1 88 ,

A dmiral Rickov e r , quote

f e r e n c e in agriculture

traditional U . S . dis c us s ed Dutton , F r e d e r i c k G .

337-8

UNESC O convention t o c ontrol

explains U . S . r ej ection of T s hombe vi s i t , quot e

di s cus s e d , quoted

1 1

purpos e , quote

29-31

wor s e

for w elfare education, quote EDUCA TION C A R T E L , article 9 7 - 104

under Roos evelt

THE

programs i l l - advi s e d , quote

3 3 7 -44

Johnson c ontinues past p r ograms

arms

E A R L W A R R E N C OURT - - P A R T I V article

c ommuni s t nations

83-5

parity ratio defined

d e c i s ion

Eis enhow e r , Dwight D .

conspir a c y , quote

political payoff

ELEC T I O N S ,

falla c i e s o f , quot e from Goodyear

210

1 9 64

C OP E analysis of,

quote

3 49 - 5 0

322 State Department defends trade with c ommun i s t s

361

ELEC TRIC P O W E R , GRI D ,

U . S . government t r i e s t o get

s e e also POWER

P U B LIC ELEC TRIC P OW ER

drive to s ocialize

322

Romania

article

2 5 7 - 64

c ommuni s t s

3 62

munist nations

employers

360

1 8 8 , 243

F E D E R A L AID T O E DU C A T I O N arguments for a n d against

m o r e than one - third profe s s ional

348

F E D E R A L AID T O A RTS

3 5 5 , 404

238

EMPLOYMENT o n W o r ld War I I controls , quote

b r i e f r eview o f

27-9

and t e c hnical w o rk e r s on public

general dis cus s i on of

payroll

history of fede ral aid programs

239

25- 3 1

J ohnson program d i s cu s s ed EC ONOMICS

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

anti -trust laws , hi s t o r y of

347 - 8

government controls inc r e a s e from Civil War forward

Johnson programs o f

f e d e r al gove rnn,ent trying to take over

2 50 - 1

2 34 - 6

186-7,

356,

360

m eans f e d e r al controls , EPISCOPAL C H U R C H

during W o r l d War II di s cu s s e d

348

examp l e s

250-2

officials o f involved in communist riots against HCUA

the o r y of f r e e - ma rket e c onomy

legis lation in 1 9 6 5 and roll call vot e s

347

government controls of e c onomy

374

arti cle from Stamford A dvocate

dis cus s i on and roll c all votes

322 - 3

EC ONOMIC C OU N C I L L E T T E R

F A T BUREAUCRA C Y

UNIVERSITIES

E M P L O Y E ES encou r a g e d to admit e r r o r s to

U . S . to s ell c o mpute r s to c o m Â

388-9

F E D E R A L AID T O C OLLEGES A N D

361-2

U . S . to build atomic reactor s for

308- 1 1 ,

National C ouncil of A rt s c r eated

E M B R A C I N G THE E N E M Y W E FIGHT

U . S . rubbe r plant d e a l with

s am e a s c ommuni s m , s ocialisITI

funds vot e d , roll c all vote

380-2

F i r e s tone t o s e ll rubber plant to Romania

84 - 5

FASCISM

a s k s for dep r e s s e d a r ea s funds

EAS T - WEST TRADE

s oil bank p r o g r am frauds

appoints War r en C hi e f Justi c e as

s ay s C OR E arm o f c ommuni s t

p r ograms

156-7

on 1 9 54 S u p r e m e C ourt s eg r e gation

85- 6

parity d e c lines under f e d e r al

pus hes s anctions against T rujillo

o n dange r s of Sup r e m e C ou r t ,

Kennedy p r o g r am similar t o that of

farm polici e s of damage

Eastland, James O .

283-4,

286-7 gove rnment p r ograms

EISENHOWER ADMINISTR A T I ON

1 13-9

Johns on program discus s e d

Johnson r ec ommends expansion of

agri culture

quote

86-7

u s e s U . S . foreign aid t o buy Soviet

105- 1 1 1

287 82 - 7

hi s t o r y o f f e d e r al programs

r e v i e w of U . S . support of article

head of F a r m Bureau says Johnson

EGYPT

E A RL W A R R E N C OURT - - PA R T III

government p r ograms initiated

E A R L W A R R E N C O UR T - - PA R T I I arti c l e

83-5

poli c i e s

U. S. Office of E ducation calls

89 - 9 6

p r o grams in 1 9 3 3

examples o f p o s t - Korean war

E A R L W A R R E N C OU R T - - PA R T I article

c ommuni s t s originate federal Eis enhower poli c i e s :make situation

U . S . e ducation has n o c lear

284- 6

b r i e f r eview of government int e r Â

p r o gr e s s ive type attached b y

355

b r i e f r eview of

338-9

dis cus s i on o f , votes over ruling

F A R M P R O B LE M

m e an s federal c ontrols o f local s chools

346-7 EQUA L I T Y EDUCA TION , s e e als o F E D E R A L A I D

N, N A T I O N A L

F E DERA L C OMM UNICA TIONS

Christian concept of dis cus s ed

388

TO EDUCATIO

limits cons ervative broadcasts Ervin , Sam J . , J r .

EDUCA T I O N ASSOCIA T I ON

activities of citizens opposing liberal pr ograms in public education

attacks Sup r e m e C ourt , quote

controlled b y NEA

c o s t of p r e s ent day education

1 02

F 339

340

F E DERA L C ON T R OLS examples of on busine s s

history of

330

how t o e n d p r o g r e s s i v e influenc e s in

telephone rates

372-4

F A B I A N SOCIE T Y 27

343

modern p r o grams of to c r eate a s ocialist U . S . 339

F E D E R A L EMP LOYEES s alari e s of inc r ea s e d m o r e than

FARM B I L L O F 1 9 6 5 dis cus s ion and v ot e s o n 355 provides for federal o wn e r s hip of land

315

349

order s r e duction in l on g - di s tanc e

398

C F R s upported c ommis s i on r e c ommends s o c iali s t U . S .

C OMMISSION

c i vilians

374

G F E D E R A L FIREARMS LAWS history of

n o control on

129-30

unconstitutional

129

Vietnam to Japan

FE DERAL HARAS S M E N T

GENOVESE MURDER

372-4

F E D E R A L LAND GRABS

di s c u s s ed

362 362

to W e s t ern Europe

of busine s s e s , examples

d i s c us s e d

412-3

r e c ipient s ' ships g o t o North

unconstitutional

Git10w ,

362

412

r oll call vot e s on

FEDERAL P OW E R C OMMISSION

party

plan, quote

3 54 , 4 0 3 - 4

roll call vot e s on

243, 274,

amount lost i n l a s t 1 1 y e a r s of from money

d e s tructive

1 70 - 1 ,

243-4

393-4

u s e d to buy weapons from U . S . S . R . 14

roll call vote on 37 1

FOREIGN POLIC Y , busin es s e s

on C ong r e s s i onal p o w e r t o 105

gold

74 - 5 3 63-4

363

busine s s men

po s s e s s i on of d i s c u s s ed

132-3 129-30

Lenin s a ys pos s e s sion o f must b e limite d , quote

131

tion , quote

129

criminals from obtaining

130

Texas Declaration of Independence 129

makes deal with Romania FIRST ROLL C A LLS ,

1965

P e r r y Smaw"

has communi s t front r e c o r d

111

2 9 7 - 3 04

memb e r shi p , quote

c o mmunis t backing in Hawaii

326

c os t o f in 1 0 year p e riod

387

1 14

attempts to challenge Mi s s i s sippi

amount f o r 1 9 6 6 much larger than stated by government officials food for p e a c e program c o s t s 366

major s ou r c e o f gold outflow

414 84 413-4

C ongr e s s ional delegation FRUITS OF LI BERALISM, article

1 7 7 - 84

m o r e than on e - third prof e s s i onal and technical workers on public payroll

60- 1

THE

239

GOVERNMENT GUA R A N T E E D SECURITY article

FREEDOM P A R T Y

FOREIGN A I D

how it hu:rto U . s .

1 17

B enjamin

Convention, quote

347 - 8

GOVER N M E N T EMPLOYEES

s ought aid of God at C on stitutional

FOOD F O R P E A C E

217

of economy dis c us s ed

di s s ent in Schware C a s e , quote Franklin,

3 74 - 5

GOVERNMENT C ON T ROLS

dis s ent in Monroe C a s e quot ed

Republican S enator r e - el e c t e d with

through water s uppli e s

r e c ommends non - c ompul s o ry union

Frankfurte r , F e lix

Hiram L .

r ec ommends ma s s s t e r i lization

Gompe r s , Samuel

1965

2 7 3 - 80

currency it holds

2 57

Goldzi ehe r , D r . J os eph W .

108- 1 1

owe s U . S . mor e than U . S .

article by "The Civil Rights of

1 7 1 -2

Goldb e r g , A rthur J .

2 02 - 5

FRANCE

Fitch, Sue

74 - 5

r epeal of di s c u s s e d , roll c all votes

FOURTH ROLL C A L LS ,

1 69 - 7 6

GOLD B A C K I N G F OR U . S . MONEY

FOUNDING FA THERS

article

78- 9

U . S . poli c i e s towards

r e c ommends federal land grabs

a judicial oligarchy

322

74 - 5

257

u s e d by Supr eme C ourt to bec ome

FIRESTONE R U B B E R C OMPANY

White

s o lution t o outflow i n 1 944

h a s communis t front r ec o r d

illegally adopted

6-7

gold

U . S . polici e s encourage flight of

FOUR T E E N T H AMENDMENT

FIREARMS C ON T R O LS b r i ef r eview of

209

Fortas , A b e

b e li e f s of

77 3 -4

U . S . owned 6 0 0/0 of world ' s gold

317

r e s t rictions on d o not stop

have p a s t d u e debts outflow c ontinuing

set by communi s t Har r y Dexter

F o s t e r , W illiam Z .

r e s t riction of forbidden b y C onstitu

76-7

poli c i e s to r edistribute U . S.

fo reigne r s and hurts U. S .

1 30 - 1

hi story o f federa1 1aws on

F on g ,

gold wo r s e

poli c i e s of U. S . government helps

Dodd- Murphy bills to r e strict

Kennedy poli c i e s make flight of nations which hold U . S . c u r r en c y

FOREIGN TRADE

dictators r e strict us e of

article

Wa shington on , quote

FIREARMS

75-6

traditional policy di s cu s s ed

1 04

Johnson poli c i e s continue outflow

363-7

3 5 3 - 60

3 8 - 9,

foreign aid

post war poli c i e s deplete U . S .

1965

74 - 5

outflow of while g e tting more

U. S .

inte rnationali st poli c i e s dis cus s e d

FILM FOR SALE article

Johnson a s k s busine s s men to help

internationali s m ruins U . S .

FEDERALIST PAPERS N O . 8 0

article

res erves

U. S . supply of

243-4

list of new programs and amounts

FIFTH ROLL C A LLS ,

F ranc e has enough dollars to wipe out U . S.

FOREIGN AID T O INDONESIA

411-5

r e gulate judiciary , quote

4 13-4

internationali s t foreign policy takes

general dis cus sion of by Rep .

initiated in 1 9 6 5

foreign aid

Dillon encourages flight of

FEDERAL SPENDING Pas sman

depletion o f U . S . stocks caus ed b y

di s cu s s i o n , r o l l c a l l v o t e

acc eptance of, on faith,

413

bill introduced to withdraw backing

FOREIGN A I D TO E G Y P T FEDERAL PROGRAMS

GOLD 3 54

377

S. communi st

outline s communist c i v i l r i ghts

FOREIGN A I D A U T HORI Z A TION

s a i d power g r i d failu r e impo s s ible

Benjamin

fo rrner head of U.

FOREIGN AID APPR OPRIA TIONS

3 1 3-9

1 77

2 2 5 - 32

G OVERNMENT PROGRAMS favor metro gove rnment develop ment

3 3 -4

G OV E RN M E N T SCHOOLS ,

see

F: OUC A T T O N , F E DE R A L A IT'5"T O E D U C A TION

GOV E RN M E N T SPENDING

HEAD S T A R T PROGRA M

rate of increas e same a s c rime

example of

183

inc r e a s e

G R E A T S O C IE T Y ,

A P P A LA C HIA POV E R T Y PROGRAM , AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINIS T R A TION , POVERTY W A R A R A program of d e s t r oying private T exas

c r eates nazi - like controls

409- 1 1

example of program in Illinois

125

example of program in Memphis Johnson wants t o s p r ea d t o Latin 54

p r o duc e d more s ocialist legis lation than all prior p r o grams

412

p r ograms of similar to R o o s evelt ' s 49

s ame as welfare s t a t e

2 13-4

s p e ech r i diculing b y Repr e s entative 50

to conve rt America into soc iali s t 318

uncons titutional

I L W U , s e e B r i dge s , Harry R . ;

Hiems tra , R . C .

A N D WA REHOUSE MA N 'S UNION

pledges to defend South Afr i c a , 294- 5

IMMIGRA TION after 1 8 8 0 ' s brings changes to

HIGHW A Y BEA UTIFICA TION A N D 3 5 6 , 403

Hit le r , A dolf said p e ople must not have fi r e ar m s 131

munist movement , q,uote

HOM OSEXUALS dan c e for spons o r e d by churchmen 124-5

quote

c ommuni s t union offi cial in Hawaii 324

on C ongr e s si onal power to limit judicia r y , quote

plained

363,

3 64

265

dis s ent i n civil rights s i t - in c a s e s 1 17 1 16-7

1 14

Harriman, W . A v e r ell 18

article

move t o aboli sh led b y R o o s evelt 8

32 4 - 6

governor elected i n 1 9 6 2 with c o m 足 munist backing

326

officials in elected with commun i s t 足 dominat e d union backing, li s t

326

t r i e s t o enlarge State to include much of PaCific area 3 l. 7

vote o n funds for operation of

1 88

172-3

importance o f existing rules

1-2

1 -2

2-3

DE PARTMENT 3 54 r e c ommended by Johnson

275-6, 34

HOUSING A N D U R B A N DEVELOPMENT 1 9 (, 5

d i s c u s s ion o f

2 2 5 - 32

provisions of

2 29 - 3 1

roll call vote s on

s e e als o ,

2 74 - 5 , 3 5 6

LA OS ,

VIETNAM U . S . involvement fo r c e s F rench defeat in

17 - 8

U . S . continues to support even aft e r i n s ults

32 1 - 2

U . S . fo r c e s Dutch to give up INSA N I T Y IN WASHINGTON article by U. S.

c r eation of, roll call votes

37 1 -4

INDONESIA

d i s c u s s i on and roll c all vote

A C T OF

Stat e " quot e d INDOCHINA ,

on commun i s m in Hawaii , quote

HOUS I N G A N D U R B A N A F FAIRS

c ontrolled by communis t s

h o w E a r l W a r r en can b e impeached

editorial "The Ove r r egulated

42 - 4

A s s embly

HAWAII

IMPEA C HM E N T

C O LO ,

communi s t s tudent riots against

r e c oITIITlendations by American

398

1 3 7 -44

INDEPE NDE N T O F LIT T L E T ON ,

U N - A ME R I C A N A C T IVITIES

Kennedy changes i n 1 9 6 1

founder of C on s ervative Library

1 37

IMMIGRA TION P R O B LEMS

RULES C HA N GES

Har ri s on , B r adford III A s s ociation

THE

26 5 - 7 1

HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES

negotiates Laos into c ommunist

1 38-9

Johnson

325 1 18

dis s ent in Noia C a s e quoted

14 1 - 2 nordic peoples make America r eforms i n a s k e d b y Kennedy and

385-92

and Lindsay

di s s ent i n Koni g s b e r g C a s e , quote

143-4

1 18-9

in 1 9 6 0

di s s ent in C on g r e s sional District 足

140

li s t of immigrants by countr i e s

gr eat

THE

HOUSE C OM M I T T E E ON

1 1 5-6

ing C a s e quoted

177

381

di s s ent in Apportionment C a s e s

1 38 - 4 1

M c C a r r a n - W alt e r A c t d i s c us s e d

o n dan g e r s o f power g r i d , quote

Harlan , John Mar shall

140- 1

Hou s e o f R e p r e s entatives finds new

Horton , J . K .

105

140- 1

peoples und e s i r able , quote

HORROR N O W UPON US ,

Hamilton, A lexander

142

hi s t o r y of to A m e r i c a

article

formula for r e s trictions on ex -

o n c r im.e i n A m er i c a , quote

article

liberalize

fallac y of changing fir s t r e s t rictions on

HOPE O F THE W O R L D ,

Hall, Jack W .

139

1880's

changes r e c ommended by Johnson 1 42 - 3

c alls Martin Luth e r King liar

gloats over s uc c e s s of n e w c o m 足

14 1

Roos evelt

Democ rat Party pledged to

Hoov e r , J . Edgar

Hall, Gus

changes drastically under changes from n o r di c peoples after

W o rld War I I , quote

1 3 9 - 40

A m e rican character

o n communi s t youth program,

government

331

I N T E R N A TI ONA L LONGSHORE ME N 'S

r e c ommends U . S . stay out of

quoted

3 34

influential in LID

Hoove r , H e r b e rt

U . S . to support international

quoted

227

339

dis cus s ion and votes on

125-6

p r ogram of

282

founder o f A DA

SCENIC DEVELOPMENT A C T

paying more than r e gular j obs

state

delegation

on r ent subsidi e s , quote

quote

125-6

Snyder

ar ranges v o t e trade with Iowa

Herlon g , A . Sydney

for military s e rvi c e

c r eating s ocialist A m er i c a

programs

Humphr e y , Hub e r t H .

242 - 3

says o v e r half of U . S . males unfit

49 - 5 5

America

roll call vote on

7 3 - 80

H e r s h e y , Lewi s B .

51-2 article

article

HELI C O P T E R S U BSIDIES

s e e also

busin e s s e s in W o o dvill e ,

HOW LONG C A N W E LAS T ?

215

P a s sman

Rep. Otto

409 - 1 5

I NT E R - A M E RIC A N B A N K FUNDS di s c us s ion , roll c all vote

172

32 1

I N T E RNA TIONAL BANK OF

a s ks for immigration reform,

R E C ONS T R U C TION A N D

quote

DEVE LOP M E N T

bill a s tribute to Kennedy

3 56

for Democrat candidate Kin g , Martin Luther

1 67 - 8

a s s ociates with communi s t s , moral

di s r egards C on s titution,

A GR E E M E N T

dis c u s s i on

dis cu s s i o n , r o l l c a l l v o t e

1 70

AND WAREHOUS E MA N 'S UNION controls Hawaii

1 58 - 9 ,

3 24 - 6

1 94 - 5

1 93-4

additional funds for , v o t e o n

242

Civil Rights A c t of 1 9 64

article

29- 3 1

I T C A N BE DONE article

rights activiti e s , quote

147

twists C on g r e s s ' a r m s

400

151

starts activities o f 1 9 6 5 in Selma

State o f the Union M e s s age , on Vietnam , quote

145

r e c omrnends violence in civil

governm ent through federal program s , quote

o r ganized demon s t r ations to fo r c e

r e c ommends metropolitan

I N T E RNA TIONA LIZING EDUCA TION

lett e r s from S e lma j ai l written

before hi s a r r e s t

pr e s ent farm policies with expansion, quote

265-6

147-8 has

r e c ommends c ontinuation of

b r i ef his t o r y of

Act

federal c ourt o r d e r s objectives of enfor c e d , but King not s atisfied

order s bombing o f North V i etnam 193

I N T E RNATIONAL M O N E T A R Y F U N D

265

demands and gets Voting Rights

opposition t o p r o g r am s of collap s e s because o f Vietnam

3 24 - 5

called l i a r by Hoover

political purpo s e s

c ommuni s t c ontrolled union

degenerates

394

Dominican affair u s e d for

I N T E RNA TIONAL LONGSHOREM E N 'S

351

147

a s k s for r epeal of ri ght - t o - work

I N T ERNATIONA L C OF F E E

Dorothy

on union r eque s t s for contribution

a s k s for p a s s a g e of Civil Rights

amendments to r u l e s of, roll call vote

Kilgallen,

1 37

232

KOHLER S TRIKE

us e s federal funds t o get power

di s c us s ed

165

2 14-5 J

u s e s general_welfare claus e a s

KONIGS B E R G C A S E

authority for G r eat Society, Jeffer s on , Thomas

quote

die s at s ame time a s John Adams 204

di s cu s s ed

u s e s Kennedy a s s as sination for political gain

dis cu s s ed

1 94 9 9 1-2,

1 14 - 5

armisti c e ter:rns in virtually dictated by communists

2 19

U . S . c a s ualties i n

wants to s en d Great Society to Latin A m e r i c a

Kun s tler , William M .

J enn e r , William E .

coun s e l for Mi s si s sippi Fr eedom

on dan g e r s of Supreme C ourt, quote

1 14

KOREA

395

voted f<;>r right t o work i n 1 94 7 , J E N C KS C A S E

91,

49-50

J on e s , J enkin Lloyd

100

Party

on fallac i e s of changing immi gra tion law

142

has connections with c ommuni s t activitie s

J e n s e n , Ben F . attacks Supreme C ou r t , quote

102

JOHN BIR C H SOCIE T Y attacked by C OPE

LABOR LAWS 1 1 -2

UN d e s t r oys independence of 349

defended by F e d eral Judge 1 19

KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION

Onc e " r e c ommended

265

unconstitutional

programs o f i n aid t o education

federal aid to education program di s c us s ed

KENNEDY ASSASSINATION gives excus e for anti - fi r ea rm s

2 54 starts p r i c e controls

4- 5

282

from Iowa delegation

2 82

Kennedy, John "F . quote gain

1 37 395

on 1 9 6 2 s t e el industry c r is i s , quote 34 5 21,

1 97 - 8

s ay s A labama like "foreign count r y " 146 257

a s k s busines smen t o help curb out flow of gold

34 5 - 52

a s k s for expanded federal employment s ervi c e , quote

236

a s k s for Hou s in g and Urban Affair s Department

KEY T O FREE DOM article

Khanh, Nguyen felt Americans not given truth by Johnson

forms political g r oups

348 - 9

Gompers r e c ommends non compuls ory membership

217

s t r ike s , examples

163-6

hurt U . S . m e r c hant marine

283

N C PAC o f C I O labled communist front

3 48 - 9

N L R B favoritis m of , examples

1 62 - 6

request contributions for Democrat

appoints c ommunist fronters to high position s , li s t

349

f e d e r a l l a w s protect a n d promote

government favoritism o f in

Kennedy, R ob e r t F .

John s o n , Lyndon B .

1 67

1 62 - 3

p r edicts c ommunis t s to turn on 3 64

2 1 9-23

establishes C OP E for political activity

favors union i n s t e el disput e , quote

government

U. S . , quote

a r g uments for repeal of r i ght to

standards r i s e

voi c e s sharp c riti c i s m of Diem J ohn s on , Hiram

s e e also NATIONA L

TO W O R K work r e futed

346

u s e s power to get votes in C ongr e s s

LA BOR UNIONS ,

do not help wages and living

a s s a s sination of u s ed for political

u s e s federal power to fo r c e compliance

129

a s k s for immigration reforms ,

performing a r evolution in A m e r i c a

1 68

LA B OR R E LA TIONS BOA R D , RIGHT

legis lation JOHNSON A DMINIS TRATION

217-8 162-6

85-6

1 18

pamphlet on "Two R evolutions At

b r i ef history of d i s c u s s ion of

farm p r ograms of dis cus s ed

demands impeachment of Earl W a r r en

K A T A N GA 350

attacked b y Walter Reuther Davids on , quote

candidate s

351

strike in Iowa with violenc e dis cus s ed 282 - 3 Supreme C ourt says c ommunis t s can be offi c i al s o f

3 2 3 -4

violence by during s t r ik e s , examples 1 65-6

M violence of in Indiana strike

221

MALLOR Y C A S E

Wagner A c t brings forc ed union memb e r s hip

MISSISSIPPI

d i s c u s s ion of, v o t e s overruling

348

d e c i s ion on

LA N D

188,

civil rights agitators try to unseat

355

C on gr e s s i onal d e l egation of

MANPOW E R DEVELOPMENT A N D

amount owned by federal gov e r n 足 ment

by c o mmunis t s and communist

TRAINING AC T

315

dis cus s i on ,

fronters

186

roll call votes

in C ongr e s s

316

Mar shall , G e o r g e

federal government inc r ea s e s ownership o f

cau s e s C h i n a to go c ommunis t

c on s ervative in voting

1 00

attacks Supr eme C ou r t , quote

LAOS c o mmuni s t s in 1 9 6 0

new math di s cus s e d

G eneva Confer ence

b e ginning of quoted

386

M C C A RRA N - W A LT E R IMMIGRATION ACT

calls r e c ommendation of C F R sup足

dis c us s e d

di s cus s e d

LA W VIOLA TIONS de s t r oy fre edom

338

P r e s i d ent of University of Plano 398

127-8

46-7

Mult e r , Abraham J .

M cNama r a , Robert S . LEAGUE F O R INDUSTRIAL

against s t e e l industry i n 1 9 62

founded in 1 9 0 5 by A m e r i c an fabian s o ciali s t s

drawn from Vi etnam by end of 1 9 6 5 21,

1 97

3 3 1 -2

Lenin , Nikolai

MEDI C A RE provi s ions of bill

1 89 , 274

r o l l c a l l v o t e s on

1 89 , 274,

3 54

oppo s e s S enator Mundt for R e publican nomination

government programs c aus e

ma s s e s , quote

148

d e c r ea s e of

Swedish s ociali s t u s e d a s expert

283

by Supreme C ourt

METROPOLITAN GOVERNME N T ,

defined by Schlesing e r , quote

335

oppo s e beliefs of Founding Fathe r s

article

33-9

defined

N NASHVILLE , T ENNESSEE

example of in Miami , Florida

206-8

faults o f

36-8

LI D , s e e LEAGUE F OR I N DUSTRIAL

Chicago

DEMOC R A C Y

35-6

P E OPLE b r i ef hi s t o r y of

35 r e c ommended b y Johnson, quote 8

s t e p s toward workings o f

arrest

MIAMI , F LORIDA metro government of d e s c ribed

r e s ponsibility and activities of in 2 1 -2,

198 LOS A N G E LES TIMES j oins communist attack on Diem government Lurnurnba ,

MIAMI HERALD des cribes faults o f metro gov e r n 足 m e n t exp r e s sways

Pat r i c e

communis t

10,

333

former offi c ial o f r eleas e s two men 181

founded by s ocialists

Lodge , Henry C abot overthrow and death of Diem

333

DuB o i s principal founder o f

who inj ur e d poli c e in r e s i s ting

34 - 5

LI T T LE LA KE , C A LI F ORNIA 34 1

A DV A N C E M E N T OF C OLORED

r e c ommended by communist party

Linds a y , John V .

adopts metro government

N A TIONA L ASSOCIA TION F OR THE

offi c ials o f trained b y 1 3 1 3 in

s uc c e s s fully fights NEA

s e e a l s o U R B A N RENEW A L

LIBERALS

t o introduce bill t o abolish HCUA

396-7

M y r d a l , Gunne r

1 24

hurt by labor unions

LI B E R A LISM

abandons c o n stitutional principles

Murphy, Richard R .

7-8

M ER C HA N T MARINE , U . S . head of S l':! C C calls for r evolution of

Mundt , Karl E .

396-7

131

Lewis , John

opp o s e d b y s t r ong c o nstitutionalist

to be pushed by Johnson

on r e s tricting fir earm s , quote

for money

396

331

partial li s t of individuals influential in

346

says m o s t U. S. troops can b e with足

330

parent g r oup f o r s p r e a d of s o c iali s m in U. S.

introduc e s bill to end gold backing

announ c e s government p r e s s u r e s

D E M OC RAC Y

1 82

M o r r i s , Robert

article by on new math

Stevenson in favor of, quote

117

h e l p s d e c l i n e of

McIlvain e , J o y c e Lo reen 47

94,

National C ouncil of Chur c h e s

MC GUFF E Y 'S R E A D E RS

339

di s c u s s ed M O R A LS

14 1 - 2

ported c ornrnis s i an " educational program for a Sociali s t A m e r i c a "

1 7 2 , 404

MONROE C ASE

18-9

Laski , Harold J .

voting on s e ating of and challenge

M A Y FLOWER C OMPAC T

U . S . caus e s t o g o c ommuni s t

60 -

DE LEGATION

127-8

c r eated out of Indochina at 1 9 54

groups in

MISSISSIPPI C ONGRESSIONAL

MA THEMA TICS

appe a r e d to b e defeating

404

political action of civil r i ghts

Mason, Noah M .

3 17-8

C ongr e s s ional delegation most

313-6

plans of government for m o r e grabs

62-3

C ongr e s s ional d e l e gation challenged

a r e a owned by federal government compar ed

Congr e s s ional delegation Challenged

citations

NA TIONA L C OU N C I L OF A R T S dis cus s ion of, roll call v o t e s o n 1 8 8 , 243

Mich e l , Robert H . o n r ent s ub s i di e s , quote

36-8

t o p officials h a v e communist front

N A TIONAL C OUNCI L OF C HURC HES 227-8

a s k s for repeal of r i ght to work law 222 - 3

helps d e s t ruction o f morals 1 82 Mullins Methodist Church r efus e s t o support

399

officials o f have c ommuni s t front records

58 - 9

NA TIONAL D E B T

NEW Y ORK TIME S ,

actually $ 1 , 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0

THE

article on 89th C ongr e s s quoted 402

41 1 larger than all other public debts in wo rld

j oins c ommuni st attack o n D i e m government

414

s lants n e w s on civil rights ) NA TIONAL D E B T INCREASE

examples

dis c u s s i o n , roll c all votes

298

NIAGARA P U B LIC POW E R h i s t o r y of NLR B ,

to education a c t

s e e NA TIONA L LA BOR

NOlA C ASE di s cu s s e d

94 ,

c ontrols teache r s colleges c ontrols U. S.

342

education, quote

Utah, Oklahoma

made up 990/0 of white U . S .

gr eat

34 1 - 2

1 38

1 38-9

340 - 1

s po n s o r s book by c ommunist

340

34 1

s t r i k e s b y define d , quote

NATIONAL LA BOR RELA TIONS b i l l introduced by S enator Tower to curb

ORGA NI Z A TION falling apart

3 62 - 3

c r eated by Roos evelt spon s o r e d legis lation

394 see NA TIONA L S T U D E N T

ASS OCIA T I O N

1 62 - 3

favo r s union s , examples

1 62 - 6

findings o f i n Iowa s t r ike

283

pow e r s of almost supreme

1 62

Supreme C ourt d e c i s ions in favor

NA TIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION fights f e d e r al fi r e arms legis lation

OPPOR TUNI T Y ,

s e e POVE R T Y W A R

budget of in 1 9 6 4 ,

1966

U. S . 337

calls for education to promote 27

Orw e l l , G e o r g e book 1 9 84 by quoted

233, 239

c ommun i s t fe stival

patriot dismi s s e d by State Department

2 62 - 3

343

supports objectives of c ommuni s t s 343

officials of a s s ociated with communist fronts

161-8

article from Littleton, C o lo . , Independent

37 1 -4

c rimes o f , examples

1 7 8 - 82

NEW YORK C I T Y electric power failure i n di s c u s s e d

377-83

d o e s n o t r eally h e l p p o o r

53-4

encouraging demonstrations by poor

2 52 - 3

example of p e c uliar standards of political c o r ruption feature of

2 14

R e p r e s entative Poff on ,

213

quote

Shriver to withhold funds if experts quote

2 52

veto r e s t r i c t e d , votes

277 3 54 - 5 , 4 0 3

Powell , A dam C layton c l ai m s to have written Civil R i ghts

378, 5-6

Johnson t o give Panama s ov e r ei gnty over

147

follows lead of NEA

342 - 3

demand c entralization of electric 382

F P C s ai d failure of impO S S ible

377

government offici a l s r e c om.mend c entral controls

378

J . K . Horton on dan g e r s o f

PARI T Y

381

Pacific Northwest power failure in

d e finition of

"Insanity in

W GI. ::s hingLon l l

1 9 5 0 c ould happen again

378

Udall a n d FPC favor national power

P a s s m a n , Otto E . article by I

38 1 -2

failure of u s e d by governm ent to power

PA R E N T - T E A C HER ASSOCIATIONS

NEGROES

395

e l e c t r i c power officials against b r i e f history of

NEA , s e e NATIONA L E DU C A TION

U. S.

P O W E R GRID

PANAMA C A N A L

ASS OCIA TION

402 - 3

POVE R T Y W A R

bill

25-31

article

roll c a ll votes on

NA TIONA LIZ ING E D U C A TION article

393 -400

POLITI C A L A C TI O N P A C KA GE

OVE R R E G U LA T E D S T A T E , THE

NA T I O N A L U R B A N LEAGUE

examples of

Gov e r n o r s

OUR L A B O R LAWS article

4 02 - 3

r ec ommendations , dis c u s s io n ,

P OV E R T Y W A R EXPANSION

343

national advi s o r s of l i s t e d

1 78 - 9

do not get adequate s alari e s ,

Otepka , Otto founded by students who attended

agitat o r s and A C L U

313

1 34 NA TIONAL S T U D E N T ASSOCIATION

213

demanded by civil rights

illegitima c y , quote

OFFICE OF EC ONOMIC

welfa r e , quote

35-6

2 14

quality d e c lining through

OFFICE O F EDUC A T I O N , activities of for metro government

war , quote

on poverty war , quote

POPULA T I O N ,

161-2

N A TIONAL MUNIC IPAL LEAGUE

370 - 1

on political c o r r uption in poverty

r ec ommendations

NORWAY

NSA ,

1 63

1 02

P O LI T I C A L A C TION F OR 1 9 6 6

166

B r o oklynÂ· Eagle c a s e of

N O R T H A T LA N TIC T R E A T Y

votes out s o c iali s t government in

BOARD

337-8

POLICE REVIEW B O A R DS

r ec ommends s o c i ology textbooks which promote s o c i a l i s m

Pierpont , John

quote

1 38

r e sponsible for making A m e r i c a

promotes teache r s s t r ikes in

101

on f e d e ral s pending programs ,

population i n 1 7 9 0

340

"The A m e r i c a W e

369-70

attacks Sup r e m e C ourt , quote

NORDIC PEOPLES definition

article b y ,

P of f , Richard H .

1 17-8

ASSOCIA TION aims and a c complishments of

Pei , Mario A .

1 8 2 7 textbook of quoted

NATIONA L E D U C A TION

3 6 1 -8

attacks Supreme C ou r t , quote

RELA TIONS BOARD

fi r s t c omprehensive federal aid

article

Phelps , M . T .

379

NA TION A L DEFENSE E D U C A TION ACT OF 1 9 58

P E A C E - - WHEN THERE

Lost"

244,

274

P EA C E ,

IS N O P E A C E

40 9 - 1 5

grid

378,

380 - 1

P OW E R GRID S Y S T E M

d e finition of

377

P O W E R HUNGRY BUREA UCRA TS article

REMNA N T ,

3 13-20

article

POW E R POLITICS article

THE

R OM A NIA

393-400

rubber plant deal with F i r e stone 322

R E N T S U BSIDY FUNDS

281 -8

defeat e d , roll call vote

PRA Y E R CASE DECISION denoun c e d in C ongr e s s

404

ROME d e c line of s imilar to U. S .

R E N T S U BSIDY S C HE ME

101-5

226-9

Hou s e debates o n , quot e s

Roos evelt , F r anklin D .

di s s ent by Justice Stewart quoted 1 15

inaugur ates p r e s ent U . S .

REUTHER MEMORANDUM

international policy

r e c ommends actions against PRESIDENT oath of office quot e d

effect by government

PRESIDENT J OHNS ON ' S T W O WARS article

193 -200

Reuthe r ,

w o r l d , " quote

349

P r i c e , Char l e s C .

Walter P .

of life a s national goal

3 74

attacks Supr e m e C ou r t , quote

332

m e m b e r and foun d e r o f A D A

334

349 PRICE C O N T R OLS i s t r ation

4-5

PRIVATE SC HOOLS of public s chools

quote

NA TIONA L LA BOR

s o r y union memb e r s hi p , quote

217

p r e s s u r e s for pas s ag e of r epeal of PROGRESSIVE EDUCA TION

282, 283

attacked by Admiral Rickov e r ,

quoted from Taft-Hartley A c t

2 18

r epeal of s ought by churchmen

founded b y J ohn Dewey purpo s e s o f

338

338-9

supported b y C F R

states having , li s t 338,

339

t e r m o r i ginated b y Dallas Morning News

s e e P A RE N T - TEAC HER

2 18

2 19-23

ASSOCIA TIONS

what it d o e s

P U B LIC ELEC TRIC P O W E R

attempt to r epeal

P U B LI C POW E R

RIGHT TO W OR K ,

federal government r efus e s private

article

2 8 1 -2

P U B LIC SCHOOLS ,

THE

2 44 - 5 ,

356

quote

313

335

1-8

SCHOOL LUNC H PROGRAM parents in Penns ylvania

Robe r t s on , A . Willis

ne gro riots in di s c us s e d

1 02 - 3

179-80

ROCKE F E LLER FOUNDATION communist

340

CIVIL RIGHTS

financ e s textbooks that favor communism

338-9

non-nordic peopl e s bring problems to America

1 39 - 4 1

nordic p e op l e s make A m e r i c a g r eat 1 38-9 RACIA L POPULA TION O F A MERIC A in 1 7 9 0

138

di s c us s ed

1 14

S E C ON D R O L L C A LLS , article

1965

1 8 5 - 92 see

B R OW N VERSUS BOARD OF

E DUC A TION SELMA , A L A B A M A chronology of e v e n t s leading t o

Roge r s , Paul G . o n alli e s that ship t o North Vi etnam , quote

398

S E G R E G A T I ON D E C ISI ON ,

financ e s National Municipal League 35

R A C E PROBLE M , s e e a l s o

s u c c e s s fully p r o t e s t S C HW A R E C A S E

financ e s busine s s book by R

43-4

defines modern liberali s m , quote

ROAD A HE A D , THE

Quillen, James H . o n poverty w a r double standa r d ,

1 00

Schlesinge r , A r thur J r .

3 5 6 , 404

ROCHES T E R , NEW Y ORK

123

101

riots against HCUA in

attacks Supr e m e C ou r t , quote Q

Schadeb e r g , Henry C .

San F r anci s c o

P U B LIC W ORKS A C T d i s c u s s i o n , roll call votes

r e c ommends M a r x i s m

Supreme C ou r t , quote

s e e EDUC A TI O N , article

activities in M i s s i s sippi

d e s c ri b e s c ommuni s t student

RIGHT TO W ORK R E P E A L

F E D E R A L A I D TO E DUCA TION

Savi o , M a r i o

attacks c ommunist d e c i s i on s of

2 1 7 - 24

roll c a ll v o t e s on

3 9 9 -400

Sche r e r , Gordon H .

plants to force in public pow e r , exampl e s

defeats urban r enewal

attacks Sup r e m e C ou r t , quote

2 18-9

RIGHT T O WORK LAWS

378 - 9

S A L T LAKE C IT Y , U T A H

riots and veteran of S N C C

218

union a r guments for r epeal r efuted

history of

leader of Univ e r s ity of California

222-3

r e s ults i n ignorant graduates

PTA ,

338-9

Gomp e r s r e c ommends non - c ompul

398

332

338

RELA TIONS BOARD

a s olution to liberal domination

quote

225- 6

textbooks of favor cornrnunis m ,

RIGHT T O W OR K , s e e a l s o L A B OR UNIONS,

A c t , quote

leader o f p r o g r e s s iv e educ ationi s t s

PRIVA T E PROPERTY 313

126

influential i n LID

attacks p r o g r e s s i v e education ,

government s ei z u r e of

quote

o n Housing and Urban Development

R u g g , Harold O .

Rickov e r , Hyman G . quote

101

on failure of s ociali s m in S w e d e n ,

m e m o r andum o f o n " r adical right "

being instituted by J ohn s on admin

1 62

Roudebus h , Richard L .

349

influential in LID

r e c ommends artificial c r eation

3 64

supports W a gn e r A c t

founde r and dominant forc·e of C OPE

363

s ay s A m e ri c an s "citizens o f the

' radical right ' being put into

205

6 7- 8

march

147 - 9

civil' rights march moral d e gradation

151

King starts a gi tation in

147

K i n g w r i t e s letter frOIn jail before a r r e s t 63

Shaw, G e o r g e B e rnar d defines s ociali s m , quote

S OC IA LISM

330

communism same as

founds Fabian Socialist S o c i ety

defined

308- 1 1

fas c i s m s am e a s

395

345

330

pr e s s ur e s against in 1 9 6 5 by

126

failur e i n Sweden

on decline in quality of U. S .

309- 1 1 ,

388-9

interlock between all s ociali s t or ganizations explained

Short , Don L .

330-2

N o r w e gians vote out soc iali s t

102

government

Shrive r , Sar gent J r .

s ocialist A m e r i c a

says poverty war offi cials must get adequate s alari e s , quote

2 52

287

quoted

S o c r at e s

1 02

Simp s on , Milward s ays bureaucrats d e s t r o y natur e ' s beauty, quote

317

c a s e of federal land grab

founded by student branch of LID 333

84-5

head o f c alls for r evolution of ma s s e s , quote

S O U T H A FR I C A arpartheid defined

291

for c e f e d e r al s eizure of S outh

289-95

riots leader in

dedicated n e g r o who r efus ed to j oin civil r i ghts movement, story

r evolutiona r y than commun i s t s

2 94

quote

293

W e s t e r n Civilization, quote

works w i t h D u B o i s Clubs

2 94- 5 Smoot , Dan

tr eatment of n e g r o e s in

2 9 1 , 292 - 3

li s t of stations c a r rying program of and s po n s o r s

15-6

P e r r y Smaw"

42 -4

a s s ociated with c o mmuni s t s , moral degenerates

2 9 7 - 3 04

against Nixon and E i s enhower

communist i n s p i r e d

joins S N C C in A labama demonstrations

147

di s c u s s e d

under commun i s t party control

dang e r s of

Housing bill

SO C I A L S E C UR I T Y s c rapped

adopt e d in U . S .

defined

amount o f liabiliti e s

State s , quote

R e p r e s entative s , quotes

m e a s u r e s against Buddhis t s dis mi s s e s patriot Otepka

68-9 69

increas e s i n taxes o f sinc e 1 9 3 5 numb e r paying taxes into

361

denoun c e s Diem ' s alleged r ep r e s s iv e 69-70

pays out more than i t takes i n politi c ians cannot oppos e i t s ystem of in F r an c e bankrupt

262-3

supported and promoted C a s t r o 2 5 8 - 62

66 66-7

70- 1 65

S T E E L INDUSTR Y government 1 9 62 p r e s s u r e s against 346

1 0 1 -2

attacks on in U . S . S enat e , quote s

S T A TE DEPA RT M E N T , U . S .

chang e s of 1 9 6 5 discus s ed

attacks on in Hous e of

defends trade with commun i s t s

bankrupt s i n c e 1 9 5 7

101

attacked by Chief Justic e s of

65-7 1

how i t operates

A rizona , quote

374

S T A R E DECISIS

2 7 4 , 3 54 amount in trust fund by 1 9 64

1 14

attacked b y chief j u s t i c e of

65 189.

91,

SUPREME C OURT , U . S .

article I IFat Bureauc r a c y " quoted

amendments t o I votes on

article

di s cus s e d

231

S TA MF O R D A DVOCA TE

A c t of 1 9 3 5 m a d e guarant e e s s in c e

CASE

introdu c e s Senate v e r s i o n of

389-90

world

S U BVERSIVE F E D E R A L EMPLOYEES

Sparkman , John J . SOCIA L GOSPE L

42-4

i n s p i r e d b y communi s t s all over

EDUC A TIONAL FUND ridicules Great Society, quote

45-6

example s o f c o mmuni s t u s e o f

S OU T HERN C ON F E R E N C E

Snyd e r , M . G .

C alifornia Uni v e r s ity riots

S N C C , s e e S TUDENT NONVIOLENT C OORDINATING C OM M I T T E E

S T UDENT RIOT S , s e e also against HC UA i n 1 96 0 d e s c r ib e d

LEA DERSHIP C ON F E RENC E article b y " T h e Civil Rights of

UNIVERSIT Y OF C A LIFORNIA

S OU THERN C HRIS TIAN

Smoot , Mab eth E .

59-60

under influence o f commun i s t party

promi s e s t o fight t o p r e s e r v e

2 9 7 - 3 04

333

pamphlet o f o n M i s s i s s ippi P r oj ec t ,

polici e s of attacked by U . S . in UN

official of says it i s m o r e

r e c ommended b y C ar n e g i e

Smaw , P e r r y

official o f C alifornia University

289-9 1

Endowment s t u d y

1 48

head of r ec ommends action to

invasion by U . S . - UN for c e s

314-5

115

C OORDINA T I N G C OMMITTEE

examples of fraud in

history o f

S LEEPING B E A R DUNES PARK

1 17

R e di s t r i cting C a s e s quoted

S T UDENT NONVIOLENT

administration

article

1 16

dis s ent in Prayer C a s e quot e d

e s tabli shed by E i s enhower

attacks Supr eme C ou r t , quote

46-7

dis s ent in C on g r e s sional

S OI L B A N K

Sikes , Rob e r t L . F .

293

dis s ent in Apportionment C a s e s

415

s ays farm program ill-advi s e d ,

U N s p e e c h , quote

Stewart, Potter

409- 1 5

quoted on s ociali s t welfare state

Shuman , Charles B .

attacks South African polic i e s in

proud o f , quote

G r e at S o c i et y p r o g r a m s forming

346

says jail s en t e n c e something to b e

3 94

S OC I A LISM IN A M E R I C A

s ays poor will run war o f

Johnson

Stevens o n , Adlai E .

333

LID s pr e ads through U . S .

attacks Supr eme C ourt, quote

quote

nationalized by T ruman , quote

defined by Shaw , quote

Shockley, William

poverty

345-6

388-9

330

populati on , quote

Kennedy threatens control o f

308- I I ,

1 0 2 -4 b a s i c documents for study of li s ted

B y r d attac k s , quote

100

c i vil rights demonstrator s ' d e c i s ions

Congr e s s ha s c ontrol over

lOS,

106-8 C ongr e s s should r e s t r i c t pow e r s of

1 08

C on g r e s sional Districting d e c i s i on 93-4

C on gr e s s i onal efforts to curb di s c us s ed

TIDRD P A R T Y

105-6

c riminal c a s e s d e c i s ions

activities of

94 - 5

formed whe r e n e c e s s a r y

dan g e r of communist decisions cited , quote

100

T ID R D R O L L C A LLS ,

dan g e r s of cited by E a s tland, quot e

article

d e c i s i on s of favorable to c ommuni s t s

quote

100

arti c l e

I I I

i s W a r r en C ourt

105

quote

d e fi e s own Charter

121-3

121 -8

financ e s and voting

fr ontation o n finan c e s

209 - 1 6

quote

89 W a r r en rulings , quote s

166

o r d e r s c ommuni s t p r opaganda to b e deli v e r e d fr e e

ORGANIZ A T I O N ,

r et i r e d General o n disarmament,

quote

1 34 - 6

1 0 1 -4

TRUJILLO :

p r e c ipitates turmoil in Alabama

pri vate s chool integration d e c i s i on

1 57

1919

Trujillo , Rafael,

s e e also

a c c omplishments of

CIA

1 56

1 56 - 7

107-8 officials

345

state le g i s lature apportionment

Tshomb e , M o i s e 1 1-2

r efus ed p e r m i s sion to visit U . S .

s ummation o f d e c i s ions in support of c ommuni s m

11 r eturns to C ongo a s P r em i e r

weakens stare d e c i s i s

90 U

1 6 1 -2

317-8

SWEDEN U N E M P LOYME N T ,

236

s e e also S TU DE N T RIOTS c ommuni sts prilne mov e r s in riots at

45 95-6

45-6

student riots a t led b y c ommunists

plans o f for land grabs 126

236

UNI V E R S I T Y O F C A LIFORNIA ,

riots at dis cus s e d

Udall, Stewart L .

failure of s ocialis m in

J ohns on a s k s for expan s i on of

taking over all employment s e rvi c e s

r i o t e r s t o b e p r o s e cuted

SUPREME C OURT DECISIONS on labor laws

2 34

u s e s fake stati s ti c s

his country d e s troyed b y U N

235-6

235

323-4

s e g r egation d e c i s ion di s cus s e d d e c i s ion

Truman, Harry S quote

agencies functions of

o r d e r s s te e l industry nationalize d ,

s ays communi s t s can b e labor union

attacks on b y l o c a l employment founded i n 1 9 1 8

ruling of 1 8 6 8 on C on gr e s s ional power to define p o w e r s of, quote

SERVICE

plot to a s s a s sinate involves U . S . ,

r ul e s against private property

73-4

UNITED S TA T E S E M P L O Y M E N T

DOMINI C A N R E P U B LIC

r ev e r s e s prior d e c i s i on s , h i s t o r y

from U. S .

headed by communi s t Harry Dexter White

94 r ec o r d of in communi s t c a s e s s in c e

U N I T E D NATIONS M O N E T A R Y A N D c r eated poli c i e s to t a k e gold

THE LAS T C AE S A R

b o o k by A rturo E s paillat quoted 155-6,

s e e UNES C O

F I N A N C I A L C ON F E R E N C E

Prayer C a s e d e c i sion attacked in C ongr e s s , quot e s

208

S C I E N TIFIC , A N D C ULTURA L

Trudeau , A r thur G .

323

Prayer C a s e d e c i s i on

blueprint for international

U N I T E D NA TIONS E D U C A TIONA L ,

32 1 - 8

article

OF HUMA N RIGHTS s o c iali s m

TREASON OR MA DNESS

1 14 - 8

122-3

U N I T E D NA TIONS ' DEC LARATION

memb e r s of , date o f appointment opinions of Justic e s against

U . S . backs down o n U N c on

introduc e s bill to r e str ict N L R B ,

97 - 8

1 0-4

powe r s

Tow e r , J ohn G .

almost i mpos s ible under W a r r en

in C ongo

u s e d a s prime weapon b y c ommuni s t s against colonial

article

makes p r o s ecution o f communi s t s

122-3

t r i e s t o c r eate communist state

DIC T A T ORSIDP

100

12 1 - 3

macinations to avoid impa s s e on

TOW A R D A SOCIALIST

J enner attacks d e c i s i on s o f

s e e L A B OR UNIONS

impa s s e on financial contributions

323

impeachm ent r e c ommended by

U N I T E D NA TIONS

see

on Soviet - U . S . consular tr eaty

1 13-4

G e o r gi a A s s embly

UNIONS ,

Thurmon d , S t r om

impeachment of W a r r en r e c om mended

1965

THROUGH T H E LOOKING GLASS

Fourteenth Amendment u s e d to c r eate judicial oligarchy

aft e r WW II

M E T R O P O LI T A N GOVE R N M E N T

1 6 1 -2

d e s troys Cons titution ,

against European colonial power

397

24 1 - 8

THI R T E E N - THIR T E E N ,

90-2

d e c i s ions o f o n labor laws in 1965

intens ifi e s campaign of hatred

397

s e e also U N I T E D

41 UNIVERSITY O F P LA NO di s cu s s ion of

398

S TA TES E M PL O Y M E N T S E R V I C E examples of

SWITZERLAND a r m s i t s citizens with fir earms

237-8

figur e s b y government di s t o r t e d ,

130- 1

true p i c t u r e of

2 37

figur e s by USES distorted

236

d i s c u s s ion o f

education di s c us s ed

29-30

draft tr eaty o n international c ontrol Talmadg e , Herman E .

of education quoted

attacks S up r e m e C ou r t , quote TEXAS DEC LARATION OF on fir earms , quote

1 03 - 4

399-400

d e s c ribed

failure of

2 1 1 -2

S up r e m e C ourt upholds US E S ,

s e e U N I T E D S TA TES

E M PL O Y M E N T SERVICE

R E P U B LICS actively supporting North Vi etnam

129

margin

UNION OF SOVIE T S OC I A LIST INDEPENDENCE

defeated in Salt Lake City by 6 - 1

draft t r e aty o f t o inte rnationalize

2 1 8-9

s e e also

d e n i e s r i ghts of p r op e rt y owners

UNES C O TA F T - HA R T LE Y A C T

U R B A N R E NE W A L ,

M E TROPOLITAN GOVE RNMENT

361

U. S . NEWS

W O R L D REFOR T

article " I s Quality of U . S . Population lJec linin g ? " , quoted 395

article on imports

75-6

VOTING RIGHTS BILL

article on true unemployment figures

article o n Vietnam and hatred of A m e ri c an s quoted

19-20

C ongo article quoted

c ommuni s t s favor , quote p r ovi s i o n s of

1 4 9 - 50,

1 7 9 - 80

c ollap s e s , arti c l e quoted

193

101-2

Vi etnam , li s t

anti - Di e m campaign i n U . S .

in attacks on D i e m chronology,

political payoff

1 94 5 to 1 9 64

17-9

hatr e d at Diem

North Vietnam, l i s t

3 62

195-6

97-8 r e c o r d o f i n c a s e s involving

193

ment , quote

1 9 6 5 stat e Â

Lodge ' s activities and involvement 2 1 -2

in death of Diem

M c Namara finds war s e t back after Diem death

Mc Namara s ay s U . S . troops c a n 21,

b e withdrawn by e n d o f 1 9 6 5 197 New Y o r k T i m e s , Los A n g e l e s

Times a n d o t h e r s j oin c ommuni s t attack on D i e m gover nm ent s olution for war in

23-4,

199 -200

Soviet Union supporting North

361

U N commi s s ion finds n o evidence that Buddhi s t atrocitie s happened 22 U . S . c a s ualti e s in

WASHI N G T O N ,

1 1 3-4

see DIS T R I C T O F C OLUMB I1'\

m e a s u r e s against Buddhi s t s

Vi etnam e s e t r oops ignore U . S .

used b y Johnson to stop 193,

198

363

di s cus s i o n , r o l l call vote

VIRGINIA C ONSERVATIVE C OUNCIL forms third party opposition whe r e 397

169

about Supreme C ourt power to r e s t o r e Republic

295 1 19

336

WHA T ' s I N A PROMIS E ? article

68- 70

1 96 5

stay out of local s chool affair s 2 5 1 -2 Whittak e r , C h a r l e s E .

di s cu s s e d

92,

article b y o n c ivil di s ob e di en c e

115

2 67 - 7 1 r etired Sup r e m e C ourt Justice

W e lch , Robert

265

limit by s tate

brings

253

Newbe r g , N e w Y or k c a s e di s cus s ed

267 W i eland, William A rthur apologist for C a s t r o

257

257-63

Ohio f o r c ed to bring into conformity with federal program WELFARE S T A T E , S O C IE T Y ,

2 54

s e e also

GREA T

POVER T Y W A R , SOCIA LISM 2 3 3 -4

same as

2 1 3 -4

67-8

article

provisions and roll call votes on

Wilson, Richard on poverty war , quote

2 1 3-4

o n power grid failu r e , quote

382

W i l s o n , Woodrow 363 W OODVILLE ,

TEXAS

b u s in e s s e s out

51-2

1 7 - 24 WORKER ,

W H A T MUS T BE DONE

VOTING RIGHTS A C T OF 1 9 6 5

1 02

attacks Supreme C ou r t , quote

A R A program i n driving private WHA T A R E W E D OI N G I N VIE T NA M ?

1965

W illiams , J ohn B e ll

206

U . S . plunging into

40 1 - 8

315

starts U . S. internationalist polic i e s

influential in LID , United W or Id 3 32

plac ed lands under federal control

209- 12

poverty war and Gr eat S o c i ety

s lave r y

Voorhi s , H . J e r r y

WILDERNESS BILL

2 5 3 -4

t r i e d in many c ountr i e s , ends i n

354

about South Afri c a , arti c l e

r e c olTunends fede ral government

WA TKINS C ASE

growth of in A m e r i c a

1 8 7 - 8 , 244, 2 7 7 ,

223

s oc ial s e curity , a rticle

WHITE HOUSE C ON F E RE N C E ON

W A T E R POLLUTION C ON T R O L A C T

growth of in U . S .

arti c le

article

about

E DU C A TION ,

VOTING REC ORDS ,

368

about r ep e a l of ri ght to work,

Monetary C onfe r e n c e

s et s forth traditional U . S .

federal r ebuke

D i e m government ' s r ep r e s sive

F ederalists

t o promote world p e a c e

c ommuni s t who planned UN

Washington, G e o r g e

attempt

U . S . State Department denoun c e s

necessary

1 66 - 7

WELFA R E PROGRAMS

198

opposition to his programs

about N L R B

White , Harry Dexter

Do C o ,

foreign polic y , quote

1 68

about metro government

c a s e o f r eviewed

advi s o r s

should b e impeached

A m e r i c a revolutions

U . S . should not have b e c o m e 23 -4,

c i v i l rights and d e s t ruction of

Vietnam e s e units in South

involved in

c ommun i s m

pamphlet by on comrrtun i s t dir ec t e d

U 0 S . officials deny North Vi etnam

1 18

p r o s e c ution almost impos sible

Johnson o r d e r s bombings of Johnson ' s January 4 ,

1 14 - 8 impeachment r e c omrrtended by leader ship of makes c ommuni s t

1 9 - 20 20,

John B i r c h S o ciety

hatred of Ame ricans growing in hi story of 1 9 54 - 62

toward C on s titution

foreign aid r ecipient s ' ships g o t o

1 3 3 -4

3 1 9-20

evidenc e against for impeachment

about federal fi r earrrts l e gi s lation,

about labor laws

either ignorant o f or hostile

c ommun i s t s launch campaign of

382 - 3

about f a r m p r o g r a m s a r ti c l e

appointed C h i e f Justi c e a s

Buddhi s t s led by communi s t s

powe r , article

about federal land grabs , arti c le

Warr e n , E a r l

197-8

about drive to s o c ialize e l e ctric

1 62 - 3

123-4

327 - 8

A m e r ic a , article

about congr e s s ional r eo r ganization

about education c ontrols , arti c l e

b a s i c labor law , d e s c r iption

ship to North

3 5 1 -2

W A GNER A C T

allies of U . S.

delegation

about communist danger t o

attacks Sup r e m e C o u r t , quote

VIE TNAM

about challenge t o M i s s i s s ippi

about C OPE political activities

Waggonner , J o e D. J r .

war i n

149

opposition t o Johnson programs

North

1 52

c ommuni s t party in 1 9 56

on riots i n Roche s t e r , quote

20- 1 ,

324

provi s ions of r e c ommended by

1 3 -4

on welfa r e stat e , quote

W HA T T O D O

1 4 5 - 52

article

237-8

about outflow

of gold

78-9

THE

dem.ands s o c ialization of e l e c tric power , quote

382

r e c ommends federal war against S o uth

W OR L D C OURT Johnson to attempt repeal of C onnally R e s e rvation

Y Y A TES C A S E di s cus s ed

92,

1 15

YOUNG AMERICANS F O R F RE E DOM fighting NSA

343

s u c c e s s fully fights Romania rubber deal

322

z Z E R O DE FEC TS PROGRAM encourages employees to admit e r r o r s to employers

238