Part 2: One World Order- Socialist Dictatorship...What Socialism Is: Why it Leads to Slavery

One World Order- Socialist Dictatorship

By Dr John Coleman

2 

WHAT SOCIALISM IS: 

WHY IT LEADS TO SLAVERY 

"Where the ends they seek are concerned, Socialism and Communism are virtually interchangeable terms. Indeed, Lenin's party continued to call itself, 'Social Democrat' until the Seventh Party Congress of March, 1918, when it substituted the term, 'Bolshevik' as a protest against the non-revolutionary attitude of the Socialist parties of the West."...Ezra Taft Benson— A Race Against Time, Dec. 10, 1963. 

"Through restructuring, we want to give Socialism a second wind. To achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles or the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society."... Mikhail Gorbachev, in a speech at the Kremlin in July 1989. 

These highly revealing comments, and other which we shall quote as we proceed, put Socialism in its proper perspective. Most modern day Americans have only a vague idea of what Socialism is about, viewing it as a semi-benign movement whose goals are a general improvement of the living standards of the ordinary people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism has one place to go, and that is Communism. We have been besieged by the media, led to believe that Communism is dead, but some thinking will convince us otherwise. 

The Fabian Socialists closely followed the Communist Manifesto of 1848, but in a more genteel, less abrasive manner. Their aims however, were the same: A world revolution which would end in a One World Government — New World Order in which capitalism would be replaced by Socialism in a welfare state, in which every individual would be beholden to a dictatorial Socialist hierarchy for everything in life. 

There would be no private property, no constitutional government, only authoritarian rule. Every individual would be beholden to the Socialist state for his sustenance. Outwardly, this would in theory be of great benefit to the ordinary people, but an examination of the Socialist experiments in England, reveals the system as a complete, unworkable failure. As we show elsewhere, Great Britain of 1994 has totally collapsed because of the Socialists and their welfare state. 

The Fabian Socialists set out to achieve their goals in England and the United States by placing intellectuals in key positions from where they were able to exert undue influence in changing the direction of both countries. In the United States, the two prime agents in this regard undoubtedly were Professor Harold Laski and John Kenneth Galbraith. In the background, one of the "old guard" of British Fabianism, Graham Wallas, was director of propaganda. Together, they wrote the "Basis of The Fabian Society of Socialists." 

"The Fabian Society therefore aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and Industrial Capital from individual and class ownership, and vesting of them in the community for the general benefit...The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land.. .The Society further works for the transfer to the Community of such Industrial capital as can be conveniently handled by Society. For the attainment of these ends the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon...It seeks to achieve these ends by the general dissemination of knowledge as to the relation between the individual and the Society in its economic, ethical and political aspects." 

In 1938, the aims and objects of the Society were somewhat altered: 

"The Fabian Society of Socialists." 

"It is therefore the aims at the establishment of a society in which the economic power of individuals and classes shall be abolished through the collective ownership and democratic control of the economic resources of the community. It seeks to secure these ends by the methods of political democracy. The Fabian Society shall be affiliated with the Labour Party. Its activities shall be in furtherance of Socialism and the education of the public along Socialist lines by the holding of meetings, lectures, discussion groups, conferences and summer schools; the promotion of research into political, economic and social problems and periodicals; and by any other appropriate means." 

One is at once struck by the number of times "community" appears, alongside the playing down of individual rights. In this, it appears that Fabian Socialism set its face against Christianity from the earliest gatherings of the original few in London. The determination to nationalize industrial projects that served the public was very evident and bore a striking resemblance to what the Communist Manifesto of 1848 said on the subject. It was also evident that the purpose of Fabian Socialism was to establish a National Cooperative Common wealth Society, in which everyone would have the same rights to the economic wealth of the nation.

The Boston Bellamy Club, which opened in 1888, succeeded the Fellowship of New Life with its Theosophical learnings and became the first Fabian Socialist enterprise in the United States. The Basis was somewhat different: 

"The principal of the Brotherhood of Humanity is one of eternal truths that govern the world's progress on lines which distinguish human from brute nature. No truth can prevail unless practically applied. Therefore those who seek the welfare of man must endeavor to suppress the system founded on brute principles of competition and put in its place another based on the nobler principles of association..."

"We advocate no sudden or ill-considered change; we make no war upon individuals who have accumulated immense fortunes simply by carrying out to a logical end the false principles upon which business is now based. The combinations, trusts, and syndicates of which people at present complain, demonstrate the practicability of our basic principle of association. We merely seek to push the principle a little further and have industries operated in the interests of the nation—the people organized, the organic unity of the whole people." 

The prose was the work of Sydney Webb, and Edward Pease, Fabian Society historian, who traveled to the United States in the 1880s to set in motion American Fabian Socialism. The mildness of the tone and the choice of words belies its iron-hard inner core of revolutionary aims. The use of the word "reforms" was intended to disarm critics as were Fabian publications like "The Fabian News" which advocated "reforms" that would prove particularly injurious to the United States Constitution. It paved the way for the ongoing revolution that is changing the United States from a Confederated Republic into a Socialist Welfare State. (It was George Washington who described the United States as a Confederated Republic). 

In the "American Fabian" of 1895, (unlike the disguised Socialists who infest the United States House and Senate and the Judiciary and who act as advisers to the President) the Fabian Socialist aims for America were rather plainly stated: 

"We call our paper, 'The American Fabian' for two reasons; we call it 'Fabian' because we desire to make it stand for the kind of educational Socialist work which is so ably done by the English Fabian Society...We call our paper, 'The American Fabian' because our policies must in a measure differ from those of the English Fabians. England and America are alike in some things; in some things they are utterly unlike. England's constitution readily admits to constant though gradual modification. Our American Constitution does not readily admit to such change. England can thus move into Socialism almost imperceptibly. Our Constitution being largely individualist must be changed to admit Socialism and each change necessitates a political crisis." 

Thus from the very beginning it was clear that the main challenge to introducing Socialism to the United States was the Constitution and that from that day onwards, it became the target of Socialist attacks on the institutions that make up the Confederated Republic of the United States of America. As we shall see, to this end, callous, hardened Socialists like Walt Whitman Rostow were employed to undermine the very foundation of the nation. As trained observers were quick to recognize, Fabian Socialism was not just a nice, friendly debating society run by professors and educated ladies, who talked with polished accents and projected an air of sweet reasonableness. 

Fabian Socialism developed the art of dissembling and lying without seeming to lie. Many were deceived in England, and later, in the United States, where we are still being deceived on a grand scale. But there were occasions when Socialist leaders could not contain themselves, such as the occasion of the 1936 Eastern Spring Conference of Professional Schools for Teachers. Roger Baldwin explained the double meaning of words so often used by Fabian Socialists: "progressive" meant '"the forces working for the democratization of industry by extending public ownership and control," while "democracy" meant "strong trade unions, government regulation of business, ownership by the people of industries that serve the public." 

Senator Lehman was another Socialist who was unable to contain his eagerness to introduce Fabian Socialism into the United States. Speaking on the occasion of the American Fabian League Anniversary Symposium on "Freedom and the Welfare State," Lehman had this to say: 

"A hundred and seventy years ago the welfare state concept was translated into the basic law of this land by the founders of the republic...The founding Fathers were the ones who really originated the welfare state." Lehman, like so many of his Socialist colleagues in the Senate, had not the foggiest notion of the Constitution, so it was not surprising that he got it mixed up with the Preamble to the Constitution, which was never made a part of the Constitution simply because our Founding Fathers rejected the concept of a welfare state. 

The Preamble to the Constitution: "to create a more perfect union and to promote the general welfare..." Sen. Lehman seemed to be engaging in wishful thinking for this clause is not part of the United States Constitution. He also appeared to be engaging in the favorite Socialist technique of twisting words and their meaning. 

There is a General Welfare Clause in the United States Constitution and it is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the delegated powers of Congress. But in this setting it means the general welfare of ALL citizens, that is to say, their state of well being which is a far cry from the Socialist meaning of a general handout, the dole, i.e. individual welfare provided by the state. 

Probably the first time the American Socialists tried to implement their plan to attack industrial capital, came with a crafty scheme proposed by Rexford Guy Tugwell. The scheme involved appointing consumers to the twenty-seven industry boards that were to be set up under what was called "The National Recovery Act." Tugwell was really trying to do away with the profit motive; stripped of its seemingly benevolent intention of reducing prices to consumers, the real intention was to slice the profits of the entrepreneurs and increase the wages of the workers accordingly, but the scheme was declared unconstitutional by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. In 1935, the Court was not yet packed with "Liberal" (i.e. Socialist) judges. 

Roosevelt was quick to change that "imbalance." It is safe to say that the Supreme Court in the 1920s-1930s really saved the United States from being taken over by the Fabian Socialists who had come pouring into every level of government, banking, industry, and the Congress, in an effort to literally overwhelm the country.

Socialists, in their endeavor to get past the Constitution with so called "laws" like the unconstitutional Brady bill, do not know that the United States Constitution is "the perfect equipoise, equilibrium or balance of the common law." The way in which the Constitution was drafted was that all of its provisions meet in the center to neutralize each other, which why bills the Socialist try to slip through on the premise that they can divide the Constitution, are null and void. The Constitution has to be read as a whole, it cannot be isolated and parted to fit the weird aspirations of men like President Clinton. This is what Ramsey McDonald came up against, and it is what totally frustrated Professor Laski. 

The Fabian Society of London and its American counterpart were not known for letting obstacles stand in their way. To get around constitutional safeguards, the American Fabian League came up with the idea that any of their proposals that ran counter to the constitution should be subjected to a referendum. Obviously, with their considerable resources, and with almost the entire jackal press in their pockets, the Fabians felt sure that they could swing public opinion their way. Just look at what they did in standing behind George Bush's totally illegal Gulf War. 

Being aware of the true nature of Socialism and its aims, makes it easier to understand why the Bolshevik Revolution was bought and paid for by City of London and Wall Street bankers, backed by government action which seemed always to help the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik Revolution which was so beloved by Gorbachev, was not an indigenous revolution of the Russian people. Rather, it was a foreign ideology, forced upon the Russian nation at the cost of millions of lives. Bolshevism was neither wanted nor requested by the Russian people; they had no say and no defense against this monstrous political, social and religious force that overcame their land. 

It is just so with Socialism, which forces human beings to accept deliberately engineered changes of a most far-reaching nature which they don't want and which are carried out against their wills. Take the so-called Panama Canal treaty as an example. The only difference between Bolshevism and Socialism is that in the lormer, brute force and terror tactics are used, while the Socialist does his work slowly and stealthily, the intended victim never knowing who the enemy is nor what the end result will be. 

In "World Revolution" we find the true aims of the Communists and their Socialist twin: "The goal of world revolution is not the destruction of civilization in a material sense: the revolution desired by the leaders is moral and spiritual revolution, and anarchy of ideas by which all standards set up through the nineteen centuries shall be reversed, all honored traditions trampled underfoot, and above all, the Christian ideal finally obliterated." A study of Franklin Roosevelt's book, "On Our Way," yields substantially the same conclusions. 

Emma Goldman, one of the Socialist's bright stars, engineered the murder of President McKinley. This was the "direct" method favored by Communism, but in the last two decades we have seen the type of Socialist anarchy that uses calumny, slander, traducere, maligning and denigration of individual members of the House, Senate and the Presidency, who have attempted to reveal the dreadful Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Huey Long, Vice President Agnew — the list is much longer but these names should suffice to make the point. 

Fabian Socialist "nobility" is far from being true. They want to gain control of education and the publishing business for the sole purposes of altering the minds of the people by falsely changing the premises upon which opinions are made, individually, and en-mass. A small group of Fabian Socialists set out to accomplish this by moving silently and stealthily, thereby not alerting the audience they wished to capture, as to their real purpose. It can be said with a certain degree of accuracy, that today, in 1994, this small group has come a long way in that they virtually control the destiny of the English-speaking world. 

The Bolshevik Revolution would never have got off the ground were it not for the full backing and financial resources of leading Socialists in Britain and the United States. The rise of Bolshevism, and how it was financed by Lord Alfred Milner and the Wall Street banks, controlled on a day-to-day basis by Milner's emissaries, Bruce Lockhart and Sydney Reilly of British intelligence MI6, is detailed in "Diplomacy By Deception." 

In the United States the Socialist purveyors hang other signs outside their political shop windows. No one ever calls himself or herself a Socialist, at least not in public. They wear no badge, registering themselves, "Liberals," "Progressives" and "Moderates." Power hungry moves are disguised in terms of "peace" and "humanitarianism." In this regard, the American Socialists are no less devious than their British controllers. They adopted the British Fabian Socialist attitude toward nationalism, declaring it to be irrelevant and not essential to achieving what they call, "Social equality," i.e. Socialism. American Socialists joined with their British cousins in declaring that the best way to break down nationalism and advance the cause of Socialism is via a graduated income tax program. 

Fabian Socialists can be identified by the company they keep and the programs they support. This rule of thumb is very helpful in singling out its secretive men and women. In the United States they work at a slower pace than their British counterparts, never showing the direction in which they are traveling. One of their number, Arthur J. Schlesinger Jr., who won a Pulitzer prize for his Socialist leadership, wrote, 'There seems no inherent obstacle to the GRADUAL (emphasis added) implementing of Socialism in the United States through a series of 'New Deals' which is a process of backing into Socialism." (Partisan Review 1947) 

We should be aware that traditional liberties we take for granted are gravely threatened by Socialism, which brings far-reaching, damaging, changes on the installment plan. All the while, thanks to their control of the book industry, publishing in general and the press, we are going through a non-stop process of being conditioned through "psychopolitics" to accept these Socialist-mandated changes as inevitable. The deadly, destructive Socialist programs forced upon the United States, beginning in the Wilson presidency, have always appeared to be beneficial and helpful, while in reality, destructive and divisive. 

Socialism can be fairly described as a dangerous conspiracy cloaked in a mantle of reforms. Almost without exception, their programs have been, and are always described as "reforms." The Socialists "reformed" education, and they are "reforming" health care. They "reformed" the banking system, which "reform" gave us the Federal Reserve Banks. They "reformed" trade laws and broke down protective tariffs that had provided most of the revenue needed to run the country, right up until 1913. 

In education, the Fabian Socialists seek to create a "mediocre majority" that has the semblance, but not the substance, of being educated. 

The Fabian Socialists fought a secret war to gain control of education, which began in the 1920s and triumphed in 1980 with the passage of the Department of Education signed into law by President Carter. This great victory for Socialism guaranteed that henceforth only mediocre students would leave high school. That was the sum and substance of Socialist "reform" of education. There is a misconception abroad that we are smarter today than our forbears. Yet, if we look at the school curriculum in 1857, we find this is an absolutely false idea. The subjects in which high school students had to be proficient enough to graduate included: 

"Thompson's Arithmetic" 

"Robinson's Algebra" 

"Davie's Algebra" 

"Davie's Geometry" 

"Comstock's Philosophy" 

"Willard's History" 

"Cutter's Physiology" 

"Brown's Grammar" 

"Mitchell's Geography" 

"Sander's Series" 30  

Looking at the curriculum of colleges in the late 1880s leaves one astounded by the complexity and number of subjects taught. In those days students studied history and knew all about Napoleon and Alexander the Great. There was no such thing as sheer guesswork, i.e., "multiple choice" questions. Students could answer the questions in their exam papers or they could not. If they did not know them, they were failed and had to stay back to do further study. 

There were no elective methods to get by what you did not know. Today, there is one elective after another, which leaves students uneducated and unprepared for the outside world. Mediocrity is the result, and that is the desired goal of Fabian Socialism educational "reforms," to produce a nation with a mediocre educational level. 

The great Socialist mischief that laid education in the United States low came with the U.S. Supreme Court case, "Brown vs. School Board, Topeka, Kansas." In this case the Socialists arranged matters so that educational standards were set just above the lowest common denominator, slightly above the more backward elements in the classroom. This was the level at which all children were henceforth to be taught. Obviously, the upper range of intelligent students were held at the mediocre levels. 

So far has education regressed in the United States, that even those whom we think we elect to serve us in Congress, do not understand the language of the Constitution of the United States and our Senators, in particular, grow more incompetent in the Constitution with each passing year. 

Returning to the Bolshevik Revolution. The deception was the Socialist leaders in England gave the false impression that it was a "Socialist" revolution meant to improve the lot of the Russian people and put paid to the tyranny of the Romanovs. In fact, the Romanovs were the most benign of all monarchs in Europe, with a genuine love and caring for their people. Deception is the hall mark of Socialism. Its motto. "Make Haste Slowly" is deceptive, because Socialism has not gone slowly and it is not a friend of the working people. Socialism is Communism proceeding more cautiously, but the goals are the same, although the means differ in some instances. The common goal of Communism and Socialism is to liquidate the true capitalist free enterprise system and replace it with a strong central government which has control of every aspect of production and distribution of goods and services. Anyone who stands in their way is immediately labeled "reactionary," "right wing extremist" a "McCarthy reactionary," "fascist," "religious extremists" and so on. When you hear these words spoken, then you know the speaker is a Socialist. 

Communism and Socialism have as their common objective an ushering in of a federal, One World Government, or as it has become more popularly known, the "New World Order." Learn what their leaders had to say: 

"I am convinced that Socialism is correct. I am an adherent of Socialism...We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen Socialism" — Mikhail Gorbachev. 

"The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is to create a One World Socialist system and make the United States an official part of it." — Senator Dan Smoot, "The Unseen Hand." 

"The American people will never knowingly, accept Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened...The United States is making greater strides toward adopting Socialism under Eisenhower than under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. — Norman Thomas. "Two Worlds." 

To understand the full plan and purpose of Florence Kelley's "legislative action" of American Socialists, one must first carefully read the Declaration of Principles of the Fabian Socialists and international Socialism: 

"It's purpose is to secure a majority in Congress and in every State legislature, to win the principal executive and judicial offices, to become the dominant party, and when in power, to transfer the industries to ownership by the people, beginning with those of public character, such as banking, insurance etc." 

In the United States, the vast majority of Socialists are found in the Democrat Party, with a smattering of "progressives" in the Republican Party. In this sense, Fabian Socialism is a political party, albeit by adoption, as it was in England with the takeover of the Labour Party. It will be recalled that Kelley was the driving force behind the highly destructive false psycho judicial "Brandeis Briefs" which changed the way rulings are arrived at by the Supreme Court. Kelley was a close friend of Socialist lesbian Eleanor Roosevelt. (The "Brandeis Briefs" method totally sabotaged our legal system and is another example of unwanted, undesirable Socialist-originated changes being forced on the people of the United States.) 

In pages 9962-9977, Congressional Record, Senate, May 31, 1924, we find the Socialists and Communists aims spelled out even more plainly: 

"In short, American Communists themselves admit that it is impossible to promote revolution in this country unless the rights of the States are destroyed, and a centralized bureaucracy, under an entrenched cast of bureaucrats similar to those in Europe, for Communists (and Socialists) the basic conditions for revolution." While this is slanted toward the Communist goals, let us not forget that it is also the Socialist's goal, differing only by method and in degree. 

To which I would add that under Presidents Johnson, Carter, Bush and Clinton, the Socialist agenda for the United States has gone into high gear. Clinton will be a single-term president, but will do more to strongly promote Socialist plans, and do more actual damage than either Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Johnson. 

It is plainly evident to those who seek the truth that Communism is not dead. It is only taking a temporary respite and is presently waiting in the wings while Socialism catches up. What we have today is what Karl Marx called "Scientific Socialism." It was also called "psychopolitics" by Professor Harold Laski. President Kennedy adopted "scientific Socialism—his "New Frontier" program taken directly from the British Fabian Society blueprint, "New Frontiers," by Henry Wallace (New York, Reynal and Hitchcock 1934). 

"Psychopolitics" was summed up by Charles Morgan in his book, "Liberties of the Mind:" 

"...we are all being conditioned to accept limitations of freedom...I fear that unconsciously, even if we are ready to accept this new infection...There is no immunity in the great mass of our people and no consciousness of danger.. .One can think of many ways in which the population as a whole is being conditioned or prepared for this mental change, this loss of individuality and identity." A clearer explanation of Socialism boring away from within would be hard to find. 

The Socialists have been practicing psychopolitics upon the people of England and the United States since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto of 1848. That is why we find in 1994, our senators arguing over the merits of one "national health plan" over another, instead of rejecting outright the whole idea as a Socialist subterfuge. It was Lenin who said that a national health plan is the arch of Socialism. Likewise, we had the Senate debating the merits of the so called Brady bill, instead of rejecting it out of hand as a Socialist subterfuge to get around the Constitution of the United States. An entire book could be written on this subject alone. 

The Kennedy administration contained 36 Fabian Socialists. Two were cabinet members, three were White House aides, two were undersecretaries and one was an assistant secretary of state. The remainder were in policy making positions of vital importance. That is why so many Kennedy-era policy decisions ran contrary to the best interests of the United States and its people and seemed oddly at variance with what Kennedy said he stood for. 

Since the death of Kennedy, Socialism has taken deep root in the United States, always watered and nurtured by those who are called "Liberals," "Moderates" and nursed with great bouts of "tolerance." Colonel Mandel House, and Sir William Wiseman, director of the North American desk for British intelligence M16 "ran" President Wilson, who became the first openly Socialist American President to sit in the Oval Office. 

Fabian Socialism dominated six United States presidents, starting with Woodrow Wilson. The Socialists goals never varied, particularly in what they described as "the difficulties to be overcome," and these were, and in some instances still are: 

1. Religion, especially the Christian religion. 

2. National pride of nation states. 

3. Patriotism. 

4. The United States Constitution and States constitutions. 

5. Opposition to a graduated income tax. 

6. Breaking down trade barriers. 

These goals are described in their blueprint, American Fabian Techniques," based on obscurantism. 

The Fabian Socialist movement was only interested in recruiting the elite of British society, men like Clement Atlee, Sir Stafford Cripps, Herbert Morrison, Emmanuel Shinwell, Ernest Bevin, Lord Grey, Lord Asquith and Ramsey McDonald, who went on to work their will on England from Parliament. While these names may be foreign to American readers, these men played a vital role in directing the course the United States was to take, and as such, are worthy of mention. 

An interesting sidelight on the Fabian Society is that its committee determined that no more than 5 percent of the population were worthy of becoming good Socialist leaders. Some British Fabian Socialists played vital roles in changing the course and direction of the United States and we shall return to this aspect. Fabian Socialist MacDonald, who went on to become prime minister of England, was dispatched to the United States in 1893, to spy out the land. On his return on January 14, 1898, MacDonald told his committee members, 'The great bar to Socialist progress in the United States is its written Constitution, Federal and State, which give ultimate power to a law court." 

MacDonald further stated that it would be necessary to work diligently to carry out the directive of Edward Bellamy, an American Fabian Socialist. Most of us will know him as the author of the book, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which was drafted by his mentor, Colonel Thomas Wentworth, a noted Abolitionist and as ardent a Fabian Socialist as one could find. 

Bellamy was an true believer and follower of the British Fabian Society and one of its first American Fabian chapter members. Writing in the "American Fabian" in February, 1895, three years before MacDonald delivered his fact-finding report of his tour of the United States, Bellamy stated, "...our Constitution being largely individualistic must be changed to admit Socialism, and each change necessitates a political crisis. This means the raising of great issues." 

Didn't Wilson raise "great issues" and didn't Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Bush do the same thing and isn't it remarkable that Clinton is constantly "raising great issues?" This is the methodology of Socialism: raise "great issues" like the so called "healthcare reform" and behind the clouds of dust raised by the issue, do the dirty, underhand work of undermining the Constitution of the United States. 

Herein lies the root explanation of the political actions taken by Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush and Clinton. MacDonald's proposals followed very precisely the model laid down by Bellamy. MacDonald stressed that the need to alter the Constitution of the United States should be preeminent in the thinking of Fabian Socialist. We stress once again that Fabian Socialism differed somewhat from European Socialism, more especially in that it claimed to have no party affiliations. This would be true, if we ignored the fact that by "penetration and permeation" it took over the British Labour and Liberal Parties and has now taken over the Democrat Party of the United States. 

MacDonald reported that the underlying principles of the United States Constitution rested on the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, especially the right to own property as a corollary to Isaac Newtons' Natural Law. Therefore, said MacDonald, changing the Constitution was to be done in an obliquely, highly secretive way and over a period of many years. He also pointed to the block to Socialist tactics of penetration and permeation posed by the separation of powers between the three departments of government. 

MacDonald's words were an echo of what Bellamy had proposed in February of 1895. At least Bellamy was better educated in the constitution than are the vast majority of judges and politicians in this day and age. He readily admitted that the Constitution of the United States was not flexible. This shows up the ignorance of Judge Ruth Ginsberg, lately appointed to the Supreme Court by Socialist President Clinton, who told a Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee hearing that the Constitution is "flexible," whereas it is immutable. 

The great vision of Fabian Socialism of the 1890s was to "revise" the United States Constitution, that is, "reform" it. Although it appeared on the surface that such a task was beyond its abilities, Fabian ability to work silently and secretly was unfortunately underestimated and overlooked. It reminds me of the popular Frank Sinatra song about some ambitious ants and a rubber tree. The ants had no chance of taking the tree away in one operation, but they nevertheless accomplished the impossible, carrying it away, leaf by leaf, until the rubber tree was demolished. I believe this is a good analogy of how Fabian Socialism has been working since 1895 (a task which still is ongoing) to carry off the United States Constitution piece by piece. 

Bellamy and MacDonald might be described as "visionaries," but they were Fabian Socialist visionaries with definite ideas about how to succeed. The methods described by "The American Socialist" called for establishing a Socialist elite in the United States, and then schooling the elite cadre on how to take advantage of every local, state and national crisis for the covert ends of Socialism and to gain support for such ideas through a well-organized penetration of the press. The crystallizing of American Fabian Socialism began in earnest in 1905. 

'The American Socialist" also called for forming a cadre of Fabian Socialist professors who in later years would act as advisors for a series of presidents, thereby steering them in the direction of the grand design to socialize the United States. These far-left-of-Marx and Lenin professors were drawn mainly from the ranks of Harvard University Law School. "Educational work" was undertaken by the elite Harvard Socialist Club, which when overlaid on the British Fabian Society — one of the few times they were bold enough to show their Socialist colors — revealed a close match. 

Charter members of the Harvard Socialist Club included Walter Lippmann, one of those selected by MacDonald and Bellamy to establish a Socialist elite cadre in the United States. Lippmann spent years penetrating the business world. The role played by Lippmann in turning this country toward Fabian Socialism will be explored at another time. As we shall see, Socialists in the inner circles of power were an enemy more to be feared than Communism, although the Americans public was never allowed to see it this way. As I have so often said in the past, "the enemy in Washington is more to be feared than the enemy in Moscow." 

The average American, when he did hear anything about Socialism under its own label, was repelled. In the 1890s, the American Fabian Society was a fledgling, organization much in need of guidance, especially in the technique of going slowly and obscuring its goals. Thus, when Socialism was mentioned at all, it conjured up visions of weird sexual practices — which today, Socialists are striving to make culturally acceptable — and how to make the dole (welfare) affordable for everybody. Thus, it was not taken seriously, except by a handful of scholars who saw it as a greater danger than Bolshevism, at least to America. 

And when Engels, the deceptive practices role model of Socialists and Marxists visited the United States in 1886, a mistake was made by promoting his vitriolic, book, "Origin of the Family" which later became the Bible for the abortionists, the homosexuals and the so called "women's lib" movement of Molly Yard, Patricia Schroeder, Eleanor Smeal. There is some proof that the purpose of the visit by Engels was to lay the foundation of the new, American Fabian Socialist Club. 

Similarly, when Eleanor Marx — Karl Marx's daughter who was known to be the mistress of George Bernard Shaw — toured the United States with another lover, this time the live-in Edward Aveling, public reaction was highly unfavorable. The public uproar about "free love" caught European Socialists by surprise, having no idea just how entrenched Christian values were in American society at that time. They had miscalculated in espousing "free love" (the basis of abortion, i.e. free love without responsibility) and their attacks on the values of the family brought nothing but angry responses. 

This taught the American Socialists a big lesson: More haste was a losing philosophy. It had to be "make haste slowly." But the Socialists never gave up, never lost sight of their goals, and as a result, today, the evils of Socialism dominate America on every hand, gaining strength, culturally, religiously and social acceptance as they never did when Engels and Eleanor Marx and Edward Aveling were touting their wares. Readers are probably aware that Aveling was the official translator from German to English of "Das Kapital," the best known of the works written by Marx. 

In order to deflect criticism away from Socialism, the British Fabian Society decided to form a group in the United States that became known as the American Economic Association which convened on September 9, 1885. Only the elite cadre of American Socialists in the making were invited to attend. (It was following this meeting that the British Fabian Socialists decided that Mac Donald would have to visit the United States to ascertain what problems were in the way of Socialism, and how to overcome them.) 

The American Economic Association drew all the leading Socialist and would-be Socialist leaders of the day to Saratoga, New York on September 9, 1885. Many of the "distinguished guests" as they were described in the New York newspapers, were leading Socialist professors, among them, Woodrow Wilson who was to become the first openly Socialist president of the United States. 

Others in attendance were Professors Ely, H. R. Adams, John R. Commons and E. James, Dr. E. R. Seligman of Columbia, Dr. Albert Shaw and E.W. Bemis, who went on to become the leading disciples of Socialism in America. None were known outside of their limited academic circles, and Socialism was not given any thought as a serious threat to the American way of life. This was a mistake that was to be made many times in the future, one which is being repeated today. From this small beginning has grown the oak tree of Socialism in the United States, whose spreading branches now threaten the Confederate Republic of the United States. Wilson, then at Bryn Mawr College, went on to teach Socialism at the Philadelphia University Extension in 1902, disguised as Political Science. 

There he was immersed with other leading Socialist in promoting Socialist ideas in teaching. Included in the list of Socialist professors were British Fabian Society members, Sydney Webb, R.W. Alden and Edward R. Pease; Ely and Adams, two of his American associates we have already mentioned. Other prominent American Socialists who fed Wilson on a diet of their Socialist ideas were Morris Hilquitt and Upton Sinclair. Their contacts with British Fabian Socialists extended to meetings held at Oxford between 1805 and 1901. 

Dr. Seligman of Columbia University sponsored the meetings and is credited with the foresight of having the presidency go to Wilson. The similarity between the rise of Wilson and Clinton is quite remarkable: Both were strongly Socialist by persuasion, both were surrounded by a large number of Socialist intellectuals, and both had Socialist ideals indelibly imprinted on them though contact with Oxford University. 

Wilson was greatly influenced by such a Fabian Socialist publications as, The New Freedom." Moreover, he was the first United States President to accept university professors as advisors — a radical departure from past traditions and an outright Socialist strategy— methodology of forcing unwanted unacceptable changes upon the American people. The rationale was that nobody would suspect academics of infamous purposes. 

Very early on, Wilson was backed by British Fabian Socialist Dr. Albert Shaw who got Wilson elected by splitting the vote, running Theodore Roosevelt on an independent ticket, the so-called Bull Moose Party. As Dr. Seymour said at the time, "Roosevelt's defection put Wilson in the White House." The subterfuge included House "denouncing" Roosevelt as "a wild radical," and it worked. Wilson became the President of the United States and his friend Albert Shaw was appointed to the Labor Committee as a reward when Wilson entered the White House. 

Although carefully concealed from the public, the British Fabian Socialist selected Wilson, based on his propensity for Socialist issues, and on the strong recommendation of House, whose brother in-law Dr. Sydney Mezes, was a long-time affiliate of the British Fabian Society and president of the City College of New York. Mezes played a prominent role in pre and post WWI Socialist planning. 

Added to this was that a large percentage of members of the Fabian Society were Marxists, one of the most notable in the London Fabian Society was Professor Harold Laski, who went on to play a profoundly disruptive role in socializing of the United States, right up to the time of his death in 1952. It is not disputed that Bernard Baruch, who went on to be Wilson's absolute controller during his years in the White House, was also a Marxist. 

The entire agenda for Woodrow Wilson's presidency was set by Socialist advisors, both here and in Britain. One of the first of Wilson's Socialist efforts was to federalize powers that were prohibited to the federal government, being reserved to the several States. These included the police powers of health, education, labor and police protection guaranteed to the States by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

In later years Professor Harold Laski was to put great pressure on President Roosevelt to break down and destroy through executive action the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. This was the key to the back door of breaking down and making the Constitution of "no effect." One of the main items on the Wilson agenda was the destruction of Customs tariffs, which, up to 1913 had provided the United States with enough income to pay the bills of the nation and still have a surplus. The hidden agenda was to destroy this source of income and replace it with the Marxist-inspired graduated income tax. Apart from what else it would achieve, the Marxist graduated income tax was designed to forever burden the middle class. It will be recalled that one of the principle obstacles that Ramsey MacDonald said had to  be overcome was resistance to graduated income tax. Thanks to President Wilson, the British Fabian Society was able to impose this onerous burden on the American people, thus realizing one of their cherished ambitions. 

It is necessary to say this, and to say it loud and clear: Communism, although the originator, did not bring graduated income tax to the United States. This was solely the work of the British Fabian Society. For the past 76 years the American people have been dunned into believing that Communism is the biggest danger to a free world. We hope that in the pages of this book will be found enough evidence to point out that the danger from Socialism, transcends anything thus far seen from Communism. Socialism has wrought a thousand more times havoc within the United States than Communism ever did. 

Twice found to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, graduated income tax was proposed to Wilson by the British Fabian Society and its passage, urged by the American Fabian Socialists, was finally realized by 1916, just in time to pay for WWI. While the American people had their attention focused on events in Europe, the Sixteenth Amendment was slipped through Congress, aided and abetted by a whole flock of Socialist legislators. 

The Sixteenth Amendment not ever having been ratified by all of the States, remains outside the pale and ken of the Constitution, but that has not stopped its Socialist backers from having their way. Wilson attempted to equate democracy with the Democratic Party, while in fact, there could be no such party. The correct title should be the Democrat Party. We cannot have a "Democratic Party" in a Confederate Republic or a Constitutional Republic. 

Wilson's book "The New Freedom" (actually written by Socialist William B. Hayle) denounced capitalism. "It is contrary the common man" Wilson said. At a time when the United States was enjoying prosperity and industrial progress such as never seen before, Wilson called the economy "stagnant" and proposed a revolution to get things moving again. Strange reasoning indeed — that is if we overlook the fact that Wilson was preaching unadulterated Socialism: 

"We stand in the presence of a revolution — not bloody revolution, America is not given to spilling blood — but a silent revolution, whereby America will insist upon recovering in practice those ideals which she has always professed, upon securing a government devoted to the general and not special interests." The most important thing that was omitted in the speech was that this was to be a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, one of stealth and boundless in its deceit, based upon British Fabian Socialist ideals and principles. 

Wilson then made a prophetic prediction — at least, seemingly prophetic, except that upon close examination, he was merely spelling out the Socialist agenda for the United States: 

"...We are upon the threshold of a time when the systematic life of the country will be sustained, or at least supplemented, at every point by government  activity. And we now have to determine what kind of a governmental activity it shall be; whether, in the first place, it shall be directed from government itself, or whether it shall be indirect, through instrumentalities which have already constituted themselves and which stand ready to supersede government." 

The people of America remained largely ignorant of the fact that a sinister force was at play, totally foreign to themselves and the Constitution, which had somehow insinuated itself into power by placing a chief executive in the White House, a leader totally beholden to a ruthless and power-hungry group as could be found anywhere in the world — including Bolshevik Russia — that power being the Fabian Socialists in Britain and the United States. 

This trend has continued until today, and as we are seeing, now has President Clinton as its eager, and anxious to please chief executive. The "high hopes" of the ants seeking to carry off the rubber tree plant is slowly, and inexorably, being realized. A great nation, the United States of America, seems totally unaware of the criminality behind Socialism and ignorant of its purposes, and is therefore ill prepared to call a halt to the criminal depredations taking place before its very eyes.

How was it possible for Wilson to have deceived the American people on such a monstrous matter as graduated income tax, something foreign to the Constitution, and which the country had been able to do without up to 1913? For answers we need to look again at Socialist ability to implement their program by stealth, by deceit and by outright falsehood while couching it in language that seemed to indicate the poisonous dish it was preparing was for the good of the people. 

The first hurdle Wilson had to overcome was disbanding trade tariffs that had protected America's trade and made it a prosperous nation, with living standards the envy of the world, On July 4, 1789, President George Washington told the First Congress of the United States, "A free people should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies." 

These wise words set in motion a system of tariff barriers that imposed Customs duties on countries wishing to sell their goods in the United States market, the antithesis of so-called "free trade" which was nothing more than a subterfuge devised by Adam Smith to allow Britain to dump its goods on the market with no reciprocity for American goods on the English market. The impression was somehow cultivated — possibly through control of the press — that the United States had developed the living standard of its people on the basis of "free trade," whereas, in reality, the opposite was true. 

We saw this deception come to the fore during the Perot-Gore Debate, when Gore, falsely and with malice aforethought against the people of the United States, denounced tariff barrier protectionism as the cause of the 1929 Wall Street  Crash. Perot was not versed in the Smoot — Hawley Act to defend it against the lies of the Vice President. 

"Free trade" was spelled out as a Marxist doctrine in a speech made by Marx in 1848. This was not a new thing, but one first proposed by Adam Smith to undermine the economy of the young American nation. A wise Washington realized that protection of America's fledgling industries was needed. This wise protection policy was carried on by Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. For 125 years, Americans benefited greatly from this wise policy, until the Wilson Socialist wrecker's ball was used to change the face of the United States: 

Even as late as up to WWII, only two percent of the economy of the United States depended on foreign trade, yet, to hear it now, the United States will perish if it does not do away with the last vestiges of our wise tariff barriers. What Wilson did was treason and the Congress committed sedition by going along with his devastating attack on the living standards of the American people. 

For the most part the Wilson administration badly mauled the Constitution. No soon had the Fabian Socialists got Wilson elected, than he called for a Joint Session of the Congress. By 1900, a mostly Republican government had maintained existing trade barriers and erected fresh tariff barriers to protect the American farmer, industry, and producers of raw materials. The agitation against protective tariff barriers had its origin in London among members of the Fabian Society Socialist, who were in control of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA). Ideas for breaching the tariff barriers were fed to Wilson via the seditious Mandel House, directly from London. 

The anti-tariff propaganda that spewed forth from London in a never ending stream, and which had begun in earnest in 1897, and the following is an example: 

"The American manufacturer reached the highest level of inefficiency in 1907, following a noticeable decline which began in 1897, in several important fields, American manufacturers cannot hold their own against foreign competitors in the domestic market. This fact should be brought to the attention of the American people on the basis that because of tariffs, they are paying a higher price for goods than would be the case if tariff barriers which impede trade were removed. The phrase, 'the mother of all trusts' might be a useful way to describe protectionism, especially if linked to the rising cost of living which can be attributed to protectionist policies." Note: The Fabian Society's Research Department began churning out papers they called "tracts" as if they were allied with Christian missionary efforts. These thousands of "tracts" were later assembled into books and position papers. The above quotation is taken from a tract published in 1914. 

What this lying propaganda did not say was that there was no link between the rising cost of living between 1897 and 1902, since tariff rates had no effect on domestic prices. But this did not stop a concerted attack by the major newspapers,owned by foreign investors (particularly the New York Times) from blasting tariff protection as a cause in the rise in the cost of living. This was echoed by the "London Economist" and other magazines owned by City of London bankers. 

Sedition was not confined to Democrats. Many so-called "progressive Republicans" ("progressive" and "moderate" have always meant Socialist) joined in the attack on protective tariffs. How did the Socialists succeed in getting the Congress to go along with their plans to wreck our trade, the envy of the world? They did it by combining sociology with politics, which technique pushes Socialists to high positions, from where they can exert the utmost undue influence on national issues of vital importance. 

As an example, take the matter of diplomatic recognition for the barbarous Bolshevik government. Thanks to the good offices of Arthur Henderson, in 1929 British recognized the Bolshevik butchers as the legitimate government of Russia. They then turned their attention to the United States, and thanks to Socialists installed in high places, got the United States to do likewise. These actions by the leaders of the English — speaking world, gave the Bolsheviks prestige and respect to which they were obviously not entitled, and opened doors to diplomatic contacts, trade and economic matters that would otherwise have remained firmly shut for decades — perhaps for all time. 

Fabian Socialists, both in the United States and Britain appeared in such a benign light and their highly-cultured background and great personal charm made it very hard to believe those who were warning that these affable, social elite were a subversive group desirous of stripping the right to own property and threatening to carry off the United States Constitution, piece by piece. It just didn't seem possible to think of this elite group as revolutionaries and anarchists — which in essence is exactly what they were. 

A prime example of this was Colonel Edward Mandel House, who was not only properly conventional in every sense of the word, but conservative in manner and speech — at least while in earshot of the public, but one who moved in circles that were far from what one would imagine a group of anarchists to look like. 

It was this group of "affable anarchists" who elected Woodrow Wilson. As House saw it, United States citizens were little better than dolts, who could be deceived by appearances. So certain that the voters would not see the nomination of Wilson as a candidate "Made In England," House sailed for Europe on the day that Wilson was nominated at the Democrat convention in Baltimore in 1912. "I feel no need to watch the proceedings" House told Walter Hines, who had introduced him to Wilson the year before. On his arrival in England, House told a gathering of Fabian Socialists of the RIIA, "I was confident that the American people would accept Wilson without question." And so it was. 

Wilson went on to become the president, his main task being to undermine the Constitution as mandated by Ramsey McDonald, without the American people ever becoming aware of it, in true Fabian Socialist style. House had often expressed his hatred of the Constitution in private discussions with his secret backers on Wall Street. He called the United States Constitution, "a creation of 18th century minds, not only outmoded, but grotesque," adding, "it ought to be scrapped at once." We shall return to the man Wilson called his greatest friend. 

As House put it, "Wilson was elected to carry out a Socialist agenda without alarming the people." How this was to be done was laid out in a fictionalized version of the blueprint of Fabian Socialist long range goals. "Philip Dru, Administrator" was a remarkable confession of Socialist planning and strategies to be used against the American people, very revealing in how Socialists expected the presidency of the United States to be subverted and undermined. 

Published by Fabian Socialist B.W. Huebsch, the book should have set alarm bells ringing across America, but unhappily, failed to make clear to the American people what House stood for. It set the agenda for the Wilson presidency as clearly as if it had been presented to the Congress by House himself. "Philip Dru" (actually House) proposed that he become the ruler of America by a series of Executive Orders. Among the tasks "Dru" set himself was establishing a panel of economists to work on the destruction of tariff law which would eventually, "lead to the abolition of the theory of protection as government policy." The panel would also work out a system of graduated income tax and institute new banking laws. Note the sly use of the word "theory." Protective tariffs were no mere theory: Customs duties had earned the United States a living standard that was the envy of the world. Trade protection was an established doctrine set in place by George Washington, which had proved its worth for 125 years, and was not mere theory. 

How could "Dru" call tariff protection a "theory?" Obviously, it was an attempt to denigrate and belittle the concept and open the way for the Socialist ideal of "free trade" which would begin the decline of the living standards of the American people. It a was also where Wilson got his income tax idea from, which once in place, would further erode the middle class living-standard. 

Wilson violated his oath to uphold the United States Constitution on at least 50 separate occasions. In Wilson, the Committee of 300 had found the ideal man to begin the Socializing of America, just as in later years, they found another ideal candidate for their anarchistic purposes in Bill Clinton. A second parallel between Wilson and Clinton is to be found in the type of advisers with whom they surrounded themselves. 

In the Wilson inner circle were prominent anarchists-Socialists and Communists Louis D. Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Walter Lippmann, Bernard Baruch, Sydney Hillman, Florence Kelley and of course, Edward Mandel House. House, a close friend of Roosevelt's mother, lived two blocks away from N.Y. State Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt and met frequently to give him advice on how to pay for his coming Socialist programs.

The first attack on the Constitution was Ramsey McDonald's declaration that the Constitution had to be altered. The second attack was carried out by House, whose father had made millions of dollars during the Civil War by doing the bidding of the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. After his meeting with Wilson in 1911 through the good offices of Walter Hines, House was certain that he had found the right man to carry out the job of altering the United States Constitution as mandated by McDonald on January 14, 1898. 

House began to cultivate Wilson, who was flattered by the attention of a man who seemed to know everybody in Washington. There is a distinct parallel between House and Mrs. Pamela Harriman, who saw in Clinton the ideal man to carry out a wide variety of Socialist reforms without alarming the people. Mrs. Harriman also knew everybody in Washington. 

House knew that Wilson would need tutoring by an ardent Socialist, so he arranged for Wilson to meet Harvard law professor Louis D. Brandeis. The meeting was to prove ominous for the future well being of the nation, as Brandeis was committed to making the Constitution of no effect using the legislative route, Brandeis was already writing his predilections into law by "interpreting" the Constitution in such a manner as to make it of no effect based on sociological premises and not Constitutional law. 

The third Fabian Socialist attack on the United States Constitution came with the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in January, 1920 by Fabian Socialist Philip Lovett. Huebsch, the publisher of "Philip Dru, Administrator" was a founder member of this Socialist body whose main purpose in life was to alter the United States Constitution by what Florence Kelley called "the legislative route." 

Although it is denied, investigations showed that there were four known Communists on the ACLU board. In the 1920s, Kelley and her associates worked hard to destroy the United States Constitution through a series of false fronts such as the National League of Women's Voters, and we shall return to that later. This was the beginning of the "defeminization" of women by the Socialists. 

Many of the most important Socialist (and Communist) leaders in the United States were closely associated with the ACLU, while some even sat on its national committee. One of these was Robert Moss Lovett, a director and a close friend of Norman Thomas and Paul Blanchard who were allied with "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." 

Thomas was a former clergyman turned Communist. Lovett's charming manner and pleasant demeanor belied the fact that under his affable manner lurked a dangerous anarchist-radical of the worst stripe. In an intemperate fit, Lovett once blew up and revealed his true character: "I hate the United States, I would be willing to see the whole world blow up, if it would destroy the United States." Lovett personified the highly dangerous side of the Fabian Socialist. 

In researching statements made by Communists against the United States, I was never able to find one so venomous in intent as that made by Lovett of the ACLU. It might be worthwhile to give a short history of the ACLU at this point in the book: 

The ACLU grew out of the 1914-1918 Civil Liberties Bureau, which was against militarism. One of its first directors was Roger Baldwin who had spent time in prison for evading the draft. In a very revealing advisory letter to members, affiliates and friends of the ACLU, Baldwin used traditional Fabian Socialist deceptive tactics to conceal the real intent and purpose of the ACLU: "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 great deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country and show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions." If ever the later emblem of the British Fabian Society fit, this was it — the wolf in sheep's clothing par excellence. 

In 1923 Baldwin forgot his own advice, revealing his true colors: "I believe in revolution — not necessarily the forcible seizure of power in armed conflict, but the process of a growth of class movements determined to expropriate the capitalist class and take control of all social property. Being a pacifist — because I believe non-violent means best calculated in the long run to achieve enduring results, I am opposed to revolutionary violence. But I would rather see violent revolution than none at all, though I would not personally support it because I consider other means far better. Even the terrible cost of bloody revolution is a cheaper price to pay to humanity than the continued exploitation and wreck off human life under the settled violence of the present system." 

In 1936 Baldwin explained some of the terminology used by Fabian Socialists: 

"By progressive, I mean forces working for the democratization of industry by extending public ownership and control, which alone will abolish the power of the comparatively few who own the wealth...Real democracy means strong trade unions, government regulation of business, ownership by the people of industries that serve the public." 

Just how far the Socialists have come down the road to enslaving the United States can be seen by visiting any factory. On the walls of the office will be seen a bewildering array of "permits" empowering one thing or another. OSHA, EPA and "Equal Opportunity" inspectors have the "right" to come in unannounced at any time, interrupt and even stop operations, while they carry out an inspection to see whether the conditions laid out in their "permits" have been violated. 

The deceptive language used by Baldwin did not mean what the average American took them to mean. Baldwin was practicing Fabian Socialist techniques on an elite "rearguard" group who would lead American gently by the hand down the road to slavery. This is Socialism at its very worst. No one could have explained the aims and methods of Socialism better than the chairman of the ACLU, which today, has not altered its stance and methods one single iota. Although its membership never exceeded 5,000 between the 1920-1930s, the ACLU nevertheless succeeded in infiltrating and permeating every aspect of American life, which it then proceeded to turn upside down. 

The foremost task of the ACLU in the 1920s was to legally block the large number of arrests and deportation of Communists, anarchists. In the early 1920s the Socialists were starting their drive to subvert the United States Constitution through underhand means, using foreign-born aliens to preach — and carry out acts of sedition. Harvard Socialist Professor Felix Frankfurter acted as the legal guide for the ACLU, whose Roger Baldwin, described anarchists, Communists, seditionists as "victims of the law, members of labor and welfare movements who are being insidiously attacked by unscrupulous men working under the cloak of patriotism." 

Frankfurter — assisted by Harold Laski from behind the scenes — helped President Wilson set up a Mediation Committee, which Committee prompted by Frankfurter, kept on using the Constitution to qualify the seditionists, anarchist, avowed enemies of the United States for protection under the United States Constitution. It was a sordid tactic which has worked remarkably well: Since 1920, the MISUSE of the United States Constitution to grant "rights" and protection to every Dick, Tom and Harry trying to undermine the Confederated Republic has burgeoned to a dreadfully alarming degree. 

Others who threw their weight behind "persecuted immigrants" and "victims of the law" in which category was recorded every leftist, arsonist, Socialist agitator, murderer and seditionist, were Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. and Harvard Law Professor Francis B. Sayre, Wilson's son-in-law. It was the beginning of a huge campaign to trammel underfoot the real purpose and intent of the United States Constitution, and it was crowned with success beyond the wildest dreams of the sappers of Socialism in this country. 

This was a period when the United States was trying to rid the country of a flood of Communists who came here to commit acts of sedition in an attempt to Communize and Socialize the country. Socialist Upton Sinclair wrote reams in defense of hard-core seditionists and Harvard Law School sent some of its best Socialists into the fray, including its dean, Roscoe Pound. The news media, including magazines like 'The Nation" and the "New Republic" did their level best to cloud the straightforward legal issues by constantly referring to "the Red scare." 

In 1919, the Overman committee on Bolshevism of the United States Senate, after exhaustive enquiries, came to the conclusion that Fabian Socialism was a grave threat to the citizens of the United States, especially to women and children. The ACLU has been in the vanguard of "defeminising" women under the guise of "women's rights. "The ACLU has successfully protected the prime movers of Socialism, by rushing to their defense whenever they fear the real leaders and purposes of Socialism might be exposed. That is the primary purpose of the ACLU: Deflect the attacks on the Socialist intellectual leadership, the "reformers" with "good intentions" and the Harvard Law professors in the rear. 

From 1920, the modus operandi of the ACLU has remained the same, and can better be described by itself: 

"Against those indiscriminate federal, state and local measures which though aimed at Communism, (note the exclusion of Socialism) threaten the civil liberties of all Americans; to make an effective civil rights program the law of the land; against both governmental and private pressure group censorship of movies, books, plays, newspapers, magazines, radio and to promote fair procedures in court trials, congressional and administrative hearings." 

The ACLU left no doubt that it intended to rewrite the Constitution "by the legislative route." Nor can there be any doubt that this important Socialist apparatus has changed the face of America In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of "Foreign Affairs," Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore, was asked: "What in your view has gone wrong with the American system?" 

"It is not my business to tell people what is wrong with their system. It is my business to tell people not to foist their system in discriminately on societies in which it will not work," Yew replied. Zakaria then asked, "Do you not view the United States as a model for other countries?" to which Lee responded: 

"...But as a total system, I find parts of it (the United States) totally unacceptable. . .vagrancy, unbecoming behavior in public, the expansion of the right of the individual to behave as he pleases has come at the expense of orderly society. In the East the main objective is to have a an orderly society so that everybody can have maximum enjoyment of his freedom. This freedom only exists in an ordered state and not in a natural state of contention and anarchy." 

"...The idea of inviolability of the individual (in the United States) has been turned into dogma. And yet nobody minds when the army goes and captures the president of another state and brings him to Florida and puts him in jail. (This was in reference to the bandit-action of former President George Bush kidnaping General Noriega of Panama). 

Zakaria then asked: "Would it be fair to say that you admired America more than 25 years ago? What, in your view, went wrong?" Lee answered: "Yes, things have changed. I would hazard a guess that it has a lot to do with the erosion of the moral underpinnings of society and the diminution of personal responsibility. The liberal, intellectual tradition that developed after WWII claimed that human beings had arrived at this perfect state where everybody would be better off if they were allowed to do their own thing and flourish. It has not worked out and I  doubt if it will. Certain basics about human nature do not change. Man needs a certain moral sense of right and wrong. There is such a thing called evil and it is not the result of being a victim of society..." 

There can be no doubt about the crucial role played by the ACLU in stretching existing "rights" and inventing rights that do not exist in the Constitution to the extent that the United States today is in a virtual state of anarchy. Take as an example the "Gay Pride" parade staged in San Francisco on Father's Day Sunday, June 19, 1994. 

The choice of day and date was no accident, but a deliberate, studied insult Christianity, the tradition of marriage and family. The parade consisted of lesbians roaring around on motorbikes, naked, and semi naked, (so-called "Dykes on Bikes") men in obscene drag costumes and hordes of other men with their genitals fully exposed and lopping about as they ran hither and thither. This was an altogether disgusting display of vulgarity on city streets that would never have been tolerated before, and should not now be tolerated. 

But let anybody bring up the disgusting "parade" and perhaps suggest suitable action to curb such ugly, utterly baneful displays in the future, then they will be sure to find the ACLU charging in to protect the "civil rights" of the most unmoralized, amoral sector of the population. The deplorable "parade" was praised by the San Francisco Chronicle, which also carried a rave review of a movie about two lesbians "falling in love." The paper described this disgusting piece of amorality as "suitable for straights." Thus far have we, as a society, sunk to the bottom of the Socialist cesspool. Fabian Socialists have always been great admirers of Karl Marx. They do not readily admit to this "hero worship" lest the sheep that they so despise should become alarmed. During my five year stint of intensive study at the British Museum in London, I examined Marx's economic writings in some depth. I could do this because Karl Marx had spent 30 years studying in the same British Museum, and some of my mentors knew which books he liked and read the most, told me what they were. 

What I discovered about his writings was how little of it was original thought. This is common to most of the great Socialist "thinkers." All of Marx's theories about economics, stripped of dense verbiage surrounding them, can be boiled down to seven or eight basic mathematics equations that I could do when I was in the eighth grade. 

All that Marx's theories add up to is the precept that capitalists who finance business ventures end up stealing large sums of money from the workers. This completely ignores the real premise that having taken all the risks in starting up the venture, the investor is entitled to his profit. That, in essence, is the sum and substance of Marx's and his verbiage-ridden theories. 

Ranking second only to the ACLU was the League of Industrial Democracy (LID). Founded in 1905, which came out of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the League was to play an important role in distorting education, industry and labor. LID was supported by Eleanor Roosevelt all of her life, as did Florence Kelley and Frances Perkins. Eleanor Roosevelt promoted "social democracy" inside and outside of the organization along with Frances Perkins, her husband's New York State Commissioner of Labor and a great friend of Socialist Justice Harlan Stevens. 

Morris Hillquit served as LID treasurer from 1908 to 1915. Lovett, the ACLU leader for so long, was always closely affiliated with the League for Industrialized Democracy, once calling that period of his Socialist career as, "the happiest days of my life." Morris Hillquit had very early on in his socialist career advocated "industrial socialism." 

Hillquit and Eugene V. Debbs always followed the London Fabian Society model of not having programs and platforms, but rather in using educational institutes as a captive audience and so inspire students with Socialist ideas and philosophies that they would later be able to infiltrate existing political parties. Courses in Socialism were discreetly introduced, at least in the early 1900s, but by the 1970s, in true Fabian Socialist orthodoxy, the process had been considerably speeded up in many institutes of learning 

It is said that the League of Industrial Democracy revitalized American Socialism, which in 1900 was flagging. At that point, several prominent members of the elite in American society, visited the Fabian Socialists in England. Among them were religious leaders, teachers and politicians: Paul Douglas who went on to be Senator Douglas, Arthur M. Schlesinger whose son rose to prominence in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Melvyn Douglas the actor and his wife, Helen Douglas, and Walter Raushenbusch, a former minister at the Second Baptist Church of New York. Raushenbusch was a devoted disciple of Giuseppe Mazzini, John Ruskin, Edward Bellamy and Marx. Mazzini was a world leader of Masonry. Ruskin was a self-styled "Old School Communist" who taught at Oxford. Bellamy was the leading Socialist in America at that time. 

Raushenbusch gave up preaching Christianity for preaching Socialist politics, which he tried to indoctrinate in as many fellow Baptists as he could reach. LID was on the list of United States military intelligence as a subversive organization, but along with many similar Socialist and Communist organizations, Woodrow Wilson ordered the military to destroy the lists it was holding, which was a loss that could not ever be made again good. The fact that Wilson had no powers under the Constitution that allowed him to give such an order, was tossed aside as inconsequential by the Socialists in his administration at Harvard and on Wall Street. 

But it was neither German agents in WWI nor Russian agents in the Cold War era, but British Fabian Socialists who penetrated and permeated every aspect of government, its institutions and the presidency itself. Education was recognized as the way that Socialism could be advanced, so a great effort was made to capture the "student market." When the Lusk Committee was investigating New York's Rand School, reference was made to this: "We have already called attention to the Fabian Society as a very interesting group of intellectuals who engage in a very brilliant campaign of propaganda." 

Apparently the Lusk Committee was somewhat taken in by the false air of candor that permeated LID publications and no violent revolutionary types were allowed to sully its membership lists. The Lusk Committee, distracted and looking for Communists —just as the United States has been doing ad infinitum — completely missed the highly subversive and dangerous LID. It never ceases to amaze observers just how skillfully the Socialists were able to deflect attention away from themselves by repeatedly referring to "the Red scare" and denigrating all efforts to ensure internal security as based on a non-existent "Communist threat." We are still largely being fooled in the same way in 1994 as was the Lusk Committee in 1920. 

After WWI, LID teamed up with several prominent Socialist organizations in the United States, among them the ACLU, Federated Press and the Garland Fund which was cited by military intelligence as being kindly disposed toward funding Communists and some decidedly Socialist organizations. Robert Moss Lovett of the ACLU was a director in all of the aforementioned bodies including "Protestants and other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." LID members were encouraged to disavow Socialism in public and disavow their parent, the Fabian Society, founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb. This was standard Socialist practice: deny, deny, deny. When one the Fabian Society's most honored member was asked if he was a Socialist, John Kenneth Galbraith replied "of course not." During WWII, when it was obvious that Roosevelt would do anything to get the United States committed to the war against Germany, LID felt it expedient to changes its stance and in 1943 published a statement that said LID had as its goal increasing an understanding of democracy through education, and not making war. 

What LID did not say was the "democracy" it had in mind was what Karl Marx called "scientific Socialist democracy." That the United States was a republic and not a democracy, was merely waved aside. Thus by subterfuge, by stealth and by cunning, LID became the leading Socialist body in the United States, dedicated to the downfall of the Republic. The history of LID shows that it played a key role in bringing Socialist "reforms" to the front burner in both the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. 

When Roosevelt was Governor of New York, he appointed Frances Perkins to be his Industrial Commissioner. (We give the remarkable achievements of Perkins in the chapters on women Socialists.) Perkins called on LID economist Paul H. Douglas to draft an unemployment relief program which was adopted by 50  Governor Roosevelt. One of her collaborators was Dr. Isadore Lubin, a dedicated Socialist, who along with Perkins, pushed for preferential treatment for the Soviet Union, advice that Roosevelt was quick to accept. 

Perkins and Lubin began the long process based on British Fabian Socialist strategy of transforming the United States from a Capitalist into a Socialist state, via a welfare state. Included in this plan was the "national health insurance plan" lifted straight out of the Soviet Union. It is worthy of note that "health care reform," nationwide old age pensions and unemployment insurance, were all part of the plan to alter the structure of the United States, in which "social security" was no small part.[he is just right,plain and simple DC] 

In 1994 we have another female Socialist, Hillary Clinton, latching onto the term, "health care reform" as though it were her own invention, when in fact it was the term used by Presotonia Martin Mann, one of the most devoted female Socialists on the American scene, who in turn had borrowed it from the British Fabian Socialist leader Sydney Webb. The phrase was a masterpiece of applied psychology on a level with another piece of applied psychology intended to deceive, the "Social Security Act," invented in England and brought to this country by Father Ryan. The Fabian Socialist blueprint was then adapted for American conditions by Prestonia Martin as we find in her book, "Prohibiting Poverty," championed by Eleanor Roosevelt. 

LID never claimed any credit for its behind the scenes in the endeavors of Perkins and Martin, as indeed it never claimed that Felix Frankfurter was one of its very own. The extensive damage to the United States done by LID is remarkable, given the relative smallness of the group. This is precisely the way Fabian Socialism works — blend into the background, infiltrate all of government and important decision-making bodies, and then promote (always from the background) a rising political star to initiate Socialist designed programs. 

This is the way Socialism worked in the 1920s, and still works in this way in the United States, which is how the Socialists and their Marxist/Communist allies, came perilously close to taking over the United States in the 1920s and early 1930s. Near perfect examples of Socialism working through rising politicians were Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Bush and now, President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton. Clinton was selected by the British Fabian Society, but the job of "puffing" him was given in secret to Socialist Pamela Harriman. 

One term President Clinton has the task of rushing Socialist programs of far reaching and devastating consequences into law. His successes by mid 1994 include, the largest income tax increase in the world, One World Government trade agreements, and possibly "national health reform." Three times before, British Fabian Socialism has changed the face of America by using leadership groups and "advisors" to the president, and via the courts, to achieve Socialist objectives. It was left to LID to supply the personnel Perkins and Roosevelt need- What Socialism Is: Why it Leads to Slavery 51 ed to implement the "New Deal." Of more than a passing interest is that the "New Deal" was a carbon copy of a British Fabian Socialist book. The fourth drive to Socialize America has come with the Clinton presidency.

One of the "greats" of LID was Walter Reuther. But in typical Socialist fashion, Reuther chose to deny that he was a Socialist. In a "Face the Nation" interview in 1953, Reuther was pointedly asked about his Socialist background. He trotted out the standard Socialist excuse, "...that I was when I was very young and very foolish, and I got out very quickly, for which I am very thankful." But the truth was far from that. Reuther had in fact served on a committee of the LID of which he had been a member since the early 1940s. In 1949 he was an honored guest at a Fabian Socialist dinner party in London. 

LID members played a leading role in pushing Socialist programs through the Senate, and their effect on schools knew no boundaries. Theodore "Ted" Sorenson, who went on to be a key player in the Kennedy administration, was a lifelong Socialist who got his appointment through LID's Senator Paul Douglas. Other United States Senators who had qualified in Socialism with LID, were Senators Lehman, Humphrey, Neuberger and Morse (from "conservative Oregon.") To the list can be added Senators Jacob Javitts, and Philip Hart. Although they vigorously denied it to a man, in 1950, former Attorney General Francis Biddle (a former chairman of Americans For Democratic Action (ADA) - successor to LID named them as known members of LID and its successor, the ADA. 

An examination of Javitt's Senate voting record shows that he supported LID and ADA in 82 out of 87 Socialist measures on which he voted. Of Eastern European parents who settled on the lower East Side of New York in the garment district, Javitts joined LID in his early adult years, and became one of LID's highly prized speakers, while staunchly denying any connection with Socialism in his personal beliefs and connections with Socialist groups like LID. Never the less, Javitts was the keynote speaker at the 1952 LID-sponsored seminar under the title, "Needed, A Moral Awakening In America." "Non Socialist," Walter Reuther, also attended the function which studiously avoided discussing corruption in labor while vigorously attacking employer-corporations and businesses in general. 

Congressional Record Senate, October 1962, carried a long list of Socialists prominent in government, health, education, women's rights movement, religion, trade unions. The list contained the names of more than 100 professors and educators from some of the nations' most prestigious colleges and universities. The list named of more than 300 members and former members of LID who had spread out and infiltrated every branch of government, law, teaching, foreign policy advisors, churches and so-called women's rights organizations. When LID underwent a name change to Americans For Democratic Action (ADA), many former LID members could be found in the ADA membership list. 

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS), which preceded LID, opened doors to universities and gave opportunities to spread Socialist programs among impressionable students. It was the hidden Socialist agenda that was to change the face of education in the United States. 

None of this was apparent at the birth of this Fabian Socialist enterprise. The first ISS meeting was held at Peck's Restaurant in New York, on September 12, 1905. Those in attendance included Colonel Thomas Wentworth, Clarence Darrow, Morris Hillquit and two young Socialist authors Upton Sinclair and Jack London. The two authors were enthusiastic Socialists who went across the country preaching the Fabian Socialist gospel at universities and Socialist clubs. 

Another notable of a somewhat rougher hew who attended the Peck's Restaurant dinner party was William Z. Foster, who went on to play a leading role in the Communist Party of the USA. Foster's love of Karl Marx had been amply demonstrated for a number of years. Not revealed until 25 years later was the true purpose of the dinner party: It was in fact the first meeting of the American Fabian Society. 

Hillquit will best be remembered as the driving force behind the American Socialist Party formed in 1902. Two years later, the Socialist Party gained 400,000 votes in the election — mostly from garment trade workers who had flocked to the United States from Russia in the early 1890s, bringing with them an assorted gaggle of revolutionists and anarchists. Yet, in spite of its ugly revolutionary face, the Socialist Party of America attracted an astonishing number of the elite from the top-drawers of New York society. But the Fabian Socialists in Britain advised caution — making haste so hastily would bring disaster and so it was that the "party" was quietly disbanded. 

As the London Fabian Society secretary Edward R. Pease put it: "European countries with their great capitals have developed national brains. America, like the lower organisms, has ganglia for various purposes in various parts of its gigantic frame." Pease was from the elite in the Fabian Society who could not abide America, having never forgiven the Colonists for having inflicted so severe a defeat on the armies of King George III. In spite of this studied insult, a number of prominent Americans went to London and signed on with the Fabian Socialists. 

The long-range objectives of the British Fabian Society relative to the United States had still to be defined and developed. A president who would be wide-open to Socialist ideas had yet to be found and appointed, so that the well concealed Socialist techniques of gaining power via the surreptitious route could be implemented. As Ramsey McDonald had said, the United States would be very difficult to Socialize — but not impossible. 

The main stumbling block was of course, the Constitution. Coupled with that was the huge size of the country and the six different racial groups with widely diversified religious beliefs. Education and good paying jobs, it was deemed, were two other hurdles that had to be surmounted. As Webb put it, "motherhood and apple pie" stood in the way of the ambitious promoters of Socialism. London ordered the Socialist Party to disband and fade away to regroup under another name at a time better suited for its methods to guarantee success. 

Forming a political party was not on the Socialist agenda. The ISS model of "leagues" and "societies" was to be followed. It was by subterfuge that they hoped to eventually co-opt existing political parties, but never again would they try to form a party of their own. So in 1921,the League of Industrial Democracy, (LID)and ISS was founded and it became the British Fabian Society's Socialist headquarters in the United States. 

One of the subtlest ways devised by American Socialists to hide their intentions and their tracks was to appoint Socialist professors as presidential policy makers. The technique began with Wilson and has continued ever since. The professor policy makers seldom announced their agenda, instead wrote position papers which they signed. The position-papers had a strictly limited circulation, which kept the general public right out of the picture. 

Outside of the circle of professors were other notables who played a major role in the Wilson presidency. Of these, Walter Lippmann, stood head and shoulders above the rest. The British trained Fabian Socialists was ranked their No. I apostle in the United States, who, together with Mandel House, had fashioned the "14 points," the first attempt by an American president to shape a "new world order." It is generally recognized that Wilson's war speech delivered to the Congress of the United States on April 6, 1917, rang down the curtain on old order, forcing the United States to take the first steps down the long Socialist to slavery. Wilson laid the foundation of lies on which American Socialism was to be built. Americans are the most lied to people on earth. Since Wilson came on the political scene, and of course, even before that, the whole Socialist structure consisted of lies upon lies upon lies. One of the biggest lies is that we belong to the United Nations. Others lies say abortion is legal, that school busing and so-called "gun control" is legal; GATT, NAFTA, the Gulf War, Waco, FEMA, "King" George Bushs' raid on Panama and kidnaping of its head of state and Mandela's rule of South Africa, are but the tip of an enormous iceberg of layer upon layer of Socialist lies. 

Perhaps one of the more singular of its big lies is that Socialism strives to better the lot of the common people and, unlike capitalism, Socialists are not interested in personal wealth. Socialists are always preaching about the evils of capitalism. But a quick look at some of the leading Socialists quickly reveals that the leadership is drawn from the most elite elements of our society, people using Socialist causes to feather their own nests. 

Nothing was too base and no cesspool too deep to plumb for Franklin D. Roosevelt and his family in the pursuit of money. The Delanos (Roosevelt married Sara Delano) made a fortune out of the opium trade. One of Roosevelt's closest "advisors," Bernard Baruch, and his partner had monopoly on the copper industry that enabled Baruch to make millions upon millions of dollars out of WWI, while the "common man" was dying by the millions in the mud and blood of the trenches in France. 

Roosevelt was on the board of the International Bankers Association up to the time that he became Governor of New York. During his tenure as a banker, he secured loans for European nations amounting to billions of dollars at a time when the American worker was struggling to pay off mortgages, and later during the depressions years, find a job. Roosevelt was a consummate Socialist liar, up there with the best of them. He didn't tell the American people that the money would go to bankers whose factories would churn out goods to sell on the American markets, thanks to the abolition of tariff barriers by his predecessor, Wilson. It is estimated that 12 million men lost their jobs thanks to the Wilson — Roosevelt assault on our trade barriers designed to protect American jobs. 

One glaring example out of thousands of Roosevelt big lies is found on pages 9832-9840, Congressional Record, Senate, May 25,1935: "...and owing to his announcement to the convention that he was for the Democratic platform 100 percent, it was hardly feasible that the people would understand if he immediately, with his subservient Congress, reduce the tariffs (Customs duties on imported agricultural products and ancillary manufactured goods) with 12 million men out of work. So he and his big banker friends and big business (meaning Committee of 300 companies) immediately conceived the idea of starting the N.R.A — the so called National Recovery Act, better known today as the 'National Ruin Act'." 

"It was reported that Bernard Baruch and his friends established 1800 factories in foreign countries and the Republican tariffs were a little too high for them to make our market with cheap foreign labor to satisfy their big money ideas. So why not, under the guise of a war on depression foist upon the people the National Racketeer Association and place Barney Baruch's partner, Brigadier 'Crackup' Johnson in charge of seeing that prices were raised to the levels of 1928 while at the same time setting the prices of agriculture between 1911 and 1914." 

"The farmers would not notice the disparity and if they did — since under the circumstances he could control the newspapers, the radio, the movies and every avenue of information of people with taxpayer's money, fill their ears with propaganda he desired..." Roosevelt the American Socialist leader and his international banker friends aided by sedition committed by the Federal Reserve played with the lives of the people of the nation and willfully brought on the 1922 recession, the 1929 Wall Street crash, WWII and beyond. Roosevelt desired greater powers as president than his power-mad predecessor Wilson had enjoyed. 

Although the American people did not know it — and millions still do not know it—Wilson engineered the United States into WWI and his unelected advisor, Mandel House, set the stage for WWII. Roosevelt made quite sure that the process of international banks lending billions to European powers to start wars was continued. According to documents made available to me in the British Museum, Lord Beaverbrook, the great British Fabian Socialist, practically used the White House as his Washington office, showing Roosevelt how to pour billions and billions of dollars into Germany to finance Hitler's rise to power. 

Wilson showed no scruples in placing openly-avowed Socialists in key positions in his administration, from where they were able to do the maximum to advance the cause of Socialism in the United States. Fred C. Howe, one of the Wilson Socialist appointees was made Commissioner of Immigration at New York. His favorite pastime was to release seditionist and anarchists being held at the port of New York pending deportation. 

Another "ex-officio" House appointment was Walter Lippmann as secretary of a "brain storm" group put together to make up plausible war aims and reasons why the United States should get into WWI. It was Lippmann who invented the slogan, "peace without victory," which became the basis of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The appointment of scandal monger Ray Stannard Baker as confidential correspondent to Wilson at the Treaty of Versailles talks, was another of those "crucial appointments." 

It was said that Baker was chiefly responsible for making Wilson so dependent on the British Fabian Society that he was unable to make any decisions of his own at the Paris Peace Conference, without first consulting Sydney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society, Graham Wallas, Bertrand Russell and George Lansbury. It was this group that constantly talked of Wilson's administration as a "democratic" administration. Baker's dispatches to Wilson in Washington, deliberately referred to "your democratic administration." 

The Paris Peace Conference foundered on the Constitution. Some 59 enlightened Senators, fully aware of the intentions of the Socialist, refused to pass the League of Nations Treaty, recognizing it as a One World Government document that sought to put the League above the United States Constitution. At that juncture, House is said to have told Sydney Webb that the only was to get around the United States Constitution was to permeate all future United States administrations with key Socialists who would take a "bipartisan approach to matters of major consequence." Ever since those words were spoken, "bipartisan approach" became a euphemism for a Socialist approach to matters of vital consequence to the American people. 

In order to breathe life into the new "bipartisan" idea, House held a dinner party at the Majestic Hotel in Paris on May 19, 1919 for selected Fabianists and American Socialist. Invited guests included Professors James Shotwell, Roger Lansing (Wilson's Secretary of State), John Foster and Allen Dulles, Tasker Bliss  and Christian Herter, who was later to place Mao tse Tung in power in China. On the British side, John Maynard Keynes, Arnold Toynbee, and R.W. Tawney, all leading practitioners of Fabian Socialism and its standard bearers, also attended. 

The group said that to get around the United States Constitution, it would be necessary to set up an organization in the United States under the direction of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). The American branch was to be called the "Institute of International Affairs." Its mandate given by its London parent, was "to facilitate the scientific study of international questions." The Fabian International Bureau was to act as advisors to both the RIIA and its American cousin, which, in 1921, changed its name to 'The Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR) [we didn't elect you,and we sure as hell do not need your council,DC]

These three institutions were set up with three main purposes in mind: 

1. Do and end run around the United States Constitution. 

2. To use these organizations to influence and deceive the United States Congress and the public. 

3. To divide opposition to Socialist causes in the House and Senate by the subterfuge of "bipartisan study committees." 

4. Destroy the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, as recommended by Professor Harold Laski. 

Mandel House was the originator of "fireside chats," an essential propaganda tool by widely used Roosevelt, and he "suggested" most of the Socialist cabinet appointments. In many instances he consulted with Professor Charles W. Elliot of Harvard — that hotbed of Socialism which has played such a crucial, if secret, role in our history. This is not surprising, given the fact that Harvard was totally dominated by Fabian Socialist Harold Laski, whose frequent lectures at Harvard, set the tone for heavily Socialist leaning teaching methods. 

Much of the views held by House, appeared in the "New Republic," a magazine much favored by American Socialists, including Wilson himself. House had many Socialist intimates among the Socialist Register. One of them, Joseph Fels, was prevailed upon by House to lend 500 English pounds to Lenin and Trotsky on one occasion when they were stranded in London before they met with Lord Alfred Milner. Baruch once said, "House has a hand in every cabinet appointment and all other important appointments." This was indeed an understatement. 

It is believed that Wilson was fully aware of the activities of Socialist Nina Nitze who served as the chief paymaster for German spies operating in the United States. That did not apparently bother Wilson or House, any more than it was later to affect the judgment of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, who appointed Nina's brother, Paul Nitze as Secretary of the Navy in both administrations and chief spokesman at various disarmament conference. Nitze is known to have tipped the balance of power in favor of Russia at each and every one of the disarmament conferences, at which time he represented the United States.  

Again, according to documents in the British Museum, the financing of Hitler was done via the Warburg family on both sides of the Atlantic; in Europe, particularly through the Socialist Mendelssohn Bank of Amsterdam, Holland, Schroeder Bank in London, and Frankfurt, Germany, while the same bank handled the Hitler-financing scheme through its New York branch. The transactions were monitored by the Committee of 300 legal firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, whose senior partner was Allen Dulles of the notorious Dulles family. The Dulles brothers rode herd over the Senate and the State Department to ensure that dissenting voices of some who perchance might stumble upon the arrangement contracted in Hell, would be smothered before they could alert the nation. 

These kinds of financial arrangements were common also to the runup to WWII. I came across some documents in the British Museum in London during my five-year study period relating to the way the Socialists worked both sides of the fence. Telegrams sent by the German Ambassador in Washington to his home office superiors in Berlin, stated that from 1915, J. William Byrd Hale was one of their very own, being employed by the German Foreign Office at a salary of $15,000 per annum. 

Hale, one of the inner circle at Turtle Bay, an exclusive summer colony wherein resided the elite of the elite of American Socialists. Among them were Professor Robert Lovett and a large number of other Harvard Law School professors. House lived close by in Manchester. All were described by an adoring press of the time as "polished products of Harvard and Groton," but the press was so blinded by these glamorous persons that it failed to state that they were also Socialists out of the top drawer of the Fabian-American Society. Lovett adored the work of self-styled "old school Communist" John Ruskin, and William Morris. 

Hale, a dedicated "Christian" Socialist, made his mark with Wilson in Mexico while orchestrating the theft of Mexican oil for his top Socialist colleagues. (See "Diplomacy By Deception" for a full account of this scandalous robbery of the Mexican people.) It transpired that Hale actually represented the German Foreign Office until June 23, 1918, this, while thousands of American Citizen Militia soldiers were dying "for the cause of freedom." Thereafter this "Christian" Socialist went to Germany as the correspondent for the American Press Service. His much slanted, pro-Socialist reports figured prominently in newspapers of the period which can be found in the archives of the British Museum. 

Though these transactions the elite of the Socialist world grew fat and sleek. Not that there was anything new in this disgusting arrangements. In the runup to the Civil War, and it was during its entirety, Communism and Socialism made huge strides in America, a fact not mentioned in our history books and kept well hidden from the public in the massive Hollywood extravaganzas about this, the must tragic of all wars. 

A common thread runs through the Fabian Socialist movement: a passionate desire to pull down and destroy everything. This is confirmed in pages 4594- 4595, Congressional Record, February 23, 1927, under the title "General Deficiency Bill." This page in our history delineates the Socialists and Communists and their efforts to tear down the Confederated Republic of the United States of America. There is plenty of information how the Socialists cooperated with their Communist brothers, in the booklet, "Key Men of America." 

Socialism is world revolution much more than was Communism, only at a slower pace and on a more sedate level. But the revolution desired by the Socialists is the same: spiritual anarchy, destruction of nineteen centuries of Western civilization, scattering of traditions, and an end to Christianity. If this is doubted by the reader, then a reading of Franklin D. Roosevelt's book, "On Our Way" will convince the skeptics that Socialism differs only from Communism in method. 

Bolshevism was the violent, radical experiment that tried to rid Russia of Christianity: In the United States, other more subtle means are being employed, such as banning of prayer in schools, the so called "Separation of Church and State," and in the classrooms, where myriads of Socialist teachers are brainwashing students in a manner fit to promote the silent revolution the Socialist are carrying out. Bolshevism, Marxism. Socialism, all have the same common purpose, and they go hand in hand with "liberalism," "pacifism," "tolerance," "progressive," "moderate," "peace," democratic," "people's," and subterfuge issued to dissemble and disguise the true purposes of Socialism. 

These terms are intended to dupe the unwary so that Socialism not be associated with revolution. But the purpose of Socialism and Bolshevism are the same: the destruction of civilization built upon nineteen centuries of tradition and Christianity. The goals of Socialism are: 

1. The abolition of government. 

2. The abolition of patriotism. 

3. The abolition of property right. (While the Communists would banish it outright, the Socialist choose the stealthy sneaking course of taxing private property rights out of existence. 

4. The abolition of inheritance. (Again, the Communists would banish it outright, the Socialist by means of inheritance tax laws). 

5. Abolition of marriage and the family. 

6. Abolition of religion, especially Christianity. 

7. Destruction of national sovereignty of countries and national patriotism. 

Woodrow Wilson knew of these aims, yet he did not recoil from them nor from becoming a tool of the international Socialists, embracing American Socialist programs with enthusiasm, for which he needed powers not granted to him by the United States Constitution. Wilson was not averse to using the sly What Socialism Is: Why it Leads to Slavery 59 methods of Socialist to attain his goals. For instance, he was successful in getting the United States into WWI by classifying it as a "patriotic duty" to defend America, which was never at any time threatened by Germany! 

Wilson was not the first power-hungry president, although he was the first openly Socialist one. The dubious distinction of power-grabbing belongs to President Lincoln who was the first to come out with proclamations, now called Executive Orders. President George Bush followed right along in Roosevelt's footsteps, using the same unconstitutional methods to feather his nest, diving into every cesspool where there was money to be made at the cost of the American people. 

A so-called "Republican, "Bush did as much to harm the "common people" of the United States as Roosevelt had done, and Wilson had done before him. Beware of party labels. George Washington called political parties "baneful and unnecessary" and modern history shows them to be divisive. Tyrants have succeeded because of political parties and their "divide and rule" mentality. The Constitution of the United States provides for impeachment of men like Wilson, Roosevelt and Bush. In fact, patriotic Congressman Henry Gonzalez filed six Articles of Impeachment against Bush during the Gulf War, but partisan politics stood in the way of the Article 2, Section 4, Article 1, Section 3, being used to bring George Bush to justice. 

There were a multitude of causes to impeach Bush, not the least being his failure to adhere to the Constitution and obtain a properly-drawn up declaration of war. Next, his unconstitutional forgiveness of Egypt's debt of $7 billion, his bribery of Syria and other nations who joined his "Desert Storm" against the nation of Iraq: His continued misuse of all three branches of the services in violation of the Constitution, and calling himself the commander in chief of the armed services, which he was not, is also impeachable. 

It is worth repeating that the Gulf War was illegal. It was fought without a declaration of war in defiance of the Constitution. Congress, largely conditioned by party sentiments, tried to write up a type of resolution — not a declaration of war — that purported to give the semblance of legality to Bush's action. But Congress added insult to injury to the American people in that they made the mistake of writing up their version of a declaration of war in consonance with the United Nations mandate given Bush, and not in consonance with the Constitution of the United States. 

This was absolutely wrong: The United States never constitutionally joined the United Nations and a declaration of war by this One World Government body CANNOT be on the same instrument or even associated with a declaration of war by the Congress. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution denies and or limits the power of Congress to legislate. Congress does not have absolute power to legislate and can only do so in consonance with the Constitution. 

The "neither fish nor fowl" resolution passed by Congress behind which Bush tried on to take a semblance of legality for his illegal war, was outside of the pale and the ken of the United States Constitution and did not constitute a declaration of war. An analysis of the way Congress voted shows dramatically, that almost to a man, the hundreds of Socialists infesting the House and Senate voted for Bush to allow Bush to continue his flouting of the Constitution. Bush should have been impeached and tried. If the Constitution were followed in such proceedings, there is no doubt that he would have been jailed, as he rightly deserves.

The powers of the president are contained in Section II of the United States Constitution. Actions not in Section II are exercises of arbitrary power. The Socialists, starting with House, Frankfurter and Brandeis, and followed by Katzenbach et al, have it that the three branches of government are coequal. This is a falsehood-just another of the lies that go to make up the huge iceberg upon which this nation will be wrecked unless we alter course. Professor Harold Laski was the chief instigator of this lie, viewed as the first step toward weakening the separation of powers as mandated by the United States Constitution. 

The three branches of government are not co-equal and never have been. The House and Senate created the judicial branch, and the House and Senate never intended to give them equal powers. Of course if this ever became known, the Socialist outflanking of the Constitution "by the legislative route" would be thrown out of the window. Perhaps the American people will wake up to the way in which judges gerrymander the Constitution before it is too late. 

Congress has superior powers — one of which is through the purse. Another, simple way to get rid of Socialist judges is to enforce Article III, Section I which says that judges may not "receive for their services, a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." 

What this means is that U.S. Supreme Court judges cannot by law be paid in debased money, and a better example of debased "money" is Federal Reserve notes, commonly (and mistakenly) called "dollars" is not to be found. What a blow it would be to the inheritors of the Kelley doctrine if We, the People, closed the Supreme Court down for lack of money that is not debased. 

Wilson should likewise have been impeached. His mad grab for power was at the instigation of Mandel House, the arch-Socialist enemy of the people of the United States who worked in the dark his sinister, scurrilous, evil plans to overturn and destroy the Confederated Republic of the United States of America. To this end House had Wilson appoint all manner of elite Socialists to key positions. 

The goals of American Socialism have been well concealed in the past, particularly in the period leading up to WWII. That Socialism has achieved many of its objectives is clear. They did it by the formation of movements designed to break down the morals of America, as witness the startling growth of "free love" (love without responsibility) which has thus far cost the lives of more than 26 million murdered babies sanctioned by the Supreme Court's pro-abortion rulings, all  100 percent unconstitutional, as the Constitution is silent on abortion. Where the Constitution is silent on a power, it is a prohibition of that power. 

President Clinton is a firm believer in infanticide and like the good Socialist he is, supports abortion with all of the might of his administration. It is interesting that the first time abortion clinics were thought of was when Mrs. Laski, wife of Professor Laski of the Fabian Society began to establish birth control clinics in England. Mrs Laski's tactics employed the methods of the notorious Communist commissar, Comrade Alexandra Kollontay. 

When Socialists are confronted and exposed in advancing the cause of Communism by different tactics, they protest loudly. But the old saying, "wound a Communist and a Socialist bleeds" was never truer than it is today. What we have in the United States is a secret, upper-level parallel Socialist government known as the Council on Foreign Relations that was set up in 1919 by arch Socialists Mandel House and Walter Lippmann, under the direction and control of the RIIA in London. 

Many times we see stories in the press about open disagreement between Communists and Socialists. This is done to deceive the unwary and keep in line those who have been duped into believing that "progressive," "liberal," "moderate" really mean something other than what their Socialists meaning is. Thus they are able to keep in line a vast number of people who would otherwise recoil in shock if they knew they were promoting the aims of world revolutionary government. That our new president, accused of being a philanderer, a libertine lacking in morals, is acceptable to millions of Americans who are not Socialist, is a triumph for the methods of Fabian Socialism. 

Their methods are so subtle that their goals are not always at first recognized . Lately there has been much discussion (much of it of low caliber showing the paucity of an understanding of the United Constitution among the majority of senators) about Line Item Veto supposedly the right of the president. This is pure Socialist anti constitutional propaganda, and a continuation of the process started by the Socialists during the Wilson presidency of surrendering the rights that properly belong to the legislature to the president. It is the goal of the Socialists to give the president powers that he has not got, nor is entitled to, so that they can proceed to steamroller the Constitution out of the way of their New World Order plans. 

The Socialists want the president to have veto powers not granted by the Constitution in so-called "enhanced rescission." In typical Socialist fashion, they do not come right out and say "we want the president to be able to veto any parts of a bill that has passed the House and Senate." This is what is meant by line item veto. 

This subterfuge follows Florence Kelley's directive that changes must be carried out, "by the legislative route" if they cannot be done by constitutional means. As we see elsewhere in this book, Professor Harold Laski devoted a great deal of his time to discussing with Felix Frankfurter and President Roosevelt, how to subvert the constitutional provision that the powers of each branch of government granted by the constitution cannot be transferred. Laski frequently lashed out at this stumbling block to promoting Socialism, via "the legislative route." The shocking hypocrisy of the Socialists is revealed in their insistence on the so-called "separation of church and state" idea being strictly enforced. Apparently, what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. 

To turn this kind of power over to the president is an act of suicide — and quite possibly, treason. The real issue here is power, and how the Socialist can grab more and more of it via a servant of theirs whom they place in the White House. There is nothing more dangerous than the Socialist drive to turn over to the president powers reserved to the House and Senate.This would produce super Wilsons, Roosevelts, Bush's and Clintons and rush the United States headlong into a Socialist dictatorship — which we practically have already. 

Line item veto powers would become a party politics wrangle, intimidate the lawmakers whom the people of the States have returned to Washington to do the bidding of the people of the States — not the Federal Government. Line item veto surrender of Congressional powers will ensure future tyrants even worse than George Bush whose private war for and behalf of the British crown, cost the lives of hundreds of Americans and $200 billion. Line item veto powers for the president would be a great triumph for Florence Kelley. 

Line item veto powers for the president would throw the House and Senate into confusion, paralyze their efforts and generally hasten a breakdown of government in this country — all declared Socialist aims. Tensions and passions between the legislative branches would boil over and make Congress totally subservient to a belligerent president hell-bent on following the Socialist agenda. It would make of the Constitution of the United States a blank piece of paper, with checks and balances reduced to a smoking ruin. 

This nation has suffered far too much already from Socialist excesses of presidents they have installed (Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Eisenhower, Bush and Clinton.) These presidents have rushed the nation into deadly wars in which we should never have become embroiled, at the cost of millions upon millions of lives, not to mention the billions of dollars these wars generated, billions that went to the Wall Street and City of London bankers, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank etc., for which the people are still being taxed. 

Line item veto powers plus the illegal so-called Executive Orders will make a future tyrant-president of the caliber of Roosevelt and Bush a king, as surely as if the title had been bestowed upon them. To give the president constitutional power to line items veto bills of congress would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The three departments cannot legislate or by any other means transfer duties or powers to another division of government. The Founding Fathers wrote this provision to stop would-be tyrants from seizing powers by this method. 

If we want an example of tyranny, we need look no further than the assault on a Christian church at Waco by the Federal Government in total violation of the United States Constitution. There were 87 people murdered at Waco. The Tiananmen Square "massacre" (a Socialist media description of the event) killed 74 Chinese. Yet Clinton was prepared to cross swords with China over its "human rights" violations occasioned by the Tiananmen Square uprising against the Beijing government, but thus far has done nothing to bring the perpetrators of Waco to justice. This is typical of the gross hypocrisy of a true Socialist. 

Where in the United States Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to rush into the States and persecute a religious group? It is not there! The Federal Government has no business meddling in the States, especially when it comes to police powers. The 10th Amendment is perfectly clear on this: police powers in health, education and police protection, belong exclusively to the States. If the Branch Davidians had perchance committed any crime that warranted police action against them, that action should have been take by the local police and no one else. The Sheriff's Department at Waco failed lamentably in its duty to protect the Davidians inside their church properly. 

The Federal Government once again displayed its arrogant attitude toward the United States Constitution by violating Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution which states: 

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance." What happened at Waco was that the Federal Government took powers it does not have and went to Waco with the express intention of prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs and freedom of expression. This is secular humanism in action which has no place in our Constitution. The Socialists are very hot on "separation of church and state" — when it suits their book. What happened to "separation of church and state" at Waco? It was not there! 

The Federal Government decided it could simplify religion, which is a complex subject that defies simplification. On page E7151, Congressional Record, House, July 31, 1968, Justice Douglas put the matter this way; 

"...It is impossible for government to draw a line between good and bad (the secular humanism nostrum) and to be true to the Constitution, better to let such ideas alone." Instead of listening to its own Socialist judges, the Federal government decided it has the right to decide between a "good" religion and a "bad" one. Government agents on the ground at Waco took it upon themselves to oversimplify the complexity of religion. Experience through the centuries has shown that religion cannot be simplified. Moreover it lies outside of political issues and it was never supposed to be simplified. 

The first 10 Amendments of the United States Constitution are a restriction on the Federal Government. In addition, Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution denies the Federal Government any right to pass legislation on religious matters. The Primary powers of the House and Senate are found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1-18. Remember, the Federal Government has no absolute powers. The Federal Government has zero right to decide what is a church and what is a cult. Apparently, government agents on the ground at Waco, made this determination with the assistance of a "cult deprogrammer" of one kind or another. The whole idea of such action is repulsive, not to mention downright illegal. 

For the Federal Government to have this power — which it does not — would be to grant it all power to destroy any and all religions — a plank in the Socialist program and one of the goals of world revolution. This power is not in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor is it found under the delegated powers of Congress or of the primary powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-18. When the United States Constitution is silent on a power, it is a prohibition of that power. 

So where did the FBI and the ATF get their power that allowed them to attack a Christian church? Apparently from the President and the Attorney General, neither of whom has such powers, and, since they both admit responsibility for the dreadful deed at Waco, they ought properly to be impeached. More Americans died at Waco than did Chinese students at Tiananmen Square. Did the jackal press of the United States call the Chinese students a "cult?" Of course not. Neither does the Federal Government have the right to call a Christian movement a "cult." 

The United States Constitution was compromised by the actions of the Federal Government at Waco. The United States Constitution cannot be compromised. No government agency is above the Constitution, and the Federal Government agencies that took part in the Waco attack broke the law. They had no constitutional right to intervene in a matter that fell within the purview of the State of Texas, it was not in the purview of the Federal Government. The Federal Government talked of the Branch Davidian as "terrorists," but should not have had any say in making such a delineation. That was for the State of Texas to do. 

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights has the Federal Government the authority to call a Christian church a "terrorist" organization. Authority for the attack at Waco is not found in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 . It would have taken a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to allow the Federal Government to launch an armed attack on the Branch Davidian Church at Waco. To properly understand the horror of Waco, one has to read the Declaration of Independence, wherein is found a recital of acts of brutality perpetrated against the Colonists by King George III. Waco is King George III relived — only worse. 

Congress (the House and Senate) has the power to right this wrong. They can order a full-scale Congressional hearing. Congress can also cut off funding for those Federal agencies that took part in the modern-day King George III attack on What Socialism Is: Why it Leads to Slavery 63 the citizens of the United States. Articles of impeachment are urgently necessary. The Congress has to take most of the blame. The Federal agents who took part in the storming of the Branch Davidian Church, probably thought they were acting under authority of the law, when they were not. Congress is supposed to know this, and Congress is supposed to correct the situation, lest it be perpetuated somewhere else. Birch Bayh, Socialist former Senator from Indiana, was used by the Fabian Society to undermine the Constitution of the United States, and he did so at every opportunity, as a reading of pages S16610-S16614, Congressional Record, Senate clearly establishes. 

Where does it say in Article 1, Section 8 or the delegated powers of Congress that the Federal Government has the power to use military vehicles to attack a church? Where does it say that Federal agents are empowered to call a church a "cult?" This attack on the Christian Church Branch Davidian is a violation of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments and is a bill of attainder of United States citizens at Waco. Neither the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branches of the Federal Government has the right to call a Christian church — nor for that matter, any church simply by calling it a "cult." Since when has the Federal Government had the power to decide on these complex religious matters? Since when can the Federal Government exercise a Bill of Attainder? 

What the Federal Government did at Waco was take a complex religious matter and turn it into a simple matter of a "cult" it did not like. The Executive Branch in Article II of the United States Constitution has no power to attack what the President and his Attorney General called "a cult." This is not the first time that the Federal Government has launched an attack on a religious group it did not like. It is no excuse to simply say that the President and his Attorney General take the responsibility for breaking the law. 

On pages 1195-1209, Congressional Record, Senate February 16, 1882, we see that the Senate tried to act like God in appointing a five-man commission to prevent Mormons from voting simply because they were Mormons. This was a gross violation of a bill of attainder. The only saving grace about this ugly piece of history is that there was a debate in the Senate. The victims of the Federal Government at Waco had no such right. On the efforts to block the Mormons from voting and we find it on page 1197 — and this is highly relevant to the Waco attack, we read, 'That right belonged to American civilization and law long before the Constitution was adopted." 

This right existed in colonial times, like the right to bear arms, and these rights were made a part of the Constitution through a series of amendments, in addition to those in the original instrument. These stood for the protection of rights. They were merely a guarantee of rights that already existed before the Constitution, which was not the creator of the rights itself. What the Federal Government did at Waco was no very different from the type of action advocated by International Socialist Karl Marx — which the Chinese Government observed at Tiananmen Square. The citizens who died in the blaze at Waco were not given their Constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law as stated in the 5th Amendment. 

Continuing to read from the Congressional Record, Senate, February 16, 1882, on page 1200: "For example no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or free exercise of, or abridge freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances. Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to a trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in criminal proceedings. These powers, in relation to the rights of person, which are not necessary here to enumerate, are in express and positive terms denied the General Government; and the right to private property have to be guarded with equal care." 

What happened at Waco was unhindered Socialism in action, grossly flouting the United States Constitution. Since it is clear that neither the Congress (House and Senate) nor the Judicial branch, nor the Executive Branch (The President) had any Constitutional rights whatsoever to order an armed attack on the Branch Davidian Church at Waco, the next question is, what is the Congress doing about righting this gross violation of the Constitution and what is it doing to bring the guilty among the Federal Government to justice?" 

In a Socialist/Marxist state, Waco would have been merely an exercise of government power. But the United States, thanks to its Constitution is not a Socialist/Marxist state; it remains a Confederated republic, notwithstanding the horrendous assaults upon it by the likes of Fabian Socialists Harold Laski, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, George Bush, and now, President William Jefferson Clinton. Waco was a cynical exercise of powers not granted to the Judicial or Executive branches of government and appears on a level with the excesses of the past concerning religious intolerance. 

Getting back to the attempts by Socialists to transfer powers from one branch of government to another. Even without Line Item Veto powers, we already had a king instead of a president. I refer to "King" George Bush, whose lust for power begat more power and more power until the nation was carried away on the flood tide of his mad power grab and landed in a war that was as unconstitutional as any in the history of the United States. 

What has been entirely lost in the debate in the House and Senate as to whether to "give" the president such power is that being 100 percent unconstitutional, it would require an amendment to the United States Constitution. The Congress (House and Senate) does not have the authority to grant the president line item veto powers: This cannot be done by the Congress but only by way of a Constitutional amendment. 

The Founding Fathers meant to prevent the Constitution being circumvented by the three departments passing powers back and forth. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution denies or severely limits the power of Congress to legislate.The Congress cannot pass its duties to the Supreme Court or the president without a constitutional amendment. This was meant to stop power-mad Socialist like Wilson, Roosevelt, Bush from rushing the country into one war after another, but even that did not stop power mad Wilson, Roosevelt and Bush from doing just that. 

Clinton awaits his chance to start another war. He narrowly missed out against North Korea, but his turn may yet come before his single term comes to an end. Line Item Veto power is another step toward the Socialist goal of "making the United States Constitution of no effect." The Constitutional power of the president is found in Section II of the United States Constitution. He has no other power. 

The Fabian Society carried on the war that was lost by the armies of King George III. They provoked the Civil War and all wars since then, in the hope of toppling the Confederate Republic of the United States. The Annals of Congress, Congressional Globes and Congressional Record provide a wealth of information and detail to confirm this opinion. On page 326, Congressional Globe, House, July 12, 1862, we find a speech by the Hon. F.W. Kellogg, "Origin of the Rebellion:" 

"National pride has been gratified, also the increase of power, and the certain knowledge that in a half of a century more, the United States must be by far the most powerful nation on the globe. But the great powers of Europe have witnessed rapid growth with uneasiness; and defend America, which was never at any time threatened by the Germans!" 

The mischief done by modern day American Socialists is tremendous. Jacob Javitts saw in what he called "civil rights issues" a golden opportunity to stir the racial waters by infiltrating Socialists in such key government bodies as the Equal Opportunity Commission. On the international scene, Javitts, using scare tactics at which Socialists are so good, was responsible for establishing so-called "international banks" and then getting Congress to fund them in an utterly unconstitutional manner. 

Another big promoter of Socialism in this country was Judge Abe "Fixer" Fortas, who more than any other Socialist was responsible for "legalizing" a flood of obscene literature and pornography. This was designed to further weaken the morality of the nation. Fortas cast the deciding vote on the U.S. Supreme Court's 100 percent wrong decision to allow pornography under the guise of "freedom of speech." We are told by psychologists and psychiatrists that this led directly to a huge increase in crime as this kind of "entertainment" titillates the lower brain centers. 

House and Senate members must bear their share of the blame for this and the shocking rise of unemployment and crime in tandem. The House and Senate by a two-thirds vote can overturn any Supreme court ruling, and they should have done this ten years ago and not wait for the situation to get out of hand, and then stand by an allow the Socialists in their midst to blame the problem on "guns." There are some really red-hot Socialists in the House and Senate. Representative Bill Richardson is a notable example: On pages E2788 E2790, Congressional Record, Wednesday July 31,1991, Richardson launched forth a paen of praise for one of the worst Socialists on earth: then Representative Stephen Solarz, who interfered in the affairs of Rhodesia, South Africa, the Philippines, South Korea and every non-leftist country under the sun. As if that were not bad enough, investigators looking into the House bank scandal, found Solarz had written the highest number by far of bad checks By comparison with Solarz, Benedict Arnold was practically a saint. 

Other Socialist "saints" that have caused this country unlimited harm and caused a breakdown not only of our economic, political and judicial systems, but who have actively sought to advance the Socialist agenda to the detriment of the American people were: Harry Dexter White, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger, Telford Taylor, Robert Strange McNamara, David C. Williams, George Ball, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Arthur Goldberg, Alger Hiss, Judge Gesell, Ralph Bunche, Nicholas Katzenbach, Cora Weiss, Louis Brandeis, McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger, Allen and John Foster Dulles, Sam Newhouse and Walt Whitman Rostow. Some of these, and other Socialist "warriors" will be found in the chapters, "Stars in the Socialist Firmament," with an account of their deeds. 

Their plans and aims were to slowly, insidiously, induce the United States to adopt Socialism, in easy stages that would not be noticed by the people. The program was one worked out by the Fabian Society of London, as detailed by their lead players, Professor Laski, Graham Wallas and Kenneth Galbraith. These plans were laid out in such a manner as to coincide or dovetail with what "Liberals" were doing in America, especially in the fields of education, undermining the United States Constitution, the American system of political economy based upon sound money and trade protection tariffs. 

These largely coincided with the International Socialist plans for an eventual One World Government — New World Order. For the Fabians of England to adjust their plans to an American timetable was a big undertaking. How successful they were can be measured in terms of the fact that between the 1920s and 1930, they almost succeeded in totally Socializing the United States. 

next

SOCIALIST-CONTROLLED EDUCATION: THE ROAD TO SLAVERY

part 3

https://exploringrealhistory.blogspot.com/2021/02/part-3-nwo-socialist-dictatorship.html

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.