Yanks don't even know who's standing for President
Steve Reed
<ajoh...@aa.net> writes
> Andrew,
>
> > Subject: Re: Convenient Diseases
>
>> In message <001901bf8ac7$9fd19220$0200...@ajohnso1.aa.net>,
>> Aleeta
>> <ajoh...@aa.net> writes
>> > Andrew,
>> >
>> > As of lastnight, the only parties that are running are Al
>> > Gore and George Bush.
>
>> The only Democrat and the only Republican, you mean..
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> The others who where running conceded to the Democratic and
>> Republican party. Mc Cain was running on the reform ticket.
What are you saying? We have just had the Primaries for the Republican
and Democratic nominations! Nothing else!! It was wondered, after
McCain bowed out, whether he would then stand for the Reform Party
nomination. Don't confuse that with the "reform policies" he was
proposing during the Primaries!
> No
>> one
>> else is or has been running as they have given up and the votes
>> from the
>> people at the polls have been taken. Not all the states have
>> completed
>> this task and I'm telling you no one else is running or they
>> would be on the polls.
Those polls were held to choose the candidates for the Democratic and
Republican parties only! It doesn't mean that there are no other
parties contesting the Presidency - only that the media refuse to
mention them! Doesn't it? (You've got me wondering now!)
>> Pat Buchannan was not on the polls. There was nothing ever
>> mentioned. Everytime
>> he has ran it is well known as he is a loud mouth Irishman.:o))
>> Al Gore won in our
>> state and for the first time I never went to vote. I knew who
>> would win and that was Gore the Bore.
>> > The others have bowed out of the race
>> > very swiftly. Mc Cain had been on a separate ticket and now
>> > we are down to Democrat Vs Republican.
>
>> As far as the Republicrats are concerned, yes! But who cares
>> about
>> them?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Well I don't care about any Republican and never did only my
>> very rich relatives
>> are Republicans as they are into business bigtime. Mc Cain was
>> on the reform ticket
No he wasn't! He was campaigning, against Bush, for the Republican
nomination. THat's all!!
> and has bowed out and no ention of Buchanan
>> ever!!
>> >> >
>> >> >> According to the Spotlight, Buchanan is seeking the
>> >> Reform Party
>> >> >> nomination. Gore and Bush are two peas in the same
>> >> globalist
>> >> >> pod. > I have seen an article, dated last
>> month,
>
>> > entitled "Buchanan on
>> >> the
>> >> Stump". I will try to get hold of it.
>
>> Got it! Here it is (+ a few other things):
>
>
>> TiM GW Bulletin 2000/3-2
>> Mar. 7, 2000
>
>
>> Your Turn...
>
>> FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA
>> Topic: READERS' FORUM
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> Some reactions to... "Buchanan on the Stump"
>> (TiM GW Bulletin 2000/1-5, Jan. 21 2000)
>
>> California: Way to Go, Bob!
>
>> CALIFORNIA, Jan. 23 - We received the following feedback from
>> Robert
>> Drobot of California. Here's an excerpt:
>
>> "Way to go Bob ! ! !
>
>> The Internet is the only place Pat is getting a fair shake, and
>> your
>> focus on him brings even greater impact to a presidential
>> candidate
>> the government-globalist media complex view as their worst
>> nightmare.
>
>> A clear example of the fear and loathing the mind controllers
>> have
>> for Pat Buchanan was revealed this past January 6th, when Pat
>> was
>> invited into the lion's den to speak to Boston's World Affairs
>> Council.
>
>> The media came -- 60 of them. But not a word of what Pat had
>> to
>> say hit print. The following Sunday, the network talking heads
>> didn't bat an eyelash. It didn't happen. As far a America was
>> concerned, there was no Boston speech - with one enlightened
>> exception on- the Internet.
>
>> Because the transnational globalists who own the network and
>> print
>> information sources decided they were not going to bring
>> America's
>> attention to a major foreign policy position paper by Pat
>> Buchanan
>> calling for reciprocal trade policies with foreign countries.
>
>> 7 Trade policies that will not require American
>> businesses
>> compete with foreign companies having an unfair advantage; that
>> government bids be limited to American companies who produce
>> their
>> products in America using American workers.
>
>> 7 That we need to re-establish the age old concept of
>> 'charity begins at home'. That we say in a proud voice, "America
>> First" ! ! !
>
>> 7 That all of the above is contrary to the plans and
>> intentions the globalist New World Order, comprised of the likes
>> of
>> the Boston World Affairs Council, has for America and American
>> Citizens.
>
>> The censorship of Mr. Buchanan's advise to the Boston World
>> Affairs
>> Council was a blatant act of election tampering.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Everytime he has ran, I always recieve something from him in the
>> mail. This
>> hasn't happened at all this time.
He's standing I tell you! The Republicrats are stealing the limelight
and trying to prejudice the issue before the Reform Party can even
afford to send out letters (the election isn't until December, after
all) But don't be fooled! Buchanan is standing! Pass the word!
>
>> As the TiM editor has been saying for years, the only chance
>> Americans these days have to vote FOR AMERICA is to vote against
>> ANY
>> Democratic or Republican parties' candidates. The only chance
>> Americans have to regain her souls, i.e., win back our
>> Constitution,
>> is to vote for Pat Buchanan.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> It's amazing as nothing not even his name ever mentioned
Don't you see how completely brainwashed everybody is!
> and he
>> really
>> isn't popular because of many of his views are too much like the
>> "POPE"
>> and it just doesn't fly and he has never gotten too many votes
>> and therefore
>> it was quite costly for him to run as with anyone.
>
Oh not that again! Just look what has happened so far! Has the man had
a chance to put his case even? Wait for it, Aleeta - and warn others to
wait too. I don't agree with everything Buchanan says either - but he
is a genuine alternative. Why else should the media shun him so?
>> So rather than "Way to Go, Bob!," the headline of this piece
>> should
>> rightfully read, "Go Pat Go!"
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> I agree with the article up above about McCain.
It's frightening, isn't it? If a live-wire like you can be completely
swamped by the media-lies (lies by implication, even!) then what is
happening in the minds of the masses? Pass the word, Aleeta. There is
an alternative candidate to that globalist thug, Bush, and that slimy,
globalist yes-man, Gore. Pat Buchanan!
>
>
>>
--
Steve Reed
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
<ajoh...@aa.net> writes
>Is this why you're so interested in Pat Buchanan?
>
>He stinks period and is very unpopular and radical!!
>
>Aleeta
>
>
> Buchanan and Anti-Semitism
>
> by Norman Podhoretz
>
> Wall Street Journal | October 25, 1999
> get a printer-friendly version of this article
>
>
> IS PATRICK BUCHANAN AN ANTI-SEMITE? This neuralgic
>question first flared up in 1990 during the months preceding the Gulf War but
>fell into a dormant state after a flurry of heated debate provoked by his
>challenge to George Bush in 1992. Now, with his challenge to another George Bush
>—a challenge he is expected to intensify by announcing today that he is leaving
>the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party's nomination for president—it has
>burst into flames again.
You never expressed any surprise that I was right about this :-(
>
> Mr. Buchanan, being unrepentant and pugnacious as ever,
>has responded by gleefully pouring a few gallons of gasoline onto the fire. This
>politically reckless act has taken the form of his new book, A Republic, Not an
>Empire. There he offers a revisionist account of World War II which is as soft
>on Hitler as, conversely, the revisionist historians of the Cold War were once
>(rightly) accused of being on Stalin.
Meaning what?
>
> Blithely circling around a mountain of evidence to the
>contrary, Mr. Buchanan maintains that wiping out the Jewish people was not one
>of Hitler's major aims.
It depends what you mean by major! He wanted to conquer the world (as
certain elements in the US now wish to do) Anything else is "minor" by
comparison, isn't it?
> To the extent that he actually tried to accomplish this
>objective, he was driven into it by Britain and the U.S. (against which he also
>had no designs).
>
Is it not true that Jews only died in camps after the allies cut off all
routes to the West and to Palestine?
> What made the book even more inflammatory was that it
>came on the heels of two other earlier expressions of softness on Hitler. One
>was his description of the Führer as "an individual of great courage, a
>soldier's soldier in the Great War, … [a] genius," etc. Admittedly this tribute
>had been preceded by an acknowledgment that Hitler was also "a man who without
>compunction could commit murder and genocide." But in acknowledging the obvious,
>Mr. Buchanan was unable or unwilling to muster as much rhetorical force as the
>startling praise that followed.
No-one can deny that Hitler had courage - or, as Buchanan says, that he
was an evil genius! So what!
>
> This acknowledgment of Hitler's capacity for evil was
>further undercut by the second of the two manifestations of softness on Nazism:
>Mr. Buchanan's habit of championing the cause of almost anyone accused of
>participating actively in Hitler's genocidal campaign against the Jews.
>
Don't you glimpse a certain element of "smear tactics" in this article?
> One of these was John Demjanjuk, a native of Ukraine who
>had been indicted as the exceptionally sadistic guard known as Ivan the Terrible
>at the Treblinka death camp. When an Israeli court ruled that this had probably
>been a case of mistaken identity, Mr. Buchanan loudly claimed vindication. But
>it turned out that if Mr. Demjanjuk had not been a guard at Treblinka, he had
>served in the same capacity at Sobibor, another death camp.
>
Demjanjuk was cleared - and he is now suing the US-govt for extraditing
him to Israel. What crap is this writer selling?
> As a Ukrainian working for the German occupiers of his
>country, Mr. Demjanjuk might conceivably have been regarded as something of a
>victim. Yet Mr. Buchanan has looked upon even Germans who confessed to war
>crimes in the same light. Among them was Arthur Rudolph, a German rocket
>scientist who admitted involvement with slave labor and other atrocities.
>Incredibly, Mr. Buchanan drew a parallel between Rudolph, who had been a fervent
>Nazi, and the great Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov.
>
It depends very much on what that parallel was! Does the writer tell us
what it was? No!
> From such thinking came the equally incredible words
>that (according to the Washington Post) Mr. Buchanan wrote for Ronald Reagan in
>justifying a presidential visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany. Through Mr.
>Reagan's mouth, Mr. Buchanan declared that the soldiers buried there, who
>included members of SS units (reportedly not the special one in charge of
>implementing the Holocaust, but still …) were "victims of the Nazis just as
>surely as the victims in concentration camps." No more disgusting example of
>moral equivalence can ever have been recorded or can scarcely even be imagined
>(though a close second might be Mr. Buchanan's comparison of the Nazi camps with
>those set up by Gen. Eisenhower for German prisoners of war).
>
I think that's wrong. Americans, more than anyone, perhaps, should
realise how hard it is to swim against the tide of conventional public
opinion - and, in Germany, non-compliance with government directives was
not punished only with ostracism!
> As if all this were not bad enough, Mr. Buchanan lent
>his weight to some of the preposterous claims of yet another school of
>revisionists—those who believe either that the Holocaust never occurred or that
>"the Jews" have wildly exaggerated the number of lives it claimed. For instance,
>he argued that the exhaust from diesel engines—which was used at several
>extermination camps (Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor, and Belzec) as well as by the
>Einsatzgruppen, the roving Nazi killing squads within the Soviet Union—"did not
>emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." And it was from the same school of
>Holocaust deniers that Mr. Buchanan borrowed the concept of a "Holocaust
>survivor syndrome" involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics."
>
What amazes me is the bile with which these people attack any
questioning of THEIR version of events! ANY QUESTIONING AT ALL! Don't
you find that even a bit disturbing?
> In other words, even under the dubious assumption that
>Hitler seriously intended to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the
>earth, and even though he was somehow driven by the Allies into making the
>attempt, he could not possibly have murdered as many as six million of them. The
>idea that he did is a fantasy (exploited, in the poisonous judgment of the
>Holocaust revisionists, to gain sympathy for Jewish causes, and especially
>Israel).
>
There is certainly SOME truth in this - but our friend will not admit so
much as an atom of it! Don't you find that in the least suspicious?
> I have deliberately begun with Mr. Buchanan's attitude
>toward Hitler and the Nazis because
(because it is a cheap and highly dramatic smear!)
> it is relatively free of the political
>complications surrounding the issue of Israel, on which I myself first reached
>the conclusion that Mr. Buchanan had become an anti-Semite. I arrived at this
>conclusion reluctantly, because Mr. Buchanan had been an old comrade-in-arms
>during the Cold War. Even so, there was no way I could evade the implications of
>several comments he made on television and in his syndicated column about Israel
>and its American Jewish supporters during the debates over whether the U.S.
>should go to war after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
>
> Mr. Buchanan himself, and his many apologists, seemed to
>have no trouble at all in evading these implications. They defended him by
>indignantly insisting that one could be critical of Israel, or even generally
>anti-Zionist, without being anti-Semitic. True enough, as I myself stipulated at
>the time. But it was one thing to be critical of Israel or its policies, and
>another to accuse it of conspiring with the Jewish community to drag us into a
>war in which Mr. Buchanan could perceive no vital American interest, and that he
>kept insisting no one else wanted. To be sure, it would have helped him off the
>hook if these accusations were true. But they were so manifestly false that it
>was hard to see how anyone as intelligent as Buchanan could believe them.
>
He cannot seriously be saying that the Jewish lobby in the USA is not
vehemently pro-Israel and was not, very effectively, pro-Gulf War can
he?
> If preventing a dictator like Saddam from seizing
>control of the oil fields of the Persian Gulf was not an American interest, what
>was? As for Mr. Buchanan's breezy assurance that "there are only two groups
>beating the drums … for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and
>its amen corner in the United States," he was very well aware that Arab nations
>like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even one of Israel's most fanatical enemies,
>Syria, not to mention Britain's Margaret Thatcher, were "beating the drums" for
>war much more loudly than Israel. Nor could Mr. Buchanan have failed to notice
>that scores of influential non-Jews in America were beating the same drums, and
>that the polls were showing more and more support for war among the American
>people, who he kept insouciantly asserting were on his side.
>
>
The Gulf-War was a set up. True it had a globalist angle. True it
stopped the French developing Iraqi oil-capacity; but it was sold first
to the Israeli lobby so that it could use its influence to sell it to
everyone else.
>
>
> Reinforcing the notorious "amen corner" crack, Mr.
>Buchanan went on to list four prominent Jews who thought war might be necessary.
>Almost immediately thereafter, he counterpoised them with "kids with names like
>McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown," who would actually do the
>fighting if these Jews had their way.
>
> Here we had another insult added to another big lie. And
>they were not just any insults. Each carried in its train an anti-Semitic
>pedigree. First, the "amen corner" crack resurrected the old canard of "dual
>loyalty." This concept held that American Jews were more committed to Israel
>than to the U.S. And if there had once been any lingering doubt that in his eyes
>Jews were a breed apart from their fellow citizens, it was dissipated when he
>instructed Jewish leaders that they were not "good Americans" in pleading with
>Reagan to cancel his visit to the Bitburg cemetery
>
Not very conclusive proof - but is it not true that all Americans tend
to be dual loyalists?
> Another traditional anti-Semitic canard—this one
>concerning the alleged unwillingness or inability of the Jews to fight—was
>embedded in Mr. Buchanan's juxtaposition of the prominent Jewish figures who
>favored the war with the non-Jewish "kids" who would be sent to die in the
>Persian Gulf. One might have thought that the brilliance of the Israeli military
>forces would forever have buried the hoary stereotype of the cringing and
>cowardly Jew. But when it came to digging up anti-Semitic filth from the foul
>swamps where it was buried, Mr. Buchanan was deterred neither by facts nor by
>the stench arising out of his exhumations.
>
"was embedded" - so our writer claims!
> A related and very telling observation was made by
>Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute in a definitive analysis
>in Commentary of the whole issue of Mr. Buchanan's attitude toward Israel in
>particular and Jews in general. Since, Mr. Muravchik pointed out, the Jews on
>Mr. Buchanan's list were all hawkish in the defense of American interests, just
>as Mr. Buchanan himself had once been, it was he and not they who were being
>inconsistent. The real question, then, "was not whether [they] were hawks on the
>gulf crisis just because of their attachment to Israel, but whether Buchanan was
>a dove on the gulf crisis just because of his animus against Israel."
>
I think PB opposed the Gulf War because it was unjust and uncalled-for.
The feudal rulers of the Gulf states SHOULD be swept away, but that
would frighten American oil companies AND the Jewish lobby - that's why
tens of thousands were killed or permanently crippled, in the Gulf War.
Think about that before you rattle your sabre!
> This animus was both new and inconsistent with the
>worldview Buchanan had only recently held with characteristically great fervor.
>Mr. Buchanan had once been friendly to Israel as an ally of the U.S. being
>targeted by the Soviet-sponsored Palestine Liberation Organization. Conversely,
>he had always regarded any such movement as an enemy of the U.S. This rule
>applied to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, to the FMLN in El Salvador, to the
>African National Congress in South Africa and so on; and it had once, naturally
>and logically, applied to the PLO as well.
>
> Yet all of a sudden, Mr. Buchanan was comparing the
>PLO's struggle against Israel to that of the American revolutionaries against
>the British. Mr. Buchanan granted no remotely comparable indulgence to any of
>the PLO's kissing cousins in other parts of the world. Clearly, his new
>hostility toward Israel was so great that, as Mr. Muravchik remarked, it even
>"outweighed his hatred of Communist-style 'national-liberation' movements."
>
Well, I've changed MY mind about Israel in recent years - and so have
many others - not without good reason, I may add!
> To their undying moral credit, a goodly number of non-
>Jewish conservative individuals and organizations were willing to call Mr.
>Buchanan's anti-Semitism by its proper name and to denounce him for it. But
>there were others, including some of his Jewish colleagues in the media, who
>either waffled or defended him.
>
> Among those who defended him, one group did so by
>saying, in effect, that some of his best friends were Jews. It was hard to
>understand how, after so much fun had been poked at that line over the years,
>they could have been oblivious to its traditional use as an apology for even
>more blatant anti-Semites than Mr. Buchanan's.
>
> Then there were others who could detect no evidence that
>Mr. Buchanan was anti-Semitic. These were the same people in whose eyes charges
>of anti-Semitism were just as bad as (if not worse than) anti-Semitism itself.
>Their reasoning seemed to be that the accusation of anti-Semitism was so
>damaging that not even egregiously anti-Semitic statements should be labeled as
>such. This group resembled the reporters who refused to use the term Communist
>even to describe candidates (like Angela Davis) running for office on the
>Communist Party ticket.
>
> Still others made a distinction between being an anti-
>Semite and saying or writing things that could reasonably be interpreted as
>anti-Semitic. Here, at least, was a point worth taking seriously. Since accusing
>a person who denied the charge of being an anti-Semite was tantamount to judging
>his innermost thoughts and feelings, the job was better left to heaven. On the
>other hand, my own advice to such a person was that if he wished to avoid being
>called an anti-Semite, all he had to do was stop sounding like one.
>
> This was not advice Mr. Buchanan was prepared to take.
>"I don't retract a single word," he declared in 1990, after being confronted
>with several scrupulous analyses of what his words inescapably implied or
>insinuated.
>
> By the time Mr. Buchanan ran against President Bush in
>the presidential primaries of 1992, he was not only sticking by these
>particular guns, but—in contravention of the Republican Party's principles and
>the Reaganite legacy it claimed to be upholding—he had also become an outspoken
>isolationist and a protectionist. He had even brazenly adopted the slogan
>"America first" for his campaign, thereby linking himself to the committee of
>that name that, in the 1930s, had opposed our entry into the war against Hitler
>(precisely what Mr. Buchanan would retrospectively do in his A Republic, Not an
>Empire).
>
> Hence there was ample reason for the Republican
>leadership to disown Mr. Buchanan even apart from his well-documented anti-
>Semitism (which should have been enough by itself). Nevertheless, fearful of
>alienating his followers—whose numbers were wildly exaggerated by a misreading
>of the primary results—the Republican managers, with Mr. Bush's acquiescence,
>allowed Mr. Buchanan to make the kickoff speech at their national convention.
>Mr. Bush lost anyway, and many Republicans were convinced that Mr. Buchanan's
>prominence at the convention was one of the causes.
>
> Since then, Mr. Buchanan has neither apologized for his
>anti-Jewish slurs nor retreated from them. On the contrary, he has added a few
>new fillips, like attacking policies he dislikes by associating them whenever
>possible with the obviously Jewish names of their sponsors, as in the "Rubin"
>bailout of Mexico, or the "Barshefsky" trade agreements. Does he know that this
>kind of thing was the stock-in-trade of both the Nazis and the Soviets? Does he
>care?
>
> Yet George W. Bush has been as pusillanimous toward Mr.
>Buchanan as his father was before him. The fault, however, lies not in the stars
>or in the genes but in a poll showing that if Mr. Buchanan gets the Reform
>Party's nomination for president, George W.'s present lead over Al Gore would
>shrink by about ten points. It is for the sake of this poll, taken more than a
>year before the election and matching George W. up against a candidate who may
>not even become the Democratic standard bearer, that the young Mr. Bush and the
>head of the Republican National Committee have begged Mr. Buchanan to stay in
>the GOP.
>
> Winston Churchill said in 1938 of the policy of
>appeasing Hitler (another policy Mr. Buchanan now retrospectively defends) that
>it left Britain with the "bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that
>we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later." Well, in
>their own way, George W. Bush and the RNC are also choosing shame, and they too
>will soon have a declaration of political war against them "thrown in" by Mr.
>Buchanan.
>
> Luckily for them, the chances are very good that Mr.
>Buchanan will turn out to be a paper tiger with too small a constituency to hurt
>the Republicans. Furthermore, as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard has
>speculated, Mr. Buchanan's defection may help Mr. Bush (if he gets the
>nomination), much as Harry Truman's campaign was given a boost when Henry
>Wallace bolted from the Democrats and ran on the Progressive Party ticket in
>1948. With Wallace and his Communist manipulators and supporters out of the
>Democratic Party, Truman was no longer so vulnerable to Republican charges of
>being "soft on Communism." Similarly, without the Buchanan albatross around his
>neck, Mr. Bush will be protected against the Democratic accusation that he is a
>moderate fronting for the worst elements of the radical Right.
>
> For all that, even if, as I expect, Mr. Bush should win
>the "war" with Mr. Buchanan he has been trying to avoid by choosing shame, and
>even if he should then, as I also expect, go on to be elected president, the
>taint of having refused to disown this anti-Semite will remain.
>
> By inspiriting contrast, Mr. Bush's rival for the
>Republican nomination, Sen. John McCain, has encouraged the departure of Mr.
>Buchanan. He has thereby chosen (and not for the first time in his life) honor
>over shame. As a politician, Mr. McCain has had to be a bit circumspect in
>phrasing his wish to see Mr. Buchanan go. But operating under no such
>constraint, I am free to say flat out what I suspect has been in Mr. McCain's
>mind all along in his position on the anti-Semitic isolationist Mr. Buchanan has
>become: Good riddance to bad rubbish.
>
Do you really take this tawdry stuff seriously? You disappoint me,
Aleeta! Still, it was interesting to see it. Thanks. I take it that
the Jewish lobby is going to fight Buchanan tooth and nail. Well, that's
not really surprising, is it? If PB were elected, aid to Israel would
sink to the same level as aid to any other small country on the other
side of the world. And why shouldn't it?
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
Andrew, here is an interesting page of goodies...............Aleeta
You've found something at last!
LAST UPDATED: Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 4:49 PM
New Sections for Our Site!
Our Internet Brigade Network - Battle ALERT!
Now includes petition, ballot access information, and
more...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Buchanan's Articles, Letters, and Speeches
The most complete collection on the Net! In addition, we are
asking all Brigades to Vote for your favorite PJB columns and more....
Now you can Search our entire site by keyword!
Note: Click poster for video preview - takes a
while to load!
03/16/00 'A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES'
PJB Speech - Harvard University
.....Just before Super Tuesday, a mysterious ad began
running in the three critical states that would decide the Republican
nominee. Described by the New York Times as "flaw[ed] in every claim,"
the ad savaged the environmental record of John McCain....
03/16/00 BUCHANAN'S LIBERTARIANISM TRUMPS 'THE BODY'
.....If anything, Trump and Ventura want to be popular --
which means to do what is popular, like using the label libertarian and
attacking Buchanan. Fortunately, their popularity has not yet produced
success.... Embracing the central tenet of meaningful libertarianism,
Buchanan is much more of a libertarian than either of his enemies....
03/16/00 BUCHANAN WILL DRAIN BELTWAY SWAMP
.....Buchanan says it will take a third-party candidate like
himself to reform campaign finance laws because Republicans and
Democrats are "chemically dependent" on political donations.... Buchanan
says, "Neither Beltway party is going to drain this swamp, because to
them it is not a swamp at all, but a protected wetland and their natural
habitat. They swim in it, feed in it, spawn in it"...
03/15/00 BRIMELOW: THE ECONOMIST ON IMMIGRATION
.....More devastating, in fact, than the Economist
apparently realizes. The NAS study elsewhere found that the fiscal costs
of the immigrant presence more than wiped out any macroeconomic gain.
America is not merely being transformed for nothing – it is paying for
the privilege. But, hey, none of these figures have ever been reported
in the Wall Street Journal at all. One cheer, at least, for the
Economist...
Editorial Policy More Site Updates The presidential
election will be, in my judgement, illegitimate if they deny me a place
in the debates.
Pat Buchanan - FOX News Sunday 3/5/99
--------------------------------------------------------
Demand that Pat Buchanan is included in the
Presidential Debates this fall!
--------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing but a Beltway conspiracy by the
two Establishment parties to corner the market forever on the presidency
of the United States.
- Pat Buchanan
Pick up your
Orders from Headquarters!
--------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Sponsors Fraudulent Debate
--------------------------------------------------------
From Our Favorite Politoonist!
Pledge Your Support
for Pat Buchanan!
--------------------------------------------------------
Why a Pledge?
Sign the Pledge!
Check Our Brigade Network!
Have You Enlisted in the Internet Brigade?
Pat Buchanan:
The elites of both parties think these battles are
over and done -- that the nation-state is finished, that giant
corporations with no national allegiances have the whip hand in the new
world economy. I am here to say that the battle has just begun...
Pat Buchanan on CSPAN-Extra
Buchanan-Choate
Press Conference on
China, Taiwan, MFN
Watch Live Video on Our Site
or Visit www.cspan.org
ORDER A COPY OF "A REPUBLIC NOT AN EMPIRE"
RIGHT NOW WHILE YOU ARE ONLINE
Order from Amazon.Com and help cover the cost of
our WebSite!
Use this link to Visit AMAZON.COM to order Pat's
book and other items today!
More Books on Our Buchanan Bookshelf
Luke 18:27:
And he said, The things which are impossible with
men are possible with God.
More from Our Prayer Brigade!
Have you been wondering what the Brigade
has been up to? Do you want more news on Pat Buchanan and our issues?
Have you been checking out our website, but still need to know more?
Subscribe to our Internet Brigade Email Lists!
We Have Two New Lists!
The Prayer Brigade!
BRIGADE-Lite!
Check Our Schedule for Media and Events!
Pat Buchanan:
I urge those within the GOP who believe in the
cause of life to walk away from a party that is turning its back on the
unborn ... The time for trust in the national Republican Party is
over...
Mail Updated - 02/17/00 - 5:23pm
The Nashville Meeting &...
More CPAC - Field Reports!
PJB's Radical "New" Theories
MI GOP Assembly Endorses PJB!
NH Brigade and RP Field Report
CPAC - Field Report
Florida Brigade Field Report
WV - Buchanan Wins Hearts!
Planned Destruction of the RP?
Vote Fraud
More from the Mail Bag
Jesse and Donald Get the Royal Flush!
Help the Cause by Spreading the Word about Our Web Site
Add this Free Banner to Your Home Page and Link Back to Us!
Polls:
Presidential "Grass" Poll
Fun poll with button that tells you to "vote
again"!
Presidential Debate Poll
Should the Reform Party Candidates be included?
Yahoo! Presidential Election Poll
Bush/Gore vs 3rd Party Candidate
Will you consider voting for a 3rd party
candidate?
American Conservative Union
Candidate Match-O-Matic
Find out which Candidate is the Man!
Dick Morris is an IDIOT Poll
He left Pat's name off his list!
Most Constitutional Candidate
Right Side of the Web Poll
Vote for None of the Above!
AOL Presidential Poll
Insight Magazine President Poll
Time Magazine Reform Poll
Primary Diner Poll
Live Chat:
BUCHANAN BRIGADE CHAT ROOM
Chat Note!
Forums:
CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE
From WorldNetDaily!
THE BRIGADE MESSAGE BOARDS
Message Board Note!
FREEPER BRIGADE FORUM
FReeper Brigade Note
--------------------------------------------------------
T H E I N T E R N E T B R I G A D E
Established April 1995
Post Office Box 650266 - Potomac Falls, Virginia
20165
Linda Muller - WebMaster
http://www.buchanan.org
Steve Reed
<ajoh...@aa.net> writes
>I am sending off this entire page in the hopes that you can browse through this.
>
>Aleeta
>
Here it all is - for anyone who thinks to look, and can....
>
>
> Results: containing 'Pat Buchanan' next >>
>
>
> Featured Sites about
>
> Buchanan, Patrick J. - Official Campaign Site - Go to
>the MSN top pick for 'Pat Buchanan'.
>
> Hot on the Campaign Trail - Slate tracks the
>presidential election coverage.
> Political Pulse - Top stories from around the country.
> Where Do They Stand? - Read quotations from candidates
>about 23 issues.
>
>
>
> Web Directory Topics
> US President 2000 : Candidates : Buchanan, Pat,
>Alexander, Lamar, Bauer, Gary L., Bradley, Bill
> In the News : Election 2000 : US President 2000,
>Candidates, Guides & Directories, Headline Archive
> Politics : Campaigns & Elections : US President 1996,
>California 1998, Campaign Finance, Election 2000
> Entertainment : Celebrities : Politics & Royalty, Other
>Figures, Presidents, Radio Personalities
>
>
>
> Web Directory Sites 1 - 15 of 25
>
>
> 1. Buchanan, Patrick J. - Official Campaign Site
> http://www.gopatgo2000.com/
> Features a profile of the Reform Party presidential
>candidate and details his stand on the issues. Read articles, speeches and fan
>letters.
> 2. Buchanan 2000
> http://www.buchanan.org/
> Fan of Pat roots for him in 2000. Find articles and
>essays on this Republican's position on the economy, immigration and other
>issues.
> 3. Buchanan, Pat - Considering Voting for Pat Buchanan?
> http://www.buchanan2000.com/
> Presents facts and quotations critiquing the Reform
>Party presidential candidate's stand on race and other issues. Access a message
>board.
> 4. Official Reform Party Home Page
> http://www.reformparty.org
> The Reform Party site presents the party platform,
>state-by-state registration information and party-news updates. The Reform Party
>has ties to Texas millionaire and former presidential candidate Ross Perot.
> 5. Pat Buchanan for President
> http://www.iac.net/~davcam/pat.html
> Includes the announcement of his 1996 campaign for GOP
>presidential candidate, his stance on the issues and many news releases.
> 6. Buchanan, Pat - Buchanan in 2000
> http://www.concentric.net/~Ecp/pat2000.html
> Features a supporter's opinion piece on the Reform Party
>candidate, a biography and resource information. Sign the guestbook to meet
>other fans.
> 7. Buchanan, Pat - GOP 2000 Profile
> http://www.2000gop.com/buchanan/
> Read a biographical profile of the Reform Party
>presidential candidate. Get campaign information, and order a free banner ad to
>show support.
> 8. Buchanan, Pat - Race for the White House
> http://gwu.edu/~action/buch.html
> Presents a biographical profile and professional history
>of the Reform Party presidential candidate. View Federal Election Commission
>filings.
> 9. Buchanan, Pat - Project Vote Smart
> http://www.vote-smart.org/ce/profile.asp?id=BZZ54291
> Features biographical and professional background
>information on the Reform Party presidential candidate.
> 10. Buchanan, Pat - Issues 2000
> http://issues2000.org/Pat_Buchanan.htm
> Features quotes and a brief outline of the Reform Party
>presidential candidate's stand on pertinent issues. Includes links to other
>candidates.
> 11. Buchanan, Pat - Politics1
> http://www.politics1.com/buchanan.htm
> Presents a brief bio, political analysis and reference
>materials regarding the Reform Party presidential candidate. Includes
>endorsements.
> 12. Buchanan, Pat - Young Conservative's Buchanan 2000
>Site
> http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/americafirst/
> Student presents a series of articles written about the
>Reform Party presidential candidate for the high school newsletter. Includes a
>poll.
> 13. Buchanan, Pat - Elections USA
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6228/pres2000/bucha
>nan.html
> Features links to national news articles following the
>presidential candidate's election race. Connect to an official bio.
> 14. Buchanan, Pat - In His Own Words
> http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html
> Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting presents a series of
>anecdotes and quotes detailing the Reform Party presidential candidate's
>politics.
> 15. Buchanan, Pat - CNN Interactive Chat
> http://cnn.com/chat/transcripts/pat_buchanan_chat.html
> Features an edited transcript of an online discussion
>forum with the presidential candidate. Read about his platform.
>
> next >>
>
>
>
> Search the Web for:
>
>
>
> Try AltaVista for search results on 'Pat Buchanan'
>
>
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
Deja.com> writes
>March 16, 2000
>Harvard University
>Boston, Massachusetts
Ah! The man himself!
>
>'A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES'
>
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
>http://www.nationalreview.com/
>
> Just before Super Tuesday, a mysterious ad began running in the
>three critical states that would decide the Republican nominee.
>Described by the New York Times as "flaw[ed] in every claim," the ad
>savaged the environmental record of John McCain.
>
> A committee called "Republicans for Clean Air" had paid $2.5
>million to run the ad. Two days later, we learned the committee was
>a front for a pair of billionaire brothers, the Wyly Boys,
>Bush-backers from Texas using a Virginia P.O. Box.
>
> The Democrats come out no cleaner. As Al Gore was preaching
>campaign reform, his friend Maria Hsia was convicted of channeling
>$109,000 in illegal contributions to Democrats, including $65,000
>from Al's "community outreach" visit to that Buddhist Temple.
>
> Nor are the other champions of reform untainted. The Wall Street
>Journal found John McCain's campaign "crawling with lobbyists."
>According to the New York Times, Bill Bradley was a "top recipient"
>of corporate contributions in the 1980s, and in 1996 took more
>all-expenses-paid junkets than any other senator.
>
> Friends, neither Beltway party is going to drain this swamp,
>because to them it is not a swamp at all, but a protected wetland
>and their natural habitat. They swim in it, feed in it, spawn in it.
>
> Washington is a city where corporate PACs bid against union PACs to
>contribute to congressional PACs. Each month, Washington lobbyists
>spend $100 million to influence Congress. In 1996, the two Beltway
>parties raked in a record $262 million in soft money. This year, the
>two expect to take in half a billion dollars. What does that kind of
>cash buy?
>
> Carl Lindner knows. In 1995 the first case the United States took
>to the WTO was not about steel dumping or pirating computer
>software. It was about getting bananas into the European market.
>Why, when the U.S. doesn't even grow bananas? Perhaps because Carl
>Lindner, the CEO of Chiquita, wrote a $500,000 check to the
>Republican Party, then did the same for Bill Clinton's party, and
>got an overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom as a bonus. Thus, in
>grateful tribute to Carl Lindner, the United States has been waging
>a trade war with Europe, over bananas grown in Honduras.
>
> Scan the contributions of major American corporations, and you'll
>see a pattern. Last year, AT&T gave $555,000 to Democrats, $760,000
>to Republicans. Microsoft gave $351,000 to Democrats, $446,000 to
>Republicans. According to the Wall Street Journal, "More than three
>dozen major corporations hedged their bets in 1999 by cutting checks
>of roughly equal size to House Democrats and Republicans." Because
>the same Fortune 500 companies subsidize and sustain both Beltway
>Parties, more and more you find the establishments of both these
>parties singing from the same corporate song sheet.
>
> What is this money buying? Your laws and your government.
>
> In the great debate over NAFTA, you heard all the arguments of the
>classical liberals about free trade going arm-in-arm with social
>progress. What you may not have heard is that NAFTA would enable the
>collective members of the National Association of Manufacturers to
>shut down plants in the U.S. and open them in Mexico, where there's
>no OSHA, no EPA, no Social Security tax, and you can hire good
>workers for $2 an hour instead of $20 an hour in the states.
>
> Seven years after NAFTA, there are 4000 fresh factories, most of
>them U.S. owned, in Mexico; and Mexico exports ten times as many
>cars to the United States as we export to Mexico. What NAFTA was
>really all about was letting GM and Ford say adios to the USA. And
>the stock prices of auto companies and the stock options of auto
>executives prove it was an excellent investment. But, ask the
>autoworkers of Michigan, now tending bar in Flint, how NAFTA worked
>for their families.
>
> How is it that U.S. missile technology is transferred to Beijing to
>improve its Long March rockets? One way is Bernard Schwartz's way.
>Over six years, this CEO of Loral Space gave $1.3 million to the
>Democratic National Committee: its No. 1 contributor in 1997. In
>return, Bill Clinton gave Loral a waiver, to let China launch its
>satellites, even though the FBI was investigating whether Loral had
>already provided criminal assistance to Beijing's ballistic missile
>program.
>
> The GOP denounced this as tantamount to treason, but, today, the
>GOP is itself trolling Silicon Valley for cash by promising a even
>more pro-China trade policy than Clinton, as China threatens Taiwan
>with war and the United States with missile attack. The Party of
>Ronald Reagan is dead; its successor is little more than the bellhop
>stand of the Business Roundtable.
>
> Mark Hanna, William McKinley's campaign manager, once said, "There
>are two important things in politics. The first is the money and I
>can't remember the second." Al Gore is proof of Hanna's Law. Caught
>in a White House shakedown of corporate executives, Al's defense
>was: "No controlling legal authority" said he could not do it.
>Perhaps not, but where was his conscience? Where was his respect for
>the White House, this temple of our Republic, when he and Mr.
>Clinton turned it into a boiler room for the DNC?
>
> But Al Gore is not alone at fault. Did you hear George Bush in
>those debates say that he could not support Senator McCain's
>campaign finance reform because "it would hurt the Republican
> Party?" Phil Gramm says McCain's "views on campaign finance reform
>would make the [Republican Party] the minority party for 25 years."
>Another good argument for reform.
>
> A few weeks ago, Mr. Bush told Tim Russert of NBC, "I am for
>banning soft money." Since then he volunteered his Pioneers to help
>raise $175 million for the RNC. Al Gore is no different. The day
>after calling for a soft-money ceasefire, he launched a program to
>enable the Democrats to match the GOP dollar for dollar.
>
> But there is hope - because the iron is hot and both parties know
>it. Both are aware that there is an independent movement to clean
>up, or clean out, Washington. The 19 million who voted for Ross
>Perot in 1992; the economic patriots, union members, and
>environmental-ists who rallied at Seattle; the millions who rattled
>the Republican establishment this year - they're not going away.
>
> Because the Beltway parties are chemically dependent on soft money,
>they can't change the system. But we can. We are free, as the other
>candidates are not because we are outside the system. We get no soft
>money, we take no PAC money. Let me repeat that: We get no soft
>money; we take no PAC money.
>
> So let me propose today a broad plan to reform our politics and to
>return power to its rightful owners - the American people. First,
>let us adopt three principles to guide any reform: 1) All
>contributions to campaigns shall be voluntary. 2) All contributions
>shall come from citizens and voters, not corporations or unions. 3)
>All contributions must be disclosed 48 hours after their receipt.
>
> Second, all members of the House and Senate should have to raise
>50% of all campaign funds from their home states or districts. Let
>us put an end to the buying of House and Senate seats by Wall
>Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.
>
> Third, the First Amendment right of advocacy must not be abridged.
>Any group willing to disclose its affiliation, be it the Sierra Club
>or National Right to Life, must remain free to argue its case at the
>bar of public opinion.
>
> Fourth, to enable little known and Third Party candidates to make
>their case, we should increase the individual contribution limit of
>$1000 set in 1974 to $3000, and index it for inflation.
>
> But we will not break the stranglehold of the Beltway parties until
>we break up the incumbent protection racket. Republicans swept
>Congress in 1994 on a pledge to pass term limits. After their
>victory, House Majority Leader Dick Armey was quoted, "Now that we
>have elected a Republican House, maybe there is no more need for
>term limits."
>
> Well, now that we have watched Congress in action, we need term
>limits, now more than ever. Seventy percent of the American people
>support term limits, and it's time Congress passed a law to give the
>states the power to impose them, and wrote into that law a
>restriction on the Supreme Court's right of review, so we don't
>again have Justices serving for life rescuing the jobs of
>Congressmen who aspire to serve for life. Lifetime tenure is for
>Harvard professors, not members of Congress.
>
> But even before term limits are imposed, let us remove one of the
>great incentives to stay forever on Capitol Hill, by terminating
>congressional pensions and letting members set up their own 401Ks.
>When Newt Gingrich left Congress, he walked away with a vested
>pension worth $4 million. Anyone here think that is proper
>compensation for Newt's service?
>
> When I was considering leaving the GOP to join the Reform Party, I
>began to study the ballot requirements. I learned that a Democrat or
>Republican running for President needs 50-60,000 signatures,
>nationwide, to secure ballot access. An independent needs over a
>million. In Georgia, the hurdles are so high no independent
>congressional candidate has qualified since the ballot access law
>went into effect. In New York, the Pataki-Al D'Amato machine nearly
>succeeded in keeping John McCain off the ballot. If they can do that
>to McCain, imagine the odds against a candidate, running without a
>media spotlight, a big bankroll, or the establishment's blessing.
>
> The Democrats and Republicans have put the fix in for permanent
>control of the White House. What is Microsoft's monopoly, compared
>to our political duopoly's control of the Presidency and Congress of
>the greatest nation on earth?
>
> The laws governing ballot access are set by state legislatures
>controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Neither has an interest in
>opening up the process to competition; both have a vested interest
>in the political lockout. A bill to correct these anti-democratic
>laws was introduced in Congress in 1985. While twice voted down, it
>has been reintroduced by Rep. Ron Paul. For all federal elections,
>it would set uniform federal standards for obtaining and qualifying
>signatures. It deserves swift passage.
>
> Friends, look at what the bipartisan collusion is doing to engender
>a crisis of faith in our democracy. In December, Harvard's Vanishing
>Voter Project found that only 23% of Americans agree that our
>two-party system really works; half the country wants the option of
>a third-party candidate. A recent study by the FEC ranked the U.S.
>52nd out of 58 countries in voter turnout.
>
> But in 1998, when national participation dropped to just 36%, a
>record 60% turned out to vote in Minnesota. What made the
>difference? Third-party candidate Jesse Ventura was included in
>televised debates in a state that had Same Day voter registration.
>
> Both establishment parties oppose national Same Day voter
>registration, because they can't pre-select "prime voters" to target
>with direct mail and scripted phone calls. And they are terrified of
>Third Party candidates in the national debates, seen by 70 million
>Americans, because they remember that Ross Perot's 7% before the
>debates in 1992 shot to 19% after the debates.
>
> We are going to do battle in a court of law, and the court of
>public opinion to be included in those Bush-Gore debates, because
>the American people have a right to hear a Reform Party candidate
>whose campaign they are paying for with their tax dollars. Our
>presence in those debates will unclot a system in which the elites
>of both parties have conspired to place the most critical issues -
>war or peace, patriotism versus globalism - beyond the reach of the
>electorate.
>
> My friends, we need a realignment of American politics. Let one
>party support globalism, free trade and a New World Order where
>nations are no longer sovereign. But let the other party be populist
>and traditionalist, dedicated to an economic patriotism that puts
>American workers and farmers ahead of any Global Economy, and to an
>America First foreign policy that keeps our soldiers, sailors and
>airmen out of wars and crusades that are not the business of the
>United States. We are going to be that party.
>
> The capstone of a comprehensive plan for political reform is a
>national initiative and referenda. In 1604, the British Parliament
>declared to James I, "The voice of the people, in the things of
>their knowledge, is as the voice of God." Twenty-four states give
>voters the right of initiative and referendum, and we've seen it
>exercised successfully where the popular will was blocked by
>legislative gridlock or judicial activism. In California, voters
>have over-ruled legislatures to cut property taxes, abolish quotas,
>and insure that all schoolchildren learn the English language.
>
> Elitists argue that the popular initiative and referenda violate
>the principles of republicanism. But as Madison wrote,
>
>
>As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, it seems
>strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same
>original authority whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish
>or new-model the power of government.
> The day to "new-model the power of government" has come. While
>public cynicism runs high, so, too, does the will to reform.
>Citizens held hostage by the two parties, in unholy matrimony with
>the special interests, want more than just campaign finance reform.
>They want more than two establishment candidates offering reform
>rhetoric at the instigation of focus groups. They want authentic
>reform. Put another way, they want their country back. And we're
>here to give it to them. Join us, and make it happen.
>
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
Deja.com> writes
>Cold War's CIA was seriously involved in film, literature, art
Here's a tiny glimpse of a small portion of one of the less
controversial areas of American "intelligence-service" activity as it
was proceeding thirty to forty years ago - but don't go away, I shall
try to fill in some of the huge blank which remains.
>
>Saturday, March 18, 2000
>By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
>THE NEW YORK TIMES
>
>Many people remember reading George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in high
>school or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm
>animals looked back and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the human
>farmers but found it "impossible to say which was which."
>
>That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed
>the humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of
>Hollywood butchering great literature? Yes, but in this case the
>film's secret producer was the Central Intelligence Agency.
>
>The CIA, it seems, was worried that the public might be too
>influenced by Orwell's pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the
>capitalist humans and communist pigs. So after Orwell's death in
>1950, agents were dispatched (by none other than E. Howard Hunt,
>later of Watergate fame) to buy the film rights to "Animal Farm"
>from his widow to make the story's message more overtly
>anti-communist.
>
>Rewriting the end of "Animal Farm" is just one example of the often
>absurd lengths to which the CIA went, as recounted in a new book,
>"The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters"
>(The New Press), by British journalist Frances Stonor Saunders.
>Published in Britain last summer, the book will appear in the United
>States next month.
>
It is hard to evaluate Saunders' work at the remove of Zuckerman's
article, especially if one does not know that the senior staff of the
New York Times are members, to a man, of the Council on Foreign
Relations - all except for its chief "book-critic", Richard Bernstein,
who is a member of the CFR's select praesidium, the Bilderberg Group.
The CFR and Bilderberg are opaque, quasi-governmental, politico-
industrial think-tanks whose aim is to recruit the world's most
influential people and form them into a world government. Most of the
west's leading politicians, financiers, industrialists, media moguls and
media-manipulators ALREADY belong to these groups, which, furthermore,
are closely linked to western intelligence-services, especially to
American and British ones, whose "Cold War", in pursuit of world-
domination, continues today more energetically, and ruthlessly, than
ever before.
It is not surprising, therefore, that someone like Zuckerman should have
been asked to examine Saunders' book, about media-manipulation by the
CIA, and to prepare the American public for it. The difficulty comes in
discerning whether Zuckerman's article is an exercise in damage-
limitation or promotion. Anything really damaging to the CIA and its CFR
controllers would either never be published ANYWHERE, or, if published
by some small rebel press, would never be mentioned in any major media
organ; but some marginally damaging material may be allowed to slip
through the net, lest the media-control mechanism become too obvious. I
think (without having seen "The Cultural Cold War", I should stress)
that this is what we are dealing with here.
>Much of what Saunders writes about, including the CIA's covert
>sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the
>British opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960s.
>But by combing through archives and unpublished manuscripts and
>interviewing several of the principal actors, Saunders has uncovered
>many new details and gives the most comprehensive account yet of the
>period between 1947 and 1967.
>
"Don't expect anything fundamentally new", says Zuckerman, "Saunders
just gives lots and lots of details about things everyone knows
already". This may be a good sign. He seems to want his readership to
be informed about the book without any but a specialist, already
disaffected, few rushing out to buy it - so it may be quite hard-hitting
after all.
>This picture of the CIA's secret war of ideas includes cameo
>appearances by scores of intellectual celebrities like critic Lionel
>Trilling, poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and novelists James
>Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly
>benefited from the CIA's largesse. There are also bundles of cash
>funneled through CIA fronts and several hilarious schemes that sound
>more like a "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon than a historical account.
>
This too is quite encouraging. Zuckerman drops names which are well-
known only in very limited circles and then proceeds to be flippant.
Note that apologists, for current NSA-espionage in Europe, who seem to
have been caught with trousers at half-mast, adopted flippancy as their
emergency response.
>Traveling first class all the way, the CIA and its counterparts in
>other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions,
>intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their
>larger anti-Soviet agenda.
>
>Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at
>Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were directed not to
>publish articles directly critical of Washington's foreign policy.
>She shows how the CIA bankrolled some of the earliest exhibits of
>Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to
>counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.
>
>In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the
>distribution of 50,000 copies of "Darkness at Noon," Arthur
>Koestler's anti-communist classic. But at the same time, the French
>Communist Party ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the
>book. Koestler received a windfall in royalties courtesy of his
>communist adversaries.
>
On the other hand, it may be that "The Cultural Cold War" is itself a
"limited hangout", designed to conceal the mass of the iceberg, as it
were, by describing its tip as nothing more than a surface floe.
Zuckerman implies, by mentioning the PCF's book-buying campaign, that
"both sides were into media-manipulation IN THOSE DAYS". I wonder how
easy Saunders has made it, for him, to say this. Of course, it is one
thing for a voluntary, private association, such as the Partie
Communiste de France, to urge its members to buy out an edition of a
book, and quite another for a government organisation, such as the
British Foreign Office, to subsidise propaganda, covertly, with tax-
payers money. Again, it is hard to tell whether this crucial
distinction was lost on Mr. Zuckerman - or on Ms Saunders - or whether
he (or both of them) merely expect it to be lost on the reader.
>As it turns out, "Animal Farm" was not the CIA's only dabbling in
>Hollywood. Saunders reports that one operative who was a producer
>and talent agent slipped affluent-looking black Americans into
>several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the
>American race problem.
>
"One operative"! "Trying to counter criticism of the race problem"!
Zuckerman (or Zuckerman and Saunders) tells us this, when the detailed
engineering of a didactic Hollywood - far beyond the "statutory black"
in almost EVERY movie - has been lamentably obvious for decades. The
question remains, though: "who is doing the 'limited hangout', the
critic or both the critic AND the author?"
>The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of Orwell's
>"1984," disregarding the author's specific instructions that the
>story not be altered. In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith,
>is entirely defeated by the nightmarish totalitarian regime. At the
>end, Orwell writes, Winston realized that "he loved Big Brother." In
>the movie, Winston and his lover, Julia, are gunned down after
>Winston defiantly shouts: "Down with Big Brother!"
>
I wonder whether revealing the institutional identity of those
responsible for the skewing of the film-versions of "Animal Farm" and
"1984" will have much impact on those who have never read the books. I
doubt it - so, evidently does Zuckerman (or he wouldn't mention it) -
but how does Saunders treat the remarkable insight these perversions
give into the thinking of the media-manipulators?
>Such changes came from the agency's obsession with snuffing out a
>notion then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and
>West were morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the
>differences between the two systems by taking the high road, the
>agency justified its covert activities by referring to the unethical
>tactics of the Soviets.
>
Of course, there was a high road the CIA could have taken - there is,
more than ever, a high road which the CFR and Bilderberg could take NOW
- towards equable and fair international relations, but they preferred,
then, as now, to pursue a policy of covert manipulation, of lies,
assassinations, terrorism and dealing arms-for-drugs, of which their
control of the media - although vital to the success of their schemes -
is only the surface layer.
>"If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local
>rather than Soviet supported or stimulated, then we ought to be able
>to use ideas camouflaged as local ideas," said Tom Braden, who ran
>the CIA's covert cultural division in the early 1950s.
The "Soviet" or "communist" threat, as we now know, was exaggerated ten-
fold by the agencies and their controllers, in order to justify their
campaign of global expansion. Now that the USSR is no more - and to the
amazement of all, including me, who believed the propaganda of the
Reagan/Bush era - the "Cold War" goes on! Not just against Russia, but
against any state in the world which fails to comply, at once and
completely, with Washington's instructions.
The "camouflaged local ideas" to which Braden refers, are press-stories
seeded initially in compliant, foreign News Agencies, so that they could
be picked up by the American press. This method (like the partly
foreigner-operated, NSA spy-system, Echelon) has been used for decades
by American secret-services to circumvent stern provisions, in the
American Constitution, against control of the press and spying on
Americans, by the American government. These methods are becoming less
and less necessary, however, as the CFR and Bilderberg, and their ever
expanding daughter organisations, assume effective control of the media
AND the Constitutional apparatus in the USA and Europe and beyond.
> (In one of
>the book's many surprising codas, Braden goes on in the 1980s to
>become the leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program
>"Crossfire.")
>
A mention of P.J.Buchanan - Reform Party candidate for the Presidency
next November - may well be the real reason that Zuckerman's article was
written and published at all. Buchanan is standing as an overtly anti-
CFR, anti-Bilderberg, nationalist candidate, the first serious contender
for the Presidential Office ever to speak out so clearly against
globalism and law-of-the-jungle free-trade.
I think Zuckerman's intention here is to shock the New York Times'
predominantly "liberal" readership (which has always been suspicious of
the CIA) by depicting Buchanan as being "to the Right" of the
unscrupulous, CIA media-manipulator, Tom Braden.
The first real line of defence taken up by protagonists of the CFR
(flippancy being just an emergency ruse) is to accuse its opponents of
political extremism: Milosevic, for example, is a "Left-Wing
extremist", in their propaganda, and Buchanan, of course, will be a
"Right-Wing extremist".
Already (before most Americans are even aware of Buchanan's
Presidential candidacy - thanks to a concerted media blackout on that
specific point) articles are appearing, in minor organs, accusing him of
being "soft-on-Hitler" and "anti-Semitic". Zuckerman's quiet little
nod-and-a-wink, just here, is undoubtedly part of this campaign: when
Buchanan's candidacy can no longer be blacked out, of course, the major
organs will proceed to blacken his name with every smear they can
devise.
>An odd alliance was struck between the CIA leaders, most of them
>wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic
>Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-communists who had broken
>with Moscow to become virulently anti-communist.
>
As with the CIA, itself, the anti-communist stance adopted by its
affiliates was more apparent than real. Their object was, and is, to
emasculate nations, in general, by destroying nationalist governments of
left and right, almost indiscriminately, in order to extend the power of
the American (and increasingly Euro-American) plutocracy, as centred in
the CFR and Bilderberg.
The Jews, indeed, have been able to occasion all the major upsets in the
smooth, global expansion of this plutocracy by insisting that Israeli
nationalism be exempt from it, because organised Jewry is very well-
represented and highly-placed in the CFR and Bilderberg. Indeed, the CFR
and Bilderberg are arguably half-Jewish creations, at least, because
although much of their funding comes from the Rockefellers and
institutions with Nazi-connections, such as IG-Farben and the Ford
Foundation, most of the rest comes from the Rothschildts, the Warburgs,
the Lehmanns, the Morgans and the Bronfmanns, to name but a few.
A very similar consortium was the financial mainstay of Hitler's NSDAP
(Nazi Party) before the war, and received Nazi funds, towards the end of
the war, to prepare "for a post-war commercial campaign" (as Rodney
Atkinson puts it, in "Europe's Full Circle", Computaprint Publishing,
1996) "in other words, the very kind of political-industrial planning,
which this book describes as corporatist" (P87) A great deal of
"holocaust propaganda" is intended, I feel sure, to cover up this unholy
Judaeo-Nazi alliance; but I digress.
>The CIA recognized from the beginning that it could not openly
>sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so
>much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo
>intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a
>non-communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with
>Moscow.
>
True enough, except that, here again, "the Soviet orbit" is an
understatement of the forces to which the CIA saw itself as opposed.
Part of this campaign (to boost social democrats and democratic
socialists) consisted of funding neo-Nazi and militant leftist
terrorists, especially in Italy, France and Germany, to cast discredit
on Right, and Left, wherever Right or Left was nationalist in character,
and to chivvy voters towards a "safe" centre composed of politicians
favourable to a federal Europe.
Atkinson, in "Europe's Full Circle" (i.e "coming full circle on to the
track of the Third Reich"!) sees this as essentially a Nazi plan to
create the Europaeische Ekonomische Gesellschaft (European Economic
Community) foreseen, in detail, by Hitler, and which, as Atkinson
convincingly shows, resembles the federal Europe taking shape today,
very closely indeed. Atkinson, however, ignores the powerful Jewish
influence which was exerted both to the benefit of the NSDAP, in the
30's and early 40's, and to the benefit of the CFR and Bilderberg, as
these two sinister bodies continued the struggle to create an EEC, after
Hitler's Germany was defeated.
Nevertheless, Atkinson's view is supported, by the fact that the CIA -
or Office of Strategic Studies (OSS) as it then was - took over and
reconstituted, almost in their entirety, the German Nazi, Italian
Fascist and Vichy collaborationist civil and secret services and
spirited away top Nazis and Fascists (who would otherwise have stood
trial as war-criminals) to safe haven in the Americas, including the
USA, itself.
Especially striking, in this regard, were the words of the US Ambassador
to Rome, Graham Martin, who was entrusted, by Henry Kissinger (a founder
member and continuing doyen of Bilderberg) on behalf of the White House,
in the 1970's, with disbursing funds to the Hyperion Language School, in
Paris (a control centre for Italian leftist terrorist groups) and to the
Propaganda Due (P2) "Masonic" Lodge, in Rome, which further distributed
funds to various neo-Fascist terror groups: Martin said (according to
the proceedings of the Congressional Committee on Terrorism, headed by
Senator John Pike) that he regarded the funds which were directed,
specifically to the neo-Fascists, as "a long-term investment"! (Pike
Report, pgs 16 and 194 et seq)
Atkinson's view of the EEC/EU as a Nazi plot to promote the domination
of Europe, by Germany, seems to be further supported by the fact that
Germany, as the EEC's largest economy - and now home to the European
Central Bank - is bound to dominate a federal Europe; but it raises the
question, why should a group of super-rich Americans, many of them
Jewish, have any interest in creating a fourth German Reich?
In truth, I don't think they have. I think the answer to this puzzle is
expressed very well by Andreas von Buelow, a former German cabinet-
minister and a long-serving member of the Bundestag's committee for
overseeing the German secret services, in his book, "Im Namen des
Staates: CIA, BND und die kriminellen Machenschaften der Gehemdienste"
("In the Name of the State: Central Intelligence Agency,
Bundesnachrichtendienst [German secret service] and the criminal
activities of secret services in general") Piper Verlag, Munich,1998.
Von Buelow points, amid a wealth of practical evidence of the CIA's
long-term, and continuing, support for terrorism, all over the world, to
a book by Zbigniew Brzezhinski: "The Sole Super-Power, America's
Strategy for Dominance", in which the author, the founder of the
Trilateral Commission - a group almost as influential as Bilderberg in
promoting "globalism" - describes how the USA will ensure that its
leadership of the world remains unchallenged. Brzezhinski makes it
quite clear that the superstates (one American, one European, one Asian
- hence "Trilateral") which are being set up under our very noses, are
intended to contain and emasculate nations which might otherwise
challenge American dominance, by lumping them together into unwieldy
federations where internal consensus - and, therefore, concerted
external action - will be impossible.
The exception to this will be the American superstate (currently
developing in the form of NAFTA) which will be so dominated by
Washington that it will not inhibit the globalist clique's freedom of
external action, at all.
This makes sense to me, as an explanation of what is going on, and has
been going on, at least since WWII, and probably long before it; and,
coming from no less an authority than one of the chief theorists and
architects of the Globalist movement, Brzezhinski himself, it is
impossible to dismiss out of hand.
>Saunders describes how the CIA cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions
>of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities,
>funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real
>ones such as the Ford Foundation.
>
>"We couldn't spend it all," Gilbert Greenway, a former CIA agent,
>recalled. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it.
>It was amazing."
>
>When some of the CIA's activities were exposed in the late 1960s,
>many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Saunders makes
>a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah
>Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter,
>knew about the CIA's role.
>
- something about the CIA's role, that is. As a sponsor of global
terrorism, using thousands of ideologically-camouflaged, surrogate,
covert armies (mostly financed by dealing in arms-for-drugs) and a vast
network of accomplices in organised crime and in political and judicial
office, extending to the White House itself, the US "intelligence"
services were, indeed, unrivalled in the world, in the 60's, and are
even more so today.
While inducement of various kinds is exerted, on politicians and
financiers, through the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg
Group and the Trilateral Commission, the secret services apply
persuasion of a bloodier sort by exacerbating ethnic tensions,
engineering provocations and staging atrocities. The purpose envisaged
is the same: a US-world hegemony, seamless and unchallenged, from pole
to pole.
>) 2000 The New York Times.
>
This hegemony is to be established, not for the benefit of the people of
the world, nor, indeed, for the benefit of the people of the USA, who
will become as much the serfs of the global elite as everyone else, but
for the benefit of those who are not only extremely rich, but have
allied themselves with the scheme to establish this hegemony, and are
even now beating down national boundaries, capturing the governments of
"media-democracies" and autocracies alike, absorbing indigenous
industry, shaking loose and absorbing state-assets and consolidating
global business into a mere few thousand companies.
This is what Ms Saunders does not tell you, and Mr. Zuckermann does not
want you to find out; but it is what P.J. Buchanan is liable to say if
the Bilderberg oligarchs fail to prevent him from speaking, in
nationally televised debates, during the end of the century Presidential
Election Campaign in the United States of America!
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
We need a millennial revolution (40 weeks to go to the end of the 2nd
Millennium!) I hope to god we can obtain it through the ballot-box!
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
Deja.com> writes
>How the CIA promoted the Post-Modern
>
>July 1, 1999
>The Times
>(Books)
>http://www.the-times.co.uk/
>
>When war grew cold, it was cultural conflict that
>took the heat, Malcolm Bradbury finds
>
>
>WHO PAID THE PIPER? THE CIA
>AND THE CULTURAL COLD WAR
>
>By Frances Stonor Saunders
>Granta, #20
>ISBN 1 86207 029 6
>
>
>This is the fascinating story of the vast postwar Kulturkampf, the
>Cold War conflict over cultural values and ideologies amid which
>several literary and cultural generations grew up. It pulled in
>books and magazines, congresses and concerts, artists and writers,
>political visions of economic growth and social progress. And it
>dawned when the United States, the one outright victor from the
>Second World War, suddenly found itself a superpower, found it had
>somehow entered history.
>
>Needing a culture to match, it stared over the wire at Russia
>(which had pursued intellectual politics ever since Catherine the
>Great) and sought worldwide intellectual admiration and support. As
>the Cold War froze and ideologies divided, the US Government
>poured huge resources into a cultural propaganda campaign. It was
>covert. As Saunders explains: "A central feature of this programme
>was to advance the claim it did not exist." Yet there was nothing
>covert about the overall enterprise: the decision to revive
>flattened Europe and develop
and manipulate media-
> democratic institutions through the
>massive programme of aid, economic, political, cultural, which has
>shaped it to this day and explains its current federalism and its
>Americanised shopping-mall culture.
>
>So came the Marshall Plan, the "Special Relationship", the Atlantic
>Alliance, the denazification
(and covert re-nazification)
> strategy in Germany and
>Austria, the long-term presence of American troops and bases.
>There was also the Fulbright Program, the US Information Agency, the
>Amerikahausen all over Germany, promoting jazz, movies and
>Saul Bellow, and the growth of an academic subject that was new
>even to Americans: American Studies.
>
>The programme was aided by the defection of many Western
>intellectuals who had been red in the Thirties. Alienation began
>with the Spanish Civil War and the Nazi-Soviet Pact; by the late
>1940s Marxism was the God That Had Failed. In cultural warfare
>America seemed at first to have small resources. "What is America
>but millionaires, beauty queens, gramophone music and Hollywood?"
>asked Adolf Hitler. Many European intellectuals felt a similar
>cultural distaste for the land of chewing gum and Mickey Mouse.
>
Still do
>Hence the Kulturkampf, which Saunders traces back to Berlin in the
>time of denazification, and to three key figures. There were
>Michael Josselin and Nicholas Nabokov, Vladimir's musician cousin,
>both emigres, now with the American Military Command and working on
>denazification and cultural policy in the Psychological Warfare
>Division. When another soldier, Melvin Lasky, urged an American
>government policy designed to win over the often passionately
>anti-American European intelligentsia, establishing the magazine
>Monat, the culture war began.
>
>In 1947 the Central Intelligence Agency was founded: in its early
>days it resembled the clubby, patrician, pipe-smoking, senior
>common room spirit of the wartime intelligence community. It had
>excellent contacts with the NCL (Non-Communist Left), the "new
>liberals", and the emigres who, having fled the Europe of Hitler and
>Stalin, had become a powerful force in the United States.
>
It also made excellent contacts with ex-Nazis, ex-Fascists, ex Nazi-
collaborators and mafiosi and handed over the real power in Europe to
them. Their successors are still at work in the military, the police,
the civil and secret services and in government and they continue to
control the drift towards a US-vassal, European federation, while
social-democratic governments succeed democratic socialist governments,
and vice-versa, in a never-ending, media-dominated, meaningless Punch
and Judy show!
>This book shows in splendid detail how CIA policy went everywhere.
>Awash with funds, the CIA turned into the covert Maecenas, the new
>crypto-patron of an age when the old private patrons had
>disappeared. Artists, writers, intellectuals, seminars, concerts,
>magazines, were now supported by "foundations". It was the age of
>While You're Up, Get Me a Grant. Scholarships, travel grants and
>exchange schemes shipped European intellectuals across the
>Atlantic for their graduate education.
>
>Meanwhile, American writers, plays, books, concerts and art
>exhibitions came in profusion to Europe. One key instrument was
>the Congress for Cultural Freedom, administered by a band of
>leading European intellectuals. It circulated ideas, ran
>congresses, aided magazines. In Britain, it published Encounter,
>which was, quite simply, the leading intellectual and cultural
>review of the day, and indispensable. By various labyrinthine
>means, the Congress and much else had CIA funding.
>
>The charge is that organisations celebrating "cultural freedom" were
>steered by America's arm of espionage, that writers who were
>attacking the trahison des clercs were themselves traitors, that a
>systematic attempt was made to intrude on intellectual
>independence. The injection of money into American intellectual
>reviews by the Ford Foundation and much else is now traceable to the
>CIA.
>
>In 1967 the edifice effectively collapsed. The Camelot Court mood,
>where American intellectuals had rallied to Kennedy, had gone. The
>Vietnam War brought massive protest, the intelligentsia was
>increasingly at odds with government and nation. When Ramparts
>magazine blew the story, it opened an era of intellectual guilt
>and embarrassment, a new kind of anti-American distrust and
>resentment, and a suspicion of much in modern intellectual life.
>
>As Saunders says, much of Western intellectual life, and many
>individual figures, were compromised. Yet the situation was, as
>she notes, filled with strange ironies. Saunders asks who paid the
>piper? But how does the piper call the tune, if you don't know who
>the piper really is?
>
He who pays the piper AND calls the tune does not have to reveal his
identity!
>Many intellectuals and artists went to America on the Fulbright
>Program, contributed to the lively and intelligent literary
>magazines, attended conferences, concerts, exhibitions sponsored by
>the many unusual foundations.
>
>In many cases, it is quite possible to argue that the CIA
>innocently
I would dispute that. Camouflaged infiltration is all part of the game -
capture ALL the markets and you can slant even the anti-American ones in
your favour.
> financed much radical, indeed anti-American, opinion, as
>well as a whole new experimental era of the arts. For writers, John
>Updike's "Bech" books best capture the atmosphere: the radical,
>unreliable American writer wanders a divided Europe on
>cultural tours, a CIA spook on one side, a Communist Party
>apparatchik on the other, looking for truth, love, literature,
>decency, the smell of independence and freedom, and maybe just a
>little irony.
>
>Another irony is more obvious. American spooks could have had
>little idea of the strength of the culture they were out to
>promote. Yet they were sponsoring an American Risorgimento. This was
>the great age of American writing, music and art the age of
>Arthur Miller, Saul Bellow, John Updike, Norman Mailer, Aaron
>Copland, Leonard BernsteinJasper Johns. The culture was worth
>selling, and it was not innocent: subversive, self-critical,
>ironic, ambiguous, it caught the uneasy corruption rather than the
>innocent wonder of the American age. The CIA were, so to speak,
>the promoters of Post-Modernism, the inventors of a new culture.
>
Yes, the liberalisation process was part of the attack on social
cohesion and national sovereignty of which federalism is the expected
result. This attack is continuing more fiercely today than ever.
>The last irony is grimmer. What began as part of a high cultural
>Americanisation of Europe turned into the commercial globalisation
>of Europe, and the larger world. America Americanised itself as a
>vast franchise or global corporation, to which all Europe became
>party. The oddest truth is that the age of cultural and
>counter-cultural politics was one when literature was serious,
>tense, politically charged, morally dangerous, and mattered. Now it
>doesn't; we live in the age of the logo and the corporate
>sponsor.
>
The primrose path to the everlasting bonfire!
>How compromised was postwar American and European culture?
>Certainly there were those who enjoyed walking in the shadows with
>the devil while they seemed to be walking in the sun. There were the
>amazingly innocent and the bitterly deceived. Saunders's book
>overestimates the degree of compliance and conformism, and often
>suspects motives that were not impure. Throughout, America
>continued to be an intensely self-critical society, challenging
>its own conformities, dismayed by its own lonely crowds. Those who
>worked with government agencies often passionately challenged
>McCarthyism and defended liberals. Yet Saunders is right. This
>really is a crucial story, about the dangerous, compromising
>energies and manipulation of an entire and a very recent age.
>
And it's far from over.
>Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
>
>
Not much more inspiring than the New York Times, I'm afraid.
Steve Reed
Buchanan Files Debate Complaint
By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 20, 2000; 1:01 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON -- The Reform Party and Patrick Buchanan are demanding to
be included in the presidential debates, saying the major political
parties are conspiring to rob the third party of any chance to win
the White House.
"Our political opponents are the ones deciding our fate," Buchanan
said today after filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission.
"It is, if you will, a conspiracy by the two parties to keep third
parties out of the presidential debates and therefore to maintain a
hammerlock on the presidency of the United States," he added.
"Without the debates, there really is no chance, I believe, that the
Reform Party can win the presidency of the United States, and that
is grossly unjust."
In the complaint, Buchanan and the Reform Party take issue with a
ruling by the Commission on Presidential Debates that only
candidates with 15 percent standing in five national public opinion
surveys may participate in the events. Currently, Buchanan, who has
not yet won the Reform Party nomination, stands in the single
digits.
Buchanan and Reform Party Chairman Pat Choate said the threshold is
arbitrary and skewed by the major party memberships of the
commission leaders.
"There's not a single member of the Reform Party on the commission
itself," Buchanan said.
The sample sizes and questions asked in the polls vary from news
outlet to news outlet, none of which are "hotbeds of Buchananism,"
he said.
"We think that perhaps they are not objective institutions to be
deciding whether or not I ought to be in a presidential debate," he
added.
Additionally, Buchanan said, such rules would do a disservice to the
electorate by excluding his views on such issues as immigration and
trade.
"My views, our views, Reform Party views, the views of millions, the
majority in some cases, a significant minority in others, won't get
heard in the presidential election if we're denied access to that
debate, and fairness demands it," Buchanan said.
The FEC has 90 days to respond.
---
On the Net: Reform Party site: http://www.reformparty.org
Buchanan site: http://www.buchananreform.com
Debate commission site: http://www.debates.org
FEC site: http://www.fec.gov
) Copyright 2000 The Associated Press
Buchanan fights for inclusion in presidential debates
Monday, 20 March 2000 19:31 (ET)
By LOU MARANO
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Promising to go the legal route "for the
time being," Reform Party presidential candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan,
filed
a formal complaint against the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
Buchanan told reporters at the Marriott Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue
that
the criteria set by the Commission on Presidential Debates is arbitrary,
unfair, unjust and un-American.
The criteria for participating in presidential debates discriminate
against third parties, Buchanan said, and represent "an illegal
corporate
contribution to the Republican and Democrat Parties."
Buchanan said the commission is not nonpartisan, as it describes
itself,
but bipartisan.
"It is a 'Republicrat' commission," he said, "with no one else
represented."
He charged "a conspiracy by the two parties to keep third parties out
of
presidential debates and, therefore, to maintain a hammerlock on the
presidency of the United States."
The commission, formed in 1987, announced in January new criteria
requiring candidates to have an average of at least 15 percent support
in
five national opinion polls one week before the first debate in order to
participate.
Buchanan named ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington
Post
as major polling organizations.
"These institutions are not hotbeds of Buchananism," he said, "so we
think
perhaps they are not objective institutions to be deciding whether or
not I
should be a presidential candidate. And the press institutions
themselves
ought not to be making these calls."
The Reform Party hopeful alluded to margins of error of between 3
percent
to 5 percent, of samples of varying sizes, and of inconsistent questions
asked.
"Moreover, the polls ask the wrong question," Buchanan said. The proper
question before the debates is not, "Who do you want as president?"
That's
the question to ask after the debates, he said. The proper question is:
"Do
you believe the Reform Party candidate, Patrick Buchanan, should
participate
in the debates, which will determine who will be next president of the
United States?"
Buchanan accused the debate commission of setting aside the
congressional
threshold of 5 percent to receive public funding and replacing it with
its
own "subjective" threshold.
"Who decides?" Buchanan asked. The commission's co-chairmen, former
Democratic chairman Paul Kirk and former Republican chairman Frank
Fahrenkopf, have been "co-chairs for life," he said, noting that
Fahrenkopf
is also a lobbyist for Las Vegas gambling interests.
The committee is financed by Fortune 500 companies, transnational
companies and business round table companies "that I have been
mentioning
quite prominently and not altogether favorably in my campaign," Buchanan
said.
In the year 2000, the United States is too diverse a country to be
represented by the political establishments ensconced here in
Washington,
Buchanan concluded.
--
Copyright 2000 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
--