Monthly Archives: May 2019

America´s Electoral College Prevents Mob rule And Keeps America A Republic.

download (5)

Preventing “The Tyranny of the Majority”

heritage.org

By Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.@EdFeulner

Founder:

Edwin J. Feulner is the founder and former president of The Heritage Foundation.

Key Points:

1. People often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic.

2. The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”

3. In short, the Founders were looking out for the people in “flyover country” long before there were airplanes to fly over them.

People often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic.

Big deal, you say? If you care about your rights, it is. The Founding Fathers knew their history well, so they knew better than to establish the U.S. as a democracy.

In a democracy, of course, the majority rules. That’s all well and good for the majority, but what about the minority? Don’t they have rights that deserve respect?

Of course they do. Which is why a democracy won’t cut it. As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

That led, most notably, to the bicameral structure of our legislative branch. We have a House of Representatives, where the number of members is greater for more populous states (which obviously favors those states), and the Senate, where every state from Rhode Island and Alaska to California and New York have exactly two representatives (which keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled).

Being a republic, we also don’t pick our president through a direct, majority-take-all vote. We have an Electoral College. And a lot of liberals don’t like that.

Their attacks on the College are nothing new, but the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 renewed their fury. After all, as they never tire of pointing out, Mrs. Clinton captured more of the popular vote than Donald Trump did. They see the Electoral College as an impediment to their political victories, therefore it’s got to go.

The latest attack comes via new lawsuits filed in federal courts in four states (Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas). “Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election.

I doubt Mr. Boies and his fellow attorneys are really ignorant of why we have an Electoral College. But it’s important that the rest of us know.

“The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers (the big cities), ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.”

Most people who watch the election returns know that a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes to win. That’s because there are 538 votes altogether. As the website for the National Archives notes, “Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.”

In short, the Founders were looking out for the people in “flyover country” long before there were airplanes to fly over them.

Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations?

The people in “flyover country” don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority.

And let’s face it — that’s often not a great place to be. As the Austrian political philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn dryly observed in his book “Leftism,” the crucifixion of Jesus was “a democratic event.”

What the wolves want matters, but so does what the sheep wants. The Electoral College ensures that no one winds up on the menu.

This piece originally appeared in The Washington Times

President Trump Suspends United Nations Treaty Of Open Skies Which Allowed Russia To Conduct Aerial Surveillance Of United States.

Tupolev-Tu-154-aircraft

Russian reconnaissance aircraft will fly over parts of the United States this week through Saturday as part of obligations for the Treaty on Open Skies, U.S. officials said. (REUTERS/Dmitry Petrochenko)

Open Skies Treaty

Fact Sheet:

BUREAU OF VERIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND IMPLEMENTATION

May 18, 2009
2009-2017.state.gov
U.S. Department Of State


Origin and Purpose

The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.

The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. Provisional application of portions of the Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002. During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the purpose of training mission crews and testing equipment and sensors. With entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August 2002. States Parties have conducted over 530 observation flights over each other’s territory.

Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.

Membership 

The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.

Basic Elements of the Treaty

Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including – land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.

Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or by the observed Party (the “taxi option”), at the latter’s choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Treaty standards. Certified Open Skies aircraft include:
Bulgaria An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130H & J (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340B
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30B
United States OC-135B

Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video, optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.

Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State Party may conduct as many observation flights – its active quota – as its passive quota. The Russian Federation and the United States each have an annual passive quota of 42, and other States Parties have a quota of 12 or fewer. The Parties negotiate the annual distribution of the active quotas each October for the following calendar year. Over 100 observation flights are conducted each year.

Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty quota system.

Implementation of the Treaty

In July 2008, under U.S. OSCC Chairmanship, States Parties commemorated the conduct of 500 observation flights since the Treaty entered into force.

The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC meets in three sessions per year, with monthly plenary meetings. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
consider questions relating to compliance with the Treaty;
seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation emerging during Treaty implementation;
consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty; and
review the distribution of active quotas annually.

The OSCC was established by Article X and Annex L of the Treaty, and has been in session since Treaty signature in March 1992. The OSCC takes decisions by consensus, and has adopted over 90 Decisions since its inception. OSCC Decisions enter into force with the Treaty and have the same duration as the Treaty.

State Department point of contact is Diana Marvin, 202-647-5357.

Note: This Treaty is not related to civil-aviation open skies agreements.

Why Russia Was Allowed to Fly a Surveillance Plane Over the Capitol and Pentagon.
Source: time.com

BY ARIC JENKINS 
AUGUST 11, 2017

With heightening concerns over conflict with North Korea and lingering allegations of Russian influence in the U.S. presidential election, you might think that the last thing Russia would do right now is fly a surveillance plane over Washington, D.C. But that’s exactly what it did Wednesday — and with clearance from the U.S. government.

The low-altitude aircraft flew over the Capitol building and the Pentagon with U.S. approval thanks to a long-standing global agreement called the Treaty on Open Skies, according to the Associated Press. The pact, which was signed and ratified by 34 nations including the U.S. and Russia in 1992, allows member countries to send unarmed observation flights over the territories of fellow members. It’s designed to promote transparency about military activity and hold participants accountable for diplomatic agreements.

But how did such a treaty come to exist in the first place?

Open Skies dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed the initiative between the U.S. and Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference in 1955.

The idea was similar: exchange maps revealing the location of every military installation in the respective countries, in turn allowing them to conduct aerial surveillance on each other in order to guarantee the fulfillment of established arms agreements. But while France and Britain (the other attendees of the summit as part of the “Big Four” nations) were open to the deal, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev rejected the treaty, labeling it as an “espionage plot.” The proposal sat dormant for years. All the while, tension between the U.S. and Soviet Union further escalated.

It wasn’t until 1989 that the concept of Open Skies was reintroduced by President George H.W. Bush as a means to build trust between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact countries. The latter alliance — formed in 1955 between the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites — ended up collapsing as the socialist state dissolved by 1991. Despite this period of geopolitical change, Bush was able to successfully negotiate the terms of the Open Skies treaty with the majority of the Warsaw Pact countries. On March 24, 1992, the treaty was signed in Helsinki, Finland.

Open Skies officially went into effect on Jan. 1, 2002. Since then, there have been more than 1,200 surveillance flights conducted by the member nations. But given recent foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, among other countries, will the Open Skies treaty continue in this current political comment?

“The Obama administration carefully assessed the risks and benefits of remaining in the treaty and judged with our European allies that it was in our best interests to stay,” said Lynn Rusten, a senior consultant at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

She added that the primary concern of Open Skies was the advancement of surveillance technology from film to digital cameras that are able to produce clearer images. But she said the U.S. permitted the upgrades because it felt it was worth the risk.

“It’s critical to maintain any mechanism to retain that confidence,” Rusten said. “It would do more harm than good to walk away from this treaty.”

But Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University and fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, cast doubt over the treaty’s future.

“The Russians have been so ready to roll back or disregard norms and treaties that they’ve got people in Congress, in the military, in the intelligence world asking, ‘Why pretend to trust each other?’” he said. “In that atmosphere, virtually any agreement can be challenged.

Russian FURY After Donald Trump Ends US Surveillance Treaty Sparking ‘ARMS RACE’ Fears.

PRESIDENT Trump has blocked funding for an international surveillance treaty designed to allow countries to monitor each other’s military strength, infuriating Russia and raising fears of a new arms race.

By JAMES BICKERTON

PUBLISHED: 02:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018 | UPDATED: 10:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018

express.co.uk

The measure was included in a $717 billion defence policy bill which Trump signed on Monday.

It ended US funding for the Treaty of Open Skies, an agreement between 34 states which will allow them to fly unarmed observation aircraft over each others territories.

The intention of the programme, which the UK has signed up to, is to allow countries to monitor each others militaries to deter secret buildups.

Senior Russian figures responded furiously to Trump’s decision.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Moscow Times: “This is an attempt to hide everything the Americans will be preparing in the course of a new arms race.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov told a state news agency his government regrets the US decision.

The US had already accused Russia of violating the treaty by limiting surveillance flights over Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania.

There have been numerous reports of a Russian military buildup in Kaliningrad, with some satellite images suggesting the development of nuclear facilities.

Surveillance fights by unarmed aircraft are currently routine between the US, Russia and other signatories of the treaty.

The Pentagon estimates the Russians have carried out over 165 missions over the US since the agreement came into effect.

A Pentagon source told Politico: “We put together the flight plan and with a few exceptions…they are allowed to fly over pretty much the entire territory.”

In August 2017 there was controversy over a Russian reconnaissance flight which travelled over Washington D.C. and a US airforce base in Ohio.

The US State Department had previously described Open Skies as: “designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces.”

Tensions between Russia and the US increased last week after the Americans put new tariffs on Russia over its alleged involvement in poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter in the UK earlier this year.

The new US sanctions restrain the export of so-called dual use technologies, which could have a military or civilian application.

Unless Russia takes certain actions, a second round of sanctions, tougher than the first, is expected to follow.

Former President Ronald Reagan or “Red Ronnie” Approves First World Government Law To Be Used To Prosecute Individuals In 1988.

proxy.duckduckgo.com

The Genicide Treaty 

Source: stopthecrime.net

12/2/13

Click Here: Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying U.N. Genocide Pact 

Click Here: Official U.N. Genicide Treaty

Only a national government has the power to produce “genocide,” which is the killing of an entire race of people. And only a government, when its troops invade other nations, can attempt to destroy an entire race outside of its borders. Neither an individual nor a group of individuals can commit genocide.

And, if they try, they would quickly be jailed under already well-established criminal statutes. Thus we see that only nations can commit genocide, never individuals. Only a nation can blot out a race; an individual can only kill individuals. But now we have a new international law governing nearly every civilized nation on earth,—that is able to charge innocent citizens with “genocide” for having done something that a national government considers harmful to other religions!

On December 11, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to declare genocide as a crime under international law. Nearly a year later, on December 9, 1947, the same assembly unanimously adopted what is known as the “Genocide Treaty.”

Because of obvious omissions and inherent dangers in that treaty, the United States did not ratify that treaty for decades afterward. Finally, 40 years later, under immense political pressure from various sources, the United Sates approved it on February 19, 1988 Nearly eight months later, on October 14, 1988, the Senate gave final approval to the treaty as they enacted certain legislation which would impose extremely heavy penalties to those found guilty of violating that treaty.

The Genocide Treaty (also called the “Genocide Convention”) was signed by President Reagan on November 11. On December 9, 1988, the treaty was ratified by the United States of America—and became an important law of the land—when it was formally filed by a representative of the United States president at the United Nations headquarters in Lake Success, New York.

In an official ceremony, before all the delegates in the General Assemble Hall, the document was handed to the secretary general of the United Nations. And, because it is now on the statute books of 96 different nations of earth,—the Genocide Treaty has become the first worldwide man-made law in the history of mankind!

Why was the United States hesitant for so many years to adopt the provisions of that treaty as a law governing people of the United States? Why is it considered so dangerous?

First: Under this recently enacted treaty, one man can be held as a genocidist for killing just one other man. Yet we all know that the killing of one man by another is in no way genocidal! “Genocide: the deliberate and methodical annihilation of a national or racial group” (Macmillan Dictionary), “the systematic killing of a whole group of people or a nation” (Webster’s new World Dictionary). “Genocide means the physical dismemberment and liquidation of people on large scales: an attempt by those who rule to achieve the total elimination of a subject people.”—I. Horowitz, Taking Lives:

Genocide and State Power, chapter 85.

Second: A man can be tried and found guilty of committing “genocide,” which is the destruction of an entire race of people—without having killed anyone at all! “But the treaty definition differs substantially from that of the dictionaries. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 2/5 It includes such items as ‘mental harm to members of the group,’ or moving them from one place to another, or even birth control. It would not be difficult to imagine a situation at a later time in which a special class of people were hailed into court on the charge of genocide. Their crime? having brought ‘mental harm’ to members of a certain religious organization, by their words, actions, or distribution of proscribed literature.”—The Genocide Treaty, October 1968, 5.

Third: If a man is accused of “genocide,” he can be hailed into a U.S. court or be sent to a foreign court to stand trial under non-U.S. laws as a Genocide Treaty violator. “[Senator Jesse] Helms had blocked action in the past, complaining that the treaty could threaten the Constitution and subject the United States to spurious lawsuits by other countries [that sought to have U.S. citizens arrested and turned over to them for trial].”—Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 22, 1986, 458.

Fourth: The Genocide Treaty Itself has such vague wording that leading American jurists and attorneys have declared it to be dangerous! They tell us that all kinds of people can be accused of having violated the Genocide Treaty. “The Genocide Convention [Genocide Treaty]” is such a vague and dangerous treaty that to cure its imperfections would require changes so substantial that they would have to be regarded as amendments requiring renegotiation of the convention by the United Nations itself].”—Charles Rice, Professor of Law, quoted in Congressional Record, February 13, 1986, S-1288. Many of its terms are shrouded in uncertainty.”—Senator Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, Senate debate, October 10, 1984, in Congressional Record, December 1984. [Speaking of the Genocide Treaty] A statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that man of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”—Orie L. Phillips, “The Genocide convention: Its Effect on Our Legal System, “American Bar Journal, 1949.

Fifth: That which makes a man’s actions to be in violation of the treaty—is the motive that others assign to those actions! “Motives” means the reason why he did it. Almost any kind of criminal action can be classified as “genocidal,” according to this treaty. “The description of the ‘crime’ of genocide provided by the restricted Genocide Convention is so expansive and allinclusive as to cover almost any wrongdoer, perpetrating almost any criminal act of violence or advocacy of violence against almost every type of victim.”— Robert A. Friedlander, “Should the U.S. Constitution Treaty-Making Power Be Used as the Basis for Enactment of Domestic Legislation?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring 1986, 268-269.

Sixth: Instead of being worded to stop genuine genocidists— which are the national governments and political groups trying to kill races within their borders or outside of it,—this treaty gives no mention of nations or political groups, but only of individuals. And the terms of the treaty are construed against, rather than in favor of, the defendant. This is against American law. “Political genocide is nowhere mentioned in this Genocide Treaty. History relates the reason that the treaty was originally accepted by the UN members in 1948, and then signed by many of the individual nations in later years. The nations had nothing to fear from it, for the Genocide Treaty deals neither with governments nor with political actions.”—The Genocide Treaty, 7. “The definitions proffered by articles II and III of the convention (the treaty] are vague and overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, and statutorily unreasonable both in their construction and application. They are, in American Constitutional phraseology, violative of substantive due process and could not withstand strict Constitutional scrutiny by the United States federal courts, since criminal statutes in this country have to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.”—Fiedlander, 268-269. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 3/5

Seventh: An individual need not kill an individual of another race, but only “mentally harm” him by his words— in order to be eligible for Genocide Treaty violation. “Genocide is mass murder perpetrated by repressive government. To say, as does article IV, that private individuals commit genocide is not only pure hyperbole but, in the context of the so-called criminality of article II, it is a loaded weapon pointed at the citizenry of any signatory state.”—Friedlander 268, 271.

Eighth: One need only do or say that which appears harmful to the best interests of another religion in order to be brought into court for having violated the treaty,—where he will receive a heavy penalty. “That penalty (assigned by the U.S. Senate on October 14, 1988, to Genocide Treaty violation] was about the greatest that could be assigned, in this present generation, of no capital punishment: A fine of up to one million dollars and a twenty-year-to-life sentence in a federal penitentiary was the Senate decision in the matter! Murderers in California routinely get no fine and six years in prison, but ‘harming’ ‘part of’ a ‘religious group’ is more dangerous.”—The Genocide Treaty, 10.

Ninth: The Genocide Treaty (also known as the Genocide Convention”) threatens U.S. Constitutional sovereignty, because the United States Constitution declares that international treaties made by America take precedence above — are more important than—the internal laws of the nation. “It [the Genocide Treaty] ran afoul of conservative objections that it threatened U.S. sovereignty and Constutional objections.”—Washington Post, February 20, 1986, A27.

Tenth: No treaty signed by the United States government has ever been found unconstitutional by its Supreme Court —or any lower court for that matter. The reason: Our Constitution binds the laws of our nation to yield to the wording of treaties we enter upon with other nations. “No treaty has ever been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Lacking explicit statutory language, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very reluctant to find Congressional abrogation of treaty right (Washington vs. Washington State, 443, U.S. 690, 99 S. Ct. 3077 (1979).”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Eleventh: The treaty says nothing about political crimes: only individual crimes; yet genocide is being carried on by political groups and political governments all around the world, even as I write these words. “For 37 years the convention [treaty] met with considerable opposition. Various opponents were concerned that the convention would supercede the U.S. Constitution; acts against political groups were not made criminal offenses; the convention would be enforced in ways detrimental to the U.S.”—Gist, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, June 1986, 1. “The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics signed the Genocide Treaty on December 16, 1949, yet the Soviet Union regularly imprisons Christians in Russia and its satellite countries, but the Genocide Treaty has nothing to say about government genocide of religious groups. Moscow is entirely free to continue on with such atrocities, even though it is a signatory to Genocide Treaty.”— The Genocide Treaty, 3.

Twelfth: This treaty was quickly signed by the very nations that are practicing genocide on a day-by-day basis! They signed it because its wording could not include their governments,—but could be used by those governments in bringing accusation, imprisonment, or death to their citizens! “A list of the signatories of the Genocide Treaty reveals that it includes the leading practitioners of post- World War II genocide: Albania, Bulgaria, Red China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union.”— The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Thirteenth: This treaty lacks proper wording for just handling cases in a court of law. “The various classifications of subject victim groups put forward by article II (national, ethnical, racial, religious, etc.) encompasses virtually all conceivable persons, except for those having a particular political affiliation . . No American citizen or resident alien (legal or otherwise) seems to be excluded from the sweep of this article. “As for the enumerated crimes, (a) ‘Killing of the group,’ does not allow for any [legal] defenses; (b) ‘Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’ 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS! The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 4/5 does not specify the degree of mental harm or distinguish whether the injury includes psychological disorientation of a temporary nature; (c) ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ can lead to charges raised by minority groups suffering from residential discrimination or ghetto life . . The list of possibilities for creative lawyers is practically endless.”— Friedlander, 268-269.

Fourteenth: Domestic laws—laws governing our own people—have now been decided by foreign powers. In this treaty, governments outside the United States are reshaping the regulations governing our own citizens. “The offenses listed in the Genocide Treaty are not international but domestic. That is, they concern crimes committed by Americans within our own country. Thus, for the first time in our nation’s history, a treaty has been used to invade an area of domestic law. In other words, we are letting foreigners make our laws for us, the laws that will decide which of our citizens will be imprisoned, and for what crimes”—The Genocide Treaty, 7.

Fifteenth: It is possible that those violating this treaty can be requested by foreign powers to be shipped from the United States and tried in foreign courts. “Such foreign nations, upon learning of individuals living in America even though U.S. citizens—who they can show are working to ‘destroy’ a certain religion, or part of it, can ask for extradition of those individuals so that they can be judged under a non-American tribunal in the World Court of Switzerland, in regard to the nature, extent, and punishment due their crimes.”—Op. cit., 3.

Throughout this book, we have discovered that a primary way in which mankind seeks to destroy one another— is through religious persecution. A person speaks and lives differently than is agreeable to another’s religion,—so he is persecuted for it. This newly ratified treaty permits one man to hail another man into court on the charge of genocide violation,—for having spoken words that bring “mental harm” to another person, part of a group, or entire group. We have also seen that our free land is gradually moving toward the emplacement of a National Sunday Law that, when enacted, may at first appear to be a great blessing,— but which will rapidly bring in its train persecution of minority churches, including Sabbathkeeping churches.

When religious orthodoxy becomes the law of the land, soon a narrow view of what constitutes “orthodoxy” is also legislated and enforced. The very vagueness of this treaty is such that it can be used in many ways, quite separated from what may have been the motives of its authors or enactors. This Genocide Treaty could provide a powerful tool in enforcing the National Sunday Law—when that law is finally enacted. And because it is on the statute books of 96 different nations, a rapid international aspect has been added. The entire world will be able to quickly work together to enforce Sunday observance. The crucial part is that a worldwide standardized crime has been established, with most terrible penalties for its violation.

The penalties of the Genocide Treaty could be applied at will to any individual who violated the National Sunday Law. And, because this treaty is based on a 96-nation mutual pact, or treaty, each nation will be required by all the others to search out and bring the specified criminal into court. Although commonly called the “Genocide Treaty,” technically, it is a “convention” and not a “treaty.” A treaty is a bilateral agreement between two nations; a “convention” is a multilateral agreement between many nations, in this case, most of those on our planet!

But there is no provision for a convention in the U.S. Constitution! Because it is a convention and not a treaty, every signatory nation involved is bound to defend it, adhere to it, and be ready to persecute individuals according to its ambiguous terms, as agreed upon by the member nations. This makes this genocide convention one of the most powerful international laws in the history of mankind! Yet, no matter how the nations of earth may plan and devise, there is a God in heaven who has a rule of right: the Ten Commandments.

And the time is nearing when He shall judge men according to that rule. One of the ten is the Sabbath commandment. It stands as a great memorial to the creative power of the One who made us all. And it is bulwarked by twelve great pillars of truth. Here they are, in the next chapter.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”—Matthew 22:21. 12/2/13 BREAKING NEWS!

The Genocide Treaty http://www.remnantofgod.org/breaking-news.htm 5/5 Every conceivable base is covered to make the individual Christian a prime target of any power-crazed polititan, judge, police officer, or neighborhood snitch. And STILL the scoffer believes Christian prophecy is a myth?

This law is a first of it’s kind. This is the first GLOBALLY ACCEPTED LAW on the books. That’s right! It’s a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTAL LAW.

Now do you see why Canada has been playing games with such laws?

Are you aware that as of September 2003 Canada has had on the books a LAW that allows a homosexual to have a Christian thrown behind bars for upto FIVE YEARS for merely preaching Scripture!

Want the proof? Click here. Read book entitled “National Sunday Law Crisis” that carries the above chapter.

U.S. State Department And U.S. Government Officials Created Present Day Communist China By Backing Mao Tse-Tung With Funding And Weapons.

Mapjpg.

China Betrayed Into Communism

thenewamerican.com

Written by James Perloff

Friday July 24, 2009

Although the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olympics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes.

The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revolution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires members to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by compulsory abortion, restricting most families to one child. (Since Chinese traditionally prefer male offspring, this has led to disproportionate abortion — even infanticide — of female babies, creating an artificial majority of males in China.) The government directly controls most media, blocking criticisms of itself on the Internet.

Perhaps worst is suppression of religious freedom. Christian churches, though permitted, must submit to government control and censorship — either as part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Independent house churches, comprising some 90 percent of China’s Christians, face persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs reports:

The human rights record in China is one of the worst in the world. Its system of “re-education through labor” detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing…. The house church movement (unregistered churches) endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel, no matter the cost. China continued its crackdown against Christians and missionaries in 2008, as they sought to purge the country of religion before hosting the Olympic games…. Church property and Bibles were confiscated. Christians were harassed, questioned, arrested and imprisoned. Christians in prisons are routinely beaten and abused.

Japan and Manchuria

What surprises many Americans: the regime ruling China was largely put there by the United States. In the 1930s, Japan, then militarily powerful, was the main barrier to Soviet ambitions to communize Asia. Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the rivalry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.

The Russians were hopeful that the war would break out soon, because that would greatly secure the safety of Russia’s Siberian borders and would so weaken Japan that Russia would no longer have to fear an attack from her in the East…. Stalin is perfectly willing to let Americans die in defense of the Soviet Union.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan…. To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely mention that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — namely their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dallas, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expansion in Manchuria was a national imperative…. But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.

The Chinese Republic

China had been ruled by emperors until 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown. The revolution is largely attributed to Sun Yat-sen, who sought to make China a constitutional republic, led by the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China. However, Sun encountered extreme difficulties in unifying the enormous nation under his idealistic principles. After the emperors’ fall, China was largely ruled by local warlords, and following Dr. Sun’s 1925 death, the task of unifying China fell to Chiang Kai-shek, a Christian and Kuomintang leader.

The Soviets tried infiltrating the Kuomintang, but Chiang Kai-shek eventually saw through their schemes, and by 1928 had deported many USSR agents. That same year, 1928, Foreign Affairs, American’s most powerful foreign policy journal, published its first article criticizing Chiang. From then on, he became the enemy of both the Soviet Union and the American establishment — which had ironically sought to support communism since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Chinese Reds: Soviet Puppets

The Chinese Communist Party was little more than a puppet of the Soviet Union, which recognized the value for communism’s future in China’s massive manpower. In 1933, the Chinese Communist Party sent this message to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: “Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!”

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival in Manchuria in 1937, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks on the Nationalists because the latter were repelling the Japanese, whom Stalin considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

This order was amplified after June 22, 1941, when Germany and its European allies invaded the Soviet Union, and began decimating the Red Army. Stalin feared that Japan — Germany’s ally — would invade Russia from the East, destroying himself and world communism’s center. One may reasonably conclude that proven Soviet agents within the U.S. government — such as Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Alger Hiss, a leading State Department figure — shared this concern.

This author has documented in The New American that Washington had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but did not warn our military commanders; and also that Washington sought to provoke the attack through such measures as a freeze on Japan’s U.S. assets; a steel and oil embargo; closure of the Panama Canal to Japan’s shipping; and humiliating ultimatums to the Japanese government (see, for example, Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not).

The U.S. war with Japan fulfilled the Gitlow and Bullitt warnings. Since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists were also fighting the Japanese, official U.S. policy was to support them, especially after President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Chiang at the 1943 Cairo Conference. Stalin ordered the Chinese communists to help against the Japanese too — but in a very limited capacity. Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung told followers: “Our determined policy is 70 percent self-development, 20 percent compromise, and 10 percent fight the Japanese.” The Reds spent little energy against the Japanese, mostly attacking the Nationalists, whom they planned to overthrow at the war’s conclusion. This emphasis increased as Japan’s defeat, from U.S. advances in the Pacific, became imminent. Robert Welch, in his study of China’s downfall, Again, May God Forgive Us, wrote: “In Shantung in 1943, just for one illustration, they [the communists] attacked from the south an army of twenty thousand Nationalists, simultaneously with a Japanese attack from the north, and helped to slaughter the whole force.”

Roosevelt’s Betrayal

But China’s destruction came not only from communists. Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta.”

The decision to invite and equip Stalin — a known aggressor — into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

After barely firing a shot, the Soviets received surrender of Japan’s huge arsenals in Manchuria. These, with their American Lend-Lease supplies, they handed over to Mao Tse-tung’s communists to overthrow the Nationalist government.

Vinegar Joe

Another means of destroying the Nationalists: U.S. personnel assigned to China. Among the worst was Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. Though generally respected as a strategist, Stilwell became notorious for hatred of Chiang Kai-shek — whom he nicknamed “the peanut” — and admiration for the communists. Stilwell wrote in a letter: “It makes me itch to throw down my shovel and get over there and shoulder a rifle with Chu Teh.” (Chu was commander-in-chief of the Chinese communist armies — as he was later in the Korean War, overseeing the killing of GIs.)

Because Japan controlled China’s ports, the Nationalists had to receive supplies by air lift from India. Stilwell oversaw a campaign of Chinese troops against the Japanese in Burma, attempting to open a land supply route. When the effort failed, Stilwell demanded the operation be tried again, using 30 Nationalist divisions.

At this, Chiang balked: diverting 30 divisions south into Burma would facilitate further conquest of China by both the Japanese and the Chinese communists. General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed “Flying Tigers,” agreed with Chiang. Significantly, Stilwell did not request use of communist forces — whom he so vocally admired — for his envisioned Burma campaign.

Stilwell complained to Washington, and received a message from President Roosevelt directing Chiang to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces, and send troops to Burma. After jubilantly handing this message to Chiang, Stilwell wrote in his diary:

I’ve long waited for vengeance —
At last I’ve had my chance.
I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants…
The little b*****d shivered
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
And he struggled not to screech.

But Stilwell’s scheme backfired. Chiang refused the directive and asked Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Otherwise, he said, he would go it alone against the Japanese — as he had for the four years preceding Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was forced to concede. To his chagrin, Stilwell was relieved by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who saw eye-to-eye with Chiang.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opinion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or apparatus that existed at the time in the Government in Washington.”

State Department Junta

What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a State Department clique favoring a Chinese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became Assistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, including Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who consistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others.

“The Communists relied very strongly on Service and John Carter Vincent,” said Budenz, “in a campaign against Ambassador Hurley.” Hurley, an honest statesman, was shocked by the maneuverings of those under him. “The professional foreign service men,” he reported to President Truman, “sided with the Communists’ armed party.”

Hurley was compelled to dismiss 11 State Department members. Upon return from China, however, they were mysteriously promoted, and some became Hurley’s superiors — after which he resigned. “These professional diplomats,” he wrote, “were returned to Washington and were placed in the Far Eastern and China divisions of the State Department as my supervisors.”

Pro-communist Stratagems

This State Department clique employed several tactics to advance Chinese communism. Among the chief: claiming Mao’s followers weren’t communists, but merely “agrarian reformers.” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had commanded: “Workers of the world, unite!” But since China had little industry, Chinese communists made farmers their focus.

Professor Kenneth A. Colgrove testified that Owen Lattimore informed him that “Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were real democrats and that they were really agrarian reformers and had no connection with Soviet Russia.”

The aforementioned John Carter Vincent referred to Mao and his followers as “so-called Communists.”

Raymond Ludden, another in the State Department clique, reported that “the so-called Communists are agrarian reformers of a mild democratic stripe more than anything else.”

In 1943, T. A. Bisson wrote in Far Eastern Survey: “By no stretch of the imagination can this be termed ‘communism’; it is, in fact, the essence of bourgeois democracy applied mainly to agrarian conditions.”

The State Department’s John P. Davies told Washington: “The Communists are in China to stay. And China’s destiny is not Chiang’s but theirs.” An additional tactic: portraying Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists as “fascists,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.” General Wedemeyer conveyed this matter’s reality:

Although the Nationalist Government of China was frequently and derisively described as authoritarian or totalitarian, there was a basic difference between it and its Communist enemies, since the Kuomintang’s ultimate aim was the establishment of a constitutional republic, whereas the Communists want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship on the Soviet pattern. In my two years of close contact with Chiang Kai-shek, I had become convinced that he was personally a straightforward, selfless leader, keenly interested in the welfare of his people, and desirous of establishing a constitutional government.

While some corruption undoubtedly existed in the Nationalist regime, Wedemeyer insightfully noted that corruption existed in all governments, including ours. For China, a conspiracy on the U.S. side compounded this. Their government offices displaced by Japan’s invasion, the Nationalists had to rely on paper currency. Runaway inflation threatened China’s economy. To stabilize the situation, Chiang Kai-shek requested a loan of U.S. gold. President Roosevelt approved, but the gold shipments were delayed and withheld by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, long since proven to be a Soviet agent. This collapsed China’s currency. One can understand why some Chinese officials, forced to accept salaries paid in worthless money, turned to corruption.

Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, informed the
National Press Club in 1959: “We stood by and saw China drift into a state of complete economic collapse. The currency was worthless…. In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Communists in.”

As a final tactic, State Department leftists demanded the Nationalists form a “coalition government” with the communists.
This was an old communist trick. By forcing the postwar governments of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia to form coalitions with communists, the Marxists seized control of those nations; Mao Tse-tung envisioned the same strategy for China. In his report “On Coalition Government,” made in April 1945 to the Seventh National Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao predicted that a coalition would destroy both Chiang and “reactionary American imperialism.”

The State Department’s China clique echoed this call. John P. Davies wrote in 1944: “A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us.”

A more realistic assessment of coalition government — which meant combining constitutional freedom with totalitarian gangsterism — was provided by Douglas MacArthur, who said it would have “about as much chance of getting them together as that oil and water will mix.”

In fact, Chiang Kai-shek wanted a postwar government representing all Chinese parties. In November 1946, he convened a National Assembly that met for 40 days, with 2,045 delegates representing diverse views from all over China; it adopted a national constitution. However, despite their clamoring for “coalition government,” Mao’s communists refused to participate: they knew that, lacking popular support in China, they could only take power by violence.

Marshall Mission

At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians — both from American Lend-Lease and captured Japanese arsenals — began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Marshall had a remarkable penchant for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced him over dozens of senior officers to become U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In that capacity, on December 7, 1941, he absented himself from his office on a notoriously long “horseback ride,” while junior officers sought his permission to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. During the Korean War, he was conveniently named Secretary of Defense; as such he overruled General MacArthur, saving the Yalu River’s bridges from destruction by the U.S. Air Force, and thus permitting Communist Chinese soldiers to invade Korea, which precluded victory by MacArthur, guaranteeing the stalemate that ultimately occurred. Regardless of where Marshall served, his actions fortified communism and defeated American interests — a record summarized by the wrongfully maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy in his book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall.

Before leaving for China, Marshall revealed he already accepted the communist propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”

When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the communists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and were successfully driving them back. Marshall, however, imposed a total of three truces — which the communists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault recounted the impact of Marshall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.

Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with appointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Nationalists, while the communists continued receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he disarmed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.

The Media Role

Critical to the China sellout was manipulation of U.S. public opinion. A plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were “democratic agrarian reformers,” even though, once in power, they established a totalitarian communist dictatorship, executing tens of millions of Chinese, in an orgy of atrocities that reached its height during the bloody Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists were portrayed as “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.”

Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov outlined this strategy:

Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them. What is our object? Who do we have to influence? We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.

The most influential U.S. writers fulfilling this were probably Edgar Snow, author of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, “There has never been any communism in China.” And he reported in the Saturday Evening Post that Chu Teh, Mao’s military commander, possessed the “kindliness of Robert E. Lee, the tenacity of Grant and the humility of Lincoln.”

In his monumental book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias favoring Chinese communists. Between 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Also, reported Flynn:

Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received glowing approval in the literary reviews, I have named — that is, in the New York Times, the Herald-Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these same reviews.

One reason the pro-communist books received such favor: reviews were written by writers of other such books. Flynn documented that 12 authors of the 22 pro-Red Chinese books wrote 43 complimentary reviews of the others’ books. This cozy “in-house” system guaranteed laudatory reviews. It left the American public — which generally knew little of Asian affairs — with indelible impressions. So severe was the bias, Flynn noted, that New York Times reviews were barely distinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.

Overt Betrayal: The IPR

Perhaps the most sinister influence on America’s Far East policy and opinion was the now-defunct Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The recipient of grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, the institute published hundreds of thousands of pamphlets on China for U.S. public schools and the military. These pamphlets extended the myth that the communists were “agrarian reformers” and the Nationalists “fascists.” The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually found IPR included 54 persons connected with the communist world conspiracy. Among them were such communists or pro-communists as Alger Hiss, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Owen Lattimore, and John Stewart Service. Alexander Barmine, a brigadier general who defected from the Communist Army, testified IPR was “a cover shop for military intelligence work in the Pacific.”

The IPR organized a magazine, Amerasia. In 1945, U.S. officials were shocked when Amerasiapublished an article reprinting — almost word-for-word — a top-secret government document. Agents of the OSS (the CIA’s forerunner) invaded Amerasia’s offices and discovered 1,800 documents stolen from the American government, including papers detailing the disposition of Nationalist army units in China. The magazine had been a cover for Soviet spying.

Although the FBI arrested numerous Amerasia employees for espionage, all the cases were either completely dismissed or dispensed with fines. John Stewart Service, despite arrest for giving stolen government documents to Amerasia editor Philip Jaffe, was rewarded by Dean Acheson, who put Service in charge of State Department placements and promotions. This was not the only time powerful “hidden hands” have conspired against American interests.

“Aid” to China

With Japan’s 1945 defeat, Lend-Lease aid, sitting in India and slated for the Nationalists, was either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. By 1948, due to Marshall’s weapons embargo, the Nationalist government faced nearly inevitable defeat by the communists, who continued receiving unlimited weapons from Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador William C. Bullitt testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1948:

The American government has not delivered to China a single combat plane or a single bomber since General Marshall in August, 1946, by unilateral action, broke the promise of the American Government to the Chinese Government and suspended all deliveries of planes…. As a means of pressure to compel Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese Government, General Marshall stopped all fulfillment of this program and dishonored the pledge of the United States.

Although Dean Acheson deceptively told Congress the Nationalists had received over $2 billion in U.S. aid, most was non-military or unusable. Colonel L. B. Moody, U.S. Army Ordnance Corps, clarified the realities:

1. The inevitable defeat of the Nationalist army was due to their deficit in items of infantry weapons and especially ammunition, and the Communist superiority in these items.

2. Military aid to the Chinese meant infantry weapons and ammunition above all else and it is “precisely these items which the United States has consistently denied, delayed or limited. Only passing reference will be made to the billions of mouldy cigarettes, blown-up guns, and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific Islands which have been totalled up with other real or alleged aid in various State Department, Communist and leftist statements to create the impression that we have furnished the Nationalist government with hundreds of millions or billions of useful fighting equipment.”

In April 1948, Congress, apprised of the desperate situation, granted $125 million in military assistance to save Chiang’s government. However, the first of this aid did not reach the Nationalists until seven months later (when China had become an issue in the 1948 elections). By contrast, after the British defeat at Dunkirk, U.S. ships needed only eight days to be loaded with munitions bound for Britain. Anthony Kubek describes the first shipload reaching the Nationalists in late 1948:

Of the total number, 480 of the machine guns lacked spare parts, tripod mounts, etc. Thompson machine guns had no magazines or clips. There were no loading machines for the loading of ammunition belts. Only a thousand of the light machine guns had mounts, and there were only a thousand clips for the 2,280 light machine guns.

China Collapses

The embargo and subsequent sabotaging of congressionally mandated aid to the Nationalists spelled their doom. In 1949, the communists completed conquest of China. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million followers escaped to Formosa (now called Taiwan), where they maintained the Republic of China’s government, establishing the island as a bastion of freedom.

The propaganda myth that Mao Tse-tung was an “agrarian reformer” evaporated as he formed a totalitarian communist regime, slaughtering millions. Acheson and the State Department clique still hoped to recognize Communist China, but after Mao’s thugs seized U.S. consular officers, imprisoned and even murdered our citizens, and poured their troops into Korea to kill American soldiers, this U.S. recognition of China ended up being deferred for many years.

The China disaster did not result from “blunders.” Congressman Walter Judd, an acknowledged Far East expert, said: “On the law of averages, a mere moron once in a while would make a decision that would be favorable to the United States. When policies are advocated by any group which consistently work out to the Communists’ advantage, that couldn’t be happenstance.”