CONTENTS: JANUARY 16, 2001

Click. Stealthy Deal Protects Profits of PG&E's Parents.

Click. THE REAL DEAL ON THE BUSH INT'L CRIME FAMILY. 

Click. Think Tank Frankensteins: GW Bush's Rainbow Cabinet by Robert Lederman.

Click. JESUS IS MY KING by John Ashcroft.

Click.  RUSSIANS TO PUBLISH TOMLINSON'S MI6 SECRETS.


The REAL Deal On the Bush Int'l Crime Family 
The New Federalist © 2001

 
Part 5, Chapter 11 Part 1 Rubbers Goes to Congress 

During the heat of the Senate campaign, Bush's redistricting lawsuit had progressed in a way that must have provided him much solace amidst the bitterness of his defeat. First, Bush won his suit in the Houston federal district court, and there was a loud squawk from Governor John Connally, who called that august tribunal a "Republican court." Bush whined that Connally was being "vitriolic." Then, during Bush's primary campaign, a three-judge panel of the federal circuit court of appeals also ruled that the state of Texas must be redistricted. Bush called that result "a real victory for all the people of Texas." By March, Bush's redistricting suit had received favorable action by the U.S. Supreme Court. This meant that the way was clear to create a no-incumbent, designer district for George in a masterpiece of gerrymandering that would make him an elected official, the first Republican congressman in the recent history of the Houston area.

The new Seventh District was drawn to create a liberal Republican seat, carefully taking into account which areas Bush had succeeded in carrying in the Senate race. What emerged was for the most part a lily-white, silk-stocking district of the affluent upper-middle class and upper crust. There were also small black and Hispanic enclaves. In the precinct boxes of the new district, Bush had rolled up an eight-to-five margin over Yarborough. / Note #1

But before gearing up a congressional campaign in the Seventh District in 1966, Bush first had to jettison some of the useless ideological ballast he had taken on for his 1964 Goldwater profile. During the 1964 campaign, Bush had spoken out more frankly and more bluntly on a series of political issues than ever before or since. Apart from the Goldwater coloration, one comes away with the impression that much of the time the speeches were not just inventions, but often reflected his own oligarchical instincts and deeply rooted obsessions. In late 1964 and early 1965, Bush was afflicted by a hangover induced by what for him had been an unprecedented orgy of self-revelation.

The 1965-66 model George Bush would become a moderate, abandoning the shrillest notes of the 1964 conservative crusade.

First came an Episcopalian "mea culpa." As Bush's admirer Fitzhugh Green reports, "one of his first steps was to shuck off a bothersome trace from his 1964 campaign. He had espoused some conservative ideas that didn't jibe with his own moderate attitude." Previous statements were becoming inoperative, one gathers, when Bush discussed the matter with his Anglican pastor, John Stevens. "You know, John," said Bush, "I took some of the far right positions to get elected. I hope I never do it again. I regret it." His radical stance on the civil rights bill was allegedly a big part of his "regret." Stevens later commented: "I suspect that his goal on civil rights was the same as mine: It's just that he wanted to go through the existing authorities to attain it. In that way nothing would get done. Still, he represents about the best of noblesse oblige." / Note #2

Purge of County GOP

It was characteristically through an attempted purge in the Harris County GOP organization that Bush signaled that he was reversing his field. His gambit here was to call on party activists to take an "anti-extremist and anti-intolerance pledge," as the "Houston Chronicle" reported on May 26, 1965. / Note #3 Bush attacked unnamed apostles of "guilt by association" and "far-out fear psychology," and his pronouncements touched off a bitter and protracted row in the Houston GOP. Bush made clear that he was targeting the John Birch Society, whose activists he had been eager to lure into his own 1964 effort. Now Bush beat up on the Birchers as a way to correct his right-wing profile from the year before. Bush said, with his usual tortured syntax, that Birch members claim to "abhor smear and slander and guilt by association, but how many of them speak out against it publicly?"

This was soon followed by a Bush-inspired move to oust Bob Gilbert, who had been Bush's successor as the GOP county chairman during the Goldwater period. Bush's retainers put out the line that the "extremists" had been gaining too much power under Gilbert, and that he therefore must go. By June 12, 1965, the Bush faction had enough clout to oust Gilbert. The eminence grise of the right-wing faction, State Senator Walter Mengdon, told the press that the ouster of Gilbert had been dictated by Bush. Bush whined in response that he was very disappointed with Mengdon. "I have stayed out of county politics. I believed all Republicans had backed my campaign," Bush told the "Houston Chronicle" on the day Gilbert fell.

On July 1, the Houston papers reported the election of a new, "anti-extremist" Republican county leader. This was James M. Mayor, who defeated James Bowers by a margin of 95 votes against 80 in the county executive committee. Mayor was endorsed by Bush, as well as by Senator Tower. Bowers was an auctioneer, who called for a return to the Goldwater "magic." GOP state chair O'Donnell hoped that the new chairman would be able to put an end to "the great deal of dissension within the party in Harris County for several years." Despite this pious wish, acrimonious faction fighting tore the county organization to pieces over the next several years.

But at the same time, Bush took care to police his left flank, distancing himself from the beginnings of the movement against the war in Vietnam, which had been visible by the middle of 1965. A remarkable document of this maneuver is the text of the debate between Bush and Ronnie Dugger, the writer and editor of the "Texas Observer." / Note #4 The debate was held July 1, 1965 before the Junior Bar of Texas convention in Fort Worth. Dugger had endorsed Bush -- in a way Dugger said was "not without whimsical intent" in the GOP Senate primary the year before. Dugger was no radical; at this point he was not really against the Vietnam War; and he actually endorsed the policy of LBJ, saying that the President had "no easy way out of Vietnam, but he is seeking and seeking hard for an honorable way out." Nevertheless, Dugger found that LBJ had made a series of mistakes in the implementation of his policy. Dugger also embraced the provisos advanced by Senator Fulbright to the effect that "seeking a complete military victory would cost more than the requirements of our interest and honor." So Dugger argued against any further escalation, and argued that anti-war demonstrations and civil disobedience could be beneficial.

Bush's first real cause for alarm was seeing "the civil rights movement being made over into a massive vehicle with which to attack the President's foreign policy in Vietnam." He started by attacking Conrad Lynn, a "Negro lawyer" who had told students at "my old university -- Yale University," that "the United States white supremacists' army has been sent to suppress the non-white people of the world." According to Bush, "The "Yale Daily News" reported that the audience applauded when [Lynn] announced that several Negroes had gone to Asia to enlist in the North Viet Nam army to fight against the United States." Then Bush turned to his real target, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King, he said, who is "identified with the freedom of the Negro cause, says in Boston the other day that he doesn't want to sit at a segregated lunch counter where you have strontium 90 in the milk, overlooking the fact that it's the communists who are testing in the atmosphere today, the Red Chinese. It's not the United States." Then there was Bayard Rustin, "a leading individual in the Negro struggle for freedom, [who] calls for withdrawal from Viet Nam." This is all hypocritical in Bush's view, since "they talk about civil rights in this country, but they are willing to sacrifice the individual rights in the communist countries."

Bush was equally riled up over anti-war demonstrations, since they were peopled by what he called "extremists": "I am sure you know what an extremist is. That's a guy who takes a good idea and carries it to simply preposterous ends. And that's what's happened. Of course, the re-emergence of the political beatnik is causing me personally a good deal of pleasure. Many conservatives winced during 1964 as we were labeled extremists of the right. And certainly we were embarrassed by the booing of Nelson Rockefeller at the convention, and some of the comments that referred to the smell of fascism in the air at the Republican convention, and things like this, and we winced."

Warming to the subject, Bush continued: "Let me give you some examples of this kind of left-wing extremism. Averell Harriman -- surely not known for his reactionary views -- speaking at Cornell University, talking about Viet Nam before a crowd that calls 'Liar!' [They] booed him to the state he could hardly finish, and finally he got so frustrated he asked, 'How many in the audience are communists?' And a bunch of people there -- small I will admit -- held up their hands."

So extremists, for Bush, were those who assailed Rockefeller and Harriman.

Bush defended the House Committee on Un-American Activities against the demonstrations organized by James Foreman and SNCC, commiserated with a State Department official who had been branded a fascist at Iowa State, and went on to assail the Berkeley "filthy speech" movement. As an example of the "pure naivete" of civil rights leaders, he cited Coretta Scott King, who "managed to link global peace and civil rights, somehow managed to tie these two things together philosophically" -- which Bush professed not to fathom. "If we can be non-violent in Selma, why can't we be non-violent in Viet Nam," Ossie Davis had said, and Bush proposed he be awarded the "green Wiener" for his "absurd theory," for "what's got to be the fuzziest thinking of the year."

Beyond this inevitable obsession with race, Bush was frankly a hawk, frankly for escalation, opening the door to nuclear weapons in Vietnam only a little more subtly than he had the year before: "And so I stand here as one who says I will back up the President and military leaders no matter what weapons they use in Southeast Asia."

Congress in his Sights

As the 1966 congressional election approached, Bush was optimistic about his chances of finally getting elected. This time, instead of swimming against the tide of the Goldwater cataclysm, Bush would be favored by the classic mid-term election reflex which almost always helps the congressional candidates of the party out of power. And LBJ in the White House was vulnerable on a number of points, from the escalation of the Vietnam War to "stagflation" (stagnation + inflation). The designer gerrymandering of the new Houston congressional district had functioned perfectly, and so had his demagogic shift toward the "vital center" of moderate conservatism. Because the district was newly drawn, there would be no well-known incumbent to contend with. And now, by one of the convenient coincidences that seem to be strewn through Bush's life, the only obstacle between him and election was a troglodyte Democratic conservative of an ugly and vindictive type, the sort of figure who would make even Bush look reasonable.

The Democrat in question was Frank Briscoe, a former district attorney. According to the "Texas Observer," "Frank Briscoe was one of the most vicious prosecutors in Houston's history. He actually maintained a 'ten most wanted convictions list' by which he kept the public advised of how much luck he had getting convictions against his chosen defendants then being held in custody. Now, as a candidate for Congress, Briscoe is running red-eyed for the right-wing in Houston. He is anti-Democratic; anti-civil rights; anti-foreign aid; anti-war on poverty. The fact that he calls himself a Democrat is utterly irrelevant." By contrast, from the point of view of the "Texas Observer": "His opponent, George Bush, is a conservative man. He favors the war in Vietnam; he was for Goldwater, although probably reluctantly; he is nobody's firebrand. Yet Bush is simply civilized in race relations, and he is now openly rejecting the support of the John Birch Society. This is one case where electing a Republican to Congress would help preserve the two-party balance of the country and at the same time spare Texas the embarrassment" of having somebody like Briscoe go to Washington. / Note #5 Bush's ideological face-lifting was working. "I want conservatism to be sensitive and dynamic, not scared and reactionary," Bush told the "Wall Street Journal."

Briscoe appears in retrospect as a candidate made to order for Bush's new moderate profile, and there are indications that is just what he was. Sources in Houston recall that in 1966 there was another Democratic candidate for the new congressional seat, a moderate and attractive Democrat named Wildenthal. These sources say that Bush's backers provided large-scale financial support for Briscoe in the Democratic primary campaign, with the result that Wildenthal lost out to Briscoe, setting up the race that Bush found to his advantage. A designer district was not enough for George; he also required a designer opponent if he was to prevail -- a fact which may be relevant to the final evaluation of what happened in 1988.

One of the key points of differentiation between Bush and Briscoe was on race. The district had about 15 percent black population, but making some inroads here among registered Democrats would be of decisive importance for the GOP side. Bush made sure that he was seen sponsoring a black baseball team, and talked a lot about his work for the United Negro College Fund when he had been at Yale. He told the press that "black power" agitators were not a problem among the more responsible blacks in Houston. "I think the day is past," Bush noted, "when we can afford to have a lily-white district. I will not attempt to appeal to the white backlash. I am in step with the 1960s." Bush even took up a position in the Office of Economic Opportunity anti-poverty apparatus in the city. He supported Project Head Start. By contrast, Briscoe "accused" Bush of courting black support, and reminded Bush that other Texas congressmen had been voting against civil rights legislation when it came up in Congress. Briscoe had antagonized parts of the black community by his relentless pursuit of the death penalty in cases involving black capital defendants. According to the "New York Times," "Negro leaders have mounted a quiet campaign to get Negroes to vote for [Bush]."

Briscoe's campaign ads stressed that he was a right-winger and a Texan, and accused Bush of being "the darling of the Lindsey [sic] -Javits crowd," endorsed by labor unions, liberal professors, liberal Republicans and liberal syndicated columnists. Briscoe was proud of his endorsements from Gov. John Connally and the Conservative Action Committee, a local right-wing group. One endorsement for Bush that caused Briscoe some difficulty was that of Bush mentor Richard M. Nixon. By 1966, Nixon was on the comeback trail, having withstood the virtual nervous breakdown he had undergone after losing his bid for the governorship of California in 1962. Nixon was now in the course of assembling the delegates that would give him the GOP presidential nomination in Miami in 1968. Nixon came to Houston and made campaign appearances for Bush, as he had in 1964.

Bush had brought in a new group of handlers and image-mongers for this 1966 race. His campaign manager was Jim Allison from Midland. Harry Treleaven was brought in to design Bush's propaganda.

Treleaven had been working at the J. Walter Thompson Advertising Agency in New York City, but he took a leave of absence from J. Walter to come to work for Bush in Texas. At J. Walter Thompson, Treleaven had sold the products of Pan American, RCA, Ford, and Lark cigarettes. He was attracted to Bush because Bush had plenty of money and was willing to spend it liberally. After the campaign was over, Treleaven wrote a long memo about what he had done. He called it "Upset: The Story of a Modern Political Campaign." One of the basic points in Treleaven's selling of Bush was that issues would play no role. "Most national issues today are so complicated, so difficult to understand, and have opinions on[,] that they either intimidate or, more often, bore the average voter.... Few politicians recognize this fact." In his memo, Treleaven describes how he walked around Houston in the hot August of 1966 and asked people what they thought of George Bush. He found that many considered Bush to be "an extremely likeable person," but that "there was a haziness about exactly where he stood politically."

For Treleaven, this was an ideal situation. "There'll be few opportunities for logical persuasion, which is all right -- because probably more people vote for irrational, emotional reasons than professional politicians suspect." Treleaven's approach was that "politicians are celebrities." Treleaven put 85 percent of Bush's hefty campaign budget into advertising, and 59 percent of that was for television. Newspaper ads got 3 percent. Treleaven knew that Bush was behind in the polls. "We can turn this into an advantage," he wrote, "by creating a 'fighting underdog' image. Bush must convince voters that he really wants to be elected and is working hard to earn their vote. People sympathize with a man who tries hard: they are also flattered that anyone would really exert himself to get their vote. Bush, therefore, must be shown as a man who's working his heart out to win." As Joe McGinnis summed up the television ads that resulted: "Over and over, on every television set in Houston, George Bush was seen with his coat slung over a shoulder; his sleeves rolled up; walking the streets of his district; grinning, gripping, sweating, letting the voter know he cared. About what, was never made clear." / Note #6

Coached by these professional spin doctors, Bush was acting as mainstream, fair and conciliatory as could be. In an exchange with Briscoe in the "Houston Chronicle" a few days before the election, he came out for "a man's right to join a union and his right to strike, but I additionally would favor fair legislation to see that no strike can cripple this nation and endanger the general welfare." But he was still for the Texas right to work law. Bush supported LBJ's "present Vietnam position.... I would like to see an All-Asian Conference convened to attempt to settle this horrible war. The Republican leadership, President Johnson, and Secretary Rusk and almost all but the real 'doves' endorse this." Bush was against "sweeping gun control." Briscoe wanted to cut "extravagant domestic spending," and thought that money might be found by forcing France and the U.S.S.R. to finally pay up their war debts from the two world wars!

When it came to urban renewal, Bush spoke up for the Charles Percy National Home Ownership Foundation, which carried the name of a leading liberal Republican senator. Bush wanted to place the federal emphasis on such things as "rehabilitating old homes." "I favor the concept of local option on urban renewal. Let the people decide," he said, with a slight nod in the direction of the emerging New Left.

In Bush's campaign ads he invited the voters to "take a couple of minutes and see if you don't agree with me on six important points," including Vietnam, inflation, civil disobedience, jobs, voting rights and "extremism" (Bush was against the far right and the far left). And there was George, billed as "successful businessman ... civic leader ... world traveler ... war hero," bareheaded in a white shirt and tie, with his jacket slung over his shoulder in the post-Kennedy fashion.

In the context of a pro-GOP trend that brought 59 freshmen Republican congressmen into the House, the biggest influx in two decades, Bush's calculated approach worked. Bush got about 35 percent of the black vote, 44 percent of the usually yellow-dog Democrat rural vote, and 70 percent in the exclusive River Oaks suburb. Still, his margin was not large: Bush got 58 percent of the votes in the district. Bob Gray, the candidate of the Constitution Party, got less than 1 percent.

Despite the role of black voters in his narrow victory, Bush could not refrain from whining. "If there was a disappointing aspect in the vote, it was my being swamped in the black precincts, despite our making an all-out effort to attract black voters. It was both puzzling and frustrating," Bush observed in his 1987 campaign autobiography. / Note #7 After all, Bush complained, he had put the GOP's funds in a black-owned bank when he was party chairman; he had opened a party office with full-time staff near Texas Southern, a black college; he had worked closely with Bill Trent of the United Negro College Fund, all with scant payoff as Bush saw it. Many black voters had not been prepared to reward Bush's noblesse oblige, and that threw him into a rage state, whether or not his thyroid was already working overtime in 1966.

Bush in Washington

When Bush got to Washington in January 1967, the Brown Brothers Harriman networks delivered: Bush became the first freshman member of the House of either party since 1904 to be given a seat on the Ways and Means Committee. And he did this, it must be recalled, as a member of the minority party, and in an era when the freshman congressman was supposed to be seen and not heard. The Ways and Means Committee in those years was still a real center of power, one of the most strategic points in the House along with the Rules Committee and a few others. By constitutional provision, all tax legislation had to originate in the House of Representatives, and given the traditions of committee organization, all tax bills had to originate in the Ways and Means Committee. In addition to the national importance of such a committee assignment, Ways and Means oversaw the legislation touching such vital Texas and district concerns as oil and gas depletion allowances and the like.

Later writers have marveled at Bush's achievement in getting a seat on Ways and Means. For John R. Knaggs, this reflected "the great potential national Republicans held for George Bush." The "Houston Chronicle," which had supported Briscoe in the election, found that with this appointment "the GOP was able to point up to the state one benefit of a two-party system." / Note #8

In this case, unlike so many others, we are able to establish how the invisible hand of Skull and Bones actually worked to procure Bush this important political plum. This is due to the indiscretion of the man who was chairman of Ways and Means for many years, Democratic Congressman Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas. Mills was hounded out of office because of an alcoholism problem, and later found work as an attorney for a tax law firm. Asked about the Bush appointment to the committee he controlled back in 1967, Mills said: "I put him on. I got a phone call from his father telling me how much it mattered to him. I told him I was a Democrat and the Republicans had to decide; and he said the Republicans would do it if I just asked Gerry Ford." Mills said that he had asked Ford and John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, who was the ranking Republican on Ways and Means, and Bush was in, thanks once again to Daddy Warbucks, Prescott Bush. / Note #9

Wilbur Mills may have let himself in for a lot of trouble in later years by not always treating George with due respect. Because of Bush's obsession with birth control for the lower orders, Mills gave Bush the nickname "Rubbers," which stuck with him during his years in Congress. / Note #1 / Note #0 Poppy Bush was not amused. One day Mills might ponder in retrospect, as so many others have, on Bush's vindictiveness.

Uprooting Western Values

In January 1968, LBJ delivered his State of the Union message to Congress, even as the Viet Cong's Tet offensive was making a shambles of his Vietnam War policy. The Republican reply came in a series of short statements by former President Eisenhower, House Minority leader Gerry Ford, Rep. Melvin Laird, Senator Howard Baker and other members of Congress. Another tribute to the efforts of the Prescott Bush-Skull and Bones networks was the fact that amid this parade of Republican worthies there appeared, with tense jaw and fist clenched to pound on the table, Rep. George Bush.

The Johnson administration had claimed that austerity measures were not necessary during the time that the war in Vietnam was being prosecuted. LBJ had promised the people "guns and butter," but now the economy was beginning to go into decline. Bush's overall public rhetorical stance during these years was to demand that the Democratic administration impose specific austerity measures and replace big-spending programs with appropriate deficit-cutting rigor. Here is what Bush told a nationwide network television audience on January 23, 1968:

"The nation faces this year just as it did last a tremendous deficit in the federal budget, but in the President's message there was no sense of sacrifice on the part of the government, no assignment of priorities, no hint of the need to put first things first. And this reckless policy has imposed the cruel tax of rising prices on the people, pushed interest rates to their highest levels in 100 years, sharply reduced the rate of real economic growth and saddled every man and woman and child in American with the largest tax burden in our history.

"And what does the President say? He says we must pay still more taxes and he proposes drastic restrictions on the rights of Americans to invest and travel abroad. If the President wants to control inflation, he's got to cut back on federal spending and the best way, the best way to stop the gold drain is to live within our means in this country." / Note #1 / Note #1

Those who wanted to read Bush's lips at a distance back in those days found that he was indeed committed to a kind of austerity. In May of 1968, with Johnson already a lame duck, the Ways and Means Committee approved what was dubbed on Capitol Hill the "10-8-4" deficit control package. This mandated a tax increase of $10 billion per year, coupled with a $4 billion cut in expenditures. Bush joined with four Ways and Means Republicans (the others were Conable, Schneebeli and Battin) to approve the measure. / Note #1 / Note #2

But the principal focus of Bush's activity during his tenure in the House of Representatives centered on a project that was much more sinister and far-reaching than the mere imposition of budget austerity, destructive as that demand was at the time. With a will informed by the ideas about population, race and economic development that we have seen current in Prescott Bush's circles at Brown Brothers Harriman, George Bush would now become a protagonist of a series of institutional changes which would contribute to that overall degradation of the cultural paradigm of Western civilization which was emergent at the end of the 1960s.

In 1969, Bush told the House of Representatives that, unless the menace of human population growth were "recognized and made manageable, starvation, pestilence and war will solve it for us." Bush repeatedly compared population growth to a disease. / Note #1 / Note #3 In remarks to the House July 30, 1969, he likened the fight against the polio virus to the crusade to reduce the world's population. Urging the federal government to step up population control efforts, he said: "We have a clear precedent: When the Salk vaccine was discovered, large-scale programs were undertaken to distribute it. I see no reason why similar programs of education and family planning assistance should not be instituted in the United States on a massive scope."

As Jessica Mathews, vice president of one of Washington's most influential zero-growth outfits, the World Resources Institute, later wrote of Bush in those years: "In the 1960s and '70s, Bush had not only embraced the cause of domestic and international family planning, he had aggressively sought to be its champion.... As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bush shepherded the first major breakthrough in domestic family planning legislation in 1967," and "later co-authored the legislation commonly known as Title X, which created the first federal family planning program...."

"On the international front," Mathews wrote, Bush "recommended that the U.S. support the United Nations Population Fund.... He urged, in the strongest words, that the U.S. and European countries make modern contraceptives available 'on a massive scale,' to all those around the world who wanted them."

Bush belonged to a small group of congressmen who successfully conspired to force a profound shift in the official U.S. attitude and policy toward population expansion. Embracing the "limits to growth" ideology with a vengeance, Bush and his coterie, which included such ultraliberal Democrats as then-Senator Walter Mondale (Minn.) and Rep. James Scheuer (N.Y.), labored to enact legislation which institutionalized population control as U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Bush began his Malthusian activism in the House in 1968, the year that Pope Paul VI issued his enyclical "Humanae Vitae," with its prophetic warning of the danger of coercion by governments for the purpose of population control. The Pope wrote: "Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would be placed in the hands of those public authorities who place no heed of moral exigencies.... Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their people, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious?" For poorer countries with a high population rate, the encyclical identified the only rational and humane policy: "No solution to these difficulties is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity.... The only possible solution ... is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society...."

This was a direct challenge to the cultural paradigm transformation which Bush and other exponents of the oligarchical world outlook were promoting. Not for the first time nor for the last, Bush issued a direct attack on the Holy See. Just days after "Humanae Vitae" was issued, Bush declared: "I have decided to give my vigorous support for population control in both the United States and the world." He continued, "For those of us who who feel so strongly on this issue, the recent enyclical was most discouraging."

Population Control Leader

During his four years in Congress, Bush not only introduced key pieces of legislation to enforce population control both at home and abroad. He also continuously introduced into the congressional debate reams of propaganda about the threat of population growth and the inferiority of blacks, and he set up a special Republican task force which functioned as a forum for the most rabid Malthusian ideologues.

"Bush was really out front on the population issue," a population-control activist recently said of this period of 1967-71. "He was saying things that even we were reluctant to talk about publicly."

Bush's open public advocacy of government measures tending towards zero population growth was a radical departure from the policies built into the federal bureaucracy up until that time. The climate of opinion just a few years earlier, in December 1959, is illustrated by the comments of President Eisenhower, who had said, "birth control is not our business. I cannot imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or governmental activity . .. or responsibility."

As a congressman, Bush played an absolutely pivotal role in this shift. Shortly after arriving in Washington, he teamed up with fellow Republican Herman Schneebeli to offer a series of amendments to the Social Security Act to place priority emphasis on what was euphemistically called "family planning services." The avowed goal was to reduce the number of children born to women on welfare.

Bush's and Schneebeli's amendments reflected the Malthusian-genocidalist views of Dr. Alan Guttmacher, then president of Planned Parenthood, and a protege of its founder, Margaret Sanger. In the years before the grisly outcome of the Nazi cult of race science and eugenics had inhibited public calls for defense of the "gene pool," Sanger had demanded the weeding out of the "unfit" and the "inferior races," and had campaigned vigorously for sterilization, infanticide and abortion, in the name of "race betterment."

Although Planned Parenthood was forced, during the fascist era and immediately thereafter, to tone down Sanger's racist rhetoric from "race betterment" to "family planning" for the benefit of the poor and blacks, the organization's basic goal of curbing the population growth rate among "undesirables" never really changed. Bush publicly asserted that he agreed "1,000 percent" with Planned Parenthood.

During hearings on the Social Security amendments, Bush and witness Alan Guttmacher had the following colloquy:

"Bush": Is there any [opposition to Planned Parenthood] from any other organizations or groups, civil rights groups?

"Guttmacher": We do have problems. We are in a sensitive area in regard particularly to the Negro. There are some elements in the Negro group that feel we are trying to keep down the numbers. We are very sensitive to this. We have a community relations department headed by a most capable Negro social worker to try to handle that part of the problem. This does, of course, cause us a good bit of concern.

"Bush": I appreciate that. For the record, I would like to say I am 1,000 percent in accord with the goals of your organization. I think perhaps more than any other type of organization you can do more in the field of poverty and mental health and everything else than any other group that I can think of. I commend you.

Like his father before him, Bush supported Planned Parenthood at every opportunity. Time after time, he rose on the floor of the House to praise Planned Parenthood's work. In 1967, Bush called for "having the government agencies work even more closely with going private agencies such as Planned Parenthood." A year later, he urged those interested in "advancing the cause of family planning," to "call your local Planned Parenthood Center" to offer "help and support."

The Bush-Schneebeli amendments were aimed at reducing the number of children born to blacks and poor whites. The legislation required all welfare recipients, including mothers of young children, to seek work, and barred increases in federal aid to states where the proportion of dependent children on welfare increased.

Reducing the welfare rolls was a prime Bush concern. He frequently motivated his population-control crusade with thinly veiled appeals to racism, as in his infamous Willie Horton ads during the 1988 presidential campaign. Talking about the rise in the welfare rolls in a July 1968 statement, Bush lamented that "our national welfare costs are rising phenomenally." Worse, he warned, there were far too many children being born to welfare mothers: "The fastest-growing part of the relief rolls everywhere is Aid For Dependent Children [sic] -- AFDC. At the end of the 1968 fiscal year, a little over $2 billion will be spent for AFDC, but by fiscal 1972 this will increase by over 75 percent."

Bush emphasized that more children are born into non-white poor families than to white ones. Blacks must recognize, he said, "that they cannot hope to acquire a larger share of American prosperity without cutting down on births...."

Forcing mothers on welfare to work was believed to be an effective means of reducing the number of black children born, and Bush sponsored a number of measures to do just that. In 1970, he helped lead the fight on the Hill for President Nixon's notorious welfare bill, the Family Assistance Program, known as FAP. Billed as a boon to the poor because it provided an income floor, the measure called on every able-bodied welfare recipient, except mothers with children under six, to take a job. This soon became known as Nixon's "workfare" slave-labor bill. Monetarist theoreticians of economic austerity were quick to see that forced labor by welfare recipients could be used to break the unions where they existed, while lowering wages and worsening working conditions for the entire labor force. Welfare recipients could even be hired as scabs to replace workers being paid according to normal pay scales. Those workers, after they had been fired, would themselves end up destitute and on welfare, and could then be forced to take workfare for even lower wages than those who had been on welfare at the outset of the process. This was known as "recycling."

Critics of the Nixon workfare bill pointed out that it contained no minimum standards regarding the kinds of jobs or the level of wages which would be forced upon welfare recipients, and that it contradicted the original purpose of welfare, which was to allow mothers to stay home with their children. Further, it would set up a pool of virtual slave labor, which could be used to replace workers earning higher wages.

But Bush thought these tough measures were exactly what the explosion of the welfare rolls demanded. During House debate on the measure April 15, 1970, Bush said he favored FAP because it would force the lazy to work: "The family assistance plan ... is oriented toward work," he said. "The present federal-state welfare system encourages idleness by making it more profitable to be on welfare than to work, and provides no method by which the State may limit the number of individuals added to the rolls."

Bush had only "one major worry, and that is that the work incentive provisions will not be enforced.... [It] is essential that the program be administered as visualized by the Ways and Means Committee; namely, if an individual does not work, he will not receive funds." The Manchester School's Iron Law of Wages as expounded by George Bush, self-styled expert in the dismal science....

In 1967, Bush joined with Rep. James Scheuer (D-N.Y.), to successfully sponsor legislation that removed prohibitions against mailing and importing contraceptive devices. More than opening the door to French-made condoms, Bush's goal here was a kind of ideological "succes de scandale." The zero-growth lobby deemed this a major breakthrough in making the paraphernalia for domestic population control accessible.

In rapid succession, Bush introduced legislation to create a National Center for Population and Family Planning and Welfare, and to redesignate the Department of the Interior as the Department of Resources, Environment and Population.

On the foreign policy front, he helped shift U.S. foreign assistance away from funding development projects to grapple with the problem of hunger in the world, to underwriting population control. "I propose that we totally revamp our foreign aid program to give primary emphasis to population control," he stated in the summer of 1968, adding: "In my opinion, we have made a mistake in our foreign aid by concentrating on building huge steel mills and concrete plants in underdeveloped nations...."

Notes 1. See Fitzhugh Green, "George Bush: A Biography" (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1980), p. 92, and George Bush and Victor Gold, "Looking Forward" (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 90.

2. Stevens's remarks were part of a Public Broadcasting System "Frontline" documentary program entitled "Campaign: The Choice," Nov. 24, 1988. Cited by Fitzhugh Green, "op. cit.," p. 91.

3. For the chronicles of the Harris County GOP, see local press articles available on microfiche at the Texas Historical Society in Houston.

4. "George Bush vs. Observer Editor," "Texas Observer," July 23, 1965.

5. "Texas Observer," Oct. 14, 1966.

6. Joe McGinniss, "The Selling of the President 1968" (New York: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 42-45.

7. Bush and Gold, "op. cit.," p. 91.

8. See John R. Knaggs, "Two-Party Texas" (Austin: Eakin Press, 1985), p.111.

9. "Congressional Quarterly," "President Bush: The Challenge Ahead" (Washington, 1989), p. 94.

10. Harry Hurt III, "George Bush, Plucky Lad," in "Texas Monthly," June 1983.

11. "New York Times," Jan. 24, 1968.

12. "New York Times," May 7, 1968.

13. The following account of Bush's congressional record on population and related issues is derived from the ground-breaking research of Kathleen Klenetsky, to whom the authors acknowledge their indebtedness. The material that follows incorporates sections of Kathleen Klenetsky, "Bush Backed Nazi 'Race Science,'|" "New Federalist", Vol 5, No. 16, April 29, 1991. 

Chapter 11 Part 2 Rubbers Goes to Congress

One of Bush's more important initiatives on the domestic side was his sponsorship of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, brainchild of Sen. Joseph Tydings of Maryland. Signed into law by President Nixon on December 24, 1970, the Tydings-Bush bill drastically increased the federal financial commitment to population control, authorizing an initial $382 million for family planning sevices, population research, population education and information through 1973. Much of this money was funnelled through private institutions, particularly local clinics run by Bush's beloved Planned Parenthood. The Tydings-Bush measure mandated the notorious Title X, which explicitly provided "family planning assistance" to the poor. Bush and his zero-growth cohorts talked constantly about the importance of disseminating birth control to the poor. They claimed that there were over 5 million poor women who wanted to limit their families, but could not afford to do so.

On October 23, 1969, Bush praised the Office of Economic Opportunity for carrying out some of the "most successful" family planning projects, and said he was "pleased" that the Nixon administration "is giving them additional financial muscle by increasing their funds 50 percent -- from $15 million to $22 million."

This increased effort he attributed to the Nixon administration's "goal to reach in the next five years the 5 million women in need of these services" -- all of them poor, many of them from racial or ethnic minorities. He added: "One needs only to look quickly at the report prepared by the Planned Parenthood-World Population Research Department to see how ineffective federal, state, and local governments have been in providing such necessary services. There is certainly nothing new about the fact that unwanted pregnancies of our poor and near-poor women keep the incidence of infant mortality and mental retardation in America at one of the highest levels of all the developed countries."

The rates of infant mortality and mental retardation Bush was so concerned about, could have been significantly reduced, had the government provided sufficient financing to pre-natal care, nutrition, and other factors contributing to the health of infants and children. On the same day he signed the Tydings-Bush bill, Nixon vetoed -- with Bush's support -- legislation that would have set up a three-year, $225 million program to train family doctors.

Bush seemed to be convinced that mental retardation, in particular, was a matter of heredity. The eugenicists of the 1920s had spun their pseudoscientific theories around "hereditary feeble-mindedness," and claimed that the "Kallikaks and the Jukes," by reproducing successive "feeble-minded" generations, had cost New York state tens of millions of dollars over decades. But what about learning disorders like dyslexia, which has been known to afflict oligarchical families Bush would consider wealthy, well-bred, and able? Nelson Rockefeller had dyslexia, a reading disorder, and both Bush's friend Nick Brady, and Bush's own son Neal suffer from it. But these oligarchs are not likely to fall victim to the involuntary sterilization as "mental defectives" which they wish to inflict on those they term the lower orders.

In introducing the House version of the Tydings bill on behalf of himself and Bush, Rep. James Scheuer (D-N.Y.) ranted that while middle-class women "have been limiting the number of offspring for years ... women of low-income families" did not. "If poverty and family size are so closely related we ask, 'Why don't poor women stop having babies?'|" The Bush-Tydings bill took a giant step toward forcing them to do so.

Population Task Force

Among Bush's most important contributions to the neo-Malthusian cause while in Congress was his role in the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. The task force, which Bush helped found and then chaired, churned out a steady stream of propaganda claiming that the world was already seriously overpopulated; that there was a fixed limit to natural resources and that this limit was rapidly being reached; and that the environment and natural species were being sacrificed to human progress. Bush's task force sought to accredit the idea that the human race was being "down bred," or reduced in genetic qualities by the population growth among blacks and other non-white and hence allegedly inferior races at a time when the Anglo-Saxons were hardly able to prevent their numbers from shrinking.

Comprised of over 20 Republican Congressmen, Bush's Task Force was a kind of Malthusian vanguard organization which heard testimony from assorted "race scientists," sponsored legislation and otherwise propagandized the zero-growth outlook. In its 50-odd hearings during these years, the task force provided a public forum to nearly every well-known zero-growth fanatic, from Paul Ehrlich, founder of Zero Population Growth (ZPG), to race scientist William Shockley, to the key zero-growth advocates infesting the federal bureaucracy.

Giving a prestigious congressional platform to a discredited racist charlatan like William Shockley in the year after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, points up the arrogance of Bush's commitment to eugenics. Shockley, like his co-thinker Arthur Jensen, had caused a furor during the 1960s by advancing his thesis, already repeatedly disproven, that blacks were genetically inferior to whites in cognitive faculties and intelligence. In the same year in which Bush invited him to appear before the GOP task force, Shockley had written: "Our nobly intended welfare programs may be encouraging dysgenics -- retrogressive evolution through disproportionate reproduction of the genetically disadvantaged.... We fear that 'fatuous beliefs' in the power of welfare money, unaided by eugenic foresight, may contribute to a decline of human quality for all segments of society."

To halt what he saw as pervasive down-breeding of the quality of the U.S. gene pool, Shockley advocated a program of mass sterilization of the unfit and mentally defective, which he called his "Bonus Sterilization Plan." Money bonuses for allowing oneself to be sterilized would be paid to any person not paying income tax who had a genetic deficiency or chronic disease, such as diabetes or epilepsy, or who could be shown to be a drug addict. "If [the government paid] a bonus rate of $1,000 for each point below 100 IQ, $30,000 put in trust for some 70 IQ moron of 20-child potential, it might return $250,000 to taxpayers in reduced cost of mental retardation care," Shockley said.

The special target of Shockley's prescriptions for mass sterilizations were African-Americans, whom he saw as reproducing too fast. "If those blacks with the least amount of Caucasian genes are in fact the most prolific and the least intelligent, then genetic enslavement will be the destiny of their next generation," he wrote. Looking at the recent past, Shockley said in 1967: "The lesson to be drawn from Nazi history is the value of free speech, not that eugenics is intolerable."

As for Paul Ehrlich, his program for genocide included a call to the U .S. government to prepare "the addition of ... mass sterilization agents" to the U.S. food and water supply, and a "tough foreign policy" including termination of food aid to starving nations. As radical as Ehrlich might have sounded then, this latter point has become a staple of foreign policy under the Bush administration (witness the embargo against Iraq and Haiti).

On July 24, 1969, the task force heard from Gen. William H. Draper, Jr., then national chairman of the Population Crisis Committee. Gen. Draper was a close friend of Bush's father, having served with the elder Bush as banker to Thyssen and the Nazi Steel Trust. According to Bush's resume of his family friend's testimony, Draper warned that the population explosion was like a "rising tide," and asserted that "our strivings for the individual good will become a scourge to the community unless we use our God-given brain power to bring back a balance between the birth rate and the death rate." Draper lashed out at the Catholic Church, charging that its opposition to contraception and sterilization was frustrating population-control efforts in Latin America.

A week later, Bush invited Oscar Harkavy, chief of the Ford Foundation's population program, to testify. In summarizing Harkavy's remarks for the August 4 "Congressional Record," Bush commented: "The population explosion is commonly recognized as one of the most serious problems now facing the nation and the world. Mr. Harkavy suggested, therefore, that we more adequately fund population research. It seems inconsistent that cancer research funds total $250-275 million annually, more than eight times the amount spent on reproductive biology research."

In reporting on testimony by Dr. William McElroy of the National Science Foundation, Bush stressed that "One of the crises the world will face as a result of present population growth rates is that, assuming the world population increases 2 percent annually, urban population will increase by 6 percent, and ghetto population will increase by 12 percent."

In February 1969, Bush and other members proposed legislation to establish a Select Joint Committee on Population and Family Planning, that would, Bush said, "seek to focus national attention on the domestic and foreign need for family planning. We need to make population and family planning household words," Bush told his House colleagues. "We need to take the sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political steppingstone.... A thorough investigation into birth control and a collection of data which would give the Congress the criteria to determine the effectiveness of its programs must come swiftly to stave off the number of future mouths which will feed on an ever-decreasing proportion of food," Bush continued. "We need an emphasis on this critical problem ... we need a massive program in Congress with hearings to emphasize the problem, and earmarked appropriations to do something about it. We need massive cooperation from the White House like we have never had before and we need a determination by the executive branch that these funds will be spent as earmarked."

On August 6, 1969, Bush's GOP task force introduced a bill to create a Commission on Population and the American Future which, Bush said, would "allow the leadership of this country to properly establish criteria which can be the basis for a national policy on population." The move came in response to President Nixon's call of July 18 to create a blue-ribbon commission to draft a U.S. population policy. Bush was triumphant over this development, having repeatedly urged such a step at various points in the preceeding few years. On July 21, he made a statement on the floor of the House to "commend the President" for his action. "We now know," he intoned, "that the fantastic rate of population growth we have witnessed these past 20 years continues with no letup in sight. If this growth rate is not checked now -- in this next decade -- we face a danger that is as defenseless as nuclear war."

Headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the commission represented a radical, government-sanctioned attack on human life. Its final report, issued in 1972, asserted that "the time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family." Not only did the commission demand an end to population growth and economic progress, it also attacked the foundations of Western civilization by insisting that man's reason had become a major impediment to right living. "Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality," raved the commission's report. "The exercise of these same values now contain [sic] the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence."

The commission's principal conclusion was that "there are no substantial benefits to be gained from continued population growth," Chairman Rockefeller explained to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The commission made a host of recommendations to curb both population expansion and economic growth. These included: liberalizing laws restricting abortion and sterilization; having the government fund abortions; and providing birth control to teenagers. The commission had a profound impact on American attitudes toward the population issue, and helped accelerate the plunge into outright genocide. Commission Executive Director Charles Westoff wrote in 1975 that the group "represented an important effort by an advanced country to develop a national population policy -- the basic thrust of which was to slow growth in order to maximize the 'quality of life.'"

The collapse of the traditional family-centered form of society during the 1970s and 1980s was but one consequence of such recommendations. It also is widely acknowledged that the commission Bush fought so long and so hard to create broke down the last barriers to legalized abortion on demand. Indeed, just one year after the commission's final report was issued, the Supreme Court delivered the Roe v. Wade decision which did just that.

Aware that many blacks and other minorities had noticed that the population control movement was a genocide program aimed at reducing their numbers, the commission went out of its way to cover its real intent by stipulating that all races should cut back on their birth rates. But the racist animus of their conclusions could not be hidden. Commission Executive Director Westoff, who owed his job and his funding to Bush, gave a hint of this in a book he had written in 1966, before joining the commission staff, which was entitled "From Now to Zero", and in which he bemoaned the fact that the black fertility rate was so much higher than the white.

The population control or zero population growth movement, which grew rapidly in the late 1960s thanks to free media exposure and foundation grants for a stream of pseudoscientific propaganda about the alleged "population bomb" and the "limits to growth," was a continuation of the old prewar, protofascist eugenics movement, which had been forced to go into temporary eclipse when the world recoiled in horror at the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the name of eugenics. By the mid-1960s, the same old crackpot eugenicists had resurrected themselves as the population-control and environmentalist movement. Planned Parenthood was a perfect example of the transmogrification. Now, instead of demanding the sterilization of the inferior races, the newly-packaged eugenicists talked about the population bomb, giving the poor "equal access" to birth contol, and "freedom of choice."

But nothing had substantively changed -- including the use of coercion. While Bush and other advocates of government "family planning" programs insisted these were strictly voluntary, the reality was far different. By the mid-1970s, the number of involuntary sterilizations carried out by programs which Bush helped bring into being, had reached huge proportions. Within the black and minority communities, where most of the sterilizations were being done, protests arose which culminated in litigation at the federal level.

In his 1974 ruling on this suit, Federal District Judge Gerhard Gesell found that, "Over the last few years, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 low-income persons have been sterilized annually under federally funded programs. Although Congress has been insistent that all family planning programs function on a purely voluntary basis," Judge Gesell wrote, "there is uncontroverted evidence ... that an indefinite number of poor people have been improperly coerced into accepting a sterilization operation under the threat that various federally supported welfare benefits would be withdrawn unless they submitted to irreversible sterilization." Gesell concluded from the evidence that the "dividing line between family planning and eugenics is murky."

As we have seen, George Bush inherited his obsession with population control and racial "down-breeding" from his father, Prescott, who staunchly supported Planned Parenthood dating back at least to the 1940s. In fact, Prescott's affiliation with Margaret Sanger's organization cost him the Senate race in 1950, as we have seen, a defeat his son has always blamed on the Catholic Church, and which is at the root of George's lifelong vendetta against the Papacy.

Prescott's 1950 defeat still rankled, as shown by Bush's extraordinary gesture in evoking it during testimony he gave on Capitol Hill before Senator Gruening's subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee on November 2, 1967. Bush's vengeful tirade is worth quoting at length:

"I get the feeling that it is a little less unfashionable to be in favor of birth control and planned parenthood today than it used to be. If you will excuse one personal reference here: My father, when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1950, was defeated by 600 or 700 votes. On the steps of several Catholic Churches in Connecticut, the Sunday before the election, people stood there passing out pamphlets saying, 'Listen to what this commentator has to say tonight. Listen to what this commentator has to say.' That night on the radio, the commentator came on and said, 'Of interest to voters in Connecticut, Prescott Bush is head of the Planned Parenthood Birth Control League,' or something like this. Well, he lost by about 600 votes and there are some of us who feel that this had something to do with it. I do not think that anybody can get away with that type of thing any more."

Bush and Draper

As we saw in Chapter 3, Gen. William H. Draper, Jr. had been director and vice president of the German Credit and Investment Corp., serving short-term credit to the Nazi Party's financiers from offices in the U.S.A and Berlin. Draper became one of the most influential crusaders for radical population control measures. He campaigned endlessly for zero population growth, and praised the Chinese Communists for their "innovative" methods of achieving that goal. Draper's most influential outlet was the Population Crisis Committee (PCC)-Draper Fund, which he founded in the 1960s.

In 1967-68, a PCC-Draper Fund offshoot, the Campaign to Check the Population Explosion, ran a nationwide advertising campaign hyping the population explosion fraud, and attacking those -- particularly at the Vatican -- who stood in the way of radical population control.

In a 1971 article, Draper likened the developing nations to an "animal reserve," where, when the animals become too numerous, the park rangers "arbitrarily reduce one or another species as necessary to preserve the balanced environment for all other animals.... But who will be the park ranger for the human race?," he asked. "Who will cull out the surplus in this country or that country when the pressure of too many people and too few resources increases beyond endurance? Will the death-dealing Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- war in its modern nuclear dress, hunger haunting half the human race, and disease -- will the gaunt and forbidding Horsemen become Park Ranger for the two-legged animal called man?"

Draper collaborated closely with George Bush during the latter's congressional career. As noted above, Bush invited Draper to testify to his Task Force on Earth Resources and Population; reportedly, Draper helped draft the Bush-Tydings bill.

Bush felt an overwhelming affinity for the bestial and degraded image of man reflected in the raving statements of Draper. In September 1969, Bush gave a glowing tribute to Draper that was published in the "Congressional Record." "I wish to pay tribute to a great American," said Bush. "I am very much aware of the significant leadership that General Draper has executed throughout the world in assisting governments in their efforts to solve the awesome problems of rapid population growth. No other person in the past five years has shown more initiative in creating the awareness of the world's leaders in recognizing the economic consequences of our population explosion."

In a 1973 publication, Bush praised the PCC itself for having played a "major role in assisting government policy makers and in mobilizing the United States' response to the world population challenge...." The PCC made no bones about its admiration for Bush; its newsletters from the late 1960s-early 1970s feature numerous articles highlighting Bush's role in the congressional population-control campaign. In a 1979 report assessing the history of congressional action on population control, the PCC/Draper Fund placed Bush squarely with the "most conspicuous activists" on population-control issues, and lauded him for "proposing all of the major or controversial recommendations" in this arena which came before the U.S. Congress in the late 1960s.

Draper's son, William III, has enthusiastically carried out his father's genocidal legacy -- frequently with the help of Bush. In 1980, Draper, an enthusiastic backer of the Carter administration's notorious "Global 2000" report, served as national chairman of the Bush presidential campaign's finance committee; in early 1981, Bush convinced Reagan to appoint Draper to head the U.S. Export-Import Bank. At the time, a Draper aide, Sharon Camp, disclosed that Draper intended to reorient the bank's functions toward emphasizing population control projects.

In 1987, again at Bush's behest, Draper was named by Reagan as administrator of the United Nations Development Program, which functions as an adjunct of the World Bank, and has historically pushed population reduction among Third World nations. In late January of 1991, Draper gave a speech to a conference in Washington, in which he stated that the core of Bush's "new world order" should be population reduction.

The Nixon Touch

Nixon, it will be recalled, had campaigned for Bush in 1964 and 1966, and would do so also in 1970. During these years, Bush's positions came to be almost perfectly aligned with the the line of the Imperial Presidency. And, thanks in large part to the workings of his father's Brown Brothers Harriman networks -- Prescott had been a fixture in the Eisenhower White House where Nixon worked, and in the Senate over which Nixon from time to time presided -- Bush became a Nixon ally and crony. Bush's Nixon connection, which pro-Bush propaganda tends to minimize, was in fact the key to Bush's career choices in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Bush's intimate relations with Nixon are best illustrated in Bush's close brush with the 1968 GOP vice-presidential nomination at the Miami convention of that year.

Richard Nixon came into Miami ahead of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan in the delegate count, but just before the convention, Reagan, encouraged by his growing support, announced that he was switching from being a favorite son of California to the status of an all-out candidate for the presidential nomination. Reagan attempted to convince many conservative southern delegations to switch from Nixon to himself, since he was the purer ideological conservative and better loved in the South than the new (or old) Nixon.

Nixon's defense of his southern delegate base was spearheaded by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who kept the vast majority of the delegates in line, sometimes with the help of the unit rule. "Thurmond's point of reasoning with Southern delegates was that Nixon was the best conservative they could get and still win, and that he had obtained assurances from Nixon that no vice-presidential candidate intolerable to the South would be selected," wrote one observer of the Miami convention. / Note #1 / Note #4 With the southern conservatives guaranteed a veto power over the second spot on the ticket, Thurmond's efforts were successful; a leader of the Louisiana caucus was heard to remark: "It breaks my heart that we can't get behind a fine man like Governor Reagan, but Mr. Nixon is deserving of our choice, and he must receive it."

These were the circumstances in which Nixon, having won the nomination on the first ballot, met with his advisers amidst the grotesque architecture of the fifteenth floor of the Miami Plaza-Hilton in the early morning of August 9, 1968. The way Nixon tells the story in his memoirs, he had already pretty much settled on Gov. Spiro Agnew of Maryland, reasoning that "with George Wallace in the race, I could not hope to sweep the South. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, to win the entire rimland of the South -- the border states -- as well as the major states of the Midwest and West." Therefore, says Nixon, he let his advisors mention names without telling them what he had already largely decided. "The names most mentioned by those attending were the familiar ones: Romney, Reagan, John Lindsay, Percy, Mark Hatfield, John Tower, George Bush, John Volpe, Rockefeller, with only an occasional mention of Agnew, sometimes along with Governors John Love of Colorado and Daniel Evans of Washington." / Note #1 / Note #5 Nixon also says that he offered the vice presidency to his close friends Robert Finch and Rogers Morton, and then told his people that he wanted Agnew.

But this account disingenuously underestimates how close Bush came to the vice-presidency in 1968. According to a well-informed, but favorable, short biography of Bush published as he was about to take over the presidency, "at the 1968 GOP convention that nominated Nixon for President, Bush was said to be on the four-name short list for Vice President. He attributed that to the campaigning of his friends, but the seriousness of Nixon's consideration was widely attested. Certainly Nixon wanted to promote Bush in one way or another." / Note #1 / Note #6 Theodore H. White puts Bush on Nixon's conservative list along with Tower and Howard Baker, with a separate category of liberals and also "political eunuchs" like Agnew and Massachusetts Governor John Volpe. / Note #1 / Note #7 Jules Witcover thought the reason that Bush had been eliminated was that he "was too young, only a House member, and his selection would cause trouble with John Tower," who was also an aspirant. / Note #1 / Note #8 The accepted wisdom is that Nixon decided not to choose Bush because, after all, he was only a one-term congressman. Most likely, Nixon was concerned with comparisons that could be drawn with Barry Goldwater's 1964 choice of New York Congressman Bill Miller for his running mate. Nixon feared that if he, only four years later, were to choose a Congressman without a national profile, the hostile press would compare him to Goldwater and brand him as yet another Republican loser.

Later in August, Bush traveled to Nixon's beachfront motel suite at Mission Bay, California to discuss campaign strategy. It was decided that Bush, Howard Baker, Rep. Clark MacGregor of Minnesota and Governor Volpe would all function as "surrogate candidates," campaigning and standing in for Nixon at engagements Nixon could not fill. And there is George, in a picture on the top of the front page of the "New York Times" of August 17, 1968, joining with the other three to slap a grinning and euphoric Nixon on the back and shake his hand before they went forth to the hustings.

Bush had no problems of his own with the 1968 election, since he was running unopposed -- a neat trick for a Republican in Houston, even taking the designer gerrymandering into account. Running unopposed seems to be Bush's idea of an ideal election. According to the "Houston Chronicle", "Bush ha[d] become so politically formidable nobody cared to take him on," which should have become required reading for Gary Hart some years later. Bush had great hopes that he could help deliver the Texas electoral votes into the Nixon column. The GOP was counting on further open warfare between Yarborough and Connally, but these divisions proved to be insufficient to prevent Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee, from carrying Texas as he went down to defeat. As one account of the 1968 vote puts it: Texas "is a large and exhausting state to campaign in, but here special emphasis was laid on 'surrogate candidates': notably Congressman George Bush, a fit-looking fellow of excellent birth who represented the space-town suburbs of Houston and was not opposed in his district -- an indication of the strength of the Republican technocracy in Texas." (Perhaps, if technocracy is a synonym for "plumbers.") Winning a second term was no problem; Bush was, however, mightily embarrassed by his inability to deliver Texas for Nixon. "|'I don't know what went wrong,' Bush muttered when interviewed in December. 'There was a hell of a lot of money spent,'|" much of it coming from the predecessor organizations to the CREEP. / Note #1 / Note #9

When in 1974 Bush briefly appeared to be the front-runner to be chosen for the vice presidency by the new President Gerald Ford, the "Washington Post" pointed out that although Bush was making a serious bid, he had almost no qualifications for the post. That criticism applied even more in 1968: For most people, Bush was a rather obscure Texas pol, and he had lost one statewide race previous to the election that got him into Congress. The fact that he made it into the final round at the Miami Hilton was another tribute to the network mobilizing power of Prescott Bush, Brown Brothers Harriman, and Skull and Bones.

As the 1970 election approached, Nixon made Bush an attractive offer. If Bush were willing to give up his apparently safe congressional seat and his place on the Ways and Means Committee, Nixon would be happy to help finance the Senate race. If Bush won a Senate seat, he would be a front-runner to replace Spiro Agnew in the vice-presidential spot for 1972. If Bush were to lose the election, he would then be in line for an appointment to an important post in the executive branch, most likely a cabinet position. This deal was enough of an open secret to be discussed in the Texas press during the fall of 1970: At the time, the "Houston Post" quoted Bush in response to persistent Washington newspaper reports that Bush would replace Agnew on the 1972 ticket. Bush said that was "the most wildly speculative piece I've seen in a long time." "I hate to waste time talking about such wild speculation," Bush said in Austin. "I ought to be out there shaking hands with those people who stood in the rain to support me." / Note #2 / Note #0

In September, the "New York Times" reported that Nixon was actively recruiting Republican candidates for the Senate. "Implies He Will Participate in Their Campaigns and Offer Jobs to Losers"; "Financial Aid is Hinted," said the subtitles. / Note #2 / Note #1 It was more than hinted, and the article listed George Bush as first on the list. As it turned out, Bush's Senate race was the single most important focus of Nixon's efforts in the entire country, with both the President and Agnew actively engaged on the ground. Bush would receive money from a Nixon slush fund called the "Townhouse" fund, an operation in the CREEP orbit. Bush was also the recipient of the largesse of W. Clement Stone, a Chicago insurance tycoon who had donated heavily to Nixon's 1968 campaign. Bush's friend Tower was the chairman of the GOP Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Bush's former campaign aide, Jim Allison, was now the deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Losing Again

Bush himself was ensconced in the coils of the GOP fundraising bureaucracy. When in May, 1969, Nixon's crony Robert Finch, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, met with members of the Republican Boosters Club, 1969, Bush was with him, along with Tower, Rogers Morton, and Congressman Bob Wilson of California. The Boosters alone were estimated to be good for about $1 million in funding for GOP candidates in 1970. / Note #2 / Note #2

By December of 1969, it was clear to all that Bush would get almost all of the cash in the Texas GOP coffers, and that Eggers, the party's candidate for governor, would get short shrift indeed. On December 29, the "Houston Chronicle" front page opined: "GOP Money To Back Bush, Not Eggers." The Democratic Senate candidate would later accuse Nixon's crowd of "trying to buy" the Senate election for Bush: "Washington has been shovelling so much money into the George Bush campaign that now other Republican candidates around the country are demanding an accounting," said Bush's opponent. / Note #2 / Note #3

But that opponent was Lloyd Bentsen, not Ralph Yarborough. All calculations about the 1970 Senate race had been upset when, at a relatively late hour, Bentsen, urged on by John Connally, announced his candidacy in the Democratic primary. Yarborough, busy with his work as chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, started his campaigning late. Bentsen's pitch was to attack anti-war protesters and radicals, portraying Yarborough as being a ringleader of the extremists.

Yarborough had lost some of his vim over the years since 1964, and had veered into support for more ecological legislation and even for some of the anti-human "population planning" measures that Bush and his circles had been proposing. But he fought back gamely against Bentsen. When Bentsen boasted of having done a lot for the Chicanos of the Rio Grande Valley, Yarborough countered: "What has Lloyd Bentsen ever done for the valley? The valley is not for sale. You can't buy people. I never heard of him doing anything for migrant labor. All I ever heard about was his father working these wetbacks. All I ever heard was them exploiting wetbacks," said Yarborough. When Bentsen boasted of his record of experience, Yarborough counterattacked: "The only experience that my opponents have had is in representing the financial interest of big business. They have both shown marked insensitivity to the needs of the average citizen of our state."

But, on May 2, Bentsen defeated Yarborough, and an era came to an end in Texas politics. Bush's 10 to 1 win in his own primary over his old rival from 1964, Robert Morris, was scant consolation. Whereas it had been clear how Bush would have run against Yarborough, it was not at all clear how he could differentiate himself from Bentsen. Indeed, to many people the two seemed to be twins: Each was a plutocrat oilman from Houston, each one was aggressively Anglo-Saxon, each one had been in the House of Representatives, each one flaunted a record as a World War II airman. In fact, all Bentsen needed to do for the rest of the race was to appear plausible and polite, and let the overwhelming Democratic advantage in registered voters, especially in the yellow-dog Democrat rural areas, do his work for him. This Bentsen posture was punctuated from time to time by appeals to conservatives who thought that Bush was too liberal for their tastes.

Bush hoped for a time that his slick television packaging could save him. His man Harry Treleaven was once more brought in. Bush paid more than half a million dollars, a tidy sum at that time, to Glenn Advertising for a series of Kennedyesque "natural look" campaign spots. Soon Bush was cavorting on the tube in all of his arid vapidity, jogging across the street, trotting down the steps, bounding around Washington and playing touch football, always filled with youth, vigor, action and thyroxin. The Plain Folks praised Bush as "just fantastic" in these spots. Suffering the voters to come unto him, Bush responded to all comers that he "understands," with the shot fading out before he could say what it was he understood or what he might propose to do. / Note #2 / Note #4 "Sure, it's tough to be up against the machine, the big boys," said the Skull and Bones candidate in these spots; Bush actually had more money to spend than even the well-heeled Bentsen. The unifying slogan for imparting the proper spin to Bush was "He can do more." "He can do more" had problems that were evident even to some of the 1970 Bushmen: "A few in the Bush camp questioned that general approach because once advertising programs are set into motion they are extremely difficult to change and there was the concern that if Nixon should be unpopular at campaign's end, the theme line would become, 'He can do more for Nixon,' with obvious downsides." / Note #2 / Note #5 Although Bentsen's spots were said to give him "all the animation of a cadaver," he was more substantive than Bush, and he was moving ahead.

Were there issues that could help George? His ads put his opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance at the top of the list, but this wedge-mongerging got him nowhere. Because of his servility to Nixon, Bush had to support the buzz-word of a "guaranteed annual income," which was the label under which Nixon was marketing the workfare slave-labor program already described; but to many in Texas that sounded like a new give-away, and Bentsen was quick to take advantage. Bush bragged that he had been one of the original sponsors of the bill that had just semi-privatized the U.S. Post Office Department as the Postal Service -- not exactly a success story in retrospect. Bush came on as a "fiscal conservative," but this also was of little help against Bentsen.

In an interview on women's issues, Bush first joked that there really was no consensus among women -- "the concept of a women's movement is unreal -- you can't get two women to agree on anything." On abortion he commented: "I realize this is a politically sensitive area. But I believe in a woman's right to choose. It should be an individual matter. I think ultimately it will be a constitutional question. I don't favor a federal abortion law as such." After 1980, for those who choose to believe him, this changed to strong opposition to abortion. ...

Could Nixon and Agnew help Bush? Agnew's message fell flat in Texas, since he knew it was too dangerous to try to get to the right of Bentsen and attack him from there. Instead, Agnew went through the follwing contortion: A vote for Bentsen, Agnew told audiences in Lubbock and Amarillo, "is a vote to keep William Fulbright chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," and that was not what "Texans want at all." Agnew tried to put Bentsen in the same boat with "radical liberals" like Yarborough, Fulbright, McGovern and Kennedy. Bentsen invited Agnew to move on to Arkansas and fight it out with Fulbright, and that was that.

Could Nixon himself help Bush? Nixon did campaign in the state. Bentsen then told a group of "Anglo-American" businessmen: Texans want "a man who can stand alone without being propped up by the White House."

In the end, Bentsen defeated Bush by a vote of 1,197,726 to Bush's 1,035,794, about 53 percent to 47 percent. The official Bushman explanation was that there were two proposed amendments to the Texas constitution on the ballot, one to allow saloons, and one to allow all undeveloped land to be taxed at the same rate as farmland. According to Bushman apologetics, these two propositions attracted so much interest among "yellow dog" rural conservatives that 300,000 extra voters came out, and this gave Bentsen his critical margin of victory. There was also speculation that Nixon and Agnew had attracted so much attention that more voters had come out, but many of these were Bentsen supporters. On the night of the election, Bush said that he "felt like General Custer. They asked him why he had lost and he said 'There were too many Indians. All I can say at this point is that there were too many Democrats,'|" said the fresh two-time loser. Bentsen suggested that it was time for Bush to be appointed to a high position in the government. / Note #2 / Note #6

Bush's other consolation was a telegram dated November 5, 1970: "From personal experience I know the disappointment that you and your family must feel at this time. I am sure, however, that you will not allow this defeat to discourage you in your efforts to continue to provide leadership for our party and the nation. Richard Nixon.

This was Nixon's euphemistic way of reassuring Bush that they still had a deal. / Note #2 / Note #7

Footnotes 14. Norman Mailer, "Miami and the Siege of Chicago" (New York: D.I. Fine, 1968), pp. 72-73.

15. Richard Nixon, "RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon" (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 312.

16. "Congressional Quarterly," "President Bush," (Washington: 1989) p. 94.

17. Theodore H. White, "The Making of the President 1968" (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1969),p. 251.

18. Jules Witcover, "The Resurrection of Richard Nixon" (New York: Putnam, 1970), p. 352.

19. Lewis Chester et al., "An American Melodrama: the Presidential Campaign of 1968" (London: Deutch, 1969), p. 622.

20. "Houston Post," Oct. 29, 1970.

21. "New York Times," Sept. 27, 1969.

22. "New York Times," May 13, 1969. 23. "Houston Chronicle," Oct. 6, 1970.

24. See "Tubing with Lloyd/George," "Texas Observer," Oct. 30, 1970.

25. Knaggs, "op. cit.," p. 148.

26. "Houston Post," Nov. 5, 1970.

27. Bush and Gold, "op. cit.," p. 102. Chapter 12 United Nations Ambassador, Kissinger Clone

At this point in his career, George Bush entered into a phase of close association with both Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. As we will see, Bush was a member of the Nixon cabinet from the spring of 1971 until the day that Nixon resigned. We will see Bush on a number of important occasions literally acting as Nixon's speaking tube, especially in international crisis situations. During these years, Nixon was Bush's patron, providing him with appointments and urging him to look forward to bigger things in the future. On certain occasions, however, Bush was upstaged by others in his quest for Nixon's favor. Then there was Kissinger, far and away the most powerful figure in the Washington regime of those days, who became Bush's boss when the latter became the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in New York City. Later, on the campaign trail in 1980, Bush would offer to make Kissinger secretary of state in his administration.

Bush was now listing a net worth of over $1.3 million / Note #1, but the fact is that he was now unemployed, but anxious to assume the next official post, to take the next step of what in the career of a Roman Senator was called the "cursus honorum," the patrician career, for this is what he felt the world owed him.

Nixon had promised Bush an attractive and prestigious political plum in the executive branch, and it was now time for Nixon to deliver. Bush's problem was that in late 1970 Nixon was more interested in what another Texan could contribute to his administration. That other Texan was John Connally, who had played the role of Bush's nemesis in the elections just concluded, by virtue of the encouragement and decisive support which Connally had given to the Bentsen candidacy. Nixon was now fascinated by the prospect of including the right-wing Democrat Connally in his cabinet in order to provide himself with a patina of bipartisanship, while emphasizing the dissension among the Democrats, strengthening Nixon's chances of successfully executing his Southern Strategy a second time during the 1972 elections.

The word among Nixon's inner circle of this period was "The Boss is in love," and the object of his affections was Big Jawn. Nixon claimed that he was not happy with the stature of his current cabinet, telling his domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman in the fall of 1970 that "Every cabinet should have at least one potential President in it. Mine doesn't." Nixon had tried to recruit leading Democrats before, asking Senator Henry Jackson to be secretary of defense and offering the post of United Nations ambassador to Hubert Humphrey.

Within hours after the polls had closed in the Texas Senate race, Bush received a call from Charles Bartlett, a Washington columnist who was part of the Prescott Bush network. Bartlett tipped Bush to the fact that Treasury Secretary David Kennedy was leaving, and urged him to make a grab for the job. Bush called Nixon and put in his request. After that, he waited by the telephone. But it soon became clear that Nixon was about to recruit John Connally, and with him, perhaps, the important Texas electoral votes in 1972. Secretary of the Treasury! One of the three or four top posts in the cabinet! And that before Bush had been given anything for all of his useless slogging through the 1970 campaign! But the job was about to go to Connally. Over two decades, one can almost hear Bush's whining complaint.

This move was not totally unprepared. During the fall of 1970, when Connally was campaigning for Bentsen against Bush, Connally had been invited to participate in the Ash Commission, a study group on government re-organization chaired by Roy Ash. "This White House access was dangerously undermining George Bush," complained Texas GOP chairman O'Donnell. A personal friend of Bush on the White House staff named Peter Flanigan, generated a memo to White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman with the notation: "Connally is an implacable enemy of the Republican party in Texas, and, therefore, attractive as he may be to the President, we should avoid using him again." Nixon found Connally an attractive political property, and had soon appointed him to the main White House panel for intelligence evaluations: "On November 30, when Connally's appointment to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board was announced, the senior Senator from Texas, John Tower, and George Bush were instantly in touch with the White House to express their 'extreme' distress over the appointment. / Note #2 Tower was indignant because he had been promised by Ehrlichman some time before that Connally was not going to receive an important post. Bush's personal plight was even more poignant: "He was out of work, and he wanted a job. As a defeated senatorial candidate, he hoped and fully expected to get a major job in the administration. Yet the administration seemed to be paying more attention to the very Democrat who had put him on the job market. What gives? Bush was justified in asking." / Note #3

The appointment of Connally to replace David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury was concluded during the first week of December 1970. But it could not be announced without causing an upheaval among the Texas Republicans until something had been done for lame duck George. On December 7, Nixon retainer H.R. Haldeman was writing memos to himself in the White House. The first was: "Connally set." Then came: "Have to do something for Bush right away." Could Bush become the director of NASA? How about the Small Business Administration? Or the Republican National Committee? Or then again, he might like to be White House congressional liaison, or perhaps undersecretary of commerce. As one account puts it, "since no job immediately came to mind, Bush was assured that he would come to the White House as a top presidential adviser on something or other, until another fitting job opened up."

Bush was called to the White House on December 9, 1970 to meet with Nixon and talk about a post as assistant to the President "with a wide range of unspecified general responsibilities," according to a White House memo initialed by H.R. Haldeman. Bush accepted such a post at one point in his haggling with the Nixon White House. But Bush also sought the U.N. job, arguing that there "was a dirth [sic] of Nixon advocacy in New York City and the general New York area that he could fill that need in the New York social circles he would be moving in as ambassador. / Note #4 Nix on's U.N. ambassador had been Charles Yost, a Democrat who was now leaving. But the White House had already offered that job to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had accepted.

But then Moynihan decided that he did not want the U.N. ambassador post after all, and, with a sigh of relief, the White House offered it to Bush. Bush's appointment was announced on December 11, Connally's on December 14. / Note #5 In offering the post to Bush, Haldeman had been brutally frank, telling him that the job, although of cabinet rank, would have no power attached to it. Bush, stressed Haldeman, would be taking orders directly from Kissinger. Bush says he replied, "even if somebody who took the job didn't understand that, Henry Kissinger would give him a twenty-four hour crash course on the subject." / Note #6

Nixon told his cabinet and the Republican congressional leadership on December 14, 1970 what had been in the works for some time: that Connally was "coming not only as a Democrat but as Secretary of the Treasury for the next two full years." Even more humiliating for Bush wasthe fact that our hero had been on the receiving end of Connally's assistance. As Nixon told the cabinet: "Connally said he wouldn't take it until George Bush got whatever he was entitled to. I don't know why George wanted the U.N. appointment, but he wanted it so he got it." Only this precondition from Connally, by implication, had finally prompted Nixon to take care of poor George. Nixon turned to Senator Tower, who was in the meeting: "This is hard for you. I am for every Republican running. We need John Tower back in 1972." Tower replied: "I'm a pragmatic man. John Connally is philosophically attuned to you. He is articulate and persuasive. I for one will defend him against those in our own party who may not like him." / Note #7

There is evidence that Nixon considered Connally to be a possible successor in the presidency. Connally's approach to the international monetary crisis then unfolding was that "all foreigners are out to screw us and it's our job to screw them first," as he told C. Fred Bergsten of Kissinger's National Security Council staff. Nixon's bumbling management of the international monetary crisis was one of the reasons why he was Watergated, and Big Jawn was certainly seen by the financiers as a big part of the problem. Bush was humiliated in this episode, but that is nothing compared to what later happened to both Connally and Nixon. Connally would be indicted while Bush was in Beijing, and later he would face the further humilation of personal bankruptcy. In the view of James Reston, Jr., "George Bush was to maintain a smoldering, visceral dislike of Connally, one that l


Think Tank Frankensteins: Bush's Rainbow Cabinet 
by R Lederman © 2000

Frankenstein: (noun) A monster created from incongruous parts.

The media keeps telling us that GW Bush's racially, ethnically and gender diverse cabinet proves he is not a bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The conservative foundations behind GW's appointees - the Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Manhattan Institute and the Bradley Foundation - have created these think tank Frankensteins for a sinister purpose.

African Americans who quote Charles Murray - a eugenicist who believes Blacks are genetically inferior; Latinos who oppose the minimum wage and believe Spanish should not be spoken in America; a Jewish press secretary for a President whose family bankrolled Hitler - it is damage control not diversity that accounts for these men and women rising to prominence.

The corporate foundations that sponsored these appointees and in many cases created their reputations are believers in white supremacy and eugenics. Their long range plans for America's people of color and for the populations of Third World nations could more appropriately be titled "The Final Solution" than "Compassionate Conservatism".

These same foundations have insidiously penetrated every aspect of American political life. Under the guise of philanthropy they now financially sponsor virtually all the television shows on PBS dealing with political, religious or educational issues, dominate talk radio and supply the vast majority of the "experts" on network news programs or quoted in mainstream newspapers.

Scientific Racism

An ideological blitzkrieg is being waged with social scientists bankrolled by corporations with a eugenics viewpoint as front-line troops. Unlike the KKK or other openly racist groups, the organizations backing Bush and his appointees are made up of educated people who sponsor seminars and publish scholarly books rather than burning crosses. That's why eugenics is called, scientific racism.

Behind the foundations that financed the research and the widespread - often free - distribution of these social scientists' books you will find white supremacists, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies with ties to IG Farben, former Nazis and advocates for depopulating much of the world. Their obsession with birthrates and IQ scores among people of color is tied to ideas about national security and so-called anti-communism. For three generations the Bush family has been centrally involved in these efforts. [See Bush, Abortion and Racial Eugenics http://Baltech.org/lederman/spray/ ]

Many of these think tanks and foundations have close ties to the CIA and defense contractors. That the extreme right in America claims to be based on the teachings of Jesus and the Bible is nothing new; the 19th century defenders of slavery made the exact same claims. To understand the Bush administration it is the Bell Curve, not the Bible, that you need to look at.

The Bell Curve and GW Bush

The works of Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve and Losing Ground, are held up by many of Bush's staff and advisors as key texts justifying their agenda of privatizing schools, eliminating welfare and turning social programs over to faith-based charities. From Murray we can trace a common theme running throughout the entire GW Bush administration.

Being in favor of school vouchers and eliminating welfare or being against affirmative action does not in itself make somebody a racist - but if someone is sponsored by racists, associates with racists and writes approvingly of racists then one's advocacy on these issues should be interpreted in that light.

Here is what Scientific American had to say about Murray's The Bell Curve: http://www.kwaku.org/rm/sciam2.htm SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN January 1995 Volume 272 Number 1 Page 14 For Whom the Bell Curve Really Tolls: A tendentious tome abuses science to promote far-right policies- "The arguments stem from the same tradition of biological determinism that led, not so long ago, to compulsory sterilizations in the U.S. and genocide elsewhere. The notion is that individuals' characteristics are both essentially fixed by inheritance and immune to alteration by the environment. Efforts to help those who are unfortunate by reason of their genes are unlikely to be rewarded. Solutions, therefore, should include those Murray has long advocated: abolish welfare, reduce affirmative action and simplify criminal law."

Among the many Bush cabinet appointees and advisors associated with Murray's ideas are Stephen Goldsmith, Tommy Thompson, Elaine Chou, Myron Magnet, Marvin Olasky, Linda Chavez, Karl Rove, Floyd Flake, Spencer Abraham and various members of the Bush family - including former President Bush.

The CIA Connection to Scientific Racism

Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve during eight years as a research fellow at The Manhattan Institute, a think tank founded by Reagan's CIA director William Casey. After WWII Casey and other US officials who had business ties with the Third Reich helped bring thousands of former Nazis to the U.S. - supposedly to fight communism but in reality to help firmly establish corporate fascism - which they have been very successful at.

These were not just the atom bomb scientists most people are familiar with but specialists in eugenics, propaganda, using pharmaceuticals for social control and research on genetics - much of which was done in Nazi concentration camps. Many of these men also had extensive experience in rounding up Jews, Slavs and other ethnic minorities to be exterminated.

These former Nazis became a core group within the newly-formed CIA and many of them later became key aides to the Republican Party and former President Bush [Philadelphia Inquirer 9/10/98 "Fired Bush backer one of several with possible Nazi links," September 10, 1988; Washington Post Friday, September 16, 1988 ; Page A16 "Behind Scenes, Damage Control Has Become Vital Weapon for Bush"].

The CIA's first director, Allen Dulles, was legal counsel for Standard Oil/IG Farben and worked closely with Prescott Bush, Averil Harriman and Rockefeller in helping to finance the Third Reich. Many of the corporations that sided with Hitler during WWII are well-represented in GW Bush's administration today.

Funding for Charles Murray at the MI (Manhattan Institute) came primarily from the Pioneer Fund - the nation's #1 eugenics think tank, which is associated with Nazi Germany and three generations of the Bush family. A number of GW's election lawyers are associated with the fund and most of the "scholarship" quoted in the Bell Curve was also funded by the Pioneer Fund.

MI is financed by Wall Street investment bankers and oil and pharmaceutical companies, many of which - like the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank - have direct historical ties to Nazi Germany, eugenics and IG Farben - which was half owned by Rockefeller. While MI's focus on race is evident from a visit to their website an even larger part of their efforts are related to the issues of population control and national security.

Many of GW Bush's advisors are research fellows, directors or regular guest speakers at The Manhattan Institute including Myron Magnet, Stephen Goldsmith, Floyd Flake, Linda Chavez and Tommy Thompson - and frequently appear alongside their colleague, Charles Murray, in seminars on eliminating welfare.

Sharing a similar origin with Bush's cabinet appointees, GW's "compassionate conservatism" was created by the CIA/Manhattan Institute's Myron Magnet and Marvin Olasky. In the intro to Olasky's latest book GW Bush calls him, "compassionate conservatism's leading thinker." After successively abandoning Judaism, atheism, membership in the Communist Party and sixties-style idealism, Olasky became a fundamentalist Christian. Like many in Bush's circle, Olasky now believes poverty is caused by a lack of moral values among the poor rather than by a built-in system of social inequality. The Redeemer, a church he founded in Austin Texas, teaches that women have no place in leadership. His theories on the poor were central to Newt Gingrich's Contract With America [Dallas Morning News, NY Times, UK Guardian, AP].

On their website MI supports Jesse Helms, imprisoning low-level drug offenders, eliminating virtually all government regulations, censorship, opening wilderness areas to oil and gas drilling, turning over all social services to faith-based charities, privatizing prisons, hospitals, parks, streets and schools and school vouchers - in short the entire GW Bush political agenda.

Americans who like the Victorian idea of charities rather than taxes providing a social safety net forget that before welfare, social security or Medicaid all social services in America were supplied by faith-based charities. While these groups did good work they were never up to the task of helping so many poor, disabled, sick and elderly people or millions of children who more often than not were left to fend for themselves or starve.

Charles Murray was a consultant for Bush's Sec. of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, and is favorably quoted by Linda Chavez on her organizations' website - The Center for Equal Opportunity. Murray also sits on panel discussions about eliminating welfare with two African American conservatives almost picked for cabinet positions - Eloise Anderson and Floyd Flake. The websites of Anderson's organization, Claremont Institute, like that of Flake's Manhattan Institute, contain numerous laudatory quotes about Charles Murray.

Linda Chavez was a research fellow at the CIA's Manhattan Institute during 1993 and 1994 receiving almost $200,000 in grants from the John M. Olin Foundation, a right-wing fund derived from a family business in munitions and chemicals with roots in white supremacy. If she hadn't been unceremoniously dumped by Bush her anti-union, anti-affirmative action, anti-Spanish language and anti-minimum wage ideas would have created plenty of controversy on their own.

Elaine Chao, Bush's Asian-American replacement for Chavez, is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with direct connections to former Nazis and white supremacists. After doing a search on the Heritage foundation's website I found almost 100 references to Charles Murray - all of them positive. Chao is also allegedly linked to China's President Jiang Zemin via longstanding business and family ties [source: Voice of America; WorldNetDaily.com]. Bush Picks Chao for Labor Post (AP) 1/12/2001 "Chao is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."

Charles Murray is also a regular speaker for the Federalist Society - co-founded by Bush energy appointee Spencer Abraham - an ultraconservative legal advocacy group dedicated to eliminating affirmative action, welfare, bilingual education and the right to sue the government. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas (next to Colin Powell Thomas is America's highest ranking affirmative action recipient) are prominent members of the Federalist Society, which is funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Bradley Foundation - far right foundations linked to racism and eugenics.

Stephen Goldsmith, a leading Manhattan Institute fellow, is GW Bush's top domestic policy advisor. Here's part of his introduction to a symposium on welfare at the Manhattan Institute in April 1999 featuring Charles Murray:

"Education and Welfare: Meeting the Challenge A Message from CCI Chairman, Mayor Stephen Goldsmith [CCI is a division of Manhattan Institute] America is in the midst of an urban renaissance...CCI’s April conference “Next Steps in Welfare Reform” highlighted just how far we’ve come. The conference brought together public officials like Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and scholars like Dr. Charles Murray to discuss how governments and private groups have reduced dependency and increased self-sufficiency...Fifteen years after the Manhattan Institute published Charles Murray’s landmark study of American welfare policy, Losing Ground, the presentations showed that ideas once seen as radical now form the mainstream of the welfare debate."

Among the panelists alongside Murray and Goldsmith was Jason Turner, former head of Wisconsin's welfare program. Turner later became infamous as head of NYC's abusive workfare system after quoting the motto over the gates of Auschwitz - "Arbeit Macht Frei - work shall make you free" [NY Times 6/27/98].

The Bush family represent three generations of eugenics aristocracy. Their extensive political dynasty continues a family tradition begun in the 1930's when Prescott Bush and his corporate friends financed the Third Reich.

No concentration camps will be needed this time around. Thanks to modern science - much of which is derived from Nazi Germany - vaccines, pesticides, chemtrails, genetically-engineered foods, DNA technology and new chemical methods of sterilization and birth control are all that will be required to carry out the population control goals of eugenics.

What's really inclusive about the GW Bush administration's agenda? This time around a lot more people will be included on the list for elimination - or as corporate America prefers to call it - downsizing.

LINKS TO INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE: NY Times Monday, May 12, 1997 Manhattan Institute Has Nudged New York Rightward "...the institute was founded as a free-market education and research organization by William Casey, who then went off to head the Central Intelligence Agency in the Reagan Administration."

NY Times June 12, 2000 Bush Culls Campaign Theme From Conservative Thinkers “Gov. George W. Bush has said his political views have been shaped by the work of Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute.”

From the MI website: Books That Influenced Gov. George W. Bush Myron Magnet's The Dream and the Nightmare: "Referring to this book, Gov. Bush has said, other than the Bible, that it was the most important book he had read..."

The Bell Curve and the Pioneer Fund http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/049.html http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html http://www.marmoset.com/60minute/Webnav/eugen.html

The Heritage Foundation http://www.corporations.org/coors/ http://alant.purespace.de/anti.html http://www.watch.pair.com/heritage.html

Corporate America's Nazi connection http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Binion122100/ binion122100.html http://www.capnasty.org/taf/issue7/elkhorn1.htm

To access thousands of web sites with detailed information on the Bush/Nazi connection go to a good search engine such as http://www.google.com/ and type in Bush AND Nazi.

Bush financial misconduct http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html Who funded GW Bush? http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush17.html

FAIR on John Ashcroft and race http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html

Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists’ Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 743-3722 Bush, Eugenics, Giuliani, Manhattan Institute info http://Baltech.org/lederman/spray/ Street artist info http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html FEEL FREE TO REPOST, PRINT OUT AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!


Stealthy Deal Protects Profits of PG&E's Parents

1/16/01

PG&E Corp. has quietly won approval from federal regulators to restructure itself in a way that shields the parent company's profits, and shareholders, from the mounting debts of the utility it owns.

The move appears to allow Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s parent to record substantial profits while maintaining that its subsidiary, which supplies power to 4.5 million customers, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to force ratepayers to pick up the tab.

The corporate restructuring, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday, came as a surprise to consumer advocates and state leaders dealing with the energy crisis -- including Gov. Gray Davis. They have been working feverishly the past seven days to construct a deal that would alleviate debt pressure on PG&E and Southern California Edison by having the state of California buy power and provide it to the utilities at cost.

Steve Moviglio, a spokesman for Davis, said the governor was displeased by PG&E's move, although he said it was not likely to derail the state's efforts to intervene in the crisis. He also said Davis was "disappointed that FERC acted in the middle of the night without notice to all parties."

Ratepayer advocates and even some state officials have said that any aid to the ailing utilities should be offset by the huge profits that PG&E Corp. has made during the crisis from electricity generation and trading revenues. The money has certainly flowed in the other direction, they argue. In the past, PG&E Corp. has used revenues from the utility to pay down corporate debt, pay stock dividends and buy assets in other states.

PG&E Corp.'s action appears to eliminate that possible means of paying off at least part of the $2 billion in debt incurred since November by its utility,

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., as it bought power at prices higher than it can legally charge customers.

"It's certainly a response to them feeling the threat that the holding company's going to be held responsible for all this," said Bob Finkelstein, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, an advocacy group.

Meanwhile, California's energy crisis continued in full force yesterday, as the California Independent System Operator issued a Stage Two emergency, meaning that demand had reached within 5 percent of the state's electric supply, prompting requests to certain large users to shut down and conserve power. This occurred despite a national holiday, Martin Luther King Day, on which most businesses were closed and demand was forecast to reach about 30, 000 megawatts, a fairly modest number.

Further, conditions appeared as if they were going to worsen imminently. Edison said it will be unable to pay bills coming due today, and PG&E said it has only about $500 million on hand to cover what it owes. Bankruptcy filings by both utilities appeared more likely.

State leaders were still in negotiations yesterday to broker a deal in which California's Department of Water Resources would step in and buy power on behalf of the utilities, who are facing a growing inability to pay for their purchases. The talks were reported to be breaking down, however, because Davis refused to consider raising California rates or backing utility debts with a letter of credit from the state.

In San Francisco, state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton said legislation passed last week by the Assembly will probably make its way to the governor's desk by the end of the month. One bill would change the makeup of the boards that oversee the state's power market, and the other would prohibit utilities from selling off their power-generating assets.

In the midst of yet another Stage 2 electrical emergency the Democratic leader said, "I want the people of California to have long, stable, available energy throughout the rest of our lives."

But in the short term, with the threat of rolling blackouts and urgent requests for power conservation, Burton stated the obvious: "Turn the goddamn lights off," he said.

NO CHALLENGES TO RESTRUCTURING

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved PG&E's restructuring plan on a 3-to-1 vote on Friday. It was apparently described in a Dec. 28 public notice as a stock transfer, and thus flew under the radar screens of most observers. Details of the plan were first reported in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

Greg Pruett, a spokesman for PG&E Corp., said the intent of the plan was merely to allow another unit of the corporate parent, National Energy Group, to receive its own credit rating that would be weighed independently of the troubled utility. But he acknowledged that all or nearly all of PG&E Corp.'s assets outside the utility are held by National Energy Group and that the move would reduce the liability for the corporation.

Although it was unclear whether PG&E informed state leaders of its plans, Pruett said the notice of the meeting was publicly available and had at least been provided to the Public Utilities Commission.

In addition to proceeds from the sale of power plants and other revenues that PG&E has forwarded on to its corporate parent, the utility has reaped windfall profits during the crisis from the generation and sale of electricity and has not applied those profits to its own debt. To do so would require an accounting rule change by the California Public Utilities Commission, but company officials have maintained that should not be done.

PG&E IN DEBT TO ITSELF

Critics say that PG&E is its own biggest debtor, with money flying out of one pocket and into the other and that nearly half of its debt is owed to itself. In the third quarter of 2000, the company reported a 22 percent increase in profits, with a net income of $225 million, while saying it expected California consumers to eventually pick up the tab for its debt.

ON TAP TODAY

-- Shortage: Electricity demand is expected to grow as Californians return to work from a three-day weekend, increasing the likelihood of energy emergencies.

-- Talks: Energy officials huddle in Washington and Sacramento over Gov. Gray Davis' plan for the state to buy energy for the beleaguered utilities.

-- Credit: If Wall Street doesn't like the plan to rescue the state's ailing

utilities, it may begin downgrading stock and bond ratings - even to "junk" status.

-- Payments: Southern California Edison has a multimillion dollar bill coming due, but the company says it has no money to pay.

Chronicle staff writer Lynda Gledhill contributed to this report. / E-mail Christian Berthelsen at


JESUS IS MY KING by John Ashcroft.

Bob Jones University May 8, 1999
Transcript of John Ashcroft's Remarks 

I want to thank each of you for investing yourselves in the mission of Christ -- in redemption and forgiveness, and for preparing yourselves in the way that you have. A slogan of the American revolution which was so distressing to the emissaries of the king that it was found in correspondence sent back to England, was the line, "We have no king but Jesus". Tax collectors came, asking for that which belonged to the king, and colonists frequently said, "We have no king but Jesus".

It found its way into the fundamental documents of this great country. You could quote the Declaration with me, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different.

We have no king but Jesus. My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple of thousand years when Pilate stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said, "Whom would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is called the Christ?" And when they said "Barabas," he said, "But what about Jesus? King of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no king but Caesar". There's a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king but Caesar, you release Barabas -- criminality, destruction, thievery, the lowest and least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the eternal, you release the highest and best, you release virtue, you release potential.

It is not accidental that America has been the home of the brave and the land of the free, the place where mankind has had the greatest of all opportunities, to approach the potential that God has placed within us. It has been because we knew that we were endowed not by the king, but by the Creator, with certain unalienable rights. If America is to be great in the future, it will be if we understand that our source is not civic and temporal, but our source is godly and eternal. Endowed by the Creator with rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I thank God for this institution and for you, who recognize and commit yourselves to the proposition that we were so created, and that to live with respect to the Creator promises us the greatest potential as a nation and as individuals. And for such we must reacquaint ourselves daily with His call upon our lives. Thank you. God bless you, and thank you for honoring me by allowing me to stand with Asa [Hutchinson], Lindsey [Graham] and a great Governor.


Russians to publish top MI6 secrets
London Times 1/14/01 by © 2000

MI6 accused its former officer Richard Tomlinson yesterday of striking a deal with the Russian intelligence services to publish his memoirs of life as a spy.

The book, entitled The Big Breach: From Top Secret to Maximum Security, is due to be published shortly by a Russian company that MI6 claims was set up for the purpose. It has no previous publishing history.

Tomlinson's decision comes only weeks after it was revealed that ministers are about to authorise the publication of memoirs by Stella Rimington, the former director-general of MI5.

Tomlinson's book is likely to present ministers with even more substantial problems. While Rimington's book has been shorn of controversial material, his is an attack on the management of MI6 and reveals much about its internal culture and methods.

The service is so secretive that the only previous glimpses of its internal culture have come in highly fictionalised accounts such as Ian Fleming's James Bond books.

MI6 has long sought to portray Tomlinson as a dangerous maverick hell-bent on damaging the service.

It maintains he mixes up fact and fiction, though it acknowledges that large parts of the book, a version of which it has read, are accurate.

In the book, Tomlinson gives details of the extreme lengths that MI6 has gone to in pursuing him around the world.

Other sections describe how MI6 carries out dirty tricks operations and how recruits are given specialist training at Fort Monckton in Portsmouth.

It contains details of the training exercises for new recruits, and reveals how new officers are taught to create identities for themselves.

The author also describes much of the organisation's tradecraft and the way recruits are taught to hide their true careers from family and friends. Other chapters cover his time undercover in Bosnia, a secret mission to Russia and his role in uncovering a plot by the Iranians to buy a chemical weapons plant.

Tomlinson says he has offered three times to submit the book for vetting to the D-notice committee, but says MI6 has responded "with menacing letters threatening me with imprisonment or used my admission of having a text to confiscate my computers." MI6 says it has never been given the book to vet.

Tomlinson, 38, was recruited into MI6 in 1991 after getting a first class degree in aeronautical engineering at Cambridge and serving in the Territorial SAS. He scored top marks in his training and was initially seen as a high-flyer. But after service in Bosnia he received a severely critical staff assessment and was sacked. Claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed, he sought redress from an employment tribunal; but MI6 stepped in with a public interest immunity certificate (PII) to block him, citing national security.

Tomlinson claims that MI6 officers used threats of arrest and lifelong harassment to make him hand over the copyright to anything he wrote about his time in the secret service. He was subsequently arrested in 1996 and sentenced to a year's imprisonment under the Official Secrets Act for giving a synopsis of the book to an Australian publisher.

Soon after leaving Belmarsh top security prison in May 1998 on licence after serving part of his sentence, he fled abroad, moving from one country to another to avoid what he insists is harassment instigated by MI6. Intelligence organisations in several countries, including France and Germany, have tried to recruit him to reveal details of MI6 operations. He says he co-operated with the Swiss.

Tomlinson says that he has been assaulted, arrested, held for questioning or raided by armed police at least 11 times in six countries. He is banned from America, Australia, France and Switzerland and has been harassed in Germany and New Zealand. He is now living in Italy and believes he is under surveillance.

In May last year his apartment in Rimini was raided by Italian police and his computer, mobile phone, computer disks and legal papers were taken. They were handed over to two British Special Branch officers and have not been returned.

Tomlinson claims that Italian private detectives hired by MI6 approached his landlady and friends in Italy and told them he was a convicted paedophile.

A raft of injunctions and other legal actions has prevented him from publishing his book in Britain. As a result, he has followed the precedent of the former MI5 officer, Peter Wright, whose book, Spycatcher, was published in Australia and the United States after it was banned in Britain. Only after imported copies were sold at road junctions and street markets in Britain did the courts accept that it was pointless to keep the ban in place.

"MI6 prosecuted and imprisoned me under laws which on July 20, 2000 were scathingly condemned by a UN report in Britain's human rights record," says Tomlinson in the book's epilogue. "They took expensive injunctions out agains me in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, the USA and New Zealand, all in disregard for laws governing freedom of speech, guessing correctly that I did not have the funds to appeal through the courts."

His publisher in Russia has printed at least 10,000 copies of the book, which will be distributed around the world.

Tomlinson says he will come back to Britain voluntarily, hand over to charity his profits from the book and if necessary go to prison again, on condition that he is first allowed to take MI6 to an employment tribunal.

MI6 has retaliated by accusing his Russian publisher of operating under a false name and using bogus documents to travel regularly to the United States and Europe. The man is said to have set up the publishing company shortly before approaching Tomlinson with a $50,000 offer to print the book.

MI6 maintains, although it admits it has no proof, that he is a front-man for one of three Russian intelligence services. It believes that these services - the FSB, GRU and SVR - have read Tomlinson's book.

Last night Tomlinson and the publisher both dismissed the claims as "rubbish". Tomlinson said: "There is no evidence to support these allegations, but if they are true then I'm grateful to the Russians for supporting freedom of speech."

Last week, The Sunday Times began the process of challenging the injunction granted by Mr Justice Toulson in November 1996 which prevents media in Britain reporting anything Tomlinson says or writes which he learnt as a result of his employment at MI6.

The paper argues that the terms of the injunction are too broad and that, once the book has been published in Russia and becomes widely available here and abroad so that its contents are known to every non-friendly intelligence service, it is pointless to maintain a ban in this country.

Additional reporting: , Moscow