Putin: Ally or Terrorist? (Russian FSB/KGB Real Culprits Behind "Chechen Terrorism")

Counting Vladimir Putin as an ally against terrorism ignores his career in the murderous KGB/FSB and his ongoing support for terrorist regimes and organizations.

‘‘Lena Goncharuk, aged 38, said that she was the only one to survive out of a group of six who were ordered out of the cellar where they had been hiding and shot at point blank range. Resting in her hospital bed, her voice barely rising above a whisper, she said she had survived only by pretending to be dead." So reported Paul Wood from the Chechen border for The Independent of London on February 6, 2000, as "triumphant" Russian troops occupied Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. Wood’s article, entitled "Chechnya’s civilians put to the sword," continued with Mrs. Goncharuk’s story:

"They [the Russian soldiers] were asking for cigarettes, then they asked, ‘Do you have a radio,’ and they said, ‘Give it to us,’" she said, explaining that the four women and two men were sent back down into the cellar after handing over their valuables.

"We hadn’t even sat down," she went on, "then they began throwing grenades into the cellar and shooting. We all were crying and suffocating, the smell was unbearable. We were crying out, we could not see anything but they continued to shoot.

"We said, ‘Guys what are you doing? We are civilians.’ They stopped shooting and they said to come out of the cellar. Our legs and heads were wounded and we could hardly move but we got up, supporting each other.

"The first out were two Russian women, Luda and Natasha. We were standing inside the garage over the cellar and they started shooting at point blank range. The others were twisting in pain.... Natasha was lying dead already....

"There was one old man with us. His head was covered in blood.... Then they started firing again.

"If I had looked up I would have been shot. I opened my eye just a little bit, all I saw was the muzzles of their guns and their boots."

Two hospital beds down from Lena Goncharuk was another victim of the Russian "liberation." Unlike Goncharuk, Hedi Makhauri, a 40-year-old Chechen mother, had not been trapped inside besieged Grozny; along with tens of thousands of other refugees, she had fled to neighboring Ingushetia.

With Russian troops establishing themselves in the capital, and the Russian bombing and shelling apparently over, she had thought it safe to go back and check on her house. Paul Wood’s report briefly recounts her ordeal:

"They said it was a liberated area," she said, frail and thin, clutching her hospital sheet to her chin, telling us that when she got to her street, she and two other Chechen women saw Russian soldiers loading stolen goods from the houses into one of their armoured vehicles.

"They took us to the armoured vehicle and they said to go inside. We were afraid as they put blindfolds on us. We said, ‘Why, we are not criminals, we have just come to see our houses.’ They said it was orders.

"They said they would take us to the police headquarters, but they just took us around the corner. It was just ruins all around. Me and my neighbour were clutching each other’s hand. We said: ‘Why are you taking us here, there are no police here.’ They said: ‘Just wait, they will come.’

"The other woman said, ‘Take whatever you want, we have children, just don’t kill us.’ They made us go into one little room. They just shot her in the head. She didn’t even have time to say, ‘Let me go.’ They just shot her. Hedi said that the Russian soldiers were tugging at the gold ring on her finger.

"It slipped off just as they decided to get a knife to sever her finger and the ring along with it. They also took her ear-rings and her money, 400 roubles, about £8.

"Then they put an old mattress over her body, poured petrol on, and lit it. The mattress was wet and did not catch light, only smouldered as they walked away. If I cried they would have killed me," she said.

"They said it was a liberated area"? Where did Hedi Makhauri and many others less fortunate than her get such calamitous disinformation? Why, from no less an authority than Vladimir Putin, then the acting president of Russia. Mr. Putin appeared on Russian national television on Sunday, February 6, 2000, to announce that the last stronghold of the Chechen "terrorists" in Grozny had been taken and the Russian flag had been hoisted over the smoldering ruins of the capital. "Thus, we can say that the operation to liberate Grozny is over," declared Putin.

The seven-year campaign of genocide against Chechnya has been largely invisible to the outside world. The Russian armed forces and security services have successfully kept most of the Western media and humanitarian-aid organizations out, while, at the same time, preventing refugees from escaping with eye-witness details of the brutal subjugation. "Let us call it by its real name," wrote Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby on October 28, 1999. "What Russia is committing in Chechnya is the mass murder of civilians.... And not only is the West failing to rise up against his [Putin’s] bloodbath, it is actively helping to finance it," directly through U.S. foreign aid to the Russian government, as well as indirectly via the U.S. taxpayer-funded International Monetary Fund.

Tragically, far too few of Mr. Jacoby’s colleagues in the Western media have shared his outrage over the ongoing slaughter in Chechnya; the coverage of Putin’s campaign of terror against Chechen civilians has been sporadic and the condemnations tepid. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, criticism of the Chechen pogrom has all but evaporated, as the Bush administration has rushed to embrace Russia as our valued "ally" in the war on terrorism.

New York Times correspondent Bill Keller typified this response in an October 6th article, in which he stated: "We need the Russians now, as we needed Stalin once, and if that means our president pulls a punch on the subject of the indiscriminate civil carnage in Chechnya, I can live with that; the punch had no muscle behind it anyway." Mr. Keller and other pragmatists of his ilk can apparently "live with" patently immoral policies like genocide, turning a blind eye to the unpleasant bloodletting as long as the perpetrator advances the globalist agenda of East-West convergence.

On November 23rd, the Times offered an even more startling re-evaluation of Russia as NATO’s new partner in the war on terrorism. Aleksandr Rahr, a scholar at the German Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Berlin, told the Times: "What changed radically on September 11th was the complete disappearance of Russia as a threat to Europe. It’s completely gone." The German CFR is a sister to the American CFR, this country’s "ruling establishment," and Mr. Rahr was trilling the same convergence theme as his U.S. counterparts. Mr. Rahr, along with other European and American CFR one-worlders, advocates a full, lusty embrace of Russia against our new common enemy.

One of the most enthusiastic advocates of this policy of NATO-Russia embrace is none other than Lord Robertson, the current NATO chief. "We sense very strong indications from President Putin in recent weeks that he wants to change the way that Russia does business," the November 23rd New York Times quoted Robertson as saying. "We take that at face value and we will work on that basis," he continued. "The Russian response to the terrible attacks on the United States," he said, "has … been the reaction of a real and genuine friend." "In the past," said Robertson, "we were divided by walls and fences and by ideology and by armies. Today the threats to the Russian people are very similar, if not exactly the same as, the threats to the people in the NATO countries and the West."

Does Lord Robertson, the head of the West’s military alliance, truly buy the Kremlin line that the pounding of Chechen cities and villages into rubble, the rampant slaughter of civilians, and the driving of hundreds of thousands of refugees into camps, neighboring provinces, and foreign exile are the same as fighting terrorists who carry out acts like the 9-11 Black Tuesday attack? Whether or not he truly believes it, Robertson is definitely retailing that line with a passion. "To utter such nonsense, a top Western official has to be either a closet Communist or one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’" says Christopher Story, editor and publisher of the authoritative London-based Soviet Analyst.

One of the most reliable analysts of Russian affairs and a keen observer of British power politics, Mr. Story clearly believes Robertson to be of the former category. "Look, Robertson was well known in Britain as a former Communist trade union agitator when Tony Blair picked him to be secretary of state for defense," Story told The New American. "Blair is to the left of Clinton and has been clear over in the Kremlin camp all along. The September 11th attacks have given him the opportunity to advance his pro-Moscow agenda while appearing to be pro-military, pro-American, and anti-terrorist." Story points out that when a member of parliament queried the British Fabian Socialist Society concerning charges that certain members of the Blair cabinet were members of the socialist group, the secretary of the Fabian Society publicly confirmed that 20 of Blair’s 23 cabinet officials were indeed members in good standing with the organization. For over a century, notes Story, the Fabians have played a crucial role in implementing Marxist-Leninist policies in the British Commonwealth.

"Lord Robertson the former Communist is quite obviously a continuing covert Communist who is enthusiastically implementing the continuing Soviet strategy against the West — from the highest office in NATO, no less," warns Story. "What makes this even more troubling is that Robertson was appointed NATO secretary-general following Javier Solana, a ‘former’ Spanish Communist, who shared the same love affair with Moscow. Solana has now been transferred to a key position within the European Commission of the EU [European Union], where he and his fellow radicals are working in concert with Robertson, Blair, Germany’s Joschka Fischer, Italy’s Romano Prodi, and other subversives to convert NATO and the EU completely into an oppressive Soviet collective."

The Russians have always been master chess players, reminds Story, and they have been playing the terrorist gambit very successfully. "If the people of the West do not wake up soon to this fact, we will soon be in checkmate," he warns.

The Russian war against Chechnya is, of course, central to the current U.S.-Russian embrace as allies in the war against terrorism. For the Russians and their CFR apologists in the U.S., it provides an important test of the American public’s gullibility: Can the slaughter in Chechnya credibly be equated to our current war against Osama bin Laden? After all, as the CFR’s Mr. Rahr claims, the Russian threat is "completely gone," and we’re both fighting against Islamic extremists, right? Or as Lord Robertson put it, we both face "very similar, if not exactly the same" threats.

The chess pieces were being positioned to produce American acceptance of this preposterous notion long before the suicide attacks of September 11, 2001. In December 1994, Boris Yeltsin ordered Russian troops, tanks, and air power into Chechnya to fight what he claimed were "terrorists" and "bandits." Soon the term "Islamic extremist" was also being applied to the Chechen opponents. For months the Russian army appeared pathetically inept, demoralized, barbaric, and incapable of subduing the Chechens. However, after grinding much of Chechnya under its tank tracks and killing 100,000 civilians, the Yeltsin regime negotiated an accord to withdraw Russian forces, while negotiations would continue toward a settlement of Chechnya’s status by the end of 2001.

The most penetrating (and what has also proven the most prophetic) analysis of the 1994-96 Russian-Chechnyan War was written in February 1995 as a memo from Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn to CIA Acting Director William O. Studeman. Published in the 1995 edition of Golitsyn’s book The Perestroika Deception, the memo marshaled important evidence and observations supporting the contention that the Chechnyan War was being "deliberately staged largely for Western consumption by the Kremlin strategists in the pursuit of their objectives."

What hidden objectives could the Kremlin strategists advance by a controlled operation that showed the Russian military performing so poorly and the Russian military leaders quarreling amongst themselves? Mr. Golitsyn, himself a former elite KGB operative amongst the Kremlin strategists, listed many important objectives, including:

• The Russian military bungling was intended to "demonstrate that it can be discounted as a serious military adversary for the foreseeable future."

• This message was "intended to influence US Congressional debate on the subject of Russia’s military potential and the size of US forces required to maintain a balance with it."

• The message could "also be used as a pretext for deepening the partnership between the US and Russian armed forces by seeking American advice and help in ‘reforming,’ reorganizing and retraining the Russian army in order to enable it to serve a ‘democratic’ system."

• The Chechnyan events also "enabled the Russians to play especially on European fears of destabilization in Russia" and "injected a further boost to the European desire for partnership with the ‘democratic forces’ in Russia."

• This partnership would lead to "entry into European institutions" and then "East European and eventually Russian involvement in NATO."

As usual, Mr. Golitsyn’s cogent analysis has proven prescient as well; all of the above objectives, and others he mentioned, have been advanced on the Russian chessboard — to a frightful degree. And, as usual, Golitsyn’s warnings and analyses have been ignored and supressed by the CFR insiders dominating U.S. policy-making positions, Establishment think tanks, and the press. (See the sidebar.)

Mr. Golitsyn suggested that the Chechnyan "crisis" might be "a possible planned prelude to a change of government," replacing the spent Yeltsin team with a new set of rotating faces. "Since an outright military or nationalist government [in Russia] might prejudice the flow of Western aid and the continued ‘cooperation’ with the West which furthers the strategists’ interests," he said, it is likely that the Kremlin strategists wielding the real power behind the scenes would replace Yeltsin with a team comprised of a tough new president and a "reformist" prime minister. "The President would be presented as a guarantee of Russian stability while the Prime Minister’s task would be to ensure the continued flow of Western aid and the continuation of cooperative operations."

Enter Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the Russian "hero" of the Chechnyan pogrom. President Putin, the current player sitting in the Kremlin’s big chair, may seem in charge of moving the Russian pieces around the board, says Christopher Story, but he is merely the current front man for the covert Communist leadership collective that has continued to rule Russia since the Soviet Union’s supposed collapse. Mr. Story is perhaps the world’s leading proponent of Golitsyn’s thesis that the "Soviet collapse" was a controlled deception, planned many years in advance, for long-range strategic purposes.

Mr. Story, whose publications have closely tracked developments in Chechnya as well as the rise of Putin’s star, derides the government and media experts for falling all over themselves to come up with explanations for Putin’s meteoric rise. "Vladimir Putin has been a lifelong Communist and asset of Soviet intelligence," first of the KGB, and then of the GRU, Soviet military intelligence, he told The New American. "And the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ that raised him to the national and world stages has been completely an operation of the successor Russian intelligence services. If you follow the Russian-Chechnyan events and Putin’s career it’s very clear that he was hand-picked by the Kremlin strategists for his current role."

Shooting Putin to prominence was a spectacular string of 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities that left hundreds dead. Yeltsin had appointed Putin prime minister, after serving a stint as head of the FSB, the current acronym for the KGB. Putin then strode on the scene vowing to bring the terrorists to justice. He quickly identified the perpetrators as Islamic extremists from Chechnya and soon launched a new massive invasion reducing Grozny to ashes and corpses. Heralded by the KGB/FSB-directed government organs and media as the strong man who had redeemed Russia’s honor from the ignominy of the 1994-1996 Chechnyan War and ended the terror bombings, Putin was elected "president" in March 2000.

USA Today reported on March 27, 2000 that Putin’s win "capped an incredible rise to power by a man who had never before stood for election." The Los Angeles Times reported that prior to his victory over the Chechens, "few thought the mousy, soft-spoken former spy could convince a majority of voters to elect him president."

Christopher Story has pointed out that Putin was able to solve the terrorist bombings "because they were very simply provocations perpetrated by covert Soviet intelligence operatives to provide Moscow with a pretext for an official re-entry into Chechnya. I say ‘official’ because Russia never really relinquished control when it supposedly left in 1996." Other analysts, investigators, and reporters around the world have reached some of the same conclusions. Many major mainstream media organs have acknowledged that the Putin regime has produced no evidence substantiating that Chechens were behind the Moscow bombings. Moreover, it has been fairly widely reported that strong evidence indicates that the FSB actually perpetrated the bombings. Many news groups have reported that after the fourth major bombing in September 1999, local police foiled a fifth bombing when they arrested terrorists planting explosives in another apartment complex. The terrorists turned out to be FSB agents.

According to Soviet Analyst, the Russians did not merely seize an opportunity (the 9-11 attacks) that happened to coincide with their long-range objectives; Putin and associates actually planned and carried out the terrorist deed using assets connected to bin Laden in Chechnya. The publication, which, like Anatoliy Golitsyn, can boast an uncanny accuracy on major Russian developments unmatched by the media-anointed Russian experts, has pointed out a number of important facts that support this theory. Among them:

• Land-locked Chechnya has long been one of the most completely controlled areas of the former Soviet Union, surrounded by Russia and Georgia, run by the faithful Communist Edward Shevardnadze. It is thus one of the safest venues to carry out a false Islamic revolt.

• The huge Soviet strategic military base and air base at Mozdok near Ingushetia has been using Chechnya as a "live warfare" laboratory and training ground, preparing for further strategic warfare in the region.

• The Chechen opposition has been completely controlled and compromised with false leadership, notably, with the likes of Djokhar Dudayev, a former Soviet air force general, accepted by Moscow as the representative voice of Chechen independence.

• The Russian armed forces and security services repeatedly released their controlled Chechen opposition, or allowed them to escape, to carry out repeated provocations.

• During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, an estimated 50,000 young Afghan males were removed from Afghanistan and transferred to terrorist training camps in Chechnya, Tajikistan, and elsewhere — to be filtered back in subsequent years as fighters in the ranks of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Northern Alliance.

• Utilizing its client regimes in Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East, Russia has supported the "Islamic" terror network while making it appear that it is itself under assault from "Muslim extremists."

As usual, says Christopher Story, the Communist strategists in Moscow have used the "principle of reversal," lying audaciously about the true situation in Chechnya. "Putin’s claims that Russia is under attack from bin Laden’s forces, just like the U.S., is a complete reversal of the truth," he says. In reality, he notes, "the evidence is far more persuasive that his al-Qaeda contacts in Chechnya and neighboring areas have been used to coordinate provocations that will provide the image of a common enemy." If this analysis is correct, and it appears to be, then the United States and the West have embraced as allies in the war on terrorism the engineers and perpetrators of the global terror offensive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the rise of a false Soviet reformer like Gorbachev, the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and the restructuring of NATO.

In 1961, in a dramatic escape under cover of a blinding snow storm, a major in the Soviet KGB defected to the United States. He was no ordinary KGB agent; he was an elite officer working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department that plotted long-term Soviet strategy against the West. He is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have reached the West. His name is Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Golitsyn warned that KGB moles had penetrated the CIA and virtually all other Western intelligence services and that many defectors were actually double agents feeding strategic disinformation to the West. For more than four decades, Golitsyn has been providing methodical analysis of developments in the Soviet Union and of Russian initiatives and operations throughout the world that has proven uniquely accurate. He has been explaining patiently that the Communist strategists who ran the Soviet Union continue to run Russia today. Following Leninist strategic principles, they are engaged in a deadly long-term war against the West. Foremost among their objectives is to convince Western leaders that Soviet Communism has collapsed and represents no further threat to the world.

Golitsyn’s amazingly prophetic book, New Lies for Old, was published in 1984. His main predictions included details of the forthcoming false liberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by similar developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the rise of a false Soviet reformer like Gorbachev, the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and the restructuring (if not abolition) of NATO. He even went so far as to specify that a "Break with the Past" process would start in East Germany, with the opening of its borders — as it turned out, to neighboring Communist countries. That was very remarkable: Golitsyn knew that the process would start in East Germany, and it did.

Author Mark Riebling, in his important 1994 book entitled Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, conducted a careful analysis of Golitsyn’s predictions in New Lies for Old. He found that out of a total of 148 predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993 — "an accuracy rating of 94%." No other Soviet expert even comes close. Golitsyn’s 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception, continuing in the same tradition, offers unparalleled information and insight. Our leaders continue ignoring his proven wisdom to our own great peril.

hmmm. Putin is a terrorist, source the New American.

Sounds scary. But sounds familiar. Sounds like the propaganda that was out about Bush being behind 9-11-01.

Bush? Oh yeah. Didn't he make the New American too? Sounds like an agenda to me

http://web.archive.org/web/20031003030411/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/06-02-2003/vo19no11_aids.htm

Vol. 19, No. 11
June 2, 2003
Table of Contents More on the United Nations

Global AIDS Con Game
by William F. Jasper

President Bush’s new global AIDS initiative will provide a massive infusion of funds to UN affiliates that may be responsible for spreading the AIDS epidemic.

Hundreds of lawmakers, cabinet officials, foreign dignitaries, and news correspondents packed into the East Room of the White House on April 29th. They had come to witness the launch of another global crusade against another momentous crisis. "Time is not on our side," President Bush urgently declared. "So I ask Congress to move forward with [the] speed and seriousness this crisis requires." And the seriousness of the crisis, the president averred, requires an immediate deployment of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, in an ongoing foreign aid program. What is this crisis? The president explained:

HIV/AIDS is a tragedy for millions of men, women and children, and a threat to stability of entire countries and of regions of our world. Our nations have the ability and, therefore, the duty to confront this grave public health crisis. We are here today to urge both Houses of the United States Congress to pass the emergency plan for AIDS relief, which will dramatically expand our fight against AIDS across this globe.

"Fighting AIDS on a global scale is a massive and complicated undertaking," President Bush proclaimed. "Yet, this cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties." Thus, the president exhorted Congress to move quickly on his five-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative.

Once again, George Bush has out-Clintoned Bill Clinton. The Clinton-Gore team (or any other Democrat-controlled White House, for that matter) could not have come close to getting most congressmen behind such an enormous and outrageous pro-abortion, anti-family foreign aid scheme. But with the Bush White House fervently supporting this UN boondoggle and providing cover, congressional Republicans jumped on board the global gravy train, eager to burnish their compassion credentials. On May 1st, 183 Republicans joined 191 Democrats to pass H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, by a vote of 375 to 41. (Forty Republicans and one Democrat — Gene Taylor of Mississippi — stood on principle and voted against this unconstitutional, immoral measure.)

As we write, the Senate version is reportedly heading toward passage, with congressional leaders eager to meet White House demands that the final legislation be ready for the president’s signature by Memorial Day.

Another Leftist Triumph

Yes, the AIDS pandemic is a terrible tragedy. Will this new legislation and the vast rivers of funds it releases provide the relief, cures, and solutions that its champions claim? Unfortunately not. In fact, it is virtually certain that it will fail in these stated objectives — while succeeding fabulously in its real objectives: empowering a vast new UN bureaucracy and advancing the radical population control schemes of the one-world elite. Here is the blunt, unvarnished truth about the Bush AIDS initiative:

• It is the creation of the most extreme-left, pro-abortion forces in Congress (e.g., Senators Teddy Kennedy and Joseph Biden, and Reps. Barbara Lee and Tom Lantos, to name a few), together with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and World Health Organization and World Bank officials.

• It will pour billions of dollars into the personal bank accounts of African dictators, corrupt officials, and regimes allied to terrorist organizations.

• It will pour billions of dollars into the coffers of dramatically expanded UN agencies and NGOs that have accumulated atrocious records for promoting abortion, coercive sterilization, and sex-ed programs encouraging promiscuity and homosexuality.

• It will actually accelerate the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted and infectious diseases by funding "family planning" and "reproductive rights" programs that are already responsible, as recent studies show, for much of the AIDS pandemic in Africa (see sidebar on page 21).

In short, President Bush’s AIDS initiative is a colossal betrayal of the pro-life, pro-family principles he claims to embrace. It is also a betrayal of his most loyal core constituency, far too many of whom continue to believe, against all evidence to the contrary, the president’s empty pro-life rhetoric.

To get some idea of the truly radical scope of the president’s AIDS program, consider the following statement from Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), one of the most extreme pro-abortion, pro-homosexual activists in Congress, on April 2, 2003:

Today’s mark-up is truly historic. This morning we are considering perhaps the most ambitious piece of legislation in this Committee’s long history. The $15 billion authorized in the "United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003" is an enormous sum by any measure. It is five times — I repeat, five times — the amount we considered authorizing for this cause just last year. For those of us who have long called for a real commitment of resources to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, our day has arrived.

The day of the Clintonite radicals has indeed arrived — under a Republican president and a Republican Congress. One month after Rep. Lantos’ jubilant remarks, his militant comrade-at-arms, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), offered a similar, triumphant toast. An official press release, issued by Rep. Lee’s office on May 1st, stated:

"I am pleased that the House has passed this truly historic legislation," said Lee, who has worked many years on both international and domestic HIV/AIDS funding. "This bill gives us the opportunity to care for a significant number of individuals who are suffering from HIV/AIDS and also works toward preventing millions more from being victimized by this deadly disease."

As already mentioned, this "truly historic legislation" will not save millions of lives from the AIDS scourge, the claims of Lee and her cohorts notwithstanding. But it will do much to advance some very subversive agendas. And when it comes to Rep. Lee, one of the most overtly subversive members of Congress, as well as one of the principal architects of H.R. 1298, it is essential to be aware of those agendas.

This is the same Rep. Barbara Lee, recall, who was assistant and understudy to militantly pro-Communist Rep. Ron Dellums. In addition, she has traveled to Grenada to coordinate activities with the Castroite Politburo of that Communist regime; she has been a top official for the past decade of the Communist Party splinter faction known as the Committees of Correspondence; and she co-chairs the radical Progressive Caucus and formerly chaired the extreme-left Congressional Black Caucus.

The same press release issued by Rep. Lee’s office on May 1st stated:

Lee and the bill’s other sponsors defeated a number of amendments that attempted to weaken the bill.... In spite of the victory, Lee expressed disappointment that social conservatives passed an amendment calling for one-third of the bill’s future prevention funding to be specifically designated for abstinence [education] programs, instead of leaving appropriations decisions to be made by experts in the field. "We will fight to remove this provision in the final version of the bill," said Lee. "We negotiated in good faith, only to have the Republicans and the White House push for this amendment. I am very disturbed that they politicized our efforts to address this humanitarian crisis."

Reps. Lee and Lantos are not really all that worried; they know the abstinence amendment was largely cosmetic, intended to give Republicans a phony "victory" they could crow about to placate their pro-life constituents. Even if the abstinence amendment survives in the final bill, there is little likelihood that Congress or the Bush administration (or any future administration) will monitor and enforce its far-flung global programs any more vigorously and efficiently than they do the numerous foreign aid programs that already exist.

When President Bush and his congressional allies began touting their new AIDS hobbyhorse in January, they assured social conservatives that the program would be based on a proven "ABC" approach that stresses behavioral change, with "A" for abstinence, "B" for be faithful, and "C" for using condoms — when appropriate. But it soon became apparent that "Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms" would be replaced by "Abortion, Be tolerant, and Condoms galore."

On February 16th, the Los Angeles Times reported: "In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive U.S. funds under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions, White House officials said."

The Times report and other similar signals caused some of the president’s mesmerized pro-life followers to snap out of their dream worlds. The February 2003 Ryan Report of the American Life League (ALL), for instance, reported that Bush’s about-face on the AIDS issue "shocked members of the pro-life community who thought they had a friend in George Bush."

"This is an outrage!" the ALL Ryan Report went on to protest. "Bush’s decision will certainly make Planned Parenthood happy. In fact it came in the midst of Planned Parenthood’s National Condom Week (February 14-21) while Planned Parenthood was asking its supporters to send a condom to Africa in the president’s name via its website. Planned Parenthood’s claim on that website that Bush is anti-condom certainly does not seem to apply to Bush’s AIDS initiative."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of the 41 House members who voted against H.R. 1298 on May 1st. "The supposedly conservative Congress overwhelmingly passed a foreign aid bill that could have come straight from the desk of the most liberal Democrat," Rep. Paul said in a blistering statement issued by his office on May 5th. "The legislation sends $15 billion of your tax dollars to Africa, ostensibly to fight AIDS by distributing condoms, providing sex education, and funding abortion providers."

The Texas physician, who has a solid pro-life voting record, continued:

Sadly, this $15 billion expenditure comes even as Congress is cutting funding for veterans by roughly the same amount. The Treasury is running record deficits, the Pentagon is engaged in enormously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans’ programs are badly underfunded — yet still Congress is sending billions overseas for yet another dubious and unconstitutional program. This should anger every American who still believes in the true conservative tenets of limited government, fiscal restraint, and private charity instead of social welfare programs.

But most of the pro-life community remain in denial, preferring to believe that the president’s promises of commitment to the unborn mean more than his actions that clearly indicate the opposite intent. The Republican leadership in Congress has aided and abetted the White House in this deception. This includes GOP stars who have built reputations as right-to-life champions.

The lead Judas goat in the AIDS sham has been Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee and the principal sponsor of the Bush AIDS initiative. Chairman Hyde issued a statement for the committee on May 1st, declaring that H.R. 1298 "is an unprecedented bipartisan initiative that will lead the way for increased U.S. engagement and leadership to contain the spread of the pandemic, and ultimately to arrest AIDS as a threat to economic and national security." Echoing the White House, Chairman Hyde’s release stated that "AIDS threatens the political, social and economic stability of the world, a danger that grows with each passing year."

Pratt House Genesis

Again, the Republicans were stealing a page from Team Clinton’s playbook. But the Clinton playbook didn’t really originate in the Clinton White House; it came from the Pratt House, New York headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The genesis and development of what is now the Bush global AIDS program can be traced in dozens of task force reports and round-table discussions sponsored over the past decade by the CFR, as well as articles from the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs.

Consider, for example, the November/December 2000 Foreign Affairs article entitled "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," by Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger. In this piece, Mr. Berger (a CFR member) writes:

Finally, we have made the fight against deadly infectious diseases a national security priority. Some may think this goal stretches the definition of national security, but a problem that kills huge numbers, crosses borders, and threatens to destabilize whole regions is the very definition of a national security threat.... President Clinton made this issue a centerpiece of his last G-8 summit, but this challenge will call for even greater resources and attention in the future.

Team Bush has been more than willing to accommodate the AIDS expansion called for in this "centerpiece" initiated by Team Clinton. Why is this so? Because, party labels aside, the Clinton and Bush administrations, like the administrations preceding them back to the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt, are merely ball carriers for the organized one-worlders, who are most visibly represented at the CFR.

Senator Barry Goldwater described this subversive Pratt House influence in his 1979 book, With No Apologies. "When we change presidents," the senator wrote, "it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years." But even though the party labels of the men in the Oval Office during those years flipped back and forth, he noted, the CFR members in our government continued the same destructive policies from one administration to another.

Senator Goldwater observed: "There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé."

So it has continued to the present. CFR member Samuel Berger has been replaced in the National Security Adviser slot by Condoleezza Rice (CFR). Likewise, hundreds of other "liberal Democrat" CFR members in the top echelons of the Clinton administration have been replaced by hundreds of "conservative Republican" CFR members in the Bush administration. And that administration is giving full-throttle support to the CFR’s one-world, anti-Christian agenda. Leaders of conservative, pro-life, pro-family, and Christian organizations who refuse to acknowledge this readily apparent fact are actually advancing this same agenda and assisting those destroying our civilization.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.