Tom Ellis |
October 30, 2007
I drove to Raleigh, North Carolina on
October 3 to participate in a tribute to my dear friend, Tom
Ellis, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s 1976 victory in North
Carolina and the victories of Jesse Helms in 1972, 1978, and
1984. He also was the principal strategist in the lone
victory of former Senator Lauch Faircloth who was subsequently
defeated by Jim Edwards. More than 300 people we in
attendance to hear remarks by Hillsdale College President Larry
Arnn and Tom Farr who has recently been appointed to a District
Court judgeship by President Bush.
I had the pleasure of seeing and
visiting with many old friends, including Carter and Page
Wrenn, U.S. District Court Judge and Mrs. Terrance Boyle, State
Senator Robert Pittenger, former Raleigh Mayor Tom Fetzer, Jay
and Delores Parker, Darin Waters, and literally dozens of
others, including Mrs. Ellis and other Ellis family relatives.
Tom at age 87 is sharp as a tack and in superb physical
condition. Had I not known his age to be 87, I would have
guessed him to be in his late 50s.
Major General Singlaub |
October 29, 2007
More than 1,000 people turned out at the Sheraton Premiere Hotel
in Tysons Corner, Virginia on September 20 to honor and
celebrate the career of
Major General John K. Singlaub (USA-Ret.), formerly a member
of The Conservative Caucus Foundation Board of Trustees.
It was truly a magnificent event sponsored by the OSS (Office of
Strategic Services) Society. Among those in attendance
were former Attorney General Ed Meese, Gil
Morton Blackwell, Walter Olson, Jack Wheeler,
Ron Robinson, Walt and Susan Longyear,
Jim Miller, Major General and Mrs. Milnor Roberts
(USA-Ret.), Dr. Steve Allen, John Lenczowski,
Richard Viguerie, and many others too numerous to
mention. One of those with whom I chatted was Robert
Kelley, former law partner of Ronald Reagan’s 1976 Campaign
Manager, John Sears.
One Issue |
October 26, 2007
was interviewed on October 17 by Michael Scherer
of Salon, the internet news outlet, concerning likely action by
so-called Values Voters should Rudy Giuliani become the
Republican Presidential nominee. I made the point that,
for most Christian conservatives, the defense of innocent life
is the Number One issue and failure to embrace a pro-life stance
is a disqualifying consideration for leaders of most right of
Voter Summit |
October 23, 2007
In a 15-minute discussion on October 18 with Amy Schatz of
The Wall Street Journal, I previewed the likely outcome of a
strategy session in which I will participate on Saturday
concerning the 2008 Presidential campaign. The session is being
conducted in the context of the Values Voters Summit being held
with some 2,000 participants at the Washington Hilton Hotel.
TV Coverage |
October 17, 2007
October 15 — I told David Lightman of the McClatchy newspapers
that, while the defense of innocent life has to be the Number
One issue, other issues are reasons for concern which lead
Christians and conservatives away from blind partisan loyalty to
the GOP. I mentioned the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty
(UNLOST), the massive expansion of foreign aid, historically
high increases in Federal spending, and much more.
Penna Dexter and Jerry Johnson interviewed me on their
nationally broadcast radio program in which we discussed the
Bush Administration’s decision to enforce a decision by the
International Court of Justice challenging the convictions of
Jose Ernesto Medellin and others who were Mexican born.
Medellin fourteen years ago was part of a gang which gang raped
and strangled two teenage girls. He was sentenced to death
in October, 1994. Bush is in alliance with the Mexican
government in trying to defer enforcement of the murder verdict,
partly because Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row are
from a country which has no death penalty. We also
discussed Presidential candidates and I had some good things to
say about Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Congressman Duncan
Harry Dent Was a Faithful Advocate of
My dear friend, Harry Dent, has gone to his heavenly reward.
During my tenure at the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity
(OEO), Harry Dent was the top political adviser to President
Richard Nixon and a mentor to the Republican Southern State
Whenever I had an opportunity to brief him on Federal funding
of Left-wing activists, Harry took action and he was always
there to support me when I was personally under attack.
I had not seen Harry in many years, but I shall never forget
Law of the
Sea Treaty |
October 4, 2007
SENATOR DAVID VITTER EFFECTIVELY REBUTS UNLOST
My recent meeting with Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in which I
urged him to oppose the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) may
have had an impact.
At the time, Senator Vitter said he had not yet fully
examined the treaty and had not decided what he would do. It now
appears that he will be out front in trying to defeat UNLOST.
As reported by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (9/28/07),
"The media have been pummeling conservative Republican Senator
David Vitter of Louisiana for apologizing for sexual
indiscretions. But America should be grateful he stayed in the
Senate and did not resign in the wake of the media assault. The
senator demonstrated on Thursday, during a hearing into the
U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, that he is going to continue to do
the job he was elected to do. Vitter’s performance was so
effective that he left State and Defense Department officials
either speechless or caught up in embarrassing contradictions
about the impact of this international agreement on America’s
security and sovereignty. It should now be perfectly obvious
that Bush Administration officials, in collusion with liberal
Senators, are trying to bamboozle the Senate into quickly
ratifying a very dangerous pact.
"One area of concern is how other nations and international
lawyers could use the treaty against the U.S. in a back-door
effort to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty, with
the result being higher gas prices for the American people and
perhaps even energy rationing. The Law of the Sea treaty creates
a tribunal and various bodies, including dispute resolution or
arbitral panels, to resolve conflicts which may arise. Major
parts of the treaty mandate international regulation of U.S.
economic and industrial activities on land. Greenhouse gases,
for example, could be viewed under the terms of the treaty as
contributing to pollution of the oceans.
"Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate
committee that the U.N. body established by the treaty has ‘no
jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based
sources.’ He said, ‘that’s just not covered by the treaty.’
Negroponte’s sidekick, State Department Legal Adviser John B.
Bellinger III, said, ‘It clearly does not allow regulation over
land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water’s
edge.’ But Vitter shot back, ‘…why is there a section entitled
pollution from land-based sources?’ Not only is there a section
by that name, Vitter pointed out, but there is a section on
enforcement. The section is Article 207, ‘Pollution from
land-based sources.’ Anybody can look it up. But apparently our
top officials and lawyers have not. Either that or they are
trying to mislead the people about the ramifications of this
treaty. In either case, we are sunk if this treaty goes through.
"It was absolutely clear to anyone paying attention that
Negroponte and Bellinger either had no real understanding of
what was in the treaty or didn’t want to tell the American
people what was really in it. In the end, under withering fire
from Vitter, Bellinger insisted that the controversy was too
‘technical’ to discuss at the hearing and that he would submit
something in writing. Senator Jim Webb, chairing the hearing,
suggested he do so, attempting to save Bellinger from further
embarrassment. Our liberal media favoring this treaty will, of
course, not bother to point out that one of the top brains in
the State Department had been caught in the act of trying to
mislead the U.S. Senate.
"This wasn’t the
only exchange in which Vitter caught Bush Administration
officials saying things that were untrue. He caught them in
evasions and obfuscations over the claim that U.S. military and
intelligence activities on the high seas cannot be restricted by
the treaty. U.S. officials are making that claim in a
declaration in the Senate resolution of ratification. It is one
of 24 declarations or understandings being made by the U.S. for
a treaty that administration witnesses repeatedly claimed would
provide ‘legal certainty’ about what nations can and cannot do
on the high seas.
"If the treaty is so definitive and clear, then why is there
a need for 24 declarations and understandings? To make matters
worse, these declarations and understandings have no legal
validity under the treaty.
"Here’s some of the exchange on this point:
"Vitter: ‘Who decides what is and what is not a military
"Negroponte: ‘We will decide that. We consider that within
our sovereign prerogative.’
"Vitter: ‘Where does the treaty say that we decide that and
an arbitral body does not decide that?’
"Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England: ‘My
understanding―and I’ll ask my lawyer behind me―that that’s in
the treaty that we make that determination and that’s not
subject to review by anyone else.’
"Vitter: ‘It’s not in the treaty because I point to Article
298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military
activities are not subject to dispute resolution. But it doesn’t
say who decides what is and what is not a military activity.’
"England: ‘You’re right.’
"Once again, an administration witness had been caught saying
something that was not true.
"When Vitter asked whether the U.S. considered intelligence
activities to be military activities, England said he thought so
but quickly motioned for his lawyer to come forward. But his
lawyer didn’t seem to be in any rush to come to the microphone.
Bellinger piped in that it would be ‘up to us.’ Vitter countered
that other signatories to the treaty will disagree, leading to
inevitable disputes about what the U.S. could do.
"Exhibiting an arrogant streak, Bellinger told Senator Bob
Corker that the U.S. had ‘effective lawyers’ and were likely to
win most of the disputes. He said each side picked arbitrators
in a dispute but neglected to mention that the U.N.
Secretary-General can pick some, too. Most of the members of the
U.N. Sea Treaty organization, like members of the U.N. itself,
come from the anti-American bloc. Despite Bellinger’s confidence
in the ability of the legal profession, it is political power
and anti-Americanism that will decide these outcomes. That is
why, except on the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has a
veto, U.N. decisions almost always go against America and our
economic and security interests.
"Bellinger told the Senate that the U.S. has a seat on the
Council of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and has a
‘veto’ over its decisions. This is a body that collects
taxes―dubbed ‘fees’ or ‘royalties’ by Bellinger and
Negroponte―and then decides how to distribute them. Later,
however, Bellinger conceded that the decisions of the Council
will be made through ‘consensus,’ which makes our so-called vote
subservient to the dictates of the rest of the members. Of
course, a liberal U.S. President such as Hillary Clinton, whose
executive branch will determine the American vote on the
Council, would most likely go along with the "consensus" anyway.
Once it gets its hands on profits from the exploitation of oil,
gas and minerals, the ISA could give billions of dollars to the
anti-American Third World. With this kind of money changing
hands, it seems inevitable that another oil-for-food-type
scandal could develop. There are no provisions in the treaty for
monitoring the ethical behavior of Law of the Sea treaty
bureaucrats and employees.
"Administration officials falsely and repeatedly claimed that
the international bodies set up by the treaty have no official
involvement with the United Nations. In fact, the International
Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea have written and formalized agreements with the U.N.
Their employees even belong to the U.N. pension fund. The treaty
itself has numerous references to the authority of the U.N.,
emphasizing how the pact is to be implemented in accordance with
the U.N. Charter.
"Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate
committee and long-time advocate of the treaty, turned in an
embarrassing performance as well. Lugar, who has accepted
campaign contributions from the Citizens for Global Solutions, a
pro-world government lobby, attacked critics of the pact as
conspiracy theorists who were exaggerating the dangers of the
pact. He attacked an ad that my group, America’s Survival, had
put in the Washington Times on Wednesday, saying it was
misleading. In fact, the claims were based on the text of the
treaty and official U.N .documents. I have been denied the
opportunity to testify to set the record straight, which is
another indication that the treaty is being rushed through
before the American people can understand its ominous
"Noting the outrage over the attempt to pass the Senate
illegal alien amnesty bill, which also involved the issue of
national sovereignty, Senator Jim DeMint said this was the wrong
time to be trying to push the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty
"DeMint asked some tough questions of administration
witnesses, focusing on the fact that while the U.S. would follow
the treaty if ratified, other nations would not. On the question
of using the treaty to enforce international environmental
accords, DeMint noted that Britain had been taken to court under
the treaty for operating a nuclear plant on its own soil. The
South Carolina senator also rebutted the claim, mentioned often
at the hearing, that President Reagan had rejected the treaty
only because of its seabed mining provisions. He read from the
new book on Reagan’s diaries in which the former president says
he would not have signed the treaty even without those
October 2, 2007
HERR KISSINGER’S LEFT-WING COLLEAGUE
PREDECEASES MY FORMER PROFESSOR AT HARVARD
One of the Left-wing vermin who have all too often inhabited
Republican administrations has died.
William D. Rogers was a top adviser to Henry Kissinger at
both the State Department and in later years as an international
Instead of being appointed time and again to positions of
great responsibility, Mr. Rogers and his superior, Henry
Kissinger, should have been tried for treason.
The obituary tells the tale. They sold us out by surrendering
the Panama Canal, installing a Communist regime in Rhodesia,
preventing the overthrow of the Communist regime in Angola,
thwarting anti-Communist freedom fighters in El Salvador, and,
in the case of Mr. Rogers, defending Soviet spy Owen Lattimore.
When Christians and conservatives support a Kissinger-advised
Republican administration, they are contributing to the advance
of Communism and the defeat of U.S. interests.
U.S. policies under George Bush continue the pattern,
especially with respect to Bush’s buttressing of the
Marxist-Leninists who hold power in mainland China.
P.S. As a Harvard freshman, I took a course entitled
"Government 180" which featured lectures by Henry Kissinger,
McGeorge Bundy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Bowie.
Incredibly, I got an A in the course. In 1980, I led
demonstrations against the possible inclusion of Henry
Kissinger in the prospective administration of Ronald
Reagan. I nearly persuaded Senator Jim McClure of Idaho to
withhold his scheduled introduction of Henry Kissinger in a
speech to the Republican National Convention in Detroit.