VIII .#28-29July 14-21, 2008 americanfreepress.net
Page 6, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * July 14 & 21, 2008 * Issue 28-29 BEHIND THE SCENES WITH MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER
The Sad Story
By Michael Collins Piper
.Was America’s best-known “critic” of the United Nations (UN) really a critic of the global body? Perhaps the most amazing turn-about for any American politician was that of Jesse Helms, the former senator from North Carolina. Helms died on the Fourth of July.
The amazing “adjustment” by Helms, not only vis-à-vis the UN but also regarding U.S. Middle East policy, demonstrates how even a “hardcore” American nationalist could tilt in the opposite direction.
While the media publicized name-calling back and forth between Helms and “social issue” groups—with Helms and his critics raising tons of money to fight one another— Helms’s unexpected alliance with the global elite remained largely unknown to patriots who admired the senator.
At first, Helms was a fierce critic of foreign aid—most of which went then, as now, to Israel. Helms was the only member of Congress who dared to say that the primary stumbling block in the way of Middle East peace was Israel’s refusal to relinquish control of the West Bank. In 1982, he even called for cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel after its invasion of Lebanon. But two years later—in the midst of his bid for a third term and with Israeli lobby money pouring into the coffers of his opponent— Helms did an about-face and called for the U.S. to continue supporting Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Helms had been co-opted. Raising funds for his campaign were big names in the pro-Israel elite, under the lead of Zionist media billionaire S.I. Newhouse, a patron of the Israeli lobby, in particular the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith. Newhouse intervened on Helms’s behalf and urged supporters of Israel to either fund Helms or withdraw their financing of his opponent.
Helms even accepted money from a New York businessman, Bob Jacobs, who publicly bragged of funding the violent terrorist group, the Jewish Defense League, that was involved in numerous murders, bombings and other crimes. In fact, Helms made his first journey to Israel with Jacobs in 1985. Because of critical support from people like Newhouse and Jacobs, Helms won re-election.
Since the Israeli lobby had managed to defeat Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.), who was—unlike Helms—an honest critic of Israel, Helms succeeded Percy as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and quickly demonstrated his fealty to his new allies by vocally supporting Israeli occupation of Arab lands, making the fallacious assertion that Israeli imperialism was “not an issue at the core of the Israeli-Arab dispute.”
Known for his deep Christian faith, Helms bragged of his warm friendship with Israel’s notorious Ariel “The Butcher” Sharon, who was responsible, over many years, for the slaughter of untold numbers of Helms’s fellow Christians (yes, that’s Arab Christians we’re talking about) in terrorist atrocities carried out to establish Israel as a state and to main its imperial position in the Middle East.
The record shows that Helms also played a highly unusual role in the circumstances that led to the takeover of media giant CBS by a consortium of “new rich,” hard-line, pro-Israel financiers—an eye-opening, little-known story.
Although Helms had sent out a call for conservatives to rally together to buy control of CBS, saying this would temper the network’s liberal bias, the truth was that a successful CBS takeover by Helms would have required a war chest of some $5 billion. So his campaign to buy control of was disingenuous, and that’s putting it lightly.
However, in the wake of Helms’s campaign, CBS stock shot up in value more than 30 percent. One who made vast profits was Zionist billionaire Ivan Boesky, who procured a substantial interest in CBS stock. Boesky was part of a group of pro-Israel billionaires led by Lawrence Tisch, who did gain control of the network. According to sources on Wall Street, the Helms campaign set the stage for the Tisch consortium to grab CBS, which remains super-liberal.
In 1996 Helms stunned supporters when he wrote an article for the Sept./Oct. 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the internationalist pressure group, talking about UN “reform,” effectively accepting the role of the UN in global governance—another shocking turnabout.
And Helms’s evolution continued. In 2000, he gave a fiery speech to the UN Security Council, criticizing the UN. “Conservative” newspapers cheered But again, there was more to the story.
In fact, Helms’s speech was part of a carefully orchestrated plan concocted by then-President Bill Clinton’s UN ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, to deflect criticism from the UN during the election year.
Since Holbrooke was a member of not only the CFR but also the shadowy Bilderberg group and the allied Trilateral Commission, his scheme clearly was directed by globalists at the highest levels.
Writing in The Washington Post, Holbrooke’s fellow Bilderberger, Jim Hoagland, revealed the inside story that left Helms fans squirming. Commenting that “[presidential hopeful] Pat Buchanan’s cynical fear-mongering” was “gaining little attention,” Hoagland said Helms’s UN appearance was “an important barometer of change” and revealed that it was Holbrooke who invited Helms to speak in the first place.
Noting that while Sen. Helms “barked predictably about UN shortcomings,” Hoagland dropped the bombshell: Helms had “quietly proposed a continuing dialogue to seek improvement in U.S.-UN relations.” Hoagland added that “the high profile” appearance by Helms was “engineered by Holbrooke to underline the need for bipartisanship in U.S. policy toward the United Nations and insulate the relationship from election-year drive-by shootings.”
The whole exercise was a charade to assure conservatives there were still “UN critics” in the GOP; that there was no need to turn to Pat Buchanan who was waging a presidential campaign in which he said he wanted to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.”
Perhaps Helms’s most astounding venture—which effectively gave the nod to the surrender of American sovereignty and the impending merger of the governments of the U.S. and Mexico—took place in 2001 when Helms took the entire Senate Foreign Relations Committee (of which he was chairman) to Mexico. The visit was reported in the elite media as being “warm” and “unprecedented,” with Helms now “reassessing” his previous critical attitude toward the corrupt, drug-money-infested Mexican regime.
While there was enthusiastic reportage in major papers preceding the trip, press coverage halted during the trip. Neither The Washington Post nor The NY Times provided coverage of what went on during Helms’s time in Mexico. What happened was this: Helms convened a joint meeting in Mexico between the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its Mexican counterpart. Helms bragged: “This will be, to the best of my knowledge, the first time in history a committee of the United States Congress has held a joint meeting on foreign soil with a committee of another nation’s congress or parliament.”
This was more than a symbolic act of friendship. There was much more at work: a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Helms’s Mexican visit was modeled on Helms’s previous trip to the UN: in short, another move to cement the process of globalization.
In any event, Helms’s new posturing received praise in the elite media. Walter Russell Mead, a spokesman for the CFR, acknowledged in The New York Times on April 22, 2001, that Helms had emerged as a key player in the process of globalization, explaining to readers: “Why the World is Better for Jesse Helms.”
Noting wryly that “hating Jesse Helms remains a parlor sport in Georgetown, Cambridge and Manhattan,” the CFR man made the revealing comment that “a longer view of American history would demonstrate that Jesse Helms is a necessary part of the process.” Mead quoted Professor Douglas Brinkley at the University of New Orleans as saying that Helms was “willing to explore centrist possibilities. That is what makes him so important to the foreign-policy process.”
The CFR analyst went on to declare that Helms “also opens the door to a true national consensus behind important foreign policy goals.” The CFR man was saying Helms’s new position helped blur the differences between a nationalist foreign policy and an internationalist foreign policy, with the nationalist position being moved further toward internationalism.
Thus, Helms became a tool of the internationalists in breaking down populist opposition toward globalization. Patriots were supposed to think: “If it’s okay with Jesse, it must be good for America.” Helms’s flip-floppery reflected the demise of traditional Republicanism: the once-dependable nationalist titan had become a valued asset in the drive for a New World Order.
(Issue #28-29, July 14 & 21, 2008, AMERICAN