Mr. Ng is a long-time business associate of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, thought to be at the center of any attempt to bribe high-ranking U.S. officials.  Mr. Ng’s real estate ventures include a reported tie-up with Communist China’s KGB.
      To an investigator, the Ng thread inevitably leads to another business partner, Charlie Trie, now charged in Taiwan with attempted extortion.  Mr. Trie’s FBI interviews turned up his handwritten  note with unexplained references to “Hughes,” “Boeing,” and “bribery.”  More possible lines of questions Mr. Gore wouldn’t want answered.
      Hovering in the background at the Temple was John Huang, James Riady’s self-described man in the U.S. government.  Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady lead to the million dollars in illegal campaign funds they contributed to the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992.  According to the CIA, James

Riady has a long-term business relationship with Communist Chinese intelligence.  Yet another line of difficult questions.
      Maria Hsia, herself, was identified as a “knowing” Chinese agent by the CIA to Mr. Thompson.  Considering her work helping Chinese enter the United States and Mr. Gore’s role in the passage of immigration legislation in the early 1990’s, we can understand Mr. Gore’s testy response when the investigators questioned him on that in April.  One more line of dangerous questions.
      Bottom Line: In light of Mr. Freeh’s December 1998 assertions and the reference to “bribery” as one of the named offenses cited by the Constitution for impeachment, Mr. Gore has to stop the investigators from turning over rocks at the Temple.  Exposure here could be politically fatal.
      The Washington Times, July 14, 2000, p. A 17

The Charter for Global Democracy
by Dr. Stanley Monteith

On September 6, 2000, the United Nations will convene The Millennium Assembly in New York City.  It will be the most important gathering held in North America since our Forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence 224 years ago.  The document that was signed in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, established a Christian nation, proclaimed that freedom comes from God, and offered hope to people throughout the world.  The document that the United Nations plans to submit to the Millennium Assembly will outlaw war, undermine the belief that freedom comes from God, destroy hope, and bring everyone in the world under the control of  the UN.
      The document is called The Charter for Global Democracy.  Government leaders from 160 nations will attend the Millennium Assembly, and all of the Delegates to the UN General Assembly will be there.  It will be the largest gathering of world leaders ever held, yet our controlled media fails to mention it.  The Charter for Global Democracy will be 

presented as a restructuring of the United Nations, and if it is accepted, the UN will cease to be a debating society and will 
become a sovereign entity. At that point it will become the organization Cecil John Rhodes envisioned in his first will when he wrote of:  “the foundation of so great a power to hereafter render wars impossible...”
      Who is behind the effort to establish a global government?  The Charter for Global Democracy was produced by the Commission on Global Governance which was formed by Willy Brandt, the former President of the Social International.  How can you verify that?
      In 1995 The Commission of Global Governance published a book entitled Our Global Neighborhood.  On page 359 we read:  “The Commission of Global Governance was established in 1992 in the belief that international developments had created a unique opportunity for strenthening global co-operation to meet the challenge of securing peace, achieving sustainable development, and universalizing democracy.  The first steps leading to its formation were taken by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt...By September 1992, the Commission was established with twenty-eight members from around the world...”
      The objective of the Commission was to strengthen

“global cooperation to meet the challenge of securing peace, achieving sustainable development, and universalizing democracy.”  How do they intend to secure peace?  By creating a world government.  What do they mean when they refer to “sustainable development”?  The United Nations will control all natural resource and human activity.  What do they mean when they refer to “universalizing democracy”?  Karl Marx praised democracy, and communists and socialists throughout the world use the term to describe a society where everything is controlled by the State, and people are allowed to vote, but their votes make no difference because all political parties are controlled by the rulers.
      Among the members of The Commission on Global Governance were Maurice Strong, a Canadian billionaire, socialists from many nations, and communists from both Russia and China.  Why would a Canadian capitalist work with socialists and communists to create a world government?  Because that is the goal of many capitalists, all socialists, and the leaders of world communism.  They seek to establish a new social order, the Novus Ordo Seclorum described on the back of the dollar bill.  That has been the plan since the dawn of civilization, and unless we awaken the American people, or God intervenes, we will soon have a totalitarian world government.
      Maurice Strong wrote:  “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful.”
      When James Warburg testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, he said:  “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.  The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
      The Charter for Global Democracy offers a plan to restruture the United Nations.  It calls for the following changes in the UN Charter:

1.   All International Agencies are to be placed under the control of the United Nations.
2.   Membership in the Security Council will be expanded, and the United States will no longer be a permanent member of the Council.
3.   Members of Security Council will no longer be able to veto UN decisions.

4.   The Tobin tax, and other forms of global taxation, will be introduced.  The Tobin Tax involves the international tranfer of funds, and will provide the UN with $1.5 trillion a year.  That will allow the United Nations to function without support from member nations.  Additional forms of taxation may include:

•   A tax on global corporations
•   A tax on international airline tickets.
•   A tax on shipping freight by sea.
•   User fees for ocean, non-coastal fishing.
•   Fees for activities in the Antarctic.
•   Parking fees for satellites in space.
•   Charges for the use of “the electromagnetic spectrum”,  i.e. the radio waves.

5.   The United Nations will have an army to enforce its decrees.
6.   The International Criminal Court (ICC) will be established, and everyone will be subject to the dictates of both The World Court, and the ICC.
7.   An Assembly of the People will be formed and become an important advisory body in the United Nations.  It will be made up of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) selected by UN officials.  Since most NGOs are financed by those of great wealth, the Assembly will represent those who provide the funding for NGOs, not the people of the world.

      Most of the information I have presented can be found on Henry Lamb’s Web Page, www.freedom.org.  Please access this site, and tell others about it.

The Communist Front
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

In order to involve as many people as possible, the Communists organize large numbers of Fronts, each of them designed to exploit the self-interest of a given group.  Some of these are local and temporary, simple in formation and outline, and designed to exploit some local situation to the full.  Others are on a world-wide scale with vast, permanent apparatus working year after year throughout the world.  Whether large or small, the purpose of these Fronts is to recruit well-meaning people to serve unconsciously the Communist conspiracy.
      The following experience illustrates rather well a simple Communist method of operation.  After addressing a civic club one noon, I visited the Communist book store in Berkeley, California.  It was called the Twentieth Century Bookstore and at the time was located outside the gate of the University of California.  With me was a minister who was very well informed on the subject of Communist techniques.
      One entire window of the store was given over to a display of booklets prepared by the Communists on behalf of a Negro called Wells.  While serving a life sentence in San Quentin prison, Wells had thrown a cuspidor in the face of his guard and had smashed his face.  Under California law, a prisoner serving a life sentence who uses violence against a guard is customarily condemned to death.  The death sentence had been passed.  Many people thought that the sentence was excessive.
      The Communists saw in the situation a social force, an emotion common to a group of people which could be exploited for the Communist purpose.  They set out to stir up agitation on behalf of Wells.  After some months of agitation, they had prepared a book of some eighty or ninety pages showing what they had allegedly done on Wells’ behalf.  The book did not help Wells very much, but it presented the Communist Party in a very benign and humane light.
      The minister who was with me took the book and started to browse through it.  He had glanced through the Legal Committee for Justice for Wells when he was startled to find there the name of a friend of his, the minister in whose church I was to speak that evening.  He said, “Take this book out to him, tell him where you found it, and see what he has to say.”
      That evening we had a fine meeting.  The minister was intelligent and patriotic.  He was a fervent Christian and apparently an informed anti-Communist.  Visiting after the meeting I produced the book, told him where I had found it,

opened it, and showed him his name.  His face fell.  He said, “Fancy their doing that!”
      “How did you come to get mixed up in this?”  I asked.
      “I didn’t sign that the sentence be changed,” he replied, “but only that it be reviewed.”
      “No you didn’t,” I said, and I read him the letter to which his signature was attached.  “How did you become involved in it?” 
      He said, “A man said to me that here we had an example of cruelty and barbarity, and that as the Christian ministry was the servant of the forgiving and loving Christ, surely it was their duty to protest against the cruel, barbarous treatment of this man.  If they did not protest, who would?  He gave me the names of other ministers who were associated with this protest, and I thought it would not do any harm if I let my name go in too.”
      “What was the man’s name?” I asked.
      “He didn’t tell me his name,” was the reply.
      “What did he look like?”
      “I didn’t see him.”
      “How did he get in touch with you?”
      “He called me on the phone.”
      “Do you mean to tell me,” I said, “that a man called you on the phone, and, without knowing who he was or what he represented, you allowed your name to go into an organization of this nature?  Do you know what will happen?  The Attorney General’s Department, the House Un-American Activities Committee, or some official investigative agency will classify the movement as a Communist Front.  Somebody will then observe your name and you will be classified as a supporter of Communist Fronts.  What is more, the truth is that you are supporting a Communist Front.  You did not do so willingly, but you have been outsmarted.  They have exploited your basic Christian compassion for their purpose.”
      This is a regular Communist method of operating.  Anybody not specifically informed about their methods could have been trapped in a similar fashion.  It has happened to thousands.  J.B. Matthews made the statement that seven thousand Protestant ministers in the United States have been involved in the Communist apparatus by allowing their names to be associated with some Communist Front.  His statement was met with indignant and angry protests and treated as an attack on the Protestant ministery.  There were a few honest ministers such as Daniel Poling of New York who humbly and courageously acknowledged the truth.  Daniel Poling said, “As one of the seven thousand, I think the figure is far too low.”

      The principles according to which a Communist Front is organized can best be understood in terms of a series of concentric circles.  At the center is the Communist Party, a small group whose members are organized, disciplined, and dedicated, and which has a single mind, will and purpose.  This Party is composed of both open Communists such as William Z. Foster, Chairman of the American Communist Party, and crypto or hidden Communists, people who deny their Communist association and affiliation, but who are nevertheless dedicated Communists.  The Communist Party is never entirely above ground.  Clear rules to this effect were laid down in the by-laws of the Comintern where it is stated that in countries where a Communist Party is allowed legal existence, the legal party must be under the control of the illegal party.  The controlling segment of the Party is always underground.
      Surrounding this small party at the center there is the zone of fellow travellers.  A fellow traveller is one who approves Communist philosophy, Communist objectives, Communist organization and tactics, but who, for some personal reason, has not submitted himself to total Party discipline.  He has never been able to reach the point of complete personal surrender necessary for actual Party membership.  Fellow travellers frequently have guilty consciences because they are not Party members.  They are subject in large measure to Party discipline, and they will willingly and sacrificially work with the Communists, but they can go into any court in the land, and swear under oath that they are not Communists because they are not members of the Party.  Some of the prominent and powerful Americans who have served Communism most faithfully have been fellow travellers.  There is no evidence, for example, that Harry Dexter White, who betrayed American governmental secrets to the enemy and provided aid to the Communists in every possible way, was a Communist.  He was a fellow traveller.
      Surrounding the zone of fellow travellers is the zone of sympathizers.  This zone contains different groups who are sympathetic to the Communist Party–various brands of Socialists, collaborators, and pacifists.  Sympathizers are against certain features of Communism.  They claim to be against the brutality of the Communists, as well as against their use of censorship and their denial of individual liberty.  Nevertheless they believe that, on the whole, Communism has achieved many good things.  While they cannot approve of Communism altogether, they feel that there are many good features about it, and that it is progressive and in the interests of the working class, and that it is possible to

associate with the Communists in a local worthy objective.  They feel that if they work with the Communists, are tolerant of them and love them a little, they will win them from their extreme practices, and that the evil features of Communism will wither away leaving only that which is worthwhile.  In the group there are a number of religionists who are particularly prone to argue in this way.
      Surrounding the zone of sympathizers is the zone of pseudo-liberals.  Most of these liberals are to be found in the ivory cloisters of colleges and universities, frequently occupying professorial chairs, and usually characterized by a pseudo-intellectual outlook.  They take this attitude: “I am against Communism.  I am against the Communist restraint of human liberty, I am against their censorship.  I am against their dictatorship, and I am against their brutality.  Nevertheless, I refuse to become like my enemies in order to oppose them, and while I hate what the Communists say and do, I will fight for the rights of the Communists to speak and organize even as I will fight for my own rights.”  Thus in effect, they become the protectors and the runners of interference for the Communist conspirators.  They uphold the right of Communists to be professors in schools and universities.  They are the great defenders of the Fifth Amendment.  They contend that no restraint or restriction of any kind should be applied to an individual because he has availed himself of the Fifth Amendment.  Apparently their viewpoint is that nobody should suffer any social restraints or disadvantages unless there is evidence that is valid in a court of law.
      Their argument is fallacious because they project certain conditions which prevail in the realm of law into the realm of privilege and social activity where they do not apply.  For example, a man approaches the president of a bank seeking employment.  The president, however, has heard a rumor that he was dismissed from his last employment because he had embezzled funds, and asks the man if this is true.  The man refuses to answer on the grounds that he might incriminate himself.  The man is quite within his rights in refusing to incriminate himself, and certainly cannot be sent to prison because of his reply, but if the bank president were to employ that man, he would be foolish indeed.  The Fifth Amendment refers merely to imprisonment and legal penalty.  Any attempt to project it beyond that realm is not intellectualism or liberalism, but stupidity.

      Excerpt from Dr. Schwarz’s book, You Can Trust the Communists...to be Communists, pp.56-61

Communist Subversion of Religion, Part II
by Christopher Story

Everything He Touches is Politicised
From 1981 to 1990, Canon Wright was General Secretary of the Scottish Churches Council [SCC], the Scottish ecumenical organisation.  He effectively politicised this body, converting it into a platform for pro-Soviet policies.  And from 1985 onwards, Wright developed what he called the ‘Inter-Church Process’. The Minutes of a meeting of the Council’s Committee on ‘Community, Justice and Peace,’ held on 17th March 1986, which are in our possession, dealt with every political subject under the Soviet sun and made no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ.  Among the subjects covered in the Minutes were nuclear issues, links with Eastern Europe; the Helsinki Assembly of the European Forum of Christian Women; the forthcoming visit to Scotland of a delegation from the Soviet Women’s Committee; Canon Wright’s report on his attendance at the Christian Peace Conference in Bulgaria, also attended by representatives of the Orthodox, Congregational and Baptist Churches; and a forthcoming British Council of Churches visit to Moscow.  The Council’s Committee also ‘welcomed’ an invitation extended to Canon Wright for him to attend a Round Table Conference in Moscow.  The Minutes of its meeting further show that the SCC was involved in agitprop operations concerning Namibia, South Africa and Latin America, and that in respect of developments in Nicaragua, the SCC believed that the ‘contras’ ‘seemed to have no objective other than the destabilisation of Nicaragua.’  There was a report on a Church visit to China, and disappointment was expressed that a conference held in January on the ‘development of a common strategy in churches’ had not yielded much progress, since ‘churches still seemed to want to pursue their own programmes.’ But the Minutes added that ‘the initial reports on the Inter-Church Process’ were very encouraging.
      Canon Wright has been highly effective in politicising virtually every dimension of Scottish ecumenical and church activity on behalf of the Soviets.  In this endeavor, he has prominent allies.  It is, after all, the notorious Bishop of Edinburgh, the Most Rev. Richard Holloway, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, who has pronounced from the pulpit that he is an atheist, campaigns for the decriminalisation of marijuana, challenges traditional Christian views on the sanctity of marriage, promotes the recognition of homosexual relationships despite the

condemnation of Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1), and has, since 1997, openly backed the ordination of practising homosexuals.  Both men have openly promoted ‘liberation theology’, which was immediately adopted as the new basis for ‘church unity’ in the context of the so-called ‘Inter-Church Process’.
      The first stage of this subversion campaign was the establishment of a nationwide network of interdenominational groups to discuss a booklet entitled ‘What on Earth is the Church For?’  Based on the same principles as the corrosive ‘Alpha Course’ which masquerades as an induction into Christian belief but which in actual fact questions all faith, demolishes true Christian belief and substitutes a politicised ‘social agenda’, the booklet contained a loaded questionaire enabling participants to state what they thought ‘the church’ should be doing.  The atheistic BBC seized upon the results and proclaimed that the majority supported its proposals for increased ecumenism (pantheism).  In the second stage, regional conferences were held in 1987, at which the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hume called for a commitment to church unity.  By 1989, the Catholic Biships of Scotland had agreed to the final stage–namely, to join the other church bodies in ‘calling for’ a new ecumenical organisation named ‘Action of Churches Together in Scotland–ACTS’.  As a result of these manoeuvres, the ecumenical organisation in Scotland, masterminded by the KGB-controlled organisation in Scotland, masterminded by the KGB-controlled Canon Kenyon Wright, was able to claim much greater authority.
      No sooner had this umbrella group been formed than it started at once to meddle in security affairs and to promote Soviet policies–calling for the abolition of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, the Trident submarine system.According to the ‘Catholic Herald’ [29th November 1991], the Revd. Maxwell Craig, General Secretary of ACTS, wrote in support of Scottish Christian CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, Lord Fraser, complaining that ‘the preparation and planning for the use of weapons of indiscriminate and mass human destruction’ was an indispensable ingredient of the Trident project, and that ‘the whole project may be illegal in international, military and criminal law.  The people engaged in these activities are being employed by Her Majesty’s Government to undertake work which renders them liable to prosecution, in terms of the Nuremberg’s principles, for crimes against peace, and in the event of use, for war crimes’.  In a statement to the newspaper, the Revd. Craig added: ‘ACTS has traditionally been opposed to Trident.  We are now trying to place that opposition before the people in a constructive way.’

How Wright Set Up the Scottish Convention
Writing in the Church of Scotland’s magazine ‘Life and Work’, May 1989, Canon Kenyon Wright described himself as General Secretary of the Scottish Churches Council, a Methodist Minister, and Chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.  As a consequence of his activities in the 1980s during the various strikes of that decade, Wright had forged links with many Labour and Liberal-Democrat MPs (the Liberal-Democrats being of the extreme left, but masquerading as ‘middle-of-the-road’ politically).  These MPs could be relied upon to ‘call for’ whatever he suggested, in essence, since they were of the same political orientation.
      As indicated, Wright used these contacts and the leverage he was able to generate through his ‘Inter-Church Process’ to politicise the ecumenical movement.  One outcome of this activity was that a subcommittee of the Scottish Churches Council, the previously mentioned Community, Justice and Peace Committee, was given precise direction by Canon Wright.  As confirmed in the Roman Catholic weekly paper ‘The Universe’ of 27th November 1988, delegates from seven Christian denominations issued a statement from Scottish Churches House, Dunblane (headquarters of the Scottish Churches Council), backing ‘calls for’ a Scottish Convention.  The paper noted that ‘the delegates...agreed that the convention should consist not just of politicians, but also of representatives of the main Scottish institutions such as education, the law and the Churches’.
      The statement also promoted the Soviet formula for democracy in the West (as opposed to ‘democratism’–the illusion of democracy–practiced in the East) as follows: ‘In addition, we need to move towards a new form of democracy which ensures a greater degree of real and constant participation in our society.  We recognise...that the constitutional convention is not in itself a Scottish Assembly, but could be the proper forum within which all matters relating to such an Assembly would be discussed’. 
      In his ‘proposals (dated July 1986) for a conference held in March 1987 as an element of the Inter-Church Process’(‘process’ being a tell-tale word derived form Soviet usage, for it is always the process which is coveted, for leverage purposes, not the pretext), Wright called for a session to debate the political future of Scotland, urging the