CONSPIRACY AGAINST FREEDOM

A Documentation of One Campaign of the Anti-Defamation League
Against Freedom of Speech and Thought in America

by the staff of

LIBERTY LOBBY

CONSPIRACY AGAINST FREEDOM

A Documentation of One Campaign of the Anti-Defamation League
Against Freedom of Speech and Thought in America

by the staff of

LIBERTY LOBBY

All of the material in this book was written by the staff of Liberty Lobby and edited by Willis A. Carto.

Liberty Lobby expresses its appreciation to the Anti-Defamation League for the cover design of this book, which first appeared on page 3 of the June, 1974 issue of the ADL Bulletin. At that time it was used by the ADL to preface an article about Liberty Lobby. (This article is referred to in this book.) The art is significant because it vividly and unmistakably illustrates the key technique of the ADL: distorting and reversing issues. Readers of this book will agree.

Dedicated to the thousands of unsung patriots who have fought a losing battle for the things they believed in, and who have been ultimately silenced by an enemy they never saw, and perhaps never even knew existed, the Anti-Defamation League.

CONTENTS

Foreword

THERE IS A CONSPIRACY in this country to limit public comment and discussion to what a small but powerful clique has predetermined to be 'acceptable.' The moment anyone attempts to introduce an idea that is 'unacceptable,' nationwide forces are mobilized to silence the 'heretic'.''

Previously, any statement like the ones above would have been automatically dismissed as the raving of a "right-wing fanatic." Aren't you told nearly every day by the Establishment media (print and electronic) that America is a free marketplace of ideas?

Are you comfortable with the assurance that the First Amendment to the Constitution is in force and enforced?

If so, prepare yourself to be jolted out of your complacency. The conspiracy does exist.

The First Amendment applies only to "approved" thought. You are the victim: if not actively, by having your own ideas and thoughts forcibly withheld from public airing, then passively, by being limited in what you are allowed to read and hear.

This book details the conspiracy, in action, against Liberty Lobby and its radio program "This Is Liberty Lobby."

You may never have heard of Liberty Lobby, a Washingtonbased populist institution dedicated to lobbying for the rights of America's workers and taxpayers. You may be unaware of the radio program "This Is Liberty Lobby."

But the point here is that your right to decide, for yourself, to believe or disbelieve, to support or not support, to be aware of the lobby and its views has been illegally and un-Constitutionally impaired by a conspiracy among people so powerful that their influence reaches from the smallest hamlet of America to inside the Capitol Building, the White House and the judiciary.

The principal agent—the "front-line troops" if you will—of this conspiracy is the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL). Using its power and influence, the ADL alternately cajoled and intimidated radio stations throughout the country to drop "This Is Liberty Lobby."

Through the ADL's egis, a statement defaming Liberty Lobby was read into the Congressional Record, and then this statement was used by the ADL in its campaign to convince radio stations that the lobby was so unsavory as to be outside the protection and guarantees of the Constitution.

None of this is speculation. In this book you will read correspondence to and from top leaders of the ADL, in which various aspects of the conspiracy are detailed, in their own words. For the first time since political Zionism began to flex its muscles and insinuate itself into every aspect of American life, the actual details of a conspiracy in action are exposed.

The conspiracy against Liberty Lobby and its radio program was set in motion at an ADL meeting on February 13, 1974. As documents obtained by the lobby show, it was at this meeting that the ADL decided to get "This Is Liberty Lobby" off the air. One of the "problems," as outlined during that meeting, was described as "freedom of speech."

In other words, the ADL was going to have to find a way around the Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech to squelch "This Is Liberty Lobby." Arnold Forster, general counsel of the ADL, had some proposals, which included claiming that Liberty Lobby in some way threatened American democracy. So an un-Constitutional plan was to be presented as acceptable by smearing Liberty Lobby as "anti-democratic."

Thus, the ADL "counteraction" against "This Is Liberty Lobby" was launched. The pressure began to build. Members of

the ADL who knew radio station executives or who advertised on radio stations carrying the broadcast were told to contact their friends and associates and tell them the broadcast should be discontinued. If that didn't work, the next step was a threatened economic boycott.

Webster's New International Dictionary defines "conspiracy" as "a combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot."

From the evidence you will read, it becomes clear that the ADL would like not only to exercise censorship over everything that is said or published in the United States, but also to prescribe exactly what is to be said on every radio and television program and in every publication and classroom, in the entire country.

If someone writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing views that run counter to the views of the ADL, not only is that letter instantly answered with the official "party line" (which is only to be expected), but the ADL goes so far as to contact the employer of the writer of the letter, in an attempt to have him fired.

If a teacher in high school or college dares to question any aspect of the world as viewed by the ADL, that teacher, if not fired, becomes an outcast.

Is this a conspiracy? Is America a free marketplace of ideas? Is there a First Amendment to the Constitution?

After reading the startling revelations in this book, backed up by copious documentation, you will be able to answer the above questions—and you won't like the answers.

For years, Liberty Lobby has expounded the doctrine of "America first." Obviously, this idea is abhorrent to the internationalists. It is the view of the lobby that the vast majority of Americans are for America first, and would support America-first ideas if only they were made aware of them.

Apparently the ADL and its minions and co-conspirators agree, because it is doing everything in its power—and that power is formidable—to make sure that you don't hear these ideas or even hear that anyone has any ideas that contradict their narrow view of the world.

In document after document—memoranda, personal letters, meeting notes and sworn testimony—you will see a conspiracy

develop. You will be taken on a trip behind the closed doors of secret ADL meetings; you will read correspondence intended only for the eyes of the "elect."

Does recognizing a conspiracy make you "anti-Semitic"? The ADL says "yes." Liberty Lobby says "no." If you are not permitted access to both sides of the question, then you cannot be expected to make an informed judgment. The ADL says you must see and hear only one side; Liberty Lobby wants you to see both sides.

Conspiracy Against Freedom is the first actual documentation of the ADL's plot to silence any opposition. Here you can read the actual programs presented by "This Is Liberty Lobby" to which the ADL objected, and which set its "counteraction" machinery into motion.

Liberty Lobby does not demand—as does the ADL—that you agree with its point of view. But Liberty Lobby has the "audacity" to suggest that the First Amendment applies to all persons and groups; that a conspiracy to silence any view is un-Constitutional.

You be the judge.

Frederick V. Blahut Associate Editor The Spotlight August 19, 1986

CONSPIRACY AGAINST FREEDOM

A Documentation of One Campaign of the Anti-Defamation League Against Freedom of Speech and Thought in America

The Beginning of the Struggle

WITHIN A SPAN of time that is to the majestic waves of history a mere ripple on the beach, the North American continent has been transformed from wilderness to the teeming site of the most highly developed technological civilization ever seen on this planet.

The population which comprises that civilization originated almost entirely in distant lands. At first an insignificant number of what were to become known as a highly significant people sailed along the strange shores and braved the primeval forests. Then the Atlantic bore more and more ships making the hazardous crossing from Europe. Little outposts of Spanish, English, and French culture endured and grew. The Scandinavians (who had probably had representatives on the scene before any of the rest) and the Germans arrived in greater numbers, along with a burgeoning stream of other nationalities.

Some made the journey in search of treasure, some for adventure, some for land—and some, like the African slaves and English convicts, made it unwillingly. But almost from the beginning of the colonization of the New World there was combined with the perils and hardships an exhilarating sense of escape from the restraints and repressions, both religious and secular, that had accompanied so much of life in Europe. Even those who did not migrate from the Old World specifically in search of relief from censorship, tyrannical regulation, and persecution, must have found themselves enjoying a fresh new breeze of freedom.

It was largely to escape the trans-Atlantic tentacles of control over property, thought, and speech that the colonists declared themselves independent and waged the revolution that made them Americans with a nation of their own. The greatest emphasis in the Constitution which they created to form the foundation of the United States was on the highest possible degree of liberty to think, to speak, to write, to worship, to have privacy, to work, to manage one's financial affairs, and to live one's life generally without any interference except that which was absolutely essential to the maintenance of public order.

How well the philosophy of unrestrained expression has survived and flourished on this continent in the face of tidal waves of immigration and general population growth, economic centralization and crises, special interests, and wars is itself subject to debate, but the Constitution retains at least some of its original influence, and one remains officially free to say and write what he pleases, within the limits of the libel laws and barring incitations to immediate mayhem and riot.

But is "officially" free the same as actually free? The major communications media have been consolidated into a few hands, themselves heavily controlled by major banks, resulting not only in a narrowing bottleneck of access to the national audience, but also in what amounts to censorship of what is communicated to the national audience by those who hold sway over the means of communication.

Few truly independent channels of communication to a mass audience remain—that is, channels of communication free of distortion by the schemes and prejudices of network magnates and bankers, of advertisers and of political pressures. The major such free and independent source of information and opinion in America, Liberty Lobby, and a sinister campaign waged to stifle its voice, are the subjects of this book. More specifically, this is the story of how a group which operates in the interests of a foreign country, a group whose philosophy and methods are utterly alien to the American traditions of democratic free speech and open

debate, tried to silence Liberty Lobby's radio broadcasts, and the resultant lawsuit brought by Liberty Lobby to defend itself against its attacker, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

The story unfolds during the 1970s. Liberty Lobby, whose history and nature will be discussed at greater length later, had begun to produce a five-minute daily radio program which consisted of news commentary reflecting Liberty Lobby's populist point of view. The first citizens' lobby in the United States, the Washington-based non-profit institution advocated America-first nationalism, armed neutrality, aloofness from involvement or interference in the affairs of other countries, and freedom of the people from repression and exploitation by governmental and bigbank financial power.

Broadcast at first on only a handful of stations, "This Is Liberty Lobby" attracted the attention of the ADL as the program swiftly grew in popularity and began to be heard on scores of additional stations. Its unique viewpoints on politics, taxes, the economy, foreign policy, and other issues intrigued and stimulated evergreater numbers of Americans.

"This Is Liberty Lobby" also attracted the considerably less sympathetic attention of Israeli representatives in the United States—for Liberty Lobby steadfastly and forthrightly opposed any United States policy which would use taxpayers' money to benefit other peoples at the expense of the United States, which would play favorites among other nations, and above all which would involve the United States in the quarrels and wars of other countries. Israel is almost totally dependent on United States largesse for the maintenance of its aggressive war machine, and Israeli agents and sympathizers in the United States are almost totally responsible for United States' support of Israel, which is an outlaw state as far as the other countries of the world are concerned.

As a one-ally nation whose success in war is due to the magnificent superiority of U.S.-supplied materiel rather than to any superiority of numbers, courage, or skill, it is in Israel's interest to whip up all possible psychological and political support in the United States. The ADL is Israel's principal agent in that endeavor, although other groups, such as the Jewish Defense League (a violent, militantly pro-Israel gang) and the American Jewish Committee, contribute to the same purpose.

The ADL produces and distributes in the United States a radio program called "Dateline Israel," which consists of unabashed propaganda in favor of the Zionist state. The ADL buys full page ads in major newspapers supporting Israeli strategies and attacking any move toward an evenhanded American policy in the Middle East. The same themes are constantly seen in letters to editors written by ADL personnel, in the content of the ADL Bulletin and another, less public, ADL periodical called Facts. ADL leaders make frequent trips to Israel; they meet there, as well as in the United States, with Israeli leaders, and they sponsor trips to Israel by influential non-Jewish American politicians, preachers, business people, and others, who are treated to propaganda tours designed to guarantee their enthusiasm for Israeli aims and policies.

Because our country has been flooded for so long with pro-Israel propaganda, marked by continual factual distortions and omissions, and because it is made out to be a sort of religious heresy to doubt that whatever Israel does is fully justified and eminently commendable, some readers may not have a fresh and sharp recollection of the truth about that bizarre area of world history.

Zionism is an international political movement which began in the 19th century and reached fruition during the first half of the 20th century. It is a strictly Jewish phenomenon, even though every Jew does not support it, in that its essential proposition is that the Jews, having been scattered through the countries of the earth for many hundreds of years, should have a homeland of their own. According to Zionist ideology, all Jews should leave their host countries to live in their own country. Thus Zionism sees the Jews not only as a religion, but also as a people, a nation, for whom dwelling anywhere but in their own geographical national state is an unnatural condition.

Another component of Zionist thought that follows from the first is that the Jews, being presently an "international nation," are fated to suffer the enmity of the peoples in whose countries they happen to be living. For the Zionist, "anti-Semitism" is an endemic, inevitable, eternal situation as long as Jews live outside their own land. In fact the Zionist sees in anti-Semitism a positive force for unifying the Jews, reminding them that they are different—strangers in a strange land, always in danger from the

others among whom they dwell—and encouraging them to migrate to their own country.

The problem for the early Zionist theoreticians was that there was no homeland to which the Jews could be "ingathered." The Zionists craved Palestine because that had been the site of ancient Israel. Other areas were considered, but the Zionist purist insisted on Palestine even though it had been twenty centuries since that area had contained anything resembling a Jewish nation. It had been a part of the Roman Empire, during which period any semblance of a Jewish state had ceased to exist. At a time when Europe consisted of disunited tribes of Goths, Gauls, Teutons, Angles, and Saxons, the Jewish tribes also scattered. After the Romans, the land area at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea—which had, of course, belonged to the Philistines and others before it had been settled by the Jews—was occupied and controlled by various powers. The Arab followers of Mohammed swept it into the Islamic Empire. The European Crusaders fought for it and occupied it for about the same length of time the United States has now been in existence, building castles there, setting up estates alongside the local inhabitants, and exporting goods to Europe. Later, Palestine was controlled by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, and eventually by the British Empire, under whose "mandate" the place came following World War I.

It was from the British that the Zionists extracted, at the time of the first world war, the Balfour Declaration, which supported the concept that Palestine should become a Jewish homeland. The motivation of the British in cooperating with the Zionists was primarily a deal in which the Zionists undertook to get the United States into the European war on the British side in exchange for English support for the creation of Israel (see Appendix A).

While England got what it wanted from the Zionists and their supporters in America, the Zionists did not get their country until many years later. The occasion of World War II led to heavy Zionist agitation and manipulation. Jewish immigration to Palestine, which had stepped up following the Balfour Declaration, became more and more significant. Following the second world war, despite efforts by the English to regulate the human flow into the areas they controlled, Zionist-inspired migration of Jews grew and created a major crisis in Palestine. The Zionists looked on both the English and the native population—mainly Arabic—as

enemies who stood in the way of Jewish immigration and of creation of a Jewish state. The same men who now rule Israel led terrorist bands which engaged in torture, bombings, and massacre against the British and the Arabs. Efforts to negotiate a compromise in which Arabs and newly arrived Jews could share the territory ran aground on Zionist ambition and Arab resistance.

When Israel declared itself a national state following British withdrawal from the area, open war broke out, resulting in Zionist occupation of much of Palestine. Deliberate tactics of terror were used by the Zionists in order to frighten Arab civilians into abandoning their homes and farms and towns. The United States began its descent into a self-defeating Middle Eastern policy by recognizing Israel and demonstrating its support for the Zionists.

As far as the actual ownership of land in Palestine was concerned, the property belonged mostly to the Arabs who had lived there for hundreds of years. For the Zionists of Germany and Poland and Russia and England to claim that the land was "theirs" was considerably more outrageous than if a group of Panamanians claimed they were descendants of the Aztecs and were taking over Mexico City, Acapulco, and the Petrofina oil fields—or if a group of Mexicans announced that they were descended from ancient Egyptians and were returning to Egypt to resume ownership of downtown Cairo and all the lands along the Nile. The Israeli claim over Palestine was no more rational than if the Apache Indians proclaimed that all the land west of the Mississippi River was theirs by religious right, and that all those Americans who had been under the mistaken impression that they enjoyed legal ownership of their condominiums, split level homes, trailer lots, ranches, and farms, should vacate and be gone to other parts of the world by a week from Tuesday, taking only what they could carry in their automobiles or on their backs.

The whole thing would seem an insane fantasy, a joke, if there were not power to bring the surrealist nightmare to reality. Imagine that the United States were weakened to comparative defenselessness, and that the claim of the Apaches were backed by the power of the Soviet Union, and you will not find it so hard to picture a family of Indians moving into your home while you are forced to hit the road to Canada or South America.

It is one of the jobs of the ADL to make the rape and theft of Palestine by immigrants from Europe and America seem palatable

and even praiseworthy to the citizens of the United States who are expected to finance the bloodthirsty operation. It would not seem an easy task, considering the repeated invasions of neighboring lands by Israel's armed forces, which have led to the occupation and attempted absorption into Israel of parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Touting the image of "brave little Israel" defending itself against massive hordes of Arabs, the ADL and its allies played on American sympathies and guilt (promoted primarily by stories of the World War II "holocaust") to garner unlimited support for whatever Israel might choose to do. In the process the United States became the chief benefactor of one of the major aggressors of the world, and of a state which had deliberately attacked, in bright daylight, an American ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, in an effort to sink it and kill the crew. Despite the deaths of United States sailors at Israeli hands, and the continual defiance by Israel of international law, and despite the absence of any benefit to the American people in support of Israel at the expense of the friendship of vital suppliers of oil in the Middle East, the ADL and its co-Zionists succeeded in keeping American public opinion predominantly in favor of Israel.

It was against such a massive and well-financed propaganda campaign in favor of a foreign power that Liberty Lobby wielded its own weapons of communication. In the early 1970s (and today, for that matter), almost no one else stood in the ADL's way. Senators like William Fulbright, who criticized Zionist power in the United States, found themselves the victims of well-organized campaigns to get them out of office. The nation's press was almost a hundred percent incapable of making even the smallest real criticism of Zionism or Israel. Television news furnished little more than unending choruses of praise for our gallant Middle Eastern crypto-ally. Only Liberty Lobby possessed a voice which could be heard all over the nation and which openly opposed the costly and destructive manipulation of the United States by agents and fanatical supporters of Israel.

It is known that Israeli consular personnel who heard, or heard of, "This Is Liberty Lobby's" protests against American support of Israeli aggression and land-grabbing got in touch with the ADL and complained and asked what could be done. The much greater amount of contact which no doubt took place between ADL leaders and Israeli government officials was kept secret, but cir-

cumstantial evidence clearly shows what actually was taking place. In spite of the laws of the United States which forbid persons in this country from acting or propagandizing on behalf of foreign powers without registering with the American government and identifying their propaganda as such when it is published, the ADL operated with impunity. The link which would be necessary for criminal prosecution—and which the ADL therefore took great pains to keep secret—was the direction of the ADL by a foreign entity. By making itself appear to be an American organization, and by always taking measures to disguise its pro-Israeli purposes as pro-American, the prime unregistered agent of Israel in the United States managed to subvert American interests and mislead the people without the slightest interference from the agencies designed to prevent just such corrupting and damaging activities. The whole purpose behind the foreign agents' registration laws was to prevent Americans from being misled into believing that they were being given objective information, or information by pro-American sources, when actually they were being given slanted or untrue information designed to help foreign interests.

So, when Liberty Lobby spoke out, and when its radio program began to be heard by more and more people throughout the country, the ADL reacted like a hidden snake prodded in its cavern: It bared its poisonous fangs and struck out to paralyze and destroy its foe.

H

The Conspiracy

$\mathbf{F}_{\text{or your information.}}$

"Minutes of a Meeting of Special Subcommittee on Liberty Lobby Broadcasts of the Civil Rights Executive Committee."

That heading, accompanied by the name Arnold Forster, the longtime general counsel of the ADL and one of its principal ringleaders, introduced the only record of the meeting which officially initiated the ADL's campaign to silence "This Is Liberty Lobby." The document was obtained by Liberty Lobby's attorneys from the ADL during Liberty Lobby's lawsuit against the Zionist organization—as were most of the other documents which form the basis of this book.

Unfortunately the minutes of the meeting are so sketchy, and composed with such deliberate caution and vagueness, that they add little to our knowledge of what really transpired at the ADL's high conclave. Those present included "laymen" as well as paid ADL personnel such as Forster and Irwin Suall (head of the ADL's so-called Domestic Fact-Finding Division). Of particular interest is the inclusion in the meeting of members of the Advertising Lodge of B'nai B'rith, "by special invitation." A later deposition (that is, answers given under oath) by Jack Geller, one of the Advertising Lodge members who attended the meeting, was especially revealing, as will be shown later, but it does not take much imagination to conclude that the advertising fraternity was represented at the gathering for specific and sinister reasons: Advertising is the lifeblood of the United States communications media. Without it, a privately owned radio station or broadcasting network could not survive for a week. While Liberty Lobby's program was not dependent on advertising for its production, the radio stations which carried "This Is Liberty Lobby"—and of

course the Mutual Broadcasting System—relied entirely on advertising for their existence. If the ADL could put pressure on enough advertisers to abandon stations which carried "This Is Liberty Lobby" the stations would collapse, and few businessmen would let things go that far without capitulating to the extortion. Even the threat of significant loss of advertising would be more than enough to bring most station owners into line, whatever their personal feelings about their programming might be.

As for the others present at the meeting which kicked off the ADL's campaign of destruction against Liberty Lobby's radio program, they were mainly ADL regulars who had previously taken part in efforts to silence critics of Israel and the ADL itself. Most of them were longtime Zionist or left-wing activists, or both. Arnold Forster, for example, was a leading author of ADL letters and reports supporting Israel and smearing Israel's American critics. He was involved in the production of the "Dateline Israel" radio program. Forster had also been accused of (and apparently detained by the police for) clandestinely painting swastikas on Jewish property in an effort to stimulate enthusiasm for Zionist causes, and presumably to encourage emigration from the United States to Israel. Irwin Suall, who amounted to the ADL's chief spy and expert in muckraking and character defamation, had worked for various socialist causes before going full time to the ADL. His department specialized in gathering information which could be used against ADL victims.

Those gathered in New York for the "counteraction" meeting heard a report that Liberty Lobby broadcast outlets, which had started in 1973 with four stations, had grown to one hundred and seven stations before the end of that year. "Those broadcasts, which are primarily right wing and isolationist, are also anti-Zionist and, occasionally, anti-Semitic," the attendees were told. The minutes of the meeting give no specifics as to the alleged anti-Semitic content of the programs, but the casual tossing off of "occasionally, anti-Semitic" at the end of the list gives the lie to the whole proclaimed excuse for the ADL's war against Liberty Lobby's broadcasts. Later, ADL internal communications mentioned fairly often that the radio program was not anti-Semitic, falling back on the line that in publicly attacking the program it was safer to imply that Liberty Lobby and its personnel were somehow anti-Semitic rather than specifically to accuse the radio program of

anti-Semitism.

The minutes of the meeting do contain the statement that "Liberty Lobby is the major organized anti-Semitic group in the United States today," but, again, without any basis given for the allegations. It becomes quickly clear that "anti-Semitic" is ADL code for "anti-Zionist." After mentioning that a monitoring system for listening to, recording, and reviewing Liberty Lobby broadcasts had been established, the records of the meeting show that the discussions then turned to the problems and methods that would be involved in a campaign to eliminate "This Is Liberty Lobby." The minutes themselves give the merest outline, but they show that the ADL was ready to undermine the broadcasts by any possible means:

Among the problems confronting the committee, which came under discussion, were the Fairness Doctrine, freedom of speech, etc. A memorandum from Justin Finger indicated that the Fairness Doctrine was of limited usefulness for counteraction purposes.

Areas of possible investigation and counteraction were then discussed. These areas included (a) sources of funding (b) possible violations of statutes (c) tax exempt status (d) possible Congressional investigation.

The following conclusions were reached

• 1. Liberty Lobby is of sufficient importance to warrant ADL action.
• ADL should undertake a campaign to express [sic] Liberty Lobby for what it is. The exposure should not be confined to anti-Semitism, but should include all areas which indicated that the organization is a threat to American democracy.
• 3. Counteraction to the broadcasts should be two-pronged; (a) on the national level, the issuance of publicity exposing Liberty Lobby and (b) on the local level through the regional offices, the management of the radio stations be approached and informed of the nature of Liberty Lobby. This effort should be conducted jointly, where possible with any church groups, black groups, and others who may be willing to cooperate.
• 4. That the 1968 issue of Facts on Liberty Lobby be updated, and other information materials gathered for counteraction purposes.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 P.M.

In the light of what happened later, some aspects of the meeting, even as preserved sketchily and in self-serving language, take on special meaning. One of the most damning passages in the meeting's minutes is that which sets out "freedom of speech" as one of the problems confronting the ADL. Here in New York City sat a group of conspirators in the service of a foreign power, worrying that one of the greatest protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution would interfere with their thoroughly anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic scheme—and yet preparing to pose as champions of freedom and democracy.

Adding to the irony and effrontery is the statement that the ADL's "exposure" of Liberty Lobby "should not be confined to anti-Semitism, but should include all areas which indicated that the organization is a threat to American democracy." The ADL's onslaught against free speech, along with its persistent efforts to delude United States citizens into supporting policies detrimental to their own interests, were real and present threats to American democracy, whereas there were no such threats presented by Liberty Lobby, as the ADL well knew. Indeed it was a requirement of membership in Liberty Lobby's board of policy that the prospective member sign an oath of support of the Constitution. ADL allegiance to Israel, on the other hand, put it and its supporters at best in a position of dual loyalty to the United States and its Constitution, and at worst in a position of such actual and potential conflict of interest that support of Israel might be totally incompatible with loyalty to the United States.

In self-consciously stating for the record that Liberty Lobby might present some sort of threat to American democracy, the ADL was indulging in the use of "code words" of the sort they were always falsely accusing other people of using (i.e. "Zionists," "international bankers," and other terms supposedly used to mean "Jews"). In ADL parlance "American democracy" means an America marching lockstep to ADL drumbeats, and certainly not an America guided by the free will of a well and fairly informed majority of the people. It was the ADL, and not Liberty Lobby, which conceived and attempted to carry out the unconstitutional censorship and silencing of a political adversary—an act essentially contrary to the principles and functioning of a democracy.

There is another highly revealing aspect to the ADL phrase just quoted. The intention not only to accuse Liberty Lobby of anti-Semitism, but also to depict it as a threat to American democracy, is a manifestation of a long-standing and often-used ADL tactic. It is a tactic which aims at mustering widespread (and in particular, non-Jewish) support for ADL attacks, and blunting the possibility of counterattacks against the ADL, by hiding the special-interest nature of the ADL's aims and making it appear that what is really just a threat to the ADL and Zionism, or simply inimical to Israel's interests, is also supposedly a threat to a wide range of other elements of United States society. It goes without saying that the ADL unvaryingly misrepresents its victims as being a threat to "all Jews," but in a maneuver which is partly self-protective and partly calculated to bring support from non-Jews, it fictitiously generalizes the "threat" as directed against a much greater sphere of the population (such as blacks), and even against the American system of government.

An excellent example of the thinking behind such deliberate lies is found in an ADL document which was never meant to be seen outside a privileged inner circle but which chance brought to the light of day. The document was written in 1965 by the same Arnold Forster whose name appears at the head of the minutes of the New York meeting we are now inspecting. Forster's secret report was written for ADL insiders after Forster had traveled extensively in South America studying means of expanding ADL influence in that part of the world. He called it "The Proposed B'nai B'rith-Anti-Defamation League Operation in Latin America." Complaining that many Latin American Jews were not aware of or worried about "anti-Semitism" and showed no interest in "stirring things up" or "making waves," Forster went on to write:

"Many elements in the Jewish community are convinced 'things are good.' . . . The only way these Jews will be persuaded to join defense efforts is to 'dress up' programs with the problems of other ethnic groups, camouflaging the fight for the Jewish minority in an across-the-board fight for all minorities."

New uses for Forster's camouflage in the conspiracy against Liberty Lobby included not only the idea of claiming that Liberty Lobby in some vague way threatened American democracy, but also the details of the scheme to pressure radio stations to stop carrying the Liberty Lobby broadcasts: "This effort should be conducted jointly, where possible with any church groups, black groups, and others who may be willing to cooperate." To persuade Americans that their own staunchest constitutionalists, na-

tionalists, and patriots are a danger to their own country, and that the completely alien interests of a Middle Eastern aggressor nation are the same as those of the United States, is indeed a formidable task, and it is a tribute to the power of uninhibited lying, unprincipled confusion of issues, and long experience in destroying reputations with a wary eye on the law of libel, that the ADL has succeeded as well as it has for so many years.

Little more than is contained in the minutes of the meeting which made official the so-called "counteraction" against "This Is Liberty Lobby" has come to light. There is ample documentation, however, along with other evidence, of the ways in which the ADL and its instrumentalities carried their war against the First Amendment onto the battlefield.

Ш

The Words the ADL Feared

BEFORE CONTINUING to follow the unfolding of the conspiracy set in motion by the ADL meeting of February 13, 1974, it makes sense to turn to the radio scripts which frightened the ADL into action in the first place. We know that for weeks before the February conclave, the ADL faithful around the country had been instructed to listen to their radios and report to ADL headquarters if they heard "This Is Liberty Lobby" and what they heard on it. The purpose was two-fold: 1) To monitor the contents of the program. 2) To find out which stations were carrying the program.

Of course the sharp increase in the number of stations carrying the program which occurred during the first months of its appearance was one of the stimuli that sent the ADL into stepped-up destructive action. (Not long afterward a contract between Liberty Lobby and the Mutual Broadcasting Company would give an even more spectacular boost to the coverage of "This Is Liberty Lobby.") Another factor in triggering ADL action was the military crisis in the Middle East in the latter part of 1973, which caused Israel to galvanize the ADL into special urgent service to silence American opposition to Israel's aggressions and Israel's influence on the United States in garnering political and material support for its wars.

The Yom Kippur War of October 1973 was the occasion of frenzied activity by Zionists in America to see that Israel won out over the obvious interests of the United States, and that Israeli violence and occupation of Arab land did not lead to any diminution of American support, even though support of Israel's war machine might cost Americans their allies in other parts of the world, earn them the lasting enmity of all Arab peoples, and even cut them off from their vital sources of oil.

It appears that there was, and is, in the United States, no significant, outspoken, organized voice raised against slavish American support of Zionism and Israel except that of Liberty Lobby. To silence that voice became a principal aim of Israel and the ADL. The ADL had long before unleashed its attack-dog accusation of "anti-Semitism" against Liberty Lobby. Now it energetically sought to smother the light of truth which Liberty Lobby was raising before the American people.

What were the words and ideas which so terrified the ADL and the Zionist state that a full-scale onslaught was thought necessary to deprive the American public of the information offered to it by Liberty Lobby? Actually, very few of the scripts of "This Is Liberty Lobby" contained any reference to Israel, Zionism, or the ADL, and none contained any derisive or critical comments about Jews in general. Of five daily scripts a week, over a period of many weeks, only a handful dealt with subjects of special interest to the ADL, and those were fair, accurate, and devoid of anything which could even remotely have been considered offensive to an openminded listener.

The only way to demonstrate these facts to the reader, and to show the lack of justification for the charges made against Liberty Lobby by the ADL, is to present the actual scripts of "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcasts. Here are transcriptions of what can be called the harshest "This Is Liberty Lobby" attacks on ADL sacred cows up to the time of the meeting which launched the formal "counteraction" against Liberty Lobby in early 1974.

Script 299 April 23, 1974

One of the more refreshing occurences of recent months here in Washington, has been the decision of the Attorney General, William Saxbe, to open up the Justice Department for public inspection. Saxbe is doing this by conducting a weekly press conference and it was perhaps inevitable that he would alienate one of the special interest groups. The current flap started when Saxbe stated that he felt the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations needed study and updating.

Most Americans would have no argument with that decision. Perhaps if the Attorney General, whoever he was, had been more diligent, criminal groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army wouldn't have been able to achieve such success as they have enjoyed. Without taking anything away from Clarence Kelley, the new

Director of the FBI, it is difficult to imagine a group like the Symbionese Liberation Army existing for very long without the sure and certain knowledge of his predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover. In any event, while explaining why he has ordered the update, Saxbe said, quote, "The appeal of communism among intellectuals has waned since the late 1940s and early 50s, and the Jewish intellectual was in those days very enamored of the Communist Party. Some of these were Americans and some were foreign." Unquote.

Well, of course the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Board for Church and Society, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Jewish War Veterans, the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League and Bella Abzug, all screamed anti-Semitism at the top of their lungs. In fact, an adviser to Senator Jacob Javits on Jewish affairs, said he thinks Saxbe and his aides were taking "dumb pills." In an amplification of his remarks, Saxbe said he has long felt that there was a great deal of anti-Semitism in the communist witch-hunts of the late 40s and early 50s and much of it was directed at some highly visible Jewish intellectuals who were considered sympathetic to Russia.

Now, it is very interesting that this attack on the Attorney General springs from a decision to update the list of subversive organizations. Even more interesting is the statement made by Robert H. Williams, a former Army counter-intelligence officer who said, quote, "A careful study shows that persons singled out as ADL victims are seldom anti-Semitic but are always anti-communist." Unquote. The ADL is of course the Anti-Defamation League, an arm of the fraternity B'nai B'rith . . . which in turn is a subsidiary of the World Zionist Organization . . . an organization which, according to Saul Joftes, a former high ranking official of the B'nai B'rith International Council, is an arm of the government of Israel.

The outcry of these groups against the Attorney General was predictably carried in the leading liberal newspapers...along with a thinly disguised put-down for allowing a breath of fresh air into the damp and musty halls of the Justice Department. The facts surrounding the Zionist movement in the United States have been encapsulated in a brief report published by Liberty Lobby. Although it covers only a small facet of the multitudinous activities of the movement, it presents facts as they relate to America and the American taxpayer. It is a report every American should read. We will be happy to send you a copy free. When you remember that Jacob Schiff's grandson as reported in the New York Times, estimated that the Wall Street financier contributed about \$20 million to the Russian revolution, the idea of Jewish intellectuals being enamored of communism is not so far-fetched.

☆ ☆ ☆

Script M-79 August 22, 1974

Liberty Lobby's America First, pro-Constitutional stand has garnered many friends in Congress—and some enemies. An example of the latter is Joshua Eilberg, Democrat of Pennsylvania. Recently, Eilberg inserted a vicious smear attack on the lobby into the Congressional Record. The attack originated with a well-known group which advocates dual loyalty, and presses for war in the Middle East. Yet, this same group had the unmitigated gall to accuse Liberty Lobby of being subversive, even though all our members are required to sign a loyalty oath! Well, soon after that vindictive report was inserted into the Record another congressman reciprocated with an insert of his own. The congressman was Representative Bill Nichols, Democrat from Alabama and the insert reflected Mr. Nichols's feelings about Liberty Lobby. Nichols stated "Liberty Lobby has been praised and cited by many members of this body as a pro-Constitution, highly patriotic institution active in Washington for many years. It is in fact, the original people's lobby. Liberty Lobby does not hesitate to take a strong stand on behalf of America first, and advocates the policy of neutrality in foreign affairs laid down for this nation by its founder, George Washington. During my years in Congress, I have supported many of the aims of this organization which I believe to be those of sound fiscal policy and a strong national defense and staunch opposition to communism."

What would cause such opposite reactions to the work of Liberty Lobby between two Democratic representatives? Perhaps an examination of the voting records of Eilberg and Nichols tells more about this than any other set of criterion. Eilberg voted for American entry into an "Atlantic Union" which would water away U.S. sovereignty and raise your taxes to support the faltering English economy. Bill Nichols opposed this internationalist scheme. Eilberg, on the other hand voted against your right to own gold—a right inherent in the United States Constitution. Bill Nichols recognized the rights of citizens on that issue, also. Congressman Eilberg voted for increasing the federal debt limit to a fantastic four hundred and seventy five point seven billion dollars, costing the taxpayer additional billions that we don't have. Congressman Nichols, noting the highly inflationary results of deficit spending, voted against this measure and thus voted for, you, the taxpayer. Representative Eilberg voted against cutting the national budget by two percent, despite the outstanding fact that a vote to cut government spending by any amount is a vote for fiscal sanity. Congressman Nichols cast his vote precisely on target for the taxpayer here, also; he voted for cutting the national debt accordingly. If Liberty Lobby had its druthers, come to think of it, we'd like to make the type of friend exemplified by Bill Nichols. And, we think you'll agree that being attacked by those who consistently vote against taxpayers' interests—is not really such a disgrace after all.

☆ ☆ ☆

Script M-123 October 23, 1974

Not long ago, on this program, we announced the fact that Congressman Joshua Eilberg, of Pennsylvania, had inserted a smear attack on Liberty Lobby in the Congressional Record. We also announced that another congressman, Bill Nichols, of Alabama, inserted a complimentary statement into the Record.

We took Mr. Eilberg to task for inserting the smear, claiming it was from a group which advocates dual loyalty. Mr. Eilberg felt that what we said constituted a personal attack against him; we didn't, and even though all that we did was report facts, we are happy to give him an opportunity to respond.

Here is what he said: "What I put into the Record on July 18 was not a smear, but a statement of fact. It was a detailed documented report by one of this nation's most respected human relations agencies, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. For more than 60 years, ADL has defended democratic principles, supported the fight against bigotry and discrimination, and has guarded against extremist forces that threaten our cherished American values. One such force is Liberty Lobby. I stand by my statement that the leadership of this organization espouses great sympathy for Hitlerian Nazism and has been proselytizing its vicious and clandestine brand of anti-Semitism on radio, including this station."

That will give you an idea of how Congressman Eilberg responded to what he called a "personal attack." He went on, in his tirade against Liberty Lobby, "Liberty Lobby, when it maligns Jews, often veils the racist ideology of its founder with euphemisms like 'dual loyalty' and 'Zionist control,' and claims it is merely patriotic, but its undisguised religious bigotry emerges in the very pages of a pamphlet advertised by Liberty Lobby on this station, which claims that Jews are responsible for every conceivable evil."

Mr. Eilberg then closed his statement with this remark: "Of course, all legitimate points of view; right, left and center, are entitled to be heard, but the question to be answered by this station and its listeners is this: Is racial and religious hatred a legitimate point of view, or is it more akin to false advertising or blatant pornography? Does the airing of bigotry constitute responsible broadcasting?"

Well, now Mr. Eilberg has had his say and, so long as we have freedom of speech in America, he will continue to have his say. However, if Mr. Eilberg thought our earlier program was a personal attack he did little to substantiate his own self, but he did much for the ADL, which wasn't even mentioned in the earlier script! In almost two years of broadcasting, there has never been an instance where racial or religious bias has been aired on this program. There never will be, but like Don Quixote and the windmill, Mr. Eilberg appears to need an enemy, real or imagined.

☆ ☆ ☆

Script M-136 November 11, 1974

There was a mass protest the other day in New York. It took place outside the United Nations where they were discussing the issue, inside, concerning the admittance of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The protesters were mainly Jewish and they were outraged that the UN was even considering accepting the Palestinians as representatives of a national entity.

The protesters based their opposition to the Palestinians on the acts of terrorism perpetrated by the commando groups in recent years, saying that the UN should not be pressured into accepting terrorist demands. Speeches were made vilifying the Palestinians for their many cruel acts of terror. Now, no civilized individual will deny that wanton acts of cruelty, resulting in death, disfigurement and injury are to be condemned. Yet, terrorism, as a weapon of politics, is a dismal fact of life. It is as prevalent in the Western Hemisphere as it is in the Eastern.

As a matter of record, the thousands of protesters in New York should have remembered just who originated the terrorist activity in the Mideast. Names out of the past like the Haganah, the Irgun, the Stern Gang evoke images of terror at least—if not more—gruesome than any committed by the Palestinians. The essential question appears to be, was it justified? The Israelis, naturally, feel it was. The Palestinians, naturally, feel their acts of terror are justified.

Time and events have a way of clouding issues of the past. South Vietnam is still there, fighting for its life, but it is once again a remote Southeast Asian country, of little importance to most Americans. Back in 1946 and '47, the repeated acts of Jewish terrorism were condemned by the world. In fact, the United Nations even now considering accepting Palestine as a member condemned Israel time and time again, for acts of terrorism.

Rationale for the Jewish terrorism was the fight for freedom and independence; for a homeland. Rationale for the Palestinians' terrorism is the fight for freedom and independence and for their homeland. The killing of Olympic athletes in Munich, the bombing of Lod Airport; the wanton slaying of Jewish hostages are all acts to be deplored, but also to be deplored is the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem; the repeated terrorist attacks against Jordan; senseless border attacks where men, women and children are slaughtered.

The point of all this is simply that Israel can no longer have it all her way. The Palestine Liberation Organization has as much right to be heard in the United Nations as does Israel. Blaming the PLO for violence in the Mideast does no credit to Israel and is not conducive to peace. Shooting down a commercial airliner is every bit as

reprehensible as shooting athletes, and should be remembered just as long.

☆ ☆ ☆

Script M-137 November 12, 1974

Senator J.W. Fulbright, the Democrat from Arkansas won't be back in Washington as a senator next January at swearing-in time for the new Congress. That's a shame, for the senator realized, probably much more than most people just how powerful the Israeli lobby is on Capitol Hill.

The grants [to Israel], in military aid, outright financial support, guarantees of various bond issues and forgiveness of prior debts boggle the mind. You might feel, that in view of this kind of overwhelming support Israel would look a little more kindly on the attitude of the United States in attempting to protect its own energy interest, but when it comes to Palestine, apparently Israel has a blind eye. There was a massive protest in New York City the other day, demonstrating against the United Nations admission of the Palestine Liberation Organization as a valid member.

The validity of the Palestine request will be discussed in another broadcast, but listen to what Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has to say about Israel's attitude: "Israel makes bad use of a good friend by pressuring the United States into policies that antagonize Arab countries. The Palestinian people have as much right to a homeland as do the Jewish people." In view of the energy crisis in this country, these are very important words.

Senator Fulbright's announcement that Israel's actions haven't been all kosher was stimulated by his contention that America should not support continued Israeli occupation of Old Jerusalem and the Palestinian West Bank. Fulbright said, "We, and we alone (referring to the United States), have made it possible for Israel to exist as a state. Surely it is not too much to ask in return, that Israel give up East Jerusalem and the West Bank as the necessary means of breaking a chain of events which threatens us all with ruin. What is taking place in the Middle East is a long-term, historical underweighting of the scales of power. An Arab-Israeli settlement would not put an end to the energy crisis nor could it be counted on to bring about a substantial reduction of oil prices. It would however, eliminate the major irritant in relations between the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia [and the United States], and in so doing, create a much improved environment for negotiations on oil supply and prices."

It was Senator Fulbright who made the perhaps incautious remark that the United States Senate was controlled by Israel. He said this just before he entered the primary in Arkansas which cost him his Senate seat. A check of the record will prove that whatever Israel wants, Israel gets. Of course, so do many other nations, but the possibility of great damage to America doesn't exist in other areas of the world as it exists in the Mideast.

\$ \$ \$

Script M-155 December 6, 1974

In all the furor over what General Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said concerning the Jews in America, it is getting a little difficult to see the forest for the trees. For example, on September 18 this year, nearly two months before General Brown said it, Evans and Novak, the national columnists, devoted an entire column to the armaments race in the Mideast, with emphasis on Israel

Here is part of what they said: "An incredible secret Israeli request for \$4 billion a year in U.S. arms is explained by a confidential estimate given to American industrialists by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger says a new Arab-Israeli war within six to eight months is a better than 50-50 proposition. Although the massive military aid package will definitely be trimmed, it raises the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Syria which would dangerously draw in both the United States and the Soviet Union. When fully totaled, Israel's aid demands far exceed the widely reported \$1 billion in immediate urgent military supplies plus \$1.5 billion a year in military credits for the next five years. Add it all up, one high Pentagon official told us, and Israel is preparing expenditures in cash and credit, on military armaments equal to 40 percent of its gross national product for the next five years. It's totally ridiculous."

A considerable number of people in this country want to defuse the powder keg in the Mideast by an immediate and drastic cutback in arms aid to both the Arabs and Israel, with Soviet cooperation. General Brown, in his comments at Duke University, noted that when he told the Israelis they would have trouble getting the military aid they wanted from the Congress, they said, "We will take care of the Congress."

Apparently General Brown feels it is his job to protect the United States of America, not Israel, and the essence of what he said, that Israel controls American foreign policy has been noted on this program many times. It is encouraging that responsible men in government are finally getting around to saying it. Up till now, it has been the unmentionable and is a totally self-fulfilling statement: in other words, what Israel wants, Israel gets! Anyone who says it or criticizes it is immediately attacked.

Actually, no bill favoring the state of Israel has ever met with significant opposition in the Congress. It is also interesting to note that the efforts on behalf of Soviet Jewry constitute a clear case of religious and racial bias on the part of the Israeli lobby, since it seems to be totally unaffected by the plight of other oppressed minorities in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. Well, first it was Senator Fulbright. Now it is General Brown. It will be interesting to see what happens to General Brown.

☆ ☆ ☆

March 21, 1975

This is the last day of the Liberty Lobby convention here in Los Angeles. One of the most popular and respected attendees of the convention is here with me now. Brigadier General Clyde Watts is one of the leading constitutional authorities in America, is a retired soldier who lives in Oklahoma; he's the recipient of more patriotic awards than anyone I know.

Now, General Watts, you've had the opportunity to speak to a number of groups here in Los Angeles at our convention. Essentially, what did you talk about?

[Watts:] Bob, I talked about the erosion of our constitutional rights, perhaps best exemplified by the suit between Liberty Lobby and the Anti-Defamation League involving the invasion by ADL of Liberty Lobby's First Amendment freedom of speech to communicate with the American people on radio.

[Bartell:] General Watts, perhaps we should explain to our audience that you are counsel for our suit against the ADL. How do you evaluate the issues in this action?

[Watts:] Our preliminary reconnaissance has revealed that the news media is essentially controlled and dominated by the multibillion-dollar expenditures of advertisers and the ADL with its economic influence on the advertising industry has been able literally to drive Liberty Lobby off the airways in many areas. I have observed that some of the stations that are essentially in sympathy with Liberty Lobby's broadcast materials have not seen the light but they have felt the heat. Obviously, the impairment of Liberty Lobby's constitutional right to contact the public by radio and present its views is vital to all Americans. If Liberty Lobby can be driven off the air, so can every other voice that seeks to be heard. Although you are still on many radio stations, the issues in the present case involve your future ability to maintain any kind of public contact. This right is vital, not only to Liberty Lobby but to every American in the present pattern to revitalize the basic concepts of Americanism before it is too late.

[Bartell:] General Watts, do you think Americans are losing their constitutional freedoms?

[Watts:] I do. In the gradual erosion of rights such as this, history reveals that when loyal men do nothing, tyranny prevails. It is the responsibility of every American that constitutional rights remain of paramount concern in our daily lives. The courts in America have gone to fantastic lengths in recent years to permit anti-American

demonstrators to scream their epithets at their fellow Americans, and it is inconceivable that equal justice under the law would not extend to Liberty Lobby's constitutional right to be heard over the airwaves simply because of powerful and ruthless opposition. If anti-Americans have unlimited access to the airwaves, why should not pro-Americans have the same right? The origin of our First Amendment to the Constitution lies in the thought behind the words of [Francois Voltaire], who said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Liberty Lobby seeks only the same rights as granted to others. We want nothing more and will take nothing less. We are making an ultimate effort to get it.

[Bartell:] I want to thank you, General Clyde Watts, for appearing today. This winds up our week in Los Angeles. We'll be back in Washington to report next week. Please join us.

* * ;

July 8, 1975

Elmo B. Zumwalt, recently retired as chief of naval operations and he is now making noises like a budding politician; but while he was still in uniform, according to a story in the Philadelphia Enquirer, Zumwalt hosted a dinner party for a number of Jewish-American leaders traditionally opposed to increases in U.S. military spending.

Admiral Zumwalt's pleasant dinner party for the Jewish-American leaders persuaded them to support a larger Pentagon budget in exchange for the fullest military support for Israel. Sol Freadman of the Philadelphia Enquirer said that this was not the first such deal between Washington and Jewish leaders. Both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon sought to exchange support for Israel for a moderation of opposition to the Vietnam War. Estimates on the amount of aid already given Israel range from about seven to fifteen billion dollars and Israel is currently waiting for the president's reassessment of relations with Israel for another two and a half billion dollars in aid. Meanwhile, the Israeli lobby is busy and so are Israeli military men. In fact, the military editor of Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper calls the Pentagon visit "the siege of the Pentagon by the Israeli army. Washington is so filled with high-ranking Israeli officers that a person going to the Pentagon could think he or she was in Israeli army headquarters." Well, apparently their visits are paying off for even though America's own reserve military equipment supply is being depleted by sending it to Israel, while thousands more Americans join the unemployed ranks and while Congress cuts back on our own defense appropriations, Israel's defense industry is booming. The Wall Street Journal reports: "Israel's defense industry enjoys an export boom. Israel's bill for a sophisticated Americanmade aircraft and other high priced weaponry is running about two

and a half billion dollars a year. Paradoxically Israel's own defense industry mainly involved in producing less sophisticated items, is awash in export orders. One reliable source estimates that Israel's export of arms and other military equipment could reach as high as a hundred and fifty million dollars this year." (The Wall Street Journal.) It is interesting to note that aid to Israel from the United States in the years 1949 to 1969 totaled a little more than a billion dollars. That's in a period of twenty years. In the years 1969 to 1972 the aid totaled over a billion dollars. Now, of course, it's up to two and a half billion per year. As Alfred Lilienthal, the president of Middle East Perspective has said, "The American people are entitled to have all the facts as to why a president can never say no to Israel, why their representatives in Washington are not serving the totality of American interests, why the media is afraid to report the news thoroughly, why their sons may soon be fighting in a new more terrible Vietnam." As the specter of an oil shortage looms in the background the OPEC nations have already indicated they intend to raise the price of oil. Shrill cries will be heard for a U.S. show of force; this, of course, is madness and polls have already clearly indicated that the majority of the American people are unalterably opposed to American intervention in the Middle East. It's a pity that Congress doesn't realize that, or do they? Tomorrow we're going to have an exclusive report from Liberty Lobby. Won't you join us?

IV The Adversaries

BEFORE GOING INTO a detailed account of the ADL's conspiracy against Liberty Lobby and those who broadcast its radio program, we will take a general view of what happened—as well as a closer look at the opposing parties in the conflict.

In reconstructing what the ADL did in its campaign to destroy Liberty Lobby's ability to communicate with the public by way of radio, a number of approaches become evident:

Articles appeared in the ADL's own publications—the ADL Bulletin and Facts, the former being more for general circulation and the latter more for ADL professionals and insiders—making false charges against Liberty Lobby and people associated with it. Those articles established the party line, so to speak, and their lies would then be parroted by a myriad of other mouths. The ideas, phraseology, and imagery of the "seed" articles would be echoed in ADL press releases and in directives to ADL regional offices, and then re-echoed even to the present day in newspaper articles and columns, in letters to radio stations, letters to advertisers, and letters to editors.

It appears that the ADL likes to have strict control over the precise words that are used by any of their followers—whether a regional director, a congressman on the House floor in Washington, a newspaper columnist in Las Vegas, a reporter for the New York Times, a talk show host in Miami or Los Angeles, a rabbi, or a lady writing complaints to a station owner in Cleveland. Indeed, it is quite clear that the ADL would like not only to exercise censorship over everything that is said or published in the United States, but also to prescribe exactly what is to be said, down to the last jot and tittle, on every radio and television program and in every newspaper, magazine, comic book and classroom in the en-

tire country. This totalitarian dream—better call it a nightmare—of total thought control is of course beyond the ADL's present power, but it tries as strenuously as it can to carry it as far into effect as possible.

If someone writes letters to the editors of newspapers attacking Israel, the ADL counters not only by arranging to have its own replies published in the papers, but also, when feasible, by contacting the writer's employer and trying to get him fired from his job on the ground that his opinions are bad for the employer's business.

If a high school history teacher questions, ever so mildly, some of the lurid propaganda tales of America's recent wars, or if the teacher in some other way commits a blasphemy against the ADL's articles of faith, retaliation is swift and drastic, with the teacher usually discharged or transferred to some remote and undesirable, properly insulated, ADL-approved position.

The same applies if a college professor questions some aspect of the ADL's officially sanctioned version of history or makes an effective criticism of Israel: The ADL attempts to get the individual removed from his or her teaching job. If that fails, the ADL continues its smear campaign and does everything possible to isolate the academician and to neutralize his ideas. In a recent case, a black professor from South Africa teaching at a university in New York discussed aspects of the frequently made charge that Zionism manifests aspects of racism. The ADL put barbs in its frenzied efforts to shut the man up by helping to pressure state legislators to threaten to cut off funding to the university if the criticisms of Zionism did not cease. The president of the university obediently announced that the seat of learning and academic freedom which he oversaw "disassociated" itself from the ideas of its professor, and the head of the professor's African studies department promised that remedial discussions on "both sides" of the issue would be sponsored outside the professor's classroom. No matching zeal for two-sided discussions has ever been shown by the ADL itself, as long as its own messages get through loud and clear. ADL strategy is simply to replace unapproved ideas with its own. It is continually pushing its "teaching materials" and "study guides" into schools and colleges, and where it cannot entirely eliminate an unwelcome source of facts or opinions, it endeavors to swamp them with its own propaganda.

In another recent episode, for example, an anti-Zionist group scheduled an evening meeting at a schoolroom in a public high school—a facility frequently used by a diversity of groups for their meetings. Failing to squelch the meeting—largely due to prior rulings of the courts on the unconstitutionality of refusing access to public facilities to some groups but not to others—the ADL and its allies forced the school to announce that it would hold special classroom discussions denouncing the anti-Zionist group and promoting the views sponsored by the ADL. Newspapers reported that the ADL had offered its own personnel to teach the special classroom sessions, but that the school administrators had gratefully declined, and instead would merely use ADL-provided materials as the basis for the special classes. The ADL, in addition, put in a request to use another part of the school on the same evening as the other group. You can be sure that through the entire effort to prevent the anti-ADL group from using school facilities for its meeting, the ADL was mouthing its vociferous support of "freedom of speech." It has been a longstanding ADL tactic piously to express wholehearted love of constitutional free speech, but to reserve the rights of free speech to those who do not disagree with the ADL on sensitive issues. Thus it is commonplace for ADL public statements to say that free speech is fine for the right people, but that some views are so dastardly and repulsive that their expression should not be permitted. Which views fall into which category is of course to be determined by the ADL.

It is noteworthy that when making such pronouncements the ADL almost never quotes a specific statement which is supposed to be beyond the pale of free speech protection. Instead it refers obscurely to "religious bigotry" and "racism," and skips on to diatribes against the evil and subhuman nature of persons guilty of such bigotry and racism. The ADL's typical victim in all likelihood said nothing more than that cheerleaders for Israel had great influence on the United States' press, or that the human rights of Arabs had suffered under Israeli military occupation, or that the United States should withdraw military aid from Israel; by including all such assertions under the label "anti-Semitic religious bigotry" the ADL paints the darkest possible picture of its adversaries while neatly avoiding the issues.

In the case of Liberty Lobby, the ADL had long used the precise tactics just described. The Zionist organization dealt in what amounted to overt namecalling and efforts to create guilt by association. Of course in Liberty Lobby's case, where the coverage of "This Is Liberty Lobby" and The Spotlight was nationwide, the ADL faced a different challenge than it did in the case of an airline pilot who wrote an anti-Zionist letter to his local paper, or a high school teacher who questioned some treasured historical legend. Where Liberty Lobby was concerned, the ADL's pervasive influence on publishing, broadcasting, television, and the movie industry already provided the basic means of attempting to drown out the heretic's expression of ideas with the much greater volume of noise and newsprint available to the ADL. Though astonishing in its growth and popularity, the anti-Establishment Liberty Lobby was still a fledgling compared to the much older and entrenched Zionist network.

The ADL had used its heavy guns for years. As far back as the 1920s it had officially attempted to stop the publication—and, that failing, any public mention—of various books which presented sociological, historical, or biological views or theories which did not serve the ADL's ideological purposes. The ADL was very open in its appeals and threats in the early days, stating unashamedly that it wished to prevent the circulation of certain books or the appearance of certain speakers on the public platform or even at private gatherings. Those books, and the ideas of those speakers, the reader must understand, were not the products of irresponsible lunatics nor of religious fanatics shrieking obscene insults against their fellow citizens or advocating that they be burned at the stake. The books and speeches the ADL tried to suppress were thoughtful, serious, logical expressions of ideas, facts, and theories which the ADL found objectionable and probably unanswerable. Certainly those persons the ADL was trying to silence presented more logical argument and evidence for their points of view than did the ADL, which has almost never troubled itself to present a factual and reasoned attack on any of its opponents, much less an argument against its opponents' ideas.

So persistent was the ADL, and so faithfully supported with money and influence, that by the second half of the twentieth century the American public was being force-fed gluts of propaganda cooked up in ADL kitchens and served in motion pictures, and on television. A major feature of that propaganda was the message—sometimes subtle, but more often blatant—that the creation of

Israel out of farms and homes and towns belonging to other people—with all its concommitant barbarities—was the most wonderful thing that had happened on the planet in several thousand years, that Israel's wars and expansionist policies were fully justified and were in fact ordained by God, and that enemies of Israel, whether Arabs trying to get their property back or to defend themselves against further aggressions, or critics of Zionism in Europe and America, were monstrous embodiments of wickedness, unworthy of constitutional rights or basic self-expression.

It was always the ADL's custom to depict things in absolute black and white. People it wants disliked are never just of an opposing opinion, never even just misguided or misinformed; instead such people are iniquitous, festering with ill will and hatred. Occasionally, where the individual was once in the ADL's good graces, he is merely corrupt of soul, mentally sick, or just "disturbed." Jewish adversaries of the ADL, since they can't conveniently be labeled anti-Semitic, are given versions of the latter treatment and termed "emotionally erratic," "self-hating," or some other such tag which is clearly intended to identify them as crazy without quite exposing the ADL to a solid libel suit. The "self-hating Jew" is an invention of the ADL and those of like mind to bring into disrepute independent Jews who oppose the Zionist fantasy of an international nation of Jews who will be forever subject to anti-Semitism unless they leave their countries of residence and migrate to their own national state in Palestine.

Worse still fares the Jew who not only scorns Zionism but also believes in the integration of Jews into their countries of residence rather than maintaining a dual loyalty, or a kind of supernationality, so that being a Jew would become nothing more special or exclusivist than being a Methodist or a Presbyterian.

Ironically enough, the ADL—while despising Jews and others who oppose the Zionist concept of Jewish uniqueness and separatism—hypocritically has talked out of the other corner of its mouth for years in an effort to persuade the American public that Jews are just extra nice folks who go to another church. By that means the ADL has pushed the actual goal of keeping Jews psychologically separate, frightening them from trusting Gentiles and feeling safe among them by promoting endless horror stories of past and present anti-Semitism and persecution, and holding up to Jews the ideal of emigration to Israel, while at the same time preaching to

non-Jews, particularly through motion pictures and television, that Jews are no different from anybody else, and that any exclusivity coming from non-Jews is thoroughly despicable and based on bigotry and hate. One example is the ADL's meddling when it comes to the portrayal of Jewish characters on television, in motion pictures and on the stage, even to the point of wanting to literally rewrite Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Such productions have as their primary purpose not entertainment or even moneymaking, but rather are admittedly tailor-made in order to create certain attitudes among the American public. The rest of the story is that there has never been produced in the United States any motion picture or television drama which depicted Israel or Zionism in an unfavorable light.

The catalyst which precipitated the ADL's campaign against Liberty Lobby's radio program was not that anything "anti-Semitic" was aired on "This Is Liberty Lobby," but rather that Israel's warmaking, and United States' support of Israel's aggressions, were loudly criticized by Liberty Lobby at a time when almost nobody else had the courage, or perhaps even the insight, to speak out on the subject. As briefly mentioned earlier, it is known from evidence produced in the course of Liberty Lobby's later lawsuit against the ADL that at the time of Liberty Lobby's vigorous opposition to United States involvement in the most recent (as of that time) Israeli war, whether such involvement was direct or indirect, official representatives of Israel complained to the ADL about Liberty Lobby's public criticism of Israel's policies and activities. The unhappiness about "This Is Liberty Lobby" expressed by Israeli consular and embassy officials in the United States was no doubt just a hint of the actual interchanges that went on between the leaders of Israel and the higher-ups of the ADL in New York City.

In any event, the foreign power that has stirred the Middle East to warfare and upheaval since the 1940s has the most vital interest in the continuing support of the United States. Israel is almost totally dependent on an inflow of money and military supplies from the North American power. It makes some foreign exchange by re-exporting American supplies to other countries, but intrinsically it is a resource-poor and non-productive member of the world economic network. Except for a few insignificant manufactured items such as toys, games, and pottery, its exports consist

almost entirely of bullets and shrapnel—whether still in the carton or exploding through the air.

Israel would exist on the relatively harmless level of Ghana or New Guinea but for the constant unreciprocated inflow of dollar aid and weapons and munitions which it uses to extend its empire into neighboring countries. (Just the suggestion that those neighboring countries should be allowed to purchase from the United States the simplest defensive weapons meets with a loud public outcry by the ADL and its allies.) Even the materials crucial to Israel's secret nuclear arsenal were for the most part stolen from the United States, probably with a surreptitious wink and nod from the necessary public officials and private accomplices. Even on the rare occasions when stories reporting such thievery and treachery finally surface in the American press, the reaction of the government and the communications media is such that not even the shyest wren would be startled from its perch by the resultant alarm and protest. Whatever outrages Israel commits against or within North American, South American, or European countries are treated as the slightly amusing misdeeds of a pampered child.

Israel has no ally but the United States, and its support in the United States depends almost entirely on the influence of the large Jewish population there. (Note that the sentence you have just read, although factually and logically indisputable, would be—will be—held out by the ADL as anti-Semitic.) Part of Israel's American support comes directly from the bank accounts of Jewish Americans themselves. Many Jews who would not seriously think of fulfilling the Zionist plan by selling their homes, giving up their jobs, and moving to Palestine are persuaded, socially pressured, or frightened by the boogeyman of anti-Semitism, into donating large sums of money to the foreign country which constantly makes claims for their help and allegiance. In so doing they are aided by American tax laws which make exceptions in favor of contributions which end up in Israel.

But by far the greater value of the United States to Israel comes from the American government, for no possible quantity of private contributions from supporters of Zionism could come close to equaling the vast economic and military largesse showered upon the Zionist state by United States politicians. It is the money of the American citizens and the profits of American corporations, confiscated by way of federal taxes, which makes up most of the torrent of financial and military support which flows from North America to Israel. Therefore it is most important to Israel that Washington continue to pass the laws and make the deals and appropriate the money necessary to the continuance of Israel's existence as anything but a sand-poor little desert religious enclave.

Recognizing that re-election of American politicians depends on the votes of the American people, and that politicians are motivated basically by the desire to get themselves re-elected, Israel and its Zionist adherents in the United States devote themselves to creating the conditions which will guarantee the highest possible degree of loyalty to Israel among members of both the legislative and administrative branches of the American government. Zionists are also busy among the non-elected bureaucracy—and it is an easily observable fact that any strong criticism of Israel by an appointed government official has generally led at best to his censure and public apology, and more often than not to his removal from office. Because Congress and the White House have overwhelming control, they are the primary targets.

A discussion of the entire Zionist apparatus in the United States is beyond the scope of this book. Zionism's organized support consists not only of the ADL, but also of the strongly Zionist American Jewish Committee, the United Jewish Appeal, and other powerful and well-financed groups. Some of them other than the ADL may pose as religious groups somewhat like the Knights of Columbus or the Southern Baptist Convention, but those of practical Zionist orientation are distinguished from simple religious alliances by (1) making their membership fear that it is in great and continual danger not only of assimilation through intermarriage and cultural corruption, but above all (and somewhat inconsistently) of persecution and death at the hands of the rest of society, and (2) urging emotional and financial support of a foreign state as a religious duty and, in effect, a form of salvation.

To marshal the vast resources of the United States in support of Israel, Zionism must make use not only of organized Judaism but also of the much larger non-Jewish population. Wherever they can, Zionists take key positions in political, educational, and professional associations (just to name a few examples) and aggressively promote their ideology and its aims. Their influence in the communications media is most evident. There, an unremitting barrage of pro-Zionist propaganda has assailed the public from mo-

tion pictures, television, newspapers, magazines, the stage, and books for so many years that the mass ears have virtually been deafened to any other viewpoint.

While the ADL likes to say that when non-Zionists criticize Zionists, the word "Zionist" is being used as a code word for "Jew," the truth is that the ADL and similar Zionist groups use their purported "defense of Jews" and "opposition to anti-Semitism" as code phrases for the promotion of Zionism. The ADL tries to camouflage its essentially Zionist function and its agency for Israel as protection and promotion of Jews in general.

Disguised, shrouded in its own lies, the ADL works for unity and continued financial support among Jews by spreading fear of anti-Semitism and by constant reminders of every suffering and persecution, real or mythical, endured by Jews in the whole of their history. The other side of the paranoia brewed by the ADL for Jewish consumption is guilt and sympathy cultivated by the ADL among Gentiles. The centerpiece of the guilt and sympathy campaign is the "holocaust"—the alleged officially organized effort to exterminate all the Jews of Europe during the 1940s. The "holocaust" is used not only as the main excuse for Israel's creation and existence, and for the murder and destruction it has brought to the Middle East, but also as a means of making the non-Jews of America and Europe feel that they were all somehow responsible for the creation of anti-Semitism and its nourishment over the centuries, so that by being a Christian one is tainted in a way which Jews, the victims, are not, and that one has an obligation to make amends by showing deference and support to the supposed pinnacle of Jewish hopes and aspirations—the state of Israel.

Criticism of Israel by non-Jews has been imbued by the ADL with such horrific overtones, and so successful has the ADL's decades-long conditioning of American Gentiles been, that many Gentiles would find it less alarming to be called "crooked" or "immoral" than "anti-Semitic."

Acting as an agent of Israel within the United States while passing as something else, the ADL was Israel's instrument for direct attack upon Liberty Lobby for its opposition to Zionist sapping of United States resources and Zionist influence on United States politicians and policies. In the clash that resulted, Liberty Lobby stood clearly for the national interests of the United States, while

its opponent—muddying the waters in every way it could in order to hide its true nature and intentions—represented interests which were in almost every way inimical to the welfare of the great North American republic and its citizens. Of course the ADL did not announce what it was really up to, for to do so would have made it an outlaw and pariah. Instead it cloaked its work in the irrelevant trappings of "brotherhood," "tolerance," and "democracy for all"—concepts which, ironically enough, are totally alien to the concepts and practice of the state of Israel, on whose behalf the ADL expends ninety percent of its energies.

As zealous as it was in dolling itself up to make a phony impression on the public, it was even more enthusiastic about trying to put its major opponent, Liberty Lobby, in a false light. Playing its self-appointed role of "monitor" and evaluator of Americans, the ADL would first decide who was an obstacle to Zionist interests and then would proceed to misrepresent the individual's intentions and motives, misstate his views, incorrectly characterize his aims, and in general lie about him until anyone who believed even half of what the ADL said would completely discredit their victim as a source of fact or opinion—and would probably have serious doubts about permitting him to continue freely walking the face of the earth.

Unfortunately the power of the Zionist lobby is so great both in Washington, D.C., and on the local constituency level, that it has never been difficult for the ADL to line up politicians who will tout its credibility in order not to offend Jewish voters—many of the latter perceiving the ADL simply as a bulwark against dreaded anti-Semitism. With anxious presidents, senators, congressmen, film stars, authors, and other luminaries garnering votes or good reviews (and staving off smears and blacklisting) by accepting awards from the ADL and praising it as a champion of love and democracy, it is little wonder that uninformed Americans—including even much of that part of the press which is not literally controlled by ADL affiliates—unquestioningly accept the ADL's lies as fact. Indeed, the ADL is frequently sought out and consulted by journalists, civic groups, and others as the self-proclaimed expert on "extremist" groups (that catchall term used worldwide for anybody who has strong opinions different from your own), "hate" groups, bigotry, and—above all—anti-Semitism.

An opponent starts about a mile behind in a race with such an

established and touted organization, but Liberty Lobby had shown that it could make itself heard, and heard by a great many people, in spite of the avalanche of abuse brought down upon it by the ADL's propaganda machine long before Liberty Lobby had a radio program. Because of the ADL's dirty work, however, Liberty Lobby's image among many who do not directly know it or its publications and broadcasts is about as accurate as a cat's conception of astrophysics. Those who actually work for or with Liberty Lobby find the ridiculous disparity between the ADL's grim-faced lies and the realities of Liberty Lobby's existence and activities to be a fruitful source of humor. Unfortunately, most of the public does not have the opportunity to see Liberty Lobby first hand. Those who receive information about Liberty Lobby through the ADL and the thousands of Establishment columnists, editors, reporters, talk show hosts, and commentators who parrot ADL fabrications have a fantastically distorted view. Unless they have the interest and courage to ignore what appears to be the "respectable" outlook, to make their own inquiries, and to go directly to Liberty Lobby's publications and broadcasts in order to judge for themselves what it is all about, they acquire, and probably become the instruments of thoughtlessly spreading misinformation.

The problem is made even worse—and we can only touch on this subject in passing—by a bizarre area of American life in which a passel of money-fat preachers, calling themselves "fundamentalist Christians," wring from their peculiar interpretation of the Bible the notion not only that the Jews are God's chosen people (a theory which the Zionists find most agreeable), but additionally that the existence and expansion of modern-day Israel is prophesied in the scriptures and foreordained and blessed by God. These same preachers, who are living illustrations of the twisted weirdness of which human belief (and in some cases, chicanery) is capable, teach that it is the duty of the United States and its citizens to admire, defend, respect, and support Israel in whatever it does. To criticize Israel, according to those holy hucksters, is to criticize God and the divine plan. Thus we witness the blasphemous spectacle of the alleged followers of the Prince of Peace urging their congregations to bow down to, and help finance, the most brutal and ruthless military aggressor and land-thief seen on this planet since Stalin's Russia.

As for the truth about Liberty Lobby, the truth is easy to come

by for anyone who wants to try a direct approach rather than buying his views second hand. The institution is quite open about its views and policies, which are expressed weekly in The Spotlight, a national newspaper with over 200,000 subscribers, and daily on the radio program "This Is Liberty Lobby." Liberty Lobby's ideology is hardly formulated in secret: A non-membership form of not-for-profit corporation, Liberty Lobby has a Board of Policy which is open to any American citizen who makes a small contribution and signs an oath of support for the United States Constitution. The Board of Policy has numbered over 25,000 for some years. It recommends, discusses, and adopts specific policies which are to be supported by Liberty Lobby in its broadcasts, publications, lobbying, and public relations activities.

Liberty Lobby was founded in 1955 by Willis A. Carto, who has remained its treasurer and is the head of the executive committee which directs the day to day operations of the corporation. Carto, a Hoosier, saw combat in the Americal Division and was wounded in the Philippines during World War II. After returning to the United States and joining myriads of other veterans in the pursuit of reconstructing their lives and making a living, Carto became increasingly concerned about the causes of war and the forces which had led the American people and other populations into wars and economic catastrophes.

Such things did not seem a necessary part of human life, and yet he saw that with peacetime came nothing of the international Magic Kingdom that had been promised by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who had also promised repeatedly before the war to keep the United States out of it) and Winston Churchill as they led their countries to slaughter. Europe was in ruins and starving. The imperialism of Japan in Asia had been replaced by the imperialism of communism. The war in Europe, which had reputedly taken place because Germany had occupied Poland (taking back sections of Germany which had been stripped from that country after World War I) resulted in the bloody red dictatorship of Josef Stalin spreading over a majority of the countries of Europe—all with the indispensable help of the purposeful politicians and bankers and unknowing taxpayers and cannon fodder of the United States.

To make matters worse, and to add to the disillusionment of those who could see the ill consequences of the war they had just "won," the prospect of new wars loomed on a darkening horizon—wars which would certainly draw in the United States if it continued its Rooseveltian policy of involving itself in the problems and conflicts of other nations around the world.

Domestically, in the years following the war, Carto could see other misfortunes developing in the land whose peace and freedom and prosperity he had been told he was fighting to preserve. The United States government had toadstooled into a thing of monstrous size and power. War, as usual, and FDR in particular, had brought on a great growth of bureaucracy and an adoption of leftwing socialist methods. Controls and taxes which would never have been dreamed of by our forebears, much less tolerated, were coming to be taken for granted even as they grew more oppressive. Individual freedom was shrinking, and the right of the people to keep the products of their labors and to govern their own destinies was being very noticeably taken away.

The central government in Washington, the central bank (the Federal Reserve), and the central court (the Supreme Court) would tell everyone what to do and not to do, what to think and not to think, what to possess and not to possess. From the governance of those forces came ever higher taxes, mounting inflation, a progressive decline in the standard of living of the productive segments of the population, social unrest, and racial conflict.

Carto saw, too, that the safeguards which men like Thomas Jefferson had struggled so forcefully to build into our governmental system were being overridden and shortcircuited by special interests.

In their efforts to create a new form of government, the founders of the United States of America were acutely and painfully aware of the defects of previous systems, and they foresaw vividly the dangers which might undo their efforts in the New World. George Washington warned above all else of entangling alliances with other countries. Jefferson and others joined him not only in deploring the deadly consequences of involvement in foreign countries' problems and wars, but also particularly stressed the constant threat that the power of money, and in particular the creation and manipulation of money, concentrated in the hands of a few people, would lead (as it had again and again in history) to a repression and impoverishment of the population as a whole and the perpetuation of dictatorial dominance in the hands of the ex-

tremely rich.

Thus Thomas Jefferson never tired of expressing his distrust of politicians (who would strive to gather money and power for their personal benefit), of the great private banking houses which would try to control the currency to their own profit and the people's loss, and of the selfishness and ignorance which might develop among the resulting poorest classes and lead to demogogery and degenerate mob rule. Jefferson feared uneducated and impoverished masses, mobs knowing little and owning less, such as he observed under the monopolistic aristocracies of Europe. He believed that an aristocracy founded on hereditary land or other wealth was destructive, but that a natural aristocracy of genius, talent, and virtue could be found among and drawn from all the classes of society. It was his concern to bind politicians, big bankers, and other power-seekers with the "chains of the Constitution" and to promote through education and freedom of speech, through individual self-determination and economic independence, the continuing rise of the natural aristocracy to positions of influence and leadership in the United States.

But during the 1940s and 1950s, in the aftermath of depression and war, it became more and more obvious that the insidious powers of internationalism were winning out over nationalism, that the super-rich financiers were consolidating their power and tightening their grip on the country's neck, and that laws and policy were being made at the behest of special interest pressure groups which filled Washington with their lobbyists and the communications media with their publicists. Instead of representing the interests of the country as a whole, politicians were acting at the will of those who could produce the biggest blocks of votes and the largest campaign contributions—not to mention the unethical and illegal benefits that could be delivered by the money powers to an unscrupulous and obedient public servant. There had always been power-hungry and dishonest politicians; the difference now was in the cumulative effects of legislation and administrative policy which had led to much more centralization of control and a much more lopsided orientation of the nation's role in the world than ever before. The same old principles of human greed and self-aggrandizement which Jefferson and others had seen repeatedly destroying the fairness and general benefit of past governments were still at work in the middle of the twentieth century—

again, as Jefferson had predicted—but made even more dangerous now through the enormity of its scope and the efficiency of its technology.

Just as the rulers in civilizations long gone from the face of the earth had learned, the politicians of the United States numerically increased their popularity and support by insincerely trumpeting their compassion for the poor, pandering to the envy and laziness of their clients rather than concerning themselves with the health of the state as a whole (which in turn would benefit everybody), and trading off bread and circuses for votes. In order to serve their highly reproductive "disadvantaged" constituents and keep themselves in office, the American politicians were willing to engage in any degree of deficit spending, taxation (something which had little effect on the super rich or the super poor), and money creation. That in turn served the interests of the big banks which, through the Federal Reserve, controlled the creation of money and the level of interest rates. The big money powers, to make matters worse, were internationalist in their orientation and placed no value on the United States nor on any political system per se. Their monopoly of the most crucial element of society—money—led them to view the entire planet as their empire and to collaborate with one another in controlling it. They evaluated events on any part of the earth exclusively in terms of how it affected their power, their control, and their profits. Their amorality, their lack of patriotism or any other form of national loyalty, their immunity to slogans and other appeals to sentiment, would have been simply incomprehensible to the working people who produced their wealth and volunteered to die in their wars.

The most productive members of United States society—the broad middle class which has long comprised a majority of the

American population*—were the least rebellious even though the most methodically victimized. They tended to believe in God, country, and in loyalties centered in the family and bounded by the national borders. They were easily persuaded by the controlled politicians and communications media that their country's wars were fought for self-preservation, and always in the name of Good against Evil. They readily accepted, having no means to know otherwise, whatever horror propaganda was dished up to them concerning whatever group or groups happened to be labeled Evil at the moment. They had been taught to respect higher authority. They possessed the textbook bourgeois attitudes of caution and dislike of rocking the boat; they tended to be glad for what they had and fearful of losing it.

Imbued with love of their country and its heroes, they wanted to believe the shining words and promises of the men they sent to Washington to represent them. Even when completely disillusioned with the existing administration, they believed, or at least hoped, that voting in a new one would improve things—never quite realizing the truth that party made no difference since the politicians who counted, no matter what their labels and catchwords, were creatures of the money power.

The productive classes were the least organized group in the United States, just as they were the most cautious. They did not march, picket, or stage sit-ins. They did not go to court to defend, enforce, or enlarge their shared interests. They did not have mass meetings and appoint spokesmen. They did not generally engage in letter-writing campaigns to the communications media or politicians. They did not use the power of their large numbers in boycotts or strikes. They did not send delegations to congressmen or senators. There were exceptions of course, but during the 1940s and 1950s the description given above is largely accurate.

The productive classes made up most of the population in those days, but they were scattered, disorganized, and without a unified voice. They did not think of themselves as a group. It was others who controlled the political slant of the "news," the expansion and contraction of the money supply, interest rates, employment,

^*U.S. Census Bureau statistics showed that while 53 percent of American families had "middle class" incomes (\$15,000-\$35,000) in 1970, only 44 percent fell into that category by 1982. For a discussion, see the Wall Street Journal, "Is the U.S. Middle Class Shrinking Alarmingly?", June 20, 1984.

Just as Washington and Jefferson had feared, the country was losing its independence and the majority of its people were being driven deeper and deeper into subservience and poverty. The veteran of World War I whose insurance policy had seemed, when he bought it, sufficient to keep him handsomely in his old age, found that its benefits scarcely covered the cost of bread. The middle class family whose station in life would in earlier days have given them a spacious house and the help of servants now found themselves renting an apartment while both husband and wife worked to keep pace with the bills. It startled some of the young people of the 1950s and 1960s to realize that during the Great Depression of the 1930s their middle class parents had managed, on the gravely curtailed income of the father, to live in a pleasant, large house and pay for a full time nursemaid for the children—luxuries which could not even be hoped for by most newlyweds in a later time of "prosperity."

Industrious people saved after World War II to pay the evermounting taxes which supported an obese bureaucracy and hordes of other nonproducers whose pressure groups had succeeded in getting them free food, housing, and other privileges. The manual laborer found himself crowded out by illegal immigrants whose "plight" was loudly mourned by the Establishment press and liberal politicians. The white policeman and fireman were passed over by their black juniors, and the white student was barred from college to make room for an unqualified "disadvantaged" applicant who benefited from special tutoring and leniency in grading in order to get him a degree. The entire public educational system, the keystone of Jeffersonian democracy, steadily declined in step with legislative and judicial "social improvement" mandates.

Disapproval of the catastrophe that was more and more evidently enveloping the society of the United States was widespread and

Liberty Lobby was founded in the hope of furnishing the productive members of United States society with a voice and an influence which they had not possessed before. Starting out in Washington in a donated room, with little but hope and good will to support it, Carto's project struck a responsive chord and began to grow rapidly. Its initial emphasis was—as its name implied—on lobbying Congress in favor of legislation which would help the "silent majority" and against legislation which would further harm the people as a whole for the benefit of special interests. As time went on, Liberty Lobby moved into a fine three-storied historic building at the corner of Independence Avenue and Third Street Southeast, adjacent to the Library of Congress just two blocks from the Capitol. From the original one man, its on-site personnel grew eventually to over fifty people.

As things developed, Liberty Lobby's publications also became more and more important, alongside its continuing direct lobbying of Congress. Its weekly Liberty Letter achieved the remarkable circulation of over 200,000. Its special publications on specific issues generated huge grass-roots protests against bad laws which swamped members of Congress with cards, letters, and phone calls.

On March 31, 1973, the first broadcasts of "This Is Liberty Lobby" were heard over a handful of radio stations. The hunger of the American people for truth, for a rational and consistent explanation of the facts behind national and world events, was shown in the wildfire speed with which the radio program spread to scores, then hundreds, of other stations.

Ultimately, in its inaugural issue of September 17, 1975, The Spotlight newspaper took the place of Liberty Letter. A national weekly in tabloid format, and sold almost entirely through subscription, it experienced the same phenomenal growth as every-

thing else connected with Liberty Lobby had done. By 1979 it celebrated its surpassing of the 200,000 paid subscription mark with a huge party at the National Press Building in Washington. Not many months later its subscriptions were approaching 300,000 and its actual readership was around a million people per week—vastly greater than any comparable publication.

All of Liberty Lobby's growth occurred in the face of continuing efforts to destroy it through either ignoring it or attacking it directly. Joining in with the ADL were leftists like Drew Pearson, who led the initial "open attack" phase of the campaign against Liberty Lobby. Pearson managed to fill up a good many of his columns with smears against Willis Carto personally and Liberty Lobby in general. His successor in muck-mongering, Jack Anderson, carried on the same tradition, joined by "responsible" conservatives (i.e., leash-trained and housebroken) like William F. Buckley, Jr.

All whose livelihood depended on the corruption that was devouring the United States joined in the war to silence Liberty Lobby. When it proved too tough to silence and to put out of action, the emphasis turned to manufacturing lies which would make it less than respectable to support or be associated with Liberty Lobby. Lacking grounds for accusing Liberty Lobby of any wrongdoing, the ADL and its media parrots squawked a single tune with minor variations—that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic. The favorable publicity which Liberty Lobby had sometimes received in its early years faded away, and under the auspices of the ADL and its cohorts virtually any public mention of Liberty Lobby centered on a single lie: Liberty Lobby was supposed to be anti-Semitic, and therefore a hotbed of religious bigotry and Nazism. That was the thrust of every ADL fusillade directed against Liberty Lobby, and while there was no truth in it, its echoes and reechoes created their own illusion of authenticity. By the time the same falsehood has been put in print by the ADL, Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, True magazine, William F. Buckley, Jr. and his National Review, the Washington Post, and scores of other newspapers, the very repetition of the fabrication lends it an aura of credibility. Each publisher of the lie points to the others as sources, and once the libelous seed has been planted no one goes back to find out whether any real facts were involved in the roots of the story.

The weakness and falsity of the ADL's allegations are shown by the lack of specificity in its charges concerning Liberty Lobby. The ADL attacks with generalizations. It rarely if ever has quoted directly from any Liberty Lobby publication or broadcast. It talks about "racism" and "attacks on all American Jews" and "threats to democracy" with, at most, wispy hints about supporting evidence which is never produced. The reader of this book can see these things for himself—both the lack of concreteness in the ADL's accusations, and the absence of anti-Semitism and racism in Liberty Lobby's publications—by analyzing the language of the ADL which is quoted throughout, and by reading the radio scripts and the reprint of America First (the Liberty Lobby publication most frequently singled out by the ADL as anti-Semitic) included between these covers—as well as by reading The Spotlight.

The ADL's motives for putting Liberty Lobby in a false light have already been shown. But what is the real nature of Liberty Lobby's ideology? It originally tended to be styled as a voice for conservatives, but "conservative" as the word is used in this country often contains incompatible concepts and inconsistent notions. People who call themselves "conservative" these days are using a term of indistinct and uncertain meaning. Many who feel that the word describes their economic and political attitudes are unwittingly declaring their support for a hodgepodge of programs and policies which play into the hands of the same manipulators who make use of liberalism and communism to further their aims.

The same confusion exists between the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties. Tweedledum and Tweedledee have different names but produce the same results except for differences in costuming and stage setting. Any observant person has seen that political speeches and party platforms and campaign slogans have nothing to do with the state of the nation after the winners have been in office for a year or two.

Liberty Lobby is non-partisan and always has been. Although it is certainly antipathetic to what is called "liberalism," and liberalism (another word so vague as to be meaningless) is associated with the Democratic Party, Liberty Lobby can even less be labeled Republican than it can be labeled conservative. It is best described as populist.

Populism is democratic, constitutional, nationalistic, and puts all its emphasis on the good of the people as a whole. Its outstanding early exemplars are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson those men's words and deeds paint a clear picture of the populist philosophy and its practical application.

Populism believes in severely limited government and the minimum of taxation and government expenditure. Likewise it wishes to restrain strictly the power and financial gain available to the holders of public office and the employees of the government. The only safe repository of power is in the people as a whole, since populists feel that the possession of power by individuals is corrupting and leads to avarice and a desire to perpetuate and aggrandize one's position.

Populism puts great emphasis on the proper methods of creating and controlling the nation's money—that strange symbolic substance so susceptible to trickery and sleight-of-hand, and yet so apparently indispensable to the operation of a higher civilization. Money, that seemingly simple and straightforward tool, takes on a magical life of its own in the hands of the sorcerer's apprentice and begins to make slaves of those it was intended to serve. Populism sees in control of the creation of money, and in control of the value of money, the potential control of the economy, the government, and the fate of the entire people. It is a prime point of the populist philosophy to keep the power of money creation out of the hands of selfish interests. Populism's greatest past battles were fought against the emperors of private banking, and the war continues today against the Federal Reserve (owned by private banks) and all the other national and international mechanisms set up for the benefit of the bankers at the expense of the welfare of the people.

Similarly, populism opposes the lopsided, uncontrollable concentration of wealth, and the burdens on the people, which result from business monopolies. Populism believes in free enterprise, and free enterprise cannot survive the stranglehold of monopolies. Populism therefore deplores monopoly capitalism, which crushes free enterprise, wipes out competition, artificially raises prices, and creates eventually a tiny caste of tremendously rich people presiding over a nation of paupers who have been left no foothold by which they can begin to improve themselves. Populism calls for just enough government control to prevent monopolies and keep free enterprise free to function.

Populist nationalism is expressed in its principle that each coun-

try and race should be free to exist and develop without interference by other countries or races. Populism is anti-colonial. Populism advocates involvement in foreign conflicts only when the truly vital interests of the United States as a whole are directly affected. It wants United States neutrality in the quarrels of other nations. It calls for a strong military to be used only for purposes of self-defense.

Populism's nationalist attitude is further demonstrated in its goal of national self-sufficiency—as contrasted to dependency on foreign imports, foreign raw materials, and foreign trade in general. Internationalism tends to take control of the nation's economy from its own people and put them at the mercy of other nations and of international financiers.

In line with the same thinking, populism supports protective tariffs and opposes the "free trade" espoused by internationalists. It would permit immigration not for the importation of cheap labor nor to appease minority groups of voters, but only selectively, and to the limited extent that new citizens would benefit the nation as a whole.

What put Liberty Lobby on the ADL's hit list was Liberty Lobby's advocacy of neutrality in foreign affairs—and secondarily its resistance to the international socialist goal of melding all racial and national groups into an homogenized whole in which no differences of culture, custom, color, or loyalty would be found. The myth had been carefully promulgated and widely taught and publicized that nationalism was responsible for wars, and that without nationalism wars would not exist. Along with the obvious Marxist overtones of that hypothesis was an underlying kernel of logic which appealed to college sophomores and sheep-brained liberals: It takes two (or more) to fight. Wars take place between nations. It takes at least two nations to fight a war. If there is only one nation on earth, and the people in it are all the same, then there won't be any second party to provide the makings of a war. Therefore "one world," with no national states in it, will guarantee peace forever.

In addition to the evident historical fact that there had been wars long before there was nationalism, long before the development of nation-states, and that the philosophy of nationalism was essentially self-containing and protective rather than expansionistic or colonialistic, the "one-world" proposition was fallacious on a number of other grounds: The dream of eliminat-

ing all human differences in order to eliminate human conflicts was unattainable. The one worlders would have to eliminate not only national boundaries and cultural allegiances, but also races, since race is the most basic mark of human differentiation. Along with race, economic differences and religious differences have been primary demarcation lines in drawing up sides for human conflict, so economic inequality and religions (all but one, at any rate) would also have to be eliminated.

In worrying about nationalism as the alleged cause of war, the truly idealistic of the one worlders conveniently forgot not only the impracticality of homogenizing the world into a featureless broth, but also that even if they had been able to succeed in deleting national identification and loyalty they still would not have achieved their goal of peace. With the exception of disputes over the location of national boundaries, most wars have been started by groups who want to deny somebody else's established right to national, racial, or religious or economic integrity. Civil wars erupt within nations. The nationalist says, "This is our territory, and we want to be let alone to enjoy it and develop in our own way." The ordinary object of nationalism is not to interfere in the affairs of other peoples, but rather to guarantee the wellbeing of a coherent cultural group within its established territory. The roots of both world wars I and II grew from earlier interference with the boundaries of established national groups; it was the internationally minded, and not the nationalists, who escalated the resultant conflicts into "world" wars.

The ADL had long been in the forefront of those propagandizing for leftist, anti-nationalist causes in the United States. They had been one of the most vociferous proponents of school integration and other breakdowns of racial dividing lines. Their catchwords were "brotherhood" and "tolerance." And yet they supported the nation which combined the most exclusivist and chauvinistic nationalism with aggressive territorial expansion at the expense of other nations, and they most zealously guarded Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole against any form of dilution or intermixture.

Because Liberty Lobby had supported nationalism and the right of every national and racial group to develop without interference from others, there was an additional reason for it to become a favorite target of the ADL, even though in reality the principles really supported by the ADL were much more extreme, and more exclusivist and nationalistic, than anything proposed by Liberty Lobby. The kingpins of the ADL would never have wanted Jews or Israel to be poured and stirred into a groupless and nationless soup of humanity. Typical of the elite and would-be elite of internationalism, they envision themselves as occupying the privileged pinnacle of the pyramid and retaining their own individuality, even as they envision those in the broad expanse below being dissolved into an amorphous mash.

Thus the battle lines were drawn: On the one side, Liberty Lobby, representing the purest strain of native American populism. On the other, the ADL, posturing in the name of universal brotherhood, hypocritically mouthing platitudes about racial integration and harmony while actually using lies, intimidation, and back-alley extortion to manipulate and demoralize the majority of Americans for the benefit of a small minority pressure group—and above all pursuing its surreptitious internationalist aim of subverting American national interests, circumventing United States laws, and syphoning off American resources and money in aid of a foreign power—ironically an arrogant, theocratic, jingoistic, colonialist, militaristic state built on those principles and policies which, if found in the smallest degree in the United States, drove the ADL to rend its garments and wail that the end of democracy and the threat of holocaust was upon us.

How to Strangle Free Speech: Experts Show the Way

E ARE READYING a counteraction campaign against Liberty Lobby, with special emphasis on their new radio series, which is now on 107 stations around the country, five days a week. In connection with this effort, I am intensifying our investigations and I would like to ask you to do one thing for us.

"As you know, as a lobbying organization, Liberty Lobby is required to submit an annual report to the Clerk of the House. Would you be good enough to obtain for us copies of their reports for the past five years? I don't think we have received any for that period of time and they may prove useful."

That memorandum from Irwin Suall to one David Brody—an ADL ally in Washington, D.C.—was one of the first steps in Suall's search for dirt which followed the "counteraction" meeting in New York in mid-February 1974. Another memorandum, written like the above in the third week of that February, discussed and rejected as unworkable, for lack of grounds, complaints to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) designed to force radio stations not to carry the Liberty Lobby program. The hope of using the FCC as a weapon against stations broadcasting "This Is Liberty Lobby" was raised more than once as time went on, but apparently—like the hope of finding something harmful in the annual lobbying reports—never came to anything. To illustrate the thinking behind the scheme, we quote a memo David Brody wrote to Suall on ADL letterhead from Washington on June 18, 1974:

"At Jay Silverman's Regional Board meeting today, one of the Board members suggested that we file a petition to deny the renewal license of WAVA, which carries the Liberty Lobby broad-

cast, when the station's license comes up for renewal.

"I don't think we can succeed with such a petition if carrying the Liberty Lobby broadcast is the only issue. However, if there is a station among those which carry the broadcast which has a generally bad record of serving the public interest, then I think that would be an added factor and if we were successful—although as you know it would be a long and arduous effort—it might have the effect of discouraging other stations from carrying the broadcast."

(It should be noted here that almost all of the ADL memoranda quoted or referred to in this book were distributed to various persons in addition to the addressee. Normally copies of memoranda were sent to at least three people, and frequently to many more than that. It would, however, be tedious and pointless to set down the names of the dozens of ADL functionaries which appear again and again in the ADL's records of their effort to silence Liberty Lobby's radio voice.)

There were alternative ways of getting at or undermining Liberty Lobby's programs both discussed and attempted by the ADL, as will be seen, but the main emphasis was, and remained, direct pressure on the broadcasting stations themselves. In line with that goal, within weeks after the meeting which declared war on "This Is Liberty Lobby," lists of the owners of all the radio stations carrying the program were distributed to ADL higher-ups and to Area Directors and Regional Office Directors.

A memo found in ADL files which predated the February 13 meeting and referred to a specific radio station reveals a lot about ADL motives and intentions. On January 15, 1974 Harvey B. Schechter wrote to Barbara Cooperman regarding station KZIA in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

"I was disturbed to read on page 2 of Dr. Goodman's letter the statement that Liberty Lobby is broadcast as a public service by the station.

"I hope that our people in Albuquerque press the point that 'Dateline Israel' is broadcast at 6:45 on a Sunday morning whereas Liberty Lobby is broadcast at 8:45 A.M. when there is sizable auto traffic and people are listening to radios as they drive to work

"You will be interested to know that our Civil Rights Committee recommended, and our Board approved, exploration of the idea that ADL produce five-minute commentaries in competition with the Liberty Lobby program.

"I am distressed at the fact that they already have 107 stations and are pointing to 200."

The radio program referred to in the memorandum, "Dateline Israel," has already been mentioned as an Israeli propaganda outlet produced by the ADL and narrated by Arnold Forster, the ADL's General Counsel and Civil Rights Director. Each program extolled the glories of the Zionist state and featured direct attack or indirect slurs against Arabs and other persons whose existence Israel found inconvenient. The ADL's continuing preoccupation with "Dateline Israel" as a replacement for, or at least a counterbalance for, "This Is Liberty Lobby" is certainly one of the best evidences of where the ADL's true allegiance lay. They wanted to substitute pro-Israel propaganda for a pro-American program.

From the ADL's Minnesota-Dakotas Office, Monroe Schlactus wrote to Irwin Suall on April 19, 1974, ". . . the attached is the transcript of what was to appear on the Liberty Lobby program on radio station KUXL at 4:25 P.M. on April 16. The recording was not used. I have a cassette recording of it which KUXL ran for me which I will forward to you after I have an opportunity to play it at our Executive Committee meeting on Monday evening."

The Schlactus communication is the first recorded instance which came to light showing the actual intervention of the ADL at an individual radio station in such a manner as to prevent the broadcast of a Liberty Lobby tape. Unfortunately further details of the episode are unknown except to those involved. It is quite clear, however, that the ADL deliberately influenced one or more persons at station KUXL to cancel broadcast of a scheduled program because the ADL did not like its content.

Judging from materials brought to light during Liberty Lobby's lawsuit, the period of three months following the initial February "counteraction" meeting was used by the ADL more for preparation and conspiratorial string-pulling than for a direct offensive. The centerpiece of the campaign of lies and fear would be an article by Irwin Suall in the June 1974 issue of the ADL Bulletin, the ADL's monthly periodical of general circulation. Suall's smear of Liberty Lobby, entitled simply "This Is Liberty Lobby," was illustrated by a drawing of a serpent baring its fangs as it encircled a microphone. It was headed, "Is the bigotry of one of America's

leading radical right groups being peddled over your local radio station?"

The Suall article then went on to string distortion after distortion and falsehood after falsehood, in an effort to discredit Liberty Lobby in the minds of the ADL's readers. Repeating the standard unfounded and unsupported ADL canard that Liberty Lobby was a "Jew-hating" organization, Suall then presented the equally groundless characterization of "This Is Liberty Lobby" as an "extremist" radio program.

Complaining about the rapid growth of "This Is Liberty Lobby" to 126 stations, the ADL's chief muckraker then got to the real point—that "This Is Liberty Lobby" had been guilty of the grave offense of criticizing Israel. Suall complained that "This Is Liberty Lobby" had, during the October 1973 war in which Israel invaded and subjected to military occupation new Arab land, made "fierce attacks on America's foreign policy in the Middle East." As if that weren't anti-Semitic enough, Liberty Lobby had also—according to Suall—called Israel an "insignificant patch of worthless desert" which was rightfully an Arab country. With typical false conversion of the specific to the general, the ADL's Suall characterized Liberty Lobby's radio complaints about Zionist influenced American support of Israel as an attack "on the American Jewish community for its support of the Jewish state..."

Whining that Liberty Lobby broadcasts had described Zionism "as an evil and alien force," Suall went on to display the Zionist craving for secrecy and subterfuge, the fear of light, the usual Zionist hypersensitivity to any suggestion that Zionism exerted influence in the United States. He expressed indignation that "This Is Liberty Lobby" had quoted Senator William Fulbright's observation that Israel controlled the United States Senate. Suall's accusation that "This Is Liberty Lobby" had (in a thereafter muchquoted phrase from the ADL Bulletin article) "scraped the garbage cans of professional hatemongers for 'facts' and vocabulary" was backed up by the example that the program had referred to the "political Zionist-influenced press." Under Suall's reasoning, it was impossible to criticize Israel, Zionism, or Zionist/Israeli influence on American politics and communications media without committing the cardinal sin of "anti-Semitism." It was Liberty Lobby's view that anyone with an ear with which to hear, or an eye

with which to see, could detect the strong pressure of pro-Zionism on virtually every newspaper, magazine, television studio, and movie producer in the country. Numerous political figures had pointed out the same obvious phenomenon—drawing down, of course, the fire of Mr. Suall and his like upon their heads—and it is no tribute to the perspicacity and guts of their contemporaries that such political figures more often than not quickly lost their posts through election defeat or forced resignation . . . thus confirming the very charge of Zionist influence the voicing of which had gotten them into trouble in the first place.

Irwin Suall even found Liberty Lobby's references (frequent and always uncomplimentary) to "international bankers" to be an example of anti-Semitism, although there was never the slightest hint on "This Is Liberty Lobby" that Jewishness was or ever had been a prerequisite for a career in international finance. Indeed, Liberty Lobby's prime specific target among international bankers was the (Gentile) Rockefeller family.

The remainder of Suall's article was of the same tenor and level of veracity as that portion already discussed in detail. It relied on rumor, unproved accusations, and innuendo to build up a case for the lie that because Liberty Lobby opposed American intervention in foreign conflicts, and because those who pushed the United States into foreign conflicts were depicted by Liberty Lobby as harmful to the United States' interests, Liberty Lobby was an anti-Semitic menace. Essentially, Suall's propaganda effort was able to cite accurate specifics only when he dealt with Liberty Lobby's opposition to undue Israeli influence upon the United States; the rest of his smear recipe consisted of vague generalizations and false tales which in most cases the ADL had helped to invent in the first place—most of them involving Willis A. Carto, Liberty Lobby's founder and treasurer.*

Having established the party line with Suall's tailor-made article, the ADL then proceeded to use the article as the basis for other materials. It was a bootstrap procedure in which Suall of the ADL used lies originally generated by the ADL as part of the basis of his

^*The real focus of the ADL's interest, and the motives underlying Suall's article, are illustrated by the fact that a large part of the issue of the ADL Bulletin which contained the attack on Liberty Lobby consisted of an article called "Israel's Right to Exist," purportedly written by a Benedictine monk named Rudloff—"unashamedly in defense of Israel."

Suall wrote on June 25 to all ADL regional offices:

"In a few days you will be receiving from Lynne Ianniello a press release on the "This Is Liberty Lobby" radio program. The release, based on our expose in the June, 1974 ADL Bulletin, uses as our spokesmen Lawrence Peirez and John Goldwater. Accompanying the release will be guidelines advising you how to place it in your local press and a list of stations using the program. A news story placed by you, based upon our release will be the sina qua non [sic] of a successful expose campaign we are planning . . . In addition to the release, we will also have available for selective distribution, reprints of the ADL Bulletin piece on which it is

based. This information should be shared by you with influential community leaders, opinion makers, businessmen and others.

"You will also be receiving a phone call in a few days from your civil rights area director to discuss in greater detail your very important role in our efforts re: Liberty Lobby."

The obsession of the ADL leadership with controlling other people's thoughts and words showed itself strongly in their maneuvers against Liberty Lobby. Not content to send out the message to the faithful in the form of Suall's article and the press release based on it, ADL headquarters in New York carefully spelled out the precise way in which the artfully spontaneous zealot should write his or her complaint to the owners of radio stations broadcasting "This Is Liberty Lobby." It is fascinating to watch, in fact, how the same ideas, phrases, and terms occur again and again in writings far removed from the fountainhead in Manhattan.

Here is the important major directive sent down the line by Irwin Suall to all the ADL regional offices as a directive governing certain aspects of the pressure campaign against radio stations:

Iz Zack, Charles Wittenstein, Harry Rosenkranz, Michael Rapp and Harvey Schechter

Irwin Sual

July 23, 1974

Liberty Lobby

Here are some recommendations for action in connection with our Liberty Lobby campaign, which you should convey to your regional directors:

• 1. Regional directors should communicate directly with the management of each of the radio stations in their respective areas carrying the Liberty Lobby program by mailing to them a copy of the reprint from the June, 1974 ADL Bulletin with a brief covering letter. The letter should state only that it has come to our attention that the station is carrying the Liberty Lobby program and that we are sending them the enclosed article for their information, so that they may gain a better understanding of the organization which is responsible for the radio program.
• 2. Attached are guidelines for concerned individuals to write directly to stations carrying the Liberty Lobby program. You should urge your regional directors to distribute copies of these guidelines, together with the ADL Bulletin reprint, to their regional board members, lodges, rabbis, etc. Businessmen should be encouraged to write on their business stationery. Non-Jews, especially clergymen,

should be asked to write.

I am enclosing a photocopy of Liberty Lobby's own listing, as of June, 1974, of the radio stations carrying its program. You should attach this information to your communication to your regional directors.

Finally, please emphasize how important it is that we get fairly complete reports on what regional directors are doing to implement our Liberty Lobby campaign in their areas. The reports should be directed to you, with copies to Ted Freedman, Jerry Bakst, Mort Kass and me.

IS:am

cc: Ted Freedman Jerry Bakst Mort Kass

Attachments

Concerned individuals should make radio stations carrying the Liberty Lobby's daily program, "This Is Liberty Lobby," aware that they do not consider anti-Semitism to be legitimate fare; that they feel it is their duty or responsibility to inform the station of what they know concerning the organization and to express their concern. Letters directed to these stations should include some expression of the above, plus as many of the following points—in the writer's own language—as he may think necessary to make his point.

• —It has come to the writer's attention that the station is carrying these broadcasts.
• —Responsible media, newspapers, magazines, Jewish publications, etc., have labeled Liberty Lobby as anti-Semitic, a disseminator of anti-Semitism, a source of anti-Jewish propaganda, etc., and have identified some of its leaders as anti-Semites.
• -"Liberty Letter," which is advertised and promoted on the broadcasts, has often carried anti-Semitic material.
• —Listeners who write to Liberty Lobby as suggested on the broadcasts are often sent anti-Semitic materials.
• —The writer feels that all legitimate points of view are entitled to be heard on the air—but that responsible broadcasting does not include the promotion of an organization which disseminates bigotry and hatred. Some may wish to add that Liberty Lobby is not, specifically, a legitimate conservative organization, as William F. Buckley's National Review has pointed out, calling it "pseudoconservative."
• —A good strong conclusion—neither disrespectful nor threatening—expressing the view that while the station itself must determine what to broadcast over its facilities, the writer hopes that it will rethink its decision to carry the programs of Liberty Lobby, an organization steeped in bigotry and religious prejudice.

ADL officials and functionaries had obviously been carefully drilled in the importance of appearing to take their own distortions and falsehoods seriously. Although they knew full well that Liberty Lobby's publication and broadcasts contained nothing which could remotely be likened to anti-Semitism ("hatred of Jews," by Irwin Suall's own definition given at his later deposition) or racism, and though they knew that their goal was to choke "This Is Liberty Lobby" out of existence by getting radio stations to stop broadcasting it so that its occasional scripts on American interests vis a vis Israel could no longer be heard, their internal communications generally carried out the same straightfaced pose used for their public communications: That the ADL was merely conducting an educational campaign, and that Liberty Lobby was "anti-Semitic."

The real reason for the "counteraction" shows, however, quite clearly through the semantic camouflage, and at times the camouflage itself dropped away momentarily. No matter how often warned and well-coached they might be by Arnold Forster and other lawyers, ADL personnel could not turn a garbage heap into a rose garden, nor extortion and slander into an innocent campaign of enlightenment, merely by guarding their words and fashioning their phrases to fit with the appearance they were trying to create.

Any analysis of ADL broadsides against Liberty Lobby shows no charges of any specificity or substance. For instance, the press release of July 3, 1974, based on Suall's article, is a mixture of vagueness, false innuendo, and outright lies. Liberty Lobby officers are called anti-Semites, but without any evidence of words or deeds that would support such an allegation. Other people, as well as publications, are called anti-Semitic, racist, and bigoted in the press release, again without evidence. What the victims of the ADL's verbiage seem to have in common is that at one time or other they criticized Zionist machinations in the United States, or Israel, or that they said uncomplimentary things about the ADL itself.

The flimsiness of the ADL fabrications can be shown by two of many possible examples.

The July 3 press release bewails the fact that at the time of the Yom Kippur War of October—in which Israel, armed by the United States, took over bloody slabs of the territory of several

other nations—"This Is Liberty Lobby" did not promote the Israeli side. What "This Is Liberty Lobby" actually said on the subject is revealed by the scripts printed in this book. Contrast the rendition attributed to John Goldwater in the ADL press release.

"He noted 'daily attacks' (by "This Is Liberty Lobby") on Israel and American Jews during that period, including descriptions of Israel by the program's commentator, Bob Bartell, as 'a bastard state,' charges that American Jews are subversive and disloyal, and use of terminology 'scraped from the garbage cans of professional hatemongers'."

The reader can determine for himself the accuracy of the ADL's version of what was said on "This Is Liberty Lobby." The lie that the program attacked "American Jews" is typical of the ADL's propaganda tactic of deliberately misleading generalization: The ADL constantly attempts to mislead people into believing that criticism directed at a group including some Jews is an attack on all Jews.

The best way for the reader to judge what went on during the ADL's mounting campaign to remove Liberty Lobby from the air waves is to view the actual written materials generated during the period. If those materials were merely summarized or paraphrased here, or if only highly selective segments were quoted, the reader would have a right to wonder whether he was being given a distorted account. By reading—or at least skimming—the following chronological collection, you can see for yourself what the ADL was up to, how it went about it, and what its real aims and motives were.*

We go back to December, 1973, with a letter from the ADL, Boston, Massachusetts, to the Israeli consulate in the same city.

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 72 Franklin St. Boston, Mass. 02110

December 24, 1973

^*The photocopies of letters and memoranda turned over by the ADL to Liberty Lobby in the course of Liberty Lobby's lawsuit were often so poorly made—whether by design, sloppiness, or because of an astonishingly defective series of copying machines, that many of them cannot be reproduced directly, and some contain illegible portions.

Mr. Shimstian Tuimi [?] Israeli Consulate Boston, Massachusetts

Dear Shimstian:

I appreciate your calling me relative to the Liberty Lobby broadcast on WRYT. Boston.

I believe that you are aware of the fact that Liberty Lobby is [illegible]

[The remaining nine or ten lines of the letter were produced in such faded and smeared condition as to be largely unreadable. Efforts to obtain a legible copy failed. The few words which come through show that the author of the letter was assuring the Israeli Consulate that the ADL was taking steps to silence Liberty Lobby criticism of the country represented by the consulate. Copies of the letter were sent to eight ADL officials.]

Next we have a letter from a B'nai B'rith member in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Dr. Albert Goodman, to Barbara Coopersmith, an ADL employee in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Goodman's January 4, 1974 letter related that he had dutifully called station KZIA and told them Liberty Lobby was "fascist." Afterward it apparently occurred to him to listen to some of the actual "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcasts on KZIA. In Dr. Goodman's words:

"It became obvious that the programs were careful to avoid overt anti-Semitism. As I'm sure you know, in addition to the ultraconservative viewpoint, they were no more than anti-Israel and anti-Kissinger."

Dr. Goodman seems not quite to have got the idea that to say something against Israel is to be anti-Semitic. Anyway, lack of anti-Jewishness never saved anyone from being called anti-Semitic by the ADL when the interests of a certain foreign country are at stake. The ADL's true motives come to the surface in the next communication, only the first of several which reveal a shocking willingness of certain radio stations to exercise censorship under pressure.

January 10, 1974

From Isadore Zack

To Herman Brown

I understand from Sherm Heller [Keller?] of WRYT-Boston that his boss, Ken Carter, plans to audition the Liberty Lobby tapes before putting them on the air and will not use any program that mentions Israel in a derogatory manner.

I am alerting our monitors to check this out.

The following materials continue the sordid story of the ADL's schemes to get at Liberty Lobby by every possible means:

From Justin Finger

To Irwin Suall

February 14, 1974

For the record, I have received information that there is an advertising agency in Los Angeles which is handling the placing of Liberty Lobby's radio program on radio stations nationally. The agency is Dearley and Associates . . . Los Angeles . . . In checking with telephone information in Los Angeles, I was told that the telephone number there is 936-9009 . . . I have asked Harvey Schechter to undertake an investigation of this agency.

From Irwin Suall

To [various ADL officials]

March 12, 1974

As a lobbying organization, Liberty Lobby is required to submit reports regularly to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, including some financial information.

Attached you will find a list of contributors of \$500 or more to Liberty Lobby, based on reports they submitted for the fourth quarter of 1971 through the fourth quarter of 1973.

Would you please extract the names for your own area and share them with the regional offices, with the request that they fact-find the individuals located in their regions. They should try to get financial information about these individuals as well as other details about them

Please share your findings with me.

[Memo sent with different lists of names included, to a number of ADL regional leaders:]

From Charles F Wittenstein

April 12, 1974

The following is a list of contributors from your area of \$500 or more to Liberty Lobby, based on reports they submitted for the fourth quarter of 1971 through the fourth quarter of 1973.

Names deleted

Would you please check them out and provide us with financial and other information on these individuals.

Mr. Howard Warshaw Universal Broadcasting Co. 310 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y.

Dear Howard:

With further reference to the Liberty Lobby broadcasts which are still being carried by WTHE in Mineola and your Minneapolis station, KUXL, we want to call your attention to what they are peddling to listeners who write to the address given in the broadcasts.

Since you are so close to our office at 315 Lexington Avenue, I suggest you arrange to meet with Irwin Suall, Director of Fact Finding, who will be able to show you the books hawked by the organization. You may call Irwin at MU-9-7400.

Howard, in view of the virulent anti-Semitic content of the material pushed by Liberty Lobby, you might want to see the actual material being advertised on your stations.

Give me a ring so that we might grab a lunch one day out here. I'll call you when I'm downtown.

Very truly yours,

Melvin T. Cooperman Regional Director

To Irwin Suall

From Monroe Schlactus

April 23, 1973

Attached is a script of the Liberty Lobby tape that was to be aired April 23, 1974 by KUXL of Minneapolis.

A cassette containing the recording of the April 23 Liberty Lobby and also the Liberty Lobby airing which had been scheduled for April 16 is on its way to Suall and Rapp under separate cover.

As you can see from the attached letter, Howard Warshaw of Long Island, who is the owner of KUXL, has begun to be most cooperative in killing the tapes even before we express concern.

As I indicated to you, Mel Cooperman and I met with Warshaw during the National Commission meeting in November and Mel has apparently stayed close to him. I would imagine that, through Mel's contact with Warshaw, we may be able to preview all the Liberty Lobby tapes before their airing.

A complete report on our activities with KMOT-FM of Minot North Dakota, and KSUM of Fairmont, Minnesota, will be forward

ed to you when the information comes to me regarding any action taken in those communities. I still have no way of getting at KOBH of Hot Springs, South Dakota.

The script of the April 23, 1974 "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcast, which is referred to frequently by the ADL, is quoted on pages 18 and 19 of this book. This broadcast precipitated letters from Arnold Forster to many radio stations demanding broadcast time to reply to a "personal attack" on the ADL under the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine. Forster's letters concluded on a threatening note:

"As a licensee you were required under Sec. 73-123 to notify us no later than one week of the attack and to afford us reasonable opportunity to respond over your facilities. You have failed to do so. We are therefore bringing this matter to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission."

On April 24, 1974, Liberty Lobby received a letter from the General Manager of KCVR which showed that even at that early date in the campaign, the ADL was vigorously at work:

Also, we received a phone call yesterday from Rabbi Rosenberg of Stockton telling us that it was his understanding that Liberty Lobby was an anti-Jewish broadcast. He wanted to know whether it was sponsored on a paying basis or if we sustained the program. We will, therefore, appreciate any information or material you can send us so that we may dispute Rabbi Rosenberg's accusation.

As Liberty Lobby was getting its first inkling that its burgeoning radio program was under attack, the ADL was studying yet another back-alley angle. Harry Von Zell, one of the best known radio voices in the country, was the announcer on "This Is Liberty Lobby." That is, he spoke the introduction and closing of the program, while Bob Bartell did the commentary. The ADL, recognizing the speaker who had been a major personality throughout the golden years of radio, stooped even lower than usual:

From Harvey B. Schechter

To Irwin Sual

April 23, 1974

As you know [illegible] Engle and I both believe that the voice which opens the Liberty Lobby broadcast is that of Harry Von Zell.

In view of the fact that Von Zell is a prominent Southern Californian who is familiar to millions of people by way of numerous television commercials in behalf of Home Savings and Loan Association, the largest S. and L. in the nation, we believe that this merits activity by us.

Von Zell's voice is well known and he is widely respected. We believe that his introduction is a legitimatizing factor and adds to the impact of the program.

To be absolutely certain that it is his voice and not someone who sounds like him, we are of the opinion that a direct approach to Von Zell by ADL, or an indirect approach to Home Savings and Loan by someone like Max Greenberg is in order.

In view of the fact that your memoranda concerning Liberty Lobby have suggested careful treatment, we did not want to proceed without your prior approval. However, I believe it would be perfectly proper for ADL, which has published articles accusing Liberty Lobby of being anti-Semitic, to direct a letter to Mr. Von Zell asking whether or not that is his voice. If the answer is yes then it would be a basis for us to discuss with him Liberty Lobby's anti-Jewish activities and his association with their program.

However, we shall do nothing until we hear from you

July 30, 1974

Mr. Maxwell E. Greenberg 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1150 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Dear Max:

As you know, our campaign against the Liberty Lobby is in full swing.

I for one, am distressed at the fact that Liberty Lobby broadcasts begin with an opening comment by Harry Von Zell. When a Christian friend spoke with Von Zell, he said that he did not agree with Liberty Lobby and had asked them to stop using his voice for the opening introduction.

In view of his key position with Home Savings and Loan and the gutter anti-Semitism of the Liberty Lobby, I'd like to suggest that a letter from you to him about this might further stimulate him to take action to deny Liberty Lobby the use of his voice.

Enclosed are: A copy of the July Liberty Letter (see page 3); our press release; ADL Bulletin reprint.

Cordially.

Harvey B. Schechter

While the inside story is not entirely known, it appears that the ADL did attempt to work its machinations on Von Zell, and that

he told them, in so many words, to repair to a region known for its high temperatures and lack of humidity. Harry Von Zell, proving that he deserved his fame for more reasons than one, was among the few who, when touched by the slimy insinuations and shadowy threats of the ADL, refused to be intimidated.

Meanwhile, the ADL continued its more direct efforts to stamp out "This Is Liberty Lobby."

From Charles Wittenstein

To Ruthe Winegarten

4-30-74

Liberty Lobby's Midland Station [illegible]

We are fortunate in that one of our ADL contacts is the manager of a radio station in Odessa (40 miles from Midland).

He taped the broadcast for us of April 23, and while he was in Dallas Thursday evening attended our ADL Board meeting and played the tape.

He has volunteered to contact the Midland station president, who he knows well, and ask that they discontinue the series.

On April 15, 1974, the Mutual Broadcasting System contracted with Liberty Lobby to begin carrying "This Is Liberty Lobby" on Mutual's large radio network. This meant a major breakthrough for Liberty Lobby: Instead of having to send a tape of each broadcast to each radio station that carried it (a practice that would continue where non-network stations were involved), the programs would be fed on the Mutual lines to hundreds of stations around the country. No station on the Mutual network was required to broadcast the program, but its availability on the system would greatly increase the number of stations which would voluntarily use it—a fact not lost on the ADL and others of like mentality.

April 30, 1974

To: Arnold Forster, Anti-Defamation League of BB Isaiah Terman, American Jewish Committee Joseph B. Robison, American Jewish Congress Joel Ollander, N.J.C.R.A.C. Felix Putterman, Jewish War Veterans of L.S.A.

From: Samuel L. Scheiner
Subject: Liberty Lobby

I am receiving a number of calls from interested citizens in this area with reference to the fact that Liberty Lobby, the notorious hate radio program, has now been expanded to include 600 Mutual Network stations.

While I am fully cognizant of the role we have to play vis-a-vis censorship yet I believe we should be giving some thought to how these vicious programs can be answered on a regular basis over these stations. It occurs to me that if equal time were asked for to answer the highly controversial programs of Liberty Lobby that they may think twice about selling them time and then having free time asked for after almost every one of their programs.

In any event, the people who are calling me are of the strong opinion that if this offensive material is allowed to continue over these radio stations day in and day out, that it cannot but have a very detrimental and harmful effect upon the Jewish community and especially upon liberal thought in this country.

I would appreciate knowing if any attention is being paid to this threat and how we are to meet it.

Best personal regards.

Very sincerely yours,

Samuel L. Scheiner

[Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesotal

The following is a handwritten note on Arnold Forster's personalized notepaper referring to the letter above:

Irwin Suall

An old friend but an unguided missile so answer him but

Phoned him on 5/7/74

Whether Arnold Forster succeeded in guiding the Scheiner missile is unknown, but it is very clear that the ADL wanted total control.

To: Arnold Forster From: Irwin Suall Date: May 20, 1974

Subject: Liberty Lobby—WIND,* Lake Placid, New York

This is to place on record our telephone conversations today, May 16, 1974, regarding the subject radio station, which is the Liberty Lobby station in Lake Placid. New York.

You received a call from Bob Mack, the Assistant Manager of the station, in which he claimed that he notified ADL of the attack on us through a Rabbi Auerbach of Lake Placid; that this phone call, in his opinion, relieved him of the responsibility of notifying the national headquarters of ADL; that he is now willing to run our reply; that his station is discontinuing the Liberty Lobby program. You indicated to me that you told him to write us a letter in which he indicates a willingness to comply with the requirements of the law and that if he did so, we would notify the FCC.

I then telephoned Rabbi Auerbach (phone: (518) 523-3876) who told me that he is the local ADL person in Lake Placid who was contacted by Lou Glickman to monitor the offending Liberty Lobby program of April 23, 1974. He said that he did monitor it and telephoned the station to express indignation at the contents of this program. He says he spoke with a Mr. Nardiello, who is the owner and manager of the station. Nardiello responded that he was offering time to Rabbi Auerbach to reply to the offending broadcast and that he was removing Liberty Lobby's program entirely from his station. Rabbi Auerbach then contacted Lou Glickman who advised him not to do a reply, but to wait for ADL to handle the matter.

Rabbi Auerbach then told me that the Liberty Lobby program has been actually discontinued and is no longer playing the station. He indicated that he felt that we should cooperate with the owner and asked what was needed now for the station to clear itself of our complaint. I responded that the station should write to us a letter indicating that they are prepared to give us time, specifying the time, and that we would reply to them, with a copy to FCC, indicating that we are satisfied with their response.

Meanwhile, through this memo, I would like to ask Lou Glickman to confirm for us, simply for our information, that WIND has permanently dropped the Liberty Lobby program.

To Irwin Suall From David A. Brody June 18, 1974

At Jay Silverman's Regional Board meeting today, one of the Board members suggested that we file a petition to deny the renewal

^*Other sources indicate that the station referred to here is actually WIRD, as in the letter on page 80.

licence of WAVA, which carries the Liberty Lobby broadcast, when the station's license comes up for renewal.

I don't think we can succeed with such a petition if carrying the Liberty Lobby broadcast is the only issue. However, if there is a station among those which carry the broadcast which has a generally bad record of serving the public interest, then I think that would be an added factor and if we were successful—although as you know it would be a long and arduous effort—it might have the effect of discouraging other stations from carrying the broadcast.

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Liberty Lobby: Henry J. Kaufman—Arthur Arundel Owner of WAVA, Arlington, Va.

DATE: August 26, 1974

Henry Kaufman called me this morning. He is the past chairman of my regional board and as recipient of previous background data, he had written to Arthur Arundel, station owner, as per the letter of July 2, attached.

Arundel apparently has been out of the country for the past two months, returned this week, and immediately called Henry. Incidentally, they are friends of long standing, have been at each other's homes, and Henry has been involved with him at the Warrenton, Virginia Gold Cup Races as they are both thoroughbred showhorse enthusiasts.

Henry told me in his conversation with Arundel he pointed out he was talking to him as a friend and not intending to bring any pressure on him; that he, Henry, couldn't believe that Arundel personally knew of or supported the action taken by his manager, Hott, in utilizing programs of this nature purely for economic reasons; that he was so shocked when he got my informational piece some weeks ago that he called me and I reviewed with him the background of Liberty Lobby; that it is more than a conservative organization, that it is an anti-Semitic and bigoted one; and that he, Henry, wanted Arundel to know, if he did not already know it, that we had more than contemplated but were actually involved in legal action and wanted Arundel to be aware of it.

Arundel went into a long apologia about not permitting time for bigots although he did feel conservatives should be allowed their expression, to which Henry reiterated the vicious anti-Semitic aspect of Liberty Lobby as opposed to legitimate conservatism. And finally, Henry told him that for himself he was not demanding removal but that he knew that when Arundel looked into it, he would do the right thing and not be a party to this kind of vicious action.

Arundel told Henry he would call me. I should point out that I had some past relationships with Arundel and we have always enjoyed a pleasant working relationship—although I should point out also that

he is not as active presently in the station as he has been and I suspect that Hott is given a free hand.

July 2, 1974

Mr. Arthur W. Arundel President, WAVA Radio Station 1901 N. Fort Meyer Drive Arlington, Va. 22209

I am sending you the attached, Arthur . . . [the above memorandum]

... which I read with great interest and which I am forwarding to you because to my surprise your station was listed as one of those carrying "This Is Liberty Lobby."

I can't believe that your acceptance of this program was accompanied by any understanding, on your part, of the activities behind it. I have certainly never associated you with an anti-Semitic interests and I prefer to believe that you would not knowingly accept a program of this nature regardless of the revenue involved. (See page 2 of the attached release.)

I would be very much interested, Arthur, in any reaction you might care to give me on this subject, as well as some indication of how long this program has been on your station and how much longer you propose to carry it.

Sincerely

Henry J. Kaufmar

To Irwin Sual

From David A. Brody

July 3, 1974

Here is the letter that I received from Sol Taishoff today telling me that a piece on our Liberty Lobby release is being written for next Monday's issue of Broadcasting Magazine.

July 2, 1974

Mr. David A. Brody Director Anti-Defamation League 1640 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Dave:

Prior to receipt of your letter, plus enclosure, I had received the attached from an advertising agency executive in New York.

So the combination made a piece, being written in our New York Bureau, for next Monday's issue.

You may recall past conversations we have had in regard to related matters. Because of our ownership and First Amendment position we have made it a practice to assign to others on our staff all matters of this nature.

I hope to see you soon.

Best.

Sol

The item attached to Taishoff's letter to Brody was written by none other than the same Jack Geller who had attended the ADL's "counteraction" kickoff meeting a few months before as representative of the B'nai B'rith Advertising Lodge.

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? by JACK GELLER

There are 100 radio stations in the United States who broadcast a series of five-minute programs sponsored by an organization called LIBERTY LOBBY . . . This advertiser is in the business of publishing anti-Jewish books, magazines and newsletters.

The opening of each program sounds like a typical news commentary: "This is Liberty Lobby reporting to you from Washington. Liberty Lobby is a non-partisan institution of Americans working together for good government. Here is an inside look at the events which will shape your future. Your commentator is Bob Bartell."

Then Mr. Bartell proceeds to discuss various subjects—inflation, high taxes, Russian grain deal, etc. He usually gears his comments to blame the American Jews for our troubles. (He doesn't use the word "Jews," but refers to them as "political Zionists.")

In one of his broadcasts, Mr. Bartell blamed the American Jews for America's entry into WORLD WAR I. (November 5, 1973) "The Balfour Declaration was the price of America's entry in World War I. The political Zionists promised England that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would guarantee an unwilling American entry into the war... The political Zionists wielded an enormous influence on the daily press... The other trump they counted on to reach their objective was Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, one of President Wilson's closest and most trusted advisers. With the President's ear and control of the press, the outcome was almost guaranteed. America lost much and gained nothing from World War I. The political Zionists gained a homeland in Palestine"

In the commercial, the listeners are asked to send \$5.00 for a subscription to the newsletter and a copy of AMERICA FIRST magazine . . . I have examined a copy of this AMERICA FIRST publication, and I find that some of the material is reminiscent of Der Sturmer, the official NAZI paper in the days of HITLER . . .

I have been involved in the broadcast industry for 25 years, and am fully familiar with the economic problems of some radio stations... I am aware of the fact that some radio stations cannot be too choosey about the type of advertiser they accept... But it's a great shock to me to find that owners of radio stations will permit their facilities to be used for the peddling of NAZI type publications...

These are the same owners who solicit national accounts of advertising agencies and mouth those pious phrases about "community-minded stations" and "public service programs."

These are the same owners who obtained their license from our Federal government on their promise to "operate in the public interest"

July 2, 1974

Mr. Jack Geller Vice President Media Director Weiss and Geller 880 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022

Dear Mr. Geller:

I appreciate your comments. We have also heard from the Anti-Defamation League.

A story and editorial will run next Monday

Sincerely,

Sol Taishoff

On July 8, Broadcasting Magazine responded to ADL pressure by publishing the following story. The fact that Geller and the ADL had been working together from the beginning adds unintended humor to the paragraph, "ADL is not the only one, however, that has found elements of seeming anti-Semitism in the broadcasts and in the America First publication that the broadcasts promote."

Liberty Lobby's radio commentary under attack for anti-Jewish bias

ADL, adman Jack Geller criticize 126 stations Mutual network for broadcasting daily series A daily five-minute radio broadcast, This Is Liberty Lobby, was attacked by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith last week as anti-Jewish in tone and sponsored by an organization set up and controlled by "an outspoken anti-Semite" as "a money-raiser and front for his seamier operations."

The attack was contained in an ADL announcement that it had found in a survey that 126 radio stations are carrying the program, most on a paid basis but some as "public service." ADL also reported that Liberty Lobby, sponsor of the broadcasts, had arranged with Mutual Broadcasting System to distribute the program to Mutual's approximately 600 affiliated stations.

A Mutual official confirmed that MBS is distributing the series but said it is acting only as "a carrier" and that this program is one of several, representing a wide variety of viewpoints, that are made available to Mutual affiliates through the network's facilities. He said Mutual has no count of station clearances.

The 126 stations listed by ADL apparently are in addition to any taking the program via Mutual.

Lawrence Peirez, chairman of ADL's national civil rights committee, said "the contract [with Mutual] hardly came as a surprise since Mutual's principal owners, Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin D. Gilbert, have contributed thousands of dollars to Liberty Lobby since 1966."

ADL said "the unpublicized force" behind This Is Liberty Lobby is Willis A. Carto, who it said began to work full time as a "professional bigot and organizer" in 1954, founded the Washington-based Liberty Lobby 16 years ago and helped build it into a propaganda and lobbying organization that is "one of the most active and best financed groups on the American far right."

ADL said the radio program started in March 1973 with four stations.

Among the "seamier operations" with which ADL linked Mr. Carto was Noontide Press, described by ADL as "publisher of anti-Semitic, racist and pro-Nazi books" including one, Imperium, that it said "contains a dedication to Adolf Hitler and a laudatory 35-page introduction by Carto."

John L. Goldwater, chairman of ADL's national fact-finding committee, which conducted the station survey, said This Is Liberty Lobby made "daily attacks" on Israel and American Jews, calling Israel "a bastard state" and accusing American Jews of being subversive, in broadcasts during and immediately following the October Arab-Israeli war. Such attacks, he said, were "typical" of the program's point of view.

Bob Bartell, commentator on the program, denied such charges as the work of "a damn liar." He said the broadcasts "didn't take sides" during the Arab-Israeli conflict but advocated "a sound policy of neutrality in the Mideast." Moreover, he said, "we require our members to take a loyalty oath to the U.S., which is probably

ADL is not the only one, however, that has found elements of seeming anti-Semitism in the broadcasts and in the America First publication that the broadcasts promote.

In a letter predating the ADL release, Jack Geller, vice president and media director of Weiss & Geller, New York, told Broadcasting that "I have examined a copy of this America First publication, and I find that some of the material is reminiscent of Der Sturmer, the official Nazi paper in the days of Hitler."

Mr. Geller continued:

"I have been involved in the broadcast industry for 25 years, and am fully familiar with the economic problems of some radio stations. I am aware that some radio stations cannot be too choosy about the type of advertiser they accept. But it's a great shock to me to find that owners of radio stations will permit their facilities to be used for the peddling of Nazi-type publications."

ADL's Mr. Goldwater, in listing the stations he said are carrying the programs, questioned whether those owners and managers are "ignorant of [America First's] contents" or "uncaring about their role in helping to peddle bigotry."

To Broadcasting Magazine's credit, it did make some obeisance to freedom of speech in an editorial on another page of the same issue.

The right to be wrong

It was perhaps coincidence that in the days immediately preceding Independence Day our attention was called twice to a radio program—a series of five-minute broadcasts sponsored by an organization called Liberty Lobby—that on its face defies the principles that Independence Day celebrates.

Jack Geller, vice president and media director of Weiss & Geller, wrote to protest that Liberty Lobby is "in the business of publishing anti-Jewish books, magazines and newsletters" that are promoted on the broadcasts. He expressed his "great shock" that "owners of radio stations will permit their facilities to be used for the peddling of Nazi type publications." And the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith used even stronger terms in reporting that its own survey showed the series is carried on 126 stations (story page 33).

This magazine shares Mr. Geller's dismay and the ADL's outrage. Hate-mongering, whatever the target, is a contemptible practice for which there is no excuse. It would be easy to say that Liberty Lobby should be thrown off the air. But by whom? The First Amendment works the other way, too, protecting not only the ideas we favor but also those we despise. Nor can or should any private group set itself up as its own ultimate arbiter for everyone.

There are of course libel and slander laws, and these can be invoked whenever appropriate. Beyond that, it is no infringement of anybody's rights to suggest that, in this as in all programing, the licensee is obligated to satisfy himself that what he presents is in the interest of the public he serves. But when he has done that, he cannot be required to do more. It may have been overlooked in a lot of last week's Fourth of July oratory, but freedom of the press is not divisible.

Jack Geller remained in action.

Mal Webber

Irwin Suall

Liberty Lobby—WINF, Manchester, Conn.

Attached is a memo from Jack Geller, which I solicited to help you in your efforts regarding WINF. Geller is one of the top advertising men in the radio-TV industry, and he knows whereof he speaks.

In addition, as I indicated to you on the phone, 18 stations have already dropped Liberty Lobby, which is proof of the fact that WINF can drop it if it wants to.

One other very important point that you should make known to the appropriate parties. WINF is one of the few stations that didn't even respond to our request for an opportunity to reply to Liberty Lobby's attack on ADL. We are going to take them to the FCC.

It is a scandal that a member of B'nai B'rith should be behaving in this way.

IS:rw Attach.

DATE July 12, 1974

TO Mr. Irwin Suall

FROM Mr. Tack Geller

SUBJECT Liberty Lobby-WINE-Hartford, Conn.

Enclosed is a copy of the standard form of contract which is used by all radio stations . . .

You will note that Section 3 reads as follows:

"TERMINATION—This agreement may be terminated at any time by either party by giving to the other at least 28 days prior written notice..."

WINF is the CBS affiliate in Hartford and reaches about 10,000 families each week . . . I wonder whether the manager has read a copy of the AMERICA FIRST magazine and realizes that he is help-

ing to put this NAZI-type publication in the hands of thousands of families in Connecticut . . .

J. Geller

Further insight into the ADL's modus operandi is provided by the use to which they put the Broadcasting article which they had, in effect, caused to be published in the first place. "It's not just us," we can hear the ADL say, "it's Jack Geller, leading advertising executive, and even Broadcasting Magazine!"

To: ADL Regional Offices

From: Irwin Suall Date: July 12, 1974 Subject: Liberty Lobb

Attached you will find two articles about the Liberty Lobby radio program which should prove useful in your efforts to expose Liberty Lobby. They are:

• 1. A reprint from the July 8, 1974 issue of Broadcasting magazine. Broadcasting is the most influential trade publication in the radio and television industry. It has a circulation of 34,445 and is seen by most of the advertising agencies and radio and television executives in the country. You may reproduce copies of this article for selective distribution to opinion makers in your area.
• 2. A reproduction of the article on Liberty Lobby that appeared in the June, 1974 issue of the ADL Bulletin. We have a limited number of copies of this reprint which are available to you free.

This material should be placed by you in the hands of community and business leaders, clergymen, journalists, Jewish community leaders and others who may be interested in learning what's behind the Liberty Lobby radio program.

Please keep me informed of your activities in this matter

IS:ccm

cc: National Fact-Finding Committee

Att

July 15, 1974

Mr. Arnold Forster General Counsel Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 315 Lexington Avenue New York, N.Y. 10016 Dear Mr. Forster:

The enclosed material came to my desk from the Washington, D.C., office of the Liberty Lobby. Maybe you already saw it.

As you may recall, our local WIRD Radio Station is one of the stations which carried the infamous and defaming message of Liberty Lobby on April 23rd. We were then in contact with you and your Buffalo office. The result was that Liberty Lobby was taken off the air by WIRD. But the people sponsoring this hateful daily program here, most of them live in nearby Saranac Lake, have attacked our station with letters to the station and to our local Ministerial Association, which protested the program, and have sent letters to the editor of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise—the editor is no friend of Liberty Lobby, but felt he had to publish the letter—and, as I have been told, are collecting signatures to petition (or force?) the station to bring the program back. At the moment nothing has come out of all this locally and Liberty Lobby is still off the air. Thus, we have done nothing locally anymore.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Selig S. Auerbach

July 19,1974

Rabbi Selig S. Auerbach Lake Placid Synagogue Lake Placid, N.Y. 12946

Dear Rabbi Auerbach:

Arnold Forster is in Israel right now, so I am replying, on his behalf, to your letter of July 15, 1974.

We appreciate your sending that Liberty Lobby material.

I recall well that you were helpful in connection with radio station WIRD. Now that the Liberty Lobby followers are trying to pressure the station to restore the program, have you given thought to the possibility of stimulating letters on the other side? Of course, you are the best judge of your situation and I realize that it might not be the most effective tactic. But I suggest you think about it.

We are most appreciative of your interest and your very helpful cooperation in this matter. I am enclosing a recent piece I did on Liberty Lobby, in case you have not seen it before. Possibly the manager of WIRD would be interested in it.

Sincerely yours,

Irwin Suall, Director

Domestic Fact Finding Department

IS:nk

From the Desk of GEORGE PLEASANTS

7/24/74

Dear Mr. Suall:

Attached is for your information.

Cordially,

Geo. Pleasants

WBUX—Bucks County Radio

7/24/74

Mr. Sam Jacobs American Jewish Life 701 S. Broad Street Trenton, N.J. 08611

Dear Sam:

I want you to be the first to know that WBUX has cancelled its contractual obligations with Liberty Lobby, effective August 2, 1974. That will be the last day that Liberty Lobby is broadcast on this station.

As you well know, we had no idea of the extent of the political leanings of the people behind this program, and it was only recently that the information came to our attention.

Again, thank you for your interest in WBUX, and most of all, for your wise counsel.

Cordially.

George Pleasants General Manager

In the second paragraph of the following memorandum, note the entirely arbitrary and unjustified command that the word "Zionists" be read to mean "Jews." With infinitely more justification we can point out that "anti-Semitic" in the memorandum actually means "critical of Israel and Zionism." While it is impossible to produce here a complete collection of Liberty Lobby's publication Liberty Letter, which was replaced by The Spotlight newspaper some years ago, the reader can be assured that Liberty Letter was no more anti-Semitic than—but was just as uncompromising in its attacks on the harmful aspects and influence of Zionism and the Zionist state as—"This Is Liberty Lobby."*

^*The custom of the ADL to refer to Israel as "the Jewish state" rather than "the Zionist state" is interesting, for the term "Jewish (continued on next page)

MEMORANDUM — CONFIDENTIAL

TO: Long Island ADL and B'nai B'rith leadership

FROM: Melvin I. Cooperman, Regional Director

DATE: July 29, 1974

SUBJECT: LIBERTY LOBBY-Radio Station WTHE, Mineola

In recent weeks, releases from the National ADL denouncing the daily "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcasts, have appeared in The New York Times and The Long Island Press. In both stories, WTHE, Mineola was mentioned as one of two metropolitan area stations carrying the Liberty Lobby broadcasts. This office was quoted in both news stories.

During the two weeks following the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, "This Is Liberty Lobby" was devoted to revival of ancient anti-Semitic hate peddling. "Zionist conspiracies" were detailed, in which the following fictions were posited:

• —the "Zionists" (for which read "Jews") created World War I in order to gain access to Palestine
  • -World War II was created for the same reason
  • -Nazi genocide of the Jewish people is a myth
  • -Hitler was a victim of Zionist machinations

After a conference in October, the management of WTHE agreed to delete all anti-Semitic programs. These programs were to be screened by the station's management (not, as alleged by Liberty Lobby, ADL).

However, listeners are urged, at the end of each program, to write for subscriptions to Liberty Letter. That publication issues a perpetual drumbeat of anti-Semitism in every monthly issue. Thus, while Liberty Lobby has toned down the stridency of its daily broadcasts (now carried on 154 stations, mostly in rural areas, and, possibly, 600 more stations subscribing to the Mutual Network) the contents of Liberty Letter is as anti-Semitic as ever.

It is time that, as a result of the two news stories, WTHE heard from Long Islanders, expressing their opinion of Liberty Lobby's broadcasts. Letters should be addressed to: WTHE, 266 Maple Place, Mineola, N.Y. 11501.

The thrust of the letter should be that while the station has screened out anti-Semitic material, listeners are still being invited to subscribe to hate material in printed form from Liberty Lobby. Letters should be from individuals, not from organizations

A copy of the Long Island Press story is attached.

state" not only describes with some accuracy the exclusivist religious state settled by Jews in the Middle East, but also serves the Zionist propaganda purpose of implying that Israel belongs to, and represents an obligation of, all the Jews in the world

To: Harvey Schechter From: Stanley Jacobs Date: July 29, 1974

Subject: LIBERTY LOBBY TAPES

As per your example, I adapted your press release and sent it out to stations and papers in such esoteric communities as Spanish Fork and Vernal, Utah. They have just weeklies—no dailies.

Also, San Francisco and Ogden.

I get the gut feeling that we are grasping at straws with such public relations efforts. Maybe it even helps Liberty Lobby.

Perhaps we should monitor some of the better programs on such stations and contact the advertisers or sponsors—be they churches, corporations, or what-not—and express our concern because their own programs are aired on stations which broadcast such noxious anti-Semitic tapes. Copies to stations, of course. No muscle. No threats. Just a friendly nudge. If other sponsors express their concern about Liberty Lobby-type programming, the stations might decide that profit-taking dictates listening to the respectable sources of funds. It's an approach we haven't tried. Any takers?

Cordially,

Stan

cc: Ted Freedman, Arnold Forster, I. Suall, J. Bakst

August 2, 1974

Mr. Dick Chapin, President Stuart Broadcasting Corporation P.O. Box 68289 Lincoln, Nebraska 68501

Dear Dick

I spoke recently with John O'Shea concerning a program entitled, "This Is Liberty Lobby," produced by a man named Willis A. Carto. It has come to my attention as president of the Springfield Jewish Community Relations Council that the content of this program was extremely vicious and anti-Semitic.

John suggested that I communicate with you to give you further information about the program so that you would be aware of the nature of its content. I enclose a reprint of a recent bulletin of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith descriptive of "This Is Liberty Lobby."

Obviously, broadcasting does not need indiscriminate hate propaganda and I know you will agree with this thought.

I hope all is well with you.

Best wishes.

Milton Friedland Vice President and General Manager

August 5, 1974

Dear Milt:

Thanks for sending along the information on the program entitled, "This Is Liberty Lobby."

You are absolutely right, broadcasting does not need any other problems and it certainly is not necessary to disseminate hate propaganda. I will advise my other stations just in case this might slip by someone who is not on guard.

Thanks for calling this to my attention. I appreciate your well wishes and hope things are going well for you.

Sincerely,

Dick Richard W. Chapin President

August 1, 1974

Mr. Michael G. Rapp Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 222 West Adams Street Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Rapp:

Thank you very much for your letter of July 25, 1974 and the enclosures relating to Liberty Lobby.

We seem to be somewhat in the middle of this thing inasmuch as the program strongly denies making some of the statements reported. We have had no previous difficulty with the program, and we quite frankly thought that Mutual's distribution of the program provided a degree of legitimacy to it that it may not have previously had. We would certainly appreciate any direct quotes that you might have available as to statements in specific, dated programs.

At the moment, we are in the middle of a letter-writing and telephone campaign by both sides. The last caller stated that I was a Nazi. Unfortunately, none of the callers will identify themselves; and as nearly as we can tell, none have actually heard the program.

As you know, we have always cooperated fully with your organization and ADL under the equal time provisions. It is our hope to provide broadcast exposure for various differing groups but only under reasonable conditions and reasonable restrictions.

Sincerely,

Howard A. Wheeler President [Radio Station WEAW]

August 7, 1974

Mr. Abe Latman P.O. Box 1226 Borger, Texas 79007

Dear Abe:

It was nice seeing you at the Oklahoma State Association meeting last Sunday, with what high esteem you are held by the leadership in that area.

Regarding our discussions about Liberty Lobby being carried on Radio Station KRAY in Amarillo and KPDN in Pampa, I am enclosing a list of suggested guidelines for your consideration in making your approach to the station managers.

Although these guidelines are assuming that contacts will be made by individuals in the community by letter, the same approach would be appropriate if you visit or call the station manager.

Best regards.

Ruthe Winegarten

Enclosure

BCC: Charles Wittenstein Ted Freedman

The New Mexico Independent newspaper, on August 9, 1974, made its contribution to the demise of the First Amendment with the following item, which faithfully mouthed the ADL lie that "This Is Liberty Lobby" made derogatory references to Jews. The last paragraph is ironic, in that it precisely describes the ADL's pro-Israel propaganda techniques—those techniques which were supposed to have been prevented by the "labeling" requirements of the Foreign Agents Peristration Act

KZIA is taking "This Is Liberty Lobby" off the air, as a direct result of an article in this column detailing research by the Anti-Defamation League into the far-right background of the program and its sponsor.

We do not wish to leave the impression that The Independent favors silencing any point of view. We would rather the station leave it on the air but precede it with a disclaimer stating some of the conclusions of this research.

The point is that the Liberty Lobby program came on as a wolf in sheep's clothing, cloaking itself in the flag. Every now and then it would slip in a little "zinger"—usually a derogatory reference to Jews or Israel.

During the recent Middle East conflict, the program had difficulty maintaining the camouflage, and blew its cork, calling Israel and Jews in general some pretty heavy names.

In other words, we believe in free speech for all points of view, but can draw a line when it comes to deliberately disguised programs intended to slip propaganda by an unsuspecting audience.

An unidentified and undated ADL paper gives a progress report on the situation in late summer 1974.

LIBERTY LORBY

The March, 1974 meeting of the Civil Rights Executive Committee authorized the Fact-Finding Committee to conduct a counteraction campaign against Liberty Lobby's radio program. Our campaign commenced immediately thereafter. Subsequently, at the June meeting of our National Executive Committee John Goldwater presented an interim report on the progress of the campaign. He pointed out that Liberty Lobby, the largest and most effective anti-Semitic organization in the country, had increased the number of its radio outlets from 4 to 126 in the course of one year. He also pointed out that the Mutual Broadcasting System had signed a contract with Liberty Lobby, making the program available, on an optional basis, to its 600 affiliated stations. He reported that Mutual's principal owners, Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin D. Gilbert, of Stanford, Conn. had been financial supporters of Liberty Lobby for some time. He also indicated that in response to a Liberty Lobby attack on ADL on April 23rd, we were asking the stations that carried the attack to accord us an opportunity to reply, under the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. Our reply consisted of a hard-hitting commentary by Arnold Forster presenting the facts about Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitism.

During the past 3 months our counteraction campaign has been stepped up. Working in close consultation with Mr. Henry Geller of Washington, D.C., a former counsel for the FCC, we have managed to obtain air time for our reply on all but 5 of the Liberty Lobby stations, a record of performance which is regarded by experts in the field as unusually successful. We are continuing to press the remaining 5 stations to play our tape. Mr. Geller, incidentally, has worked with us on a totally voluntary basis, for which we are most grateful.

An expose of Liberty Lobby, which was carried in the June issue

of the ADL Bulletin, has been reproduced in leaflet form and distributed widely by our regional offices to opinion makers throughout the country. The article was also placed in the Congressional Record by Congressman Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania. Regional Offices have also sent mailings about the radio program to B'nai B'rith lodges, Synagogues, churches and business and community leaders.

Two news releases exposing Liberty Lobby were issued on July 3rd and August 1st, and were published up by scores of newspapers, including the New York Times, which ran a large story on its radio page. Broadcasting Magazine, the most influential trade journal in the industry, ran an excellent story and an editorial sympathetic to our point of view. As a consequence of this publicity, numerous lay persons have written to Mutual Broadcasting and the various independent radio stations expressing their opinion about the Liberty Lobby program.

Meanwhile, Liberty Lobby has launched a smear campaign against ADL through the pages of its monthly newsletter and in mailings to its supporters. They have also issued a new reprint of a 27-year-old fraudulent anti-Semitic pamphlet, "The ADL and its Use in the Communist Offensive," by Robert H. Williams, an anti-Jewish propagandist of the 1940's and 50's. The Lobby has also stepped up its efforts to obtain additional radio outlets. At the present time, due largely to Mutual's promotion of the program, it is carried on 149 stations. Many, of course, are small stations in rural areas. Twenty-one stations have dropped the program, including 4 important stations in the Long Island, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

More will be heard of Congressman Eilberg, who at the ADL's behest had placed the ADL Bulletin smear in the Congressional Record in mid-July (see Appendix B). Eilberg, it becomes apparent, worked very closely with the ADL, and was referred to in ADL memoranda simply as "the Congressman" or "the Cong." Witness the following:

August 1, 1974

Mr. Arnold Forster General Counsel Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 315 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10016

Dear Mr Forster

Enclosed is a copy of the statement and article I placed in the Congressional Record concerning the Liberty Lobby. I am very concerned about the fact that this organization is able to twist our con-

stitutional guarantees of free speech to its own purposes.

If there is anything I can do to help you and the Anti-Defamation League in its battle with this organization please call upon me at once.

With best wishes

Sincerely,

JOSHUA EILBERG

JE:ut

cc: Sam Gaber

Ms. Anna B. Cohen

August 7, 1974

Congressman Joshua Eilberg Congress of the United States House of Representatives 1130 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Eilberg:

Your letter of August 1 enclosing a copy of the ADL piece on Liberty Lobby which you placed in the Congressional Record arrived during Mr. Forster's absence from the office.

We are most appreciative for your action and will surely be calling on you for further assistence in this troublesome matter. I will, of course, bring your communication to Mr. Forster's attention upon his return.

Sincerely

Justin J. Finger Assistant Director Civil Rights Division

JJF:fm

cc: Sam Gaber Irwin Suall

Handwritten on his own stationery, this undated note from Arnold Forster to Irwin Suall:

I Suall

Draft a letter for me to the Cong suggesting he write Mutual to ask them for an explanation for carrying such a bigoted program is [sic] L Lob

Α

Doft a letter for me

to the Cong suggesting

he worke Mutual to ask

them for an explanation

for carrying such a

bigsted program is

L Lob

8/9/74

Mr. Jack Powell General Manager KJAY Radio 530 Downtown Plaza Sacramento, California

Dear Jack

Thank you for listening to my concern about the program, Liberty Lobby.

I hope that I have illuminated your thinking on this Mutual Broadcasting System offering. This program comes from an ultra-right-wing anti-Semitic organization founded several years ago by former members of the John Birch Society. Apparently, Liberty Lobby is well-heeled with members who issue A-1, top drawer attractive Madison Avenue literature.

To expose Americans to this genre of virulence and hate is a travesty on decency and tolerance. Our licenses are valuable pieces of property and should not be marred by airing this species of garbage.

Let's keep the lunatic fringe out of Sacramento.

Best regards.

Jav

[Jay Hoffer, Vice President, Hercules Broadcasting Company

Charles Wittenstein

David F Stahl

8/13/74

Liberty Lobby

Our continuing efforts regarding the Lobby are centered on informing the public about their activities.

We rewrote our national press release and distributed it locally. Reprints of the BULLETIN article were distributed to influential non-Jewish clergymen around the Region.

I have utilized Jewish laymen in the broadcasting business in getting to the management of the "Lobby" stations.

Several of our Board members have been actively involved in the day-to-day correspondence with station management concerning the Lobby's activities. One of them, the owner of a radio outlet in Roanoke, Virginia, approached the local MBC affiliate some time ago, and convinced them to drop the L.L. broadcasts.

Our office news letter, which reaches 1800 Jews and non-Jews within our Region, carried information on the Lobby. Copy is attached.

Rabbis, Board members, and B'nai B'rith membership are being

enlisted in a letter writing campaign to let station management know of their concern regarding the Lobby's broadcasts.

Community leaders in areas where the broadcasts are aired are being asked to seek out influential non-Jews who will contact the station management.

Regards,

Memorandum from ISADORE ZACK

AUGUST 15, 1974

to Irwin Sual

Following through on your memo of July 23, 1974, I am forming a LIBERTY LOBBY COUNTERACTION GROUP consisting of 18 selected people in five New England states to write to stations in their areas which use the Liberty Lobby programs. Each individual is getting the attached directive and a copy of the June ADL Bulletin article on Liberty Lobby; a note identifying station in their area and time-slot and a note from me with up-to-the-minute outline of recent Liberty Lobby programs and their content, target etc. (We hear the programs every day here in Boston at 3 P.M.)

Each station was sent the letter you suggested (from the regional director) with a copy of the Liberty Lobby article in the ADL Bulletin. The GROUP members will get the same article and will be told to use it for background info (not to be mailed to the station).

7

cc. Ted Freedman
Jerry Bakst
Bert Paley

Memorandum

To:

From: Isadore Zack
Date: 15 August 1974

Subject: Liberty Lobby Counter Action Group

In view of the growing record of anti-Semitism on the part of Liberty Lobby, the Washington based right wing extremist group, it is important to call attention to this anti-Semitism.

Therefore, we have launched a nation-wide campaign of letters addressed to radio stations in the United States which broadcast the Liberty Lobby program. There are currently seven stations in New

England broadcasting the five minute Liberty Lobby program. The stations are:

WRYT Boston

WDME Dover-Foxcroft, Maine

WLKN Lincoln, Maine

WDEV Waterbury, Vermont WSMN Nashua New Hampshi

WRIB Providence, Rhode Island

We would appreciate it if you would join in the letter writing cam-

Attached are guidelines for concerned individuals to write directly to the station carrying the Liberty Lobby program. All of the stations concerned have received a letter from the ADL Director advising them that we are aware of their participation in the broadcast of Liberty Lobby's programs and each station manager has been sent the June issue of the ADL Bulletin which contains an excellent expose article on Liberty Lobby.

Use the attached guidelines—but please write your letters on your own stationery and keep them short.

Please share with this office a copy of the letter which you send to the station and also send us any replies you receive from the station manager.

IZ:bh
attachment

ABSOLUTELY DO NOT USE THIS FORM LINE FOR LINE— AND BY ALL MEANS—DO NOT ENCLOSE THIS DIRECTIVE WITH YOUR LETTER TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION.

Concerned individuals should make radio stations carrying the Liberty Lobby's daily program, "This Is Liberty Lobby," aware that they do not consider anti-Semitism to be legitimate fare; that they feel it is their duty or responsibility to inform the stations of what they know concerning the organization and to express their concern. Letters directed to these stations should include some expression of the above, plus as many of the following points—in the writer's own language—as he may think necessary to make his point.

• —It has come to the writer's attention that the station is carrying these broadcasts.
• —Responsible media, newspapers, magazines, Jewish publications, etc., have labeled Liberty Lobby as anti-Semitic, a disseminator of anti-Semitism, a source of anti-Jewish propaganda, etc., and have identified some of its leaders as anti-Semites.
• -"Liberty Letter," which is advertised and promoted on the broadcasts, has often carried anti-Semitic material.
  • —Listeners who write to Liberty Lobby as suggested on the broad-

casts are often sent anti-Semitic materials.

—The writer feels that all legitimate points of view are entitled to be heard on the air—but that responsible broadcasting does not include the promotion of an organization which disseminates bigotry and hatred. Some may wish to add that Liberty Lobby is not, specifically, a legitimate conservative organization, as William F. Buckley's National Review has pointed out, calling it "pseudoconservative."

—A good strong conclusion—neither disrespectful nor threatening—expressing the view that while the station itself must determine what to broadcast over its facilities, the writer hopes that it will rethink its decision to carry the programs of Liberty Lobby, an organization steeped in bigotry and religious prejudice.

Occasionally information about interference with "This Is Liberty Lobby" would come direct to Liberty Lobby from supporters in various parts of the country. Most of the other documents you are reading here came to light several years later. The following paragraph is taken from a letter written from Albuquerque, New Mexico, on August 13, 1974:

Incidentally, Liberty Lobby is no longer carried by radio station KZIA here in Albuquerque. August 5 was the first day that this program was not on that station. I called KZIA to find out why, and talked to the Sales Manager. He said that he had "chucked" Liberty Lobby that day, because he had received so many complaints from the Jewish community in this city, because of the "blatant anti-Jewish stance of Liberty Lobby." Thought you'd be interested in this, also.

Sincerely,

Carl F. Zickert

KZIA was only one of many stations deluged with ADL-orchestrated complaints during the summer of 1974. Chicago Today reported on August 15, 1974 that two Illinois stations—WEAW, Evanston, and WTAQ, La Grange—had "drawn fire" because of the broadcasts:

The league concedes most Liberty Lobby broadcasts are free of religious slurs, but Michael Rapp, of the A.D.L.'s Chicago office, called this an "insidious masquerade."

Station WEAW [1330] told CHICAGO TODAY it has been "inundated" with protests about Liberty Lobby in the last three weeks, and said it is deciding whether to keep the show. WTAQ [1300] reported the shows will remain on for the time being.

Rapp said his organization is not demanding that the stations remove "This Is Liberty Lobby" from the air.

"We leave it up to the conscience of the station whether they want to continue this sort of thing," he said, adding that the league is not accusing either the stations or the programs of bigotry—only Liberty Lobby itself.

But, he said, "It is perhaps immoral on the stations' part. It is avaricious if they are that hungry for a dollar. Or perhaps it is lack of good judgment or taste. They certainly can't plead lack of knowledge anymore."

He said station directors were recently sent the A.D.L.'s material on what Liberty Lobby stands for.

Steven Wyman, general manager of WEAW, said yesterday his station is "looking into the matter, and it might be we will drop the program altogether. We cannot go on like this with all the phone calls we have received. But we have come to no firm conclusion yet."

Wyman described the broadcasts as "informational," and said WEAW "tries to present both sides at all times."

The Federal Communications Commission's fairness doctrine requires broadcasting licensees to afford a reasonable opportunity for all opposing views.

Wyman lamented that it is difficult to find material to balance off such shows as Liberty Lobby's.

WTAQ's director of station operations, Bill Wardle, said the La Grange station would continue to air "This Is Liberty Lobby," and said:

"They [Liberty Lobby] have bought five minutes of time. We have to determine whether we believe in free speech or not."

While WTAQ boasted strong-nerved management who stood fast, the continuing subversion of free speech at WEAW is revealed in the following documents. When the ADL was sued it tried to shrug off any suggestion that it used economic coercion against broadcasters, who of course depend on advertisers for their livelihood, but in the case history of WEAW and in other parts of the record the ugly truth breaks to the surface.

To Irwin Suall

From Michael G. Rapp

Date: August 29, 1974

Subject: LIBERTY LOBBY

In the Chicago area, subject sponsors "This Is Liberty Lobby" on

radio stations WEAW and WTAQ. Among the many sponsors of programs on WEAW is Piser Memorial Chapels, a major Jewish funeral home in the Chicago area. About a month ago, educational material dealing with subject was delivered to Piser. Attached, please find copies of two letters which were recently sent to me and whose content, I'm sure, will be of interest to you.

As an aside, both stations have been the recipients of numerous phone calls condemning "This Is Liberty Lobby." We have been informed that WEAW is currently reviewing its policies with respect to "This Is Liberty Lobby." WTAQ has emphatically stated that it is planning to continue airing the program.

Regards

Michael

MGR:as attachments

August 20, 1974

Ms. Stella White WEAW 2008 State Bank Plaza Evanston, 60204

Dear Stella:

You will know, I am sure, the regret with which I must inform you of the cancellation of the Piser program on WEAW as of September 1st

The decision was made solely on the basis of complaints suggesting that elements of the station's programming are offensive to those the Piser program was designed to serve. Obviously, continuing a public service program in a medium not compatible with the interests of those the program is designed to reach, defeats the purpose of the service

Your station has carried the Piser program these many years solely because of your own personal efforts at making it successful, and in making it valuable to both the client and to the organizations involved

The people at Piser have specifically asked that I express their appreciation of those efforts, and of the personal interest you have devoted to the service.

If at any time, I can be of service to you, personally or otherwise, please call me.

Sincerely.

Harry M. Sturges President The note reproduced next is from a man who worked for Piser Memorial Chapels (his name appears in the Piser advertisement which follows the note) to Michael Rapp of the ADL. What might have appeared to WEAW to be a situation in which one of its sponsors was unnerved by spontaneous listener complaints was actually an example of ADL-advertiser collusion for the purpose of putting financial pressure on a station to drop "This Is Liberty Lobby."

FROM THE DESK OF ALAN M. YAFFE

8/24/74

Dear Michael.

I am leaving town for about 10 days and I wanted to get this off to you quickly before I leave.

I know that the result was not what you were looking for, but it appears to be our only choice.

I will return after Labor Day if you have any questions.

Sincerely.

Alan

The payoff:

Listen to the Piser Bulletin Board for Jewish organizations

WEAW Radio
1330 on the AM dial
3:55 Monday through Friday

For the fourth consecutive year, Piser Memorial Chapels will publicize activities and events of interest to Chicagoland Jewish families each weekday on radio Station WEAW.

Five minutes at the conclusion of the Stella White Program will be devoted to announcements of Jewish organizations.

You are invited to send them to Alan M. Yaffe Piser's, 5206 N. Broadway, or the Piser Chape nearest you.

GRATCH-MANDEL GRATCH-MANDEL HARTMAN-MILLER

WEAW - 3:55 P.M.

WEAR

RESPONDS

In its years of providing outstanding broadcast service to the Chicago area, WEAW has been dedicated to serving a broad spectrum of interests among its large audience.

One of those is Chicagoland's Jewish community. WEAW is the only metropolitan Chicago station with regular programs directed to that community.

It has recently come to our attention that one of this station's programs, the Liberty Lobby distributed by the Mutual network, is considered objectionable by an important segment of our audience.

Since WEAW always has been responsive to the interests of its listeners, it announces the cancellation of the Liberty Lobby program, and assures the Jewish community of the station's constant effort to serve it in a manner that warrants continued interest.

WEAW
RADIO
EVANSTON
1320 AM - 105 FM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SEPTEMBER 4, 1974

It was announced today by Edward A. Wheeler, president of radio station WEAW, that because of an organized campaign of complaints, the daily program Liberty Lobby, distributed by the Mutua Network, has been discontinued on its local outlet WEAW.

According to Mr. Wheeler, the program had continued for several years on the station without complaints, but the recent additional distribution of the program throughout the country by the Mutual Network had resulted in an organized campaign by members of several Jewish organizations. The members of these organizations, in turn, contacted the station and its sponsors.

Mr. Wheeler further stated that it was ironic that WEAW would be subjected to these protests since, as far as he can determine, WEAW is the only station in the metropolitan Chicago area that carries regular Jewish programming, including a regular program by a rabbi.

In conclusion, Mr. Wheeler stated that radio broadcasting is a business, serving the public, and that a business cannot afford to carry a program service that a segment of the public feels contains derogatory program material.

September 4, 1974

Mr. Robert M. Bartell
Program Coordinator
Liberty Lobby
300 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003

Dear Mr. Bartell:

We are extremely sorry to notify you that it is necessary to discontinue the broadcast of Liberty Lobby on WEAW.

In accordance with the terms of the contract, we are therefore giving four-weeks' notice, the last of the current series to be heard on Friday, October 4, 1974.

We have been subjected to severe sponsor pressure and one major advertising cancellation. It is significant to note that during the entire period of time that the program Liberty Lobby has been on WEAW we had never had one complaint from a listener of the program. The problems all began in connection with the recent widespread publicity, which I guess began as the result of using Mutual network facilities for program distribution. It was not the content of the program itself that caused the problem; it was what various publications said was the content of the program

We feel that the program provided a worthwhile contribution. We want your business, and you will hear from us again. We sincerely

want to have the program resume on WEAW in the not-too-distant future.

As a substitute, you might want to consider our 5,000 watt full-time station in Tacoma, Washington. This is a twenty-four hour, non-directional station serving the entire Tacoma and Seattle area from a transmitter located between Seattle and Tacoma. Through a copy of this letter, I am asking our station manager, Jim Baine, to submit suitable availabilities on KMO to you.

Our sincere apologies to you for giving in to this pressure, but we had no alternative. I hope that you will give our facilities your consideration in the future.

Sincerely.

Edward A. Wheeler

Iz Zack, Harry Rosenkranz, Charles Wittenstein, Michael Rapp, Harvey Schechter

Irwin Suall

September 10, 1974

Liberty Lobby

From Michael Rapp comes the attached press release issued by station WEAW, which is located in the Evanston-Chicago area, announcing its discontinuation of the Liberty Lobby radio program. WEAW has been one of the more important radio outlets carrying the program.

Would you kindly share copies of the attached with your regional directors.

Thanks very much.

IS:mef Attachment

CC: Arnold Forster
Ted Freedman
Justin Finger
Jerry Bakst
Mort Kass

Pressure on other stations around the nation continued, and all too many caved in—some even before the first Liberty Lobby program passed through their transmitters.

MEMO TO THE FILE: OVERT ANTI-SEMITISM

SUBJECT: "THIS IS LIBERTY LOBBY" RADIO SERIES -

LOCAL STATION CONTACTED ON 9/11/74.

BY: ALLAN L. STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

It was brought to my attention that local station WTMT-AM (620 on the dial) was considering the possibility of broadcasting the daily "This Is Liberty Lobby" radio series. This local station is affiliated with Mutual Broadcasting System, which, as we know, has been responsible for promoting the Liberty Lobby radio programs across the country.

I spoke with Mr. Richard Grundle, General Manager of WTMT today and inquired whether or not the station was planning to broadcast the series. He indicated to me that the station would only "consider" this series if its public broadcasting time were expanded beyond 4:30 P.M. If this rule is changed later this year, WTMT would consider "This Is Liberty Lobby" as well as a series on Common Causes to be featured during prime listening hours, from 5:00-5:30 P.M.

In response to my concern that these Liberty Lobby programs are known to spewn racial and religious bigotry, Mr. Grundle stated that the station "would not want to get into anything that smells of bigotry." He also stated that he and his partner would take a "long, hard look" at this series before committing themselves. Under the present regulations, Mr. Grundle indicated that WTMT had waived its first rights to be the prime station in this area to carry the series. The Liberty Lobby now has the opportunity to seek other stations to carry its radio series.

Following my telephone conversation, I sent a letter to Mr. Grundle that restated our position concerning this radio series and enclosed the June '74 issue of the ADL Bulletin that contains an article on the history of the Liberty Lobby.

MEMORANDIIM

To: Irwin Suall

From: Hersh L. Adlerstein
Date: September 16, 1974
Subject: LIBERTY LOBBY

Station WTMT-AM, Louisville, Kentucky, has been planning to carry "This Is Liberty Lobby" in the near future. Allen Stark, Assistant Director of the Louisville Jewish Community Federation, met with Richard Grundle, General Manager of WTMT and discussed with him the concerns of the Jewish community, as articulated by the Anti-Defamation League, in carrying this program. As a result, Mr. Grundle indicated WTMT has waived its first rights to be the prime station in the Louisville area to carry the series, though Liberty Lob-

by now has the opportunity to seek other stations in the Louisville area. I am enclosing copies of a memorandum from Allen Stark, and his correspondence with Mr. Grundle.

HLA:rb

cc: Ted Freedman
A. Abbot Rosen
Michael Rapp

Hersh Adlerstein

Irwin Sual

September 24, 1974

Liberty Lobby-Station WTMT

Thanks very much for your memo of September 16, 1974 on this subject, informing me of the actions of Allen Stark, Assistant Director of the Louisville Jewish Community Federation. Nice work! "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

I assume you have already conveyed to Allen Stark our appreciation and commendation on his good work.

IS:maf

cc: Ted Freedman Abbot Rosen Michael Rapp

VI

Heroes and Hoaxsters

THE SORRY PARADE of capitulating broadcasters trudging along in the ever-growing column of ADL prisoners was, fortunately, not the whole story of that summer of assault on the First Amendment and the ordinary principles of fair play. As you have already seen, there were holdouts and resisters all along—people who refused to break under what must have been an unnerving onslaught. Their courage is obvious, for they were subjected not only to threatened or actual loss of income, but also to harassing telephone calls, unjustified demands for equal air time, and public and private accusations of unprincipled greed, of connivance in religious bigotry, and of lack of good morals in general. Behind the syrupy approach, the vaguely ominous euphemisms, often employed by Arnold Forster and his ilk, were deadly barbs which could actually wreck a broadcaster's reputation and livelihood.

As one goes through the voluminous records of that summer (only a fraction of which are reproduced here), three individuals in particular stand out—one of them an inspiring example of courage and honest conviction, the other two examples of less admirable qualities about which the reader can draw his own conclusions.

William O'Shaughnessy and the People's Voice

William O'Shaughnessy was and is the owner of radio station WVOX in New Rochelle, New York. O'Shaughnessy, a handsome, light-haired man of tremendous drive and creative energy, took over the station in the mid-1960s, and decided to turn it into a "soap box" for the most diverse viewpoints that might be found in the community. The station's call letters stand for "vox populi"—the "voice of the people." O'Shaughnessy was willing to support unpopular causes through the station's own editorials,

generally written and delivered on the air by the station owner himself. The New York Times had called O'Shaughnessy "part cool sophisticate, part gutsy street fighter." Senator Jacob Javits of New York had said: "The attractive and dedicated young men at WVOX are real pros. I've never heard another station quite as concerned about the interests of the people they serve."

The station itself had started out in a small block building at its transmitter site, moved to an office building in downtown New Rochelle, and was for awhile located over a restaurant. In 1973, WVOX got a newly constructed studio-office building all its own, a sign of its ever-increasing popularity and revenues.

Of all the radio stations that carried "This Is Liberty Lobby," WVOX was perhaps the one which most irritated the ADL. Antagonistic to free speech anyway, and alarmed by opinions not obviously controlled, the ADL leadership would have felt intrinsically uneasy about O'Shaughnessy, his style, and his philosophy of freedom, in the first place. To make matters worse, not only did he carry Liberty Lobby's program, but he also carried it to a region that was right in the ADL's backyard. For Westchester County, where WVOX is located, lies directly between New York City and Connecticut. Many of the ADL's top people lived within the WVOX listening area. O'Shaughnessy's station, which had little music but lots of ideas, had an influence out of all proportion to its size.

So it was on a wintry day at the end of January 1974 that Arnold Forster—who you will recall was general counsel and kingpin of the ADL—dictated this charming letter to William O'Shaughnessy:

Ianuary 31 1974

Mr. William O'Shaughnessy WVOX One Broadcast Plaza New Rochelle, New York 1080

Dear Bill

I appreciated the "Inventory" that you sent along, about WVOX, and I congratulate you on its ample evidence of the contribution your station is making to the New Rochelle commonweal.

But, I'd be less than frank, Bill, if I did not say, at the same time, that your communication gives me a push in the direction of a letter to you which I have been thinking about for many weeks.

When first a neighbor telephoned me to express shock about the content of a Liberty Lobby Program he had heard broadcast over WVOX, I suggested to him that he communicate his reaction to you. When a second and a third and even a fourth call came to me from friends in and around New Rochelle, I knew you were in trouble with the Liberty Lobby Program. But I assumed, as a very bright guy and a responsible citizen and radio station franchise holder, that you needed no advice from me. I gathered from one of the calls that the full data about the blatant anti-Semitic bigotry of Liberty Lobby had been sent to you so I knew you needed no facts from me. Imagine my chagrin, on returning from abroad just days ago, to hear that the program was still being disseminated on WVOX.

Now, good friend, I am still unprepared to tell you what to do; to tell you what your responsibilities are as a radio broadcaster; to tell you that there is a world of difference between religious bigotry and a genuine, if controversial position in any given dispute. But I think you should know that from all I have heard, a good dozen sensible and sensitive people in the South Westchester area are increasingly expressing themselves about WVOX in a most uncomplimentary way.

With cordial regards,

Sincerely,

Arnold Forster

The only difference between Arnold Forster and a gangland thug threatening to break up the furniture and smash the glassware if the bartender doesn't pay protection is the vocabulary.

We don't have O'Shaughnessy's reply to Arnold Forster's clumsily sugarcoated threats, but we do have Forster's next letter to O'Shaughnessy, dated February 25, 1974. (As has been the case with many letters quoted in this book, portions of the following letter are illegible due to the poor quality of the copy. Deletions are noted.)

Mr. William F. O'Shaughnessy President WVOX One Broadcast Plaza New Rochelle, New York 10801

Dear Bill

Many thanks for your February 4th response to my letter of January 31st, in which I discussed some of the questions and concerns raised in the community by the Liberty Lobby broadcasts over WVOX. I apologize for being so late with this answer to your letter,

but my schedule has been filled with out-of-town meetings. And I thank you for the embarrassingly nice things you say about me.

First, I doubt any informed and reasonable person would deny your sincere efforts to maintain an even-handed policy of providing equal time and exposure to all sides of controversial issues. That simply cannot be the point in question.

Concern in the community, which I fully share, has to do with three central queries:

• 1) Is Liberty Lobby anti-Semitic?
• 2) Does Liberty Lobby use its broadcast programs to advertise and promote anti-Semitic materials?
• 3) Is anti-Semitism just another "controversial subject" about which responsible people can honestly disagree?

I believe queries one and two require a resounding "YES," while three should get an equally resounding "NO."

I am enclosing some materials to substantiate my position on the first two questions, and I shall comment on them later, but let me begin by addressing myself to the third query.

For sound legal, sociological and ethical reasons, I am convinced that there can be no more right or liberty to disseminate anti-Semitism than there is to spread typhoid, small pox or bubonic plague. Just as a Typhoid Mary is not protected by any right or liberty to contaminate food and infect others, so an anti-Semite or group of anti-Semites should not be permitted to poison people's minds under the protection of some misguided construction of any fairness doctrine.

The analogy is neither facetious nor far-fetched. There is more than ample scientific basis, from several [illegible], for unequivocally stating that anti-Semitism is a disease or part of a synthesis of disease, and that its disseminators are just as dangerous [as] any Typhoid Mary. After all, we can inoculate against typhoid, but we have no such safeguard against the [illegible], fear, hate and [illegible] of anti-Semitism.

Nor is anti-Semitism a disease whose harm is restricted to its most [illegible] victims, the Jews, although their suffering is the most direct and the greatest. Whole [illegible] can be infected and destroyed, with horrible consequences for the world community. If anyone doubts that or thinks it [illegible], let him consider Nazi Germany and the tragedy it brought to mankind.

[Three more largely illegible paragraphs continuing this argument follow at this point.]

But I realize, these are not the only questions and problems you have to solve; that you must also deal with the first two queries I posed.

Is Liberty Lobby anti-Semitic? Are its radio programs used to

Enclosed is an article published in 1971 by William F. Buckley's National Review. It is the work of a conservative writing for a conservative periodical, and is even critical of ADL. I make no comment; read it and reach your own conclusions.

I also enclose an article on Liberty Lobby by Irwin Suall in the current issue of the ADL Bulletin. Mr. Suall is the league's national fact-finding director. (Back in 1964, Ben Epstein and I exposed Liberty Lobby's predeliction for anti-Semitism in our book, Danger on the Right, and we do it again in our forthcoming book, The New Anti-Semitism.)

Also enclosed are some transcripts of Liberty Lobby programs. Anyone familiar with Yockey's Imperium or that monumental forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, will quickly recognize the ancient theme of the "perfidious Jew."

But even if one wants to give the Liberty Lobby broadcasts the benefit of some non-existent doubt, read or listen to the end of each program (as in the enclosed transcripts), where some of the most vicious anti-Semitism in the country is advertised. Liberty Letter and America First (a copy of America First is enclosed) are flagrant in their anti-Semitism; yet a key objective of Liberty Lobby programs is to get the listener to subscribe to Liberty Letter and get a copy of America First free.

Bill, I simply and honestly do not see how there can be the slightest doubt that Willis Carto and what the National Review called "his fronts," including Liberty Lobby, are anti-Semitic to the core. But if any possible doubt remains in your mind, I invite you, or a delegated member of your staff, to go through the materials we have been collecting for many years.

Having said all the foregoing, I feel impelled to repeat from my first letter: i.e., I remain unprepared to tell you what your responsibilities are or what you should do. It was your response to my original communication that prompted this rather long letter, not any wish on my part to share in the decision-making process.

With warm and cordial regards.

Sincerely.

Arnold Forster

Once more, O'Shaughnessy's response is unavailable, but it was evidently not at all satisfactory to the potentates of the ADL, for the record shows continuing efforts to blackmail, embarrass, and otherwise pressure the station owner. This fascinating memo from the ADL's Israel Moss to Arnold Forster is a study in the groundwork of extortion, as well as a glimpse of the real motives at the bottom of the anti-First Amendment campaign. Witness the "pro-Arab... concerns" of the fourth paragraph; the scheme to get at the Franklin National Bank in order to threaten WVOX with the removal of its advertising; the bald-faced arrogance of the assump-

tion that should O'Shaughnessy ever run for public office he would "have to face up to his obstinacy with respect to the airing of Liberty Lobby broadcasts." On the latter point—O'Shaughnessy in politics—we see not only the ADL's confidence that it had the power and willingness to harm his political career, but we also tune in to the intention of the ADL to drop O'Shaughnessy a hint of what would become of his ambitions in the future should he refuse to kick "This Is Liberty Lobby" off his station.

Arnold Forster Israel H. Moss March 20, 1974 Liberty Lobby

I met with Marvin Goldfluss in New Rochelle yesterday to discuss Liberty Lobby. Marv is a member of my Regional Board. You will recall that he and Sylvia [illegible] were the first individuals to bring Liberty Lobby in New Rochelle to your attention and, through you, to me.

In a personally handwritten note which Irwin shared with me, you wrote: "I wonder if WVOX in New Rochelle has an 'opposing view.' Not 'Dateline Israel.' Ask Moss to check—maybe a way to skin the cat."

Marvin called Bill O'Shaughnessy and told him that he was continuing to get phone calls about the Liberty Lobby taped broadcasts. What could he tell these people, he asked Bill. Bill's response: "WVOX carried programs of opposing view" and mentioned the Rabbi Wise broadcast (I think he meant the "Message of Israel" emanating from Central Synagogue), the Arnold Forster broadcasts and a Saturday morning program. Marvin asked Bill to send the scheduled day and time of each of these programs, which, when Marv gets them, he will turn over to me.

Bill still thinks in terms of Liberty Lobby as a program with a conservative point of view rather than one encompassing the pro-Arab, anti-Jewish concerns both of us have expressed in our letters to Bill. Bill then volunteered the information to Marv that a new program is being scheduled called "In the Public's Interest," a program subsided [sic] by a liberal group, one of whom is Dick Ottinger. Bill will inform Marv as soon as the scheduled date and time are finalized.

I asked Marv about the big advertisers. He indicated that a recently opened branch of the Franklin National Bank has been running heavy advertising on WVOX. He wondered whether the bank has any Jewish principals in it. Is it a New York City-based bank, Arnold? Would you know?

Mary had another interesting suggestion. He believes that Bill

listens to and follows closely the advice of his father-in-law, Walter Thayer, a former publisher of the New York Herald Tribune. If someone of stature and clout could get to Thayer, this might be helpful.

Another observation of Marv's, which I have also heard, is that Bill is gearing himself for a role in the next few years to run for public office. A balky Bill O'Shaughnessy at this time would have to face up to his obstinacy with respect to the airing of Liberty Lobby broadcasts should he get involved in politics.

Busy Israel Moss kept up his weasel work and produced the following report to "fact-finder" Irwin Suall in early April 1974. Notice how Moss, obviously a practiced murderer of the truth, does not directly link WVOX and the meeting of "top advertisers" planned in New Rochelle (by coincidence, no doubt, the home of O'Shaughnessy's station). He will even be so circumspect as not to recommend that the "top advertisers" take any action based on the tale he gives them. No doubt the top advertisers left the meeting scratching their heads and wondering what Israel meant by it all!

(We quote the entire memo here because it shows the covert investigations of the ADL into those who contributed money to Liberty Lobby, obviously for the purpose of getting in touch with such people in order to persuade or pressure them to cut off their financial support of the populist institution. If those tactics failed, the individual would then be publicly unveiled as an anti-Semite.)

To: Irwin Suall

From: Israel H. Moss Date: April 4, 1974

Subject: Liberty Lobby, WVOX, New Rochelle, New York

Yesterday, I traveled to New Rochelle and met with Herb Platzner as you had suggested. We talked about a meeting of top advertisers to whom the background, character and anti-Semitic dimensions of the above-named subject would be spelled out. The caveat would be observed that our role is simply to give them the facts and offer no recommendations. Herb will arrange such a meeting.

Later that morning I called on Brother Darby L. Ruane, director of the Iona College Institute of the Arts. Was he able to reach out to Bill O'Shaughnessy? He promised he would talk with O'Shaughnessy, pointing out that harmonious relations among the city's religious, ethnic and racial groups are softening because of the radio program.

Brother Ruane felt that the individuals who might have more influence over Bill are Walter Thayer, his father-in-law; Mrs. Malcolm (Katherine) Wilson, wife of the state's governor; Nelson Rockefeller; and John Loeb, Jr.

Walter Thayer, former head of the New York Herald Tribune, owns four radio stations and is the principal stockholder of WVOX. One of the four stations is in my area in Kingston, New York.

As I had indicated in an earlier memo to Arnold, copy of which you received, Marvin Goldfluss, with whom I had spoken two weeks ago, had also suggested Walter Thayer. Certainly we have ADL national leaders who can approach any of the above. I think the suggestion should be pursued.

In the afternoon I went to the Surrogate's Office in White Plains. The information you had given me about the Hannish estate contributing [illegible] to Liberty Lobby in 1973 was essentially correct. However, please note the spelling. It is the estate of Florence P. Hanisch, who died in [illegible]. Joe Hirschfield, regional board member, joined me at the Surrogate's Office.

A copy of the will indicates that she was a woman of moderate means, who lived in an older apartment at 1 South Broadway, South Plains. The gross estate was just less than fillegible.

Nothing was left to her sisters, Mary E. Bigger, 278 Old Country Road, Esmond, Rhode Island 02917, and Frances J. Cordner, 830 North Shore Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida 83701.

The major beneficiary was the National Board of Missions, United Presbyterian Church.

The rest, residue and remainder of the estate was divided in this

Liberty Lobby (address listed) 5/11 (we know the amount was \$4.538.24 as you had indicated in your memo to me)

The Councilor, 1827 Texas Avenue, Shreveport, Louisiana, received 3/11 of the residue.

Miss Adelaide Griebert, Blind Players Club, Suffern, New York also received 3/11 of the residue

The executor of the estate is a well-known lawyer in White Plains, whose firm has Jewish partners and Jewish associates. He is Elmer Lee Finger, 175 Main Street.

17

We know that Irwin Suall also wrote to O'Shaughnessy during June and was brushed aside with a polite note. On July 1, 1974, Israel Moss contacted a fellow ADLer in a plan to spread ADL attacks on Liberty Lobby's broadcasts over WVOX.

Mr. Walter Anderson, Editor New Rochelle Standard-Star 251 North Avenue New Rochelle, New York 10801

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Our public relations director informed me that she had spoken with and had sent to Mr. Richard Tracy the enclosed news release on the radio program, "This Is Liberty Lobby," which is currently being aired by Radio Station WVOX.

I am taking the liberty of sending you this additional copy. We would welcome its being released through the county division of the Westchester-Rockland newspapers to invite their reporting on "This Is Liberty Lobby."

Although I had missed you at the recent regional board meeting of Westchester ADL, I trust that we shall be able to get together soon.

Sincerely,

Israel H. Moss Director Westchester and Hudson Valley

We pass over for a moment William O'Shaughnessy's public responses to the fusillade unleashed by the ADL against him, so that the reader may receive a more coherent picture of the astonishingly prolonged, expensive and widespread campaign directed against one single radio station with the aim of silencing one single program. Among other things, there was even a picketing of the WVOX building by about 20 students from Ardsley High School, protesting, according to a local newspaper, "a radio program which they termed 'anti-Semitic'." The same paper reported that William O'Shaughnessy said the program in question was not anti-Semitic and defended the airing of the program on First Amendment principles.

The ADL's true colors are once more raised in the reasons given by the local paper for the protest: "The program has expressed sentiments opposing Israel's interests in the Middle East, its opponents say."

A place called Co-op City, between the Bronx and New Rochelle, must have contained a sizable enclave of ADL adherents, judging from the following news report, the latter part of which consists mainly either of ADL materials or totally groundless lies about the Liberty Lobby program—e.g. that it "is filled with vicious, hate-filled denunciations of blacks and Jews."

WVOX LIBERTY LOBBY SCORED

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE ADVISORY COUNCIL: Be it hereby resolved that the Advisory Council of Co-op City, the largest democratically elected representative organization of this development hereby expresses its indignation at the refusal of WVOX and the F.C.C. to cease and desist programming of Liberty Lobby as we feel its policies are anti-Semitic and racist.

A study made by B'nai B'rith and reported in the New York Times and in our local paper, the Co-op City Times, brought to the attention of the Inter-Community Committee of the Advisory Council that WVOX has been broadcasting an anti-Semitic, racist propaganda program called "This Is Liberty Lobby."

In this community there are many listeners of WVOX especially its "Focus on Co-op City" program. We in the Advisory Council have appreciated the service performed by the station during our legislative campaign. But our cooperators will not justify this blatant bigoted program.

The executive committee of the Advisory Council established a committee consisting of Mrs. Madonna Wright, chairperson of Community Relations; Al Afterman, chairman of the Co-op Education and Public Information Committee and Bernard Cylich, chairman of the Inter-Community Committee to look into this matter.

In response to our enquiry the station management justified its airing of that racist, anti-Semitic program under the cloak of freedom of speech and cited support of the station's policies from Rabbi Philip M. Weinberger, former president of the Westchester Board of Rabbis; United States Senator Jacob K. Javits and United States Congressman Ogden R. Reid.

When we requested clarification from the above mentioned public figures in regard to their support of WVOX, they responded as follows:

Rabbi Phillip M. Weinberger repudiated that support and asked us to "Please inform the Co-op community that I am in full agreement with your proper stance in the matter of WVOX and the Liberty Lobby programs. Every effort must be exercised to rid the air waves, which are the property of all the people, from the hate and the divisiveness propagated by these programs."

Senator Jacob K. Javits took exception with WVOX and its broadcasting of Liberty Lobby: "As I am sure you know, I have on a number of occasions expressed my distaste and concern over Liberty Lobby programs . . ."

Congressman Ogden Reid's statement seemed to be an apology for the station's broadcasting of the "This Is Liberty Lobby" that this community will not accept.

"Needless to say, I share your distaste for the Liberty Lobby programs and the pernicious point of view they frequently represent. In spite of this, however, I cannot support your effort to drive the pro-

grams from the air, or to criticize WVOX for carrying the broadcasts."

As usual, a docile politician was brought forth by the ADL to declare the appropriate lines. As usual, the behind-the-scenes relationship of the politician to the Zionist promoters was not made a part of the public appearance, but it is not hard to imagine that al of the "unusually large amount of adverse calls" received by Councilman Kaufman's office came from ADL headquarters Also as usual, it appears that the complainant probably never had listened to the program, which he calls by the wrong name.

August 9, 1974

William F. O'Shaughnessy President Station WVOX 1 Broadcast Plaza New Rochelle, N.Y. 10801

Dear Mr. O'Shaughnessy:

My office has been receiving an unusually large amount of adverse calls regarding a program called "Liberty Lobby" carried by WVOX.

Upon investigating the format of this program, it is my conclusion that it is used to peddle bigotry and anti-Semitism. This program also promotes and distributes two hate tracts called "The Myth of the Six Million" and "The Anti-Defamation League and Its Use in the Communist Offensive."

As President of WVOX you should be made aware of the reaction of your listening public to this type of program. They do not appreciate the propagation of hate material directed against any ethnic group. It is unthinkable that a radio station such as yours with a very large Jewish audience should broadcast an anti-Semitic program.

I feel that it is incumbent upon you to have this program removed immediately from the air. Awaiting your reply, I remain,

Sincerely yours

STEPHEN B. KAUFMAN Councilman, 13th District, Bronz

The Councilman's errors as well as his dutiful chagrin were then disseminated by a cooperative newspaper:

[Jewish Press, August 23, 1974]

Opposes Anti-Semitic Programmin

Councilman Stephen B. Kaufman of the Bronx, in a strongly worded letter to William F. O'Shaughnessy, President of WVOX Radio, has requested that the syndicated broadcast entitled "Liberty Lobby" be removed from the air and immediately terminated from WVOX programming.

Councilman Kaufman stated, "Upon investigating the format of this program, it is my conclusion that it is used to peddle bigotry and anti-Semitism.

"This program also promotes and distributes two hate tracts called 'The Myth of the Six Million' and 'The Anti-Defamation League and Its Use in the Communist Offensive.'

Others continued the campaign for months. For example:

To: Irwin Suall

From: Israel H. Moss Date: December 5, 1974

Subject:

Enclosed is a photocopy of a letter from Bill O'Shaughnessy, WVOX, to Dr. Ira S. Krull. The latter individual had contacted WVOX, pointing up his concern about the station's carrying the Liberty Lobby programs.

Dr. Krull called me and suggested that we try to get O'Shaughnessy to place one of the so-called "Jewish programs" he currently airs immediately following Liberty Lobby's program. Bill had indicated a few months ago that he carries the "Message of Israel," "Eternal Light," and "Dateline—Israel" radio taped programs on his station.

Ιz

William O'Shaughnessy never budged in his determination and never lost his temper—at least not while answering his tormenters.

27 November 1974

Dr. Ira S. Krull 920-19 Baychester Avenue Co-op City Bronx, New York 10475

Dear Dr. Krull:

Thank you for your sincere and thoughtful note of November 23rd.

This is a difficult and complex issue indeed.

I have enclosed some information which bears testimony to our

position in this matter. I hope that after you have studied the enclosed that you may have a little better understanding of our position.

I am a friend of the State of Israel. I share many of your concerns. But I am a friend also of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Best.

Yours.

Bill O'Shaughnessy

July 9, 1974

William O'Shaughnessy WVOX New Rochelle, N.Y.

Dear Bill:

I was dismayed to read in today's N.Y. Times that your station aired programs sponsored by the Liberty Lobby. You claim that the aforementioned group expresses "just another viewpoint" and on that criterion you found it acceptable to allow your station to be used by them.

I want to make clear at the outset that I decry censorship and feel that freedom of the press and airwaves is a keystone to democracy. Were the Liberty Lobby a group which dealt with facts rather than outright distortions, I would applaud your decision. However, the dissemination of prejudice by citing fallacious and biased material and attempting to pass this off as the truth can hardly be said to represent anything but the spread of hatred and suspicion toward the people attacked. At this time in the history of our country, would you permit the Klu [sic] Klux Klan to use your station as a forum under the guise that they represented "just another viewpoint"? We all know their anti-black stance and feel rightly that it offends an important segment of our population. By the same token, the Liberty Lobby broadcasts scurrilous inaccuracies under the cover of "Americanism and patriotism." That organization's own pamphlet does not disguise its blatant anti-Semitism and one does not have to read between the lines to note the similarity between its pronouncements and other hate-mongering sheets. To declaim that Zionists are not Jewry or Judaism is a lie—Zionists were Jews and are Jews—even though all Jews were not and are not Zionists.

I had hoped that after the turmoil that has taken place in our nation to help secure civil rights for all people we would not retrogress to setting one ethnic group against another. Perhaps what I would like you to ponder is: should it not be your responsibility to foster truth as well as freedom? do they not both weigh equally on the scale of justice?

Cordially,

Phyllis Schreiber

11 July 1974

Mrs. Samuel Schreiber Springhill Farm Purchase, New York 10577

Dear Phyllis:

Thank you for your very good and thoughtful letter of July 9th. Truth to tell, the whole damn thing is a real mess and I'm sorry not only to be on opposite sides of the fence from the ADL—but also from a brilliant and charming and sensitive individual like you.

I've enclosed some correspondence on the subject which you might want to read. You may be interested to know that I had to be dissuaded by our good and mutual friend Judge Ruskin from flying the Israeli flag over our new radio station building a few months ago and I assure you that this whole matter is causing me considerable distress.

Best to Sam and please do let me hear from you if you have any further thoughts.

Yours.

Rill

July 26, 1974

Mrs. Phyllis Schreiber Springhill Farm Purchase, New York 10577

Dear Mrs. Schreiber:

Oscar Cohen has shown me your letter to Bill O'Shaughnessy and I just wanted you to know how much we appreciate your help. I thought your letter was first-rate; right on target.

Interestingly, WVOX is one of the very few stations which still refuses even to carry our reply to Liberty Lobby's attack on ADL of April 23rd. O'Shaughnessy writes us gobs of molasses, but has dug in his heels against allowing us to reply to Liberty Lobby, which we have every right to do under the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. We're keeping after him, of course, and intend to haul the station before the FCC, if necessary.

Enclosed is a copy of a piece I wrote on Liberty Lobby recently,

which I think you'll find interesting. It would be most helpful if you could encourage others—especially persons of influence—to write O'Shaughnessy.

With all best wishes.

Sincerely yours.

Irwin Suall, Director Domestic Fact Finding Department

The months of lies both public and private, of harassing letters, of picketing (by children who no doubt had never heard the program they were protesting against), of demands for air time, of tirades by politicians, of pressures of all kinds, never budged William O'Shaughnessy, and "This Is Liberty Lobby" continued to be heard over WVOX, right in the heart of ADL country, without interruption. The only sad part of the story is that there seem to be so few men like O'Shaughnessy. While statistics on the subject are not to be had, one gets the definite impression that most people cave in fairly quickly when exposed to the ADL's bluster. Many employers or others who have power over them immediately kowtow to the Zionist agents and, at their bidding, do whatever is necessary to shut up the recalcitrant victim. Rare is the person like O'Shaughnessy who combines being his own boss with having the courage to stand up to the ADL's onslaughts and expose them for the straw cannon they are when confronted with determination.

On the fourth of July, 1974, in the midst of the ADL's hydraheaded campaign against him, O'Shaughnessy spoke at an Independence Day observance at Mount Vernon, New York. His speech refers to the ADL attacks on the First Amendment. It is well worth quoting in its entirety here:

Ladies and gentlemen: I shall not intrude for very long on your holiday. I come in gratitude and friendship for all the City of Mount Vernon has done for WVOX. I come to be with you because while others have forgotten what day it is—you have not forgotten. You come here as patriots and I am proud to be with you and proud to share this day with you.

We come to this Independence Day Observance without shame. We come with confidence that our American nation will prevail. America will prevail because it deserves to prevail. And America will prevail because of each one of you.

You, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Westchester community and citizens in 1974 of the American nation have not forgotten your country today. To many this July 4th is but the first of a five-day holiday. "The glorious 4th," the headline writers will call it as they show our neighbors pursuing all sorts of fun and games and in flight, many of them, from their responsibilities of citizenship.

And though so few of us have remembered, it is right and proper that we should come here today to the Eastchester Village Green, to historic St. Paul's Church to renew and restore and rededicate ourselves to the great and towering principles which were identified and established in this special place.

It is the peculiar glory of this spot that it witnessed that dawn of civil liberty in America.

We do not honor this so-called Shrine of the Bill of Rights. This lovely old church is but a monument and thus it is perishable and will not last forever.

But the idea and the principle of freedom of thought which was affirmed here and went forth from this spot and spread throughout America and England is worthy of our tribute.

On this summer day in the 198th year of our American nation that idea, that glorious principle, is still not secure, is still under attack and is still in need of and requires your patronage and protection.

A big Westchester developer suggested to me at a dinner only a month ago: "Maybe we've gone too far with civil liberties."

Some years ago, we recall sadly, it was demanded that Eldridge Cleaver not be allowed to speak and be heard on the campus of a great Westchester college. I'm proud that our radio station identified with those who insisted that the militant be heard.

"We can never be sure," said John Stuart Mill, "that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure stifling it would be an evil still."

And I haven't gone "public" with this, ladies and gentlemen, but I can tell you in the intimacy of this village green, that during this week just past—an outstanding national organization which should know better, has been trying to drive a radio program off the airwaves simply because it does not agree with the views espoused on the program or with the views of the principal backer of the program.

For me it is a simple issue: if you believe as we do that a radio station achieves its highest calling when it resembles a platform or a community soapbox or a forum for the expression of many different viewpoints—then as fiduciaries and trustees and permittees of the public airwaves, do we not have a clear obligation to let diverse and even at times, outrageous viewpoints, share that platform?

I think we do. And that's why I'm so proud to be associated with a station over which many different voices are heard in the land.

That's why I'm proud of the Daily Argus and the Standard Star and the other Westchester-Rockland newspapers which are encouraging more dissent, more feedback from their readers and in very creative ways, are encouraging greater participation by [their] readership in our local papers.

A radio station went backrupt in Rockland County last year and we recall the demise of two major New York City newspapers in recent years. It was not easy for the itinerant printer John Peter Zenger 200 years ago. And it is not easy for his heirs today. And thus I hope you will object and disagree with all your might when a newspaper or a broadcaster says or publishes something you disagree with. But remembering the lessons which are enshrined here in this place I hope you will insist on his right to say it.

By the same token, if a publisher or broadcaster will not allow you access or is doing a poor job—"censor" him by changing channels or by not buying his newspaper. That's as it was intended by our forefathers who tried to eliminate real censorship from our vocabulary forever.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

That's good advice.

Finally, I would not do justice to the occasion, ladies and gentlemen, if I did not say a few words about our country and what it means to be a citizen in the 198th year of our splendid Republic.

These are difficult and confusing times for America. But it was ever thus. And even a casual reading of our exciting history will convince you that it has never been lacking in drama and turbulence.

It has never been easy for America. And it is not easy now. But America—I promise you, I guarantee you and I assure you—will be equal to the challenge of the present and to the challenge of the future as well.

It has been written that a nation is its people. America is not the Statue of Liberty or the Lincoln Monument. It is not this great historical site, St. Paul's Church. It is not even our magnificent flag—the stars and stripes. These are symbols.

America's richest asset are its people.

America is the courage and sensitivity and determination and devotion in the hearts of ordinary men and women just like each of

We cannot leave the preservation of our democracy in a republic to our president or to our governor or to our legislators. The responsibility is ours as members and citizens of the American Nation.

We salute a great nation today. And as we do, there are certain timeless virtues which must guide us: love of our fellow man, reliance on Almighty God—benevolent and generous Creator—and are awareness of the responsibilities of citizenship.

And as the great Governor of New York, Malcolm Wilson so often does, I would commend to your favorable judgment the inscription which appears on the facade of the Federal Courthouse at Foley Square in New York: "The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government."

It has long been my belief that our nation can survive short-fall in its executive branch.

The country can get along with short-fall in its legislative branch. But the Republic will not long prevail if the judicial branch is less than fair and just.

We must have a place—a special place—where citizens like us can go to seek redress against one another or even against a government.

I'm reminded of a marvelous quotation by the late Adlai Stevenson of Illinois which is quite appropriate to this occasion.

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? There is no great World War and as of this precise moment we thank God that American troops are not engaged in any ground action anywhere in the world. Thus, what is patriotism in the context of these times?"

Stevenson said it is a much harder proposition than it is in time of war and strife.

Listen to this description from Adlai Stevenson: "We need a patriotism that puts country ahead of self." And that is easy enough to prescribe. But we also need "a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime. These are words which are easy to utter, but it is a mighty assignment. For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."

When an American says he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the Westchester hills, the Hudson River glistening in the sun, the wide and rising Long Island sound, the great mountains and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect.

"Be Counted Again" is the current and recurring theme of the American Legion and other patriotic groups. By your presence here this morning . . . you have truly been "Counted Again."

Now, go to your homes, ladies and gentlemen—secure in the knowledge that you at least remembered what it is we celebrate on this day in July. You remembered why the bands play and why the flags fly. You remembered why we send up rockets into the summer sky. The principles and ideas of freedom and liberty and independence are alive in your hearts. Let them mean something in our everyday lives and let our fellow men learn from your example.

O'Shaughnessy a few days later wrote a letter to Broadcasting Magazine in reaction not only to his own experiences with the ADL, but also to the references to Liberty Lobby which the ADL and its catspaw, Geller, had caused to be placed in the same magazine earlier in the month. The letter appeared in the July 15, 1974 issue of Broadcasting.

Liberty and "Liberty Lobby"

EDITOR: Broadcasting's July 8 editorial, "The right to be wrong," is an important and eloquent reminder that the First Amendment protects not only the ideas we favor but also those we may dislike. By reminding us that "freedom of the press is not divisible," Broadcasting has recognized the very subtle and real issue in the current unfortunate dispute involving the "Liberty Lobby" programs and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

The ADL is, to be sure, a splendid organization and one should examine his position very carefully should he find himself in disagreement with its leadership. This controversy is especially unsettling for WVOX because not only do we carry "Liberty Lobby" but many brave and courageous officers of the ADL reside in our coverage area.

For me it is a simple issue: If you believe as we do that a radio station achieves its highest calling when it resembles a platform or a community soapbox or a forum for the expression of many different viewpoints—then as fiduciaries and trustees and permittees of the public airwaves, do we not have a clear obligation to let diverse and even, at times, outrageous viewpoints share that platform?—William F. O'Shaughnessy, president, WVOX(AM), New Rochelle, N.Y.

The founder of Liberty Lobby expressed his appreciation on July 16.

Mr. William F. O'Shaughnessy President, WVOX 1 Broadcast Plaza New Rochelle, N.Y. 10801

Dear Mr. O'Shaughnessy:

It is a rare pleasure to have anyone rise to our defense and I do thank you for your letter in the current issue of Broadcasting.

We have also noted with appreciation your talk defending freedom of speech for the America First side, which side does not have many defenders, it appears.

Those groups so intently striving to have our program removed from the air are showing their true colors, I think, without much need for us to point them out. For many years these Zionist organizations have fanatically promoted the cause of free speech in this country when it comes to all manner of communists, internationalists and so-called minorities. I hope that some intelligent men in this country are beginning to realize what the issues really are.

Sincerely,

Willis A. Carto Treasurer A fitting conclusion to this inspiring episode is supplied by a letter written by a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney, of the firm Koteen and Burt to one Donald J. Flamm. Koteen and Burt seem to have been attorneys both to Flamm and to WVOX, but Flamm's exact role in eliciting the letter from the Washington lawyer is unknown. It is quite clear, though, that Flamm was collaborating with the ADL, to whom he sent a copy of the attorney's letter along with the following note.

from donald flamm

Mr. Joseph I. Sonnenreich/Chairman, Executive Committee, ADL

The enclosed letter from my Washington, D.C. attorney is in response to an enquiry I made last fall about the controversial radio program LIBERTY LOBBY that appears regularly over WVOX & WVOX-FM in New Rochelle, New York. Although the letter is dated last January I assume the issue is still pertinent and as Chairman of the Executive Committee you may want to either bring it up at the next meeting or else pass it along to the proper ADL department. Kind regards.

Donald

Here is the letter. It speaks for itself.

Koteen & Burt 1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

January 16, 1975

Mr. Donald J. Flamm 25 Central Park West New York, N.Y. 1002

Dear Donald:

As you know, our firm serves as communications counsel to radio stations WVOX and WVOX-FM in New Rochelle, New York. Both stations carry the "Liberty Lobby" program.

Particularly over the course of the last year or so, a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon WVOX and WVOX-FM by various people and organizations in an attempt to force it to drop "Liberty Lobby." The basic argument, as I understand it, is that the people behind "Liberty Lobby" are anti-Semitic and that the program is therefore, ipso facto, an outlet for anti-Semitism.

During the course of various inquiries about this program, I have

reviewed numerous scripts to determine, among other things, whether it is being used as a vehicle for attacking various people and groups and whether, therefore, various requirements of the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine come into play. In no instance that has come to my attention have I found anything which is even superficially anti-Semitic.

You may recall that the New York Times did a story about the "Liberty Lobby" series several months ago. That story specifically mentioned WVOX as one of the stations which was carrying the program. The story was written by Les Brown of the Times' staff, who, I am informed, is a resident of Larchmont and spent several days monitoring the station and reviewing "Liberty Lobby" program material. The Times story did not accuse the program of being anti-Semitic and it is my understanding that Mr. Brown did not find examples of such material during the work on this story.

Because WVOX and its president, Bill O'Shaughnessy, are very sensitive to any fair criticism of the stations' activities, particularly among Bill's many friends and sponsors in the Westchester County Jewish community, I understand Bill has consulted with a variety of Jewish religious leaders about this and related concerns and has become satisfied that those who actually bother to listen to the program have not found it to be anti-Semitic.

"Liberty Lobby" has been described by some as dull, repetitious, conservative, pap. Others obviously may well think that the program represents a fair and significant conservative commentary about national and international affairs. WVOX and WVOX-FM are deliberately operated as if they were a community soap-box—that is, as a forum for all shades of responsible opinions about local, state, national and international affairs. "Liberty Lobby" is one of the very few programs on the stations which would generally be described as "conservative."

WVOX believes that it has an obligation to present all responsible sides of public issues, even when it may disagree with the positions taken or disapprove of non-broadcast activities of the speaker or sponsoring organization. Despite the pressures which I referred to earlier, WVOX has refused to remove "Liberty Lobby" from the air simply because some or many non-broadcast activities of its sponsor may well be offensive.

For WVOX, the test is whether the "Liberty Lobby" program itself is conducted within broad but reasonable bounds of propriety. I know that Bill has had a number of discussions with officials of the American Civil Liberties Union about the program and it is my understanding that the ACLU believes that attempts to remove it from the air represent a classic example of attempts to suppress freedom of speech.

WVOX has offered daily and weekly time to the ADL to rebut or comment about specific "Liberty Lobby" programs and the series in general. These offers have not been accepted—but they remain outstanding. I do not see how there can in fact be serious substantive complaints about this program from the ADL under the circumstances.

Finally, I spoke with Bill just yesterday about this matter and he assures me that, should there be any substantial evidence that the program is being used to make anti-Semitic remarks, he will give the most serious consideration to the question of whether it should continue to be carried on WVOX and WVOX-FM. However, I think it only fair to say that there may be differences of opinion about whether a specific statement is a reasonably fair comment about political or economic matters of particular concern to various elements of the Jewish community or whether it is anti-Semitic.

My personal view is that WVOX has shown a great deal of courage in its treatment of the "Liberty Lobby" question. Obviously, the simplest thing to do is to cancel the program and forget about the matter. But what is simple is not always proper, particularly when freedom of speech is involved.

I hope that you may find this helpful

Best regards.

Sincerely,

Rainer K. Kraus

The Curious Mr. Klein

One day toward the end of July 1974, a letter from North Carolina arrived at Liberty Lobby. Colonel Curtis B. Dall, chairman of Liberty Lobby, to whom it was addressed, was delighted to receive it. Having perused its encouraging message, he handed it to Willis Carto, Liberty Lobby's founder and treasurer.

"Willis, I think we have a good friend here. Why don't you look it over and see what we can do for him?"

Carto examined the rather impressive stationery. At the top was a large, stylized "K" followed by "WALTER J. KLEIN COMPANY, LTD." and an address in Charlotte.

"Who is he?"

"I have no idea," Colonel Dall replied, "but he seems to be in the movie business."

Carto examined a small logo on the lower right corner of the letter: "Charter Member International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers."

"It's good to know somebody makes films outside of Los Angeles and New York," he said. "What does he want?"

"He wants to help."

"That's a welcome change from what we've been hearing lately."

The colonel left the treasurer's office as Carto settled back in his swivel chair to read the letter.

Dear Mr. Dall:

Thank you for your June 28 mailing received today.

I know enough radio station owners in this area to be in position to offer your radio show to them on a regular basis.

Please send several audition tapes so I can send each a sample of the program and see what their views would be in the way of running them at public service time.

Is there any solicitation of funds in the shows? This will be one of the questions asked.

Cordially,

Walter J. Klein President

Willis Carto's pleasure in the North Carolinian's proposal was reflected in his July 24 letter of reply:

Dear Mr Klein

Colonel Dall has turned over to me yours of July 19 and asked me to give you his personal thanks and best wishes for your generous offer of help.

I am enclosing half a dozen audition tapes of various kinds. Each contains five programs, or a total of 30.

Incidentally we have been pleasantly surprised and greatly encouraged that although we have had a couple cancellations, only one of them is attributable directly to ADL pressure. This is so even though they have contacted each of our stations, in most cases more than once. We see this as proof that the tide is definitely turning and are determined to build up this program until it can be heard throughout the country. Again, your kind letter is most appreciated and we look forward to hearing from you and to being of service in any way possible.

Sincerely,

Willis A. Carto

Carto's gratitude and satisfaction would no doubt have been considerably diminished had he known that on the day before he wrote his reply to the unheralded Mr. Klein, the same Mr. Klein

was preparing and mailing to the Mutual Broadcasting Corporation the following missive:

Gentlemen:

It has come to my attention that the Mutual Broadcasting Corporation has contracted with the Liberty Lobby to make their programs available to some 600 stations in your network.

We would appreciate knowing if this is correct. If so, we would also like to know your reason for wanting to carry material that damages me personally and others of my religious faith.

Cordially,

Walter J. Klein President

But Willis Carto's pleasure over the cordial Mr. Klein's kindly offer was permitted a lifetime of several weeks. It was not until mid-August that C. Edward Little, president of Mutual Broadcasting System, sent Liberty Lobby a copy of the Klein letter quoted just above. Attached was further correspondence between Mutual and Klein, beginning with a letter from Little to Klein.

"It has always been the policy and practice of the network to listen to every program that is carried on our lines," wrote Little, "and I have been advised by our Vice President of Programming that at no time has Liberty Lobby broadcast any controversial materials that would promulgate such a letter that you wrote to Mr. Hardin . . . I'm interested in learning what Mutual station in Charlotte you heard broadcasting Liberty Lobby as well as the date and title of the program that contained materials that you contend damaged you personally and those of your religious faith"

Mr. Klein was not too busy offering Liberty Lobby's radio show to stations in his area to write a lengthy reply to Mutual's president. He began by accusing the Mutual network of becoming an accomplice in crimes against him by transmitting Liberty Lobby's program. In response to Little's request for particulars, Klein said that on April 16 Liberty Lobby had alleged that Klein "and my fellow Jews" committed genocide against Palestinians, and that on April 23 Liberty Lobby had alleged that the ADL was traceable as an arm of the government of Israel and that Klein was a communist.

Continuing in increasingly shrill tones, Klein claimed that

America First, a Liberty Lobby publication which had been advertised at one time on the radio program, "blames me for the crucifixion of Jesus, the Russian revolution, two world wars and the Middle East crises."

Klein claimed that the alleged statements by Liberty Lobby posed "an immediate threat to my life and those of my family. You perpetrate vile anti-Semitism with each broadcast... This is a free country but you do not have the freedom to threaten and destroy my life and the lives of my family." Allowing as how he might be "shot down in the street" as a result of Mutual's nefarious activities, Klein generously said that if Little saw the errors of his ways, "I need not threaten, set deadlines and send copies of everything to attorneys, advertisers, federal agencies and Christian and Jewish organizations. And you will, as a matter of your own judgment, quietly discontinue carrying this Liberty Lobby filth on the Mutual wire."

In his very next paragraph, however, the volatile Mr. Klein was moved to threaten after all:

If on the other hand you are simply a pawn in the hands of some investor who has a sickness about me and my coreligionists, I may as well proceed with legal action. If I do, I will quickly enlist my friends in the Protestant and Catholic movements. The church in America is sick of people like you who abet the hatemongers and pretend to express freedom of speech . . . If it comes to a suit, I will set aside a retainer of \$100,000 to begin broad action to stop this filth once and for all.

After receiving in September 1974 copies of the Little/Klein interchange, Liberty Lobby quickly assured the Mutual Broadcasting System that it would relieve Mutual of any possible liability should Walter Klein or some similar complainant decide to sue. To Willis Carto it seemed evident that the hand of the ADL was behind activists such as Klein. In fact, in his blast at Mutual, Klein had said that he was a local lodge president of B'nai B'rith—parent of the Anti-Defamation League. Carto wrote to Klein on August 20th: "Frankly, we would like nothing better than to confront the ADL in court and take the rare opportunity to air their false charges under oath."

Copies of the radio scripts denounced by Klein as responsible for threatening the imminent demise of himself and his family show nothing to substantiate Klein's hysterical charges. Mutual's last known response to Klein reflects the notable lack of Klein's success.

September 24, 1974

Mr. Walter J. Klein, President Walter J. Klein Company, Ltd. 6301 Carmel Road Charlotte, North Carolina 2821

Dear Mr. Klein:

In view of the content of your letter of August 9th, it was my original reaction that it merited no reply. On further consideration, however, and in light of your letter of September 12th, it would perhaps not be inappropriate, for the record, to give you our response.

In an area as sensitive as that of broadcasting, we are continuing "sitting ducks" for every conceivable kind of criticism. We are charged to operate in the public interest which, among other things, requires us to give expression to all points of view on issues of public importance or interest including those of the far right and left as well as those in between, and including some which many of our listeners find odious, unpalatable and sometimes worse. And, in the performance of these responsibilities, it is our everyday experience that virtually any views presented on our programs, whether from the right, the left or from any other element of the spectrum of thought and belief will elicit condemnations and protests from other elements in the spectrum. This delights rather than troubles us because this is the lifeblood of our operation, to promote discussion and the exchange of views on the problems that confront our country and its people. A letter such as yours, however, vituperative, ill-considered, overcharged with hysteria instead of reason, and basically unfair and inaccurate is one for which we have little taste.

Your first specific charge is: "On April 16 Liberty Lobby alleged that I and my fellow Jews committed genocide against millions of Palestinians. This is an absolute lie."

On the contrary, it is your statement which is absolutely untrue because the Liberty Lobby program only started on Mutual on May 6, 1974.

You then state: "On April 23 Liberty Lobby alleged that the ADL is traceable as an arm of the government of Israel. That is an absolute lie. I am a local lodge president of B'nai B'rith and Liberty Lobby cannot question my allegiance without paying the price of lying. That same broadcast alleges that I am a communist. That is an absolute lie."

Again it is your statements which are absolutely untrue because, as I've indicated, the Liberty Lobby program did not start on the Mutual Network until May 6, 1974.

Your two remaining specific charges relate, not to any broadcasts on the Mutual Network, but rather to two publications distributed by Liberty Lobby, mentions of one of which on the broadcasts (as I informed you merely as a matter of fact in my letter of July 26th) were discontinued on July 22nd. As to these publications, we are aware of nothing concerning them which is illegal and, accordingly, any action on our part directed to suppress their distribution would constitute censorship on our part and infringement of rights guaranteed not only to Liberty Lobby and to us but to you as well under the First Amendment to the Constitution. And this, as you must be aware, protects, subject only to considerations of illegality, the rights of freedom of speech and the press, including your own, however distasteful, repugnant or outrageous some of its product may be to any segment of the public.

In short, we consider that your letter discloses affirmatively that you do not have any valid complaint against us. If you feel that you have a complaint against Liberty Lobby, you should take it to them directly and not attempt to use us as your whipping boy.

With all good wishes

Sincerely yours,

C. Edward Little, President

The many-faced Mr. Klein either withdrew from the heat of the 1974 fray, or his activities became less conspicuous, for none of the records of that period reveal any more of his efforts to help Liberty Lobby find broadcasters for its program, nor any more of his forays against the broadcasters of the program.

By way of epilogue, however, it can be told that Mr. Klein resurfaced some years later in the life of Liberty Lobby, as hyperactive as ever. It appears that he sent a letter (on his movie producer letterhead, of course) to radio stations around the country repeating the ritual ADL catchphrases and claiming to have been personally affronted by what he had heard. He clearly implied that he would use his considerable influence in the station's community to bring a plague on their heads if they did not desist. Several of the stations expressed surprise that Mr. Klein had managed to pick up their broadcasts in North Carolina when their transmitters were located many hundreds of miles away at the far corners of the nation. None of the stations, as far as is known, were sufficiently terrified by Mr. Klein to drop "This Is Liberty Lobby" as a result of his efforts.

It seems that poor Klein, so fearful of his own and his progeny's extermination, not only fought quixotic fantasies, but also

devoted much time and expense to fighting them in a completely ineffectual manner.

What did arrive was a communication from Mr. Klein suggesting that he raise money for Liberty Lobby! He said that he was a man of great skill, experience and success in fundraising, and that in a fairly short time he could promise to deliver vast sums of money to the patriotic institution. All that Liberty Lobby had to do to merit such largesse was to stop threatening to kill Mr. Klein and his grandchildren, to cease publishing anti-Semitic attacks on Jews.

Since Liberty Lobby needed to do nothing in order to comply with Mr. Klein's demands, having neither threatened the Klein line nor published anti-Semitic attacks on anyone, the offer was rather tempting, but upon sober consideration was not accepted.

The Cooperative Congressman

Congressman Joshua Eilberg, Democrat from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was, from the looks of things, the ADL's favorite legislator during the mid-1970s. You have met him before on these pages, and you will be bidding him a brief farewell in this section.

He is the only member of Congress who turns up in the ADL files which were revealed during Liberty Lobby's lawsuits, and he turns up several times. He could, it seems, be depended upon not only to place an ADL propaganda piece in the Congressional Record upon request, but also to write made-to-order letters, and to incorporate in his public statements the ideas and language desired by ADL headquarters. The congressman, in fact, seems to have turned to the ADL and sought its advice when he was unsure how to cope with certain sticky situations or how best to word a response to a challenge.

He was criticized by Liberty Lobby for placing Irwin Suall's

diatribe, This Is Liberty Lobby, in the Congressional Record of July 18, 1974 (reproduced as Appendix B of this book). Even Eilberg's introductory remarks sound more like an ADL cue-card than the remarks of a politician from Pennsylvania. First he accused Liberty Lobby of espousing "great sympathy for Hitlerian Naziism." (One wonders what non-Hitlerian Naziism used to be like.) He then said that Liberty Lobby had been "proselytizing a vicious and clandestine brand of anti-Semitism" on the radio, and that Liberty Lobby was "solidly backed with vast amounts of money." (The frugal leadership of Liberty Lobby, always struggling to keep the institution healthy and growing on the small contributions of middle-class Americans, found the latter charge somewhat bitterly amusing.)

The congressman continued: "It is among the most active of the extremist groups now infesting the national media with thinly disguised propaganda campaigns of the most rakish nature."*

Was the ADL's "Dateline Israel" one of the thinly disguised propaganda campaigns the congressman had in mind? He does not say. Perhaps he was too busy defending his nation from dishonesty and moral corruption specifically to name all the propagators of rakish propaganda campaigns that had come to his attention.

The congressman did have time, however, to distribute, on October 11, 1974, a letter to all the stations which carried "This Is Liberty Lobby" and to ask for air time to give his reply:

Dear Sir:

I write to you because yours is one of the radio stations listed by Liberty Lobby as a regular broadcaster of its daily radio commentary entitled "This Is Liberty Lobby."

On August 22, 1974, Liberty Lobby broadcast a personal attack on me. It contained, among other things, charges that I "inserted a vicious smear attack on the Lobby into the Congressional Record"; that I am an "enemy" of Liberty Lobby because of its "America first, pro-constitutional stand"; that I have voted to "water away U.S. sovereignty" and that I "consistently vote against taxpayers' interests"

If your station carried that particular broadcast, I believe that out

^*On second thought, perhaps the ADL did not assist Congressman Eilberg with his introductory remarks. Suall and Forster had never slipped linguistically quite so far as to describe propaganda campaigns as "rakish."

of a sense of fairness, you will want to afford me an opportunity to reply to the attack.

Enclosed herewith you will find the text of a brief statement of reply by me. I would appreciate your arranging to have it read to your station's listeners at a suitable broadcast time.

Finally, I request the courtesy of an answer to this communication, including information as to the time and date of broadcast of my statement over your station.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely yours,

JOSHUA EILBERG

Congressman Eilberg's intimacy with the ADL is illustrated by a subsequent memo from the ADL's regional office in Philadelphia:

Irwin Suall

Samuel Lewis Gaber

October 22, 1974

The Liberty Lobby — Congressman Joshua Eilberg

Dear Irwin:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent by Congressman Joshua Eilberg to the list of stations which carried the "This Is Liberty Lobby" attack on him. Also herewith is his suggested response to be carried by the stations.

We will soon have the station's responses, which I will share with you.

Best wishes.

Eilberg's radio "reply" to Liberty Lobby was a rehash of the ADL party line and included stock ADL phraseology and nothing else, with one exception which will be quoted in a little while.

Liberty Lobby's reaction was to incorporate much of Congressman Eilberg's tirade into one of its editions of "Liberty Lobby." The following letter was sent to broadcasters on October 19, 1974:

To: All Radio Stations Carrying "This Is Liberty Lobby"

Enclosed are a copy of our August 22 script (heard August 29 on some stations), our October 23 script incorporating Congressman Eilberg's response, and our letter today to the FCC. Because we aired his response, even though we felt the demand was unjustified, it is not necessary for you to respond further.

This is another example of the harassment and interference by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in an obvious effort to get our program off the air. They mouth respect for the First Amendment, guaranteeing all of us free speech, then do all they can to deny us that right.

We are out of patience with these attacks, and we take this opportunity to call Mr. Eilberg a liar and a smear artist. As you can determine by simply reading our scripts, our programs are clearly devoid of any anti-Semitism or racism. As a member of B'nai B'rith, Mr. Eilberg openly supports the aims and efforts of the A.D.L., which Saul Joftes, a former International Council officer of B'nai B'rith, calls ". . . an arm of the government of Israel." In that context, we note that Theodore Roosevelt, commenting on the internationalists who profess to love all nations as their own, said: "The American who loves other countries as his own is like the man who loves other women as he loves his wife. I do not regard him as highminded; I regard him as rotten. We have no room in this country for 50-50 Americans. He who is not with us absolutely, is against us, and should be treated as an alien and sent out of the country."

LIBERTY LOBBY incurs the wrath of the A.D.L. by advocating a policy of strict neutrality in the Mideast; that is the extent of our alleged "anti-Semitism."

At issue here is the fundamental question of whether we can criticize the public behavior and actions of an elected official. If we can't, then we're much closer to a dictatorship than I care to think about. Under Mr. Eilberg's logic, e.g., if we were to report on Congressman Mills's recent nocturnal escapades, he could demand equal time, go on the air, and attack us without explaining any of the actions we reported on originally.

We will be glad to send you upon request a free copy of the book The Anti-Defamation League and Its Use in the World Communist Offensive, by Robert H. Williams, discussing in detail the concept of dual loyalty, which we find distinctly distasteful and decidedly un-American. All LIBERTY LOBBY Board of Policy members are required to sign a loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution. Which organization, LIBERTY LOBBY or A.D.L., do you think better defends American "democratic principles"?

We understand your position as a victim of constant and intense government scrutiny, and applaud your efforts to be fair and impartial. We regret any inconvenience you may experience as a result of this matter. We will notify you promptly of the FCC response.

Sincerely.

Willis A. Carto, Treasurer

The reader may wish to return to pages 20 and 21 to review the radio scripts referred to in the letter above.

That was the end of the Liberty Lobby-Eilberg confrontation, but to provide a dramatically gratifying conclusion to the whole episode we hark back to that one portion of Congressman Eilberg's radio reply to Liberty Lobby which appeared not to have been provided by the ADL. Expressing indignation that he had been accused of publishing a "smear" in the Congressional Record and that his voting record had left much to be desired from the patriotic American taxpayer's point of view, Eilberg said: "It is not my intention today to debate the merits of eight years of dedicated public service to my constituents. I am satisfied that the voters of the Fourth Distrct of Pennsylvania have consistently approved the manner in which I have represented them—always with the nation's best interest foremost in mind."

In 1978 Joshua Eilberg was indicted for illegally arranging a \$14.5-million federal grant in exchange for a \$100,000 payoff. In early 1979, Eilberg pleaded guilty to counts involving conflict of interest and payoffs. He received a sentence of five years' probation. He will never hold federal office again.

VII

A Well-Trained Press

WITHOUT A SYMPATHETIC PRESS, the ADL's publicity efforts would not get far. The Zionist group gains an aura of authority and respectability through the very fact that it is so frequently quoted in the newspapers, almost always uncritically. It is referred to as the established "monitor" of "hate groups" and "extremists." By now the reader well understands the real situation, but embarrassing questions about the ADL, its motives and its anti-democratic tactics are rarely raised in the American press.

It even appears, according to recent evidence, that the ADL has so exploited its almost official status as the leading authority on "hate groups" that its lies are accepted as facts—and perhaps even sought out—by agencies of federal and local government. A civil rights panel in Los Angeles published some transparent ADL falsehoods about Liberty Lobby and other groups without any apparent effort to check the facts. Even more bizarre, as this book was being prepared for press, it came to light that the ADL had been influential in having Liberty Lobby listed among "paramilitary organizations" in written materials used at an anti-terrorist training course of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of Liberty Lobby would appreciate the silliness of such a charge, and yet an agency of the United States government was engaged in spreading the lie to its field employees on what must have been the mere word of the ADL.

Back to the ADL's 1970s war on Liberty Lobby's radio program: The pliable press was of much help in spreading the ADL's lies, but of absolutely no help in spreading Liberty Lobby's side of the story. The ADL has succeeded in creating such an atmosphere of terror among those who know what happens to people who defy

the ADL or show sympathy (or even give a fair hearing) to ADL victims, that there is not much taste in the communications media for investigative reporting that might come up with results which contradict ADL allegations. Silence is safer, but not as safe as cooperation, so cooperation is usually forthcoming.

During 1974, especially the summer months, the country was flooded with ADL-inspired newspaper articles designed to make easier the removal of "This Is Liberty Lobby" from radio stations as well as to impose general damage on Liberty Lobby itself. Certainly such a publicity campaign—especially when a local radio station was mentioned in print as collaborating in Liberty Lobby's villainous activities—would put added pressure on broadcasters and provide ammunition for ADL agents and helpers. The ADL's fabrications, in combination with the tendency of many people to believe whatever they read in the paper, would also tend to decrease public support for Liberty Lobby.

To illustrate the kind of thing with which broadcasters and the public were bombarded during those months of all-out open war against freedom of speech, we present a little sampling of the published items which came to Liberty Lobby's attention either through the ADL collection or through other channels. There is some argument against doing this, in that a lie repeated often enough may begin to be believed even by people who should know better. On the other hand, this book would be lacking if it did not include a feel for the impact created by the ADL in the press which served as a loudspeaker for its propaganda. If the reader will bear in mind what he or she knows about the ADL, there should be ample immunization against infection by repetition.

The means of distribution of ADL press releases ranged from mailing copies to hundreds of newspapers to making direct personal contacts with editors and publishers. One picks up hints that in certain publications' offices there were ADL sympathizers whose cooperation could be assumed, while in other cases a continuing effort had to be exerted.

What follows—with little commentary on our part—is far from a complete survey, but it serves to give the flavor of the ADL's media blitz of 1974:

June 30. Asbury Park Press (New Jersey). "Anti-Semitic Radio Program Rapped. The New Jersey Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has attacked the Mutual Broadcasting System for con-

tracting to make available to its more than 600 radio stations a program it contends is anti-Semtic [sic]."

July 9. The New York Times devoted four columns to a story by Les Brown headlined "Liberty Lobby Series on Mutual is Scored by A.D.L." The very fact that the Times saw fit to give space to such a "story" is indicative of the newspaper's sympathy with the ADL. A press release from Liberty Lobby concerning the ADL would, for example, stand little chance of notice in the Times. The article does have the virtue of trying to include more than one point of view—something rarely found in the other papers which passed on the ADL's lies to the public.

The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has charged that a syndicated radio series being distributed by the Mutual Broadcasting System has anti-Semitic overtones and promotes literature that is "blatantly anti-Semitic."

The league stated that the managements of stations that carry the programs are either ignorant of the contents of the literature or "uncaring about their role in helping to peddle bigotry."

The series, "This Is Liberty Lobby," which consists of five-minute programs of news commentary five days a week, is carried on 171 radio stations, many of which are paid by the producing organization, the Liberty Lobby in Washington, for broadcasting it. The Mutual network is also paid a fee for disseminating the program nationally through its interconnection of more than 600 stations.

The league asserted that the programs served as a "come-on," to expose listeners to a variety of Liberty Lobby publications "reeking of hate."

Spokesmen for Mutual and several of the stations disagreed with the league's characterization of the program, and an official of the Liberty Lobby maintained that the organization is "anti-Zionist, which is not the same as anti-Semitic."

Opposes 'Dual Loyalty'

Describing the lobby as upholding patriotism and the Constitution, and as advocating political neutrality in the Middle East, he said the organization was unjustly called anti-Semitic by the league because it opposed the "dual loyalty and dual citizenship" of some American Jews to the United States and Israel.

The complaint against the radio programs is the latest of a long series of debate between the league and Liberty Lobby.

Although they were unable to document their charge with clear instances of anti-Semitic remarks made on the air, representatives of the league insisted that there have been "innuendos" in the programs and outright hate-mongering and racial anti-Semitism in the publications that are promoted by Liberty Lobby on every program

"If they were to use the hard-core material on the air, they would

defeat their purpose," said Justin Finger, assistant director of the civil rights division of the league. "They have hit upon a very clever device of using radio to get people to send for their materials."

The programs regularly offer trial subscriptions to the weekly "Liberty Letter" at \$5 a year and certain other special reports. For \$15 a year, subscribers may receive a number of monthly publications in addition, such as "Liberty Lowdown" and "VIP Letter." A sampling of the publications reveals a preoccupation with Jewish persons in government and with an alleged international Zionist conspiracy.

A chief Liberty Lobby publication, offered whenever Middle East policy is discussed on the program, is a pamphlet first issued in 1971, titled "America First." Mr. Finger has described it as "blatantly anti-Jewish."

The 39-page tract alleges—with the disclaimer that Zionism is neither Judaism nor Jewry—that Zionist pressures were behind the intervention of the United States in both world wars and have again been responsible for the country's intervention in behalf of Israel in the Middle East struggles.

In its discussion of wars, the pamphlet states that "Zionists have pushed gentile nations into bitter conflict with other gentile nations, in order for the Zionist nation to rise triumphant out of the discords and ruins of the goyim nations."

It refers, throughout, to the Zionist control of the American press, radio and TV and to Zionist links with the Soviet Union.

The founder and guiding force of Liberty Lobby, although he has taken the title of treasurer, is Willis A. Carto, who publishes separately the American Mercury magazine and the Washington Observer newsletter, both of which the league describes as "laden with unvarnished anti-Semitism."

The radio series began in March, 1973 and by October was being broadcast by more than 100 stations, which had received the daily tapes by air express. Some of the stations were paid for carrying the programs; others accepted the series free and played it as a public service. Last May, the Mutual Broadcasting System began electronic distribution of the program over its lines.

Disclaiming any involvement with the series beyond a business arrangement for transmission, Jack B. Clements, vice-president of programs for Mutual, stated that the network neither endorsed the programs [sic] nor negotiated with the stations to carry it.

The program is technically not on the network but is only being distributed through its facilities. Mr. Clements pointed out that a five-minute daily program for Common Cause is fed out by Mutual under a similar arrangement.

While Mutual's affiliate in the New York area, WMCA, does not accept the program, it is carried by three suburban stations here—WVOX and WVOX-FM in New Rochelle and WTHE in

Mineola. The former are paid "less than \$150 a week" by Liberty Lobby, according to their president, William O'Shaughnessy. The Mineola station receives \$100 a week for carrying the program.

Mr. O'Shaughnessy, whose stations cover much of Westchester County, said the WVOX stations have prided themselves as forums for many different viewpoints, whether management agrees with them or not and that "Liberty Lobby" was acceptable on that principle.

"As long as the statements are not inflammatory, I am not going to be a censor," Mr. O'Shaughnessy said. He added that the stations also carry three pro-Israel series—including one produced by the league, "Dateline: Israel"—for which they receive no compensation.

Programs of Music

Richard L. Winslow, general manager of WTHE, described "Liberty Lobby" as a program that "99 percent of the time deals with matters other than the Zionist issue." He said the station works closely with the league chapter on Long Island and notes that "if a program contains an anti-Semitic remark or a historical inaccuracy we don't carry it but substitute other programing that day."

Taking issue with the New York stations, Arnold Forster, general counsel for the league contended that "anti-Semitism is outside the spectrum of legitimate discussion and cannot be balanced by an equal number of programs on the 'pro' side."

Pat Ryan, coordinator of the Liberty Lobby programs and director of its other promotional activities, called the charge of anti-Semitism "absolute nonsense," raised by the league because the lobby opposed its views on aiding Israel.

"We have never criticized anyone for free speech and never tried to inhibit the A.D.L.'s right to say anything, as they are doing with us." he said.

More blunt was the Texas Jewish Post of July 11: "Mutual to Offer Hate Show on its 600 Outlets, ADL Reports."

July 12: Jewish Leader (Rochester, New York). "Mutual Airing Extremist Program."

Southern Israelite. "7 Southern Radio Stations Carrying Slander Programs Against Judaism."

July 16. The Philadelphia Tribune. "B'nai B'rith Charges Racist Program Hits Blacks, Jews."

The three immediately preceding articles were virtually identical copies of the same ADL release, with the names of the supposed ADL spokesman changed to fit the region.

A July 17 memo from Harvey Schechter, Acting Director of the ADL's Pacific Southwest Regional Office, to Irwin Suall, crowed: "Our campaign against the Liberty Lobby is picking up steam.

The Las Vegas Israelite... gave the Liberty Lobby story headline coverage... Also, Israel Today, the Anglo-Jewish paper in the San Fernando Valley, ran a good story."

Israel Today was relatively sedate: "Mutual Broadcasts Hate Show on 126 Stations." The Las Vegas Israelite (July 12), as befitted its garish location, carried screaming, inch-high headlines on its front page: "ELKO, NEV. KELK RADIO CARRIES MUTUAL NETWORK ANTI-SEMITIC SHOW." See if that kind of publicity helps your radio station's revenues, especially in view of the Mafia-esque warning featured as a subheadline at the top of the article:

(THE LAS VEGAS ISRAELITE CAUTIONS ALL MUTUAL NETWORK AFFILIATED RADIO STATIONS IN THE LAS VEGAS AREA TO CONSIDER CAREFULLY BEFORE ACCEPTING THE PROGRAM BEING OFFERED BY THE NETWORK.)

The Las Vegas Israelite followed up on July 26 in the column "Only in Vegas" by Helene Stadler, a collection of one-paragraph local news items. Not far below this: "From Sophie Katzman, who just returned to town after tending to an ill mother, comes a sweet letter of concern about Jack's leg accident. That's our Sophie, a great gal..." we find: "From Anti-Defamation League's Harvey Schechter comes word that radio station KNEF in Reno carries the anti-Semitic program 'Liberty Lobby'."

July 19. The Rhode Island Herald. "AD League Charges 'Liberty Lobby' With Anti-Semitic Radio Broadcast."

July 23. The Philadelphia Tribune. "Vicious Race-Hate Propaganda Not the Same as Free Speech." This is an outrageously inaccurate editorial of the "We believe in free speech, but . . ." variety. The editorial, referring to "This Is Liberty Lobby," talks about "vicious racist messages and media appeals for violence against members of minority groups," and concludes with the recommendation that "the Federal Communications Commission should act to see that precious air time be denied to Nazi-style propagandists who openly call for the death and destruction of both blacks and Jews."

Obviously the airhead who fashioned these lies had never listened to "This Is Liberty Lobby," to which he attributes all sorts of other imaginary obscenities never heard on the air waves or

printed in any Liberty Lobby publication.

It is not surprising to find the B'nai B'rith Messenger of Los Angeles featuring an article headed "'Liberty Lobby' Airs Its Bigotry" (July 12), but a more curious item appeared in the Communist newspaper Morning Freiheit (New York) on August 4. The Morning Freiheit article expressed such a novel point of view—being "anti" almost everything except communism—that it deserves to be preserved here as an oddity.

Anti-Semitism in the Guise of Opposition to Zionism & Israe

By PAUL NOVICK

Anti-Semitic Incitement on the Radio. Something 'new'—which isn't new at all

On July 9 in the New York Times the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith charged that the Mutual Radio Network, which operates in and about New York, is disseminating anti-Semitic propaganda of the Liberty Lobby, under the cloak of 'anti-Zionism.'

The Liberty Lobby is an old acquaintance. In the Morning Freiheit of April 7, we published the article: "THE ENEMY IS ON THE RIGHT," and listed quite a summary of dastardly tactics of this body. The Liberty Lobby publishes "literature" which purports to be "only" against Zionism and against Israel, but in the booklet, "America First," all the misfortunes that ever afflicted mankind are attributed to the Jews—from Jesus' death, up to the Second World War, which was, according to them, a "Jewish" war—Zionist inspired

While the anti-Semitic campaign of the Liberty Lobby is more or less covert, its vituperation against Israel is wide open—and that, "perish the thought," is not anti-Semitism! . . .

In the recent denunciation by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, it is reported that the Liberty Lobby conducts its incendiary campaign on no less than 171 radio stations.

In this hate-mongering, there is an allusion to a "Zionist conspiracy" and the view that the entire American media (press, TV, radio, etc.) is under the control of the Zionists, in close partnership with the Soviet Union, proving once more that anti-Semitism quite often goes hand in hand with anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism.

The accusation by the Anti-Defamation League must be taken most seriously. One of the stations of the Mutual system is the popular W.M.C.A. here in N.Y.C. (also WVOX in New Rochelle and WTHE in Mineola, L.I.). This accusation must serve as an alarm, that it is high time that legislation be initiated in Congress that would bar all racist propaganda in America along with its bed-fellow, anti-Semitism. Based upon this, there must be a revival of the traditional

fighting unity of Jews and Blacks; since in almost every instance the anti-Semitic propagandists are anti-Black racists as well. . . .

A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO ZIONISM

An old story that is ever new—as put by Heinrich Heine

What is new now is that there are those who are not anti-Semites who have even been quite outspoken against anti-Semitism, who nevertheless help the anti-Semites in their propaganda agains Zionism and against Israel. There are those who, in acting agains anti-Semitism, seem to forget that the Czarist fabrication, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is one of the most widely circulated pamphlets of the anti-Soviet hatemongers.

It is quite another thing to be ideologically opposed to Zionism. We are now able to point out, more emphatically than ever, that Zionism does not solve the Jewish Question and state with certitude that the Zionist slogan, "Return from the Diaspora," that is, the "ingathering" of the Jews of the Diaspora into Israel, is totally in conflict with reality.

Simultaneously we can point out the harmfulness of the theory of "Permanent Anti-Semitism" (the Herzl theory) and the fallaciousness of the postulate of the class unity of all Jews. There are, at present, many other areas in which ideological opposition to Zionism has strengthened, an opposition which must not, however, be an obstacle to unity of action with Zionists who are against war, who struggle against racism and anti-Semitism in our country, and who work for peace in the Middle East and for "detente."

There is unfortunately, however, a bitter, senseless and poisonous campaign afloat against Zionism which, if not in itself anti-Semitic, furnishes grist for the mill of the anti-Semites, as, for instance, in the irresponsible attack on Zionism by the Rakah* writer, N. Richter in Sov[i]etish Heimland of June, 1974, wherein he lumped together Zionists and the Nazis

Next we reproduce an ADL memorandum which tells its own story.

Memorandum from Isadore Zack

December 15, 1974

to Lynne lanniello

I finally got the Boston Globe to move on the Liberty Lobby story. The latest release on Mutual Broadcasting dropping the program moved Robert McLean, TV and Radio editor, to feature the story in the Saturday Globe, Dec. 14, 1974. See attached, McLean is the

^*The Rakah is one of Israel's several communist parties.—Ed

former talent scout for the Globe who got my daughter her job at the paper!

Regards,

Ιz

cc: Ted Freedman Irwin Suall Jerry Bakst

The Boston Globe story itself (December 14, 1974) was of no special interest except to the extent that it singled out independent station WRYT as the Boston culprit broadcasting "This Is Liberty Lobby." WRYT was cited as saying it would continue to broadcast the show:

Boston station official Carter said that he or some other station executive screens the show tapes—which are mailed here from Washington—before they go on the air. Carter said he has corresponded with ADL regional and national officers on the issue, and has been advised by WRYT's legal counsel that the series may be broadcast.

"I do not feel 'Liberty Lobby' is anti-Semitic," Carter said. "We have no plans to discontinue the show." He noted that WRYT carries several regular programs sponsored by, or featuring various Jewish organizations, both local and national.

An ADL memo heralds the effect of such publicity, by way of an "inside source":

Irwin Sual

Isadore Zack

December 17, 1974

I have an inside report from a source at WRYT-Boston, who today informed me that Ken Carter, the station manager, was really shaken by our latest release on Liberty Lobby which was so prominently published in the Boston Globe last Saturday. This source informed me that the story stimulated many calls and protests to the station.

According to our contact, Carter, alone, was responsible for cutting out half the Liberty Lobby broadcasts on WRYT. The source, however, describes Carter as "an extremist who supported Leo

Kahian, the John Bircher, in the last governor's race in Massachusetts."

IZ/gk

cc: Jerry Bakst Mort Kass

Finally, we document the appearance of a column by one Joseph Brechner in the Orlando (Florida) Sentinel Star of November 10, 1974. Brechner's column was a regular feature in the Orlando paper. The November 10 edition began: "A recent local television interview with a representative from the 'Liberty Lobby' revealed the naivete of the local interviewer. The representative of that organization represented him and cause [sic] as a significant reflection of conservative patriotism. And the ill-informed announcer fell for it."

Brechner then went on with the stock charges of "extremism," "racism," and the like—making sure that his readers understood that he classified Liberty Lobby as belonging to the "American Far Right" and not to the left. Brechner then conveniently listed by call letters and location some 15 area stations which broadcast "This Is Liberty Lobby." He asked the question about those stations which had already appeared again and again in newspapers throughout the country, as well as in hundreds of letters—words always mysteriously the same despite their varied sources: Whether "the management and licensees of the stations which broadcast the program are ignorant of its contents or are they uncaring in their role in helping to peddle bigotry?"

"A good question!" said Mr. Brechner. Another good question is where Mr. Brechner (as contrasted with the poor, ill-informed local interviewer) got his information. Why, from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, of course, as Mr. Brechner himself was quick to tell us. The ADL has bravely fought Liberty Lobby, "Russia's anti-American propaganda," and the "Arabs' energy blackmail," while (and here we get to the heart of the matter) Liberty Lobby, dirty dog that it is, "fiercely attacks American foreign policy, following Arab propaganda lines to blame Israel and American Jews for the Middle East crisis."

What Brechner's readers could not know was that his attack on Liberty Lobby (the balance of which came more or less verbatim from ADL press releases and "guidelines" for complainants) was not a spontaneous gush of indignation but a carefully planned collaboration with the American propaganda agents of a foreign power. Let the documents produced by the ADL tell their own story.

November 25, 1974

Mr. Irwin Suall Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'ritl 315 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10016

Dear Mr. Suall:

Enclosed is a copy of the column concerning the Liberty Lobby which appeared in the "Orlando Sentinel Star" dated November 10 1974. Also included are copies of correspondence and letters to the editor.

I think you can appreciate now my concern for absolute accuracy before it was published.

Please give my best to Gerald Baumgarten for sending me the photo copy of the "National Review" article concerning "Liberty Lobby." Sept. 10, 1971.

Cordially.

Joseph L. Brechner

JLB/s

November 20 1074

Mr. Joseph L. Brechner P.O. Box 6103-C Orlando, Florida 32803

Dear Mr Brechner

This is to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of November 25, 1974, which also contained a copy of your column on Liberty Lobby and the various letters evoked by the column. I must say, I think you did a magnificent job and we're deeply grateful to you.

Through this letter I am also informing Arnold Forster of the fine job you did and conveying to Gerry Baumgarten your thanks to him for sending you a copy of the National Review piece on Liberty Lobby

With all best wishes

Yours sincerely.

Irwin Suall, Director

Domestic Fact Finding Department

IS/mef

cc: Arnold Forster
Gerry Baumgarten
Arthur Teitelbaum

November 18, 1974

Mr. Joseph Brechner Sentinel Star 1295 Cypress Ave. Melbourne, Fla. 32901

Dear Mr. Brechner:

A member of my congregation gave me a copy of an editorial which you wrote in the Sentinel Star on Sunday, November 10, 1974.

The editorial which exposed Liberty Lobby as an extremist racist propaganda organization was informative and precise. Leaving no thought to the imagination, but clearly defining the role of Liberty Lobby, I congratulate you for your help in combating the ills of our society. The Jewish community of Brevard County and myself thank you for your help in combating anti-Semitism.

As a result of your article I have learned that Liberty Lobby is broadcast on a local station and you can be assured that I will take action in attempting to discontinue its broadcast on W.M.M.B.

Sincerely

PETER J. MEHLER Rabbi

PJM/gr

We conclude this chapter with two letters to the editor of the Sentinel Star which appeared a week after Brechner's smear.

Brachner Column 'A Tactic'

Editor: As a student of the frightening growth of the international Socialist-Communist world movement for better than 20 years, independent of membership in "extremist" organizations, it is easy for me to recognize Joseph Brechner's derogatory column concerning Liberty Lobby for the tactic that it is.

It is a matter of record, acknowledged by the late J. Edgar Hoover and other informed American patriots, that whenever an individual or group has the temerity to publicly point the finger at conspiratorial forces working to undermine our constitutional republic, they immediately become the target of withering attacks.

Nowhere in his column does Brechner refute or attempt to refute any of the statements made on the Liberty Lobby broadcast.

Instead, he attempts to smear it on the strength of questionable information about one Liberty Lobby individual, and on the strength of remarks made by one "pseudo-conservative," William F. Buckley.

Most of the "human relations" groups Mr. Brechner refers to are the perennial pushers of collectivist social gospel.

I have attended meetings of the John Birch Society and found that organization to be a whole lot less secretive than local "human relations" groups with which I have also met.

Does Mr. Brechner deny the fact that our foreign policy since 1945, aided by the One World Socialist programs of the anti-U.S. United Nations, has helped to produce a world in which Communist-dominated people have grown from 200 million to more than one billion today?—JIM ARMSTRONG, Daytona Beach.

Liberty Lobby People's Defender in Washington

Editor: I don't write many letters to the editor but somebody needs to answer Joseph Brechner's Nov. 10 attack upon Willis A. Carto and Liberty Lobby. To those who know him, Mr. Carto is a modern day George Washington whose patriotism and loyalty to country is above challenge.

Liberty Lobby is the people's defender in Washington against the enemies in our country where previously they had little or no voice. Liberty Lobby's position in reference to the Middle East is that noninvolvement puts the interest of America first. Would Mr. Brechner rather put Israel's interest first and America's last? However, we do owe Mr. Brechner a vote of thanks for his list of radio stations carrying Liberty Lobby's broadcasts. Now interested patriots can call their local station for airing time. After listening to the programs, they can then determine for themselves who is working for the preservation of their country and freedom.—J.B. REEVES. Daytona Beach.

VIII

Ritter Fall

As the Winter of 1974-75 grew near, more radio stations were carrying "This Is Liberty Lobby" than ever before in its short history, despite all the efforts of the ADL to crush it. Those efforts are summarized in the ADL's own words in the report which follows—preceded by a cautionary memo from Irwin Suall:

To: ADL Regional Offices

From: Irwin Suall

Date: November 7, 1974
Subject: Liberty Lobby

Attached, for your information, is a copy of the report on the Liberty Lobby radio program which was delivered at the recent meeting of the National Commission by John Goldwater, Chairman of the National Fact Finding Committee. This report is not for republication

IS/rk

LIBERTY LOBBY RADIO PROGRAM

Liberty Lobby is the largest, most effective anti-Semitic organization in the United States. In your folders you will find a reprint from the ADL Bulletin entitled "This Is Liberty Lobby" by Irwin Suall, which contains the relevant facts about the organization.

In March, 1973, Liberty Lobby initiated a nationwide radio program consisting of five-minute commentaries on the news, broadcast daily, five days a week. The broadcast is of professional quality. In terms of content, the program conveys an extreme right-wing view, with a large ingredient of anti-Israel, anti-"Zionist" propaganda. It has at times indulged in raw anti-Semitism. The literature advertised to listeners includes blatantly anti-Semitic material.

Beginning with only four stations in March, 1973, the number of Liberty Lobby radio outlets has gro

The March, 1974, meeting of the Civil Rights Executive Committee authorized a counteraction campaign against Liberty Lobby's radio program. Our campaign commenced immediately thereafter. It consisted of a two-pronged attack: a campaign of public education to expose the true character of this anti-Semitic, racist organization; and the full use of our legal rights under the Federal Communications Commission's "Fairness Doctrine"

Our campaign of public exposure has included several national news releases which have been published by scores of newspapers throughout the country, including the New York Times, which ran a large story on its radio page, and Broadcast [sic] Magazine, the most influential trade journal in the industry, which carried a sizable story and an editorial sympathetic to our point of view. Besides this national publicity, regional offices have adapted our releases for local use in their respective areas. In addition, each regional office was supplied with a kit of Liberty Lobby counteraction materials, including instructions concerning the mobilization of public opinion in their areas, through contact with responsible opinion-molders. B'nai B'rith Lodges and Chapters and Jewish Community Relations Councils have been contacted for the purpose of stimulating letter-writing campaigns directed at individual radio stations. Two national Jewish organizations—the Jewish War Veterans and the National Council of Jewish Women—have volunteered their cooperation in this campaign of public education.

In addition to our exposure efforts, we have utilized our rights under the law. On April 23, 1974, Liberty Lobby's radio commentator attacked ADL, accusing us, in effect, of being a procommunist foreign organization. When none of the stations which carried the attack notified us, as they were required to do under the law, we sent complaints to each of them with copies to the FCC. Our complaint eventually brought responses from almost all of the stations, offering us time to reply. In some cases we had to press our complaint to the FCC before the stations acceded to our request. Our reply, which was taped by Arnold Forster, consisted of a hard-hitting analysis of the anti-Semitic character of Liberty Lobby.

Recently, Liberty Lobby attacked Congressman Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania for having inserted our ADL Bulletin piece on Liberty Lobby in the Congressional Record. The Congressman has written to each of the stations which carried the attack, requesting an opportunity to respond.

To date, twenty-three of the Liberty Lobby stations have discontinued the program. This number includes some of the more important stations located in major metropolitan areas, including Long Island, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles. In terms of the numbers of listeners lost, the twenty-three stations which have dropped the program represent a significant portion of Liberty Lobby's radio audience. Most of the one hundred and eighty-two stations currently carrying the program are located in small and medium size communities.

This nationwide radio propaganda campaign, in our judgment, poses a serious problem to the Jewish community, and deserves a high priority on the action agenda of ADL. I should point out that it is an administratively complex and time-consuming effort, involving the daily monitoring of broadcasts; consultation with volunteer attorneys and knowledgeable friends in the broadcasting industry; coordination and careful guidance of regional office efforts; the production and distribution of informational materials about Liberty Lobby; and correspondence with both the FCC and numerous radio stations across the country. However, the effort is peculiarly appropriate to ADL if we are to discharge our unique responsibility for combating organized anti-Semitism and extremism. For that reason, the Fact Finding Committee intends to pursue this counteraction effort in the months ahead, with vigor and persistence.

It was in large part due to Liberty Lobby's April 15, 1974 contract with the Mutual Broadcasting System that the ADL campaign had not made a serious dent in the number of stations broadcasting the program. There certainly had been casualties, but their loss was made up by the many stations available on the Mutual network. By the autumn of 1974 about half the broadcasters of "This Is Liberty Lobby" were members of the MBS network. If the ADL could persuade Mutual to terminate its contract with Liberty Lobby, then a serious blow indeed would be inflicted on the populist institution.

Unfortunately for the historical record, little evidence has been unearthed of precisely what went on between the ADL and MBS. What evidence there is tends to be hearsay or circumstantial, but there can be no doubt that pressure was put on Mutual's management which eventually took its toll despite some early defiance. Witness Mr. Klein's exchanges with MBS, or a lady who reported

to the ADL that she had telephoned Mutual to complain about "This Is Liberty Lobby" and been told by an employee that Liberty Lobby people were good people and that the ADL were a bad bunch.

November 14, 1974

Mr. Lloyd E. Zimmer Marshfield Book and Stationery 355 South Central Avenue Marshfield, Wisconsin 54449

Dear Lloyd:

Thank you for your letter concerning Liberty Lobby on WCCN. Yes, I took it off the air recently . . . but let's start at the beginning. Since I share many of the views politically that you do, I wanted Liberty Lobby to be on WCCN . . . so I put it on. Of course, we got a little criticism, but some favorable response too, precious little, but we did get some. Most of all, I liked the program, and so we ran it as a public service.

Then the grief started to come, like the letter from Congressman Joshua Eilberg on October 11th, demanding equal time, and the insinuation that the Liberty Lobby program had made unfair attacks on him and he would have to check into it further. There were other such letters and equal time requests, and there is no doubt in my mind that Liberty Lobby was right, and could defend their position. The problem is, I have neither time nor proper legal aid in the defense against these charges nor do I have the time to arrange equal time, and prepare and publish their counter-attacks. Further, it doesn't make all that interesting radio to our listeners. We are continually confronted with the listener's ability to tune his dial to such things as the all music format of WDLB, or the Country Music Giant WAXX just 20 miles west of us . . .

Perhaps I'm getting off the track. Your interest was in the program Liberty Lobby, and I wish we could carry it, but with all the problems it causes, and the letters I have to write, and explanations, and whatever else, it's just too much trouble. Other stations smile

thru it all, read their little commercials, play their records, and count their money. All our 17 plus radio years, we've tried to give all sides . . . whether it be music, news, religious views, and political. We still intend to do this. Every American Party candidate who came to WCCN was given free time. None of them bought any commercials that I recollect which is certainly okay. I understand that. But when I am asked to read on the air, the enclosed matter, a rebuttal to Liberty Lobby, I simply ask myself, "why the hell get all involved in this," when you could be playing Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree . . . and then you wouldn't get any nasty letters, irate phone calls, requests for free time, and lost listeners? . . .

In the future, I will continue to try to present a wide selection of programs, giving publicity to all political and religious views. But Liberty Lobby had to go, because [of] the commotion it caused, and the inability to handle the requests for equal time.

Cordially,

Howie Sturtz II, Pres. WCCN FM & AM Neillsville, Wisconsin 54456

December 30, 1974

Liberty Lobby c/o Information Associates c/o The Ad Agency Incorporated 998 National Press Building Washington, D.C. 20045

Dear Sirs:

During the months that you have been airing your program over this radio station, we have been under tremendous pressure from various groups in the state who have complained bitterly on the content of some of your scripts. We have tried our utmost to withstand these pressures by meeting with these groups and offering them rebuttal time on the air for subjects that they entirely disagree with. In recent weeks complaints from our listeners as well as sponsors have increased materially.

When it reaches this proportion, we have to ask ourselves, is this the programming that the majority of our listeners wish to hear?

In the next few days I have to meet with local groups and individuals on this matter; and when I have heard the reasons behind their complaints, I will contact you further. In the meantime, for the benefit of everyone concerned, your program has been temporarily placed on hold; and we will contact you as soon as possible.

Sincerely.

Jeff Jacobs

Vice President/General Manager WINF Radio 1230 Manchester, Conn. 06040

1 February 1975

Mr. Courtney Smith Community Relations Director Liberty Lobby 300 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003

Dear Mr. Smith:

I regret to tell you that I have been forced to remove Liberty Lobby from our schedule of regularly broadcast programs. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I received from our network president as a confirmation of an earlier telephone call I received from him.

I am also enclosing a copy of an article which appeared in our local morning newspaper, the Pennsylvania Mirror, shortly after we started to carry your program. As you can see it is a follow-up on the cancellation of Liberty Lobby by Mutual and it was, I feel, the article which started the local movement to have us cancel. I have not personally had any complaints on the program; quite to the contrary I've had many laudatory calls and I might also add our local sponsors were thrilled with Liberty Lobby's contents and were quite interested in it.

The entire truth of the matter concerning the cancellation is that economic sanctions were threatened against our entire network, directly to the president of the network and I as a station manager simply have to conform with network policy and desires.

Once again, I'm sorry I have to cancel broadcasts. I too enjoyed Liberty Lobby's contents.

Sincerely.

James F. Kerschner, Jr. Genl Mgr WBLF Allegheny Mountain Networ

As another example, a gentleman from Albuquerque, New Mexico wrote to Liberty Lobby on February 3, 1975 relating that he had telephoned the manager of station KZIA.

"I asked him if it were true that he had been threatened with loss of thousands of dollars' worth of advertising if Liberty Lobby remained on the air. He stated it was true and that they had also been bombarded with all kinds of cards and letters asking that the program be taken off. He apparently regrets that this happened to

the program."

As for the Mutual Broadcasting System itself, the following communication from advertising man Jack Geller (who, you will recall, attended the ADL meeting that officially began the campaign against "This Is Liberty Lobby") speaks eloquently for itself. Note the handwritten mention of another old friend: "Thanks for the copy of the letter from Congressman Eilberg. We need more like him!"

Memorandum from . .

October 28, 1974

RE: LIBERTY LOBBY

Enclosed is a rough draft of the resolution which I will submit to the members of the ADVERTISING LODGE at the next meeting—Nov. 20th. 1974.

I will appreciate your comments and suggestions . . .

JGeller

Thanks for the copy of the letter from Congressman Eilberg. We need more like him!

The membership of ADVERTISING LODGE-B'nai B'rith includes people associated with advertising agencies, newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations and others involved in the advertising business.

At a regular meeting of the ADVERTISING LODGE-B'nai B'rith on Nov. 20, 1974, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas it has been called to our attention that the Mutual Broadcasting System continues to broadcast the series of radio programs sponsored by Liberty Lobby, and

Whereas, Liberty Lobby is in the business of publishing newsletters, books and magazines whose object is to attack and defame American citizens of the Jewish faith, and

Whereas these publications are being promoted and advertised on the facilities of the Mutual Broadcasting System

It is hereby resolved that we condemn as irresponsible and insensitive the practice of any station or network which lends its facilities to the promotion of Liberty Lobby's anti-Jewish bigotry, and it is further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to all affiliates of the Mutual Broadcasting System and other stations which continue to allow themselves to be used for these purposes.

As things got hotter, what had started as good cooperation be-

tween Mutual and Liberty Lobby began to suffer tremors. Liberty Lobby leaders met with Mutual executives to try to bolster the now shaky foundations of the arrangement. Despite Liberty Lobby's standing agreement to indemnify Mutual in case of lawsuits, Mutual was showing definite signs of fear. MBS wanted "This Is Liberty Lobby" to stop broadcasting advertisements for the sale of the America First publication—a copy of which is reproduced as Appendix A—because of the ADL's complaints that the treatise was anti-Semitic. In the course of trying to appease the ADL and its army of followers, Mutual began changing the tapes sent to the network by Liberty Lobby, switching advertisements and making unauthorized substitutions.

Then, during one of the frequent Middle Eastern crises generated by Israel, MBS suddenly refused to broadcast two taped programs that had been scheduled for immediate use. The sworn affidavit of Bob Bartell, Liberty Lobby's radio commentator, concerning his meeting with Edward Little, president of Mutual Broadcasting System, tells the reason:

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT M. BARTELL

WASHINGTON, D.C. SS:

ROBERT M. BARTELL, being first duly sworn, deposes and says

On or about November 10, 1974, I had a conversation with Ed Little, privately, in his office at the World Trade Center in Washington. He was adamant that the terrorist scripts not be carried on Mutual and wanted our assurance that we would never repeat like scripts for broadcast. Obviously we could not agree, and I said so.

He then informed me that his hands were tied. Jewish advertisers had threatened to cancel \$600,000 worth of advertising on MBS if Liberty Lobby were not kicked off the air. They could even lose more than \$1 million if this happened, he said

"Much as I believe in your right to say what you want, I am president of Mutual because I can make it show a profit. I can't show a profit if my advertisers cancel their advertising contracts."

I told him we felt he had abrogated the terms of [our] contract by arbitrarily cancelling the two shows he cancelled, and that we wanted them aired, and that we had the right to say what we wanted to say, inasmuch as we were paying for it.

Actually, I think he would have gone along with us if he felt he could do it without losing revenue, but this does not negate the fact that he did indeed prevent us from exercising our right to free speech in order to assure his network's income from "Jewish advertisers," to quote Little.

Robert M. Bartell

WASHINGTON, D.C. SS:

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, this 24th day of September, 1979.

Lois Petersen

My commission expires: January 31, 1984

The documents that follow tell vividly the story of what happened when Mutual refused to carry Liberty Lobby's highly topical programs, copies of which were included in the second document below. The ultimate tragedy was that the Liberty Lobby-Mutual contract was terminated, effective January 31, 1975.

November 14, 1974

Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc.

918 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Att'n: Mr. C. Edward Little, President

Dear Ed:

This letter will review the unfortunate situation which has come to pass between Mutual and LIBERTY LOBBY.

On Thursday, November 7, as usual we submitted tapes for broadcast the following week, Monday through Friday, November 11-15. These tapes were as follows:

M-136 Terrorism

M-137 Aid to Israel & Fulbright

M-138 Letter to Ford

M-139 Rocky & the Plumbers

M-140 Who's John Connally?

The tapes were received by your office about noon

At approximately 5 p.m. the following afternoon, Friday, November 8, Mr. Jack B. Clements, your Vice President in charge of programs, telephoned our office and talked to Mr. Robert Bartell Mr. Clements advised Mr. Bartell that he, speaking for Mutual, flatly refused to run tapes M-136 and M-137.

Mr. Bartell immediately reached me in Los Angeles and advised me of this development. I suggested that as a first step the scripts should be reviewed by our Chairman, Col. Curtis B. Dall, and three other individuals

About 5:20 p.m. Mr. Bartell called again and said that Col. Dall and the others who had reviewed the scripts agreed that they were truthful, newsworthy and not objectionable. I said that I would telephone Mutual and advise them of our view and our insistence that the programs be transmitted over the Mutual wire as scheduled.

Immediately after then I began trying to reach you, calling person-to-person at the number listed in the Washington telephone book: (202) 785-6300. I called four separate times. The first three times this number was answered by a different male voice. The first time the operator and me were left on the line. The second time I was told that you were "upstairs" and again [was] left hanging. The third time I was told that you had left for the day; however, I persisted and was advised to call a different number: 785-6383. The fourth time I was told by a female voice (your secretary, I believe) that you were not available because you were on a long distance telephone call. I left my number for you to call back. The time was 5:45 or 5:50 p.m.

However, you did not call me back. The following morning I called our office and spoke to our Executive Secretary, Mr. Bernard DeRemer. I dictated the following letter to you to him and asked him to personally read it to you.

"We insist and demand that the Mutual Broadcasting System carry the LIBERTY LOBBY programs scheduled by us for next week in full and without alteration, change or substitution. We will defend our First Amendment right of freedom of speech or of the press to the fullest, and will not tolerate any form of censorship of the truth by the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Anti-Defamation League, Nelson Rockefeller or anyone else."

Mr. DeRemer read the letter to you at 12:30 p.m. Shortly afterward, it was delivered to your office by Mrs. Carol Dunn, Secretary of the Board of Policy [of Liberty Lobby]. Mrs. Dunn attempted to get a receipt from a guard for the letter whereupon the guard called you and you refused to give him permission to sign for it. Mrs. Dunn left the letter in your office and departed.

The following Monday, November 11, the program scheduled for Wednesday, M-138 was played and on Tuesday the Thursday program was played, M-139. On Wednesday, Nov. 13 an outdated, emergency standby program was played which referred to "the coming elections" and which was of very poor quality audially.

On Tuesday, Nov. 12, we received your certified letter dated Monday in which you terminated our contract effective January 31, 1975.

the programs which you suppressed. On Wednesday morning the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and undoubtedly most other newspapers reported on the comments of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff referring to the "Israeli lobby" and the "control" this un-American force exercises over Congress—a major theme of our program M-137 which the Mutual Broadcasting System obviously wishes to conceal from the American voters and taxpayers.

Instead of airing the topical programs scheduled for Monday and Tuesday you aired M-138 and M-139. Both of these programs dealt with Vice Presidential nominee, Nelson A. Rockefeller and were originally scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the first two days of the re-opening of the Rockefeller hearings before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. By airing these two programs on Monday and Tuesday their relevance to the predominant news of the day was missing and their effectiveness destroyed. As mentioned, on Wednesday, the day the hearings opened, you played the old emergency tape having to do with the Panama Canal and making reference to the "forthcoming elections."

By destroying the orderly presentation of our radio schedule you not only seriously damaged the effectiveness, attractiveness and topicality of our program but you made nonsense of the ending of program M-139 which referred to the program scheduled for Friday, not to the one which was aired.

Your arbitrary and capricious and discriminatory order that for the balance of our contract we cannot air programs relating to certain topics which you proscribe puts us at a serious disadvantage and is additionally damaging to LIBERTY LOBBY. For instance, Yasser Arafat appeared on the interview program of the American Broadcasting Company last Sunday (the day before our similar program was scheduled over your network) and said in no uncertain terms almost exactly what we had scheduled for the following day. His statements were picked up by every major network, both TV and radio. And the following day the news media carried stories about riots in Israel because of the devaluation of the Israeli pound. Yesterday, Arafat was interviewed by the media and again said many of the things we said in the two programs which you have suppressed.

We feel that your decision to censor and suppress the truth and to prohibit the discussion of issues which are vital to the American people and to the security of the United States is not only an intolerable restriction on our freedom of speech and our obligation to report factually on these issues but it is also a contemptuous act against the right of the American people to know, and an extremely serious attack against the very concept of a free society.

In our personal meeting of October 10 you expressed your fear that Mutual might lose revenue from advertising agencies unless you dropped our program and capitulated to these threats. However, this does not release Mutual from its primary obligation to the radio stations it purports to represent and serve and to the American people. Sincerely,

Willis A. Carto

Copies to interested parties Via air mail, certified return-receipt requested

LIBERTY LOWDOWN, December 1974, Number 135

A VICTORY FOR THE ADI

Is the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech meant to apply only to those who support one particular side of a conflict many thousands of miles from the U.S.?

Or is the First Amendment meant also for Americans who feel that intervention in either side would be a tragic mistake, and who desire neutrality for their country in such a conflict?

As ridiculous as it may seem to ask the question, this is the precise issue raised by the action of the Mutual Broadcasting System in canceling its contract with LIBERTY LOBBY.

POLICIES AND INTERESTS

On Apr. 15, 1974 LIBERTY LOBBY signed a contract with the MBS whereby the network agreed to transmit LIBERTY LOBBY's daily radio program to its affiliated stations for an agreed fee. The contract stated that MBS had the right to eliminate any material which would be contrary to the "policies and interests" of MBS.

When news of this event was made known, the Anti-Defamation League stepped up its campaign to have LIBERTY LOBBY removed from the air. The ADL is an arm of the government of Israel, which of course has a great interest in keeping the American taxpayers ignorantly supporting Israel in its war with the Arabs. Should the taxpayers ever discover through the media the truth about Israeli aggression and the extent they are forced to support Israel through conduits and methods which are far too numerous and devious to mention, and if they were ever to comprehend the terrible danger of involvement in nuclear war because of our one-sided policy in the Mideast, there would be an abrupt change in American policy, which would be damaging to the cause of Zionism.

Shortly after implementation of the contract, Mutual officials began complaining about the content of some of LIBERTY LOBBY's programs. Some of this criticism was directed at programs which were unflattering of Nelson Rockefeller. But most was concerned with LIBERTY LOBBY's mention of the Mideast crisis.

One suggestion was that no further offers of the paper America First be made on the air. This document explains LIBERTY LOBBY's argument for neutrality in the Mideast in detail. It does not advocate support for either the Arabs or the Jews, and it reveals much of the history of Zionism which is suppressed or distorted by the en-

tire American "news media." According to MBS officials, the network was coming under intense pressure from advertising agencies (at the behest of the ADL) to cancel the LIBERTY LOBBY program.

THE AXE FALLS

On Nov. 11 and 12 MBS refused to run the 136th and 137th programs submitted by LIBERTY LOBBY and the contract was canceled effective Jan. 31, 1975.

The complete text of the two suppressed programs follows

The scripts of the two programs referred to above are quoted on pages 22 through 24 of this book. In those radio scripts, censored by a thoroughly intimidated Mutual Broadcasting System, you see the height of the so-called "anti-Semitism" which Liberty Lobby was disseminating over the air waves. Mutual's gumption was at an end, and so was any possibility of a continuing relationship between Mutual and Liberty Lobby.

As might be expected, the ADL was among the first to know

MEMORANDIIM

TO: Midwest Regional Dir FROM: Michael G. Rapp DATE: December 2, 1974

SUBJECT: LIBERTY LOBBY BROADCASTS

cc: Irwin Suall Jerry Bakst Gus Finger

Irwin Suall advises that the Mutual Network Company will be dropping the Liberty Lobby broadcasts at the end of January. Please consider this information confidential until it is announced publicly.

Regards,

If any doubts should remain about the ADL's role in bringing about the cancellation of the Mutual contract, this memorandum of the American Jewish Congress, handed over to Liberty Lobby's lawyers by the ADL without a copy of the ADL memo referred to therein, should squelch them:

December 23, 1974

To: Field Staff

From: Joseph B. Robison

I enclose a copy of a memorandum from the Anti-Defamation League about the Liberty Lobby which includes a list of the stations still carrying its radio program. As the memorandum notes, ADL has persuaded the Mutual network to cease sending this program out to its affiliates but many independent stations are still carrying it. After checking with the local ADL, you should make efforts to persuade these stations to change their policy. Write to the station expressing our views and ask for opportunity to discuss the matter with them

So it went. The Mutual Broadcasting System no longer transmitted "This Is Liberty Lobby." The number of stations broadcasting the program was cut in half—from almost 200 to less than 100. It was not the end of the story, but it was the end of a sad chapter in the history of freedom of opinion and speech in the United States.

IX

The Continuing Struggle

LIBERTY LOBBY BROUGHT LAWSUITS against the ADL once the role of the Israeli front came to light. From the point of view of the Liberty Lobby headquarters on Capitol Hill, the machinations of the ADL were at first a mere suspicion based on past experience. Then a clue would be dropped here and there as to what was going on behind the scenes. A radio listener would write in complaining of the sudden disappearance of "This Is Liberty Lobby" from his local station and telling of inquiries made to the broadcaster: "The station manager said the station had been threatened with loss of advertising by a group of Jewish businessmen . . ." or "The owner told me he just could not handle the pressure of organized complaints and constant demands for time to answer Liberty Lobby whenever they mentioned Israel."

Liberty Lobby filed a lawsuit at the beginning of 1975 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The persons sued ultimately included the Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Seymour Graubard (national chairman of the ADL), and Arnold Forster (general counsel of the ADL). It was a difficult case to begin with, not only because of the skillful and carefully tutored deviousness of the

ADL's tactics, but also because the legal system recognized few remedies for such a situation.

For those interested in reading it, a copy of the federal court complaint is included in this book as Appendix C. It claimed that the ADL violated Liberty Lobby's First Amendment constitutional rights (freedom of speech). It also alleged a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (which prohibits the elimination of competition through unfair means) and improper interference with contract.

Lawsuits move with glacial slowness as a rule, replete with written motions, long arguments, and delays while judges make up their minds which party is right about what. In the meantime, while waiting to find out whether the case will ever get to a jury for trial or will be dismissed first by the judge on some ground or other, the opposing parties have the right to require one another to answer quesions and produce materials (documents of all kinds, for example) which might yield information of use in the proceedings.

In the Texas federal case, the defendants (the people being sued) moved the court to dismiss the case for the reason that the complaint did not state grounds on which Liberty Lobby could be granted a trial in that court. Thus very little of interest occurred until finally, in August 1976, the federal district judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying in effect that the Constitution of the United States prohibited interference with freedom of speech by the government, but not by private (non-governmental) persons such as comprised the ADL. The court also held that the antitrust laws applied only to competition involving goods and services, and not to competition among disseminators of ideologies and political ideas.

Liberty Lobby appealed the District Court decision, but the dismissal of its lawsuit was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in June 1978. The appellate court said Liberty Lobby's recourse might be in State court.

Liberty Lobby, in 1976, had already brought a second legal action in a Texas State court, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court of McLennan County, located in Waco. In that suit the ADL, Graubard, and Forster were once more defendants. The complaint on which the case was based is printed here as Appendix D. It eventually (as amended) contained several different causes of action

(legal theories on which Liberty Lobby sought damages from the defendants), and the defendants found it impossible to have the complaint dismissed as they had in the federal case. The discovery process continued for many months. Depositions were taken; many pounds of documents were produced. What you have seen here in this book is the distillation of everything of significance that was gathered and learned.

The ADL's task of defending itself was made easier by its apparent almost effortless ability to get lawyers on a "pro bono" basis—that is, free of charge. Ironically, pro bono is part of a Latin phrase that translates, "for the public good." ADL records show that many different attorneys worked on their side of the case in proceedings which would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if paid for, while Liberty Lobby had at first two attorneys, and then three, none of whom worked gratis. Liberty Lobby believes, based on the evidence of ADL memoranda and letters, that lawyers could be persuaded to give so much of their time away for one or both of two reasons: (1) They had important, financially valuable clients who were closely involved ADL supporters and who persuaded the attorneys that it would be in their best interests to give free time to such a worthy (and perhaps indirectly rewarding) cause. (2) The attorneys themselves might be closely linked to the ADL, or perhaps in some way dependent upon its good graces.

Another thing in the ADL's favor in the lawsuit was the remarkable fact that despite the casualties they had wrought, and despite the important battle they had won in depriving Liberty Lobby of the Mutual network, "This Is Liberty Lobby" was being heard on more and more, rather than fewer and fewer, radio stations. Although the clear fact was that ADL interference with the growth of "This Is Liberty Lobby" had retarded the growth of the program, this fact would be virtually impossible to prove in a court of law. Obviously, "damages" can be proven only to the extent of property taken from one. How could Liberty Lobby hope to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that if it had not been for the activity of the ADL its radio program would have grown by not merely 100 stations but double, treble, quadruple or even more that amount?

It had become obvious that the case had bogged down. Months were being consumed in legal maneuvers with the ADL's "free" lawyers as they fought to keep the case away from a jury trial. The

attitude of the judge was questionable. Could he be influenced by the ADL? As hope for legal recompense faded to nothing, expenses mounted.

On the positive side of the ledger, however, the discovery process had been completed and secret ADL records documenting that subversive organization's modus operandi—the records upon which this book is based—had been produced, in itself a historic feat. With this accomplished, quiet consideration was given to dropping the suit at the first opportunity.

That opportunity came when the judge in Texas, under ADL prodding, ordered Carto to travel to Texas to be questioned on matters having nothing to do with the suit. This order was unnecessary and constituted the one procedure the judge had at his disposal which was most cumbersome and time-consuming for all concerned, including himself, and most expensive to Liberty Lobby. Instead of ordering the witness to come to Texas he could have simply ordered him to answer some questions he had previously refused because they were immaterial to the issues involved. At this point the bias of the judge became clear and it was decided to put an end to the suit, which was dismissed on June 6, 1980.

The growth of "This Is Liberty Lobby" to several hundred stations around the country was certainly not the result of any ADL abandonment of its war against freedom of speech. Liberty Lobby and its radio program continued to grow and prosper in spite of strenuous efforts by the ADL to stop it. Perhaps the pending lawsuits muffled the ADL efforts with extra caution for a while, but the efforts never stopped.

Witness this documentations

Irwin Suall

Isadore Zack

March 11 1975

Liberty Lobby

In reply to your memo of March 5, I want to report that the following stations in New England continue to use the Liberty Lobby radio program:

WLKN Lincoln, Maine
WRYT Boston, Mass.
WDFV Waterbury Vermon

Missing from the latest list is WINF, Manchester, Connecticut. This is the station that Mal Webber was having trouble with and I have asked him for verification to the listing which indicates that they have dropped the program.

IZ:dw

cc: Ted Freedman

Jerry Bakst Mort Kass

On August 7, 1975, a listener to station KZIA in Albuquerque wrote to the station owner protesting the dropping of "This Is Liberty Lobby" by KZIA. She sent a copy to Liberty Lobby. She wrote:

For those citizens who do not know what happened, LIBERTY LOBBY criticized Israel . . . This act [dropping of the program] is not only un-American but unconstitutional! However, as Jay Howard, your station-manager, explained to me over the telephone when I protested . . . three advertising Jewish merchants, threatened to cancel their contracts with KZIA—a suppression of free speech in the United States. What gall! And as Mr. Howard continued, "KZIA cannot afford to lose their contracts amounting to \$14,000."

The next memo makes it clear that the ADL would not be satisfied with mere partial censorship—only with total obliteration.

MEMORANDIIM

TO: Irwin Suall

FROM: Melvin I. Cooperman DATE: December 3, 1976

SUBJECT: LIBERTY LOBBY BROADCASTS

Our old friend, Howard Warshaw, President of Universal Broadcasting Company (WTHE, Mineola, NY; KUXZ, Minneapolis; KEST, San Francisco) called to discuss a recent Kojak TV episode (no problem) and FCC's employment quotas (a problem).

I asked him if he was still carrying the Liberty Lobby programs. He said only one of his stations, KEST, was still carrying them "on a selective basis." It seems Warshaw, instead of refusing to carry them, previews them, and employs his own little censorship.

I told him that we do not approve of either deletion of words or phrases or selective broadcasting, but that he had to make his own decisions about the need for their money.

A recheck of distribution might be in order. It appears that LL does [not] have the money it had a short time ago, as they are eliminating some of the stations and trying to get local communities to pay for the time (about \$500 per month).

cc: Justin Finger Jerome Bakst Mort Kass

But the ADL never ceased trying to cover its steps, maintain its subterfuge, and discipline its minions into the status of obedient parrots. The following memo is also important as revealing a bit of the tip of the iceberg of collaboration between the ADL and the state of Israel

Randy Koch

Irwin Suall

November 23, 1976

Liberty Lobby

I am responding to your memo of November 17, 1976, in which you ask me to supplement material on Liberty Lobby which you sent, at her request, to Tami Teach of the Israeli Embassy. Through this memo, I am asking Jerry Bakst, in charge of providing information to our regional offices, to respond to your request. I am also sharing with him a copy of your memo to me, which will indicate what you have already sent to her.

At the same time, I want to call to your attention certain statements in your letter to her which are either inaccurate or doubtful.

• 1. It is not correct that the National Alliance is the youth arm of Liberty Lobby. I have no idea where you got that information.
• 2. You state that Liberty Lobby has "developed considerable financial largesse from sectors of American industry." I know of no such "sectors of American industry" funding Liberty Lobby. If you have information which we do not have on this subject, please share it with me. Obviously, it would be of great interest to us.
• 3. You state incorrectly that ADL persuaded the Mutual Broadcasting Network to cease transmission of the Liberty Lobby program. We did no such thing. We did share with Mutual documented information as to the nature of Liberty Lobby, but left the decision as to whether to continue these broadcasts up to Mutual itself. The decision to discontinue was theirs alone.

From the above, it should be apparent to you that much greater caution and precision is necessary than you have used in your letter to Ms. Teach, whenever you respond to requests for information. In the future, when you receive requests of this kind, I suggest that you dip into our printed materials, press releases, etc. for the exact language to be used in characterizing organizations that are of concern to ADL.

Best regards.

IS:mef

cc: Bob Kohler, Zev Furst, Jerry Bakst, Mort Kass

One who learned his lines better recited them in this letter to a radio station official:

MANNY GARLIKOV INSURANCE 1207 Central Avenue Phone: (513) 424-1848 Middletown, Ohio 45042

September 19, 1978

Dear Earl.

As per our conversation this morning, I am enclosing background info on Liberty Lobby.

I am aware that the radio station is broadcasting this material

I am also aware that responsible media of all kinds have labeled Liberty Lobby as anti-semitic, a disseminator of anti-semitic material, a source of anti-Jewish propaganda and that some of its leaders have been identified as anti-semites.

The Liberty Letter which is usually advertised on the program, has often carried anti-semitic material.

Listeners who write to Liberty Lobby as suggested on the broadcasts are often sent anti-semitic materials.

While we understand that all legitimate points of view are entitled to be heard on the air, responsible broadcasting does not include the promotion of an organization which disseminates hatred.

This not is not intended to be threatening or disrespectful to the operation of your ratio station. We also know that the station has perfect right to determine what to broadcast. But as I said to you on the phone, I would hope that the station management will rethink its decision to the carry the programs of a group steeped in religious prejudice and bigotry.

Thanks.

Manny

The unfortunate success of the ADL in scaring off some radio stations is illustrated in this letter, dated February 23, 1978, from a

gentleman in Wyoming who wrote to a Liberty Lobby representative after speaking to the manager of KPOW.

I set up an appointment to visit with a Mr. Bill Mack the local station manager. When I told him the purpose of my mission his comment was, "I wouldn't touch that program with a ten foot pole" and to further explain, and I quote again, "We almost had our asses sued on that deal once." Quite naturally I prodded him for an explanation and he then related that about five years ago when the Inter Mountain Network was carrying the show some kind of derogatory statement was made about the B'nai B'rith organization was made on a program and the end result was of course a threatened damage suit.

I then asked Mr. Mack if he didn't think there must be quite a lot of informative material in the text of these programs with the amount of station over the U.S. that are carrying it. His response was, "that may well be but I am very content to stay right here in my own little corner, (his plush little office) until such time as conditions change drastically." My comment then was that the day may rapidly be approaching when he may have to come out of that little corner and make a stand. His reaction was that until that time he would stay right there. Oh yes he also gave me a copy of the Fairness Doctrine which he said pretty well limits the type of material they are able to use on radio.

The following letter from Wisconsin tells the same kind of story:

Liberty Lobby

Chalk up another victory for the ADL and assorted enemies of our constitution. WCCN-Neillsville has canceled Liberty Lobby. Your light flickered for a while in our area and now there is again darkness. Naturally I voiced my complaint to the manager—received double talk. They're just plain scared.

Keep up the good work.

Thank you.

On the other side of the ledger, brave souls went on fighting back. The note is from the manager of WLTD in Evanston, Illinois, following pressure by the ADL to bring about the discontinuance of "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcasts on that station.

Mr. Bartell

Enclosed is a photo-copy of a letter we received from the B'nai B'rith. We will not and can not let these people tell us what we can

put on the air. In 1967 during the Six Day War they boycotted my station in Chicago, because I did not run spots for their benefit.

Frank Kovas

August 16, 1983

Mr. Michael C. Kotzin Regional Director Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana Regional Office 1175 College Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43209

Dear Mr. Kotzin:

I received your letter and enclosures about "Liberty Lobby" and Willis Carto and read it.

I find it unbelievable that you would even suggest that an "All-News" Radio Station limit the "Freedom of Speech."

For your information, we have also had calls objecting to the Public Service announcements that we run for the B'nai B'rith.

Just yesterday I heard a preacher on radio say "only Christians are going to heaven." (Personally, I don't believe that for one minute.) But that's Freedom of Speech and we must use our own common sense.

It appears that from the letter you wrote, with carbon copies to local Rabbis, that this is an attempt to apply pressure tactics on us to influence our programing policies.

Sincerely yours.

Frank Kovas Owner/General Manager WGL Radio

FK/mb

cc: Rabbi Safran

The ADL also went on with its attempts to spy out (and of course neutralize if possible) anyone giving Liberty Lobby material support.

Pennsylvania-West Virginia-Delaware Regional Office ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE Of B'nai B'rith 225 S. 15th Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 (215) PE 5-4267 Harry Rosenkranz

Samuel Lewis Gaber

April 30, 1976

"The Spotlight"

Dear Harry:

I am addressing this request to you in hopes that you can initiate the process for fact-finding.

We have been requested to ascertain the individual and/or company which is located at Suite 200, 372 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2X2. A copy of "The Spotlight" (a Liberty Lobby publication) was mailed from Toronto to Pittsburgh in a business reply envelope of the recipient. The Toronto, Ontario postage meter number is 145021. For your information, I have tried to xerox the return address and meter postage.

Will you be good enough to follow this up for me. I will owe you another in a long series of great assistances you have given to me.

Best regards.

SLG:trb

att.

c: Theodore Freedman

Justin Finger Jerome Baks Mort Kass Irwin Suall

Sometimes the ADL espionage—which frequently makes use of agents who conceal their real purposes and who are chosen because they look the part of someone who would not be expected to work for the ADL—had amusing consequences. The next few ADL documents tell the tale and hint at kinks in the spy system.

MEMORANDUM

To: Mark Briskman

From: Charles F. Wittenstein

Date: May 20, 1977

Subject: Liberty Lobby Financial Reports 1975 and 1976.

Listed below are contributors of \$500 or more to Liberty Lobby

from your region:

Sylvia R. Turner, Dallas, Texas \$2,000

Please provide us with up-to-date information on each of these

persons. Send the results of your fact-finding efforts directly to Irwin Suall with copies to Bakst, Kohler, Teitelbaum and me.

Many thanks for your cooperation on this.

Charles

CFW:cr

cc: Irwin Sual

Jerome Bakst Robert Kohler

Arthur N. Teitelbaum

MEMORANDUM

To: Irwin Suall

From: Mark Briskman

Subject: Sylvia R. Turner, Dallas

On May 20, 1977, Charles Wittenstein sent me a memo requesting information on the above subject. She had contributed \$2000 to the Liberty Lobby. Our initial investigation pinpointed a Sylvia Turner in Dallas. T.D. visited Ms. Turner who turned out to be a Black person. After a limited discussion it became obvious that Ms. Turner had nothing to do with Liberty Lobby.

Before we continue our investigation, do you have any address or telephone number? Any information would be helpful.

Thank you and best regards

MR:mr

cc: Charles Wittenstein

Jerry Bakst Mort Kass

MEMO

Mark — 6/10

Sorry, I can't give you any leads on this one.

I didn't know you're using TD. Give me a ring & we'll talk about

IS

Who is "TD"? A private investigator? A hired assassin? Just one of the interesting little questions one must ask himself about this resourceful organization.

X

The (Un-)American Way

A SIGNIFICANT EPISODE that should be noted in this chronicle of an attack on our country's basic institution of freedom of speech concerns the purchase of Mutual by the Amway company, a nationwide door-to-door sales organization whose name is a contraction of the "American way." Amway bought Mutual in 1977, during the suit.

Amway has the reputation of being a flag-waving, superpatriotic group of happy, proud and clean-cut Americans who want to sell you something with an appeal to your best instincts. It was founded by Jay van Andel and Richard de Vos, who have designedly invoked the greatness and goodness of the American experience to sell their wares through a network of salesmen they have gathered by flaunting their super-patriotism. The two promoters have made many millions of dollars for themselves and they point to their success as exemplifying what each of their salesmen can gain if they, too, pattern their lives after the patriotic example they have modestly set for all to follow.

Because of Amway's self-promotion as fighters for the "American way" it was at first felt by Liberty Lobby that the new owners, to be true to their flag-waving, speechifying precepts, would elect to support Liberty Lobby in the suit their new property had on its hands. This support would have consisted of only one thing: to instruct their new employees at Mutual to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the intimidation they themselves as well as Mutual's advertisers had suffered from the ADL rather than lying about it and stonewalling Liberty Lobby's attorneys, as they were then doing. In return, Liberty Lobby would have dropped Mutual as defendants.

The success of the suit versus the ADL was assured if Mutual

employees would have simply related what had happened. Confronted by the truth sworn under oath as to the un-American pressure of the ADL, the dual-loyalist organization would have wilted like Dracula confronted by the cross.

But ordering that the truth be told proved to be too much for van Andel and de Vos. It was they who wilted before righteousness, not the ADL. Thanks to Amway, the nails were pounded in Liberty Lobby's hopes of litigious success.

Van Andel and de Vos have responded to questions from puzzled salesmen who also support Liberty Lobby by compounding their cowardice and hypocrisy by lies, saying they were unaware of the litigation. The truth is, a Liberty Lobby messenger personally delivered a letter to the two glad-handing hucksters at their Ada, Michigan office dated April 27, 1978 in which they were asked for a conference to discuss the suit. They not only ignored the letter, they permittd the ADL to represent Amway and Mutual with the ADL's own lawyers, by that action stating very emphatically which side they were on.

If Amway truly represents the "American way," may God help

* * *

This story really has no end. It is not just the story of an attack on the First Amendment which came and went. It is not just the story of how a foreign country in a time of military and political crisis attempted to stifle criticism and to manipulate public opinion in the United States. It goes on not only because to this day Liberty Lobby's advertisers, broadcasters and supporters continue to be spied upon, harassed, and threatened by the ADL and its agents, but also because it is part of the ongoing story of the struggle for freedom of belief, thought and speech in the New World. Unless the powers of independent thought and individual courage win out over the ADL and its like, the singular period of liberty and free expression which has brightened this continent since 1776 will give way to the sordid darkness of spiritual and political tyranny under which most of the world has existed since the beginning of humanity.

Appendix A

Liberty Lobby's America First essay was originally published in booklet form in 1971. What follows is the same text, which was reprinted in tabloid form in 1975.

LIBERTY LOBBY presents

The Mideast Problem in the Light of America's Traditional Policy of Non-Intervention

Israel: our next Vietnam?

Most Americans today are confused by various religious and historical myths that surround the question of the formation and destiny of the so-called Republic of Israel. Uninformed Christians believe that Zionism is a religious movement, instead of a political one.

The gravest confusion exists in the realm of the political, however. The philosophy of of the political, however the philosophy of internationalism, which has been assiduously internationalism, which has been assiduously of Americans by a veritable army of well-off financed beatinwashers who aim to bringinanced beatinwashers who aim to bringinanced beatinwashers who aim to bringinanced beatinusely been about a world of perpetual war. In sunfortunately been about sorbed even by millions of Americans who consider themselves patriots.

Thus, most Americans seem subcon sciously to believe that any fight anywhere in the world between two groups justifie this Nation's immediate intervention; the appropriation of millions of dollars and the raising of an army to bring "peace" to the afflicted area.

Only a tiny few Americans ever stop to think that there are at least three sides to any quarrel of foreigners there is one side to each of the antagonists and also the American side. And contrary to the naive and childish Internationalist idea that war are fought between the good and the evil, a Spinora said, they are fought between two "righth" idea.

The question that Americans should answer when viewing the differences of others is not "Which dide is right" and "Which side should America take," but "What are the interests of America."

As simple and as self-evident as this is, the thought is totally alien to most Americans and particularly to their political leaders.

naive answer is not are the Jews or the Arabs righwars but what is to America's best interest? Readers will note that the above mear two what it says, as the authors of this documer

what it says, as the authors of this documen do not mistake the interests of Standard Oi for the national interests of America, and consider that anyone who would consider that anyone who would consider the the profits of a few stateless international financiers and stockholders is unworthy o serious refutation.

Although the judgments in this study appear

Lord Arthur James Balfour – author of notorious Balfour Declaration.

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 1)

to be harsher against Israel and International Zionism than against the Arabs, the reader is respectfully reminded that if he wishes to know the pro-Israel viewpoint, all he has to do is to turn on his television set, buy a newspaper, or contact his nearest politician.

The Republic of Israel is purely the product of the political machinations of one political group—the Zionists—made up largely of atheists lews. Today, we find the Zionists trying of atheist or volve the United States of America in their notice the United States of America in their notice that with the Arabs, whose land has been stolen by the Zionists. This study proposes to contrast the traditional basis of American foreign policy in rejecting "entangling alliances with foreign powers" and the political co-nomic, and military disasters which have always resulted when this historic principle of non-tervention (neutrality) has been forgotten or ignored.

If America is to avoid being swept into the mealstrom of a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East and a resulting World War which would destroy all the fruits of Western culture and civilization, we must stand firm for a policy of neutrality and non-involvement in the Middle East.

Historians have already pointed out that American intervention in the affairs of Europe in 1917 only created new problems for America Within two decades, the fruits of the Versailler Treaty harvested the Second World War. Once again this time, by secret planung of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, the United States experienced its greatest military disaster at Pearl Harbor, which led 10 our involvement in the ancient quarrels of other nations. Yet, in spite of the sacrifice of thousands of American youth and expenditure of billions of the taxpayers money, no lasting accomplishment came out of these two World Wers.

Thousands of American soldiers, almost forgotten, partol the uneasy border between South and North Korea. An uneasy truce, constantly being violated by the North Koreas, reflects the failure of President Dwight D. Eisenhower to secure convincing victory either on the military or diplomatic fronts. Again, the violation of our policy of neutrality has led to the needless death of countless American youths. Our intervention in Asian affairs has led to 'ne upsetting of the subtle balance of power in Asia and has given Soviet Russia the excuse for the building up of the strongest military force in world history "to protect its Asian empire from American encroachment."

Today America is involved in the Vietnam

civil war even though our troops have been ignoniniously withdrawn. Our retreat from Vietnam, after the expenditure of more than 50,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, con-

And although our troops are finally out, the war-torn peninsula remains altame with intense conflict. Our intervention in Victiann was a crime not only to all Victiannesse but to our-selves, and the significance of our shameful defeat is not even vaguely understood by Americans. Our misadventure in Victianam is categorical proof of the total irresponsibility of the internationalist policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" which we have followed since the days of President Woodrow Wiston.

It is clearly established, by all these lessons of the past and present, that American involvement in the affairs of foreign nations is a costly and useless exercise in meddling.

Americans must examine carefully the unend ing propaganda of the Zionists, in the press, or he air, and especially on the floor of Congres Able exponents of Zionist schemes to entangle us in the quarrels and feuds of the Mideast such as Senator Jacob Javits, forget their roles auch as Senator Jacob Javits, forget their roles are always of peace." in the Vietnam conflict, an raise their shrill "war-hawk" cries for intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict. With Zion ists in control of the American press, radio, and TV, the flood of advocates for American intervention are selling the American public a false religio-political sentimentality that "Israel i God's chosen nation—we must save it!" If ou people and leaders ignore the lessons of the pas and involve us in the angers and hates of the

A Definition

Zionism is a secular political movement dedicated to the establishment of a Jewish state. It seeks to transform religious hopes and the yearning for individual freedom into a nationalistic political program. Not until the first Zionist Congress in 1897 did Theodor Herzl call for a "legally secured Jewish home in Palestine." Zionism uses the mask of religion to thide its bilatant nationalism, racism and atheistic philosophy.

clear holocaust and the death of the world we have known and loved.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Our examination of American diplomatic his tory begins with Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, wherein he admonished this young country to guard against foreign entangements "It is our true policy," declared George Washing ton, "to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean saw are now at liberty to do it." This policy of avoiding entanglements and maintaining neutral ty in the Washington presidential tradition was solidified in Thomas Jefferson's first inaugurated address, in which the new President supported the non-interventionist policy of Washington president supported the non-interventionist policy of Washington president supported the non-interventionist policy of Washington Jefferson consuled his fellow citizens to enjoy "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none."

Washington's Great Rule found further expression in the Monroe Doctrine enunciated by President James Monroe in 1823. All Americans know that the Chief Executive here declared that the Western Hennishere was the specific interest of the United States and that the nations of Europe and Asia were to keep out of the Western Hemisphere in terms of military adventure or conquest. We further guaranteed the safety and preservation of these nations within our Western Hemisphere's, geographical area. What many forget is that Monroe added another guarantee, namely: "As long as the other nations of the world respect our area of influence in the Western Hemisphere, we acknowledge that we have no moral right to interfere with the extensions of power by other nations in the other areas of the world." Thus, President Monroe sharply delineated his understanding of the moral basis for Washington's neutrality policy. It may come as a surprise to inany misinformed Americans to learn that the Monroe Doctrine is a two-way street.

As long as our leaders were firm in supporting this doctrine, other nations respected it and observed its restrictions. In 1866 the Monroe Doctrine was invoked to oppose the intervention of France in Mexico which had as its object the stablishment of the Archituke Maximilian as emperor. Again, in the late 1860's, Prevident Grant broadened the Doctrine to forbid the transfer of European territory in the New World from one European power to another.

In 1905 Teddy Roosevelt added what was to become known as the "Roosevelt Corollary" to the Montroe Doctrine. President Roosevelt corollary become known of the principle that "clironic wrong-doing or an impotence resulting in the general loosening of the ties of civilized society on the part of a country in the Western Hemisphere might require the United States to exercise an international police power." Roosevelt's forceful declaration was generated by the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean area, where the naives of the British and German Finger were setting up blockades of the Venezuelan coast.

The Pan American Contrence of 1943 reasserted that no country in the New World could be transferred from one power to another, and the U.S. was authorized to act unitaterally in an empreparty to inforce this principle.

One more recent example of this application of the Monroe Doctrine occurred in 19th 2 when President John F. Kennedy instituted a maral blockade around Cuba and announced a maral quarantine of the Island." After secret negotiations and an agreement, not yet made public, between the President and the leaders in the Kremlin, the missiles were "officially removed!" from Cuba. Our last foray in the New World under the Monroe Doctrine was in 1965 when U.S. Marines were sent into the Dominican Republic to quell a Communist-inspired revolution.

After reading this profile of Washington's and defferson's advice to stay clear of involvement with foreign nations outside the Western Hemisobere, it is valid to pause and ask how we

(Continued on Fige 3)

Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis

• his dual political interest with Zionism and
  with the Balfour Declaration was carefully con-

An American-built Israeli Phantom jet. The U.S. government is sending 42 more F4 Phantoms and 90 Skybawk jets to support new Zionist territorial expansion.

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 2)

shipped up and permitted ourselves to become involved in two World Wars and several "local wars." Again, a review of history is requised to a full comprehension of both of these twin diseases and the conspiratorial webs that ensured our government. Though Americans detest war, we have lost hondredes of thousands of our tighting men in both World Wars in the effort to make the world safe for democracy. The critical question arises, "Why did America permit itself to be hatted into these terrible wars." Most Americans remain worldily uninformed as to the whys and wherefores of the manenering which surreptationsly nudged the United States of America into those holleans.

THE SECRET PATH TO WORLD WAR

In 1916, the political parties of the U.S sensed the mond of the electorate as calling to neutrality. The majority of citrzens left the quarrels of Europe were their own family affairs owe there. Woodrow Wilson, hyportically, was run ning as the candidate who "kept us out of war." The Republican platform also called for a "stric and honest neutrality in the European War. The Democratic platform condemned the effort of every organization "that has for its object the advancement of the interest of a foreign power." Then, on January 22, 1917, President Wilson told the Congress: "We do not desire any hostile conflict with the Imperial German Government we are the sincere friends of the German geopland earnestly desire to remain at peace with the overnment that seaks for them."

While the American people were thus fulled into the belief that both political parties were "peace parties," already, hidden events were pushing Wilson towards a warlike position.

THE EVIL GENIUS," OR "MENTIONING THE UNMENTIONABLE"

As one traces American steps of intervention toward both World Wars, historians find it essential to examine the part which Zionism has played in getting Americans to fight Europea wars and then expose the real political objective of the Zionists. When one attempts to point out the part played by Zionists in getting us intowar, the cry is immediately made that "you arants-Semitic." This, many times, frightens the unsuspecting Instorian and closes his inquiry fixed this immediately among the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the properties of the pr

(Addly enough, one can successfully speak of German history without being branded and German; one can discuss the Irish, the Poles or Islams, without fear of reprisal, But let one dissecusive the origins of the present Arab-Israeli coubility and unless the Jews are cast in nothing but the most glowing terms the anti-Semitic chargeyenings forward like some reflex, ackulated in infinindate and gag any concessions in behalf of Yet, we cannot trace American intervention in World War I and our abandonment of Got Washington's naturetion. To avoid entangling alliances? Without examining Joinson and its role upsting the United States into war. So, without apology, we must next trace the steps by which Zomists have pushed gentile nations into bitter conflict with other gentile nations in order for the Zonish nation to rise triumphant out of the discords and ruins of the govim nations.

ZIONISM IS NOT JUDAISM

Zionism is an unknown quantity to mosclear, and that is that Zionism is not Judaism not is it Jewry. Zionism is an international am not is it Jewry. Zionism is an international am cultural scheme to exhibits a Jewith homelun in what was Jornierly known as Palestine and it now Israel. Zionism was Founded not by Abraham or Moses, but by Theodor Herzl, Ilungarian journalist, in 1897, Herzl was Jewish but there are many non-Jewish Zionists an many Jewish non-Zionist.

There was only one small difficulty will letral's dream of setting up this Zionist home land in Palestine: 93 per cent of its inhabitant were Arabs, and this had been historically true for nineteen centuries. It is true that more that three thousand years ago the area was invaded and conquered by bands of Hebrews and imixed multitude" of others, but the blood relationship between these Biblical peoples an modern Jews, after more than 100 generations is faint to say the least. But Arab preponderane among the inhabitants did not dampen the entusiasm of the Zionists. Only some "justification" was needed to rationalize or excuse the incursion by the Jews of the Diaspora (thos scattered throughout the world) into the territory of another ocoole.

Then as now, many people were appalled a this nervy design of "ingathering" the Jews into Palestine at the cost of dislodging the Arab na three, who for centuries had farmed the hand hought Palestine some measure of stability However, then as now, people were silenced in their rational objections to such an unjust pro

It was Jacob de Hass, an intimate of the lats Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandels, wh wrote that "Zionists purposely used the wor Jow synonomously with Zionist to give politica Zionism protection from criticism enjoyed by religious Judaism." Writing in its Devadence of Judaism in Our Time, Moshe Menuhin says tha Zionism has served to "stullity, brainwash an inoculate the amorphous body of world Jewry with the virus of secular, rampant Jewish politi cal nationalism, Jewish chication under the pre tence of spiritual and religious immunity or lib erty has been instituted everywhere."

BACKGROUND OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION

The origin of modern Israel has nothing to de with any religious miraele, but is instead the product of international politics of the mos world and treacherous kind. To see what has pened, begin with 1915, when the imperialist British were fighting a war against an imperialist Germany which had threatened England's interests in the Mideast. At that time, in order to easi the support of the Araba against the Germanis the British promised the Araba soweriginty ove Palestine, provided that the Araba would revolute against the Turks, who then held the area further, and the provided with Germany, was an enemy o England in World War L.)

The Arabs, believing the promises of the British to liberate them from the Turks obliingly revolted and, after an exceedingly blood and hard-tought campaign, helped Genera

The first of a long and tragic series of be trayals now began, and the British welshed or their pledges to the Arabs. Instead of turning over the administration of Palestine to Arabs than chemical to heave it for thomachemia.

The reason was that England had secretly double-crossed the Arabs, even while the latter were fighting and dying with General Allenby in the campaign against the Turks. To see what happened, we must return to the war in Europe which was then raeine.

By the fall of 1916, the war was bogged down on the Western Front. The Germans, fighting or two fronts, were heavily occupied with Russia and it was not until their decisive victory at Tannenherg that the Kaiser was able to begin to give more attention to fighting against the British and French.

England had tried everything possible to in duce America to enter the war on her side; but America's historic policy of non-intervention was too strong to permit the United States to be a catspaw for the ambition of international in terests. Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 191 on the sloran. "He kent us out of war."

Within a few weeks a secret deal was cocluded, and immediately the powerful Zionis of America launched a propaganda campaign to bring the hapless Americans into a war for the they did not remotely comprehend. At the sammel, time, Wilson's key advisers, Supreme Coul, Justice Louis D, Brandeis and Colonel E. Mandel House, went to work on the President.

BALFOUR PAYS OFF TO THE ZIONISTS

It did not take long, only five or six months for the powerful international Zionist con spiracy to bring America into the war. The slo gan selected by the war criminals was, "Make the world safe for democracy."

Wilson, pressed by the Zionists, who foresaw fruition of their dreams in the British promises was caught on his own dagger of campaign promises. Peruaded by Justice Brandels and the cabal, Wilson sought anxiously to find a way out of his campaign declarations of neutrality. The Zionist-influenced press renewed headline protests relating to the (by then) two-year-old sinking of a British ship, the Lustianta. The new papers created a war scare response in the American public; and when President Wilson wen before Congress and bold of the sinking on onther British ship on which American public material strength of the congress and form of the protest of the congress and form of the protest of the Congress and American public rentiedly crited out for revenge and war. Five

(Continued on Page 4

American-made Skyhawk Missiles on parade israel. Not satisfied with these, the Zionists at demanding that bigger and better U.S. rocke

Page

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 4)

cotted the U.N. "Hearings on Partition," claiming that the Arabis 'sole right to Palestine was involable, and based on tour premises. (1) The natural right or the people for remain in possession of the land of its birthright should be valid. (2) Palestinian Arabis base fived in majority numbers in Palestine toi over 1300 years. (3) At the time of the Partition amounteed by Gowers of the United Nations, the Arabis were the rightful owners of most of the homes and fields with the Partition gave to the Zionist Jews. (4) In addition to these valid claims, the Arabis charged that partition by the U.N. would be illegal, improper, and unnecessary.

Gen. Moshc Dayan - Israel's Defense Minister. advocates a constant Zionist territorial expansion policy.

SO-CALLED "WAR OF LIBERATION" (TERRORISM

Although the Second World War was exploing, the Zionists found time to conduct the so-called "War of Liberation" to get the British authorities out of Palestine, In 1946 the notion ous Stern Gang blew up the King David Hotel Jerusalem, which was the official headquefer for the British mandate authority, and killed on injured hundreds. The Zionist undergroum waged a full-scale guerrilla war of harassment to drive the British out; and the situation bearing so intolerable that the British attempted to return its mandate authority to the U.N.

Surprisingly, the United Nations turned down a proposal for the partition of Palestine, to be determined by the International Court of Justice and also, by another vote, denied its own com petency to deal with the problem.

However, May 14, 1948 the British pulled out of Palestine and the Zionist Lews, without permission of the U.N., announced they had taken over a major portion of Palestine and had proclaimed it a Jewish state called Israel. The Jews based (???) their claims on their statements that Palestine was "the birthplace of the Jewish people" although the Old Testament definitely states that Abraham, progenitor of the Jews, was born in the faraway Kingdom of Ur, and did not reach Palestine until he was over 75 years old.

PRESSURE ON TRUMAN

Interestingly enough, the intensive pressure that the Zionists generated in this country to gain support for the carving up of Palestine is described by former President Harry S. Truman in a piece which appeared in the January 1956 issue of LIF Mayazine:

"I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda amed at the White House as I had his instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Comist leaders extracted by potitical motives and engaging in political finitives of potitical motives and engaging in political finitives and groups asked me, usually in rather quarrelsome and emotional ways, to stop the Arabs, to formsh American solders to do this and to do that and the other."

In spite of the above statement, the actual historical fact remains that Mr. Truman had entered into a secret agreement with the Zionist leaders; and just 11 minutes after the Zionist declaration of Palestinian partition and independence on May 14, the President "recognized a Jewish state now exists." The President's formal recognition of this coup d'etat came while the General Assembly of the U.N. was in session, bitterly considering the U.N. proposal for trusteeship of all Palestine. Insiders knew that Truman had acted on the urgent pressure of David K. Niles and Judge Sam Rosenman, with-

out even informing the U.S. delegation at the U.N. or his own State Department of his intentions. Thus the President disregarded international law, and sold out the best interests of the United States. Hastily assembling top State Department officials and the American ambassa dors to Mideast countries, the President de clarad:

"I am sorry, Gentlemen, but I have to answer to hun dreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

With this bold note of cynical political opportunism, Truman carved an unenviable position in the archives of those who have sold out Americ to the international bankers of Zoinsim. Today as we retain in all the Arab world only the fragile friendship of Jordan, we can see in retrospec how President Truman, for votes, alienated the friendship and goodwill of over 100 million. Araba and of more than 500 million Multiple Carba and of more than 500 million Multiple.

lere we see, once again, the American polic (Continued on Page 6)

ZIONISTS DESTROY RELIGIOUS SHRINES IN PALESTINE

Editor's Note: Below we carry the complet signed statement of Archbishop Diodoros of Hierapolis, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Amman, Jordan. The statement deals with the destruction of churches and holy places b Zionists who have seized control of the Hol Land. The statement was issued on April I-

Please allow me to introduce myself to the venerable Com-

I am the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of East Bank of Jordan,

I have the pleasure and honour to submit to the estermot commission the following facts in addition to the facts I have offered to the U.N. Human Rights ecommission on 18th August 1909 of which I am attaching a copy, to declare the truth and to bely you in your noble mission to investigate the truth and do justice to a people who had been the victim of a political grounding Zinoin place many varia.

1 — GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH (Nationly of JOHN the

Although the windows, doors, seats and Ikons were smashe yet the ceiling and roof of the Church were also demoists Heaps of garbage and dirt were placed inside and around the

The tombs were untarthed, and the corpus of the parisi priest and of others buried nearby were exhumed, bones and remnants of their bodies were thrown away in between the piles of garbage and in the streets and the place has been trans-

2 — CHURCH OF THE AGED PROPHET SIMON & KATAMON, JERUSALEM.

old convent with an attempt to steal all the valuable antiquitie (floors) after having broken the main door, but the alertness of the Abbot disabled the thieves from performing this objective. The wall around the convent was gradually demolished an

The well around the convent was gradually demolished an the stones stolen, thus converting the convent courtyard to play ground for the Jewish Children and a rendezvous for the teen agers.

3 — ST. MICHAEL CHURCH, JAFFA.

by the Jews and the remaining stateton (4 walls without a rool has been surrounded from all directions by Night Clube an Cabarets.

wous for lowers by the clubs visitors. Thus desecrating the bol ness of this sanctuary and the members of the Greef Orthodo Community in Jaffa are bestumt to visit this Church and the convext owing to its disgressive state.

chate was then forced to be

Amongst the historical rules of this old town there was a

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, but the Jews have completely and totally eradicated them.

Jewith authorities have lifted graves marks, smashed crosses and finally uncerthed the dead bodies lying in that old cross tery. The Patriarchate is now endeavoring to repair these dam ages, if this has not already been done.

Many Clergymen have been subjected to disdain and octompt through splitting and unmodest utterance.

Many Bishous, Clerymen & Nuns have been occuly desnise

by spitting on the crosses and Ikous hanged on their chest Names of such bishops are available if required.

A — Lack of Decemey.

The Jewish Youths normally appeared in rakish forms, un dressed or rather naked, a practice which characterizes the Jewish Society, but which might unfortunately threates an cause serious effects on the new generation of the conservative Arab Society.

The growing numbers of night clubs in the old city of jets salem, for the first time in its long history, are now attracking the indigenous inhabitants — Arab young men — to such discoute even which don't partain to any sense of character as religion and which have shaken and weaknesd the roots of Faith, which was the brand of the Arab Seciety.

The existence of Jewish earthy in the Holy Land forms the greatest catastrophy on all religious, sacred phoes, ideals as the general morals other than the description of ameticaries shrines and religious.

Uncounterly, the growing up generations, will on seek such profilipated scenes and acts, becomes succeptible to series moral breakdown and social corruption, whenese the Hoty CR was the center for high character and proper bringing up an unperme demeanour during the Arab reign and the jerdanic sovereignty.

Authorities and the Jewish people are freely practing in the occupied territory, these forequies facts come to my knowledge through confident religious and public sources and it am ps feetly certain of the actuate of twat contained therein. Thus trespassing on beausen rights, described the Heavy feetly contained the state of the contained the state of the contained the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of t

unjust scatteners, demolithing homess and villages, and conficenting Arab properties in such a way that history never knew of.

Tri-partite international committee would reveal the truth as work hard for its verification.

Archbishop of Hierapolis

President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir get the laugh on America's taxpayers who hav to pay high taxes to support Israel. Each Israeli citizen gets more U.S. aid than American citizens o

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 3) form, a Zionist-controlled Wilson had Americ

In this particular, it is interesting to read (in The Makers of War, written by the Right Hon Francis Neilson, M.P.) the following sidelight on Wilson's call for war: "Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in a story of the 'initinging' of the Sussex in mid-chan nel. Someone (???) had invented the yarn that American lives had been lost. With this exuss he went to Congress for a declaration of war Afterwards the Navy found that the Sussex has not been sunk, and no American lives wen

COLUMN TO DESCRIPTION TO SHOW TO A DAMPE

Authors Jacob de Haas and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, in their book. The Great Betruyal reveal that Louis Dembitz Brandste, leader of the Zionists of America, played a major role in writing and polishing the Balfour Declaration. Early in 1917 Balfour came to Washington and net Brandeis. Actually, the final draft had been sent to Brandeis even before Balfour's secretaries had shown it to their Foreign Secretary employer. Since Brandeis had a close relationship with President Wilson, his dual political interest with Zionism and with the Balfour Declaration was carefully concealed from the public, especially since Wilson had named him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916. Incidentally, Cyrus L. Surberger tells us that Balfour and Prime Min inter Lloyd George both said that by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Zionisistate.

The Balfour Ixectaration-legal foundation for the present state of Israel was formally, if quietly, issued on Nowember 2, 1917. The Dectaration is in the form of a letter from Legaration is in the form of a letter from Legaration is in the form of a letter from Legaration is in the form of a letter from Legaration is under Rothschild. The declaration makes two pledges: "(1) His Majesty's Governent views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate this objective."
(2) A promise is made to the Arabs that "Nothing shall be done to the Arabs which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-lewish communities in Palestine."

Looking back, C. L. Sulzberger, writing in the N.Y. Times of November 3, 1970, wrote: "Conflict was clearly inevitable from the start, be cause it was patently absurd to support the benevolent idea of giving one people a national home in an area where another people was living, and at the same time not to prejudice the latters' rights."

THE WEREAU LES TREATY AND ACTERNIA DO

The War finally ended, but not until 116,708 American men had died, and 204,002 of our men were wounded. Wilson, surrounded by special-interest counselors including Zionists, hastend to break all tradition and steamed across the Atlantic to sit at the Peace Table with the old seasoned diplomats of Europe.

The eyes of all the world centered on the picturesque Palace of Versallies with its beautiful fountains and gardens. However, the Paris Peace Conference which met at Versailles was to produce as the fruits of its deliberations a treaty, the terms of which, according to General Douglas MacArthur, "were more like a treaty of perpetual war than of perpetual peace." Later, British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George had this to say of the Conference.

"The international bankers dictated the reparations settlement... They issued the orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs who knew there was a second from their decisions."

Patriot's Primer, Wiley Sampson

The Arabs came to the Conference with ne great political pressure-group working for them. There were no great blocs of Arab votes or rich American Arab bankers or newspaper magnates in the U.S. or England. Many today are unaware that the provisions of the Treaty of Versaille were so manifestly unfair—e.g., Allied occupa tion of the German Rhineland—that the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the document. Later these provisions for Allied occupation of the German Rhineland served as a German rallying point for Hitler's rise to power, and World Wa 11.

The Conference created the ill-fated and misbegotten League of Nations. Wilson made a fatal mistake in dropping his humanitarian "Fourteen Points" Proposal, and accepting in its place the League of Nations plan, which led to his being personally repudiated by large segments of the American electorate. And the League, as we know, was never ratified by the United States Constr. While American proposals were being voted down by the wily diplomats of Europe, at the same time, behind the scenes, the international bankers backing Zlonism pressured Britain to take a further step in preparing the way for mational home? for the Zlonists. The Paris Conference, under these secret pressures (mainly by American Zlonists) created a new political invention called a "mandate" whereby Britain would govern Palestine. This was satisfactory to the Zlonists since they had been assured by the English that they would receive preferential treatment over the Arabs. as the English were still beholden to the Zlonists for eaching the United States into the war It is interesting to note that the Balfour Declaration was incorporated tornally into the British Mandate.

A POPULATION EXPLOSION

A direct result of the British Mandate was an explosion of the Jewish population in Palestin between 1922 and 1940 from 83,790 Jews in 1922 to 463,335 in 1940. This Inodditide of Jewish immigrants irritated the native Arabs, and minor skirmishes began to occur. As a result of these small battles between immigrant Jews and native Arabs, the British government set up a special commission to study the situation.

THE WHITE PAPER

In 1939 the British published the so-callec White Paper Resulding from a Commissior studying the strains and tensions in Palestine the White Paper recalled first how the Balfoun Declaration contained the two inconsistent provisions we have cited before, namely the establishment of a Jewish state, and the protection of Arab civil rights. The Paper then recommended that Palestine be partitioned into two separate states—one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. The partitioning proposals looked like a diplomatic "out" for the British from their inconsistent earlier stand. The White Paper further called for the immigration of 10,000 Jews a year into Palestine for the next five years, unless the Arabs and Jews were willing for it to continue beyond that point.

ZIONISM'S DARKEST HOUF

The Zionists, despite the fact that they were attempting to colonize a country not their own, were indignant over the White Paper: and their anger was expressed in the words of David Ben Gurion: "The Jews will flight rather than submit to Arab rule...! It is the darkest hour of Jewish history." The Zionists then demanded that the British abandon their mandated authority over Pulestinian immigration and turn over the movement of Jews into the territory to the World Zionist Organization. The British payoff for Zionist help in propelling the United States into World-War I had ended England's usefulness to Zionism. The Jews now wanted the British mandate authority abnoested.

In the United States, a meeting was held at the Biltmore Hotel in New York City at which American Zionists formally rejected the White Paper and called for unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the conversion of that country into a Jewish commonwealth. Pressures were put on members of Congress from districts and cities with large Jewish voting blocs, and resolutions were introduced in both Houses of Congress urging fulfillment of the Balfour Decivation correlate.

The Arabs protested the Palestine partition resolution (no. 181) which was adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. The British had grown weary of being the final ar-

Arab victims of Israeli bombardment of the elementary school in Bahr El. Baker, Egypt on April 8, 1970. Over 70 innocent school children, between the ages of 8 and 12, were stain in this Zionist attack. (International Red Cross photos)

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 5) non-intervention and neutrality advocated by Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. rejected by politicians who have been bluffed bamboozled and swindled by the international ists spawned by the Zionist octopus.

THE BLOOD-COST

Forgotten by our politicians is the blood-ost of the bastard-state (illegitimate in its claims and petentions). Shortly after the partition, the Jews in the Diaspora came pouring into Palestim and the Arab-Israeli conflict became a bloody battle. In the midst of the war, Zionist terrorists descended upon the Arab village of Deir Yassin and slaughtered 250 men, women and children. Nearly a million Arabs had to flee their ancestral homes and land in Palestine and seek sanctuary in neighboring Arab states. The late Norman Thomas, perennial presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, remarked: "An Arab, without too much exageration can complain that the Jews are practicing Hildrens (sic) in reverse. Arabs have been made second-class citizens." American citizens who showed any sympathy or understanding of the plight of the Palestinian Arabs immediately were deemed heretics and were harassed by the Zionist-dominated America collamost.

One of the more tragic sidelights of the nelarell history is the assessination of Coun Folke Bernadotte of Sweden by the Jewish guerrilla Stern Cang. The Count had declared "The liability of the provisional government of larael to restore private property to the Azia owners and to indemnify those owners for protery destroyed wantonly (by the Zionists) is clear." For this fair and objective judgment am his defense of the rights of the dispossesse. Arabs, Bernadotte won the hatred of the Zion ists and vas cooldly killed.

ZIONIST IMPACT ON WORLD WAR II

Most Americans are unaware that Hitler's hostility towards the Jews originated in the Zionist leaders having pushed the United States into World War I on the side of the Allies. This is acknowledged by Samuel Landman, Secretary of the World Zionist Organization for 1917 to 1922 in London, who writes in his Great Britain,

"The fact that it was Jewish help that brought th

U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German—specially Nazi minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme."

Thus, as the leader of a once-defeated nation Hitler hated the Jews as the source of the German defeat in World War I. The German Geners Staff generals were just as anti-Semitic as the Leader. So, the seeds sown by the Zionists i 1917 came to fruition in the New Germany After all, in a conference of world Jewry i 1933, a historic "declaration of holy war of Germany" had been publicated and even broad cast over CBS by Mr. Samuel Untermyer, present of the World Lewis Encourage Federation

To a Gold Star Mother, it was small consolation to read in The American Hebrew tha "Whenever an American...fell at Bataan o Corregidor... the real reason why that bo went to his death was because Hitler's anti-

Even after the invasion in 1939 of Poland an the invasion of France in 1940, the mood of th average American was that of neutrality. Without approving of the German expansion, mod Americans recognized that this was an intra mural conflict (the type George Washington hawarned against meddling with), and felt the cor

Recent publication of The Wartime Journalof Charles Lindbergh sets the mainstream Amer\nica tone with respect to America's possible entry\ninto the European War. On April 25, 1941
Lindbergh writes:

"What rotten luck it is to find myself opposing my country's entrance into a war i don't believe in, when I would so much rather be fighting for my country in a war that I do believe in. Here I am stromping the colone in the Army Air Corps when there is no philosophy I disagree with more than that of the pacifit, and nothing I would rather be doing than flying in the Air Corps."

Again in May of 1941 we see Lindbergh remark:

"The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it but the Administration seems to have the bit in its teeth and be helibent or its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind the war and they control's huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the 'intellectuals' and the Anglophiles, and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international interests and many others."

Lindbergh felt that the Jews were among the major influences pushing the country toward war but was appalled by the fear, which many people in the nation demonstrated, of refusing to discuss the Jewish push toward war in public for fear of retaliation.

Later the Colonel, as well as the late Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, were to feel the tremendous pressures the Jews exerted on their professional careers; and the Forrestal death was to become a major hushed-up mystery.

The "America First" organization, dedicate to the traditional American policy of non-intervention, was pilloried and its members stampe as "traitor" by the Zionist-controlled press Fearful Americans allowed this nation to be "sucked into battle" and those who singled ou the Jews for their part in getting us into the waver scorned and ridiculed. The hatred of thos opposing the war created by the biased new papers led to the infamous 1944 "Sedition trials, in which men were indicted and impris oned because of their opposition to this wan Walter Winchell, the notorious bedroom go siper, used his column to excoriate the patrioti opposition to the surrender of American neutrality, and used his powerful influence with Pres dent Roosevelt to further the aims of his Jewis compatitots. During both the Truman an Roosevelt administrations, this baleful Zlonis influence and pressure continued to have an eval deforming impact on our foreign policy as i

AMERICAN SUPPORT OF ZIONISM

So far, we have demonstrated how the United States has been used by the Zionists to provide political power for the artificially created state of Iarael. Our historical documentary proves conclusively that Zionist leaders promised English politicians that the U.S. would be pushed into World War I by the international bankers in order for the Zionists to secure the promise of any English government to assist the Zionists in establishing a "homeland" regardless of the rights of the Arabo. Secondly the facts

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 6) seeds of hate sown at the Peace Conference at Versailles. Further, that undue pressure was put on President Truman to recognize the Republic of Israel. It is self-evident that all of these facts disclose how far the American government has strayed from our traditional foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.

While many students of Zionism are aware of the above facts, at the same time most Americans are unaware of the vast financial resources diverted from our nation to the uses of political

Since 1948, and up to 1965, the total economic and military aid given by the United States Government to the unlawful Zionisti, bankrupt regime in occupied Palesianisto, amounted to \$1,079.400,000. The World Zionist is Organization just a few weeks ago issued a statement declaring that "world Jewry and its friends" have contributed over 2 billion older in private gifts and contributions to Israel in the past year! This means the Zionists now are pouring more than a billion dollars a year into the treasury of Israel out of the United States money market, and note well: These siphoned funds are tax-exempt, tax-deductible. Since 91 per cent of all American taxpayers are non-lewtish, the financial drain by the Zionists adds to the tax burden of the nearly 200 million U.S. citizens who are not Jewish!

THE B'NAI B'RITH TAX FRAUD CASE

The financial dealings of Zionism were long shrouded by mystery and uncertainty. This mystery was partly maintained because the Zionist apparatus in this country is a maze of corporations and agencies, the complexity of the network such as to confuse and tax the keenest minds.

However, now in 1971, for the first tim much of this well of mystery has been tor asunder, thanks largely to the lawsuit of former high official of the Brail Brith, In Fet ruary, the Jewish-owned Washington Post caired a long article telling of the lawsuit filled b Saul E. Joftes. Earlier, the Washington Observe (December 15, 1969) had given the first publi exposure to Mr. Joftes charges against the Zior is organization. It is now established that Mi Joftes charges the Brail Brith, a charitable, religious, tax-exmpt American membership of ganization, is using its funds raised in the U.S. In pursue international political activities community to the Brail Brith Grossitution, and in violation of the Federal Foreign Agents registration act, a well as our American tax laws! Mr. Joftes point out that the Foreign Agents Registration Act i "intended to require public disclosure by persons engaged in propaganda activities. . for on behalf of foreign governments." The lax seeks to discriminate between what is America political activity and what is sponsored by alien or governments abroad.

Mr. Joftes, by this lawsuit, has established the fact that he is an honest, responsible American citizen and that he represents a type of Jew whose loyalty is to the United States rather than to the artificial state of Israel. In blowing the whistle on the unlawful Zionist money-raising schemes in this country and in providing solid information as to the inner workings of the world Zionist financial complex, this lawsuit will be a landmark in American jurisprudence.

THE JEWISH AGENCY-A SHADOW GOVERNMENT

The channeling of these vast sums of taxdeductible contributions, as the result of the energies and misrepresentations of the United Jewish Appeal and the network of interlocking groups all stem from a Convenant made in Israel between the Jewish Agency and the Government of Israel. The Jewish Agency's functions were described as: immigration, agricultural settlement, land acquisition, private investments, and financing. In Israel, the Jewish Agency, by assuming so many chores of the State, operates and is recognized as a quasi-governmental hotly. In fact, it is the best-financed shadow government in the world. Today, the Jewish Agency's good works—illegally supported by tax-exempt U.S. citizen's donations—mbrace many functions of the Israeli government. A revealing fact relative to the wealth of the Jewish Agency is the disclosure that the Jewish Agency is one of the Israeli government.

Appeal (U.J.A.) is a subsidiary also of the World Jewish Agency. So close is the relationship of U.J.A. and U.J.A. that the two fund-raising agencies are both situated in the same building at 515 Park Avenue, New York City. It has been publicly admitted that the United Israel Appeal processors between 60 and 70 per cent of 31 levs.

Hospital for Arab civilians in the Suez area.

Destroyed by Zionist terror-bombers on March

2, 1970 (International Red Cross photo).

ish Agency funds that are collected in the United States, while Jewish charities in America receive less than 30 per cent of all the millions collected in the name of charity! All of this money, in the main, has been provided by taxfree contributions in American dollars.

In 1963 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigated the Jewish Agency and uncovered a "conduit" operation run by an organization named "The American Zionist Council." Over an eight-year period, the investigation disclosed, this "Council" received more than five million dollars from the Jewish Agency to create a favorable opinion toward Israel in this country. The "Council" was revealed, thereby, as an unregistered foreign agent operation, and the "conduit council" was shut down. However, the expensive propaganda continues and today ever gant billboards are rented to spread this false

Perhaps the last word on the subject should come from the lips of that extremist of the Left (1), Senator William Fulbright who, nevertheless, recognized the true colors of the United Jewish Appeal, and declared: "As everyone knows, the U.J.A. campaign is tax-deductible and adds to the foreign exchange of Israel for the purchase of anything, including arms." When will Americans wake up to this blatant tax fraud, and demand that the Internal Revenue Service revoke the tax-exempt privileges of the United Jewish Appeal and of Pinal Britis? Any serious study of Zionism's impact on our foreign policy must make mention of two militant Jewish groups, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Defense League. The A.D.L., an arm of the 125-year-old B'nai B'rith (an international Jewish Secret Iraternity) is in the business of upholding the honor (?) of Israel by vilifying and issuing lying statements against all who oppose political Zionism. It is probably the most proficient spying and rumor-generating organization in the U.S., and outplays the Soviet Union groups opposing in, will hire men to steal from an organization's files, and will send out in its newdetters slanderous material against all whom they consider "anti-Semitic." Often, the A.D.L. y passion against anti-Communist and patriotic groups like LIBERTY LOBBY will lead it to humorous excesses. On January 24, 1971, for example, A.D.L. officials, speaking to a money-rasing convention of B'nai B'rith, accused LIBERTY LOBBY of trying to overthrow the American government Since all Zionists believe in the subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of dual citization and the present subversive concept of cut and the concep

One of the best examples of the A.D.L's dangerous and destructive work is the story of the late Dorothy Thompson. A Jewess of wit and ability, her columns appeared in hundreds of newspapers. Yet, when she saw "that Zionism. . . was turning into a reactionary, aggressive, chauvinistic movement of the same character as other European nationalisms which she had been fighting." she left the Zionists and devoted her abilities to assisting the Palestinian Arab refugees. Immediately, the A.D.L launched a campaign of vilification and innuendo. Pressure was put on newspapers which carried her column by Zionist advertisers, and her career was damaged

The A.D.L. continues to spread its lies and promote its campaigns of hate. Usually the Zionists hide and work in devious ways. Only rarely do they come out into the open. But an instance of this occurred last year, when many Christians in Maryland opposed a planned sex-education course in the public schools, without the teaching of any moral or character values. Amazingly the Bhai Brith sent its staff workers into the fray and publicly announced its support of sex-education courses. Its own staff workers organized a group in support of the controversial studies. In Chicago, where a lady, formerly president of the local Hadassah (women's Zionist group) organized a move to oppose these courses, the local A.D.L. and Bhail Brith organizations called her a "pawn of the John Birch Society."

Countless cases can be given where the A.D.L has intimidated or even blackmailed persons ir order to eliminate all opposition to the politica Zionist program for America. We can expect to see more of this as the battle for traditiona American culture heightens.

A new Jewish militant group has been making headlines in recent months, the so-called Jewish Defense League. They have an established policy of using violence and personal harassment against all who oppose Zionism. Rabbi Meir Kahner, its leader, needs to learn that the way of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of

Arab child in Israeli concentration camp. (International Red Cross photo)

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 7

Washington observers are well aware that the A.D.L. and kindred groups are feverishly intimidating members of Congress so that the kejvlas ture will not speak out against a Mideax blood bath. The "doves" on Victama are suddenly the world Zionst conspiracy are seeking to corrup and force Pentagon officials to permit the illegashipment of arms and material to Israel, loca again, Zionist's week to evade our historic American oblicative. "to savid entagling alliances."

THE SOVIET-ZIONIST COMBINE

In the light of the headlines in our controlled and prostituted press, the above title may seen like a fantasy of our imagination; yet if we examine the facts behind the false facude to Zionist-controlled press, we will see how logical such a combine is and how the true knowledge of present events proves the correctness of the assumption.

Let us first remember that Soviet Russia was the first country officially to recognize Israel Prime Minister David Ben Gurion expressed his gratitude to Russia in Israel's 1952 official Year book:

"Israel does not forget the stand taken by the Sovie Union in the Assembly of the United Nations on the historic 29th day of November 1947, nor does it for got the like stand of the United States of America. I remembers as vividly the aid received from Czechoslo vakia during the War of Independence, and the atti tude of Poland towards Jewsh immigration to Israel manifestations which without doubt bespoke sincer sympathy with Israel's enterprise.

After the Six-Day War of 1967, the Arab were rather handly overrun by the superio forces of the Israeli Army, Unthinking observed of the world scene felt that the Russians has "backed the wrong horse"; and the Communist were shrewd enough to let them keep on believ mg.ii, Actually, the Russians-nawer believed for niero-accound that the Arabs would win the war

they were far more interested in forcing the Arabs to rely on the Communists for arms and back-up protection. After all, the historic fact remains that ever since the days of Peter the Great. the Russians have been looking for a warm-water port on the Mediterranean. Most of the Russian ports on the Baltic Sea are force for many months each year; and the Black Sea ports are land-locked (though Russia seems to pass freely now through the Turkish Bosporus and Dardanelles). But the Russians, as friendly allies (12?1) of Egypt have use of Egyptian ports, and someduy will take full postession.

That Russia's chief interest in the Egyptian crisis was to open the way for its expanding naval fleet is proven by the fact, reported in U.S. News & World Report, that Russia ensured an Arab defeat by sending 250 Soviet tanks from Syria into Jordan during the hostilities; of these only 170 actually got close to battle, and the rest developed mechanical problems which left them inoperable.

General John Glubb, who is surpassed by in oher Englishman or American in his intimate knowledge of the Mideast, tells us in his book The Middle East Crisis, that the Russians engineered the crisis in order to embroil the United States with the Arab world, by causing the U.S. to declare unequivocally its support for Israel right or wrong. The Arabs then would be thrown upon the mercies of Russia; and thus, the Red Russians would get a toehold in the Arab world. The rash decision of our State Department not add in constructing the high Aswan dam on the Nile River, after which Russia undertook it illustrates how quickly the U.S.S.R. built up Arab goodwill at the expense of the United States. With the death of Nasser, many diplomats believe Egypt will become a weak, ineffectual government, without a strong leader, and that the Soviet Union will push its claims for Exportian Obedience.

The modern Arab world extends nearly 4,000 miles, from Morocco to the Persian Gulf and (most important) it controls the corridor through which traffic passes from the Far East, Australia, India and East Africa to Europe. Israel now occupies only an area of about 7,000

square miles, roughly the size of Wales. Presentl Israel has no canal to the Indian Ocean nor doe it possess oilfields comparable to those unde the control or ownership of the Arab nations Since oil is the precious "molten gold" of the 1970", the United States and Britain may in deed have backed the wrong horse in sponsorin Israel

In addition, the Muslim territory is more vas than Arab lands alone, since it stretches fror Mauritania on the Atlantic coast of Africa, a the way across southern Soviet territory to Mor golia or Indonesia. Checking on the globe, w see that these Muslim territories plus the Ara world, when combined with the Soviet Union all but encircle western Europe. This gives cree ence to the horrifying thought that some get politicians have that such a combination of Arabs, Muslims, and Communists could plac western Europe under the Soviet yoke!

AMERICAN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL QUIXOTI

The Zionist propaganda mills in this country are telling the American public that the U.S must stand foursquare behind Israel, since Israe is a fine example of democracy in action.

Actually this attribution of democracy is bot quixotic and untrue. In 1952 the Israeli parlis ment passed the Nationality Act, which serve to codify existing discriminations and made th Arabs second-class citizens. Under the provision of the Act, all Jews in Israel automatically be come citizens of the state; but not one of the Palestine Arabs (240,000 of them) who re mained in the country can gain citizenship with out first proving his residence in Palestine befor May 14, 1948. At the same time, many of the Arabs who remained in their ancestral home were uproted from their villages along the borders on the basis of "security" and were pain nominal sums for their properties.

On top of the forced sale of their property the Arabs were placed under strict military rule Reports disclosed that by the end of 1960 monothina 25,000 acres of Arab land were approached by the state of Israel. All of this took place of course, in a nation which the Zionistic press of America declares to be "a shining example of democratic action."

The myth that Israel is democratic in form i assiduously promoted by the international Zion ist propaganda machine. But the truth is other wise. Israel does not even have a constitution and virtually all of the political parties are extremely leftwing by American standards. In "The Israel Government," an article in the Winter 1970 issue of The American Mercury, autho

"As might be expected, the commonal nature of its real society has produced an ideologically homogeneous political climate in Israel. There are man avowed Marsiat, radical sociality and allosofte particular which constitute the governing coalition in Israel. It addition, Israel has two open Communits parties addition, Israel has two open Communits parties each of which have elected representatives sitting ignored the Knesset, or Israel parliament, In Earl, Israel is the Knesset, or Israel parliament, In Earl, Israel is that in the Middle East having legal Community parties."

DeWitt quotes Shlomo Avineri, chairman of the department of political science at Hebre University in Jerusalem, who wrote in Conmentary magazine:

"Therefore, probably more Marxista are in Israel that in the whole of the Arab world... In most Aral countries Communist parties are outlawed and individual Communists rot in jail, while Israel is blesse with two Communist parties."

Haviv Schieber, a Polish-born Jew, settled in Palestine in 1932 and left in 1958. His anti-com-

ARABS OUST REDS

Flash

In Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and the Sudan, Arabs are demonstrating their independence by throwing their Red Russian advisors ont. The fiercely independent Arabs hate Communist imperialism no less than they do Zionist interfalsm.

The hasty Russian departure from Arablands disprayes the myth abut Communist control of Arab countries. No longer will the Zionist controlled press be able to claim that "tiny Israel is a Mideast bastion against Communiat expansion." Ironocally the Mideast country in which Communist expansion one seems possible is "tiny Israel" which has the only legally protected Communist narty operating in thy laters of the world.

munism found little support among Israeli politicians. Says Schieber: "Many years of observation have convinced me that Israel is the most horoughly communized state outside the Soviet

non nave convinced me that israel is the most horoughly communized state outside the Soviet Union, and that its government has been formaly committed to a 100% ideological, political, tiplomatic and military agreement with Moscow ince 1940."

Even in religion, the Arabs are antagonistic the Communiats. Most Arabs are strongly religious and despise an unbeliever. In Israel, while 90% of the Jews attend the synagogue on Yon Kippur, most of the people do not have any formal religious affiliation. Further, secularism i making inroads; according to Christianity To day, "perhaps 80% of Israel's population is actually secular 'ather than orthodoxly religious in orientation. While there are about 24thbuttm (communal living centers) in Israel kohbuttm (communal living centers) in character. This indicates the mistake of many Christian who have thought that the new state of Israe fulfills Bible prophecy; rather, it demonstrate that materialistic Israel deserves the severes

"WANTED-A MILITARY ALLIANCE

In Washington today, Capitol Hill simply reck with Zionist lobbysts. We hear Congressmen and U.S. Senators mouthing statements are considered to the statement of them by lewish propagatorists. Zonists of great wealth, international banking train and blackmailing organizations such as the A.D.L., all apply pressure on American leaders. It is certain that these pressure schemers wantle President and the State Department to agree to a military alliance with the State of Israel that will compel American military and political ambitions of the illicit state of Israel. The very same forces which took us into World Wars I and II are now seeking to involve us afresh in their Midest plight. Once again, we need to listen to George Washington and the other leaders of our

If the idea of a Soviet-Zionist combine seems unreal, even when based on Russia's century-old dream of making the Mediterranean Sea ? Russian seaway, what further proof is needed that Russia's enmity with Israel is phoney than the established and well-publicized fact that Israel is now secretly shipping oil to the Soviet Union, When the time is ripe, the Arab world will find intell caught in the vise of a vital Soviet-Zionist alliance. Another Arab-Israeli conflict would complete the Individual of the Arab-Israeli conflict would complete the Individual of the Arab-Israeli conflict would be the provised and psychological defeat

of the Arabs. Then the Soviets will take over an exhausted. Arab, world, and reach, a diplomatic approchement with Israel.

LOSS OF INFLUENCE IN MIDFAST

Such a conflict will end all Austra in utilizate in the Modest in Mirca and pethags even in an entir-led Western Linope. Now only the Kingdom of bordan and its afting morarch King Hussern remain our single, frightened but friendly. Acid all, the condition of any such conflict will inevitably leave Soviet Russia and Zionisin the only real winners, even as was true of World Wars I and II. If we should ever enter on the side of Israel, we would find ourselves crippled at the very start, since the foolsh policies of Robert Strange McNamara when he was Secretary of Defense have left our armed forces without adequate weapons or equipment to fight even a currentinous laws.

America's folly is seen when we realize that the Mediterranean is now practically a Soviet lake. The Red Sea is Soviet-controlled also, as it he Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean; and the Soviet Union will determine when and under what conditions the Suez Canal will be reported, if ever, U.S. troops can reach Israel only by airliff from Germany; and once sent, it takes will prove the support of the prophecy to foretell that they will prove heart of the prophecy to foretell that they will prove heart of the prophecy to foretell that they will prove the support of the prophecy to foretell that they will prove the will prove the withdrawn without massive losses.

Should full-scale war break out, America would immediately be plunged into wartime conditions, with tight civilian controls imposible to conceive of in peacetime. If missile method to light and would be declared; and overnight America would be subjected to a Zionist-communist dictatorship. Is this the result desired by the ill-informed and the cowardly who refuse to face up to the Zionist menace?

SENDING AMERICAN TROOPS OVERSEAS

Many pro-Zionists in this country will argue that we shall never send American boys into the Mideast. To them we commend for reading Public Law 85-7, promulgated on March 9, 1957 by the 85th Congress: Section 11 reads as follows:

"The President is authorized to undertake in the Midcal, military assistance programs with any nations or group of nations of that area deserving. . To this end of the President determines the necessity thereof. United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by unternal communism."

The rue status of Zionist control of Congress has henervesuelded many times by the willing congressional signatories of petitions for aid to Israel. The most telling vote occurred on December 15, 1970, when the Senate was considering scoding S500 million in aid to Israel (conveniently misnamed by the press the "Cambodian and Bill"). On that date, the now-retired Senator John Williams of Delaware introduced an amendment to put the same restrictions on aid to Israel that the Senate had placed on aid to Israel that the Senate had placed on aid to Cambodian-annely, that no troops shall be sent. Senator Church, a hysterical "dove" on Vietnam, moved to table (kill) the Williams amendment. The vote to kill the amendment was 60-20, with 20 abstentions. This vote can be interpreted in no other way than as a tacit approval of sending troops to Israel. It is interesting to note that many so-called "Conservatives" bowed obediently to Zionist pressure and voted

No. 431 Lev

Saxty Yeas Asken, Allen, Allort, Anderson, Baker, Bayli, Bellmon, Bible, Buggs, Brooke, Byrd (W.A.), Canton, Case, Church, Cook, Cooper, Cranston, Eagleton, Eastland, Hender, Fong, Harris, Hart, Holland, Hollings, Hingles, Imouye, Jackson, Javits, Jordan (N.C.), Kennedy, Long, Magnuson, Javits, Jordan (N.C.), Kennedy, Long, Magnuson, Maries, Montrey, Mondale, Montoya, Mino, Murphy, Murker, Nelson, Packwond, Pastore, Pearson, Prox. mirc, Randolph, Rubotol, Schwecker, Socit, Smith, Sparkman, Stenos, Stevens, Symmyton, Lalmadge,

Twenty Nays, and these are the heroes. Bennett, Burdick, Cotton, Curtis, Dole, Ervin, Fannin, Fulbright, Gazel, Guriu J., Hansen, Hruska, Jordan (Idaho), Mansfield, McClellan, Metcalf, Miller, Saxbe, Wilhams (Delaware), Young (N. Dakota).

Twenty not voting: Dodd, Dominick, Goldwater Goodell, Gore, Griffin, Hartke, Hatfield, Mathias McCarthy, McGovern, Mundt, Pell, Percy, Proud Russell, Soone, Stevenson, Tydings, Yarborough,

INNOCENT AMERICAN AGGRESSION

U.S. involvement in both World Wars, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam and now Cambodia and Laos-all began by "innocently" supplying arms and equipment; but in each case, things mushroomed into full-scale United States partic-

David Ben-Gurion - when prime minister of israel forecast world rule from Jerusalem.

Look Magazine, Jenuary 16, 1962

David Ben-Gurion (Prime Ministers of Issuel): "The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my Imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly powing intelligentiat in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for missing their of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising contemps. When the contemps were concounty. Western and Eastern Europe will become a democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as democrate regime. With the exception of the USSR as the content of the contents will be come united in a world stillance at whose disposal will be come united in a world stillance at whose disposal will be come united in a world stillance at whose disposal will be come united in a world stillance at whose disposal will be come united in the world and the contents will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalan, and the stillance of the Prophest to a work of federated continents, as propheside by Isalah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will allow down the exploiter natured life soan of nan will reach 100 years.

AMERICA FIRST (Continued from Page 10) early Bolsheviks were Jowish. In Russia, it seems, we see a "family fight" of Communist Jews vs. Zionist Jews.

Some Christians think the present day nation of Israel is "a fulfillment of prophecy." They should carefully study Israel and the Bible, by William Hendriksen, to understand why it is not. Some of the sympathy and funds which Gentiles give for political Israel result from this mistaken diea. Hendriksen details many prophecies in connection with "the restoration of the Jews" thought to solvy today—then refutes them.

The Jews rejected their Messiah, even had Him crucified, terminating the old covenant. His death ushered in a new dispensation.

Modern Israel is distinctly the creation of man-a political entity dressed up for popular sympathy and support along all lines, including religious. The fact that the ancient Israelites were God's chosen earthly péople certainly does not give the present international political movment of Zionism any special claim upon the promises of God. Most of today's Israelis deny Christ sad God.

THE LAST WORK

The last word on the Mideast is also our first, seem as the past is prologue to the future. Few utterances in history contain so much wisdom as the immortal Farewell Address of George Washington, given before Congress in 1796. The Ferrwell Address stands as an all-time classic of American sentiments precisely because instead-up oplicitions have chosen to ignore it for their own personal expediency. Let the nadequipe for himself whether the cowards and the ambitious politicians for today who cower before the Ziontst whiplash are worthy of confidence, or whether instead it is those who are not afmid nut. America Siter who deserve their security.

"To likewise a pseudoman extendment of one nation for motion produces a subty of evils, Syramight for the fever motion produces a subty of evils, Syramight for the fever tests in cases where no real common interest statis, as inchesing into one the emitties of the other, betrays it former into a participation in the quarries and was of it is best as not commonstant, to the feveries nation of priviles desided to others, which is say doubly to injure the instin making the concentration, by the scenarios parting with wait and a disposition to relation in the parties from whom equiportions are wideling, and if give to another, occupantly debased officence who devote themselves to the devotes an country, without claim, pometimes never with popularies. giding with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable defenence for public opinion, or a laudable test for public good, the base or footish compliances of ambi-

"As svenues to fossign influence in unnumerable ways, such statchment are particularly starming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to midded public opinion, to influence

*Against the inadices while of frontgo infratence (i contains people coulds to be construitly when it can have people coulds to be construitly when it can have yet and foo of spatistical persuments the fail fail of the people coulds to be construitly when it has placed by the foot of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people of the people

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them is little political connection as possible. So far a we have stready formed engagements, let them be fulfilled that the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the conduction of the

"Europe has a set of printary intensets, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controverses, the cause of which are searchally foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary violantuses or the position, or the ordinary combinations and

The officing to you, any countrymen, these commists of an early and and affections friend, I dan not hope that they will cashe the strong and leating impression I could whit; that you will contact the usual contract of the passions, or prevent regards the season contract of the passions, or prevent regards the doctory of sations, but if I may were fixther my-and that they are by productive of some partial burstings once consideral good; that they may now each then secure to contact a good of the prevent one and then secure to contact a foreign sections, the productive of personal partial burstings to present allegate the importune of personaling particular than the solicition for your weakles by which they have been for

** Loop + NW

Glubb, Sir John, The Middle East Orisis. Londo

Hendriksen, William, Israel and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Diary, 2 vols. New York: The New World Press, 1970

Robnett, George W., Conquest Through Immigration

Utley, Freda, God Save Israel (and Us) From He Friends Stillwater, Minn.: Religion and Society

LIBERTY LIBRARY

The RCSI AddREST Met CONSTITUTION. Debort Protection for Science are personal to the control of the science of the control of the science of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of

The people need a paper they can trust ... and here it is!

Millions of Americans know that something is wrong with their country. But they don't know exactly what. They

do know they are sick and tired of platitudes and distortions from political leaders and the press. For those who really care about what is happening to our America, NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT offers honest, straight-forward news.

Before NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT came on the scene, no other paper in recent years has had the courage to go after the distortions, omissions and deliberate leave the observations and the courage to go after the distortions.

Breazy, informal, with ample pictures, spiced with humor and enter taining features, the NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT presents real news in easy-to-read hashion. You will read human interest stories or real people in conflict with the government. But you won't find news of Mickey

You will find in-depth news affecting every one of us, thoroughly researched stories on the economy, news of our national leaders, and other information unavailable elsewhere. Yet this truly constructive information is presented in a fresh, attractive publication that you won't be able to law saide.

Proudly pro-American, NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT is the honest, forthright newspaper wanted by the citizens of this nation who care. With the NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT, the public need no longer be kept in isolation by the controlled press and electronic media. Page 17

A "SPECIAL" RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL

by

David G. Nes

During the past 22 years, our very "special relationship" with Israel has prospered. When President Truman in October 1948 said, "We are pledged to a State of Israel, large enough, free enough and strong enough to make its people esti-supporting and secure," the stage was set for the gradual establishment of an association between the U.S. and another country unique in our history. Today, that association is far closer in all areas-economic assistance, defense, intelligence exchange, common citizenship, and mutual diplomatic support than enjoyed, for example, between the U.S. and Great Britain. Unique also is Israel's almost total immunity from criticism in this country, a situation hardly paralleled by any of our European or Asian allies, many of whose faults and frailties are daily ared in our communications media and by our legislative representatives. Perhaps as James Reston of the New York Times suggested a short while ago, "...you can put it down as a general rule that any erricitism of Israel's policies will be attacked as anti-Semitism." On the other hand, whave Israel's mage presented to us as a small, democratic, courageous little country struggling to survive in a sea of uncivitized, blood-chirsty, pro-Communist Arabs, represented to survive as a small, democratic, courageous little country struggling to survive in a sea of uncivitized, blood-chirsty, pro-Communist Arabs, represented to survive and sea of uncivitized, blood-chirsty, pro-Communist Arabs, represented to survive and sea of uncivitized, blood-chirsty, pro-Communist Arabs, representancy film on "Israel and the Bible." sponsored by Billy Graham and to be shown in about 1,200

In dollars and cents, our assistance to Israe through the years, both governmental and private, has been prodigious. During the two decades from 1948 to 1968, U.S. Governmen economic aid totalled \$1.1 billion, while dollar transfers from private sources amounted to \$2.5 billion, a total of \$3.6 billion, or \$1.400 pc. apita on a current population of 2.5 billion. This greatly exceeds on a per capita basis, our assistance to any ally and compares to \$35 pc. apita to the peoples of 13 neighborin countries. Since 1968, our assistance to Israe has greatly increased. Dollar transfer in 1971 pricached \$800 million and in 1971, will approximate \$1.5 billion including Governmen assistance more than double per capita tha granted our own \$0 states under curren "eventue theritem" processed.

Until 1967, we assured brael a continuin supply of modern milliary equipment indirectly through West Germany and France, and thus were able to avoid occupant of the supplementation of the source of the supplementations, and DeCalle's change in Middle Las policy, we have, since 1967, become the exchange in the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplementation of the supplement

systems of greater sophistication and greater strike capability than those furnished our NATO and SEATO allies. For example, Greece, Turkey, and Iran-which form the Northern Tier defense line against the Soviet Union-have not yet received our Phantom aircraft. A few months ago, the Ilouse of Representatives passed an amendment to the Defense Procurement Bill giving the President "open-ended" authority to

Will these brave American soldiers, fresh fron the slaughter in Vietnam, be sent to fight in th Mideast? Only von can influence your Congress man to maintain U.S. neutrality in the Mideast YOUR INFLUENCE COUNTS — USE IT.

transfer military equipment to Israel without total cost limitation. As former flows Speake McGrmack remarked," ... I have never seen in y 42 years as a member of this body, language of this kind... "The Senate on December 15 by a 60 to 20 vote, killed the Williams Amendment to the Special Foreign Assistance Act which would have restricted the President from sending U.S. troops into Israel without Congressional permission. Many who supported similar limitations with regard to Cambodia in the Cooper-Church Amendment, opposed the Israel restriction.

Significant also has been Washington's reaction to the Soviet establishment of an anti-aircraft missiles defense system in Eugyt begun before and apparently completed after the "cease-fire" arrangements undertaken al Secrtary of State Rogers' initiative last summer. Concern greatly exceeded that generated by reports of offensive ground-to-ground Soviet missiles and a nuclear submarine base in Cuba in defiance of the 1961 Kennedy Khrushchev understanding.

In the area of nuclear weaponry, the U.S. has so pursued an exceptional position visavis israet. During the years when we were pressing over 100 nations in the world community with whatever diplomatic, economic, and military leverage we might have to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel alone was exempted from strong representations. (In fact, it appeared that we may even have encouraged Israel to refrain from assuming the obligations set forth in this international undertaking.) The nuclear reactors at Dimona and Nahal Sorek are reported for several years to have been producing plutonium sufficient for ten 25-kiloton bombs a year. The widely-read "Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace" recently published by the former head of Israel Army Intelligence, General Y. Harakabi, is the current authority on the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East conflict, In contrast to our intense opposition to France's nuclear development, we have condoned virtually an identical policy now being undertaken by Israel.

In the exchange of intelligence, our cooperation with Israel is unpresedented and goes far beyond the special nuclear arrangements with Great British based on the McMahon Act. During the months prior to the June 1967 hostilities, the military intelligence requirements levied by Washington upon our Embassy, CLA, and military intelligence staffs in Cairo, were very largely based on Israel's needs. The effectiveness of the Israel' at strikes of June 5. 1967, was assured, in part least by information on Egyptian if rields and east; by information or Egyptian if rields and east by information or Egyptian in Fields and east by information or Egyptian in Fields and east by information that the political and economic information, it was State bassy in Washington with summaries of our Middle East Embassy cables considered of interest. An accurate report by Ray Vickers regarding this area of cooperation appeared in the Wall Street Journal, February 12, 1970. When the U.S. Naval Intelligence ship "Liberty" was attacked by Israel air and so units in June 1967 with the loss of 34 dead and 71 injured, the medicant resulted in minimum official reaction. It hogges the imagination to speculate as to the reaction were the attackers to have been British or French, much less Egyptian as initially

On the question of dual citizenship, Israel also cinjoys an exceptional nosition. Under long standing citizenship laws, an American voting in the elections or serving in the armed forces o government of any foreign country, has lost his citizenship. By recent Court interpretation Americans may now serve in Israel in thi namer without citizenship has. Under the Israel Law of Return, an American Jew entering Israel is automatically extended Israel in attinuality, and so we have many carrying the pass altry, and so we have many carrying the pass

I want to help counteract propaganda about the Mideast with truth:
Please send me copies of AMERICA FIRST, postpaid. lenclose \$
Here is my contribution of \$
pay for the distribution of AMERICA FIRST to opinion-makers and influential persons.

ORDER EXTRA COPIES TODAY!

AMERICA FIRST

The American press is controlled by Zionism. If you place the interests of America above the interests of a minority pressure group. DO YOUR DUTY AND SPREAD THE TRITH. Buy and distribute extra copies of America First to Friends and neighbors. Send copies to every member of your union, church, or other organization. There is no substitute for truth.

0 copies, \$2.50 500 copies, \$50.00 00 copies, \$15.00 1,000 copies, \$70.00

Appendix B

Below is reproduced from the Congressional Record of July 18, 1974 Rep. Joshua Eilberg's insertion of the ADL "report." It is a textbook example of raw smear, distortion and outright falsehood. Extensive commentary on the original ADL article may be found on pages 55 through 57.

THIS IS LIBERTY LOBBY

HON. JOSHUA EILBERG

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 18, 1974

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Speaker, for some time an organization whose leadership espouses great sympathy for Hitlerian Naziism, has been proselytizing a viclous and clandestine brand of antisemitism on 126 radio stations across the Nation.

This organization, the Liberty Lobby, is solidly backed with vast amounts of money. It is among the most active of the extremist groups now infesting the national media with thinly disguised propaganda campaigns of the most rakish nature.

At this time I enter into the Record an article from the "Bulletin" of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, describing the Liberty Lobby, its methods and goals:

THIS IS LIBERTY LOBBY

An outspoken and-semite who has professed an abiding admiration for Hitler and Nazi Germany and has been the moving force behind a network of Jew-hating organizations and publications over the years is also the unpublicized force behind "This Is Liberty Lobby," an extremist radio program carried five times a week by some 126 sta-

His name is Willis A. Carto. Officially listed as treasurer, he is the founder and real boss of Liberty Lobby, a 16-year old Washington-based propaganda and lobbying apparatus which has become one of the most active and best financed groups on the American fairight.

Beginning its radio operation in March of last year with only four stations, "This Is Liberty Lobby" could be heard on over 62 stations by September, on over 100 by November and, now on 126—most on a paid basis, but some as a "public service." The list of outlets may soon be given a boost thanks to a contract recently signed with the Mutual Broadcasting System to make "This Is Liberty Lobby" available on an optional basis to the network's more than 600 stations. The principal owners of the Mutual Broadcasting System are Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin D. Gilbert who have contributed thousands of dollars to Liberty Lobby since 1968. A recent Gilbert city was in the amount of \$1,500.

"This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcasts during and immediately after the Arabs' October aggression against Israel were typical of the outfit's point of view. The programs featured ferce attacks on America's foreign policy in the Middle East and on the American Jewish community for its support of the Jewish state in its moment of crisis. Israel, the victim of the attack and the only democracy in the Middle East, was assalled as a "bastard state" and an "insignificant patch of worthless desert." The Arab propaganda line—that

parroted. "Zionism" was described as an evil and alien force, "a powerful force within America," and Senator Fulbright's slur about Israel "controlling" the U.S. Senate was quoted.

As the daily attack progressed, it scraped the garbage cans of professional hatemongers for "facts" and vocabulary. The commentator spoke of mysterious "international bankers" and of the "political Zionist-influenced press." He suggested that Jews had dragged the United States into world wars for their own hidden purposes, and that they are subversive and disloyal.

On April 23, 1974, in a defense of Attorney General William Saxbe's slur against "Jewish intellectuals" of two decades ago as being "enamored of the Communist Party." Liberty Lobby's broadcast libeled the Anti-Defamation League as being, in effect, pro-Communist and representative of foreign interests. For "proof," the broadcast cited the writings of the notorious anti-Semite, Robert H. Williams

ADL, exercising its legal rights under the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine, complained to the 73 stations which had carried the attack and asked for air time for a reply. (Although the stations are required to notify those so attacked and offer such time, in this case none had done so.) Most of the stations complained to have since complied, and an answer to the false and malicious attack, taped by Arnold Forster, ADL's general counse; and associate director, has been sent to them.

The response gives "This Is Liberty Lobby" audiences—and the stations themselves—the facts about the organization, its founder, and its dissemination of bigotry and hatred from behind a mask of so-called "patriotism."

Liberty Lobby was founded as a front for the seamler operations of Carto, among them Liberty and Property, a clearinghouse for keeping informed on anti-Semitic activities; Western Destiny, a magazine which published racist, Nazi-type articles, and Noontide Press, publisher of anti-Semitic, racist, and pro-Nazi books—including "Imperium," by the late Nazi apologist Francis P. Yockey, a book containing a dedication to Adolph Hitler and a laudatory 35-page introduction by Carto himself

Carto, 47 years old, began to work full time as a professional bigot and organizer in 1954 when he became executive secretary of Liberty and Property. A racist, as well as an anti-Semite, he complained while working for Liberty and Property, that "only a few Americans are concerned about the inevitable niggerication of America." His 20-year career includes serving as a director of Congress of Freedon, a right-wing, racist organization, and as an organizer for the John Birch Society.

In 1966, Carto took over the venerable American Mercury name and placed it on the masthead of a quarterly devoted largely to anti-Jewish hate and issued in tandem with the semi-monthly Washington Observer Newsletter. similarly laden with unvarnished anti-Semitism. In 1968, a Carto-run Youth for Wallace movement, renamed the National Youth Alliance, attempted to imbue restless American youth with the philosophy of his hero, Yockey—that the future greatness of the West must be hinged on "the German revolution of 1933" (the Third Reich). At one NYA organizational party in honor of Carto, Nazi emblems were openly displayed and Hitler's Horst Wessel was sung by the guests.

In the meantime, Liberty Lobby, the "conservative" front, (William F. Buckley, Jr.'s National Review labeled it "pseudo-conservative") grew to near million-dollar-a-year proportions. Its monthly Liberty Letter, with a current circulation of 116,000, is the biggest publication on the radical right. Other front groups include Americans for National Security, Friends of Rhodesian Independence, Government Educational Foundation. Save Our Schools, and the United Congressional Appeal.

That the "respectable" veneer of Liberty Lobby has worn pretty thin is not surprising for an organization which attracted to its leadership—and boasted on its letter heads—such well-known anti-Semites as Richard Cotten, New Touchstone, Kenneth Goff, W. Henry MacFarland, Joseph P. Kamp, Tyler Kent, and Allen Zoll. Gradually, its literature dropped all pretenses. In a 1967 U.S. Court of Appeals case brought by Liberty Lobby against columnist Drew Pearson—which liberty Lobby lost—Judge Warren E. Burger (now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) said the organization's activities reveal "overtones of anti-Semitism and racism." By 1970, Liberty Letter openly fumed about the "aggressive minority which tightly controls the free press," an "alien-minded and America-last group" identified as "Zionists."

In 1971, Liberty Lobby published a 40-page pamphlet. "America First." cstensibly an analysis of Middle East problems. Opening with quotations from Saudi Arabia's King Faisal and American anti-Semite Col. John Beaty, the pamphlet is a tirade of hate blaming the Jews not only for Middle East crises but for the crucifixion of Jesus, the Russian Revolution, and the two world wars. It questions the allegiance of American Jews and suggests that the only Jews who are loyal Americans are those few who are openly pro-Arab.

The blatantly anti-Semitic "America First" pamphlet is offered at the conclusion of each "This Is Liberty Lobby" broadcast as a bonus to new subscribers to Liberty Letter—with the growing network of radio outlets from coast to coast either ignorant of the program's contents or uncaring about their role in helping to peddle bigotry.

Years, ago, Carto wrote to a fellow rightist. Norris Holt: "Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe And America... The blame must be laid at the door of the international Jews."

This is the man behind the Liberty Lobby messages brought into American homes by licensed radio stations. "This Is Liberty Lobby" can fool the public—and radio management—into thinking it is a respectable news source only so long as the organization's anti-Semitic character remains hidden. That is why ADL took the trouble to answer the Lobby's attack, will continue to monitor its Drograms and expose their source.

Appendix C

Following is the federal court complaint first filed by Liberty Lobby in 1975. The lobby argued that the ADL had violated Liberty Lobby's First Amendment rights and violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. This case was ultimately dismissed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS, WACO DIVISIO

LIBERTY LOBBY, INC., a corporation

Plaintiff

vs

MUTUAL BROADCASYING SYSTEM, INC., corporation, MUTUAL BROADCASTING CORP., a corporation, AMTI-DEFA-MATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'BRITH, a voluntary association; SEYMOUR GRAUBARD and ARROLD FORSTER, National Chairman and General Counsel, respectively, of ANTI-

Rt

NO. 91-74-Ca-3

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

For cause of action against the above Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully shows to the Court:

PARTIES AND

The Parties to this action, and facts which establish

jurisdiction of this Court are:

• 1. Plaintiff: Liberty Lobby, Inc. is a corporation, only established existing under the Laws of the District of Columbia of the United States, with principal place of business in Machington, U.C.
• 2. Defendants: (a) Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., (hereinafter "MBS"), is a foreign corporation; (b) Mutual Broadcasting Corp. (hereinafter "MBC"), is a foreign corporation. (Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the said corporations were incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, that they are and were at all relevant times set out herein doing business within the State of Texas as defined in Article 2031b, of the Statutes of the State of Texas, that as a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Texas they are required to appoint and maintain a Registered Agent for service but have failed to do so and therefore under the authority of Article 2031b; Section 1, they have designated the Secretary of State of the State of Texas as their Registered Agent for service. Notice of service on both corporations may be sent to John A. Hardin at 60 East 42nd Street, New York, N.Y. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that said corporations are not required by statute to maintain a Registered Agent in Texas, but are and were at all relevant times set out herein doing business within the State of Texas, as defined in Article 2031b of the Statutes of the State of Texas, that they do not maintain a place of regular business in the State of Texas or a designated agent in the State of Texas upon whom service may be made and therefore, under the authority of Article 2031b, Section 3, they have designated the Secretary of State of the State of Texas as their Registered Agent for service: Notice of service on both corporations may be sent to John A. Hardin at 60 East 42nd Street, New York, N.Y.)

  (c) Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Brith, Inc. (hereinafter "ADL") is a foreign corporation (upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the said corporation was incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, that said corporation is and was at all relevant times set out herein doing business within the State of Texas as defined in Article 2031b of the Statutes of the

State of Texas, that as a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Texas, they are required to appoint and maintain a Registered Agent for service and have failed, th do so and therefore under the authority of Article 203lb, Section 1, they have designated the Secretary of State of the State of Texas as their Registered Agent for service. Notice of service may be sent to their corporate office at 1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that the said corporation is not required by statute to designate or maintain a Registered Agent for service in Texas, but is and was at all relevant times set out herein doing business within the State of Texas as defined in Article 203lb of the Statutes of the State of Texas; that at the present time and at the time of service of this complaint, they maintain a person in Texas in charge of their business in which they engage in Texas, and, therefore, under the authority of Article 203lb, Section 2, service may be had upon said person. Plaintiff alleges that said person is Thomas Neumann and he may be served. At 4211 Southwest Freeway, Suite 209, Houston, Texas.); (d) Seymour Graubard (hereinafter "Graubard") is a citizen and resident of the State of New York (Plaintiff alleges that the foregoing individuals in subsection "d" and subsection "e" are and were at all relevant times set out herein doing business within the State of Texas, as defined in Article 203lb of the Statutes of the State of Texas, that as individuals doing business in the State of Texas, they are required to appoint and maintain a Registered Agent for service but have failed to do so and therefore under the authority of Article 203lb, Section 1 they have designated the Secretary of State of the State of Texas, as their Registered Agent for service. Notice of service on both individuals may be sent to their attention at 315 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that the said individuals are not required by statute to maintain a

3. This action, filed under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment I, guaranteeing to the people of the United States Freedom of Speech, and involving acts of Defendants in denial of these constitutional rights; and, further involving acts of the Defendants in denying Plaintiffs rights under the laws of the United States of America; and, with the cause of action involved herein, having arisen in Waco, Texas, where acts upon which Plaintiff's cause of action is based were committed by each of the Defendants, the Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this action

ĮI.

RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES

The contractual and other relations, between Plaintiff

and the above Defendants are as follows

1. Under the date of April 15, 1974, Plaintiff entered into a written contract with MBS, for a period of fifty-two (52) consecutive weeks beginning on May 6, 1974, conditioned that MBS shall distribute to its affiliate radio stations program material to be provided by Plaintiff, in consideration of weekly payments by Plaintiff as herein provided, together with other conditions, all of which more fully appear as set out in said contract which will be tendered at the time of trial. Also, MBS and MBC have entered into

a contract with radio station, KWTX, which is a resident of the State of Texas, to broadcast material provided by MBS and MBC.

• MBS, as subsidiary of MBC, was at all times pertinent to the issues in this case subject to the domination and control of MBC and the managing officers thereof.
• 3. The Defendants, ADL, Graubard, and Forster, National Chairman and Counsel of ADL, have for many years engaged a nation-wide program of investigation and counter-publication involving anti-semitic activities; and have misused economic power and influence to stifle all publicity, both true and untrue, concerning the acts of the Jewish Organization to advance the said Defendants' interests as a minority group, even when opposed to the national interest of American Citizens, in general.

III.

Plaintiff has been damaged by inability to make radio contact with its supporters throughout the United States, with a loss of revenue from American Citizens who are interested in the cause of freedom and Americanism, in an estimated amount of \$50,000.00 to date of termination of Plaintiff's contract with MBS, with continuing damage so long as Plaintiff is denied access to the radio communication media, which has now been completely closed off as a result of economic pressure and threats through various advertising agencies controlled by the said Defendants.

TV

REQUESTED

By reason of the wrongful acts of the Defendants, ADL, Graubard and Forster, in using economic threats and

pressures to deprive Plaintiff of its constitutional right of Freedom of Speech, its contractual rights with MBS, its rights under the laws of the United States, and the wrongful reaction of MBS and MBC thereto, Plaintiff has suffered past, present and continuing damage, and is entitled to judgment herein as follows:

• Judgment in damages against MBS, MBC, ADL, Graubard and Forster to date of termination of Plaintiff's contractual rights to broadcast its programs, the sum of \$50.000.00.
• Continuing damage so long as Plaintiff is precluded from radio broadcasting outlets by the acts of the said Defendants, the sum of \$50,000.00 per year.
• 3. The acts of ADL, Graubard and Forster, in denying Plaintiff's constitutional right of Freedom of Speech, rights under the laws of the United States, and contractual rights with MBS were willful, oppressive and malicious; and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the said Defendants in punitive, or exemplary, damages in the sum of \$500.000.00.
• 4. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law; and, unless restrained, the Defendants, ADL, Graubard and Forster, will continue their offensive and illegal acts denying the Plaintiff its First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression, and, by threats of economic pressure through advertising agencies controlled by said Defendants, will continue to interfere with Plaintiff's rights under the laws of the United States and Plaintiff's contractual relationships with radio stations and broadcasting companies. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to equitable relief herein, as follows:
• (a) After an evidentiary hearing by the Court, Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction ordering and directing the Defendants, ADL, Graubard and Forster, to refrain from exerting economic pressure against broadcasting companies and radio stations with which Plaintiff may seek to obtain publication of its daily radio programs.
• (b) Upon trial hereof, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the said Defendants from exerting

economic pressure to deprive Plaintiff of its right of Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and under the laws of the United States, or to impair Plaintiff's contractual relationship with broadcasting companies and radio stations involving the publication of Plaintiff's radio programs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, above names, as follows:

• Judgment against Defendants, MBS, MBC, ADL, Graubard and Forster in the sum of \$50,000.00 for damages to date of termination of Plaintiff's contract with MBS.
• Judgment for continuing damages in the amount of \$50,000.00 so long as Plaintiff is precluded from radio broadcasting outlets by acts of the said Defondants.
• 3. Judgment for punitive damages against ADL, Graubard and Forster in the amount of \$500,000.00 for denial of Plaintiff's constitutional right of Freedom of Speech for impairment of Plaintiff's contractual righs with MBS, and for denial of rights under the laws of the United States.
• 4. Temporary injunction ordering and directing the Defendants ADL, Graubard and Forster, to refrain from exerting economic pressure against broadcasting companies and radio stations with which Plaintiff may seek to obtain publication of its daily radio programs.
• 5. Permament injunction prohibiting the said Defendants from exerting economic pressure to deprive Plaintiff of its right of Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the United States and to impair Plaintiff's contractual relationship with broadcasting companies and radio stations involving the publication of Plaintiff's radio programs.

DANNY C. WASH 823 Washington Avenue Waco, Texas 76701

219 Couch Drive

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

Appendix D

Liberty Lobby's second legal action regarding the ADL's activities against it was filed in 1976. Time, expense, and little hope of financial compensation led Liberty Lobby officials to act in a manner which prompted dismissal of the lawsuit. What follows is the amended text of this complaint.

NO. 76-760-1

LIBERTY LOBBY, INC. X IN THE 19TH JUDICIAL

VS. X DISTRICT COURT OF

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
OF B'NAI B'RITH, ET AL X McLENNAN COUNTY, TEXA

PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

NOW COMES Liberty Lobby, Inc., hereinafter referred to as

Plaintiff, complaining of the following Defendants: the Anti
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Seymour Graubard, Arnold Forster,

Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., and Mutual Broadcasting Corporation,
and for causes of action would show this honorable court the following

• The Plaintiff, Liberty Lobby, is a nonprofit corporation duly and legally established under the laws of the District of Columbia of the United States, with its main offices in Washington, D. C.
• 2. The Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as MBS) is a subsidiary of the Mutual Broadcasting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MBC), and was at all times pertinent to the issues in this case subject to the domination and control of MBC and the managing officers thereof. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that MBS and NBC are corporations incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and that their principal offices are in New York City.
• 3. The Defendant, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (hereinafter referred to as ADL) is a nonprofit corporation which, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, and which has its principal head-quarters in New York City, with regional offices throughout the United States.
• 4. The Defendant, Graubard, is and was at all time pertinent to the issues in this case the National Chairman of ADL. The

Defendant Forster is and was at all times pertinent to the issues in this case the General Counsel of ADL and Director of ADL's Civil Rights Division.

II.

JURISDICTION

Registered Agent for service. Notice of service on both individuals may be sent to their attention at 315 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that the said individuals are not required by statute to maintain a Registered Agent in Texas, but are and were at all relevant times as set out herein doing business within the State of Texas, as defined in Article 2031b of the statutes of the State of Texas, that they do not maintain a place of regular business in this state or a designated agent upon whom service may be made and therefore under the authority of Article 2031b, Section 3, they have designated the Secretary of State of the State of Texas, as their agent for service. Notice may be sent to both the above named persons by sending it to their attention at 315 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.

III.

FACTS

• 6. In March 1973, Plaintiff initiated a nationwide five-dayper-week radio program consisting mainly of commentary on current\nevents. The five-minute program, entitled "This is Liberty Lobby,"
     favored--among many other social, political, and economic policies-a policy of United States neutrality, including neutrality in all
     Middle East conflicts, but only a miniscule proportion of "This is
     Liberty Lobby" commentary (less than three percent) touched on
     Israel, Zionist, or λrab matters.
• 7. The Defendants ADL, Graubard, and Forster (for purposes of brevity, the term "Defendant ADL" when used henceforth in this Petition is intended to include the Defendants Graubard and Forster unless otherwise specified) have for many years engaged in a nation-wide program of investigation, publication, and publicity directed against allegedly "anti-Semitic" individuals, organizations, and activities; and have falsely applied the label "anti-Semitic," and have misused economic power and influence, for the purpose of stifling all criticism and debate concerning the ADL, the government of

broadcast—all of which insinuations and statement of Defendant ADL were utterly untrue. In addition, Defendant ADL, as part of its effort to remove "This is Liberty Lobby" from the radio, caused a campaign of organized harassment and economic threat and economic pressure to be directed against local radio stations which carried the "This is Liberty Lobby" program; in particular, Defendant ADL deliberately and methodically caused the direct and indirect threat of withdrawal of advertising to be made against radio stations which broadcast "This is Liberty Lobby." As an intended result of Defendant ADL's actions, numerous radio stations throughout the United States, including station KWTX in Waco, Texas, cancelled their broadcasting of "This is Liberty Lobby."

• 8. On April 15, 1974, Plaintiff entered into a written contract with the Mutual Broadcasting System (hereinafter referred to as MBS). Under the terms of that contract, MBS was to, for a period of fifty-two (52) consecutive weeks, beginning on May 6, 1974, distribute to its affiliate radio stations on MBS program transmission lines, Plaintiff's "This is Liberty Lobby" radio program. . . three hundred twelve (312) programs in all, to be provided by Plaintiff. In consideration of the distribution of the radio programs, Plaintiff was to pay MBS a weekly payment as provided in the contract and to fulfill other conditions, all of which fully appear as set out in said contract which will be tendered at the time of trial. Plaintiff at all times complied with and fulfilled all the material terms and conditions of
• 9. Radio station KWTX, an MBS affiliate located in Waco, Texas, began regular broadcasts of the "This is Liberty Lobby" program on June 17, 1974, taking the transmission from MBS network lines.

  Numerous other radio stations throughout the United States broadcast "This is Liberty Lobby" on a regular basis either independently or as affiliates of MBS. On September 1, 1974, station KWTX cancelled

"This is Liberty Lobby" and ceased broadcasting it, as a result of the Defendant ADL's national and local campaign against Liberty Lobby and its radio program. Numerous other radio stations cancelled their broadcasting of "This is Liberty Lobby" as a direct result, or as an intended and foreseeable indirect result, of Defendant ADL's campaign.

10. As an intended result of the Defendant ADL's efforts to have "This is Liberty Lobby" removed from the radio, Defendant MBS terminated its contract of April 15, 1974 with the Plaintiff, effective January 31, 1975, thereby causing Plaintiff to lose a large number of current and potential broadcast outlets.

TV.

CAUSES OF ACTION

• in violation of Plaintiff's rights, intentionally and maliciously and without lawful justification interfered with Plaintiff's business relations with Defendants MBS and MBC by means of the aforesaid campaign of false and malicious attacks on Plaintiff's reputation, and also by making and by causing threats of financial loss to be made against MBS and MBC, and further by bringing and by causing overwhelming threats of false and damaging publicity to be brought against MBS and MBC, with the foreseeable and intended result that MBS did on January 31, 1975 terminate its contract with Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff's great damage, including loss of prospective economic advantage.

• 12. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the aforesaid pressure by Defendant ADL, the Defendants MBS and MBC wilfully failed to comply fully with the material terms of the April 15, 1974 contract between Plaintiff and MBS, censored and refused to transmit for broadcast certain truthful and legitimate publications presented by Plaintiff to MBS for broadcasting by MBS affiliate radio stations pursuant to the contract, and terminated the contract contrary to the provisions and intendment of the contract, all to the Plaintiff's great damage.
• 13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant ADL wrongfully and in violation of Plaintiff's rights intentionally and maliciously and without lawful justification interfered with Plaintiff's business and economic relations with radio station KWTX in Waco, Texas and with numerous other radio stations throughout the United States, by means of the aforesaid campaign of false and malicious attacks on Plaintiff's reputation, and also by causing organized threats of financial loss through loss of advertising to be made against those radio stations, and further by making and causing to be made overwhelming threats of false and damaging publicity against those stations, with the intended and foreseeable result that those stations did cease broadcasting Plaintiff's "This is Liberty Lobby" program, to the Plaintiff's great damage, including loss of prospective economic advantage.
• 14. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ADL (including as always, Defendant Graubard and Defendant Forster), MBS, and MBC acted in collusion and conspiracy, for their own economic advantage, to deceive the Plaintiff. In furtherance of the conspiracy, MBS intentionally used false statements, misrepresentations, and nondislosure to induce Plaintiff to rely upon MBS's knowingly false promises and upon the resultant contract of April 15, 1974 between Plaintiff and MBS. Plaintiff justifiably relied on MBS's promises and representations, including oral promises and representations which induced Plaintiff to enter into the written contract, and as a result refrained from finding other extensive outlets for its radio program, "This is Liberty Lobby," and in turn relied on the MBS network, of whose benefits Plaintiff was subsequently deprived by acts of the aforesaid Defendants, with the result that the Plaintiff was gravely damaged.

• grievously damaged in the conduct of its affairs and in its economic relations and prospective economic advantages by intentional false and malicious disparagement by the Defendant ADL of the character of Plaintiff's enterprise, and the publications it sold or gave away Defendant ADL intentionally and maliciously used its vast and overwhelming power of publicity on numerous occasions (which are cited verbatim in paragraph 18 and incorporated here by reference) to communicate to a great number of readers, including Plaintiff's customers and prospective customers, such intentionally injurious falsehoods, known to the Defendant ADL to be falsehoods or to be misleading distortions, as that the Plaintiff's enterprise and the publications it sold or gave away were "anti-Semitic," "racist," or "pro-Nazi" when in fact such was not the case. The result of the Defendant ADL's massive false disparagement and malicious mischaracterization of Plaintiff's enterprise and publications was that many persons who would otherwise have purchased publications from the Plaintiff or engaged in other economic transactions beneficial to the Plaintiff, did not do so, to the Plaintiff's great pecuniary harm.

• 17. Plaintiff alleges, under a right of action created by
      Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1935(3), that Defendants
      ADL, Forster, and Graubard conspired with Defendants MBS and MBC
      and with Jack Geller, Monroe Falitz, John Goldwater, Seymour Reich,
      Irving Shapiro, Herb Platzner, Joshua Eilberg, Mal Webber, Fran
      Scheinberg, Allan Stark, and other persons whose names are as yet\nunknown to Plaintiff, for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of\nequal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and immunities\nunder the laws—specifically, for the purpose of preventing Plaintiff
      from exercising its right of unabridged freedom of speech and of
      the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
      United States, for the purpose of preventing Plaintiff from carrying

prejudice, and undemocratic and un-American ideas, and thus that
Plaintiff and its publications were too vile and disreputable to be
allowed a public hearing, and that anyone who aided Plaintiff in
broadcasting its messages was likewise bigoted and disreputable.

• A. Letter dated January 3, 1973, written by Stanley S. Jacobs, ADL Regional Director, San Francisco, California, and sent to and received and read by Al Racco, KGO Radio, 277 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, with copies to Milton Jacobs, Art Finley, Louis D. Brounstein, and Arnold Forster: "I have been informed that on the Art Finley show last night, the Anti-Defamation League and B'nai B'rith, our parent organization, were maligned by anonymous callers who charged us with Communist affiliations. To the credit of Mr. Finley, he attempted to question or counter these libelous allegations. But the fact that Liberty Lobby, the organization whose officials were interviewed, is one of the most viciously anti-Semitic outfits in the nation would indicate that KGO might well consider another program in which the Anti-Defamation League would have a chance to discuss its philosophy and services."
• B. Letter dated January 31, 1974, written by Arnold Forster, General Counsel of ADL, and sent to and received and read by William O'Shaughnessy, President, WVOX, One Broadcast Plaza, New Rochelle, New York, with copies to Mrs. Alvin Ruskin, Is Moss: "When first a neighbor telephoned me to express shock about the content of a Liberty Lobby Program he had heard broadcast over WVOX, I suggested to him that he communicate his reaction to you. When a second and a third and even a fourth call came to me from friends in and around New Rochelle, I knew you were in trouble with the Liberty Lobby Program. But I assumed, as a very bright guy and a responsible citizen and radio station franchise holder, that you needed no advice from me. I gathered from one of the calls that the full data about the blatant anti-Semitic bigotry of Liberty Lobby had been sent to

you so I knew you needed no facts from me. Imagine my chagrin, on returning from abroad just days ago, to hear that the program was still being disseminated on WVOX. Now, good friend, I am still unprepared to tell you what your responsibilities are as a radio broadcaster; to tell you that there is a world of difference between outright bigotry and a genuine, if controversial position in any given dispute. But I think you should know that from all I have heard, a [illegible] sensible and sensitive people in the South Winchester area are increasingly expressing themselves about WVOX in a most uncomplimentary way."

C. Letter dated February 25, 1974, written by Arnold Forster, General Counsel of ADL, and sent to and received and read by William O'Shaugnessy, President, WVOX, one Broadcast Plaza, New Rochelle, New York, with copies to Mrs. Alvin Ruskin, Is Moss, Irwin Suall: "Concern in the community, which I fully share, has to do with three central queries: (1) Is Liberty Lobby anti-Semitic? (2) Does Liberty Lobby use its broadcast-programs to advertise and promote anti-Semitic materials? (3) Is anti-Semitism just another "controversial subject" about which reasonable people can honestly disagree? I believe queries one and two require a resounding 'YES, while three should get an equally resounding 'NO.' ... There is more than ample scientific basis, from several disciplines, for unequivocally stating that anti-Semitism is a disease or part of a syndrome of disease, and that its disseminators are just as dangerous as any Typhoid Mary. ... At this point, I think we should also consider what the broadcast of anti-Semitic material does to thousands of listeners. Quite literally, it is an assault upon their mind and spirit. ... It is the ultimate reality of horror, and one should not be surprised if they are alienated from any person or organization that disseminates the poison that has killed millions of their people. Insofar as all decent-minded people are concerned, the words of the anti-Semite constitute an advocacy of crime--of all the heinous crimes from which the Jewish people have suffered."

• D. Letter dated April 2, 1974, written by Melvin I. Copperman, ADL Regional Director, Long Island Regional Office, East Meadow, New York, and sent to and received and read by Howard Warshaw, Universal Broadcasting Co., 310 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, with copy to Irwin Suall: "Howard, in view of the virulent anti-Semitic content of the material pushed by Liberty Lobby, you might want to see the actual material being advertised on your stations."

American Jews are subversive and disloyal, and use of terminology 'scraped from the garbage cans of professional hatemongers.' ...

Pointing out that 'America First,' a blatantly anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby pamphlet,' is offered at the conclusion of each 'This Is Liberty Lobby' broadcast, Mr. Goldwater questioned whether the managements and licensees of the program's radio outlets are ignorant of its contents or 'uncaring about their role in helping to peddle bigotry.' ... Mr. Goldwater said Carto founded Liberty Lobby as a money raiser and front for his 'seamier operations,' including Liberty and Property, a clearinghouse for keeping informed on anti-Semitic activities; 'Western Destiny,' a magazine with racist, Nazi-type articles, and Nootide Press, publisher of anti-Semitic, racist and pro-Nazi books, including 'Imperium' by the late Nazi apologist Francis P. Yockey. The Yockey book contains a dedication to Adolf Hitler and a laudatory 35-page introduction by Carto. ... According to Mr. Goldwater, Liberty Lobby was set up as a 'conservative' cover and source of revenue for Carto's anti-Semitic activities. ... 'This is Liberty Lobby, 'Mr. Peirez concluded, 'can fool the public--and radio management and licensees--into thinking it is a respectable news source only so long as the organization's anti-Semitic character remains hidden.'"

The passages just quoted contain not only the already-mentioned defamatory terms "anti-Semite," "anti-Semitic," Nazi-type," and "pro-Nazi," but also numerous other false statements of fact made by Defendant ADL with actual malice, to wit: (1) "This is Liberty Lobby" is not a program controlled by a professional organizer of anti-Jewish groups and publications. (2) Willis A. Carto is not "an outspoken anti-Semite." (3) "This Is Liberty Lobby" did not contain "daily attacks" on American Jews during any period; it did not contain attacks on American Jews during any period. (4) "This Is Liberty Lobby" at no time charged that American Jews are subversive and disloyal. (5) "America First" is not an anti-Semitic

pamphlet. (6) At no time did "This Is Liberty Lobby," or publications advertised thereon, peddle or promote bigotry.

(7) Liberty Lobby was not founded as a money raiser and front for any other operation. (8) The Plaintiff has no connection with 'Liberty and Property.' (9) The Plaintiff has no connection with 'Western Destiny.' (10) The Plaintiff has no connection with Noontide Press." (11) Yockey's "Imperium" does contain an introduction by Willis A. Carto, but it does not contain "a dedication to Adolf Hitler." (12) Liberty Lobby was not set up as a "cover and source of revenue" for "anti-Semitic activities." (13) Liberty Lobby and "This Is Liberty Lobby" did not and do not have an "anti-Semitic absences."

F. Press release dated August 1 (1974) prepared by ADL and released by ADL under the same heading quoted under "E" immediately above. Defendant ADL published the press release of August 1, 1974 and distributed it widely to news media throughout the United States with the intent that it should be republished, and with the result that it was republished widely and was read by large numbers of persons. "Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based far right propaganda apparatus which was charged by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith last month with using its national daily radio program to peddle bigotry, has escalated its anti-Semitic campaign with the promotion and distribution of two notorious hate, tracts, the League said today. The two works, according to John L. Goldwater, chairman of ADL's national fact finding committee, are 'The Myth of the Six Million,' a 119-page anonymous paperback, and a reprint of a 27-year-old fradulent anti-Semitic pamphlet, 'The ADL and Its Use in the Communist Offensive,' written by Robert H. Williams, an anti-Jewish propagandist in the 1940s and 1950s. ... Mr. Goldwater... declared that 'Liberty Lobby's growing anti-Jewish campaign only reinforces the Anti-Defamation League's determination to expose the group's activities.'"

• G. Letter dated July 29, 1974, written by Harvey B. Schechter ADL Regional Director, Los Angeles, California, and sent to and received and read by W. L. Gleason, President, KICO, Inc., P. O. Box 861, El Centro, California: "This will acknowledge receipt of your July 25th certified letter concerning our press release about Liberty Lobby and Radio Station KICO dated July 22, 1974. ... There was no intention on our part to cause you 'great damage.' Our objective was to call public attention to the anti-Semitism fostered by Liberty Lobby and their use of radio stations to spread their hatred of Jews."
• H. Letter dated July 30, 1974, written by Harvey B. Schechter ADL Regional Director, Los Angeles, California, and sent to and received and read by Maxwell E. Greenberg, 1880 Centry Park East, Suite 1150, Los Angeles, California. "As you know, our campaign against Liberty Lobby is in full swing. I for one, am distressed at the fact that Liberty Lobby broadcasts begin with an opening comment by Harry Von Zell. When a Christian friend spoke with Von Zell, he said that he did not agree with Liberty Lobby and had asked them to stop using his voice for the opening introduction. In view of his key position with Home Savings and Loan and the gutter anti-Semitism of the Liberty Lobby, I'd like to suggest that a letter from you to him about this might further stimulate him to take action to deny Liberty Lobby the use of his voice."

It is untrue that Harry Von Zell ever asked Liberty Lobby to stop using his voice. This is in addition to the untruth that Liberty Lobby is characterized by "Gutter anti-Semitism"

Cooperman, ADL Regional Director, Long Island Regional Office,
East Meadow, New York, and sent to and received and read by various\nindividuals comprising the "Long Island ADL and B'nai B'rith leadership." "... During the two weeks following the outbreak of the Yom
Kippur War, 'This is Liberty Lobby' was devoted to revival of ancient
anti-Semitic hate peddling."

• J. Letter dated August 7, 1974, written by Irwin Suall,
  Director, Domestic Fact Finding Dept., ADL, and sent to and received
  and read by Stuart D. Hubbell, Executive Director, Catholic League
  for Religious and Civil Rights, Eighth at Boardman AVenue, Traverse
  City, Michigan: "... Also enclosed is a piece about Liberty Lobby
  which appeared in the June, 1974 issue of the ADL Bulletin. ...
  ... As regards action you might undertake, we are encouraging
  people to write to stations that carry the program and to the mutual
  broadcasting system [sic] in Washington, D. C., to raise the
  question of whether responsible broadcasting includes the dissemi-
• K. Letter dated September 5, 1974, written by Stanley S. Jacobs, ADL Regional Director, San Francisco, California, and sent to and received and read by Ian Zellick, KTVU-TV, 1 Jack London Square, Oakland, California, with copy to Walton Goldman: "It is my hope to meet with you and Walt in the near future (he will call you) to discuss a forthcoming program in which we can be helpful, the activities of Liberty Lobby, which is a major source of anti-Semitic infection in this nation, and other matter."

• L. Memorandum dated August 14, 1974, written by Morris S.

  Casuto, ADL Regional Director, Columbus, Ohio, and sent to and received and read by sundry individuals comprising "Community Leadership." The material's substances originated in ADL's New York head-quarters and was disseminated to many readers throughout the United States through ADL regional offices: "Concerned individuals should make radio stations carrying the Liberty Lobby's daily program, 'This is Liberty Lobby,' aware that they do not consider anti-Semitism to be legitimate fare. ... Letters directed to these stations should include some expression of the above, plus as many of the following points—in the writer's own language—as he may think necessary to make his point. ... Responsible media, newspapers, magazines, Jewish publications, etc., have labeled Liberty Lobby as anti-Semitic,

a disseminator of anti-Semitism, a source of anti-Jewish propaganda, etc., and have identified some of its leaders as anti-Semites. ...

Listeners who write to Liberty Lobby as suggested on the broadcasts are often sent anti-Semitic materials. The writer feels that all legitimate points of view are entitled to be heard on the air--but that responsible broadcasting does not include the promotion of an organization which disseminates bigotry and hatred. ... A good strong conclusion--neither disrespectful nor threatening--expressing the view that while the station itself must determine what to broadcast over its facilities, the writer hopes that it will re-think its decision to carry the programs of Liberty Lobby, an organization steeped in bigotry and religious prejudice."

• M. Memorandum dated October 10, 1974, written by James Pazol,
  ADL Chairman, District #2, and sent to and received and read by
  B'nai B'rith Lodge Presidents and ADL Chairmen: "As you may perhaps
  be aware, Liberty Lobby continues to add to the list of radio
  stations across the country which carry its program 'This is Liberty
  Lobby.' While the programs themselves are rarely overtly antiSemitic, the organization which produces them is clearly anti-Jewish."
• N. Letter dated September 12, 1974, written by Saul Sorrin,
  ADL Regional Director, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and sent to and received
  and read by Lewis J. Process, General Manager, Radio Station WRBY,
  Appleton, Wisconsin, with copy to Frank Cohen. "Liberty Lobby in\nits 16 years of existence has a bng history of dissemination of
  anti-Semitic bigotry and involvement with some of America's most
  notorious professional anti-Semites. ... A number of members of
  Congress from Wisconsin who receive Liberty Lobby's hate material
  have expressed concern to us about the anti-Semitism. ... Controversy
  and diversity of view should be welcome on radio stations serving the
  community. However, we believe that bigotry, like pornography, falls
  outside the spectrum of what should be communicated into the homes
  and automobiles of the community. ... Your rejection of the airing
  of bigotry is an act of community responsibility."

It is untrue that Liberty Lobby has a history of involvement with "some of America's most notorious professional anti-Semites."

It is untrue that "a number of members of Congress from Wisconsin" expressed concern about "anti-Semitism" of Liberty Lobby, or that members of Congress received "hate material" from Liberty Lobby.

O. Letter dated April 16, 1975, written by Richard H.

Lobenthal, ADL Regional Director, Detroit, Michigan, and sent to
and received and read by Mrs. Ethel Burakoff, with copies to Paul

Franklin and Harry Rosenkranz: "As you know, we are at war with
the racist, anti-Semitic, extremist Liberty Lobby and are trying to
determine whether they still run at either 8:25 PM or 6:25 PM,
their five-minute program on WNIL radio, Niles, 1290 on the dial."

The above-specified and quoted publications were calculated to, and did, injure, the reputation of the Plaintiff and expose it ot public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and to financial injury, as well as impeaching its honesty and integrity.

In addition to its particular denials of the untruths found in passages quoted above, which denials are found immediately following the quotations, Plaintiff also makes a general denial of the truth of any and all statements that Plaintiff, its publications, or its officers are anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, Nazi-type, bigoted, or disseminators of hate or religious prejudice.

By reason of the above-specified publications, Plaintiff sustained grievous damages, including but not limited to special damages in the form of cancellation of its radio program by numerous radio stations, including station KWTX, Waco, Texas; termination of its contract with MBS; loss of advertisers; loss of purchasers of and subscribers to its publications, loss of contributions, loss of goodwill, and loss of memberships.

٧.

DAMAGES

As a proximate result of the foregoing enumerated facts in subparagraphs 6 - 10 and the causes of action in subparagraphs 11 - 18, Plaintiff has suffered past, present and continuing general and special damages and is entitled to a joint and several judgment against Defendant's ADL, Graubard, and Forster, MBS and MBC in the amount of Four Million Dollars (\$4,000,000.00).

The wrong done by the Defendant as set forth in subparagraphs 6 - 18 which resulted in the damages set forth above was aggravated by that kind of willfulness, wantonness, and malice for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages. The Defendants acted with an evil intent to harm Plaintiff. The Defendant's conduct was intentional, willful and wanton and without justification or excuse to the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore seeks exemplary damages in the sum of Two Million Dollars (\$2,000,000.00).

TO THE COURT ONLY

Pursuant to Section 17.50, Texas Business and Commerce Code,
Plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law to recover from Defendant
MBS and MBC three times the amount of their actual damage as a
result of the allegations set forth in subparagraph 15 hereof.

Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys to pursue the causes of action herein contained. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to Section 17.50, Texas Business and Commerce Code it is allowed to recover reasonable attorney's fees for which it now sues.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that upon final hearing it be awarded judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as set forth above, for costs of court, for reasonable attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief both at law and in equity as it may show itself entitled.

KIRKPATRICK DILLING 188 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois

FLEMING LEE General Counsel for Liberty Lobby, Inc. 300 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D. C. 20003

WASH & HODGES Attorneys at Law 7543 Bosque, Suite C Waco, Texas 76710

By: Jun 75 Wash

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Certificate of Service

INDEX

WBUX (Bucks Co., PA), 81
WCCN (Neillsville, WI), 153, 170
WDEV (Waterbury, VT), 92, 166
WDME (Dover-Foxcroft, ME), 92
WEAW (Evanston, IL), 85, 93, 99, 100
Webber, Mal, 78
Weinberger, Philip M., 112
Weiss & Geller, 75
Wheeler, Howard A., 85, 95, 99
White, Stella, 95
Williams, Robert H., 19, 87, 133
Wilson, Malcolm, 119
Wilson, Mrs. Malcolm, 110
Winegarten, Ruthe, 68
WINF (Manchester, CT), 78, 92, 153, 167
WIRD (Lake Placid, NY), 71, 80
Wittenstein, Charles F., 59, 64, 68, 90, 92, 172
WLKN (Lincoln, ME), 92, 166
WLTD, 170
World War II, 40
WRIB (Providence, RI), 92
Wright, Madonna, 112
WRYT (Boston, MA), 63, 92, 143, 166
WSMN (Nashua, NH), 92
WTAQ (La Grange, IL), 93, 94

WTHE (Mineola, NY), 65, 82, 139, 141, 167
WTMT (Louisville, KY), 101
WVOX (New Rochelle, NY), 103-124, 138
139
ADL harasses sponsors, 107-110
Suall's FCC threats, 116
Morning Freiheit story 1974, 141
Wyman, Steven, 94

Wyman, Steven, 94

Yaffe, Alan M., 96
Yockey, Francis Parker, 107
Yom Kippur War 1973, 17, 61

Zack, Isidore, 59, 63, 91, 142
Zenger, John Peter, 119
Zickert, Carl F., 93
Zimmer, Lloyd E., 152
Zionism
origins, 6
Balfour Declaration, 7
racism and, 30
Morning Freiheit story 1974, 142
Zionists, vs Jews, 37, 81
Zumwalt, Adm. Elmo B., 26