BEWARE METROPushing Collectivism At Every Level

Gary Allen, a graduate of Stanford Uni­versity, is author of Communist Revo­lution In The Streets; Richard Nixon:The Man Behind The Mask; Nixon'sPalace Guard; and, None Dare Call ItConspiracy - a sensational new best­seller with 6 million copies already inprint. Mr. Allen, a former instructor ofboth history and English, is active inanti-Communist and other humanitariancauses. Now a film writer, author, andjournalist, he is a Contributing Editor toAMERICAN OPINION. Gary Allen isalso nationally celebrated as a lecturer.

• ON February 12, 1972 , as RichardNixon and his entourage prepared to wingtheir way toward Red China on Air ForceOne, an Executive Order numbered11647, which the President had signedtwo days earlier , appeared in the dailyFederal Register. With all eyes on theprecedent-setting excursion to Maoland,this monumentally dangerous ExecutiveOrder went virtually uncommented in thepress. Carrying all the authority andpower of a law passed by Congress, it wasevery bit as revolutionary as Mr. Nixon'strip to Red China.

Without so much as consulting theCongress, President Nixon had by Execu­tive Order divided the United States intoten federal regions to be run by "FederalRegional Councils." Excused as a newmeans to develop "closer working rela­tionships between major Federal grant­making agencies and State and localgovernment ," the Federal Regional Coun­cils represent a major step toward the eraof Big Brother predicted by GeorgeOrwell.

JANUARY, 1973

Executive Order 11647 creates, alongwith the ten regions, ten sub-capitalsthrough which the federal bureaucratswill reign over the natives. The Orderstates :

"There is hereby established a FederalRegional Council for each of the tenstandard Federal Regions. Each Councilshall be composed of the directors of theregional offices of the Department ofLabor, of Health, Education, and Welfare,and Housing and Urban Development, theSecretarial Representative of the Depart­ment of Transportation, and the directorsof the regional offices of the Office ofEconomic Opportunity, the Environ­mental Protection Agency, and the LawEnforcement Assistance Administration.The President shall designate one memberof each such Council as Chairman of thatCouncil and such Chairman shall serve atthe pleasure of the President. Representa­tives of the Office of Management andBudget may participate in any delibera­tions of each Council ...."

This Executive Order had been "tele­graphed" on March 27 , 1969, in a policystatement by Professor Daniel P. Moyni­han, then a top Presidential advisor.Professor Moynihan, who is a formerchairman of the Fabian Socialists' Ameri­cans for Democratic Action, told news­men at a press conference that the crea­tion of Federal Regional Councils "hasbeen 'something Presidents have been try­ing to put into effect for almost twentyyears now." And Daniel Moynihan's assis­tant added: "No President has ever beenwilling to bite the bullet. Now we havedone so."

The division of our country into feder-

19

al regions was so radical a step tha tneither John Kennedy nor Lyndon John­son had dared make the move. It took aRichard Nixon to so hypnotize the Amer­ican public that our very form of govern­ment could be changed without elicitingso much as a yawn.

But what is so radical and revolution­ary about establishing ten feder al regions?Are they not just a mechanism for "im­proving the delivery system" for federalprograms? After all, we have FederalReserve Districts and Federal DistrictCourts . We seem to have survived them .Why be excited over Federa l RegionalCouncils? Read on Macduff.

The Federa l Regional Councils are partof something variously kn own as Region­al Government, Metrop olit an Govern­ment , or "Metro." In a nutshell, Metro isthe governing of an area or region by acentral body of " experts" - plannerswho are usually appointed and vestedwith great powers , and who are notdirectly accountable to the people.

Metro policies and programs, goals andmethods, appe ar in a variety of formsdesigned to dea l with varying state and

.local laws. But the basic strategy involvesmerging and consolidation of local city ortown governme nt s into a larger areagovernme nt.* Cities are merged with ot h­er cities and/or with a county. Thecounties are merged with other counties,

*Among th e city-county m ergers which havetaken place are Mia mi-Da de County , Florida;Nashville-Davidson Co unty, Te nnessee; VirginiaBeac h-Pri ncess An ne Co unty , Virgin ia ; So ut hNorfolk-Norfo lk Co unty, Virginia ; Jackso nvill e­Duva l Co unty, Flo rida; Indian apoli s-Mari onCo unty, Indian a ; Car son City-Ormsby Co unty,Nevad a ; an d , Juneau-Bur eau of Juneau , Alas ka .t Th ere is a ver itable army of sa les me n nowpromot ing Met ro . Often they set up areacounc ils. Two of th e biggest in Californ ia arethe Association of Bay Area Govern ments,known as A.B.A.G., and the So ut hern Califor­nia Association of Governments , ca lling itsel fS.C.A.G. In yo ur area it may be called some­th ing like East Overshoe Council of Govern­me nts. The nam es vary , but the object ives arealways those described above.

20

erasing state lines. The distinguished col­umnist Jo Hindman, who has for fifteenyears specialized in watc hing this busi­ness, sums it up this way:

Metro proposes to collect inde­pendent units of municipal govern­ment under a big super-governmentand to maintain control of suchbodies through something described

'as "appointed executive" adminis­tration. Since these proposed met-ropolitan districts frequently crossstate lines, the very concept ofgovernment units corresponding tothem makes hash of our Constitu ­tion which vests all reserved govern­ing powers in the several states.

The legions of Metro promoters,dubbed " rnetrocrats" by columnist Hind­man, are either government bureaucratsout hu ckstering the wond ers of a myriadfederally fund ed programs, or they areconnect ed with one of the organizationscollectively kno wn as "Th irteen-Thir­tee n." Thirteen-Th irteen is at once anidea, a "movement," and a clearinghouseaddress. The term is appli ed to thecomplex by its own peop le, and is used todesignate twenty-two separate organiza ­tions with heavily interlocking officers,directors , and trustees - all headquar­tered in a building erected to house themat 1313 East Sixtieth Street in Chicago.The build ing is located on land providedby the University of Chicago and wasbuilt with funds given for the purpose bythe Rockefellers. Out of this headquartersoperate the "planners" and social engi­neers of Metro - men and women whofeel they are a class apart; people keeperswho see their role in life as that ofmanagers of hoi polloi.]

In pract ice, the groups making upThir teen-Thirteen are a single organiza­tion divided into twenty-two divisions,each pursuing a separate socialist programaimed at promoting Metro government.Consider the breakdown: taxing (F edera -

AMERICAN OPINION

Reg ion 7, Capital : Kansas City

Region 6, Capital: Dallas-Ft. Worth Reg ion 4, Capital: Atlanta

Ten regio ns, ru n by Federal Reg ion al Councils, we re created in February by Executive Order 11647.

tion of Tax Administrators) ; rezoning forhigher taxation (Municipal Finance Offi­cers Association); prefabricated Metrosystems (Public Administration Service);masterplanning (American Society ofPlanning Officials) ; international affairs(International City Managers Associationand Committee for International Munici ­pal Cooperation) ; mental health propa­ganda (Interstate Clearing House onMental Health); erasing state sovereignty(Council of State Governments) ; and,retroactive building codes (Building Offi ­cials Conference of America) .*

The Thirteen-Thirteen operation is anavatar of the National Municipal League ,founded in New York City in the 1890s.It is not without meaning that the Na­tional Municipal League is today locatedon East 68th Stree t in New York City,right across the st reet from -the Establish­ment Insiders ' Council on Foreign Rela­tions. Metro has often been described asthe domestic arm of the Council onForeign Relations.j and the connectionsgo far beyond mere location as we shallsee.

JANUARY, 1973

In the beginning the National Munic ­ipal League held meetings which wereattended by prominent citizens sincerelyinterested in ending corruption in munici­pal affairs . By the Thirties , however, theLeague was being run by highly trained

' The complete list of th e twenty-two organiza­tions housed at Thirteen-Thirteen includes :American Committee for International Muni­cipa l Cooperation; American Municipal Associ­ation ; American Public Welfare Association;American Public Works Association ; AmericanSociety for Public Administration; AmericanSociety of Planning Officials; Conference ofChief J ust ices ; Council of State Governments;Federation of Tax Administrators: Governor'sConference ; Inter na t io nal City Managers' Asso­cia t io n; In terstat e Clearing House on MentalHealth ; Mu nic ipa l Fina nce Officers Associatio n;Nat ional Association of Assessing Officers ; Na­tiona l Association of Attorneys Ge ne ra l; Na­ti on al Associa t io n of Ho using and Red evelop­ment Officials ; Nati on al Legis lat ive Confe re nce;Nat ion al Associat io n of Sta te Budget Officers;National Associat ion of State Purchasing Offi­cials ; Nat iona l Institute of Mu nicipal Clerks ;Pub lic Personnel Association ; and, Public Ad­ministra tion Service.t See t he author's paperback book, None DareCall It Conspiracy.

21

(and highly salaried) "urban specialists,"city planners, radical university profes­sors, and an assortment of fanaticallyambitious city officials . The NationalMunicipal League quickly became theexecutive "brain" of the Metro move­ment and established Thirteen-Thirteen inChicago as a base for its operations.

Many of the arguments heard in towncouncil meetings from Bangor to SanDiego and from Tallahassee to Seattle arenow little more than restatements ofmaterials distributed by one or more ofthe twenty-two organizations centered inthe Thirteen-Thirteen complex. Chancesare that your own city manager and othercity, county, and state officials are mem­bers of one or more of these organiza­tions, subscribe to Thirteen-Thirteen pub.lications , have been trained by the Metrostaff, or have attended one of its semin­ars.

The vast Thirteen-Thirteen operationrequires, and spends, great sums of mon­ey. Who finances it? Who would beinterested in promoting regional amalga­mation pursuant to elimination of gov­ernments below the federal level?

Students of the operations of Estab­lishment Insiders will not be surprised tolearn that the Rockefeller clan has beenthe major sugar daddy of the Metromovement. The Laura Spelman Rockefel­ler Memorial created the Spelman Fundin 1928, with capital of ten milliondollars, and it has received further capitalfrom the Rockefeller Foundation. Ac­cording to the Fund's annual report of1947-1948: "The Spelman Fund assumedas its major responsibility an explorationof the possibilities of cooperation withpublic bodies for the improvement ofpublic administration." The report alsospeaks of the Fund's role in creatingThirteen-Thirteen:

In 1938, a new building at 1313E. Sixtieth St. , Chicago, (construct­ed under grants from the SpelmanFund) was completed to provide

22

adequate quarters . . . for the useand occupancy of the national gov­ernmental organizations. This build­ing has come to be known as"1313. " . . . An agency known asthe Public Administration GearingHouse was set up . . . . Endorse­ment of the Public AdministrationClearing House came from the Na­tional Municipal League, the Ameri­can Municipal Association, etc.. . . The Public AdministrationClearing House manages the build­ing at 1313 E. Sixtieth st., Chi­cago .. . .

The report of the Rockefellers' SpelmanFund adds: "The Public AdministrationClearing House . . . has no members andno independent means of support."

Further bankrolling of Thirteen­Thirteen has since been provided by suchperennial cornucopias of the Left as theCarnegie Corporation, the Julius Rosen­wald (Sears Roebuck & Company) Fund ,and the Russell Sage Foundation. But , aswith most Insider projects, the primaryfunding now comes from the Ford Foun­dation. Ford has poured tens of millionsof dollars into scores, possibly hundreds ,of regional government projects.

It is no coincidence that it is thesesame foundations which have financedthe Establishment Insiders' Council onForeign Relations. The C.F .R.'s primaryobjective is the creation of a WorldGovernment. The replacement of localgovernments by regional governments isthe domestic version of the same pro­gram, by which socialism is to be used asa means to control the peop le fromcentral headquarters.

When the Reece CongressionalCommittee was charged with investigatingthe tax-free foundations , its chief investi­gator Norman Dodd personally inter­viewed H. Rowan Gaither Jr. , then presi­dent of the giant Ford Foundation.Gaither blithely admitted to Dodd that thepurpose to which the Ford Foundation

AMERICAN OPINION

This building at 1313 East Sixtieth Street in Chicago houses the twenty-twoMetro organizations that form the vast Thirteen-Thirteen complex, the purposeof which is to remove local control from the people and place it in the hands ofappointed "experts" and "managers." The structure was built to house this oper­ation by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fund and it all was long supportedexclusively by the Rockefellers. The major funding now comes from the FordFoundation ... which reminds Contributing Editor Gary Allen of an admissionby H. Rowan Gaither Jr., then president of the Ford Foundation. Gaither toldchief investigator Norman Dodd of the Reece Committee that the purpose towhich the Ford Foundation would be applied "was to so alter American societythat it could be comfortably merged with that of the Soviet Union." Ford grantsto Thirteen-Thirteen support that purpose by financing Metro collectivism.

JANUARY, 1973 23

would be applied "was to so alter Ameri­can society that it could be comfortablymerged with that of the Soviet Union."Regional government is a major andnecessary step toward that merger. Itsobjective is to prepare our economy to bemerged efficiently with that of theU.S.S.R. by placing all authority in thehands of the elite planners.

For those who have sought to createthe New World Order abroad and theNew Society at home, the unique Ameri ­can form of government - specificallythe division of powers between theLegislative, Executive, and Judicialbranches; and between federal, state, andlocal units of government - has been analmost insurmountable obstacle . To over­come this system of checks and balances,schemes had to be devised which appearto ameliorate problems, but which resultin the concentration of more and morepower in the Executive branch of thefederal government. Indeed, we have beenunable to find a single piece of legislationpassed by Congress during the last fourdecades that has not done this - includ­ing Mr. Nixon's vaunted "revenuesharing" program, which is ballyhooed asdoing exactly the opposite .

"After nearly twelve years in Con­gress," said John Ashbrook of Ohio , " Icontinually witness a gap between thestated intention and the real goal , be­tween the alleged and the actual , betweenthe reported and the unreported . . .."Americans would do well to keep Con­gressman Ashbrook's observation inmind, as well as these words of thesagacious Thomas Jefferson: "When allgovernments shall be drawn to Washing­ton, as the center of power, it willbecome venal and oppressive."

America n government was built uponthe political theory of divided sovereignty- the concept known as a republic . TheConstitution declared that "The UnitedStates shall guarantee to every State inthis Union, a Republican Form of Gov­ernment . .. ." The law books say that a

JANUAR Y, 1973

" Republican Form of Government" is agovernment of electe d represe ntatives,wherein no basic power of government canbe withheld by appointees. Metro is de­signed to reverse this system. It is govern­ment by an elite corps of experts . Thesemetrocrat appointees replace or assumeauthority over locally elected officials.

It is a hoa ry cliche that you can't fightCity Hall. Sometimes that has been true.But the re have been a lot of City Hallgangs unceremoniously dispatched by thevote rs to the ranks of the unemployed . Itis nonetheless a fact that when City Hallis run by appointed bureaucrats you arenot likely to receive satisfaction. Youhave a complaint. You take it to yourfriendly local bureaucrat. He may even besympathetic. But he exp lains to yo u thatthe matter is out of his hands . Ju st wherethe jurisdictio n lies to deal with yourprob lem is har d to determine. Your towngovernme nt has now been merged withten others into a countywide government.The county government has its own rulesand regulations, and then there are thefederal guidelines established by the Fed­eral Regional District. Your only recourseis to bang the metrocrat over the headwith a copy of Atlas Shrugged - aprospect which is seldom productive.

Our Constitutional Republic was basedupon the rule of law, not on the whims ofbureaucrats. But , as we have seen, re­gional government reverses the process .With regional governments becomingmore and more enmeshed with the feder­al government through Urban Renewal,the Model Cities Program, air and waterpollution control, road constructio n,"aid" to law enforcement, transportationcontrol, War on Poverty programs, man­power training, welfare , and a ton ofother schemes, local government is beingturned into an adminis trative arm of thefederal bureaucracy.

The many federal bureaus with whichyou must now deal operate on generalgrants of power given to them by Con­gress at their creation. But Congress lets

25

the bureaus set up their own day-to-dayprocedures by non -statutory administra­tive rules and regulations that carry theforce of law. This is nearly the samesituation, except at a lower level, as theone we discussed earlier whereby thePresident issues Executive Orders thatamount to royal decrees. Metro admini­strators, armed with these administrativerules and regulations, run their fiefdomswith all the impunity of the agents ofKing George III. The Declaration ofIndependence cites the arbitrary power ofsuch "swarms of officers" as one of ourgrievances against England. Today we areenthroning precisely the system againstwhich our colonial forebears once re­belled .

Closely related to the replacement ofour Constitutio nal system of rule by lawwith rule by bureaucrati c edic t is theregiona l government policy of disregar d­ing state lines. One of the major checksand b~lances (or "counterveiling pow­ers") established by the Constitution inthe Tenth Amendment was the retentionof all powers , not specifically given to thefederal government , in the hands of thestates and the people. This makes forsovereign states whose internal affairs aretheir own business . But by tying federalgrants to the new federal regions, each ofwhich encompasses a number of states, thestate lines are made to have no moremeaning than traffic lights in New YorkCity.

The attitude of Met ro proponents to ­wards the states is typified by the Councilfor Economic Development , an importantstudy group closely tied with the Councilon Foreign Relations.* In one of" itsstudies on local government , the C.E.D.declares:

Fiscal realities have modified thelegal concept that the states are thefountain source ofall governmentalpower. The states created the na­tional government, assigning it cer­tain functions and granting it essen-

JANUARY, 1973

tial powers. The powers of localunits were also granted by thestates. Realistically , however, capa­bility of response to public desiresand adequate financial resourcestake precedence over legal theory .The states seem less "sovereign"with 20% of their total annualrevenues drawn from the federaltreasury.

The point is that the sovereignty ofthe states is meant to diminish as thepercentage of annual revenue receivedfrom the federal government rises. Th isexp lains the real purpose behind "revenuesharing" and similar Metro-backed pro ­posals.

Iron ically , some Metro programs areprom ot ed under the guise of increasingthe power of the sta tes, ot hers purport toincrease the jurisdiction of th e cou nties,while others are said to increase theindependence of cities. In each case Met­ro plays the bigger government againstthe smaller, the objective being to central­ize power at an ever higher level. Thepurpose is to place all power in the handsof the federal government and to turnstate , county, and city governments int oadministrative cogs in one big bureaucrat­ic machine. Metro is a mechanism forchanging a limited Constitutional Repub­lic into an unlimited autocracy withoutaltering the apparent form of our govern­ment. The State of Kansas will still exist.The City of Seattle will still exist. TheCounty of Los Angeles will still exist. Butthe ir independence will not. Our entireform of government will have change d.And we hardly need remin d yo u thatwhen a government is run by bur eaucrati cedicts which for all practical purposescannot be reversed by the people, dict a­tors hip exists .

You do ubt that it will happen? Youthink this is an exaggeration? Think

*Sce "Who They Are" in American Opinion forOctober 1972 .

27

about your own experiences in trying toobtain justice from the Bureau of InternalRevenue where bureaucrats act as prose­cutor, judge, and jury.

Control over taxation is a very impor­tant aspect of the Metro movement.Thomas Jefferson advised us long agothat the power to tax is the power todestroy. We might add that the power totax is also the power to control. That iswhy Metro units are so eager to get theirhands on the power to tax. One of theirmain arguments is that the big citypoliticians, through vote-buying welfareschemes, have chased productive taxpay­ers to the suburbs - leaving the centralcities between a fiscal rock and a financialhard place. The woebegone taxpayer whoaccepts Metro taxation to improve thetax base for the cities is then caughtbetween a vice of rising taxes levied byregional government (often raised to ob­tain matching federal grants) , and in­creased federal taxes to finance the myri­ad federal programs said to be designed to"improve the quality of life" at the city,county, and state level. Voters can stilIdeal with the problem at the federal levelbecause Congress controls the pursestrings; but , in the local Metro areas ,taxes can be set by metrocrats in whatamounts to taxation without representa­tion.

While taxation is used to make a directattack on private property, it is not theonly such attack made by the metrocrats.The Metro Planners have used their foun­dation grants to develop a variety of pro­grams to control and confiscate privateproperty. One of the most successful is Ur­ban Renewal , and such related schemesas Public Housing and Model Cities.Promotion of these programs has long beena priority for the organizations based atThirteen-Thirteen. It was their lobbyingthat first put the federal foot in the door oflocal housing when they persuaded Con­gress to pass the Title I Housing Act of1949, establishing federal financing forslum clearance and redevelopment. The

JANUARY, 1973

Housing Act of 1954 broadened the pro­visions of Title I to include not only slumclearance but slum prevention.

Then, in 1954, the Warren Courtproduced a swamp of sociological juris­prudence giving unlimited power to thegovernment to seize anything it wantedthrough the formerly very limited "rightof eminent domain." According to theSupreme Court, the government coulduse eminent domain to seize any piece ofproperty it wanted. Karl Marx proposedthis concept somewhat differently: Hesaid it in German. The Court blastedselfish owners who might not want theirproperty, in many cases the product of alifetime of work and saving, seized tosatisfy the whims of bureaucrats. TheCourt stated:

Ifowner after owner were permit­ted to resist these redevelopmentprograms on the ground that his par­ticular property was not being usedagainst the public interest, int e­grated plans for redevelopmentwould suffer greatly. The argumentpressed upon us is, indeed, a plea tosubstitute the landowner's standardof the public need for the standardprescribed by Congress.... Oncethe question of the public purposehas been decided, the amount andcharacter of land to be taken forthe project and the need for a par­ticular tract to complete the inte­grated plan rests in the discretion ofthe legislative branch.*

One would have thought that associa­tions of property owners would have heldcourt and put the Warren gang on trialwith Judge Lynch presiding. They did notbecause Urban Renewal amounted to afederal subsidy for realtors (appraisals are

' Here is an un comfortable thought for the fu­ture: If forced sale of property for Urban Re­newal and related programs is Constitutional ,why not forced sale for agrarian reform? SorryI mentioned it.

29

required), for bankers (who financed re­building) , for construction workers andcontractors, and for lawyers who defend­ed the practice with great vigor. TheChambers of Commerce loved it. And noone said that compulsory Urban Renewalis nothing but politically legalized theft.

Besides the immorality of Urban Re­newal, it is also a monumental flop fromthe standpoint of the "humanitarian"purposes that were ascribed to it by theThirteen-Thirteen lobbyists. During thenineteen-year period from its inception tothe end of January 1968 , Urban Renewalhas depleted the nation's housing supplyby 315,451 units . Only 124,175 replace­ment dwellings were built , but 439 ,626were demolished under Urban Renewalprogramming.

During this period, $7. 1 billion wasspent on these projects. Over a millionpeop le and an uncounted number ofsmall neighborhood businesses have beenthe victims of the federal bulldozer.Who weeps for them? Private land whichUrban Renewal confiscates from haplessowners is divided by the bureaucratsbetween public and private intere sts.About sixteen percent has remained tax­exempt in public ownership (raisin g lo­cal taxes) while valuable acreage is soldat cut-rate prices to privileged interestswhich build high-rise office complexesand shopping centers rather than hous­ing. Meanwhile the former residents ofthe area find it harder and harder tolocate alternative low-cost housing . Thisleads to over-crowding in adjacent .areas.It has in some cases (Cleveland, forexample) been blamed as a contri butingfactor in massive rioting.

With the creation of the Departmentof Housing and Urban Developmen t(H.U .D.), and the passage of the ModelCities Act, the Urban Renewal conceptwent regiona l. Model Cities programsnow involve 150 cities - or, to be moreaccurate , areas - forcing regional gov­ernment by tying federal funds to itscreation. Such payoffs became necessary

JAN UAR Y, 1973

because, despite all of the pro-Metropropaganda about the wonders of gov­ernment by certified wizards, wheneverMetro government was offered on thelocal ballot , voters almost always re­jected it by a ratio of two to one. Ittook promises of " free" federal funds toovercome their better judgment.

Under Title II of the Omnibus CitiesBill of 1966 - the Metro title - allapplications for federal aid under tenprograms to provide sewers, constructionof hospitals , highways, libraries , airports,etc. , must soon be submitted for rec­ommendation to a Metro governmentbefore they are forwa rded to Wash­ington. The Metro government to whichthe applications are to be submittedmust be a joint planning body for thecent ral city and suburbs. * As a result,the big city Urban Renewal projec tshave been integrated with the suburbs,forcing "scattered-site" public housingupon quiet, formerly pleasant , suburbancommunities. Just as with busing, Pres­ident Nixon decries what his own ap­pointees are doing , but he lets them goright on doing it.

Taxation and the direct seizure ofproperty are not the only ways in whichthe metrocrats attack private property.Thirteen-Thirteen literature boasts ofplans to use practices common in UrbanRenewal and Model Cities programs toplace complete control of all land in theUnited States in the hands of Metro .Now, whenever land is even temporarilyheld by Metro Authority, land-use con­tro ls are applied by covenants whichpass with the land. Forever after, thatland is subject to the control of theMetro Planner s. Robert C. Weaver, for­mer Secretary of the Department of

*Even w he n fede ral laws do not specifically tiefe de ral gra n ts to the creation of regiona l bodi es,in :p rac tice the bu rea ucrats who say yea or nayt o fun di ng t he pr o ject s requi re t he establish­me nt of a regio nal govern ing grou p or give th eimpression that such a group is a prerequisitefor receiving the federa l fu nds.

31

Housing and Urban Development(H.U.D.), was quite frank about it, de­claring:

Regional government means ab­solute Federal control over all prop­erty and its development regardlessof location, anywhere in the UnitedStates, to be administered on theFederal officials' determination. It[regional government] would super­cede state and local laws. . . .Through this authority we seek torecapture control of the use ofland,most of which the government hasalready given to the people.

Land control is people control. Al­ready Model Cities programs have forcedcommunities to integrate their schoolsunder preposterously racist schemes; toestablish sensitivity training for communi­ty leaders, teachers , social workers, andthe police; and to accept federal guide­lines concerning health, education, em­ployment, recreation , and housing. TheMetro Planners also have an abiding inter­est in the police . Not only do theypromote sensitivity training for the localconstabulary, they often require the es­tabli shment of the highly discredited"civilian review boards." Even beforeH.U.D. became involved, Thirteen­Thirteen pushed for consolidation oflocal police departments and sheriffsoffices into metropolitan police forcesunder a political appointee responsible toa Metro manager. A manual published bythe International City Managers Associa­tion of 1313 East Sixtieth Street, Chica­go, states :

The police function should beadministered through a regular citydepartment headed by a policechief directly responsible to thechief administrator of the city[manager] . . . . Appointment ofthe police chief should be made bythe chief administrator of the city

JANUAR Y, 1973

. . . rather than by a separate board,commission, or the city council.

One shou ld keep in mind that amongthe federa l bur eaus that will have officesin each of Richard Nixon 's ten regionaldistricts is the Law Enforcement Assis­tance Administration (L.E .A.A.) . Onlythose who are still moist behind the irhearing apparatus will doubt thatL.E.A.A., working through the federalsub-capitals , is laboring to produce re­gional police as a step toward a federalpolice force. When they start recruiting inone region for duty in another region, orbegin the transfer of police from oneregion to another, you will know thatFedcop is here. Loss of jurisdiction andcontrol over our local police is a certainstep toward Orwell's 1984.

But this is only part of what isinvolved when one recalls that in additionto Executive Order 11647 of February10, 1972, and the Revenue Sharing Actthat has given the federal governmentdictatorial power in setting guidelines forour local communities, we also face Exec­utive Order 11490 of October 30 , 1969 ,"Assigning Emergency PreparednessFunctions to Federal Departments." ThisOrder, discussed at length in Alan Stang'sarticle beginning on page one , empowersRegional Council members, under thecolor of law, to control all food supply,money and credit, transportation, com­munications, public utilities , hospitals,and other essential facets of human exis­tence. That is what regional governmentreally means!

America has genuine urban problems.But regionalization can hardly be cited asa solution so long as communities canvoluntarily contract with each other towork together in their solution. Suchthings as fire, police, or trash collectionservices, for instance , can be shared bycontract. Pollution problems can besolved by state legislatures and the courts- so that if someone is pouring sewage inyour drinking water, you can settle the

33

matter in court. Curing pollution hardlyrequires the abolition of our Constitu­tional Republic. But the metrocrats arenot interested in these genuine solutions,they are after power. They are working tocarry out what the Ford Foundation'sRowan Gaither described as the plan tomerge the United States with the SovietUnion.*

The Metro conspiracy made great ad­vances with the aid of Presidents Eisen­hower, Kennedy, and Johnson, but itstriumph awaited the Administration ofRichard Nixon. Mr. Nixon was the first to"bite the bullet" and create the tenfederal regions as part of his "NewFederalism" . . . a takeover which he de­scribes as part of a "New AmericanRevolution." It might more accurately bedescribed as a "counter revolution" tothat of 1776 which freed us from thearbitrary rule of "swarms of officers ."

As I write, President Nixon is in theprocess of creating a Cabinet post ofCommunity Development, the boss ofwhich will act as a commissar rulingover his ten regional soviets and usingthe $30 billion in " revenue sharing"funds as both a carrot and a stick toimplement Metro rule. And RichardNixon means business . Washington col­umnist Richard Wilson informs us thatthe "new federalism .. . is an obsessionwith him." Ironically, Mr. Nixon 's col­lectivist obsession is being sold to thepublic as decentralization. The Presidenthas proclaimed:

'Certainly Richard Nixon is carrying out partof this program by making the United Statesdependent on Soviet natural resources . Does itnot seem odd that our government will notallow a pipeline to be built across Alaska toallow the development of that state's hugepetroleum resources under the excuse that itwill upset the . ecology of snow bunnies andpolar bears, while at the same time we prepareto import natural gas from the Soviet Union?Doe s it not seem odd that the Rockefellers'Ch ase Manhattan Bank is opening a bran ch inbeautiful downtown Moscow, even as th e So­viets are preparing to sell bonds in America ?

34

I realize that what I am asking isthat not only the executive branchin Washington, but even this Con­gress will have to change by givingup some ofits power.

Nixon is taking power from the Execu­tive Department in Washington by creat ­ing ten branches of the Executive Depart­ment throughout the country. Sacrebleu!

Under the title "Domestic KissingersTo Have Vast Powers," columnists Evansand Novak reveal what Mr. Nixon is reallyup to:

Many details await final Presi­dential determination , but the in­tent of the drastic reorganizationhas now become inescapably clear:To devise lines of power and au­thority which will centralize alldecision-making in the White Houseto about the same extent thatHenry Kissinger now controls everyaspect of foreign policy.

In blueprint form is a proposalto create four or five new Kissinger­type master bureaucrats, workingdirectly under the President. Theywould exercise fully as much con­trol over their old-line departmentsas Kissinger now exercises over theState Department through the Na­tional Security Council (NSC).

What this means is that Mr.Nixon intends to take direct con­trol of the sprawling and oftenimmovable bureaucracy into hisown hands, operating through hisnew master bureaucrats.

Our country is being changed into aBig Brother dictatorship with Newspeakas the official langugage. The first thingyou know, the "domestic Kissingers" willbe trying to put a federal television set inevery home to spy on us. And if youdon't believe it , go back to page one andbegin reading Alan Stang's article called

Big Broth er. - -AMERICA N OPINIO N