Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact

Regional Governance

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."

— James Madison, address to the Virginia Convention, June 16, 1788.

Published by: THE INDEPENDENT AMERICAN - Littleton, Colorado

Beware Metro


Regional Government!

Library of Congress Catalog No. 73-85483
First Printing, August 1973
Second Printing, November 1973
Manufactured in the United States of America


Phoebe Courtney is the managing editor of THE INDEPENDENT AMERICAN, a national Conservative newspaper she founded in January 1955. This book is Mrs. Courtney’s eleventh book. Her previous books have sold more than 250,000 copies.

This is also the fifth book in her series of books exposing the prestigious Council on Foreign Relation. According to Phoebe Courtney: "As long as the Council on Foreign Relations controls both the foreign and domestic policies of this nation, regardless of which political party is in power—as I always prove - I will continue my series of books exposing the policies of the semi-secret CFR to public view."

Putting out a national bimonthly newspaper and writing books are two of Phoebe Courtney’s activities. She is also the author of a series of pamphlets entitled TAX FAX which deal with national politics and critical issues of the day. As this book goes to press, the current TAX FAX is No. 131. Almost 10,000,000 of her TAX FAX pamphlets have been purchased and distributed throughout the United States since 1956. The main purpose of these thoroughly documented pamphlets is to help mobilize grass-roots opposition to Liberal-Socialist legislation in Congress.

[NOTE: Mrs. Courtney is no longer publishing and has relinquished copyrights on her material so long as it remains intact.]




Author’s note: In this book, when one or more of the individual States is mentioned by those advocating policies which will diminish the power of the sovereign States, the word appears as "state" or "states." When those supporting the sovereignty of the States make mention of States- it appears as "State" or "States."

In his State of the Union address on January 22, 1971, President Richard Nixon stated:

"The further away government is from people, the stronger government becomes and the weaker people become....

"I reject the idea that government in Washington, D.C. is inevitably more wise, more honest and more efficient than government at the local or state level…

"The idea that a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows what is best for people everywhere and that you cannot trust local government is really a contention that you cannot trust people to govern themselves. This notion is completely foreign to the American experience. Local government is the government closest to the people and it is most responsive to the individual person; it is people’s government in a far more intimate way than the government in Washington can ever be...

"Let us give the people of America a chance, a bigger voice in deciding for themselves those questions that so greatly affect their lives."

The philosophy of government expressed in this address does indeed represent that of the vast majority the American people. However, Mr. Nixon’s actions regarding this philosophy are the diametric opposite. Commenting on the President’s State of the Union message, Congressman John Rarick observed:

"‘Power to the people’ is a slogan used not only by radical socialists in their plans to communize America but also by President Nixon in his New American Revolution.

"Whereas the rhetoric of the President is desirable and encouraging, the words unfortunately are made suspect by actions. By consistently asking for more and more tax funds for more and more federal programs which add to the federal payroll an increasing number of bureaucrats who increasingly control more and more facets of the daily lives of citizens; by grouping States into regions with unelected federal overseers, thereby removing power farther from the people... the Chief Executive is, in effect, fostering power over the people rather than ‘power to the people.’"

"Power to the people" is a traditionally American concept, which is what the Constitution of the United States is all about. When the necessary number of the original thirteen colonies ratified the U.S. Constitution, they established a government in which political power was decentralized. By the constitutional contract, they surrendered, to the federal government, only specified powers. Powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the States and to the people. This is specifically spelled out in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.


On February 10, 1972, as the nation’s press and TV were inundating the American people with coverage of Nixon’s upcoming journey to Communist China, the President signed Executive Order No. 11647, which then appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER of February 12. There was virtually no comment in the nation’s press on this action.

By this Executive Order, the President by a stroke of the pen divided the United States into ten federal regions to be run by "Federal Regional Councils."

In Executive Order No. 11647, the President decreed:

"There is hereby established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard federal regions. Each Council shall be composed of the directors of the regional offices of the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representative of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

"The President shall designate one member of each such council as chairman of that council and such chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget may participate in any deliberations of each council."

The "ten standard federal regions" referred to by Nixon were delineated by him in a press release issued by the White House on May 21, 1969. Purporting to "streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field," the President then gave the alignment for the federal regions as follows: (The city in parentheses is the federal capital of each region.)

As can be noted in the foregoing list, in all cases the lines drawn for these federal regions cross State lines, thus to all intents and purposes obliterating the sovereignty of the States.


Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution declares:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government..."

A republican form of government is defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as one in which "the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people - the electorate - and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them."

Under the Federal Regional Councils proclaimed by President Nixon, government in the ten federal regions would be administered by federal appointed bureaucrats accountable only to Washington, D.C.

Thus Nixon’s actions are a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to Article IV, Section 4.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution stipulates:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Thus, Nixon’s unilateral establishment of the ten federal regions violates this Clause in the U.S. Constitution inasmuch as, prior to the issuance of this edict, the President did not obtain the consent of all the State Legislatures concerned, nor of Congress.

What is behind this ominous consolidation of Federal power over the States and the citizens thereof?

What is its ultimate purpose? And how far has it progressed?

How will it affect you, your pocketbook and your future liberty?

To answer these, and other questions on this grave threat to Constitutional government in the United States, is the purpose of this book.



THE DAN SMOOT REPORT of February, 1, 1965, stated:

"Advocates of governmental planning have visions of a new kind of America: they would transform our union of sovereign States into a regionally-planned, monolithically-unified nation divided into a score of metropolitan areas which sprawl across State boundary lines."

Only four years were to elapse before President Nixon on May 21, 1969, proclaimed that the United States was now ten divided into ten regions (as listed in Chapter I).

In that same REPORT, Smoot also predicted:

"Each area will be ruled, at the ‘local level’, by only one governmental authority: a metropolitan government. Existing governments—city, county and State—will eventually be abolished."

In COUNT DOWN Newsletter of March 1973, Virginia R. Wilson, Editor and Publisher, had this to say:

"To understand Regional Government, it is necessary to know, what Metropolitan Government (Metro) involves, because Metro and Regional Government are the same: government of an area or region by a central body of appointed officials who have unlimited and unconstitutional power. Promoters of regional government claim it is a new form of government, but it is the oldest form in history—dictatorship."

Gary Allen in an article appearing in the January 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION magazine, defined Metro thusly:

"Metro is the governing of an area or region by a central body of ‘experts’—planners who are usually appointed and vested with great powers, and who are not directly accountable to the people.

"The purpose is to place all power in the hands of the federal government and to turn State, county, and city governments into administrative cogs [Councils of Government] in one big bureaucratic machine."

Metro, therefore, is the accumulation of power in as few hands as possible—federally appointed, unelected bureaucrats beyond the recall of the electorate.

Metro policies and programs, goals and methods, appear in a variety of forms designed to deal with varying State and local laws. But the basic strategy involves merging and consolidation of local city or town governments into a larger area government—which is in consonance with the 10 federal regions established by Nixon’s Executive Order, and controlled by Washington, D.C.


Metro moves the heretofore independent divisions of local government into the collective whole. This is accomplished by the merging of city and county, county and district, and then State with other States, into a federal region.

When this has finally been achieved, there will only be two levels of government—federal and regional.


Jo Hindman, a long-time research-journalist on regional planning issues is credited with coining the word "Metro-crats" to denote the federally appointed bureaucrats who will administer regional government.

In testimony submitted on June 4, 1971, to the Urban Affairs Subcommittee, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee on regional planning issues, Mrs. Hindman stated:

"From the Metro viewpoint, regionalization helps Metrocrats gain control of wealth and the political power to get it. Regions provide a vast tax-base on which to assess, and from which to collect ‘equalized’ taxes. Metro’s equalized taxation and per capita spending formulas take from the regions’ sparsely populated fringe areas, but spend heavily on the densely populated regional city cores."

Nixon’s ten federal regions are designed to be the vehicles to receive, and match with regional tax dollars collected from all parts of the region, the federal funds allocated.

In this connection Mrs. Hindman pointed out:

"Regional ruling bodies are non-representative because regional officers do not represent the citizenry. Regional officers are appointed… To date, there are no regional constituencies, no regional elections, no regional voters.

"Taxation on a regional basis, therefore, is taxation without representation. Regional rule bypasses voters and taxpayers."

The previously referred to DAN SMOOT REPORT of February 1, 1965, predicted:

"Initially, each metropolitan authority will levy taxes directly on local citizens; but when the whole nation has been organized into metropolitan areas, taxation can be made uniform—and local opposition to taxes eliminated—by abolishing local taxes. All taxes can then be levied by the central government in Washington."


What will happen to our cities and States under Metro-regional government? This is answered by Gary Allen in his AMERICAN OPINION magazine article as follows:

"Metro is a mechanism for changing a limited Constitutional republic into an unlimited autocracy without altering the apparent form of our government. The State of Kansas will still exist. The city of Seattle will still exist. The county of Los Angeles will still exist. But their independence will not. Our entire form of government will have changed."



In President Nixon’s statement of March 27, 1969, which originally established eight federal regions (raised to ten on May 21, Nixon mentioned "the regional council concept" and declared:

"Such councils can make it possible for the federal government to speak consistently and with a single voice in its dealings with states and localities, with private organizations, and with the public."

The "single voice" is the voice of the President whose power has been pyramided and concentrated by a series of Executive Orders made possible by a relinquishment of its perogatives by the Congress.

Early in our history, presidents began issuing Executive Orders governing the procedures of the Executive Department they headed. These Orders concerned such things as rules for federal employees, and for the internal administration of the various departments.

But, in 1933 a precedent was set so that Executive Orders could cover more substantive matters.

[Sweet Liberty Note: Executive orders only govern the procedures of the Executive Department (agency) and the bureaucrats heading the agencies. Executive Orders are NOT law and—as stated by Bill Leary of the National Security Council—"there is no legal or criminal penalty for failure to obey an Executive Order". Laws passed by the U.S. Congress giving ‘force of law’ to Executive Orders are color of law (non-law), since only the U.S. Congress has Constitutional authority to make federal laws. Article 1, Section 8 clearly defines the areas in which federal law applies to the several states.]

In an article in the January 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION magazine, Alan Stang points out how on May 9, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt demanded that Congress pass the Emergency Banking Act. The Act proposed to reorganize the nation’s collapsing banking system, and to legitimize, retroactively, Roosevelt’s "bank holiday" proclamation of three days before.

With members of both Houses of Congress barely aware of the future significance of the bill, because of White House pressure it was passed before midnight and Roosevelt signed it.

Among its dangerous provisions was an amendment to Section 5(b) of the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917. That section originally shifted from Congress to the President the power of regular trade and financial transaction between Americans and foreigners in war time. But the new Section 5(b), as amended in 1933, gave the President these extensive powers in peace time.

In this connection, Stang had this to say:

"All the President had to do to get them (these extensive powers) was to declare a ‘state of national emergency’, which is nowhere defined, and he could then begin to rule by decree—by Executive Order."

And then Stang continued:

"The principle of unlimited executive power, installed in 1933, has since been used in some two hundred laws granting the President unusual authority during national emergencies. Whenever a President believes that the Congress will refuse to pass some legislation he proposes, he can simply decree it is law by invoking some emergency power, and printing an Executive Order to that effect in the FEDERAL REGISTER."


President John F. Kennedy was the author of sweeping Executive Orders. For example, on February 16, 1962, Kennedy issued ten Executive Orders:

Commenting on these Executive Orders issued by Kenedy, Alan Stang, in the aforementioned magazine article, said:

"Remember that Congress had not specifically authorized any of this. All it had done was write a blank check, allowing American Presidents to do whatever they like — to scrap the Constitution and Congress itself — whenever they decide to declare an 'emergency'. And President Kennedy had used that blank check to publish these Executive Orders in the FEDERAL REGISTER to 'legitimize' what he or his successors might decide to do.

"The reader may well agree that John F. Kennedy's Executive Orders, if ever implemented, would impose a totalitarian dictatorship on the American people."

[CDR Note: Given that Executive Orders are NOT LAW, the above scenario could only come about by the acquiescence of the people. State legislators are the 'voice' of the people. Our greatest danger lays in the unfortunate, pathetic fact that neither the people nor the state legislators KNOW their Creator-endowed rights, which are protected under the Constitution. The ninth and tenth Articles of Amendment (Bill of Rights) establishes the premise under which state legislators could/should -- and WILL if the "people" inform them and hold their feet to the fire -- reject the illusion which has been created by colorable laws. It MUST be remembered that Governor's Executive Orders are no more law than are presidential Executive Orders]


So what does Conservative-speechmaking President Nixon do? On October 28, 1969, he signed an all-inclusive Presidential directive, Executive Order No. 11490. This Executive Order consolidated all of Kennedy's dictatorship-oriented Executive Orders. Nixon's Executive Order became "law" when it was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on October 30, 1969.

In the preface to Executive Order No. 11490, Nixon states:

"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and pursuant to… the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, it is hereby ordered…."

Now, one would surely assume that such sweeping Presidential powers as spelled out in Executive Order No. 11490 would apply only in case of nuclear attack. Right? Wrong!

The order starts out:

"Whereas our national security is dependent upon our ability to assure continuity of government, at every level, in any national emergency type situation that might conceivably confront the nation… "

And who decides that an "emergency type situation" exists which could set in motion the drastic people-control measures provided in Nixon's Executive Order No. 11490? Why, the President, of course. All he has to do is decree that an "emergency" exists.

But would President Nixon decree a 'national emergency' unless it was a case of enemy attack?

He already has.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon issued Proclamation 4074, which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 17, 1971. In this proclamation, Nixon stated:

"I hereby declare a national emergency during which I call upon the public and private sector to make the efforts necessary to strengthen the international economic position of the United States."

Since when is the "international economic position" of the United States a "national emergency"? Since Mr. Nixon said so!

Although, in this particular instance, Nixon did not invoke all the powers he had given himself in Executive Order No. 11490 -- he could have.


Executive Order No. 11490, under Section 101, states:

"This order consolidates the assignment of emergency preparedness functions to various (federal) departments and agencies… "

All the President has to do to activate this decree is, as has been pointed out, to declare a "national emergency".

Gary Allen, in an article in the January 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION magazine, when discussing Executive Order No. 11490, warns:

"This order, empowers (federal) Regional council members, under the color 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 government really means!"



How does President Nixon intend to rule the ten federal regions he created by Executive Order on February 10, 1972?

In a column on November 23, 1972, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak reported that "President Nixon is quietly but stubbornly designing a radically new federal bureaucracy which will centralize power inside the White House to a degree never before attempted".

And then the columnists continued:

"The intent of the drastic reorganization has now become inescapably clear: To devise lines of power and authority which will centralize all decision-making in the White House to about the same extent that Henry Kissinger now controls every aspect of foreign policy.

"In blueprint form is a proposal to create four or five new Kissinger-type master bureaucrats working directly under the President… These White House super-aides (would be) no more answerable to Congress than Kissinger himself."

Nixon's March 1971 reorganization plan called for taking seven of the present eleven cabinet-level departments and regrouping them into four conglomerate departments to be knows as: Department of Natural Resources, Department of Human Resources, Department of Economic Development, and Department of Community Development.

According to Evans and Novak, these new "master bureaucrats" would have "responsibilities cutting across existing departments and agencies just as Kissinger's own responsibilities routinely cut into the State, Defense, and Treasury Departments."

In February 1972, when Nixon signed the Executive Order dividing the United States into ten federal regions he noted that the restructuring of the Executive Department would have to await Congressional approval.

However, after Nixon received his "mandate" in the the Presidential election of 1972, he proceeded to act unilaterally in the matter.

[CDR NOTE: Be clear that all of the Federal Agencies which have been established were established by decree of the United Nations. The federal agencies are being duplicated on a state level by state legislators who go along to get along simply because their constituents -- the "people" -- have been led for decades by the Phony Conservatives, including the John Birch Society, to believe that the problem can only be solved at the federal level.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has established a 'department' called the Department of Community and Economic Development, which is purchasing hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of acres of land. We have no idea from where the purchasing funds are procured and no clue as to "who" or "what" owns the land. Each state will have a similar department with a similar name.

To illustrate the importance (to the planners) of this department: Globalist Governor (and aspiring VP candidate) Tom Ridge has changed the state pin from its original -- an outline shape of the state bearing the state name, "Pennsylvania" -- to a key-shape with the letters "DCED", for Department of Community and Economic Development. Take heed, people.]


The NEW YORK TIMES of January 7, 1973, reported the following:

"Last Friday… Richard Nixon proclaimed a massive reorganization of the Executive Branch -- the most sweeping in history. He rolled out a super Cabinet and a super-super Cabinet -- a total of eight trusted aides and official Cabinet members -- who will be superimposed on the existing government machiners…

"The President wants a Department of Human Resources… so he is bringing Caspar Weinberger to the White House as Counselor… to run Human Resources… Mr. Weinberger will keep the title of HEW Secretary.

"Similarly, James Lynn, the quick-study lawyer who has been appointed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, will be Counselor in charge of community (and) regional development…

"Agriculture Secretary Earl L. Butz will be Counselor for natural resources in charge of resource use, lands and minerals, environment… "

In commenting on Nixon's increasing consolidation of power, Gary Allen, in an article in the March 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION, stated:

"Ultimately, of course, all of these supercrats and super-supercrats are doing the personal bidding of Richard Nixon, and reporting as directly as possible to him. Little wonder that, with this kind of vast power being centralized in the Executive offices, columnist Richard Wilson has observed that 'there is no point in downgrading (President Nixon's) enthusiasm for the new federalism. It is an obsession with him'.

"Power is an obsession with him. And President Nixon's 'New Federalism' is NewSpeak, where love is hate and war is peace and centralization is decentralization.

"Under the revolutionary slogan "Power to the people', Richard Nixon is delivering 'Power to the Presidency' -- which means power to himself."

[CDR NOTE: When you hear state legislators and governors talking about the New Federalism, keep in mind that New Federalism is Regionalism. Remember, too, that the U.S. President is no more than a talking head for the real controllers of the U.S. Government, Inc. Richard Nixon did NOT bring power to himself. Nixon and all presidents at the least since Woodrow Wilson are powerless puppets for their masters, which in essence are also our masters. This will remain the case until the American people are willing to stand up, get involved in local and state governmental processes and return the power to whom/where it belongs… the people and the states… in that order.]


An Associated Press dispatch of November 27, 1972, reported that since 1969, the annual cost of operating the Executive Office of the President has more than doubled -- from $31 million to $71 million. But even that figure does not actually portray the true cost of running the Nixon White House.

A study by the AP of budget documents and testimony at appropriations hearings revealed that the real cost may approximate $100 million a year. And this does not include the expenses of the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Emergency Planning and some other arms of the President's Executive Office.


In Executive Order No. 11647, which established the ten Federal Regional Councils, Nixon announced:

"I have assigned to the Office of Management and Budget the responsibility for assisting the President in developing efficient co-ordinating mechanisms to implement government activities and to expand inter-agency cooperation. Three years ago, I directed that the senior regional officials of certain of the grant-making agencies convene themselves in regional councils to better coordinate their services to Governors, mayors, and the public." [emphasis ours]

The previously-referred-to report of the NEW YORK TIMES listed Roy Ash as one of the members of Nixon's "super-super" Cabinet.

In this connection, Gary Allen, in his article, had this to say:

"Another new man on the Nixon team is Roy Ash, who will serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As such, he will control the funding of all federal programs and all programs at State and local levels in which the federal government has a financial interest. This makes Ash the national General Manager in charge of all programs, organizations, and personnel at all levels of government".

The WALL STREET JOURNAL of November 29, 1972, had this comment to make regarding the appointment of Roy Ash:

"With Mr. Ash in the saddle, OMB should come closer to realizing its potential as an instrument for government reform."

To which Gary Allen retorted:

"All of that 'reform' means control of State and local governments by the ten federal subdistricts. Which is what Messrs. Nixon and Schultz and Weinberger and Ash really mean when they talk about 'decentralization' and 'taking power away from Washington'."

Reporter John Herbers wrote in the LONG BEACH PRESS TELEGRAM of November 23, 1972, that the President's reorganization revolves around "more authority in regional offices…"

And then he continued:

"While the machinery of government is being decentralized, the policy-making process is expected to be further centralized, taken out of the departments and moved to the White House."


Incisively cutting through the propaganda emanating from the White House, Gary Allen gave the following as the real reason for Nixon's restructuring of the government:

"Richard Nixon has correctly assessed the anti-government, anti-bureaucratic temper of the country and has figured out a way to take advantage of it while at the same time increasing the power of the government and the bureaucracy.

"Today, when things go wrong in the government, people have a pretty good idea who is to blame. They blame Washington with its army of entrenched bureaucrats. Now Mr. Nixon is going to take the heat off Washington by scattering the bureaucrats into the ten federal sub-capitals, at the same time increasing their power and his own.

"Under the Nixon reorganization, government becomes more sinister by becoming more anonymous."

What is behind Nixon's power-grab via by-passing the sovereign States and establishing ten Federal Regional councils?

How long has this plan been in the making?



The foremost exponent of the destruction of the United States as a Constitutional Republic is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).


THE DAN SMOOT REPORT of July 20, 1964, described the CFR as follows:

"The people elected and appointed to manage the affairs of the United States Government have in large measure become puppets, controlled by powerful persons working in and through a network of tax-exempt organization.0

"At the center of this network is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Members of the CFR occupy top positions in government, in foundations, in educational institutions, in communications, in banking.

"They are an elite who set policies of our federal government; and through a vast, interlocking combine of educational and opinion-forming agencies, they influence or control propaganda which persuades Congress and the public to accept the policies.

"In short, the Council on Foreign Relations is the invisible government of the United States. Its tentacles of power and influence are wrapped around levers of power in Washington; reach into schools, colleges, big unions, churches, and respected civic organizations; dominate communications; and have a grip on the prestige and money of many major American corporations".

Speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on April 27, 1972, Congressman John R. Rarick declared:

"The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship."

And, the Council on Foreign Relations continues to increase its power and influence regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans occupy the White House.

My book, "The CFR", published in 1968, contained a comparison chart of the foreign-policy recommendations of the Communist Party USA and the Council on Foreign Relations. (This same chart appears in my book, "Nixon and the CFR", published in 1972.) A mere glance at this comparison chart shows the chilling parallel between the policies advocated by the Communist Party USA through the years, and the present CFR-controlled Nixon Administration. Thus, in view of such irrefutable documentation, one is justified when referring to the CFR as "Communist-accommodating" and "Communist appeasing."

Such appeasement of the international Communist conspiracy has reached unprecedented proportions since the CFR sent German-born Henry Kissinger to the White House to guide President Nixon's foreign policy.

[CDR NOTE: To discover who is really behind the CFR/Communist control, read the article "Zionist Jews According to the Jewish Encyclopedia". ]


In an article in AMERICAN OPINION of October 1972, Gary Allen put it this way:

"The influence of the Council on Foreign Relations has reached its zenith in the Nixon Administration. No man alive could more effectively represent the CFR than Henry Kissinger, who is for all practical purposes the Assistant President of the United States in charge of foreign policy. Henry Kissinger came to the Nixon Administration from the staff of the CFR and received his appointment at the behest of Nelson Rockefeller (CFR), whose brother David is chairman of the board of the Council."

President Nixon has appointed at least 115 members of the Council on Foreign Relations to key spots in his Administration -- an all-time high for any President.


Members of the Council on foreign Relations not only represent all religious faiths, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish, but also the following fields: finance, government, business, labor, military, education, and mass communications media.

In order to add prestige and apparent authenticity to its foreign-policy recommendations, the Council on Foreign Relations has corralled a stable of big names, well-known to the majority of the American people. For example, here are listed only a few of the nationally prominent men who are, or were, members of the CFR:

In addition to being financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations also receives contributions from various corporations throughout the country, such as Standard Oil Company of California; Time, Inc.; the Chase Manhattan Bank; Ford Motor Company, International Division; the Rand Corporation and IBM.


It will be recalled that Chapter III detailed Nixon's Executive Order No. 11490 which provides a carefully detailed plan for dictatorship, subject only to Mr. Nixon's declaration that an "emergency type situation" exists.

The President's Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) prepares plans to be used in various emergencies decreed by him. According to Alan Stang in his article in the January 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION : "In an emergency OEP is to the President as a military staff is to a commanding general. Thus it is not an operational unit, but a nerve center." The OEP coordinates activities by supplying them with plans and other information.

Surely, it is not a coincidence that the Director of the OEP is General George A. Lincoln, a member of the Communist-accommodating Council on Foreign Relations.

Alan Stang in his article also made this foreboding observation:

"It is interesting to note that, like other federal agencies, the Office of Emergency Preparedness conforms to the uniform federal regions, which means that its regional offices are located in the capitals of the ten federal regions into which Washington is dividing the country, and which more and more are superseding the State and local governments within them.

"It is perfectly possible that, in the next manufactured 'emergency', the country will be ruled by Washington, with the help of its [appointed -- NOT elected] agents in these ten federal provinces."

* * * * * *

Whereas, as its name implies, the Council on Foreign Relations is supposedly concerned with foreign-policy matters, nevertheless, the CFR has a domestic arm — the Committee for Economic Development (CED) — whose prime function is the promotion and facilitation of metropolitan government — Metro. According to the plans of the CFR, the sovereignty of the States must be destroyed. Why?

Because, as THE DAN SMOOT REPORT of July 20, 1964, so succinctly put it:

"The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations is the same as the ultimate aim of international Communism: to create a one-world Socialist system and make the United States an official part of it."

The role of the CFR's domestic apparatus, the CED, will be discussed in the next chapter.



One of the direct links between the Council on Foreign Relations and the "big business" community is the Committee for Economic Development (CED).

The CED is, actually, the domestic branch of the Council on foreign Relations. Whereas activities of the CFR itself are geared to control the foreign policy of the United States, the CED primarily concerns itself with the domestic policy of this country.

The Committee for Economic Development is the brainchild of Paul G. Hoffman. Hoffman, an influential member of the CFR, was formerly president of the Studebaker Corp., and former president of the Ford Foundation. He founded the CED in 1942 and was named chairman.

A statement in a report by the Research and Policy Committee of the CED, dated July 1966, says that this committee is directed by CED's by-laws to:

"Initiate studies into the principles of business policy and of public policy which will foster the full contribution by industry and commerce to the attainment and maintenance of high and secure standards of living for people in all walks of life…"

Because the purpose of such studies is recommendations, here we see an organization of powerful private citizens admitting that one of its functions is to determine "public policy".

In his article in the October 1972 issue of AMERICAN OPINION, Gary Allen revealed:

"You will not be surprised to learn that nine of the fourteen members of the Executive Committee of the CED are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Forty-eight of 190 CED trustees we checked were at the same time members of the CFR."

Where the CED obtains a portion of its financing was revealed in a radio broadcast on August 13, 1966, over Station WINC, Winchester, Virginia by Elizabeth Osth, who discussed an issue of FOUNDATION NEWS, published by the Foundation Library Center, Baltimore, Maryland. According to Mrs. Osth:

"The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Motor Company Fund, and many others have granted large sums to such Socialist-planning and propagandizing outfits as the Committee for Economic Development and the National Planning Association."

In July 1967, the Committee for Economic Development issued a study in which the CED made this statement:

"Stagnation and inertia have been characteristic of too many American state government… The business community has an emphatic interest in clearing away basic faults that inhibit potential growth and development of the national economy and its regional components".

That the sovereign States would be referred to as "regional components", clearly reveals the basic thinking of the CED.

Gary Allen also stated in the aforementioned article:

"Among the collectivist schemes currently being promoted by the CED are… federal control over local law enforcement and metropolitan government.

"If the CED is for it, you can bet your last lollipop that it will expand the role of Big Brother in the lives of each of us."


The CFR and the CED are mindful that as they move forward in their power grab they must employ high-sounding catch phrases so that the voters will be unaware of the real significance of their various moves—until it is too late.

One of these catch phrases is "creative federalism."

John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a speech in 1966 said:

"Strictly speaking, 'creative federalism' refers to the relationship between the federal government and the states."

Both the words "creative" and "federalism" have a seemingly innocuous sound. However, there is no need to redefine the "relationship" between the federal government and the individual States. This was done by the U.S. Constitution which clearly defined that the federal government is the creature of the sovereign States -- not the other way around as the CFR and the CED would have it.

Senator Strom Thurmond, on April 11, 1966, in a report to his constituents in South Carolina, refers to "creative federalism" as nothing more than a Madison Avenue misnomer for the practice of injecting the federal government into every conceivable area of human activity under the guise of "aid". He warned that present laws being introduced as a means of strengthening the States, counties and municipalities actually are making these units of government mere "subdivisions" in an all-powerful central government.

In the 1966 report of the Research and Policy Committee of the CED, we find the following under the heading "The New Federalism":
"Sweeping initiatives by the national government, and to a lesser degree by a few state governments, have helped to fill the partial vacuum created by failures at the local level

"Fiscal realities have modified the legal concept that the states are the fountain source of all governmental powers. The states have created the national government, assigning it certain functions and granting it essential powers. The powers of local units were also granted by the states. Realistically, however, capability of response to public desires and adequate financial resources take precedence over legal theory. The states seem less 'sovereign' with 20 percent of their total annual revenues drawn from the federal treasury".

And it was planned that way. The sovereignty of the States is meant to diminish in direct ratio to the increase in federal "aid".

[Sweet Liberty NOTE: The creatures which have gained control of our governmental system through the CFR, CED and their minions have no shame, and speak as though we — the people, and our duly elected representatives — are brainless idiots. The above and following paragraphs speak volumes. The usurpers insult our local and state elected officials insinuating that they (elected officials) and we (the people) are incapable of self (local) government and must be ruled. They have restructured our monetary system; instituted a back-breaking tax system (revenue sharing) taking billions of dollars from the States, returning pennies on the dollar and then claim federal control because the States receive "20 percent of their revenues from the federal treasury". This corrupt system has been upheld by the corrupt courts, asserting that local and State governments must 'obey' federal mandates when they use 'federal funds'.]


The CED's July 1966 report contained the names of the 43 members of its Research and Policy Committee responsible for the report. Of those listed, the following are also members of the Communist-accommodating Council on Foreign Relations:


It is probable that never before has such an elaborately planned deception of the American people been mounted as that being promulgated by the CFR/CED combine.

For example, the CED's July 1966 report entitled "modernizing Local Government" loftily claims that its proposals are "designed to preserve the basic values in our federal system of government." On page 63 of the report is found this sentence: "The changes we propose are vital to effective local self-government…"

Such statements are deliberately contrived to deceive the unwary and uninformed.

One glimmer of honesty does, however, appear in the CED's report where it states:

"We are well aware of the sweeping scope of these proposals. Taken in combination they amount to a revolutionary readjustment of local forms… Prevailing conditions and trends demand measures of such strength. But adoption of these recommendations—in whole or in major part—will, of course, face stern resistance."

And, "stern resistance" will increase in every State throughout this nation, as the voters are informed as to what the people-controllers, the Metrocrats, are planning, and, in some cases, now actually carrying out in a number of States.


In the CED's 1966 report are found the following scornful comments on local self-government:

"Very few local units are large enough—in population, area, or taxable resources—to apply modern methods in solving current and future problems…

"Popular control over local governments is ineffective or sporadic, and public interest in local politics is not high…

"Antiquated administrative organizations hamper most local governments. Lack of a single executive authority, either elective or appointive, is a common fault…

"We are also convinced that many local governments are unequal to the challenge. They are ineffective in coping with present problems…"


Decrying the fact that the people, via the ballot box, in most cases still have control over their local government, the CED's 1966 report calls for "structural modernization and professional staffing for all local units."

The CED report puts it this way:

"Each local unit should have a single chief executive, either elected by the people or appointed by the local legislative body, with all administrative agencies and personnel fully responsible to him; election of department heads should be halted."

The CED report makes it clear that it favors the appointment of this "single chief executive" who would then be beyond the reach of the voters, and in a position to carry out the self-admitted "revolutionary readjustment of local forms" proposed by the CED.

According to the CED:

"Adequate control over administrative activities cannot be exercised by an executive when most of the department heads remain responsible only to the electorate or to some quasi-independent hoard… A full-time chief executive should be empowered to manage and coordinate all administration operations, including appointment and removal of department heads."

Strongly recommending such a "centralized authority", as the CED report puts it, the CED then reveals that such a form of government "removes most administrative decisions from the political arena."

In other words, this local full-time chief executive would not be answerable to the voters as mayors and other local officials elected by the people presently are.


The CFR and the CED are certainly aware of the powers reserved to the States by the U.S. Constitution. It is, therefore, their No. 1 priority goal to nullify the power of the individual States, leaving them at the mercy of the then all-powerful federal government, a government controlled by men belonging to the CFR and the CED (regardless of which party occupies the White House).

A year after its report on "Modernizing Local Government," the CED, in July 1967, released a report entitled "Modernizing State Governments" which called for sweeping governmental renovation at the State level.

Proposing changes that would seemingly strengthen the power of the governors and the State legislatures, the recommendations contained in this report would have the actual effect of destroying representative government at the State level.

For instance, the CED study recommended that the only State elective officials be the governor and a jointly elected lieutenant governor. All other public officials, such as the Attorney General, State Comptroller, State Treasurer, State Superintendent of Education, etc., would be appointed by the governor.

The report deplored the lack of "executive authority" of the governors and the fact that the power of many State governors is restricted by State constitutional limitations on legislative authority, notably in taxation and appropriations.

An article by Ross Hermann in the INDIANAPOLIS NEWS OF September 8, 1967, discussing the CED's report on "modernization" of State governments, stated:

"The CED urges abolition of constitutional restrictions, including debt bans, which it says prevent state legislatures from exercising effective power over financial matters'."

Inasmuch as debt weakens and undermines the economic structure of a State, perhaps one of the real reasons for the CED suggestion of the elimination of debt restrictions is to have the States spend themselves into bankruptcy at which time there would be no other recourse except for the federal government to take over.

Another restriction which the CED recommends be removed is that which limits the terms of governors. The CED would have all governors free to seek re-election without restriction as to number of terms, thus entrenching themselves for possibly a lifetime in that office.

The reasoning behind the CED's recommendations is obvious: How far simpler their proposed takeover of the States would be if State governments were not staffed by numerous elected officials. How much simpler if the CFR-CED conglomerate could deal solely with an all-powerful State governor who could carry out their dictates by simple executive decree.


As discussed in Chapter II, Metro calls for consolidating independent divisions of local government into the collective whole, first by merging townships, cities and counties, and then one State with another State or States into a federal region.

In order to dilute or obliterate the authority of locally elected officials, the CED report of July 1966 called for "comprehensive revisions" in State constitutions, and proclaimed:

"Outmoded forms of local government should be abolished, realignment of boundary lines should be mandated…

"Each state should create a boundary commission with continuing authority to design and redesign local jurisdictional lines, and to set timetables for consolidations and annexations."

Concerning the State level of government, the July 1967 CED report entitled "Modernizing State Governments," urged:

"Interstate cooperation in solving mutual problems should be exploited actively through interstate compacts. Positive encouragement should be given to counties and other local units seeking collaboration with their counterparts both within the state and beyond its boundaries…

"Active experimentation with new formulas for Federal-multistate cooperation should be encouraged."

What are "interstate compacts"? And what does "Federal-multistate cooperation" mean? The answer to both questions is: metropolitan government.

Therefore, what the CFR-controlled Committee for Economic Development is actually recommending is metropolitan government which, as conceived by the Socialist planners, would destroy the whole fabric of constitutional government in the United States.

In his book, "The Invisible Government", Dan Smoot warned:

"Metropolitan government would eliminate the individual States as meaningful political entities, would divide the nation into metropolitan regions sprawling across State lines, and would place the management of these regional governments in the hands of appointed experts answerable not to local citizens but to the supreme political power in Washington."


As mentioned previously, the 1966 CED report calls for "professional staffing for all local units" of government at the State level.

Who are these unelected "experts" who, according to the long-laid plans of the pushers of Metro, will take over the administration of government at the local level? And who—being appointed, not elected—will be able to control local-level government in all of the 50 States?

What are their theories on local government—and who financed their training for this planned take-over of positions of power—positions formerly occupied by officials elected by the people?

The answer is "1313"—the founding, financing, power and influence of which is discussed in the next chapter.


Council on Domestic Relations Home Page

Home | Issues | Perspective | Audio | Guests | Images | Live Chat | Links | Search | About | Contact