by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, May 20, 2009
Activists on the American political landscape fear their government might consider them the enemy. Their concern isn’t driven by paranoia and baseless conspiracy theory. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Intelligence Assessment entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” is the reason for the fear. The assessment essentially lumps immigration reformists, Christians, pro-lifers, Second Amendment proponents, opponents of globalism, and even veterans into the category of potential terrorists (“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”).
Many pundits and pontificators of the controlled conservative movement have claimed that the report is a product of the Obama administration. In reality, however, the report is actually the result of a request made by the Bush administration to the DHS. Fox News’ Catherine Herridge revealed this little-known fact on April 15 when she stated:
Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One [report] looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office. (“Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was Requested By The Bush Administration”)
The Intelligence Assessment painfully illustrates the fact that the government has been co-opted by cliques of deviant elites that desire to crush all opposition, whether it be from the left of the right. Unfortunately, the government would not be able to conduct such demonization campaigns if the activists of the “patriot” movement did not provide a pretext. No discernment has been practiced, and as a result agent provocateurs have poured into anti-authoritarian groups and conducted extremely successful radicalization campaigns. One of the radical ideas disseminated by these Judas goats is secession.
The CNP and the Politics of Secession
The anti-American concepts of secession and disunion have been heavily promoted within the American right-wing by secessionists and neo-Confederates associated with the Council for National Policy (CNP) The CNP is an elite combine established to act as a false alternative to Establishment organs such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). When one studies the available lists of CNP participants, however, one finds many members of the CFR among its ranks. Arnaud de Borchgrave, Edward Teller, Guy Vander Jagt, and J. Peter Grace are just some of the CNP participants who were/are involved with the CFR (Aho, no pagination).
CNP founding member Rev. R.J. Rushdoony was, during his lifetime, a major apologist for the Confederacy. Rushdoony was heavily influenced by the writings of Robert L. Dabney, the Chaplain to Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (Potok, no pagination). Dabney’s writings portrayed the South as a highly moral and Godly society that was unjustly oppressed by a Godless and decadent North (ibid). Dabney’s influence on Rushdoony can be seen in Rushdoony’s book, Institute of Biblical Law. In that book, Rushdoony advocated segregation and adamantly opposed interracial marriage (ibid). As Rushdoony’s influence spread into evangelical churches, the poison of Confederate nationalism was injected into America’s Christian community. Confederate nationalism is a major source of inspiration for the modern day secessionist movement.
Flirtation with secessionist themes continues today within the ranks of CNP participants. During a pro-life rally, CNP participant and a 2008 presidential candidate Alan Keyes stated that the United States will “cease to exist” and will descend into “the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war” if Obama is not stopped (Zahn, no pagination).
Treason in the Last Frontier
The CNP may have even attempted to push the secessionist agenda during the 2008 presidential election. It was during this time that the CNP groomed Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s vice-Presidential running mate (Blumenthal, no pagination). In the 1990s, Palin forged a politically expedient alliance with Mark Chryson, then director of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) (Blumenthal and Neiwert, no pagination). This alliance helped Palin secure victory during the 1996 Wasilla mayoral election (ibid).
Palin went on to have very strong ties to the AIP. She attended both the AIP’s 1994 and 2006 statewide convention (ibid). In 1995, Palin’s husband, Todd, registered to vote as a member of the AIP (ibid). Todd’s membership in the group was only interrupted by a few months and did not end until 2002 (ibid).
The AIP was founded by Joe Vogler, an anti-American former gold miner who promoted armed insurrection against the United States (ibid). Alaska has been an official state in the Union since 1959, the year following President Eisenhower’s signing of the Alaska Statehood Act. That fact, however, did not prevent Vogler from accusing the United States of attempting to transform Alaska into a colony when the federal government began installing Alaska’s oil and gas pipeline (ibid). In 1982 and 1986, Vogler ran for governor of Alaska (ibid). While both campaigns failed, Vogler was extremely successful in creating a powerful political movement. The hostile gold miner built the AIP into a party with a membership base of 20,000 (Talbot, no pagination).
In 1990, Vogler was successful in convincing Wally Hickel, Richard Nixon’s former interior secretary to run for governor as an AIP candidate (Blumenthal and Neiwert, no pagination). Hickel won the election, but failed to promote secession during his time as governor (ibid). Still, his rise in Alaskan politics testifies to the power and influence Vogler possessed during his life.
In 1993, with sponsorship from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vogler was scheduled to appear before the United Nations and present his case for Alaskan secession (ibid). Vogler’s hopes of popularizing his secessionist ideas were cut short, however, when he was murdered by a fellow secessionist before his U.N. appearance (ibid).
In 1997, Mark Chryson became the AIP chairman (ibid). Chryson gave the AIP a cosmetic overhaul and presented the group as a family-oriented organization dedicated to preserving traditional values (ibid). Behind the façade, however, the AIP remained a political party dedicated to secession. Chryson holds great veneration for the Confederacy, which is the source of inspiration for much of the modern day secessionist movement. Salon journalists Blumenthal and Neiwert elaborate:
“Should the Confederate states have been allowed to separate and go their peaceful ways?” Chryson asked rhetorically. “Yes. The War of Northern Aggression, or the Civil War, or the War Between the States – however you want to refer to it – was not about slavery, it was about states’ rights” (ibid).
Chryson’s remarks represent a gross display of either historical illiteracy or racist revisionism. Southern secession documents clearly show that the Confederacy’s main goal was the formation of slaveholding fiefdoms. In its “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” South Carolina, the first state to secede stated:
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . . The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection [over the issue of slavery] . . . (Barton, no pagination)
After seceding, South Carolina called upon its fellow southern states to join in the secession. In its “Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States,” the state explained why it was seceding:
We . . . [are] dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates and seeking a confederation with slaveholding states. Experience has proved that slaveholding states cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding states. . . . The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy one [Abraham Lincoln] who has openly declared that all the states of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States. . . . In spite of all disclaimers and professions [i.e., measures such as the Corwin Amendment, written to assure the southern states that Congress would not abolish slavery], there can be but one end by the submission by the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be the emancipation of the slaves of the South. . . . The people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South under a common government. . . . Citizens of the slaveholding states of the United States! . . . South Carolina desires no destiny separate from yours. . . . We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States. (ibid)
Mississippi joined South Carolina on January 9, 1861. In “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union,” the state declared:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution [slavery], a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787. [On July 13, 1787, when the nation still governed itself under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance (which Mississippi here calls the “well-known Ordinance of 1787”). That Ordinance set forth provisions whereby the Northwest Territory could become states in the United States, and eventually the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were formed from that Territory. As a requirement for statehood and entry into the United States, Article 6 of that Ordinance stipulated: “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.” When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers re-passed the “Northwest Ordinance” to ensure its continued effectiveness under the new Constitution. Signed into law by President George Washington on August 7, 1789, it retained the prohibition against slavery. As more territory was gradually ceded to the United States (the Southern Territory – Mississippi and Alabama; the Missouri Territory – Missouri and Arkansas; etc.), Congress applied the requirements of the Ordinance to those new territories. Mississippi had originally entered the United States under the requirement that it not allow slavery, and it is here objecting not only to that requirement of its own admission to the United States but also to that requirement for the admission of other states.]. . . It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas [Congress banned the importation of slaves into America in 1808], in the territories [in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854], and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. . . . It advocates Negro equality, socially and politically. . . . We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property [i.e., slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers to secure this as well as every other species of property. (ibid)
At the Virginia secession convention, Mississippi’s delegate Fulton Anderson announced that Mississippi had unanimously approved a document “setting forth the grievance of the Southern people on the slavery question” (ibid).
The third state to secede, Florida, also emphasized slavery as the driving force behind secession. In the January 7, 1861 “Preliminary Resolution Prior to Secession,” Florida’s Confederates stated:
All hope of preserving the Union upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the Slaveholding States has been finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment in the Free States. (ibid)
Alabama joined the rebellion on January 11, 1861. In “An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America,” Alabama denounced:
. . . the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama . . . (ibid)
In “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Georgia to Secede from the Federal Union, January 29, 1861,” Georgia pointed to the anti-slavery stance of Lincoln and the republicans as a major motivation for secession. The Declaration stated:
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [i.e., the Republican Party] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [in favor of secession]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery]. (ibid)
In spite of the evidence, Chryson and other secessionists have worked hard to restore the Confederacy in the realm of public opinion. This PR campaign has resulted in a renewed fascination with the ideas of secession and disunion.
Howard Phillips and Militia Madness
Another bridge between the AIP and the CNP is provided by Howard Phillip’s Constitution Party. Salon journalists Blumenthal and Neiwert elaborate:
The AIP has been listed as the Constitution Party’s state affiliate since the 1990s, and it has endorsed the Constitution Party’s presidential candidates (Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin) in the past two elections. (no pagination)
Phillips was also hosted by the AIP during its 1992 convention (ibid). Phillips is a CNP founding member. He also served on the CNP Board of Governors in 1982, served on the CNP Executive Committee in 1984-85, 1988, 1994, and 1996, and was a CNP participant in 1998 (“Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies,” no pagination). When Phillips ran for president in 1992, his running mate was fellow CNP participant Albion Knight Jr. (ibid).
According to Blumenthal and Neiwert, the Constitution Party “was on the frontlines in promoting the ‘militia’ movement” during its 1990s incarnation as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (no pagination). A sizeable segment of the party’s membership is still made up of former and current militia members. This paramilitary element reveals the sinister aspects of the secessionist movement. Will the splintering of America bring bloodshed with it?
The Intelligence Connection
Is the secession fever spreading across the country being encouraged by sinister elements within the Intelligence Community? Unfortunately, there is evidence that this is the case. One of Howard Phillips’ longtime collaborators is fellow CNP participant Richard Viguerie. In 1974, Viguerie and Phillips joined forces to form the Conservative Caucus (ibid). Viguerie also teamed with Phillips in the Citizens Against the Catastrophic Health Tax Act, with Phillips on the advisory board and Viguerie chairing the group (ibid). It does not seem unfair to say these two CNP participants have had a very close working relationship.
Viguerie is most commonly recognized as a leader of the “Religious Right.” What is not widely known is that Viguerie has deep ties to the Intelligence Community. Viguerie was a member of Korean intelligence agent Tongsun Park’s Georgetown Club (Trento 171). Park was a major player in the Koreagate scandal that shook Congress in the 1970s (171). Viguerie was collaborating with Park and the Korean CIA at the time (171).
Viguerie became deeper entrenched in the covert world in1979 when Thomas Clines, the former CIA covert operations agent, moved the Egyptian American Transport and Services Corporation (EATSCO) to 7777 Leesburg Pike, the home of Viguerie Company (171). The EATSCO offices were Viguerie’s tenants (171). EATSCO was part of a private intelligence network that was created to provide the CIA’s covert activity branch, known as the Directorate of Operations, with a means of evading Congressional oversight. Viguerie’s 7777 Leesburg Pike became the home of the private CIA (171-72). Many of Viguerie’s tenants were operatives of Edwin Wilson, the architect of the private intelligence network (171-72).
Wilson constructed the private CIA with a secretive bureaucrat named Theodore Shackley (xi). Shackley served in the CIA as an Associate Deputy Director of Operations and was known as a master of covert operations. In his book The Third Option: An Expert’s Provocative Report on an American View of Counterinsurgency Operations, Shackley wrote:
Senior intelligence officers like myself, who had experience in paramilitary operations, have always insisted the United States should also consider the third option: the use of guerilla warfare, counterinsurgency techniques and covert action to achieve policy goals… Political warfare is very often the stitch in time that eliminates bloodier and more costly alternatives. (17)
Originally designed for application in Third World nations, the third option is equally applicable in the United States. Many less-than-altruistic interests with connections to the Intelligence Community are acutely aware of the third option’s polyvalence. There’s a strong possibility that the secessionist movement has become part of an attempt to tangibly enact Shackley’s third option here in the United States.
Viguerie seems to be one of the intelligence operatives involved in harnessing secession fever. In a January 16, 2008 Washington Post blog posting, Jose Antonio Vargas reported that Viguerie had constructed a website entitled “The Ultimate Ron Paul,” supporting the Texas representative’s bid for the Presidency (“Richard Viguerie Goes Online for Paul,” no pagination). Once a patriot and stalwart Constitutionalist, Paul has now fallen under the unhealthy influence of the secessionist movement. In April of 2009, Paul appeared in a video on YouTube defending Texas Governor Rick Perry’s promotion of secessionist ideas at one of several national Tea Parties (Koppelman, no pagination). The representative likened secession to the American Revolution and added that secession “is very much of an American principle” (ibid).
Contrary to what Paul believes, the purveyors of secessionist ideas hardly resemble the Founding Fathers. In a 1833 letter to Daniel Webster, James Madison, who is considered “the Father of the Constitution,” drew a line of distinction between revolution and secession. Madison wrote:
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. (no pagination)
Madison’s words would be considered quite alien to members of the modern secessionist movement who like to promote their sedition under the Star-Spangled Banner. The founders of the modern secessionist movement may come from the world of intelligence crimes and covert politics. Viguerie and other CNP participants certainly fall into that category.
Russia Enters the Picture
Anti-American forces in Russia also seems to be capitalizing on the recent secessionist trend that plagues America. Igor Panarin, the current dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s school for diplomats has been predicting the apocalyptic end of the United States by 2010 for a decade (Osborn, no pagination).
Panarin claims that there’s a 55-45 percent chance of disintegration in the United States stemming from “mass immigration, economic and moral degradation” (ibid). The multitude of insolvable problems facing America “will trigger a civil war” (ibid). The end result will be an America splintered into six pieces with Alaska falling under the control of Russia (ibid).
Panarin’s predictions of America’s fall and the rise of Russia as the dominant force in the new world order seem to be over-inflated. His analysis ignores the economic crisis in Russia. Furthermore, it was the consensus among elites attending the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, France that while no country would go unaffected by the coming global financial crisis, America would retain its hegemonic role in the world (Tucker, no pagination).
In this context, Panarin’s analysis can no longer be interpreted as a scholar’s objective observations of the global political landscape. Panarin obviously has an agenda he is trying to push. That agenda may actually come directly from ruling elites in Russia who do not wish to become subordinates or junior partners in the new world order. According to Andrew Osborn, Panarin’s predictions are considered “music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has been blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis” (ibid).
What is the purpose of Panarin’s propaganda campaign? Panarin may be attempting to propagate a geopolitical eschatological myth, which he and his Kremlin masters hope will gain imaginative momentum among true believers. Through both activism and indolence, Panarin’s myth could witness tangible enactment. Those who accept Panarin’s predictions as a myth in the Sorelian sense would work to actively instantiate it.
The Sorelian conception of myths is quite different from the traditional and transcendent conception of myths. Sorelian myths are, essentially, “social myths.” A social myth, as conceived by George Sorel, conjures up an image of a potential future within the minds of those who are exposed to them. In many instances, such as the cases of Marxism and other variants of socialism, the image evoked by the social myth is Utopian in character. This shared vision gains imaginative momentum amongst true believers and eventually witnesses instantiation through political or social activism. Sorel elaborates on the social myth’s migration from imaginative abstraction to tangible enactment:
The men who participate in the great social movements, represents to themselves their subsequent actions under the guise of images of battles, which assure them the success of their endeavor. I proposed the name of myths for these constructions, the knowledge thereof is so important for the historian: the general strike of the union workers and the apocalyptic revolution of Marx are instances of such myths… (32)
As adherents to social myths, both modern secessionists and historical Marxists constitute schismatic elements that can weaken and fracture the sovereign state. Marxist revolutionaries cannot pinpoint the indeterminate juncture in history where the state will wither. Likewise, neo-Confederates and secessionists cannot pinpoint the indeterminate juncture in history where secession will end. Thus, the neo-Confederates and secessionists set into motion a perpetual series of secessions, guaranteeing continual disunity and the ongoing fragmentation of states. Eventually, the states implode, allowing for their easy assimilation by whatever supranational entities or foreign alliances hold sway.
The globalist elite understand this fact more than anyone. Secession contributes to regionalism, which is one of many strategies employed to build a new world order. The regionalism strategy was explained in an article for Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the elitist CFR. In the article, entitled “Regionalism and Nationalism,” author N.S.B. Gras wrote:
The direct effect of regionalism may be to make the state weaker politically but stronger economically and socially. Or the region, looking to regional convenience, may make new alignments leading to the creation of new states, or to international states (European, American, and so on), or ultimately to a world state. (466)
In his book Geo-Economic Regionalism and World Federalism, Maurice Parmelee was even more blunt in pointing out how regionalism erodes national sovereignty. Parmelee stated:
There can be no permanent peace so long as each nation retains its sovereignty. There can be no effective world organization to solve the economic and social problems of mankind so long as the nation is the unit of organization. The region, limiting national sovereignty and furnishing a suitable unit of organization for a world federation, is a practicable solution. (V)
Both the Western elite and Panarin’s masters among the Russian elite seem to understand that secession can be used as a tool of regionalization on the way to world government. These two oligarchical cliques now seem to be racing to exploit the rising secession fever that has appeared on the American political landscape.
So far, the secessionist movement has benefitted the Western elite by providing a pretext for police state measures and an argument that the nation-state is an outmoded, antiquated concept. However, the Western elite only desire secessionists that they can manage. A splintering of the United States that they could not control would weaken the American Empire long enough to allow Eastern competitors to rise up and become serious contenders in the game to establish a new world order.
Panarin and the Kremlin game players hope to influence the splintering of America so that the resultant fragments can be merged into a superstate with Russia as the center of power. No matter which clique of powerbrokers wins the game, the end result will be the same: the end of the United States specifically and the nation-state system in general.
The secessionists have become mindless dupes and pawns in the competition to establish a new world order. The majority of these useful idiots believe they are actually preserving Americanism by promoting secession. They would do well to heed James Buchanan’s warning against secession in his 1860 State of the Union Address:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. (no pagination)
- Aho, Barbara. “The Council for National Policy.” Watch Unto Prayer
- Barton, David. “Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why the South Went to War.” Wallbuilders December 2008
- Blumenthal, Max. “Secretive Right-Wing Group Vetted Palin.” The Nation 1 September 2008
- Blumenthal, Max and David Neiwert. “Meet Sarah Palin’s radical right-wing pals.” Salon 10 October 2008
- Buchanan, James. “1860 State of the Union Address.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org 3 December 1860
- “Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies.” Seek God
- “Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration.’” Think Progress 15 April 2009
- Gras, N.S.B. “Regionalism and Nationalism.” Foreign Affairs April 1929
- Koppelman, Alex. “Ron Paul, secessionist.” Salon 20 April 2009
- Madison, James. “Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster.” The Founder’s Constitution 15 March 1833
- Osborn, Andrew. “As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.” Wall Street Journal 29 December 2008
- Parmelee, Maurice. Geo-Economic Regionalism and World Federation. New York: Exposition Press, 1949.
- Potok, Mark. “Taliban on the Palouse?” Southern Poverty Law Center Spring 2008
- “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security 7 April 2009
- Shackley, Theodore. The Third Option: An American View of Counter-insurgency Operations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.
- Sorel, George. Reflections on Violence. 1908 Ed. Jean-Marie Tremblay. Cégep de Chicoutimi. 18 January 2003
- Talbot, David. “Palin’s un-American activities.” Salon 7 October 2008
- Trento, Joseph. Prelude To terror: Edwin P. Wilson and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2005.
- Tucker, James. “Bilderberg Puts Heat on ‘Loose Cannon’ Bush over Mideast Policy.” American Free Press 12 April 2004
- Vargas, Jose Antonio. “Richard Viguerie Goes Online for Paul.” The Washington Post 16 January 2008
- Zahn, Drew. “Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist.” WorldNetDaily 21 February 2009
About the Authors
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism and co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship with his brother Paul Collins. Both books are available at www.amazon.com. Phillip has also written articles for News With Views, Conspiracy Archive, and the Vexilla Regis Journal.
In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with majors in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy from Wright State University.
Phillip worked as a staff writer for a weekly news publication, the Vandalia Drummer, between late 2007 and 2011. During his tenure with the paper, he earned several accolades.
In 2011, he was inducted into the Media Honor Roll by the Ohio School Board Association for his extensive coverage of the Vandalia-Butler School District. That very same year, the Ohio Newspaper Association bestowed an Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award upon Phillip for Best Photo. In addition, the City of Vandalia officially proclaimed that November 7, 2011 would be known as “Phillip Collins Day.” This honor was bestowed upon Phillip for his tireless coverage of the City and community.
Shortly after bringing his journalism career to a close, Phillip received another Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award in the category of In-depth Reporting. This award was given to Phillip for his investigative work over the death of U.S. Marine Maria Lauterbach and the resultant Department of Defense reforms concerning sexual assault and rape. The case drew national attention and received TV coverage by major media organs.
Phillip currently works for the Wyoming Department of Corrections, where he earned the distinction of Employee of the Quarter for the third quarter of 2013. Phillip still works as a freelance journalist and is currently collaborating with his brother on a follow-up to The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.
Paul David Collins is the author of The Hidden Face of Terrorism and the co-author of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he received his bachelor’s degree with a major in Liberal Studies and a minor in Political Science from Wright State University. He worked as a professional journalist for roughly four years.
From 2008 to 2012, Paul covered local news for several Times Community News publications, including the Enon Messenger, the New Carlisle Sun, the Tipp City Herald, the Kettering/Oakwood Times, the Beavercreek News Current, the Vandalia Drummer, the Springboro Sun, the Englewood Independent, the Fairborn Daily Herald, and the Xenia Daily Gazette.
Paul also wrote for other local papers, including the Enon Eagle, the New Carlisle News, and the Lusk Herald. In addition to his work in the realm of mainstream, Paul has published several articles concerning the topics of deep politics and elite deviancy. Those articles have appeared in Terry Melanson’s online Conspiracy Archive, Paranoia magazine, Vexilla Regis Journal, and Nexus magazine. He currently works as a correctional officer with the Wyoming Department of Corrections.