Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
THE
° Dan Smoot Report:
Vol. 9, No. 22 (Broadcast 407) June 3, 1963 Dallas, Texas
DAN SMOOT
PLANNED DICTATORSHIP
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, dis-
tributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the National government be entrusted with the
defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State government with the civil rights, laws, police
and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties and each
ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down
through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; ... that
all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever
existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of
the autocrats of Russia or France or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”
—Thomas Jefferson
In June, 1955, the Federal Civil Defense Administration staged Operation Alert,
a nation-wide rehearsal of what civil defense would do in the event of a nuclear
bombing raid on the United States which killed around 10 million people. Operation
Alert revealed that sudden disaster could cause drastic confusion in the civil defense
system. It also revealed that absolute dictatorship would emerge before the casualties
could be counted.
After receiving reports of the mock casualties in the mock nuclear air raid, in con-
nection with Operation Alert, President Eisenhower, on June 16, 1955 (without wait-
ing for reports to see whether normal civil authorities could maintain order) used his
Executive Power to issue a mock declaration of martial law for the whole nation.
Comments in the press and in Congress were, generally, unfavorable. To some, it
was chilling to see how readily a President of the United States would proclaim a
military dictatorship in time of emergency and disaster. To others, Eisenhower’s haste
to issue a mock declaration of martial law revealed only that the Administration had no
adequate plan of action—that Eisenhower reached for the weapon of martial law
because he did not know what else to do.”
THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing
address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 (Office Address
6441 Gaston Avenue). Subscription rates: $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first
class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail (including APO and FPO) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1
copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 — each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add
2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.
Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas.
No reproductions permitted.
Page 169
Hence, the Operation Alert exercise of
1955 helped create demand for a better plan
of national action to be followed if the United
States were suddenly struck a devastating
blow.
In 195 8, President Eisenhower reorganized
the civil defense system. He merged the
Civil Defense Administration with the old
Office of Defense Mobilization, creating
a new agency called the Office of Civil and
Defense Mobilization.
President Kennedy scrapped the Eisen-
hower system and established something
entirely new. Kennedy says that civil defense
should not be handled by a separate agency of
government, but that the multiple activities
of civil defense should be handled by the reg-
ular departments and agencies of government
— all of their activities to be planned and co-
ordinated by a small presidential staff.
Kennedy’s Executive Orders
On July 20, 1961, Kennedy (by Execu-
tive Order No. 10952) abolished the Office
of Civil and Defense Mobilization, immedi-
ately transferring most civil defense func-
tions to the Department of Defense. On
August 1, 1961, Secretary of Defense McNa-
mara put Adam Yarmolinsky temporarily in
charge of all civil defense activities in the
Department of Defense. Yarmolinsky (whose
parents aré notorious communist-fronters)
has a record of participating in communist
activities since his undergraduate days at
Harvard.” Since the Kennedy Administra-
tion apparently considers Yarmolinsky indis-
pensable for other duties in the Defense
Department, Yarmolinsky was soon replaced
as head of civil defense activities. The present
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil
Defense is. Steuart L. Pittman.
On August 14, 1961, Kennedy issued
Executive Order No. 10958, giving the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare the
civil defense responsibility of stockpiling
medical supplies; giving to the Secretary of
Agriculture the civil defense responsibility
of stockpiling food.
On February 16, 1962, Kennedy issued
ten Executive Orders (10995 and 10997
through 11005) delegating other civil defense
responsibilities to heads of other departments
and agencies — Interior Department, Com-
merce Department, Labor Department, Post
Office Department, Federal Aviation Agency,
Housing and Home Finance Agency, Inter-
state Commerce Commission, and so on.
Tene grail presidential staff, which has the
responsibility of planning and co-ordinating
the civil defense activities of the regular
agencies and departments of government, is
called the Office of Emergency Planning.
Oddly enough, President Kennedy did not
issue an Executive Order ‘‘creating”’ the Office
of Emergency Planning and outlining its
duties until September, 1962 — more than a
year after the OEP had been actively in
existence.
On September 27, 1962, Kennedy issued
Executive Order 11051, ‘Prescribing Respon-
sibilities of the Office of Emergency Planning
in the Executive Office of the President.”
The most notable thing about this Executive
Order, however, is that it amended 15 pre-
vious Executive Orders (5 issued by Truman;
8, by Eisenhower; 2, by Kennedy himself) by
deleting references to “Civil and Defense
Mobilization” and replacing those references
with ‘Office of Emergency Planning,”
The significance of this change in language
is subtle. In November, 1962, the Eighth
NATO Parliamentarians’ Conference met in
Paris, attended by delegates from the parlia-
ments of the 15 countries belonging to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thir-
teen United States Senators (under the chair-
manship of J. William Fulbright, extreme
leftwing Democrat from Arkansas); and
eight United States Representatives (under
Page 170
the chairmanship of Wayne L. Hays, extreme
leftwing Democrat from Ohio) made up the
delegation from the American “parliament”
to the Eighth NATO Parliamentarians’ Con-
ference.
Senator Fulbright’s official report to the
Senate on the Eighth NATO Parliamentar-
ians’ Conference contains a brief section on
Civil Defense, from which the following is
quoted:
“Civil emergency planning is much wider
in its implications than civil defense.
‘Whereas civil defense can be considered
as a purely national responsibility, civil
emergency planning requires close coopera-
tion between the NATO Allies....
‘Although civil emergency planning does
not directly encroach on the responsibilities
of national authorities, nevertheless on a
number of points the organization of the
latter will have to take account of the
former’s planning and preparations.””)
Here appears to be a reason for changing
ec. y 33 ec 72 = 33
civil defense” and “defense mobilization
to “emergency planning.” It takes our civil
defense preparations out of the “purely
national” realm, and makes them part of an
over-all international plan.
On February 26, 1963, President Kennedy
issued nine more Executive Orders (11087
through 11095) delegating ‘““emergency
planning” activities to heads of governmental
agencies not mentioned in previous Executive
Orders on the subject: Federal Communica-
tions Commission, Civil Service Commission,
Atomic Energy Commission, General Services
Administration, Federal Reserve System,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Power
Commission, National Science Foundation,
and so on.
Tn all, Kennedy has issued 23 Executive
Orders, dealing with emergency planning,
which prescribe the lines of authority for a
total dictatorship to be controlled and co-
ordinated at the top by a small group of
emergency planners in the executive office of
the President.
The national police state thus planned
would be a tighter, more complete dictator-
ship than any which has ever existed in
modern times, in communist countries or
elsewhere. Kennedy’s executive orders outline
a plan, not for protecting the American
people from suffering and death in the event
of disaster, but for seizing absolute control
of every aspect of human life in the United
States.
The Executive Orders, which formally pro-
claimed the plan, have been published in the
Federal Register. This is the modern way of
giving executive proclamations the force of
law. In the formulation of such “executive
law,’’ Congress does not deliberate and legis-
late, in response to the desires of the people
and in conformity with grants of power. in
the Constitution. Indeed, Congress has no role
at all. The President proclaims a law, then
gives it statutory force by merely publishing
it in the Federal Register.
Thus, President Kennedy, by Executive
Orders which bypass Congress, has already
created a body of “laws” to transform our
Republic into a dictatorship— at the dis-
cretion of the President. The extraordinary
principle (that the President can do anything
he pleases in time of dire emergency, and
that the President alone can determine what is
a dire emergency) was proclaimed by Frank-
lin D. Roosevelt in November, 1933, and
reafhrmed by the Attorney General — and
has never been challenged by the Courts or
the Congress of the United States.”
Can We Trust Our Leaders?
Tt is a dangerous delusion to feel that we
can trust our President to tell us the truth;
trust him not to exercise authority unneces-
sarily; trust him to act only in the best
interest of the American nation.
Page 171
Let us not forget what happened on Octo-
ber 29, 1962. On that day, Arthur Sylvester
(Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs) admitted that the Ken-
nedy Administration was giving the public
false information about Cuba. Sylvester
defended official falsification of the news as
proper “management” and ‘‘control,” say-
ing that the “generation of news” by official-
dom is “‘part of the weaponry that a President
has” in the “solution of political prob-
lems” — and that the end of creating, in
the minds of the people, the correct attitude
about governmental programs, justifies the
means.”
Let us remember also President Kennedy’s
statement on May 12, 1963, concerning the
dispatch of Federal troops to Alabama. The
President said:
“This Government will do whatever must
be done to... uphold the law of the land....
The Birmingham agreement was and is a
fair and just accord... . The Federal Govern-
ment will not permit it to be sabotaged by a
few extremists on either side who think they
can defy both the law and the wishes of
responsible citizens by inciting or inviting
violence.”
Unless there is obvious and significant
violation of legitimate federal authority, the
President (under the Constitution) has no
right to send troops into a state to maintain
order, except on invitation of the government
of that state. In Alabama, the Governor had
asked the President not to send troops. No
federal authority was being violated. The
“law of the land” which the President men-
tioned was a figment of his own mind —
because no federal law, or even federal court
order, was involved. The ““Birmingham agree-
ment” which the President said he would
enforce with federal troops, was a private
agreement between whites and negroes, deal-
ing, primarily, with the question of job
opportunities for negroes.
As to “inciting or inviting violence” in
Alabama, the President himself was guilty of
that, by continual agitation of the delicate
situation, specifically by calling Mrs. Martin
Luther King to express concern when her
husband (a professional agitator, with a com-
munist front and jail record) was behind bars
for inciting civil disturbance.
As to the need for federal troops to sup-
press violence: the total of human suffering
which the race riots have caused in Birming-
ham is hardly worthy of notice in comparison
with the continual savage depradations upon
white people, by negro hoodlums, in the city
of Washington, D. C.
In the Alabama affair, the President proves
that he does misrepresent facts to the people
and does use illegal and unnecessary power to
serve his own political ends.
As to whether the President can be trusted
to act only in the best interests of the nation
— note two cases which indicate otherwise:
El Chamizal and Panama.
EL CHAMIZAL — The Treaty of Guada-
lupe, February 2, 1848, established the Rio
Grande River as the boundary between Texas
and Mexico. Between 1864 and 1868, the
Rio Grande eroded a large portion of the high
Mexican south bank and formed an alluvial
deposit (about 630 acres in size) on the
United States side of the river. This occurred
just south of El Paso, then a small border
town. As El Paso grew, it took in the great
alluvial deposit which came to be called El
Chamizal. In 1895, the Mexican government
made a formal claim to El Chamizal. The
American government maintained, in effect,
that the middle of the River was the boun-
dary line, and that all soil north of that
boundary line was American soil, regardless
of how it got there.
On June 24, 1910, the Mexican and United
States governments agreed to let an Arbitra-
tion Commission (composed of one Mexican,
Page 172
one American, one Canadian) decide whether
El Chamizal belonged to the United States
or to Mexico. The Arbitration Commission
refused to decide the question. Instead, the
Commission decided, on June 15, 1911, that
El Chamizal should be divided between Mex-
ico and the United States. The United States
government would not accept that decision,
which the Arbitration Commission had not
been empowered to make.
The issue became dormant for more than
fifty years, except for an occasional political
speech by some Mexican demagogue who
whipped up hatred for the United States and
gathered votes for himself by denouncing
the El Chamizal “‘land grab.”
President Kennedy reopened the old El
Chamizal sore. Trying to win Mexican sup-
port for his Alliance for Progress, Kennedy
quietly opened negotiations with the Mexican
government, to work out a means of giving
Mexico the 630 acres of United States ter-
ritory, which, meanwhile, had become part of
the downtown section of modern El Paso.
Kennedy got support from the city govern-
ment of El Paso and from certain business
interests there, by promising tremendous out-
lays of taxpayers’ money to “‘compensate”’
the city for the loss of territory.”
An article in The Dallas Morning News,
May 28, 1963, reported information, from
“authoritative sources,” that the United
States and Mexico would announce within the
next few days a settlement of the El Chamizal
dispute.
PANAMA — Many events and circum-
stances (too numerous to review at this time)
indicate that Kennedy is also planning to
surrender American control of the Panama
Canal, either to the government of Panama
or to a United Nations agency. Following the
example set by Eisenhower, Kennedy has
already weakened the American position by
permitting the flying of the Panama flag
alongside the Stars and Stripes in the Canal
Zone, thus showing a Panamanian “titular”
sovereignty over our territory.
As to the question (if there be a question)
of whether the Kennedy Administration
wants a socialist dictatorship in the United
States — we need only to read one publica-
tion of the U. S. Arms Control and Disarma-
ment Agency.
United Nations officials — realizing that
the massive outpouring of American tax dol-
lars (in the United States and abroad) is
rapidly building a one-world socialist system;
realizing that most of that spending is done
under the guise of arming to resist com-
munism; and realizing that the Kennedy
Administration is determined to disarm the
United States — grew concerned about the
reduction of American governmental spend-
ing which disarmament might bring.
On September 22, 1961, the UN Secre-
tariat requested that the United States furnish
information on “‘the economic and social con-
sequences of disarmament in the U.S.” Ken-
nedy’s U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency prepared a report to reassure the
United Nations officials. The report, published
in July, 1962, says, in essence, that disarma-
ment will not substantially reduce the spend-
ing of American tax dollars, but will deflect
those dollars into such programs as social
security, federal aid to education, urban re-
newal, financing mass transit systems, expand-
ing public health and mental health activities,
and increasing foreign aid channelled through
United Nations agencies.”
Only An Emergency Is Needed
Any thoughtful person who has watched
the arrogant and lawless behavior of the Ken-
nedy Administration; its studied efforts to
deceive the people and the Congress; its habit
of appeasing foreign powers (particularly
communist and pro-communist powers) by
sacrificing American national interests; and
Page 173
its relentless drive toward the total socialist
state — reasonably fears that Kennedy might
take advantage of some emergency to make
himself a dictator, in accordance with the
plan which his Executive Orders have already
outlined.
The May, 1963, Wheat Referendum (when
farmers repudiated Kennedy’s farm program,
in the face of Kennedy’s threats and promises)
is only one of many indications of a growing
political revolt against the Kennedy Adminis-
tration. Kennedy has enough cunning to see
this. If his prestige and influence continue to
sink, what will he do in 1964 if he feels he
cannot win re-election? Will he accept the
verdict of elections and surrender the power
so dear to him? Or will he make himself a
dictator, by creating an “emergency”?
W hat kind of emergency could he create?
Since the temperament and disposition of
the President became apparent, in the first
months of his Administration, there has been
anxiety that he might arrange a war for the
United States in 1964, if he felt that neces-
sary for his own re-election. This anxiety is
by no means unfounded. It deepened in late
1962 when Kennedy made war-like gestures
about Cuba for the purpose of getting New
Frontier supporters elected to Congress.
There is another possible emergency —
already building up under the senseless and
ceaseless prodding of the President and his ™
brother, the Attorney General: an emergency
involving racial conflict in the United States.
Note this grim paragraph from the May,
1963, issue of H. du B. Reports, a newsletter
written in Paris, France, by the extremely
well-informed Hilaire du Berrier:
“The governments of Western Europe are
receiving alarming reports which touch on
America’s internal stability. Their inform-
ants put it bluntly: A development has taken
place within the past few weeks which can
shake America, and a crisis in America can
endanger the West. The NAACP has con-
sistently expressed embarrassment at the
violence and anti-White declarations of
another group, the Black Muslims, who
preach a distorted mohammedanism under
the leadership of a former factory hand,
Elijah Poole, now known as Elijah Muham-
mad. The NAACP’s moderate leaders have
acquired both sympathy and support by
repudiating Black Muslim advocacy of ter-
rorism and black supremacy. However, ac-
cording to reliable reports reaching govern-
ments around the world (though not the
American public), the NAACP and Elijah
Muhammad’s followers have formed a com-
mon front, which means that the more vio-
lent leaders have assumed direction. The
focal points for a sudden, brutal outbreak
are now New York, Detroit and Chicago,
Black Muslim strongholds where for five
years Elijah Muhammad’s lieutenants have
been organizing an elite militia and stock-
ing arms,”’
The Black Muslims want negro suprem-
acy, and openly advocate murder of white
people until all whites in the United States
are either exterminated or reduced to bond-
age. The NAACP has made an elaborate pre-
tense of “repudiating” the Black Muslims
movement, but there are many indications
that the NAACP and the Black Muslims are
working hand-in-glove: the NAACP warn-
ing that if their particular brand of violence
is not fully supported, the bloodier violence
of the Black Muslims is inevitable.
United. States Representative Adam Clay-
ton Powell (Democrat, New York), negro
Chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, is a life-member of the NAACP.
Yet he has openly associated himself with the
Black Muslims movement. He recently spoke
gloatingly on a national television program
about how the negro “thas the white man
running scared,’
The head of the NAACP in Washington,
D. C. (where negro criminal violence against
white people is creating something akin to
a reign of terror) said, on a national tele-
vision program in early May, 1963, that negro
Page 174
violence is coming and that the NAACP will
promote the violence if whites do not immedi-
ately give the negro what he demands.
What does he demand? Absolute legal
equality with whites? Not at all! The most
explosive racial situation in America is not
in the South, but in New York City — where
the white man’s right to own and dispose of
private property and his right to choose his
own associates have been violated to grant
negroes so-called ‘‘anti-discrimination” laws.
In New York, negroes have no trouble exer-
cising their voting rights. There are no legal
barriers to school integration. Housing laws
make it illegal for private realtors to refuse
rental or sale on racial grounds. And “fair
employment” laws make it illegal for private
employers to refuse employment to negroes
because of race.
Yet, the negroes of New York City, prod-
ded by Black Muslim and NAACP leaders
and by men like Adam Clayton Powell, are
more restless than ever before. Now they are
demanding enforced social and economic
equality with white people — which means
nothing less than confiscation of the property
and earnings of white people (whose superior
abilities give them superior earning power) in
order to give negroes what they lack innate
ability to earn.
Tn New Rochelle, New York; in Berkeley,
California; in Englewood, New Jersey; in
Nashville, Tennessee; in Baltimore, Maryland;
in Birmingham, Alabama; in Detroit, Michi-
gan; in Greenwood, Mississippi; in Chicago,
Illinois; in Washington, D. C.—all across
the land, racial tensions are growing every
day. Everywhere, they are being prodded by
the whole pack of liberal politicians, both
SS EEE
THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON
FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 16 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING
ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.
SSS EEE
WHAT sy OU) :GAIN DO
Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption
—and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism, But what can you do about it?
You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government.
When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come.
If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about
saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you: Haye you urged others to
subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a
Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers,
debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books — The Invisible
Government, The Hope Of The World, America’s Promise?
Subscription: 6 months —$ 6.00
. lyear — $10.00 NAME (Please Print)
1962 Bound Volume — $10.00
The Invisible Government 00
Paperback —9 3:
Ginthbacke —¢ 5.00 STREET ADDRESS
The Hope Of The World —$ 2.00
America’s Promise —§$ .50
Film Catalogue — Free City ZONE STATE
Reprint List — Free
(Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas)
Page 175
Republican and Democrat, who are jockey-
ing for the organized negro vote in 1964.
This situation could become the ‘‘emer-
gency” which projects John F. Kennedy into
absolute dictatorship.
What To Do
It may very well be that President Ken-
nedy will never try to make himself a dic-
tator, or involve the nation in war just to get
himself re-elected. Despite the blueprint for
dictatorship already prepared by Kennedy’s
Executive Orders; and despite abundant indi-
cations that Kennedy is capable of creating
a pretext for seizing power if he fears defeat
at the polls in 1964, it is quite likely that
none of this will happen. But the very
possibility — however remote — should be
removed. Congress could remove it, and
probably would, if there were sufficient public
demand.
Congress should abolish (by withholding
funds, if necessary) the whole federal civil
defense, and “emergency planning,” setup. In
time of emergency or disaster, individuals and
communities would be infinitely better off in
looking after themselves, than in waiting for
direction and dictation from federal bureau-
crats.
Beyond that, Congress should submit an
amendment to repeal the income tax amend-
4
ment. The corrupt, oppréssive income tax
system feeds all the plans for socialist dictator-
ship in the United States. Cut off the excess
tax money, and the evil plans will wither and
die.
The public could demand that Congress
enact a law providing that all appropriations
will be withheld from any agency of govern-
ment trying to initiate amy program which
has not been authorized by Congress through
formal, constitutional, legislative process.
A Congress which would do that would
go further, and reverse the settled trend
toward dictatorship in the United States.
FOOTNOTES
(1) The Powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, House Document No. 443, 84th Congress,
June 14, 1956, pp. 14, 137-45
(2) Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies, Hearings
before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, 1962, Part IV, pp. 1491-2
(3) Eighth NATO Parliamentarians’ Conference, Report to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, April 8, 1963, p. 23
(4) “Between the Lines — Emergency Planners,” by Edith Kermit Roose-
velt, The Shreveport Journal, November 17, 1962, p. 2
(5) “Free Press Maintains Confidence of Public,” AP story by J. M.
Roberts, The Dallas Morning News, November 1, 1962, Section 1,
p. 8
(6) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, May 17, 1963, p. 783
(7) “Mexico Seems Sure to Win ‘Chamizal’,” by Walter B. Moore, The
Dallas Morning News, March 9, 1963, Section 4, p. 2; “35 Million
Indemnity For ‘Chamizal’ Seen,” UPI dispatch from El Paso, Texas,
The Dallas Times Herald, July 18, 1962, p. A-6; Congressional Record,
January 29, 1963, pp. 1243 ff.; UPI dispatch from Laredo, Texas,
The Dallas Morning News, February 24, 1963, Section 1, p. 16
(8) The Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament, U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 6, July, 1962;
“Would Disarmament Mean a Depression"? by Emile Benoit, The New
York Times Magazine, April 28, 1963, pp. 16 ff.
(9) “Two Ways: Black Muslim and N.A.A.C.P.,” by Gertrude Samuels,
The New York Times Magazine, May 12, 1963, pp. 26 ff.
He Ed tk a aK
WHO IS DAN SMOOT?
Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and
1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate
in American Civilization.
In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist
investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar-
ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation.
In 1951, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television
programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues.
In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business —a free-
enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine;
and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle.
The Report and the broadcast give only ome side in presenting documented truth about important issues — the side
that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are
available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States.
If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can
help immensely — by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts.
Page 176
° Dan Smoot Report:
Vol. 9, No. 22 (Broadcast 407) June 3, 1963 Dallas, Texas
DAN SMOOT
PLANNED DICTATORSHIP
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, dis-
tributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the National government be entrusted with the
defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State government with the civil rights, laws, police
and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties and each
ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down
through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; ... that
all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever
existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of
the autocrats of Russia or France or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.”
—Thomas Jefferson
In June, 1955, the Federal Civil Defense Administration staged Operation Alert,
a nation-wide rehearsal of what civil defense would do in the event of a nuclear
bombing raid on the United States which killed around 10 million people. Operation
Alert revealed that sudden disaster could cause drastic confusion in the civil defense
system. It also revealed that absolute dictatorship would emerge before the casualties
could be counted.
After receiving reports of the mock casualties in the mock nuclear air raid, in con-
nection with Operation Alert, President Eisenhower, on June 16, 1955 (without wait-
ing for reports to see whether normal civil authorities could maintain order) used his
Executive Power to issue a mock declaration of martial law for the whole nation.
Comments in the press and in Congress were, generally, unfavorable. To some, it
was chilling to see how readily a President of the United States would proclaim a
military dictatorship in time of emergency and disaster. To others, Eisenhower’s haste
to issue a mock declaration of martial law revealed only that the Administration had no
adequate plan of action—that Eisenhower reached for the weapon of martial law
because he did not know what else to do.”
THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing
address P. O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone TAylor 1-2303 (Office Address
6441 Gaston Avenue). Subscription rates: $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first
class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail (including APO and FPO) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1
copy for 25¢; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 — each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add
2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.
Copyright by Dan Smoot, 1963. Second class mail privilege authorized at Dallas, Texas.
No reproductions permitted.
Page 169
Hence, the Operation Alert exercise of
1955 helped create demand for a better plan
of national action to be followed if the United
States were suddenly struck a devastating
blow.
In 195 8, President Eisenhower reorganized
the civil defense system. He merged the
Civil Defense Administration with the old
Office of Defense Mobilization, creating
a new agency called the Office of Civil and
Defense Mobilization.
President Kennedy scrapped the Eisen-
hower system and established something
entirely new. Kennedy says that civil defense
should not be handled by a separate agency of
government, but that the multiple activities
of civil defense should be handled by the reg-
ular departments and agencies of government
— all of their activities to be planned and co-
ordinated by a small presidential staff.
Kennedy’s Executive Orders
On July 20, 1961, Kennedy (by Execu-
tive Order No. 10952) abolished the Office
of Civil and Defense Mobilization, immedi-
ately transferring most civil defense func-
tions to the Department of Defense. On
August 1, 1961, Secretary of Defense McNa-
mara put Adam Yarmolinsky temporarily in
charge of all civil defense activities in the
Department of Defense. Yarmolinsky (whose
parents aré notorious communist-fronters)
has a record of participating in communist
activities since his undergraduate days at
Harvard.” Since the Kennedy Administra-
tion apparently considers Yarmolinsky indis-
pensable for other duties in the Defense
Department, Yarmolinsky was soon replaced
as head of civil defense activities. The present
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil
Defense is. Steuart L. Pittman.
On August 14, 1961, Kennedy issued
Executive Order No. 10958, giving the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare the
civil defense responsibility of stockpiling
medical supplies; giving to the Secretary of
Agriculture the civil defense responsibility
of stockpiling food.
On February 16, 1962, Kennedy issued
ten Executive Orders (10995 and 10997
through 11005) delegating other civil defense
responsibilities to heads of other departments
and agencies — Interior Department, Com-
merce Department, Labor Department, Post
Office Department, Federal Aviation Agency,
Housing and Home Finance Agency, Inter-
state Commerce Commission, and so on.
Tene grail presidential staff, which has the
responsibility of planning and co-ordinating
the civil defense activities of the regular
agencies and departments of government, is
called the Office of Emergency Planning.
Oddly enough, President Kennedy did not
issue an Executive Order ‘‘creating”’ the Office
of Emergency Planning and outlining its
duties until September, 1962 — more than a
year after the OEP had been actively in
existence.
On September 27, 1962, Kennedy issued
Executive Order 11051, ‘Prescribing Respon-
sibilities of the Office of Emergency Planning
in the Executive Office of the President.”
The most notable thing about this Executive
Order, however, is that it amended 15 pre-
vious Executive Orders (5 issued by Truman;
8, by Eisenhower; 2, by Kennedy himself) by
deleting references to “Civil and Defense
Mobilization” and replacing those references
with ‘Office of Emergency Planning,”
The significance of this change in language
is subtle. In November, 1962, the Eighth
NATO Parliamentarians’ Conference met in
Paris, attended by delegates from the parlia-
ments of the 15 countries belonging to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Thir-
teen United States Senators (under the chair-
manship of J. William Fulbright, extreme
leftwing Democrat from Arkansas); and
eight United States Representatives (under
Page 170
the chairmanship of Wayne L. Hays, extreme
leftwing Democrat from Ohio) made up the
delegation from the American “parliament”
to the Eighth NATO Parliamentarians’ Con-
ference.
Senator Fulbright’s official report to the
Senate on the Eighth NATO Parliamentar-
ians’ Conference contains a brief section on
Civil Defense, from which the following is
quoted:
“Civil emergency planning is much wider
in its implications than civil defense.
‘Whereas civil defense can be considered
as a purely national responsibility, civil
emergency planning requires close coopera-
tion between the NATO Allies....
‘Although civil emergency planning does
not directly encroach on the responsibilities
of national authorities, nevertheless on a
number of points the organization of the
latter will have to take account of the
former’s planning and preparations.””)
Here appears to be a reason for changing
ec. y 33 ec 72 = 33
civil defense” and “defense mobilization
to “emergency planning.” It takes our civil
defense preparations out of the “purely
national” realm, and makes them part of an
over-all international plan.
On February 26, 1963, President Kennedy
issued nine more Executive Orders (11087
through 11095) delegating ‘““emergency
planning” activities to heads of governmental
agencies not mentioned in previous Executive
Orders on the subject: Federal Communica-
tions Commission, Civil Service Commission,
Atomic Energy Commission, General Services
Administration, Federal Reserve System,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Power
Commission, National Science Foundation,
and so on.
Tn all, Kennedy has issued 23 Executive
Orders, dealing with emergency planning,
which prescribe the lines of authority for a
total dictatorship to be controlled and co-
ordinated at the top by a small group of
emergency planners in the executive office of
the President.
The national police state thus planned
would be a tighter, more complete dictator-
ship than any which has ever existed in
modern times, in communist countries or
elsewhere. Kennedy’s executive orders outline
a plan, not for protecting the American
people from suffering and death in the event
of disaster, but for seizing absolute control
of every aspect of human life in the United
States.
The Executive Orders, which formally pro-
claimed the plan, have been published in the
Federal Register. This is the modern way of
giving executive proclamations the force of
law. In the formulation of such “executive
law,’’ Congress does not deliberate and legis-
late, in response to the desires of the people
and in conformity with grants of power. in
the Constitution. Indeed, Congress has no role
at all. The President proclaims a law, then
gives it statutory force by merely publishing
it in the Federal Register.
Thus, President Kennedy, by Executive
Orders which bypass Congress, has already
created a body of “laws” to transform our
Republic into a dictatorship— at the dis-
cretion of the President. The extraordinary
principle (that the President can do anything
he pleases in time of dire emergency, and
that the President alone can determine what is
a dire emergency) was proclaimed by Frank-
lin D. Roosevelt in November, 1933, and
reafhrmed by the Attorney General — and
has never been challenged by the Courts or
the Congress of the United States.”
Can We Trust Our Leaders?
Tt is a dangerous delusion to feel that we
can trust our President to tell us the truth;
trust him not to exercise authority unneces-
sarily; trust him to act only in the best
interest of the American nation.
Page 171
Let us not forget what happened on Octo-
ber 29, 1962. On that day, Arthur Sylvester
(Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs) admitted that the Ken-
nedy Administration was giving the public
false information about Cuba. Sylvester
defended official falsification of the news as
proper “management” and ‘‘control,” say-
ing that the “generation of news” by official-
dom is “‘part of the weaponry that a President
has” in the “solution of political prob-
lems” — and that the end of creating, in
the minds of the people, the correct attitude
about governmental programs, justifies the
means.”
Let us remember also President Kennedy’s
statement on May 12, 1963, concerning the
dispatch of Federal troops to Alabama. The
President said:
“This Government will do whatever must
be done to... uphold the law of the land....
The Birmingham agreement was and is a
fair and just accord... . The Federal Govern-
ment will not permit it to be sabotaged by a
few extremists on either side who think they
can defy both the law and the wishes of
responsible citizens by inciting or inviting
violence.”
Unless there is obvious and significant
violation of legitimate federal authority, the
President (under the Constitution) has no
right to send troops into a state to maintain
order, except on invitation of the government
of that state. In Alabama, the Governor had
asked the President not to send troops. No
federal authority was being violated. The
“law of the land” which the President men-
tioned was a figment of his own mind —
because no federal law, or even federal court
order, was involved. The ““Birmingham agree-
ment” which the President said he would
enforce with federal troops, was a private
agreement between whites and negroes, deal-
ing, primarily, with the question of job
opportunities for negroes.
As to “inciting or inviting violence” in
Alabama, the President himself was guilty of
that, by continual agitation of the delicate
situation, specifically by calling Mrs. Martin
Luther King to express concern when her
husband (a professional agitator, with a com-
munist front and jail record) was behind bars
for inciting civil disturbance.
As to the need for federal troops to sup-
press violence: the total of human suffering
which the race riots have caused in Birming-
ham is hardly worthy of notice in comparison
with the continual savage depradations upon
white people, by negro hoodlums, in the city
of Washington, D. C.
In the Alabama affair, the President proves
that he does misrepresent facts to the people
and does use illegal and unnecessary power to
serve his own political ends.
As to whether the President can be trusted
to act only in the best interests of the nation
— note two cases which indicate otherwise:
El Chamizal and Panama.
EL CHAMIZAL — The Treaty of Guada-
lupe, February 2, 1848, established the Rio
Grande River as the boundary between Texas
and Mexico. Between 1864 and 1868, the
Rio Grande eroded a large portion of the high
Mexican south bank and formed an alluvial
deposit (about 630 acres in size) on the
United States side of the river. This occurred
just south of El Paso, then a small border
town. As El Paso grew, it took in the great
alluvial deposit which came to be called El
Chamizal. In 1895, the Mexican government
made a formal claim to El Chamizal. The
American government maintained, in effect,
that the middle of the River was the boun-
dary line, and that all soil north of that
boundary line was American soil, regardless
of how it got there.
On June 24, 1910, the Mexican and United
States governments agreed to let an Arbitra-
tion Commission (composed of one Mexican,
Page 172
one American, one Canadian) decide whether
El Chamizal belonged to the United States
or to Mexico. The Arbitration Commission
refused to decide the question. Instead, the
Commission decided, on June 15, 1911, that
El Chamizal should be divided between Mex-
ico and the United States. The United States
government would not accept that decision,
which the Arbitration Commission had not
been empowered to make.
The issue became dormant for more than
fifty years, except for an occasional political
speech by some Mexican demagogue who
whipped up hatred for the United States and
gathered votes for himself by denouncing
the El Chamizal “‘land grab.”
President Kennedy reopened the old El
Chamizal sore. Trying to win Mexican sup-
port for his Alliance for Progress, Kennedy
quietly opened negotiations with the Mexican
government, to work out a means of giving
Mexico the 630 acres of United States ter-
ritory, which, meanwhile, had become part of
the downtown section of modern El Paso.
Kennedy got support from the city govern-
ment of El Paso and from certain business
interests there, by promising tremendous out-
lays of taxpayers’ money to “‘compensate”’
the city for the loss of territory.”
An article in The Dallas Morning News,
May 28, 1963, reported information, from
“authoritative sources,” that the United
States and Mexico would announce within the
next few days a settlement of the El Chamizal
dispute.
PANAMA — Many events and circum-
stances (too numerous to review at this time)
indicate that Kennedy is also planning to
surrender American control of the Panama
Canal, either to the government of Panama
or to a United Nations agency. Following the
example set by Eisenhower, Kennedy has
already weakened the American position by
permitting the flying of the Panama flag
alongside the Stars and Stripes in the Canal
Zone, thus showing a Panamanian “titular”
sovereignty over our territory.
As to the question (if there be a question)
of whether the Kennedy Administration
wants a socialist dictatorship in the United
States — we need only to read one publica-
tion of the U. S. Arms Control and Disarma-
ment Agency.
United Nations officials — realizing that
the massive outpouring of American tax dol-
lars (in the United States and abroad) is
rapidly building a one-world socialist system;
realizing that most of that spending is done
under the guise of arming to resist com-
munism; and realizing that the Kennedy
Administration is determined to disarm the
United States — grew concerned about the
reduction of American governmental spend-
ing which disarmament might bring.
On September 22, 1961, the UN Secre-
tariat requested that the United States furnish
information on “‘the economic and social con-
sequences of disarmament in the U.S.” Ken-
nedy’s U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency prepared a report to reassure the
United Nations officials. The report, published
in July, 1962, says, in essence, that disarma-
ment will not substantially reduce the spend-
ing of American tax dollars, but will deflect
those dollars into such programs as social
security, federal aid to education, urban re-
newal, financing mass transit systems, expand-
ing public health and mental health activities,
and increasing foreign aid channelled through
United Nations agencies.”
Only An Emergency Is Needed
Any thoughtful person who has watched
the arrogant and lawless behavior of the Ken-
nedy Administration; its studied efforts to
deceive the people and the Congress; its habit
of appeasing foreign powers (particularly
communist and pro-communist powers) by
sacrificing American national interests; and
Page 173
its relentless drive toward the total socialist
state — reasonably fears that Kennedy might
take advantage of some emergency to make
himself a dictator, in accordance with the
plan which his Executive Orders have already
outlined.
The May, 1963, Wheat Referendum (when
farmers repudiated Kennedy’s farm program,
in the face of Kennedy’s threats and promises)
is only one of many indications of a growing
political revolt against the Kennedy Adminis-
tration. Kennedy has enough cunning to see
this. If his prestige and influence continue to
sink, what will he do in 1964 if he feels he
cannot win re-election? Will he accept the
verdict of elections and surrender the power
so dear to him? Or will he make himself a
dictator, by creating an “emergency”?
W hat kind of emergency could he create?
Since the temperament and disposition of
the President became apparent, in the first
months of his Administration, there has been
anxiety that he might arrange a war for the
United States in 1964, if he felt that neces-
sary for his own re-election. This anxiety is
by no means unfounded. It deepened in late
1962 when Kennedy made war-like gestures
about Cuba for the purpose of getting New
Frontier supporters elected to Congress.
There is another possible emergency —
already building up under the senseless and
ceaseless prodding of the President and his ™
brother, the Attorney General: an emergency
involving racial conflict in the United States.
Note this grim paragraph from the May,
1963, issue of H. du B. Reports, a newsletter
written in Paris, France, by the extremely
well-informed Hilaire du Berrier:
“The governments of Western Europe are
receiving alarming reports which touch on
America’s internal stability. Their inform-
ants put it bluntly: A development has taken
place within the past few weeks which can
shake America, and a crisis in America can
endanger the West. The NAACP has con-
sistently expressed embarrassment at the
violence and anti-White declarations of
another group, the Black Muslims, who
preach a distorted mohammedanism under
the leadership of a former factory hand,
Elijah Poole, now known as Elijah Muham-
mad. The NAACP’s moderate leaders have
acquired both sympathy and support by
repudiating Black Muslim advocacy of ter-
rorism and black supremacy. However, ac-
cording to reliable reports reaching govern-
ments around the world (though not the
American public), the NAACP and Elijah
Muhammad’s followers have formed a com-
mon front, which means that the more vio-
lent leaders have assumed direction. The
focal points for a sudden, brutal outbreak
are now New York, Detroit and Chicago,
Black Muslim strongholds where for five
years Elijah Muhammad’s lieutenants have
been organizing an elite militia and stock-
ing arms,”’
The Black Muslims want negro suprem-
acy, and openly advocate murder of white
people until all whites in the United States
are either exterminated or reduced to bond-
age. The NAACP has made an elaborate pre-
tense of “repudiating” the Black Muslims
movement, but there are many indications
that the NAACP and the Black Muslims are
working hand-in-glove: the NAACP warn-
ing that if their particular brand of violence
is not fully supported, the bloodier violence
of the Black Muslims is inevitable.
United. States Representative Adam Clay-
ton Powell (Democrat, New York), negro
Chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, is a life-member of the NAACP.
Yet he has openly associated himself with the
Black Muslims movement. He recently spoke
gloatingly on a national television program
about how the negro “thas the white man
running scared,’
The head of the NAACP in Washington,
D. C. (where negro criminal violence against
white people is creating something akin to
a reign of terror) said, on a national tele-
vision program in early May, 1963, that negro
Page 174
violence is coming and that the NAACP will
promote the violence if whites do not immedi-
ately give the negro what he demands.
What does he demand? Absolute legal
equality with whites? Not at all! The most
explosive racial situation in America is not
in the South, but in New York City — where
the white man’s right to own and dispose of
private property and his right to choose his
own associates have been violated to grant
negroes so-called ‘‘anti-discrimination” laws.
In New York, negroes have no trouble exer-
cising their voting rights. There are no legal
barriers to school integration. Housing laws
make it illegal for private realtors to refuse
rental or sale on racial grounds. And “fair
employment” laws make it illegal for private
employers to refuse employment to negroes
because of race.
Yet, the negroes of New York City, prod-
ded by Black Muslim and NAACP leaders
and by men like Adam Clayton Powell, are
more restless than ever before. Now they are
demanding enforced social and economic
equality with white people — which means
nothing less than confiscation of the property
and earnings of white people (whose superior
abilities give them superior earning power) in
order to give negroes what they lack innate
ability to earn.
Tn New Rochelle, New York; in Berkeley,
California; in Englewood, New Jersey; in
Nashville, Tennessee; in Baltimore, Maryland;
in Birmingham, Alabama; in Detroit, Michi-
gan; in Greenwood, Mississippi; in Chicago,
Illinois; in Washington, D. C.—all across
the land, racial tensions are growing every
day. Everywhere, they are being prodded by
the whole pack of liberal politicians, both
SS EEE
THE DAN SMOOT TELEVISION BROADCASTS ARE PRODUCED ON
FILM. HENCE, WE HAVE 16 MM SOUND FILM RECORDINGS COVERING
ALL SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. THE FILM IS NOW
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WRITE FOR FREE FILM CATALOGUE.
SSS EEE
WHAT sy OU) :GAIN DO
Washington officialdom uses your taxes for programs that are creating vast cesspools of waste and corruption
—and dragging our Republic into the quicksands of socialism, But what can you do about it?
You can help educate and arouse the people who elect men responsible for harmful programs of government.
When enough other Americans know and care as you do, political action to restore our Republic will come.
If The Dan Smoot Report was instrumental in bringing you to the point of asking what you can do about
saving the country from mushrooming big government, here is a checklist for you: Haye you urged others to
subscribe to the Report? Have you sent them reprints of a particular issue of the Report? Have you shown them a
Dan Smoot film? Have you ever suggested a Bound Volume of The Dan Smoot Report for use by speakers,
debaters, students, writers? Have you read and passed on to others any of the Dan Smoot books — The Invisible
Government, The Hope Of The World, America’s Promise?
Subscription: 6 months —$ 6.00
. lyear — $10.00 NAME (Please Print)
1962 Bound Volume — $10.00
The Invisible Government 00
Paperback —9 3:
Ginthbacke —¢ 5.00 STREET ADDRESS
The Hope Of The World —$ 2.00
America’s Promise —§$ .50
Film Catalogue — Free City ZONE STATE
Reprint List — Free
(Add 2% Sales Tax in Texas)
Page 175
Republican and Democrat, who are jockey-
ing for the organized negro vote in 1964.
This situation could become the ‘‘emer-
gency” which projects John F. Kennedy into
absolute dictatorship.
What To Do
It may very well be that President Ken-
nedy will never try to make himself a dic-
tator, or involve the nation in war just to get
himself re-elected. Despite the blueprint for
dictatorship already prepared by Kennedy’s
Executive Orders; and despite abundant indi-
cations that Kennedy is capable of creating
a pretext for seizing power if he fears defeat
at the polls in 1964, it is quite likely that
none of this will happen. But the very
possibility — however remote — should be
removed. Congress could remove it, and
probably would, if there were sufficient public
demand.
Congress should abolish (by withholding
funds, if necessary) the whole federal civil
defense, and “emergency planning,” setup. In
time of emergency or disaster, individuals and
communities would be infinitely better off in
looking after themselves, than in waiting for
direction and dictation from federal bureau-
crats.
Beyond that, Congress should submit an
amendment to repeal the income tax amend-
4
ment. The corrupt, oppréssive income tax
system feeds all the plans for socialist dictator-
ship in the United States. Cut off the excess
tax money, and the evil plans will wither and
die.
The public could demand that Congress
enact a law providing that all appropriations
will be withheld from any agency of govern-
ment trying to initiate amy program which
has not been authorized by Congress through
formal, constitutional, legislative process.
A Congress which would do that would
go further, and reverse the settled trend
toward dictatorship in the United States.
FOOTNOTES
(1) The Powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, House Document No. 443, 84th Congress,
June 14, 1956, pp. 14, 137-45
(2) Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies, Hearings
before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, 1962, Part IV, pp. 1491-2
(3) Eighth NATO Parliamentarians’ Conference, Report to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, April 8, 1963, p. 23
(4) “Between the Lines — Emergency Planners,” by Edith Kermit Roose-
velt, The Shreveport Journal, November 17, 1962, p. 2
(5) “Free Press Maintains Confidence of Public,” AP story by J. M.
Roberts, The Dallas Morning News, November 1, 1962, Section 1,
p. 8
(6) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, May 17, 1963, p. 783
(7) “Mexico Seems Sure to Win ‘Chamizal’,” by Walter B. Moore, The
Dallas Morning News, March 9, 1963, Section 4, p. 2; “35 Million
Indemnity For ‘Chamizal’ Seen,” UPI dispatch from El Paso, Texas,
The Dallas Times Herald, July 18, 1962, p. A-6; Congressional Record,
January 29, 1963, pp. 1243 ff.; UPI dispatch from Laredo, Texas,
The Dallas Morning News, February 24, 1963, Section 1, p. 16
(8) The Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament, U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency Publication No. 6, July, 1962;
“Would Disarmament Mean a Depression"? by Emile Benoit, The New
York Times Magazine, April 28, 1963, pp. 16 ff.
(9) “Two Ways: Black Muslim and N.A.A.C.P.,” by Gertrude Samuels,
The New York Times Magazine, May 12, 1963, pp. 26 ff.
He Ed tk a aK
WHO IS DAN SMOOT?
Born in Missouri, reared in Texas, Dan Smoot went to SMU in Dallas, getting BA and MA degrees in 1938 and
1940. In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for a doctorate
in American Civilization.
In 1942, he left Harvard and joined the FBI. As an FBI Agent, he worked for three and a half years on communist
investigations in the industrial Midwest; two years as an administrative assistant to J. Edgar Hoover on FBI headquar-
ters staff in Washington; and almost four years on general FBI cases in various parts of the nation.
In 1951, Smoot resigned from the FBI and helped start Facts Forum. On Facts Forum radio and television
programs, Smoot spoke to a national audience, giving both sides of controversial issues.
In July, 1955, he resigned and started his present independent publishing and broadcasting business —a free-
enterprise operation financed entirely by profits from sales: sales of The Dan Smoot Report, a weekly magazine;
and sales of a weekly news-analysis broadcast, to business firms, for use on radio and television as an advertising vehicle.
The Report and the broadcast give only ome side in presenting documented truth about important issues — the side
that uses the American Constitution as a yardstick. The Report is available by subscription; and the broadcasts are
available for commercial sponsorship, anywhere in the United States.
If you think Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for Americans fighting socialism and communism, you can
help immensely — by helping him get more customers for his Report and broadcasts.
Page 176