Molotov

The following is the transcript of a brief press conference by Congressman Anthony Calhoun Nordquist, as he left the home of the President-Elect, Mr. Charles Stone, on the 4th December 1980 - exactly one month after the Presidential elections and Mr. Nordquist's own re-election to the House of Representatives. Mr. Nordquist had already been tapped by his party colleagues for the role of Speaker of the House in the coming Congressional session.
__________

PRESS CORPS: Congressman Nordquist, your country is to be run by a Coloradan and a Louisiana dockworker - any comment?

NORDQUIST: The last I checked, my friend, the American people ran this country.

PRESS CORPS: Congressman, do you have any insight or comments you'd like to make regarding the in-coming Stone/Roux-Johnson administration's legislative agenda for the coming congressional session?

NORDQUIST: If you'll recall, I endorsed the President-Elect at the national convention. I have full faith he'll continue to work for the betterment of our great nation.

PRESS CORPS: Would you say, then, that you have not at present been advised, in your capacity as one of the Congressional Party Leaders, as to the administration's forthcoming plans in Congress?

NORDQUIST: I believe that the President-Elect is well aware of the requirements of his job to confer with all branches of government, and that he has and will continue to act accordingly.

PRESS CORPS: There's been talk of tension between the Progressive and Socialist caucuses - would you say this is due to the impending return to the Wallace House of a Progressive/Socialist coalition for the first time since President Reuther was elected in 1964?

NORDQUIST: There are always tensions in politics. It is the duty of elected officials to bridge all gaps, regardless of party lines, for the betterment of the entire nation.

PRESS CORPS: Then these recent tensions are in no way due specifically to residual disputes from the campaign trail?

NORDQUIST: Would it change matters if they were? The people of the Mountain States have spoken, and they want an end to the era of Stassen and Cargo. Both parties have committed themselves to reforming the system, and at the end of the day, that's what matters. Don't ask who irritated who, because there isn't an answer to that. A better question is who has the best solution to the issues we face ... and we already have an answer for that.

PRESS CORPS: Congressman, are you saying it doesn't matter to the American people if there are already tensions between the offices of the Presidency and the Vice Presidency? Not to mention the governing Congressional coalition?

NORDQUIST: I'm saying that I'm more than confident than the coalition and Wallace House can work together to overcome any differences, and that maybe somebody who makes a living off of finding these differences and pointing them out has an agenda of their own. No further questions.

The following interview was initially conducted by James McNeely with Representative Norman Warner (Republican) on popular right-wing talk show "The Deliberation Report", but was subsequently published by several newspaper outlets over the New Year as debate over SOCAL and the potential HUAC investigation intensified.
__________

McNeely: Good evening and welcome back ladies and gentlemen! My guest tonight, he’s the economics egghead behind some of the Republican Party’s key policies of the last four years - it’s Congressman Norman Warner!

[applause sound effect]

Warner: A pleasure to be here.

McNeely: This is your first time on The Deliberation Report with James McNeely:, isn't that right?

Warner: That it is - I'm hoping that means you'll go easy on me, but I'm not quite sure!

McNeely: Hahaha, there's nothing to worry about Congressman, we're not in the revolutionary business... there's always the Secret Service tapping the offices to worry about, but that's a whole different story.

Warner: Hah, well just so long as you don't spring any of our esteemed colleagues in the Socialist Party on me, I'm sure we'll do just fine.

McNeely: We'll do our best. So Congressman, tell us - you're the economics whiz who's had a hand in Republican thinking in the last few years. Well known and successful author and professor besides... I suppose the question people might have to begin with is, "Why Congress?"

Warner: Why so I could get invited on programmes like these, of course - but more seriously, I thought to myself, why not? This country has suffered enough over these past few decades through mismanagement, overregulation, and people playing personal politics instead of looking at what really matters to folks.

McNeely: What really matters to folks - lets talk about that.

You're well known for being a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Some people have raised the question - why do we still need it?

Warner: Well I remember asking someone just on the campaign trail what really mattered to them - we were just leaving a rally outside Cedar Rapids - and a young man replied: family, jobs, and security. And I found myself agreeing with him entirely.

Now quite what family and jobs have to do with the HUAC is maybe not the clearest thing in the world - but we live in a dangerous world, that's one thing for sure, and make no mistake, there're plenty bad guys out there.

And sometimes, in our own country, things are not as good as they should be. Sometimes there're people who don't appreciate the freedoms our fathers and forefathers fought and died for.

These Mountain States of America are, I don't hesitate to say it, the best place in the world to live and we need to protect that.

I want to protect our families, protect our jobs, from all those who either hate what we have or covet it.

And I would love to see the day we don't need the Committee - till then though, it's a necessity to protect our way of life.

McNeely: Jobs is an interesting point. You're here today, in part, because recently you and your colleague in the House, Representative Goff, introduced a HUAC proposal to investigate SOCAL, correct?

Warner: That's correct - and I would take this opportunity to state my hope that across parties we can tackle this issue that is of real concern in these states today.

McNeely: Now for those who don't know, SOCAL, or Standard Oil of California, is a growing oil company here, providing jobs for Americans, is it not?

Is that a matter of real concern for the MSA?

Warner: SOCAL is a matter of concern, and I'd like to point out why.

McNeely: Please do.

Warner: Our energy market is inherently flawed, and has been ever since the end of the war. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with that.

We can't produce more than 30% - 30%! - of our own energy, and the Progressive-Socialist administration has made no moves to continue President Stassen's push for a new Energy Summit.

Now that might not sound like it's got a lot to do with SOCAL - but SOCAL is owned partly by the PSA government, how much we don't know, it's owned by senior figures in zaibatsu, different companies who already have a great advantage over MSA companies when it comes to the energy market due to treaty limitations.

So when SOCAL is able to come in - with those governmental and zaibatsu links in San Francisco - and compete unfairly with MSA companies, it raises an issue of national security as well. Because if they're able to work here at an advantage and are partly PSA-owned... well, their takeovers of MSA firms might not be as simple as a standard business acquisition.

Now I'm not saying we'll find them at fault without any doubt - it's possible they're here and willing to operate as a normal, law-abiding company.
But you tell me that a company gaining 10% of the MSA market in such a short time with those shareholders, and looking to expand further, is not an issue that touches at job security for our workers, energy security for our country, and national security for our citizens - it's a natural question for the HUAC to answer, and that's what I believe we'll do.

McNeely: No doubt we'll see what HUAC has to say on the matter soon.

Final question Congressman: from both sides of the aisle, from Congresswoman Freeman's Neo-Cons to left-wing players in the Progressive-Socialist coalition, there've been calls for budget cuts. Many proposals have indicated cuts that would directly effect HUAC. If you could offer a defence of the committee in one sentence, what would you say to critics?

Warner: A good question.

I would perhaps quote Jefferson.

"Our greatest happiness doesn't depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits."

Without the HUAC, our freedom would be at risk, and the MSA as we know it probably wouldn't exist.

McNeely: Congressman Warner, thank you for your time today.

Warner: It's been a pleasure, and I hope we'll speak again soon.

McNeely: Stay tuned listeners, because after the break we've got ...

Excrept from: A Louisiana Dockworker in KC: Challenges, Opportunities and What We Can Expect From a Roux-Johnson Vice-Presidency, an Interview
from The Worker, WIU Publications, January 16 1981.

Many Union members have written in asking about the Socialist Party's views on security and defense, especially after the recent failure of the budgetary proposal in the House that would have given a major development contract to the McDonnell Corporation. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, yeah, obviously members have questions, it's an important issue. After all, security and defense are necessary to even do all the things we've been talking about in this interview. Without safety, we can hardly talk about jobs and housing! The country needs to be safe, that's number one, so of course we support efforts to increase our strength.

However, the reality is very clear: America lost a war, and those of us who remain free from Fascism are limited in what we can do with a traditional standing army by unequal treaties signed under duress. Yet at the same time we are practically forced as a nation to buy the Superpowers' excess obsolete weaponry, which is a burden on our national finances, not to mention that this puts us at a permanent disadvantage related to those who would do us harm.

You have all this... and yet there are some in KC who still think in terms of..."business as usual". Republicans, to put it bluntly, still operate on a pre-war, two-party-system mindset, when what we need is a new mentality to face new challenges. The Right Wing of our politics still wants to use our need for defense as a sort of welfare program for a large domestic arms industry, like it's feasible, reasonable or even just plan fair to spend double on both outdated weapons from our neighbors and huge defense contracts for the privileged few.

You seem to have strong opinions on the matter, Mr. Vice-President, is it safe to say the Socialist Party has an outline for a new defense policy?

For the last time, it's Paul, and you know I can't really tell you that right now. We are still, despite the attitudes of some, working in a coalition government with the Progressives, so we believe it's best if we talk it over with them to, ideally, present a united proposal and walk in a single direction, so to speak, one that can hopefully satisfy our needs and concerns as well as theirs.

Not even a hint?

All that I can say is that the Socialist plan is to use the current situation to our advantage without trying to force a dynamic which can no longer exist but without completely breaking with the past either, using the very best of American ingenuity and plenty of solidarity to get ahead and do what's best for our country.

Interesting.

Yes, I think so.

Very well, moving on. There have been rumors, as well, that it was foreign influence which stopped the passing of the budgetary proposal bill. Since the Socialist Party has advocated for broader and deeper investigation into imperialist meddling in domestic affairs, will you be presenting a proposal to HUAC regarding these rumors as well?

It's good that you should ask that. See, the Party is considering its options. We are as ticked off as anyone about these rumors, but they don't really shock us: I spent many years in both houses of Congress myself and I know very well the extent of the influence of foreign interests. Now that we are once again in a position to do something about it I can guarantee that we will do whatever we can to safeguard our sovereignty in all matters.

The thing is: we as a country need to understand that Fascist interventionism is not limited to tanks rolling through the border or the SS marching on Kansas. Imperialism can, and does, interfere in our business through many other means. I always say that if the people knew just how deeply the tentacles of Berlin and Tokyo reach into Kansas, they'd burn the whole place down just out of principle.

TRUCKS FULL OF DRUGS??
YAKUZA IN AMERICA: THE SOCAL CONNECTION
*Foreign oil interests are linked to the recent spike in drug-related organized crime across the country, accusations say.
*PSA governmen implicated in the illegal drug trade if true.
*SOCAL stock hit hard by revelations.

LAS CRUCES, NM.- The business world was recently rocked by a huge scandal...

Turbulence in Congress – An interview with Congressman Matthew James Carpenter, sponsor of the Air Defence Fighter Bill.

It’s a wet January day in Oklahoma as we drive to meet one of this year’s most prominent advocates of the MSAAF and MSA indigenous development in general. Our designated meeting point is perhaps as suggestive of the emotional background to the Air Defence Fighter Bill, at the time of writing still being held up by the “Progressives”, as it is the practical. Tinker Air Force Base – formerly the Midwest Air Depot.

Centre of deployment for many brave American pilots, and the last place a good number walked as free men, a memorial to the fallen guards her gates as we enter (after a quick security check). Several minutes later, precisely on time, we’re met by Mr Matthew James Carpenter, House Representative for Oklahoma, and a man clearly beating back old memories here. A little small talk later, and I get to the matter at hand: why meet here for the interview?

“Because I’m tired of interviews in the office”, he grins, “and because this place reminds me of good and bad times. Whenever I think I’ve been in politics too long, that I'm getting too used to it, I get a wee tour or a pass for Tinker or go speak with some veterans. But in this case… well, it hits two birds with one stone. Tinker Air Base is a perfect location to show how badly we need upgrades to our defenses. Look around you – hard-working, hard-fighting pilots and air crews. But the equipment? Decades out of date.”

Behind us, an F-4 screams in onto the runway, fire engines at the ready and on standby. We discuss the relative merits of the F-4 for a while, but it’s clear the Congressman is eager to move things along.

“Congress has dilly-dallied on the issue of air defence for far, far too long. And defence in general. Look at our army – ten years at best behind our neighbours. Even our armoured corps need major investment. But again and again you have a stubborn coalition of anti-military and pro-fascist lobbyists, who by the way aren’t mutually exclusive. Some of the former talk a good talk, but if you vote to weaken the Mountain States of America you’re doing as much damage as the most hardened idiot on a street corner drawing swastikas.”

Our discussions continue, and we get a spot of lunch while we’re here. He chats amicably with some airmen, and even I’m surprised when he speaks to them of his USAAF days.

“In the war we didn't have half the equipment these guys do today, and training practices have improved dramatically. But the best training I got was my first dogfight, taking down a Zero – and that’s something I hope none of these boys have to experience, but I want them to have the equipment they deserve. To our east and west, there’re pilots that have ten times better jets. That’s what the Air Defence Fighter Bill is about – I want to close that gap so we can protect ourselves. A defence-orientated, modern, advanced fighter that can defend the MSA and support vital jobs, skills and technological development in these Mountain States at the same time. We owe it to our country. So I hope the Progressives and Socialists in Congress will read this and get behind the bill, rather than leave it lying, hoping the issue goes away.”

The failure of the House to even move the bill to the Committe stage has some worried the new administration isn't serious; but with a Republican Secretary of Defense, responsibility now lies on all parties to fix the MSA's ageing defence capabilities.

Excerpt from from The Worker, February 25th, 1981.
Senate Debates and SOCAL Hearing Put Socialists on the Spotlight


Senator Arthur Robertson, MN. "We must be on our guard and not forgo our duty to the peoples of this great nation to stop Un-American activities dead on their tracks."

Kansas City, MO.- Congressman Arthur Robertson was not part of the national conversation until recently, but his recent vigorous activity in the House Un-American Activites Committe has put him at the front and center of the Socialist fight against Fascist Imperialism. Carrying a young, energetic style of politics, this reportedly clever man is part of a group of Socialist legislators that have quickly become rising stars, not only within their Party but nationwide.

"Much to the Republicans' chagrin, they are on the wrong side of history", said Congressman Robertson, "and the thing about people like that is they don't realize how wrong they are. It's like they're time travelers, come to us from a time when their policies were sustainable and made sense, still living in the shadow of great grand papa Stassen, refusing to see that the real legacy of his government was a growth in inner city poverty, an even greater disparity among our brother peoples, and the calamitous entry of organized crime into our cities...but nope! They think it was all fine and dandy!"

When asked about accusations made by Luis Iwasaki, the director of the Mountain States of America branch of Standard Oil of California, during his questioning that these proceedings made for a hostile business environment in the MSA, the Congressman chuckled, "It's funny that this administration has barely been in office for a month and already the imperialists and the Republicans cry out that our country's been lost to communism. That's not a coincidence, by the way. And really, if Luis thinks he's been mistreated so badly in the stand then maybe he should try to run for office as a Socialist some time." He chuckled, "But really, that didn't happen to me. You should ask Andrea."

Congresswoman Andrea Hernández was meeting with an aide when we arrived. "Come in. One moment, please," said the Walt Whitman Award-winning poet as she explained to another woman how to properly submit a bill and amendments for debate in Congress. "I'm sorry," she says when she's finished and the aide dismissed, "it's been terribly busy now that we're finally back to work. You're from The Worker, correct?".

The Congresswoman is known for alternating between a warm and caring, even motherly, disposition and a firebrand brand of legislative activism that reminds of her militant past.

"Well, yes. But you can't let your guard down with these people. We have to share office buildings with the Right-Wing, so the environment is usually tense."

Her 1975 book, The Cherished Bleeding, made waves in the publishing industry for its radical and provocative...

Excerpt from "Let Me Tell You Something: The Vice-President Speaks", Ibid.

It's been a big week for the Socialist Party, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I would. It began with vehement participation in HUAC hearings and it's ending with firm debates on the Senate floor, all expressing the equally firm direction of our parliamentary line. I for one am pleased to see we're still the bringers of inconvenient truths to Kansas.

It seems the Republicans are pushing harder to get their defense contracting bill across. With Speaker Nordquist recently approving it for Committee review, has the time to push for a Socialist defense policy finally arrived?

We've been pushing our stance for a long time, you know, this is only the best opportunity so far to get across what we believe to be the correct approach to keep the MSA safe.

You saw Carpernter's interview, right? You know the game they're playing. It's the typical GOP schtick.

Typical?

Yeah, it's what they do. Look, son, I could stand here all day talking about my humble past and my Navy record, I could have invited you to interview me at Governor Nicholls and make sure you see me saying "hi" to the men and give you a tour of the dockyards, but I'm not going to do that, I'm not, you know why? Because I respect your intelligence. What's more, I respect the intelligence of your readers to understand what we in the Party are saying without resorting to such obvious, manipulative, and, frankly, cheap tactics as the Republicans' to get legislation across.

So it's still business as usual for them?

Let's face it: it was the Republicans who led this country into the Great Depression and it was also them, and their contemporaries the Democrats, who failed to prepare the country at all for a foreign invasion. So for them to now talk as if they know just what's best for our country is really not all that believable to me.

What about their argument that we should have fighter jets on par with the Superpowers?

Nonsense. Here's the thing: unless either the Asian or the European powers are seriously weakened, it's ludicrous to imagine us prevailing in a conventional war, especially when all sides, but us, have nuclear weapons. We should be readying ourselves for defense through other means, ones that are not simply based on crony capitalist tradition but rather on a serious study and assessment of what a ground war on the MSA would actually look like in reality, not trying to wish our way into a different paradigm. This probably involves increasing and deepening the scope of what we understand when we say "national army" and particularly its role in relation to society.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we're opposed to developing our air capabilities, but let's be clear: the previous bill couldn't pass because foreign influence made sure to buy out or shake down anyone visible or vulnerable enough for it to do so, which is apparently a group that includes enough congresspeople to push back a budgetary proposal. Representative Carpenter seems to think he can push a largely identical bill purely through through his force of will. Perhaps he imagines that if he does enough interviews the lobbyists will go away, or that those same lobbyists haven't weathered this sort of pressure before.

The Socialists seem concerned about the lobbyists.

Darn right we seem concerned! It's only the integrity and sovereignty of our entire legislative process that's at stake!

The Republicans are, to put it bluntly, either misguided or naive or...well, influenced, into talking so much about the fighter jets while ignoring the real problem. I invite the Congressman and all of his Republican colleagues to reach across the aisle to help us draft and pass a law that will, finally, put an end to fascist-imperialist influence in KC and ensure that it's only the will of the MSAmerican peoples which acts through Congress. We assure them our hand will be reaching out as well, ready to meet them in the middle and work together to work out a matter which unites all of us, and which is of our foremost national interest.

Should we defend ourselves with old equipment, then?

Ha ha, oh, no, of course not. Of course not! What's with you? We should obviously strive to have better equipment, not only for air defense but for all defense, but millionaire contracts to private corporations is not the best way to go about it, certainly not if the idea is something as expensive as paying them to make a whole new plane, one that the government would then buy from them once it's done, effectively paying for it twice.

What's the Socialist alternative?

All I'm saying right now is: we're stuck with the foreign planes here, let's think with our heads.

As opposed to...?

Our bank accounts, where the dreams of aspirations of patriotic Republicans forever lie.

(laughter)

Now, Mr. Vice-President. I'm sorry. Paul. There's been some serious accusations going around regarding Standard Oil of California and its possible links to the drug trade and organized crime. Given that it was the Socialists who brought them up during a session of HUAC, is the Socialist Party accusing the PSA of sneaking drugs into our cities?

We're not accusing anyone of anything at this time, and I believe that would be the FBI's work, at any rate. We brought them up because we think it's a very serious issue and we wanted to get answers from the horse's mouth. The results are published for all to see: hostility towards Congressman Robertson and eventually pleading the Fifth.

So you think they're guilty.

I think that SOCAL is in the middle of a major scandal and that it would clearly be best for everyone if we worked together to clear this up. I'm not a policeman, nor is any Socialist serving in Congress one, to my knowledge, but we do understand it's not exactly good for a company to have these accusations hanging around, nor is it good for the peace of mind of the MSA peoples.

Should there be an investigation?

I don't know. As I said, I'm not a policeman. What I do know is that SOCAL should clear this up and, if necessary, the government should get involved, not only to safeguard our peace of mind but to find out and, if necessary, punish any wrongdoing.

PLEADS
THE
FIFTH!
SOCAL Refuses To Answer Key Questions From HUAC Among Continued Accusations
*Foreign Company Won't Say If Employees Sabotaged Economy.
* "SOCAL should clear this up", VP.
*Five People Await Questioning.

Source: The Evening Teamster

HAIL TO THE CHIEF: PRESIDENT STONE'S FIRST INTERVIEW-
TALKS HUAC, CULTURE CLASH, AND LEGACY

John Friedman, The Kansas City Star
January 28th, 1981

Sat in the Library Room of the Presidential House, often referred to as Wallace House after President Henry A Wallace, it is easy to be drawn in by the trappings of power. Particularly when the newly sworn-in President comes striding in, making a bee line straight for you. But with a firm handshake and a warm glance, Charles Stone reminds you more of that popular acquaintance you were frequently charmed by at parties, but never quite got to know. After the niceties, which are, of course, very nice, the interview takes a more serious turn.

The President spoke first with me about his meetings earlier this week with his predecessors. Having expressed regret that due to their passing, he could not call on the advice of Presidents Wallace or Taylor, he nevertheless mentioned that despite his ailing health, President Reuther had given him some advice on “bipartisan politics”, and that although he has had his differences with President Cargo over the past few years and the campaign, “David”, as he calls him, has been a welcome source of advice. While this use of first names hinted to this interviewer at a warming of relations since the heatedness of the campaign, during which many an insult and slight was traded, Mr Stone remarks only that he feels “formalities are unnecessary” between men who’ve shared the Executive Office.

President Stone spoke with me regarding his defense policies - something he was criticised for in the latter stages of the electoral campaign for being too vague - and has announced that he has, since his election, been meeting with advisors to formulate policy. At the time of this interview, Stone pointed to his appointment of a Republican to the Department of Defense as indicative of one of those “areas of importance” that he feels the government ought to foster bi-partisan cooperation - however since then, a change in the internal situation with the Republican Party has led the President to leave the Secretary position empty thus far when passing on his appointments for Senate approval. It remains to be seen how the post will be filled.

The most important topic of discussion to arise in our interview was, of course, the proposal laid before the House Committee on Un-American Activities calling for an investigation into the President’s past - particularly his time spent as Chief of Staff to the Ambassador to France, and later as the Ambassador himself. The President remained unfazed by the prospect, in fact referring to Congressman Shinoda as a man he “respects a great deal”, and a vehement opponent of fascism, who seeks to root it out wherever it may be found “despite the risk to his own career”. When asked how well he knew his fellow Coloradan, Mr Stone stated that although they have met “on occasion”, they were hardly friends - merely fellow Progressives. The President further stressed that he doesn’t believe that Congressman Shinoda’s political future is under threat; instead he spoke on how he viewed “continued vigilance against fascism” positively. Stone appeared in high spirits nonetheless, thoroughly unconcerned by proceedings - when discussing for-the-record comments on his time in France, the President joked that he’d spent the time “serving the American people, eating peculiar food, and butchering the French language”. Nevertheless, this President is perhaps one of the most well-versed in foreign affairs, and having expressed interest in doing a great deal abroad in terms of working with allies during the campaign, many are expecting interesting things. In our discussions, he touched on hopes for South Africa after their 1976 “Soweto Revolution”, and his concerns for Haiti, which he insists he is “keeping a close eye on”, but only time will tell how this President will affect the global community.

Mr Stone remained unconcerned that Congressman Shinoda’s proposal was quickly reacted to by Committee Chairman, Congressman Ellis, whose motion to move the debate before the House of Representatives to form a special committee looks somewhat like impeachment proceedings. He commented that “it’s right that the highest office in the land be subject to such high scrutiny”. He nonetheless stated that “of course, if found guilty of any wrongdoing, I would step down” - and that he wasn’t concerned about the prospect of the Vice President succeeding him, as he believed that Vice President Roux-Johnson would also resign “to avoid the contamination of the Presidency” by having associated with fascism or fascist collaborators. He also expressed concerns about whether the Socialists would rightfully have a mandate to govern. Of course, were both the President and the Vice President to vacate office, the order of succession would lead the as-yet-unconfirmed Secretary of State to succeed to the Presidency. Nevertheless, he stressed that he did not think it would come to that, and that he “welcomes the investigation” as being a “good standard to set” - and that by investigating the Presidency, the highest office is in fact better protect, along with “American ideals”.

The spread of outside influence into the Mountain States is among this new President’s greatest concerns - not just political, as often seen by Pacific and United State posturing, but cultural spreads. The crisis of conscience for this generation, having moved on somewhat from the Japanese Wave of the 1960s, may well be Japanese video game arcades and “punk” music, both of which are springing up like weeds in our cities. Mr Stone’s thoughts regarding this expansion were largely …

UNITED IN GRIEF: MOUNTAIN STATES MOURN PRESIDENT STONE
From the weekly column of Matthew James Carpenter, Representative for Oklahoma
First published in The Oklahoman, 6th April, 1981

I first met President Charles Efraim Stone in 1978, at a charity event we both happened to be attending. Even then, rumours of his presidential ambitions were well known. Politically, we may have had our differences, and regular readers of this column will know them well. But I know, even as the nation grieves for his death, that President Stone was a man proud to be American. Proud of what these Mountain States stand for - and proud to be at the helm of the land of the free. Across all political parties and all parts of society, that we all must salute.

The death of the President is both a tragedy and a heinous crime. All Americans need to know exactly what happened and what can be done to stop the like from ever happening again. Justice must be done. Our hearts go out to the family of the President, and to the others injured in this attack - they all must be in our prayers at this time. The imperative on the government is great indeed. An investigation must begin into the exact circumstances of that Monday's events, and what lessons may be learned.

Though time has flown on, these Mountain States of America are well used to loss, to proud Americans cut down in their prime. In our hundreds of thousands, we lost loved ones, friends, and family in the chaos of war. That this makes our sympathy for the family of President Stone the greater, not the lesser, is a testament to this great nation. This great democracy of ours faces trying days. But we must not fail to safeguard the legitimacy of our democracy and the sanctity of the electorate's decisions and institutions in times ahead. To do so would be a grave dishonor to every fine American cut down in their prime as our President was on March the 30th. Those who seek to undermine our freedom and the American Dream cannot be allowed victory.

God bless the MSA.

Press Briefing Room - The Presidential House, Kansas City

Wallace House Press Secretary:

OK, to begin the press briefing for today, we can confirm that the President will be making an address to the nation. This evening, broadcast live from the Presidential Office, where he will be speaking to the nation over television and radio. Advanced copies of talking points covered in the address have been distributed in your press packs, and the speech will cover the themes of unity, resilience, and the Mountain States as a sovereign nation of free peoples. Shortly after the President's speech, a full transcript will also be released.

President, Meeting Fishermen, Haitians, Announces Coast Guard Deployment And Pledges Aid

Wallace House, KC - President Roux-Johnson met today with Thomas Birdsey, a Minnesota fisherman who experienced a close encounter with US Navy Fast Attack Craft last week, in Wallace House, as part of an official event where he also met with four other ship captains and sailors who spoke to the President about their impressions regarding their harrowing encounters with an alien hostile force.

In the event, which included an official dinner and a series of audiences, along with statements to the press, the President expressed concern at what he referred to as the "utter unpreparedness" of our country "to deal with the brazen aggression of a reckless rogue state", signaling "never again must our seamen be left exposed to the whim of armed Fascist corsairs". In statements to the press, the President said he would announce measures that would deepen and expand the MSA's preparedness for these sorts of circumstances.

"Now, the urgent thing is securing our maritime border", added the commander in chief, as he revealed he had ordered the immediate deployment of the Coast Guard to the Great Lakes as well as the maritime border of Louisiana. "These men can't fish with guns fixed on them, and you all saw how those Segregationists treated the refugee rafts. If we don't secure the border, it'll be open season on those camps."

It's not just a matter of hearsay for the President, as he also met with representatives from the refugee communities and refugee advocacy groups, as well as the Haitian ambassador, Stephane Dabrezil, to discuss the problems of the réfugié community, as well as recent events in the storm-wrecked Caribbean island nation. "We are happy with what the President has said here today", said Jacques, a refugee, "The measures he is proposing can do a lot of help people like us and our families."

The President reportedly held a closed-door meeting with the Haitian ambassador, after which he spoke to the press, saying "We are all committed to rebuilding Haiti. Our humanitarian mission can't be put off any longer by official passivity and petty partisan bickering. The Haitian government has responded well to our different proposals to help, and so we're coming closer to a point where we can come together for a strong, prosperous Haiti, one with peace, progress and stability for all."

Government Finances 'Out of Control'
GOP to Senate: 'the budget must be balanced'

Mountain States Senate, KC - The Socialist-Progressive administration came under heavy fire as Congress reacted to the budget proposed by the conservative wing of the GOP. Despite repeated promises, the socialists and progressives now climb on six months without either passing any legislation or presenting a budget. Branded as reckless and irresponsible by business, the yawning budget deficit shows no signs of closing as government remains rudderless.

It was a strange sight even in these strangest of times, with an unelected party in Wallace House, to see the Republicans push a solution to the budget before the ostensible governing parties. No response has even been presented by Progressives or Socialists; and one wonders what exactly the cabinet have been doing over these months.

Indeed, all we have seen from the far-left is unspecified spending commitments. The President now seemingly supports a mass-militarisation of our western and eastern borders, and to conscript every able-bodied male into the army. Yet we have seen no costing of this. The only indication of their budgetary policy has been support from the Secretary of the Treasury for printing more money, subsidising more inadequate production, and cutting taxes - with no word of how to balance the budget.

It is no wonder - with a President nobody wanted, a Congress paralysed by coalition machinations, a struggling economy and a deficit harming market confidence in the MSA - that Senator Clayton's proposals to cut unnecessary spending and boost exports are not only in his own words common sense solutions, but proof of the unsuitability of the coalition to govern.

Dogfighting in the House
Republicans and Socialists clash on defense policy

House of Representatives, KC - Few things so obviously thow up party differences as national security. With the USN testing the border security of the MSA, security services eternally busy fighting espionage, and an outdated, obsolete arsenal for much of the MSAAF, the timing could hardly be more appropriate for the Air Defence Fighter Bill to finally get to the floor of the House.

On one side there are the Socialists - making up facts, slandering the McDonnell corporation and admitting the unelected President doesn't want this bill to get through so his fascist lobbyists are kept happy. On the other there are the Republicans - clearly frustrated by opposition for opposition's sake, and trying to explain the reasoning behind the bill. Somewhere out there are the Progressives, and one hopes they will see sense and vote for the bill.

According to every aviation expert and analyst in the country, the present situation is intolerable. If the US or PS military commands decided to test our air defences at the moment, they would find them utterly lacking. It is decades since a technically-up-to-date fighter was last developed.

The USA and PSA have never before supplied the MSAAF, as the socialists claim. The bill in the last congress fell through because the Republican right didn't support developing a fighter that would be no match for any equivalently aged aircraft - and because of fascist lobbying. Now that a bill which will provide 100 modest yet advanced defence fighters is before congress, only one of these obstacles remain. The weakness of this President on defence cannot and must not shackle future generations to allow even more of our defence sector to be nothing more than a second hand selection of unwanted fascist equipment.

For the benefit of children and Republicans everywhere, The Worker publishes an excerpt from a widely-read magazine, News Bulletin, regarding the military situation of the MSA:

Often made/coerced to purchase US/German and PS/Japanese military equipment, often in outdated formats. [...] Largely outdated small arms purchased from USA/PSA."

F
IN
HISTORY!
*Right-Wing Newspaper Claims MSA Never Bought USA-PSA Equipment
*Fact Evident In MS American Public Life
*Militarist Party Unaware of Army's Basic Workings, Controls DoD

Source: The Evening Teamster.

Hold Onto Your Beards, Lefties!
A point of clarity for the lesser spotted communist

What do you see in the image above? If you're a communist, apparently, that's the Luftwaffe. Or maybe some Jap aircraft. What they claim it isn't, is MSA-built-developed-designed aircraft. Shocker for you closet Stalinites if you're still reading: those are the aforementioned MSA-built-developed-designed aircraft. Like all MSAAF aircraft.

Some may have noted the accusation from some badly-groomed intern or two over at "The Worker" that we had printed a falsehood in our magazine. The part which so offended them was, apparently:

The USA and PSA have never before supplied the MSAAF, as the socialists claim. The bill in the last congress fell through because the Republican right didn't support developing a fighter that would be no match for any equivalently aged aircraft - and because of fascist lobbying. Now that a bill which will provide 100 modest yet advanced defence fighters is before congress, only one of these obstacles remain. The weakness of this President on defence cannot and must not shackle future generations to allow even more of our defence sector to be nothing more than a second hand selection of unwanted fascist equipment.

Any sane person who read the article in context could see we meant aircraft. But those of a different persuasion read into it we meant they'd never supplied anything. The left is no stranger to lying, but we'll not be tarred with the same brush. So to conclude: we meant aircraft, dear childish socialists.

F in English, ladies.