How Many Communists In the State Department?

How Many Communists In the State Department?
Vol: 110 Issue: 30 Tuesday, November 30, 2010

In the 1964 movie, The Manchurian Candidate, one of the lead characters was a politician named Johnny Iselin, played by veteran actor James Gregory.

Johnny Islein was a fictionalized caricature of Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy. In the movie, Iselin would make up facts and figures like, “There are 207 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the US State Department.” 

When challenged, he would harrumph and spit out some new number instead.  His handler explained to him (and the audience) that the idea wasn’t to be accurate, but to keep changing up the facts to keep the fact-checkers off-balance.

So one time there would be 207 card-carrying Communists in the State Department and then the next there would be 85 card-carry Communists at the Pentagon, and so on.

(Or something along those lines – I’m working from memory). 

What triggered the memory, however, was a column in the UK Telegraph about the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico.

Remember when Al Gore warned of rising seas and disappearing coastlines if the temperature went up a mere 2 degrees? Depending on whom you asked, the melting ice would cause sea levels to rise as much at twenty feet.  Or six feet.  Or two feet.

“How many Communists are there in the State Department?”

Once the Climategate scandal broke and the world learned that the world headquarters of global warming research at East Anglia in Great Britain had been “cooking” the raw data that everybody else was basing their predictions on, Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was moved from the “documentary” to the “fiction” categories.

“There are exactly, er, 203, I mean 107, I mean, ladies and gentlemen, I’m late for an appointment. . . “

“In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.”

It is worth noting at this point that the East Anglia University was also one of the ‘world’s most respected scientific institutions’ on climate change, that it was also headquartered in Great Britain and is also a member of the Royal Society.

Great Britain is the birthplace of the Great Global Warming Swindle,  (both the swindle and the movie) which is itself an object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In an effort to overcome environmentalist objections to expanding Great Britain’s nuclear power generating stations, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher offered government grants to institutions that could prove a relationship between fossil fuel consumption and global warming.

The institutions that accepted the grants soon discovered the evidence necessary to get more grants and the more evidence they ‘discovered’ the more grants they got.  

Since it was getting warmer for a time, what had begun as a British government’s application of the Hegelian Dialectic to the problem of green opposition to nuclear power ultimately became a cash cow for anybody who cared to milk it.

But there is still considerable power (and profit) to be had and that is reason that the whole “climate change” fad hasn’t faded away. 

Especially among the British, where pagan earth worship is probably as widely practiced as Christianity, and among the globalists seeking a common threat to unite humanity under one government.

The UK Telegraph piece reveals quite a bit about what the globalists intend to use global warming hysteria to that end:

“In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.”

There is only one thing missing from the equation.  Who will do the rationing? 

Who will halt economic growth for the rich for twenty years while allowing poor nations to grow (so they can be exploited when the ‘rich’ have been exhausted)?   

Who will decide who is ‘rich’ and who is not?  


Cancun is probably the most fittingly-named place on Planet Earth for a place to host the UN’s latest Climate Change Conference.  In pre-Hispanic language of the region, “Cancun” means “nest of serpents.”  

Earlier this year, a conference of scientists and policy makers met in Chicago to hear from experts challenging the UN’s elusive and ever-changing global warming scenarios.

Speaking at the 4th International Conference on Climate Change were a number of actual scientists who point to a coming period of global cooling, including Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University.

Professor Easterbrook pointed out the obvious —  that there will be twice as many people killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat, and that global food production will suffer due to shorter, cooler growing seasons and crop destruction from bad weather. (See herehere, here, and here.)

As for the rising sea levels, there are plenty of scientists willing to refute the claim but what fascinates me is that anyone needs to. 

This is an experiment you can try at home.  Fill a glass with ice cubes.  Pour water (or any liquid of your choice) over the ice, filling the glass to the brim. 

Watch the glass but don’t touch it while the ice slowly melts in the glass.   (Let me know if the glass overflows as the water level rises.)  

The real culprit for global warming is and has always been the sun.  The evidence is overwhelming.  There is an equally simple experiment to prove this as fact. Try standing in the same place at noon and then again at midnight and note the temperature changes.

But if that is too simple, then there is the fact that the Sun has been undergoing previously-unheard of fluctuations that have resulted in similar temperature fluctuations on other planets to consider.  

Pluto has been experiencing global warming and NASA has also been recording massive climate change on Trion, Neptune’s largest moon.

Global warming is a complete fraud but there will always be True Believers for whom no amount of contradictory evidence will be satisfactory.  It is much like a religion in that it divides people into True Believers, heretics, apostates and unbelievers. 

The Apostle Paul explained how it works.  They are True Believers, but their faith is in mankind and man’s ability to determine and regulate what is best for the planet.  

Even if it means starving off a significant portion of the population.  Or establishing a balance of power between rich countries and poor — by impoverishing the rich.   

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” Paul writes to the Romans.

As to how there can still be so many willing to believe a lie so monstrous that it can call for the extermination of millions without raising much of an outcry, Paul explained that, too.

“And for THIS cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.”

Which cause is that? Because they received not the love of the truth.  Paul explains that they preferred the lie.

“That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

It isn’t a matter of science.  It is a matter of faith.  Faith in man. Or faith in God.  It isn’t hard to tell which side is God’s side. 

That’s the side that says “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22)

Then there is the other side. The ones given over to a reprobate mind.  Jesus spoke of them specifically.

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

And I think He also specifically mentioned Cancun.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s