Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118569802
label
Best, Bill [Correspondence] (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118569802
contentType
document
title
Best, Bill [Correspondence] (1)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
137
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael Deaver's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118569802
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a1a538433ec914a4
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: Deaver, Michael
Folder Title: Best Bill [Correspondence]
(1)
Box: 34
To see more digitized collections
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives
Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
]
July 31, 1984
Dear mike -
you orignt to
telk with Aus Constantine
(805) 687-5005 about
fidel Costro orot (805) evening.
Buie Base
PS 1 He isthe guy the
Ontellignee Community Staff checked
out 1 € said he was worth talking
to
(Where is my color photo?)
BusinessWeek/Harris Poll
THE PRESIDENT FAILS A CRITICAL TEST
R
onald Reagan took office in 1981
non. While it may not prove to be an
sians, I worry that he might get us
determined to rebuild U.S. mili-
issue in the Presidential campaign,
into another war." The President's
tary might while pursuing an
time has done nothing to diminish the
"trigger-happy" image is especially
aggressive foreign policy designed to
public's perception that U.S. policy
prevalent among women, of whom 54%
thwart expansionary moves by the So-
there-particularly the Marines' mis-
expressed fears that Reagan's policies
viet Union. Almost four years later, he
sion in Beirut-was a failure of major
could lead to war, compared with 40%
can point to his massive arms buildup
proportions. Two-thirds of the public
of the men.
and to the fact that no new territory
believe Reagan mishandled the situa-
The collapse of the strategic arms
has come under Soviet sway as proof
tion in Lebanon, and 57% think that the
control talks with the Soviet Union ap-
that his policies were successful.
loss of U.S. military personnel and the
pears to have helped fuel public con-
Yet, by another measure, the Presi-
ensuing retreat from Beirut "resulted
cern. Only 37% of Americans give Rea-
dent may have failed a critical test of
in a major loss of credibility for the
gan a positive vote on his handling of
leadership. He has been unable to rally
nuclear arms control, while 58% ex-
a majority of the American people be-
TROUBLE FOR REAGAN
press disapproval. Even 44% of those
hind both his goals and the means that
ON FOREIGN POLICY
classifying themselves as conserva-
he has chosen to achieve them. In-
tives share that view.
stead, by a 2-to-1 margin, the public
CYNICAL INTERPRETATION. Frustration
believes that the world is no safer and
Q.
Do you agree or disagree that the
over the lack of progress on arms con-
that the risk of war remains as great
world is a safer place and the danger
of war diminished as a result of
trol has also made the public suspi-
as ever as a result of Reagan's policies
President Reagan's policies?
cious of the President's motives. With
(chart).
an eye toward the November elections,
That is the principal finding of a new
A.
the Reagan Administration has
national opinion poll of 1,252 adults
launched a "peace offensive" designed
surveyed from July 7 to July 12. The
Agree
33%
to assuage voters' fears about the
poll was commissioned by BUSINESS
President's handling of foreign affairs.
WEEK and conducted by Louis Harris &
Disagree
61%
But thus far, at least, it does not ap-
Associates Inc.
Not sure 6%
pear to be having the desired effect.
GLOBAL CONCERNS. Reagan's overall
Forty-four percent of those surveyed
rating on his handling of foreign policy
charged that "when President Reagan
has, in fact, improved in recent
says he really wants to reach agree-
months. Only slightly more than half
Q.
Do you agree or disagree that if
Reagan is reelected he will return
ment with the Russians on arms con-
the public now considers his perfor-
to the hardline policy of
trol, he is doing that mainly for politi-
mance to have been fair or poor, down
threatening to use military
cal reasons." Only 52% of the public
from two-thirds in a survey taken one
power around the world?
disputed that cynical interpretation of
year ago. Yet on specific issues, the
A.
Reagan's actions. Similarly, 50% to
negatives rise sharply.
45%, Americans said they worry that if
The public is unhappy with the Presi-
Agree
49%
Reagan is reelected, "he will go back
dent's foreign policy in many parts of
to his hardline foreign policy of threat-
the world. By a margin of 63% to 33%,
Disagree
46%
ening to use American military power
Americans fear that the U.S. is risking
around the world." The public, Harris
another Vietnam by its interventionist
Not sure 5%
says, "doesn't trust all this peace talk"
policies in Central America. And while
from the Administration.
U.S. troops have not been involved in
DATA LOUIS HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC. FOR BUSINESS WEEK
The uneasiness of many Americans
the fighting in Nicaragua, the public is
with the President's foreign policy has
no happier with the covert support the
spilled over into concern about his
Central Intelligence Agency has pro-
U.S. in the Middle East." Lebanon, ar-
record-setting defense buildup. More
vided to the rebels. Fifty-five percent
gues Lou Harris, "is a real cross for
than half those surveyed agreed that
of those polled agreed that "it is wrong
Reagan to bear."
"under President Reagan, defense
for the CIA to help finance the anti-
For any U.S. President, however,
spending has gotten out of hand." And
Sandinista forces in Nicaragua," while
both Central America and the Middle
the bad grade Reagan gets on defense
only 38% disagreed. And despite re-
East are something of a sideshow com-
knows no demographic bounds. Ameri-
peated Administration efforts to build
pared with the central issue of U.S.
cans of every age group, income level,
support for its position, Americans
relations with the Soviet Union. And
occupation, and geographical region
have been giving the President bad
here Reagan's sometimes bellicose
think the President has done only a
marks for his handling of the situation
rhetoric has clearly served to unnerve
fair or poor job of handling defense
in Central America since Harris first
a substantial number of Americans. Al-
spending. That suggests that even if
asked the question early in 1983.
most half those polled told Harris that
he is reelected, President Reagan will
Americans are equally unhappy with
"while it's good to have someone as
face mounting pressure to restrain the
the Administration's policies in Leba-
President who is firm with the Rus-
Pentagon.
Bo The Resquat club
PM AZ 850
31 JUL A
1984
-
Olympics 84
Scathsdale, AZ
USA
20c
Peesonal The White House
Hon Michael Ц. Deare
Woshington, D.C. 20500
Affix
Postage
Here
Americans For The President
Box 1984
Georgetown Station
Washington, D.C. 20007
Mike -
I
I om young to send
you the first 30 second
spot this weeks 1
We world like Noney
do on "endersement"
Sain
Affix
Postage
Here
Americans For The President
Box 1984
Georgetown Station
Washington, D.C. 20007
file
INDUSTRIAL POLICY vs. CREATIVE MANAGEMENT:
THE SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC DIRECTION
by
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
November 1983
new york Co-Chaismon of
Omerican for the President
Wonld like to help with the
platform etc.
Written for Texas Business Monthly
"Industrial Policy," the new buzz among Democratic hopefuls, tickles
our ears this election year; it is, we are told, the national economic panacea
for international competitive sickness. "IP," to those on the in, would direct
and control from Washington the thrust and focus of American industry. IPers
believe that the free market system is no longer sufficient and that the
government must intervene to support business and prop up jobs. Coined by
intellectuals and caught by politicians, IP is a symptom of 1984 presidential
fever.
One cannot deny the appeal to industries suffering decline and
workers without work. Nor can one negate the fact that in a tightly wired
world foreign governments can shift the commercial balance of power by
giving home-grown companies unfair advantage. Thus IP sparks the hope that
federal funds might aid out-priced and outmoded companies regain former
glory.
But numerous industries will vie for the golden tap. Which to
promote and which to protect? Which to ignore and which to forget? When
the government picks "winners," it must, by that same decision, also pick
"losers." To sustain one, we must shun another. An increase of jobs here
must result in a decrease of jobs there. If automobiles are chosen, why
should textiles be condemned? Who is to decide that employment in the
Northcentral should go up while employment in the Southeast should go
down? One conjures up tortuous visions of procedural miasma, politicking and
lobbying of unprecedented magnitude. Resources, we have come to learn, are
not unlimited; available subsidy is only finite. (What, by the way, happens to
IP when favorite industries do not make the Federal Hit Parade?)
Socialism, it is said, is a wonderful concept; the dream of economic
equality and financial fairness is utopian. The only problem, of course, is
that it just doesn't work. Theoretical idealism breaks up quickly against the
rocks of pragmatic realism. Human beings function best when they are
controlled least, when they prosper in proportion to personal initiative and
self-driven intensity.
Amercian business is still burdened by archaic regulations codified
two generations ago. There were right and rigorous reasons then. We were
fast becoming, in those heady days, the world's premier industrial power; our
growth was unimpeded, domestic markets were burgeoning and foreign
markets beckoning. Industries and industrialists became intoxicated with their
new-found powers, and consumers and workers, at the mercy of these
mammoths, needed protection. Yet times shift and paths twist. What worked
then won't work now.
Is passivity the answer? Is public policy perfect? Should national
debate go quiescent? The status quo be bronzed? By no means. What
American industry needs is simple: Not more control by government but more
confidence in management. Not centralized planning by bureaucrats but
aggressive leadership from businessmen. Not Industrial Policy but Creative
Management. More micro and less macro.
American industry must be freed from constraints, not encumbered
with more. American business must be invigorated, not suffocated. The mold
for forging the future? Independent management, not centralized command.
(For every rule, there is an exception. In certain areas of the economy,
especially in high risk advanced technology, individual companies cannot
afford to invest and America cannot afford to abdicate. Supercomputers, for
one, have huge development costs and uncertain commercial revenues. Yet
the United States must not lose world leadership, certainly not by default.
Here is fertile substrate for an Industrial Policy.)
The ends of Industrial Policy are desirable, its the means that are
questionable. It is not sufficient to deny IP for American business. To
critique is always easier than to construct. Industrial Policy will not work.
What will? It is one thing to describe the illness, quite another to prescribe
the remedy. Alternatives proffered usually stress macroeconomic
manipulation, like looser money, tighter budgets and the like. Yet something
is missing. We've heard all this before.
One might believe by reading erudite arguments and
counter-arguments that industrial revival in America is linked to some "new
3
economic policy," whether monetarist and supply side on the one hand or
increased taxes and government spending on the other. A cardinal mistake
here -- and it permeates contemporary thought -- is the notion that
economic solutions to industrial problems will yield business success and
competitive advantage. Macroeconomics surely has its place, but not the
whole place. Macroeconomics is vital in defining and modulating the pace and
proportions of the economy, but it is deficient in securing and prospering
individual firms. It's like trying to coach a basketball team by determining
the theoretically proper mix of heights and weights and talents of players
without ever teaching any of them to shoot.
Economists dominate economic thinking. Logical, at least at first.
But economists, when one thinks about them, don't run companies. They don't
manage budgets and don't direct staffs. They never formulate corporate
strategies and have no experience with corporate structures. "P&L,"
"personnel," "product positioning" are terms they do not use. Meeting payrolls
is something they do not do. Making enterprises work is responsibility they
do not have.
Yet enterprises -- for-profit businesses and not-for-profit institutions
-- are the components of the economy. Like cells in a body, they are the
economy; and to treat the economy only by macroeconomics is to treat an
epidemic only by epidemiology. Building businesses in the former, like curing
people in the latter, must be addressed. To leave the economy solely in the
hands of economists is to leave the sick solely in the hands of statisticians.
We must listen to the Gross National Product. We must hear the
rhythms of small businessmen, middle managers, corporate executives. We
must feel the beat of individual needs, wants, desires. The world works
because some have vision and brilliance, with the tenacity and temerity to
produce and provide. Business, to me, is the economic synthesis of human
knowledge, the molding of value and substance out of concept and form. It is
the modern human analogue of the original Genesis creation when the
heavens and earth were formed out of chaos and void.
Creative and innovative management is what America needs, and
government policy should be directed toward building it. But this is not a
topic of macroeconomics; one does not study it in doctoral programs; there
is little research, no Nobel Prizes, and minor media. It is local not global,
micro not macro. Yet the stakes are big not small: Creative and innovative
management is the economic pulse of American health. It is the life blood
for sustaining the strength of the economy, for improving the quality of
management, for securing the robustness of business. It is the fulcrum for
the final fifth of the twentieth century. If America is to build a muscular
national economy, benefitting all citizens and leading the world, the
mechanism must include creative and innovative management.
Though words flow easy, precise definition is necessary. Creativity is
the process by which novelty is generated, and innovation is the process by
which novelty is transformed into practicality. Creativity forms something
from nothing, and innovation shapes that something into products and
services. To nurture and develop creative and innovative management is to
engender America with the power to prosper.
It concerns both collective policy and individual business. If creative
and innovative management can build industrial abundance in America, it will
do so on two pillars: the macroeconomic environment and the micro business
structure -- macro and micro. But such flourishing will not happen by
accident. It is a way of thinking new and hard. No one risks for little
reward. Only within a proper environment will American management make
the right moves and take the right risks. This environment has two elements:
1) An economic climate responsive to creativity and innovation; and 2) a
corporate culture conducive to such novel management.
Building the Economic Environment
1) Encourage Risk by Strengthening Reward
Proprietary ownership is a powerful human motivator; it is capitalism's great
advantage over communism and we must pound it without pause. We should
strengthen our patent laws, now to include new forms of invention in the
5
information and knowledge-based sciences. Government contracts should be
structured to encourage recipients to reach and to risk -- whether defense
contractors, university science departments, or government laboratories. Both
institutions and individuals must benefit from their toil. Federal R&D funds,
perhaps our nation's chief asset in building comprehensive national security,
should embed economic as well as military forces, deriving maximally
efficient value from each. Government contracts, for example, might be
awarded to firms that generate original ideas or products, or firms adept at
commercializing defense-related technology, whether the firms be large or
small. The current differentiation by size may be missing the mark.
2) Facilitate Information Transfer
Creativity and innovation are resources that increase with use: The more you
use it, to quote Dr. George Kozmetsky, the more you have it. To enhance
applications, we must publicize and promote. Although creativity and
innovation are private processes, they can be fostered by information sharing
and situation setting. Centers for Innovation and Invention should be
established, funded by state and federal government and administered by
colleges and universities. National data banks can enable active researchers
and potential entrepreneurs to access ideas and information.
3) Focus Government Fiscal and Tax Policy
Many words are spoken in Washington; millions every year are written into
record and law. None are heard more clearly, none are read more carefully,
than those dealing with taxes. By tax law the Federal Government directs
public policy. A clear message for developing creative and innovative
management will be given only when tax policy is the medium. We should
reward creative and innovative companies through lower taxes, rather than
penalize their profits with higher taxes. Tax credits for incremental R&D is
a first, albeit halting step in the right direction. We might consider, say, tax
credits for new patents, for new products, for R&D expenditures above
industry norms. Capital gains, as another example, might be dropped further,
perhaps to zero, but only if, in my opinion, the holding period is increased.
(The recent push to reduce the holding period to six months flies off in the
6
wrong direction, encouraging financial manipulations not productive
development.)
4) Understand the Creative Process
Public policy should support research and education in creative and innovative
management. Studying the process should become a national goal -- not a
curiousity, a necessity. America's finest researchers should be funded and
interdisciplinary work encouraged -- from organizational psychology and the
decision sciences to artificial intelligence and the neurosciences. The arts,
too, offer much and should not be neglected. In concert with research, we
must stimulate creative and innovative management in our schools. Principles
of creativity and innovation can be taught at every age, in parallel with
enhanced math and science, from early education through high school and
college. Schools of business should take the lead, instilling motivation to shift
and change rather than drilling techniques to trend and continue. One danger
of making business more rational, more analytical and computer-based, is the
subtle pressure to stifle the new and inhibit the fresh. Businessmen must be
prepared to make non-rational (not irrational) decisions, gambling on instinct
and perception. Though business should become more of a science, it must
never cease being an art.
5) Promote Interaction Among Sectors
Creative and innovative management is not sector specific. It occupies a
unique place at the union of industry, government and academe. Each sector
must make its contribution, and critical mass can be generated nationally
only when all focus their force on the interface. Intersector interaction is
not just a current fad, it is the white-hot focus -- and government policy
should catalyze the reaction. The Department of Defense policy of rewarding
companies with university ties higher scores for Independent R&D funds is an
excellent prototype. State government, too, must participate; they may, for
example, offer matching incentives for state-based R&D, increasing
operational leverage and financial appeal.
7
Developing the Corporate Culture
1) Encourage Risk by Strengthening Reward
Most companies give mixed signals about risk. They praise new ventures with
lofty words and reward failure with career wipeout. One such derailment
incinerates the whole house of corporate cards. We must shift this risk-return
tradeoff by decreasing the risk and increasing the reward. Incentives for
originality and invention must be internalized and believed by the company
underground. The organizational structure must be support it; the informal
networks must promote it; the grapevines must confirm it. Participating in
new ventures -- not just making them successful -- must be the pinnacle of
corporate achievement. "Have the Guts to Fail" is the motto of one
innovative company. Creativity and innovation has expression, one should
note, in all areas of corporate life -- not just high technology and new
products. Managers who look beyond the traditional, who see the unusual,
who dare to be different -- upon these does posterity rely.
2) Facilitate Creative Types
Egalitarianism, the belief that all are equal, is a fundamental American
value. While wholly appropriate in politics and society, it is counterproductive
in economics and business. People differ in every respect, with the capacity
for creativity at the top of the list. A company must respect its creative
types. They are a breed apart, absorbed in their quest, dedicated to
intensity, oblivious to others. Creatives are often difficult to control. They
work strange hours in strange places. They don't want supervision and demand
personal satisfaction for personal achievement. Proprietary participation --
especially financial reward -- is an essential motivation. How to find them?
A word of caution. Creative and innovative people may not be the smartest
or brightest; they may not be aggressive or assertive or even realize their
own gift. The best firms will treasure them.
3) Focus Corporate Fiscal Policy
Companies that talk innovation and invest elsewhere dig credibility gaps.
Promoting creativity is no mean task. A firm must evidence its commitment,
putting cash on the line. Nothing energizes more than the movement of
money. You can't talk creativity and fund tradition. The resource allocation
process must encourage creativity and innovation; new procedures must skew
dollars to more risky ventures. Most critical, results cannot be expected
quickly. Corporate executives must see beyond the horizon, beyond the
quarterly reports, beyond the Street called Wall.
4) Understand the Creative Process
Creativity and innovation happens by itself, but not all the time. Since
innovators are often not the brightest or most aggressive, the firm must find
them, or, more accurately, help them find themselves. One cannot train
people to be inventive, but one can develop educational programs to
facilitate the process. Creativity appears with infinite variety. In a high tech
firm, for example, a person with a new method for inventory control may
not think herself creative -- yet the benefit to the company may exceed
most scientific study. One good idea covers a lot of ground.
5) Promote Interaction Among Divisions and Departments
Scientific advance depends on constant communication among diverse
disciplines. Likewise for the best businesses. When problems are attacked by
divergent approaches and disparate facts a wider range of solutions emerge.
Task forces composed of different departments are not unusual in corporate
life, but these are often established for coordinating current programs rather
than creating new ones. Interdepartmental cooperation in companies, like
interdisciplinary work in academics, is fraught with suspicion and worry about
territoriality and dominance (the sociobiology of ant hills and wolf packs do
not encourage creativity). A firm's new products division doesn't want
manufacturing sticking its nose in; manufacturing says it's ridiculous to
develop products that can't be made. Mechanisms must be found to break
these barriers. The catalyst is often the person to whom the departments
report; the boss must become actively and aggressively involved. If he or she
"recommends" the interaction without personal participation it will surely
fail.
9
The opportunity is here, the time is now. What we have is nothing
less than the restructuring and recrudescence of American industry.
Economists and executives must work together in building both a
macro/economic foundation and a micro/corporate structure. In the new
realities approaching the year 2000, to achieve domestic vitality and world
leadership, the American trick is creative and innovative management.
*
*
*
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is a scientist, strategist, scholar and author at home
in business, academics and government. He is Senior Research Fellow in
Creative and Innovative Management at the Institute for Constructive
Capitalism at the University of Texas at Austin. His latest book is
Commercializing Defense-Related Technology (published by Praeger).
10
sile
October 24, 1983
5031 West hand Crick #202
Retherda, M.D. 85021
Dear mike:
Pardon the enformality of this letter.
l called your office on Friday about
an opportunity to mobe Q major change in
the balance.of- power as it relates to the
Caribbeen.
l did so only after one of the top people
on The Intelligence Community Stoff had talked
to the people in volved and indicated that the
President oright to he Owore of the situation.
cl also suggested theman call Peter Homfored
and inform him and seek his advise
This may be a great opportunity oit may
truth he a great froud and cl do not Dnow the
We should talk about it-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
HITE HOUSE
October 11, 1983
SHINGTON
ber 7, 1983
TO:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
FROM:
CRAIG L. FULLER
FYI
your August 23 letter to Lt.
Comment
In light of the fact that I
al connection with your company,
Action
ved in any way with the projects
believe it is inappropriate for
file
ent of copies of this corre-
pondence that I am receiving a
impression to the addressee that
ved or directly concerned with
w, this is not so. In order to
ns, I request that you not copy
Additionally, I would like you
f your prior correspondence who
I have any involvement with
cason systems, that such an impression is false.
Your acknowledgment of this request, with evidence of
compliance with it, at your earliest convenience, will be
most appreciated.
Sincerely,
his
Craig L. Fuller
Assistant to the President
for Cabinet Affairs
Mr. William H. Best
Jason Systems Inc.
Suite 200
2000 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
CC: Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 7, 1983
Bill
Dear Mr. Best:
I have received a copy of your August 23 letter to Lt.
General Lincoln D. Faurer. In light of the fact that I
have no official or personal connection with your company,
and certainly am not involved in any way with the projects
discussed in the letter, I believe it is inappropriate for
me to be noted as a recipient of copies of this corre-
spondence.
The notation on the correspondence that I am receiving a
copy may convey the false impression to the addressee that
I am in some fashion involved or directly concerned with
Jason Systems. As you know, this is not so. In order to
avoid such false impressions, I request that you not copy
me on your correspondence. Additionally, I would like you
to advise any recipients of your prior correspondence who
may have reason to believe I have any involvement with
Jason Systems, that such an impression is false.
Your acknowledgment of this request, with evidence of
compliance with it, at your earliest convenience, will be
most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Fair
Craig L. Fuller
Assistant to the President
for Cabinet Affairs
Mr. William H. Best
Jason Systems Inc.
Suite 200
2000 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
CC: Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
FI
Executive Offices
Suite 200
JASON SYSTEMS INC.
2000 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-1977
August 29, 1983
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Dear Mike:
It occurs to me that Mary Cunningham might be very helpful
if she were to call a press conference and indicate that she
agrees with the President about men still being in caves, or
whatever it was, and carrying clubs if it weren't for women.
If you would like to pursue this, she can be reached on
Cape Cod at:
Oyster Harbor
Osterville, Massachusetts 02655
(617) 428-1333
Sincerely,
William H. Best
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
from: Bill Best
in
recd. 8/26/83
TEXAS BUSINESS
CHALLENGE
COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL SECURITY:
THE POWER OF AMERICAN SCIENCE
Science separates present from past. It is the critical difference
between savages living like animals and humans living like people. Science is
more than a subject in school; it is the foundation of our world, the progenitor
of present-day society, the source of contemporary civilization -- in short,
science is axial to our way of life.
Science is both process and content, the mechanism of discovery as
well as the thing discovered. The scientific method is the core paradigm of
modern man; it is the shortest distance and surest route to factual truth, the
line of thinking most logical and reproducible. The scientific method is perhaps
mankind's finest conceptual tool: Unbiased data collection; creative hypothesis
generation (induction); rigorous analytical reasoning (deduction); comprehensive
hypothesis testing; and independent repetition and confirmation -- all are
necessary irrespective of content area, whether "science" in the traditional
sense or any other facet of human awareness.
Science is not a field of knowledge; it is knowledge. The advancement
of science is the enrichment of mankind. What we call "human progress" is
quite literally the historical sum of innumerable scientific additions. Derived
from the Latin scientia meaning knowledge, science, in its broadest sense,
conceives most concepts and sculpts most objects. Science, today, is wonderous,
and scientists, in a sense, are worshipped.
There is one area, however, where science is controversial, where
inquiry is questioned and advancement criticized. Science in the service of
national defense triggers hot debate. Some would say that scientists have the
moral right to control the potential use of their personal creativity, and the
moral imperative to prevent their innovative output from producing weapons of
-1-
war. This lofty position bespeaks high tone and laudable ideals, yet is flawed
fatally by inconsistency and illogic.
The simple syllogism, framed for- America, is thus: 1) Such lofty
positions can be espoused only in a free society; 2) A free society will remain
free only by military strength; 3) Military strength will be guaranteed only by
state-of-the-art science. This is the real world. (Examples of free societies
flourishing devoid of military strength? They only prove the point: All rely, at
last resort, on the United States.)
National defense demands technological superiority. Parity in military
science, for a nation without expansionist designs, is not good enough; equality
just will not do -- it's too close, a slight error and you're behind. And being
behind is no place to be, not in this game, not with all the chips in the pot.
In an electronic fairyland of blinking black boxes, where battlefield
microprocessors command, control and communicate, "leapfrogging" is the
ever-present danger.
In past wars we could survive a slower tank or smaller sub, but in
future encounters missing a scientific breakthrough in missle-defense or
sub-location technology could be disastrous. Our country is committed upfront:
We will not be the aggressor. When the other side picks time and place, we
had better field superior weapons and surer systems. When we concede quantity
and number, we had better stress quality and expertise. The issue, of course, is
more deterence than triumph. We must prevent the next war, not win it.
Yet the world moves on. Subtle shifts redefine the nature of power.
Today, well into the final fifth of the twentieth century, American security
stakes out broader boundaries than ever before. More is encompassed within our
vital needs as a nation. The economic thrust of Japan, for example, is a threat
every bit as real as the military menace of the Soviets. Not the same, of
course, but every bit as real. Computers and communications are also extending
security boundaries. The profusion of information amplified by the ease of
transmission lowers entry barriers for those with disruptive intent.
The battles of the future will be fought on vastly more complex
terrain, contested more with ideas and products than with armies and navies.
Confrontation among nations attacks, provocations, insults will assume
new forms and and novel shapes. Troop movement across Europe is virtually an
anachronism -- superpower nuclear standoff has seen to that. We must secure
the standoff with military strength through technological supremacy, but that is
not enough. An irrefutable defense capability, in the words of the logician, is
"necessary but not sufficient" for national security.
This, then, is the new vision of national security, a broad concept
embedding economic, social, education, cultural and intellectual components as
well as military ones -- a concept increasingly being called "Comprehensive
National Security."
Scientific superiority must maintain America's Comprehensive National
Security just as it must assure the subset of preeminent military might. The
first nation, for example, to mass produce future generations of integrated
circuits 256k, 512k, 1024k -- will capture high ground and strong position.
The country that pioneers genetically enhanced food production will wield
commanding influence in world politics, well in excess of Arab oil's peak
power.
Comprehensive National Security must become our redeployed concept
of self-protection. Mechanisms of competition, not machines of warfare, is now
the critical concern. We must construct a comprehensively secure country, and
American science is our primary building block.
Following is the domain of Comprehensive National Security, with each
area evincing the central role of science.
Military: Maintaining technical superiority in weapons and delivery systems is
the sine qua non of national security. Responsiveness, reliability and redundancy
are also cardinal characteristics. American science should be proud to
participate in sustaining freedom.
Economic: Strengthening the industrial base of the United States is a
quintessential component of Comprehensive National Security. In past centuries
countries could make up with military aggressiveness what they lacked in
economic resourcefulness. This is no longer possible. Countries will survive and
prosper or suffer and fall in direct relation to their productive capacity and
commercial acumen. The premier growth industries of the next decade --
telecommunications, personal computing, biotechnology and health care -- are
all science based. Scientists are not only involved in creating novel high tech
ventures but also in developing fresh approaches to traditional businesses. Both
are prescribed for American economic health.
Social/Political: Structuring society for the benefit of all people is our
contemporary mega-problem, labyrinthian in complexity, long-term in solution.
We must be able to meet our oft-stated goals of equality, opportunity, care
and concern for citizens of every age, sex, race, creed, religious belief, etc. A
populace well-pleased is an intrinsic part of Comprehensive National Security.
Though human systems are fiendishly more intricate than material systems,
social scientists are as clever and inventive as their physical science
counterparts. The use of sophisticated techniques in sociology, political science,
and the like provide a core of hard data, certainly superior to the self-serving
rhetoric of political palaver.
Educational: The minds of the young are the blueprints of the future. What
we teach, and how they learn, will plot America's course -- with the trajectory
now being set in our schools. Science, here, contributes more than tools, though
the personal computer will revolutionize both teaching and thinking. (Free
enterprise has given the United States a jump of at least half a generation
over the Soviet Union in acclimating children to personal computers.) Science
teaches logic, how to use it, when to overrule it. It catalyzes enthusiasm for
investigation and analysis; it teaches respect for proper rationale and confirmed
proof; it offers the thrill of exploring unchartered areas, of using insight, of
making discovery, of finding truth. Science replaces rote by rigor and
memorization by reasoning. Science is no longer the exclusive domain of the
elite; it is the language of all.
Cultural: The identity of a nation affects its cohesiveness; self-image
determines self-confidence. Building American culture buttresses American
security. Science, the complement of culture, supports its promulgation and
propagation. Culture thrives on wide accessibility, and science provides the
nutrients of transmission -- television, radio, cable, satellite, video
dics/cassettes, motion pictures, computer networks, interactive video. Science
also
has ^ fashioned marvelous techniques for enhancing effect, making culture more
pleasurable and more veritable, conveying emotion and making impact.
Intellectual: In the 21st century information will be the new medium of
exchange. (Money, that archaic commodity, will be bytes in computer memories
and numbers on computer screens.) International leadership will be framed in
terms of cerebral skill not military prowess. A nation's prestige will be built by
its intellectual endowment, not the number and size of its bombs and rockets.
Scientists from all disciplines will contribute, from philosophy and astronomy to
mathematics and music; new information will be prized, even from fields
without direct economic benefit -- human values will have changed and human
worth redefined.
A word, here, for pure science. Basic research is the foundation of
science, the platform for progress, the precursor of revolution. One cannot
know in advance where seminal breakthroughs will come and what application
technologies may be. Instinct and intuition, not program and project, are the
requisite sources of energy. Basic research is a stimulant for creativity; it is,
in all fields, an absolute necessity.
Sensitivity to scientists as well as appreciation of science is vital for
optimizing national output. Scientists, by personality, are not easily coerced,
not easily directed. Indeed, such is their strength. Scientists must be free to
wander and explore, to confront blind alleys and to shatter tradition. Society
must establish incentive systems to encourage scientists, giving them maximum
motivation to imagine and construct. We must nurture and develop America's
premier natural resource.
Written by Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn
COPY,
JASON SYSTEMS INC.
SHINGT 3 PMII PM % 200 MASHINGTON AUG 25'83
POSTAGEOS
FBI
7
25 AUG'
ANNIVERS
2.0
19831
1908 1921ER E
DC
1-8201467
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Executive Offices
Suite 200
2000 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Mike - and osked white House I
Rus could write get the l said the lities the
if cl a" " hard clant line but him took a sax copy of litter
had on a no of sendus . " Jopn his
recd. 8/24/
Plymouth Rock Foundation
6 McKinley Circle, P.O. 425, Marlborough, 03455
603/876-4685
August 15, 1983
fill
John G. Talcott, Jr.
My dear Bill:
President
Rus Walton
Executive Director
The lion will lie down with the lamb
after Christ returns (actually, The
Scripture is "the wolf and the lamb
COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
JACK AMIS, MD
shall graze together" - Isa 65:25).
Hopkinsville, KY
IVAN R. BIERLY
Woodside, CA
Then, the nations will beat their swords
DR. CHARLES BRITT
into plowshares and their spears into
Memphis, TN
Dr. HAROLD O.J. BROWN
pruning hooks. And never again will they train
Deerfield, IL
for war and each man will sit under his own
RALPH BULLARD
vine and fig tree and none shall make him
Oklahoma City, OK
Rev. MARSHALL FOSTER
afraid.
Woodland Hills, CA
Miss VERNA M. HALL
San Francisco, CA
Until then, we are not to fee the lambs
Dr. WALTER HANDFORD
to the lions (or the wolves). And, indeed,
Greenville, SC
Dr. AL JANNEY
we are not to have communion (do business)
Washington, DC
with God's enemies.
Dr. GLEN JASPER
Marshalltown, IA
PAUL JEHLE
The enclosed FAC-Sheets set it forth fairly
Cedarville, MA
well.
Prof. DELL JOHNSON
Owatonna, MN
Dr. HOWARD KERSHNER
I would hope Mike might be impressed with a
Cedar Hill, TX
ROBERT M. METCALF, Jr.
reference to the Scriptures (since he once
Memphis, TN
trained to be an Episcopal priest). However,
Mrs. JAMES MOEHRLE
Washington, DC
from a strictly pragmatic, survival, perspec-
Rev. JOSEPH MORECRAFT, III
tive, it is suicide to feed those who are sworn
Atlanta, GA
to destroy you.
Rev. LEON MOODY
Dublin, NH
Dr. ED NELSON
The US-Japan venture has merit. I am not sure
Denver, Co
Rev. NED RUTLAND
I would place it in the shadow of the Olympics
Opelousas, LA
-- better make it a promo of its own so that it
Dr. JAMES SINGLETON
Temple, AZ
gets more ink, and TV time, etc.
Miss ROSALIE SLATER
San Francisco, CA
Best to the Bests
Mrs. RUTH SMITH
Marshalltown, IA
ROBERT L. THOBURN
Fairfax, VA
Chaplin LATHROP UTLEY, USA
Columbia, SC
P.S. Christ tells us to love our enemies, true;
Dr. WAYNE VAN GELDEREN
Downers Grove, IL
He also warns us to hate God's enemies. Did you
FRED VREELAND
know that is in the Bible? hate them with a
Parsippany, NJ
perfect (i.e. total) hatred) "
Rev. LEVI WHISNER
Bradford, OH
JOHN W. WHITEHEAD, Esq.
Manassas, VA
" advance the binadome of the Lord Jesus Christ"
FAC-SHEET
#10. FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS
BACKGROUND
In farewell address (9/17/1796), George Washington warned against impru
BRIEFING
dent foreign entanglements that could jeopardize the safety and well-
being of the republic. Pres. Washington did not imagine that the day
would come when US foreign policy would be dictated more by corporate/banking interests
than by public officials representing the electorate.
Today, giant multinational corporations (MNCs) and financial institutions have larg
overpowered the federal govt. as controllers of US economic and foreign affairs. Interna
al MNC agreements now often determine and/or subvert US foreign and military policies and
trade regulations. How powerful is influence of MNCs and international banks? 1,000 MNC
control 50% of world trade; US MNCs produce 41% of US GNP; majority of MNCs are controlle
by some 30-40 international banking institutions. In addition, most MNCs have interlocki
arrangements (nine largest oil companies have some 20,000 "common links").
Consider role of US MNCs in dealings with atheistic USSR (and satellites). It is g
erally conceded USSR missed "techtronic" revolution and is 25 yrs behind West (20 yrs beh
in industrial technology, 15 yrs in chemicals, 10 yrs in data processing, etc.). Experts
estimate benefits sold by MNCs have enabled Soviets to narrow that gap -- and achieve mil
tary superiority in some areas. Meanwhile USSR persecutes Christians and threatens West.
Type of items, skills and commodities included in expanding (even now) US-USSR com-
merce: joint-venture (Ford) with USSR to build world's largest truck plant; export of
highly sophisticated computers ostensibly for meteorology (but which US defense officials
warn can be used for missile guidance); export of micro-ball bearing technology (missile
guidance); export of jet engine technology (military as well as commercial aviation); ex-
port of high technology oil exploration and drilling equipment; development of phosphate
industry (munitions as well as fertilizers). US defensemen say sale of latest-type compu
ter enabled USSR to develop satellite killers (laser beam application).
To achieve and sustain such trade with USSR, US MNCs developed intricate form of ba
ter/co-production/joint-venture/leasing system that circumvents normal currency barriers
import/export restrictions. MNCs supply technology and skills (often complete "turn key"
installations) that enable USSR to employ vast raw materials and huge pools of slave labo
to bolster sagging economy, modernize military, and compete in world mkts. In return, MN
received guaranteed payments thru buy-back and counter-purchase agreements (and credits i
European banks then used to capitalize European operations). MNCs also import some goods
to US via USSR satellite nations (Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc.) thus pitting slave-labo
products against US working men and women (shoes, clothing apparel, glass, etc.). And, M
continue to push for most favored nation status for USSR to make deals more profitable.
Estimated there is now a $50-100 billion debt "overhang" due MNCs from USSR. Some
tion whether this will be paid (North Korea defaulted on its debt). Some believe fear of
jeopardizing "overhang" pay-off had major role in US surrendering South Viet Nam to enem
(Say fighting had reached point of diminishing returns and was endangering continued bona
za of East-West trade.)
Vital to all of this: approval of export of high-technology equipment to USSR by
US Office of Export Administration. Since 1972, more than 700 such applications have bee
processed and approved. Former head of the office, Lawrence Brady (who resigned) tried t
warn Congress that requests for such exports to USSR and communist-bloc nations were bein
approved, pro-forma. Brady was shunted off to an empty office and his duties taken over
by others. (Recommended reading for further data and documentation: "VODKA-COLA," Charl
Levinson, Gordon & Cremonesi, 1979.)
OUNRATION Box 125 rbh
FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS/page 2
FAC-Sheet #10
CONSIDER THE
Christians know that we are to love our enemies and do good to
BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES
those who hate us (Mt 5:43-44). We are to succor those who would
persecute us (Ps 25:21). Thus do we witness for our Lord and thus
does the love of Christ Jesus go forth through us to draw souls to Him (Mt 5:16)
However, we must not confuse love for our personal enemies with love for the enemies
of God. That we are to show His love to others in a winsome way must not be distorted to
mean that we are to aid, abet or make alliance with the enemies of God. Against them we
are to stand firm, keep ourselves separate, and make no deal, no alliance or compromise.
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate The Lord?
Therefore is wrath upon thee from before The Lord" (II Chron 19:2).
God's people are warned against trusting the means of wicked men; we are to seek
only God; in His strength and omniscience will we find the victory. (II Chron 25:20). Con-
sider Asa, king of Judah. Asa made a deal with the king of Syria, an idolator who loved
not The Lord. Because of this foolishness, Asa and his people were condemned to a time
of wars (II Chron 16:3-9). Is there not, in this, a lesson for these days?
Think, too, on Hezekiah! Here was a man who had walked with The Lord and had been
blessed by God. Yet, in his victories and his vanities, he entertained God's enemies,
and showed them all that he possessed -- including his treasury and his armory. What was
Hezekiah's penalty? God tells us in II Kings 20:12-17:
"Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and all that
which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be car-
ried into Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith The Lord."
In I Kings 11:2, God warns His people against those nations that are against Him:
"Go ye not unto them, nor let them come into you, for surely they will turn your hearts
after their gods." In the marginal comments on this, the Geneva Bible observes: "How
it is a thing that greatly offendeth God that such as fear Him and profess His religion,
should join in amity with the wicked." Psalm 125:3 tells us that the rod of the wicked
shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous. How, then, can we who strive to be right-
eous in His sight dare to supply the makings of the rod of the unrighteous? Do we not
thus become a party to the wickedness?
Our God is a mighty God; He is the Living God. None is as mighty as He, "by Him all
things consist" (Col 1:17). He maketh the sun and maketh it to stand still; He formeth
the rain and maketh it drop, or hold. Is not The God of all equal to these times? And,
if we are His and on His side, shall He not deliver us? What, then? Shall we have inter-
course with those who mock Him? Shall we do business with those who persecute His own?
Are we not to live by the word of God (Deut 8:3) ? How shall we, who are His, "declare
His glory among the nations and His wonderul works among all people" if we enter into
league with those who deny Him, who disdain His word, and oppress His own?
What, then, shall we do? (1) Strive always to walk in His ways; seek to obey Him
in all things, knowing that His boundless grace is sufficient to justify our shortfalls.
(2) Be separate from the world and one with Him and His, for those who would be friends
with this world are enemies to God (James 4:4). (3) Refuse to aid or abet or join with
those (individuals, groups, or nations) that are enemies of God -- we cannot be traitors
to our King!, and (4) call upon The Lord God; He will deliver us and we shall glorify
His name (Ps 50:15).
"But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that
I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and
an adversary unto thine adversaries." (Ex 23:20-22)
FAC-SHEET
#21. MAKING COVENANTS
WITH GOD'S ENEMIES
BACKGROUND
Dec. 25-29, 1979 - Soviets invade Afghanistan. Heavy fighting insues.
BRIEFING
USSR controls Kabul but freedom fighters hold on to about 2/3 of country.
Soviets pour in more troops. Jan. 4, 1980 -- President Carter embargoes
grain sales to USSR except for 8 million metric tons already contracted for by the Soviets
for 1980. (In 1975, US & USSR signed 5-yr grain sales agreement to run from 10/1/76 to 9/
30/81. US agreed to sell Soviets a basic range of some 6 to 8 million tons of grain a year
with "a window" for even more. For 1980, USSR had contracted for about 21 million tons of
wheat, corn, soybeans and soybean meal about 13 million tons over the basic maximum.)
To cushion shock on grain markets, US bought up grain contracts for about 16 million to
at cost of about $5 billion (via Commodity Credit Corp). By Jan. 19, 1980, corn prices had
returned to pre-embargo levels, soybeans were higher, and wheat prices were rising rapidly.
April 30, 1981 President Reagan lifts grain embargo. Allies that had joined in ban
also lift theirs. USSR moves quickly to buy on opened markets. President's action brings
both applause and criticism. Some Midwest congressmen cheer but critics label it "a serious
foreign policy blunder,' "an act of domestic political expediency" because it came on eve of
key House vote on 1982 federal budget. Both SecState Alexander Haig and White House securit
advisor, Richard Allen, had opposed ending embargo. NATO SecGeneral Joseph Luns charged "Th
decision on the embargo has weakened the position of the US ... (it) plays the game as Mosco
wants it." Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki, irked because his country had not been consulted
warned Japan would re-examine its economic sanctions VS USSR. Some critics charged Mr. Reag
had exacted no USSR "quid" for US "quo", thus had wasted a strategic economic weapon.
President Reagan insisted that he had made clear his hard-line policies concerning USS
that lifting embargo could not be seen as "soft," and that during 1980 campaign he had prom-
ised to end embargo if elected. Opponents to lifting embargo retorted that embargoing one
sector of economy may have been unfair but solution should have been to extend embargo to a:
trade with USSR rather than lifting it. Further, critics said, US govt. had cushioned impa
of grain embargo by buying up USSR contracts, and emphasized that US grain exports had in facts
increased during embargo due to expanded sales to other nations 1980 US grain exports we
up 16 million metric tons over 1979.
Reagan administration asserts embargo did not hurt USSR. Critics disagree. Heritage
Foundation reported embargo reduced Soviet meat and milk supplies, forced higher prices, an
agitated consumer unrest in both USSR and satellite nations (food shortages and prices were
one cause of rebellion in Poland). Washington Post's Moscow correspondent cabled that Sovi
had been "hard hit" by embargo; that it came on top of 2-yr drought and winterkill that had
already caused severe grain shortage. Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) stated that US intel
gence reports indicated embargo had forced USSR to spend $1 billion in gold on open markets
to make up for loss of US grains. Said Proxmire, embargo was hitting Soviets "where it hur
-- in the breadbasket."
Most importantly, say critics, embargo was levied because Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
And, some 85,000 Soviet troops are still there! So, lifting embargo makes the message clea
US does not hahg tough, business eventually comes before security. Further, USSR now mount
stepped-up Spring offensive in 20 of Afghanistan's 29 provinces; seeks to wipe out freedom
fighters. And, USSR continues to threaten Poles, backs Syria in its explosive confrontatio
with Israel, and continues to export subversion and terrorism in Africa, Central and South
America. It is insanity, they insist, to do business with USSR and Warsaw Pact nations whi
spending hundreds of billions of dollars to defend US and free world from USSR/communism.
It is not, they conclude, a matter of being aggressive, it is a matter of common sense.
Published by the PLYMOUTH ROCK FOUNDATION, P.O. Box 425, Marlborough, NH 03455
Single copies, no charge (please send self-addressed and stamped contact Plymouth Rock for prices. There is no restriction on
envelope.): 10 copies, $1.00; 25 copies, $2.00; 50 copies, $3.50,
reproduction provided excerpts are not taken out of context.
and 100 copies for $6.00. For quantities in excess of 100, please
COVENANTS WITH GOD'S ENEMIES
FAC-Sheet #21
CONSIDER THE
We, who are His, are in this world and thus must be aware of and seek to
BIBLICAL
influence economic and (geo)political programs and policies. But, because
PRINCIPLES
we are His and because we are not of this world but of His kingdom, we must
give pre-eminence to Him, to His word, and to His Biblical principles of
self and civil government (including both domestic and foreign affairs). What, then, does
God demand of His people in regard to nations that are His enemies?
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate The Lord? Therefore
is wrath upon thee from before The Lord" (II Chron 19:2).
God's people are not to be yoked in any way with God's enemies (Ex 23:32; Deut 7:2; II
Cor 6:14). To do so is to make "a covenant with death and with hell" to be in agreement (Isa
28:15). Consider Ahab (I Kings 20-21). Benhadad, king of Syria, a strong and mighty nation,
threatened Ahab, king of Israel. He intimidated Ahab, demanded tribute. The elders and the
people of Israel urged Ahab not to give in to Benhadad because he had mocked The Lord God.
Ahab resisted and, despite the superior size and power of the Syrian forces and those of the
32 kings who sided with Benhadad, God gave Ahab and the tiny forces of Israel a mighty victory
so that all might know "that I am The Lord." Yet, following the battle, Ahab made a covenant
with Benhadad; he set him free and allowed him to return to his own land (rather than destroy-
ing him as The Lord had commanded - I Kings 20:42). For his disobedience, Ahab subsequently
died in battle and the Israelites were taken into captivity.
Who, now, is numbered among God's enemies? What nation persecutes God's people? Surely
the USSR must be counted among the enemies of God! Hear the words of Stalin: "We have depo-
sed the Czars of Earth; we shall now dethrone the Lord of Heaven.' Thus, the USSR takes the
official position that there is no God. The Soviets have made communism their god.
Communism is the enemy of The Lord God. It is the most virulent, most militant anti-
Christian system in the world today. It denies God. It persecutes His people. It bans The
Bible, forbids parents to teach children about Christ, imprisons Christian fathers, forces
Christian mothers into slave labor groups, abducts Christian children and rears them in un-
godly State institutions. In the eyes of the Soviets, Christians are enemies of the State.
If the Soviets are the enemies of God's children, are they not also the enemies of God?
And, therefore are they not our enemies as well? How can we -- a nation that calls itself
Christian, that boasts that "In God We Trust" -- continue to make covenant with God's avowed
enemy? In so doing, have we not "made lies our refuge, and under falsehood" hid ourselves?
"Shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" Thus sayeth The Lord. Are we
blind to the lesson of Ahab? Small wonder we know trouble at home and trials abroad!
Consider, also, God's word concerning the USSR: "And the word of The Lord came unto
me, saying, Son of Man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Me-
shech and Tubal, and prophecy against him, And say, Thus saith The Lord God; Behold, I am
against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" (Ezek 38:1-3).
Bible scholars believe Gog and Magog are direct references to the USSR. Gog was the
ancient leader of the nation of Magog and the prince of the people of Rosh, Tubal and Me-
shech (lands to the north of Israel). From the Hebrew name, Meshech, comes the Greek name,
Moschi, the root name for Moscow. Rosh, the root word for Russia, was the name of a people
living north of the Taurus mountains, in the vicinity of the Volga River. Tubal was the
son of Rapheth, leader of the Tibereni who lived on the shores of the Black Sea. "I am
against thee, O Gog." Thus spake The Lord God. Can His people speak otherwise?
"Surely Thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
For they speak against Thee wickedly, and Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not
hate them, 0 Lord, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against
Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies" (Ps 139:19-22).
PRESERVATION COPY
JASON SYSTEMS INC.
23 PM, AUG ON. of
25
USA
20c
2000
1958-1983
1983
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Executive Offices
Suite 200
2000 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Executive Offices
Suite 200
JASON SYSTEMS INC.
2000 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
sill
(202) 833-1977
August 8, 1983
here
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20505
Dear Michael:
We were so pleased to hear that the State Department had
put out a press release relative to bi-national sports between
the United States and Japan, which must mean that the Secretary
of State liked the idea.
I would be most interested in a report on how that whole
situation might be developing.
On another subject, I might suggest that you would consider
someone at Treasury or Justice or wherever look into the whole
question and issue of abusive tax shelters. The cost to the
Treasury is rather significant and, with the revenue gap you are
facing, every little bit might help. Put a few lawyers in jail
and I suspect it would certainly have quite an impact on this
specific arena.
Again, I was very pleased that things seemed to shape up
nicely on the Japanese situation. I hope if you might have had
a chance to read THE JASON PROJECT proposal or at least the
Executive Summary and liked it, it certainly wouldn't hurt any-
thing if the President told General Faurer out at the National
Security Agency that it seemed a meritorious idea and worthy of
consideration in the national interest.
As ever,
Mic William H. Best
WILLIAM H. BEST
2000 L STREET, N. W., SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20036
July 5, 1983
file
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C.
20500
Dear Mike:
I note that the front page of The New York
Times of Sunday, July 3rd, carries a story which
says: "Public's approval of Reagan in poll rising
but limited." It goes on to say that for the first
time in fifteen months, more Americans approve of
Ronald Reagan's handling of the presidency than
disapprove of it, according to The New York Times/
CBS News Poll.
It could be regarded as highly simplistic in
this incredibly complex, Byzantine and arcane world,
but it would be my judgment, for what it is worth,
that if the prime rate stays under ten percent between
now and November of 1984, Ronald Reagan will be
reelected President of the United States.
You are to be commended again for the even
hand that has guided things so smoothly.
As ever,