whose own letter, printed immediatehrnbelow Taylor’s, asserted that “the worstrnpart . . . is that Mr. D’Souza, baeked byrnhis boss Christopher DeMuth, labels asrn’bigots’ and ‘white snpremaeists’ peoplernvho honestly believe what Mr. D’Souzarnhimself evidently believes but doesn’trnwant to admit.”rnSam Francis has forthrightly stated hisrnbelief that “there arc racial differences,rnthere are natural differences between thernraces.” Less forthrightly, but no less incriminatinglyrnfor political gumshoesrnlooking for ideological dissidents to arrest,rnDinesh D’Souza writes, “The BellrnCurve makes a strong case that cannot bernignored. . . . The conclusion of mostrnscholars is that despite many caveats,rnthere is no scientific basis for rejectingrnthe possibility that race differences inrnI.Q. are partly hereditary.” The nearlyrnidentical nature of their conclusionsrnnotwithstanding, todav Sam Francis isrnout of a job, while Dinesh D’Souza continuesrnto get on the outside of se’eralrnsquare meals daily at AFFs capaciousrntrough. The reason for this unequalrntreatment? In Francis’s own words: “Myrndeparture from the Times … was due lessrnto the prowess of fraudulent scholars likernMr. D’Souza than to the discomfort ofrnthe Times’s editors with the expression ofrnideas (by no means confined to racialrnmatters) that transgress the establishedrnboundaries that the Times, for all itsrnchest-thumping about challenging conventionalrnwisdom, is insistent on preserving.”rnOn the journalistic right. NationalrnReview’s is the only voice to have beenrnheard raised in honorable protest againstrnEstablishment conservatism’s latestrntransgression of the ci ilized principle ofrnfreedom of thought, and the constitutionalrnone of freedom of expression,rnwhich gives the first effect.rn—Chilton Williamson, ]r.rnT H E “IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY”rnwas a charge the Republicans used tornmake against FDR, JFK, and LBJ, and arnfew of them have begun to use similarrnlanguage against Mr. Clinton’s personalrncrusade against Bosnian Christians,rnAsked by Dan Rather if there was a problemrnof “perception” in a draft-dodgerrnsending men into a combat zone, thernCommander-in-Chief, as his followersrnlike to call him, replied simply: “I am thernPresident.”rnThis is a curious concept, that of thernCommander-in-Chief. It used to meanrnonly that, as commander-in-chief of thernArmed Forces, the civilian President borernultimate responsibility for militar^ decisions.rnToday, we hear more and morernthat the President is “our” Commanderin-rnChief, as if the title ga’e him militaryrnauthority over the entire nation. “Wernhave to support the Commander-in-rnChief,” say Mr. Clinton’s Republican opponents.rnSince when? If the Presidentrniolates the Constitution and rules like arnmilitary dictator, we are told that wernmust support his decisions, so long asrnthere are American troops in the field.rnWith the world situation as it is, thisrntemporary dictatorship could easily becomernpermanent. With all this talk of arnnew set of Nuremberg trials, it is strangernthat no one seems to remember the doctrinernthat came out of those trials: thatrnno subordinate could exculpate his ownrncrimes on the grounds of “following orders.”rnYugoslavia is far from the onK Europeanrneountr in which the Clinton administrationrnis practicing imperialism.rnIn Creece, the newspapers are reportingrnthat the Germans, with the support ofrnthe United States, have already pickedrnPrime Minister Andreas Papandreou’srnsuccessor. The nakedness of the interferencernonly fuels Greek anxieties overrnMacedonia and Epciros, where there is arnvocal Albanian minority. On the otherrnside of Greece, the Muslims in Thracernare demanding recognition for their “IslanriernState of Western Thrace,” andrntheir demands are reinforced bv thernlurkish government, which insists uponrnreferring to these citizens of Greece asrn”‘lurks.” Some Greek newspapers havernalso reported that NATO had plannedrnmaneuers, or at least “map exercises,”rnto protect T’hraeian Muslims during anrnimaginary uprising. The exercise includedrnan exchange of populations—popularlyrnknown in gcnocidal Muslim circlesrnas “ethnic cleansing”—and partial autonomyrnfor Thrace. NATO officials deniedrnthe accusation, but by then GreekrnChristians had taken to the streets, carryingrnsigns saying “No More Yugoslavias.”rnPerhaps the Greeks are onl’ imaginingrnthings, although with Mr. Clinton onrnrecord, threatening the Serbs if they invadernKosoo (which is Serbian territory),rnthey have a right to be afraid. Besides,rnPapandreou is still alive, and we have sornfar only conspired to pick his successor.rnClinton has gone much farther inrnPoland, where ex-communist AlexanderrnKwasmewski received American assistancernin his successful campaign to unseatrnPresident Lech Walesa.rnAccording to a report in Gazeta Polska,rntwo of Mr. Kwasnicwski’s advisorsrnwere the guests of lionor of the Americanrngovernment. Zbigniew Siemiatovvskirnand Ircneusz Skubis, both officials inrnparties (the Polish Peasant Party in thernformer case, the Alliance of the DemocraticrnLeft in the latter) that have succeededrnthe Communist Part’, were sentrnofficial in itations to take part in an extensiverntraining program designed tornteach political operatives how to managerna presidential campaign in the Americanrnstyle. The people in charge were apparentlyrnBill Clinton’s ov’n campaign managers.rnThe course included instructionsrnon what kind of makeup to apply andrnwhat sort of background to emphasize tornthe Polish voters.rnThe invitations, issued bv the Americanrnambassador in Warsaw, NicholasrnRe’, were sent only to Kwasniewski campaignrnworkers. No other parties werernasked to participate. Ambassador Revrnwas not available for comment, but reportersrnfrom the Catholic radio stationrn”Plus” were able to reach Senator JessernHelms, who said that the RepublicanrnPart”, to his knowledge, was not aware ofrnthe extensive training being provided tornex-communists in Poland, and hernpromised to look into the matter.rnNot so long ago Lech Walesa was arnhero to manv Americans, but more recentlyrnAmerican journalists have beenrnunanimous in criticizing his characterrnand performance. How much of therncase against Walesa is true, and howrnmany of the charges are fictions concoctedrnbv the administration, remains uncertain.rnWhat is clear, however, is thatrnWalesa’s one great sin, at least in the eyesrnof the U.S. State Department, is his patriotism.rnFor good or ill, he stood up forrnhis own national interest and did not allowrnthe L^nited States to take over hisrncountr. This opens up a broad field forrnspeculation. Is John Major still our manrnin Britain? Is Jacques Chirac’s bullyingrnstance on Bosnia due to his friendshiprnwith the United States or the need tornpatch things up with the Germans?rnAbove all, are we getting read- to dumprnour number-one stooge, Boris Yeltsin,rnand if so, who is the designated successor?rnMr. Gorbachev is waiting in thernwings, but the American press is very interestedrnin several nonentities who havernno support outside of pro-American intellectuals.rnImagine how much fun thern6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn