either stupidity or collusion, they’vernoverlooked strong evidence, hidden inrnplain sight, that both Albright and thernadministration knew the truth. A seriesrnof White House press releases concerningrnAlbright, all of which can be foundrnon the official White House Web site,rntells the story.rnFrom the time of Albright’s appointmentrnas ambassador to the tJ.N.,rnthrough December 5, 1996, when shernwas appointed Secretary of State, thernWhite House press releases mentionrnthat her family fled from “Hitler” orrn”Nazi aggression.” (Sometimes, thoughrnnot always, they also state that her familyrnfled from “Stalin.”) The press releasesrnalso sav that her family came to Americarnto find, not just freedom, but “tolerance.”rnConsider now the press release onrnAlbright’s swearing-in as Secretary ofrnState on January 23, 1997. IntroducingrnAlbright, President Clinton blandlyrnreferred to her as “a refugee from tyrannyrnand oppression,” and Albright simplyrnsaid that “my life reflects the turbulencernof Europe in the middle of this century.”rnUndoubtedly, this rhetorical shift hadrnnothing to do with the fact that, by Januaryrn23, the truth about Albright’s ancestryrnhad become widely known. Afterrnall, we all know that a democraticallyrnelected government would never try tornmislead its citizens.rnOf course. Secretary Albright’s ethnicityrnshould have had no bearing on herrnconfirmation hearings, nor should itrnaffect her ability to perform her dutiesrnas Secretary of State. But in light ofrnAlbright’s (almost certainly) deliberaterndeception about her past, it is ironic thatrnshe demanded in February that thernreporting on government-run televisionrnin Serbia become “more objective.”rnWhile President Milosevic was clearlyrnusing the state-run stations for propagandarnpurposes, who are we to talk? Thernsupposedly free media in the UnitedrnStates have spouted the Clinton administration’srnpropaganda about the Balkansrnas faithfully as they did the Bush administration’srnpropaganda about the GulfrnWar. Apparently, to paraphrase Mrs. Albright’srnstatement on “war crimes,” “thernU.S. Government does not believe thatrnbecause some propaganda may go unexposed,rnall must.” The determination ofrnwhich propaganda is acceptable, like therndetermination of which “war crimes”rnwill be punished, is left to the Americanrngovernment, and to Mrs. Albright.rnBut even Mrs. Albright, normally arnpersuasive speaker, can’t bring herself tornlie convincingly when discussing thernMarkale marketplace massacre of Februaryrn1994: “It’s very hard to believe anyrncountry would do this to their own people,rnand therefore, although we do notrnexactly know what the facts are, it wouldrnseem to us that the Serbs are the onesrnthat probably have a great deal of responsibility.”rn(“Senior official admits to secretrnU.N. report on the Sarajevo massacre,”rnDeutsch Presse-Agentur, June 6,rn1996). Of course, her remarks were onlyrnreported overseas, and for most Americanrnjournalists anything that’s not reportedrnin English never occurred. If Albrightrncan ensure that her tepid lies stayrnout of the American media, the administration’srnpropaganda campaign will continuernto succeed.rnAlbright’s dedication to military interventionrnmay be outweighed only by herrnzeal for “family planning” (or more properly,rn”family banning”) as a tool of Americanrnforeign policy. It is appropriate,rnthen, that her first public appearance onrnCapitol Hill as Secretary of State focusedrnon contraceptive imperialism, and thatrnher first trip abroad ended in Beijing, siternof the infamous United Nations’ FourthrnWorld Conference on Women, andrnhome to the world’s most enlightenedrnregime on matters of family planning. Inrnher appearance on Capitol Hill, Albrightrnargued that the United States couldrndemonstrate its “world leadership” byrnleading the contraceptive charge. “Onernof the most important ways we contributernto sustainable development isrnthrough our support for internationalrnfamily planning. . . . Moreover, our voluntaryrnfamily-planning programs servernour broader interests by elevating the statusrnof women, reducing the flow ofrnrefugees, protecting the environmentrnand promoting economic growth.” PerhapsrnSecretary Albright can combine herrntwo passions by using our under-utilizedrnmilitary (under U.N. command, ofrncourse) to “elevat[e] the status of women”rnby forcing them to abort their children,rnhave their tubes tied, or submit tornlUD insertion. After all, what more noblerncause could a refugee from the Nazisrntake up than the protection of Americarnfrom the dark, unwashed hordes of thernThird Worid?rnLest anyone think that the precedingrnremarks are in jest, consider this: fromrnthe American perspective, there wouldrnbe no “Serbian problem” in the Balkansrnif there were no Serbs. Bombing can bernrather expensive; combat on the groundrncan get too involved, and may provoke arnbacklash at home; and U.N. concentrationrncamps are too bold a move—at leastrnfor now. But if the new cops on the blockrnthought that a combination of force andrnpersuasion could convince the Serbs torncommit ethnic suicide through pills andrnlUDs, does anyone really believe thatrnthey would not try?rnThe new cops on the block are walkingrntheir beat now, but it would be a mistakernfor Americans to expect them tornprotect our interests, and an even greaterrnmistake for those in other countries tornexpect them to act with justice. Thernnew Clinton defense team has no desirernto act like good cops should—upholdingrnthe law so that freedom may flourish.rnThey’re not even willing to act like copsrnon the take, for that means submittingrntheir will to someone else’s. No, thesernnew cops on the block are the internationalrnarm of the domestic phenomenonrnthat Samuel Francis has called “anarchotyranny.”rnLoyal to nothing and to nornone—not to their ethnic background,rntheir political party, certainly not to thernConstitution they ha’c sworn to upholdrnand defend—they are motivated by arnraw will to power. And like their soulmatesrnin the FBI and the BATE, therernwill be no stopping them when they decidernto break down a few doors and tornbust a few heads.rnScott P. Richert is the assistant editor ofrnThe Family in America, a publication ofrnThe Rockford Institute. A shorter versionrnof this article was delivered as a speech atrna Chicago conference in March onrn”America’s Intervention in the Balkans,”rnhosted by Chronicles and The LordrnByron Foundation for Balkan Studies.rnFor Immediate Servicern• • •rnCHRONICLESrnNEW SUBSCRIBERSrnTOLL FREE NUMBERrn1-800-877-5459rnlUNE 1997/45rnrnrn