After reading this ... one can easily understand why both the Republicrats and
Demogins are trying to keep Pat Buchanan out of the debates this season against
the two "tounge-tied" internationalist front runners (Bush "it runs in the family" and
Gore "doesn't know any better- and has the same vocal chops as Dan Quaile" .. )..
Buchanan would klobber both of them in a debate .....
This is kinda lengthy ... but ... it has some real eye opening statements about how
close we are to and who is perpetuating the "New World Order" ....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I must admit that I was shocked at the statements made some of the corporate
executives in this article.
Dave
******************************************
Boston World Affairs Council January 6, 2000
(Text prepared for noon delivery)
Five years ago, historian Christopher Lasch published The Revolt of the
Elites. It was a book about how our national elite was literally
seceding from America. Pointing up the huge and growing gap in incomes
between the elite and the middle class, Lasch argued that a more ominous
gap existed in how each perceived America.
I fervently believe the content of this speech and that EVERYONE should
print this and read it at least once a month until the election in
November. I do not necessarily endorse the candidate who wrote it, but
I wholeheartedly believe what he has written in this speech needs to be
understood and driven into the minds of every American from 18 to 80
(all voters) if we are to maintain the united States of America as the
independent Republic founded by our Christian forefathers. This should
be the foremost question in every debate... if we are to be able to even
HAVE debates in the future for our leaders. PLEASE TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY!!
Victor Carvis
The old elite, Lasch wrote, had a sense of obligation to country and
community. But the new ruling class, more merit based, brainy, and
mobile, congregates on the coasts and puts patriotism far down the list
in its hierarchy of values. Indeed, said Lasch, "it is a question of
whether they think of themselves as Americans at all."
Lasch did not name names, but the new elite is not difficult to
identify. A few years ago, Ralph Nader wrote to the executives of 100
giant U.S. corporations, suggesting how they might show their loyalty to
"the country that bred them, built them, subsidized them and defended
them." At the annual stockholders meeting, Ralph said, why not begin
with a pledge of allegiance to the flag?
Only one company responded favorably. Half did not respond at all. Many
sent back angry letters declaring that they were not American companies
at all. Motorola denounced the request as "political and nationalistic."
Other companies likened the idea of a pledge of allegiance to loyalty
oaths of the McCarthy era. Why were the heads of these corporations
outraged? Because for years they have been trying to sever their bonds
to the country of their birth.
In 1997 the head of Boeing told one interviewer he would be delighted
if, twenty years hence, no one thought of Boeing as an American company.
My goal, said Phil Condit, is to "rid [Boeing] of its image as an
American group."
Back in the 1970s, Carl Gerstacker of Dow envisioned a day when Dow
would be free of America. "I have long dreamed," he said, "of buying an
island owned by no nation and of establishing the World Headquarters of
the Dow Company on the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden
to no nation or society." A spokesman for Union Carbide agreed: "It is
not proper for an international corporation to put the welfare of any
country in which it does business above that of any other." In any test
of loyalties, for such as these, the company comes before the country.
Early in the 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later Jimmy Carter's national
security adviser, wrote, "A global consciousness is for the first time
beginning to manifest itself...we are witnessing the emergence of
transnational elites... composed of international businessmen,
scholars,
professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut
across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by
national traditions... and their interests are more functional than
national." The one force that can derail the rise of this new elite,
warned Zbig, is the "politically activated masses," whose "nativism
could work against the cosmopolitan elites."
Brzezinski knew that the creation of any New World Order would have to
proceed by stealth. As Richard Gardner, Carter's ambassador to Italy,
wrote in 1974: "The 'house of world order' will have to be built from
the bottom up. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece
by piece, will accomplish much more than an old fashioned frontal
assault."
Advancing on little cat's feet, they have done their work. By 1992 Mr.
Clinton could appoint as Deputy Secretary of State his roommate from
Oxford days who openly welcomed the death of nations and the coming of
world government. Wrote Strobe Talbott:
All countries are basically social arrangements. Within the next hundred
years, nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will
recognize a single global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the
mid 20th century, citizen of the world, will have assumed real meaning
at the end of the 21st.
Last year in Istanbul, Bill Clinton declared himself "a citizen of the
world."
This, then, is the millennial struggle that succeeds the Cold War: It is
the struggle of patriots of every nation against a world government
where all nations yield up their sovereignty and fade away. It is the
struggle of nationalism against globalism, and it will be fought out not
only among nations, but within nations. And the old question Dean Rusk
asked in the Vietnam era is relevant anew: Whose side are you on?
Last fall, accepting the highest award of the World Federalist
Association, the Most Trusted Man in America declared his loyalty.
....f we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict, we
must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world
government... we Americans will have to yield up some of our
sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of
courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
Indeed it would, Mr. Cronkite.
Walter went on to urge U.S. ratification of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty
rejected by Ronald Reagan, of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty rejected
by the Senate, and of the Rome treaty for a permanent international war
crimes tribunal. He urged America to surrender its veto power in the
Security Council, and called for a standing UN army to enforce the peace
of the world. We now no longer see as through a glass darkly, but face
to face, the internationalists' vision of world government.
But the American ship of state has long been shifting course to that
destination. In October 1991, President Bush told the UN that a New
World Order was America's goal. In 1993, the Clinton White House, in a
secret national security directive, declared its intent to put U.S.
troops under UN command. When young Americans were killed in an accident
over Iraq, Al Gore offered his condolences "to the families of those who
died in the service of the United Nations."
In a lame-duck session of Congress in 1994, both parties voted to
ensnare the United States in a World Trade Organization where America
gets one vote out of 135, and gives up its right to negotiate reciprocal
trade treaties that serve America's national interest.
Under the treaty on global warming Al Gore brought home from Kyoto, the
United States must radically slash its use of fossil fuels like oil and
coal, while no commensurate cut is demanded in the fossil fuel use of
132 "underdeveloped countries," including China.
The house of world order is indeed being built from the bottom up; but
resistance is also beginning to build. In December globalists were
astounded there was so much anger in Seattle at the WTO. But our
trade-uber-alles elites do not understand America, or American history.
It was the will of this people to be masters in their own house that
steeled our first patriots to stand up to the troops of the British
Empire, just outside this city in 1775. A spirit of liberty is bred in
our bones. Let me tell you about an American who put trade in its proper
perspective.
Thomas Nelson, a merchant, was Governor of Virginia and head of its
militia at Yorktown. As his artillery was firing on the British, Nelson
walked up to the gunners to demand to know why they were avoiding one
sector of Yorktown where his own home was located. "Out of respect to
you, sir," came the reply. Nelson had the cannons turned and ordered
them to fire at his own house. It was shelled to pieces.
But when that spirit of patriotism dies within a nation's elite, the
aspirants of global power smell opportunity. Two years ago, a Mr. Bacre
Waly Ndiaye of the UN Human Rights Commission came to the U.S. His
mission: Tour U.S. prisons to determine if they are up to UN standards.
Mr. Ndiaye interviewed condemned killers on death rows to see if their
human rights were being violated.
There is, of course, something comical in a UN official from a continent
where the criminal justice system is still, shall we say, pre-Miranda,
ripping the U.S. for its prison system. But the issue behind the Ndiaye
tour is deadly serious. For he insists he has the right to investigate
our prisons because his UN commission speaks for "the world"’Äîan
authority higher than the United States, and he claims the 1992
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by
President Bush, justifies UN inspections of U.S. prisons.
Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson toured
northern Mexico. Her concern: the U.S. Border Patrol. By heavily
patrolling the accessible crossing points, said Ms. Robinson, our Border
Patrol is "forcing" illegal aliens to take more perilous routes into the
United States. It is, presumably, a violation of the human rights of
people breaking into our country to "force" them to seek out less safe
passages across our borders.
It is easy to see where Mary Robinson and her colleagues are heading.
They seek a regime where UN bureaucrats from Third World despotisms
demand that America open her borders and grant sanctuary to all who wish
to settle here. Americans who wish to control their borders will be told
that sovereignty is outdated, and that our great fertile plains and
cities are, compared to Bombay and Lagos, under-populated.
>From UN declarations of "world heritage sites" in the U.S, to putting
U.S. troops under UN command, to creation of a UN war crimes tribunal
with the power to seize and prosecute U.S. soldiers, we are on the road
paved by Bill Clinton when he said that he hopes to leave America tied
down in a web of global institutions.
Last month, we learned that the UN tribunal to prosecute war crimes in
the Balkans has opened a file on U.S. Air Force pilots. The chickens of
globalism are coming home to roost.
Another milestone was crossed last year when UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan asserted that only the Security Council can authorize the
international use of force; and a nation's sovereignty no longer
protects it from intervention, if the UN determines that human rights
are being violated. The Brezhnev Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty has
been replaced by the Annan Doctrine.
Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed? The United Nations was not
established as a world government, but a forum for settling disputes.
Kofi Annan is not the conscience of mankind; he is a civil servant, an
employee of the UN; and he should begin behaving as such.
But it was not Mr. Ndiaye, Mrs. Robinson or Mr. Annan who announced the
death of the nation-state. That was Strobe Talbott, Richard Gardner, and
those Republicans who have made the Global Economy a Golden Calf to fall
down before and worship. And the political globalists have their own
Fifth Column of fellow travelers inside the conservative elite.
Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley has been quoted as declaring
"the nation-state is finished." He calls for an amendment to the
Constitution to throw open America's borders to immigration from all
over the world. Bartley's vision of America as Global Mall, is embraced
by the global corporations that advertise in the Journal and seek access
to an inexhaustible supply of low-wage foreign labor. As British author
John Gray writes, America's neo-conservatives have become little more
than "ranting evangelists of global capitalism."
Let it be said: Loyalty to the New World Order is disloyalty to the
Republic. In nation after nation, the struggle between patriotism and
globalism is underway. In England, the Tory Party draws a line in the
sand at giving up Britain's pound. In France, farmers riot to preserve a
way of life. In Canada, the fight to preserve the national culture is
gaining recruits. In Germany, Gerhardt Schroeder makes a political
comeback by embracing economic nationalism.
And Mr. Cronkite's talk of world government ushering in world peace
notwithstanding, the end of sovereignty means endless war. Trampling on
the sovereignty of Yugoslavia, President Clinton demanded that the Serbs
surrender Kosovo and cede domination of their country to NATO. When
Belgrade rejected his ultimatum, Mr. Clinton began 78 days of bombing,
using as his casus belli allegations of Serbian genocide against Kosovar
Albanians. We now know there was no genocide. We now know it was
Clinton's bombing that spurred the killing. We now know Clinton's War
did not create a "multi-ethnic democracy," but a vengeful little
statelet where Serbs are burned out of their homes for sport.
If ever sovereignty becomes obsolete, we may expect America's
involvement in endless wars until, one day, we pay the horrific price in
some act of cataclysmic terror on our own soil. For interventionism is
the spawning pool of international terror.
Admonishing Russia for her war on Chechnya, Madeline Albright declared,
"Killing the innocent does not defeat terror. It feeds terror." Exactly,
Ms. Albright. But that is as true of Serbia, as it is of Chechnya.
If we wish to see the future our globalists have in mind, we need only
look at the superstate rising in Europe. The nations of the European
Union have ceased to be sovereign. They have given up control of their
currencies, their budgets, their borders, and are giving up control of
their defense. Britain has been forced to comply with a ruling by the
European Court of Human Rights requiring the British army to accept
homosexuals. Earlier, the court demanded that Britain end corporal
punishment in its schools. "What doth it profit a man if he gain the
whole world, and suffer the loss of his own country?"
In 1939, in his work, The New World Order, H. G. Wells wrote: "Countless
people... will hate the New World Order... and will die protesting
against it... we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so
of malcontents..."
Well, Mr. Wells, we are your malcontents. But we're not going to die
protesting your New World Order; we're going to live fighting it. And
Seattle may just prove to be the Boston Tea Party of that New World
Order. "I believe globalization is inevitable," Bill Clinton told Larry
King at year's end. Well, I don't.
My vision of America is of a republic that has recaptured every trace of
her lost sovereignty, independence, and liberty, a nation that is once
again self-reliant in agriculture, industry, and technology, a country
that can, if need be, stand alone in the world.
My vision is of a republic not an empire, a nation that does not go to
war unless she is attacked, or her vital interests are imperiled, or her
honor is impugned. And when she does goes to war, it is only after
following a constitutional declaration by the Congress of the United
States. We are not imperialists; we are not interventionists; we are not
hegemonists; and we are not isolationists. We simply believe in America
first, last, and always.
And we don't want to be citizens of the world, because we have been
granted a higher honor - we are citizens of the United States. Asked on
his deathbed to make a toast, John Adams, the great Bostonian, declared:
"Independence, forever!" That is my vision for America; that is our
cause; and it shall prevail.
------------------
In 2000, we must become
politically active
in support of gun rights
or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they are all disarmed and helpless and die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited January 12, 2000).]
Demogins are trying to keep Pat Buchanan out of the debates this season against
the two "tounge-tied" internationalist front runners (Bush "it runs in the family" and
Gore "doesn't know any better- and has the same vocal chops as Dan Quaile" .. )..
Buchanan would klobber both of them in a debate .....
This is kinda lengthy ... but ... it has some real eye opening statements about how
close we are to and who is perpetuating the "New World Order" ....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I must admit that I was shocked at the statements made some of the corporate
executives in this article.
Dave
******************************************
Boston World Affairs Council January 6, 2000
(Text prepared for noon delivery)
Five years ago, historian Christopher Lasch published The Revolt of the
Elites. It was a book about how our national elite was literally
seceding from America. Pointing up the huge and growing gap in incomes
between the elite and the middle class, Lasch argued that a more ominous
gap existed in how each perceived America.
I fervently believe the content of this speech and that EVERYONE should
print this and read it at least once a month until the election in
November. I do not necessarily endorse the candidate who wrote it, but
I wholeheartedly believe what he has written in this speech needs to be
understood and driven into the minds of every American from 18 to 80
(all voters) if we are to maintain the united States of America as the
independent Republic founded by our Christian forefathers. This should
be the foremost question in every debate... if we are to be able to even
HAVE debates in the future for our leaders. PLEASE TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY!!
Victor Carvis
The old elite, Lasch wrote, had a sense of obligation to country and
community. But the new ruling class, more merit based, brainy, and
mobile, congregates on the coasts and puts patriotism far down the list
in its hierarchy of values. Indeed, said Lasch, "it is a question of
whether they think of themselves as Americans at all."
Lasch did not name names, but the new elite is not difficult to
identify. A few years ago, Ralph Nader wrote to the executives of 100
giant U.S. corporations, suggesting how they might show their loyalty to
"the country that bred them, built them, subsidized them and defended
them." At the annual stockholders meeting, Ralph said, why not begin
with a pledge of allegiance to the flag?
Only one company responded favorably. Half did not respond at all. Many
sent back angry letters declaring that they were not American companies
at all. Motorola denounced the request as "political and nationalistic."
Other companies likened the idea of a pledge of allegiance to loyalty
oaths of the McCarthy era. Why were the heads of these corporations
outraged? Because for years they have been trying to sever their bonds
to the country of their birth.
In 1997 the head of Boeing told one interviewer he would be delighted
if, twenty years hence, no one thought of Boeing as an American company.
My goal, said Phil Condit, is to "rid [Boeing] of its image as an
American group."
Back in the 1970s, Carl Gerstacker of Dow envisioned a day when Dow
would be free of America. "I have long dreamed," he said, "of buying an
island owned by no nation and of establishing the World Headquarters of
the Dow Company on the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden
to no nation or society." A spokesman for Union Carbide agreed: "It is
not proper for an international corporation to put the welfare of any
country in which it does business above that of any other." In any test
of loyalties, for such as these, the company comes before the country.
Early in the 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later Jimmy Carter's national
security adviser, wrote, "A global consciousness is for the first time
beginning to manifest itself...we are witnessing the emergence of
transnational elites... composed of international businessmen,
scholars,
professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut
across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by
national traditions... and their interests are more functional than
national." The one force that can derail the rise of this new elite,
warned Zbig, is the "politically activated masses," whose "nativism
could work against the cosmopolitan elites."
Brzezinski knew that the creation of any New World Order would have to
proceed by stealth. As Richard Gardner, Carter's ambassador to Italy,
wrote in 1974: "The 'house of world order' will have to be built from
the bottom up. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece
by piece, will accomplish much more than an old fashioned frontal
assault."
Advancing on little cat's feet, they have done their work. By 1992 Mr.
Clinton could appoint as Deputy Secretary of State his roommate from
Oxford days who openly welcomed the death of nations and the coming of
world government. Wrote Strobe Talbott:
All countries are basically social arrangements. Within the next hundred
years, nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will
recognize a single global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the
mid 20th century, citizen of the world, will have assumed real meaning
at the end of the 21st.
Last year in Istanbul, Bill Clinton declared himself "a citizen of the
world."
This, then, is the millennial struggle that succeeds the Cold War: It is
the struggle of patriots of every nation against a world government
where all nations yield up their sovereignty and fade away. It is the
struggle of nationalism against globalism, and it will be fought out not
only among nations, but within nations. And the old question Dean Rusk
asked in the Vietnam era is relevant anew: Whose side are you on?
Last fall, accepting the highest award of the World Federalist
Association, the Most Trusted Man in America declared his loyalty.
....f we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict, we
must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world
government... we Americans will have to yield up some of our
sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of
courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
Indeed it would, Mr. Cronkite.
Walter went on to urge U.S. ratification of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty
rejected by Ronald Reagan, of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty rejected
by the Senate, and of the Rome treaty for a permanent international war
crimes tribunal. He urged America to surrender its veto power in the
Security Council, and called for a standing UN army to enforce the peace
of the world. We now no longer see as through a glass darkly, but face
to face, the internationalists' vision of world government.
But the American ship of state has long been shifting course to that
destination. In October 1991, President Bush told the UN that a New
World Order was America's goal. In 1993, the Clinton White House, in a
secret national security directive, declared its intent to put U.S.
troops under UN command. When young Americans were killed in an accident
over Iraq, Al Gore offered his condolences "to the families of those who
died in the service of the United Nations."
In a lame-duck session of Congress in 1994, both parties voted to
ensnare the United States in a World Trade Organization where America
gets one vote out of 135, and gives up its right to negotiate reciprocal
trade treaties that serve America's national interest.
Under the treaty on global warming Al Gore brought home from Kyoto, the
United States must radically slash its use of fossil fuels like oil and
coal, while no commensurate cut is demanded in the fossil fuel use of
132 "underdeveloped countries," including China.
The house of world order is indeed being built from the bottom up; but
resistance is also beginning to build. In December globalists were
astounded there was so much anger in Seattle at the WTO. But our
trade-uber-alles elites do not understand America, or American history.
It was the will of this people to be masters in their own house that
steeled our first patriots to stand up to the troops of the British
Empire, just outside this city in 1775. A spirit of liberty is bred in
our bones. Let me tell you about an American who put trade in its proper
perspective.
Thomas Nelson, a merchant, was Governor of Virginia and head of its
militia at Yorktown. As his artillery was firing on the British, Nelson
walked up to the gunners to demand to know why they were avoiding one
sector of Yorktown where his own home was located. "Out of respect to
you, sir," came the reply. Nelson had the cannons turned and ordered
them to fire at his own house. It was shelled to pieces.
But when that spirit of patriotism dies within a nation's elite, the
aspirants of global power smell opportunity. Two years ago, a Mr. Bacre
Waly Ndiaye of the UN Human Rights Commission came to the U.S. His
mission: Tour U.S. prisons to determine if they are up to UN standards.
Mr. Ndiaye interviewed condemned killers on death rows to see if their
human rights were being violated.
There is, of course, something comical in a UN official from a continent
where the criminal justice system is still, shall we say, pre-Miranda,
ripping the U.S. for its prison system. But the issue behind the Ndiaye
tour is deadly serious. For he insists he has the right to investigate
our prisons because his UN commission speaks for "the world"’Äîan
authority higher than the United States, and he claims the 1992
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by
President Bush, justifies UN inspections of U.S. prisons.
Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson toured
northern Mexico. Her concern: the U.S. Border Patrol. By heavily
patrolling the accessible crossing points, said Ms. Robinson, our Border
Patrol is "forcing" illegal aliens to take more perilous routes into the
United States. It is, presumably, a violation of the human rights of
people breaking into our country to "force" them to seek out less safe
passages across our borders.
It is easy to see where Mary Robinson and her colleagues are heading.
They seek a regime where UN bureaucrats from Third World despotisms
demand that America open her borders and grant sanctuary to all who wish
to settle here. Americans who wish to control their borders will be told
that sovereignty is outdated, and that our great fertile plains and
cities are, compared to Bombay and Lagos, under-populated.
>From UN declarations of "world heritage sites" in the U.S, to putting
U.S. troops under UN command, to creation of a UN war crimes tribunal
with the power to seize and prosecute U.S. soldiers, we are on the road
paved by Bill Clinton when he said that he hopes to leave America tied
down in a web of global institutions.
Last month, we learned that the UN tribunal to prosecute war crimes in
the Balkans has opened a file on U.S. Air Force pilots. The chickens of
globalism are coming home to roost.
Another milestone was crossed last year when UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan asserted that only the Security Council can authorize the
international use of force; and a nation's sovereignty no longer
protects it from intervention, if the UN determines that human rights
are being violated. The Brezhnev Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty has
been replaced by the Annan Doctrine.
Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed? The United Nations was not
established as a world government, but a forum for settling disputes.
Kofi Annan is not the conscience of mankind; he is a civil servant, an
employee of the UN; and he should begin behaving as such.
But it was not Mr. Ndiaye, Mrs. Robinson or Mr. Annan who announced the
death of the nation-state. That was Strobe Talbott, Richard Gardner, and
those Republicans who have made the Global Economy a Golden Calf to fall
down before and worship. And the political globalists have their own
Fifth Column of fellow travelers inside the conservative elite.
Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley has been quoted as declaring
"the nation-state is finished." He calls for an amendment to the
Constitution to throw open America's borders to immigration from all
over the world. Bartley's vision of America as Global Mall, is embraced
by the global corporations that advertise in the Journal and seek access
to an inexhaustible supply of low-wage foreign labor. As British author
John Gray writes, America's neo-conservatives have become little more
than "ranting evangelists of global capitalism."
Let it be said: Loyalty to the New World Order is disloyalty to the
Republic. In nation after nation, the struggle between patriotism and
globalism is underway. In England, the Tory Party draws a line in the
sand at giving up Britain's pound. In France, farmers riot to preserve a
way of life. In Canada, the fight to preserve the national culture is
gaining recruits. In Germany, Gerhardt Schroeder makes a political
comeback by embracing economic nationalism.
And Mr. Cronkite's talk of world government ushering in world peace
notwithstanding, the end of sovereignty means endless war. Trampling on
the sovereignty of Yugoslavia, President Clinton demanded that the Serbs
surrender Kosovo and cede domination of their country to NATO. When
Belgrade rejected his ultimatum, Mr. Clinton began 78 days of bombing,
using as his casus belli allegations of Serbian genocide against Kosovar
Albanians. We now know there was no genocide. We now know it was
Clinton's bombing that spurred the killing. We now know Clinton's War
did not create a "multi-ethnic democracy," but a vengeful little
statelet where Serbs are burned out of their homes for sport.
If ever sovereignty becomes obsolete, we may expect America's
involvement in endless wars until, one day, we pay the horrific price in
some act of cataclysmic terror on our own soil. For interventionism is
the spawning pool of international terror.
Admonishing Russia for her war on Chechnya, Madeline Albright declared,
"Killing the innocent does not defeat terror. It feeds terror." Exactly,
Ms. Albright. But that is as true of Serbia, as it is of Chechnya.
If we wish to see the future our globalists have in mind, we need only
look at the superstate rising in Europe. The nations of the European
Union have ceased to be sovereign. They have given up control of their
currencies, their budgets, their borders, and are giving up control of
their defense. Britain has been forced to comply with a ruling by the
European Court of Human Rights requiring the British army to accept
homosexuals. Earlier, the court demanded that Britain end corporal
punishment in its schools. "What doth it profit a man if he gain the
whole world, and suffer the loss of his own country?"
In 1939, in his work, The New World Order, H. G. Wells wrote: "Countless
people... will hate the New World Order... and will die protesting
against it... we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so
of malcontents..."
Well, Mr. Wells, we are your malcontents. But we're not going to die
protesting your New World Order; we're going to live fighting it. And
Seattle may just prove to be the Boston Tea Party of that New World
Order. "I believe globalization is inevitable," Bill Clinton told Larry
King at year's end. Well, I don't.
My vision of America is of a republic that has recaptured every trace of
her lost sovereignty, independence, and liberty, a nation that is once
again self-reliant in agriculture, industry, and technology, a country
that can, if need be, stand alone in the world.
My vision is of a republic not an empire, a nation that does not go to
war unless she is attacked, or her vital interests are imperiled, or her
honor is impugned. And when she does goes to war, it is only after
following a constitutional declaration by the Congress of the United
States. We are not imperialists; we are not interventionists; we are not
hegemonists; and we are not isolationists. We simply believe in America
first, last, and always.
And we don't want to be citizens of the world, because we have been
granted a higher honor - we are citizens of the United States. Asked on
his deathbed to make a toast, John Adams, the great Bostonian, declared:
"Independence, forever!" That is my vision for America; that is our
cause; and it shall prevail.
------------------
In 2000, we must become
politically active
in support of gun rights
or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they are all disarmed and helpless and die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited January 12, 2000).]
