Time: Fri Jun 13 16:29:21 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17962;
	Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:30:07 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:26:29 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>>                       THAT FREEDOM SHALL NOT PERISH
>>                    Volume 11, Number 7 - April 3, 1995
>>                    Volume 11, Number 7 - April 3, 1995
>>                             Special UN Issue
>>                               ARMING THE UN
>>                             by John F. McManus
>>                             Top-Down Treason
>>In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing
>>principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point
>>where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively
>>strengthened U.N. Peace Force ....
>>                                        -- Freedom From War September 1961
>>When they first hear about the disarmament program our nation has been
>>implementing for over 30 years, many Americans are incredulous that
>>officials in the highest offices of our government would commit such a
>>blatant act of treason. Yet, such a plan exists and is unfolding at an
>>alarming pace. It calls for the United States to disarm itself and
>>simultaneously build the military capability of the United Nations.
>>It all began in September 1961, when President Kennedy formally presented
>>the official U.S. disarmament program described in State Department
>>Publication 7277. Entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program.for
>>General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the program calls for
>>the nations of the world -- including the U.S. -- to disarm, turn over
>>their military might to the UN, and make the world body an unchallengeable
>>military power.
>>Disarmament enthusiasts have long called upon world leaders to scrap all
>>weapons and eliminate the potential for war. But this program is not about
>>the elimination of weapons, but about placing all military power in the
>>hands of one global power.
>>For several decades, pro-UN propaganda has held that furnishing the world
>>body with enough power to "enforce peace" would benefit mankind and
>>forestall the possibility of future wars. But there are some crucial
>>questions that few consider: If the UN should become all-powerful, who
>>would be left to prevent it from establishing its own brand of tyranny? If
>>the UN were powerful enough to enforce peace, would it not also be powerful
>>enough to enforce the will of its leaders on all mankind?
>>America's national sovereignty is directly threatened by this program,
>>because, in effect, it cedes U.S, independence to the world body -- in
>>order, as most people have been led to believe, to prevent war. But the
>>proper steps the U.S. should take to avoid war are to: 1) be strong enough
>>to discourage attack; 2) stay out of the affairs of other nations; and 3)
>>keep out of entangling alliances.
>>The Kennedy Plan
>>On September 25, 1961, President Kennedy addressed the UN General Assembly,
>>declaring: "The program to be presented to this Assembly for general and
>>complete disarmament under effective international control ... would
>>achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a
>>steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has
>>abolished all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new
>>United Nations Peace Force."
>>As unbelievable as it may seem, our national leaders have been implementing
>>this very same treasonous disarmament program for the past three decades.
>>The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is part of it; the treaty banning America's use
>>of outer space for defense is part of it; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
>>Treaty is also part of it.
>>Following JFK's address at the UN, this program was rewritten in greater
>>detail. Retitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions
>>of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, it was
>>presented by President Kennedy to an 18-nation disarmament conference in
>>Geneva, Switzerland on April 18, 1962. The Blueprint didn't cancel any
>>portion of its predecessor document. As stated in its foreword, it merely
>>"elaborates and extends the proposals of September 25, 1961."
>>When questioned about the Blueprint, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
>>General Council A. Richard Richstein confirmed in a May 11, 1982 letter
>>that "the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal."
>>When questioned by this author in late 1993 about the continuation of this
>>disarmament program, Dr. William Nary, chief historian for the Arms Control
>>and Disarmament Agency, confirmed: "The program has not been withdrawn and
>>some of its steps have been implemented."
>>Rendering Nations Powerless
>>The Freedom From War program lists four overall disarmament "objectives,"
>>the first of which reads:
>>The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their
>>reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to
>>preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace
>>This means no more U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps controlled
>>by this nation for the purpose of defending our vital interests. All of our
>>fighting men would be conscripted into a global "Peace Force" -- save for
>>those who would be assigned to a national police force designed to maintain
>>internal order.
>>The second objective of this incredible program is:
>>The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including weapons
>>of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those
>>required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal
>>Not only would nations be required to disband their defense forces, but
>>they would also be forced to divest themselves of all armaments. The UN
>>will take no chances that weapons -- especially those of "mass destruction"
>>-- might fall into the hands of UN opponents.
>>Toward the end of this document, its text states: "The manufacture of
>>armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed types and quantities
>>to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal
>>order." This means disarmament of civilians as well -- under international
>>control. (More about UN designs to restrict private firearms ownership
>>appears on page 23.) The United Nations wants no one to have the capability
>>to defend his nation, himself, or his family from its designs.
>>The third objective addresses the need for compliance with UN-imposed
>>obligations. It calls for:
>>The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament
>>Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure
>>compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
>>The UN doesn't intend to take any chances. Therefore, this program calls
>>for an "international" snooping agency empowered to "ensure compliance"
>>with each of the above "obligations."
>>Several existing UN creations have the potential of becoming exactly what
>>this portion of the overall plan calls for -- including the International
>>Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Disarmament Commission, and the peacekeeping
>>arm of the Military Staff Committee.
>>Whatever this supranational agency is called, it would, of necessity,
>>operate with powers that supersede the laws and prerogatives of any
>>government -- including the government of this nation. It would assist the
>>UN in the enforcement of the UN's "international law."
>>UN-Defined "Peace"
>>The final objective of the 1961 plan calls for:
>>The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international
>>agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of
>>peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
>>The peace being maintained would be in accord with the principles of the
>>United Nations. As to what those principles might include, a quick look at
>>Chapter VII of the UN Charter reveals that the "peace" organization retains
>>for itself the power to determine what might constitute: 1) a threat to
>>peace; 2) a breach of peace; or 3) an act of aggression.
>>Whenever the UN decrees that "peace" is not being adhered to, it could then
>>turn to Article 42 of the UN Charter to "take such action by air, sea, or
>>land forces as may be necessary" to restore its idea of peace. Such a
>>"peace" could be very costly in lives.
>>The UN is not interested in the kind of peace normal individuals seek and
>>desire. Its very Charter empowers it to enforce and maintain its unimpeded
>>global rule with military action.
>>Moreover, the UN has called for the very powers the U.S. has proposed for
>>it. In 1978, the UN General Assembly adopted a Final Document that called
>>for reducing national armed forces to a level "necessary to maintain
>>internal order and protect the personal security of citizens and in order
>>that States shall support and provide agreed manpower for a United Nations
>>peace force." That "peace force" would have sufficient clout to
>>"effectively deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of
>>the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
>>As noted earlier, the disarmament plan described in Freedom From War, and
>>repeated in Blueprint for the Peace Race, continues as the official policy
>>of the U.S. government. It is the clear intention of our leaders to
>>implement every portion of this treasonous plan.
>>Years ago, a Dallas-based editorialist referred to the three stages of this
>>subversive plan and concluded, "One, two, three, and America's out!" This
>>scheme must be exposed and our leaders must be stopped before it is fully
>>implemented and U.S. sovereignty becomes a bitter memory.
>>THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing,
>>P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913
>>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna
>>Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE
>>purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial
>>mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address
>>reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address.
>>                             by William P. Hoar
>>                           Which Law Is Supreme?
>>One justifiable suspicion that has been expressed concerning UN "covenants"
>>is that they have come to acquire power even over the U.S. Constitution.
>>Misuse and misunderstanding of the treaty power granted to the President in
>>cooperation with the Senate is a main reason for this extra-constitutional
>>Thomas Jefferson well advised, "In questions of power, let no more be said
>>of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
>>Constitution." Yet, whereas the Founders spent great pains in framing the
>>Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, few observers
>>would deny that the Constitution is today more honored in the breach than
>>the observance. The federal power grab has grown so obvious that there has
>>developed a renewed interest in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves
>>undelegated powers to the states or to the people. Would that there were
>>also more concern with international seizures of control.
>>The Constitution, under the Supremacy Clause, does hold that treaties are
>>the "supreme law of the land." Did the Founders mean by this that, merely
>>by entering into a treaty, the President could do what he was otherwise
>>forbidden from doing? Common sense and the historical record contradict
>>this view.
>>Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, commented: "If
>>the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely
>>the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government
>>is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton, who often
>>disagreed with Jefferson, on this point held similarly that a "treaty
>>cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which
>>infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the
>>United States."
>>Nevertheless, a number of Supreme Court decisions, including Missouri v.
>>Holland (1920) and U.S. v. Pink (1942), used treaties to undermine
>>constitutional safeguards. In 1948, Frank Holman, president of the American
>>Bar Association, began a campaign in earnest to protect the rights of
>>Americans from treaty law. The doctrine "that the treaty power is unlimited
>>and omnipotent and may be used to override the Constitution and Bill of
>>Rights," said Holman, is "a doctrine of recent origin...."
>>In response to the threat, Clarence Manion of Notre Dame Law School, along
>>with the American Bar Association, a substantial number of other
>>professional and patriotic groups, and most of the United States Senate,
>>backed the so-called Bricker Amendment. First introduced in 1952, the
>>Bricker Amendment was designed to limit treaty law, and would have
>>reinforced constitutional protections.
>>Although the Bricker Amendment seemed a shoo-in, the vigorous opposition of
>>Dwight Eisenhower eventually beat back the measure in 1954, and a
>>subsequent weaker amendment failed two-thirds passage in the Senate by a
>>solitary vote.
>>The original Bricker language declared that "a provision of a treaty or
>>other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution shall
>>not be of any force or effect." There can be little doubt that Eisenhower
>>wanted to maintain, however wrongful the interpretation, the power to cut
>>across the Bill of Rights. Why?
>>Manion noted in his book, The Conservative American, that the Bricker
>>Amendment would have run counter to any move to "surrender our sovereignty
>>and our federal form of government through adherence by treaty to
>>international organizations. As against the United Nations or other such
>>supranational bodies, the Bricker Amendment would have imposed the same
>>restrictions against the power of international organizations that the
>>Tenth Amendment now imposes against our own federal government."
>>The worst case did not play out in Reid v. Covert (1957), in which the
>>Supreme Court properly held that an Executive agreement or treaty may not
>>contravene a freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.
>>However, beyond such limitations, the treaty power, noted Professor Burns
>>Weston of the University of Iowa in the Encyclopedia of the American
>>Constitution, "is perceived as a broad power." It extends "to all matters
>>of 'international concern,' a phrase that some claim limits the treaty
>>power, but that the courts have used to illustrate the power's broad scope.
>>Ordinarily it is difficult to show that a treaty matter is not of
>>international concern even in the presence of domestic effects." This
>>contention was made as long ago as 1950 in the Truman State Department
>>Publication 3972, which held that "there is no longer any real difference
>>between domestic and foreign affairs."
>>Internationalists don't want the U.S. to enjoy the protections adopted by
>>our Founders, which is why they have eroded the Constitution, fought the
>>insurance that would have been provided by the Bricker Amendment, and
>>continue today to seek to tie the U.S. with so many UN bonds.
>>If you fancy having such United Nations diktats as the "supreme law of the
>>land," there is a good way to ensure it: You simply need do nothing at all.
>>THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing,
>>P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913
>>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna
>>Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE
>>purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial
>>mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address
>>reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address.
>>                                UN CLICHÉS
>>                              by Robert W. Lee
>>                           A Few Tired Bromides
>>For half a century, proponents of the United Nations have parroted
>>misleading clichés intended to short-circuit rational evaluation of the
>>world body's inherent flaws and actual record. Following are some of the
>>more well-worn bromides that have been used to justify, the existence of
>>the UN -- and the reasons they make no sense.
>>The UN is mankind's last best hope for peace. For five decades the UN has
>>sponsored wars, passed one-sided or unenforceable resolutions, served as a
>>forum for nations to publicly berate each other, and imposed selective
>>justice that typically persecutes anti-Marxist countries while bolstering
>>regimes run by terrorists, communists, and other collectivists.
>>The UN is a war-making, not a "peacekeeping," organization. To label the
>>UN's war-making proficiency as "peacekeeping" is equivalent to claiming
>>that poisonous toadstools are nourishing mushrooms. After the UN Charter
>>was ratified by the Senate in 1945, but before it went into effect, former
>>Undersecretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico J. Reuben Clark Jr., one
>>of the most astute international lawyers our nation has produced, drafted a
>>cursory analysis of the document in which he asserted, "The Charter is
>>built to prepare for war, not to promote peace .... The Charter is a war
>>document not a peace document...."
>>Clark concluded: "Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future
>>wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars,
>>and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose
>>the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military
>>equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who
>>do the fighting." The subsequent UN record, from Korea and Vietnam to the
>>Persian Gulf and Somalia, confirm the prophetic truth of Clark's analysis.
>>A federation of nations under the UN Charter is comparable to the
>>federation of American states under the U.S. Constitution. The implication
>>that federalism precludes wars was disproven by our own War Between the
>>States, one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. It was fought despite
>>the many factors the original 13 colonies had in their favor (a common
>>language; similar manners, customs, and religious values; attachments to
>>the same principles of government; etc.), none of which are found in the
>>United Nations.
>>But more important than the lack of common bonds among the members of the
>>UN is the fact that the UN system is irreconcilable with the U.S. system.
>>The U.S. system is based on the concept that rights come from God and that
>>the purpose of government is to protect God-given rights. The UN does not
>>recognize the supremacy of God and views itself as the source of "rights."
>>Nowhere does power tend to become so concentrated, all-pervasive, and
>>absolute as in government. And the bigger the government, the more the
>>corruption. Needless to say, the biggest (and most corrupt) of all
>>governments would be an economically collectivist world government with
>>sufficient military power to enforce its decrees planet-wide.
>>World government is necessary to solve global problems, since national
>>governments have been unable to do so. It is hardly a surprise that
>>national governments have failed to solve global problems, since they have
>>also failed to solve their own domestic problems. Here in the United
>>States, our federal government has created and/or sustained most domestic
>>problems by increasing its power and resources under the guise of "solving"
>>them. Governments don't solve problems; they create them. People, on the
>>other hand, can solve problems if government keeps out of their way. There
>>is simply no reason to believe that huge government entities at the
>>international level can "solve" global problems any better than big
>>national governments have "solved" such domestic problems as inflation,
>>debt, crime, welfare, poverty, drug trafficking, health care, etc.
>>If the nations of the world know more about each other, they will be less
>>likely to go to war against each other. True enough, if what we learn is
>>that a potential adversary is far stronger than we are. But the implication
>>that increased knowledge decreases friction between parties depends on the
>>circumstances. Few nations on earth understood each other better than did
>>England and Germany, yet they fought bitterly in both world wars.
>>The UN provides a useful forum for airing grievances, and when nations are
>>talking, they are not warring with each other. Such reasoning is predicated
>>on the faulty assumption that the only alternatives are talking or
>>shooting. But as G. Edward Griffin has pointed out in his book The Fearful
>>Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, the "best way to get yourself
>>into a barroom brawl with a bunch of thugs is to go into the bar and start
>>talking with them. The smart thing to do is to stay out and mind your own
>>Griffin explains, with a useful analogy, why traditional diplomacy is
>>preferable to the UN "public forum" approach: "Consider what would happen
>>if every time a small spat arose between a husband and wife they called the
>>entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their complaints in
>>front of the whole group. Gone would be any chance of reconciliation.
>>Instead of working out their problems, the ugly necessity of saving face,
>>proving points, and winning popular sympathy would likely drive them
>>further apart. Likewise, public debates in the UN intensify international
>>tensions. By shouting their grievances at each other, countries allow their
>>differences to assume a magnitude they would otherwise never have reached.
>>Quiet diplomacy is always more conducive to progress than diplomacy on the
>>Nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion, and hatred of other countries,
>>which in turn raises the threat of war. This claim is based on the false
>>premise that loving one's own country means hating all others. It makes as
>>little sense as it would to maintain that a man who loves his own wife best
>>hates all other women. As Teddy Roosevelt once wrote, "Patriotism stands in
>>national matters as love of family does in private life. Nationalism
>>corresponds to the love a man bears for his wife and children."
>>UN efforts help to eliminate such roots of war as hunger, poverty,
>>ignorance, and disease. Hunger, poverty, ignorance, and disease are indeed
>>serious problems which merit concern and solution, but they are not the
>>roots of war. Expensive armaments and large armies are required to fight a
>>big war. Nations hovering on the brink of poverty and disease are too sick
>>and hungry to produce sufficient armaments and effectively field armies,
>>and too poor to keep a war going (unless their military preparations are
>>assisted from outside by the affluent nations or the UN).
>>In contrast, Germany's economic and social status ranked among the highest
>>in the world prior to World War I, and there was little economic distress
>>or unemployment in Germany at the start of World War II. History shows that
>>it has been advanced nations, rather than backward countries, that have
>>most disturbed world peace.
>>The economic system best equipped to solve the problems of poverty, hunger,
>>disease, illiteracy, etc., is free enterprise. It emphasizes the production
>>of new wealth and the right of individuals to own and control private
>>property, thereby enhancing their incentive to produce. The UN, however,
>>champions collectivist economic policies which emphasize the redistribution
>>of existing wealth.
>>If the UN and its specialized agencies were empowered to take everything
>>Americans have and redistribute it to the world's poor, overall misery in
>>the world would scarcely be affected. There are simply too many of them,
>>and too few of us. But if we could assist the backward nations in throwing
>>off the shackles of socialism that are keeping them backward, and adopting
>>instead the basic economic techniques that have been largely responsible
>>for our own unprecedented abundance, we would be making an unparalleled
>>contribution to world stability and well-being. The UN stands as a huge
>>roadblock to such sorely-needed change.
>>The UN concept of human rights is similar to that of our own Bill of
>>Rights. There are essentially two basic concepts of the origin of rights.
>>One holds that they derive from government, which means that government can
>>modify or abolish them at whim. The other asserts that rights come from a
>>source outside of government, and government's job is to protect (not
>>infringe or abolish) them. As we have already indicated, the U.S. system is
>>based on the former view and the UN system on the latter.
>>This fundamental difference is perhaps best illustrated by comparing the
>>First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights with Article 29, paragraph 3 of
>>the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The First Amendment clearly
>>states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
>>freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In
>>stark contrast, Article 29, paragraph 3 of the Universal Declaration
>>asserts (referring to the supposed rights and freedoms specified elsewhere
>>in the document): "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
>>contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
>>Soviet spokesman Andrei Vishinsky was expressing the Universal
>>Declaration's view of rights when he stated during the debate on its
>>adoption: "The rights of human beings cannot be considered outside the
>>prerogatives of governments, and the very understanding of human rights is
>>a government concept."
>>We must not turn back the clock to a period of isolationism. Withdrawal
>>from the UN would not mean a retreat into so-called "isolation" anymore
>>than absence of the UN prior to 1945 meant that the United States was
>>"isolated." As William F. Jasper noted in his book Global Tyranny ... Step
>>by Step, "Isolationism is a bogeyman internationalists trot out every time
>>the American people begin to rebel against globalist, interventionist
>>plotting. The truth is that America has never been 'isolationist.'"
>>Indeed not. Writing in the March 27, 1965 issue of the newsletter
>>Correction, Please! And a Review of the News, noted scholar Dr. Francis X.
>>Gannon reminded his readers, "During our history as a confederation and
>>Republic prior to 1945, we had established diplomatic relations with more
>>than seventy-five powers, representative of every continent. Treaties,
>>arrangements, and conventions between the United States and other powers
>>embraced every conceivable relationship in international affairs: trade and
>>commerce, arbitration, postal agreements, copyright arrangements, narcotics
>>traffic, smuggling, exchange of official publications, naturalization
>>agreements, visas, tenure and disposition of real and personal property,
>>and communications."
>>After listing specific examples of U.S. involvement throughout the world,
>>from Latin America (Monroe Doctrine and Panama Canal) to the Pacific and
>>Far East (Open Door Policy and Stimson Doctrine), and running back to the
>>French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Dr. Gannon concluded by noting, "We
>>engaged heavily in the import-export trade; American whaling vessels were
>>familiar sights to foreigners; America's China trade became the foundation
>>of many a familial financial empire; American scholars studied at European
>>universities while scholars from all over the world came to the United
>>States; American tourists and businessmen and technicians and missionaries
>>travelled to all continents; and, the United States added to its population
>>with immigrants from every country in the world."
>>If you don't like the UN, with what would you replace it? The question is
>>equivalent to a patient, upon being told by his doctor that he has a cancer
>>that must be removed, asking, "But doctor, what will you replace it with?"
>>When something is evil and dangerous, it is neither necessary nor wise
>>spending time searching for a substitute.
>>Nevertheless, there is an answer, and an obvious one: Why not try freedom?
>>G. Edward Griffin explains that it would mean "freedom for all people,
>>everywhere, to live as they please with no super-government directing them;
>>freedom to succeed or to fail and to try again; freedom to make mistakes
>>and even to be foolish in the eyes of others." Indeed, "until all nations
>>follow the concept of limited government, it is unlikely that universal
>>peace will ever be attained."
>>An honestly intended federation of nations, united for the legitimate
>>purpose of increasing the freedom of individuals, goods, and cultures to
>>cross national boundaries, and to decrease governmental restrictions on
>>individuals, is something most Americans could support wholeheartedly,
>>since it would be in line with Richard Cobden's observation that "Peace
>>will come to this earth when her peoples have as much as possible to do
>>with each other; their governments the least possible."
>>The UN is today, as it has been since its founding, a force pushing in the
>>opposite direction.
>>The pressure of world opinion that the UN brings can be a significant
>>deterrent to conflict. The "world opinion" argument has been, from the
>>start, a misleading hoax that has hamstrung the U.S. and the free world in
>>many ways. It has, for instance, encouraged anti-American regimes around
>>the world to fearlessly stick out their tongues at us, and vote against us
>>in the UN, because they know we will not retaliate in any meaningful way
>>that might offend "world opinion."
>>The supposed moral pressure of world opinion elicits response only from
>>those who are morally sensitive. The communists, for instance, are not
>>morally sensitive, and throughout the Cold War they dismissed world opinion
>>entirely unless it coincided with their goals. While the United States
>>meekly revamped its foreign policy to meet the demands of an alleged UN
>>world opinion, the communists simply continued grabbing and oppressing one
>>country after another, shrugging off world opinion all along the way.
>>Some advocates of the UN have asserted that the "force of world public
>>opinion" is the UN's greatest strength. But it is a strength which has, in
>>practice, been mostly exerted against the free world.
>>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna
>>             Copyright 1997 - American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
>>///,        ////             Mark A. Smith
>>\  /,      /  >.
>> \  /,   _/  /.                  * * *
>>  \_  /_/   /.
>>   \__/_   <          UNITED STATES THEATRE COMMAND  
>>   /<<< \_\_           
>>  /,)^>>_._ \          email: msmith01@flash.net      
>>  (/   \\ /\\\       http://www.flash.net/~msmith01       
>>       // ````
>>         The Second Amendment was created so that we can sleep good 
>>                at night, and so that our politicians don't.

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail