Time: Tue Nov 05 11:36:34 1996
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:30:26 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: NWLibs> November 1996 Phyllis Schlafly Report (fwd)
<snip>
> The Phyllis Schlafly Report
>
> -- Vol. 30, No. 4 * Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002 * November 1996 --
>
>
>
> Some Goals of the New World Order
>
> The phrase "New World Order" was not invented by President George
> Bush, but it was popularized by him in 1990 in order to
> resuscitate the then-moribund United Nations and make it a sponsor
> of his Gulf War. Like Saddam Hussein, the New World Order concept
> survived the Gulf War intact.
>
> "New World Order" has become a handy label to describe the various
> policies that challenge American sovereignty in the economic,
> political, diplomatic, and even educational venues. It's the
> underlying ideology behind trade policies that export American
> jobs and encourage illegal political contributions from
> foreigners. It's even the philosophy behind the trendy fads in
> public schools, such as multiculturalism, school-to-work, and
> global education.
>
> The 1996 presidential campaign generated a lot of talk about
> moving America into the 21st century. But neither candidate
> addressed the fundamental issue: Will average Americans then enjoy
> a higher or a lower standard of living? The crux of this issue is
> whether U.S. policy should give preference to American workers and
> their jobs over non-American workers and their jobs. This
> jobs/trade issue is fundamental to the hope of our citizens to
> live the American Dream.
>
> The Republican Platform adopted in San Diego (which some leaders
> boasted that they had not read, but which enunciated the views of
> grassroots Republicans) endorses a policy of "free and fair
> trade." The Platform's authors understood that the explosion in
> our trade deficit to an all-time high, including the $34 billion
> trade deficit with China alone, is "siphoning American wealth into
> the hands of foreigners." The Platform criticizes Bill Clinton's
> "hollow agreements" for subsidizing competition with U.S.
> industries and financing socialism in less developed countries,
> and accurately states that those agreements discriminate against
> U.S. industries and agriculture.
>
> Bob Dole appeared temporarily to endorse this message. In his San
> Diego acceptance speech, he said: "We must commit ourselves to a
> trade policy that does not suppress pay and threaten American
> jobs. By any measure the trade policy of the Clinton
> Administration has been a disaster; trade deficits are
> skyrocketing, and middle-income families are paying the price."
> Unfortunately, Dole failed to develop this popular theme on the
> campaign trail.
>
> "Free trade" has become the mantra of a strange-bedfellow
> coalition of old-right libertarians, Silicon Valley's nouveau
> riche supporting Clinton, multinational corporations riding the
> bulls in the stock market, politicians of both parties who receive
> contributions from the above, and those who are making such big
> money in faraway places like Indonesia and Korea that they can
> write checks for $200,000 and $400,000 to the Democratic National
> Committee.
>
> The advocates of free trade constantly try to paint themselves as
> "conservatives" who support less government and more free market;
> and they describe their opponents as favoring more government
> regulation. But that's false. Free trade was never the policy of
> conservatives or Republicans prior to Richard Nixon's dramatic
> opening to China. Nixon lost all claim to conservative credentials
> when he instituted price and wage controls and said "we are all
> Keynesians now."
>
> The benefits of what is called free trade are the direct result of
> federal trade and tax laws that are skewed to benefit some
> interests at the expense of others. These laws (mostly designed by
> highly paid lobbyists) have silently restructured our economy
> through trade treaties (falsely called "agreements" so they
> wouldn't have to muster a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate),
> high income and estate taxes on the middle class, and virtually
> unrestricted immigration.
>
> The result has been the destruction of a large part of our
> manufacturing base and the massive loss of jobs that can support a
> family. Whereas in 1955 one wage earner could support a family,
> the average household now requires both spouses to be income
> producers. This change in our social structure is as massive and
> important as the much-commented-on giant increases in divorce and
> illegitimacy rates.
>
> When Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich pushed NAFTA and
> GATT through Congress, the advocates of those treaties promised
> that Mexico would become a large and profitable market for U.S.
> exports. It has proved just the reverse. Our $16 million
> merchandise trade deficit with Mexico has hit an all-time high,
> and Mexican imports are putting American tomato, avocado, and
> citrus farmers out of business.
>
> Free-trade lobbyists have kept taxes high on the average worker in
> order to subsidize both imports of foreign products, which drive
> American industries out of business, and imports of foreign
> workers, who take jobs away from Americans. Entire industries have
> been rigged to hire foreign workers (often disguised as
> "temporary") on the false claim that there are no qualified
> Americans. Since 1990, six million legal immigrants have been
> brought into the U.S. work force, many in managerial and
> professional jobs. U.S. corporations find this profitable because
> they usually don't pay full-time wages and benefits. The most
> promising job prospects for Americans in the year 2000 are
> reported to be as cashiers, janitors, waiters, and prison guards.
>
> Wal-Mart today employs about the same number of workers who held
> good jobs with the big three automakers in 1975. But 30 percent of
> Wal-Mart employees work only part time, and the majority of its
> full-time workers earn only a dollar or two above the minimum
> wage, with no health benefits or pensions.
>
> Meanwhile, accountants and nurses are coming in from the
> Philippines, civil engineers to design roads and bridges from
> Iran, apparel industry workers from Cambodia and China, computer
> programmers from India, and health-care aides from Russia.
>
> ==========================================================
>
> An End to Nationhood?
>
> The ambitious plans of New World Order advocates go far beyond
> moving us into a global economy where American workers compete
> with Asians willing to work for 25 or 50 cents an hour. A
> political world order is also part of their agenda. The Republican
> Platform identified this goal by quoting the words of Bill
> Clinton's Rhodes scholar buddy, Strobe Talbott, who wrote in Time
> Magazine that "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all
> states will recognize a single global authority." (Time, July 20,
> 1992)
>
> The sovereignty issues show how out of touch the Republican
> leadership in Congress, led by Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, are
> with grassroots Republicans. Dole and Gingrich joined with Bill
> Clinton to ratify GATT in a lame-duck session in December 1994, an
> act which officially put the United States into the World Trade
> Organization (WTO), a sort of United Nations of Trade. The same
> bipartisan triumvirate put through the scandalous Mexican Bailout,
> which was the costly consequence of the 1993 NAFTA mistake.
>
> But the Platform (written by grassroots Republicans and not read
> by Bob Dole) promises that "Republicans will not subordinate
> United States sovereignty to any international authority," and
> specifically promises that "Republicans will not allow the World
> Trade Organization to undermine United States sovereignty."
>
> In its first case, the World Trade Organization ruled against the
> United States. Surprise, surprise! At issue was the Clean Air
> Act's strict limits on pollutants in gasoline, which Venezuela and
> Brazil were unable to meet. In the name of "free trade," they took
> their complaint to the WTO and won.
>
> The adverse WTO ruling was embarrassing to the Republican leaders
> in Congress who had promised conservatives that such an attack on
> our sovereign right to make our own laws would never happen. It
> was even embarrassing to President Clinton and his U.S. Trade
> Representative, Mickey Kantor, who had promised the liberals that
> the WTO would never diminish our environmental regulations.
>
> A global tax is another New World Order goal. U.N.
> Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali wants to finance the
> nearly bankrupt United Nations by imposing a global tax on foreign
> exchange transactions. A tiny rate of 0.5 percent would produce an
> incredible $1.5 trillion, while an even smaller rate of 0.05
> percent would produce $150 billion. He is even toying with
> imposing a surcharge of $1.50 on all international airline
> tickets. One of the chief promoters of these far-out notions for
> global taxes is the Clinton-appointed administrator of the U.N.
> Development Program, James Gustave Speth.
>
> Some claim that Boutros-Ghali is floating the global tax in order
> to shame the United States into paying the $1.4 billion the U.N.
> claims we owe. Some are suggesting that, if we don't pay up, the
> U.N. should cut off our U.N. voting rights, hit us with
> late-payment charges, and impose a ban on hiring U.S. citizens for
> U.N. jobs. But Americans don't think we are getting our money's
> worth from our payments to the U.N. Our assessments are 25 percent
> of the regular U.N. budget and 31 percent of the peacekeeping
> costs.
>
> The Republican Platform assures us that Republicans will not allow
> any international organizations to "infringe upon either the
> sovereignty of the United States or the earnings of the American
> taxpayer." Will Republicans stick by their word?
>
> The conviction of Army Specialist Michael New is another New World
> Order item that just won't go away. New was court-martialed and
> convicted for refusing to wear the U.N. uniform on a so-called
> "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia. The other 550 servicemen
> in his unit donned U.N. helmets, replaced their U.S. I.D. card
> with a U.N. I.D. card, and dutifully marched off to Macedonia,
> where Americans have no business being in the first place.
>
> When Specialist New's commander gave the U.N.-uniform order to the
> 550 troops on October 2, 1995 in Schweinfurt, Germany, the only
> authority he cited consisted of "U.N. guidelines," "National
> Command Authority," "U.N. Charter," "Domestic Law," "Commander in
> Chief," and "U.N. Security Council Resolutions." New argued that
> the order to alter his uniform was a violation of the Army's
> regulation against wearing any unauthorized insignia, decoration,
> medal or uniform. New said, "I am not a U.N. soldier. I am an
> American soldier."
>
> We wonder why the Clinton Administration didn't simply reassign
> New to some other duty, since the twice-decorated soldier has an
> exemplary record and was willing to obey any order to go anywhere
> in the world so long as he could wear a U.S. uniform. It seems
> clear that Clinton was determined to carry out this first step in
> transforming American soldiers into U.N. soldiers and didn't want
> to let one soldier stand in the way of taking America into the New
> World Order.
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Why No Defense Against Missiles?
>
> In the first Clinton-Dole television debate, Bob Dole let Bill
> Clinton get by with his boast that "no nuclear missiles are
> pointed at U.S. children." Dole could have retorted that a Russian
> general told CBS's 60 Minutes that he could retarget the powerful
> Russian ICBMs in a matter of minutes.
>
> The United States has no system capable of shooting down ballistic
> missiles, whether they are from Russia or some rogue nation.
> That's an appalling default of leadership, since the U.S.
> government's number-one constitutional duty is to "provide for the
> common defense."
>
> The reason we have no defenses against incoming ballistic missiles
> is our slavish adherence to the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile)
> Treaty. Written by Henry Kissinger and signed by Richard Nixon in
> 1972, it is today highly dangerous to U.S. security. It should
> have been held unconstitutional when it was signed because it
> pledged the United States government not to defend Americans
> against nuclear attack, despite the fact that national defense is
> the prime duty of our government.
>
> Thirty-one years ago in 1965, I was privileged to be escorted with
> a small group through NORAD, the great hole in a Colorado mountain
> where our government headquartered its systems designed to track
> any object that might attack our nation from the skies. It was
> awesome to view what American scientific genius had developed and
> to know that our U.S. Armed Services had such precise technology
> to track and warn of any unfriendly action from the bad guys of
> the world.
>
> After the tour was completed, the officer in charge took us into a
> small room and carefully closed the door for privacy. I'll never
> forget his words: "If NORAD receives information that the Soviets
> have launched a nuclear missile at the United States, do you know
> what we have to shoot it down with? Not a cotton-pickin' thing."
>
> I was shocked; and 31 years later in 1996, it is shocking that
> America still has no defense against enemy missiles. Despite the
> trillions of dollars we have spent on the military, despite all
> the offensive weapons we have built to kill civilians on enemy
> soil, we still have no way to shoot down incoming enemy missiles
> and save American lives.
>
> The theory behind the 1972 ABM Treaty was Mutual Assured
> Destruction, popularly known by its acronym MAD. Each of the
> superpowers was supposedly deterred because of the knowledge that
> a massive launch by one side would be followed by massive
> retaliation, and that would assure the destruction of both
> countries. MAD was based on the rationale that the leaders of the
> two superpowers were rational and would act from a mutuality of
> self-interest and deterrence.
>
> However, the biggest threat today comes from the "non-deterrables"
> (Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), countries that don't like us
> and behave in ways that we don't find rational and can't predict.
>
> Ronald Reagan tried to remedy our nation's nuclear nudity when, on
> March 23, 1983, he called for building a Strategic Defense
> Initiative (SDI). He asked the crucial question, "Would it not be
> better to save lives than to avenge them?" Ted Kennedy immediately
> ridiculed this as "Star Wars" and the liberal media, chanting
> those words like a Greek chorus, obligingly made sure that the
> false name stuck.
>
> Faced by the implacable opposition of the Democratic Congress and
> the media, Ronald Reagan was not able to build SDI. But his
> announced determination to go forward with developing and
> deploying an anti-missile system was the principal reason why he
> won the Cold War without firing a shot.
>
> The reasons why SDI has never been built are political (the
> liberals just don't like it and the Democrats don't want to give
> Reagan credit for it), technical (a slavish adherence to the 1972
> ABM Treaty), and false claims that it would be too costly.
>
> The rationale of the ABM Treaty is obsolete; it is a Maginot Line
> mentality. In 1972 the terrible ICBMs could only be built by the
> superpowers that had a sophisticated technological base. Now, 24
> years later, we are in the era of the "poor man's missiles" that
> can be built and launched relatively inexpensively, and might even
> be bought at bargain-basement prices from cash-hungry Russians,
> who still have over 9,000 strategic nuclear missiles and 18,000
> tactical nuclear weapons. The Russian political situation is very
> volatile, control over those weapons of mass destruction is
> uncertain, and some 25 nations are ambitious to join the nuclear
> club.
>
> The cost argument doesn't stand up, either. SDI wouldn't cost any
> more than the relatively inefficient systems we are currently
> using to protect limited, designated areas overseas. SDI's cost is
> not excessive compared to the cost of other protections such as
> air superiority (hundreds of billions for the F-14, F-15, F-16,
> F-18 and F-22), or command of the sea (hundreds of billions for
> aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines), or
> superior ground forces (tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, and
> helicopters). SDI can be paid for by transferring funds from less
> important federal purposes, including less effective military
> projects.
>
> Some people seem to think that the short-lived and victorious Gulf
> War is the model for all future wars. But just imagine how
> different it would have been if Saddam had had a long-range
> nuclear ballistic missile. Would we have dared to send our troops
> against Iraq if American cities were exposed to retaliation by the
> dictator President Bush described as a madman?
>
> Continuing to try to adhere to the ABM Treaty means imposing on
> ourselves restrictions that do not apply to potential enemies. The
> United States should withdraw from the ABM Treaty immediately, as
> permitted in Article XV, and then build the most effective,
> affordable defenses that current technology permits.
>
> Our government has taken the extraordinary step of closing off
> Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. to protect the President
> against any possible bomb threat, however remote. American
> citizens need protection, too, the kind of protection in their
> homes and cities that SDI will provide.
>
> ==========================================================
>
> China Doesn't Deserve MFN
>
> It is ridiculous to allow Communist China to enjoy the same
> trading privileges with U. S. markets that friendly countries
> enjoy, a status called Most Favored Nation (MFN). China has stolen
> billions (not just millions) of dollars worth of U.S. intellectual
> property, thumbed its nose at signed trade agreements, and sold
> our weapons technology to rogue dictators. China locks up citizens
> who dare to speak out for freedom and forces women to undergo
> late-term abortions. China continues to persecute Tibet, uses
> slave labor to produce goods for export, and shows contempt toward
> any self-government for Hong Kong. China even tried to threaten
> Taiwan's democratic election process by firing rockets at the
> island, and issued a veiled threat against Los Angeles.
>
> China's expanding economy is financed by a $34 billion trade
> surplus with the United States that has cost Americans 700,000
> jobs. This trade surplus is partially based on stealing our
> products (computer software, video films, musical recordings,
> compact disks, other intellectual property, books, etc.) instead
> of buying them. Pirated CDs and CD-ROMs are made in China in an
> estimated 31 government-licensed plants. China itself can use only
> about two percent of the CDs produced, so the rest go into the
> international market and cheat U.S. companies out of sales. China
> signed an agreement to stop this theft in February 1995, and
> reaffirmed its promises in 1996, but little has changed. China
> defiantly rejects the whole concept of copyrights and trademarks.
>
> China has made so much money from U.S. trade that it is trying to
> buy SS-18 strategic missiles, components and technology from
> Russia or Ukraine. SS-18s are the biggies that can reach the
> United States from a launch on the other side of the world.
>
> One of the most outrageous Chinese "businesses" was selling
> weapons at a 400 percent mark-up to U.S. big-city gangs that want
> to wipe out their rivals. It was a sophisticated worldwide
> operation that must have enjoyed the complicity of the Chinese
> government.
>
> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) finally did
> something useful. They arrested seven Chinese Communist agents for
> smuggling 2,000 AK-47 automatic assault rifles into the United
> States in violation of our gun control laws. Those arrested had
> direct links to China's Defense Ministry and Deng Xiaoping's
> son-in-law. To conceal the source of the weapons, the money had
> been laundered through Beijing's state-run bank in Hong Kong. In
> the 18-month U.S. sting operation, the Chinese discussed with our
> undercover agents the future sale of explosives, anti-tank
> rockets, and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft systems capable of
> knocking planes out of the sky. One Chinese boasted he could bring
> 300,000 AK-47s into the U.S. (New York Times, May 24, 1996, page
> A7)
>
> Selling all kinds of weapons is big business for Communist China.
> It has sold missiles to Iran and nuclear reactor technology and
> materials to make enriched uranium to Pakistan.
>
> The internationalist claque that continually calls for "free
> trade" ignores the fact that China has slapped a 30 percent tariff
> on goods it imports from the United States. In China, the ruling
> clique threatens to "punish" U.S. companies if we dare to
> criticize the $2 billion piracy of our intellectual property.
>
> Americans are looking for leaders who understand that the
> sovereignty issues are crucial to the continued freedom and
> independence of the United States.
>===========================================================================
=====
>
>Crisis in the Classroom: Hidden Agendas and Grassroots
> Opposition is an informative television documentary that will help
> you understand the key education issues and why they are so
> important for our children and our nation. 58 min. $25.00
> For your copy of this Eagle Forum Special Television Report,
> simply enclose a gift of $25 or more and send it to:
> Eagle Forum
> PO Box 618
> Alton, Illinois, 62002
> Or you may call our toll-free number to order your copy by credit
> card:
> 1-888-500-5262 or 618-462-5415
>
>
>http://www.eagleforum.org
>
>
>
>
>----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail