Time: Tue Nov 05 11:40:24 1996 Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:30:26 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: LLAW: November 1996 Phyllis Schlafly Report (fwd) ======================================================================= LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing ======================================================================= <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