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