Time: Wed Nov 06 21:54:59 1996 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:48:48 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: ComLaw> 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 > ><<< Continued to next message >>> > > >======================================================================== >To subscribe: send a message to the Tab@hollyent.com >with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to >remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems? > email: Not Moderated@hollyent.com or listmgmt@hollyent.com >For information about this system and its lists email: info@hollyent.com >== >via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com > > > ==================================================================== [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