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