Time: Fri Jun 13 16:29:21 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17962; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:30:07 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:26:29 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "THAT FREEDOM SHALL NOT PERISH" (fwd) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <snip> > >> THAT FREEDOM SHALL NOT PERISH >> >> Volume 11, Number 7 - April 3, 1995 >> Volume 11, Number 7 - April 3, 1995 >> >> >> Special UN Issue >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ARMING THE UN >> by John F. McManus >> >> Top-Down Treason >> >>In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing >>principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point >>where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively >>strengthened U.N. Peace Force .... >> >> -- Freedom From War September 1961 >> >>When they first hear about the disarmament program our nation has been >>implementing for over 30 years, many Americans are incredulous that >>officials in the highest offices of our government would commit such a >>blatant act of treason. Yet, such a plan exists and is unfolding at an >>alarming pace. It calls for the United States to disarm itself and >>simultaneously build the military capability of the United Nations. >> >>It all began in September 1961, when President Kennedy formally presented >>the official U.S. disarmament program described in State Department >>Publication 7277. Entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program.for >>General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the program calls for >>the nations of the world -- including the U.S. -- to disarm, turn over >>their military might to the UN, and make the world body an unchallengeable >>military power. >> >>Disarmament enthusiasts have long called upon world leaders to scrap all >>weapons and eliminate the potential for war. But this program is not about >>the elimination of weapons, but about placing all military power in the >>hands of one global power. >> >>For several decades, pro-UN propaganda has held that furnishing the world >>body with enough power to "enforce peace" would benefit mankind and >>forestall the possibility of future wars. But there are some crucial >>questions that few consider: If the UN should become all-powerful, who >>would be left to prevent it from establishing its own brand of tyranny? If >>the UN were powerful enough to enforce peace, would it not also be powerful >>enough to enforce the will of its leaders on all mankind? >> >>America's national sovereignty is directly threatened by this program, >>because, in effect, it cedes U.S, independence to the world body -- in >>order, as most people have been led to believe, to prevent war. But the >>proper steps the U.S. should take to avoid war are to: 1) be strong enough >>to discourage attack; 2) stay out of the affairs of other nations; and 3) >>keep out of entangling alliances. >> >>The Kennedy Plan >> >>On September 25, 1961, President Kennedy addressed the UN General Assembly, >>declaring: "The program to be presented to this Assembly for general and >>complete disarmament under effective international control ... would >>achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a >>steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has >>abolished all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new >>United Nations Peace Force." >> >>As unbelievable as it may seem, our national leaders have been implementing >>this very same treasonous disarmament program for the past three decades. >>The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is part of it; the treaty banning America's use >>of outer space for defense is part of it; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation >>Treaty is also part of it. >> >>Following JFK's address at the UN, this program was rewritten in greater >>detail. Retitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions >>of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, it was >>presented by President Kennedy to an 18-nation disarmament conference in >>Geneva, Switzerland on April 18, 1962. The Blueprint didn't cancel any >>portion of its predecessor document. As stated in its foreword, it merely >>"elaborates and extends the proposals of September 25, 1961." >> >>When questioned about the Blueprint, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency >>General Council A. Richard Richstein confirmed in a May 11, 1982 letter >>that "the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal." >> >>When questioned by this author in late 1993 about the continuation of this >>disarmament program, Dr. William Nary, chief historian for the Arms Control >>and Disarmament Agency, confirmed: "The program has not been withdrawn and >>some of its steps have been implemented." >> >>Rendering Nations Powerless >> >>The Freedom From War program lists four overall disarmament "objectives," >>the first of which reads: >> >>The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their >>reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to >>preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace >>Force. >> >>This means no more U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps controlled >>by this nation for the purpose of defending our vital interests. All of our >>fighting men would be conscripted into a global "Peace Force" -- save for >>those who would be assigned to a national police force designed to maintain >>internal order. >> >>The second objective of this incredible program is: >> >>The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including weapons >>of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those >>required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal >>order. >> >>Not only would nations be required to disband their defense forces, but >>they would also be forced to divest themselves of all armaments. The UN >>will take no chances that weapons -- especially those of "mass destruction" >>-- might fall into the hands of UN opponents. >> >>Toward the end of this document, its text states: "The manufacture of >>armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed types and quantities >>to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal >>order." This means disarmament of civilians as well -- under international >>control. (More about UN designs to restrict private firearms ownership >>appears on page 23.) The United Nations wants no one to have the capability >>to defend his nation, himself, or his family from its designs. >> >>The third objective addresses the need for compliance with UN-imposed >>obligations. It calls for: >> >>The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament >>Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure >>compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations. >> >>The UN doesn't intend to take any chances. Therefore, this program calls >>for an "international" snooping agency empowered to "ensure compliance" >>with each of the above "obligations." >> >>Several existing UN creations have the potential of becoming exactly what >>this portion of the overall plan calls for -- including the International >>Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Disarmament Commission, and the peacekeeping >>arm of the Military Staff Committee. >> >>Whatever this supranational agency is called, it would, of necessity, >>operate with powers that supersede the laws and prerogatives of any >>government -- including the government of this nation. It would assist the >>UN in the enforcement of the UN's "international law." >> >>UN-Defined "Peace" >> >>The final objective of the 1961 plan calls for: >> >>The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international >>agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of >>peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. >> >>The peace being maintained would be in accord with the principles of the >>United Nations. As to what those principles might include, a quick look at >>Chapter VII of the UN Charter reveals that the "peace" organization retains >>for itself the power to determine what might constitute: 1) a threat to >>peace; 2) a breach of peace; or 3) an act of aggression. >> >>Whenever the UN decrees that "peace" is not being adhered to, it could then >>turn to Article 42 of the UN Charter to "take such action by air, sea, or >>land forces as may be necessary" to restore its idea of peace. Such a >>"peace" could be very costly in lives. >> >>The UN is not interested in the kind of peace normal individuals seek and >>desire. Its very Charter empowers it to enforce and maintain its unimpeded >>global rule with military action. >> >>Moreover, the UN has called for the very powers the U.S. has proposed for >>it. In 1978, the UN General Assembly adopted a Final Document that called >>for reducing national armed forces to a level "necessary to maintain >>internal order and protect the personal security of citizens and in order >>that States shall support and provide agreed manpower for a United Nations >>peace force." That "peace force" would have sufficient clout to >>"effectively deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of >>the purposes and principles of the United Nations." >> >>As noted earlier, the disarmament plan described in Freedom From War, and >>repeated in Blueprint for the Peace Race, continues as the official policy >>of the U.S. government. It is the clear intention of our leaders to >>implement every portion of this treasonous plan. >> >>Years ago, a Dallas-based editorialist referred to the three stages of this >>subversive plan and concluded, "One, two, three, and America's out!" This >>scheme must be exposed and our leaders must be stopped before it is fully >>implemented and U.S. sovereignty becomes a bitter memory. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing, >>Incorporated >> >>P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >>Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >>WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational >>purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial >>mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address >>reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> TREATIES VERSUS THE CONSTITUTION >> by William P. Hoar >> >> Which Law Is Supreme? >> >>One justifiable suspicion that has been expressed concerning UN "covenants" >>is that they have come to acquire power even over the U.S. Constitution. >>Misuse and misunderstanding of the treaty power granted to the President in >>cooperation with the Senate is a main reason for this extra-constitutional >>aggrandizement. >> >>Thomas Jefferson well advised, "In questions of power, let no more be said >>of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the >>Constitution." Yet, whereas the Founders spent great pains in framing the >>Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, few observers >>would deny that the Constitution is today more honored in the breach than >>the observance. The federal power grab has grown so obvious that there has >>developed a renewed interest in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves >>undelegated powers to the states or to the people. Would that there were >>also more concern with international seizures of control. >> >>The Constitution, under the Supremacy Clause, does hold that treaties are >>the "supreme law of the land." Did the Founders mean by this that, merely >>by entering into a treaty, the President could do what he was otherwise >>forbidden from doing? Common sense and the historical record contradict >>this view. >> >>Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, commented: "If >>the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely >>the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government >>is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton, who often >>disagreed with Jefferson, on this point held similarly that a "treaty >>cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which >>infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the >>United States." >> >>Nevertheless, a number of Supreme Court decisions, including Missouri v. >>Holland (1920) and U.S. v. Pink (1942), used treaties to undermine >>constitutional safeguards. In 1948, Frank Holman, president of the American >>Bar Association, began a campaign in earnest to protect the rights of >>Americans from treaty law. The doctrine "that the treaty power is unlimited >>and omnipotent and may be used to override the Constitution and Bill of >>Rights," said Holman, is "a doctrine of recent origin...." >> >>In response to the threat, Clarence Manion of Notre Dame Law School, along >>with the American Bar Association, a substantial number of other >>professional and patriotic groups, and most of the United States Senate, >>backed the so-called Bricker Amendment. First introduced in 1952, the >>Bricker Amendment was designed to limit treaty law, and would have >>reinforced constitutional protections. >> >>Although the Bricker Amendment seemed a shoo-in, the vigorous opposition of >>Dwight Eisenhower eventually beat back the measure in 1954, and a >>subsequent weaker amendment failed two-thirds passage in the Senate by a >>solitary vote. >> >>The original Bricker language declared that "a provision of a treaty or >>other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution shall >>not be of any force or effect." There can be little doubt that Eisenhower >>wanted to maintain, however wrongful the interpretation, the power to cut >>across the Bill of Rights. Why? >> >>Manion noted in his book, The Conservative American, that the Bricker >>Amendment would have run counter to any move to "surrender our sovereignty >>and our federal form of government through adherence by treaty to >>international organizations. As against the United Nations or other such >>supranational bodies, the Bricker Amendment would have imposed the same >>restrictions against the power of international organizations that the >>Tenth Amendment now imposes against our own federal government." >> >>The worst case did not play out in Reid v. Covert (1957), in which the >>Supreme Court properly held that an Executive agreement or treaty may not >>contravene a freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights or other amendments. >>However, beyond such limitations, the treaty power, noted Professor Burns >>Weston of the University of Iowa in the Encyclopedia of the American >>Constitution, "is perceived as a broad power." It extends "to all matters >>of 'international concern,' a phrase that some claim limits the treaty >>power, but that the courts have used to illustrate the power's broad scope. >>Ordinarily it is difficult to show that a treaty matter is not of >>international concern even in the presence of domestic effects." This >>contention was made as long ago as 1950 in the Truman State Department >>Publication 3972, which held that "there is no longer any real difference >>between domestic and foreign affairs." >> >>Internationalists don't want the U.S. to enjoy the protections adopted by >>our Founders, which is why they have eroded the Constitution, fought the >>insurance that would have been provided by the Bricker Amendment, and >>continue today to seek to tie the U.S. with so many UN bonds. >> >>If you fancy having such United Nations diktats as the "supreme law of the >>land," there is a good way to ensure it: You simply need do nothing at all. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing, >>Incorporated >> >>P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >>Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >>WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational >>purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial >>mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address >>reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> UN CLICHÉS >> by Robert W. Lee >> >> A Few Tired Bromides >> >>For half a century, proponents of the United Nations have parroted >>misleading clichés intended to short-circuit rational evaluation of the >>world body's inherent flaws and actual record. Following are some of the >>more well-worn bromides that have been used to justify, the existence of >>the UN -- and the reasons they make no sense. >> >>The UN is mankind's last best hope for peace. For five decades the UN has >>sponsored wars, passed one-sided or unenforceable resolutions, served as a >>forum for nations to publicly berate each other, and imposed selective >>justice that typically persecutes anti-Marxist countries while bolstering >>regimes run by terrorists, communists, and other collectivists. >> >>The UN is a war-making, not a "peacekeeping," organization. To label the >>UN's war-making proficiency as "peacekeeping" is equivalent to claiming >>that poisonous toadstools are nourishing mushrooms. After the UN Charter >>was ratified by the Senate in 1945, but before it went into effect, former >>Undersecretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico J. Reuben Clark Jr., one >>of the most astute international lawyers our nation has produced, drafted a >>cursory analysis of the document in which he asserted, "The Charter is >>built to prepare for war, not to promote peace .... The Charter is a war >>document not a peace document...." >> >>Clark concluded: "Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future >>wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, >>and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose >>the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military >>equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who >>do the fighting." The subsequent UN record, from Korea and Vietnam to the >>Persian Gulf and Somalia, confirm the prophetic truth of Clark's analysis. >> >>A federation of nations under the UN Charter is comparable to the >>federation of American states under the U.S. Constitution. The implication >>that federalism precludes wars was disproven by our own War Between the >>States, one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. It was fought despite >>the many factors the original 13 colonies had in their favor (a common >>language; similar manners, customs, and religious values; attachments to >>the same principles of government; etc.), none of which are found in the >>United Nations. >> >>But more important than the lack of common bonds among the members of the >>UN is the fact that the UN system is irreconcilable with the U.S. system. >>The U.S. system is based on the concept that rights come from God and that >>the purpose of government is to protect God-given rights. The UN does not >>recognize the supremacy of God and views itself as the source of "rights." >> >>Nowhere does power tend to become so concentrated, all-pervasive, and >>absolute as in government. And the bigger the government, the more the >>corruption. Needless to say, the biggest (and most corrupt) of all >>governments would be an economically collectivist world government with >>sufficient military power to enforce its decrees planet-wide. >> >>World government is necessary to solve global problems, since national >>governments have been unable to do so. It is hardly a surprise that >>national governments have failed to solve global problems, since they have >>also failed to solve their own domestic problems. Here in the United >>States, our federal government has created and/or sustained most domestic >>problems by increasing its power and resources under the guise of "solving" >>them. Governments don't solve problems; they create them. People, on the >>other hand, can solve problems if government keeps out of their way. There >>is simply no reason to believe that huge government entities at the >>international level can "solve" global problems any better than big >>national governments have "solved" such domestic problems as inflation, >>debt, crime, welfare, poverty, drug trafficking, health care, etc. >> >>If the nations of the world know more about each other, they will be less >>likely to go to war against each other. True enough, if what we learn is >>that a potential adversary is far stronger than we are. But the implication >>that increased knowledge decreases friction between parties depends on the >>circumstances. Few nations on earth understood each other better than did >>England and Germany, yet they fought bitterly in both world wars. >> >>The UN provides a useful forum for airing grievances, and when nations are >>talking, they are not warring with each other. Such reasoning is predicated >>on the faulty assumption that the only alternatives are talking or >>shooting. But as G. Edward Griffin has pointed out in his book The Fearful >>Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, the "best way to get yourself >>into a barroom brawl with a bunch of thugs is to go into the bar and start >>talking with them. The smart thing to do is to stay out and mind your own >>business!" >> >>Griffin explains, with a useful analogy, why traditional diplomacy is >>preferable to the UN "public forum" approach: "Consider what would happen >>if every time a small spat arose between a husband and wife they called the >>entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their complaints in >>front of the whole group. Gone would be any chance of reconciliation. >>Instead of working out their problems, the ugly necessity of saving face, >>proving points, and winning popular sympathy would likely drive them >>further apart. Likewise, public debates in the UN intensify international >>tensions. By shouting their grievances at each other, countries allow their >>differences to assume a magnitude they would otherwise never have reached. >>Quiet diplomacy is always more conducive to progress than diplomacy on the >>stage." >> >>Nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion, and hatred of other countries, >>which in turn raises the threat of war. This claim is based on the false >>premise that loving one's own country means hating all others. It makes as >>little sense as it would to maintain that a man who loves his own wife best >>hates all other women. As Teddy Roosevelt once wrote, "Patriotism stands in >>national matters as love of family does in private life. Nationalism >>corresponds to the love a man bears for his wife and children." >> >>UN efforts help to eliminate such roots of war as hunger, poverty, >>ignorance, and disease. Hunger, poverty, ignorance, and disease are indeed >>serious problems which merit concern and solution, but they are not the >>roots of war. Expensive armaments and large armies are required to fight a >>big war. Nations hovering on the brink of poverty and disease are too sick >>and hungry to produce sufficient armaments and effectively field armies, >>and too poor to keep a war going (unless their military preparations are >>assisted from outside by the affluent nations or the UN). >> >>In contrast, Germany's economic and social status ranked among the highest >>in the world prior to World War I, and there was little economic distress >>or unemployment in Germany at the start of World War II. History shows that >>it has been advanced nations, rather than backward countries, that have >>most disturbed world peace. >> >>The economic system best equipped to solve the problems of poverty, hunger, >>disease, illiteracy, etc., is free enterprise. It emphasizes the production >>of new wealth and the right of individuals to own and control private >>property, thereby enhancing their incentive to produce. The UN, however, >>champions collectivist economic policies which emphasize the redistribution >>of existing wealth. >> >>If the UN and its specialized agencies were empowered to take everything >>Americans have and redistribute it to the world's poor, overall misery in >>the world would scarcely be affected. There are simply too many of them, >>and too few of us. But if we could assist the backward nations in throwing >>off the shackles of socialism that are keeping them backward, and adopting >>instead the basic economic techniques that have been largely responsible >>for our own unprecedented abundance, we would be making an unparalleled >>contribution to world stability and well-being. The UN stands as a huge >>roadblock to such sorely-needed change. >> >>The UN concept of human rights is similar to that of our own Bill of >>Rights. There are essentially two basic concepts of the origin of rights. >>One holds that they derive from government, which means that government can >>modify or abolish them at whim. The other asserts that rights come from a >>source outside of government, and government's job is to protect (not >>infringe or abolish) them. As we have already indicated, the U.S. system is >>based on the former view and the UN system on the latter. >> >>This fundamental difference is perhaps best illustrated by comparing the >>First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights with Article 29, paragraph 3 of >>the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The First Amendment clearly >>states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the >>freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to >>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In >>stark contrast, Article 29, paragraph 3 of the Universal Declaration >>asserts (referring to the supposed rights and freedoms specified elsewhere >>in the document): "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised >>contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." >> >>Soviet spokesman Andrei Vishinsky was expressing the Universal >>Declaration's view of rights when he stated during the debate on its >>adoption: "The rights of human beings cannot be considered outside the >>prerogatives of governments, and the very understanding of human rights is >>a government concept." >> >>We must not turn back the clock to a period of isolationism. Withdrawal >>from the UN would not mean a retreat into so-called "isolation" anymore >>than absence of the UN prior to 1945 meant that the United States was >>"isolated." As William F. Jasper noted in his book Global Tyranny ... Step >>by Step, "Isolationism is a bogeyman internationalists trot out every time >>the American people begin to rebel against globalist, interventionist >>plotting. The truth is that America has never been 'isolationist.'" >> >>Indeed not. Writing in the March 27, 1965 issue of the newsletter >>Correction, Please! And a Review of the News, noted scholar Dr. Francis X. >>Gannon reminded his readers, "During our history as a confederation and >>Republic prior to 1945, we had established diplomatic relations with more >>than seventy-five powers, representative of every continent. Treaties, >>arrangements, and conventions between the United States and other powers >>embraced every conceivable relationship in international affairs: trade and >>commerce, arbitration, postal agreements, copyright arrangements, narcotics >>traffic, smuggling, exchange of official publications, naturalization >>agreements, visas, tenure and disposition of real and personal property, >>and communications." >> >>After listing specific examples of U.S. involvement throughout the world, >>from Latin America (Monroe Doctrine and Panama Canal) to the Pacific and >>Far East (Open Door Policy and Stimson Doctrine), and running back to the >>French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Dr. Gannon concluded by noting, "We >>engaged heavily in the import-export trade; American whaling vessels were >>familiar sights to foreigners; America's China trade became the foundation >>of many a familial financial empire; American scholars studied at European >>universities while scholars from all over the world came to the United >>States; American tourists and businessmen and technicians and missionaries >>travelled to all continents; and, the United States added to its population >>with immigrants from every country in the world." >> >>If you don't like the UN, with what would you replace it? The question is >>equivalent to a patient, upon being told by his doctor that he has a cancer >>that must be removed, asking, "But doctor, what will you replace it with?" >>When something is evil and dangerous, it is neither necessary nor wise >>spending time searching for a substitute. >> >>Nevertheless, there is an answer, and an obvious one: Why not try freedom? >>G. Edward Griffin explains that it would mean "freedom for all people, >>everywhere, to live as they please with no super-government directing them; >>freedom to succeed or to fail and to try again; freedom to make mistakes >>and even to be foolish in the eyes of others." Indeed, "until all nations >>follow the concept of limited government, it is unlikely that universal >>peace will ever be attained." >> >>An honestly intended federation of nations, united for the legitimate >>purpose of increasing the freedom of individuals, goods, and cultures to >>cross national boundaries, and to decrease governmental restrictions on >>individuals, is something most Americans could support wholeheartedly, >>since it would be in line with Richard Cobden's observation that "Peace >>will come to this earth when her peoples have as much as possible to do >>with each other; their governments the least possible." >> >>The UN is today, as it has been since its founding, a force pushing in the >>opposite direction. >> >>The pressure of world opinion that the UN brings can be a significant >>deterrent to conflict. The "world opinion" argument has been, from the >>start, a misleading hoax that has hamstrung the U.S. and the free world in >>many ways. It has, for instance, encouraged anti-American regimes around >>the world to fearlessly stick out their tongues at us, and vote against us >>in the UN, because they know we will not retaliate in any meaningful way >>that might offend "world opinion." >> >>The supposed moral pressure of world opinion elicits response only from >>those who are morally sensitive. The communists, for instance, are not >>morally sensitive, and throughout the Cold War they dismissed world opinion >>entirely unless it coincided with their goals. While the United States >>meekly revamped its foreign policy to meet the demands of an alleged UN >>world opinion, the communists simply continued grabbing and oppressing one >>country after another, shrugging off world opinion all along the way. >> >>Some advocates of the UN have asserted that the "force of world public >>opinion" is the UN's greatest strength. But it is a strength which has, in >>practice, been mostly exerted against the free world. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Copyright 1997 - American Opinion Publishing, Inc. >> >> >>==================================================================== >> >>///, //// Mark A. Smith >>\ /, / >. >> \ /, _/ /. * * * >> \_ /_/ /. >> \__/_ < UNITED STATES THEATRE COMMAND >> /<<< \_\_ >> /,)^>>_._ \ email: msmith01@flash.net >> (/ \\ /\\\ http://www.flash.net/~msmith01 >> // ```` >>======((`=========================================================== >> The Second Amendment was created so that we can sleep good >> at night, and so that our politicians don't. > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail