Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Move over Constitution, we've got U.N. charter: war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists | Friday, February 28, 2003 | By Diana Lynne

Posted on 02/28/2003 12:03:55 AM PST by JohnHuang2

A renown constitutional scholar predicts a United States-led war with Iraq could result not just in the loss of Saddam Hussein's sovereignty, but that of the U.S. as well, which in turn leads to the loss of personal liberty for individual American citizens.

It's not that Herb Titus is anti-war. He just thinks President George W. Bush is going about it the wrong way. Titus sees a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease the international community by working through the diplomatic channels of the United Nations Security Council.

Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

A one time dean of Regent School of Law and 1996 vice presidential candidate on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket with Howard Phillips, Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars. He's also an author and practicing attorney specializing in constitutional litigation and strategy.

"Presidents have substituted Security Council authorization for constitutional declaration of war," Titus told WorldNetDaily.

And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.

"Article I, Section 8 is inoperative," said Titus, referring to the Constitution's mandate that the decision to go to war come from Congress: "The Congress shall have power to ... declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

"Letters of marque and reprisal" refers to limited actions of war and was often used in the late 18th century to authorize surgical attacks on lawless Muslim pirates harbored by Tunisia and Libya. The "captures" cited as the third constitutional military option before Congress refers to the capture of naval vessels.

"The declaration of war is both a legal question and a practical decision," Titus explains. "At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, two factors were relevant: 'Do you have good, legal reason?' and 'If you have legal grounds for war, is it practical to declare war?'

"While presidents have not said as a matter of law that the U.N. charter trumps the Constitution, the emphasis on the practical matter [seeking U.N. approval so that military action against Iraq isn't viewed by the international community as aggression or U.S. imperialism] reinforces the legal claim of the internationalists," Titus continued.

He concludes that Congress has failed on both counts in allowing presidents to make both the legal and practical decisions, and is complicit in the presidents' giving up American sovereignty to the U.N.

Congress and war

Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.

In response to the Vietnam War, it passed the War Powers Act in 1973, which requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering any military action abroad, including limited airstrikes.

At least one congressman tried to adhere to the Constitution. Last October, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, proposed a declaration of war to his colleagues. Instead, Congress passed a resolution that authorized the use of military force against Iraq, provided the international community supports it.

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations Committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul said after his proposal was voted down. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be 'frivolous.' I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"It's an undeclared, illegal war. Not only do I object to the war," Paul told WorldNetDaily, "but I object to the way the president is going about it."

The Iraq resolution, which came through the International Relations Committee and was promoted by committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., was proposed by Bush.

"Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence," Hyde said in a statement released while the committee was deliberating the resolution. "To assume that these terrorists and others will remain unarmed by Saddam is an assumption with a deadly potential. ... The president has demonstrated his determination to act to remove this threat and has asked the Congress for an authorizing resolution. ... In the name of those brave souls, both living and departed, who purchased our freedom, let us now act," he urged.

Worse than declaring nothing, Paul maintains, is that Congress transferred the authority to go to war to the president.

"We should never have one man making the decision to send young men to war 6,000 miles from our shore," Paul told WND. "We still haven't admitted to the 150,000 suffering from Gulf War Syndrome – I'm convinced as a physician there is a syndrome. We shouldn't be doing this so casually."

As WorldNetDaily reported, a group of Democratic lawmakers, soldiers and families of servicemen agree with Paul and filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming war with Iraq would be illegal and unconstitutional, and accusing lawmakers of unlawfully ceding the decision to President Bush.

"The president is not a king," the group's lead attorney, John Bonifaz, said at a news conference announcing the suit. "He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a congressional declaration of war. Congress has not declared war."

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro dismissed the suit Monday, ruling the judicial branch can only judge the war policies of the other two branches of government when they're in conflict. In this case, Congress and the president are in agreement.

"If you want constitutional government," said Titus, "don't look to the courts for your salvation. Look to yourselves and who you're electing to office."

Bush is not the first commander in chief to be sued over his military orders. A similar lawsuit was filed against President George H.W. Bush before the 1991 Gulf War by 54 members of Congress. It was denied by a federal judge in December 1990, who ruled the lawmakers did not have legal standing.

WorldNetDaily reported in 1999 that 26 congressional members filed a lawsuit against former President Clinton for violating both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by allowing U.S. forces to participate in NATO air attacks against Yugoslavia. The suit maintained that, according to the War Powers Act, Clinton must seek congressional approval for the Balkan war if he wished to pursue it beyond 60 days.

U.N.: Higher authority?

Bush and other administration officials present Iraqi disarmament as the crucial next step in the "war on terror."

In his State of the Union address, Bush cited evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody that Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

Secretary of State Colin Powell subsequently laid out the Bush administration case in detail before the Security Council and congressional panels, claiming an al-Qaida cell based in Baghdad coordinates movement of people, money and supplies to and throughout Iraq and was responsible for the ricin plot in London and other planned terrorist attacks against countries including France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.

Titus asserts officials use the word "war" as a "rhetorical device" with no more meaning than the phrase "war on drugs" or "war on poverty." He said the term is designed to illicit an emotional response to silence detractors.

If the term were taken seriously, Titus thinks Bush should have submitted his cause for war in careful and specific form to members of Congress last fall just as Powell did for members of the Security Council. He argues Congress didn't act on the basis of specific evidence and that's why the resolution authorizes the use of force but doesn't outright declare war.

While the Iraq resolution enables Bush to abide by the War Powers Act, because "authorization of military force" is not "declaration of war," Titus concurs with Paul that war on Iraq does not pass constitutional muster.

So Bush – and presidents before him – instead seeks a "higher authority," says Titus, and subscribes to the rules of international law.

The U.N. charter was signed on Jun 26, 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on Oct. 24, 1945.

Although signed as a treaty, Titus said the charter was crafted more as a constitution for world government. Its preamble reads like the Constitution, referring to "we the people" as opposed to "we the member-nation governments." It also has an amendment clause similar to Article 5 that allows amendments to the charter approved by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

Titus argues because it's a global constitution, the U.N. charter is illegitimate because it created a supranational government that derived its powers not from the consent of the governed but from the consent of the peoples' government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of the charter.

Unlike the Constitution, the U.N. charter doesn't authorize war, only police acts to keep the peace. In fact, the charter's preamble states the main objective of the signatories was to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

This may, in part, explain the uphill battle Bush has faced in securing Security Council approval for the use of military force against Iraq.

Paul maintains "police acts" is merely "1984 newspeak" for war.

"Police acts are to keep the peace. But there's no war in Iraq right now. We can't go there to establish peace if there's no war," he said.

Four years ago, Paul founded The Liberty Committee, an organization committed to rolling back the "socialists' authoritarian agenda" at work in the national legislative process. Sixteen of Paul's House colleagues joined a liberty caucus. Titus serves as senior legal adviser for the group.

The group touts one example of its successes on its website.

It cites legislation that was thwarted in December 2001 that would have "accelerated the transformation of the U.S. military into the standing army of the U.N. – a long-sought goal of the world socialists."

Ironically, Hyde painted the Iraq resolution in terms of America asserting its sovereignty.

"For those convinced of Saddam’s murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe that is the wrong debate," he said in his statement last fall. "We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail."

Despite the rhetoric, Congress only equipped Bush with an authorization of military force, not a declaration of war.

The difference, say Paul and Titus, boils down to subscribing to the U.N.'s world constitution, instead of our own.

"I don't believe in resolutions that cite the U.N. as authority for our military actions," Paul said. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don't need U.N. permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the president full war-making authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our U.N. detractors."

The difference is also a question of whether the military force achieves victory, according to Paul, who maintains history bears witness to the importance of a declaration of war.

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," he said. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear.

"When you don't declare war for national security reasons, you wind up conducting war for political reasons and you don't get victory," he concluded.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cfrlist; communistsubversion; nwo; sovereigntylist; unlist
Friday, February 28, 2003

Quote of the Day by Sloth

1 posted on 02/28/2003 12:03:55 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Said it a long time ago, said it many times since again, will continue to say it: We never should have gone to the U.N. in the first place. A mistake we are now, I believe, fully realizing.
2 posted on 02/28/2003 12:36:58 AM PST by Kip Lange (The Khaki Pants of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
As Charles Krauthammer wrote in an article this morning, its absurd the most powerful nation on Earth has to beg non-entities like Angola and Guinea for permission to defend itself in the face of Saddam Hussein. The UN Security Council's writ is not holy gospel. We should really be getting out of the UN and reasserting the sovereignty we thought we won back in 1776 when national independence was in the eye of history a pipe dream at the time.
3 posted on 02/28/2003 1:39:46 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Up late again, huh? :-)

Isn't the use of the UN now simply an extension of what began as containment of Iraq via the UN 12 years ago? Because 12 years ago, we rescued a country without being directly attacked ourselves. I see this as a special circumstance of unfinished business that began multilaterally.

I could be wrong but I think Bush would never allow the UN to stand in the way of our own security and I think he's just about to prove it. I will admit, however, that I find the polls which demonstrate the majority of US citizens wanting UN approval to be frustrating. That will quickly dissipate after the next terrorist attack on our soil, however.

4 posted on 02/28/2003 3:26:58 AM PST by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
The President knows and we know, 9-11 can will most likely happen again, he is sworn to protect us the best he can. I also say to heck with the UN. The reason we are being fought as we are now is because the President put it on them when he talk to them and it is payback time for them.
5 posted on 02/28/2003 3:56:57 AM PST by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not. Any posturing by political and ideological parties is simply that.

Perhaps they are correct. While I may be or not be, favorable to this particular viewpoint, I still cannot dismiss the possibility. Sometimes one's designs can be seen in one's actions.
6 posted on 02/28/2003 4:10:52 AM PST by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The post-communist world socialist movement (Animal Farmers), including the most corrupt neo-fascists such as China, N.K., Cuba, Islamia, France, Russia, South Africa, and California are seething that GW ( aka voters persuant to our Constitutional rule of law) rejected the favored works of XXX42 Clinton(s) undermining American national sovereignty and security, such as Kyoto and NAFTA as implimented, and strategic defense technologies.

The Democrats with their UN comrades have embarked on their Long March to recapture the White House, ultimately for XX44 Hillary (before her menopause unkindly reveals her Leninist manliness), with Bill continuing as a twisted member of the UN's politburo.

Our Constitution, now lead by XY43 GW and defended by our minority patriotic citizens, stands in their way. When the fascist Democrat politburo recaptures our government's police powers, more treaties will be structured so that Americans' rights are sacrificed on the alter of "world peace".

The second American republic will be known as the Peoples'
Republic of America, with Hillary Rodham - President/General Secretary for life.
7 posted on 02/28/2003 4:30:30 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
By going to the UN, we demonstrated how ineffective that organization can be, and when we take care of (liberate) Iraq with or with UN endorsement, we will have domonstrated our sovereignty and independence, regardless of the outcome.
8 posted on 02/28/2003 4:44:06 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I agree with that, but by going to the UN we also gave Saddam plenty of warning, plenty of time to screw with world opinion, plenty of time to arm, move troops, and generally do things that may cost American lives. And that blood will not only be on the UN's hands, but ours, to a degree, because we set the stalling process in motion by going there in the first place.

I know, I'm being overly-pessimistic...I just hate the UN, and it will REALLY tick me off if this increases US casualties (or the casualties of our allies, but American citizens come first when you're an American).

That being said, I think you're right, and I don't think it will make military action in Iraq more costly. But it *could*, and that's what ticks me off. These folks are bartering with the lives of US citizens. That doesn't make me happy.
9 posted on 02/28/2003 4:58:00 AM PST by Kip Lange (The Khaki Pants of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Authority to employ armed force is not the issue.

Only the Congress of the United States can do this:

"the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

All the resources of the country are hereby pledged...

That is what our armed forces must have when they go to war. When they do not have it, the result is disaster.

And since the only master in this house is We, the People of the united States, only Our Representatives in Congress assembled can deliver it.

Not the UN, not NATO, not the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces-only Congress.

10 posted on 02/28/2003 5:00:30 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul; ex-snook; kidd; Snuffington; Inspector Harry Callahan; GeronL; sauropod; Robert Drobot; ...
The actions of the Bush administration in its push for war have done nothing but legitimize the U.N., undermining our freedom and security as a nation.
11 posted on 02/28/2003 8:38:27 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
12 posted on 02/28/2003 9:10:33 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List; *"NWO"
13 posted on 02/28/2003 9:11:01 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
14 posted on 02/28/2003 9:52:43 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK; backhoe; Libertarianize the GOP; Carry_Okie; 2sheep; 4Freedom; Alamo-Girl; AnnaZ; ...
I've been thinking about how much the coverage of these votes has hammered home to the sheeple some notion that the UN treaties are ALL to be considered moral and for the common good. Thinkng specifically of CEDAW.
15 posted on 02/28/2003 3:03:12 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
It is truly disheartening to see such a large portion of the population falling for the old "good cop - bad cop" (starring Bush, Clinton, and Bush) ruse.

Good analogy

Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not.

I have to come to agree with this based on my reading and observations.

16 posted on 02/28/2003 5:18:23 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
The actions of the Bush administration in its push for war have done nothing but legitimize the U.N

They have been telling us that Iraq is a threat ever since 9/11.

As a result of scaring people, they've managed to massively increase the size and power of the federal government. But all of this legislation did nothing to deal with Iraq.

Instead, nothing had been done about Iraq.

What is wrong with this picture?

The only reason I can think of is the legitimization of the UN.

17 posted on 02/28/2003 5:21:53 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
18 posted on 02/28/2003 7:15:47 PM PST by GailA (THROW AWAY THE KEYS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

They can debate all they want, Saddam Hussein is finished

war maneuvers play into hands of internationalists

We'll see after the UN waffles, and we do it anyway. Yeah, that's going to strengthen the UN.

19 posted on 02/28/2003 7:43:01 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (The UN is irrelevant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Titus sees a hidden danger in the Bush administration's need to appease the international community by working through the diplomatic channels of the United Nations Security Council.

This was done to help Tony Blair, not to appease the international community.

Security Council members in New York continue to debate proposals on the table that range from declaring Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 1441 and invading now, to giving Hussein another six months to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

We've already said repeatedly that we don't need another resolution.

Titus is considered one of America's leading constitutional scholars.

I've heard the same thing siad about Al Franken and Michael Moore. So what.

And in doing so, he argues, Bush and his predecessors play into the hands of internationalists who assert only the U.N. can authorize war and view the U.N. charter as trumping the U.S. Constitution.

Let the UN say that we can't go to war with Iraq, and then see what happens when we do. Remember all of those references about being 'irrelevant'.........they will be just that.

20 posted on 02/28/2003 7:51:45 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (The UN is irrelevant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; Mulder
Some of you need to see an opportunity when it presents itself.
21 posted on 02/28/2003 8:04:24 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (The UN is irrelevant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; Mulder
I'll base what I say on a few things:

We are going to war. You don't put 200,000 men in the desert to sing songs around a campfire.

There is a timeframe in which we will be going.......and if it's altered, it won't have anything to do with the United Nations. Turkey will be the cause of any delays, as war plans may change based on that particular situation.

The only way the United Nations is going to be strengthened is if we call 200,000 soldiers back.........and isn't going to happen folks.

The UN is in a position where they either vote against the United States, and demonstrate for all to see that they have no authority over us, or they suddenly decide to change course, in which case it is clear that they are backing down, as they should.

So all of these pronouncements about how we are subjugating ourselves to the United Nations will mean nothing when we roll into Baghdad.........and we will be doing just that.

22 posted on 02/28/2003 8:24:55 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (The UN is irrelevant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; Mulder
........and after we roll into Baghdad, and proceed to display for the world all of Saddam's goodies, those things that Blix and the impotent UN wouldn't have found in 100,000 years, put the people of Iraq on TV thanking the United States for not listening to the gutless French and all the rest, take the energy you would have conserved at that point and proceed to beat the United Nations, France, and yes, our own Democrats and liberals mercilessly.
23 posted on 02/28/2003 8:32:45 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (The UN is irrelevant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange

Only UNamericans put the UN before America!

24 posted on 02/28/2003 9:07:57 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madfly
You know, the sad thing is, I wouldn't have problems with U.N. treaties if the other signatories had the same duties and obligations, and observed them. Just like I don't have problems with gun control if criminals abide by it. And I don't have problems with judicial review if judges read the Constitution's plain language to mean what it SAYS.

I wish I could say I'm still anti-military force, but I'm not against using military force in Iraq any more. I don't think we can afford to be. If we back down now, in the face of U.N. intransigence, Titus' comments notwithstanding, I believe we actually empower the U.N. and Iraq. If we don't bomb Saddam to a pulp, we will have set him up to be THE Islamic leader for years to come.

Even Pat Buchanan, who is still against the use of military force, admits that we're damned if we do or don't at this point. He'd rather we didn't. I'd rather be Machiavellian, and be feared, since it's far too obvious we won't be loved.

God forbid we should actually follow the Constitution and declare war. The War Powers Act is a Johnson-era anachronism that everyone agrees is wrong, but both parties use to avoid their Constitutional duties, to America's detriment.
25 posted on 02/28/2003 9:24:07 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (U.N. out of U.S.! (yes, that order is correct!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"If you want constitutional government," said Titus, "don't look to the courts for your salvation. Look to yourselves and who you're electing to office."

This pretty much tells it all!
26 posted on 02/28/2003 9:48:56 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bush wants to prove that the UN is irrelevant, before Bill Clinton can take his seat as Sec. General. Can you imagine the fits the Bush admin. would have if they had to send Powell before the UN, with Bill Clinton at the helm? Not to mention, down the road, when Hillary is elected... then she really would be co-president... Bill, President of the World, she, President of America.
27 posted on 02/28/2003 9:58:09 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife (Lurking since 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
"For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe that is the wrong debate," he said in his statement last fall. "We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail."

I'm totally convinced of Saddam's intentions. No question about that. I also agree that as a nation we have the right to defend ourselves with or without the UN's approval.

28 posted on 02/28/2003 11:04:52 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mulder; David Isaac
David Isaac:
Their have been those that have argued for years that there has been only one political battle in America. That being, the battle between those who wish to have a one-world government and those who do not.

I have to come to agree with this based on my reading and observations.

      If any man have an ear, let him hear.
29 posted on 02/28/2003 11:51:05 PM PST by Celtman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exodus; u-89
I'm not sure if you two have seen this or not. You may find it very interesting.
30 posted on 03/04/2003 8:02:23 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Cacique; firebrand; rmlew; Dutchy; StarFan; nutmeg; RaceBannon; hot august night; ...
Read this one ping.
31 posted on 03/04/2003 8:08:32 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; Black Agnes; nutmeg; TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
The Lucis Trust and the United Nations seem very innocuous on the front but their agenda is the ruination of souls and the conversion of the world.

The Lucis Trust is on WOR radio, New York, New York City's 2nd-Largest AM Radio Station WOR Radio 710 AM on you dial every Sunday from 7:30 am - 8 am. I happened to stumble on it one morning and have been researching it for a few weeks now. New Age and Satan Worship.

Here are some links

Teaching God's children to worship "Divine Nature"

The Earth Charter

UNESCO: A Budding Global School Board

Rebutting Rockefeller

The European Union's Stealth Attack on Religion ____________________________________________________

The Catholic Church is against Communism and Socialism, Make sure the socialists do not take over; they are working from within the church and are part of the media and will stop at nothing from destroying the Church.
DECEMBER 28, 1878
DECEMBER 8, 1849
Encyclical of Pope leo XIII on Christian Democracy
January 18, 1901
Part of the 45 Goals of Communism
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Lucis Trust - The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations
UN Logo

33 Segments surrounded by sprigs of acacia
'Welcome to the United Nations. It's your World'...

By, Atrayu

The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations

The Lucis Trust

UN Meditation Room The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.

At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 866 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.

Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.

The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.]

Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.]

To this end, the Lucis Trust, under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a group called 'World Goodwill' - an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, October/November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.]

But the esoteric work inside the UN does not stop with such recognized occult groupings. Much of the impetus for this process was initiated through the officership of two Secretary-Generals of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (held office: 1953-1961) and U Thant (held office: 1961-1971) who succeeded him, and one Assistant Secretary-general, Dr. Robert Muller. In a book written to celebrate the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin (and edited by Robert Muller), it is revealed "Dag Hammarskjöld, the rational Nordic economist, had ended up as a mystic. He too held at the end of his life that spirituality was the ultimate key to our earthly fate in time and space". [Robert Muller (ed.), The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation (Miranana, 1983), p.304.]

Sri Chinmoy, the New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN, wrote: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".

You can find out much more about them and how they're involved with the work of the United Nations by following their link "World Goodwill" at the top of their home page.

The Aquarian Age Community

This Website is sponsored by the United Nations and the whole NWO philosophy is there. The page which explains the work of the Aquarian Age Community, as they call themselves, has this proud quote at the header of their page at

Such a grandeur is ahead!
Such a great step awaits a fiery affirmation.
Our teaching and the affirmation of the Higher
Principles will reveal so much that is great to humanity!
A great period is drawing near: Thus we do create together.

Fiery World
Vol. III, par. 149

Amongst the many 'enlightening' pages in this website, you can easily find 'fascinating' articles entitled:

"The New World Order and the Work of the UN"

"The World Spiritual Teacher, the Esoteric Community and the United Nations"

Preparing the Way for the Reappearance of the World Spiritual Teacher, the Work of the United Nations and the World-Wide Esoteric Community and many more articles.

This is not Christian theology but New Age paganism. You can also read the NWO quotes I posted, further down this page. Here's another by Curtis Dall, FD Roosevelt's son in law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father in Law:

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations One World Money group... Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

The UN is but a long range, international banking apparatus nearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One World Revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market... The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."


Under the U.N. Gavel
By Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-ID 

At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."

Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).

Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.

While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).

President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?

In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?

The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?

Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?

Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.

32 posted on 03/04/2003 9:34:21 AM PST by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
International Criminal Court Index

Don't say that we weren't warned.

Put "ICC" in the Search Engine and see what comes up.,7369,783175,00.html

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

Wake Up! Enemy forces are usurping control!

Paul Joseph Watson

"'It can't happen here' is number one on the list of famous last words"
David Crosby

We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

THAT quotation and the following - and many others like them - clearly demonstrate that the words "new world order" are deadly serious and furthermore, have been in use for decades. They did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other."
Myron Fagan

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."
George Herbert Walker Bush

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans. "
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)

"What is important is to dwell upon the increasing evidence of the existence of a secret conspiracy, throughout the world, for the destruction of organized government and the letting loose of evil."
Christian Science Monitor editorial, June 19th, l920

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties."
New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Winston Churchill, stated to the London Press, in l922.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world."
Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semioccult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I."
British military historian MajorGeneral J.F.C. Fuller, l941

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."

Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
Senator William Jenner, 1954

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable"
Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system ,they will rule the future."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."
Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship."
Former Congressman John Rarick 1971

"The directors of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation."
The Christian Science Monitor, September 1, l961

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government."
Harpers, July l958

"The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow."
Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

"The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world."
M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands."
Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."
H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)

"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual."
Excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'"
Excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in The New York Times (October 1940)

"If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order."
The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

"New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor"
Title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."
Text of article in The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)

"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God."
American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in The New York Times (December 1942)

"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper."
Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny? (1944)

"He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order."
Excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in The Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

"Alchemy for a New World Order"
Article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'"
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962)

"The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order."
Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order.'"
Excerpt from an article in The New York Times (February 1972)

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species."
Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order."
Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975)

"At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order."
Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)

"A New World Order"
Title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order."
Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms."
Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

"We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace for the post-war period."
Richard Gephardt, in The Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long."
President George Bush (January 1991)

"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council."
Excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in The New York Times (January 1991)

"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a 'new world order' based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court."
George McGovern, in The New York Times (February 1991)

"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier."
William Safire, in The New York Times (February 1991)

"How I Learned to Love the New World Order"
Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

"How to Achieve The New World Order"
Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund."
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)

"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State"
Title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in The Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

"The new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all."
Nelson Mandela, in The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important "for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order."
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in The New York Times (April 1995)

The 45 Goals of Communism

The forty-five "communist goals" listed below appeared in the Congressional Record of January 10, 1963. In both WWI and WWII the American Government fought on the side of the Communists.

Despite the "cold war" that followed, the goals of the communists were steadfastly imposed upon the American people. Ask yourself Americans, what kind of leaders have you elected?
How could it be that Americans so blindly followed corrupted politicians?

How can Americans even assume that they are still a free people? Men who elieve that they are free when in reality they are mere slaves are to be pitied more than those who know that they are slaves.

These 45 communist goals are a matter of public record. Wake up people, wake up and see to it that your fellow citizens wake up also! Those hiddeous men who have sold out the entire American contintent and its people have made their goals "current". Read them here now:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

24 Reasons to Oppose NATO

(1) NATO is a creature of the Cold War and should be abolished, not expanded.

(2) NATO's official military doctrine reserves for itself the right to use nuclear weapons despite the fact that in 1996 the World Court made such use, or threat, illegal. NATO's "first use" nuclear weapons policy means it is willing to use nuclear weapons even when none have been used against them. The use of nuclear weapons contravenes International Humanitarian Law because civilian deaths would be massive and indiscriminate. NATO's nuclear weapons also pose the risk of environmental catastrophe, including the global holocaust of "nuclear winter." NATO's nuclear weapons policy also contravenes the Nonproliferation Treaty (to which all NATO members are signatories) that requires all states to press quickly to abolish nuclear weapons. NATO member states (US, UK and France) now have more than 9,000 nuclear warheads in active service, about 60% of the world's nuclear arsenal. These three NATO states have committed some of their nuclear weapons to NATO for its use in war. NATO itself maintains between 60 and 200 nuclear weapons at airbases in Western Europe. NATO's nuclear weapons and the threat of their use are a means of coercion and intimidation, especially against states that do not possess these weapons.

(3) NATO's powerful core members (the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Spain) have a long history of controlling vast empires. Former colonies of these NATO countries -- today's Third World -- still suffer from tragic economic inequalities resulting from hundreds of years of imperialism imposed by nations that are now members of NATO. Transnational corporations controlled by economic interests in NATO countries continue to dominate these former colonies under a neoliberal economic system now labeled "corporate globalization."

(4) According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, about 80% of the world's total military equipment was produced by NATO members in 1996. The following NATO members are among the world's top ten military producers: the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Canada. The U.S., U.K. and France alone contributed about 70% of world's total arms production for that year.

(5) After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant and needed a reason for its continued existence. NATO therefore escalated its efforts to foment ethnic wars in the Balkans in order to create excuses for its own military interventions in the region. NATO's interventions -- so-called "humanitarian wars" -- were then sold to the public as a means of settling conflicts between ethnic groups. NATO's real purpose is to expand the colonial spheres of influence of its member states and their corporate allies.

(6) NATO waged a war of aggression against Yugoslavia that was illegal under its own Charter and various international laws.

(7) NATO forces used 1,200 warplanes and helicopters to fly 35,000 combat missions against Yugoslavia. It dropped 20,000 bombs and missiles containing 80,000 tons of explosives on that country. Contrary to international law, NATO targeted civilian infrastructure, including over 1,000 targets of no military significance, such as: schools, hospitals, farms, bridges, roads, railways, waterlines, media stations, historic and cultural monuments, museums, factories, oil refineries and petrochemical plants.

(8) NATO's illegal bombing campaign severely impacted the health of Yugoslavia's civilian population. Thousands of civilians were killed, at least 6,000 were injured and countless others, especially children, suffered severe psychological trauma.

(9) According to the UN Environmental Program, NATO's bombing campaign triggered an ecological catastrophe in Yugoslavia and the surrounding region.

(10) In its war against Yugoslavia, NATO used weapons that are prohibited by the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Charter, such as depleted uranium missiles that are radioactive and highly toxic weapons with long-term, life-threatening health and environmental consequences, and anti-personnel cluster bombs designed to kill and maim (that contravene the "Ottawa Process on Landmines" because many "bomblets" do not explode during initial impact). NATO continues to stockpile these prohibited weapons for use against civilian populations in future wars.

(11) After its bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO refused to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as required by United Nations resolution 1244. Instead, NATO converted the KLA into the Kosovo Protection Force supposedly to maintain peace and order in NATO-controlled Kosovo. Under the watchful eye of 40,000 NATO troops, the revamped KLA terrorists ethnically cleansed the area of 250,000 people who were not of Albanian heritage (as well as some ethnic Albanians loyal to Yugoslavia). During NATO's occupation, 1,300 citizens have been killed and another 1,300 have been reported missing. Kosovo's remaining minorities have no freedom of movement, live in ghettoes and face frequent terrorist attacks and property destruction.

(12) NATO appointed Agim Ceku, an alleged war criminal, as commander of the Kosovo Protection Force. Ceku, an Albanian Kosovar, led the Croatian army's "Operation Storm" that ethnically cleansed the Serbian population from their ancestral lands in Croatia. If the Hague were to pursue an indictment of Ceku, and other such terrorists, it would be a major embarrassment to their NATO bosses.

(13) As an occupying colonial power, NATO forces helped to enforce the cancellation of election results in Bosnia, shut down the offices and transmission towers of media stations that were critical of NATO's presence and seized the assets of political parties that refused to cooperate with them.

(14) The exploitative behavior rampant in military culture is exemplified by the actions of NATO troops based in the Balkans. For example, NATO troops fuel the demand for prostitution in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The women who service NATO troops live in deplorable conditions and are frequently held against their will by local captors. When evidence of UN or NATO involvement in this trade has surfaced, implicated officers have been discharged and sent home but no criminal proceedings have ever been initiated against them.

(15) NATO has been a prime source of destabilization in Macedonia by giving military assistance to Albanian terrorists there. The London Times (June 10, 2001) reported that NATO's appointee to the Kosovo Protection Force, Agim Ceku, sent 800 KLA troops to Macedonia to aid the nascent Albanian insurgency there. This June, NATO troops intervened to evacuate KLA fighters when Macedonian forces closed in on the rebels near Aracinovo. German media reports state that NATO's evacuation was ordered because 17 former U.S. military personnel -- hardened by years of Balkan fighting and working for a private U.S. mercenary group -- were among the KLA terrorists. NATO has also used diplomatic means to pressure the Macedonian government to succumb to Albanian demands.

(16) NATO's aggressive policy of expansion into Eastern Europe severely threatens international stability. With NATO's annexation of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland now complete, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have declared an interest in joining the NATO juggernaut. NATO has also set its sights on penetrating even further into former Soviet spheres of influence by trying to encompass Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and the Ukraine. NATO's intention to press beyond the former borders of the Soviet Union is dangerously confrontational and risks provoking war with Russia.

(17) NATO's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is a means of integrating the military forces within those countries under NATO (and largely U.S.) control As military units within NATO, the armed forces of new NATO member states must submit to demands for standardization of military training, weapons and other military equipment. Requirements that new members standardize their military equipment to NATO's exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to U.S. and European military industries that profit greatly from these expanded export markets.

(18) New NATO member states may also lose sovereignty over other important aspects of their armed forces, such as the command, control, communications and intelligence functions, which also risk being subsumed under the auspices of NATO standardization.

(19) The reasons for NATO's expansion eastward are largely economic. For instance, NATO's military access and control over Eastern Europe helps Western European corporations to secure strategic energy resources such as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. The U.S. and Western European corporations will greatly benefit from NATO's control of the oil corridor through the Caucasus mountains. NATO wants its troops to patrol this pipeline and to dominate the Armenian/Russian route to the Caspian Sea. The Caucasus also link the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in the former Soviet Central Asia republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Billions of dollars in oil may someday flow through these corridors to Western Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.

(20) NATO's growth is not only a provocation to Russia, it also threatens the security of China and other Asian states that may respond in kind by increasing their military spending, thus diverting resources from the essential needs of their citizens. NATO's expansion may eventually provoke an anti-NATO alliance in Asia, further destabilizing peace and leading to possible future wars.

(21) As part of the "NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative," NATO member states have committed themselves to increase their military abilities for "power projection, mobility and increased interoperability." This will require significant additional military expenditures. European NATO countries have already increased their expenditures for military equipment by 11% in real terms since 1995. Meanwhile, military budgets in the U.S. and Canada have also increased over the past two years. The military budgets of NATO countries amounted to about 60% of the world's total military spending (US$798 billion) for the year 2000. Rather than focusing on such genuinely humanitarian priorities as providing food, housing, health care, education, environmental protection and public transportation for their populations and the rest of the world, NATO is intent on increasing their military budgets for future interventions even farther afield.

(22) The testing and training conducted by NATO to prepare for war, also has numerous negative impacts on people and the environment. NATO's war preparations include military exercises, the training of pilots and the testing of weapons and warplanes. For instance, low level flight training areas and bombing ranges in Nitassinan threaten the traditional lifestyle of many in the Innu Nation. Their unceded territory in Quebec and Labrador is being turned into a military wasteland by NATO test flights. NATO nations also carry out dangerous bombing practices on Vieques Island, off Puerto Rico.

(23) In the late 1940s-early 1950s, at the bidding of the CIA, NATO helped to set up secret paramilitary, anti-communist cells in at least 16 European states. Originally called Operation "Stay Behind," this network of guerrilla armies was created to fight behind the lines in case of a Soviet invasion. It was codified under the umbrella of the Clandestine Co-ordinating Committee of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (which became NATO). These clandestine armies were condemned by the European Union in a resolution (Dec. 22, 1990) that blamed the CIA and NATO for their 40 year role in overseeing this covert operation. Widely known by the code name for the Italian campaign (i.e., "Operation Gladio") these organizations, which the EU feared may still have been operating in 1990, were accused of illegal interference in political affairs, conducting terrorist attacks, jeopardizing democratic structures and other serious crimes.

(24) Key NATO representatives have interfered with internal electoral/political developments in Europe. Although recent elections in Albania were fraught with irregularities and fraud (ballot box stuffing, ghost voters, selective disenfranchisement) NATO General Secretary George Robertson pronounced the election fair and legitimate. Earlier this year, another NATO spokesperson openly threatened that if the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (the party of former premier Vladimir Meciar) entered a coalition government, Slovakia would not be welcomed into NATO or allowed early European Union membership.

NATO’s Terror Campaign

NATO’s "victory" over what remains of Yugoslavia offers even less cause for patriotic celebration than the Spanish-American War. The U.S.-led terror campaign against Yugoslavia pitted the massed assets of the world’s largest and wealthiest nations against a country the size of Vermont,
whose gross domestic product is smaller than that of Idaho. Compounding this indecency is the fact that the NATO leadership collective chose not to engage the military assets of our "enemy," but instead focused on Yugoslavia’s civilian population in what has to be considered an act of international terrorism.

According to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), who was a bomber pilot in World War II, it is perverse even to refer to the campaign against Yugoslavia as a war. "They never came to war with us," Senator Stevens told reporters at a Washington, DC breakfast meeting in early July. "We just bombed the hell out of them until they signed an agreement. We had 780 million people [in the NATO alliance] attacking 20 million people, and they finally came to their knees.... [After] defeating 20 million people the way we defeated them, I don’t think that’s something we should go around holding our head high in the air [about] and saying we’re superior...."

"They Needed Some Bombing"

The chief author of the Yugoslav terror campaign was Bill Clinton, and the effort displayed his distinctive combination of arrogance, mendacity, cowardice, and bullying. In a videotaped speech broadcast into Serbia the day after the war began, the impeached President insisted: "I cannot emphasize too strongly that the United States and our European allies have no quarrel with the Serbian people.... The NATO nations have tried to avert this conflict through every means we knew to be available. Each of us has ties to Serbia. Each respects the dignity and courage of the Serb people.... I call on all Serbs and all people of good will to join with us in seeking an end to this needless and avoidable conflict."

Given that the source of these statements was Bill Clinton, it is not surprising that they are mostly penetrable lies - all except for the description of the war as "needless and avoidable." As has been previously noted in these pages ("Why the Bombing?" July 19th issue), "Appendix B" of the Rambouillet "peace" agreement amounted to an ultimatum, demanding that the Serbian government submit to the occupation of its country by an international "peacekeeping" force. During the Rambouillet conference, one Clinton Administration official explained to reporters: "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They needed some bombing, and that’s what they’re going to get."

After the 78-day bombing campaign, with much of Serbia’s infrastructure - including bridges, hospitals, schools, and power plants - in ruins, Mr. Clinton announced that Serbia would be excluded from a proposed Balkan reconstruction program. "What the Serbian people decide to do, of course, is their own affair," stated the President in a June 25th press conference. "But they’re going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in Kosovo. They’re just going to have to come to grips with it. And they’re going to have to get out of denial.... And then they’re going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not."

False Images

Invoking the image of "all those tens of thousands of people … killed, and all those hundreds of thousands of people [who] were run out of their homes … all those little girls [who] were raped, and all those little boys [who] were murdered" by Serb forces in Kosovo, Mr. Clinton concluded: "If [the Serb people] think it’s okay, they can make that decision. But I wouldn’t give them one red cent for reconstruction if they think it’s okay, because I don’t think it’s okay, and I don’t think that’s the world we’re trying to build for our children."

In other words, it appears that Mr. Clinton does have a "quarrel" with the Serb people, whom he insists on holding accountable for the actions of Slobodan Milosevic’s regime. Mr. Clinton’s statements presuppose that the calculated destruction of Serbia’s civilian economy and infrastructure is justified by atrocities allegedly committed by that nation’s government against Albanians in Kosovo. Nothing in U.S. law or in Western just war tradition supports the notion that it is right to "punish" an evil ruler by terrorizing and slaughtering his subjects. Furthermore, the parade of atrocities cited by Mr. Clinton has proven to be largely a work of embellishment, if not outright propaganda.

This is not to say that the Serbian paramilitary and regular Army units deployed in Kosovo are blameless. Ben Works, head of the Strategic Research Institute of the United States (a private intelligence consulting firm), who has analyzed Balkan affairs for more than a decade, told The New American: "It’s pretty clear that there is a pattern of war crimes by Serb forces in Kosovo. It’s by no means of the magnitude that NATO officials have suggested, and there have been plenty of outrages committed by all sides - including NATO. But it would be dishonest to say that the Serb forces in Kosovo are completely innocent."

Canadian photojournalist Paul Watson was one of the few Western reporters who covered the Kosovo tragedy on-site. In an interview with CBC radio’s As It Happens program, Watson testified: "I have spoken personally to people who have been ordered to leave their homes by police in black. I’ve also spoken to people who are simply terrified.... I don’t think that NATO member countries can, with a straight face, sit back and say they don’t share some of the blame for the wholesale depopulation of this country." While Serb forces were doing some terrible things, Watson explained, there was no evidence of systematic, genocidal "cleansing." "It is very hard to hide an anarchic wholesale slaughter of people," he pointed out. "There is no evidence that such a thing happened" in Kosovo.

Watson’s account was corroborated by a July 2nd USA Today front-page story documenting that the casualty and refugee figures - as well as the lurid atrocity accounts - peddled by NATO and Clinton Administration mouthpieces during the 78-day war "now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces take control of the provinces.... Instead of 100,000 ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by rampaging Serbs, officials now estimate that about 10,000 were killed." How many of those victims perished as a result of the NATO bombing campaign, we may never know.

In a May speech before a veterans group, Mr. Clinton asserted that 600,000 ethnic Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo itself lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home, or buried in mass graves dug by their executioners." In fact, reported USA Today, "Though thousands [of Albanian men] hid in Kosovo, they are healthy." Additionally, "Kosovo’s livestock, wheat, and other crops are growing, not slaughtered wholesale or torched as widely reported." "Yes, there were atrocities," commented House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-FL). "But no, they don’t measure up to the advance billing."

Bill Clinton’s allusion to accounts of "little girls" being raped - a singularly audacious charge, coming as it did from a plausibly accused rapist - also embroiders the facts that are becoming available. In the Kosovo conflict, as in nearly every other military struggle, the tragedy of rape was a tangible reality. However, as Lori Montgomery of the Sydney Morning Herald reported in a July 3rd dispatch from Prizren, there is no evidence of "systematic" rape conducted by Serb forces. Such rape as did occur was "a vicious aberration among Serb forces, an opportunistic act perpetrated by the mean and the drunken who tried to hide it from their superiors."

Further complicating efforts for Bill Clinton and others who wish to depict the Serbs as genocidalists is the fact that no threat was made to evict or exterminate Belgrade’s population of 100,000 ethnic Albanians; the only threat they faced came from NATO’s bombing runs. Furthermore, the Yugoslav government actually provided weapons to loyalist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

KLA "Cleansing"

By way of contrast, NATO’s leadership collective has shown little concern over the "ethnic cleansing" campaign being waged against Serbs in Kosovo under the leadership of the Marxist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). While many Kosovo Albanians are exacting revenge against specific Serbs who burned and looted Albanian homes, the Serb victims include many people who tried to intervene on behalf of their Albanian neighbors.

When, shortly after the NATO bombing campaign began, troops from Serbia’s Interior Ministry went on a rampage through the village of Sekiraca, 80-year-old Srbislav Dukic "implored the troops not to burn the ethnic Albanian houses and a flour mill owned by 28-year-old Mustafa Ejupi," reported the July 3rd Sydney Morning Herald. Standing with his arm around his elderly benefactor, Ejupi recalled how Dukic intervened with the soldiers and pointed out that the younger Albanian had no connections to the KLA. "Srbislav saved my mill," testified Ejupi. Now the elderly Good Samaritan and his family face "revenge" attacks mounted by the KLA.

"I don’t know how Serbs and ethnic Albanians can live together in the future, but our leadership is guilty," declares Dukic. "The leadership has created this environment. And we poor people, workers who have been working all our lives, we’ve never had problems." Now that the KLA, largely unmolested by NATO "peacekeepers," is conducting depredations against Kosovo Serbs, the relative tranquility described by Dukic will probably never return.

The monks of Decani monastery also acted to protect their Albanian neighbors from Serb paramilitaries. According to a June 17th BBC report, ethnic Albanians in Decani "say they owe their lives to the humanity and courage of the local Orthodox monks." When paramilitary gangs stormed nearby villages demanding money - and killing Albanians who wouldn’t or couldn’t buy them off - the monks offered sanctuary to as many refugees as they could take in. "We helped them in the best way we could," recalled the monastery’s abbot. Agim Morani, one of the Albanians saved by the monks, told the BBC that the abbot "took us to the church and then came back for the others. If he hadn’t come it is one hundred percent certain we would be dead." The KLA has repaid the Christian solicitude of the Decani monks by vandalizing the monastery and destroying its icons.

Mother Maharija, the abbess of Zvecan’s Holy Mother Orthodox Convent in Kosovo, also provided shelter for ethnic Albanians during the war. "Our dearest neighbors are Albanians," Maharija told the Chicago Tribune. "During the war, we protected them, brought them medicine and took them to the hospital in Kosovska Mitrovica." Since the end of the war, notes the Tribune, "Nuns have been raped, churches vandalized, and members of religious orders robbed by the Kosovo Liberation Army"; the Holy Mother Orthodox Convent has been spared thus far, and Maharija intends to continue ministering to the needs of her neighbors.

Elsewhere in "liberated" Kosovo, KLA terrorists have vented their hatred on Orthodox Christian monks and nuns. The Times of London reported on June 21st that KLA marauders "attacked and possibly raped nuns" and began "a vicious series of revenge killings of Gypsies in the southern Prizren area." One British officer assigned to the area described as "sickening" the three-day ordeal of nine nuns who were trapped in a nearby convent. "I know [KLA guerillas] fired guns right next to the sisters’ heads and I believe very possibly the youngest sister was raped," he told the Times.

Bill Clinton’s legendary empathy flags when the subject is the plight of Kosovo’s Serbs, who are being "cleansed" from their homes under the largely indifferent gaze of UN/NATO "peacekeepers." During his June 25th press conference, Mr. Clinton was asked by a reporter about "Serb homes that are being burned, Serb stores that are being looted, and Serb civilians that are being terrorized" by KLA-led mobs. The impeached President actually defended the perpetrators: "I’m not particularly surprised after what they’ve been through."

The Clinton Administration and the UN’s so-called International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia have actually made it plain that the KLA can ravage Kosovo Serbs with impunity. "The U.S. government and the United Nations said … they have no plans to investigate the Kosovo Liberation Army for possible war crimes, arguing that a wave of revenge against Serbs in the province does not appear to be coordinated by the KLA leadership," reported the June 29th Washington Times. "Our mandate is to investigate crimes that occur during the war, during armed conflict that involve members of armed entities," declared Tribunal spokesman Paul Riley. Of the KLA’s post-war rampage, Riley opined, "I don’t think it’s an organized KLA attempt. I think it’s just guys doing what they think is right - burning houses."

While Serb civilians, as Bill Clinton has made clear, must pay the price for acts of terror committed by Milosevic’s minions, the KLA will not be held accountable for supposedly unorganized acts of terror they are committing against Serb civilians.

NATO "Success"

NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign inflicted little damage on the Serbian military and interior ministry forces responsible for terrorizing Kosovo’s Albanian population. "Within Kosovo, NATO’s KFOR troops have found few examples of bombing damage," Britain’s Sky News service reported in early July. "Strategic sites in the capital, Pristina, had been destroyed, as had some key bridges. But large columns of retreating Serb forces showed little sign of attack at the end of the conflict." "We all saw the Serbs leaving Kosovo with their tails and their flags flying," observed Lieutenant General Sir Roderick Cordy-Simpson, a British official who has commanded UN "peacekeepers" in Bosnia. "Certainly we did not do anything like [the damage] we pretended we had done...."

During the air campaign, reported military analyst Colonel David Hackworth, NATO’s "smart bombs and missiles costing from 50 grand to 2 million bucks repeatedly blew up decoy ‘tanks,’ ‘artillery pieces,’ and other ‘targets’ made of sticks and plastic...." Yugoslav Army units would rig dummy mobile-air-defense units, many of which were placed next to dummy bridges and "mock roads - strips of black plastic sheeting laid across open fields with ‘tanks’ and other ‘military vehicles’ painted on them," Hackworth continued. "U.S. aircraft flying at 15,000 feet had a field day blowing up these ‘Serb air defense units’ and other dummy targets, while their spinners back at NATO headquarters daily chanted to the world, ‘We are significantly degrading their air defense and combat ability.’"

NATO’s air campaign against civilian targets was significantly more "successful." At least 74 Kosovo Albanian refugees were slaughtered during a NATO air strike on the road between Prizren and Djakovica; the refugees were killed while attempting to return to their homes in Kosovo. Robert Fisk of London’s Independent newspaper described the "torn and mangled bodies" of NATO’s victims - "a young and beautiful girl, her eyes gently staring at me between half-closed lids, the bottom half of her head bathed in blood.... [T]he old man ripped in half and blasted into a tree … the smoldering skeleton with one bloody still flesh-adhering foot over the back of a trailer … the dead, naked man slouched over the steering wheel of a burnt tractor...."

Reporting from Surdulica, Fisk described the casualties of a NATO bomb that destroyed a sanitarium for lung and tuberculosis patients. At least 18 patients died in the attack on the hospital, which is clearly identified, according to Fisk, "on every map," and nowhere near a military installation. Fisk described teen-age Milena Malobabic, whose body was found near "that of her mother - both feet torn off but placed beside her legs, and Milena’s two brothers, one of them with an arm bent over his face as if still cowering from the bombs." As Fisk recounted the attack, "About 40 patients at the Special Hospital for Lung and Tuberculosis were seriously wounded when the NATO bombs fell on them just after midnight. Part of the two-story, 75-year-old hospital simply caved in on the men and women in their beds, which is where most of them died, although one old man whose body I saw was still dressed in a pair of old blue trousers and a torn striped shirt."

"Geneva Conventions - assiduously produced by NATO in response to war crimes against Albanians in Kosovo - state that civilians must be protected even if in the vicinity of military personnel," Fisk pointed out. "But the patients at Surdulica were not given that protection." Branislav Ristic, commander of the local civil defense unit, pointed out to Fisk that during World War II, resistance fighters were stationed near the sanitarium "and the Germans knew they were here but never touched them."

"The Germans never did anything like this," agreed Jokvana Ilic, a Belgrade schoolteacher reacting to a late April bombing of the Vracar residential district. "I cannot believe it. I simply cannot believe it." According to the Associated Press, "The heat from the explosions was so great, residents said, it burned the hair of those who ran out into the streets to see what had happened." "They are destroying us, one by one, piece by piece," wept 30-year-old Jasminka Radovanovic. "What do they want from us?"

Price of "Peace"

NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia, observed Professor Robert Hayden of the University of Pittsburgh, was "the first unprovoked, opposed military aggression in Europe since Soviet troops invaded Hungary in 1956." In this war of aggression, continued Hayden, "NATO’s attacks [were] aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles. Since then, NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants."

Said Hayden: "That NATO planned from the start to hit civilian targets was made clear to me a few days before the attacks began by an employee of a U.S. intelligence organization who said that the CIA had been charged with preparing lists of Yugoslav economic assets and that, ‘basically, everything in the country is a target unless it’s taken off the list.’ NATO’s strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia’s army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself.... With this strategy it is military losses that are ‘collateral damage,’ because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets."

During a March 31st interview, Dan Rather asked Bill Clinton if he had given the order to (in military parlance) "go downtown" - that is, to bomb non-military targets in Belgrade. Seeking refuge in circumlocution, the impeached President drawled out an answer worthy of a Soviet commissar: "We are attacking targets that we believe will … raise the price of aggression to an unacceptably high level so that we can get back to talking peace and security."

The world neither needs nor can afford the Soviet-style "peace and security" represented in NATO’s "victory" over Serbia.
33 posted on 03/04/2003 9:38:33 AM PST by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
The ideas of our constitution have long been dead to the ruling elite and the schools that train each successive generation of them. The US is and will be the global government to come that has been planned all these long decades. We are the power of the IMF, world bank, etc., we fund the UN, the world's economy is supported by ours - as Madaline Albright said "we are the indispensable nation". The UN is a mirage - it is the Great OZ in a fancy cloud of smoke - the US is the man behind the curtain. Democracy is the opiate of the masses. An oligarchy rules but "the people" are lead to believe that they have representation and input. This belief in their own power and prosperity keeps the masses relatively docile. Overt totalitarianism is naturally resisted by human nature so we and the world will be ruled by a more subtle form of it. Old fashioned barriers to success of class, race, crede are replaced by ideology - the new era of tolerance and diversity outwardly depicts universal freedom and access.Combined with promises of peace and prosperity along with this "democracy" will get us to gladly surrender our freedom so the wars of conquest will be called liberation and we shall cheer. The nations of the world will "cede" their sovereignty to the new world order just as the sovereign States that formed the United States ceded their sovereignty to the central government - willingly in the north, by force in the south. So the nations of the world will voluntarily go along or be the next Iraq.
34 posted on 03/04/2003 9:56:20 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: u-89
You certainly know how to paint a pretty bleak picture! ;-)

Of course, it falls in line with the prevailing notion that a "New World Order" wouldn't be so bad as long as the U.S. was in charge. Naturally, I think that any NWO would be a bad idea.

35 posted on 03/04/2003 11:05:22 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
the prevailing notion that a "New World Order" wouldn't be so bad as long as the U.S. was in charge.

Right. Notice how conservatives were so opposed global government till they were told that they'ld be in charge. The Piped Piper just has to know what tune his audience wants to hear, that's all. Say we're in mortal peril, wave the flag, speak of defense, moral duty, freedom and democracy, human suffering, liberation, etc. It's the old wolf in sheeps clothing routine. So transparent yet so effective.

36 posted on 03/04/2003 11:57:29 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: u-89
our constitution is something our leaders don't even understand let alone up hold it.
37 posted on 03/04/2003 11:59:46 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

"our constitution is something our leaders don't even understand let alone up hold it."

Assuming, of course, that they have even read it in the first place.

38 posted on 03/04/2003 12:42:56 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All
The UN is Communist

Flower Child Fascism

The UN Plan For Your Mental Health

The UN's Global Malfeasance

Kofi Anan, Bigot

United Nations International Children's Fund

List of Communist Organizations Operating in US.

Let's Quit the UN

UNICEF and Halloween--Vatican Halts Payment

UN charter deserves the dustbin

Ushering One-World Religion, CBN News

Child Sex Book Given out at UN Summit

What's UNESCO Good For?

Who Created the United Nations? Communists!

New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development

United Nations-Sustainable Development

A U.S. Senator Rebukes the U.N. - WHY?

Erasing Our Boarders

"Every child is our child."
-- Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).

"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisolm, when director of UN World Health Organisation

1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states: "Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

• "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Bush Says YES to UNESCO,12271,791354,00.html

United Nations: Don't Smack Your Child
Your UNICEF dollars at work
The New World Religion
U.N. land grab in the works

Speak Up for Sovereignty and Patriotism!
39 posted on 03/04/2003 1:48:16 PM PST by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
40 posted on 03/04/2003 2:03:15 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List; *CFR List; *Communist Subversion; *"NWO"; *Sovereignty_list
41 posted on 03/04/2003 7:11:05 PM PST by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mulder; David Isaac
It is a very persuasive arguement, given the inexorable march towards one world, no matter the party. As a matter of fact, the party that is least likely to advance certain measures, is the one in party when it happen.
42 posted on 03/04/2003 8:06:26 PM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson