Posted on 10/05/2001 4:10:35 PM PDT by freedomnews
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:36:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I don't know......because you hated Gore more??
If you don't want him to fail, why are you abandoning support for him because of this? I seriously doubt anyone's support who loses it on a single issue. There are a lot of people who support the President and haven't agreed with everything he's said and done (probably all of us). Your commitment obviously wasn't too strong if it's already gone.
btw, your instinct was right, not wrong.........he is a good President.
If you read the text, rather than watch it, you will see that it was really atrocious. Demands with no deadlines, and very politically correct. Bragging about how we are the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, etc., etc. This is all very consistent with his speech, unfortunately.
Stiff Right Jab: Exploit a Tragedy! Empower the U.N.!
Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell
Oct. 3, 2001
On Sept. 11, 2001, just hours after the devastating attack on the United States, this column called for a "level-headed response" – one which would guard against and punish our enemies, "with an eye single to the Constitution." We warned: "In times of crisis it is belligerents who must maneuver, must run and hide, must, when caught, suffer the consequences. Free nations and their loyal citizens should not." (1)
Our hope was that the Bush administration would not repeat the deeds of the Clinton administration, which, two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing, unveiled a power-grabbing anti-terrorism package – one which attempted to federalize almost all crime (invading states' rights) and authorized previously unthinkable invasions into the rights of the presumed innocent in this country. (2) We hoped we wouldn't see a repeat attempt. But our hopes appear dashed. The Bush administration, in crisis mode, has gone where no U.S. president has gone before, creating a national police state mechanism, calling for instant federalization of airport security, legitimizing eavesdropping, searches and check points – and leading the charge for a bipartisan economic plan which features economic bailouts, subsidies, unemployment benefits, "free" health insurance, work projects, and mass Keynesian cash infusions, all along the line of FDR's New Deal – a socialist rescue package which refused to let the free market heal itself, intentionally delayed its recovery, and enslaved our nation's workers in the process.
Strike one.
In a column we wrote Sept. 14, posted Sept. 17, we predicted what seemed impossible, that the Council on Foreign Relations-coached Bush administration would find a way to turn our retaliation against terrorism into an invitation to have "Russia ... join our coming occupation force in Afghanistan as our "ally," as they did in the NATO "peacekeeping" fiascoes in Bosnia and Kosovo, to serve as a symbolic reminder to the bossed and butchered of the 'good old days' under the Hammer and Sickle." (3)
We hoped we were wrong. We weren't. Russia is there – and worse, we now officially support their brutal and merciless war against civilian populations in Chechnya.
Strike two.
On Sept. 10, 2001, the day before the attack, we asked regarding President George W. Bush's new world order tendencies in the creation of the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas), "Like father, like son?"
We noted that when Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring, equally tyrannical Kuwait back in 1991, then-President George H. Bush enthused: "The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge." Later in that same speech, the president detailed what he meant: "We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." (4)
Now a greater crisis than poverty in Mexico. Like Father, like son?
We knew the answer, but again, we hoped we were wrong. Tragically, we were not. Consider what has been conveniently ignored by the national press:
In the biggest news since the attack on America, last Friday the Bush administration set in motion what may be the greatest power grab in the 50-year history of the United Nations, when it convinced the U.N. Security Council to invoke U.N. Charter's Chapter VII enforcement mechanism – a mechanism which not only empowers the United Nations to take action against the terrorists, but also gives the United Nations 15-member Security Council authority to compel all 189 member nations to join in that war on terrorism – or else.
Or in other words, the Bush administration has just given the U.N. what it has always craved, the revolutionary authority to compel the world to comply with its mandates. Chapter VII, Articles 41 and 42 read:
"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." (5)
Strike 3!
Referring to the Bush-sponsored resolution, "[T]his is an unprecedented resolution," said John D. Negroponte, the United States ambassador. "It obliges all member states to deny financing, support and safe haven to terrorists. It will also expand information-sharing among United Nations members to combat terrorism, and there will be a Security Council mechanism to monitor implementation on a continuous basis." (6)
The New York Times noted: "The resolution draws on various commitments that have already been made in treaties and resolutions, but puts them in a form immediately binding on all member states by invoking Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which gives the Security Council authority to take action up to and including force, and obliges all United Nations members to cooperate." [our emphasis] (7) The resolution reads in part, "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, decides that all States shall:
* "Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorists."
* "Freeze without delay" the resources of terrorists and terror organizations.
* Prohibit anyone from financing terrorist organizations.
* Suppress recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations
* Eliminate their weapon supplies.
* "Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts, or provide save havens."
* "Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance" in criminal investigations involving terrorism.
* "Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls" and control over travel documents. (8)
Not surprisingly, the resolution fails to adequately define what is a terrorist – a typical U.N. concession to communists in Russia and China – both of whom, for instance, the U.N. has never accused of genocide. U.N. laws are written in such a way to condone communist genocide and communist terrorism as political affairs of the state.
Just the Beginning
But this is just the beginning.
"We're going to take this initiative into the United Nations and try to get additional resolutions that serve similar purposes,'' Secretary of State Colin Powell said. (9)
For instance? U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, added:
"[W]e need to strengthen controls over other types of weapons that pose grave dangers through terrorist use. This means doing more to ensure a ban on the sale of small arms to non-State groups [private citizens]. ..." (10)
Banning your right to self-defense from terrorists – ultimately, that is what the U.N. is all about. Isn't it? The rule of thumb: Let no one have the guns, the weapons of mass destruction and the lawmaking powers but the thugs, communists and miscreants at the U.N.
What Is Bush Waiting For?
We feel anxious about Bush's delay in taking swift and decisive U.S. military action against our foes. It has been three weeks. We know the excuses, but now we see the real excuse. The president has made this not an American but a new world order war. As a result, his priorities have been to build coalitions, befriend enemies, grant them aid, end economic embargos, share insider information with thugs, and wait on the U.N. – his real boss. Proper protocol is proper protocol. Friday's resolution, which will be followed by "others," marks the "legitimate" beginning of retaliatory force.
Constitutional Corner
Speaking of legitimacy, our Founding Fathers knew legitimacy came by consent. Globalists, pretending to build on that principle, consider U.N. resolutions the ultimate in moral legitimacy – the consent of the world. But here's a question: Where does "consent" come in when 5 unelected permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and 10 unelected rotating members (puppets) impose an anti-terrorist law on the rest of the world? Answer: It doesn't. This is not consent; this is decree. Which makes U.N. resolution 1371 (2001) – no matter its motive – tyranny, pure and simple.
Annan – On the Root Causes of Terrorism
We've made the case, before, that the United Nations is a communist front organization, built upon communist principles and founded by communist agents. But for the absent-minded, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, sends reminders aplenty.
Shortly after the terrorist attack on the United States, he was swift to denounce the act, and equally swift to identify the root cause of terrorism as "ignorance, poverty, and disease" – which he claims only "[t]he United Nations is uniquely positioned to" eradicate. Translation: The cause of terrorism is that injustice called capitalism. The U.N. cure: Forcibly redistribute the world's (the U.S.'s) wealth and technology – which is, by definition, communism. (11)
Godsend for the New World Order?
Normal people have fluctuated between a sense of mourning and a yearning for justice over the tragedy. Globalist vultures among us are celebrating.
"The bombing, and subsequent calls for a global alliance against terrorism, has shaken Washington off its anti-multilateral course," said David Donalcattin, a lawyer with Parliamentarians for Global Action.
"The great news for us [is] that American isolationism is finished," Mr. Donalcattin said. "This attack has shown, and the White House seems to hear, that no nation can do it alone." (12)
U.S. and European experts in geopolitics exulted: "Terror attacks in the United States ... instantly thrust Washington and Moscow into common cause on a top strategic priority, a historic shift presaging a genuine realignment in world order. ... Yes, the Russians are open to proceeding more in cooperation with the United States, to building a new world order of which they are a part." (13)
Wary Eye
Our last tidbit regard the thinking of global enthusiast, MIT Professor, Council on Foreign Relations member Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Prof. Bloomfield is the author of the infamous 1961 Kennedy State Department secret study entitled: "Study Memorandum No. 7, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations," which was, in his own words, a plan for "world government" under an omnipotent global "regime."
Bloomfield knew it wouldn't be easy to convince the American people to consent to such a regime. He had a solution. It would be possible, he wrote, if our national leaders utilized "a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose. ... The order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks." (14)
Wonder what the good professor had in mind?
Resist, Write and Labor
We want a victory over terrorism, but when we are through, we want our liberties under the U.S. Constitution – not tyranny under the nefarious U.N. Charter, not a further empowerment of still-communist-run Russia.
Tell your representatives, senators and president that you want the commander in chief to serve, as per the Constitution, as leader of the American forces. Tell them to co-sponsor Ron Paul's H.R. 1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (2001). And join up, in the larger battle, with the seasoned enemies of the U.N. at:
. Contact Steve & Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com.
If you haven't already, read Part 6 of Steve Farrell's Democrats in Drag and Part 9 of Missing the Mark With Religion, or access his NewsMax archives.
Footnotes
1. Montgomery & Farrell, Level-headed Response, NewsMax.com, Sept. 11, 2001.
2. Ibid.
3. Montgomery & Farrell, Standing Armies, No! Hit 'Em Hard, Yes! NewsMax.com, Sept. 17, 2001.
4. Montgomery & Farrell, Who Is the Real Fox? NewsMax.com, Sept. 10, 2001.
5. United Nations Charter, Chapter 7.
6. U.N. Resolution to Require Members to Act Against Terror, Serge Schmemann, NY Times, Sept. 29, 2001.
7. Ibid.
8. U.N. Resolution 1373 (2001).
9. U.S. Moves Toward New U.N. Measures Against 'Terrorism' Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, Sept. 25, 2001.
10. Secretary-General, Addressing Assembly on Terrorism, Calls for 'Immediate, Far-Reaching Changes' In U.N. Response to Terror, October 1, 2001.
11. Fighting Terrorism on a Global Front, Kofi A. Annan, N.Y. Times, Sept. 21, 2001.
12. U.N. Says Attacks Show Need for Global Court, Washington Times, Sept. 26, 2001.
13. As U.S. and Russia Converge on Terror, Seed of 'New World Order' Seen, Agence France Press, Sept. 27, 2001.
14. Jasper, William F. The United Nations Exposed, Appleton, Wisc.: The John Birch Society, 2001, pp. 29-30.
NewsMax.com Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
A lot of people are parroting the words, saying "you're either for us or against us."
I choose to tell people such as these something else: "put your money where your mouth is."
Principles aren't something that can be bought with dollars... not even 582 million of 'em.
And hope this early autumnal eve is finding you smiling in good spirits, brother :-)
But ohhhhhhh...how the PEP SQUAD tries...
Of course, the stuck-in-the-loop singers of It's A Small World can't GUARANTEE how the moolah will be used, but trust them on this. Kofi is a Great Guy.
What's $500 mill to a nation that's just been attacked when it guarantees we can keep the globalist shakedown artists off our butts for a while longer? Gads, get your priorities straight. The U.N. deserves rule the world!
Sovereignty is nothing.
Timing is everything.
Obey their thirst.
And grab your ankles.
Sovereignty is everything -- let the global socialists leave the UN. They would love nothing better then for patriots to retreat as they plan domination.
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.