Information for the following was found in "We Are Past That!" by Pat Shannan, Media Bypass, June 1999, page 60. Alternative Media, Incorporated, 4900 Tippecanoe Drive, Evansville, Indiana 47715-3234. The article quotes WSB-Atlanta talk show host Neal Boortz. E-mail. Website. Posted here: 5-31-99. Related material: YDS, pages 101-112. "Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people and other 'mongrelized peoples,' unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated people,' unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." The Administration presently in power is bound and determined to impose gun control on the "free" citizens of the United States. What are we to anticipate for our future? Excerpts from an article posted in the Leading Edge International Research Group website, and reprinted as an insert in Freedom Alert, May/June 1999. Address: Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Incorporated, PO Box 757, Crestview, Florida 32536. Phone: 850-682-6156. Posted here 5-21-99. For related material see You Don't Say, throughout the book. CONFIDENTIAL COBDEN CLUBS Secretariat for World Order 814-631-9959 September 20, 1991 INITIATIVE FOR ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER 1. THE PRESSING NEED. . . . a. The time is pressing. . . . [I]nsufficient progress has been made in population reduction. b. Given global instabilities, including those in the former Soviet block, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and natural resources is now absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. c. The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization, and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. . . . CONFIDENTIAL Therefore the following policy must be implemented: A. The Security Council of the U.N. led by the Anglo-Saxon Major Nation Powers, will decree that henceforth, the Security Council will inform all nations that its sufferance of population has ended, that all nations have quotas for population reduction on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embarago of credit, items of trade including food and medicine, or by military force when required. B. The security Council of the U.N. will inform all nations that outmoded notions of national sovereignty will be discarded and that the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region of the world and that this will be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council. C. The Security Council of the U.N. will take possession of all natural resources, including the watersheds and great forests. . . . D. The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races. . . . E. All of the above consititute the New World Order, in which Order, all nations, regions, and races will cooperate with the decisions of the Major Nations of the Security Council. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that action delayed could well be fatal. All could be lost if mere opposition by minor races is tolerated and the unfortunate vacillations of our closest comrads is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final sollution. This must be done before any shock hits our financial markets, tarnishing our credibility and perhaps diminishing our force. ____________________ These excerpts are from a document that was distributed at the ECO (UNCED 92 - RIO) meeting in Brazil (1992). Excerpts from The Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1999, pages 1 and 2. Address: PO Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002. Phone: 618-462-5415. E-mail. Website. Posted here 5-14-99. I'm fed up with the sanctimonious liberals imposing their values on me. Is this a free country, or isn't it? I'm fed up with the liberals telling me that I can't be judgmental about crimes and sins, even when committed by the President. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals telling me I must be nonpartisan. Do we have political freedom in America or don't we? . . . I'm fed up with the liberals imposing the label "mean-spirited" on Republicans. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals imposing their values on us about perjury, along with their absurd caveat that "everybody lies about sex." . . . I'm fed up with the liberals blaming the Republicans for Clinton's impeachment and trial. The Independent Counsel law, which required Starr to investigate Clinton, and the law that allowed Paula Jones to have discovery rights against Clinton to prove a pattern of sexual harassment, were both Democratic laws signed by President Clinton. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals dictating their new moral imperative that we must "move on" and "become moderate," or else they will label us "extremist." . . . I'm fed up with the Clinton Administration telling us we have a moral obligation to spend American blood and money in ethnic wars all around the world. . . . How dare the liberals impose their values on us by pretending that the way they spend our money is morally superior to the way individual Americans spend it! . . . I'm fed up with the liberals saying it is our moral duty to spend our money for their pet projects. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals and the teachers unions imposing their Whole Language, School-to-Work, "comprehensive" sex education, and diversity curricula on other people's children. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals prescribing tolerance as the supreme moral value and imposing their notions of what is acceptable behavior. . . . I'm fed up with the liberals falsely accusing Republicans and the so-called religious right of imposing their values on society, when the evidence proves that the liberals have been using the full powers of government, the media, and academia to impose their balues on us. Excerpts from the book, Confrontational Politics, by Bill Richardson, for years a leading senator in the California state legislature, as quoted in "The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor," April 1999, page 13. Address: PO Box 84904, Phoenix, Arizona 85071. Phone: 800-582-0559. Website. For a copy of Confrontation Politics contact Gun Owners of America at 888-886-GUNS. Posted here 5-4-99. America is now suffering from a conflict flowing from two diametrically opposite beliefs. It is a deadly war of immense consequences, effecting the moral fiber of our country. The two combatants are radical humanism and those of us who adhere to traditional American values. Paradoxically, both stem from opposite sides of the same coin. The fundamental concept that undergirds each belief . . . is God. One believes He exists and the other, that He does not. Liberals have no moral compulsion to be direct or to answer any question asked of them . . . if they don't like the subject they will subtly change the direction of the conversation by asking a question. Their sentences end in question marks. They will quickly change the topic and ask a question in order to put the Conservative on the defensive. The Conservative, polite by nature, rarely attempts to keep the Liberal on the subject by insisting that they stay on the original matter being discussed. Instead, they bite . . . and true to form, they try to answer the new question asked by the Liberal, thereby finding themselves far afield from where they originally started. Is it possible for a radical Liberal to have a conscience, to feel guilt over telling a lie? Do they have pangs of remorse when being politically underhanded and forcing their will on others? Not in the least. In fact, if lying advances their political goals, they conclude it's immoral not to lie. They latch on to an old Commie cliche': "The end justifies the means." If you accept the humanist perspective, absence of God . . . why not? Why bother to worry about a conscience if there is no God to hold us accountable? To a Liberal, the word Hypocrisy doesn't exist since it is possible, even liberally moral, to be on both sides of any issue. If caught in a lie, the "moral" thing to do is extricate oneself with the least amount of political damage -- deny, admit guilt, ask forgiveness, attack the character of the accuser, whatever works. If the opposition is incapable of exploiting the lie, ignore them . . . because if no political harm occurs . . . who cares? There can be no compromises with the Left. We are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum with no arbitration possible. Either they win or we do. They will run the government or we will. That's the only choice open to either of us. They know it . . . shouldn't we?! [For related material see You Don't Say pages 1, 19-22, 139-142.] Excerpts from an article titled "Clinton's Attempt to Rule by Executive Order," by Tom DeWeese, in the April 1999 issue of Insider's Report, published by the American Policy Center, 13873 Park Center Road, #316, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Phone: 703-925-0881. Website. Posted here 4-20-99. Only in recent years have presidents begun to use the Executive Order as a way to create policy. Bill Clinton has taken the practice to an art form. . . . He has begun to implement the provisions of international UN treaties that have not been voted on and ratified by the U.S. Senate. He has dictated regulations to business and homeowners, created penalties and fees for those not complying, taken private property, and spent federal funds not provided for by the Congress. In 1996, with an Executive Order, Clinton took thousands of acres of private land and turned it into a national park in Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante. . . . In 1997, while Congress was on its Memorial Day recess, President Clinton quietly signed an Executive Order creating the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This order will have the effect of nationalizing rivers that are actually property of the states. . . . There has never been a more blatantly unconstitutional program than the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. . . . In 1998, the blizzard of Executive Orders continued as Clinton issued directives to enforce the draconian terms of the UN's global warming treaty - a treaty not yet ratified by the Senate. He has issued orders to prepare the U.S. to participate in the UN's International Criminal Court - another unratified treaty. On December 10, 1998, Clinton issued Executive Order 13107, which deals with the issue of human rights. That order calls for U.S. compliance with more than eighty UN treaties, including the unratified and controversial "Convention on the Rights of the Child." Worse, the Executive Order may even automatically tie the U.S. to many treaties not even yet written. The U.S. Congress has taken no action against this Executive Order. . . . In a sense, Clinton, with the surrender of the Congress, has stolen the people's right and ability to direct their own government. Because Congress has taken no action, Bill Clinton simply does as he wishes - with the stroke of a pen. . . . [For related material see You Don't Say pages 119-120.] Excerpts from a speech by Charlton Heston given at the Harvard Law School Forum, February 16, 1999. Mr. Heston's topic: "Winning the Cultural War." For the complete text of his remarks visit the National Rifle Association's website. Posted here 4-10-99. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. . . . I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated. For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an anology between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite. . . . In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as a norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. . . ." In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not . . . need not . . . tell their patients that they are infected. . . . In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex-change surgery. In New York City, kids who don't speak a work of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic. . . . Fianlly, just last month . . . David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, 'niggardly' means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign. . . . What does all this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. . . . So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded relgions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country. . . . The following excerpt is from an article titled "Real Threat of United Nations Not Being Debated," by Tom DeWeese, published in the March 1999 issue of the Insider's Report, newsletter of the American Policy Center, 13873 Park Center Road, #316, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Phone: 703-925-0881. Website. Many think the United Nations is an effective debating society. It is not. Rather, this organization has an agenda dedicated to world government, world control, and world socialism. Although written in 1997, the article's warning of the threat to US sovereignty is even more relevant today. Posted here 3-26-99. To promote [its] agenda the UN has held a series of conferences around the world, each focusing on specific aspects for worldwide restructuring. In Vienna the focus was on human rights, particularly the rights of children over their parents. In Cairo, forced abortion and sterilization were put forth as solutions for population control. In Copenhagen the United Nations revealed its daring plan for global taxes that would help finance the international restructuring scheme called for in the environmental agenda. The payment of such taxes would also help finance the UN's own independent army for enforcement purposes. In June, 1992 the UN sponsored the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro - the largest and most ambitious international conference of all time. Here, five major documents - to define and implement the sustainable development agenda - were negotiated. First was the "Convention on Climage Change" that was to address the issue of global warming. Final draft of that Convention, or treaty, is to be signed [December 1997]. Regardless of the fact that the theory of global warming has yet to be proven by peer-reviewed science, this treaty will force the industrial nations to pull back emissions output to 1990 levels. Such strict regulations will force industry out of business, cut back on American power output by as much as 60 percent, and place massive consumption taxes on evergy. That will drastically increase the price of every item in your home that is powered through the use of energy. The real purpose of the "Climate Change Treaty" is to redistribute technology and production to undeveloped third world nations - because, incredibly, those natoins won't have to sign the treaty or be forced to obey its dictates. The treaty has nothing to do with protecting the environent. Only sixteen industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. The Climate Change Treaty will bankrupt the United States. The Second treaty negotiated in Rio was the "Biodiversity Treaty." As yet unratified by the United States Senate, this treaty would declare 50 percent of all the land in every state as wilderness. American cities would be downsized, technology and industry would be reduced and strict zoning laws would curtain development of our cities. The third paper from the Summit was the "Rio Declatation" which called for the eradication of peverty throughout the world. What it really provides is a plan for more redistribution of the world's wealth - particularly away from the United States. The fourth document from Rio was the "Convention on Forest Principles" calling for international management of the world's forests, which would essentially shut down the timber industry. And the fifth document coming out of Rio was "Agenda 21." This one document contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide sustainable development. That pan was later elaborated upon in Istanbul, Turkey at the UN conference called Habitat II. . . . In a document produced by the United States department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), at the request of the UN for Habitat II, the blueprint was set for how American cities and towns would be restructured for sustainable development. To achieve rapid transition, the document said, all citizens will be trained to think of "ecology, or the diverse systems of earth's biosphere, as the basis" for every human activity. . . . [For related material see You Don't Say pages 70, 73-76, 91-92, 126-127, 131-132, 146-150, 166-168, 172, 193-196, 218-219, 226-228.]  The way back home. |