America's Second War for Independence By Lt.Col. Tom McKenney, (USMC, Ret,)
January 24 2007 at 9:35 AM No score for this post
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 68.184.88.13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*****
Citizens' Intelligence Digest September/October 1997 Issue
*****
America's Second War for Independence
By Lt.Col. Tom McKenney, (USMC, Ret,)
***
The underlying globalist agenda of the media elite has surfaced in the History Channel's ongoing series "Year By Year." In this series' piece on the year 1943, they used old film footage in the "newsreel" format, as if we were actually seeing and hearing newsreels from 1943. The style, and even the voice of the narrator, were very convincing. But one fatal flaw revealed that these "newsreels" were faked. In describing the actions of our troops in the battles of 1943, in every case the narrator referred to American or Allied troops as "United Nations" forces. What's wrong with doing this? Simply the fact that there was no United Nations in 1943.
It didn't exist until after the war was over, in late 1945! Perhaps the UN existed in the hearts and minds of the globalists, but we the people had never heard of it at that time. Why, then, would Roger Mudd and company commit such a transparent act of dishonest journalism? It is clearly their intention to rewrite history so as to condition us to think positively of the UN. You see, most Americans today are too young to remember WWII, but the popular perception is that it was a "good" war - a clear-cut battle of good versus evil, a war against the tyranny of Hitler, Hirohito and company, fought for the freedom of the world. Therefore, if people can be indoctrinated to think the Allied victory was a UN victory, then the UN gains credibility and acceptance that it doesn't deserve.
But why do this . . . what's going on here? Read on. The American Revolution, our War for American Independence, was fought from 1775 to 1783. The result was independence for the British colonies in America, and the founding of our nation as a unique democratic republic. At a tremendous cost of blood and individual sacrifice, our new nation emerged free and independent. "So what?" you may be thinking, "doesn't every school boy and girl know this?" No, sad to relate, every school boy and girl does not know this. Their grandparents probably knew these things, for they were taught them at home and in school. In some cases, this also applies to their parents.
But for a generation or two now, facts and principles concerning our national history have quietly disappeared from history books and public schools. Many children today will not only know nothing of "Washington's Farewell Address," they may know little or nothing about Washington himself. They will not know of Jefferson's proverb, "That government is best, which governs least," nor of Patrick Henry's flaming words, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Worse still, they are being taught a distorted worldview that sees independence, national pride and patriotism as bad things that must be stamped out, indeed must be abolished if ever we are to have peace and social progress in the world.
Meanwhile, there is a growing army of powerful political and social manipulators whose dream is establishment of a One-World Government under the United Nations. These bankers, bureaucrats, publishers and political leaders work tirelessly to bring about the emergence of one "global village," under the benevolent single power represented by the UN. The result is a rapidly growing acceptance of U.S. participation in UN goals and programs, and a tendency to surrender control of our foreign and domestic policies to the UN. While our ever-weakening Armed Forces are increasingly placed under foreign UN generals in meddling "peace-keeping" operations around the world, our State and Interior departments rush to surrender vast areas of our national parks, national forests and private property to "biosphere reserves" under UN control. But what, many wonder, could be wrong with a World Government? Wouldn't it assure World Peace?
The globalists will argue that as long as individual nations have independence, freedom and power, they will fight with one another and there will be wars with their attendant suffering. By contrast, a World Government would retain all the power (tanks, guns, etc.) and would enforce peace, putting an end to wars. Individual nations and their citizens would be disarmed. Other "benefits" would include rescuing the environment from contamination by limiting human population and forcibly excluding people from vast areas of what are now state and national parks, private homes, farms and ranches. The wealth of the rich nations would be taken and distributed to the poor nations, eliminating poverty. This is what they will argue.
But there are inherent, necessary consequences of such a global utopia. The essential ingredient in this recipe for peace and justice is the surrender of national sovereignty. This would mean (literally) nullifying the Constitution and snuffing out the American dream of individual freedom and unlimited opportunity to learn and achieve. It would almost certainly mean the end of our rights, as Americans, to own property, have the children God gives us, keep and bear arms, assemble, speak and write our opinions, freely exercise our religious beliefs, etc. There would necessarily be a UN Police Force (a "Global Gestapo") without the limitations of police power now afforded us by the Bill of Rights. The globalist will reply that such a World Government could offer the very same guarantees of personal freedom that our Founding Fathers codified in our American founding documents. And this is true . . . theoretically.
But the worldview of leading globalist thinkers is decidedly socialistic - antithetical to the thinking of our Founding Fathers. The obvious and insoluble problem here is that if such an all-powerful global government should not be so inclined, there would be no recourse for the member nations (let alone individual citizens) when wrongs occur. Individual nations would have no more ability to change their conditions for the better than did the individual "republics" of the Soviet Union under Lenin, Stalin or Gorbachev. In short, there is this one fatal flaw in the idea of a global government: it would be an instant totalitarian government, with ALL the power, unchallenged on the Earth.
The nature of man and the history of civilization argue conclusively that totalitarian governments do not nurture and preserve freedom; rather, they limit and crush it. Such a World Government would have no more assurance of individual freedoms than did those of Nero, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein. That kind of power has never failed to produce that kind of corruption and abuse. Tyrants, once in power, don't voluntarily relinquish their power; they protect and reinforce it. No, the degree to which our national sovereignty is surrendered to the authority of the UN is the degree to which our hope of freedom is gone, most likely forever. It is as simple, and as serious, as that.
And if we the people don't rise up and stop the process, this is exactly where we are headed. As the global establishment has grown stronger, and as knowledge of our nation's history and traditions has been progressively diluted, global government is increasingly seen as a noble concept and patriotism as unenlightened, reactionary and dangerous. With increasing approval, the globalists have brought their once secret agenda out into the open. Things that were once spoken only in private corporate boardrooms, and in the guarded secret meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations, are beginning to be spoken publicly.
Two examples will illustrate this change. Strobe Talbot is Bill Clinton's long-time friend. He is pro-Soviet, has lived many years in Russia, and was Clinton's fellow anti-American activist during the Vietnam War. A former Newsweek editor, Talbot became Clinton's Ambassador-at-Large to the former USSR. In 1993, the World Federalist Association presented Talbot with its Norman Cousins Global Governance Award, for advancing the cause of global government. In a letter to the Association, President Clinton expressed glowing approval of the award, writing (on White House stationery), "Norman Cousins worked for world peace and World Government;" Clinton also wished the Association "future success." A more recent example of this "out of the closet" globalism is Walter Cronkite, pipe-smoking pundit emeritus at CBS-TV, selected in a recent poll as one of the "most trusted" men in America. In a Time magazine interview, Cronkite said that "nations need to see the light and give up sovereignty . . . it's necessary for One-World Government, and the only thing that will prevent global war." What could be more plain?
Are we happy and satisfied with our current government, the Clinton White House and the Republican Congress? Of course not! Most of us feel threatened by the former and betrayed by the latter. But blessed be God, and thanks to the visionary wisdom of our Founding Fathers, there is still the possibility of change. If ever we give up our national sovereignty, that possibility will be gone. Forever.
*****
*****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
