Stiff Right Jab – Standing Armies, No! - Hit'em Hard, Yes!

Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell
Saturday Sept. 15, 2001

Tell us, it isn't so! We've been struck swiftly, brutally, and efficiently. In one fell swoop, thousands died, life was disrupted, free markets closed down, America came to a stand still. All thanks to a few fanatics backed by a few million dollars and a few corrupt third world regimes. A few days later, life for these terrorists and their backward nation sponsors and landlords, is still the same - with one exception - one more exclamation point, a black and bold one, has been added to their dingy, ever expanding resume of dastardly deeds.

And so what is the response of the richest, most powerful nation on earth? We are told by our media and our politicians, for us, life will never be the same. We are told by our President and his military, we are in it for the long haul, for years, perhaps decades, but, rest assured, we will prevail. We are told by the new world order legions, we will need the help and cooperation of our allies and the international community, for this is a war, we cannot fight alone. We are told by the Bretton Woods money experts, that our Federal reserve must fork out 50 billion dollars to the IMF - to "sure up" international markets, when in fact the IMF has frequently bankrolled terrorist and communist states on the back of US taxpayers. We are told by the Russians and the Chinese, that they "mourn" for our dead and support our resolve to bring about justice, even when they help train and arm these terrorists, and, for that matter, don't give a darn about their own people. We are told by these same Russians and Chinese, that this crisis is, a godsend, yes a godsend to unify the world, a solution they have favored since the days of Lenin. And finally, we are told 50,000 American guardsmen will be called up - to do what? - to perform domestic policing duties.

Wow! What is this? What kind of pusillanimous, dimwitted, dangerous response are our leaders, the press, and our "allies" sending out to the world? It sounds, does it not, like the lingo of internationalism? It sounds, does it not, like the agenda of those who see in every crisis an opportunity to advance or firm up the internationalist mechanism set in motion at Bretton Woods and at San Francisco a half century or so ago, and the domestic agenda of Bill Clinton, following the Oklahoma city "crisis," to federalize our local police services.

But what we want to know is this - if our relatively meagerly financed, meagerly manned, meagerly equipped enemy can strike swiftly, powerfully, efficiently, and unilaterally, and cause so much disruption, why can't we, the most powerful nation on earth, do the same in the extreme?

Why oh why? Can some one explain it? Here is our suspicion. We are about to be suckered into an arrangement which will be more than a retaliation, but an occupation, more than a US response, but an international one, headed up, most likely, not solely by the United States, but by our NATO "partners."

Isn't it odd, you should ask, that Senator Biden rejected, indeed, emotionally rejected the notion in a Q & A session following Congresses meeting with the President, of any need to consult the United Nations regarding a US response. Amen. But then leaped for joy that NATO had been consulted (via Colin Powell), and that NATO was behind us and beside us?

It should be odd, because, as this column documented in a 7 part series back in 1999, NATO is a subsidiary organization of the United Nations, is bound by the United Nations Covenant to uphold its principles and purposes, and bound also, to consult the UN Security Council regarding all of its military actions. In fact, let it be known and remembered that in Korea, thanks to a similar ridiculous arrangement under SEATO, all of MacArthur's military maneuvers were compromised to Russians at the UN, who passed them on to their North Korean and Chinese comrades, thus, insuring tens of thousands of American boys would all the more easily die at the hands of the Communists.

Isn't Internationalism a wonderful idea? And perhaps, if we're lucky, Russia will 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, and/or of "better" days, yet to come, this time with the consent of the United States. Isn't it ironic? I'm sure the locals won't miss the irony.

No doubt, some of our readers will think we're being cynical - when we are, in fact, being realists. Michael Savage pointed out in his column yesterday, that if we are to stand up like men and route our evil enemy, than Bush had better dump his advisors. That is precisely our point. Bush won't. For these advisor, every one of them are of the same rank and file, of the same new world order mindset that has quietly "guided" this nation's foreign policy, in the direction of a one world socialist regime, regardless of changes in administration, for some eighty years.

They are the one's who have financed our enemies, called for the disarmament of ourselves and our friends, and who will work to insure that our current response is in some way, shape or form, compromising to our sovereignty and our natural rights, just you wait and see. And, oh yes, our enemies will survive their response, for alliances, need an enemy. Just ask Sadam.

If you really want to strike back at these terrorists, insure that your Congressmen, your Senators, and your President know that you want to keep the UN and its bastard child NATO (1) out of the formula. That you want President Bush to consult with Congress, not the Council of Foreign Relations. That you want America to fight America's wars. And that you expect America, not to control, not to watch over, but to annihilate her enemies.

We are the richest, most powerful, most technologically advanced nation in the world - we don't need NATO to win, we don't need Russia to win, and we certainly don't need to create ever more enemies via our occupation of the Middle East. We didn't like it when the British did it to us! America must strike swiftly and powerfully, but she must strike alone.

Wary Eye - IMF Cash Bonanza, Is Bush Crazy?

Column afterthought.

To combat the aftereffects of Tuesday's terrorism, Mr. Bush, no doubt following the directions of his "advisors," will infuse 50 billion big one's into the IMF - an incredulous move.

Writing in Socialist International Publications in circa 1962-63, Hilary Marquand reveals: "[The IMF is] in essence a socialist conception." (2)

Fact of the matter is, the IMF has been subsidizing the global socialist revolution for a long time. Cato Institute researcher Doug Bandow noted in 1994:

[S]ix nations, Chile, Egypt, India, Sudan, Turkey, and Yugoslavia, had been relying on IMF aid for more than thirty years; 24 countries had been borrowers for between 20 and 29 years. And 47, almost one third of all the states in the world, had been using IMF credit for between 10 and 19 years . . . Since 1947, Egypt has never left the IMF dole. Yugoslavia took its first loan in 1949 and was a borrower in all but three of the succeeding 41 years . . . Bangladash, Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Pakistan, Uganda, Zaire, and Zambia all started borrowing in the 1970's and have yet to stop two decades later. (3)

Notes research writer, and UN expert William F. Jasper in his groundbreaking work The United Nations Exposed:

With the admission of all of the "ex-Communist" countries into both the IMF and the World Bank, UN official and their international welfare lobbyists launched a sustained campaign for massive new infusions of capital, which have thus far siphoned billions into Russia and its "former" Warsaw Pact allies, all of which boast socialist regimes run by life-long Communists, who are now "reformers. (4)

Finally, much revered free market economist Henry Hazlit warned: "The world cannot get back to economic sanctity until the IMF is abolished . . . We will not stop the growth of inflation and world socialism until the institutions and policies adopted to promote them have been abolished." (5)

Beware the opportunist solutions to the war against terrorism.

Footnotes

1. For documentation on the true agenda of NATO, from its inception, especially regarding its connection to the UN, read Steve Farrell's popular series, NATO:  Beyond Collective Defense, by accessing his pre-NewsMax days archives at www.OpinioNet.com Please visit, also, Steve Farrell's, The Un-American United Nations

2. Marquand, The Theory and Practice of Planning, Economic Development and Social Change, London: Socialist International Publications, undated circa 1962-63, p. 28.

3. Bandow, Doug, The IMF: A Record of Addition and Failure, in Doug Bandow and Ian Vasquez (eds.), Perpetrating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1994, p. 19.

4. Jasper, William F. The United Nations Exposed, Appleton, Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 2001, p. 223. Thank you Mr. Jasper for much of the research found in today's Wary Eye!

5. Hazlit, Harry, From Bretton Woods to World Inflation, Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984, pgs. 26-27.

NewsMax contributing columnist Steve Farrell is the senior editor of the American Partisan, a widely published research writer, a former Air Force communications manager, and graduate student in Constitutional Law. Joining him is fellow researcher, historian, constitutional scholar, and friend Steve Montgomery. Contact Steve & Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com Missed a column? Visit our NewsMax archives.