Stiff Right Jab: New World Order - Full Steam Ahead
Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell
Friday, Oct. 12, 2001
It is written that "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." We hope none of our readers are guilty of being so thoroughly afflicted with that disease we call "blind partisanship" that they are "offended" by clear warnings that all is not well in Bushland - for plainly, all is not well.
Yes, we fully support the President's call to hunt down our enemies like the dogs they are - at home and abroad. We've said it before - his first speech was wonderful. We are glad our military is doing its duty. We are happy that many potentially dangerous characters have been arrested. We are relieved that many potentially dangerous situations have been averted. Thank you to President Bush! Thank you to the armed forces! Thank you to federal, state, and local officers! We are grateful that all of you are on the job, that a battle plan is in place, and that it is reaping success!
On the other hand, we are alarmed at some of the particulars of the Bush battle plan - a battle plan which hides behind the shedding of tears, the saying of prayers, the waving of flags, the dropping of bombs, and a firm resolve for justice -- the establishment of something beyond victory and beyond justice - even a new world order.
Yes, a new world order, and that is their choice of words, not ours. An order which hopes to empower Russia, empower terrorist sponsors (so long as they serve alongside us in this new order), empower the United Nations and its bastard child NATO, and most importantly, enfeeble the "horse and buggy" notion of a sovereign, unilaterally aligned United States of America.
We wish we could present a different picture; but this is precisely the direction that the Bush Administration - as quietly as possible - pursues with vigor.
1. We have made a strong case, from day one, that the Bush Administration, heavily influence by CFR advisors, would use this tragedy to put Russia back in the business of being the Soviet Union - in Afghanistan, throughout Asia, and even in Europe. (1) On Sept 14, we joked about the possibility of US troops helping Russia re-conquer Afghanistan. It is no longer a joke. Their troops are there, and we are paying their bills and arming their soldiers.
Our next prediction: Russia will be first to arrive on sight in the capital city of Kabul as the "deliverers" of the Afghan people - just as they arrived first in Berlin to "deliver" the Germans, and they arrived first in Bosnia to "deliver" the Bosnians, and they arrived first in Kosovo, to "deliver" the Kosovoans.
Can you imagine the expression on the face of the locals? The irony. The bitterness. The fear. Freedom at last from the Taliban! Yes, but as per the guarantees of their former mass murdering masters, the "ex" communist and "ex" #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, mother Russia!
Will this be like Berlin, all over again? Let us remind our readers, Russia is asking in return for their "help" in the war on terrorism, that Bosnia, Kosovo, and the old boundaries of the Soviet Union be recognized as within a "Russian sphere of influence." Afghanistan, being upon the borders of that sphere of influence, is as it always was - part of that sphere. (2)
2. We noted that the Bush Administration is determined to look the other way even as Russia betrays the new alliance we forged with them. We wondered about the shoot down of a jet full of Israelis over the Black Sea, and Russia's disinformation barrage on the issue. The hush is now deafening. We wondered about a Russian 40 billion dollar trade deal with Iraq, and her 8 billion dollar arms deal with Iran, both of them just last week. (3) The silence is beyond belief.
Who should imagine this? Even the radical Clinton Administration wasn't brazen enough to publicly permit Russia to violate its commitment under a 1995 accord not to sell arms, including nuclear materials, to terrorist sponsor and American hater, Iran.
Have we forgotten? Republicans were ready to pull out the crucifix, place Al Gore on it, and mockingly chant treason! when word broke out late in the election cycle that Vice President Gore had cut a secret deal with Russia's Viktor Chernomyrdin to look the other way while Russia armed Iran. (4)
At so critical a juncture in our nation's history, when terrorists with connections to the government of Iran threaten to destroy us, where are the chants, and where is the crucifix now?
3. The day before the terrorist invasion, we spoke of another dangerous invasion. President Bush was proposing to open up the floodgates and begin a literal, step by step merger with the corrupt socialist regime directly to our south - Mexico - under the FTAA (Free Trade Zone of the America's), which the Bush administrations CFR supporters enthusiastically described as a fast track plan to create an Americas version of the European Union. (5)
America first loyalist? Hardly. CFR loyalist? Yes, that's the ticket for Mr. Bush.
4. A few days after the invasion, President Bush produced a proposal for an Office of Homeland Security. Perhaps, some of us are sure this is but an example of necessity being the mother of invention. But necessity did not create this Stalinistic mistake. The Council of Foreign Relations did.
It was the CFR, that beat Bush to the point - and fed him the idea. On September 14, three days after the attack on America, the CFR convened to discuss "[how] we might use this disaster to achieve that end," the end being, "[to] simultaneously come up with a new world order." [Their words] (6)
One of the top items on their list, and the focus of their meeting? The Office of Homeland Security, which came out of the head of Third Way, Futurist, CFR member, Newt Gingrich, three years ago - and was sent to President Bush by the Council of Foreign Relations for his consideration, earlier this year.
Some of you won't like this, but tough. This column has documented in the past that Mr. Gingrich's conservative resume is as phoney as Mr. Bush's. That he is ideologically tied to "ex" Marxist, Alvin Toffler, a man who openly calls for the eradication of the US Constitution. And that Gingrich's Contract With America was laden with subtle fine print betrayals of the principles it espoused up front. (7)
Who should be surprised, then, that Gingrich would be the brainchild behind the creation of a police state mechanism, and among the NWO scavengers who would anxiously pick the bones of the dead, for the sake of their revolution? We are not.
5. President Bush made history, ever so quietly - when after a public front of vacillating between high interest and no interest at all (this has been the main thrust) in obtaining approval from the UN Security Council for our war on terror, his people worked tirelessly behind the scenes to empower the UN as never before. As this column reported on October 3, the Bush Administration "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.
Simply, "the Bush administration . . . [gave] the U.N. what it has always craved, the revolutionary authority to compel the world to comply with its mandates" - which is, says US ambassador John D. Negroponte, "unprecedented."
And so now we reiterate, whether this authority is exercised at first, or not, is irrelevant. President Bush has just established a legal precedent which looks to empower the UN as a true government. You can count on it.
6. All of this, is bad enough. But President Bush is not content to leave bad enough alone.
On October 7 it was announced out of Brussels, Belgium, that NATO spy planes - AWACS - were requested by the Bush Administration to patrol US skies as part of Bush's Homeland Security apparatus. They are now here, patrolling our skies, when we have 33 AWACS of our own!
MSNBC reported last Sunday: "NATO OFFICIALS would not say why the United States had asked for the airborne warning and control system (AWACS) planes to be deployed there" (8)
Would you? We've heard some conservatives talk show hosts say, well, it's about time that NATO did something for us. This is doing something for us? We don't need them here. Let them patrol Europe, that's where they belong.
Face it, just like Bush's UN empowerment measure, this NATO empowerment measure, "[t]he deployment of foreign military forces to help defend the U.S. homeland is without precedent," says MSNBC. (9)
Yes, it is without precedent. We fought a revolutionary war over the quartering of British troops on our soil - and George W. Bush, invites something worse onto our shores - a NATO organization which:
* Has thrown millions into Osama bin Laden's KLA in Kosovo.
* Has fought against the deployment of a US missile defense shield. (That's how much our "allies" care for American security!)
* Has made it clear that they will not support the extradition of Osama bin Laden to the United States if the death penalty will be used. It's against EU law!
* Has a healthy share of socialist, communist, and anti-American states in their membership, and which hopes to quickly expand that list to include the "ex' communist Baltic states, the "ex" communist Soviet states, and even Russia.
* Is sworn by its charter to uphold "the principles and purposes of the United Nations," or that charter Soviet spy Alger Hiss wrote.
* Cannot take military actions without the consent of the UN Security Council.
Why would President Bush do this? Is it to get us used to a long range plan of eventually having NATO troops, UN troops, and even Russian and Chinese troops (under the United Nations) patrolling our streets?
An Attack Against Civilization?
Amazingly, George W. Bush has turned an attack against the United States on US soil, into an attack against all civilization. Those are his words. But if this is so - then why did 160 out of the 189 members of the United Nations vote last week to install terrorist sponsor Syria into the powerful United Nations Security Council? The same Syria, who by the way, immediately after being admitted into that council, unleashed a verbal attack on the United States and Israel? (10)
If our calculations are correct, 84.6 percent of the "civilized" nations of the earth voted to endorse terrorism and hate America, three weeks after the attack. Which is not surprising, or have we already forgotten the anti-American bash the UN sponsored at their racism conference just two weeks before the attack? Think about it, just because citizens from 80 other nations were in that World Trade Center when it went down, doesn't mean that those 80 nations value human life - if that were so, then there should have been at least 81 votes against Syria - but there weren't.
No Apologies from this Corner
What is President George W. Bush thinking? He first told us that he was standing up for America, but the truth is, he's standing up for "civilization," as the Council of Foreign Relations and its pro-communist, pro-terrorist United Nations define that civilization.
We've said it before, and we will say it again. We want a victory - an American victory.
Suggested Actions
Tell President Bush, your congressmen, and your senators that you support our military and domestic security campaign against our enemies - but that you are not happy about Russia, the UN, NATO, and a national police state being empowered as a result. Tell them you are aware of Russia's treachery, and you are not happy about an alliance with them. Ask them to co-sponsor Ron Paul's H.R. 1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001, and his sensible call for arming our pilots. Join forces with the folks at
to insure the terrorist sponsor United Nations gets out of the United States. There is a positive course to victory, it starts with defending American sovereignty and US constitutional principles, not surrendering them.
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. Missed a Stiff Right Jab? Visit our NewsMax archives
Footnotes
1. Beware Russia's motives, The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 4, 2001. As quoted in Out of the Rubble: The New Soviet Union, Montgomery & Farrell, NewsMax.com, Oct 5, 2001 Return
4. Gore Kept Russia-Iran Deal Secret, NewsMax.com Oct. 17, 2000 Return
5. Who is the Real Fox? Montgomery & Farrell, NewsMax.com, Sept. 10, 2001 Return
6. Transcript:National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council On Foreign Relations, September 14, 2001 Return
7. Democrats In Drag, Six Part Series, Steve Farrell, NewsMax.com Return
8. NATO to deploy AWACS in US, MSNBC, Oct. 7, 2001, Return
10. Syria Wins U.N. Security Council Seat, Monday October 8 11:56 AM ET Return