Behind the Headlines
Video of the Week
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2001 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink
from "Whatever Happened To America?" pages 486-491. Is history
repeating itself once again? Will the globalist model from the 1930s and
1940s work in the 21st century?
February, 2002 the leaders of the Western Hemisphere American
nations will meet in the barren wastelands of the far north of Canada
to hammer out the final details of the new All-America dollar.
When the meeting is over two thing will happen. First, NAFTAthe
North American Free Trade Agreement will be expanded to include every
nation in the western hemisphere, further draining jobs from the United
States to the human capital-rich, job-poor nations of Central and South
America in order to provide the transnational industrialists with the
consumer base it needs to grow profits in the 21st century. Second, the
Federal Reserve System will dollarize all of the economies
of North, Central and South America as the Euro becomes the official currency
of the nations of Europereducing 43 currencies to two...and giving
the overseers of the Fed and the European Central Bank effective control
over the decisions made by the governments of those nations. What does
that mean to the American taxpayer? Effective December 1, 2002, the taxpayers
of the United States will assume to responsibility of paying off the national
debts of all of the nations in the western hemisphere. But even more important,
the first phase of world government will have been successfully implemented.
All that will remain is the final abrogation of national sovereignty globally...peacefully
possible, by force if necessary.
British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd declared during an interview at
the United Nations in New York that the UN must assume an "imperial
role," and be prepared to usurp national sovereignty and assume control
when national governments collapse. And this, of course, is precisely
what the European Union did in 1999 when it ordered NATO to invade Serbia,
a sovereign but nonmember European Union nation, because the EU had received,
but could notor conveniently chose notto substantiate reports
the UN had received describing human rights atrocities committed upon
Islamic Kosovar Albanians by Serbian eastern orthodox Christians. The
"protecting human rights" rhetoric aside, the aerial invasion
of Serbia by England, the United States and a coalition of European Union
states was designed to accomplish three primary objectives.
the invasion of Serbia was designed to show the European nations, and
the rest of the world, that a new governing body existed which had supra-sovereignty
over the nation states under its control, and that it would not hesitate
to invade any nation that chose to ignore the new supra-authority's self-proclaimed
prerogative to interfere in the internal affairs of any nation within
its sphere of influence. Second, the invasion of Serbia made it clear
that this new supra-government claimed the authority to redefine national
boundaries and, if it so desired, to create additional nation states from
the States or provinces of existing sovereignties as it did when it recognized
Kosovo's right to secede from Serbia. And, third, the new supra-government
wanted to create a precedent it could use in the future to invade any
sovereign nation which either threatened or questioned its authority.
overlords of Europe, who created the master plan for global governmentand
who now controls most of its vast, lethal arsenal of war through NATOare
now flexing their muscles. While the human capital the transnational industrialists
require to create the consumers they need to buy the products and services
they will create over the next few decades in order to grow the global
economyand their profitswill come from the people-rich, job-poor
impoverished third world nations that currently hold most of the key power
positions in the UN. Although the overlords of Europe appear more than
eager to surrender not only jobs, but entire industries, to their neighbors
to the South and East in order to expand their profits in the new millennium,
it is not likely they will eagerly surrender real power to the emerging
nations who control the "public" affairs of the UN.
aerial invasion of Serbia was planned and executed by the European Union
and the United States which unleashed most of the devastation that destroyed
the Serb infrastructure. America joined the EU as a willing co-conspirator.
While the "operation" was billed as a UN-controlled action by
the media, it clearly was not one since the UN's angry voice was among
those who protested the senseless killing of over a hundred Kosovar Albanians
who were attempting to escapenot from the Serbs who, according to
the media, were slaughtering them by the thousands but from the
NATO planes that were bombing their cities and indiscriminately killing
those they were ostensibly sent to protect. The UN was obviously neither
"in charge," nor "informed" of the actions being taken
by NATO in either Serbia or Kosovo. It was a European Union action from
start to finish.
clearly than anything else, the dichotomy of events that transpired during
the brief Serb military excursion gave the world a clear indication of
precisely who controls the United Nations, and who is the real power behind
the New World Order. The former rulers of the kingdoms of Europe and their
industrialist and banking partners who control the European Union flexed
their political muscle and savored the sweet taste of victory. They had
breached sovereignty and no cries of outrage were heard.
to Grant Jeffrey in Final Warning, "...Secretary Hurd drew attention
to what he called 'a new phase in the world's history.' There is a need,"
he continued, "for the UN to intervene in crisis situations earlier
to prevent things from getting to the stage where countries are run by
corrupt warlords, as in Somalia." (Final Warning; Grant R. Jeffrey;
Frontier Research Publications © 1995; pgs. 99-100.)
opinion on the authority of the UN, or the European Union, to usurp national
sovereignty is simply one of many. In June, 1991 former CIA Director Stansfield
Turner defended the UN's role in the Gulf War while admitting that the
United Nations had intruded on Iraq's national sovereignty; adding that
the UN had created a precedent that would, in the future, be used "...in
all of the countries of the world." (Secret Records Revealed; Dennis
Lawrence Cuddy; Ph.D.; The Plymouth Rock Foundation © 1995; pg. 40.)
July 20, 1992 Time magazine published an article entitled The Birth of
the Global Nation by Strobe Talbott, the former Oxford classmate and personal
friend of Bill Clinton, in which Talbott wrote: "All countries are
basically social arrangements...No matter how permanent or sacred they
may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary...Perhaps
national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all...But it has taken
the events in our wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for
world government." (ibid; pg. 41.) Talbott, who is probably best
remembered as the "credible" Time editor who came to Clinton's
defense when then Governor Clinton was confronted with accusations that
he had dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, was rewarded for his loyalty
by being named to the second highest post in the State Department.
August, 1992 former Citicorp Chairman Walter Wriston's book, The Twilight
of Sovereignty, was published. Wriston wrote: "...A truly global
economy will require...compromises of national sovereignty...There is
no escaping the system." (ibid; pg. 42.)
the winter of 1992-93, Foreign Affairs printed an article by former UN
Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali entitled Empowering the United
Nations in which the Egyptian statesman said: "It is undeniable that
the centuries-old doctrine of absolute and exclusive sovereignty no longer
stands...Underlying the rights of the individual and the rights of people
is a dimension of universal sovereignty that resides in all humanity...It
is a sense that increasingly finds expression in the gradual expansion
of international law...In this setting the significance of the United
Nations should be evident and accepted." (ibid; pg. 44.)
issue, and the empirical need for the unilateral disarming not only of
nations but of the people within those nations, is based solely on anticipated
resistance to the worldwide dissolution of the nation state. If a nation,
or a people, lack the means to resist, resistance to tyranny will be short-lived.
Conversely, a well-armed population cannot easily be enslaved. As long
as Americans retain and exercise the right to own firearms, the New World
Order cannot be created. The minute that right is taken from, or voluntarily
surrendered by, the American people, liberty will die a bittersweet death.
The Constitution as we know it will die shortly thereafter, as will the
Bill of Rights and the remaining rights and liberties that Americans so
freely enjoy but so casually take for granted.
elitists among us, while rhetorically affirming our Constitutional right,
but not our actual need, to own firearms insist that it is necessary to
disarm Americans to protect us from themselves. Steps must be taken, the
custodians of law and order steadfastly maintain, to get guns off the
streets. They stubbornly insist that the availability of legal firearms
has substantially contributed to crime in America.
gun control laws, they insist, will reduce the rate of violent crime and
murder in America.
like the National Rifle Association and Gunowners of America have frequently
and accurately quoted John R. Lott's1 research that less than 7% of the
weapons used by criminals were either purchased legally or stolen from
those who originally legally purchased them. (More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding
Crime and Gun Control Laws; John R. Lott, Jr. © 1998; University
of Chicago Press.)
A cornucopia of unconstitutional confiscatory gun control laws are regularly
enacted in almost every session of Congress with hardly a murmur of protest
by an outraged public which has largely failed to grasp the reality that
all of the other "inherent rights" guaranteed them under the
Bill of Rights will remain unconditional only as long as the 2nd Amendment
stands. When the 2nd Amendment is successfully breached, the Bill of Rights
will die, as will the Constitution as we know it.
most diehard antigun lobbyists insist that increasingly restrictive measures
are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, it is interesting
to note that the most restrictive gun laws are enacted with retroactive
grandfather clauses that are specifically designed to make it illegal
for law-abiding citizens to possess the weapons they legally purchased
before the law was created. It is important to remember, as difficult
as it may be to believe, restrictive gun laws are not, nor were they ever,
intended to keep guns out of the hands of the malefactorthey are
designed solely to take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen
since it is the law-abiding citizens, and not the criminals, who will
most likely rebel against the central government that attempts to steal
their liberty and surrender their sovereignty to a foreign power.
it violates the Constitution to forbid its citizens the right to own firearms,
the government of the United States has chosen to nibble away at the edges
of the 2nd Amendment rather than try to take a giant bite out of the middle
of it, believing somehow that America wouldn't notice "baby bites"
or that America wouldn't object too strenuously to the "regulation"
of what they call the nation's most lethal industry, since Big Brother
emphatically declared it was not trying to eliminate the citizen's right
to own a firearm, but was merely attempting to control which citizens
could legally do soand what types of firearms those citizens might
Germany's citizens did not object to the registration or the regulation
of guns. Nor did Russia's.
remained free. Registration, as any government well knows, is the first
step towards elimination.
Hitler came into power in 1933, he began by freeing Germany of the shackles
of the Treaty of Versailles. It was his first step in restoring Germany
to its pre-war economic eminence. That was, after all, what the German
people wanted. They were unemployed and wanted jobs. They were hungry
and wanted to be fed. In exchange for jobs and food, the German citizen
willingly surrendered what each individually believed was "just a
little" personal freedom. Unemployment in Germany dropped from slightly
over 6 million in 1934 to roughly 1 million in 1936.
Censorship cloaked the media. The government issued a national identity
card to each citizen, ostensibly to make certain that Jews didn't steal
jobsand foodfrom hardworking Aryans. And, because the need
might arise to defend the motherland from foreign aggressors, every firearm
in the Third Reich was registered.
to vanish was free elections.
to vanish was freedom itself.
and armed with a job, the German worker barely noticed. It didn't matter.
One politician, he reasoned, was pretty much the same as another. And,
what value was freedom to a starving man?
Adequately confirmed by history, it is reasonably
safe to say that gun registration ultimately leads to gun confiscation.
It is also reasonably safe to assume that if gun ownership in America
is not abrogated before the proponents of the New World Order attempt
to abolish the Constitution and tear down the walls of national sovereignty
in the United States, there will be a second American Revolution. Therefore,
logic alone mandates that such an attempt must necessarily be made very
who, for whatever reason, don't understand what they believe is a "fetish"
other Americans have for guns, but who cherish the other liberties provided
them by the Constitution of the United States must understand their need
to fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment because when the right of Americans
to own a firearm is swallowed up by the federal government, our remaining
liberties will be consumed in the next couple of bites.