FrankRep
11-22-2011, 10:42 AM
Your Side, My Side, and the Truth
Arthur R. Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org.)
December 2011
Too often we find ourselves dragged into taking a side in the arena of politics when no matter which alternative is chosen, the result will be disaster.
One wag claimed that there are three sides to an issue: there is your side, my side, and then there is the truth.
For example, there is the not so humorous debate over the neoconservative position that wants to strike out against all perceived enemies with our armed forces and the opposite libertarian view that calls for being friendly with every country.
Both are wrong. We explain below.
First, let’s set the stage for our discussion by understanding that the people in our government who work to establish socialism at home are the same people who direct our foreign policy.
Therefore, if their policies lead to converting our country into a socialist state, would they be doing something other than that in other countries where they have injected themselves? These people refer to what they are doing as building democracy. And too many Americans accept that as a worthy goal.
Members of our Society know that our country’s Founders abhorred democracy because it descends into mobocracy and then oligarchy. Most citizens have yet to understand this. However, many more now appreciate the fact we were given a Republic. They do so because of the efforts of members over the decades and the widespread showings of Overview of America, already viewed by millions. In turn, millions more have learned the truth about America’s roots because conservative leaders and organizations have taken our material and used it in their work.
Even so, many of these same millions haven’t made the connection between the problems at home and the problems abroad — that the same people actually formulate and implement both domestic and foreign policy. The two policies are inseparable and the end goal is the New World Order. If they have their way, America will be only one cog in a one-world socialist machine.
Second, as we have discussed before, the Insiders use semantics and slogans as a weapon to channel our thinking and support. The current term used to forward their foreign policy objectives is “support our troops.”
Translated, what the socialists in government mean is waging no-win, undeclared wars without break ever since the struggle in the Balkans — 16 years. If you add the wars that ended with our troops remaining in conquered or liberated countries, that started 66 years ago after World War II.
We have troops stationed in more than a hundred nations and are building more and more bases overseas while closing bases at home. If our armed forces are really being used for our protection, one would think that the bases at home would receive first consideration.
Another aspect of our truly “foreign” foreign policy is that our leaders tell us that our country is being protected by U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Most media outlets never point out that if our leaders in government are concerned about “protecting our country” in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al, why are they not concerned about protection at our own borders? For many years, our country has been invaded by illegal immigrants and virtually nothing has been done about it.
Correction: It is not that nothing has been done about the flood of border crossers. Our leaders have actually been stimulating the invasion with policies labeled refugee importation and refugee reunification. This has led to several million immigrants coming into our country at taxpayer expense from Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Somalia, Haiti, Bhutan, etc. Small towns across the country have been inundated with population increases after our own government placed thousands here and there, supporting them for up to seven years.
If the argument for all of the intervention is that we are protecting the people of the United States, then why have we never declared war against any enemy we’ve fought since the beginning of World War II? For seasoned members of the Society, we know why, but for any newcomers to our ranks who may not be aware, the simple answer is that we have gone to war under the leadership of the United Nations, either directly as in Korea, or indirectly through UN subsidiaries, such as NATO and SEATO, and we’ve been willing to implement UN Security Council resolutions.
U.S. armed forces have over and over been used by the United Nations for its purposes. They have built power for the world body and centralized control over other nations for the UN. Our own leaders have played the “support our troops” card to get the American people
to support UN aims, not U.S. aims, because official U.S. policy is in reality UN policy. Let us be clear — we should always support our troops, but not as a slogan to use them to build a New World Order.
The argument that America must intervene in the conflicts of other nations amounts in practice to subordinating our armed forces to the UN and its goals. The proper attitude is that except when directly defending American lives and soil, supporting our troops should mean never putting them in harm’s way, especially to implement an agenda culminating in a New World Order.
You have to give George H.W. Bush credit for honesty. When he sent our forces into war in 1991, he actually boasted that his goal included creating a New World Order. He said so over and over — before, during and after the attack on Iraq known as Desert Storm.
We either abide by the Constitution or we do not. We cannot pick and choose what to uphold and what to ignore. The Constitution requires a declaration of war to commit our troops to war, not a UN resolution.
The alternative to interventionism is the need to be friendly with every country. Certainly our country’s founders held this view, particularly George Washington. He and others wanted no “entangling alliances.”
Can we all agree that the world has changed a little since the founding of the United States? The key to understanding what has happened over the past 200 years politically is that there has been an international force determined to destroy the freedom of the American people because we, a free American people, stand in the way of the New World Order. One of the major promoters of this drive is communism.
Communism didn’t die as has so often been reported. It was a case of the snake shedding its skin. People who wanted security and relief from fear fell for the idea that communism no longer existed. But it was a partial retreat; the snake is coiling to strike while the American people admire its new skin.
Subsequently, Latin America, far more important than Europe or Asia to our domestic well-being, has been going steadily communist to the point where only two major countries are not now in its orbit: Mexico and Colombia. But both are undergoing major destabilizations
that can easily lead to the emergence of a communist regime rising out of the chaos. Both pose as drug problems, with FARC in Colombia supported by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and the drug cartels immediately south of our border linked to Hezbollah terrorists. Recent deaths along our southern border have all the earmarks of communist terrorist tactics.
Interestingly, the major Mexican cartel known as the Zetas arose from a breakaway group out of Mexican Special Forces that had been trained by the United States. This shows another weakness in the argument claiming that good comes from our involvement around the world. Almost without exception, our enemies have been trained, financed, and supplied somewhere along the way by U.S. intelligence services or the State Department.
BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, can be found in the business pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. It is a new soviet bloc, although never referred to by that term. Each of these countries is ruled by communists with a façade of some level of freedom but not yet with out-and-out Stalinist or Maoist rule.
In recent months, the current leaders of Brazil and South Africa have withstood scandals in government that have them playing the game of good-communist-bad-communist for the voters. One communist in power is challenged by another communist. No matter who wins, the people have a communist in power.
If you look at the strategic aspects of BRICS, it becomes obvious that these countries either control or are poised to control the geographic areas around them. Brazil is really the main communist power in Latin America, not Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez. He’s what Americans have been led to believe is the really bad guy while Brazil has become the chief power broker in Latin America.
My point is that we live in a dangerous world. There are some countries with which we cannot be friendly, even with their businessmen, because of the government system under which they operate. Communist China is the prime example.
Let us revisit George Washington and the wisdom he imparted to the American people in his day: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” Further he said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
The playing field isn’t nearly as level as it was in Washington’s day. Doing business in or with a communist state only builds the communist state. They will not allow it to be otherwise. In 1796, this was not a problem, generally speaking, at least not on a global scale. What has changed since George Washington wrote those words is that foreign influence from a communist or socialist state comes just as much through commercial relations as it does in any act of diplomacy. In fact, commerce has long been employed as a diplomatic tool by communist states.
We appreciate the fact that many businessmen have to do business with China due to the prevailing circumstances; however, communist governments use any means at their disposal to further their aims, and this includes commerce, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, etc. — anything and everything they can employ to help them destroy governments in a free country.
The Chinese communist government, through its People’s Liberation Army, runs much of the industry in China, especially heavy industry. Political officers are stationed at the factories and they oversee the people running the businesses. This is likewise true of cultural or intellectual exchanges.
Does it seem to be committing suicide by doing business with a society built as is today’s China? The Beijing regime has declared annually that the United States is its enemy and its goal is to defeat our nation. Yet, in many ways, we are helping to build an economy that will be used to accomplish this goal.
Here in the United States, we talk about competition. The Chinese talk about annihilation — a big difference.
Chinese espionage is rampant in America. It is carried out through commercial activity with the Beijingled government, especially in areas of technology and military manufacturing. It is so prevalent in California’s Silicon Valley that one community flew the Red Chinese flag over its city hall for three days in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Chinese communist revolution. Its leaders said that they did so because so many Chinese from the Mainland were working in their city.
As long as China is ruled by communists, we should not even be on friendly terms with its agents — not in any way that might come back to haunt us.
So we see the two sides of an issue presented to us, the neocon position and the libertarian one. But, as stated above, there is a third side consisting of truth.
Our nation should never be involved in wars that aren’t declared by Congress — period! Especially should we not be engaged in conflicts under the aegis of the United Nations. In today’s world our forces aren’t fighting for us. Even though the troops in the field and most Americans don’t realize it, they are fighting for the UN.
Likewise, we should not be doing business with communists. Doing so has cost our country our economic vitality, the jobs of many of our people, and a loss of security.
What we should be doing is bringing our troops home, building up our defenses at home, and controlling our own nation’s borders.
If we acted in the best interest of our own nation, the lost jobs would begin to return.
With the buildup of communism south of the border and the scheme to build highways from Mexico into the U.S. — supposedly for commercial reasons — it doesn’t take much imagination to think that the highways might be used for military purposes.
No government has built highways for strictly commercial reasons. The Appian Way was a means to move the Roman legions rapidly where needed. The King’s highway was for the King’s army and messengers. The military roads were built across America to move our troops rapidly through the states. The Autobahn in Germany was intended to move the German military forces across Germany in case of a two-front war. The
U.S. Interstate Highway System was built with defense appropriations. Its original purpose was to place the American intercontinental missiles on wheels to be able to move them around so an enemy wouldn’t be able to target them.
Hitler had his V-2 missile launchers on wheels so that Allied intelligence couldn’t pinpoint where they were and send in aircraft to attack the sites. Every communist state rolls out its long-range missiles for parades. Doing so demonstrates their might, but it also shows that they are mobile and less likely to be put out of action with bombing raids. Even during the first Gulf War, the scud rockets could not be located because they were mobile.
The Chinese control the port city of Lazaro Cardenas at the tip of the funnel where the proposed “NAFTA Highway” is scheduled to be built. If ever completed, military supplies, manned by the armies of Latin America, could roll into and across the United States within 72 hours and there would be little to stop them. After all, our men are in…? Well, where aren’t they stationed? The answer is virtually everywhere except in the United States where they belong. Especially this is true of many National Guard units.
Our air force bases are short of aircraft because the planes are also overseas.
We don’t want to appear paranoid, and the aforementioned NAFTA highways are a long way off from being built, but we cannot look at any one situation as though it were isolated from others. The people who want a New World Order are working from a master plan that contains many elements and are capable of implementing many twists and turns. We have to consider all of them. We cannot make decisions based on one thing or another — all of them have to be understood in order to know the gravity of the problems we face.
Whether the above use of a planned NAFTA Highway will ever occur is something we don’t know. It will happen, however, if we are not on guard to every eventuality. Having our troops stationed on our own soil would result in many positives: the military expenditures for housing, feeding, etc. would be made in the United States, not given to foreign lands. We would be able to secure our borders. We would not be creating ill towards the U.S. by having our forces “over there.”
Simply stationing troops in other lands builds resentment that leads to violence. It can consist of anything from fist fights to recruitment into terrorism. And, it is not confined to Muslim nations. While visiting Heidelberg in Germany in 1987, I witnessed a rather brutal fight on the street because the locals resented American soldiers trying to date German girls.
Those who claim to be students of history don’t seem to recall that Americans didn’t appreciate British troops being stationed in Boston during the period leading to independence. We are no different from other people in that regard. And it doesn’t matter how well behaved our forces are; the people in any country will always resent our presence once any initial reason for our being there fades away.
From almost any angle, the benefits of bringing our troops and our industry back home outweigh supposed disadvantages. We need heavy industry in order to be prepared to fight in any future war. We won World War II because we out-produced the Axis Powers. If we suffered from a Pearl Harbor today, we would be hardpressed to switch what heavy industry we have left to production of heavy weapons in sufficient numbers to wage a world conflict.
It is not simply the end-product factories. We have shut down too much of our metals production and metals are needed for any large-scale manufacture of tanks, trucks, airplanes, etc. We have not only shut them down, we have dismantled them! It should also be well-known that we don’t have nearly the number of airplane manufacturers that we once had.
Our auto plants that were converted to military purposes during World War II are now largely owned by foreign companies. Some are even owned by the very people we defeated in World War II.
There are so many reasons to bring our industry home. The chief obvious benefit would be the economic well-being of the American people. Would we pay a little more for the tools we use and the textiles we wear? Yes, but the price is worth preserving the future of our country.
A study of the erosion of our economy and the effects of so-called free trade reveals that there has been a deliberate degradation of our way of life all across the board. It has been done to speed the creation of a North American Union on the way to the New World Order and its world parliament. After all, it is very difficult to merge our country with poor countries. The standard of living in the U.S. has to come down first.
There are many other steps our enemies need to take in order to reach their sinister goal. They must dilute free enterprise so what’s left can be merged with other socialized schemes; they must socialize medicine to conform with other socialist systems; they must convert our local
police into agents of the central government that can then be integrated with already nationalized foreign police power; they must arrange for merging the armed forces of several nations including our own; and they must subject America’s banking system to international control. Beyond these main goals are numerous other steps that are not yet being addressed, but that will be taken if the progress toward the overall goal continues. It is at least somewhat comforting to know that our enemies have a longer way to go than most people think.
Looking at the situation from the perspective of the enemies of freedom, we can confidently state that they have a big problem. They face a growing awareness on the part of the American people who are beginning to realize that something very sinister is going on. The enemies of freedom are trying to get their arms around this problem — to neutralize or destroy the opposition.
If our nation’s economic vitality is weakened even further but some political resistance still remains, the would-be destroyers will turn to war to put an end to our American system. The importation of potential terrorists among the refugees brought here by our government would provide domestic destabilization through disruption of communications and essential services while tying up National Guard units and police in a frenzy of activity.
Our vitally important work in The John Birch Society, as we have long known, has always been cut out for us. As each of us does our best to right the ship of state, we should consider the following statement from one of the great men who founded this country. Addressing the many troubles in his day, John Adams said:
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves
upon the ruin of this country.
Those who sought the ruin of our country were indeed disappointed in the late 1700s. And we can succeed as they did if enough people can be mustered to understand who their enemy is and then stand by the flag and work to preserve the marvelous country those early Americans built for us.
Arthur R. Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org.)
December 2011
Too often we find ourselves dragged into taking a side in the arena of politics when no matter which alternative is chosen, the result will be disaster.
One wag claimed that there are three sides to an issue: there is your side, my side, and then there is the truth.
For example, there is the not so humorous debate over the neoconservative position that wants to strike out against all perceived enemies with our armed forces and the opposite libertarian view that calls for being friendly with every country.
Both are wrong. We explain below.
First, let’s set the stage for our discussion by understanding that the people in our government who work to establish socialism at home are the same people who direct our foreign policy.
Therefore, if their policies lead to converting our country into a socialist state, would they be doing something other than that in other countries where they have injected themselves? These people refer to what they are doing as building democracy. And too many Americans accept that as a worthy goal.
Members of our Society know that our country’s Founders abhorred democracy because it descends into mobocracy and then oligarchy. Most citizens have yet to understand this. However, many more now appreciate the fact we were given a Republic. They do so because of the efforts of members over the decades and the widespread showings of Overview of America, already viewed by millions. In turn, millions more have learned the truth about America’s roots because conservative leaders and organizations have taken our material and used it in their work.
Even so, many of these same millions haven’t made the connection between the problems at home and the problems abroad — that the same people actually formulate and implement both domestic and foreign policy. The two policies are inseparable and the end goal is the New World Order. If they have their way, America will be only one cog in a one-world socialist machine.
Second, as we have discussed before, the Insiders use semantics and slogans as a weapon to channel our thinking and support. The current term used to forward their foreign policy objectives is “support our troops.”
Translated, what the socialists in government mean is waging no-win, undeclared wars without break ever since the struggle in the Balkans — 16 years. If you add the wars that ended with our troops remaining in conquered or liberated countries, that started 66 years ago after World War II.
We have troops stationed in more than a hundred nations and are building more and more bases overseas while closing bases at home. If our armed forces are really being used for our protection, one would think that the bases at home would receive first consideration.
Another aspect of our truly “foreign” foreign policy is that our leaders tell us that our country is being protected by U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Most media outlets never point out that if our leaders in government are concerned about “protecting our country” in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al, why are they not concerned about protection at our own borders? For many years, our country has been invaded by illegal immigrants and virtually nothing has been done about it.
Correction: It is not that nothing has been done about the flood of border crossers. Our leaders have actually been stimulating the invasion with policies labeled refugee importation and refugee reunification. This has led to several million immigrants coming into our country at taxpayer expense from Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Somalia, Haiti, Bhutan, etc. Small towns across the country have been inundated with population increases after our own government placed thousands here and there, supporting them for up to seven years.
If the argument for all of the intervention is that we are protecting the people of the United States, then why have we never declared war against any enemy we’ve fought since the beginning of World War II? For seasoned members of the Society, we know why, but for any newcomers to our ranks who may not be aware, the simple answer is that we have gone to war under the leadership of the United Nations, either directly as in Korea, or indirectly through UN subsidiaries, such as NATO and SEATO, and we’ve been willing to implement UN Security Council resolutions.
U.S. armed forces have over and over been used by the United Nations for its purposes. They have built power for the world body and centralized control over other nations for the UN. Our own leaders have played the “support our troops” card to get the American people
to support UN aims, not U.S. aims, because official U.S. policy is in reality UN policy. Let us be clear — we should always support our troops, but not as a slogan to use them to build a New World Order.
The argument that America must intervene in the conflicts of other nations amounts in practice to subordinating our armed forces to the UN and its goals. The proper attitude is that except when directly defending American lives and soil, supporting our troops should mean never putting them in harm’s way, especially to implement an agenda culminating in a New World Order.
You have to give George H.W. Bush credit for honesty. When he sent our forces into war in 1991, he actually boasted that his goal included creating a New World Order. He said so over and over — before, during and after the attack on Iraq known as Desert Storm.
We either abide by the Constitution or we do not. We cannot pick and choose what to uphold and what to ignore. The Constitution requires a declaration of war to commit our troops to war, not a UN resolution.
The alternative to interventionism is the need to be friendly with every country. Certainly our country’s founders held this view, particularly George Washington. He and others wanted no “entangling alliances.”
Can we all agree that the world has changed a little since the founding of the United States? The key to understanding what has happened over the past 200 years politically is that there has been an international force determined to destroy the freedom of the American people because we, a free American people, stand in the way of the New World Order. One of the major promoters of this drive is communism.
Communism didn’t die as has so often been reported. It was a case of the snake shedding its skin. People who wanted security and relief from fear fell for the idea that communism no longer existed. But it was a partial retreat; the snake is coiling to strike while the American people admire its new skin.
Subsequently, Latin America, far more important than Europe or Asia to our domestic well-being, has been going steadily communist to the point where only two major countries are not now in its orbit: Mexico and Colombia. But both are undergoing major destabilizations
that can easily lead to the emergence of a communist regime rising out of the chaos. Both pose as drug problems, with FARC in Colombia supported by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and the drug cartels immediately south of our border linked to Hezbollah terrorists. Recent deaths along our southern border have all the earmarks of communist terrorist tactics.
Interestingly, the major Mexican cartel known as the Zetas arose from a breakaway group out of Mexican Special Forces that had been trained by the United States. This shows another weakness in the argument claiming that good comes from our involvement around the world. Almost without exception, our enemies have been trained, financed, and supplied somewhere along the way by U.S. intelligence services or the State Department.
BRICS, an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, can be found in the business pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. It is a new soviet bloc, although never referred to by that term. Each of these countries is ruled by communists with a façade of some level of freedom but not yet with out-and-out Stalinist or Maoist rule.
In recent months, the current leaders of Brazil and South Africa have withstood scandals in government that have them playing the game of good-communist-bad-communist for the voters. One communist in power is challenged by another communist. No matter who wins, the people have a communist in power.
If you look at the strategic aspects of BRICS, it becomes obvious that these countries either control or are poised to control the geographic areas around them. Brazil is really the main communist power in Latin America, not Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez. He’s what Americans have been led to believe is the really bad guy while Brazil has become the chief power broker in Latin America.
My point is that we live in a dangerous world. There are some countries with which we cannot be friendly, even with their businessmen, because of the government system under which they operate. Communist China is the prime example.
Let us revisit George Washington and the wisdom he imparted to the American people in his day: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” Further he said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
The playing field isn’t nearly as level as it was in Washington’s day. Doing business in or with a communist state only builds the communist state. They will not allow it to be otherwise. In 1796, this was not a problem, generally speaking, at least not on a global scale. What has changed since George Washington wrote those words is that foreign influence from a communist or socialist state comes just as much through commercial relations as it does in any act of diplomacy. In fact, commerce has long been employed as a diplomatic tool by communist states.
We appreciate the fact that many businessmen have to do business with China due to the prevailing circumstances; however, communist governments use any means at their disposal to further their aims, and this includes commerce, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, etc. — anything and everything they can employ to help them destroy governments in a free country.
The Chinese communist government, through its People’s Liberation Army, runs much of the industry in China, especially heavy industry. Political officers are stationed at the factories and they oversee the people running the businesses. This is likewise true of cultural or intellectual exchanges.
Does it seem to be committing suicide by doing business with a society built as is today’s China? The Beijing regime has declared annually that the United States is its enemy and its goal is to defeat our nation. Yet, in many ways, we are helping to build an economy that will be used to accomplish this goal.
Here in the United States, we talk about competition. The Chinese talk about annihilation — a big difference.
Chinese espionage is rampant in America. It is carried out through commercial activity with the Beijingled government, especially in areas of technology and military manufacturing. It is so prevalent in California’s Silicon Valley that one community flew the Red Chinese flag over its city hall for three days in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Chinese communist revolution. Its leaders said that they did so because so many Chinese from the Mainland were working in their city.
As long as China is ruled by communists, we should not even be on friendly terms with its agents — not in any way that might come back to haunt us.
So we see the two sides of an issue presented to us, the neocon position and the libertarian one. But, as stated above, there is a third side consisting of truth.
Our nation should never be involved in wars that aren’t declared by Congress — period! Especially should we not be engaged in conflicts under the aegis of the United Nations. In today’s world our forces aren’t fighting for us. Even though the troops in the field and most Americans don’t realize it, they are fighting for the UN.
Likewise, we should not be doing business with communists. Doing so has cost our country our economic vitality, the jobs of many of our people, and a loss of security.
What we should be doing is bringing our troops home, building up our defenses at home, and controlling our own nation’s borders.
If we acted in the best interest of our own nation, the lost jobs would begin to return.
With the buildup of communism south of the border and the scheme to build highways from Mexico into the U.S. — supposedly for commercial reasons — it doesn’t take much imagination to think that the highways might be used for military purposes.
No government has built highways for strictly commercial reasons. The Appian Way was a means to move the Roman legions rapidly where needed. The King’s highway was for the King’s army and messengers. The military roads were built across America to move our troops rapidly through the states. The Autobahn in Germany was intended to move the German military forces across Germany in case of a two-front war. The
U.S. Interstate Highway System was built with defense appropriations. Its original purpose was to place the American intercontinental missiles on wheels to be able to move them around so an enemy wouldn’t be able to target them.
Hitler had his V-2 missile launchers on wheels so that Allied intelligence couldn’t pinpoint where they were and send in aircraft to attack the sites. Every communist state rolls out its long-range missiles for parades. Doing so demonstrates their might, but it also shows that they are mobile and less likely to be put out of action with bombing raids. Even during the first Gulf War, the scud rockets could not be located because they were mobile.
The Chinese control the port city of Lazaro Cardenas at the tip of the funnel where the proposed “NAFTA Highway” is scheduled to be built. If ever completed, military supplies, manned by the armies of Latin America, could roll into and across the United States within 72 hours and there would be little to stop them. After all, our men are in…? Well, where aren’t they stationed? The answer is virtually everywhere except in the United States where they belong. Especially this is true of many National Guard units.
Our air force bases are short of aircraft because the planes are also overseas.
We don’t want to appear paranoid, and the aforementioned NAFTA highways are a long way off from being built, but we cannot look at any one situation as though it were isolated from others. The people who want a New World Order are working from a master plan that contains many elements and are capable of implementing many twists and turns. We have to consider all of them. We cannot make decisions based on one thing or another — all of them have to be understood in order to know the gravity of the problems we face.
Whether the above use of a planned NAFTA Highway will ever occur is something we don’t know. It will happen, however, if we are not on guard to every eventuality. Having our troops stationed on our own soil would result in many positives: the military expenditures for housing, feeding, etc. would be made in the United States, not given to foreign lands. We would be able to secure our borders. We would not be creating ill towards the U.S. by having our forces “over there.”
Simply stationing troops in other lands builds resentment that leads to violence. It can consist of anything from fist fights to recruitment into terrorism. And, it is not confined to Muslim nations. While visiting Heidelberg in Germany in 1987, I witnessed a rather brutal fight on the street because the locals resented American soldiers trying to date German girls.
Those who claim to be students of history don’t seem to recall that Americans didn’t appreciate British troops being stationed in Boston during the period leading to independence. We are no different from other people in that regard. And it doesn’t matter how well behaved our forces are; the people in any country will always resent our presence once any initial reason for our being there fades away.
From almost any angle, the benefits of bringing our troops and our industry back home outweigh supposed disadvantages. We need heavy industry in order to be prepared to fight in any future war. We won World War II because we out-produced the Axis Powers. If we suffered from a Pearl Harbor today, we would be hardpressed to switch what heavy industry we have left to production of heavy weapons in sufficient numbers to wage a world conflict.
It is not simply the end-product factories. We have shut down too much of our metals production and metals are needed for any large-scale manufacture of tanks, trucks, airplanes, etc. We have not only shut them down, we have dismantled them! It should also be well-known that we don’t have nearly the number of airplane manufacturers that we once had.
Our auto plants that were converted to military purposes during World War II are now largely owned by foreign companies. Some are even owned by the very people we defeated in World War II.
There are so many reasons to bring our industry home. The chief obvious benefit would be the economic well-being of the American people. Would we pay a little more for the tools we use and the textiles we wear? Yes, but the price is worth preserving the future of our country.
A study of the erosion of our economy and the effects of so-called free trade reveals that there has been a deliberate degradation of our way of life all across the board. It has been done to speed the creation of a North American Union on the way to the New World Order and its world parliament. After all, it is very difficult to merge our country with poor countries. The standard of living in the U.S. has to come down first.
There are many other steps our enemies need to take in order to reach their sinister goal. They must dilute free enterprise so what’s left can be merged with other socialized schemes; they must socialize medicine to conform with other socialist systems; they must convert our local
police into agents of the central government that can then be integrated with already nationalized foreign police power; they must arrange for merging the armed forces of several nations including our own; and they must subject America’s banking system to international control. Beyond these main goals are numerous other steps that are not yet being addressed, but that will be taken if the progress toward the overall goal continues. It is at least somewhat comforting to know that our enemies have a longer way to go than most people think.
Looking at the situation from the perspective of the enemies of freedom, we can confidently state that they have a big problem. They face a growing awareness on the part of the American people who are beginning to realize that something very sinister is going on. The enemies of freedom are trying to get their arms around this problem — to neutralize or destroy the opposition.
If our nation’s economic vitality is weakened even further but some political resistance still remains, the would-be destroyers will turn to war to put an end to our American system. The importation of potential terrorists among the refugees brought here by our government would provide domestic destabilization through disruption of communications and essential services while tying up National Guard units and police in a frenzy of activity.
Our vitally important work in The John Birch Society, as we have long known, has always been cut out for us. As each of us does our best to right the ship of state, we should consider the following statement from one of the great men who founded this country. Addressing the many troubles in his day, John Adams said:
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves
upon the ruin of this country.
Those who sought the ruin of our country were indeed disappointed in the late 1700s. And we can succeed as they did if enough people can be mustered to understand who their enemy is and then stand by the flag and work to preserve the marvelous country those early Americans built for us.