Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:52:55 -0700 From: spooner@gbis.com Subject: [lpaz-repost] Fwd: Our response to the John Birch Society To: vin@lvrj.com, deke@castleman.reno.nv.us, editor@huntingtonpress.com Cc: lpaz-repost@yahoogroups.com, ernesthancock@inficad.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:19:07 1900
To: dbuhlman@aol.com
From: webmaster@mikenew.com (Joe Sager)
Subject: Our response to the John Birch Society
24 July 2001
Dear Team,
As you know, on the 4th of July, the community of LaVerkin, Utah, declared their independence from the United Nations with a city ordinance banning the city from conducting any business with either the U.N. or any contractor who does. It also bans the UN flag from official city functions and property. It requires those facilities which engage in promoting that foreign power to identify themselves to city authorities. Many other towns are now considering similar ordinances.
The reaction was swift and predictable. The press has been on this like a duck on a June bug, and the Enviro-wackos are freaking out. The press has been nation-wide, and both the Attorney General of Utah and the ACLU have used the words, "law-suit." The reaction seems to be calculated to intimidate other communities who might follow LaVerkin's lead.
Friday, 20 July, the John Birch Society joined the fray with a press release, and get this, they came down on the same side of the issue as the press, the state officials, and the United Nations!
We simply want to urge our friends to not be too hard on the John Birch Society, a group of Americans with as much patriotism in their veins as you will find anywhere. They have a great history, and have produced some outstanding books and magazines over the past 42 years. They have been smeared and lied about by the press, and often been the victim of half-truths and innuendo on page one. The few apologies have always appeared on page 25 in small type. Their documentation has traditionally been very good, and the unpopular stands they have taken have often been proven right over time. Perhaps it will again, on this issue. Time will tell.
According to G. Vance Smith, CEO, their criticisms seem to be primarily these:
left1) The ordinance claims, "The United Nations Charter is not a treaty made under the authority of the United States." Not true.
2) The ordinance asserts that the UN Charter has "never been submitted to, nor ratified by the People of the United States." This is nonsense. The people do not ratify treaties. Treaties are made by the President and ratified by the Senate, which did indeed ratify the UN Charter.
3) Again, the ordinance asserts that ratification is "required by the Declaration of Independence." False again. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our nation's treaty-making power.
Our response is first found in the analysis provided by Dr. Herb Titus, constitutional scholar and lead attorney for Spc. Michael New. See it here: http://www.UNWatch.com/ This is the open letter to LaVerkin which he wrote for release today, it being Pioneer Day in Utah.
Let me add this for your consideration.
left1. Our premise is that the United Nations Charter is not a treaty -- it may be called that, and many people may be fooled by that, but the fact is, it is a foundational constitution for a One World Government. While it is true that the Senate is to ratify treaties (and they have not ratified major portions of the UN Charter to this day), it is clear that it is intended to be the governing document over the government of the Planet.
Treaties are made between sovereign states, or by conquered states in acquiescence to their new lords and masters. No one contends that the U.N. is an equal state to the USA. (Some do contend that it is superior.) And no one dares yet to contend that they are our conquerors.
Now, the Senate has the authority to ratify a genuine treaty, but it does not have the authority to overthrow the government of the United States by imposing a new constitution upon us without our consent. Only The People can do that. And they haven't done it.
2. Point number two follows because point number one is true, no matter what G. Vance Smith says. We agree that The People do not ratify treaties. But the U.N. Charter is not a treaty. Strike two.
3. Having swung and missed on points one and two, Smith cannot even see this pitch coming. He is blissfully unaware of the applicability of quotes like: "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles ... as shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Surely I don't need to tell Mr. Smith where that quote comes from.
It's applicable for the simple reason that we're not talking about a treaty, we're talking about resisting tyranny. And the Declaration does, indeed, apply. Strike three.
I had an opportunity today to speak briefly with Don Fotheringham, Utah representative for the Society. Mr. Fotheringham is a well-respected gentleman who has a long track record of working against the United Nations, against a Constitution Convention, and for less government.
In that conversation, on the Alex Jones Show (which resembles a free-for-all more than a civil dialogue), Mr. Fotheringham maintained that no attempt to solve this problem at a local level is appropriate. He believes that the solution lies exclusively with Congress.
We agree that Congress, in the end, holds the key. The problem is, Congress is asleep (or worse) at the wheel. They need a wake-up call.
From where should that call come? The United Nations? God? We think it should come from The People, and their elected public servants. If the States put the pressure, the Congress would begin to listen. LTC Archibald Roberts has a comprehensive approach to State-level initiatives. http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/
But the States seem to be in a deeper sleep than the nation. So now where does the pressure come from? From "lower magistrates," at the bottom of the pile -- local officials. When County and City leaders pass ordinances and resolutions, it sends a message to the State officials that the People (votes) are aware of a given issue, and re-election may well depend on their stand on that issue.
These local ordinances do more than stifle anti-American activities of the United Nations in local communities. They also shape the debate in the mind of the public. And that is a major accomplishment. For if we do not win in the "court of public opinion," then we cannot win anyhere.
Fotheringham also is concerned that our approach is "controversial." Coming from a Bircher, that is a strange concern indeed. He said that we are playing into the hands of the Left by fostering controversy. Funny. We sort of surmised from the reaction of the Left that they are furious. We have yet to receive any letters of gratitude from those who favor a One World Government. Let the controversy swirl.
He also condemns our approach as "populist." Now, we are not unaware of the dangers of populism, being akin to the worst side of "democracy." But in this case we have elected officials passing ordinances on behalf of the People, who in the majority appear to agree with the City Council. That is not populism, that is representative government - at its finest!
Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We are disappointed that Mr. Smith or his representatives didn't come to us, privately, and say, "We think we can help you improve upon your wording of this ordinance. Let's discuss it." Instead, they have fired a shot across our bow, and appear prepared to sink any effort that does not have their imprimatur.
Well, let it be clear that we do not intend to be distracted by a major feud with the John Birch Society. They are nice people, on the whole, (with one or two notable exceptions), and they are not our enemy. Like us, they can make mistakes. In fact, they've come down on the wrong side of several issues in the past five years, but we've not let that make them our enemies, and we've refrained from criticizing them in public. Until now. And I hope this is all we have to say on the subject at all. When allies fight, the enemy rejoices.
We well remember the days of Robert Welch, a man not afraid of controversy, and we dare say that if he were to return today, some things would change in a hurry in Appleton. But organizations are as susceptible to arteriosclerosis as are human beings, and it's always kind of sad to watch a good friend grow old, but not gracefully. Let's wish them well, and encourage their members to cut their leaders some slack. They're working under difficult circumstances. And their stress seems to be compounded by the fact that some things are happening around the country, effective efforts are being made, and they are not controlling those efforts.
In the meantime, we hope you will take a copy of our model ordinance, modify it to suit yourself, and hand it to your county commissioner, or city councilman, and ask them to take a stand now to obey the oath they took to protect the Constutition of the United States. You can find our version here: http://www.mikenew.com/unfreeor3 html If you improve upon it, let us know. This is not the Ten Commandments, it can definitely be improved upon. We want to see your end product, if you do that, so we can all help one another.
=A9 copyright 2001, Daniel D. New
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST: Send a blank email message to remove@mikenew.com. This will permanently remove you from all future mailings from us.