Subscribe to free
Pharisee Watch

Gifts Accepted Here

Journal of "We Hold These Truths"

November 1996

The Sheriff Under Our Constitutional Republic

Liberal Bias in the Media is "Alive and Well"

Understanding the Internationalist's Triangle, The United Nations, Foreign Aid and Terrorism

The Sheriff Under Our Constitutional Republic

by C.E. Carlson

English history and common law defines the Sheriff as the "Kings Reeve." Appointed for life, the Sheriff held unique power of life or death over the shire. In Sweden the Sheriff was considered of royal blood and the position passed to his heirs. Positioned above the State Church Vicar, the Swedish Sheriff was second in power to the King himself. Historically he had the authority for both execution and judgment of the law. Frequently he was both judge and jury. Many will recall the epic adventure struggle between Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, a political outcast under Norman King Richard the First and the Kings Reeve, the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Those leaders who survived the American Revolution were familiar with organized tyranny. While they preserved the title, Sheriff, to denote authority, the constitutions of most states required popularly elected sheriffs and an elected board of supervisors for oversight. The office of Sheriff is democratic in the manner by which the holder comes to power, being elected at large, but is thoroughly republican in the definition of duties under law.

Unlike the English system, the sheriff is elected by the people. Webster defines "sheriff" as "the chief executive officer of the county." For Instance, Arizona's Constitution, one of the last to be adopted, in 1912 created the counties and their officers. The general authority of the Sheriff is also spelled out to include the power to raise a posse and use citizen volunteers for law enforcement. The Constitution mandates the duty to maintain law and order in his jurisdiction. Additional duties and directions are to be provided by a board of duly elected County Supervisors representing the voter divided by geographic region.

Division of power is a characteristic of our constitutional republic, and is provided to the lowest level of constitutional government, the county. A critical reason for this remarkable political miracle of good government is found In Section 4. Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution that "guarantees every state a republican form or government." In order to qualify for admission as states, constitutional county government was and is a requisite. Therefore local (county) government is required to be of a republican form.

Many have recently found cause to ask what office provides protection against administrative tyranny. To whom would a citizen turn if federal government threatened the sovereignty of the state and the people? What if a renegade president or attorney general were to authorize United Nations agents or even some domestic federal agency to raid your home, business, or church? This is not so far fetched as it might seem, for it did happen on a remote mountain top in northern Idaho and again in Waco, Texas.

No doubt you would first call your local police if you have local police; but the police are organized to deal with ordinary criminals. And they are chartered under local ordinances and have no constitutional standing or mandate. Furthermore their jurisdiction is limited. Not everyone has a local police chief. Who would you turn to next; your congressman in Washington, the FBI, CIA, BATF, The National Guard, the United States Attorney? None of these are Constitutionally authorized or mandated to come to your aid. Each would probably regard the power of federal government superior to your rights because all work directly for the federal government.

Only the county sheriff has the authority and jurisdiction, under most state constitutions, to place the interest of the local taxpayer and citizen above all other interests. This even includes the designs of a tyrannical federal government.

We do not know who led the militia at Concord Bridge on the 19th of April in 1775. We do know a little band of armed farmers and merchants challenged the authority of the reigning world government of its day. Perhaps no one will ever know who "fired the shot heard round the world." It is important to note that our founding documents and most state constitutions clearly indicate who is responsible for leadership. The farmers and merchants must, as always, be willing to take up arms to defend themselves from the tyranny of run away government. However, it is the Sheriff whose job it is to provide leadership at the bridge and fire the first round if need be.

Local political movements toward "regionalism," "home rule," or "charter government," invariably remove the constitutional status of elected county officers, beginning with the county sheriff.

Liberal Bias in the Media is "Alive and Well"

by Tom Compton

A "news" item in the Coast to coast section of the 9/29/96 edition of the Scottsdale Progress Tribune clearly demonstrates the effects of journalism as taught in our nation's Institutes of Higher Leaning. The piece was entitled "Book's distribution stopped." Here is the entire article compiled from Tribune wire services:

Washington - A conservative Republican congressman from Florida has ordered his campaign to stop distributing a controversial book closely associated with the shadowy political world of citizen militias, anti-government groups and other so-called right-wing extremists.

Scholars and civil rights activists have criticized the Citizens Rule Book as a deceptive political manifesto that many in the fed-up fringe have embraced to justify open revolt against all sorts of federal laws and regulations.

The Citizens Rule Book was written in 1976 by Charles Olsen, a Phoenix printer who died in 1990. Olsen 's son, Matt, who continues to print and sell the book for 65 cents a copy, said he was not aware Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., was disseminating the book and did not know if other members of Congress were distributing it.

The name Citizens Rule Book sounded familiar to this writer but did not strike a chord as a book that would fuel anti-government sentiment. From the Tribune article, one could easily imagine that it contained seditious declarations laced with bomb recipes. Not wanting to be identified as some kind of unsavory government hater, this writer searched his library to locate the offending document. Sure enough, the library contained one. Opening the first page, revolutionary words jumped out: "RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, NOT THE STATE!" Then followed a quotation from noted rabble rouser, John Adams, Second President of the United States: "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Words that surely would make certified, knee-jerking liberals quake in their boots. The Citizens Rule Book contains extremely controversial documents: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and perish the thought, a summary of the Ten Commandments. This little book, also, contains a section "A Handbook For Jurors." It starts out: "The purpose of this booklet is to revive, as Jefferson put it, ‘Ancient Principles.' It is not designed to promote lawlessness or a return to the jungle. The 'Ancient Principles' refer to the Ten Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just plain common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments."

This "news" article appearing in The Tribune is a classic example of media bias. What is dressed as a news item is actually an editorial. Unnamed "scholars and civil rights activists" are referenced as castigators of the Citizens Rule Book. One wonders what kind of scholar or civil rights leader would consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution controversial documents. Genuine scholars and civil rights leaders would certainly recognize that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not blue prints for "open revolt against all sorts of federal laws and regulations." Any thinking person should head down to the American Opinion Bookstore at 12 W. Camelback Ave., Phoenix (tel.: 264-7065) and pick up a copy of the Citizens Rule Book so he or she can understand that liberal bias is not a myth. Be quick, however, before it becomes a crime to own a copy.

Today's Definition - "Liberal: A person who has both feet firmly planted in the air." - Tom Anderson

Understanding the Internationalist's Triangle; The United Nations, Foreign Aid and Terrorism

by C. E. Carlson

"What is this animal," asked the blind men, as they touched the elephant. "It is like a tree" said one, feeling its leg; "It is like a broom said another," feeling its tail; "It is like a wall," said another feeling the elephant’s side and flank.

What is the United Nations? The answers are as varied as the elephant fable. To the United Nations Organization Association volunteer, dutifully contacting schools and civic minded citizens to promote it, the UN is the benighted in its misunderstood nobility. To the local UN volunteer it is UNICEF, "50 Years of Caring for the World's Children" or the latest speech scheduled, "Arizona in a Global Perspective." The UN is population control in what the volunteer sees as a hopelessly crowded world; it is a hope of justice in an age that many agree is racked with wars, the origin and purpose of which seem beyond understanding.

What is the United Nations to the career politician in Washington, to the news media and to academia? The worlds best hope that never quite achieves its stated purpose, peace; the UN is a bottomless pit, a hungry bird demanding more food, a political harangue in a hundred tongues But the UN is more to the Washington politician and big city journalist. It is a sometimes useful tool to promote ideas that are unpopular. The UN makes good print on such matters as international conflict and tends to focus attention off the domestic mess. The politician realizes wars come in handy. Generally the congressmen, the media and academia have little more understanding of the United Nations than does the volunteer. A Congressman soon learns the UN has fearfully powerful friends within the beltway, and because it causes him little personal vexation, he instinctively know it is best to say little that is negative about the United Nations. Hear little evil, see little evil, speak little evil is the resulting position of Congress, the press and academia when it comes to the UN.

The UN has its natural predators. The hard right activists, the "Christian right," with their much publicized "paranoia of world government," openly state they want the Congress to opt out of the UN community, to let it go its own internationalist way. To most of its enemies the United Nations is considered a free standing international organization that is the embodiment of evil. It is a mysteriously managed world government that threatens each citizen by threatening to take over our own government’s military taxing authority. To some of these groups the United Nations is the ultimate threat, more dangerous than inflation, crime, abortion or federal schools. It is a threat to national sovereignty, meaning that the United Nations would be granted control over our government with the United Nations Covenants ruling over our Constitution. Then, the hard right tells us, the UN would then exert its unbridled will over our people. The right wing answer is often get out of the United Nations, shun it and let it go its evil way.

Lastly, there is a far larger group than all of these combined. The countless millions who fit into none of the above but are simply apathetic to the United Nations confusion. The UN makes little sense to them so they do not try to understand it. They do not understand those starry eyed idealists who support the UN, and the public's five senses do not provide clear insight as to why it is feared as a potential master. If they are concerned at all it is with more immediate threats, such as their declining standard of living. In a word, to most people, nothing significant adds up for either side of the UN controversy. They have heard the proclamation of the blind men feeling the elephant, and they doubt what all say.

Is it possible all of these views are true of the United Nations, that there is a synergism of these views that makes sense of the matter. Or is it more likely that there is simply a missing piece to the puzzle that makes the entire matter appear out of focus to most people, and without that missing piece the actions of the United Nations are incomprehensible regardless of the viewers standpoint? Let us first reexamine the UN from the perspective in the area of control, and then reexamine its mission.

A logical way to begin the search for the missing piece of the puzzle is to ask the basic questions about who really controls the United Nations. The volunteer would contend it is entirely democratic, with everyone having a vote. The politician, the media and academia give a variety of unintelligible answers if any answers at all. When is the last time you heard the press debate who is making UN policy? The answer is probably, they never discuss it. The hard right says the communists and the former communists still control the UN. During the Cold War the era, they say, control was wielded through the unbalanced, pro communist Security Council and high appointed officers in the UN bureaucracy. This argument has lost more creditability in recent years because most observers now believe the communists, while still alive, are broke and on the receiving end of welfare, so logic does not support the idea that they control anything as important and as competitive as the United Nations. The mass of apathetic public would say they don't know who controls the UN and they don't care, but they suspect it is controlled by big money like everything else.

Big money does control the UN, so let us look at whose big money, and how it is passed around. If we arrive at how the UN is financed, we will have no problem finding out who runs the UN. It will of course be the same people. Then and we will reexamine the real business activities of the UN in terms of dollars spent.

Senator Robert Dole is an internationalist who does not object to the UN but recently reminded us that we pay 34% of the UN budget. But that is only the official figure; it has been estimated we pay much more. Mr. Dole is not voicing a new idea. Robert Welch discussed the hidden costs of the UN in the October 1972 Bulletin of the John Birch Society and estimated the U.S. share to be much higher. But regardless of whether we taxpayers pay 35% or 75%, any businessman knows it is total control. When one country out of 170 puts up 34% of money, it probably calls all the shots. If you doubt this, buy a 100 shares of your utility company stock and go to the stockholders meeting and demand a say. You may vote your 100 shares, but you will find out that someone else does run things, and the controlling party often has only 5% of the stock or less.

Not only does the American taxpayer pay for most of the UN, but we contribute the money for the dues of most of the other members through foreign aid and other mechanisms. And this is why foreign aid fits into the UN equation. A thoughtful examination reveals the UN is totally dependent on U.S. Foreign Aid. A practical definition of foreign aid might be, "the use of taxpayer money to buy other governments’ cooperation."

Foreign aid is inescapably linked to the United Nations. Congressman Terry Everett, Republican of Alabama, estimated 1994 foreign aid at $13.5 billion (Congressional Research Services on U.S. Military, Development and Humanitarian Assistance). That does not include the U.S. dues to the UN, nor does it include about $12 billion for World Bank operations. In 1995, the State of Israel received about $3 billion in direct foreign aid, about 20% of the total, all paid in cash. That is about $750 for every citizen of Israel. Egypt received $2.15 billion dollars, also cash; the CIS (former USSR) got $707 million and Turkey was next with $526 million. In other words, the string-pullers who control foreign aid buy the favors of Israel and the two most cooperative Islamic nations for an almost identical sum of $3 billion per side. Congress voted to cut foreign aid 11% in 1996, except for Israel and Egypt, so nothing really changed.

Even more interesting is the fact that these three mid-eastern states, plus the old USSR, received a combined $6.83 billion, which was over 40% of the total $15.5 billion US Foreign Aid. The rest of the so called humanitarian aid is scattered over 130 countries and virtually every one of them is a UN member. Simply stated, the taxpayers appear to be paying to keep other governments in power through foreign aid. We provide cash for the vast armaments of Israel, Turkey and Egypt. Israel, as an example, does not deny having 200 nuclear weapons. What does the U.S. taxpayer receive in exchange?

For the answer we shall examine voting control of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Do you think for a minute President Netanyahu of Israel and Hosni Mubarac of Egypt can afford to pay their United Nations dues from the foreign aid they receive from the US taxpayer. It is not illogical to think they would also vote their pocket book. Virtually all of the 130 recipients of US Foreign Aid are UN members. What a coincidence! And in every case they receive more than their UN dues by several times. As an example, neither Israel nor Egypt pay enough UN dues and assessments to even rate a line on the UN budget summary. The 1995 foreign aid budget shows that all the 165 "have not" countries combined paid only about $300 million to the UN. Israel alone receives ten times that amount in annual foreign aid from the US taxpayers. Egypt could pay everyone's dues and assessments and still have a profit of $1.7 left from its annual foreign aid welfare check, and isn't it convenient that Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN President, just happens to be an Egyptian. Could it be that we taxpayers are paying everyone's way, and providing someone in our government with proxies to control all votes with foreign aid welfare checks?

But the General Assembly, with all its noise, is also only a front. The United Nations is really controlled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, each of whom has a veto. These members also pay much smaller dues to the UN than does the US, and they receive even larger subsidies. One of those with veto power is China, which probably explains why all recent past presidents have insisted on "Most Favored Nation" status for China, with its favorable tariffs and duty structure. Russia's has veto power, and as we have seen, its vote is bought with the foreign aid. The other permanent members are France and Great Britain. They receive enormous trade and military benefits from the USA, as witnessed by the decline of our dollar. For instance, 75% of the planes used in Bosnia are US, 25% French. The US has maintained NATO in Europe for 50 years. It is not hard to see how President Clinton can muster the majority of votes in the Security Council and be 100% veto proof. The US taxpayer buys all the votes.

A reasonable thesis, which we will now examine, is that The United Nations is entirely 100% controlled by the persons who control the American government. Of course, we have all been taught that the UN is "a democracy of world states," but simplest of logic should convince us otherwise. Please note, I did not say it is controlled by the U.S. Congress, or even by the President of the U.S., but by those few who actually control our government from behind the scenes. The United Nations and the Warmakers (as we shall call them) who dominate the U.S. Executive Branch, are one and the same; they are as two fingers of the same hand. The United Nations is for all practical purposes 100% paid for by you, the American taxpayer.. Foreign aid and the United Nations are two barrels of the same gun. To better examine this thesis, you are now asked to shift gears to a familiar historic event to consider the workings of the criminal mind. For as you will soon see, it is criminal activity we are talking about.

The Hillside Strangler was a perverted serial killer who preyed on young girls in the Los Angeles area in the late 1970s. His given name was Binki, and he was finally caught and convicted of murder. Nightline made a case history of the trial of Binki, called The Criminal Mind, a remarkably insightful look at the nature of the pathological liar in action. For the smooth and disarming Binki, lying was an art form; he not only depended on his ability to deceive to maintain his freedom, but his life itself was a series of endless lies.

Binki was one of the first criminals to rely on and plead the defense that has become known as Multiple Personality Defects. He claimed his evil acts were in fact the work of vicious and apparently pathological "Steve," the other personality that lurked within. Steve and Binki staged lengthy arguments with each other for the benefit of the press, psychiatrists and court. The Hillside Strangler's lawyers pleaded he was two separate persons, a good Binki, and a bad "Steve." How could the court punish the innocent personality for the acts of the violent one?

Binki learned his bizarre defense from a psychology text book with which he managed to fool almost everyone, except for a skeptical judge and one clever psychiatrist, who demonstrated that Binki was making up Steve and other personalities as needed.

Now consider the United Nations and try to see it as a puppet show. Someone behind the scenes is manipulating and controlling the good acts and the bad acts. If this is true, the UN is itself a front, like one of the Strangler's invented personalities. If this is the case, the UN does not have a personality or agenda of its own; like "Steve," everything the UN does is simply an act to hide the agenda of those who control it, and UNICEF, Population Control and the environmental movement are nice guy fronts to cover the real purposes of the UN.

A logical extension of this argument is to view the United Nations as, in fact, a private army owned and operated by those who also control the actions of the U.S. State Department and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Is it possible that the United Nations is and was created to be a terrorist organization? By "terrorist," I mean that the United Nations that routinely and by design kills and starves noncombatant men, women and children to make a political point or cause, or to force a change in someone's government.

In support of this terrorist thesis, let us examine The World Peacekeeping Map and report, published by none other than the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The caption tells us the map was made with information available January 31, 1994. The United Nations, by their own admissions and boasts, as reported by the CIA, was then operating a war plan for 36 targeted countries, which are excerpted in the attached, Appendix A.

Let us first examine Haiti and El Salvador, presently the only peacekeeping targets in North America. The caption for Haiti tells us there were ten UN observers in Haiti in January, 1994, and "participation of U.S. Personnel is planned." Since the Haitian invasion did not take place until the fall of 1994, almost a year after the report was published, you should wonder who did the planning. The question one should ask is, did the US go into Haiti on orders from the UN, or was it the other way around. We know who the CIA work for, why not the UN also?

The UN activities can be very popular for some. In April, 1996, Brown and Root (B&R), the huge multinational oil service firm, announced they took in $115 million in the first calendar quarter of 1996 serving meals and washing the clothing for the UN Peace Keepers in Haiti, under a contract with the United Nations. B& R told their stockholders it finds the United Nation's wars a very profitable business and is seeking more. It is not hard to see how Brown and Root and other multinationals would support the War in Haiti.

A much larger UN terrorist action has been played out in Bosnia. The Bosnian tragedy is not complicated if we put the correct labels on the parties. The Bosnian Serbs are not all bad guys, as we are told. But they are financed by the old, bankrupt, Yugoslavian Communist Government. Slobodan Milosevic is said to be the boss. "Bosnia" is not a religion, but is in fact, a new nation, which declared its independence from Yugoslavia on February 29, 1992, shortly after Croatia and Serbia and Macedonia all declared independence. At the time it declared itself a nation, Bosnia was about 55% Muslim, though it is not apparent how many of these actually practiced their religion. Bosnia was immediately recognized by the USA. After all, isn't that the American way?

Amazingly, the UN, playing the bad guy role, then embargoed Bosnia with Yugoslavia. The U.S. State Department, led by Warren Christopher, stated the U.S. was committed to going along with the UN embargo. The arms and supply embargo became the primary cause of civilian genocide in Bosnia. Bosnia is tragically affected because it is a mountainous landlocked island surrounded by its enemy. Later, the UN invented "safe havens" as reservations protected by the UN for the starving Bosnian victims of the embargo. But after the Bosnians surrendered their arms to the UN troops guarding the safe areas, the UN, feigning impotence, failed to provide protection and the safe havens became death traps where disarmed Muslims were slaughtered. The Associated Press reported on July 16, 1995, that fifteen thousand men and boys are missing after the Srebrenci safe area was overrun and captured by Bosnian Serbs. The State Department subsequently produced photos and confirmed mass graves of those murdered .

There can be little doubt about the availability of UN firepower to defend Bosnia if they wanted to. According to the Los Angeles Times article on June 22, 1994, the UN Force has a Life of Its Own (facts confirmed from the World Peacekeeping Map, published by the CIA), over 40,000 United Nations troops are permanently stationed in Croatia only a few miles from Bosnia. The UN employs 3000 civilian employees living in permanent high rises, operates it own airline to Sarajevo, and has 11,000 vehicles and a $1.5 billion budget. Furthermore, the arms embargo continued because the President vetoed the Senate effort to lift it.

Finally, after the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims was complete, Secretary of State Warren Christopher has brought in NATO, supposedly to beat the Serbs into a negotiating mood. It goes without saying, the NATO bombs and missiles will kill civilians of any religion. The result of all this was the Dayton conference that turned Bosnia into another partitioned Palestine, as it is today.

If we pause to consider the likelihood that all these multiple personalities who play the war game take their orders from the same individual or group, then the true intent of the United Nations terrorism unfolds. It can only be to continue the war in Bosnia as long as possible, regardless of the cost in human life and irrespective of religion, while confusing whoever will be fooled, including Congress, about who is responsible.

Let us look at another part of the world. According to the World Peacekeeping Map, published by the CIA every year until 1995, eight war zones are being manned by United Nations troops in the Middle East. Six of these are being policed by the UN to prevent further wars between Israel and its neighbors. Total cost of above war actions involving Israel and Egypt is $389 million per year. Other UN actions in the region are Kuwait and Cyprus. The six mid-east "peacekeeping" targets surround the state of Israel, which still occupies these captured lands upon which most of the UN troops are encamped. One of the first of these is Israel's neighbor and foe, Lebanon, where, according to the caption, the UN has been since March of 1978, with 5,247 troops under a Norwegian General Trond Furuhovda, who is chewing up $153 million of your money per year.

The newest UN position (CIA map number 35) established as the "Golan Heights Observers," is also on Israeli "occupied territory" with an estimated 500-1,000 personnel to "monitor compliance with peace accords--" But a closer look reveals the UN has been in the Golan heights since 1974, and in Jerusalem since 1948. Congress (Senate Foreign Affairs Committee) has already been asked to approve massive American troops for the Golan Heights.

Perhaps the most wasteful mission, from a taxpayer perspective, is the Sinai, where for 13 years the UN has spent millions each year to prevent fighting between Israel and Egypt, which both receive billions each year in U.S. taxpayer foreign aid. Why does not Congress simply advise both parties what we would tell our children, that if they fight they will lose their Foreign Aid? It is important to remember that all the Mid-eastern peacekeeping actions began with the partitioning of Palestine by the United Nations in 1947. The peacekeeping action has never been ended.

The second largest concentration of UN activity is along the southern flank of the old USSR and Eastern Europe, the Muslim Republics. Most of them are seeking independence from the old Soviet regime, and its former communist satellites, such as Yugoslavia. The CIS is sick, but not yet a corpse; and is fighting to hold on to the "Stans," as they are called by American visitors. According to "The Statesman Yearbook 1993," (published in Foreign Affairs) the following countries are majority Muslim: Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan. Chechnya was not mentioned, but borders Azerbaijan near the Black Sea and is predominantly Muslim.

Tajikistan, is "policed" by a 24,000 man Russian "Peacekeeping Force" with an "unknown" cost, but we are told Russian General Pyankov is running the show and the CIS (formerly the USSR) is providing the Peacekeepers with what the UN calls "counterinsurgency operations." Translated into UN lingo, that means the CIS is afraid the Tajik Muslim majority will take over political control of the country and throw out the Soviet puppet who has been running things for 50 years. This is a good place to note that the American foreign aid to the CIS puppet Tajik government is $ 9.2 million. The US taxpayer has become an unwitting financial partner with the UN and the CIS in imprisoning the Muslim majority. Of course, you have heard about little Chechnya which is fighting for its life. It is located right next to Azerbaijan, which has a UN force to make sure the freedom movement does not spread there.

An example of a perpetual war in Africa is Zaire, where there is "an Observer or Buffer Force," of 200 UN troops, with a cost of $100 million per year. That is $500,000 per UN soldier per year. The UN goes first class. The map fails to tell us how long the UN has been in Zaire or why, except to say it is "opposed by President Mobutu." But we know Zaire used to be known as "The Belgian Congo". In December 1961 the United Nations literally invaded Katanga Province, killing hundreds of civilians and causing the subsequent starvation of untold numbers. Katanga attempted to secede from the Soviet influenced Congo and the UN sided with the USSR. The story of this brutal invasion and the subsequent occupation of the Congo is well documented. Civilian Doctors serving at the hospital in Elisabethville provided a murder by murder account of the invasions, with gory pictures, in a book called 46 Angry Men, published August 1962. These civilian doctors witnessed the UN overthrow of the lawful government of Katanga, an act of pure terrorism against a civilian population. In 1995 Zaire was removed from the world peacekeeping map after 45 years, but the neighboring state of Rwanda (and Burundi) have been added and are undergoing civil war and slaughter today as Katanga suffered under the UN in 1961. Only the name appears to have changed, UN terrorism continues.

Somalia cost the UN supporters $1.5 billion in 1994. The actions of the UN force in Somalia, under Italian leadership, was dubious at best. Both American and Canadian soldiers were court martialed and convicted for the torture of Somali civilians. UN troops, using American helicopter gunships, were also photographed firing rockets into a crowd of unarmed women and children at point blank, killing 123 in one reported event, where the Italian commander told the press that the crowd was "interfering with his mission." Such acts have been truly rare in the American military; however, this is the kind of atrocities we can expect under world government where there is no national accountability. In this one act, the UN killed about as many innocent Somali women and children as were killed in the Oklahoma City blast. This one act alone should qualify the UN for the title "terrorist organization." Let us look deeper for the reason the UN commits terrorist acts.

Robert Welch constantly reminded his readers "the Conspiracy" is infinitely evil. To Robert Welch, a mathematician, "infinity" had a special meaning. Infinitely evil is wicked, devoid of morality and self serving beyond the ability of mortal man to comprehend. Mr. Welch stressed that the conspiracy thought nothing of destroying nations, or killing millions of men, women and children, just to make a point.

It is time to rename those internationalists who control the United Nations from behind the scenes. We shall henceforth name them for what they do and refer to them as "Warmakers." A Warmaker is a serial killer found only in government. Warmakers do not kill for land or money, as do common thugs. It is raw power and prestige that causes men like George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, Warren Christopher and others to become unrepentant "Warmakers." William Jefferson Clinton bombed Baghdad in late 1991 with 23 Cruise Missiles. Those missiles incinerated a sleeping civilian target, reportedly killing eight Iraqi civilians. One of the network commentators stated, "Bill earned His Bones." He correctly used a Mafia term for a first kill.

It is a reasonable conclusion that the Warmakers use foreign aid to buy other governments. If a government is not for sale there is the United Nations war machine, completely controlled by the Warmakers, standing ready to apply pressure. Examples of stubborn governments have been Haiti, El-Salvador, South Africa and Taiwan. The latter two are not UN members. But South Africa has shown up on the 1996 U.S. foreign aid list for the first time with a whopping $132 million for the new Mandela government, presumably to help keep it in power. But most persistently stubborn of the not for sale governments are the Muslim republics, referred to by the press as the "Muslim Fundamentalists." Muslim majorities resent having their lives run by outsiders, and they repeatedly demonstrate they are willing to fight and even die for what they consider self determination.

A close look at the Congressional Budget indicates the governments of some Muslim countries with secular leadership, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are probably kept in power by the U.S. taxpayer. As you might guess, the present governments of Turkey and Egypt, which share about $3.5 billion of foreign aid, viciously persecute Islamic Fundamentalists. They, like Mandela of South Africa, deal with the Warmakers rather than having to deal with the UN. Of these 36 so called UN trouble spots where "Peacekeeping Operations" are being conducted, about 20 are predominantly Muslim, according to The Statesman Yearbook, published in Foreign Affairs Magazine, spring 1993. It is demonstrable, from the CIA's reports, that the size and scope of the wars have increased year after year.

Let us compare the countries where the UN is operating "Peacekeeping Operations" with the American foreign aid figures to see who the Warmakers are helping and which governments they are targeting.. One might start by asking how much foreign aid Congress gave to Palestine. The answer appears to be zero. But in 1996, $76 million is budgeted for UN peacekeeping in Gaza and the West bank on Palestinian territory. Congress is also actively considering sending American troops to the Golan Heights to police territory belonging to the nation of Palestine, without Palestinian permission. With this in mind, perhaps you will be less surprised if you hear about some Palestinian who does not trust our government.

We do not justify anyone using terrorism as a response to terrorism, but it should surprise no one to find out Palestinians were involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Terrorism always begets terrorism. It is interesting to note one of the "crimes": Sheikh Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian Muslim Cleric now in prison in Springfield, Missouri, was convicted not of being involved in the World Trade Center Bombing, but of being favorably inclined toward blowing up the UN building.

Let us look further. How much foreign aid have we given Bosnia and Chechnya in their wars for independence? Again, the answer is zero. Iran, Iraq and Libya all remain under embargo. But we taxpayers did indeed give $707 million to the former USSR, now known as the CIS, which is annihilating the Chechens. The latest war in Chechnya has been carried out by the CIS without a serious objection by the UN or the U.S. State Department. The CIS has been encouraged to crush the freedom seeking population of this Muslim country without so much as a UN sanction or a harsh word for Boris Yeltsin. President Clinton made a state visit to Russia on May 7, 1995, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced, "foreign aid (to the CIS) should not be held hostage on this one issue." He was talking about the wholesale slaughter of Chechens. Any reasonable observer must recognize that the US State Department and the United Nations are on the side of the CIS. What has happened to the American ideal of helping imprisoned or subjugated peoples to gain their freedom?

Another example of UN sanctioned terrorism is found in Kashmir, where The UN and American Foreign Aid join hands to cause perpetual war. CIA's World Peacekeeping Map includes Kashmir province, in northern India, where independence has been sought by the Islamic majority for years. The UN budget is $8 million for the year and it is probably no coincidence the UN has been in Kashmir since 1948. Muslim publications provide plausible accounts of the Indian Army arresting and killing civilians to maintain political power, while the UN looks on. We Americans provide about $132 million per year to India in foreign aid, and none for Kashmir. Most of us don't have the foggiest idea of where Kashmir is, or why we should provide aid to the socialist government of India. Kashmir is another political mirror image of Bosnia.

Consider: a dictatorship by definition is a condition of government under which the Executive Branch has gained control over the military. What has already happened to our nation is the worst event any Republic can suffer. The Executive Branch has in effect gained exclusive, unfettered control of its own private international warmaking machine, the United Nations. The UN, like the Hillside Strangler, pretends to be an international democracy, but it is completely controlled by those Warmakers who control President Clinton, and the Bush administration before him. If Mr. Dole and his stated candidate for Secretary of State, Colin Powell, are elected, history indicates the Warmakers will doubtless also control them. The UN is nothing more than a private army for the Warmakers, a super CIA in disguise. Because it is so cleverly disguised to have the appearance of an international democracy, no one appears to be responsible for its acts. UN is one of the Multiple Personality Defects the Warmakers plan to use to enslave us.

If the American people suspected the UN was only a front to a political power group they would demand that it be abolished. It is significant that we "abolish" the United Nations, not merely get out of it. To abolish suggests the fact that the Americans actually do and can control the UN. One would not say, "we should get out of the Department of Education, or the EPA." We must not fall for the pretense that the UN is an independent democracy of states.. It is time the public stop being fooled by the Warmakers’ puppet show and look for the ventriloquist who is pulling its strings and making the sounds. If we are serious about what we say we must demand abolishment of the UN and perhaps the CIA and that the Warmakers be brought to justice for genocide against all peoples.  

IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN?

Any reasonable person might ask if or whether it is possible to win against such an entrenched foe as the Warmakers. If there is a hope of exposing the Warmakers to the wrath of the American people it must be for one principal reason largely ignored by the American people. The Warmakers have and will always underestimate people who behave as if they believe in God sacrificially. As satanic atheists, the Warmakers can no more understand the true nature of someone who would die for his religion, than we are able to understand the Warmakers' bloodthirsty craving for absolute power. The Warmakers are not prepared for the courage and patience they are already encountering in places like Somalia and Chechyna, where women and children have placed themselves in the path of tanks.

Recent actions of Congress are reflecting increased support for American Christians who will not accept abortion and other anti-Christian programs in our own country. Simply stated, the truth has a life of its own. In the fall of 1993, the American people demonstrated they can be aroused when the Senate was flooded with calls demanding we get out of Somalia after the unnecessary loss of 18 American men in a fire fight that killed 400 Somalis, mostly civilians, and wounded a thousand more. The educational efforts of Robert Welch and many followers have succeeded in convincing a small but significant segment of the public of the logic of the devious schemes of the Warmakers. These knowledgeable few, to whom this paper is already well understood, are now a part of almost every action organization in America. There is every reason to believe the movement back to decency and away from perpetual war, with its mass murder, is approaching a critical mass. It is time to combine education with political action against the Warmakers domination of American thought.

We can tie foreign aid to the terrorist activities of The United Nations. We can best catch the attention of our slumbering neighbors through their pocketbooks. No more funds for the UN and no more appropriations for foreign aid to anyone. In the absence of American funding, the UN will fail overnight because few countries will pay their dues or come to meetings. Without the UN, world terrorism will disappear and with it most domestic terrorism. This is one thing your congressman can do that will not cost one American job, except those of the overpaid, tax exempt UN employees.

Your congressman may argue that direct foreign aid is small, a mere drop in the bucket compared to loan guarantees and the domestic spending fiasco. We must point out that foreign aid creates, not prevents, war, and wars are expensive. How much do we spend on defense that would not be needed if it were not for all the UN sponsored wars? Our $5 trillion national debt would be a lot smaller if it were not for 45 years of exaggerated military spending and unnecessary foreign aid.

Your congressman may try to convince you there should be "strategic exceptions for our closest allies." He will tell you there is a very special relationship between the United Nations and the State of Israel. That means he has already given his word he will not cut aid for the three big Warmaker favorites, Israel, Egypt and the USSR. In answer to your congressman you must make it clear he must accept no compromise. Our congressmen must stop bribing and arming other governments. That includes the biggest foreign aid case of all, Israel, which is the center of the UN hotbed of wars in the Middle East. There is no way to cut without cutting from the top down. The world’s strongest foreign aid lobbies will be campaigning directly against you; heading this list is American Israeli Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) which effectively campaigns for big foreign aid and for every UN activity. Organizations like AIPAC put tremendous pressure on your Congressman to continue foreign aid and to fund the United Nations’ activities. You need to understand that this is a political power that cannot be ignored and that he must contend with every day in Washington. Ask him about the foreign aid lobby, and watch your congressman's body language when he answers.

Our new congressmen must be headed off before they become too ingrained or beholden to the Warmaker's system. Examples come to mind of congressmen who, in their first term voted for the foreign aid package, subsequently accepted a junket to Israel compliments of AIPAC. We must be understanding of our congressman's problem, but we must also hammer some courage into our congressmen to say no to these powerful international lobbies. Use letters to the editor and to all elected official and church leaders, talk radio and pamphleteering to tie foreign aid to the United Nations and the UN to world terrorism. We must be willing to talk truthfully about blood.

Most important of all, don't give up. Muslim publications often remind their frightened readers many of whom live with fear of death, "don't be afraid to speak out, fear Allah." The Old Testament Israelites said, "Fear Jehovah." Jesus Christ said in the 10 chapter of Hebrews, "the Lord shall judge his people, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." So may we fervently pray, as did Abraham at the gates of Sodom and as did our forefathers at a similar time of peril, that all Americans will demand justice and stand for protection of innocent human life and that He will provide the means and resolve to rid our land of the incredibly evil Warmakers who design to hold us captive!

APPENDIX A.

Peacekeeping Operations, 1993

Directorate of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, EUR 92- 10027, by Frederick H. Fleitz, available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 703-487-4650

List of countries present or proposed:

Cyprus, Croatia, El Salvador, Angola, Somalia, Sudan , Liberia, Eritrea (Ethiopia), South Odessa (Georgia), Abkahazia , Sinai, Rwanda, Cambodia, Jerusalem, Western Sahara, Mosambique, Lebanon, Republic of South Africa(proposed mandate), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, Moldovia, Tajikistan, Golan Heights, Kashmir, Kuwait, `Sri Lanka, Solomon Islands. 1993 additions are, Zaire and Togo. 1994 additions # 35 Occupied Territories (Palestine), 500-1000 men, $50 million, # 36 Losotho (RSA)