September 2000

Volume 7 No. 6

---

Support TEF When You Shop at Amazon!

In This Issue: DOES AL GORE SUPPORT AN EARTH CHARTER? MILLENNIUM SUMMIT SETS STAGE FOR “GLOBAL GOVERNMENT” SO WHO’S THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR? HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE THE END OF HISTORY Cliff Notes Quotes

      Grandiose plans are underway for the 55th annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City September 5-9, 2000. Titled the Millennium Assembly and Summit, it is scheduled to take at least two actions designed to turn the corner from a world of sovereign nation-states to a world of disparate peoples subordinated to the supreme authority of the UN.
      The two actions expected to be taken by consensus are adoption of the Earth Charter, a document whose text has evolved through several drafts since the Earth Summit in 1992, and adoption of a declaration authorizing a new UN commission to implement the various recommendations necessary to bring about global governance.
      The Earth Charter’s advocates speak of it as though it were the “Magna Carta” of a new regime, but it is not a regime of freedom from arbitrary kings. It’s a charter for submission to global dictators possessing unprecedented powers.
       Al Gore has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Earth Charter during its years of development. The UN Millennium meetings could draw more media than the presidential debates, and Republicans should make Gore state whether he is for or against these radical UN goals.
       A portion of the Millennium Assembly is designated as the Millennium Summit, which President Clinton and 160 heads of state are expected to attend, the largest gathering of heads of state in history. Also meeting at the same time at the New York Hilton will be Mikhail Gorbachev and his State of the World Forum, hoping to induce heads of state to concur in the Millennium Assembly’s historic actions.
       The Earth Charter demands that we adopt “sustainable development plans and regulations” (i.e., to subordinate human needs to global fads enforced by environmental dictators), and the UN “manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life…(to) protect the health of ecosystems” (i.e., not the health of mere humans).
       The Charter affirms that “all beings are interdependent” (i.e., personal freedom is irrelevant) and “every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings” (i.e., animals, plants and insects, but not unborn babies). The Charter demands that we “ensure universal (global) access to health care that fosters reproductive health (i.e., abortion and contraception), and responsible reproduction (i.e., UN-dictated population control).”
       The Charter demands that we “act with restraint and efficiency when using energy” (i.e., lower U.S. energy use and standard of living). The Charter requires that we “eradicate poverty,” “promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among other nations,” and “relieve them of onerous international debt” (i.e., redistribute U.S. wealth around the world).
       The Charter exhorts us to affirm “gender equality” and “eliminate discrimination in … sexual orientation” (i.e., adopt the feminist and gay agendas). The Charter demands that we “integrate into formal education (i.e., assign a UN nanny to monitor our schools)…skills needed for a sustainable way of life (i.e., indoctrination in how we must subordinate sovereignty to the UN dogma of sustainability).”
       The Charter demands that we “demilitarize national security systems” (i.e., eliminate our armed forces and their weapons). The Charter concludes by proclaiming that the “Way Forward” requires “a change of mind and heart” as we move toward “global interdependence and universal responsibility.”
       Also to be considered by the Millennium Assembly and Summit is a lengthy Declaration, developed by 1000 UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), called “Strengthening the United Nations for the 21st Century.”
       This Declaration calls for “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources” (from the U.S to the rest of the world, of course), and for the “eradication of poverty” by “redistribution (of) wealth and land.” It demands the we “cancel the debts of developing countries.”
       The Declaration demands the disarmament of all conventional and nuclear weapons, the prohibition of “unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defense of any country,” and “a standing Peace Force” (i.e., a UN standing army). It calls for a “UN Arms register” of all small arms and light weapons, and “peace education” covering “all levels from pre-school through university.”
       The Declaration demands UN “political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision,” and that we “integrate” the World Trade Organization under UN control. It calls for “eliminating” the veto and permanent membership of the Security Council.
       The Declaration calls for implementing UN treaties that the U.S. has never ratified, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which denies the right to private property). The Declaration calls for the unratified International Criminal Court to exercise “compulsory jurisdiction” over all states, enforced by the UN Security Council.
       The Declaration calls for the UN to impose direct taxes such as “fees on foreign exchange transactions (i.e., the Tobin Tax).” It requires “gender-based methodologies” as outlined at the UN Conference in Beijing.
       All this and more of the same could be our future under an Al Gore presidency.

       I have attended seven major United Nations conferences, and am convinced that the last decade’s major meetings have prepared the way for the Millennium Summit in New York City on September 6. Here more than 150 heads of state will meet to “rubber stamp” vague language that will serve as the authority for the UN to move forward into global governance.
       While the UN openly claims to be building toward global governance, they simply refute that it is the same as “global government.” I am unwilling to accept that argument-a four letter difference can make a profound statement, but not necessarily. In this case, I don’t think the four letters at the end of govern (ance vs. ment) make any difference at all.
       Whether it is incremental or all of a sudden is the only misunderstanding among the grassroots. It will indeed be incremental unless God allows a catastrophic event that will bring it about suddenly. I doubt that the world will look different on September 6 than it does on September 9.
       Biblical prophecy is clear that in the end times there will be a world government, a world leader and a one-world religion. It is my sincere belief that the stage is being set for these things and that the UN is the center of the mischief.
       That does NOT mean that every head of state supports this agenda. It is more likely that they are unaware of what the UN is doing, and they are being used as pawns in the scheme written by Canadian Maurice Strong, who is in charge of “reforming” the UN. His reforms are the focus of the upcoming meetings including the Millennium Summit.
       In the future, we should expect Americans to be convinced that only a radical fringe would oppose UN reforms. They will say that we must think globally in order to live in a global economy. Advocates will harken back to the supposed success of the multilateral “Gulf War” to defend their call for a standing UN army. Those of us who recognize that that war was another “no-win war” just like the Korean or Vietnam conflicts will be labeled as isolationists who refuse to cross the bridge to the 21st century.
       The Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, are the UN’s “civil society” that will carry the charge to every corner of the earth in order to convince the innocent that the UN is every citizen’s best hope for peace and prosperity, thus, every nation should submit their sovereignty to the UN. The bottom line is that UN reform is the culmination of the UN agenda that is to become an “umbrella” to which all governments will submit.
       Two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul said that the return of Jesus was imminent. Is it too radical to make that claim today? I don’t think so because the signs of the end times are all around us. But if Jesus awaits another two thousand years, our responsibility does not change.
       Christians should know that we live in treacherous times, and how to respond. Panic is NOT a proper response, but living for Christ one moment at a time is a timeless command. In Jesus, there is peace and joy ALL the time-even if He allows another millennium to pass before His return.

       And you thought Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First?” routine was confusing-take a look at what could happen soon in the Texas Legislature.
       Instead of “Who’s on First?” come January 9, 2001, when the 77th Legislature convenes, it may be a case instead of “Who’s the Lieutenant Governor?” And an even bigger question-what letter follows his name-a “D” (Democrat) or an “R” (Republican)? Consider the possibilities….
       If George W. Bush-an “R”-is elected president, he gives up his job as Governor of Texas and that office will be assumed by the Lieutenant Governor, Rick Perry-a fellow “R.” That leaves a vacancy in the Lt. Gov’s office. Who assumes that position-and WHEN-depends on a lot of things-but mostly on timing.
       Scenario One: Gov. Bush is elected president in the November 2000 general election. He resigns his office as Governor of Texas anytime after the general election but before being sworn in as president on January 21, 2001. Perry assumes the Governor’s job, leaving the Lt. Gov. spot open.
       The President Pro Tempore of the Senate then has 30 days to call a meeting of the Senate Committee of the Whole, at which time the Committee of the Whole elects a sitting senator to serve as “acting” Lt. Gov. until the next general election. The Senator elected “acting” Lt. Gov. remains a senator until the end of his/her term and also fulfills the duties of the Lt. Gov. until the next general election.
       Scenario Two: Bush is elected president in the Nov. 2000 general election but does NOT resign his office. The day he is sworn in as president, he makes himself ineligible to serve as Governor of Texas. At that time, Lt. Governor Rick Perry becomes Governor, creating a vacancy in the Lt. Gov. position. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate (likely to be Sen. Chris Harris if the Senate continues its practice of naming the President Pro Tempore by seniority) calls a meeting of the Committee of the Whole; they elect a senator to fill the Lt. Gov. position until the next general election. That member continues to serve his/her Senate office as well.
       Now, the question is…what difference does all this make?
       A lot when you take a look behind the Pine Curtain in East Texas at the pivotal Senate race between Todd Staples-an “R”-and David Fisher-a “D.” Right now, the Republicans control the Senate by a 16-15 majority. Sen. Drew Nixon-an “R”-is not seeking re-election and Staples and Fisher are battling for his seat.
       If all the incumbent senators seeking re-election win their seats again, the makeup of the Senate will be 15 Republicans and 15 Democrats-with the Fisher-Staples seat deciding which party-“D” or “R”-has control of the Senate.
       Why is this important?
       Because if Bush is elected president and Perry becomes governor, sooner or later the Committee of the Whole Senate will elect from its membership someone to serve out the remainder of the Lt. Gov.’s term until the next general election. And you’d expect the majority party to elect one of its own to serve as Lt. Gov. So conceivably that one race could decide if Texas’ next Lt. Gov. is a Democrat or Republican.
       Now let’s go from “Who’s on First” to “What’s on Second.”
       Doing some more hypothesizing-say Bush is elected president, all incumbent senators are re-elected and Staples-the “R”-is elected in the East Texas Senate race. That would give the Republicans control of the Senate.
       If Staples were elected, it probably wouldn’t matter whether Bush resigned as governor prior to being sworn in as president or gave up his office on Jan. 21 when he is sworn in. Either way, you’re likely to end up with a Republican in the Lt. Gov’s chair. In either case, posh committee assignments would likely be made to Republicans by a Republican.
       To hypothesize further-say Bush is elected president, all incumbent senators are re-elected and Fisher-the “D”-is elected in the East Texas Senate race. That would give Democrats control of the Senate.
       In that case, you might see Bush hang onto the governor’s title until the second he takes the presidential oath. That would leave Perry in the Lt. Gov. position until Jan. 21, plenty of time from the opening day of the Texas Legislature on Jan. 9, to load up the Democrat-majority Senate with Republican committee chairs and give other plum positions to fellow Republicans before giving up the Lt. Gov. position, presumably a Democrat.
       Should Bush be elected president and resign immediately as governor, Perry becomes Lt. Gov. and the door is open for the Democrat-heavy Senate to elect a “D” to serve as “acting” Lt. Gov. until the next general election and make important committee assignments heavy with fellow Democrats.
       And just to make things interesting, let’s look at another possibility….
       Scenario Three: If Bush is elected president and resigns as governor and Fisher is elected in East Texas, Perry becomes Governor and there is a Democrat-majority Senate. The question now is will members of the Senate vote along party lines to choose their “acting” Lt. Gov.?
       Sen. Ken Armbrister (D) has openly supported Bush’s presidential campaign. On the opening day of the Democratic convention, he joined other pro-Bush Democrats (State Rep. Rob Junell and former Democratic Supreme Court Justice John Hill) in Los Angeles at a Republican Party office across the street from where the convention was being held to defend Bush’s record in Texas.
       Would Armbrister-or someone else-cross party lines and vote for someone from outside his own party? Could a Democrat-majority Senate actually elect an “R” from its ranks to serve as Lt. Gov.? And then what happens if Bush loses in his presidential bid and Fisher wins in East Texas? Or what happens if Bush loses and Staples wins?
       Hmmmmmm…. How much time do we have???!

       Here are a few tips on how smart people can control other people. If any of this rings a bell-well, then wake up!
       The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror…. It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want them to do.
       One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The indirect approach is to control the education they receive.
       It’s possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an uneducated person. The true difference between true education and vocational training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.
       The most obvious symptom is the absence of original thought. Ask them a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or thought the answer was. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite sources.
       That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.
       Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn’t have television. We have television because we don’t have circuses and gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people’s minds focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This way you won’t have to worry that they will ever figure out the real issues that allow you to control them.
       Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have little control over their economic destiny. You’ll also want to control the monetary, credit and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent community banks.
       To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up with no unions or docile unions.
       Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting real change.
       Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless, and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular’s fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats. Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you do it right, they won’t even know whose throat they are cutting.

What you Can Do: Ask your SBOE member and the Lt. Governor to support the teaching of early U.S. history in high school. Also, support authority of the Board over the TEA so there will be more accountability to the elected representatives of the people. Write: SBOE, 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701 or Email:
www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/board/index.html
Lt. Governor Perry, PO Box 12068, Austin, TX 78711

Kody Shed created an organization called “No Pray, No Play;” cranked up a Web site and crisscrossed Texas with his T-shirts and his message. His mission is to set up a network of religious and lay workers to conduct voluntary pre-game prayers. “We are not breaking the law or protesting,” says Mr. Shed. “No Pray, No Play” may not be a protest, but it is one of several organized responses to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared school-run prayer before high school games unconstitutional. The groups all have the same goal: to encourage people to repeat the Lord’s Prayer after the national anthem at high school football games. It appears to be working: at weekend football games all across the South, parents and students “spontaneously” prayed in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Source: The Dallas Morning News, 8/26/00

DR. LAURA’S FORMER ADVERTISERS
These corporations have pulled their advertisements from Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s radio talk show because of her stance calling homosexuality “abnormal,” “deviant,” and “disordered”: Motel 6, Radio Shack, Proctor & Gamble, Red Lobster, Gateway, Sears (“Sears supports both diversity and culture throughout our customer base…), Toys R Us, United Airlines, AT&T, American Express, Kraft, Kroger, Geico Insurance, priceline.com and Xerox.
Source: Bill Ames’ Boycott List, 8/26/00

PARENTS DISTRUST DAY CARE
In a new survey, seven in 10 parents of children under the age of 5 want to stay at home with their kids, 56% believe that “no one can do as good a job of raising children as their own parents,” and 63% disagreed that a top-notch day-care enter can provide care that’s as good as what a child would get from stay-at-home parents. However, 71% of parents in the survey agree that day care should be an option of last resort. “Parents say that day care can provide good care, but when it comes to handing their child over to another adult they do not know, they are gripped with anxiety,” says Deborah Wadsworth, president of the Public Agenda survey.
Source: USA TODAY, 8/24/00

THE TRUE FACE OF FEMINISM
In his publication, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique, left wing academic David Horowitz reveals that under her maiden name of Betty Goldstein, the future founder of feminism and co-founder of the National Organization of Women (NOW), was a propagandist for the Communist left and a disciple of Joseph Stalin. “Imagine what it would be like,” comments Horowitz, “for America’s premier feminist to acknowledge that well into her 30s, Friedan thought Stalin was the Father of the Peoples…and that her interest in women’s liberation was just a subtext of her desire to create a Soviet America.”
Source: The New American, 8/28/00

---

QUOTE OF THE MONTH
“Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.”
Columnist Paul Craig Roberts, Conservative Chronicle, 8/9/00

FOUNDING FATHER QUOTE
“If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the honest can repair; the event is in the Hand of God!” George Washington, upon being elected President of the Constitutional
Convention, May 1787

---