[CTRL] "The Americas" National War College

[American Patriot Friends Network]

 -Caveat Lector-

[APFN] - American Patriot Friends Network Message Board
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb77532&MyNum=914931006&P=Yes&TL=914887472

 Re: The National War College (The Americas Chp-7 Linked)
 Tuesday, 29-Dec-98 06:30:06   208.147.127.36 writes:

The Americas

[snip]
Differing strategic and threat perceptions undermine U.S. efforts
to form a collective security framework. Although U.S. military
strategy involves reorienting traditional Latin American defense
strategy away from a Cold War focus and toward cooperative security
missions such as peacekeeping and counter drug efforts, Latin
American senior officers view these missions as secondary to
protection of national borders and sovereignty. The political
will might exist among the civilian leadership, but in nations
where the military has gained a high level of autonomy and
self-sufficiency, the military's prerogative to defend the
nation's sovereignty cannot easily be changed. Military
officers throughout the hemisphere (including the United
States) have publicly expressed the feeling that multilateral
operations within the region or outside (e.g., Croatia,
Crete, Sinai) potentially weaken the military's ability to
respond to primary security roles.
[snip]

Click for full Story: NWC "The Americas"
The Americas (Chp-7)
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/sa98/sa98ch7.html

The NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE seems to
rely on what KISSENGER tells them.
http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/nwc/nwchp.html

[APFN] - American Patriot Friends Network Message Board
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb77532

ATTN: "The Jury" - U.S. Senate
http://www.senate.gov/

Rights Come From God! [Citizens Rule Book]
http://www.myfreeoffice.com/dwi/CRB.html

[APFN] Original Intent is a 75K files in winword format.
If you want the whole file I will send via email or ICQ.
Send request to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ICQ# 10811517

Original Intent
By David Barton
ISBN 0-925279-57-9
Excerpts:
"Our Constitution operates on long-standing principles which were
recognized
and incorporate into our government � ; each constitutional provision
reflects
a specific philosophy implemented to avoid a specific problem�
[G]rasping the
purpose for any clause of the Constitution is possible only through a
proper
historical understanding of the debates and the conclusions reached two
hundred years ago.
"� [T]he perception of historical intent� affects the debates on
[religion
and the 1st amendment], gun control and the 2nd Amendment; States'
Rights
and the 10th Amendment, abortion and the 9th and 14th Amendments,
flag-burning
and the First amendment; etc. Therefore, if our understanding of
historical
facts and constitutional intent becomes confused or mistake, the
resulting
policies may be not only ill-founded but may actually create the very
abuses
that the Founders originally intended to avoid.
"Because the portrayal of history so affects current policy, some groups
have
found it advantageous to their political agenda to distort historical
facts
intentionally. Those particularly adept at this are termed
'revisionists.'
"�In fact, there is an unhealthy tendency in many current books on the
Founders-a tendency confirmed in their concluding bibliographies-to cite
predominately contemporary 'authorities' speaking about the Founders
rather than
citing the Founders' own words� Although there were 55 Founders who
drafted the
Constitution, and 90 more who drafted the Bill of Rights, why does the
current Court invoke only Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as its
spokesmen?
Are there no constitutional authorities among the other
one-hundred-forty-plus
who framed those documents?�
Since Jefferson has over 60 volumes of written works and Madison has
over twenty,
why does the Court continually invoke only one or two select sentences
from these
exhaustive works?� Since several signers of the constitution were also
Justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court, why does the current Court avoid citing the
declarations of
those Justices on today's issues?
"� As more and more of the primary-source information documenting the
views of the
founders has been publicized, it clearly has contradicted what the
courts and some
'scholars' have claimed.
[Forward]
"The question of what the Founders intended as the proper relationship
between
religious expression and 'public life� is clearly documented in their
numerous
writings� In attaching today's 'enlightened' perceptions to yesterday's
acts, the
Court [has] demonstrated an unscholarly, and even disquieting approach
to both law
and history�.pg. 21 'Whenever words are understood in a sense different
from that
which they had when introduced� mistakes may be very injurious.'- Noah
Webster,
pg. 22�
As President Thomas Jefferson admonished Supreme Court Justice William
Johnson:
'On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time
when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the
debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or
invented against
it, conform to the probably one in which it was passed.' James Madison
also declared:
'I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which
the
Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense
alone it
is the legitimate Constitution'�. Justice James Wilson similarly
explained; 'The
first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to
discover the
meaning of those who made it.' Pg. 22.  Justice Joseph Story emphasized
this same
principle, declaring; 'The first and fundamental rule in the
interpretation of all
instruments (documents) is to construe them according to the sense of
the terms and
the intention of the parties.' Pg. 23 With regards to religion, "the
records are
succinct; they clearly document that the Founders' purpose for the 1st
Amendment
[was] not compatible with the interpretation given it by contemporary
courts. The
founders intended only to prevent the establishment of a single national
nomination,
not to restrain public religious expressions."
The author has done extensive research and only a few quotes will be
selected for
readers of this document:
� Justice Joseph Story: "� the whole power over the subject of religion
is left
exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their
own sense
of justice and the State constitutions." pg 25 Thomas Jefferson: "I
consider the
government of the United States (the federal government) as interdicted
by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
doctrines, or
exercises� Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to
assume
authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General
(federal)
Government. It must then rest with the States." Pg. 25
"� [T]he first 10 Amendments were enacted solely to limit the
jurisdiction of the
federal government�. Therefore, the sole purpose of the 1st Amendment
was to prevent
the federal government from usurping this specific State power. Pg. 27�
The Founders,
however, not only chose not to establish federally any particular
denomination of
Christianity, they further never intended the 1st Amendment to become a
vehicle to
promote a pluralism of other religions. As Justice Story explained in
his commentaries:
'The real object of the (First A)mendment was not to countenance, much
less advance, Mahometanism, or Judiasm, or infidelity, by prostrating
Christianity;
but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.'� Dr. Benjamin Rush (a
signer of
the Declaration and one of America's top educators) authored the first
work calling
for free public schools. In that work, he declared: '� I had rather see
the opinions
of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up
wholly devoid
of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to
recommend in this
place is that of the New Testament� (A)ll its doctrines and precepts are
calculated
to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well being of
civil government.'
Pg. 31
Why was Christianity promoted by the Founders? "Jefferson explained:
'The precepts
of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He
(Jesus) pushed
his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region
of his
thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.' Zephaniah Swift
similarly
explained: '� When we contemplate it in this light, we have a most
striking evidence
of its [Christianity's] superiority over all the systems of pagan
philosophy, which
were promulgated by the wisest men of ancient times.' Pg. 32,33.
"Civil law (and most religions) focuses on stopping the act of murder,
yet
Christianity focuses on stopping the hate and anger which causes the
murder.
Similarly, the law and most religions try to prevent the act of
adultery, but
Christianity attacks the internal lust which results in that external
behavior. The
strongest civil code is impotent against malicious behavior unless the
heart itself
can be restrained� The Founder believed that pluralism survived only
within the
concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity� [M]ost
if no all
other religious nations (whether Muslum, Jewish, Buddhist, monarchal
Christian, etc.)
rarely allow pluralism. [Additionally,] the Founders made clear that if
the meaning
and application of any part of the Constitution was to be altered, it
was to be at
the hands of the people-not at the feet of the Court. Pg. 33, 34.
>From here the text goes into great detail concerning court
cases-something the
interested reader should investigate.
"�[T]he Founders believed that any oath or affirmation-including that of
elected
officials to uphold the Constitution-presupposed a belief in God. For
example,
Supreme Court Justice James Iredell observed: 'According to the modern
definition
(1788) of an oath, it is considered a "solemn appeal to the Supreme
Being for the
truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a
Supreme Being
and in  a future state of rewards and punishments�"' Signer Rufus King
explained:
'(In o)ur laws� by the oath which they prescribed, we appeal to the
Supreme Being so
to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The
Pagan world
were and are without the mighty influence on this principle which is
proclaimed in
the Christian system-their morals were destitute of its powerful
sanction while their
oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in
Christianity inspires.'
George Washington, too, believed that an oath inherently contained a
sense of
eligious obligation. In his 'Farewell Address,' he asked: '(W)here is
the security
for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
obligation desert
the oaths�?'� Numerous other sources further illustrate the fact that
the taking of
an oath presupposed a belief in God. For example, the 1799 Kentucky
Constitution
declared: 'The manner of administering an oath or affirmation.. shall be
esteemed by
the General Assembly (the Legislature) the most solemn appeal to God.'�
Early school
books also taught that to take any oath inherently required a belief in
God. One text
explained, 'An oath supposes that he who takes it believes that there is
a God who
will in a future life reward the worthy and punish the wicked.' In his
arguments
before the U.S. Supreme Court, Daniel Webster, the great 'Defender of
the
Constitution,' queried: 'What is an oath?.. (I)t is founded on a degree
of
onsciousness that there is  Power above us that will reward our virtues
or punish our
vices� (O)ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty
and property
and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a
religious belief.'
He further noted: '� If he has not this belief, he is disfranchised (not
admitted).'"
Numerous other quotes are given. Pg. 36, 37, 38.
"For 150 years following the ratification of the Constitution, States
were considered
the highest authority on any dispute involving the issues within the
Bill of Rights�
Only since the Court's federalization of the States I the mid-20th
century have State
Supreme courts been viewed as subordinate to the federal courts. Pg. 52.
Here I would add a quote not in the text. With regard to the
consolidation of powers
in Washington, on August 18, 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Charles
Hammond: "To
this [consolidation] I am opposed: because when all government, domestic
and foreign,
in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre
of all
power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on
another, and
will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated. It
will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or grudgeon,
hammer or
anvil. Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same work-shop;
made of the
same materials and by the same hand. If the States look with apathy on
this silent
descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we
have only to
weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of
iron, and the
blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true
historians."
"The assertion is once more made that Christianity never was received as
part of the
common laws of this Christian land; and it is added that if it was it
was virtually
repealed by the Constitution of the United States and of this State� We
will first
dispose of what is considered the grand objection-the constitutionality
of
Christianity� Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been
a part of the
common law� Thus the wise legislature framed this great body of laws for
a Christian
country and Christian people� In this the Constitution of the United
States has made
no alteration nor in the great body of the laws which was an
incorporation of the
common-law doctrine of Christianity. No free government now exists in
the world
unless where Christianity is acknowledged and is the religion of the
country� Its
foundations are broad and strong and deep� It is the purest system of
morality, the
firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws.'
(Updegraph v. The
Commonwealth; 11 Serg & R. at 399, 402-402, 406-407 (Sup. Ct. Penn.
1824). Pg54
"� This case, and two following it, deal with 'morality;' and although
many today
assert that 'you can't legislate morality,' such charges are utter
nonsense. Every
law that exists is the legislation of morality. As signer of the
Declaration John
Witherspoon explained:
'(C)onsider all morality in general as conformity to a law.'
Consequently, it is
never a matter of if morality can be legislated, only whose morality
will be
legislated.
"The Founders believed the Bible to be the perfect example of moral
legislation and
the source of what the called 'the moral law.' For nearly 150 year, the
courts relied
on that moral law as the basis for our civil laws-a fact clearly
illustrated from the
following three cases.
Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815): Here a man was arrested for showing
pornography in
a private setting. "� in a certain house.. scandalously did exhibit and
show for
money� a certain lewd�
[SNIP]

The oath which all commanding officers of UN deployments must take:

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience
the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service
of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my
conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to
seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties
from any government or other authority external to the organization."

This oath was taken by Finland's General Engstrom.


American Patriot Friends Network
href="http:www.esotericworldnews.com/kenvardon.htm

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om