It's the end of Britain as we know it
BartSimpson @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:12 pm
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0324/p09s01-coop.html
$1:
It's the end of Britain as we know it
The Lisbon Treaty spells the end of a sovereign Britain.
London - You might want to take that vacation in England just as soon as you can – before its 1,000-year run as a sovereign nation comes to an end.
This winter, 27 nations of the European Union (EU) signed the Treaty of Lisbon. You may think, "Innocuous enough," as Portuguese-inspired visions of the Tagus River and chicken piri-piri swirl before your eyes.
But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty of Lisbon isn't that appetizing. That's because, if ratified, it will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.
The Eurocrat elite in Brussels might not admit it, but the Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe. More bluntly, it's a cynical repackaging of the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to put the EU Constitution to the British people in a referendum. But his successor, Gordon Brown, has reneged on that promise. He insists that the Treaty of Lisbon is shorn of all constitutional content and that it preserves key aspects of British sovereignty. On March 11, the bill to ratify the treaty cleared the House of Commons. And now the Brown government is poised to win passage in the House of Lords, too.
But British resistance is stirring. In a recent series of minireferendums, almost 90 percent of voters gave the Lisbon Treaty an emphatic thumbs down and demanded a nationwide referendum.
If all 27 nations ratify the treaty this year, it will begin to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The British will then be expected to transfer loyalty and affection to the EU and devote themselves increasingly to its wellbeing.
With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions.
Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums.
That 27 European nations are on the verge of being reconstituted as a federal European superstate is substantially the achievement of the fanatical French integrationist Jean Monnet, for whom the nation state was anathema.
When British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the Common Market in 1973, the country thought it was entering a free-trade agreement. It hoped membership would sprinkle some European stardust on Britain's shipwrecked economy.
Mr. Heath, a passionate Europhile, assured the country that membership would not entail any sacrifice of "independence and sovereignty." Like Europe's fervent integrationists, whose plans for political union had always been disguised as increasingly beneficial economic integration, Heath maintained the fiction that he had simply joined a trading bloc.
Britain had been a highly successful nation state and global power. Now, it seemed, she needed Europe to reverse a relentless decline. Thus when the British were asked to decide on continued membership in the Common Market in a 1975 referendum, almost 70 percent voted to stay in. The "Yes" campaign swept to victory on a platform of jobs, prosperity, and peace. But the implications for the weakening of national sovereignty went unheeded.
Few recalled that in 1961 the Anti-Common Market League had warned that signing the Treaty of Rome (which created the Common Market) "would mean a permanent, irrevocable loss of sovereignty and independence" and that Britain's affairs "would increasingly be administered by supranational bodies … instead of by our own elected representatives."
Surrendering to supranational rule is hard for Britain given its celebrated past. Its European neighbors, by contrast, their histories indelibly stained by tyranny, military defeat, and imperial barbarity, seem eager to subsume themselves in a suffocating superstate.
The Treaty of Lisbon crystallizes the EU's core belief that nation states are every bit as defunct as Stone Age tribes. In the case of Britain, though, it would curtail the freedom of action and global vision of a nation whose people are far from convinced that sovereign independence is a badge of shame.
Britain could walk out of the EU today simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. But political courage of that order is in short supply.
Perhaps only Queen Elizabeth II can rescue her realm from the baleful Treaty of Lisbon. She could veto it when it comes to her for royal assent and – sensationally – declare that she's not prepared to see her proud, independent, liberty-loving country swallowed up by an arrogant, authoritarian, and unloved European superstate.
She would be in excellent company. Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. And that was only about a bunch of musket-toting rubes of doubtful loyalty. This is about national survival.
The Lisbon Treaty spells the end of a sovereign Britain.
London - You might want to take that vacation in England just as soon as you can – before its 1,000-year run as a sovereign nation comes to an end.
This winter, 27 nations of the European Union (EU) signed the Treaty of Lisbon. You may think, "Innocuous enough," as Portuguese-inspired visions of the Tagus River and chicken piri-piri swirl before your eyes.
But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty of Lisbon isn't that appetizing. That's because, if ratified, it will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.
The Eurocrat elite in Brussels might not admit it, but the Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe. More bluntly, it's a cynical repackaging of the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to put the EU Constitution to the British people in a referendum. But his successor, Gordon Brown, has reneged on that promise. He insists that the Treaty of Lisbon is shorn of all constitutional content and that it preserves key aspects of British sovereignty. On March 11, the bill to ratify the treaty cleared the House of Commons. And now the Brown government is poised to win passage in the House of Lords, too.
But British resistance is stirring. In a recent series of minireferendums, almost 90 percent of voters gave the Lisbon Treaty an emphatic thumbs down and demanded a nationwide referendum.
If all 27 nations ratify the treaty this year, it will begin to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The British will then be expected to transfer loyalty and affection to the EU and devote themselves increasingly to its wellbeing.
With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions.
Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums.
That 27 European nations are on the verge of being reconstituted as a federal European superstate is substantially the achievement of the fanatical French integrationist Jean Monnet, for whom the nation state was anathema.
When British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the Common Market in 1973, the country thought it was entering a free-trade agreement. It hoped membership would sprinkle some European stardust on Britain's shipwrecked economy.
Mr. Heath, a passionate Europhile, assured the country that membership would not entail any sacrifice of "independence and sovereignty." Like Europe's fervent integrationists, whose plans for political union had always been disguised as increasingly beneficial economic integration, Heath maintained the fiction that he had simply joined a trading bloc.
Britain had been a highly successful nation state and global power. Now, it seemed, she needed Europe to reverse a relentless decline. Thus when the British were asked to decide on continued membership in the Common Market in a 1975 referendum, almost 70 percent voted to stay in. The "Yes" campaign swept to victory on a platform of jobs, prosperity, and peace. But the implications for the weakening of national sovereignty went unheeded.
Few recalled that in 1961 the Anti-Common Market League had warned that signing the Treaty of Rome (which created the Common Market) "would mean a permanent, irrevocable loss of sovereignty and independence" and that Britain's affairs "would increasingly be administered by supranational bodies … instead of by our own elected representatives."
Surrendering to supranational rule is hard for Britain given its celebrated past. Its European neighbors, by contrast, their histories indelibly stained by tyranny, military defeat, and imperial barbarity, seem eager to subsume themselves in a suffocating superstate.
The Treaty of Lisbon crystallizes the EU's core belief that nation states are every bit as defunct as Stone Age tribes. In the case of Britain, though, it would curtail the freedom of action and global vision of a nation whose people are far from convinced that sovereign independence is a badge of shame.
Britain could walk out of the EU today simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. But political courage of that order is in short supply.
Perhaps only Queen Elizabeth II can rescue her realm from the baleful Treaty of Lisbon. She could veto it when it comes to her for royal assent and – sensationally – declare that she's not prepared to see her proud, independent, liberty-loving country swallowed up by an arrogant, authoritarian, and unloved European superstate.
She would be in excellent company. Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. And that was only about a bunch of musket-toting rubes of doubtful loyalty. This is about national survival.
martin14 @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:25 pm
The EU isnt such a bad idea.. some basic standards for
quality and working standards, environmental and foreign policy,
common currency,
some common defense ideas, just like Nato.
To be fair, the implementation of the EU is full of Commies and Socialists, and
large amounts of money are being wasted, but thats normal government.
Now, if we could get those bloody Limeys to drive on the right side of the road... now that would be something 
Public_Domain @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:00 pm
Congio @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:00 pm
I am for a Euro super state. Off course there are pros and cons.
Pro:
- Cultural. My identity is more of a European than a Pole. I clearly see an Euro identity. My sisters children are half polish half French. They are young still, but when they grow up, I think they will call them selves European, rather then Franco-Polish, or one of the two. And there are and will be much more kids of mixed identity.
- Economy reasons. A united Europe facilitates trade and migrations.
- Political. A united Europe has much more power and prestige than a single state. European countries have in most times the same policies in international relations. A united Europe could influence China or Russia more than single states like Great Britain or Poland.
Cons:
- Cultural: Some cultures may loose parts of their identities for a bigger, more common Euro identity.
===========================================
Any way, in the perspective of a growing wealth and power of China and other countries, Europe has to unite to protect it's identity. As we see in Tibet, there are things which we must protect.
Euro Federation is inevitable
Bacardi4206 @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm
What I wanna know is how did Britain go from making everybody there bitch, to being the bitch.
djakeydd @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:16 pm
A federal Europe will be an abomination, it paves the way for the same thing in North America. We will soon cease to be Canadians in the same manner as Britain will cease, just part of a huge amorphous blob of mediocrity under the control of the corporate elite. This is the tower of babel revisited. It is a means for total control by the smattering of elitists who run things and nothing more, it is a control scheme. It stinks to high heaven and I doubt it will be stopped. That is because people do not cherish history or their nationality, the apathy and indifference astounds me.
BartSimpson @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:23 pm
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
What I wanna know is how did Britain go from making everybody there bitch, to being the bitch.
Bacardi4206 @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:24 pm
djakeydd djakeydd:
A federal Europe will be an abomination, it paves the way for the same thing in North America. This is the tower of babel revisited. It is a means for total control by the smattering of elitists who run things. It stinks to high heaven and I doubt it will be stopped.
If anybody has ever played Battlefield 2142 (Good game), its a war game based in the future. Basicly there is only two countries in this game that fight each other. One is called EU (European Union), the other is called PAN (Pan Asian Coalition).
Where is America, and Canada in this war? Well my assumtion is that America and Canada formed the NA behind the citizens backs and did it no matter what we said. Eventually NA formed with EU, and then EU fought PAC to unite PAC with EU. Global Domination
.
That is of course a game, and a complete exaderation. However when you combine countries like that, to form one super power country. I am pretty sure a country like that would have only one thing on its mind. Pretty much what the U.S. Government has on there mind usually.
martin14 @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:30 pm
djakeydd djakeydd:
A federal Europe will be an abomination, it paves the way for the same thing in North America. We will soon cease to be Canadians in the same manner as Britain will cease, just part of a huge amorphous blob of mediocrity under the control of the corporate elite. This is the tower of babel revisited. It is a means for total control by the smattering of elitists who run things and nothing more, it is a control scheme. It stinks to high heaven and I doubt it will be stopped. That is because people do not cherish history or their nationality, the apathy and indifference astounds me.
you've been eating way too much chocolate..
in case you havent noticed, Canadians are 90% American anyway
or Americans are 90% Canadian, if you must..
with regard to culture, language, social traditions and politics,
differences are miniscule at best.
Nationalism isnt always a good thing.. it can be taken to unhealthy extremes.
As far as Britain being a bitch, thats what happens when you spend too much
time on the outside looking in... 300 million poeple already decided many things
without British participation or influence.. the Empire is over..
djakeydd @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:30 pm
I believe Orwell wrote about 3 super states that were in a state of constant fear, and constant war, he wasn't far off the mark on that one. 1984 is the source for most of bushco's ideology and strategy.
BartSimpson @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:32 pm
djakeydd djakeydd:
That is because people do not cherish history or their nationality, the apathy and indifference astounds me.
And it took the liberals a very long time to deconstruct our national identities and our national ethos.
The future you see before you of a world composed of several regional superpowers with an eventual one-world government is the fruit of people who constantly beat the drum that says there's nothing good about Canada, nothing good about the USA, nothing good about our cultures, nothing good about the people we once called heroes, and etc.
People are apathetic about Canada and they do not cherish Canadian history because this is exactly what the liberals wanted.
Flag waving patriotism and pride is contemptible to these people and what do they offer as a substitute for it? Nothing but cynicism and sneering contempt.
It should be no surprise then, that no one has any pride in their nation because the liberals have spent the past century destroying such pride.
Congio @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:40 pm
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
What I wanna know is how did Britain go from making everybody there bitch, to being the bitch.
![[kissass]](./images/smilies/kiss_ass.gif "Kiss Ass")
I'll tel you how. When all Britain's bitches stoped wanting to be bitches
There probably won't be a World Government. Why? There is this rule that a society can exist only when there is an enemy or someone different. If every one would be citizens of a world country, who would be the enemy? Every one would be the same!
If there wouldn't be China, India, and Islam, there would be no EU. Until the era of Globalisation Europe wasn't so influenced by China or Islam so there was no EU, but there where European wars (WWI, WWII)
kevlarman @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:52 pm
However, a unified Europe, with a common currency, system of laws, parliment, police and a unified military would be just the thing to finally answer all those Americans who talk with some pride and a litte disdain (for the Europeans)that it was them who came to their rescue not once, but twice (thrice if you include the Cold War).
A much more powerful Europe can look after herself. A unified Europe can reduce the need, or the economic desire to have America assert it's politics and it's military in regions of the world far, far, far away (geographically) from America and light years away from the awareness of most Americans themselves. A unified Europe can then start to take ownership of some of the regional problems inherant in the Eurasian continent. In short, not only will they reduce North America's obligations to the rest of the world, they can start to pick up the slack.
There are some bad things about a European superstate but quite frankly, the pros FAR outweigh the cons.
Viva la Europe! As I'm sure they say now in Brussels...
djakeydd @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:09 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
djakeydd djakeydd:
That is because people do not cherish history or their nationality, the apathy and indifference astounds me.
And it took the liberals a very long time to deconstruct our national identities and our national ethos.
The future you see before you of a world composed of several regional superpowers with an eventual one-world government is the fruit of people who constantly beat the drum that says there's nothing good about Canada, nothing good about the USA, nothing good about our cultures, nothing good about the people we once called heroes, and etc.
People are apathetic about Canada and they do not cherish Canadian history because this is exactly what the liberals wanted.
Flag waving patriotism and pride is contemptible to these people and what do they offer as a substitute for it? Nothing but cynicism and sneering contempt.
It should be no surprise then, that no one has any pride in their nation because the liberals have spent the past century destroying such pride.
You have some valid points. I don't think the liberals/lefties are totally responsible however. You have the prime example of George Bush who claims to be anything but a liberal. However, who is turning the blind eye to the massive illegal immigration into the U.S. by Mexicans? Bush has been falling over himself to accomodate this flood of immigrants and it is probably the most egregious assault on U.S. sovereignty of all time. This malignancy called globalization and the resultant destruction of nation states is all by design, and not necessarily liberal, more likely it stems from a form of communism, which is far from dead.
The following applies to the west in general:
The Communist Takeover Of
America - 45 Declared Goals
From Greg Swank
12-4-2
You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since.
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.
It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point.
Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library.
Sources are listed below.
Microfilm: California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408)924-2770 Microfilm Call Number: J 11.R5
Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12
1963- The Year That Changed America
By Greg Swank
12-4-2
Over the years, I have shared in debates and discussions regarding the current state of affairs in the U.S., and the changing social climate of this great nation. Since the "baby-boomer" generation, society and its culture have become noticeably different than the way it was 50 years ago. From the late 50's to the 70's a series of events took place contributing to the way we are currently living. However, like anything else, there has to be a starting point at which the wheels are put into motion. Sometimes it can be a single event, such as war, but more often, it is a series of events, some intentional, some planned, others unpredictable. There is always a pivotal point when things begin to change. I believe that time was 1963.
For my generation, some of the following will certainly stir old memories. If you born later, this may serve as a brief history lesson into the times your parents traveled through.
By 1963 television was the leading sources of entertainment. The public enjoyed a different type of programming back then. Lessons on life could be viewed weekly on "Leave it to Beaver" or "My Three Sons." There were hero's back then that never drew blood, "The Lone Ranger" and "The Adventures of Superman." Cartoon series evolved, such as, "The Flintstones" and "The Jetsons" without messages of empowering the children, using vulgarities or demeaning parental guidance. Family's could spend a weekend evening watching "Ed Sullivan," "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke." For those who enjoyed thrill and suspense, we were blessed with "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and the "Twilight Zone." 'My Favorite Martian," "Ozzie and Harriet," "Donna Reed" and "Sea Hunt" also kept viewers entertained weekly.
Movie theaters were not multiplex units with 15 screens, rather, one single, giant big screen with adequate sound and hard seats without springs. "Tom Jones" had won the Academy award for best picture. "How The West Was Won," "Cleopatra," "Lily of the Fields," "The Great Escape," "The Birds," and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" were all box office hits.
By years end, "The Beatles" had played for the British Royal Family and were laying the groundwork to conquer the U.S. the following year. Eric Clapton began his journey to fame with Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Jim McCarty and their band, "The Yardbirds." Out on the west coast the surf was beginning to rock'n'roll with "The Beach Boys" and their first song to reach the top ten list, "Surfin' U.S.A."
"Joys of Jell-O" recipes for quivering florescent foodstuff hit the stores. U.S. Postal rates went up to five cents for the first ounce. AT&T introduced touch-tone telephones. The Yankees played in the World Series again; but lost to the Dodgers in four straight. The government and NASA began the Apollo program.
This is just a brief snapshot of some things that were going on back in 1963. Remember?
While some of these events played an important role in the direction of change that affect us today, many of them were lost to much greater, more political events, that I believe put everything into motion.
On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
You can see the entire list on this web page - http://www.truthtrek.net/politics/takeover.htm
Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is under some kind of Communist control, but what I do find frightening, is of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass. Remember this was in January 1963.
In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.
By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.
So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States. Which brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this most provocative year.
On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.
While American's have endured great prosperity over the past 40 years we have also lost our moral compass and direction. In reviewing the research, data supports 1963 as a focal point, demonstrating a downward slope in our moral and social decline through 2001.
Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963.
But there is always "hope." As always, I welcome your comments and can easily be reached. Thanks for the response to "Daddy, What's Fluoride?" My email is: [email protected]
Comment
From Founders' America
[email protected]
12-7-2
Jeff...adding a couple of my own numbers:
__ 46. Import anti-white racists from the Third World, via an open-borders policy, then force their integration to divide and conquer white Western civilization in North America.
__ 47. Feminize and disarm both the citizenry and military; especially disarm white males.
Founders' America
P.O. Box 71024 Richmond, Va
23255
BartSimpson @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:23 pm
And much of that has come to pass.