Americans should pull their heads out of the sand and think hard before they buy into this New World Order that is being talked about so much in Washington and New York.

There's nothing new about it at all. In fact, it's remarkably similar to what came out of the Congress of Vienna in 1814.Basically, Europe's monarchies came together after the fall of Napoleon and decided they had had enough of this revolution nonsense. First it was the pesky Americans and then the French, and who knows where it will stop, they said. Therefore, they decided what the world needed was order and stability.

That meant they just divided up the world, and the big powers agreed to beat up on anybody who dared challenge the status quo.

The modern version, as it seeps out of the brains of George Bush and James Baker, is that with Japan and Europe's money and the military power of the United States and the Soviet Union, the rest of the world can be kept in its place, using the United Nations as a cover and stability as the rhetorical rationalization.

That's why Bush and Baker have decided it is so important to beat up on Saddam Hussein who, like many nationalist leaders, has no intention of being an errand boy for the large industrial countries.

There are several things wrong with this New World Order scheme that American and British wealthy types have been dreaming of since the Paris Peace Conference in 1918.

One is that it is by no means certain at this point that the Soviet Union is ready to play, even though it is pretending to do so. I'm not the only one who believes that the Kremlin crowd has not yet given up its own idea of a New World Order in which only it is the top dog.

Second, it is immoral. The United States has no legal or moral standing to appoint itself, alone or in alliance with other bullies, the arbiter of the world's affairs. We have jurisdiction only over the United States and its territories. What other sovereign nations do or don't do is their business, not ours.

Third, the New World Order, as defined by Bush and Baker, commits the United States to a continuation of the national security state mentality and to a future with endless wars. The rest of the world's people are not going to consent to being dominated by some trilateral federation, nor should they. It becomes clear now why the think-tanks inside the Beltway, both conservative and liberal, have been grinding out all this garbage about LICs - low intensity conflicts.

Fourth, it endangers the safety of the United States. These idiots will sacrifice the strategic weapons necessary to defend us against nuclear powers in order to finance the conventional forces necessary to fight colonial wars against people who are no threat to us.

Fifth, it threatens the sovereignty of the United States. I don't know about you, but I am an American. My allegiance is to the Constitution and to the United States of America, not to any international organization, and I will not shift that allegiance.

Furthermore, I have to say plainly that if someone attempts, as many would like to do, to sacrifice the independence of the United States for the sake of a New World Order, then I will rebel. It may be the world's shortest and most ineffective rebellion, but I will not consent to the loss of American independence for which over 1 million of my countrymen have given their lives. That's where I draw the line in my sand and will take up arms.