In
his March 26 speech to the Los Angeles
World Affairs Council, McCain never mentioned the need to preserve American
sovereignty. He could have reassured conservatives by stating his forthright
opposition to Senate ratification of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which
provides for international control over billions of dollars worth of oil, gas
and minerals and undermines American claims to North Pole riches. But he chose
not to.
 

Instead,
as the Washington Post put it, McCain promised “a collaborative foreign
policy,” conducted in coordination with other nations. The New York Times said
he distanced himself from “unilateralism” in foreign affairs.
 

“Liberals
are going to love this speech,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said
about the McCain address. He said it sounded like the “global test” that
liberal Democratic presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry had proposed
for U.S.
foreign policy in 2004.
 

Yet,
McCain’s new TV ad calls him “the American president Americans have been
waiting for.” The public should not be fooled. He is as much of a globalist as
Hillary and Obama.
 

Noting
that McCain committed himself to adoption of a new U.N.-sponsored global
warming treaty, which would be even more comprehensive and tougher than the
Kyoto Protocol, Limbaugh said that “The theme here is
that there’s nothing special about America, and that we’re not going to be able
to do anything without involving other nations and making them like us and
showing them that we intend them no harm and that we want to be good stewards
of the planet just as they want to be good stewards.” 
 

The latter was a reference to McCain declaring that “We need to be
good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our
common home. The risks of global warming have no borders.” McCain sounded
like another Democrat―Al Gore.
 

But despite his preference for what appears to be some kind of New
World Order, McCain’s prior endorsement of a new Muslim state in Europe by the name of Kosovo could undermine all of his
best-laid plans. Recognition of Kosovo could lead to war with Russia and more terrorist problems for Israel.
 

Scary
Rhetoric
 

Bobby
Eberle of GOPUSA commented, “Sen. McCain delivered
a laundry list of all things non-conservative.” He said the speech wasn’t
conservative or even Republican. 
 

Amanda
Teegarden, a grass roots pro-sovereignty activist, was also alarmed. “It is
imperative that conservatives listen to this speech―especially if you are concerned about the sovereignty, and the
economic survival, of the United
States,” she said.
 

In
addition to a new global warming treaty, she noted that McCain’s proposals
included open borders in the Western Hemisphere,
nuclear disarmament, and a Transatlantic free trade area.
 

Eberle
focused on a segment of the McCain speech that included the statement that “Relations
with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an
imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North,
Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can
and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and
South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is
free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets
advance the security and prosperity of all.”
 

McCain’s
strange rhetoric about “North, Central, and South American life” reflects a
view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional
alliances and institutions. He referred to “the
powerful collective voice of the European Union,” as if the U.S. response
would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But
McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union
(NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He
talked about “creating the new international institutions necessary to advance
the peace and freedoms we cherish,” as if they would be built on top of the EU
and the NAU.
 

Earlier, McCain had declared, “With globalization, our hemisphere
has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent.  Latin America
today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and
south share a common geography and a common destiny.” But why should trade
with America’s
neighbors necessarily lead to a “common destiny?” This implies a political
merger of the U.S.
with other countries.
 

Nuclear
Disarmament
 

“We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world,
starting with our own,” McCain said. This appeared to be a call for unilateral
nuclear disarmament. He went on to call for the U.S. to lead “a global effort at
nuclear disarmament.” This, too, seems to require more reliance on international
institutions, in this case the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). Indeed, McCain in the past has called for more funding for the IAEA.
 

McCain added, “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the
core of a new global compact―a League of Democracies―that can harness the vast
influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance
our values and defend our shared interests.” But as I noted in a recent piece, “McCain,
Soros, and the New World Order,” this is a liberal project that is being
currently funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros and managed by former Clinton officials. It has
nothing to do with democracy but is intended to create another global
institution that will eventually help strengthen the U.N.   

After calling for the closing of the terrorist detention facility
at Guantanamo
Bay (but not saying where he would put the detainees), McCain declared that
“There is such a thing as international good citizenship.” This is the
kind of rhetoric we would expect from an advocate of world government. If
Hillary or Obama were spouting such silly rhetoric, conservatives would be
laughing at them.
 

It goes without saying that McCain is oblivious to the evidence
that the man-made global warming theory doesn’t hold up under serious scrutiny.
His proposal for “a successor to the Kyoto Treaty” that “delivers the necessary
environmental impact in an economically responsible manner” is potentially very
damaging to the U.S.
economy. But the proposal pleases the Europeans. 
 

McCain talked about the virtues of the “transatlantic alliance,”
which served a purpose during the Cold War with the Soviet
Union, but went on to say that “Americans should welcome the rise
of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO.”
The European Union was devised primarily as a counter to the influence of the U.S. in foreign
affairs. It has also proven to be a bureaucratic disaster for the people of Europe. The “strong NATO” has proven to be extremely weak
in Afghanistan,
where it cannot field enough troops to defeat the Taliban terrorists. Expanding
NATO has not resulted in making it stronger.
 

“The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting
the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common
energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more
closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and
institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign
assistance, and democracy promotion,” declared McCain.
 

So not only is the U.S.
going to move toward common policies for North, South and Central
America, but it is going to develop common energy and economic
policies with the European Union. Developing a common policy on “foreign
assistance” is a recipe for more looting of the U.S. taxpayers. The Europeans have
long complained that the U.S.
isn’t devoting enough money to “official development assistance,” as the U.N.
calls it.
 

Nightmare
Vision
 

Does McCain’s vision look like an emerging world government? It is
certainly a variation of “global governance,” which is the proposal that former
Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott makes in his book, The Great Experiment. Talbott calls
McCain a “pragmatist” in foreign affairs, just like Obama and Hillary, and says
that he expects his liberal Brookings Institution to have influence over a
McCain presidency.
 

On other issues in his speech, McCain talked tough about Iran and Russia.
 

The big problem for McCain, as we noted in a recent column, is that
his vision of a New World Order is incompatible with his support for making the
Serbian province
of Kosovo into an
independent state. Carving Kosovo out of Serbia is a threat to international
peace and security. It has split NATO, which McCain says he wants to expand and
strengthen. This policy, which has also been embraced by the Democrats,
threatens a completely unnecessary war with Russia, which backs Serbian control
of Kosovo and wants to aid the Serbs remaining in the province.
 

McCain spoke about Israel’s
survival, without addressing the reality that Kosovo’s independence has
energized the Arab/Muslim push for a Palestinian state that could threaten Israel.
 

While McCain said that the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is
“the transcendent challenge of our time,” he seemed unaware how some of those
same forces are behind the push for Kosovo statehood. It just doesn’t make
sense to fight Muslim extremists in one place, Iraq, while helping them in
another, Kosovo, and even giving them their own state.
 

This is a contradiction that McCain has failed to address.
 

“We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq,” the
Senator declared. “It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on
our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people
and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly
genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature
withdrawal.”
 

This rhetoric strikes a chord with conservatives. Yet, some say
that genocide is already occurring in Iraq, in regard to the plight of
Christians there. More than half have fled the country since the U.S. invasion,
and those who remain are being kidnapped, threatened and murdered. Do we not
have a moral responsibility to them? Shouldn’t the U.S.
be less concerned about the survival of the Muslim government in Iraq and more
concerned about the defenseless and unarmed Christians?
 

McCain seemed blind not only to the issues that conservatives
regard as critical in an election year, but he went out of his way to reach out
to liberals and Democrats. The only part of the speech they probably didn’t
like was on Iraq.

 

But if the liberals get beyond their differences with McCain on Iraq, they will
not only vote for him but promote his agenda as president. Then, as Rush
Limbaugh notes, it may eventually be possible to change the name of the United States of America:
“We’ll call ourselves New Europe.” In the process, true conservatism as a
political force will be finished in the U.S.
 

The tragedy of this approach is that it comes from a man who
served his country in uniform and risked his life on behalf of the U.S. McCain
would have been a natural choice to lead a campaign for restoration of American
sovereignty in foreign affairs. He could have been “The American President
Americans have been waiting for.”
 

For reasons that remain largely a mystery, he has chosen to take
the U.S.
down the road of “global governance,” in which the U.N. and other international
agencies, institutions and alliances determine our fate as a nation. It is the
same road the Democrats are on. It is a tragedy for our country.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author