AIM Report: Bush’s Legacy: A New World Disorder - July A
AIM Report | July 9, 2007
The bill could return at any time.
The fact has been ignored by the major media, but when the Senate immigration bill collapsed in June, congressional approval of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the federal scheme to bring the U.S., Canada and Mexico together in a trilateral entity, went down with it. An after-the-fact endorsement of this scheme had been inserted into the Senate immigration bill by parties unknown. The White House was most likely behind this stealth attempt to get Congress to approve the SPP, which forms the basis for a North American Union (NAU).
The bill could return at any time, and there is a companion measure, H.R. 1645, in the House, which also has provisions facilitating the NAU.
But whatever happens with the immigration bills, the process of creating the NAU continues. The only question is whether Congress will take an active role in opposing or condoning it. The creation of the NAU, which could spell the end of American sovereignty, could end up being part of Bush's emerging and very disturbing "legacy."
Bush Apes Gore
With most of the media attention focused on the collapse of the Bush-backed Senate immigration bill, the American people were not told the complete story of how the President emulated Al Gore at the G-8 meeting in Germany. Bush committed the U.S. to drastically reducing CO2 emissions. It's unclear whether these reductions will be accomplished through increased regulations or higher taxes. But the document agreed to by Bush specifically refers to "fees or taxes" as an option. Bush, once known as a tax-cutter, apparently now wants to go down in history as a tax-raiser for the cause of arresting climate change.
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote a June 8 column suggesting that the plan was a victory for Bush. She wrote that "There's been a capitulation on global warming, but it hasn't happened in the Oval Office. The Kyoto cheerleaders at the United Nations and the European Union are realizing their government-run experiment in climate control is a mess, one that's incidentally failed to reduce carbon emissions. They've also understood that if they want the biggest players on board—the U.S., China, India—they need an approach that balances economic growth with feel-good environmentalism. Yesterday's G-8 agreement acknowledged those realities and tolled Kyoto's death knell."
But in sounding the death knell of Kyoto, which conservatives would rejoice over, Bush made things worse by embracing negotiations for a new and much tougher treaty. The Journal column represented White House spin.
Paragraph 42 of one of the G-8 documents, "Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy," openly declared that "we are committed to the further development of an international regime to combat climate change..." It goes on to say this will be accomplished through the run-up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Indonesia at the end of this year. The reference to "fees or taxes" is in paragraph 55, on how the private sector is to be prodded to comply with government dictates.
This means that Bush, who refused to support or seek ratification of the U.N.'s global warming treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, is now officially on record in favor of a new and much tougher agreement. It's not clear that this new agreement will be submitted to the U.S. Senate as a treaty. Bush may try to implement the changes on his own, perhaps through executive order and executive action, before he leaves office. He might see this as part of his "legacy."
On the eve of the G-8 meeting, Bush gave a global warming speech at an event hosted by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign. This is a coalition of business and non-government organizations that includes the pro-world government Citizens for Global Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Ted Turner's U.N. Foundation, Planned Parenthood, the American Friends Service Committee, the Alliance for a Global Community, and the United Nations Association.
Bush told the group, "This is a fine organization and it's an important organization. It's rallying businesses and non-governmental organizations and faith-based and community and civic organizations across our country to advance a noble cause, ensuring that the United States leads the world in spreading hope and opportunity."
It looked like Bush was abandoning what was left of his conservative base.
AIDS Drugs Can Kill
Many pages of the G-8 document were devoted to spending more money on HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa. This is another area in which Bush seems determined to leave a "legacy." Just before the G-8 meeting, he held a press conference to announce his desire to double America's commitment to fight global HIV/AIDS.
It alls sounds compassionate, except for the fact that anti-AIDS drugs continue to be controversial and their safety and effectiveness are being seriously questioned. Dr. Jonathan M. Fishbein, who supervised AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), blew the whistle on trials of anti-AIDS drugs in Uganda that were seriously flawed. Fishbein said the drugs had dangerous side-effects, including liver problems and fatal rashes, but that the NIH "knowingly and cunningly" covered them up.
What's more, Fishbein said the NIH supported the President's public endorsement of one of these drugs, nevirapine, in 2002, knowing that it was not safe. Fishbein was forced out of his job for telling the truth.
An international organization of more than 2,300 scientists, medical doctors, journalists, health advocates and business professionals has formed "Rethinking AIDS" in order to raise questions about the science behind and the policy on AIDS. Among other things, it points out that the definition of AIDS in Africa does not require HIV testing and that symptoms of a disease said to be AIDS are compatible with symptoms of malnutrition. As such, critics of the AIDS theory argue that "AIDS in Africa" should be fought with a campaign to raise living standards, not force controversial and potentially toxic anti-AIDS drugs on the populace.
An audit from last December by the Inspector General of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) of the President's AIDS program found that recordkeeping was sloppy and that results, if any, could not be monitored or verified.
About $200 billion has been spent by the U.S. Government on HIV/AIDS. But Bush wants to spend tens of billions more dollars.
The UNESCO Debacle
Bush continues this Gore-like crusade to be the savior of the world despite the fact that his one early bow to the U.N., by rejoining UNESCO, blew up in his face.
You may recall that President Reagan pulled the U.S. out of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, on the grounds that it was corrupt. But Bush wanted the U.S. to rejoin it. The Congress agreed, voting to pay the agency $60 million in annual "dues." UNESCO repaid U.S. generosity by passing the so-called Convention on Cultural Diversity, a treaty vigorously opposed by the U.S. Peter Smith, the highest ranking American at UNESCO, was driven out of the organization in March because of charges of corruption. Smith said he tried to reform the organization and got a death threat.
Meanwhile, one of the Bush daughters, Jenna, joined a UNICEF program in Paraguay.
The U.N. Children's Fund, which has always been controversial because of its pro-abortion advocacy, has just issued a statement commending a new initiative by the U.N.-backed drug-purchasing consortium, UNITAID, which is buying controversial anti-AIDS drugs for Africa with the help of Bill Clinton's foundation. Some of the money is being raised through "solidarity contributions" in the form of an international airline tax.
U.S. funding of the U.N. under Bush has risen dramatically. Office of Management and Budget figures show that U.S. financial contributions to the U.N. System under Bush have gone from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.
The office of Senator Tom Coburn, who requested and released the information, commented in a press release that "According to the report, in 2005, the United States gave $5.3 billion to the U.N—a 30% increase from 2004 funding level of $4.1 billion. Almost every Department of the U.S. government plus several independent agencies fund the U.N. Although the U.N. does not track this information or at least does not make such information public, most experts say the total U.N. budget is between $15-20 billion. The U.S. funded portion is between 25% and 30%."
Law Of The Sea
Another part of Bush's "legacy building" is his decision to seek ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a dangerous document that transfers control of the oceans and much of the land area of the world as well to a U.N. bureaucracy. It finances its activities with a global tax. The pact is endorsed by some of the same groups and individuals involved in the Global Leadership Campaign.
UNCLOS charges American corporations a "fee" for exploiting ocean resources for the benefit of America and threatens these same corporations, as well as governments, with global climate change litigation before an international court if they "pollute" the oceans from anywhere on the face of the earth.
U.S. Navy support for UNCLOS masks the sharp decline in U.S. Naval forces. The number of U.S. ships has declined under Bush to 276, from a high of 594 under President Reagan, who rejected UNCLOS. The Bush budget projects their further decline to 210. The American Shipbuilding Association says that, if present trends continue, the U.S. Naval Fleet will decline to 180 ships by 2024.
State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger has announced that UNCLOS is only one of 35 "treaty packages" that the administration is submitting for Senate approval.
Bush-whacked
The turnaround by President Bush in foreign affairs has alarmed many of his supporters. Some are so distraught that they have contacted AIM suggesting that Bush is being blackmailed. One said, "I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I think what Bush is doing isn't because of an agenda that he has cooked up." Some see influence being exercised over him by advisers associated with his father, George H. W. Bush, who openly spoke of a "New World Order."
The transformation of the Bush Administration is a major story. Coming into office, Bush rejected the U.N.'s global warming and International Criminal Court treaties and pulled the U.S. out of the ABM treaty with Russia. It appeared that he was determined to pursue the U.S. national interest in foreign affairs. He gave the U.N. a chance to figure out the Iraq problem, but when the organization failed to directly authorize military action, Bush took action on his own.
Today, however, the terrorists in Iraq are being openly assisted by outside hostile states like Iran and Syria, and the U.S. has done virtually nothing to stop them. This has led some to suspect that the recent military "surge" in Iraq was a ploy, in order to improve our negotiation position with Iran and figure out a way to withdraw with "honor." The New York Times reports the administration is planning to withdraw a number of troops while keeping some behind at a limited number of major American bases tucked away out of urban areas. Bush no longer speaks of victory on Iraq, only "success," whatever that means.
Dismembering Serbia
On June 10, Bush appeared in Albania, where a street was named after him and he will be awarded the Order of the National Flag, the highest decoration granted to foreigners by Albania. The people were cheering because Bush has signed on to a U.N. scheme to dismember a sovereign state, Serbia, and hand over its province of Kosovo to Albanian nationalists and Muslim separatists. Ethnic Albanians became a majority in Kosovo in the same way that Mexicans have assumed political power and influence in much of the American southwest.
As if Iraq hasn't turned out badly enough, what Bush is doing in Kosovo (by continuing the Clinton policy) is laying the groundwork for more conflict and upheaval in the world. Never before in history has the U.N. presided over the deliberate destruction of a sovereign state. Kosovo represents the religious heritage of Serbia's Christians and many Christian churches have already been destroyed by Muslim extremists there. Taking Kosovo from Serbia is comparable to taking Jerusalem from Israel.
Yet the U.S. is supporting the U.N. scheme to make Kosovo an independent Muslim state in Europe.
It doesn't make any sense: The U.S. fights Muslim extremists in one place, Iraq, but rewards them in another place, Kosovo.
But the implications of the Albanian visit and the Kosovo policy are truly ominous. If ethnic Albanians can take Kosovo from Serbia, then Mexico can take the Southwest from the U.S., making it part of Mexico or making it into a state or region of its own, separate from the U.S. Indeed, there is a plan to do just that. Bush apparently doesn't fear this possibility because he sees Mexico joining Canada and the U.S. in some kind of ultimate trilateral entity. In this kind of world, there would be a common identity card and people would be free to travel anywhere.
Bush was applauded in Albania and the people of that country waved American flags. It appeared that America had some friends in the world. But what Bush was really doing was sowing the seeds of the ultimate demise and destruction of the United States— and other countries.
Slobodan Lekic of the Associated Press reported that "From the jungles of Indonesia to Spain's Basque country, separatist movements around the world are drawing hope from a proposal before the U.N. Security Council that would give Kosovo functional independence from Serbia." He said Kosovo's future could have "far-reaching effects" in some "four dozen territories around the world aspiring to break free…"
One such territory is the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. However, Lekic explained, "Any move by Iraq's Kurdish provinces to break free would create a major political headache for Washington and invite armed intervention from neighboring Turkey, which has its own restless Kurdish minority."
Independence For Hawaii?
Bush should pay attention closer to home. There is a growing movement to sever Hawaii from the United States, on the grounds that it was illegally invaded and occupied by the United States. The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in 1893.
There is a website devoted to independence for Hawaii and an associated blog which declares that Hawaii is actually an "independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States…"
The website quotes the former Democratic Governor Ben Cayetano, as saying, "The recovery of Hawaiian self-determination is not only an issue for Hawaii, but for America...let all of us, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian, work toward a common goal. Let us resolve...to advance a plan for Hawaiian sovereignty."
The current Republican Governor, Linda Lingle, is quoted on the site as saying, "This is a historical issue, based on a relationship between an independent government and the United States of America, and what has happened since and the steps that we need to take to make things right."
A Senate bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, introduced by Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka, is innocuously described on a congressional website as "A bill to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. "
But Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum warns that it is "a big step toward Hawaiian secession" and that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs website says the Akaka bill could allow the "Native Hawaiian people" to "exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government including free association or total independence."
As part of its effort to eliminate "colonialism," the U.N. lists Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as "Non Self-Governing Territories" currently being administered by the U.S. that have not attained full independence.
Hawaii was put on the U.N. list in 1946 as a territory under U.S. control but was removed in 1959 when it became an American state. A 1998 U.N. report advocated that Hawaii be returned to the U.N. list. A U.N. committee in 2006 passed a resolution calling on the U.S. "to expedite the process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and return all occupied land and facilities on both Vieques island and Ceiba."
The U.S. Is Stolen Land?
In response to a column by AIM editor Kincaid on the taking of Kosovo from Serbia being comparable to seizing Jerusalem from Israel, a Palestinian journalist wrote to warn that the U.S. itself was at risk of breaking apart. He said:
"May I ask since when did Jerusalem belong to Israel. Let me remind you that prior to 1948 there was a land called Palestine inhabited by Arabs, Muslim, Christian and Jewish Arabs. Their land was/is still being stolen by these eastern European Zionist Jews. If you don't know, then let me educate you on the fact that Israel is a European colonialist project to steal Arab lands and wealth. Furthermore, the U.S. is stolen land, stolen from the native Indian tribes of North America. If Palestine must be returned to its former 'owners,' so then must the USA to its rightful owners, the Red Indians.
"You whites are the world's biggest thieves and mass murderers. In the twenty first century you can still invade lands, kill hundreds of thousands of people (Iraq) and tell the world that you are bringing them liberation, democracy and other bull****. The wars against Arabs, be they Iraqis, Palestinians or Lebanese are racist, colonialist wars whose real aim is to steal other peoples' (natives') land and resources.
"You can fool other people but you cannot fool all of us."
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed postcards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Karen Hughes and John B. Bellinger of the State Department, and Admiral Michael Mullen.
CLIFF'S NOTES
by Cliff Kincaid
DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG: July-A 2007
IF IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH THAT PRESIDENT BUSH WANTS TO GRANT amnesty to illegal aliens, he is pursuing a no-win policy in Iraq. Senator Joseph Lieberman said on "Face the Nation" on June 10 that the Iranian government has killed as many as 200 American soldiers in Iraq. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. But the President doesn't seem to agree. Lieberman said the U.S. has "good evidence" that the Iranians maintain a base where "they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers." How can we justify sending more Americans to die in Iraq when the Bush Administration is not fighting to win? Iranian weapons are also being found in the possession of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Brian Todd of CNN reports these include AK-47s, C-4 plastic explosives, mortars, and explosively-formed penetrator bombs that can pierce American armor.
WE AT AIM HAVE CONSISTENTLY ARGUED THAT, IN ORDER TO WIN IN IRAQ, WE HAVE TO BE prepared to win on the military battlefield-and that means striking the sources of outside support for the terrorists-and win the information war. On both fronts, the Bush Administration is failing. In regard to the latter, it turns out that the U.S.-funded Arab television network, Al-Hurrah, has been operating as an imitation of Al-Jazeera. But Al-Hurrah was supposed to counter Al-Jazeera. Larry Register, formerly of CNN, was forced out as editorial director of Al-Hurrah after members of Congress objected to how it was providing air time to terrorists. Register was backed by Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes, a close friend of the President, who also devised the crazy policy of cooperating with Al-Jazeera. Please send Ms. Hughes the enclosed postcard protesting her ridiculous and suicidal "communications" policy. Also send State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger a postcard asking how "international law" justifies independence for Kosovo and the dismemberment of Serbia. Bellinger is a key official pushing the pro-U.N. globalist agenda.
MANY ARE CURIOUS ABOUT THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND ITS DRIFT to the left. Some think Bush is being blackmailed. I think he has been persuaded, largely by State Department officials, that this is how he achieves his "legacy." Another explanation is that there has been a coup against the administration waged by elements of the intelligence community. And that brings us back to the subject of the Lewis Libby case. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, should never have been put on trial; indeed, new evidence suggests that his alleged target, former CIA analyst Valerie Plame, is the one who should be investigated and prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath before Congress about her role in this affair. She recommended her husband Joe Wilson for a CIA mission to undermine the administration's Iraq policy but told Congress that she did not do so. A probe might shed light on who in the CIA was actively trying to sabotage the Bush Administration's Iraq policy-and who may be continuing to do so today.
THE CIA, CONSIDERED A FAR MORE LIBERAL ORGANIZATION THAN IT WAS DURING THE Cold War, requested the investigation of how Plame's name and CIA affiliation appeared in the press, first in a column by journalist Robert Novak, based on the assumption that her identity was protected under federal law. It turned out, of course, that Plame was not a protected agent or officer and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never tried to make the legal case that she was. So the whole basis for the CIA request and the investigation was erroneous. That's apparently when Fitzgerald decided to find somebody guilty of something. He picked on Libby. But if Plame lied under oath about her role in sending her husband on the CIA mission, then she should be investigated. And that means that what or who she is protecting is very serious indeed. An investigation of Plame, which is what was required in the first place, might lead to a faction in the CIA that was determined to sabotage the Bush Iraq policy from the start.
BUSH'S FAILURE, SO FAR, TO PARDON LEWIS LIBBY HAS IRRITATED SOME CONSERVATIVES. Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing is quoted by columnist Bob Novak as saying, "If the president can pardon 12 million illegal immigrants, he can pardon Scooter Libby." On another personnel matter, Bush has defended the forced retirement of General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, by saying it would have been too difficult to get him approved by Congress for another term. On the other hand, Bush has remained steadfastly behind Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. As you know, Pace came under vicious attack for stating that he believed homosexuality was immoral. Considering what happened to Pace, some are wondering whether the Bush Administration will stand behind James Holsinger, its nominee for U.S. Surgeon General. He, too, is under vicious attack by homosexual rights groups. He reportedly wrote a document about homosexuality being unnatural and is associated with a church that offers homosexuals the chance to change and reject their dangerous lifestyle. Please consider sending the enclosed postcard to Admiral Michael Mullen, the new Joint Chiefs chairman, asking him to disavow the Navy's support of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
ON THE MATTER OF KOSOVO, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, BUSH HIMSELF SEEMS TO BE confused. The Washington Post notes that on June 9 he said there had to be a deadline for a U.N. resolution making the Serbian province independent. But on June 10 he declared, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Told that he had, Bush responded: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? Okay, yes, then I meant what I said." Needless to say, these are strange comments from a President on an important, not trivial, matter. They don't inspire confidence.
BUSH'S EMBRACE OF A NEW GLOBAL WARMING TREATY OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE LIBERAL Congress to push for higher energy taxes, in order to discourage the use of the fossil fuels that emit the greenhouse gases. California Democrat Fortney "Pete" Stark, the second-most senior member of the House Ways & Means Committee, has introduced what is described as the first carbon-tax bill in Congress in a generation. It's called the "Save our Climate Act of 2007" and is designed "to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by imposing a tax on primary fossil fuels based on their carbon content." On the Senate side, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is proposing a corporate carbon tax estimated at over $50 billion annually. It will be difficult for Bush to resist such a tax, in light of his recent rhetoric on the subject. The U.N. has been pushing a global tax to fight global warming that amounts to a 35 cents per gallon gasoline tax hike.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER HAS PERFORMED A PUBLIC SERVICE ON HIS WEBSITE BY DRAWING attention to the questionable "science" behind the theory. He says, "Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducible, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results. In no area has this been more obvious than climate change...constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occurring." We will make sure that voices like that of Rohrabacher get more attention in Washington. You can bet the media will do their best to ignore or discredit him.
For Accuracy in Media,
Cliff Kincaid
Editor
0 Comments | Post a Comment
