LAST STAND FOR AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY
CNN’s Lou Dobbs asked AIM editor Cliff Kincaid, during a discussion of the North American Union, why our media show no interest in the issue of sovereignty. He said it wasn’t considered sexy enough. Perhaps if “sovereignty” had big breasts and shapely legs, like Anna Nicole Smith, we might stand a chance of getting some more coverage. Tragically, American sovereignty seems to be meeting the same fate as Miss Smith.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush’s “legacy.” The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base.
As President Reagan understood, UNCLOS creates another dangerous U.N. bureaucracy, with a seabed “authority” to run ocean affairs, as well as a court system and a global tax. It is a mechanism created by the World Federalists as a major stepping stone on the road to world government. One of the main authors, Elizabeth Mann Borgese, was a socialist who admired Karl Marx.
But don’t expect our media to report these facts to the American people.
U.S. Navy officials, acting clueless and completely in the dark about the nature of U.N. bureaucracies, are actually lobbying on Capitol Hill for Senate ratification of the pact. It is an example of how weak the U.S. has become that our military officials have been reduced to functioning as a lobbying arm of the Washington office of the U.N.
In an editorial opposing the treaty, Investor’s Business Daily comments, “Why does an administration that says we don’t need a ‘permission slip’ to defend ourselves seem determined to sign away our freedom of the seas to the United Nations?”
The paper said, “Our access to the seas should be guaranteed by the U.S. Navy, not a U.N. bureaucracy.” But the paper also notes that when President Reagan opposed the treaty, we had a 600-ship Navy. It is now down to only 276 ships and is projected to decline under the Bush budget to 210.
Vijay Sakhuja, Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, notes “the fast declining force levels of the US Navy, currently based around a fleet of 276 vessels,” and points out that “This is perhaps the lowest number in several decades and represents a third of the number of ships built annually during the Reagan-era?”
The Navy Role
Navy officials, of course, are only doing what the President tells them to do, and Bush says he wants immediate ratification of UNCLOS. Strangely, two years ago, even when his administration was officially endorsing the pact, Bush told conservatives he wasn’t sure why his administration was supporting it.
However, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, pondering a presidential run, was studying the treaty to death and refusing to bring it up for a vote. Conservatives applauded his courage. But a Democratic takeover of the Senate has now provided the “opportunity” for Bush to promote the treaty that President Reagan rejected. Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, was still rejecting it in 2004, supposedly after the treaty had been “fixed.”
Recognizing the importance of words and what they mean, a top State Department official recently told a group of conservatives that he doesn’t like to refer to UNCLOS as a U.N. treaty. He wants to avoid any mention of the U.N. connection because he understands that the world body is so corrupt that any mention of it alongside the treaty can only hurt its chances of ratification.
Make no mistake: a vote for UNCLOS is a vote for increasing the power of the U.N.
UNCLOS was written by World Federalists, who openly favor world government, and was designed in part as a vehicle through which the U.N. could inhibit the exercise of U.S. military power. UNCLOS can be used to ban U.S. military ships in international waters unless they are on U.N.-approved missions; protects the transit of weapons of mass destruction by states such as China, North Korea and Iran; and requires that arms interdiction activities, such as the U.S. Proliferation Security Initiative, be approved by the U.N.
Julian Ku, an Associate Professor of Law at Hofstra Law School, has called attention to what he calls a blatantly unconstitutional provision in the treaty. He notes that Article 39 of Annex VI refers to the effect of decisions of the Seabed Disputes Chamber, a portion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea authorized to settled disputes over seabed rights. It declares that “The decisions of the Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought.”
He explains, “?this provision appears to require U.S. courts to give more than ‘full faith and credit’ to judgments of this international chamber. Rather, it requires a U.S. court to treat such chamber decisions as equivalent to those of the U.S. Supreme Court. As far as I know, no prior treaty has ever committed the U.S. in quite this emphatic way. And I do think this provision raises real and serious U.S. constitutional questions about the excessive delegation of judicial power under Article III.”
The North American Union
On another front, White House spokesman Tony Snow calls the North American Union (NAU) a “myth,” despite the abundant evidence of White House involvement in the development of a North American identification card and security strategy. This is how the subject of national sovereignty gets marginalized and dismissed. In this case, our “adversary press” meekly accepts the White House line. Echoing Snow, Philip Dine of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has written an article saying the NAU is based on an Internet “rumor” with a “few grains of truth” that has led people to “an unsubstantiated conclusion.” It is apparent that he didn’t attend the “North American Law” conference which AIM editor Kincaid covered, featuring wide-ranging discussions on how the North American Free Trade Agreement is leading to the integration of the economic, legal and political systems of the U.S, Canada and Mexico.
Robert Pastor’s Center for North American Studies at American University recently co-sponsored the “Model North American Parliament” for students from the three countries. Pastor, a former Carter official and Clinton adviser who persuaded Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn to introduce a Mexico financial bailout bill, is not the type who whistles Dixie. Wearing a lapel pin featuring the flags of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, he is an ardent advocate of what he calls the “North American Community.”
The sad irony is that all of this is happening under the auspices of a supposed conservative Republican President who earned a reputation during the early years of his administration of pursuing a “unilateral” foreign policy by snubbing the United Nations on matters like adopting the global warming treaty and the International Criminal Court and withdrawing from the ABM treaty so the U.S. could pursue a missile defense.
How things change. The Bush White House, Democrats and the media currently work in concert to promote amnesty for illegal aliens as “comprehensive immigration reform.” The Washington Post, in an editorial, called the bill, “The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,” a “breakthrough.” Yet, by the admission of the White House, it commits the U.S. to finishing only 370 miles of the border fence.
Rep. Duncan Hunter declared, “The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the Secure Fence Act signed into law last year and only require construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854 miles mandated by the law, is a dramatic failure of this legislation. The San Diego border fence has proven that fencing works. The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates.”
In the South Carolina Republican presidential debate, Hunter revealed, “I called up the other day, and they’ve done two miles of border fence.”
Illegal aliens, of course, don’t even exist in the world of politically correct journalism. All of this can be explained by the fact that our elite journalists are in the same class as those politicians who employ illegal aliens as gardeners, landscapers, housekeepers and nannies. While exploiting cheap labor themselves, they tell us the illegal aliens are simply “undocumented workers” supposedly doing the jobs Americans won’t do.
The Immigration Bill
The proposed Senate immigration bill also had a provision endorsing the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the Bush Administration initiative being conducted with Mexico and Canada in order to create a North American Union. Except for the Lou Dobbs CNN show, however, the media ignored it.
Foreign Aid For Mexico
CNN’s Christine Romans, in a report on the Dobbs show, noted that, “?Section 413 asks the U.S. Congress to ramp up the six-year-old bilateral Partnership for Prosperity and highlights the broader North American Security and Prosperity Partnership: ‘The U.S. and Mexico should accelerate he implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration.'”
Romans noted that Section 413 also calls for a U.S.-Mexican partnership to examine “uncompensated and burdensome health care costs incurred by the United States due to legal and illegal immigration.” She explained, “What this means is a coordinated effort to help Mexico improve prenatal, trauma and emergency care in border areas, and a partnership between the two countries to find ways to ensure temporary workers and return injured workers to Mexico for long-term treatment?”
Dobbs commented that, “?we have truly entered a bizarre place, where the President of the United States, President George W. Bush, is representing the interests of Mexican citizens in this country, and Congress, our Senate, is attempting to impose a law that is appropriately the purview of the Mexican legislature.”
The relevant portions of the document declared in full:
“The Partnership for Prosperity is a bilateral initiative launched jointly by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in 2001, which aims to boost the social and economic standards of Mexican citizens, particularly in regions where economic growth has lagged and emigration has increased.
“The Presidents of Mexico and the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, at their trilateral summit on March 23, 2005, agreed to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life in the agreement on Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
“Sense of Congress Regarding Partnership for Prosperity?It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration?”
Bush Works With Democrats
On all of these issues, it seems that Bush works better with liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. This might lead the cynical to think that he wanted Republicans to lose power in Congress so he could finally leave a “legacy,” in addition to the “No Child Left Behind” federal education bureaucracy and the monumentally expensive federal prescription drug program.
But it’s impossible to believe that President Bush intended for the war in Iraq to go this badly just so he could work with Democrats for his last two years. And that is mainly why the Republicans lost Congress and risk losing the White House in 2008. Bush could leave office as the President who failed to protect the borders of the United States and Iraq. The only question is which failure will prove more costly to our nation in the long run.
These political dynamics have put the sovereignty of our nation increasingly at risk. If we have any hope of getting mainstream journalists to critically cover these major issues of public importance, we have to make the concept of American sovereignty and national identity into something that is interesting to write and talk about. Of course, this approach assumes that we have a media still capable of honest reporting.
Ultimately, political pressure from the grassroots to force both political parties to deal with the survival of the nation may be the only way to get the attention of the press.
The same outrage, if channeled into opposition to UNCLOS, could also make an impression on the Washington establishment and media. It will take 34 votes to sink UNCLOS but Republican sources on Capitol Hill say they can count less than 10 currently against it.
LOU DOBBS COVERS AIM VS. THE POST
AIM editor Cliff Kincaid confronted Washington Post Chairman Donald E. Graham about a foundation associated with the media company that contributed funds to a Maryland organization that supports illegal immigrants. CASA of Maryland, which distributes an eight-page book telling illegal aliens how to avoid law enforcement authorities, names the Philip L. Graham Fund as one of its financial supporters in its annual report. The Graham Fund is staffed by current and former officials of the Washington Post and includes Donald E. Graham, who also serves as CEO of The Washington Post Company, as a trustee.
The CASA book, Know Your Rights, tells illegal aliens not to carry “any documents from your country of origin” and that “providing your name” to a police officer “has risks” because “your name can be used to start a deportation process.” It flatly says, “Don’t provide government officials information about your immigration status.”
The book was prepared by CASA with the assistance of the far-left National Lawyers Guild and the Detention Watch Network, a group opposed to detention of “non-citizens.”
AIM said that the CASA book “is an effort to obstruct justice and thwart enforcement of our immigration laws” and that “It is shocking that a foundation associated with the Washington Post would put funds into an organization associated with such an activity.”
What follows is a transcript from a Lou Dobbs CNN program on how Accuracy in Media confronted the Washington Post about this matter:
Dobbs: Washington Post chairman, Donald Graham, trustee of a charitable fund, along with other Washington Post executives, under scrutiny today by a media watchdog group. That fund gives financial assistance to CASA of Maryland? CASA publishing a booklet advising illegal aliens not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Lisa Sylvester has our report.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN correspondent: The Philip L. Graham Fund operates out of The Washington Post building. It gives money for the arts, education, and community endeavors. The trustees include Donald Graham, the current chairman of The Washington Post. The other trustees are either current or former Post employees.
Two contributions made by the foundation are now raising questions. A total of $50,000 given to a group called CASA de Maryland. CASA runs day laborer centers in the state and recently published a guide that coaches illegal aliens how to avoid deportation.
The conservative group Accuracy in the Media says the donations send the wrong message.
Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media: And it makes me wonder about what’s affecting the news coverage in this paper and whether there’s a bias that comes from the very top.
Sylvester: Kincaid has studied The Washington Post’s coverage of the immigration issue and says it’s not entirely unbiased. The Post responded noting that “The Philip L. Graham Fund, a private foundation, is independent of The Washington Post Company and The Washington Post newspaper…” and that their reporters are not influenced by the foundation.
But The Washington Post is not the only news organization being accused of practicing advocacy journalism. The Spanish language network Univision has started a massive campaign to sign up eligible Latinos living in the United States to become citizens.
The company told The Wall Street Journal this is a nonpartisan effort. But one special interest group will clearly benefit. A media critic says news organizations need to be more transparent.
Geneva Overholser, University of Missouri: I think there are different ways to do journalism legitimately. But you have to be straightforward about what it is you’re doing. And not pretend that you’re doing objectivity when you’re not. I think that’s key.
Sylvester: Now, this broadcast has been the target of frequent critics who have labeled this advocacy journalism, but it’s also been very transparent. Accuracy in the Media says some of the mainstream newspapers have taken an angle in the debate, but they’re not as upfront about their positions. Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in the Media, confronted Donald Graham about the donations to CASA at a shareholder’s meeting today. And Graham told him he knew nothing about the contributions. Lou.
Dobbs: Or about, presumably, the booklet.
What You Can Do
Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Donald Graham of the Washington Post, and Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani.
Also, if you would like a copy of the CASA booklet that advises illegal aliens to not cooperate with federal immigration officials, you can download it from the following website: http://www.rapidresponsemedia.com/casaguide.html.
Otherwise, please send us a donation of any amount to support our efforts, and we will send you a copy of the booklet.