CLIFF'S NOTES
by Cliff Kincaid

DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG:   June-A 2007

THE OPEN BORDERS PHILOSOPHY, COMBINED WITH THE INCREASING reliance on the United Nations and other global institutions, represents the potential end of American sovereignty. I never thought I would see this day coming under a President who was elected as—and who campaigned as—a conservative. The media are indifferent or hostile to our concerns. But the good news is that the American people are fighting back. I think the "immigration reform" bill, which the media refuse to describe as amnesty, can be defeated. The Law of the Sea Treaty will be much tougher to defeat. But I think it can be derailed if we get enough information out quickly, and if the Senate can be persuaded to defer a vote on ratification so that members of the Senate can themselves be educated. Please contact your Senators, asking that they take the time to examine the treaty and hold hearings. Because time is of the essence, please call the Capitol directly and ask for the offices of your two senators. A toll-free number will get you there. That number is 1-800-828-0498. Tell your senators we need U.S. sea power, not U.N. power.

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS), OR LAW OF THE SEA Treaty, would be a tremendous blow to our national independence. We discuss this issue in our lead AIM Report article. The point bears repeating: 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; it can protect the transit of weapons of mass destruction by states such as China, North Korea and Iran; and can require that arms interdiction activities, such as the U.S. Proliferation Security Initiative, be approved by the U.N. As you know, we need at least 34 votes to block it. I am told there are less than 10 senators currently against it. My belief is that senators may not want to cast a vote for the pact if they understand why President Reagan and his U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick were opposed to it.

CONSIDERING THESE PROBLEMS WITH THE TREATY, YOU MIGHT WONDER WHY THE U.S.  Navy is backing it. I do not question their patriotism but I do question their good sense. Our top Navy officials do not seem to understand the trap they are getting into. I also believe the Navy thinks that the treaty will somehow protect their freedom of navigation on the high seas. I believe it's the Navy itself that will—or should—guarantee freedom of navigation. The problem, however, is that our 594-ship Navy under Reagan has slipped to 276 under Bush and is set  to decline to 210 under Bush's budget figures. The American Shipbuilding Association says that, if present trends continue, the U.S. Naval Fleet will decline to 180 ships by 2024. A proposal for a U.N. Standing Naval force was put forward by Gwyn Prins of Cambridge University's Global Security Program. I have discovered a copy of a Master's thesis prepared back in 1996 under the auspices of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, on the subject of establishing a U.N. Maritime Force. The U.N. already uses patrol boats around the world on various missions.

THIS AIM REPORT SHOWS HOW THE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH HELPED WRITE THE SENATE immigration bill, is trying to get Congress to approve the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP) by inserting it into the measure. I believe this reflects Administration awareness of the fact that efforts to implement this trilateral process involving the U.S., Mexico and Canada have circumvented the constitutional process and that Congress should have approved the process in advance. But I don't think doing it after the fact passes constitutional muster. In fact, the Administration is on very shaky legal ground. We are dealing with the creation of a North American Union (NAU), an event of tremendous historical importance, of the three countries. The Administration should have gotten Congressional approval BEFORE going forward with the SPP and these other initiatives. Please send the enclosed postcard to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, about this. It is incomprehensible that such a bill should go forward in view of the fact that six Muslims, three of whom were illegal aliens, have been charged with planning a terrorist attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who brought the bill before the Senate for debate and passage, says, "I think it would be a real tragedy if we tried to make this immigration debate one dealing with terrorism." He is playing dumb when all of our lives are at risk. Speaking of dumb, our second article in this AIM Report notes that Donald E. Graham of the Washington Post claimed ignorance about a financial contribution to an illegal alien support group in Maryland. Please drop him one of the enclosed postcards as well.

THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BILL, AS WE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, INCLUDES OTHER provisions that facilitate creation of the NAU. If the Senate measure passes, I have to think it will be in serious trouble in the House. This debate should lead to congressional hearings into the NAU. I will be speaking on the subject at a July 19-21 Freedom 21 national conference in Dallas. Phyllis Schlafly will speak at the Friday night dinner. For more information, go to www.freedom21.org

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOU DOBBS OF CNN, OUR NATIONAL MEDIA HAVE IGNORED NOT only the process that is well underway but the growing outcry. Resolutions against the NAU have been introduced in 14 state legislatures—and have passed in two—and thousands of people have turned out in Texas to protest a Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) highway system, which will link the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The TTC, which is viewed as being part of the "NAFTA Superhighway," is only part of a much larger process of integrating the three nations. Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani is connected to this controversial process through Bracewell & Giuliani, a law firm he joined as senior partner in 2005. Bracewell has already come in for criticism because it represents Citgo, the oil company controlled by Venezuela's anti-American and terrorist-supporting ruler Hugo Chavez.

FREELANCE COLUMNIST DIANNE M. GRASSI BROKE THE STORY OF GIULIANI'S LAW FIRM acting as the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra, the Spanish firm that has been granted the right to operate a toll road in the TTC project. Grassi's revelations were easily confirmed by checking the websites of Bracewell and Cintra. The Giuliani firm's connection to the NAU project—and the Chavez regime, which just closed down a television station in Venezuela—should be addressed. Please drop his campaign the enclosed postcard about these matters. We are not for or against Giuliani, but these foreign connections are very disturbing. In addition to this, the Associated Press reports that Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers, has been one of Giuliani's foreign clients. Our question to him is simple: Why, after rallying the city and nation after 9/11 and rejecting a financial contribution for the victim's families from a Saudi billionaire prince, did he turn around and decide to represent the Saudis? Since Fox News is letting its pro-Giuliani cheerleading get in the way of an honest examination of these issues, AIM members have to fill the void. We are depending on you.

For Accuracy in Media,
Cliff Kincaid
Editor