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.
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.
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