By Cliff Kincaid USA Survival
Sunday, June 10, 2007
It looks like Al Gore did win the 2000 presidential election after all.
With most of the media attention focused on the collapse of the Bush-backed Senate immigration bill, the American people are not being told the complete story of how the President sold out American interests at the G-8 meeting in Germany. Assuming legislative powers that properly belong to Congress under the U.S. Constitution, 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.
Paragraph 42 of one of the G-8 documents, "Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy," declares 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."
The document (paragraph 52) says that "We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future action on climate change" and that the goal is to achieve a "comprehensive post-2012 agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters."
It will be interesting to watch Tony Snow spin all of this to what's left of Bush's conservative base.
The document also includes some provisions that are hilarious, but not intentionally so. It says, for example, that the U.S. and other nations support the "U.N. Convention Against Corruption." Isn't there something strange about a corrupt organization sponsoring a treaty against corruption? On the other hand, this is the same group that wants a treaty against terrorism but can't agree on the definition of the term.
Many pages of the G-8 document are 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 the 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 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. Bush wants to spend billions of more dollars.
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.
There is no word yet from the G-8 on whether Bush is going to publicly endorse these kinds of global taxes. But perhaps Bush can join his father in singing accolades for Clinton. That seems to be the track he's on.
Unfortunately, it figures to get worse. Bush is also pressing the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which gives the U.N. jurisdiction over the high seas and includes a provision for a global tax (or fee) in order to exploit ocean resources. Some think Bush sees passage of this treaty as another part of his "legacy."
It is a major story how the Bush Administration is turning out. Recall that Bush gave the U.N. a chance to figure out the Iraq problem, but when the organization failed to directly authorize military action, Bush decided to take that action on his own. At the same time, 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.
Lately, however, he seems determined to accommodate the "international community" at every turn, committing the U.S. to international agreements and actions that should be approved and scrutinized by Congress first. That includes the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the federal scheme to bring the U.S., Canada and Mexico together in a trilateral entity. An after-the-fact endorsement of this scheme was inserted into the Senate immigration bill by parties unknown.
On Sunday, Bush appears in Albania, where a street has been named after him and he will be awarded the Order of the National Flag, the highest decoration granted to foreigners by Albania. The people will be 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.
What Bush is doing is laying the groundwork for more conflict and upheaval in the world. Stories have already been written about rebels and separatists in various parts of the world who will be looking to Kosovo as inspiration for their cause. 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.
Of course, it doesn't make any sense on many levels. The U.S. fights Muslim extremists in one place, Iraq, but rewards them in another place, Kosovo. When the terrorists in Iraq are being openly assisted by outside hostile states like Iran and Syria, and the U.S. does virtually nothing to stop them, how much confidence can we have in the "new" Bush, as opposed to the one of a few years ago who was determined to win in this critical country? Is Bush's Iraq "legacy" going to be to leave this problem (and defeat) for his successor? And is this why he has put so much political capital in the immigration bill and other U.N.-backed proposals? Is this what he views as his new "legacy?" One has to conclude that it is.
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.
So when you see Bush getting applauded in Albania and when you see the people of that country waving American flags on Sunday, don't act smug because it appears that America has some friends in the world. What Bush is doing is laying the foundation for the ultimate destruction of the United States.
It is reported that Bush missed a few of the G-8 meetings because of a stomach ache. The results of the meeting and his visit to Albania, if they are fairly and honestly reported to the American people, should leave many Americans with a very sick feeling. Those who are committed to American sovereignty must deny Bush his "legacy." Our survival as a nation depends on it.
If Bush goes down in history as the Republican Jimmy Carter, so be it. That's far better than leaving our borders and sovereignty in ruins. The borders of Iraq matter, too, but it is not clear that Bush has the will to win that war, either.
All of this leaves 2008 Republican presidential candidates in a quandary. All they can do, realistically speaking, as Rep. Tom Tancredo did forcefully at the last debate, is distance themselves from the President. Their patriotism has to come before their President.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement