Posted on 04/22/2005 2:37:56 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Among the greatest ironies of history is that during the first part of the twentieth century two World Wars and a "Cold War" were fought on the European continent, for the specific purpose of preventing its consolidation under one governing authority. Yet by the end of the century Europeans had acquiesced to just such a fate.
Though not imposed with the imperiousness of the Kaiser or the brute force of the Reich, the concept of the "European Union" runs contrary to traditional ideas of nationalism or patriotism. Such crass sentiments are the realm of commoners, thus making them counterproductive to the new order.
Nevertheless, the lowly masses were eventually bought off with glowing assurances of economic benefits and all of the standard empty promises of liberal utopianism. Predictably, the vast majority of the European Union's "citizenry" continue to struggle, having been further mired by the malaise of that continent's burdensome socialism, which is now driven by a vastly enlarged bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, though the overwhelming majority of Americans hold such concepts in complete contempt, similar anti-national thinking has nonetheless encroached upon its shores to a degree Islamic jihadists might envy.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once lamented that American military dominance was inherently unfair, and that the best remedy was to assist the advancement of competing military establishments in other countries. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsburg have, in recent rulings, looked to the laws and governing philosophies of other nations for justification.
But while the majority of Americans do not embrace this contemptible thinking, neither do they stage mass protests in the wake of such court decisions, demanding the ouster of their authors, as would certainly have been the case only a few short years ago. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that such alarming ideologies are not confined to those on the left.
Though the signs of a growing acceptance of this mindset have become glaringly obvious, most Americans remain reluctant to believe that their leaders would even contemplate the forfeiture of this nation's sovereignty to such a degree. Yet the behavior of high placed individuals, including President Bush, raise extremely disturbing questions as to just how willing they might be to copy the Europeans.
Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a "trial balloon" during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become "integrated," thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a "North American Union," no doubt eventually including Canada as well.
President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as "illegal." In contrast, he implies illegality by the "Minutemen" who now protect the border, having described them as "vigilantes."
Conversely, he discusses the actions of the "undocumented immigrants" as "pursuing their dreams," seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.
On other crucial fronts, the President clearly shows a willingness to embrace policies that significantly weaken the nation's borders. When dealing with Canada, he steadfastly advocates a beef import program that clearly puts the interests of Canadian beef producers ahead of their American competitors.
Thus he allows an influx of beef from the north that threatens to seriously degrade this country's food supply. Though a financial boon to Canadian agriculture, it provides no incentives to enhance the quality of beef produced there while undermining the viability of American cattle growers.
Meanwhile, President Bush has been championing the "Law Of the Sea Treaty" (LOST), whereby seagoing Americans would henceforth be subject to a maritime version of the "International Criminal Court."
The perceived "benefits" of this blurring of national boundaries might initially sound attractive, particularly to individuals whose primary impetus is monetary. But America stands to lose far more than it could ever hope to gain by compromising its freedom and independence.
Although indispensable to national security, an able military is not the key to a strong nation. Such strength lies within its culture. America cannot remain strong or great if it is overwhelmed by people who uphold neither its society nor its laws, but instead seek only after its wealth.
Despite the establishment of the "European Union" that continent's vibrancy and greatness continue to decline as a result of its own cultural erosion. America may soon follow.
Comments: cadamo@wyoming.com
"Doing it and making it stick is quite another".
NAFTA was passed without the majority it needed for a treaty but we still have NAFTA. Next comes CAFTA and the FTAA.
The globalist at the UN do not give up as they have been fighting for this for over 50 years. The only reason the UN has the power it has now is due to RINOS. You can argue all you want to that Bush is getting us out of the UN but the truth of the matter is we are paying more to the UN since he has been president.
This is the new world order that Daddy Bush was talking about in his speeches after the first Gulf War.
It's already happening.
Today any Mexican national who can enter the United States can live and work here permanently with, statistically-speaking, zero chance of being deported. His children can go to public school here.
To facilitate his travel, employment, and financial activities here, he can use a card issued not by the US government, but by Mexican diplomats in the USA...the "Matricular" consular ID.
As a result of the massive population transfers from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, many if not most goods and services are now marketed and labled in both English and Spanish now... "For English, Press One"
By the way, I would not be one to argue "that Bush is getting us out of the UN..."
See #16.
Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.
I'll be quite honest that I have watched this mess for years and it has just made me sick.
I have also done alot of reading on the UN website. They are entrenced in the US like you would never believe in almost every aspect of our daily lives.
I know. The current UN Oil-for-Food scandal has really opened some eyes across this country. The usual UN enablers and apologists have become strangely silent...
You're right, though. The path ahead will not be smooth for either side of this.
good question but aint gonna happen.
Good post. I just wish it wasn't true.
Meanwhile, President Bush has been championing the "Law Of the Sea Treaty" (LOST), whereby seagoing Americans would henceforth be subject to a maritime version of the "International Criminal Court."
What people can't imagine is the far reaching implication's of these international agreements and treaties even beyond what is on the face of them. They tend to be vague and "flexible" and are often combined with other treaties or UN programs. CAFTA, LOST, Bolton successfully ameliorates tensions and cleans up the UN for presentation = kiss your American sovereignty goodbye.
I really don't know anything much about Bolton. My main thought is that he is a friend of the Bushes. (Notice the Bushes is plural). I have long since given up on any hope of getting out of the UN.
My problem with the UN is they keep a plan to back up a plan that may have failed at the time. If you understand what I am saying, I mean they never give up.
The North American Union will just be one vassal state in the coming World Government.
Allowing our country to be over-run by third-world illegals is the first step in tying us down like Gulliver to the New World Order. Eventually, they'll get amnesty, then citizenship. And when they start voting in their own self-interest, what's left of the Republic is dead.
It would be kind of hard to argue that when Bush himself said that we went to war with Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions and that he wanted to make the U.N. "relevant". Far from getting us out of the U.N., he has only taken us further along the road to the U.N. Collectivist State, a road that started in earnest with Gulf War I.
That is exactly correct and I am concerned in paradoxical way that if Bolton is confirmed he will in some way "begin" to clean up the garbage at the UN. IMO a more effective or at least the appearance of an effective UN will allow a transfer of more and more authority to that globalist tyrant. In the long run, an effective UN would be the worst possible outcome for American sovereignty and principles.
In their own way the UN is very effective. Right now they are not accepted by the majority of mainstream Americans.
However, my thoughts are that there will be a power play for the control of the UN between the Clintons and
Bush. The elites are fighting for the control of the world. Bush has some strategy in the nomination of Bolton. You may very well be correct in your theory about trying to make the Un more effective or the appearance of effectiveness.
We'll see.
If found guilty, they should be tared and feathered.
Then they should be imprisoned for 10 years, then executed on national TV.
These traitors should be treated as so.
What did their oath of office say...something to the effect...I will defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.