Posted on 08/03/2003 2:50:50 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
There´s good news, and not so good news. First the good news. When it comes to foreign policy, unlike his predecessor, William Jefferson Clinton, President George W. Bush stands up like a man and declares America first. That is good news and amen. For speaking like a man on that issue, and for that matter an American man, Mr. Bush has deservedly received hallelujah praise from the conservative right, and hellfire and damnation from the malevolent left.
Now for the bad news. Bush´s definition of America first does not translate from Third Way middle-speak into plain old American English as a daring defense of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. sovereignty. It is more like a lordly, bossy reminder of whose interests must always come first when it comes to the world – those of America´s global/socialist elites.
Does Bush care about American sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution? We think not. A quick, revealing look.
First, a quick background. Karl Marx proclaimed that his much ballyhooed, one-world socialist government would be achieved by selling the world on the idea of Internationalism. (1) Lenin expanded on this theme by declaring that "the aim of socialism is ... to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them. ..." (2) Joseph Stalin continued this theme of internationalism by arguing that national loyalties won't easily be swayed by a frontal global governmental assault, and he proffered a solution – accompany global efforts with a regional approach.
In his 1912 essay, "Marxism and the National Question," Stalin wrote that "regional autonomy [was to be] an essential element in the solution of the national problem." (3)
The 1936 official program of the Communist International was on the same page when it announced:
"The world dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries, when the newly established proletarian republics enter into a federative union with the already existing proletarian republics ... [and] when these federations of republics have finally grown into a World [Socialist] Union ... uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state." (4)
What is so great about the regional approach? Simply, when conservatives put the heat on the United Nations as appearing to be every bit as pro-socialist as its pro-Communist founders were, a "conservative" president can take the dialectical approach: Criticize the U.N. and thus gain conservative support, even while he strengthens regional alliances – alliances designed, for surface appeal, to protect national interests. But in fact, any permanent entangling alliance, especially an economic one, creates a precedent, step by step, of surrendering national constitutions, loyalties, legal and moral concepts, economic and military independence to the whole – in this wild world, a whole dominated by thugs and moral idiots.
The first successful implementation of the regional approach is the now 50-year-old plot to unite Europe under one socialist head. It began under the Marshall Plan, which orchestrated a simple beginning to interdependence and "free" trade in Europe, and which, a half-century later, blossomed into a situation where we have one currency, one central bank, one trade plan, one interdependent military force (NATO) – that is, one government with an entranced preference for hard-to-the-left socialism. When Khrushchev said "we will never have to fire a shot," he meant it. Like overripe fruit, Europe has fallen into the socialist lap. Russian complaints about the spread of NATO, therefore, make good, closed door, dialectical humor.
The second regional plan of significance was the 1994 three-nation permanent "trade" alliance of NAFTA, replete with international governmental organizations, NGO lawmaking powers, and thousands of regulations and enforcement mechanisms affecting American sovereignty. Passed at the same time was the far more pretentious GATT Treaty, which created the WTO and its tens of thousands of pages of international regulations. You may thank, more than anyone else, Republican icon and CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) member Newt Gingrich for these sovereignty grabs. Clinton was grateful. Buchanan, a true America-first patriot, was not.
The EU, NATO, NAFTA and WTO are all regional alliances that swear allegiance in their preambles to "the principles and purposes of the United Nations."
So, then, how does Bush´s America First plan fit into this? Bush fiercely loves the regional approach and is working furiously to take regionalism to the next level.
Bush led the way at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec last April to expand NAFTA´s "free" trade zone to include all of North and South America. That is, in real terms, to move forward toward an American version of the European Union, as a subsidiary organization of the United Nations, subject to its principles and purposes – and the goal is to do it by 2005. (5)
The ploy is free trade. The broader agenda – as revealed by Bush´s left-swinging secretary of state, Colin Powell – includes such open-ended goals as "set[ting] a common agenda of how our democracies can safeguard human rights ... to promote good governance on all levels ... [to] make life better and our neighborhood safer ... [to promote] skills and education ... [to] improv[e] the environment, [fight] drugs and [stop] disease." (6)
Or – if you are not catching on – to create an international government of the Americas, which will permit leaders, jealous and antagonistic to the Constitution and peoples of the United States, to use an undemocratic, unelected government to take us down the path to a one-world socialist order.
Yes, that´s the bad news: Bush´s White House policy of America First is really the Pratt House´s policy of Americas First.
An afterthought. The Bush administration has identified fast-track authority as the key to implementing this stealthy step toward a government of the Americas. (7) Texas Rep. Ron Paul's HR 1146 American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001 is our best bet to derail Bush. Write your congressman and invite him or her to become a co-sponsor.
History You May Have Missed
Shifting gears, but maybe not, we revisit Washington Irving's "George Washington: A Biography" with this insight from Gen. Washington as to the purposes of the revolution and the Constitution which followed. He stated the goal as "national independence and sovereignty." (8) Lest we forget!
Think I've seen that idea somewhere else. Now where have I seen that idea....Oh yes.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Note not one mention of the Constitution in their statement of principles either
Your friend Al would also cut taxes? Sign a ban on partial birth abortion this fall? Support school vouchers? Nominate conservative judges and justices? Is that what your hero, AL Gore, would do? Are you French?
Oh yeah....The Dems are going to fix all that the first chance they get.
Just who was "appointed, not elected?"
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.