Bush and world government

When the U.N. Security Council rejected America's demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers in the Bosnian peace force from arrest and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, the United States vetoed an extension of the force. Either our troops get immunity, or our troops get out. Good for President Bush. Once again, when the demands of globalism clashed with the call of patriotism, he put America first. Because he, not Al Gore, is in the Oval Office, America has rejected both the ICC and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Even on steel tariffs, where he put his free-trade ideology on the shelf to protect America's steel industry from foreign dumping, Bush exhibited a Reaganite patriotism. And the muted protests suggest that liberals recognize that the patriot card is still the ace of trumps in American politics. While these presidential decisions produced howls from abroad of "unilateralism" and "isolationism," they are signs of U.S. resolve in the struggle between God-and-country people and the globalists who await the messiah of World Government. And just as the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional tipped the hand of judicial activists, this U.N. attempt to force U.S. troops under the ICC is welcome. For now, we no longer see as through a glass darkly who the true enemies of American independence are. Their dream is to limit U.S. sovereignty and transfer control of U.S. wealth and power to a global elite that intends to rule the world in the interests not of nations, but of mankind. The institutions of that global regime are already up and operating. The Security Council is its Senate; the General Assembly its lower house. The Supreme Court is to consist of the World Trade Organization for trade, the ICC for war crimes and the World Court for disputes between nations. The foreign aid dispensers are the African, Asian and Latin American Development banks, and the World Bank. The IMF is its Federal Reserve -- and the model is the European Union. In the last decade, World Government made mammoth strides, with "Third Way" socialists giving up their national currencies in Europe, the creation of the WTO with the backing of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, GOP support of new bailout billions for the IMF and Clinton's signing of America on to the ICC. But globalist demands have now begun to clash with U.S. vital interests in ways even Republicans can understand. For the Senate to ratify Kyoto would mean a rollback of U.S. fossil fuel emissions to the level of 1990 -- i.e., a depression. And even Democrats realize that the ICC's prosecution of U.S. soldiers for war crimes means the end of the career of any politician who lets that happen. With immigration, sovereignty is becoming the most explosive issue in Europe, and it is propelling populist parties toward power. So fearful has the European Left become that it now seems hesitant to expand and deepen the EU into an all-powerful regime. Baroness Margaret Thatcher now concedes that Enoch Powell, whose career was destroyed by his "rivers of blood" speech decrying Third World immigration, was right to have opposed Britain's entry into the EU. She seeks a British withdrawal. The vehicle the globalists hope to ride is free trade. As the European Coal and Steel Community led to the European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union today and Euroland tomorrow, they hope NAFTA will lead to a hemispheric free-trade zone, then a global zone with a single currency. Out of this will arise a regime that will slowly expand its power until national sovereignty is ancient history. The issue may be decided this decade, and we Americans will make the decision. If the price of global trade is a WTO that can impose its will, if the price of the Global Economy is another round of IMF bailouts, if the price of being a world citizen is the surrender of sovereignty and authority to the U.N., will Americans pay it? What exactly is the price of liberty? The globalists have a vision of the future, and they will pursue it instinctively and incessantly. The question is: Will patriots not only block this drive to world government, but will they to roll it back? Are they willing to recognize, as Baroness Thatcher has, that we are far down the road to the loss of national independence? In this struggle, it is an advantage for true conservatives and populists that George W. Bush is not only Andover, Yale, Skull & Bones, Harvard Business and Kennebunkport, he is also Midland-Odessa.