Posted on 09/08/2002 3:46:45 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Thankfully, the fiasco in Johannesburg is over. President Bush was right to stay home. He was also right to send determined delegates with firm instructions to thwart the ambitions of the radically green global-governance crowd. To some extent, the U.S. delegation was successful.
The green crowd insisted on language in the final document that would commit the world to produce 15 percent of its energy from "alternative" sources – specifically wind, solar and small dams – by a time certain. They didn't get it. The final document language calls for nations to act "with a sense of urgency" to increase the percentage of energy from alternative sources.
The green crowd wanted to ban the use of nuclear power as an energy source, even though nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases. They didn't get it. They didn't get much of what they wanted in the final document, and they severely criticized the U.S. for its obstinance.
Thank you, Mr. Bush.
On the other hand, the document still contains language that should cause every American to cringe. Under the subtitle "Multilateralism is the Future," paragraph 61 of the "Draft Political Declaration," says:
To achieve our goals of sustainable development, we need a democratic system of global governance with enhanced accountable international and multilateral institutions.
Paragraph 62 goes on to say:
We support the leadership role of the United Nations as the most universal and representative organization in the world, which is best placed to promote sustainable development.
The United States should say "No!" The United States should say no to sustainable development – which means globally-managed development. And we should say no to "a democratic system of global governance."
In U.N.-speak, "democratic" means that "accredited" NGOs may participate in the discussions. To be accredited, an NGO must declare allegiance to the aims of the U.N., and demonstrate a two-year track record of activities in support of the U.N.'s goals.
Global governance is world government – despite the U.N.'s claims to the contrary. Doubters should read the entire document, focusing on paragraphs 49 and 50, which call for global regulation of corporations and of the "private sector" to "reinforce corporate responsibility and social contribution."
Officials who continue to say the U.N. has no designs on world government are, at best, playing ostrich and, at worst, deliberately trying to deceive their audience. The Johannesburg document calls for the reaffirmation of "the Millennium Declaration," the "the Rio Declaration," and "Agenda 21." These documents set forth the objectives – and the mechanism – for achieving world government.
While none of these documents are legally binding, when they are adopted by the world's leaders, they become the basis and justification for legally binding treaties.
A new treaty, called the "Covenant on Environment and Development," has been prepared for at least four years, awaiting the appropriate moment for introduction. Originally, the plan was to introduce this new treaty at Johannesburg. This new treaty would convert the non-binding "Agenda 21" into legally binding international law.
When President Bush was elected and withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, and from the International Criminal Court, and began to exert influence in the international community in a direction that is different from his predecessors, the treaty writers realized that the new treaty would not be adopted in Johannesburg, so they put it back on the shelf to await a new administration in the U.S.
Proponents of global governance criticize the president, and continue to push for rejoining UNESCO, to the tune of $60 million per year. They push for the ratification CEDAW, the so-called women's rights treaty that, among other things, would allow an appointed 23-member committee of international zealots to enter our country at will to monitor our compliance. They try to bypass the president, to enact Kyoto-like restrictions on energy use, and all the while, they demean and denigrate all opponents of global governance.
The United States is at a critical moment in history. With this president, we have the opportunity to continue to extricate our nation from the clutches of global governance. His opponents are legion – and loud. Those who support his efforts cannot remain silent, nor can they stay home on election day.
Now is the time to show the world that the United States pursues a better goal than global governance: freedom for all to pursue happiness, without first having to secure a permit from government.
I'm not a big fan of some of the things Bush has done domestically, but I give him high marks (so far) on the handling of the UN Globalist kooks. This, alone, makes him worthy of re-election. I only hope that he keeps his spine stiff against the withering attacks he and his administration are sure to face over the next couple of years.
Give 'em hell, W!
Just because it's not the EU and UN (even though Bush is backing down to them) doesn't mean that it isn't globalism and a loss of sovereignty.
I think you are getting your definitions of globalism mixed together. The globalism spouted by the UN is really socialism or, sometimes, communism. I don't see any comparison between UN globalism and US globalism.
Furthermore, Bush is pushing for the dissolution of our borders. He supports and amnesty for illegal aliens, nor does he support solving this problem.
Bush stood at the Mexican border and called it "The New Frontier".
Bush is working to implement a "trade of the Americas", an EU styled trade organization, full with an "Amero" and the free-flow of goods and populations all throughout North and South America. Do you wonder where the people are going to head?
Furthermore, what about the Patriot Act, TIPS, "Homeland Security" with its vague talks of horizontal and vertical intergration of local and state governments via the fed? Is that not socialism? How about the "no taxation without representation" scheme that has been going on for years? Is that a representative repulic form of government?
On the international front, Bush has backslid on the ICC. He's okay with NATO patrolling our skies, as well as Mexican troops coming into America. Bush has spoke highly of the EU. Furthermore, wasn't it his father who talked about a New World Order? Do you honestly think that he's much different than his dad? Aren't they skull and bones members?
I definitely know that we're seeing an American form of globalism via the United States, and we may be seeing the EU/UN form of globalism implemented onto us also. Agenda 21 is a UN program that looks like it is on its way to being implemented through the fed on down to states and municipalities.
In short, Bush is a globalist just like Clinton was a globalist and just like Bush I was a globalist.
I'm pretty sure that we're in the last days. Everything appears to be pointing to it.
That about sums it up.
Not if I can help it.
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.